I was watching "Yesterday's Enterprise" TNG. A question about it.

[coloradodem2005]

The Enterprise-C is thrown out of time during battle. There seems to be an original timeline where the Enterprise-C NEVER travelled in time 22 years into the future and met the Enterprise-D. Then the alternate one where they disappeared into the future and were never heard from again. The Federation is at war and are on the point of defeat. Then the restored timeline where the Enterprise-C disappears and reappears a few seconds later. How could they not go forward in time before they go forward in time without any future interference?

Furthermore, with the Romulans attacking the Klingon outpost, why would the Klingons not attack the Romulans instead of or in addition to the Federation? I know that they were negotiating peace talks Klingons and Federation that is. The Klingons could have known that the Enterprise-C was there and knew it disappeared and probably thought it cowardly, thus causing negotiations to break down. The thing is the Federation did not seem to know those specifics. As far as they knew the Enterprise C was heading for Narendra III and was never heard from again. Maybe they didn't believe the Klingons account. Ok, so they thought the Federation were dishonorable cowards, but why would they not retaliate against the Romulans as well? Furthermore, if the Federation is so strong, why would they have been getting beaten so badly by the Klingons over a 20+ year period? Of course their strength may have been why it took so long to begin with. But, couldn't they have been a little bit more prepared? Supposedly the weaponry of both the Klingons and Federation was more advanced in this timeline due to the war, but why couldn't the Federation have fought the Klingons to a draw. Yes, that was how the story was written, mainly to make it more dramatic and to give them a reason to send the Enterprise-C back, but I am looking for more intrinsic explanations.

[rogue emissary]

1. Interesting questions

Your post really got me thinking about this episode. To start off, I always thought there's only two timelines. One where the Enterprise C comes back with Yar and another timeline when it's destroyed before anyone knew it had traveled in time. The Federation didn't know that it went forward in time. Until Picard came face to face with Sela, Starfleet and the Klingons was under an incomplete impression of the events that occurred. They only believed that the Enterprise C responded to a distress signal, engaged the Romulans, and heroically died in the ensuing battle. With Sela existing, she fills in messing information about the Enterprise C time travel.

Here's something to ponder, what if the variable wasn't the Enterprise C going forward, but Yar going back in time. Think of it as the Enterprise C was meant to go forward at that point and meet the Enterprise D. The alternate timeline where the Federation is losing the war, is when the Enterprise C went back without Yar. It then was destroyed before the Klingons or Federation knew what happened to it. Leading to the war between the two powers, both unaware of the Romulans involvement. Picard in this timeline didn't know that the Romulans had attacked the outpost, until Captain Garrett told him she engaged the attacking Romulan Warbirds.

Yar coming back in time could be the reason the Enterprise C survived long enough. Allowing the Klingons to find out that the Romulan attacked their base, and the Heroics of the Enterprise C crew to be canonized by the Federation.

The reason the Federation was losing is kind of simple. By the end of the "Undiscovered Country" Starfleet was looking to explore space again. They were hopeful that a lasting peace between the Federation and Klingons was only years away. They also apparently continued to make huge lumbering Galaxy class ships. It took the Borg threat for Starfleet to investigate making a heavily armored combat Battle Ship. It takes time to make them, and when they lose one they lose a large amount of personnel. Compare that with the Klingons who make medium sized Warbirds with a crew of say 50 soldiers. They can lose more ships and quickly replenish their ships and personnel.

So does any of this make any sense? :)

[coloradodem2005]

2. Interesting.

It could have been that way. The way it read though, there was a timeline where the Enterprise C never went forward in time and the incident was known and peace continued. And the difference between that and the one where Ent-C returns is that the latter one the ship wasn't destroyed and there were survivors. That is the way I understood it. But your theory definitely has merit. It probably is the truth.


Someone else responded to it in this way:

I agree that some aspects of it made little sense.

We saw in STVI that the Klingon's were weakened by the explosion of Praxis, their "key energy production facility" - this would still have happened in the "War" timeline as it seems to have followed the same course as the correct timeline up until the Enterprise C incident.

Starfleet had no such setback - and aside from the Klingon's more agressive fighting style, I fail to see how they could have overwhelmed Starfleet to that extent.

[rogue emissary]

5. Re:"Interesting."

When it comes to time travel, we've seen just about every theory expressed on Trek. I doubt anyone is truly right or wrong. The easiest theory concerning time travel events is what happened was meant to happen.

The lose of their energy facility could have made them more desperate. Of course a draw does seem to be more logical.

[coloradodem2005]

7. Well...

...the problem with the whole everything was meant to happen, is mainly that it becomes like everything was predetermined. Which goes back to the Calvinist notion of predestination, which does not sit well with me. Though, to an extent, there do seem to be things that were meant to happen.

[rogue emissary]

8. How do you see time travel in sci-fi? n/t

[coloradodem2005]

9. I don't know.

[coloradodem2005]

3. Essentially you are implying....

...that the "war timeline" would be the original and therefore correct one, whereas the peaceful timeline would be the alternate and changed one.

[cestpaspossible]

4. In the immortal words of Chief O'Brien - I HATE temporal mechanics.

imho, there is no such thing as an 'original' and 'correct' timeline -- other than the one in which I am born rich and good-looking.

[rogue emissary]

6. The peaceful timeline would be correct,

. . . as it's the one we've seen the longest. I'm just suggesting Yar was the critical factory, not the Enterprise C. I don't have any evidence for this theory, it's just an intriguing idea I had.

[Orsino]

10. Guinan's gut feel that something was wrong...

...argues strongly for the existence of an absolute time-line, or for some sort of temporal inertia that tries to fix certain changes. The universe knows what needs to be undone, even if (from our perspective) it hasn't actually happened yet.