This document analyzes the Machiavellian tactics used by characters in George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones and compares them to modern American politics. It discusses how young king Joffrey Baratheon ruthlessly wields power, while Eddard Stark's honorable nature leads to his downfall. Meanwhile, Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish effectively manipulates events through deception and information, embodying a true Machiavellian leader. The document argues that while ruthless tactics may ensure success, they often come at the expense of followers.

1. Student
Terrific Student
Dr. Kim Palmore
EWRT 2
12 December 2013
Machiavellian Deceit in GoT and American Politics
The world of George R.R. Martin’s novel A Game of Thrones is a turbulent one full of
deceptive politicians, backstabbers, and warmongers. It tends to have a lot in common with that
of 16th
century Rennaissance Italy, a time and place home to the statesman, philosopher, and
writer Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli had grown up in a time of almost constant political
upheaval and he had seen his own career and social status change with each shift of power in the
various city-states of Italy. Combining his experience under various rulers with his honest
opinions, Machiavelli put forth the 1513 text The Prince, in which he explains a philosophy
encouraging the acquisition of power through direct and sometimes questionable means. Setting
out the argument that the end justifies the means, the book easily becomes a frame to examine
the actions (or inactions) of the various characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. But The Prince also
remains a timeless legacy that is as relevant today as it was to the Medicis (who Machiavelli
wrote it for) 500 years ago. American politicians are no stranger to the cunning and sometimes
ruthless tactics that resemble Machiavellian behavior. Machiavellian tactics are appropriate for
the success of leaders in both Game of Thrones and contemporary America, but leading in this
style often comes at the expense of those who follow.
The Game of Thrones is shaped by its participants, but most do not approach the game
with the Machiavellian ruthlessness of the young king Joffrey Baratheon. Taking power late in
the novel, Joffrey is an example willing to embrace Machiavelli’s assertion that, “a prince must
1

2. Student
not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and
loyal” (Jacobus 43). Joffrey does so very eagerly and more to the point, without concerning
himself with the reactions of his subjects. Martin describes Joffrey’s unique form of justice in
court: “A thief was brought before [Joffrey] and he had Ser Ilyn chop his hand off, right there in
court. Two knights came to him with a dispute about some land, and he decreed that they should
duel for it on the morrow. ‘To the death,’ he added” (746). Here, Joffrey doles out punishments
because he wishes to do so, not because it serves the purpose of keeping people in fear of him.
Machiavelli understands that a cruel act is not a moral one, but that it is sometimes necessary
(Buckingham 106). In a key distinction Machiavelli argues, “A prince must nevertheless make
himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love”
(Jacobus 44). Joffrey does not fear hatred, and he does not recognize that his actions may
eventually lead to unintended consequences or his supporters turning against him. For these
reasons, he has Ned Stark beheaded against all wishes and advisement, an unnecessary act that
partly begins an entire war. As an immature and sadistic individual, Joffrey simply enjoys cruel
acts, and he is all too willing to continue inflicting them on his subjects, friends, and the allies
who support him. This type of tyranny is what Machiavelli warns against, though one doubts that
Joffrey would have heeded the advice to become a more merciful ruler if he had read The Prince.
There is perhaps no one who might have benefited more from reading Machiavelli than
Eddard Stark. As one of the world’s more honorable characters, Stark demonstrates that in order
to serve as a leader, one must sometimes do things that conflict with their moral code. Stark
spends the first half of the novel demonstrating his good nature and acting as the idealistic man
he feels a leader should be. His first grave mistake comes in warning Cersei that he has learned
that her son comes from incestuous relations to give her the opportunity to flee the kingdom.
2

3. Student
Machiavelli warns that, “a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will
come to ruin among so many who are not good” (Jacobus 40). In this case, bringing information
to light in a merciful yet unnecessary act gives his villainous enemy ammunition to use against
him. Cersei is wise enough to let Stark bring his accusation up at the worst possible moment:
after she has declared her son king and has prepared her trap. Ned Stark’s good deed lands him
in jail, ends his role as a political actor in the Game of Thrones, splinters his family, and leads to
his ultimate death. It is a wonder he has been able to lead Winterfell for so long since he does not
seem to see danger in his merciful actions.
There are many what if scenarios that surround Ned Stark’s final fate. Eddard Stark’s
political decision to refuse both Renly and Littlefinger’s offers are a key turning point in the
novel and one wonders how he might have fared if he had acted more Machiavellian. While he
does decide to commit a fraudulent act in the name of the greater good when he writes Robert’s
will to support Stannis’ claim to the throne, his reliance on the document is a huge weakness to
his claim. Machiavelli would have disagreed with using paper over swords to enforce a claim
since, “between an armed and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not
reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly” (Jacobus 38). Granted, Ned
Stark tries to buy the Goldcloaks (but too late) and is betrayed by Littlefinger, but as the Lord
Protector he might have survived on his own if he’d bought the Goldcloaks himself, openly
exposed Joffrey as an illegitimate claim to the throne, and taken action sooner. As the legal King
Regent, he could have also easily sided with Renly, who argues, “Once we have her children,
Cersei will not dare oppose us. The council will confirm you as Lord Protector and make Joffrey
your ward.” Renly offers another temporary solution, but Stark’s inability to stomach taking
children hostage is a weakness leading to his failure as a leader. In each case, taking the more
3

