- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,125
- Reaction score
- 631
Ok so there's obviously spoilers ahead if you've never seen a lick of this series so don't read this and cry later.
OK so in GoT, series one one of the major twists is Ned confronting Cersei/Joffrey in the throne room with the letter from Robert Baratheon that says he should rule until Joffrey is of age. He also confronts them with the incest bomb. Ned does this because he has assurances from Baelish that the city watch(who Baelish controls) will back him up and arrest the fake queen mother/king but PLOT TWIST....Baelish betrays him, holds a knife to his throat, SIKE!!!! I told you not to trust me!!!
Much is made in the series of what a schemer Baelish is and how strategic his movements are. If you take that into consideration THERE IS ZERO FUCKING REASON why he should've betrayed Ned. Why you ask? Well let me go into it...
First off, Baelish would've known that this little stunt would've resulted in Ned being arrested and charged as a traitor, he would've KNOWN that this would've enraged the North, but hey who cares right? I mean they're only frequently referred to as the toughest SOBs in Westeros, and there's only tens of thousands of them, I mean there's always the 6 other kingdoms to support the Lannisters in any ensuing war, right? NOPE...
The North - obviously would've had their boy Ned's back and this comes true in the show when the kid Robb literally secedes from the entire union and invades the south because of this event. Baelish knew this would happen.
The Stormlands - Before he enters the throne room, Baelish tells Ned that Renly was spotted leaving the capital with 100 men or something. He KNEW that Renly or Stannis would have control of this area and would've backed the anti Lannister forces so they would be no support for the throne, especially seeing as how Stannis was now the rightful heir.
What about Dorne? Nope...it was open knowledge that Dorne hated the Lannisters because of what happened to their princess on Tywin's orders, they would've ignore any calls for help from the capital, maybe even taken up arms against them, probably not though as Doran was a wimp.
But surely the Reach, right? Another big old NOPE. All of their armies joined up with Renly (and then Stannis) because Renly was fucking that tween Loras. Baelish knew the Reach would likely join renly's cause against the Lannisters.
Surely the Riverlands...of course fucking not, they wouldn't have gone against Ned because of his wife, again would've been more likely to join the North in rebellion. again, Baelish knew this shit!
Anyone left? Oh yeah, the Vale, another kingdom who hated the Lannisters and Lyssa Arryn was Ned's sister in law. There's a chance Baelish might've been able to get them onside as Lyssa was obthethed with him but stand against her own sister?
Taking all this into account Baelish's decision to betray Ned was possibly the most retarded strategic political decision ever made. He basically rolled the dice that the Lannister army from the Westerlands would be able to hold the throne with almost the whole rest of the country against him and ALSO that nobody would find out about his treachery. Oh but Tywin was so rich and could hire mercenaries, right? NOPE. As master of coin, he knew that the Lannisters gold mines had run dry and that they were borrowing money from the Iron Bank to make ends meet so this wouldn't have figured into any decision on his part.
Maybe I'm missing something here but if Baelish had any sense he would've bribed the city watch to back Ned up and arrest Cersei/Joffrey, maybe I'm getting a little sentimental about my boy Ned here...
...but it was a horrific decision when taking the facts into account. If GoT was any way realistic the Lannisters should've got merked, they had no allies and 3/4 armies against them from all sides, that's an unwinnable war, but they pulled out the win because of Mary Sue syndrome.
Of course that does lead us down the path that Baelish wanted all of these kingdoms in open rebellion so the Lannisters were deposed but if so, why not just back Ned up and get rid of the Lannisters there and then?
TLDR;
- Baelish's decision to betray Ned made no sense strategically as the Lannisters had no allies and arresting him/putting him in jail resulted in 3 or 4 kingdoms in open rebellion against them.
Thoughts?
OK so in GoT, series one one of the major twists is Ned confronting Cersei/Joffrey in the throne room with the letter from Robert Baratheon that says he should rule until Joffrey is of age. He also confronts them with the incest bomb. Ned does this because he has assurances from Baelish that the city watch(who Baelish controls) will back him up and arrest the fake queen mother/king but PLOT TWIST....Baelish betrays him, holds a knife to his throat, SIKE!!!! I told you not to trust me!!!
Much is made in the series of what a schemer Baelish is and how strategic his movements are. If you take that into consideration THERE IS ZERO FUCKING REASON why he should've betrayed Ned. Why you ask? Well let me go into it...
First off, Baelish would've known that this little stunt would've resulted in Ned being arrested and charged as a traitor, he would've KNOWN that this would've enraged the North, but hey who cares right? I mean they're only frequently referred to as the toughest SOBs in Westeros, and there's only tens of thousands of them, I mean there's always the 6 other kingdoms to support the Lannisters in any ensuing war, right? NOPE...
The North - obviously would've had their boy Ned's back and this comes true in the show when the kid Robb literally secedes from the entire union and invades the south because of this event. Baelish knew this would happen.
The Stormlands - Before he enters the throne room, Baelish tells Ned that Renly was spotted leaving the capital with 100 men or something. He KNEW that Renly or Stannis would have control of this area and would've backed the anti Lannister forces so they would be no support for the throne, especially seeing as how Stannis was now the rightful heir.
What about Dorne? Nope...it was open knowledge that Dorne hated the Lannisters because of what happened to their princess on Tywin's orders, they would've ignore any calls for help from the capital, maybe even taken up arms against them, probably not though as Doran was a wimp.
But surely the Reach, right? Another big old NOPE. All of their armies joined up with Renly (and then Stannis) because Renly was fucking that tween Loras. Baelish knew the Reach would likely join renly's cause against the Lannisters.
Surely the Riverlands...of course fucking not, they wouldn't have gone against Ned because of his wife, again would've been more likely to join the North in rebellion. again, Baelish knew this shit!
Anyone left? Oh yeah, the Vale, another kingdom who hated the Lannisters and Lyssa Arryn was Ned's sister in law. There's a chance Baelish might've been able to get them onside as Lyssa was obthethed with him but stand against her own sister?
Taking all this into account Baelish's decision to betray Ned was possibly the most retarded strategic political decision ever made. He basically rolled the dice that the Lannister army from the Westerlands would be able to hold the throne with almost the whole rest of the country against him and ALSO that nobody would find out about his treachery. Oh but Tywin was so rich and could hire mercenaries, right? NOPE. As master of coin, he knew that the Lannisters gold mines had run dry and that they were borrowing money from the Iron Bank to make ends meet so this wouldn't have figured into any decision on his part.
Maybe I'm missing something here but if Baelish had any sense he would've bribed the city watch to back Ned up and arrest Cersei/Joffrey, maybe I'm getting a little sentimental about my boy Ned here...
...but it was a horrific decision when taking the facts into account. If GoT was any way realistic the Lannisters should've got merked, they had no allies and 3/4 armies against them from all sides, that's an unwinnable war, but they pulled out the win because of Mary Sue syndrome.
Of course that does lead us down the path that Baelish wanted all of these kingdoms in open rebellion so the Lannisters were deposed but if so, why not just back Ned up and get rid of the Lannisters there and then?
TLDR;
- Baelish's decision to betray Ned made no sense strategically as the Lannisters had no allies and arresting him/putting him in jail resulted in 3 or 4 kingdoms in open rebellion against them.
Thoughts?
