Jump to content

Is Cersei a Bad Ruler? (Or Who Would be the Best Ruler?)


Holly Macaroni

Recommended Posts

Well, the series surely toned down on the political side of Westeros since the first seasons.

But, personalities/karmic alignment asides, who do you think would be the best ruler?

Bear in mind that we only see them interacting with each other, but we should take in account what they have done or what they've proven they could do for the realm.

Strictly speaking, I think the one who's proven a more capable king/queen, turns out to be Cersei (I'm aware that in the books she sucks, I'm talking about the series).

Now, if I'm right, this could be because of two things:

1- Either they're purposely making her both a good ruler and a horrible person, to give a sweet-sour taste on our mouths, and ultimately sympathize with her when her competency is revealed (like her final speech before she dies, or people only realizing it after her defeat, or so).

2- They just got careless with the writing and didn't realize that her plot armor had the side effect of making her a good leader.

 

Of course, I could be wrong on this, but her are the main possible contenders:

Night King:

Well, he'd end famine, wars, etc. On the other hand, he'd just plain kill everyone AND every animal, and would most likely severely worsen the weather forever, so he'd most likely provoke a biological cataclysm.

Cersei:

We've seen her being a major bitch for the last 7 years, so it's really easy to antagonize her.

But, since she took charge, the things we've seen in her ruling are:

- Militarily she gambited her way in order to feed and sustain the population (via the Reach's crops), even going ahead and giving away her own house's seat in the process.

- Economically, she solved the financial crisis, which could help her, not only militarily, but also sustain the smallfolk

- Politically, she just fooled Dany and Jon (who actively want to kill her AND her people), just so that hopefully the people can prosper without having to survive another siege, and reducing the casualties in KL.

Jon:

Well, while his heart seems to be in the right place, he just sold out the entire North just to get laid.

He's often said to be more of a soldier/military strategist, but, even then, in the battle of the Bastards he just abandoned his own army to charge his enemies cavalries all by himself (!), and he just recently did that suicide mission that cost them a f**** dragon (and did it without resorting to Bran for warging/scouting, or not even a single horse, meaning they had to eventually outrun the army of the dead with a live wight on their back).

Also, as soon as he left Winterfell, Sansa seemed to solve some basic problems (like, you know, food), which not only means he didn't, but also implies he wasn't even aware of them.

Dany:

On the plus side, she freed slaves.

On the other hand, she never could restore peace or order. The free cities were down to chaos, and she never did any progress in solving it, even ending up leaving the people she left in anarchy, and without any economical/social stabilization in the horizon whatsoever (and, IIRC, she left a sellsword leading them!). And she left them all...to fight a foreign war for personal gain.

Sansa:

A Wildcard here, since she has lots of campaigning to do if she wants to even stand a chance to rule one day.

As soon as she took over, she addressed that leather thing, the crops and possible starvation problem.

In terms os politics, she cleverly sent brienne as an emissary, in order to maintain her ass in Winterfell and not lose the loyalty of the very volatile lords of the north, weeded out Littlefinger, and calmed down the northern lord's concerns about Jon's absence without losing any authority, without undermining Jon, and without making them look weak.

The thing with Sansa is...she established herself to be a good ruler, because she learned with...Cersei.

Stannis:

I'm still loyal to him, and still believe he's to wisely rule the seven kingdoms, as is his right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Cersei is ruthless and thinks only for her own well-being. She might be a powerful and able ruler, but not good for the people. She doesn't care about dead citizens at all.

Stannis lost his mind to religious nonsense and burned his own daughter. He is a religious nutcase and was unable to lead his army in the winter. He is no ruler type at all.

Daenerys is naive, impulsive-aggressive. Good intentions do not make a good ruler. She proved incapable over and over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life Cersei would be ousted faster than a speeding bullet for being an utter shit with no redeeming features or actual ability to rule. Most of her successes have been... questionable at best, and downright stupid at worst with no evidence she could survive in any situation where the 'plot' doesn't bend over backwards to make her scrambling succeed somehow.

That said, when compared to her 'competition' so late in the show she is the next thing from Machiavelli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2017 at 1:52 PM, Holly Macaroni said:

 

Cersei:

We've seen her being a major bitch for the last 7 years, so it's really easy to antagonize her.

But, since she took charge, the things we've seen in her ruling are:

- Militarily she gambited her way in order to feed and sustain the population (via the Reach's crops), even going ahead and giving away her own house's seat in the process.

- Economically, she solved the financial crisis, which could help her, not only militarily, but also sustain the smallfolk

- Politically, she just fooled Dany and Jon (who actively want to kill her AND her people), just so that hopefully the people can prosper without having to survive another siege, and reducing the casualties in KL.

 

She did not solve the financial crisis. She immediately plunged the realm into more debt, but also, in the longer term, she will have provoked a major economic crisis. After all, if the Crown can just seize the cash it needs, who will take the risk of investing in the longer term?

(I appreciate this is a fantasy show that will not demonstrate the long term economic consequences of Cersei's forfiture policy, but let's be real, she's set Westeros on a path to becoming Venezuela).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cercei a good ruler?! :blink:

You must have been watching a different show then, She's outsmarting her enemies at the moment yes, but it will not last. Had she been a good person it could have been a different matter however.

The Night King?......O well, sure...If you don't mind being a mindless zombie he will be an excellent choice.

Jon and Dany? Together maybe?

Sansa? Interesting choice, she has an eye for small details that Jon and Dany lack.

But my choice would be ...Tyrion. why?.. Because Westeros would be wicked with him on the iron throne. :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Sansa, the Karstarks and the Umbers would have been the Blackfyers of the North. A good ruler is not the one who defeats his enemies. But the one who forges true alliances with them. Otherwise you will have new wars in the next generations. Only Jon has ruled correctly, or said things 'spot on' (besides Tyrion and Varys), this last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...