Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

Icarium wrote:Not really, no. I think people who are highly talented for tactics tend to not be as talented in long-strategy. In general, they use very different skill sets. Note 'in general'.

Like I said, she's good. But from a meta standpoint, why does Honor have to be the very best at everything?

I frankly don't think she should be for that reason alone, but then I find Michelle far more interesting to me, she has more obvious flaws than Honor and is more well-rounded as a character IMO. And if we don't have absolute proof, I tend to lean towards 'Honor is the best at enough stuff that making her the best at this too is kind of stretching it'.

I'm in your camp, actually. I do love Honor, a lot, but she's not going to make any of my "top ten favorite Honorverse characters" lists. There's no doubt she's the best tactician of her generation and very good at strategy, but there are better strategists in the novels - Esther McQueen, Hamish Alexander, Tom Theisman, Sebastian D'Orville, Theodosia Kuzak, James Webster, and Tom Caparelli, just to name a handful. I'd even throw Augustus Khumalo in there, at least for strategic and not tactical thinking - remember, he made absolutely the right call to leave only a light picket at the Lynx terminus before Monica, though nobody knew it at the time. And that's not even counting Sonja Hemphill, who basically breaks 'strategy' over her knee and rebuilds it to suit her on a regular basis.

Honor's an amazing series anchor, but that doesn't mean she's automatically the best at everything, and I like it much better that way.

Honestly, I have no idea at this point if I might be able to make HonorCon. I would LOVE to be there, but it's a long shot at this point. If things work out though, I will let you know!

When I get time, I will try to explain my choices; how and why they were placed the way they were.

cthia wrote:Thanks much, for her as well. Please tell me you will be at HonorCon. Someone has to be there to talk with her. She leaves me in the dark. I'm going to have to tie her to me to keep her away from David!

Renegade13 wrote:cthia, Please let me echo the others in saying that your niece sounds like a very interesting and precocious young lady!

runsforcelery wrote:Grand Strategy: this is where national objectives are set and where all of the resources — military, diplomatic, economic, industrial, information, etc. — are utilized. The object of grand strategy is to determine what needs to be accomplished and how best to orchestrate all of those resources to the achievement of that/those objective(s). The grand strategists are supposed to be the ones to know what they have to work with, know what needs to be done, decide who to assign to do the doing, and prioritize competing theaters and goals at the highest level.

That´s pretty much the same that you will find in official definitions.

Personally i don´t separate it out by itself unless there´s a particular reason, as while it is a different thing, a good strategist will probably do as well with grand strategy.
Of course it helps if they´re also darned good politicians and understands economy well.

runsforcelery wrote:Theater Strategy: this might also be called “Campaign Strategy.” This is where people assigned by the grand strategists to accomplish specific goals go about accomplishing them.

I would say it´s just (military) strategy and wedge it in halfway in between your categories, as otherwise you risk having no military strategist in charge of overarching military strategy, with theaterspecific strategy simply being the lowend part of (military) strategy overall.

As "grand strategy" is usually handled more or less from a more civillian side and/or perspective.

I´m overall no fan of Liddell Hart, but his definition of strategy is decent: "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy".

Though i DO ever so enjoy exploiting his ideas of indirect approach...

runsforcelery wrote:Operational: this is the level where individual commanders within a theater or campaign strategy have to accomplish the tasks they are assigned.

Downside with many "space universes", including the HH-verse is that this level is mostly lost, as space navies in most settings generally go from strategical deployment directly into tactical combat. Not much room left for operational maneuvering skill.

Often described as the point from where troops MIGHT be in(or have to be prepared for) combat to where they actually ARE in combat, and the movement during that time to optimise their position visavi the enemy.

runsforcelery wrote:As far as Honor’s abilities at the tactical, operational, strategic, and grand strategic levels (as I’ve defined them above) are concerned, I think it should be borne in mind that just as we haven’t had a chance to see Caparelli perform at the tactical level, we haven’t seen Honor have a chance to perform equally at all levels. She’s only really been admitted to the strategy/grand strategy level in the last two or three “Honor” books, and I sometimes think when someone’s performed outstandingly at a lower level in my hierarchy, people tend to consider them failures at a higher level unless they perform at least equally or even more spectacularly.

Nah, good is good, can´t compare good at tactics with good at strategy.

As i noted in my list, my impression of Honor strategically is that her intelligence shows and she´s pretty much "solid", but if i had to pick someone running my side, Theisman is my 1st choice.

Though i would consider Honor a perfect XO/primary advisor for the one running the show, as that would allow her best sides plenty of room while not getting caught up in reacting.

And that´s no disrespect as that´s where i would place myself as long as a suitable boss can be found. If for different though similar reasons.

Interesting as always to read your posts RFC.

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.