Game of Thrones begins....

[Valmy]

Not just in the first book.  Robb's decision to take a different bride is stupid without any need of hindsight.  The reader's reaction to it is WTF!

For a house that is initially portrayed as "wise" they are really just Hicks that are out of their league when they come out of the North. 

I do not recall them ever being called "wise".  Rather they are portrayed as humorless, grim, and honorable.

Robb, Sansa, Arya, and Eddard all have their moments where they do things that make you go  .  Jon might have one to but I do not recall it.  At least Arya realizes she has been an idiot shortly afterwards.

[grumbler]

Gregor is Tywin Lannister's mad dog. Catelyn (Tully) Stark arrested Tyrion Lannister. The Tullys are lords paramount of the trident. It is perfectly clear to me why Tyrion's arrest leads to Gregor murdering riverlanders.

Okay, but it isn't obvious to the rest of us.  Gregor's murder binge isn't aimed at anyone related to Tyrion's arrest and is an obvious act of war against a close ally of the king.  Besides, the horrific crime the lannisters are engaging in seem more likely to worsen Tyrion's danger, not lessen it.  If these attacks didn't precede tyrion's capture, which is entirely possible.

The Stark girls weren't hostages yet when Catelyn left King's Landing iirc. She had wanted to bring them home with her, but Eddard didn't want to show fear, and felt that the girls should learn the ways of the court.

But Ned expressed concern, and having Tyrion would give her leverage if things went to shit.  I suppose that is "stupid" but is seems a smart kind of stupid.  There would be no reasonable set of circumstances in which her possession of Tyrion would be a bad thing.

If Catelyn didn't know what kind of man Tywin Lannister was she could be forgiven for not knowing her action would start a war. However she should have known. there were plenty of examples of what happened to those who slighted him. Further, it seems she knew she would be pursued. Her misdirection and flight over the much more dangerous high road says as much.

The war had already started, and in any case the arrest of someone isn't a causus bellorum even to Tywin.  An execution, maybe.  Catelyn couldn't know that Martin was going to start wars on feeble excuses (or none at all), so she couldn't expect her action to start one.

Or, put another way, she would have "known what kind of man Tywin Lannister was" and that he would send Gregor to attack the Riverlands if his toast was soggy or his boots not polished.  Given that, being stupid enough to have some leverage would have been smart.

Either Tywin is irrational and hair-triggered, in which case nothing could avoid a war anyway, or he was rational and cold-blooded, in which case he would wait and see what was going on with Tyrion before starting a war.  either way, grabbing Tyrion on a legitimate pretext would be the smart kind of stupid.

It seems much more likely that, as the Larch said, she just didn't think. This is stupid, especially in actions between the high houses of the land.

She didn't plan this, of course, because she couldn't.  I agree that her actions would be stupid if she had read the book, but she was a character and it seems to me that a person in her shoes would be smart to do what she did.  Being smart like that may be stupid, but it is a smart stupid. 

[Slargos]

Not just in the first book.  Robb's decision to take a different bride is stupid without any need of hindsight.  The reader's reaction to it is WTF!

For a house that is initially portrayed as "wise" they are really just Hicks that are out of their league when they come out of the North. 

I do not recall them ever being called "wise".  Rather they are portrayed as humorless, grim, and honorable.

The main problem I have with them is that Ned has certainly been around long enough to know how the Lannisters (and others) work, and while Robb maybe has the excuse of ignorant youth, Ned and Cat certainly don't.

[crazy canuck]

They're certainly portrayed as noble and honourable country bumpkins who can't adapt to the conniving ways of city folk. The blonde farm girl from Idaho recently come to New York City.

Ned has seen the world and has successfully overthrown a dynasty that had ruled for generations.  No mean feat.  His wife is no country Bumpkin.  That is what we first learn about them in the Book.  But then, I agree, they turn into country Bumpkins somewhere along the way.

[Valmy]

The main problem I have with them is that Ned has certainly been around long enough to know how the Lannisters (and others) work, and while Robb maybe has the excuse of ignorant youth, Ned and Cat certainly don't.

You can sorta see why the kids make their mistakes but Ned's are the most frustrating.  Again it is best not to think about them too much.

[Slargos]

They're certainly portrayed as noble and honourable country bumpkins who can't adapt to the conniving ways of city folk. The blonde farm girl from Idaho recently come to New York City.

Ned has seen the world and has successfully overthrown a dynasty that had ruled for generations.  No mean feat.  His wife is no country Bumpkin.  That is what we first learn about them in the Book.  But then, I agree, they turn into country Bumpkins somewhere along the way.

Indeed. I can't really connect the description of Ned and what he's been through and done, with how he acts during the events of the books. Dissonance in the extreme.

[grumbler]

I do not recall them ever being called "wise".  Rather they are portrayed as humorless, grim, and honorable.

Robb, Sansa, Arya, and Eddard all have their moments where they do things that make you go  .  Jon might have one to but I do not recall it.  At least Arya realizes she has been an idiot shortly afterwards.

