Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
Reunion what type of Klingon Gowron is left up in the air... obviously if They went in depth like It be bloody fucking obvious who the culprit was... even though as we've discussed It was kinda bloody fucking obvious from the get go
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
I can't help but see similarities between Gowron and Robert Baratheon. I think Gowron certainly would have ended up just as fat and paranoid if he had lived although King Rob was easily the better general in his prime. I think one of the key differences is that whilst Gowron certainly wanted Worf to be his Eddard Stark; Worf never wanted that role, preferring Martok instead. This left Gowron without any counter presence to his bullshit as far as we can tell. We don't even know if Gowron had a wife.
(If you've never seen Game of Thrones then none of what I just wrote will make any sense at all. Sorry.)
That is a pretty thin comparison. Robert won the throne through conflict all based on a lie that his betrothed was kidnapped. The guy in his prime during that conflict was a big strong guy, and once he won the throne he did everything but do things he is supposed to do for that throne.
Gowron never did any of that and he is at the very heart of his character like Robert.
Sure you could say Worf was Gowron's Ed Stark but that is about it.
Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
...
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
Not entirely true, Gowron's flaw of insecurity was first explored on TNG. When Picard was looking for Klingon help in Reunification pt1, he approached Gowron and got the Klingon version of being onhold until he nearly shamed him into helping, because Gowron was wanting to downplay Picard's involvement in his ascension in order to strengthen his Chancellorship. Gowron was always a little insecure, possibly because he wasn't the most physically dominating Klingon in the room-which is also why he was always so up for a physical fight too, and over time his insecurity began to overwhelm his desire to rise to meet his challenges head on.
That insecurity made him kinda smart. It forced him to be savvy in places. He seemed to know when to do the usual Klingon bluster and when to be more.... "political".
It is why I felt the reason for his demise was very ham-fisted. They drove the matter too hard with him being a glory hound idiot that didn't seem to be his style. Were he that same person he'd have kept attacking DS9 in Way of the Warrior no matter the losses or Fed reinforcements arriving. Instead, he recognized he couldn't take the station and bowed out bitterly.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:38 am
Sure you could say Worf was Gowron's Ed Stark but that is about it.
Martok is an Ed Stark, only he knew himself enough to know he was until Worf pushed him in his quest to save the Klingon Empire from self-inflicted ruin. Martok knew he was too honest and soldierly to be a politician, let alone the leader of an empire. I could fully see his Chancellorship being a disaster and being a good example of how naive Worf is.
That is where Trek ran into a sticky area with the Klingon's loving their warrior culture: Military men do not make good politicians or diplomats. They too often see everything as a nail needing to be hammered. Martok is a soldier's soldier. He would not be laid back and tolerant whatever his personal opinions, he'd become more like a Franco probably trying to encourage the Emperor to do more out of idealism while at the same time trying not to allow him much actual control to be taken away from his reins.
Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
...
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
Not entirely true, Gowron's flaw of insecurity was first explored on TNG. When Picard was looking for Klingon help in Reunification pt1, he approached Gowron and got the Klingon version of being onhold until he nearly shamed him into helping, because Gowron was wanting to downplay Picard's involvement in his ascension in order to strengthen his Chancellorship. Gowron was always a little insecure, possibly because he wasn't the most physically dominating Klingon in the room-which is also why he was always so up for a physical fight too, and over time his insecurity began to overwhelm his desire to rise to meet his challenges head on.
That insecurity made him kinda smart. It forced him to be savvy in places. He seemed to know when to do the usual Klingon bluster and when to be more.... "political".
It is why I felt the reason for his demise was very ham-fisted. They drove the matter too hard with him being a glory hound idiot that didn't seem to be his style. Were he that same person he'd have kept attacking DS9 in Way of the Warrior no matter the losses or Fed reinforcements arriving. Instead, he recognized he couldn't take the station and bowed out bitterly.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:38 am
Sure you could say Worf was Gowron's Ed Stark but that is about it.
Martok is an Ed Stark, only he knew himself enough to know he was until Worf pushed him in his quest to save the Klingon Empire from self-inflicted ruin. Martok knew he was too honest and soldierly to be a politician, let alone the leader of an empire. I could fully see his Chancellorship being a disaster and being a good example of how naive Worf is.
That is where Trek ran into a sticky area with the Klingon's loving their warrior culture: Military men do not make good politicians or diplomats. They too often see everything as a nail needing to be hammered. Martok is a soldier's soldier. He would not be laid back and tolerant whatever his personal opinions, he'd become more like a Franco probably trying to encourage the Emperor to do more out of idealism while at the same time trying not to allow him much actual control to be taken away from his reins.
