Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

My niece and I are debating...no she's debating and I'm listening, about whether Honor would have fared better against Esther McQueen at Trevor's Star in place of Hamish. She posed the question to me because I've got Honor ahead of Hamish strategically. She thinks I'm nuts. Don't want to derail this thread but I think it's related. What do you think?

She says that Honor in the present may be able to stand up against McQueen, but not at the time. She says that Honor just didn't have big stage experience and that McQueen would have eaten her for lunch??? I wanted to hang up on my niece! She thinks McQueen is one of the most brilliant of all.
"In a straight up engagement with equal forces and technology McQueen would have been unconquerable at Trevor's Star Uncle."

Hate to dart in and out, but I've got company. In laws! They want to look me over one last time before a date is set.

Oh no they don't say it. But I know. I know!

cthia wrote:Latest email snippets from my niece. The correspondence is quite humorous. I have permission to post hers.

............<huge snip>.............

I told you all, trying to lump it all together is silly. Just because the lot of you insist on doing it this way does not efface my previously discussed reservations, yet it certainly will affect my final decisions. The reason I have Courvosier first on my list ahead of Honor is because he taught her! I personally feel that he is one of the greatest strategists and tacticians in the series. His strategy to hone the talents, in a participatory fashion, of Manticore's most promising biological naval resources, and recognizing what is quite possibly Manticore's greatest tactician in all of the Honorverse then proceeding to prevent her from falling through the cracks supersedes anything anyone else may have done. With respect to King Roger and Edward Saganami it is the single most greatest strategic and tactical maneuver entwined! You all, mostly, have Honor as top of your list but Honor may have flunked out if not for Courvosier. The RMN's ultimate strategy was to win the war by churning out better trained officers aboard technologically superior hardware.

....<snip>

I adamantly argue in favor of Saganami being on the list because he belongs on the list.

...<snip>...

Absolutely, Terekhov will remain in my top five, I will not be moved on that. My list, my decisions.

....<snip>...

..........<snip>.................

The fact that Courvosier was killed during the events of Yeltsin does not negate his obvious brilliance and I am appalled at the suggestion. He was caught unawares and off guard, donning a uniform he certainly never intended to wear, nor should have needed to, all without previous strategy or planning, in the middle of, technically, someone else's war. He was caught unawares, as Honor was once caught and forced to surrender.

.........<snip>........

Could it be that most of you are holding out against distinguishing between the two because you are struggling with it? To reiterate, for any still aimlessly lost on the battlefield, strategy is what is planned in the War Room on paper. Tactics are what happens in the heat of battle to prevent that heat from catching your ass and your papers on fire!

.....<snip>......

That is an inaccurate assessment of my statements at the recital. I merely alluded to the fact that employing tactics without strategy is irresponsible. And yes, I continue to believe that tactics fall under the umbrella of strategy. I refuse to say which is more important because that isn't a fair question. You have Generals and all else under him. A General not having a handle on strategy will get his men killed. His men, not having a handle on tactics will get themselves and their comrades killed.

Strategy is concerned with why and how, tactics the what. Just like in chess, especially 3-D chess, a lack of a good strategy predisposes you to wasting time on useless tactics. Strategy focuses the objectives. No matter how good your tactics, failing to employ a strategy first is the same as going off all half-cocked.

......<huge snip>......

Remember, she's twelve years old arguing against college students. Although most, as I understand, are merely sophomores. I am completely neutral. She wouldn't dare ask my help. It's not her style. As if I could help her. As if she needs help.

I really like her description of strategy and tactics. It's funny. I think I'll include it on my one-liner's page. She earned it. She said she was upset when she came up with it, but I think it's fine. And funny. They are kicking it around my office and laughing their heads off. They all know her.

Edit:
"Uncle, the simplest simpleton is a senior!"


.

There is a useful English word your niece is now seeing in practice. "sophomoric". It is not a compliment. College sophomores are sometimes a bit limited in their perspectives. Mind you, I write as a not-quite-67-year-old college professor, and am prejudiced.

With respect to chess, I call her attention to Nunn 'Think Like a Grandmaster' (iirc; do not have it here). It was the most useful chess book I ever read by a great deal. For Go, I recommend anything on Outward Influence.

Having said that, the only time I have contact with 12-year-olds is in the novels I write. The heroine of Mistress of the Waves starts at 12; the heroine of my much earlier and not as well written This Shining Sea is 12, but in a universe with superpowers has certain advantages.

cthia wrote:My niece and I are debating...no she's debating and I'm listening, about whether Honor would have fared better against Esther McQueen at Trevor's Star in place of Hamish. She posed the question to me because I've got Honor ahead of Hamish strategically. She thinks I'm nuts. Don't want to derail this thread but I think it's related. What do you think?

