Ned Stark: Commander? Politician? Neither? Both?

[juleska]

This discussion came up on the GRRM and Women Characters thread, but I didn't wish to derail that thread from its intended topic any further than we already had, so I'm starting a new thread for it....if it please my lords.

To C of K, in response to your post here: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/536392-grrm-and-women-characters-6.html#post1609544

I'm presently about 3/4 the way through a re-read of AGOT and have discovered some lost affection for our dear Ned. Over the remainder of the books I began to think less of him, ruminating on all the problems he caused because of his damnable stubborn "honor" and his seemingly black-and-white, good-and-bad view of the world, and the motivations of the people that populated it. However, on revisiting Ned's story in AGOT I am surprised to reacquaint myself with the realization of what a wonderful father and husband he was, and what a good man in general, and thanks to the discussion referenced above, a formidable lord and warrior.

I'll focus on the last part for this discussion.

I must again disagree with C of K's assertion that Ned has "lost his wits" with age. His decisions throughout AGOT are largely tactical in nature, and (for the most part) solid ones at that. It's when his tactical decisions must be made in the context of the politics of King's Landing that it all goes sideways. There is, however, ample evidence that his skill as a battle commander has never dulled.

Two particularly strong examples:

When Ned goes to Cat on the day of his arrival in King's Landing and first hears of her accusations about the knife sent for Bran belonging to the Lannisters, his first response is to tell her this:

"Once you are home, send word to Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover under my seal. They are to raise a hundred bowmen each and fortify Moat Cailin. Two hundred determined archers can hold the Neck against an army. Instruct Lord Manderly that he is to strengthen and repair all his defenses at White Harbor, and see that they are well manned. And from this day on, I want a careful watch kept over Theon Greyjoy. If there is a war, we shall have sore need of his father's fleet."

"War?" The fear was plain on Catelyn's face.

"It will not come to that," Ned promised her, praying it was true. "The Lannisters are merciless in the face of weakness, as Aerys Targaryen learned to his sorrow, but they would not dare attack the north without all the power of the realm behind them, and that they shall not have."

This tells me he still knows how to anticipate the moves of his enemies, and position his assets to frustrate the enemy before they can act.

==========

When Robert is out hunting and about to meet his maker, Eddard is holding court in his stead, and hears of The Mountain savaging the countryside, the accusation that he does so with Lord Tywin's bidding, and the moves his brother-in-law Edmure has taken to try and protect his people. Here's an excerpt:

At the council table below, Petyr Baelish lost interest in his quill and leaned forward. "Ser Marq, Ser Karyl, Ser Raymun--perhaps I might ask you a question? These holdfasts were under your protection. Where were you when all this slaughtering and burning was going on?"

Ser Karyl Vance answered. "I was attending my lord father in the pass below the Golden Tooth, as was Ser Marq. When the word of these outrages reached Ser Edmure Tully, he sent word that we should take a small force of men to find what survivors we could and bring them to the king."

Ser Raymun Darry spoke up. "Ser Edmure had summoned me to Riverrun with all my strength. I was camped across the river from his walls awaiting his commands, when the word reached me. By the time I could return to my own lands, Clegane and his vermin were back across the Red Fork, riding for Lannister's hills."

Littlefinger stroked the point of his beared thoughtfully. "And if they come again, ser?"

"If they come again, we'll use their blood to water the fields they burnt," Ser Marq Piper decleared hotly.

"Ser Edmure has sent men to every village and holdfast within a day's ride of the border," Ser Karyl explained. "The next raider will not have such an easy time of it."

And that may be precisely what Lord Tywin wants, Ned thought to himself, to bleed off strength from Riverrun, goad the boy into scattering his swords. His wife's brother was young, and more gallant than wise. He would try to hold every inch of his soil, to defend every man, woman and child who named him lord, and Tywin Lannister was shrewd enough to know that.

"If your fields and holdfasts are safe from harm," Lord Petyr was saying, "what then do you ask of the throne?"

"The lords of the Trident to keep the king's peace," Ser Raymun Darry said. "The Lannisters have broken it. Wee ask leave to answer them, steel for steel. We ask justice for teh smallfolk of Sherrer and Wendish Town and the Mummer's Ford."

"Edmure agrees, we must pay Gregor Clegane back his bloody coin," Ser Marq declared, "but old Lord Hoster commanded us to come here and beg the king's leave before we strike."

Thank the gods for old Lord Hoster, then. Tywin Lannister was as much fox as lion. If indeed he'd sent Ser Gregor to burn and pillage--and Ned did not doubt that he had--he'd taken care to see that he rode under the cover of night, without banners, in the guise of a common brigand. Should Riverrun strike back, Cersei and her father would insist that it had been the Tullys who broke the king's peace, not the Lannisters. Gods only knew what Robert would believe.

He can see Tywin's chess pieces moving, and understand the tactical nature of this seemingly random slaughter, and further that his brother-in-law does not get that. This demonstrates clearly that he understands the powers at play on the battlefield that is forming, but not the powers at play in the court.

With respect to fighting an enemy in the more formal structure of a medieval battlefield, I believe Ned's wits were as strong the day he died as they were the day he helped Robert win the throne. I also don't think it's that he's incapable of thinking politically (there are plenty of instances and exchanges throughout the first book showing he has given thought to those things and sometimes acts correctly). I think it's that he so loathes the nature of the politics that he deliberately acts against them, as if to force the players to bend to the more honorable rules of the battlefield.

 

[Tywin]

I think it's that he so loathes the nature of the politics that he deliberately acts against them, as if to force the players to bend to the more honorable rules of the battlefield.

I think you hit right at the heart of it with your last sentence. I think that like most classic tragedies, what gets our hero into trouble in the end is hubris.

Taken from this angle, it was Ned's overconfidence in his (ample) abilities and power that led to his downfall. He was so sure of his ability that he gave Cersei warning of what he would do in order to give her fair warning to run and hide her children. I don't think it was stupidity, just overconfidence.

 

[C Of K]

Great points, all. Ned was overconfident, but foolishly so. While I mean what I said about Ned "losing his wits with age" I hope it did not come across in a way that people would believe that I meant Ned had become the intellectual equivalent of Hodor.

What I meant by saying that was, that while playing the game of thrones, he was using checkers pieces, while everyone else was playing with chess pieces, and he never seemed to realize it. In politics, you don't have to be the shrewdest player in order to realize that others are playing at a much higher level than you are. That applies in war, sports, or any competition-based activity. You don't have to be a politician to realize, that under those circumstances, you will lose. I'm not faulting Ned for losing at the game of thrones. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose. I'm faulting Ned's incompetence in never realizing that, hey, I have no friends here, and I'm not giving anyone a reason to do what I want them to do. Ever since he accepted Robert's offer to be Hand of the King, Ned kept acting like Robert would support him, and that would be enough (If Robert had that kind of influence, he wouldn't need Ned's help at all. Robert needed Ned, because Robert had next to no influence) even though it became clear on the King's Road that Robert would not support Ned.

In such a situation, there aren't many choices a competent person can make. Any competent person, whether politically minded or not, would either begin making arrangements to support himself, or head back to Winterfell. (I should clarify the statement above) By supporting himself, I don't mean bringing an army with him to King's Landing. I mean he should have attempted to develop a system by which he could get things done. Varyse, Littlefinger, Cersei, and almost every other player had a network of people they could trust to accomplish their goals. At Winterfell, Ned had a network of people through which he was able to rule the North. When he finally arrived at King's Landing, Ned was forced to rely on his enemies to carry out his wishes, and expected the absentee king to make up for his lack of influence. Literally, Ned was like a child that can't take care of himself, unfortunately, he was responsible for real children and servants who expected him to protect them. Ned knew he was in a dangerous situation in King's Landing. He told Arya as much. So, while it's great that he made arrangements to protect the North, and to protect the Riverlands, it was totally dimwitted that he made none to protect himself, and those he was responsible for. It was dimwitted for him to rely on his enemies to carry out his wishes for him. Really, who does that? Forget the fact that he showed Cersei all his moves in advance. Trusting Varyse, Robert, Pycelle, and Littlefinger, was worse. When he left Winterfell, he stopped acting like a ruler, because he couldn't support himself, or anything he attempted to accomplish. I personally can't see any excuse for that.