Julius Caesar. Led from the front, invented new tactics on the fly, created the Roman Empire. Stabbed to death by his own men.
Although I once read a conspiracy theory that stated the man may have already been dying (by the standards of the day he was bloody ancient) and basically wanted an execution by cop. Nevertheless, he is a good example.
Leonidas may also be a good example. One of the most famous warriors in history and yet there is evidence that he was a pretty shitty king. Plutarch said of him ''except for being king you are not at all superior to us''.
Some have argued the fact that he (or someone on his orders) kicked the Persian ambassador into a well to be evidence of this. His actually very small nation was declaring war on the biggest superpower of the day. In hindsight they won, but it was still foolhardy.
On the flipside of course, Winston Churchill was basically every rank from bottom to the top before he became Prime Minister twice.
We used to argue whether Star Trek or Star Wars was better. Now we argue which one is worse.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:37 pmLeonidas may also be a good example. One of the most famous warriors in history and yet there is evidence that he was a pretty shitty king.
Spartan kings were the ephors bitches. They were effectively Sparta's lead generals and often not the best. The diarchy was there more to keep the two kings in conflict and not get too uppity to want to run things.
On the flipside of course, Winston Churchill was basically every rank from bottom to the top before he became Prime Minister twice.
Churchill was at best a politician in uniform, at worst a grasping man looking for anything that would get him up the social ladder and into power. His actions in the Second Boer War show that best, though I don't dispute his bravery.
In that regard, Caesar was much the same. His military career was in service to his political ambitions and it served him better than anything else had.
Churchill, though, was terrible in the military. Any time he got his fingers in the pie he caused trouble more often than not. At least he wasn't as bad as when he was put into other areas of the government, like his time as Minister of the Exchequer.
Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
...
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
Not entirely true, Gowron's flaw of insecurity was first explored on TNG. When Picard was looking for Klingon help in Reunification pt1, he approached Gowron and got the Klingon version of being onhold until he nearly shamed him into helping, because Gowron was wanting to downplay Picard's involvement in his ascension in order to strengthen his Chancellorship. Gowron was always a little insecure, possibly because he wasn't the most physically dominating Klingon in the room-which is also why he was always so up for a physical fight too, and over time his insecurity began to overwhelm his desire to rise to meet his challenges head on.
That insecurity made him kinda smart. It forced him to be savvy in places. He seemed to know when to do the usual Klingon bluster and when to be more.... "political".
It is why I felt the reason for his demise was very ham-fisted. They drove the matter too hard with him being a glory hound idiot that didn't seem to be his style. Were he that same person he'd have kept attacking DS9 in Way of the Warrior no matter the losses or Fed reinforcements arriving. Instead, he recognized he couldn't take the station and bowed out bitterly.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:38 am
Sure you could say Worf was Gowron's Ed Stark but that is about it.
Martok is an Ed Stark, only he knew himself enough to know he was until Worf pushed him in his quest to save the Klingon Empire from self-inflicted ruin. Martok knew he was too honest and soldierly to be a politician, let alone the leader of an empire. I could fully see his Chancellorship being a disaster and being a good example of how naive Worf is.
That is where Trek ran into a sticky area with the Klingon's loving their warrior culture: Military men do not make good politicians or diplomats. They too often see everything as a nail needing to be hammered. Martok is a soldier's soldier. He would not be laid back and tolerant whatever his personal opinions, he'd become more like a Franco probably trying to encourage the Emperor to do more out of idealism while at the same time trying not to allow him much actual control to be taken away from his reins.
Julius Caesar. Led from the front, invented new tactics on the fly, created the Roman Empire. Stabbed to death by his own men.
Although I once read a conspiracy theory that stated the man may have already been dying (by the standards of the day he was bloody ancient) and basically wanted an execution by cop. Nevertheless, he is a good example.
Leonidas may also be a good example. One of the most famous warriors in history and yet there is evidence that he was a pretty shitty king. Plutarch said of him ''except for being king you are not at all superior to us''.
Some have argued the fact that he (or someone on his orders) kicked the Persian ambassador into a well to be evidence of this. His actually very small nation was declaring war on the biggest superpower of the day. In hindsight they won, but it was still foolhardy.
On the flipside of course, Winston Churchill was basically every rank from bottom to the top before he became Prime Minister twice.
Dwight D Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander in WW2. He was every bit the Military Man.
You can argue that military men and women who achieve high rank in the military and then achieve high political office will know exactly the price for war. That's a given, but if you achieve rank in the military especially as an officer it eventually becomes political in its nature.
Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
...