She says that Honor in the present may be able to stand up against McQueen, but not at the time. She says that Honor just didn't have big stage experience and that McQueen would have eaten her for lunch??? I wanted to hang up on my niece! She thinks McQueen is one of the most brilliant of all.
"In a straight up engagement with equal forces and technology McQueen would have been unconquerable at Trevor's Star Uncle."

Hate to dart in and out, but I've got company. In laws! They want to look me over one last time before a date is set.

Oh no they don't say it. But I know. I know!

I'm with your niece. Honor's good, but at Trevor's Star she wouldn't have had the experience she would have needed operating in a theater of that scale. Do not ever make the mistake of underestimating Esther McQueen. I can't vouch for her tactical ability, but as a strategist she was second to none. Honor against McQueen? It wouldn't have been a contest. Remember, Hamish had twenty years of military experience before Honor was even born. Native talent is no substitute for experience, no matter who you are, and Tierney's dead right. Honor couldn't have won Trevor's Star from Esther McQueen. Hamish? Yes. Theodosia? Yes. But not Honor. Not as she was then.

I've always had a soft spot for Esther McQueen, not because I like her, but because, when all was said and done, she is why Theisman was able to succeed. I can't be sorry she didn't entirely succeed, but I have to thank God (or is that RFC? ) for her anyway, because without her, the Haven I love would never have risen from the ashes the way it did. In a way, I see her as Eloise's dark mirror, and as necessary to my Republic's survival as Eloise herself.

(Good luck with the in-laws! Here's some advice: nod, smile, give your opinion when asked, and otherwise keep your mouth shut and do whatever Gemma wants. Your job is to show up at the altar, look very impressed by the dress, and say the appropriate words. This is passed on not-quite-verbatim from my dad, who twenty-five years on seems to have had a bit of success with the whole 'marriage' thing. )

cthia wrote:As far as acting like an adult Monster, please don't say that. She objects to it. She says that it isn't fair or correct to say that she is acting like an adult simply because she acts...classy, composed, confident. Poised. People improperly attribute her high IQ to maturity. Now I know what you mean and I know that you don't intend offense. She's just...sensitive in that area because some people use it as a defense when losing discussions to her.

I'm not using the word "act" in the sense of "pretend to be", but in the literal meaning of her actions being considered adult behavior rather than childlike.

She should not object to that, because (based on your descriptions) it's the truth. She has to learn to deal with the fact that people are going to get their wires crossed up with her, and she's going to spend a lot of time and effort getting them uncrossed. If she gets upset because of the mere use of the word "acting" without making an attempt to know what people mean by it, then she's making the situation worse, not better.

And even though it's bound to sound unfair, the responsibility for dealing with all of this falls squarely on her. She's the one asking people to handle something different from that for which their experience has prepared them. By now, she should be used to this, and ready for it.

Tell her this is coming from someone who started college full time a few days after turning 16 (with a few credits earned earlier than that), who knows what it's like to be the youngest person in the room.

cthia wrote:As far as acting like an adult Monster, please don't say that. She objects to it. She says that it isn't fair or correct to say that she is acting like an adult simply because she acts...classy, composed, confident. Poised. People improperly attribute her high IQ to maturity. Now I know what you mean and I know that you don't intend offense. She's just...sensitive in that area because some people use it as a defense when losing discussions to her.

TheMonster wrote:
I'm not using the word "act" in the sense of "pretend to be", but in the literal meaning of her actions being considered adult behavior rather than childlike.

She should not object to that, because (based on your descriptions) it's the truth. She has to learn to deal with the fact that people are going to get their wires crossed up with her, and she's going to spend a lot of time and effort getting them uncrossed. If she gets upset because of the mere use of the word "acting" without making an attempt to know what people mean by it, then she's making the situation worse, not better.

And even though it's bound to sound unfair, the responsibility for dealing with all of this falls squarely on her. She's the one asking people to handle something different from that for which their experience has prepared them. By now, she should be used to this, and ready for it.

Tell her this is coming from someone who started college full time a few days after turning 16 (with a few credits earned earlier than that), who knows what it's like to be the youngest person in the room.

She's very adamant about this. And believe you me, my sister and I were once right where you are now. So I do understand your angle. But you are wrong. Just like my sister and I were wrong. She sat us both down and explained to us how she felt. I'll attempt to explain it to you without the impact of her pleading eyes and mannerisms. Sis and I got it. It clicked.

She understands that people get their wires crossed. To help, she even wears makeup only at formal functions. But once knowledge is acquired that she is only twelve she wants to be acknowledged as such. Instead of "she's acting like an adult" (in the sense that you mean it), why can't it be (her exact words) "She is exhibiting the characteristics of a studious twelve year old." To her it implies that it is beyond the ability of a twelve year old to be studious, and by relation the characteristics of a studious person can only be found in an adult. She once asked my sister "why can't I be judged as a twelve year old? Why do I have to move up in weight limit like I'm a prize fighter?" She says it's a limitation of adults, not her. She acknowledges that it is because of our lack of experience with a studious twelve year old that trips adults up. But because "studious twelve year old" isn't on the form, adults can't just check "adult." She once told me that she felt like treecats. Which puzzled me.