 

[xLORDSNOWx]

My opinions of Ned Stark has gone back and forth many times from re-reads and from reading others opinions of him. I think the ultimate thing that always sticks out to me is that he went against Robert too many times in front of an audience of leeches and opportunists.

Ned and Roberts public relationship always brings me to "The Godfather", when Vito tells Sonny to never go against the family in front of anyone outside of the family. Ned and Robert were like brothers, and the fact that he disagreed with Robert publicly with blunt words, kind of undermined the bond that others knew they had. This indirectly gave both of their enemies all of the courage needed to be brave enough to carry out any plan against one or the other, and ultimately both. Yeah, it's possible that things may have happened anyway, but i think if Robert and Ned were on the same page at least in the eyes of the idiots, schemers, and yes men they may have had a better chance together.

*Ned did what was right by the "Laws of the Realm" so to speak. However, as we all know in our respective countries that the "Constitution" that we are governed under doesnt always apply to those in higher office in which they were. Laws may be broken and bent more and more the higher up you go. However, the small folk "un-royalty" throughout Westeros have to follow the "Constitution" to the tee!

*Ned did or at least told people he fathered a *******. I am forced to believe that as honorable Ned was to the end, it makes it hard to believe that he did so, which would then lead me to believe Jon isn't "his" child but still of "his" blood. He did what was right "wrong", by telling everyone that he commited treason which cost him his head. Joffrey may have done him a favor as i can't believe Ned would have been able to live with the grief of lying in sights of Gods and Men at the sept. Just by his demeanor and seriousness i can imagine it was alomost too much to handle lying or not telling the whole truth about Jon all this time.

 

[Tywin]

One of the major themes that GRRM plays with is the nature of power, and I think that we're not giving Ned enough credit here because in the story his form of power did not work out. We say above that he was playing the game of thrones with checkers while everyone else was playing with chess pieces, but I would contend that he was playing with checkers for the sake of appearances while he held a shotgun in his lap. He was above the pettiness of "summer politics" because he knew the truth that when the power of violent men is unleashed it can wash everything away before it.

I think the TV show did a pretty good job of drawing out some of that theme where Ned would reply to comments about how important political subtleties are with questions like "Then how is Robert Baratheon King?", or when Littlefinger commented to Cersei that "Knowledge is power" and she demonstrated how the four guards around her could easily kill him at the snap of her fingers and replied "Power is power."

The backbiting "summer politics" of King's Landing may have bested Ned's brute power, but only because of his own hubris. Although we like to think about his successor Tyrion as a schemer, remember that he came to King's Landing with a sizeable force and established a base of physical security (and physical threat) prior to all his more devious scheming.

 

[Eulalia]

Yes. Force, or at least leadership and status is still needed.

I think Ned was softened by his family experiences and perhaps it made him a better man, and the right man for the summer, actually, or for Winterfell, but he did underestimate Cersei in spite of some experiences, and lost the pulse of what was going and "how many shotguns were actually in his lap".

Cersei was actually left with a very poor proposition. Ned was going to expose her incest, she was going to lose her power and the inheritance of her children, and who would really believe that she could have even basic safety in a world with Robert in it, under those conditions. That Ned had learned to regret what happened to Rhaenys and Elia, and feared for Jon, did not take into account Cersei's ruthlessness, may have overestimated her yin side, and could not match her yang side, in bad times. Tipping her off was a fatal, but ethical, mistake, as it turned out.

Ned's way might have worked. Robert might not have died, in his boar hunting under the influence incident, even though Cersei improved the odds. He might not have died then at a crucial time. He might have lived long enough for Ned to tell him about Cersei, and he might have named Stannis as heir. The gold cloaks might have stayed loyal. Joffrey might not have ordered his death. (and yes, Joffrey needed violent decisions and violent help from Ser Illyn to retain power)

So it was a whole constellation of events, some of them chance events that did him in. However, threatening Cersei--hard to see how that works out well.

It's true that Robert did not back him properly, as in the events with Sansa, Arya and Lady. Cersei made it a matter of protecting Robert's heir, Sansa and Joffrey lied and Cersei won that round almost completely. The power stuggle was apparent immediately.

So as far as being a commander, Ned has a proven history. (But luck helped as with Jon Connington's decisions). As a polititian, he lost his advantages, and was not ruthless enough to win with the stakes as high as they were, and given some chance events.

 

[Stribog]

First of all, I want to thank juleska for starting this thread. It is my belief that Ned's actions in the first book, set stage for all that followed.

IMO Ned was excellent in politics, and far from dimwitted klutz in The Game some believe him to be.

He understood very well what it meant to go to King's Landing, as he did it involuntary. But what choice did he really had? Refuse demand from his King? Offend longtime friend turning him down? No, he really had little choice, and this is just first of forced decisions that ended in his defeat.

Already on the way to King's Landing, Ned realized that his friend is no longer what he once was, but again, what choice did he had? He already accepted position, and turning back from that would mean trouble for the North.

Once in King's Landing, he was faced with impossible decisions and choices. Robert and his authority was the only thing he could use (and from which his own position of second only to the King derived). He had no time to build his own information network, so he used the ones already functioning, with quick realization that Cersei's is against him, he turned to Littlefinger and Varys. And he certainly did NOT trust them, but he had no means of validating info gained from them, so he had to act based on uncertain info.

As Tywin observes, Ned was never diplomatic in the sense that he could sweet talk someone into doing something, but he certainly used other means to do the job.

Before the end, he accomplished quite a bit. Revealed plot behind Jon Aryn's death, led the country (and quite competently) instead of Robert, predicted trouble that loomed ahead and tried to prepare his North for it.

His first mistake was warning Cersei. Reasons for it could be debated, but bottom line is that only served to warn and prepare her for deciding blow against him.

It is not true that he did not try to protect his household, as he prepared them for fast retreat to North. There is no way he could predict his own daughter would warn the Queen, giving her even more advantage in the game. One might say that destiny (GRRM) gave Ned's opponents unfair advantage in the Game, revealing his moves in advance.

His pride played main role in refusing Renly's help, and deciding not to heed his advice. And he did not put his trust in Littlefinger, it was gamble which he loosed. If he managed to sway Golden Cloaks in the deciding moment to his side, he would have won. But, again destiny (GRRM), decided to play against him.

Reason for slaughter of his household was always mystery to me, as it served only to deepen animosity between Lannisters and Starks, and bring disgust of common folk towards such act of quite meaningless violence.

Even than Ned himself was pretty safe. As it was custom in middle ages, lord's and noblemen were taken for ransom whenever possible, not killed. And again destiny (GRRM) decided to play one last trick on Ned in the last moment. Jofrey decided to decapitate him, although he admitted his treason, and all of other players were against it (Cersei, Littlefinger, Varys).

So, at the end, one might say that main role in Ned loosing the Game, and his life, was not his inability to play it, flaw in his character (pride, overconfidence... ), but destiny (GRRM), which obviously decided for Ned to die, no matter how good politician, commander or whatever he is...

 

[Eulalia]

Indeed, Stribog!

Ned does not die--no plot development.

It is more about what is GRRM trying to show. Decent men have dilemmas? Power corrupts?

There are so many points in history where one little change could have altered the whole thing. Anne Boleyn has a boy instead of a girl. Florida counts more hanging chads. Oswald misses President Kennedy. The Hitler assassin puts the bomb in the briefcase, in a better spot. Neds mistakes show you this. Actually all the Starks, except Rickon, make mistakes that contribute to the family downfall. The Lannisters teke the openings.

 

[C Of K]

He understood very well what it meant to go to King's Landing, as he did it involuntary. But what choice did he really had? Refuse demand from his King? Offend longtime friend turning him down? No, he really had little choice, and this is just first of forced decisions that ended in his defeat.

