[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Stribog

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.

Originally Posted by ArstenWhitebeard

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.