"Adults have a problem accepting that I'm an intelligent "12 year old species." Therefore they dismiss it outright and reason that it must be adult.

I always felt that there was even more to it so I asked it of her. She told me she couldn't explain it, but that she only knew it was important. Until one day, "take your daughter to work day." I took my niece, she wanted to see my lab. All day long she remained with me. I never saw her so happy. They all loved her and currently threaten me if I don't bring her back. My boss has a Star Trek 2D chess board and a 3D board in his office. He's an advanced Trekkie. She taught him how to play 3D chess simultaneously beating up on him in 2D chess. The entire office was fighting for time with her.

At the end of the day she talked to me before bedtime. She told me she now knows what bothers her so much. It was very profound. I have to paraphrase. It knocked me back on my heels. It brings tears to my eyes even now.

Again, paraphrased "Uncle, everyone at your job accepted me. Even after they realized how smart I am they still treated me like a twelve year old, just a smart one. They didn't feel threatened. Most adults feel immediately threatened, and conversations quickly take a confrontational turn. Conversations always feel like a contest so I never get the enjoyment that I know is lurking. If only adults can relax. It happens so much I recognize the exact moment. Adults' expressions change. They shore up their defenses and begin launchimg ICBM's at me. I asked your boss and your colleagues why they are so relaxed with me. Your boss said 'It is because I don't fear you honey, I know I'm smarter than everyone my age!'

She laughed so hard at that recollection. So too did I. It is one reason I still work there. I don't need the money. I love my work. I love the people.

"I just like to talk to professionals Uncle, but I don't want to always be entered into an intellectual sparring match. It's as if adults feel that if they don't show they are intellectually superior, that they'll lose their license or something."

She had to hug me after that talk. Don't withhold her 12 year old blue ribbon accomplishments away from her unless she claims adult-like actions. She's just a studious 12 year old.

cthia wrote:She understands that people get their wires crossed. To help, she even wears makeup only at formal functions. But once knowledge is acquired that she is only twelve she wants to be acknowledged as such.

I never said she shouldn't be so acknowledged, but

Instead of "she's acting like an adult" (in the sense that you mean it), why can't it be (her exact words) "She is exhibiting the characteristics of a studious twelve year old."

Because these people have never met one of those before. They do not have any basis to think of her that way. Her behavior does not fit into any of the boxes in their brains.

To her it implies that it is beyond the ability of a twelve year old to be studious, and by relation the characteristics of a studious person can only be found in an adult. She once asked my sister "why can't I be judged as a twelve year old? Why do I have to move up in weight limit like I'm a prize fighter?" She says it's a limitation of adults, not her.

It's beyond the willingness of the overwhelming majority of twelve-year-olds to be studious, because the adults who built and maintain the institutions of our society have not created the expectation that they will be. "If you can be on your parents' health insurance through age 26, then of course at less than half that age you must be barely more competent than a toddler. QED."

It's a limitation of most humans. The 12-year-olds she knows don't know how to handle her either. Most likely she finds their company completely unfulfilling, just as they would kids half their age.

She acknowledges that it is because of our lack of experience with a studious twelve year old that trips adults up. But because "studious twelve year old" isn't on the form, adults can't just check "adult." She once told me that she felt like treecats. Which puzzled me.

...Neither can the other twelve year olds.

I asked your boss and your colleagues why they are so relaxed with me. Your boss said 'It is because I don't fear you honey, I know I'm smarter than everyone my age!'

He's been the youngest person in the room, too.

The people you work with are not normal. The average person simply does not know how to deal with a child prodigy. She is going to learn (probably the hard way like I did; one of the reasons I'm The Monster if you check out the older meaning of the word) that she scares most people because they can't fit her into any of the boxes, and they aren't good at building new boxes to fit new experiences. She can complain about this, or she can accept it and spend as little time with small minds as possible, concentrating on the people like your co-workers.

And I don't think she really wants to be treated like a 12-year-old or an adult. I think she wants it both ways. She wants to be able to engage in intellectual discussions with adults as a peer, but being treated as an adult would mean giving up the safety net of being a child. Adults will refrain from fully engaging with her because they don't want to be perceived as "mean" to a child, whereas a debate between adults can get pretty heated. But eventually, she's going to realize that, and accept that nobody's going to bring their A game against a middle-school team. And she wants that A game, because the kids her age can't bring it.