I disagree that Ned had little choice. Ned was not above offending Robert. He'd done it before. Upon reading up to a certain point, it does seem as though Ned may not have had much choice, but that all goes out the window after Robert decides to assassinate Daenerys. Ned publicly offended Robert and chose to leave his position as Hand of the King then. It was a choice that would have been much easier had he decided never to take the job. Ned could be seen as something of a glutton for punishment, though.

Already on the way to King's Landing, Ned realized that his friend is no longer what he once was, but again, what choice did he had? He already accepted position, and turning back from that would mean trouble for the North.

I would also point out that in many ways, Robert was exactly who he used to be. They had argued over killing Targaryen children years before Game of Thrones takes place, during the final days of Robert's Rebellion. Low and behold, that very same issue reemerges as the catalyst behind Ned's decision to leave his position as Hand of the King.

Once in King's Landing, he was faced with impossible decisions and choices. Robert and his authority was the only thing he could use (and from which his own position of second only to the King derived). He had no time to build his own information network, so he used the ones already functioning, with quick realization that Cersei's is against him, he turned to Littlefinger and Varys. And he certainly did NOT trust them, but he had no means of validating info gained from them, so he had to act based on uncertain info.

Again, I disagree. Perhaps he couldn't set up a system that worked as efficiently as those of his political rivals, but he could have done something so that he didn't need to rely on them so heavily. I have noted that, as Hand, whether Tyrion was dealing with his political rivals, or the imminent attack of Stannis' fleet, he wasted no time, and prepared for what was to come. Tyrion was no trained warrior, and there's no indication that he'd spent much of his life preparing to be a politician. To top it all off, there were plenty of people who wanted to see Tyrion ousted from his station as Hand, just as with Ned, and yet Tyrion very rarely acted dishonorably as a ruler. (There were perhaps a few instances worth questioning)

Ned was in King's Landing for quite some time. As I stated before, Robert had next to no political influence outside of just being king. Unfortunately for them, just being king isn't enough. I think in the last episode of the series, Ser Jorah makes a pretty valid point. He said something like, "No one survives alone. No one." I don't have the exact phrasing, but he was talking to Daenerys. Jorah is no more a politician than Ned is, but Jorah realizes that even kings and queens need people they can trust to help them retain their positions. If Robert was not going to build his circle of influence, it was up to Eddard to do so. Not doing so, and still trying to make the rest of the realm move in the direction that they want it to, would probably be the figurative equivalent of trying to handle a bull by the reins. Eventually they will be thrown off.

His first mistake was warning Cersei. Reasons for it could be debated, but bottom line is that only served to warn and prepare her for deciding blow against him.

I always saw his first mistake as trusting Littlefinger. Long before Ned found out about the Lannister incest, Littlefinger led Ned and Cat to believe that Tyrion had been the one behind the attempt on Bran's life. Their willingness to believe this lie was one of the sparks that started the war of the five kings. It was also the first moment of trust that established Ned's false sense of security in Littlefinger as an ally, which led Ned to send him to hire the gold cloaks. It's easy to ask, "Well, why shouldn't they have believed Littlefinger?" but I think it's easier to ask, "Why should they have believed him?" The claims that Littlefinger made were very convenient. Tyrion was the only child of Tywin who wasn't in King's Landing at the time. Tyrion was perhaps the least likely child of Tywin to harm Littlefinger for spreading such an accusation. Lastly, Tyrion was perhaps the most detested child of Tywin. But most of all, Littlefinger was offering up this information free of any kind of charge. There was absolutely no incentive for him to be truthful, and no basis upon which to believe him.

It is not true that he did not try to protect his household, as he prepared them for fast retreat to North. There is no way he could predict his own daughter would warn the Queen, giving her even more advantage in the game. One might say that destiny (GRRM) gave Ned's opponents unfair advantage in the Game, revealing his moves in advance.

By the time Ned had decided to leave King's Landing, he had given up his position as Hand of the King. He no longer had the authority to do anything about Jon Aryn's death. Not unless he wanted to retake his position, and support Robert's decision to assassinate Daenarys. Besides, Ned had already seen one dark-haired ******* with a yellow haired mother, and the fact that Littlefinger was leading him to this new clue, should have been proof enough that Littlefinger had all the answers Eddard needed. There was very little reason for Eddard to delay his journey North, but he did, and the rest is history.

His pride played main role in refusing Renly's help, and deciding not to heed his advice. And he did not put his trust in Littlefinger, it was gamble which he loosed. If he managed to sway Golden Cloaks in the deciding moment to his side, he would have won. But, again destiny (GRRM), decided to play against him.

He gambled with the lives of everyone who came south with him, then, and the stability of the Kingdoms. It's unwise to gamble that you have someone's support when you give them no reason to support you. He may not have completely trusted Littlefinger, but it wasn't an eyes-shut gamble. I think Eddard wholeheartedly believed the gold cloaks we're his to command when he approached the iron throne that day.

Reason for slaughter of his household was always mystery to me, as it served only to deepen animosity between Lannisters and Starks, and bring disgust of common folk towards such act of quite meaningless violence.

Even than Ned himself was pretty safe. As it was custom in middle ages, lord's and noblemen were taken for ransom whenever possible, not killed. And again destiny (GRRM) decided to play one last trick on Ned in the last moment. Jofrey decided to decapitate him, although he admitted his treason, and all of other players were against it (Cersei, Littlefinger, Varys).

So, at the end, one might say that main role in Ned loosing the Game, and his life, was not his inability to play it, flaw in his character (pride, overconfidence... ), but destiny (GRRM), which obviously decided for Ned to die, no matter how good politician, commander or whatever he is...

In a dramatic sense, it's easy to say that Eddard was too honorable to survive the situation that he was in. It's easy to say that plenty of military strategists would drown in political office. It's easiest, I think, to say that the author decided that Ned had to die. But, when I'm reading a book, I like to suspend my belief that I'm actually reading a book. I like to believe in the reasons why things happen on the page based on a sequence of continuous and interconnected events, not according to the whim of an author who decides that certain characters will live and die.

If I'm to imagine that the events on the page are really happening, then I see Eddard as a man who lost the game of thrones, not just because he was honorable, but because he never did anything to support his right to claim and maintain the power he was given. he expected his word to be law, despite the fact that he had no support. It doesn't take a genius to understand that anything that is raised without support will fall. History is full of people who made horrible, life threatening, decisions. Of course, not all of them were incompetent at completing the task ahead of them, but a great many of them were. Eddard functioned as a man perfectly well, but as Hand of the King, he was sorely lacking. Sorely sorely lacking.

 

[Stribog]

I disagree that Ned had little choice. Ned was not above offending Robert. He'd done it before. Upon reading up to a certain point, it does seem as though Ned may not have had much choice, but that all goes out the window after Robert decides to assassinate Daenerys. Ned publicly offended Robert and chose to leave his position as Hand of the King then. It was a choice that would have been much easier had he decided never to take the job. Ned could be seen as something of a glutton for punishment, though.

Well, we disagree in terms of offending someone, Ned never called Robert "fat pig of a King", but disagreed with some of his decisions and actions, that can hardly be seen as insult, even in middle ages. And when disagreeing to kill Dany he had moral background, he was against unjust murder and gave up his position as a way of protest. On what ground could he refuse position of the Hand?"Sorry I'm too busy here North"? "Naaah, I don't feel like it"? And he would gladly refused, but he listened to the advice of two people he highly regarded, and there is nothing more natural than that.

I would also point out that in many ways, Robert was exactly who he used to be. They had argued over killing Targaryen children years before Game of Thrones takes place, during the final days of Robert's Rebellion. Low and behold, that very same issue reemerges as the catalyst behind Ned's decision to leave his position as Hand of the King.

It was not only dispute between them, and nobody says Ned thought Robert to be perfect, far from it. But last time they met, Robert was battle hardened warrior, commander and with strongest claim to the throne, which Ned supported not from being too law abiding, but because that supported his own claim to the realm (the North). But when they met in Winterfell, and even more so on the road to King's Landing, Ned realized that Robert lost most of his willpower, was emerged in pleasing himself instead ruling the kingdom, and largely influenced by much stronger willed Cersei. He did not know this before he decided to accept the position, but what friend he would be if he deserted Robert because of it?