Agree with this whole line of argumentation.  The Starks (and Tullys) have eschewed the politics and compromises of the court and held to their own values and principals, which are out of date and even counterproductive when mixing with normal people.  Ned's failure to realize how much a self-made man like Littlefinger could prosper in uncertain times allows him to make the fatal error of trusting the man.  Ned literally cannot see how Littlefinger would want a civil war to erupt.

[Gups]

I reread a few weeks ago and Ned's naivety is unrealistic in the extreme. OK being a Machaevelli is not in is character description but he has fought a civil war and had to mediate between feuding underlords.

[grumbler]

Ned has seen the world and has successfully overthrown a dynasty that had ruled for generations.  No mean feat.  His wife is no country Bumpkin.  That is what we first learn about them in the Book.  But then, I agree, they turn into country Bumpkins somewhere along the way.

I don't think Ned is that well-traveled, and he overthrew a dynasty in the company of like-minded men, and then went home.  How was he to learn just how far Tywin Lannister would go to gain more power?

I think Ned was a country bumpkin all along, just as Robert was.  So was Catelyn.  Hoster Tully and his kids had stayed as far from the court as Ned had.

[grumbler]

I reread a few weeks ago and Ned's naivety is unrealistic in the extreme. OK being a Machaevelli is not in is character description but he has fought a civil war and had to mediate between feuding underlords.

Ned is a typical medieval lord with a typical medieval lord's mindset.  Ditto for his kids, for the most part.  They are dinosaurs in the Machiavellian politics of the books, but that is because Martin writes them that way.  I think an actual historical character with Ned's character in Ned's shoes would act much the way he did, and die much as he did.Nothing in his upbringing would have prepared him to think that the guy across the table wants anarchy.

[LaCroix]

I don't think Ned is that well-traveled, and he overthrew a dynasty in the company of like-minded men, and then went home.  How was he to learn just how far Tywin Lannister would go to gain more power?

I think Ned was a country bumpkin all along, just as Robert was.  So was Catelyn.  Hoster Tully and his kids had stayed as far from the court as Ned had.

robert could trust ned, and they had been friends their whole lives, and that is the only reason why he became king's hand. fighting in a civil war years earlier meant he at least knew some swordsmanship and likely generalship, but that doesn't mean he could engage in the sort of politicking required of him at king's landing. his plan after robert's death was sound from his perspective

[Martinus]

Though unbelievably (perhaps to the point where it hurts the story by disrupting the suspension of disbelief) and blindly naive? Most assuredly so.

There are a couple Stark moments like this in the first book.  You just have to not think about it too much.

Not just in the first book.  Robb's decision to take a different bride is stupid without any need of hindsight.  The reader's reaction to it is WTF!

For a house that is initially portrayed as "wise" they are really just Hicks that are out of their league when they come out of the North.

I may be wrong but I never thought of them as portrayed as "wise". Honorable, courageous, loyal yes. But not very SMRT.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think Ned is that well-traveled, and he overthrew a dynasty in the company of like-minded men, and then went home.

Not sure that is accurate.  Ned fought and succeeded in the civil war which itself had shifting loyalties.  The Books portray him as one of the leading figures in the rebellion.  Not some single minded country rube that simply fought and went home.  He succeeded in putting Robert on the throne.  The books make it pretty clear that if it had not been for Stark Robert may not have gained the throne.  The first inkling he gets that something has gone wrong is when he learns Robert is coming north to ask him to be the King's hand.   His background is much more complex and not consistent with the naive character he turns out to be.

[crazy canuck]

robert could trust ned, and they had been friends their whole lives, and that is the only reason why he became king's hand. fighting in a civil war years earlier meant he at least knew some swordsmanship and likely generalship, but that doesn't mean he could engage in the sort of politicking required of him at king's landing. his plan after robert's death was sound from his perspective

That is pretty extreme.  Ned was the key leader in the rebellion. Now you want to make him out to be some farm hand who might have known how to swing a sword.

[Martinus]

I don't think Ned is that well-traveled, and he overthrew a dynasty in the company of like-minded men, and then went home.  How was he to learn just how far Tywin Lannister would go to gain more power?

I think Ned was a country bumpkin all along, just as Robert was.  So was Catelyn.  Hoster Tully and his kids had stayed as far from the court as Ned had.

robert could trust ned, and they had been friends their whole lives, and that is the only reason why he became king's hand. fighting in a civil war years earlier meant he at least knew some swordsmanship and likely generalship, but that doesn't mean he could engage in the sort of politicking required of him at king's landing. his plan after robert's death was sound from his perspective

Indeed. The Robert's and Ned's rebellion was not an act of political intrigue and gamesmanship in the vein of Lannisters or Littlefinger. It was essentially a family feud/vendetta for them and Ned participated in it out of family duty (same reason he married Catelyn) - it was the "right thing" to do. And promptly after winning this war, he left for his Northern abode. This guy is about duty, honor and guarding the North - he is not a politicko.

His failing is not just his sense of honor but a bunch of bad traits as well - notably, pride, which requires him to believe that because he is one of the great lords, he has nothing to fear from the likes of Littlefinger or Varys.

He is like a typical medieval noble confronted with the coming of the Italian renaissance - a fish out of water.