What's funny is that kids have always seemed to like the fact that I treat them as if they're older than they are. (I despise "baby talk" and other deliberate dumbing down of discourse.) I do that because I remember how damned insulting it was for people to assume I was as childish as the other children. And I find that the response is generally that the kids quickly adjust their behavior upward.

cthia wrote:My niece and I are debating...no she's debating and I'm listening, about whether Honor would have fared better against Esther McQueen at Trevor's Star in place of Hamish. She posed the question to me because I've got Honor ahead of Hamish strategically. She thinks I'm nuts. Don't want to derail this thread but I think it's related. What do you think?

Have to side with your niece here.

cthia wrote:She says that Honor in the present may be able to stand up against McQueen, but not at the time. She says that Honor just didn't have big stage experience and that McQueen would have eaten her for lunch???

Maybe, maybe not, but i doubt Honor at the time would have fared well against McQueen.
I wouldn´t expect a curbstomp perhaps, but I expect it rather likely that McQueen would come up well on top of things.

cthia wrote:She thinks McQueen is one of the most brilliant of all.
"In a straight up engagement with equal forces and technology McQueen would have been unconquerable at Trevor's Star Uncle."

And she´s quite possibly right about that yes.

cthia wrote:She once asked my sister "why can't I be judged as a twelve year old? Why do I have to move up in weight limit like I'm a prize fighter?" She says it's a limitation of adults, not her.

And it is. A lot of people tend to have prejudices. Often considered social norms "because that´s how it´s supposed to be!"...


Mostly it´s pure bullshit and an excuse not to think for yourself.

For a quick comparison, a hundred years ago, women in military service as regular soldiers, outrageous. Today, not nearly as much so.
And a thousand years ago, even less so.

What modern "knights in shining armour" tales leaves out is that the "lady of the castle" not seldomly had similar military and weapons training as her husband, because it was the norm then that if something happened while dear hubby was away, she was the one that was going to hold that castle.

And of course, because it was an extra expense to hire a soldier good enough to be the one doing the holding, and not bring him along elsewhere.

And there were even some all-female knightly orders. And nunneries didn´t rely on males for armed defense when needed...

USAs racial discrimination laws up until just decades ago is another obvious "oh my...".

And so on...

cthia wrote:She once told me that she felt like treecats. Which puzzled me.

I think that is quite a good way to describe it.

cthia wrote:

cthia wrote:As far as acting like an adult Monster, please don't say that. She objects to it. She says that it isn't fair or correct to say that she is acting like an adult simply because she acts...classy, composed, confident. Poised. People improperly attribute her high IQ to maturity. Now I know what you mean and I know that you don't intend offense. She's just...sensitive in that area because some people use it as a defense when losing discussions to her.

TheMonster wrote:
I'm not using the word "act" in the sense of "pretend to be", but in the literal meaning of her actions being considered adult behavior rather than childlike.

She should not object to that, because (based on your descriptions) it's the truth. She has to learn to deal with the fact that people are going to get their wires crossed up with her, and she's going to spend a lot of time and effort getting them uncrossed. If she gets upset because of the mere use of the word "acting" without making an attempt to know what people mean by it, then she's making the situation worse, not better.

And even though it's bound to sound unfair, the responsibility for dealing with all of this falls squarely on her. She's the one asking people to handle something different from that for which their experience has prepared them. By now, she should be used to this, and ready for it.

Tell her this is coming from someone who started college full time a few days after turning 16 (with a few credits earned earlier than that), who knows what it's like to be the youngest person in the room.

She's very adamant about this. And believe you me, my sister and I were once right where you are now. So I do understand your angle. But you are wrong. Just like my sister and I were wrong. She sat us both down and explained to us how she felt. I'll attempt to explain it to you without the impact of her pleading eyes and mannerisms. Sis and I got it. It clicked.

She understands that people get their wires crossed. To help, she even wears makeup only at formal functions. But once knowledge is acquired that she is only twelve she wants to be acknowledged as such. Instead of "she's acting like an adult" (in the sense that you mean it), why can't it be (her exact words) "She is exhibiting the characteristics of a studious twelve year old." To her it implies that it is beyond the ability of a twelve year old to be studious, and by relation the characteristics of a studious person can only be found in an adult. She once asked my sister "why can't I be judged as a twelve year old? Why do I have to move up in weight limit like I'm a prize fighter?" She says it's a limitation of adults, not her. She acknowledges that it is because of our lack of experience with a studious twelve year old that trips adults up. But because "studious twelve year old" isn't on the form, adults can't just check "adult." She once told me that she felt like treecats. Which puzzled me.

"Adults have a problem accepting that I'm an intelligent "12 year old species." Therefore they dismiss it outright and reason that it must be adult.

I always felt that there was even more to it so I asked it of her. She told me she couldn't explain it, but that she only knew it was important. Until one day, "take your daughter to work day." I took my niece, she wanted to see my lab. All day long she remained with me. I never saw her so happy. They all loved her and currently threaten me if I don't bring her back. My boss has a Star Trek 2D chess board and a 3D board in his office. He's an advanced Trekkie. She taught him how to play 3D chess simultaneously beating up on him in 2D chess. The entire office was fighting for time with her.