Again, I disagree. Perhaps he couldn't set up a system that worked as efficiently as those of his political rivals, but he could have done something so that he didn't need to rely on them so heavily. I have noted that, as Hand, whether Tyrion was dealing with his political rivals, or the imminent attack of Stannis' fleet, he wasted no time, and prepared for what was to come. Tyrion was no trained warrior, and there's no indication that he'd spent much of his life preparing to be a politician. To top it all off, there were plenty of people who wanted to see Tyrion ousted from his station as Hand, just as with Ned, and yet Tyrion very rarely acted dishonorably as a ruler. (There were perhaps a few instances worth questioning)

IMO Ned never intended to remain in King's Landing, and there was no need to build some system if he did not intend to remain there and maintain it. Also it is not fair to compare Ned and Tyrion. Ned came in King's Landing largely unaware what is awaiting him, while Tyrion came to "sort things out", knowing he can not trust anybody, and with destiny by his side.

Ned was in King's Landing for quite some time. As I stated before, Robert had next to no political influence outside of just being king. Unfortunately for them, just being king isn't enough. I think in the last episode of the series, Ser Jorah makes a pretty valid point. He said something like, "No one survives alone. No one." I don't have the exact phrasing, but he was talking to Daenerys. Jorah is no more a politician than Ned is, but Jorah realizes that even kings and queens need people they can trust to help them retain their positions. If Robert was not going to build his circle of influence, it was up to Eddard to do so. Not doing so, and still trying to make the rest of the realm move in the direction that they want it to, would probably be the figurative equivalent of trying to handle a bull by the reins. Eventually they will be thrown off.

You (as many other) make common mistake to consider capital of the country only center of power. Ned had house Stark, and all of North behind him, as did Robert with house Baratheon. If they didn't feel like they had to build some strong power base in this particular city, is because they already had one. Their influence was great, and before start of events in which destiny heavily favorized their opponents, Cersei and co. looked more like rats in a trap than wining party.

I always saw his first mistake as trusting Littlefinger. Long before Ned found out about the Lannister incest, Littlefinger led Ned and Cat to believe that Tyrion had been the one behind the attempt on Bran's life. Their willingness to believe this lie was one of the sparks that started the war of the five kings. It was also the first moment of trust that established Ned's false sense of security in Littlefinger as an ally, which led Ned to send him to hire the gold cloaks. It's easy to ask, "Well, why shouldn't they have believed Littlefinger?" but I think it's easier to ask, "Why should they have believed him?" The claims that Littlefinger made were very convenient. Tyrion was the only child of Tywin who wasn't in King's Landing at the time. Tyrion was perhaps the least likely child of Tywin to harm Littlefinger for spreading such an accusation. Lastly, Tyrion was perhaps the most detested child of Tywin. But most of all, Littlefinger was offering up this information free of any kind of charge. There was absolutely no incentive for him to be truthful, and no basis upon which to believe him.

Well, actually, IMO Ned never trusted Littlefinger. But he trusted Cat, which trusted Littlefinger. And she did it more for the "past" they had together than lies about Tyrion being the one behind attempt on Bran. And he really had little choice in who to send to hire gold cloaks. Let's say it like this - who would you send?

By the time Ned had decided to leave King's Landing, he had given up his position as Hand of the King. He no longer had the authority to do anything about Jon Aryn's death. Not unless he wanted to retake his position, and support Robert's decision to assassinate Daenarys. Besides, Ned had already seen one dark-haired ******* with a yellow haired mother, and the fact that Littlefinger was leading him to this new clue, should have been proof enough that Littlefinger had all the answers Eddard needed. There was very little reason for Eddard to delay his journey North, but he did, and the rest is history.

This is plainly unfair. It's easy to say "he should have done it"when you have much broader perspective. At that time, he saw no direct threat to him or his household, and was in the middle of investigation that was one of the main reasons he came to King's Landing, and Littlefinger could not be just tossed in dungeon for questioning. Ned wanted more time to finish what he started, can't say that I would do differently in the same situation, with the info. he possessed.

He gambled with the lives of everyone who came south with him, then, and the stability of the Kingdoms. It's unwise to gamble that you have someone's support when you give them no reason to support you. He may not have completely trusted Littlefinger, but it wasn't an eyes-shut gamble. I think Eddard wholeheartedly believed the gold cloaks we're his to command when he approached the iron throne that day.

There was no other way but to believe it, again he had no indication of all things that occurred in the meantime. Frankly, preparing his household to depart was done more on instinct that something is wrong, than on some valid information. It was unwise, and, again I can't say that Ned did only smart and beneficial things. But the whole point of the books is that no one is perfect, and fate can turn anything against us.

In a dramatic sense, it's easy to say that Eddard was too honorable to survive the situation that he was in. It's easy to say that plenty of military strategists would drown in political office. It's easiest, I think, to say that the author decided that Ned had to die. But, when I'm reading a book, I like to suspend my belief that I'm actually reading a book. I like to believe in the reasons why things happen on the page based on a sequence of continuous and interconnected events, not according to the whim of an author who decides that certain characters will live and die.

I also like that, but in this case, IMO, the way things unrolled was way too unfavorable for Ned to be completely plausible. If he had just one lucky break like, let's say, Tyrion, everything might be different. Even at the end he steps on his pride, and "confesses" treason, but gets no chance, as Jeoffrey decides to put to sword one oh the guardians of the realm, on a "whim".

If I'm to imagine that the events on the page are really happening, then I see Eddard as a man who lost the game of thrones, not just because he was honorable, but because he never did anything to support his right to claim and maintain the power he was given. he expected his word to be law, despite the fact that he had no support. It doesn't take a genius to understand that anything that is raised without support will fall. History is full of people who made horrible, life threatening, decisions. Of course, not all of them were incompetent at completing the task ahead of them, but a great many of them were. Eddard functioned as a man perfectly well, but as Hand of the King, he was sorely lacking. Sorely sorely lacking.

And that is where we disagree. Ned lost the Game, no doubt about it, but he was not some amateur playing chess against Bobby Fischer, but grandmaster losing to another one in the game decided by few bad calls and a lack of ANY luck. And as the Hand, he was given credit even by his enemies. So to me Ned Stark was great player, just not good enough to win in a Game heavily unfavorable for him.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

"Tyrion was no trained warrior, and there's no indication that he'd spent much of his life preparing to be a politician."

There is plenty os indication that Tyrion studied, and prepared for, politics. He was born of a high family, with a physical... disability (i don't like the word, but for those times, that's what it was)
He couldn't fight, so he read books, and something tells me the books he was reading were not about talking bunnies.

what it comes right down to is that King Robert Died before Ned could make his move, and Littlefinger betrayed him. Remember that, while ned didn't have alot of support, and might not have really trusted little finger, His own wife told him that Littlefinder would help him. Even warning Cersei, while it proved to be a mistake, would robert not have died. Cersei had clearly already put wheels in motion for robert to die, and that had nothing to do with Ned confronting Cersei. Ned did everything right and honourably. the only thing that could have saved him would be knowing that Cersei had already planned to kill robert

 

[C Of K]

Well, we disagree in terms of offending someone, Ned never called Robert "fat pig of a King", but disagreed with some of his decisions and actions, that can hardly be seen as insult, even in middle ages. And when disagreeing to kill Dany he had moral background

It was not only dispute between them, and nobody says Ned thought Robert to be perfect, far from it. But last time they met, Robert was battle hardened warrior, commander and with strongest claim to the throne, which Ned supported not from being too law abiding, but because that supported his own claim to the realm (the North). But when they met in Winterfell, and even more so on the road to King's Landing, Ned realized that Robert lost most of his willpower, was emerged in pleasing himself instead ruling the kingdom, and largely influenced by much stronger willed Cersei. He did not know this before he decided to accept the position, but what friend he would be if he deserted Robert because of it?

I don't think Ned has to call Robert anything in order for Robert to be insulted. Robert was a man who showed his feelings, and I think he was very insulted that Ned disagreed with his decisions. The greatest strain on their friendship over the past 15 years was Robert's desire to kill Targaryen children. It nearly broke up their friendship before Lianna Stark's death, and it nearly broke up their friendship again 15 years later before Jamie attacked Ned in King's landing.