4. Student
Machiavellian route may have led to Ned being able to protect himself, his family, and the realm.
Machiavelli says that a great leader, “must read histories…of great men; he must see how they
conducted themselves in wars; he must examine the reasons for their victories and for their
defeats…” (Jacobus 39). Stark would have most certainly had to commit treason, but he should
understand better than anyone that Robert Baratheon was only installed because of a necessary
treasonous act. As the Lord Protector, it is Stark’s duty to do right by whatever means possible;
examining wartime measures against the Targaryens might have given him the courage to secure
power by engaging in the cruelty of kidnapping or bribery.
One character who knows their place in the world and how to properly toe the line
between moral and immoral acts is Petyr Baelish. Better known as Littlefinger, the king’s
council member is a politician first and a reminder of those who tend to be able to control things
in real life. As the Master of Coin with a number of spies in his employment, Littlefinger
controls events through manipulation and information. Machiavelli wisely advises leaders, “to
seem merciful, faithful, humane, forth-right, religious, and to be so; but his mind should be
disposed in such a way that should it become necessary not to be so, he will be able and know
how to change to the contrary” (Jacobus 47). Essentially, he is praising the act of a wolf in
sheep’s clothing. No character knows how to turn on the charm and betray someone in the next
moment as well as Littlefinger. Early in the novel, Baelish befriends Ned Stark, and gives him
direction to help him find Jon Aryn’s killer, eventually leading him to the question of illegitimate
children. His part in the political action comes to a head after the king dies and he attempts to
convince Stark that the best course of action is to let Joffrey take the throne until another
advantage presents itself. Stark refuses and tries to enlist Littlefinger’s help in buying the city
guard, a favor he has a difficult time asking for. In the moment of his betrayal, Littlefinger
4

5. Student
describes his intimate knowledge of where Stark fails as a Machiavellian leader: “You wear your
honor like a suit of armor, Stark. You think it keeps you safe, but all it does is weigh you down
and make it hard for you to move” (Martin 513-514). His knowledge of Stark’s trust is what he
uses to twist the knife deeper, and in the end he is just another person taking advantage of his
opposition’s good nature. The only thing preventing Petyr Baelish from becoming a true leader is
his own right is his operations in the shadows. However, one senses that like the Medicis, he is
only waiting to turn his mastery over money into an opportunity for true power.
Ruthlessness and deceit have always been a virtue of leadership, and one can easily find
it on display in recent American politics. Like Littlefinger, politicians must sometimes make
promises and break them in order to become leaders. Broken campaign promises, after all, are a
tradition inherent to any American political office, since the series of checks and balances in
place prevents any one politician from doing everything they intended to do on their own.
Machiavelli says that, “A wise ruler…should not keep his word when such an observance of
faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed”
(Jacobus 46). Presidents are not immune to this idea despite the fact that they are on the world
stage, and every president has failed to bring his vision to completion in some form. During
George W. Bush’s original campaigns, he promised to attack useless spending, but he failed to
use his power of veto even once to cut down on frivolous spending (American Progress Action).
President Clinton failed to cut taxes for the middle class even though it was a huge part of his
campaign, and President Obama failed to build the country’s transportation infrastructure as part
of his stimulus package (Caldwell). Each president comes with lists of promises too long to
describe and analyze here, and each of them probably understand that, “A prince never lacks
legitimate reasons to break his promises” (Jacobus 46). The reasons for this are simple:
5

6. Student
circumstances constantly change, what sounded like a good idea on paper is impossible to
execute, and knowledge gained after taking office may prevent one from acting as one thinks
they should. This isn’t to say that politicians accomplish nothing, because each of these men has
made a huge contribution to their country however you feel about them, but voters should be
aware that campaign promises can be empty promises.
The meaning of Machiavelli’s The Prince has been a long debated topic with some
participants praising the no-nonsense approach to government and others vilifying the lack of
moral restraint. There isn’t likely to be an end to the debate of this work, but one cannot deny
that it offers a realist’s approach to leading through its lasting understanding of the basic
psychology of people. Machiavelli never thought much of the general populace, who he
describes as, “ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for
gain…” (Jacobus 44). But it is important to realize that these are the people who have to live
with the brunt of the actions of the leaders that control their lives. For the citizens of Westeros,
that means being pulled into wars because of the clash between a few individuals. For citizens of
the United States of America, that means allowing politicians to make decisions we may disagree
with in our stead. Machiavelli fails to mention how acting as a good prince should exclude them
from a population so easily swayed in one direction or another. Leaders seem to be in a class of
their own, free from his judgment and the traditional Christian morality that pervaded
Renaissance Italy (Buckingham 106). But leaders are people at the end of the day and subject to
the weight of their decisions and inevitable mistakes. If we cannot always act on our own behalf,
we should hope for leaders that combine Machiavellian ruthlessness designed to protect us with
the compassion of a moral compass that keeps the little people in mind.
6

7. Student
Works Cited
"The Broken Promises of George W. Bush." Http://www.americanprogressaction.org/. Center
for American Progress Action Fund, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
Buckingham, Will. The Philosophy Book. London: DK Pub., 2011. Print.
Caldwell, Leigh A. "Obama's First Inaugural Speech: Promises Kept, Promises Broken." CBS
News. N.p., 20 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2006. Print.
Martin, George R.R. A Game of Thrones. New York: Bantam Books, 1996. Print.
7