Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

Icarium wrote:
I'd put Honor at the top in Tactics. Possibly the -best-, but remember, she herself says that Theisman is as good as she is, so we can't be utterly sure. Theisman says the same in reverse, so heh. Near the top would be Tourville as well, as well as Terekhov IMO. I'm not sure Hamish Alexander would top this list, he's not bad, but it's not his thing really.

I give Honor the edge because she has "the touch," and the fact that her sixth sense tingles like a spider in heat. Other than that they are closely matched in tactics.

Icarium wrote:
Conversely, for strategy, I'd definitely not put Honor near #1. She's a great tactician. But the long-term strategy thing, while she's gotten better, isn't her forte. I'd put Hamish Alexander here, as well as Esther McQueen. Quite likely Caparelli as well. Honor would be here where Hamish is in Tactics...[snip]

This is where we part company. I put Honor near the top strategically as well. I know it isn't popular, and my niece is going to balk at how high I'm placing Honor strategically as well, and at one point I would have agreed, but, as you said Honor has come a long way. So far in fact, that she surpasses everyone else. The passage that seals the deal for me is when everyone was sitting around brainstorming. Elizabeth, Caparelli, Honor, Hamish...and Honor was the only one who saw how to defeat the League. It was Honor's sole idea of how to go about doing it and she expertly and confidently delivered that analysis to Elizabeth. In that moment, the student had become the teacher. Strategically. IMHO

In fact, and my niece and I are exchanging our own personal lists 'tactical' and 'strategy', the only person ahead of Honor on my list strategically is Caparelli, because of his tons of experience moving fleets around. Remember that tactics is also the implementation of your strategy, and Honor never had a problem absorbing either. I think Honor has raw strategic acumen as opposed to everyone else's learned.

Amaroq is brilliant herself, as she touched on Caparelli as well, as an excellent strategist. I'm trying not to put my two cents in until I'm ready. I have to deal with Tierney...and again my sister after inevitably disappointing my niece. Afterall I don't want her to think I'm, just because I was once a college student as well, a jackass too.

cthia wrote:A few of them suggest that she's only pretending to be twelve as a front to refuse their advances. They met her at her last piano recital where she was dressed in a gown with makeup that made her look much older with her already grownup mannerisms. She doesn't act like your average twelve year old and her height doesn't help.

This explains a lot. If she's going to look and act like an adult, she has to expect people to assume she is one, and not be surprised when they freak out when they hear the truth. Part of what bothers them is the realization that those advances could have landed them in jail or worse, had they been accepted.

It also explains why you have expressed such ... concern over the ramifications of the situation. She can't even show them her driver's license to prove her age, because she's too young to have one.

I remember being able to walk into a bar and order a drink without being asked for ID when I was 16. I was 6'6", 250# with a full beard. Everyone thought I was 25. I could have gotten a job with the state ABC bureau busting bars for selling liquor to underage drinkers.

Khumalo has led warships into what he thought *might*
have been a battle. (At Monica, supporting Terekov.)

He is the only Tactician in the entire series, so far,
to bring his warships in from an Unexpected and
Advantageous Direction! (System North Pole.)

For that alone, Augustus Khumalo wins a place in
my personal Top Ten Tacticians!

Howard True Map-addict
PS I only read Page 1 so far. If anyone said the above
on any of the next five pages, I beg their pardon. HTM

saber964 wrote:You can't have Augustus Khumalo in this list because
he has never fought in battle and
he is more of an administrator

What I do, for lloonngg posts = Multiverse Index (brag),
is write the first several lines, Post them,
and then use Edit to add the rest of what I wish,
Posting a few more lines at a time,
and then Posting a few more,
Rinse & Repeat as often as needed.

But I have lost some HUGE posts, with really
really excellent work
when I neglect to do that.

HTM

munroburton wrote:

cthia wrote:Hutch,
I forgot. What happened to you happened to me on many occasions. I lost entire monologues to the "submit" button. I suppose most of us have, at some point. What I do now, just as an insurance is to copy the entire window before I sumbit.

My solution to this happening is to type long posts in notepad.exe. Then copy and paste into the fragile browser text box, which has consumed a few too many words for my liking over the years.

