Question Regarding the Archer’s Avengers Series

[Ultralightweight]

First apologies if this is in the wrong place. I have a minor question regarding the Archer’s Avengers novel series.

In the series Archer Christifori is repeatedly referred to as a modern Stonewall Jackson. This has bugged me for a while because the correct comparison from the American Civil War is clearly General Sherman.

Like Sherman Christifori is operating behind enemy lines to disrupt their war making efforts. Like Sherman Christifori has to resupply with what he can take from the enemy he’s fighting.


I recognize this is a minor issue, but it’s stuck with me since reading the series. Is there something I’m missing? Does anyone else feel the same way?

[Weirdo]

The author in question is known to be a big fan of the Confederacy. Good odds that was a factor in his choices.

Forum Members are instructed to NOT use this as an opportunity to dig up the drama surrounding that author. Talking about the fictional characters and historical generals in question is okay, within reason.

[Ultralightweight]

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of that, and it’s kind of a bummer given that those are some of my favorite novels.

Please feel free to delete the thread if it’s a contentious issue.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

It makes sense if you look at it as another bad idea Victor had that cost him support among the greater populace.

"You know what will really play well in a realm of Germano-Irish-Pakistani-Scot-ANZACs? Civil war allusions! To the losing side! That's who we wanna market ourselves as, trust me."

[BrianDavion]

It makes sense if you look at it as another bad idea Victor had that cost him support among the greater populace.

"You know what will really play well in a realm of Germano-Irish-Pakistani-Scot-ANZACs? Civil war allusions! To the losing side! That's who we wanna market ourselves as, trust me."

I just look at it as an American writer referancing stuff he cares about, no reason to look any further then that.
It's a common issue with writing in general, you also see a LOT of WW2 referances, more then is proably reasonable, for the same reason.

That said I thibnk if you want an IC answer, Christofi simply had a hard on for an obscure historical topic

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

I just look at it as an American writer referancing stuff he cares about, no reason to look any further then that.
It's a common issue with writing in general, you also see a LOT of WW2 referances, more then is proably reasonable, for the same reason.

That said I thibnk if you want an IC answer, Christofi simply had a hard on for an obscure historical topic

I don't think it was Archer making the comparison, I'm pretty sure Victor does.

[BrianDavion]

I don't think it was Archer making the comparison, I'm pretty sure Victor does.

yeah as I said at the end of the day the real reason is because Blaine Lee Pardoe had a serious hard on for the ACW. the entire FCCW suffered from that problem though, you saw referances to the american revolution in Loren's books (Pariots and Tyrants was a referance to Jefferson's quote that "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and Tyrants") even though the fedcom civil war was a Dynastic war of sucession more so then anything else which related, not at all, to the revolutionary war, OR the ACW.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

It's frustrating; Victor probably would have had a very easy time wrapping himself in the narrative of Robert Steiner, and instead writers opt for things that drag you out of the story rather than remind you this is a world with its own history. Katherine changing her name to Katrina is the same thing, she was already named after the founder of the Steiner dynasty, namesake of the highest award a Lyran pilot can get, but somehow she wants to be Katrina because that's a comparison that's more familiar to the reader.

[BrianDavion]

It's frustrating; Victor probably would have had a very easy time wrapping himself in the narrative of Robert Steiner, and instead writers opt for things that drag you out of the story rather than remind you this is a world with its own history. Katherine changing her name to Katrina is the same thing, she was already named after the founder of the Steiner dynasty, namesake of the highest award a Lyran pilot can get, but somehow she wants to be Katrina because that's a comparison that's more familiar to the reader.

I've said this before multiple times but the entire FedCom Civil war can be summed up as "that time when no one at FASA read their source material"

[Orwell84]

The FCCW era is my least favourite of all BT eras, but I never gave much thought as to why. I think you've all just illuminated why for me.

It's frustrating; Victor probably would have had a very easy time wrapping himself in the narrative of Robert Steiner, and instead writers opt for things that drag you out of the story rather than remind you this is a world with its own history. Katherine changing her name to Katrina is the same thing, she was already named after the founder of the Steiner dynasty, namesake of the highest award a Lyran pilot can get, but somehow she wants to be Katrina because that's a comparison that's more familiar to the reader.

I've said this before multiple times but the entire FedCom Civil war can be summed up as "that time when no one at FASA read their source material"

Even at the time I felt the real-life history references - as opposed to in-universe ones - were a bit too numerous. But this is a much bigger reason why it just fell flat with me.

That said, I did like the Archer's Avengers series when I read them. Partly because we got to see Loyalists like Blucher and Adam Steiner who weren't bad guy caricatures but following Katherine for understandable reasons.

[BrianDavion]

Yeah like the ONLY referance to the fedsuns laws of sucession was a side bar in the FCCW sidebar (written well after the novels debuted and I and several other fedsuns fans had very vocally complained about things like that being ignored) that basicly said "lol no one cared!"

