No, there are situations when to achieve your goals as a leader war or chaos makes sense. That’s why I specifically criticized Ned in light of the specific actions he’d taken in GoT, rather than generally declaring anyone who did X a bad leader. But if you want a generalization, what could be derived from what I said is “anyone who prioritizes a chivalric definition of personal honor over pragmatism is unlikely to be a good leader”. Is that something you think those three have in common with Ned Stark?
We don’t get to see much of his rule of Winterfell itself, but it likely is the sort of unusual area that is just wild and underpopulated enough for his personality to work, based on how long the Starks have been around.
I totally agree, which is why I think it’s weird to say that the person on one side of the decisions was an illogical chickenshit moron.
Which is why I didn’t say that in those words (who he was then does not excuse his decisions now but rather gives us context), and certainly not in the way you are paraphrasing.
I’m not sure I get this. He DOES try to put them under arrest, right? I haven’t read the book in a while, but that’s my recollection.
The last clear opportunity he has that has a chance of succeeding is when Renly offers to work with him, which was included in the TV series no doubt because of what a last chance it represents. He refuses. He then puts his faith in mercenaries and bought men (again, Machiavelli would have him for lunch on that) when he decides it’s finally time to move after every other option has been exhausted. The problems with this course of action are obvious to him, but he still trucks on assuming that despite all of the empirical evidence available (in his own shattered leg, even) that he could not possibly be a step ahead of anyone in the court.
OK, but the question posed by Martin is, when does your duty require it? And I think it’s deliberately set up to be a question that is hard to answer with certainty, which is why it strikes me as so weird for you to say that one answer is so obviously illogical or stupid.
It is with other characters. It isn’t with Ned. You understand why he does these things, because he’s a well-written character and because he appeals so firmly to any fantasy reader’s instincts. But most of his decisions as Hand are simply low quality decisions given the available evidence, and the fact that he can tell himself not to trust someone while de facto putting all of his trust in them suggests either extreme naivete or heroic hubris, and that’s what Martin really leaves ambiguous about his character although hinting strongly at the latter. I don’t think that’s an accident or poor writing, but quite the opposite.
Unlike your parting shot, I’m asking because I’m actually genuinely curious. Doing something like becoming a Marine means putting abstract principles such as what you think is right ahead of things like safety. It means agreeing that your leaders have the right to plunge the country into war at least under some circumstances, and if you’re giving orders to subordinates it means being ready to yourself put people – maybe a large number of people – at risk in order to defend abstract principles. It seems (to me, anyway) incongruous to believe that and yet react to a character like Ned by calling him an illogical chickenshit moron for putting people or even the country in harm’s way for an abstract principle. So what’s the difference?
Well, I don’t think it’s germane to the discussion and I have trouble seeing at as a question asked in good faith rather than a cheap shot. I’m doubly suspicious when you respond by acting like I was out of line to make a crack about your profession. But, what the hell.
Ned Stark is probably in many ways a good man. From evidence gathered after the fact in the stories, he is apparently a fine soldier in his own right and an effective military leader, because he understands the math and in the context of war makes sacrifices (such as tolerating the atrocities of his allies, which are played up to a great extent). But in the actual narrative of the book, he forgets those lessons if he ever really understood them rather than simply yielding to his friend’s whims. Not just that, but he deludes himself with a fool’s errand of what constitutes a legitimate ruler, since being the general and then the Hand of the Usurper should have taught him a few things about just how flexible that concept is when he felt like looking at the world with his eyes open.
Even as he was in the actual GoT story, that still would have left him (more than likely) an effective military leader in that sphere since he presumably has no insurmountable problems with starving civilians in sieges and making alliances of convenience once war is declared. He probably would have continued to be a competent leader of just the North, since that seems well tailored to his brand of simplistic feudalism. But as a political leader in King’s Landing he’s out of his depth, and in the terms by which a leader is judged, he is a failure for the variety of reasons I have listed, whether you limit his responsibilities to his noble family, the North, or the realm as a whole. If anything, his history as a successful leader in the revolution provides a comparative example by which to judge him harshly and reveal the hypocrisy in his honor games rather than a defense of what comes next.
I don’t think being critical of him is any different from being critical of Ulysses S. Grant as a president while appreciating him as a military leader. Most people can’t operate in the different levels of policy with equal competence, and a failure to recognize those limitations is usually either hubris or foolishness.
Now, we haven’t gotten into the other part of Machiavelli’s leadership criteria, which is Fortuna (very much an active vision of making your own luck as best you can rather than some passive karmic thing). But I think Ned fails that test as well.
It’s one thing to say “I think in the one situation the balance of interests tips one way, and in the other situation the other way,” but you’re objecting to Ned not doing logical things to keep the country from being plunged into chaos. Is stability the be-all and end-all, the only metric by which a leader should be judged?
No. Stability is generally preferable to chaos, but not always. It depends on your priorities. Ned’s priorities, however, are more or less clearly described in the books, and he fails to meet them as a leader. He uses his personal honor as a shield for his inability to grapple with reality on its terms. I just don’t see how it’s possible to view him as a worthy leader given how clearly the books spell out the extent to which he was unmade by his own hand (lol).
Also, keep in mind that I was responding lightly to the charge that Sansa was primarily responsible for Ned’s death. In retrospect, I surely would have chosen adjectives better suited for cross-examination.