IMO Ned never intended to remain in King's Landing, and there was no need to build some system if he did not intend to remain there and maintain it. Also it is not fair to compare Ned and Tyrion. Ned came in King's Landing largely unaware what is awaiting him, while Tyrion came to "sort things out", knowing he can not trust anybody, and with destiny by his side.

Ned was aware of much that awaited him. He had reason to believe that the last Hand of the King was mysteriously murdered. He was in no different a position than Tyrion. Also, Ned did not go to King's Landing for the sole purpose of finding out who killed Jon Arryn. He went there to rule in the name of his king. That was all the reason he needed to set up a support structure. The difference between Ned and Tyrion, is that Tyrion prepares to meet adversity with some kind of back up support. After Cat took him captive, Tyrion began trying to gain support from the sell swords that were helping Cat. Ned didn't necessarily lose because he was honorable, or because he knew nothing of politics. He lost because he tried to rule without support.

You (as many other) make common mistake to consider capital of the country only center of power. Ned had house Stark, and all of North behind him, as did Robert with house Baratheon. If they didn't feel like they had to build some strong power base in this particular city, is because they already had one. Their influence was great, and before start of events in which destiny heavily favorized their opponents, Cersei and co. looked more like rats in a trap than wining party.

I think Jaimie said it best in the show. Ned was "Lord of someplace very far away" and Robert had bankrupted the crown while his political rivals had spent years building up influence for themselves. Ned and Robert had next to no influence in King's Landing, which is where they were, not up North, and not in the Storm lands.

Well, actually, IMO Ned never trusted Littlefinger. But he trusted Cat, which trusted Littlefinger. And she did it more for the "past" they had together than lies about Tyrion being the one behind attempt on Bran. And he really had little choice in who to send to hire gold cloaks. Let's say it like this - who would you send?

It could be said that trusting your wife to trust Littlefinger is just as bad as trusting Littlefinger yourself. Cat convinced Ned that Littlefinger would not betray her, and subsequently would not betray him. Ned had little choice in who to send to hire the Gold Cloaks because, as I have been saying, he didn't set up any system to support himself.

There was no other way but to believe it, again he had no indication of all things that occurred in the meantime. Frankly, preparing his household to depart was done more on instinct that something is wrong, than on some valid information. It was unwise, and, again I can't say that Ned did only smart and beneficial things. But the whole point of the books is that no one is perfect, and fate can turn anything against us.

That is my whole point. It illustrates Ned's incompetent actions almost perfectly. It wasn't just unwise, it was stupid. Littlefinger had no reason to support Ned. Ned never offered Littlefinger a reason. If I was trying to rule the country you live in, you're not going to throw your support behind me just because I ask you to.

I also like that, but in this case, IMO, the way things unrolled was way too unfavorable for Ned to be completely plausible. If he had just one lucky break like, let's say, Tyrion, everything might be different. Even at the end he steps on his pride, and "confesses" treason, but gets no chance, as Jeoffrey decides to put to sword one oh the guardians of the realm, on a "whim".

Someone who knows what they're doing in any job doesn't just rely on luck to happen. They create their own luck by making things happen. If Ned set up his own support structure, it still wouldn't be a sure victory for him in the game of thrones. But, his rule wouldn't have turned out to be nothing but a chain of follies that could only lead to his defeat.

And that is where we disagree. Ned lost the Game, no doubt about it, but he was not some amateur playing chess against Bobby Fischer, but grandmaster losing to another one in the game decided by few bad calls and a lack of ANY luck. And as the Hand, he was given credit even by his enemies. So to me Ned Stark was great player, just not good enough to win in a Game heavily unfavorable for him.

They dismantled Ned. Among his enemies, there were very few mutual friends, and yet, they all were able to work together to achieve one common goal. That was to "Get Ned Stark out of King's Landing." I could hardly call him a "Great Player" when he was so thoroughly crushed, and played such a large role in the chaos that befell Westeros. Everything that he attempted to accomplish in King's Landing ended up having an effect contrary to his desires, accept for one thing... He was able to talk Robert out of participating in the Melee.

There is plenty os indication that Tyrion studied, and prepared for, politics. He was born of a high family, with a physical... disability (i don't like the word, but for those times, that's what it was)
He couldn't fight, so he read books, and something tells me the books he was reading were not about talking bunnies.

Many of those books were no doubt about dragons I can hardly believe the only thing worth writing about in Westeros is bunnies and politics. I'm sure the books he read were about many different things. But, heck, I've read about many different things, and I'm not prepared for politics. As you say, Tyrion was born to a noble family. So was Ned. Ned was Lord of Winterfell, and Warden of the North. Tyrion was Lord of nowhere, and Warden of nothing, and yet, so far as the game of thrones is concerned, Ned was not Tyrion's political equal.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

I wasn't trying to say that Ned was Tyrion's Political Equal, I was just saying that Ned was an adequate politician. Not superior in any way, just that He didn't really make any mistakes. Not at the time he was making them. Sure, in hindsight he should have done things differently, but everything would have been different had cersei not already planned to kill robert. That was Ned's only failing. Had cersei not sent that extra-fortified Wine with Roberts hunting party, (something she had done BEFORE ned confronted her) Robert would have returned from the hunting trip, Ned would still be alive, and cersei would be dead (although there would still be war, but it would be everyone against the lannisters) If cersei hadn't sent that wine out with Robert, she would have been virtually powerless. Ned wasn't an old man, so nobody would belive that, like john arryn, he had simply died, and while the gold cloaks were corrupt, they wouldn't have attached Ned, not while the king still lived. The lannisters might have, but then we're back at square one, with everyone being at war with the lannisters and Cersei dead.

"Many of those books were no doubt about dragons I can hardly believe the only thing worth writing about in Westeros is bunnies and politics. I'm sure the books he read were about many different things. But, heck, I've read about many different things, and I'm not prepared for politics. As you say, Tyrion was born to a noble family. So was Ned. Ned was Lord of Winterfell, and Warden of the North. Tyrion was Lord of nowhere, and Warden of nothing, and yet, so far as the game of thrones is concerned, Ned was not Tyrion's political equal. "

True, Tyrion did like his Dragon books. But the point I was trying to make is that Tyrion studied much more than Ned Stark did. Tyrion, as a dwarf, COULD NOT rule by being the best and bravest fighter as Robert, Ned and John Arryn did. Really, you even proved my point. Tyrion was "lord of nothing and warden of nowhere". Ned was simply born into being lord of winterfel, and because he helped Robert win the throne by being "the best and bravest fighter" he was made Warden of the North. Tyrion on the other hand had to rely solely on his intellect if he wanted anyone to take him seriously. In almost every way, Tyrion had a harder life than Ned, and this made him more shrewd and clever, because he couldn't rely on the safety of Position, because he had no position, or the safety of strength, because he wasn't strong. He had to learn to talk men who did have position and strength into being on his side, which made him more suited to being Hand of the King.

And another thing that made Tyrion and Ned's positions very different is that Tyrion, while not her favorite brother, WAS cersei's brother. And he was acting on behalf of Cersei's father. She couldn't just kill him, as much as she wanted to. Not like she did Ned or John Arryn.

 

[C Of K]

I wasn't trying to say that Ned was Tyrion's Political Equal, I was just saying that Ned was an adequate politician.

There's no doubt that Tyrion is a very learned man. But there is absolutely no indication that he was anymore prepared for politics than he was for war. There is indication that he learned how to read, that he learned acrobatics, that he learned about people, and the world, but as for the specifics of being a politician? I can't recall ever reading where he claimed to have studied anything of the sort. As I see it, Tyrion made a fair politician, much as he made a fair warrior. Untrained, he survived the Battle of the Blackwater, was responsible for killing many men, and leading many more. He did not spend his life preparing for battle, but there you have it, he did what was so obviously needed... He did much the same while he was ruling as Hand of the King. He survived it by applying simple common sense. If you have enemies, learn who they are so you can deal with them. Tyrion knew the last two Hands of the King were betrayed and/or murdered, so he went about trying to discover whom he could prove to be a backstabbing leech. Because of this, he was able to root out Grand Maester Pycelle quite early in the book. Tyrion knew he had enemies, just as Eddard should have known, and he acted in a way that allowed him to weed them out, much as Eddard should have. Tyrion was a fair politician, but Eddard would only be an adequate politician in a world where everyone does as they're supposed to, no one murders the Hand of the King, all knights are honorable, and the King rules gracefully. Westeros is not that world.

