Cersei's idiocy

[Lord Qorgyle]

I didn't anticipate all the bad consequences of her actions because you can never entirely guess what the others will do. But it doesn't take several readings to see that driving away the competent people and surrounding herself with dubious yesmen is overall a bad idea. The same can be said about allowing the Faith to raise armies again (at a moment when they are showing increasing radicalism), without any other guarantee than a debt erased : it doesn't promises good for the future. Inventing (no, Pycelle actually doesn't count : reread her POVs) the accusation against Marg is a pretty bad idea too : had she actually managed to get Kettleblack in her bed that would have been slightly different, but there she was just asking for her scheme to be discovered. And it was still pretty shortighted considering she is the daughter of your most powerful ally.

I remember clearly the *facepalm* I made when I read about that horrible, horrible idea of arming the Faith. It was crystal-clear to me that the Faith would eventually turn against her and fight against her actively. Also there was no doubt to me that sleeping with the Kettleblacks wouldn't remain a secret forever. Osmund wasn't Jaime or Lancel.

What we see in Cersei's Small Council post-Tywin is a classical example of someone who doesn't want to share power: every counselor she has around only flatters her and nobody ever points to her the flaws in the plan. If anyone does, she destroys him and/or replaces him with someone who doesn't (see Kevan Lannister; he refuses to be her pawn, so she dismisses him). This destroys the very point of having a Council and allows her to greenlight lots of plans full of obvious flaws that nobody dared to point. If people flatter you endlessly and praise your ideas, you begin to think you're indeed a genius mastermind.

Compare that to Robert's Small Council, which wasn't perfect but DID work efficiently despite the internal quarrelling / scheming.

[Ame]

Actually Kevan refused to be Hand without being Regent and Castellan of Casterly Rock; he was clearly trying to be dismissed. In the Jaime point of view you get to see he is rejecting the rest of his family to; and when he is dismissed he openly reveals to Cersei he knows Jaime is the father of her children. Kevan is just tired of the Game of Thrones and I would be very surprised if he accepts the Regency without the Tyrells agreeing to him. You are mostly right but you completely misunderstood Kevan. To become hand his condition is to actually rule and not have the bank of Lannister undermining him whenever it disagress; he is honorable and won't be a partisan for his house at the expense of the kingdom any longer.

[Faranya]

Why is it Cersei's brain power is roughly at zero in AFfC, she didn't seem brain dead before becoming a PoV character[...]

See, I think her ability to plot is at exactly the same level throughout the series. She just has people reining her in in the first three books. Her plots all seem to involve these three steps:

1. Find someone to have sex with

2. Get favor in return for sex

3. Use favor to remove perceived threat

When Tywin, Littlefinger, Tyrion, or even Jaime were around, they could actually keep her from taking big risks, or shift the risk elsewhere. Once all of these people were gone, Cersei was able to make her own, unrestricted decisions.

She had had success thus far due to the efforts of others in conjunction with herself. In AFfC, she seemed to be using the same plots, with much bigger risks and for much bigger stakes. If she had had someone else to tell her she was risking too much, she wouldn't have done so poorly. But she was drunk with success (and later wine), and thought herself quite the adept schemer due to past success.

So she stuck to what she knew, only this time she risked too much and lost.

[mcb]

And it is also said in "The Prince" that fear is better than love in terms of rulership - which is exactly what Cersei is doing.

And what Aerys was doing before her. Maybe adopting randomly selected lines from Machiavelli doesn't work perfectly in Westeros.

[kg1982]

If Eddard was alive to lead a Northern rebellion, things would probably have turned out much worse for the Lannisters. All they had to hold against him was one hostage (Sansa); remove that (like she was removed in the books), and Joffrey would be splattered like Aerys was.

If Eddard Stark was alive, then there would have never had to deal with the north to begin with. Ned admitting to treason takes away Robb's main justification for war and gives Robb what he wants at the beginning before he gets caught up in the Game of Thrones (an alive father). Additionally, Ned's public admission of guilt and willingness to affirm that Joffrey is the true ruler would also have taken the sails out of Renly and Stannis's causes. The fact that Ned was executed in a holy place during what was supposed to be a public shaming and show of mercy made it obvious that the confession was forced and justified Renly and Stannis's wars. Ned would be at the Wall, Robb would swear fealty to Joffrey and march his armies north, and there would be a prisoner exchange Arya and Sansa for Jaime.

Cersei faltered her by letting Caligula Joffrey pronounce the sentence rather than issuing a decree herself as regent.

[Faranya]

And it is also said in "The Prince" that fear is better than love in terms of rulership - which is exactly what Cersei is doing.

No, it isn't.

It is said in the Prince that, on the subject of whether it is better to be feared or loved, one should strive to be both feared and loved. However, if only one is possible, you're position as ruler is safer if you are feared.

Fear is not better than love; it is more predictable. That is the point.

