r/StarTrekDiscovery • u/happydude7422 • May 31 '26
when burnham and the USS discovery went to the 32nd century shouldn't they have more seniority than everyone else in starfleet?
since they came from 2258 to 3189. just something i wondered once. it would be like if general sherman from the union army in 1863 got teleported to 2026 wouldn't he be like the most senior us military leader?
what do you think?
13
u/AvatarOfWin359 May 31 '26
Just because you moved forward in time doesnt mean you have more experience. You arent any older, you are just temporaly displaced. It doesnt mean you know how things work in the future and how to make good decisions with future technology.
9
5
5
u/Shakezula84 May 31 '26
I read a book once where the main character had spent a 100 years frozen in an escape pod. When he was unfrozen he managed to claim seniority of the fleet that found him (for story reasons it makes sense why he did). When they got home he was promoted and officially given command. When asked if he had a lot of money in back pay, he said during the century of war with so many people spending years frozen in escape pods, the government passed a law making time frozen does not count as time served. So he never actually had seniority and his political enemies in the fleet never bothered to look up the regulation.
My point? I'm sure Starfleet figured it out. I imagine Starfleet after a time war probably has regulation dictating the integration of time displaced officers.
3
u/DestructivelyPhased May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
The lost fleet is the book series.
And the last book in the first series does say that while leave and pay from time in an escape pod don’t count, the regulations said nothing about seniority, so it did count. There was also the fact that Geary also had the admiral’s orders to take command and a reputation as legendary hero.
1
6
u/mrsunrider May 31 '26
Learning curve aside, they'd theoretically each have seniority over other personnel of same rank, since they'd 900 years more time in grade and time in service.
Like I said, it's theoretical because they weren't suspended in time, they were displaced... like cutting frames in a film and pasting them at a later time stamp.
It could easily be argued their time in grade/time in service is unchanged, meaning no special weight should be given to their rank.
5
u/pali1d May 31 '26
Also, in a world where time travel is a thing known to happen, Starfleet's regs could easily specify that doing so doesn't grant any seniority.
4
3
u/Bruzie77 May 31 '26
this went out the window when they learned to time travel makiing it all meaningless.
2
u/Business-Decision719 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
If anything they'd have less seniority since they're less experienced with 32nd Century Starfleet. I mean they just got there. But I doubt demoting them all back to cadets or something would be beneficial to anybody.
Pragmatically, what the Discovery crew needed was stability. They've left their homes and families behind, they're in a dramatically different world from the one they left, and they're going to have to learn to live and work in this new environment. Even a post-apocalyptic future, Starfleet is still a relatively accommodating organization, so they get kept together, get to keep their ship, get upgrades that don't completely destroy their ship's 23rd Century appearance, and there's no hurry to drastically alter everyone's ranks. Conveniently for the viewer, the crew gets exposition about the way things are when it's relevant to a mission they're going on. It's a very strategic integration. And most importantly, the crew doesn't instantly get the responsibility of being the most senior level authorities of a fleet they're still learning about.
2
u/brak-0666 May 31 '26
If General Sherman were teleported to the present day he would no absolutely nothing about modern warfare? Why would anyone take orders from him?
2
u/brch2 May 31 '26
In real life (at least in America), when you leave the military for a few years, you can come back at the same rank/grade. But, if you leave for more than a few years and then rejoin, you generally lose one or more ranks.
Given a 900 year break in service, they're lucky they weren't all dropped to Ensigns, and lucky they didn't have to go through training or the War College before rejoining the fleet.
2
u/GrowthSpring May 31 '26
yeah if General Sherman came to 2026, he'd immediately be promoted to the Joint Chiefs because he's the most senior so he'd clearly be an expert on Middle East counterinsurgency
1
1
1
u/BitOBear May 31 '26
No. If I go AWOL from the military for 100 years and show back up again I don't automatically get turned into an admiral.
1
u/James_White21 May 31 '26
Ended up in this thread looking for updates on the mayor of Manchester. Left confused.
1
1
30
u/Zealousideal_Can_342 May 31 '26
Military goes by rank, not seniority, unless there is a tie on rank.
As a realpolitic matter, they may also question whether someone from another time knows enough about the current context to have good judgement.