Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:**Reality Check!!**

It occurs to me that we need to remember:
There is exactly one (1!) Strategist, and one Tactician,
in the Honorverse.
His name is David Weber.

HTM

Really? That is like saying that God is the only strategist and tactician in our world. I am willing to bet that most people in the Honorverse don't even believe in David Weber. This big do you think The Church of RFC is?

drothgery wrote:Also, he won the war. Twice. This counts for a lot in my book when comparing strategists.

Bad thinking.

Yes, the ~quote about rather having a lucky general than a brilliant one has relevance, but winning does not have a direct connection with being skilled or not.

The question isn´t wether he won, the question is if he is GOOD, wether others would do better or worse in the same situation.

The one thing about Caparelli, whom I think is a pretty darned good Strategist, he had more support than most of the people we're discussing here. Pat Givens is no slouch and Hamish helped him settle into the position initially. Without Hamish's discussions with Allen and his ideas to thicken the Yeltsin deployment Grayson would have been lost to Parnell in SVW.

Later, once he really got settled in he was probably a better grand Strategist than Hamish. His sheer moral fortitude allowed him to succeed in the political nightmare that was first war Manticore. Hamish would have lost it on someone if he'd been forced to operate from that chair.

BrightSoul wrote:The one thing about Caparelli, whom I think is a pretty darned good Strategist, he had more support than most of the people we're discussing here. Pat Givens is no slouch and Hamish helped him settle into the position initially. Without Hamish's discussions with Allen and his ideas to thicken the Yeltsin deployment Grayson would have been lost to Parnell in SVW.

Later, once he really got settled in he was probably a better grand Strategist than Hamish. His sheer moral fortitude allowed him to succeed in the political nightmare that was first war Manticore. Hamish would have lost it on someone if he'd been forced to operate from that chair.

Even White Haven thought at one point he couldn't have done as well in Caparelli place.

Caparelli seems to be, at a minimum, a very competent grand strategist, and quite good at working the political and alliances side to get permission to take risks necessary to prosecute the war.

I'm still not sure his plan leading up to Buttercup qualifies as brilliant, but it was extremely well done. I'm just not sure there was room (or need) for brilliance in that particular instance. (But as always there was more than enough room for stupidity and incompetence; something we've never seen from him)

Tenshinai wrote:

drothgery wrote:Also, he won the war. Twice. This counts for a lot in my book when comparing strategists.

Bad thinking.

Yes, the ~quote about rather having a lucky general than a brilliant one has relevance, but winning does not have a direct connection with being skilled or not.

The question isn´t wether he won, the question is if he is GOOD, wether others would do better or worse in the same situation.

There's a pronounced tendency in pop military history to praise the generals on the losing side and downplay the abilities of the people who actually won by claiming their side's victory was 'inevitable', most pronounced regarding the American Civil War and WWII. I'm not a fan of this.

drothgery wrote:There's a pronounced tendency in pop military history to praise the generals on the losing side and downplay the abilities of the people who actually won by claiming their side's victory was 'inevitable', most pronounced regarding the American Civil War and WWII.

Because winning when the odds are stacked extremely in your favour is such hard work is it...

I'm not a fan of this.

That doesn´t change who is good or bad.

Tenshinai wrote:

drothgery wrote:There's a pronounced tendency in pop military history to praise the generals on the losing side and downplay the abilities of the people who actually won by claiming their side's victory was 'inevitable', most pronounced regarding the American Civil War and WWII.

Because winning when the odds are stacked extremely in your favour is such hard work is it...

I'm not a fan of this.

That doesn´t change who is good or bad.

Hmm, ACW north had the factories and population the south had the better generals. General US Grant won by attrition earning the name Butcher Grant.

Hmm, WW II Three axis power and three Allies vs. IIRC 70 allies. To quote Stalin, "Quantity has its own quality," as the USA industrial might supplied those allies where the enemy could not effect productions by bombing.

Therefore I agree with Tenshinai.

Poker

Jonathan_S wrote:

BrightSoul wrote:The one thing about Caparelli, whom I think is a pretty darned good Strategist, he had more support than most of the people we're discussing here. Pat Givens is no slouch and Hamish helped him settle into the position initially. Without Hamish's discussions with Allen and his ideas to thicken the Yeltsin deployment Grayson would have been lost to Parnell in SVW.

Later, once he really got settled in he was probably a better grand Strategist than Hamish. His sheer moral fortitude allowed him to succeed in the political nightmare that was first war Manticore. Hamish would have lost it on someone if he'd been forced to operate from that chair.

Even White Haven thought at one point he couldn't have done as well in Caparelli place.

Caparelli seems to be, at a minimum, a very competent grand strategist, and quite good at working the political and alliances side to get permission to take risks necessary to prosecute the war.

I'm still not sure his plan leading up to Buttercup qualifies as brilliant, but it was extremely well done. I'm just not sure there was room (or need) for brilliance in that particular instance. (But as always there was more than enough room for stupidity and incompetence; something we've never seen from him)

I don't think I was panning him, rather the opposite. However, he did take some time to get settled in, hence the 2 paragraphs, the first talks about the early settling in period and the second talks about his advantages over White Haven.

Tenshinai wrote:

drothgery wrote:There's a pronounced tendency in pop military history to praise the generals on the losing side and downplay the abilities of the people who actually won by claiming their side's victory was 'inevitable', most pronounced regarding the American Civil War and WWII.

Because winning when the odds are stacked extremely in your favour is such hard work is it...

No, the North and the Allies won, and then it was decided after the fact that odds were heavily stacked in their favor.

drothgery wrote:No, the North and the Allies won, and then it was decided after the fact that odds were heavily stacked in their favor.

*ROFLMAO*

I almost wrote something serious, but your little, whatever it is, doesn´t need it.

Please do continue making a fool of yourself.
I´ll probably even stop laughing before summer is over.