Cersei was entirely capable of being both feared and loved, but she screwed that up royally.

[olennaredyne]

And it is also said in "The Prince" that fear is better than love in terms of rulership - which is exactly what Cersei is doing.

That's not entirely accurate. Machiavelli says that the best rule is to use both fear and love. To rule well, your people must fear you and love you simultaneously, like the child of a stern but intelligent parent. They must not fear you as a tyrant, because they are capable of overthrowing you. They must fear you - but they must also support you. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Cersei knows how to gain power, but not to rule. In fact, none of the Lannisters understand public relationships very well - that's why they all have terrible reputations and nobody likes them (not even Tyrion knew how to curry the favor of people) Margaery understood that - that's why she took such pains to familiarize herself with the locals, patronizing them and riding out to greet them on a daily basis, and being present for the council meetings. Shame that Cersei undermined that, really.

In fact, I'd say that the Margarey-Cersei relationships reminds me a bit of the half-sisters Mary I and Elizabeth I of England (I'm a sucker for Tudor history). Mary I the older, gaunt, unpopular queen who burned "heretics" indiscriminately and zealously, and sparking whispers of her infertility and emotional instability - and Elizabeth, the virginal, pretty younger sister who deliberately looked and behaved every inch of the royal princess - and was subsequently beloved by the public, even in the midst of her imprisonment by Mary on charges of treason. Sometimes it's all about the PR.

[Warlock Vetolgar]

The problem with Cersei is that she's ruling (or trying to) while she's seeking to prove something to herself. She wants to show to herself that she's cleverer, more ruthless, and more capable of reining in the Seven Kingdoms that her father. Since she believes she has to prove this to herself, she's already setting herself up for failure. Every decision she makes will be about making Cersei feel better about herself. That egotist attitude will always lead to the kind of short-sighted decisions that end invirably in rolling heads. Cersei is not so much an idiot as she is a lonely, low-esteemed woman who's too afraid of the world to act rationally.

[Marcus Adler]

@ the many who disliked Cersei's chapters in AFfC, I have to say I enjoyed them above all others.

One of the interesting things about Cersei in AFfC is we learn she was cruel before the events in the books -- even as a child, she was cruel to Tyrion, cruel to her family members, and quick to discard those she may have cared for at one time -- when she learns, as a youth, that Tywin intends to wed her to a Targaryen prince, for example -- she cares nothing for Jamie. There's also a scene of her twisting a part of Tyrion's body when he's a baby in the nursery -- Jamie says something to the effect of "stop, you're hurting him."

...So I can't say I really agree that Cersei's reaction is what turns Jamie around. Jamie was a pretty impulsive (and sometimes wicked) character, but as far as GRRM's "grey" characters are concerned, I'd say he's no more wicked than Cersei, given the history of the two that Martin portrays.

[King_In_The_North]

And it is also said in "The Prince" that fear is better than love in terms of rulership - which is exactly what Cersei is doing.

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..."

— Machiavelli, The Prince

Does anybody actually like the Lannisters? No. They are hated by everyone. You see that in the riots in King's Landing in ACOK.

[Marcus Adler]

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..."

— Machiavelli, The Prince

Does anybody actually like the Lannisters? No. They are hated by everyone. You see that in the riots in King's Landing in ACOK.

Have to agree with you there. If Cersei is trying to rule by fear, she does a terrible job at it.

I'd chalk that up to arrogance -- it's something she shares with her twin.

[Chirios]

Exactly. And if a city rebels, it's better to raze it to the ground. So from this standpoint, humiliating the Starks, insulting their honor, killing their rightful king (Robert), and putting incest-bred bastards on the Throne would have to be followed by exterminating the Starks as rebels and traitors, otherwise they would eventually attempt to wash the stain off their honor (and off the honor of the Realm) with Lannister blood.

...No. Just. No. Machiavelli was talking about popular revolutions, based around a Common Leader, a leader of the people chosen by the people. That's when you have to raze the city, not when a noblemen rebels. A nobleman that rebels forces the people to join him, when the people rebel they choose to rebel themselves. Completely different situation than the Starks. And all that stuff about honour is just not true at all. People start wars when they have clear reasons to do so. Leaving the Starks as they were would create enmity, but they would be nerfed, ineffectual. Killing Ned was dumb because it left the Starks in a position where they would be able to do real harm. Machiavelli was not suggesting that randomly show off their power for no reason, he was suggesting that they use power effectively. Killing Ned Stark would not have been recommended by Machiavelli at all because it left a dangerous enemy in the field, whereas sending him to prison gave him a chance to end the hostilities equitably.

And it is also said in "The Prince" that fear is better than love in terms of rulership - which is exactly what Cersei is doing.

No it isn't. This is a common misconception, but not one that is true at all. Il Principe says that when you cannot inspire love, it is usually safer to be feared, but that a leader should always avoid being hated. Which is simple logic. If people are not afraid of your punishments then they will not follow your rules, however if, like Cersei, you are constantly decreeing ridiculous punishments for minor crimes people will eventually become more afraid of what will happen if they leave you in office rather than what will happen if they ignore your rule.