Not superior in any way, just that He didn't really make any mistakes. Not at the time he was making them. Sure, in hindsight he should have done things differently, but everything would have been different had cersei not already planned to kill robert. That was Ned's only failing. Had cersei not sent that extra-fortified Wine with Roberts hunting party, (something she had done BEFORE ned confronted her) Robert would have returned from the hunting trip, Ned would still be alive, and cersei would be dead (although there would still be war, but it would be everyone against the lannisters) If cersei hadn't sent that wine out with Robert, she would have been virtually powerless.

Hindsight, unfortunately is usually the only way people get to see their mistakes, but you did make good points. Ned couldn't have known that Cersei meant to kill Robert. And yet there was no saving Robert from Cersei, or himself. Cersei could not have known that Robert would die on that trip. She could only have hoped that he would. As it is, Ned was not responsible for Robert's well-being. Ned was responsible for himself, the realm, and the one's who came with him from Winterfell. I wouldn't say he made no mistakes, especially not mistakes that couldn't be foreseen. Ned was one of the few men on the small council with no back up but the few warriors he brought from Winterfell. He sent 20 of his 50 with Beric Dondarrion to hunt Gregor, and yet it was a mistake to wait until Robert's death for Ned to start trying to buy support. While we're on that point, Ned also should have known that Littlefinger did not want Stannis on the throne, especially after Littlefinger told him as much. It was a mistake to tell Littlefinger his plan to hire the Gold Cloaks, and it was a mistake to order Littlefinger to do the hiring. No matter what order things happened in, they were happening far too fast for Ned to keep up with, and he started slipping up quite royally.

Ned wasn't an old man, so nobody would belive that, like john arryn, he had simply died, and while the gold cloaks were corrupt, they wouldn't have attached Ned, not while the king still lived. The lannisters might have, but then we're back at square one, with everyone being at war with the lannisters and Cersei dead.

No might about it. The Lannister did attack Ned while the king still lived, and the king did nothing about it. There is no proof that Robert would have believed a word that Ned told him. Robert had chalked up quite a history of disagreeing, disregarding, and outright disbelieving much of what Ned told him. Where his "family" was concerned, Robert had also become accustomed to looking away from things he wished not to see.

True, Tyrion did like his Dragon books. But the point I was trying to make is that Tyrion studied much more than Ned Stark did. Tyrion, as a dwarf, COULD NOT rule by being the best and bravest fighter as Robert, Ned and John Arryn did. Really, you even proved my point. Tyrion was "lord of nothing and warden of nowhere". Ned was simply born into being lord of winterfel, and because he helped Robert win the throne by being "the best and bravest fighter" he was made Warden of the North. Tyrion on the other hand had to rely solely on his intellect if he wanted anyone to take him seriously. In almost every way, Tyrion had a harder life than Ned, and this made him more shrewd and clever, because he couldn't rely on the safety of Position, because he had no position, or the safety of strength, because he wasn't strong. He had to learn to talk men who did have position and strength into being on his side, which made him more suited to being Hand of the King.

Intellect does not make a person a good politician. Being shrewd and clever does not make someone a good politician. If anything, these traits are only the beginning of becoming good at anything. They don't mean that he was trained for politics. Tyrion never expected to be Hand of the King until the position was given to him.

And another thing that made Tyrion and Ned's positions very different is that Tyrion, while not her favorite brother, WAS cersei's brother. And he was acting on behalf of Cersei's father. She couldn't just kill him, as much as she wanted to. Not like she did Ned or John Arryn.

And yet, it's likely that Cersei did try to kill Tyrion, just like Ned and Jon Arryn. That whole incident that occurred when Tyrion lost his nose was approved by either Cersei, or Joffrey. She's hated him for years, mostly because she has believed him to be the Valonquar all this time, but also because her mother died giving birth to him. Tyrion being her brother meant nothing. Tyrion working for Tywin possibly meant more, but John Arryn worked for Robert, and that did not stop her from killing him. So long as she didn't get caught in the act, I don't see how either of those two reasons make Tyrion's position any different than Ned's. Tyrion was in her way from the moment he came to King's Landing, just as Ned was. We all know what Cersei tries to do to people who are in her way.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

There's no doubt that Tyrion is a very learned man. But there is absolutely no indication that he was anymore prepared for politics than he was for war. There is indication that he learned how to read, that he learned acrobatics, that he learned about people, and the world, but as for the specifics of being a politician? I can't recall ever reading where he claimed to have studied anything of the sort.

But what is being a politician if not knowing about people and the world? Do you think learning to be a politician is like learning a skilled trade? Everything Tyrion did right, he did because he know how to deal with people. That is LITERALLY what being a politician is.

No might about it. The Lannister did attack Ned while the king still lived, and the king did nothing about it. There is no proof that Robert would have believed a word that Ned told him. Robert had chalked up quite a history of disagreeing, disregarding, and outright disbelieving much of what Ned told him. Where his "family" was concerned, Robert had also become accustomed to looking away from things he wished not to see

The Lannisters attacked Ned because Ned (his wife) Had taken Tyrion prisoner, something that violated the Kings peace. While Robert wasn't a great King, I am sure we can all agree that a fight between the Lannisters and the Starks was not something Robert would have wanted under these circumstances, not over something like Tyrion. BUT, i really Do believe that Robert would have believed Ned about cersei's infidelity. We know that he hated her, and that he had no love for Joffery. that WOULD be a reason for the starks, and the barratheons, to fight the Lannisters, and a reason that Robert would be only to happy to get behind.

And yet, it's likely that Cersei did try to kill Tyrion, just like Ned and Jon Arryn. That whole incident that occurred when Tyrion lost his nose was approved by either Cersei, or Joffrey. She's hated him for years, mostly because she has believed him to be the Valonquar all this time, but also because her mother died giving birth to him. Tyrion being her brother meant nothing. Tyrion working for Tywin possibly meant more, but John Arryn worked for Robert, and that did not stop her from killing him. So long as she didn't get caught in the act, I don't see how either of those two reasons make Tyrion's position any different than Ned's. Tyrion was in her way from the moment he came to King's Landing, just as Ned was. We all know what Cersei tries to do to people who are in her way.

True Cersei did hate Tyrion, but I don't think she really wanted him dead right from the beginning. She knew that, as much as she hated him, he wouldn't do anything to take down his own families Honour. He already knew the secret that Jon and Ned died for, and he didn;t propose to tell anyone. I think he was an annoyance that she thought she could simply ignore. it wasn't untill he started going behind her back, getting rid of Janos and sending Marcella away to Dorne, that she really became angry. That is why she tried to have him killed. But you have to look at the way she did that. She tried to have someone kill him, during the confusion of battle, where people were already trying to kill him. Then, when that was unsuccessful, did she send someone to slit his throat while he was in bed? no, that would have been too high profile. She couldn't just throw him in a cell like she did Ned, or poison him like she did Jon, these would have been too obvious and Tywin would have known or figured it out, and he would NOT be happy. so while she did still want him dead, he was alot harder to remove from the picture. That is, untill she believed he had killed Joff. And this, more than anything, proves that Ned Stark was not as bad a politician as you think. We both agree that Tyrion was the better, but after all was said and done, he ended up in the exact same spot as Ned. In a cell, waiting to be executed. It was not from the fact that they were bad politicians, they both just had to contend with Cersei's ruthlessness, something that Tyrion did longer (because he was better) but something they both fell prey to.

