|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 20, 2019 0:31:54 GMT
… are clearly the dumb Starks, especially Jon Snow. I've been saying it for years but someone made a video of it:
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 20, 2019 0:44:37 GMT
Jon Snow is obviously a poor leader. I do not think Rob was a poor leader as such. He did commit mistakes and he should have done better but he had shown signs of brilliance.
Ned was of course not a very bright leader. Starks are supposed to operate in a conservative world. In the age of hero sort of settings. The world post-Targaryan intervention is not conducive to Stark rule and so I do agree that they are not going to prosper in such a world. Their style of rule is simply not flexible enough.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 20, 2019 5:27:44 GMT
Robb displayed leading qualities as long as the path was straight. He was an alpha-wolf getting Humber to fall in line but that only worked on people who shared his goals by conviction or coincidence. The latter was the case for Humber, who was the one who actually pushed him beyond the point of no return my naming him king. Humber wasn't in to follow his Lord, he wanted to assert himself and found gratification in creating a larger political issue than Robb had ever considered.
Past that, Robb was betrayed by everyone he relied on: Theon, his mother, Karstark, Frey, Bolton… It's almost a pity the Talispy option was abandoned for the sake of making the Red Wedding more unsettling.
The Starks are not conservative, no more than others, only straightforward dumb and not adapted to any world. It appears Ned is the root of it, providing his children with a naive education or none at all. "Your brother was trained to lead, you were trained to follow". Ned Stark is a good dumb dog.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 21, 2019 22:01:30 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 3:12:26 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa. A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders.
|
|
Troyal1
Sophomore
@troyal1
Posts: 223
Likes: 108
|
Post by Troyal1 on Jan 22, 2019 3:21:12 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa. A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders. Or are the people around them bad and corrupt followers?
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 3:27:15 GMT
A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders. Or are the people around them bad and corrupt followers? Everyone is "bad" and "corrupt", unless they are dumb collectivist sheep. Leaders are those who can handle it.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 22, 2019 7:02:20 GMT
Robb displayed leading qualities as long as the path was straight. He was an alpha-wolf getting Humber to fall in line but that only worked on people who shared his goals by conviction or coincidence. The latter was the case for Humber, who was the one who actually pushed him beyond the point of no return my naming him king. Humber wasn't in to follow his Lord, he wanted to assert himself and found gratification in creating a larger political issue than Robb had ever considered. Past that, Robb was betrayed by everyone he relied on: Theon, his mother, Karstark, Frey, Bolton… It's almost a pity the Talispy option was abandoned for the sake of making the Red Wedding more unsettling. The Starks are not conservative, no more than others, only straightforward dumb and not adapted to any world. It appears Ned is the root of it, providing his children with a naive education or none at all. "Your brother was trained to lead, you were trained to follow". Ned Stark is a good dumb dog.I I understand that you are a village boy and do not understand terms. I am not talking about houses being fiscal conservatives.
All houses are not conservatives of the same order. They are more socially conservative in the north. Boltons, Starks, Umbers etc. have defined ethics and they do not stray from what their houses believed 1000s of years ago. As you move downward they are less conservative. Tyrells and Lannisters are almost politically neutral and Martells tend to be leaning towards liberalism.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 22, 2019 7:11:38 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa. What do you think of Cersei as a leader? Lord Tywin was very pissed at her for handling the leadership pretty badly when he was away trying to deal with Rob Stark. They had promoted butcher's son Janos Slynt as commander of the City Watch of King's Landing and totally mismanaged the case of Ser Barristan Selmy and it infuriated Tywin so much that he sent Tyrion as the acting Hand of the king. Now that is very telling. The fact the Tywin chose to give such an important post to Tyrion shows how poorly he thought of Cersei.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 7:30:55 GMT
Robb displayed leading qualities as long as the path was straight. He was an alpha-wolf getting Humber to fall in line but that only worked on people who shared his goals by conviction or coincidence. The latter was the case for Humber, who was the one who actually pushed him beyond the point of no return my naming him king. Humber wasn't in to follow his Lord, he wanted to assert himself and found gratification in creating a larger political issue than Robb had ever considered. Past that, Robb was betrayed by everyone he relied on: Theon, his mother, Karstark, Frey, Bolton… It's almost a pity the Talispy option was abandoned for the sake of making the Red Wedding more unsettling. The Starks are not conservative, no more than others, only straightforward dumb and not adapted to any world. It appears Ned is the root of it, providing his children with a naive education or none at all. "Your brother was trained to lead, you were trained to follow". Ned Stark is a good dumb dog.I I understand that you are a village boy and do not understand terms. I am not talking about houses being fiscal conservatives.