"Strategy is what is planned aboard ship before the actual fighting, or at the War room. Tactics are what happens during the heat of battle to keep your ass from catching fire." -Cthia's 12-year-old niece

Unless you're Victor Cachat who just uses tactics to finely tweak strategies on the run while bodily dragging logistics (unwillingly) along for the ride.

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

This is a very interesting discussion - one of the more interesting and thought-provoking ones that I have seen in a while.

I actually see room for THREE categories; Tactical (specific battlefield actions and reacting to the flow of a battle), Strategic (overall battle and campaign planning), and Administrative (coordinating all the bits and pieces that an overall war effort requires). You could even make a 4th for Training (the ability to pass on what you have learned to others and make them the best that they can be). Another point is that both tactics and strategy can be subdivided even further, but that would make this way too complicated.

I know that some people won't agree with this, but on my lists only those who have a) had a significant, long lasting, and DIRECT impact on the books/story, and b) have had ship command responsibilities (or greater) will be included. No disrespect intended, but Saganami, Ellen D'Orville, and even Raoul Courvosier don't meet that requirement (strictly my own parameters - don't have a cow!). I don't put Abigail Hearns, Helen Zilwicki, or several others on the list because they either haven't commanded a ship yet, or they just haven't been in the books enough.

These listings are based on the overall bodies of work by those people during the series. Again, some people who might be as good or better than those on the lists have been left off because they just haven't been seen enough yet.

Tactical Commanders (Battlefield Command and Control of single ships up through Fleet Commands):
10. Michelle Henke
9. Judah Yanakov
8. Javier Giscard
7. Michael Oversteegen
6. Hamish Alexander
5. Alfredo Yu
4. Lester Tourville
3. Aivars Terehkov
2. Thomas Theisman
1. Honor Harrington

Strategic Commanders (Battle, Campaign, and overall War planning):
10. Michael Oversteegen
9. Michelle Henke
8. Judah Yanakov
7. Javier Giscard
6. Lester Tourville
5. Ester McQueen
4. Thomas Theisman
3. Honor Harrington
2. Hamish Alexander
1. Thomas Caparelli

Administrative Leadership:
10. Lester Tourville
9. Alice Truman
8. Ester McQueen
7. Augustus Khumalo
6. Shannon Foraker
5. Honor Harrington
4. Hamish Alexander
3. Thomas Theisman
2. Sonja Hemphill
1. Thomas Caparelli


OVERALL Ranking:
10. Javier Giscard
9. Mark Sarnow
8. Michelle Henke
7. Michael Oversteegen
6. Aivars Terehkov
5. Lester Tourville
4. Thomas Caparelli
3. Hamish Alexander
2. Thomas Theisman
1. Honor Harrington

To cthia's friends in Europe: Get your heads on straight. I have trouble with idiomatic English even though I was born and grew up in the US. There is a generation gap (or 3) in the way. In the year and a half I have been a member of this forum and in all the posts I went back and read, I never once saw a post making fun of someone for their command of the English language. Unless it was something Honorverse related like the difference between the planet Talbot and the Talbott quadrant.

You may have noticed that this is an international forum, but we don't even twist the Aussies tails about the way they speak. Most (99.9%) of the people involved with this forum simply want to hear new ideas and viewpoints, especially about David's works. Simply add your country of origin to your profile when you join so we know to expect some differences in language and have some fun with the rest of us. As for the two or three individuals who get too uppity, just ignore them.

I hope to hear from you in these pages in the near future.

Sincerely,
KNick

cthia wrote:Tenshinai. I am not going to argue for my niece. Believe you me, she doesn't need help. Come to Honor Con and discuss it with her yourself. However, I recommend you don't take her lightly as you seem to be, as most. She'll leave you gasping for air. You have been forewarned.

Oh dear no i most certainly am not taking her lightly, i´m rather impressed.

I was trying to provide more distinct and clear definitions for her(as she seems to get it right in examples while the definition posted was questionable). That way anyone trying to oppose her will have less handholds to grab for so she can pound them to dust even better.

Honor Con, sorry zero chance of that. "Location: Sweden" and i´m seriously not much for travelling nowadays.

cthia wrote:Everything you said about strategy indeed happens in the War Room or aboard ship before the battle.

