Reviewing the source, the 23rd century Defiant wasn't even specified to be a Constitution -- it was only mentioned as a mirror ship destroyed by Tholians.

Should we remove the class or is that inference 'elementary'? Also, is a disambiguation needed? Did any other Defiant ever officially get the prefix "ISS"? -- Captain MKB 14:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this isn't the ship seen in In a Mirror, Darkly? --Columbia clipper 20:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the final fate of that ship isn't known to me (I haven't read the newer novels), but the last I was aware, the USS Defiant was active in the 2150s. The ISS Defiant we are talking about here was recorded as destroyed in the 2260s, over a century later. Considering the space of time, I find it unlikely they are the same, Especially since the 22nd century one was an imperial prototype for technology and saw a lot of combat besides. -- Captain MKB 20:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bit of an essay, but covers all the details: The Enterprise portions of the Mirror Universe books have yet to establish what became of the Defiant other than it was still active as of 2156, by which time it had already allowed the Empire to construct a copy, the ISS Nobunaga while the Defiant remained in full service as the lead ship in the Empire. "Ill Winds" notes that other powers were only just catching up in the mid-23rd century with the technological leap afforded to the Empire by the Defiant. So while the Defiant saw significant action as the Empire's flagship, I don't actually find it entirely unbelievable she might have remained in service the entire time, her significance to the Sato Dynasty especially likely to afford her the care needed to keep her in service, and therefore it's entirely possible these are the same ship.

Of course that significance is blown away when we see this Defiant being lost on a lonely frontier mission; not exactly the mission you'd expect the noble century-of-service Sato flagship Defiant to be on. But the RPG source of this Defiant doesn't incorporate the Enterprise mirror universe history so it’s hardly surprising the Defiant isn't given special treatment.

Ignoring the Enterprise history entirely for a moment. I think the inference of class and registration on this is a reasonable assumption, given the described events are a close parallel to those we know occurred with the Defiant while in the prime reality. Though, in the event the articles remain separated, I would only go as far as noting the likelihood as background info, not stating it as fact.

But, until the final fait of the Defiant is established (which wont be any time soon, the next MU book isn't until 2012!) I think the two Defiant's should be merged assuming they're the same ship as a) The RPG source for this Defiant is a parallel to the prime-Defiant, so implies this is a Constitution-class NCC-1764 b) we know that the Constitution-class 1764 appeared in the mirror universe a century earlier, so two identically named ships would be a bit odd, and we know due to it's vast technological superiority that Defiant could well have survived a very long time. --8of5 02:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be odd for the Empress's flagship to be relegated to being 'just one of the fleet' 112 years after the fact.
My additional concern that isn't addressed here is that starships in the mirror universe do not necessarily reflect their counterparts exactly in all cases. So while both Enterprises are NCC-1701, we still have cases where one Reliant is 1864 and one is 1330 -- exact duplication is not guaranteed. To expand on my point in reference to the Defiant's crossover -- would the mirror fleet create a new ship registry that matched their future ship's? not necessarily... it is also a possibility, and likelihood, that they would have 'retired the number', so to speak, and given their new Defiant a different circumstance, just on the basis of not giving their new ship the legacy and/or 'curse' of the old one.
So while the possibility exists that it is the same ship or a similarly successor vessel, it is not guaranteed, and the possibility exists that something much different went on. I'd say that was cause to keep the ships separate and unmerged -- especially since it is unlikely that the current/future mirror universe authors intend for their Defiant to continue on to such an uninteresting fate. -- Captain MKB 03:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Odd, but not impossible, the mirror universe is brutal place, would the empress be overly sentimental about the Defiant when they finally manage to make a better ship years down the line? Though I do also now note the PRG actually refers to its Defiant as one of the Empire's most powerful ships.

And yes not everything in the mirror universe is a parallel to the prime reality, but a lot of things are! You raise author intent, well it's pretty obvious that a reference to a 23rd century starship Defiant lost to the Tholians, commanded by Loskene, in 2268, is a parallel to the Connie Defiant from The Tholian Web.