All houses are not conservatives of the same order. They are more socially conservative in the north. Boltons, Starks, Umbers etc. have defined ethics and they do not stray from what their houses believed 1000s of years ago. As you move downward they are less conservative. Tyrells and Lannisters are almost politically neutral and Martells tend to be leaning towards liberalism. I understand you speak like some American dumbfuck who's been brainwashed into seeing "conservative" and "liberal" as opposites. You end up telling people that the Dornish, who are all about conserving their identity, their culture and their idiosyncrasies at the price of war are "liberal". Tywin Lannister is all about conserving his wealth, power and status, wants a dynasty that lasts a thousand years. Mind you, I see where you and the author are coming from. I called GRRM a political idiot before. The Roman Republic was liberal, in the true sense. The Empire was not and those who resisted it were conservative in that they wanted to keep the old, more liberal system. The Starks are idealists, a flaw shared by most progressive.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 22, 2019 7:37:54 GMT
I understand that you are a village boy and do not understand terms. I am not talking about houses being fiscal conservatives.
All houses are not conservatives of the same order. They are more socially conservative in the north. Boltons, Starks, Umbers etc. have defined ethics and they do not stray from what their houses believed 1000s of years ago. As you move downward they are less conservative. Tyrells and Lannisters are almost politically neutral and Martells tend to be leaning towards liberalism. I understand you speak like some American dumbfuck who's been brainwashed into seeing "conservative" and "liberal" as opposites. You end up telling people that the Dornish, who are all about conserving their identity, their culture and their idiosyncrasies at the price of war are "liberal". Tywin Lannister is all about conserving his wealth, power and status, wants a dynasty that lasts a thousand years. Mind you, I see where you and the author are coming from. I called GRRM a political idiot before. The Roman Republic was liberal, in the true sense. The Empire was not and those who resisted it were conservative in that they wanted to keep the old, more liberal system. The Starks are idealists, a flaw shared by most progressive. No moron, they are not liberals and I didn't even say that Martells are liberals. Tending towards liberalism is not the same as being a liberal. And Martells tend towards liberalism because of their lifestyle and their flexibility.
And I see that you are just an idiot who wants to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. For you already agreed with my views here:
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 8:35:50 GMT
I understand you speak like some American dumbfuck who's been brainwashed into seeing "conservative" and "liberal" as opposites. You end up telling people that the Dornish, who are all about conserving their identity, their culture and their idiosyncrasies at the price of war are "liberal". Tywin Lannister is all about conserving his wealth, power and status, wants a dynasty that lasts a thousand years. Mind you, I see where you and the author are coming from. I called GRRM a political idiot before. The Roman Republic was liberal, in the true sense. The Empire was not and those who resisted it were conservative in that they wanted to keep the old, more liberal system. The Starks are idealists, a flaw shared by most progressive. No moron, they are not liberals and I didn't even say that Martells are liberals. Tending towards liberalism is not the same as being a liberal. And Martells tend towards liberalism because of their lifestyle and their flexibility.
And I see that you are just an idiot who wants to disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing. For you already agreed with my views here:
I would never call the Starks liberal, definitely not Ned, who appears to think everything has to be ruled by principles. I don't know what you call a liberal, though, and I don't care to ask. The Martells seem open to negotiation and arrangements, which makes them a more liberal lot than the slaves to principles. The Dornish, all of them, always value what they want more than "what is right". It makes Starks and Martells opposites on the free will scale. Conservatism has nothing direct to do with it. This is a mindset shared by all those who have something worth preserving in the story, from the Starks of Winterfell to the Tyrells of Highgarden. Ned is just the idiot who would throw it all away out of sheer fatalism, though and Jon is the one who doesn't have it because he's a bastard who cannot inherit while Sansa is the one who capitalises on her inheritance to become queen at first then fights to get her home back. That same opposite is found in Cersei and Tyrion. Tywin's daughter wants to be nothing else or more and the dwarf joins the ranks of the tabula rasa scum who speak about "breaking the wheel".