At the end of the day she talked to me before bedtime. She told me she now knows what bothers her so much. It was very profound. I have to paraphrase. It knocked me back on my heels. It brings tears to my eyes even now.

Again, paraphrased "Uncle, everyone at your job accepted me. Even after they realized how smart I am they still treated me like a twelve year old, just a smart one. They didn't feel threatened. Most adults feel immediately threatened, and conversations quickly take a confrontational turn. Conversations always feel like a contest so I never get the enjoyment that I know is lurking. If only adults can relax. It happens so much I recognize the exact moment. Adults' expressions change. They shore up their defenses and begin launchimg ICBM's at me. I asked your boss and your colleagues why they are so relaxed with me. Your boss said 'It is because I don't fear you honey, I know I'm smarter than everyone my age!'

She laughed so hard at that recollection. So too did I. It is one reason I still work there. I don't need the money. I love my work. I love the people.

"I just like to talk to professionals Uncle, but I don't want to always be entered into an intellectual sparring match. It's as if adults feel that if they don't show they are intellectually superior, that they'll lose their license or something."

She had to hug me after that talk. Don't withhold her 12 year old blue ribbon accomplishments away from her unless she claims adult-like actions. She's just a studious 12 year old.

Hi Cthia,

I have to admit as I have been reading this thread I have found myself far more fascinated by your description of your niece than by the debate at hand.

Just having read what you have posted I confess that I worry a little bit for your niece. I find her description of the paradigm that she finds herself in impressively accurate when she says,

Most adults feel immediately threatened, and conversations quickly take a confrontational turn. Conversations always feel like a contest so I never get the enjoyment that I know is lurking. If only adults can relax. It happens so much I recognize the exact moment. Adults' expressions change. They shore up their defenses and begin launchimg ICBM's at me.

The problem is that she is being required to play a game for which she does not understand the rules. It is most decidedly not fair. Unfortunately, this is the part where we get to insert all the trite quotes about "life isn't fair." Quite frankly, often it is heartbreakingly unfair. Everyone from the child with the IQ of 85 to the child with the deformed feet and so on faces similar unfairness in life. Most curses can be a blessing, and most blessings (like your niece's incredible intellect) can also be a curse. In the end you have to play the hand that you are dealt and the only thing you can control is how you play them.

Of course, I am speaking from 29 years of experience living in the body of the child with the deformed feet. Certainly when I was twelve being on the receiving end of the mockery of my peers was just as puzzling to me as being on the receiving end of those adult "ICBM's" is to your niece.

If I could be so bold as to offer advice to a total stranger on the forums regarding a person about whom I know precious little in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you will take whatever I have to say with the grain of salt it so richly merits. That being said, might I suggest that perhaps helping her grow up in this area, in which, it seems she is still very much a 12 year old, would be one of the greatest services you and those who love her most can offer her? From her acute descriptions of the way adults interact with her she its clearly a keen observer, she just needs to put those observational skills and her gift for analysis to work learning how to play social chess. It really is something that can be learned, I've even managed to pick up a few moves myself and I can hardly tell a horse from a castle-thing much less recognize a 'Queen's gambit.' To keep with the theme I'll offer a couple of points of strategy as well as some tactics (loosely oh-so-loosely defined you understand)

Strategy Point 1: Just because I can defeat someone in an argument doesn't always mean I am right.

Unfortunately in my experience being intelligent doesn't affect a human being's incredible talent for self-deception in the least. What it does tend to do, however, is make us much better at fending off other people's attempts to show us where we went wrong and validate our own wrongheadedness.

Tactic: Cultivate deep friendships with people who love and care about you: especially people who aren't as 'smart' as you. Learn to trust them when they tell you you are wrong, even if they can't win the argument.

Strategy Point 2: Recognize people who are not very secure in who they are and do your best to avoid triggering that insecurity. Again, not fair and sometimes unavoidable but sometimes very avoidable. The gentleman she demolished in physics and chess at the tender age of 10 is not the sort of person she is going to be able to have an "interesting" conversation with: it will always end in ICBM's. Conversely, people like your co-workers are the sorts of people she will want to spend her time around. Quite frankly this will be true whether she is 12 or 20 or 70. Granted the fact that she is a child puts a little finer point on the embarrassment knife, but my guess is that he would have made a donkey out of himself regardless of her age. Conversely I would guess that your coworkers treat other adults with the same respect that they showed her.

Tactics:
-Ask LOTS of questions.
-Talk less.
-Learn to recognize the early signs of escalation.
-Learn how to gracefully disengage from conversations: its OFTEN better to concede a point than it is to let things escalate into a nukefest, even if you aren't wrong.
-Learn to ACT like a 12 year old. Quite literally acting, there are some scenarios in which a "studious twelve year old" simply cannot peacefully coexist. (This is perhaps another way of agreeing with Monster when he says that she is essentially wanting to be both and she can't).