We have plenty of precedents for assuming subjects of the same name from different sources are referring to the same thing, unless we have evidence they cannot be the same. In this instance we know it's entirely plausible they are the same ship, and have no evidence saying they cannot be. --8of5 16:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would create a separate article when two example ships are over 100 years apart and not otherwise related. I can cite other cases of this precedent and obviously I think it is prudent to do so regardless of any of the other arguments of mine you are trying to refute. -- Captain MKB 00:28, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I would too normally, but this isn't general, this is specific to the mirror universe Defiant. The one described in the PRG is strongly implied to be a counterpart to the prime Constitution class Defiant, and we already know of a mirror universe Constitution class Defiant, a mirror universe Constitution class Defiant that due to its technological superiority is less of a stretch than normal to have survived so long. --8of5 00:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, trying to upkeep and repair a 23rd century ship with 22nd century infrastructure is a prime reason why i think the alter-Defiant wouldn't survive that long -- they have a habit of using it in battle and probably don't have the capability for making quality spare parts with their less-advanced technology.
What really doesn't make sense to me is the assumption that it could be its own duplicate. If you really think the two ships are implied to be similar, shouldn't the mirror ship be built around the same time as the alternate? The USS Defiant was built in the mid-23rd century. If you really want to maintain the similarity or duplication, why don't you think it at all likely that the mirror Defiant was built around the same time? -- Captain MKB 01:10, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Nice theory, but as we already know from the ENT short story: "Nobunaga" the Terran Empire in the 22nd century could not only manage to make new parts for the 23rd century Constitution-class but an entire duplicate of the thing! Besides, we already know the Constitution-class can be kept in services for decades, one ship managing to stay intact much longer is no more unbelievable than a particularly long lived person, especially when that ship just happens to have a massive advantage other any threat to it for the majority of its life.

And yes I agree, that would be the obvious assumption, and I'm sure the one the writers of the RPG were imagining when they described a USS Defiant that directly parallels the prime version. However since then we now know the prime Constitution-class Defiant found it's way back in time, so bam, all of a sudden the role of mirror universe Constitution-class Defiant has been claimed. --8of5 00:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it could possibly be the same ship serving as an active ship-of-the-line 112 years later, no matter how much mirror Scotty and mirror Trip worked on it with quality parts. There's absolutely no logic to saying so, this is all starting to seem like "8of5's new fan fiction idea" and hardly seems worthy of this wiki's serious attention without confirmation from an actual source. -- Captain MKB 00:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason to assume that the ship wouldn't be able to remain in service if proper parts were available. In the real world, a number of Royal Navy ships of the line were in active service for more than a century - one for more than 140 years. Before the advent of the steam battleship, most ships of the line that survived so long (most ships were lost catastrophically) were retired at roughly a century of service. Modern ships are retired quickly (at roughly 50 years) largely because technological changes render them either obsolete excessively expensive to maintain (because the infrastructure to support them has disappeared - the main reason, for instance, that the Iowa-class battleship is no longer in US Navy service). So long as the Constitution-class is in active service as the primary front-line ship of the Terran Empire, the Imperial Starfleet shouldn't have any trouble keeping any ship of the class properly maintained.
It's certainly possible (perhaps probable) that the original Defiant is no longer in service by the 2260s, but I don't think we can assume that it isn't. --Columbia clipper 01:08, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Both interpretations are balanced on a hell of a lot of speculation. You are attempting push your interpretation based on your personal view of how the Trekverse works in assuming the ships cannot be the same over the span of time. The only difference is I have identified sources to back up my interpretation... --8of5 01:04, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Again, an accusation that I'm going by "my personal view" and not following sources?
to paraphrase Admiral Morrow, Star Trek III, on decommissioning a Constitution: "The Enterprise has seen her day, she's 20 or 40 years old"... for some reason, a character from a Star Trek source differs with your interpretation. Perhaps some of your personal view was inserted there?
If the RPG was describing a Defiant that was a mirror duplication of the regular universe, it would be a ship that was built in the mid-23rd century and then was lost in Tholian space after being constructed only a few years earlier. This is from "The Tholian Web" and a slew of other sources that describe the commissioning and history of the regular Defiant and the timeline of its career before its loss.
Conversely, if the RPG was not describing a total duplication, it is not up to us to fabricate a relation between a 22nd century ship and a 23rd century ship, without any source to base the relation on. This is something that you've failed to provide a source for besides your own imagination. -- Captain MKB 01:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing a source for what previously appeared only to be speculation. I have no further evidence to submit in addition to the various arguments I have already laid out. We're both having to fill a lot of blanks to make sense of either version of events, but until someone else can sway the argument I'll drop it and keep with he current fragment as it's equally as valid. --8of5 00:17, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.