Everything you said about tactics indeed happens in the heat of battle.

If strategy happens just before the battle, then something went wrong and you´re trying to adjust to circumstances. Well, or you have your higher leadership with you on a ship into battle, totally NOT recommended in my opinion. Sometimes tactical and strategical command coincides, like when Hamish got a lot of independence in his command when knocking over Haven. That tends to be exceptions rather than the rule though.

Strategy rarely has anything to do with planning for BATTLES. Strategy is for planning when and where battles might, or should, happen.

There may or may not be strategy involved before a battle, but most likely it does not affect the outcome of the battle in any way(the basic exception is if the commander in a battle is trying to achieve something strategically important and looses the battle because of focusing on that, which can still end up as "loose the battle but win the war" if it´s important enough(essentially this is the idea behind suicidal attacks, if it breaks something important enough, loosing the battle can still be plenty well worth it)).

A strategic decision in a battle might be, if you have one "free shot", wether to turn left and destroy a bunch of shipyards, turn right and destroy orbital industry and support vessels or go right ahead and hit the SDs caught with their pants down.

If the enemy has no other shipyards, then destroying them would make a longterm victory much more likely, destroying industry and navy support ships would make it hard for the enemy to operate away from their bases and make resupply harder.

While destroying one of their fleets could just as well be a great victory as completely irrelevant (if they have a 9 to 1 advantage in numbers afterwards instead of 10 to 1, that´s not going to matter very much(in that case, good strategy would likely be to strike at the support infrastructure to make it hard for them to use their numerical advantage against you)).

A tactical decision is how do i form up my ships, from where and against what targets do i attack, what vectors will my ships use, where should they enter the area at and where should they exit back to hyper, when do i fire what against which target, do i roll ships in response to enemy fire and only show the wedge and if so at which moment...

Strategy tells you where to fight and why, to win the war, tactics tells you how to win a battle.

cthia wrote:She said the exact same thing you said, just a bit more...succinctly. Perhaps too succinctly?

See her at Honor Con. You're in for a rough ride.

Reminds me of an Aivars Terekhov quote, and it happens to her all of the time..."Why do grownups like you, automatically assume you are intellectually superior to a 12 year-old like her?"

Oh dear no you are seriously mistaken, i would never assume such a thing.
I remember myself at the same age after all.

Frankly i wish there were more people around that were on her level.
If anything, i´m just hoping to contribute slightly to her education.

Oh and it would be interesting what she says about me placing Hemphill on my list.

(And FYI, Caparelli only just barely got bumped off of the strategical list for me)

However, they are much too uncomfortable about their English. Surprisingly because their English is really good. It is the idioms in which most all foreigners struggle with, rightfully so. Like Ziva on NCIS, they say things like "In the middle of a rock and a hard spot." Which to me is refreshingly funny. Or "apple in his eye." Or my favorite, (hi Mara) "You're killing a dead horse."

Meh, just tell them to wing it. If they´ve read some books and watched some tv and movies in English, they can probably get by.
Most languages have idioms that are not obvious, or even, are completely insane.

Some of my favorite mangled idioms:
"You need to have a boxed meal everyday."
ORIGINAL: Square meal.
"don't be such a pig in the mud!"
ORIGINAL: Stick in the mud.
"Not telling. I'm no roast pigeon!"
ORIGINAL: Stool pigeon.
"I'm as healthy as a cello."
ORIGINAL: Fit as a fiddle. Healthy as a horse.
"Hide your cards in your bra."
ORIGINAL: Play your cards close to your chest.

Minako-isms for the win...

TheMonster wrote:Even more simply, strategy is where and when you deploy your assets; tactics is what you do after you deploy them.

That´s decent enough if you add the "why" to the when and where.

Strategy tells you where to fight and why, to win the war, tactics tells you how to win a battle.

Or, if you´re a REALLY good strategist, strategy tells you how to win the war with minimal or even completely without fighting.

Tenshinai wrote:

TheMonster wrote:Even more simply, strategy is where and when you deploy your assets; tactics is what you do after you deploy them.

That´s decent enough if you add the "why" to the when and where.

Sorry to disagree with you on this one. The "why" had better be decided before you ever start planning strategy. It defines the strategy you are going to use.