In the meantime, you give her that hug, because sometimes life sucks and you just need a hug from a person who unreservedly loves you.

Anyway, those are just a few things I've picked up in the school of hard knocks. I'm sure you have bumped into many of them yourself and you sound like the type of person who is both wise and caring enough to want to share those things with your niece. As I mentioned at the beginning of the post, I feel presumptuous offering such advice to you, but much like The Monster, I've lived through being in the social "freak of nature" category (for different reasons) and if even a little bit of what I had to say might be helpful I felt compelled to at least put it out there.

My niece is communicating with a dozen students now, with the additional one. The emails are responded to and answered back with "all" in each response--simultaneously directed to all recipients with everyone responding and being responded to out of sequence. Getting useful information on such a long continuous email is our newest example of a copper plated bitch.

niece:
Yes of course, "resource tactics" can also be found in basketball. You agreed that resource tactics involves the shutting down of the enemy's ability to replenish his resources. "Penetration" is part of "resource tactics" inasmuch as it forces the enemy to dilute his currently available resource strength by redeploying to cover the guard. This maneuver simultaneously opens up lines of attack toward the strategic objective, the basket, and prevents the defense from redeploying resources in time to cover the weak front or flank created. That is an effective "resource tactic campaign."
Getting your opponent in foul trouble is directly related to "resource tactics" as well.

Romans were masters of tactical deployment.

[snip]

[huge snip]
Haha, I can see the foul trouble part. That's obvious enough. Having a deep bench is part of it to huh?
[snip]
niece:
Exactly, now you're getting it. Although I would attribute the decision to deploy a deep bench more to one of logistics. It doesn't become part of your tactics if the bulk of your players just sit on the bench. Unless you deploy a strategy of cycling them in and out, always keeping fresh bodies in the game against the opponent's exhausted players does it become part of your tactics. Your "resource tactics."
[snip]
You said you wouldnt discuss sexual maters with us but you did with my brother.
[snip]
niece:
What?! No I did not! I simply responded to your childish statement. Your facetious statement that actually had merit. The best insight you've yet shown albeit accidentally.

[snip]
niece:
Because Rob Pierre was a great strategist as well. Bolthole was all about Attrition Warfare. He also obviously successfully employed strategic misdirection (disinfornation) to achieve Bolthole by keeping it off the radar.
[snip]
I don't recal Haven decapatating anyone in any book. You said that was one of the Old Haven's military strategies????? I think you are wrong there.
[snip]
niece:
No no no. Decapitation is another classic military strategy. Decapitation – Achieving strategic paralysis by targeting political leadership, command and control, strategic weapons, and critical economic nodes. Remember Haven's history of assassination? Key military objectives. It was that such maneuver that prematurely forced Elizabeth into gathering the reins of power.

Yes, attrition warfare is a strategy. If you are not going to familiarize yourself with the material, this discussion is pointless.

Attrition warfare (the entire point of Bolthole) is a military strategy in which a belligerent side attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and materiel. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources. The word attrition comes from the Latin root atterere to rub against, similar to the "grinding down" of the opponent's forces in attrition warfare. (all from wiki. SEE MY ORIGINAL EMAIL PLEASE.)

[snip]
niece:
Because Detweiler should be considered as a strategist as well! Pitting the RMN, Haven and the SLN against each other is a classic strategic maneuver. It encompasses both "Bait and bleed," as well as "Bloodletting." It was all in my original email. I don't think either of you actually read that email did you? You can find it all on the internet. I sent you all URLs. He also used Denial – A strategy that seeks to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war by targeting and destroying the RMN's main shipyards.

Bait and bleed is a military strategy described by international relations theorist John J. Mearsheimer in his book on offensive realism, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. The aim is to induce rival states to engage in a protracted war of attrition against each other "so that they bleed each other white", while the baiter who encouraged the conflict remains on the sidelines, maintaining its military strength.

When it appeared to Mesa that the RMN would recover and cease operations then Mesa employed Blood letting.

Mearsheimer describes a similar strategy which he calls "Bloodletting" which does not involve incitement or baiting by a third party. When a state's rivals have gone to war independently, the aim is to encourage the conflict to continue as long as possible, in order to let the rival states weaken or "bleed" each other's military strength, while the bloodletting party stays out of the fighting.
(Both taken from Wikipedia descriptions. Again all in first email)

[snip]
And which statement was that?
[snip]
niece:
"You probably think mesan sex slaves were resources."

That facetious statement. I simply restated to your brother that it isn't a new concept. The Romans supplied prostitutes as part of the many resources which trailed behind their armies.

My niece's lists to me.