Basically people should be afraid, but not to the extent that they chafe under your rule.

Cersei definitely tries to make allies. The entire "small council" was "hers" until Tyrion started mucking things up; and she also made allies from other families.

No, she tried to obtain toadies. Cersei collects various people around herself who are meek and never disagree with her about anything so that she can control them; then she is surprised when they turn out to be incompetent. And when did she try and make allies from other families?

True enough, she alienated many with her arrogance and paranoia; but with regard to Tyrells, for instance, she was completely right to hate and fear them: they DID murder Joffrey, and Margaery was not a virgin (so likely to put out another bastard heir in time).

Really? Cersei did not know or suspect that the Tyrells murdered Joffrey, she thought they were taking advantage of a young Tommen, so you can't really chalk that one up to her intelligence. As for Margaery we'll have to agree to disagree, because I still think that Margaery was a virgin.

Who says the knee would stay bent? Oaths taken under threat of force are null and void even by Westerosi standards, it says so in the books many times. And yet it did bring the complete downfall of House Stark and turned the North and the Iron Isles to fighting among themselves, leaving the Lannisters with an alliance with Highgarten and a claim to Winterfell in Sansa Stark.If Eddard was alive to lead a Northern rebellion, things would probably have turned out much worse for the Lannisters. All they had to hold against him was one hostage (Sansa); remove that (like she was removed in the books), and Joffrey would be splattered like Aerys was.Tyrion never misses a chance to criticize his sister in a most derogatory manner.

The oath wouldn't be taken under threat of force, it would be taken under equitable terms. Ned would go to the Wall and maintain his honour by fighting against the Wildlings (and eventually the Others, but she didn't know about that); the Northerners would be able to return to the North with their honour intact as Ned would admit that he was a "traitor" and therefore they wouldn't be able to rally around: They unjustly imprisoned our Lord! To ARMS! If they rebelled at that point it would be naked rebellion, which the Northerners simply wouldn't do.

The downfall of House Stark had nothing to do with Cersei's decisions. Yes, there was a causal relationship, but there is a difference between a causal relationship and something being a weighted result of my actions. If I ask my sister to pick up some sugar from the shop, and she does, and while heading to the shop she falls over, yes it's true that she wouldn't have fallen over under those circumstances had I not asked her to go to the shop, but that wouldn't be weighted against me. The same is true in reverse, if something occurs that happens to improve my circumstances as a result of a totally unrelated and unforseen action I cannot claim credit for it.

Tyrion criticises his sister because she is incompetent. He doesn't criticise Tywin's competence, nor Littlefinger's because even though he hates them, they are competent.

And if you can't see her decisions as stupid without someone explaining their stupidity to you, then maybe she's not so stupid after all, hmm?

No. People didn't realise how silly it was to act like a typical hero in true medieval history until the likely effects of that were shown by Ned Stark in AGoT. Equally people don't realise how silly it is to act like Cersei until it's shown in AFFC. Not everyone knows everything, and strategy is a complicated subject.

[Dragons Dancing]

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..."

— Machiavelli, The Prince

Does anybody actually like the Lannisters? No. They are hated by everyone. You see that in the riots in King's Landing in ACOK.

No one is portrayed as liking the Lannisters or even respecting them. Tywin engenders fear, Cersei contempt ( mainly because she is contemptuos od everyone except her kids), Tyrion engenders some fear when acting as the hand, and Jamie is fairly universally loathed as the kingslayer. They constantly discount all peoples who are not landed gentry and seek to manipulate the landed gentry to their own ends.

Jaime is showing some compassion for others but other than Brienne, his compassion is not winning him allies. I will be very unhappy if any of the Lannisters retain any power by the end of the series. They have added no value to the kingdom and their grasping for more power has put the kingdom is a terrible place for the Winter that is upon them.

[Chirios]

No one is portrayed as liking the Lannisters or even respecting them. Tywin engenders fear, Cersei contempt ( mainly because she is contemptuos od everyone except her kids), Tyrion engenders some fear when acting as the hand, and Jamie is fairly universally loathed as the kingslayer. They constantly discount all peoples who are not landed gentry and seek to manipulate the landed gentry to their own ends.Jaime is showing some compassion for others but other than Brienne, his compassion is not winning him allies. I will be very unhappy if any of the Lannisters retain any power by the end of the series. They have added no value to the kingdom and their grasping for more power has put the kingdom is a terrible place for the Winter that is upon them.

Tywin is respected. During Aerys's reign he was able to gain the love of the commons, but it's harder to do so in the middle of a civil war.

[Hodor Hodor]

I always atributed her bumbling around kings landing as Queen to a love of alcohol, she does seem to pick up drinking more after Joffrey dies.