Hmmm, Kirk was alright, I liked him more in the movies then I did on the actual show. Picard is my #1 Captain though. He just seems to always know what's up. I've thought of asking myself, "WWPD?" in situations where I'm unsure what to do. Mind you I don't, but I've thought of it.
Janeway, on the other hand is like the best of both Kirk and Picard. She's got Kirks willingness to fight at a moments notice if it seems to suit her well, and Picards ability to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away and know when to run.. Did I say Picard? I meant Kenny Rogers.
I've got to go with Benjamin Sisko. He was commander at first and I was glad when he finally became captain. He is cool, strong, and level headed, without the arrogance of Kirk. Yes Kirk is great, but over dramatic.
Picard is a wuss in my book. When I first saw TNG, my least favorite Trek, I thought Riker was the captain! Rekirk indeed.
Janeway was super annoying, period.
Archer was cool but i thought too unprofessional personally and for the most part I feel kirk was too
Its quite a toss up between Sisko and Picard
I like Sisko because he had to handle more ongoing complex issues, so Sisko
Sisko get religious? Glad I didn't follow Deep Space Nine all that much then. I thought the Star Trek series were supposed to be secular?
Picard to me always seem cold, calculated, and almost emotionless to me. That's not to say I didn't love him. He was a little more hardnosed than Kirk but that's actually refreshing because at times Kirk seems like a buddy to a lot of the crew members... and sometimes even a lover.
I think the "religion" on DS9 was atheistic for the most part. Like Buddhism, for instance. The religion of the Bjorans was pretty interesting. A neat part of a FICTIONAL story. As an atheist I wasn't offended by it. I haven't become an atheist fundamentalist and closed my mind to everything that smacks of "religion". GASP! HORRORS! EGAD! NARF! LOL!
I don't think Sisko became a theist after all was said and done....
Tough question. Two different time periods alot like the real military. Picard could have existed in Kirks world, but Kirk would have had a hard time in Picards. We always say WWPD, when looking at ethical or moral questions, BUT everything as a young child that I learned about being a good person, and a decent military guy came from Kirk. AAAAHH. ........Picard. Ill go with Picard.
I'm not so sure about Picard doing well in Kirk's world. Keep in mind, Starfleet had a lousy TWELVE starships back then, so getting backup was a non-starter. The technology wasn't perfect by any stretch. It wasn't as bad as, say, the NX-01 Enterprise, but it wasn't at the level of the Galaxy-class starships either. The galaxy of the 23rd century was roughly equivalent to America's Wild West of the 19th. If you didn't have the stones to survive in that environment, you simply didn't.
Kirk was a tactician and a natural fighter; Picard is more a negotiator. Would Picard have considered threatening the Fesarius with the Corbomite Bluff as Kirk did? And I can't help but note that when Picard took on the Nausicans, he took a blade to his gut for his trouble. I pity the Nausican who would consider taking on James T.
One last point: Picard can afford to be the captain he is because Kirk was the captain he was. There can be no doubt but that Picard and other "next generation" starship captains benefited considerably from Kirk's experience. I'll bet you a cup of coffee that Kirk's log entries and other records were "required reading" at the Academy, even his handling of the Kobayashi Maru test.