 

[C Of K]

But what is being a politician if not knowing about people and the world? Do you think learning to be a politician is like learning a skilled trade? Everything Tyrion did right, he did because he know how to deal with people. That is LITERALLY what being a politician is.

That is an extremely oversimplification of what being a politician is, and in many cases not the definition of being a politician at all. I know about people. I know about the world. I am not a politician, and neither would I make a good politician.

The Lannisters attacked Ned because Ned (his wife) Had taken Tyrion prisoner, something that violated the Kings peace. While Robert wasn't a great King, I am sure we can all agree that a fight between the Lannisters and the Starks was not something Robert would have wanted under these circumstances, not over something like Tyrion. BUT, i really Do believe that Robert would have believed Ned about cersei's infidelity. We know that he hated her, and that he had no love for Joffery. that WOULD be a reason for the starks, and the barratheons, to fight the Lannisters, and a reason that Robert would be only to happy to get behind.

Yes, Cat kidnapped Tyrion, but Jamie attacked Ned and murdered his men. Robert did not side with Ned in that situation, and did nothing about the murders. He offered up a few words that he wanted the whole thing ended and that was it. Not really a king to count on if you ask me.

True Cersei did hate Tyrion, but I don't think she really wanted him dead right from the beginning. She knew that, as much as she hated him, he wouldn't do anything to take down his own families Honour.

I might have agreed with you years ago, before Cersei became a POV character. But now we know exactly why she hated Tyrion, and pretty much for how long she's hated him. Maggie the Frog predicted that Cersei would be queen. She predicted that Cersei would have 3 children. She predicted that the king would have 13 children. And she predicted that Cersei's little brother would kill her. Cersei believes, and has believed, that Tyrion was that little brother all this time. She believes that his very existence has been a blight on the family all this time.

He already knew the secret that Jon and Ned died for, and he didn;t propose to tell anyone. I think he was an annoyance that she thought she could simply ignore. it wasn't untill he started going behind her back, getting rid of Janos and sending Marcella away to Dorne, that she really became angry. That is why she tried to have him killed.

She never intended to kill him for any knowledge that he had. I can hardly believe that she cared anything for Janos Slynt. Sending Myrcella away might be more believable, but it isn't like Tyrion killed Myrcella. None of that compares to the implications of the prophecy that Maggie the Frog foretold about the Valonqar.

But you have to look at the way she did that. She tried to have someone kill him, during the confusion of battle, where people were already trying to kill him. Then, when that was unsuccessful, did she send someone to slit his throat while he was in bed? no, that would have been too high profile. She couldn't just throw him in a cell like she did Ned, or poison him like she did Jon, these would have been too obvious and Tywin would have known or figured it out, and he would NOT be happy.
so while she did still want him dead, he was alot harder to remove from the picture. That is, untill she believed he had killed Joff. And this, more than anything, proves that Ned Stark was not as bad a politician as you think. We both agree that Tyrion was the better, but after all was said and done, he ended up in the exact same spot as Ned. In a cell, waiting to be executed. It was not from the fact that they were bad politicians, they both just had to contend with Cersei's ruthlessness, something that Tyrion did longer (because he was better) but something they both fell prey to.

It doesn't matter how it is done. Dead is dead. Once someone is dead, they are effectively out of her way. Ned didn't just get thrown into a cell. there was a successive line of events that preceded that event. Tyrion didn't just get thrown into a cell either. Tyrion did not end up in the same place as Ned Stark. Ned Stark ended up on the chopping block, and someone helped Tyrion escape. One way or another, Tyrion had made himself of enough political value for Varys to risk his life in saving Tyrion. Varys could have done the same for Ned Stark, but it wasn't worth it to support Ned. Varys did not make these decision based on friendship. He made them based on political ramifications, and how they would effect his plans. Tyrion had support. Ned didn't. That's the difference between them.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

That is an extremely oversimplification of what being a politician is, and in many cases not the definition of being a politician at all. I know about people. I know about the world. I am not a politician, and neither would I make a good politician.

No, Literally, Politics means "Of, For or relating to citizens" (people), so a politician is someone who works for or with or in relation to people. You seem to have an idea that there is just one kind of politician, or that it is required to have some special talent, this, I assure you, is not the case. Simply holding office makes you a politician, whether you know what you are doing or not. And Tyrion knew what he was doing because he knew about people. If you think of all the things Tyrion did as Hand of the king, it all had to do with knowing how people would react to situations and pitting one person against another to gain advantage. Tyrion never wrote legislation, or passed laws, because he was the hand of the king. His word was Law. In many ways, Tyrion's world is much more simple than ours and it is not required that he have the skills of a modern politician, he LITERALLY just had to deal with people.

Yes, Cat kidnapped Tyrion, but Jamie attacked Ned and murdered his men. Robert did not side with Ned in that situation, and did nothing about the murders. He offered up a few words that he wanted the whole thing ended and that was it. Not really a king to count on if you ask me.

In my post I pointed out that Robert did not want a war, not for Tyrion, someone he didn't care about. Robert even stated that he couldn't go to war for this because he owed half a kingdom of gold to the Lannisters. So yes, Robert wanted to whole thing ended becasue Ned couldn't prove Tyrion had tried to kill Bran. But Ned could have proven that Cersei was being unfaithful, and that Joff wasn't Robert's real son.

I might have agreed with you years ago, before Cersei became a POV character. But now we know exactly why she hated Tyrion, and pretty much for how long she's hated him....
She never intended to kill him for any knowledge that he had. I can hardly believe that she cared anything for Janos Slynt. Sending Myrcella away might be more believable, but it isn't like Tyrion killed Myrcella. None of that compares to the implications of the prophecy that Maggie the Frog foretold about the Valonqar.

I never said Cersei didn't Hate him or want him dead, but the fact is, she never really tried untill she had the opportunity to do so when things couldn't be led back to her. I don't claim that cersei had any love for Janos Slynt, just that Tyrion sending him away, and (though I didn't mention it before) locking up Pycell, was interfering with her plans. This made her more desperate.

Ned didn't just get thrown into a cell. there was a successive line of events that preceded that event. Tyrion didn't just get thrown into a cell either. Tyrion did not end up in the same place as Ned Stark. Ned Stark ended up on the chopping block, and someone helped Tyrion escape.

Ned pretty much just got thrown in a Cell. telling Cersei he knew about Joff's real birth probably didn't help, but do you think that if he hadn't and king Robert still died, that she wouldn't have still done what she did? he went before the whole realm and said that Robert made him acting king or whatever untill Joff came of age, and she ripped up the kings letter and threw him in a cell because SHE wanted to be queen regent and rule the realm.
Ned and Tyrion both ended up in a cell, about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit. you have to agree that their situation was pretty similar up to that point. Yes Ned unded up on the choping block and Tyrion didn't, but not for the reason you stated.

One way or another, Tyrion had made himself of enough political value for Varys to risk his life in saving Tyrion. Varys could have done the same for Ned Stark, but it wasn't worth it to support Ned. Varys did not make these decision based on friendship. He made them based on political ramifications, and how they would effect his plans. Tyrion had support. Ned didn't. That's the difference between them

I would argue that it was more of a risk for Varys NOT to save Tyrion, considering the only reason Varys did it was because Jaime had a sword at his throat. I don't believe for a second that Varys did it to keep tyrion alive for the political advantage, because after he helped Tyrion escape, he had to go into hiding and lost his position on the small council. We all know that Varys is crafty enough to still keep his fingers in the game, but I think it was a major blow that he couldnt just come and go in the castle as easily as he did before. Tyrion's only support at that point was Jaime, because Jaime still loved his little brother, someone he has always had a soft spot for.

 

[mtzGr]

In Ned’s case, it’s more a matter of ethics than ‘political savvy’. Ned was clearly a deontologist, a follower of rule-based ethics. He believed in absolute moral rules, rules that apply to everyone, cannot not be broken, and have no exceptions. So for Ned, the means never justify the end. Most of the characters in Westeros are either consequentialists or ethical egoists; for them morality is only about producing the right consequences, or pursuing his or her own self-interest exclusively. In both these cases, the end does justify the means. So while killing Dany when she was wed to Drogo is unthinkable to Ned because it is never morally right to kill an innocent person, Varys is able to rationalize it because the consequences of her death result in less bloodshed throughout the realm, as opposed to the consequences of allowing her to live, and risking her sons’ revenge.

