Is Alastor Moody considered to be the deputy leader of the Order of the Phoenix, when Albus Dumbledore is not around? I still recall that in Order of the Phoenix, he led the Advance Guard to escort Harry Potter to the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix, and he also led the Order in the Battle of Seven Potters after Dumbledore's death....
asked Sep 10, 2018 at 10:24
-
A leader may delegate tasks of a martial nature to an underling who's fit for those tasks due to his/her experience, without raising the aforementioned underling to the post of his deputy. Just because he was used for Escort duty both times doesn't imply he may have been the deputy leader. I'd dare say that the deputy leader, if existing, will have plenty on their plate (Like Dumbledore did) to escort Harry around.– AegonCommented Sep 10, 2018 at 10:32
-
2Plus I don't believe there ever was a deputy leader at all given how the Order's command structure almost collapsed after Dumbledore's death and acted without any clear direction or plan with everyone doing what they could to contribute to the fall of the Darklord.– AegonCommented Sep 10, 2018 at 10:35
-
1Moody looks more like a Chief of Security and/or counter-intelligence, than a Deputy. I also agree that there was no hierarchical structure resembling a government. Dumbledore was more of a Chairman of a round table, than a full-scale leader.– TimSparrowCommented Sep 10, 2018 at 12:42
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Possibly Moody was the ‘de facto’ leader when Dumbledore died.
It’s unclear what Moody was ‘officially’ considered, but during the Order’s mission to evacuate Harry from the Dursleys, the only mission that we really see between Dumbledore’s death and Moody’s, it seems like Moody was the effective leader of that particular mission. He’s the one who explains the plan to Harry, he gives everyone their orders on what they’re supposed to do, and he’s the one who had all the supplies they needed for their plan.
“Mundungus did not look particularly reassured, but Moody was already pulling half a dozen egg-cup-sized glasses from inside his cloak, which he handed out, before pouring a little Polyjuice Potion into each one.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4 (The Seven Potters)
During this mission, everyone seems to defer to Moody, and follow what he says to do. Moody tells everyone who they’ll be leaving with, and keeps them under control.
“Enough messing around!’ snarled Moody. ‘The other one – George or Fred or whoever you are – you’re with Remus.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4 (The Seven Potters)
He seems to be the one in charge of the whole mission, he’s the one who makes sure everyone is ready to leave at the same time so the plan for creating a diversion works.
“All right then,’ said Moody. ‘Everyone ready, please; I want us all to leave at exactly the same time or the whole point of the diversion’s lost.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4 (The Seven Potters)
While he seems to clearly be the leader of this particular mission, it’s not clear if he was considered to be the leader of the entire Order after Dumbledore died as well. Though it’s possible he might have been, it’s not certain from what we know. He may have just taken charge because he was the best qualified in this particular case, but not have been the head of the Order in general. This is the only Order mission we see between Dumbledore’s death and Moody’s, so there’s not much chance for us to see how the Order was run when Dumbledore was dead but Moody was still alive.
However, there’s nothing that says there was a clear ‘new leader’.
Though Moody took charge of the mission to get Harry from the Dursleys’ house safely, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he was intended to be the Order’s new leader. Dumbledore didn’t seem to have a clear succession plan for the Order when he died, like he did for the post of Headmaster at Hogwarts, where he intended Snape would take his place. In addition, though Moody is clearly in charge of moving Harry, Moody doesn’t say anything about being the new leader of the Order to Harry when getting ready to move him. He also doesn’t mention anyone else being the new head of the Order after Dumbledore died. There may not have actually been a new head at all.
No, all of the orders members could have helped lead at some point before or after Dumbledore's death, there was no set leader. I'm mainly gathering this from a Pottermore quote i found about Mad-Eye, that to me is interesting.
Famously paranoid Auror and one-time leader of the Order of the Phoenix
-Alastor Moody - Pottermore
(Highlight is mine) now this quote leads me to believe that any member of the order could lead a certain expedition/journey, and they would have been chosen to lead due to whichever assets they possess. Here's another Pottermore quote that i found that may be helpful.
Hogwarts Headmaster, founder of the Order of the Phoenix, with a fondness for sherbet lemons and knitting patterns
Albus Dumbledore - Pottermore
(Again Highlight is mine) Notice how it says that he was specifically the founder of the Order of the Phoenix not the leader this leads me to believe that in the leadership system of the Order anyone could have chosen to take some action/leadership at some point and they would be considered the leader for whatever they where trying to do.
-
1This is possible, but not likely. "One-time" has two possible definitions: "on a single occasion" (i.e. Moody was the leader of the Order of the Phoenix on exactly one occasion) or simply "former" (i.e. Moody was the leader of the Order of the Phoenix in the past, but isn't currently). I suspect the latter meaning is intended in the Pottermore quote. Commented Sep 10, 2018 at 14:25
-
2As for Dumbledore simply being called the "founder", and not explicitly the "leader", so what? That's exactly what you'd expect in English. There's a strong implication that the founder of an organisation was, at some point, the leader of it, without needing to explicitly state that. Commented Sep 10, 2018 at 14:30
-
@ Anthony Grist noun: founder; plural noun: founders a person who establishes an institution or settlement. "he was the founder of modern Costa Rica"– NifflerCommented Sep 12, 2018 at 13:24
-
Yes, I know the definition of the word. I'm considerably less clear on what point you're trying to make. Commented Sep 12, 2018 at 13:34
-
@Anthony Grist if there was a strong implication as you put it i would hope that it would be included in at least one diefinition of founder and yet i cant find any that do.– NifflerCommented Sep 12, 2018 at 13:35