Are second sons first-rate rulers?

[Aduro]

Has anyone else noticed that when it comes to ruling, and especially maintaining peace, leaders who weren't supposed to be heirs (ie bastards, those who earned a title by merit and younger sons) are often much more effective?

• For example Rickard Stark rashly went off to challenge the Mad King for the sake of his sister, Eddard didn't come down without an army and more importantly didn't get himself killed. Its also likely that Jon would have shown more icy compassion than Robb if he was leading the Northern Rebellion.
  
• Tyrion is an effective ruler who will do anything for his family while Jamie wants glory in battle.
  
• Stannis is a boss in battle but unlike his brother builds lasting peace and justice while his brother's reign left the realm with a huge hangover.
  
• Tommen is a foolish child but he behaves himself and is benevolent while his older brother was worse than Aerys and Myrcella is clever and compassionate.
  
• Davos is Stannis' most reliable subordinate and hand earned a title through merit and as been way more effective that his other useless bannerman. It has also been noted that most of Littlefinger's employees as Master of Coin were largely lesser nobility but were intelligent, like Littlefinger himself, and they got him the economy he wanted.
  

I think this might be because they have not been told that it is their right to rule, and don't have the inflated ego. Being next in line teaches humility and an appreciation for those beneath you. This is something even the best rulers can lack. Then again there are exceptions, Renly was the baby Baratheon and he was just playing at King for attention, and from what we've heard Willas and Garland would both be great lords.

[Viserys - The last dragon]

I doubt you can say that. But you have a few examples- yes. But there are many that prove otherwise. I believe there is no clear rule on this subject.

[Mad Monkey]

I agree there's no way to say that. It may be the reason you state, and also because second sons usually don't rule unless circumstances conspire to thrust them into the position. There might be more pressure to not just be OK but exceptional in a crisis situation (all of those exampels ascended during war time and most of them after their brothers were murdered).

[David Selig]

Has anyone else noticed that when it comes to ruling, and especially maintaining peace, leaders who weren't supposed to be heirs (ie bastards, those who earned a title by merit and younger sons) are often much more effective?

• For example Rickard Stark rashly went off to challenge the Mad King for the sake of his sister, Eddard didn't come down without an army and more importantly didn't get himself killed.

Kind of a poor example, since nobody is dumb enough to come without an army when the king is asking for his head. What Brandon did was rash and ill-adviced, sure, but Ned had a lot of similar blunders too.

I think this might be because they have not been told that it is their right to rule, and don't have the inflated ego. Being next in line teaches humility and an appreciation for those beneath you.

Tyrion and Stannis have enormous egos and neither seems to care much for those beneath them.

Then we have Viserys...need I go on? ;)

Stannis is a boss in battle but unlike his brother builds lasting peace and justice

When has he ever built a lasting peace?

[Roddy the Ruin]

It differs

[Ironside]

I think it depends on a mix of character and upbringing. I find it hard to believe that just being a second son increases leadership.

[averde]

A second son might be more humble and stuff like that since they never expected to rule and maybe that'll help but there's really no reason to say all second sons would make for better lords. There's examples that show the opposite is true and they'd make worse lords then their older brothers. For example Lyn Corbray is a second son, he's a good fighter but outside of that he's a pretty scummy, helping LF against his own people, pedophile kind of guy. Ramsay is the second son of Lord Bolton, his first son Domeric sounded like a pretty good guy.

[Aduro]

Then we have Viserys...need I go on? ;)

There are exceptions, but Viserys, was a Targ he was taught he was special and that he was a dragon. He's was just as pampered as any first-born until his father died.

When has he ever built a lasting peace?

On Dragonstone, a former Targ stronghold which has been ruled effectively by a Baratheon conqueror, its one of the reasons Cressen gave for Stannis being given the lands there instead or Storm's End.

I'm not saying every non-heir is an ideal leader or that every heir is a pampered fool, but a character who is promised too much too easily won't appreciate those with nothing.