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
Not entirely true, Gowron's flaw of insecurity was first explored on TNG. When Picard was looking for Klingon help in Reunification pt1, he approached Gowron and got the Klingon version of being onhold until he nearly shamed him into helping, because Gowron was wanting to downplay Picard's involvement in his ascension in order to strengthen his Chancellorship. Gowron was always a little insecure, possibly because he wasn't the most physically dominating Klingon in the room-which is also why he was always so up for a physical fight too, and over time his insecurity began to overwhelm his desire to rise to meet his challenges head on.
That insecurity made him kinda smart. It forced him to be savvy in places. He seemed to know when to do the usual Klingon bluster and when to be more.... "political".
It is why I felt the reason for his demise was very ham-fisted. They drove the matter too hard with him being a glory hound idiot that didn't seem to be his style. Were he that same person he'd have kept attacking DS9 in Way of the Warrior no matter the losses or Fed reinforcements arriving. Instead, he recognized he couldn't take the station and bowed out bitterly.
Gowron didn't turn into a glory hound, what happened was that his fears of not being seen as a glory hound, and that Martok was being seen as such, overwhelmed him. With Klingon society prizing warrior virtues, Gowron feared, in the context of an ongoing war, not being seen as having sufficient of them. Of being too much a politician, especially when all the Klingon pop culture seemed all about praising Martok in legend and song. He was trying to minimise Martok's successes, and that was that led to his fall, that was why he became dishonourable in Klingon eyes. He tried to steal Martok's honours and he caused the deaths of his own soldiers doing so. And that those series of acts was leading the Klingon Empire (and allies) to defeat was proof of his dishonour in Klingon eyes.
When you think about it, this is the longest running ongoing story in Trek history. It spans TNG and DS9 and doesn't come to a complete end until Martok becomes Chancellor.
clearspira wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 11:07 pm
I guess one of the things that isn't half human on K'ehleyr is her vagina given how she gave birth to a baby with a huge spiky head. I don't even have a vagina and I am crossing my legs at the thought. And yes, you may thank me for that horrific mental image.
I also personally doubt that a Bat'leth could take on an actual sword. The effective reach on this weapon is so shitty, and the thing is so heavy and unwieldy that well... there is a reason why literally every culture in human history has developed some version of the sword whereas none as ever developed the Bat'leth. Or at least, not that lived long enough to write it down. And what's funny is that later on we learn that Kahless used a much smaller version with a huge spike on it that looks as if it actually worked - opening up the plot hole as to why anyone would use the new Bat'leth when it isn't what their greatest warrior used.
clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:03 pm
At this point if course we should remember that Jadzia once teamed up with Kang and Koloth to seek revenge. All she got was a headshake.
But that is Starfleet for you. Kirk can sleep with the universe, Kim gets a reprimand for a single nights fun. Ro gets her earring taken away because of the uniform code, Worf keeps his bandolier. It really seems as if laws and rules in this universe only exist by the captain's whim.
If you actually analyze Kirk's so-call promiscuity you actually see it's usually done with a purpose. He uses his charms to fulfill the mission and/or save his ship and crew. It's not really for personal pleasure. On the other hand, his actual romances are usually with professional women who maintain deep feelings for him after and are willing to renew the relationship even when they know it's only for a short time.
Wargriffin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:23 pm
The thing is Gowron does become the type of underhanded bastard that would poison someone... but thats years later.
Reunion what type of Klingon Gowron is left up in the air... obviously if They went in depth like It be bloody fucking obvious who the culprit was... even though as we've discussed It was kinda bloody fucking obvious from the get go
but all his sequential showings in TNG presents him very much as a "FIGHT ME" type Klingon
I can't help but see similarities between Gowron and Robert Baratheon. I think Gowron certainly would have ended up just as fat and paranoid if he had lived although King Rob was easily the better general in his prime. I think one of the key differences is that whilst Gowron certainly wanted Worf to be his Eddard Stark; Worf never wanted that role, preferring Martok instead. This left Gowron without any counter presence to his bullshit as far as we can tell. We don't even know if Gowron had a wife.
(If you've never seen Game of Thrones then none of what I just wrote will make any sense at all. Sorry.)
That is a pretty thin comparison. Robert won the throne through conflict all based on a lie that his betrothed was kidnapped. The guy in his prime during that conflict was a big strong guy, and once he won the throne he did everything but do things he is supposed to do for that throne.
Gowron never did any of that and he is at the very heart of his character like Robert.
Sure you could say Worf was Gowron's Ed Stark but that is about it.
While Robert had a personal grudge, the war was actually due to Aerys murdering Brandon and Rickard Stark and then ordering Ned and Robert be sent to him for their murders as well. They either had to fight or be killed. Had it just been the "kidnapping", there would have been no rebellion.