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

The FCCW era is my least favourite of all BT eras, but I never gave much thought as to why. I think you've all just illuminated why for me.

Even at the time I felt the real-life history references - as opposed to in-universe ones - were a bit too numerous. But this is a much bigger reason why it just fell flat with me.

That said, I did like the Archer's Avengers series when I read them. Partly because we got to see Loyalists like Blucher and Adam Steiner who weren't bad guy caricatures but following Katherine for understandable reasons.

Yeah, that scene where Adam asks Victor to see his proof and Vic's like "no" it really shores up why so many people don't want to follow the guy. Even in FM:U, Caesar Steiner isn't sure that Victor's own brother has seen the evidence that Katherine killed Melissa.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I don't think it was Archer making the comparison, I'm pretty sure Victor does.

It was actually the Lyran media that was listed as having first made the comparison. Which only makes it more ridiculous.

[Marveryn]

It was actually the Lyran media that was listed as having first made the comparison. Which only makes it more ridiculous.

one thing modern and future writers should consider.  while the reader could look up said general but in reality war fought a 1000 years prior would not really be mention all that much in the future and instead they would mention more recent general.  As for the sherman comparison yeah he a bit closer to what archer was force to do and would had suited him better. 

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Let's just leave it that you would never hear that particular author say something positive about General Sherman without discussing the why.

[Arkansas Warrior]

First apologies if this is in the wrong place. I have a minor question regarding the Archer’s Avengers novel series.

In the series Archer Christifori is repeatedly referred to as a modern Stonewall Jackson. This has bugged me for a while because the correct comparison from the American Civil War is clearly General Sherman.

Like Sherman Christifori is operating behind enemy lines to disrupt their war making efforts. Like Sherman Christifori has to resupply with what he can take from the enemy he’s fighting.


I recognize this is a minor issue, but it’s stuck with me since reading the series. Is there something I’m missing? Does anyone else feel the same way?

I think the allusion is more to Jackson’s Valley Campaign, where he was operating independently, marched a godawful number of miles in way too few days (earning his men the nickname “foot cavalry”) and defeated at least three separate Union forces, each of which was at least as large as his own. 

[BrianDavion]

one thing modern and future writers should consider.  while the reader could look up said general but in reality war fought a 1000 years prior would not really be mention all that much in the future and instead they would mention more recent general.  As for the sherman comparison yeah he a bit closer to what archer was force to do and would had suited him better.

agreed. by the 31st century World war 2 should be "obscure ancient history" let alone the ACW. I think for some American's it's easy to think the ACW is, on a global level, more important then it is. As a Canadian literally all I recall hearing of the ACW in my high school history class was "When Canada came together in 1867, the US civil war was being fought, so the fathers of confederation looked at some of what they saw as the consisutional flaws of the USA when theyd drafted Canada's"

I imagine not even THAT much is taught in europe.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

On top of that, Battletech lacks any factions that are culturally tied to the US.  So it makes about as much sense for a Battletech newspaper to make reference to the American Civil War as it would for an American newspaper to compare a modern military officer to a general from the Chinese Three Kingdoms era.

[Liam's Ghost]

To be generous, there might just be a nation agnostic list of famous generals that are discussed in inner sphere military academies, and Stonewall Jackson could just be on that list.

For example, maybe the SLDF put together a list of past generals and famous engagements who their officer candidates are expected to study, and the Great Houses just kept that in their curriculum.

So Victor might know the reference to Stonewall Jackson and his battles and whatever lessons his instructors expected him to learn from them, without even knowing any of the greater historical context.

(Or maybe he summered on the Commonwealth world of Dixie)

[Marveryn]

To be generous, there might just be a nation agnostic list of famous generals that are discussed in inner sphere military academies, and Stonewall Jackson could just be on that list.

For example, maybe the SLDF put together a list of past generals and famous engagements who their officer candidates are expected to study, and the Great Houses just kept that in their curriculum.

So Victor might know the reference to Stonewall Jackson and his battles and whatever lessons his instructors expected him to learn from them, without even knowing any of the greater historical context.

(Or maybe he summered on the Commonwealth world of Dixie)

it would be more interesting if writer started to use more obscure generals and admirals in their novels just to make the reader research the guy.  One thing we do know we do keep track of good general which is why the battle of alexander the great are still recall today.  Of course giving where we are located most of the general we are more familiar have a western bias.  If we live in an asian country more of the older local general would be well known.
There some real special one that are not mention in western book cause they are not often taught in our schools. 

[nerd]

I dunno, I just treat allusions as combination of the author's interests peaking through, hence the piping in Roar of Honor, or something for us to pick up as readers, but maybe something else in universe.

But that's me trying to keep myself from reading too deeply into books that are written to be entertaining.