Ned was simply constricted by his morals, not inept.

 

[C Of K]

No, Literally, Politics means "Of, For or relating to citizens" (people), so a politician is someone who works for or with or in relation to people. You seem to have an idea that there is just one kind of politician, or that it is required to have some special talent, this, I assure you, is not the case. Simply holding office makes you a politician, whether you know what you are doing or not. And Tyrion knew what he was doing because he knew about people. If you think of all the things Tyrion did as Hand of the king, it all had to do with knowing how people would react to situations and pitting one person against another to gain advantage. Tyrion never wrote legislation, or passed laws, because he was the hand of the king. His word was Law. In many ways, Tyrion's world is much more simple than ours and it is not required that he have the skills of a modern politician, he LITERALLY just had to deal with people.

As I said, that is a prerequisite for being good at almost anything. Rock stars have to know people. If they don't, they won't know what people want to see when they're on stage. Grocery store cashiers have to know people. If they don't, fewer and fewer people will come to their store. Politics is as complicated in Westeros as it is anywhere else. Being in office, remaining in office, and helping your goals come to fruition is not so simple a thing that just anyone who comes into office can do it, whether they know about people or not. That rock star has to know more than just have a familiarity with people. That cashier has to be able to do more than just have a familiarity with people, and a good politician has to do more than just have a familiarity with people. Tyrion knew about people, and the world, and I'm certain Eddard knew just as much about people and the world. The difference is that Tyrion applied his knowledge, and Eddard just expected everyone to fall in line just because he was usually supposed to be holding the biggest stick. Unfortunately, his stick wasn't nearly as big as he thought it was. The last words of the dead king basically gave all authority to Eddard. What does he do with them? He hands his paper authority over to the person who wanted to take it all away from him. Common sense would tell you all she had to do was rip it up. Robert wasn't there to stop her, and no one was going to back up Eddard Stark. Not the honorable Barristan Selmy, or anyone else.

In my post I pointed out that Robert did not want a war, not for Tyrion, someone he didn't care about. Robert even stated that he couldn't go to war for this because he owed half a kingdom of gold to the Lannisters. So yes, Robert wanted to whole thing ended becasue Ned couldn't prove Tyrion had tried to kill Bran. But Ned could have proven that Cersei was being unfaithful, and that Joff wasn't Robert's real son.

I don't remember Ned ever taking possession of undeniable proof that Cersei was unfaithful, or that those children were not Robert's. Ned couldn't prove that Joffrey was Jaimie's son, anymore than he could prove to Robert that Jaimie had tried to kill Bran. Robert had seen at least some of his bastards, and knew that at least some of them had black hair. He'd seen all of Cersei's children and knew that all of them had blonde hair. Being that Ned didn't have a tape recorder handy when Cersei confessed her crimes, Ned really couldn't prove much to Robert that Robert didn't already know. All he could really tell him was that he has two bastards in the city who have black hair. Not much to go on, not after Robert had practically doubted Ned's every move since the beginning of the book. I think some people assume that had Robert come back from hunting in any good shape to do anything, that Cersei and her children would be dead by default, but there is nothing in the books to indicate that accept for Ned hoping and hoping and hoping that Robert was the man the Ned thought he was. But Robert had never been the man that Ned thought he was. Ned thought Robert would be faithful to Lianna if they had married. Maybe Robert would have, but Lianna thought different, and maybe Lianna was right. It's impossible to say, just as it is impossible to say how Robert would have reacted to Ned's claims that Joffrey was not his son.

Ned pretty much just got thrown in a Cell. telling Cersei he knew about Joff's real birth probably didn't help, but do you think that if he hadn't and king Robert still died, that she wouldn't have still done what she did? he went before the whole realm and said that Robert made him acting king or whatever untill Joff came of age, and she ripped up the kings letter and threw him in a cell because SHE wanted to be queen regent and rule the realm.

I wouldn't say Ned just got thrown in a cell, and he didn't say that he was protector of the realm until Joff came of age. He called Joffrey a pretender, offered no proof of that, and then tried to take the crown off his head. Those were the reasons Ned was thrown into a cell, just as there were reasons Tyrion was thrown in a cell. So far as the greater part of the Southern realm was concerned, Ned Stark was a traitor who tried to usurp the crown. That is all the reason needed to lock anyone up. Joffrey had no true claim to the throne, but everyone else who knew that for fact was keeping their collective mouths shut. So far as everyone else in the throne room was concerned, they were crowning their rightful king.

Ned and Tyrion both ended up in a cell, about to be executed for crimes they didn't commit. you have to agree that their situation was pretty similar up to that point. Yes Ned unded up on the choping block and Tyrion didn't, but not for the reason you stated.

I would argue that it was more of a risk for Varys NOT to save Tyrion, considering the only reason Varys did it was because Jaime had a sword at his throat. I don't believe for a second that Varys did it to keep tyrion alive for the political advantage, because after he helped Tyrion escape, he had to go into hiding and lost his position on the small council. We all know that Varys is crafty enough to still keep his fingers in the game, but I think it was a major blow that he couldnt just come and go in the castle as easily as he did before. Tyrion's only support at that point was Jaime, because Jaime still loved his little brother, someone he has always had a soft spot for.

And yet Varys sent Tyrion to a friend, and a supporter. Jaimie had no control over who or where Varys sent Tyrion. Varys could have told his people to throw Tyrion's barrel overboard when they were at sea. No one could do anything about Varys at that point. Tyrion dead, is out of the game. Tyrion alive, is still a player who could easily end up on the opposite side of things so far as Varys is concerned.

Varys didn't do the same for Ned Stark, because Ned Stark undoubtedly would end up on the opposite side of things. Varys lost his position on the small council for saving Tyrion, but never stopped being who he had always been. A dangerous player in the game of thrones.

 

[C Of K]

In Ned’s case, it’s more a matter of ethics than ‘political savvy’. Ned was clearly a deontologist, a follower of rule-based ethics. He believed in absolute moral rules, rules that apply to everyone, cannot not be broken, and have no exceptions. So for Ned, the means never justify the end. Most of the characters in Westeros are either consequentialists or ethical egoists; for them morality is only about producing the right consequences, or pursuing his or her own self-interest exclusively. In both these cases, the end does justify the means. So while killing Dany when she was wed to Drogo is unthinkable to Ned because it is never morally right to kill an innocent person, Varys is able to rationalize it because the consequences of her death result in less bloodshed throughout the realm, as opposed to the consequences of allowing her to live, and risking her sons’ revenge.

Ned was simply constricted by his morals, not inept.

And yet, this entire discussion was birthed in an entirely different thread because of the fact that people were under the impression that GRRM could not/did not write female characters as well as he wrote male characters. It's my stance that his male character are often "not entirely right" either. I used Ned Stark as a simple example.

I've met, and known, countless people who constrain their lives to a set of moral codes. But i don't believe any of them stick to those codes of morality 100% of the time in every situation, no matter what. Men are thinking creatures. They have the ability to move right after making four left turns in a row. They are subject to change with time, and yet Eddard Stark seems to be immune to all of this. Is he a great character? I believe he is. Is he a realistic character? To a point, I believe he is. But I don't believe he, as a male character, is any more or less perfect than Cat, Cersei, or many of GRRM's other female characters.

But I also don't believe that Ned's strict adherence to his moral code disqualifies him from the ranks of the inept in this case. He did not belong in King's Landing as Hand of the King. The results of that decision were disastrous, not only for his family, but the realm as a whole. It wasn't his code of ethics that made him decide to keep two adolescent girls in King's Landing where they could be used as political leverage in case war broke out. Ned had time to send them away after Robert died, but he tended to other business. It wasn't his moral code that made him choose to hand the letter signed by King Robert over to Cersei, when he could have used it to gain support of some kind. And no matter what his reasons were for ordering Littlefinger to hire the Gold Cloaks, it showed a lack of common sense.