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 22, 2019 9:51:21 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa. A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders. If that's your criteria then Westeros has no good leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 22, 2019 9:53:56 GMT
The Starks are fine leaders, they're just terrible at politicking. They are stubborn and expect everyone to meet their own code of honor and it burns them time and time again. I hope it doesn't burn Sansa. What do you think of Cersei as a leader? Lord Tywin was very pissed at her for handling the leadership pretty badly when he was away trying to deal with Rob Stark. They had promoted butcher's son Janos Slynt as commander of the City Watch of King's Landing and totally mismanaged the case of Ser Barristan Selmy and it infuriated Tywin so much that he sent Tyrion as the acting Hand of the king. Now that is very telling. The fact the Tywin chose to give such an important post to Tyrion shows how poorly he thought of Cersei. Cersei is a terrible leader. She's not that great at politicking either. Better than some but far worse than others like Margaery and Littlefinger. The reason she sees enemies everywhere is because she created most of them.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 9:55:52 GMT
A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders. If that's your criteria then Westeros has no good leaders. It has one now. Daenerys is a good leader, nearly as good as Hitler or Genghis Khan in their day. Of course, it is not a good thing to have unless there is a strong need to "go" somewhere. People need rulers more than leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 22, 2019 9:59:36 GMT
A leader leads people. They are judged at their ability to have people following them and nothing else. Betrayed leaders are bad leaders. Or are the people around them bad and corrupt followers? That's the thing...Ned wasn't betrayed by his own men. He was betrayed by a loose alliance based on bad politics and his own stubborness to adapt to the fact that he's not in Winterfell, this isn't his city. Robb suffered a similar fate. Making a loose alliance based in bad politicking was the end of him.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jan 22, 2019 10:00:36 GMT
If that's your criteria then Westeros has no good leaders. It has one now. Daenerys is a good leader, nearly as good as Hitler or Genghis Khan in their day. Of course, it is not a good thing to have unless there is a strong need to "go" somewhere. People need rulers more than leaders. Daenerys has been betrayed several times. She can't be a good leader by your own definition.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 10:03:49 GMT
What do you think of Cersei as a leader? Lord Tywin was very pissed at her for handling the leadership pretty badly when he was away trying to deal with Rob Stark. They had promoted butcher's son Janos Slynt as commander of the City Watch of King's Landing and totally mismanaged the case of Ser Barristan Selmy and it infuriated Tywin so much that he sent Tyrion as the acting Hand of the king. Now that is very telling. The fact the Tywin chose to give such an important post to Tyrion shows how poorly he thought of Cersei. Cersei is a terrible leader. She's not that great at politicking either. Better than some but far worse than others like Margaery and Littlefinger. The reason she sees enemies everywhere is because she created most of them. Cersei is not much of a leader. She's been learning but she's not a natural. At least she has the basics right. Being a Lannister helps greatly. She tried to give the High Sparrow or Tarly what they wanted in exchange for their cooperation. She badly failed at reading the High Sparrow's motives or at judging the risk of him being completely reckless. Cersei will never be a leader because she doesn't like people and cannot be bothered faking it. Leading requires pleasing to some extent and she is above that. She could be a much better ruler, though, which is what is needed most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 10:13:25 GMT
It has one now. Daenerys is a good leader, nearly as good as Hitler or Genghis Khan in their day. Of course, it is not a good thing to have unless there is a strong need to "go" somewhere. People need rulers more than leaders. Daenerys has been betrayed several times. She can't be a good leader by your own definition. Has she? Not really. Not since she's been in charge. She has been opposed by the people she attacked, of course, not betrayed. Before that, she was taken advantage of, people wanted to steal her dragons. Dothraki were never meant to follow her after Drogo died, so they didn't. Those who stayed were loyal and so were the Unsullied. Even that former slave going against her in S5 did it with loyal intentions. The only one she is apparently failing to lead is Tyrion and that's because he sees where things are heading, unless the authors turn his story in one of personal jealousy: fool in love turns bitter. Now, that would be a terrible way of twisting things but it appears to have been prepared too. I'd rather have him realise that the cost of the things he once wanted got too high and change his mind. Anyway, he was made to express his support to her in strong terms, so the "leadership" part was fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jan 22, 2019 10:18:35 GMT
Or are the people around them bad and corrupt followers? That's the thing...Ned wasn't betrayed by his own men. He was betrayed by a loose alliance based on bad politics and his own stubborness to adapt to the fact that he's not in Winterfell, this isn't his city. Robb suffered a similar fate. Making a loose alliance based in bad politicking was the end of him. Robb was let down by the Karstark, who had sworn allegiance. The Bolton had too. They were "his own men". He lost them because he disregarded their interest, had nothing to offer them. Ned wasn't betrayed, by the way. He was the traitor.
|
|