Logline
La’An travels back in time to twenty-first-century Earth to prevent an attack which will alter humanity’s future history—and bring her face to face with her own contentious legacy.
Written by David Reed
Directed by Amanda Row
Note: This is a second attempt, as technical difficulties were preventing people from seeing the original discussion post. Apologies to the people who were able to comment in the original.
It can still kind of work. Montalban was about 45 when he was Khan, so let’s say Khan was around that age when he was exiled. The young Khan we see seems to be about 10 years old, maybe a bit younger.
So say baby Khan was born in 2012 if we want to take Sera’s 30 years literally rather than as an approximation. World War III (according to ENT: “In a Mirror Darkly” but the years may have slipped) starts in 2026 and lasts until 2053 (ST: FC, SNW: “Strange New Worlds”). Khan could easily have fought in the war and took power in the end days of the war - he’d only be 41 in 2053.
Even in the old timeline Khan only ruled one quarter of Earth for about 4-5 years between 1992 and 1996. So it’s not implausible that the Eugenics Wars happen around 2048-2053 (Khan would be in his mid-thirties, and augmented) and Khan escaped after his reign was toppled during the Last Day in 2053 on a non-warp powered sleeper ship, because Cochrane only managed warp 10 years later.
In fact, having the Eugenics Wars take place around 2050 works better because Archer said his great-grandfather fought in them (in North Africa). Since ENT takes place in the 2150s, that only makes about a century between their births, which is certainly reasonable, whereas if Archer-great-grand-pére fought in the 1990s then it’d be stretching his longevity just a tad.
deleted by creator
If we take the chronology in “Mirror Darkly” as still valid, then Green started the war in 2026.
But Mirror Darkly need not be correct in the exact year at this point.
It’s established now that there have been successive incursions in the timeline. Time has been resistant to forks that eliminate major events entirely, but the years in which any given major event took place may shift.
If it gives TNG Berman-era fans of Picard season three comfort, this explanation can account for how Jack Crusher was both born after Nemesis and is 23-24 years old in 2401. That is, there occurred a subtle shift in the timeline between Nemesis and Picard such that Nemesis took place a few years earlier than originally.
Again, these are not the ratcheting changes of 12 Monkeys, they are eddies in the river of the Prime Timeline that shift the flow a bit but the major of its route remains the same.
It might not, but until there’s an explicit on-screen contradiction or mention that the timeline did shift, for the sake of fostering discussion it’s better to say that the dates stand and see if we can work around it.
I grant that you are correct because the dates have to slip since hopefully WWIII doesn’t actually start 2 years from now, but there’s a larger point I’m trying to make here.
If we use the Temporal Wars as a trump card to every Trek inconsistency, there’s really no point playing the Watsonian game. “The temporal wars changed it” is functionally equivalent as “a wizard did it” or “God made it so”. It’s a cop-out that shuts down discussions instead of extending them.
I mean, it’s very tempting. Why did Chekov recognize Khan if he didn’t show up on screen until Season 2? Temporal Wars. Why did Wesley say the Klingons joined the Federation? Temporal Wars. Why was Sam Kirk said to have 3 sons in one episode but shown only to have 1 in another? Temporal Wars. I could go on. Every query becomes a closed question from this point out and that’s no fun. That’s been the danger ever since the TCW was introduced in ENT.
That was a reason why alternate timeline discussions were very closely regulated on the old r/DaystromInstitute. So I would rather not invoke the butterfly effect for anything if there’s no particular reason or explicit statement that it happened.
I appreciate the risk, but it seems that we’ve got a canon confirmation already.
There will be slippage. We already know that Voyager changed the timeline after the events of DS9. The Romulan Supernova and Picard season 2 perturbed it further.
The key thing is that there do exist some time crystals (as defined in physics not necessarily the glowing blue ones on Borath) which are events that are fixed points in the timeline. Those have to happen, like Pike’s injuries, and cannot slip too much without a fork.
Physics just doesn’t support the rigidity of precise dates in the timeline that would give many fans comfort nor does it support the infinite branching that makes everything meaningless.
This deserves a lot more looking into. Possibly a post in c/DaystromInstitute at some point, but, like Holmes, I cry out for more data before wanting to form a workable hypothesis. As a side note, I’m already gathering data for working out Una’s chronology. It’s filling out nicely.
We don’t disagree in broad terms. I just recoil from the easy (and potentially dismissive) answer if I don’t think it’s actually necessary for the most part, so I’ll stick to not futzing around with established dates until something really tells me otherwise. As someone who’s been playing around and figuring out Trek chronologies since the early 90s, this is where I’m most comfortable being.
A general observation: I think that this episode is consistent with the way time travel is seen to work in the Trek universe - that the timeline is overwritten rather than branched. The Kelvin Timeline remains the one sole example of a branched timeline that was created as the result of a temporal incursion. In all other cases, the timeline becomes (in my favorite comparison) like a palimpsest.
Our household has been coming at it from our understanding of physics, and have been since at least the 90s. It means that we’ve been watching through that lens for a very long time.
Without it, the episodes in Voyager where Harry Kim or Janeway came back to correct the timeline are meaningless. We would just assume that the unchanged timeline went forward offscreen.
This resilient river of time version offers a continuity where actions matter, and corrections to the timeline mean something more than just a shift in point of view.
As you note, multiple universes can exist but it takes something very large to do it. In Star Trek, we’re not in the infinite and ever expanding continuum of branching universes where every possible permutation of events exists. (And that version of the multiverse doesn’t stand up for hard scientists.)
So far we know that the Mirror Universe has different physics of light - something that’s so enormous that it’s hard to credit that it’s developed in any kind of parallel. It suggests some fixed events in the past development of the two universes that are extraordinarily resilient against branching.
The Romulan supernova is a major event but of a much lower order of magnitude than say the establishment of the physics of light. It seems like that would be a kind of lower bound for a branching trigger.
All to say that I agree that a Daystrom Institute deep dive would be worthwhile. In fact, it may be possible to go through onscreen canon and itemize the various events and inconsistencies that support this construct.
The Narada incursion had the benefit of three things - a black hole, a very intense ion storm, and the magical red matter. We can minimally accept that as a unique confluence of events that led to a branched rather than overwritten timeline, at least.
To support the resilient river of time model, when I was studying history in grad school I came up with this axiom: history isn’t inevitable, but it has momentum.
To put another way, any given historical event is the natural outcome of historical events before it, and therefore when changing history you’re not just trying to change the one thing, but dealing with the weight of everything before pushing the timeline in that direction. That’s why it’s so hard to change history, that - in Sera’s terms - it seems like Time itself is fighting you. Call it historical momentum, call it historical inertia, what you will. And so the more “momentous” the event, the harder it is to just change it - things will “want” to go back to the way it was.