Strategists:
1. Raoul Courvosier
Raoul rounds out the top of my list because of his rigorous teaching methods. That is a strategy all unto itself. The military uses certain strategies to teach soldiers to learn to kill. Taking a life is anathema to human beings. Hopefully! The use of "Patriotism" is an often overlooked strategic teaching method to overcome the natural anathematic tendency to kill. His strategy of shaping his students into the most capable force places him at the top of my strategic list. He may be more of a Grand Strategist, as Rob Pierre and Detweiler. Since there is no chance of a Grand Strategist list I must include him here.

2. Esther McQueen
She leads the list for Haven, and had both administrative and exemplary naval skills. She could have, and almost did, found herself as Haven's Head of State. It is an interesting thought process to imagine Haven with McQueen at the helm. It is obvious to me that the war would have taken a quite different turn not so positive for the RMN in the short run for certain. It is my opinion that she was more intimate with the exigencies of war which would have translated into a final battle brought to fruition much sooner. And that may have won it for Haven as Manticore would not have had such an overwhelming decisive technological advantage.

3. Thomas Theisman
Brilliance upon brilliance. He was only edged out by McQueen because of her more rounded skill set. Theisman had administrative limitations. He could have taken on Head of State, but much to the chagrin of Haven.

4. Thomas Caparelli
Obviously, RMN's strategic backbone for decades. He employed the strategic Feint – To draw attention to another point of the battle where little or nothing is going on, ruthlessly, while operating deep in Haven's rear areas with Honor commanding eighth fleet. That was the idea of hypering in and out of systems knowing that Haven would have to honor them.

5. Honor Harrington
Originally Honor was not in my top five strategically. After further consideration and debate with my Uncle I yield a top five position to her, reluctantly. In her favor is Cerberus. Simply brilliant was her strategic resolve at Cerberus. She gave an object lesson in the classic offensive strategy Battle of annihilation – The goal of destroying the enemy military in a single planned pivotal battle. (The Short Victorious Battle)


6. Hamish Alexander. Operation Buttercup! Trevor's Star.

7. Michelle Henke
You just can't be Honor's best friend and roommate and not learn something. Her actions proved that. She has many intangibles that will fare her well.

8. Terekhov
Raw talent. Confidence in the face of adversity. Understated. He can make the big call. Probably the most underrated.

9. Theodosia Kuzak
Home System. Battle of Manticore earned her this spot.

10. Javier Giscard. Sound strategic judgement operating against stacked decks.


Tacticians:
1. Honor Harrington.
She has no equal. I could probably come close to finding an example of every major tactical maneuver in Honor's repertoire.
Exploiting prevailing weather. At Cerberus, coming out of the sun falls under this. Reconnaissance. She is a master of deception, Show the enemy what it thinks it wants to see. Booby traps-self explanatory.

2. Thomas Theisman
Brilliant tactical mind. He actually faced Honor at Blackbird and forced Honor to present her rear where he tacked. He flushed her out. I could write a chapter on Honor and Theisman tactically.

3. Esther McQueen
I gave the edge to Theisman over McQueen and it shakes my confidence. Truthfully, I'm undecided with this decision. Esther understood tactical position well. With Equal forces and technology, she would not have lost Trevor's Star. There is not a single officer either side that could have fared better than she at Trevor's Star. White Haven paid a dear price against her. Even though he eventually won Trevor's Star, he did not defeat McQueen.

4. Alice Truman
Alice is one of my favorite characters. She always made all of her actions seem effortless. She always gave the impression of a 9 to 5er. In the sense of 'All in a days work. Now for a good movie on HD.' She is also quite possibly the most underrated tactically because she has raw talent as Honor. Given the chance she could be Honor's alter ego.

5. Lester Tourville
I have kept Tourville in my top five. He belongs. Undoubtedly Giscard would have assumed Tourville's role in the final battle against Manticore but I think it would have been a mistake. I respect and admire his sense of grandeur. No matter the history, he knew he wasn't in Honor's league. But then, who is?

6. Alfredo Yu
I am happy in that he came over to our side.

7. Michelle Henke Learned much from Couvosier and Honor. Her mettle has been tested. It did not bend. She will get even better.

8. Michael Oversteegen
The resume of his battles speak for him.
9. Terekhov
His battles speak for him.

10. Abigail Hearns
Obviously one day soon, she will be a clone of Honor, if she can live through the death rides. She also has Honor's command style. She doesn't blister battle steel rather leads by example. That will have the same mesmerizing "follow you unto death" effect Honor exudes over her command.

My niece's email to me...

Uncle, you and mother said that everything cannot be broken down and analyzed as a chess match. Remember when I told you that Putin was operating from a weak position, just like in chess? Get a load of this...

The game of chess is a national pastime in Russia. And you might say that Vladimir Putin is playing a high-stakes game of geopolitical chess when it comes to Ukraine.

Western leaders are plotting how to counter Putin's latest moves with economic sanctions. So to get some insight into what might come next, we talked to an economist who knows Russia — who is also extremely good at chess.

Putin Playing From A Weak Position

Kenneth Rogoff is a world-renowned economist and professor at Harvard. He was also recognized as a chess prodigy when he was a teenager and became a chess grandmaster when he was 25.

Back in his chess-playing days — and later as an economist — Rogoff made friends across Russia and Ukraine, including Gary Kasparov, the former world chess champion who also ran against Vladimir Putin for president.

"Putin is playing from a very weak position," Rogoff says of Putin's game plan. "But he's very good at it. That doesn't mean he's not going to win. A really strong chess player doesn't need a good position to win."

Putin's position is weak because Russia's economy is weak, Rogoff says: It's too dependent on oil exports, which aren't supporting a decent standard of living for most of the country. Corruption is rampant, and most industries are not competitive with the rest of the world.

Most Russians live in near poverty by U.S. or European standards.

Russia has a large military, but an actual war with the West is extremely unlikely.

"Putin is playing from a very weak position," says Kenneth Rogoff, a world-renowned economist and professor at Harvard.
"Putin is playing from a very weak position," says Kenneth Rogoff, a world-renowned economist and professor at Harvard.

Eduardo Munoz/Reuters/Landov
"It's going to be an economic war, [as] far as we're willing to push it," Rogoff says of this contest.

Putin's Style Of Play: Good Tactics, Bad Strategy?

In chess, you also want to know your opponent's style of play. So, what kind of player is Putin?

Chess players draw a distinction between strategy and tactics, Rogoff says.

Strategy is "where you're really looking far down the road: If I take the Ukraine, what does that really do for me? Does that make me better off?" he explains.

Tactics, on the other hand, "are very short-term ways to gain pieces and positions," he says. "He's a master of the tactics. He sort of sees a few moves ahead and he's very good at it. But what is the long-term strategy? It's really hard to see."

So far Putin's move to grab Crimea has helped and hurt him. It helped by making him more popular at home in the short term, the former grandmaster says.

But longer term, taking Crimea is probably hurting, he says. Nervous investors are pulling tens of billions of dollars out of Russia. Russia now has to support Crimea, and it is a poor region. The West is imposing economic sanctions, and if they haven't been tough so far, they may get tougher.

That leads Rogoff to think that Putin has not carved out a long-term strategy.

"I just don't see it," he says. "This definitely seems like they're flailing out, looking to try to grab some pieces, grab some territory, without thinking what they're going to do with it."

Putin's Endgame: Russian Pride

So what is the ultimate goal behind his moves? Rogoff says, "I think there's no question the endgame for him, what he's looking for, is pride."

Rogoff thinks Putin is most interested in returning some greatness to Russia. He says, "I understand he has portraits of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great in his office, and I suppose he would like to have [himself] thought of in those terms — of restoring greatness to Russia."

If Putin's weakness is the economy and his endgame is pride, Rogoff suggests the West should show Putin an opening, something bigger than a few pieces in Ukraine.

"The best thing for us is if Russia starts doing well and feel that they're benefiting from the world order," he says.

What moves should the West make to push Russia in that direction? Rogoff says world leaders are still trying to figure that out.

You still think I can't reduce everything to chess dear Uncle? lol

So I lose another debate to her. What's new?

Why haven't you sent me your next chess move hmmm? You're stalllllllling. Word of advice, Resistance is Futile!

.

Amaroq wrote:No love for Tom Caparelli as a strategist? I wish we had gotten to see him in actual command out in the field but the man did basically run the entire Alliance war effort for about 20 years...

It was his maneuvering before launching Buttercup that really impressed me. Deliberately letting the Peeps have some unimportant systems to clandestinely check your new systems in actual combat situations and then not responding to all provocations just to get them right where you want them for the knockout punch...Sheer brilliance.

I wouldn't go quite so far as brilliant; at least not based on this example. (Well, he may well be a brilliant strategist; I just don't feel that particular example sufficiently demonstrated that)

Don't get me wrong, it was very well done, but more in line (IMHO) with well honed competence mixed with admitted guts; but not necessarily brilliance.

It certainly take guts to order your units not to demonstrate their full capabilities while in active combat.

And it's definitely competent strategy to hold back showing your hand until you've accumulated sufficient advantage to make your blow decisive. He did a very good job judging how long he'd have to hold back, and also what he could afford to pay for that time.



But how best to introduce new advantages to the battlefield, and also how not to, has numerous examples going back (from his perspective) multiple thousands of years which show that, unless you're desperate, showing your hand before having a decisive number only gives your enemy time to prepare and develop counters. It doesn't (to my mind) take brilliant insight, or brilliant timing, to pick and implement holding your cards close until you're ready.