"Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner."

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I think Tywin is a sadistic hypocrite who is not as smart and pragmatic as he thinks he is and he has more of Cersei and Joffrey in him that he admits.

[Kiss of Fire 2]

Tyrion explained it to Tywin later, with a crossbow....he gave a sharp lesson his father that was a long time coming.

[ZebuzeBuza]

The problem is that the dozen at the dinner party were not the only ones killed. Thousands of Robb Stark's army was also slain.

This.

And that was a different occasion.Men go to battle knowing that they will probably die.Men don't go to weddings expecting this...and Walder violated guest rights here!

[Carey Snow]

How? Robb was moving north to clean out the Ironborn.

Tywin did not know that for sure when planning the wedding though. Regardless, many more than a dozen died. Thousands died.

[Jory Cassel]

Tywin did not know that for sure when planning the wedding though. Regardless, many more than a dozen died. Thousands died.

Tywin was in contact with Roose who knew for sure. As for the rest, that was exactly my point on the previous page.

[Julia Martell]

I think Tywin is a sadistic hypocrite who is not as smart and pragmatic as he thinks he is and he has more of Cersei and Joffrey in him that he admits.

This.

That thing he did to his father's mistress is totally something Cersei would do.

I get a little upset with people who say that Shae was planted in his bed by Varys or something. Because the fact that he sleeps with prostitutes is so key to understanding his character.

[TyrionsFlagon]

I'm fine with it. Robb dishonored the entire North and Riverlands. It's his own fault.

[Carey Snow]

Tywin was in contact with Roose who knew for sure. As for the rest, that was exactly my point on the previous page.

We are in agreement :)

[Jasta11]

Well, for starters it's a misleading question. Thousands have died at the Red Wedding, Robb and his bannermen were far from the only ones who were murdered, their entire army was decimated. So the difference in number of people killed is academic at best.

Second, as much as utilitarian people like to rationalize every atrocity they commit to make themselves look better, there IS a clear difference between war and a war crime. Just like there is a big difference between a duel and a murder for instance. When going to battle, both parties have the expectations of a battle, that the only way to resolve the problem is at swordpoint. But when going to a wedding, there is an expectation of peace, a trust that is placed between guest and host, where you can be certain you're safe and can resolve the current problem with words. But then the host syas, to hell with this, let's kill you all. Major breach of trust, which cannot be mended in many cases. You can no longer have a neutral ground where words can resolve any problem. So the only solution remaining is the sword.

So yeah, maybe in the short term the RW ''saved'' the lives of some men by making certain only one side got massacred. But the fallout of such a major breach of trust can potentially be much, much bigger than that. We've already seen that people blame everything on the Freys and many kill them on sight. Even their own allies heavily mistrust them, which in Westeros is a few bad days away from open warfare. If the Frey's enemies defeat them, all their family can now expect absolutely zero mercy, since they gave none. It can also potentially set up a civil war in the North, causing even more deaths.

So yeah, I disagree with Tywin,s statement, and find the question not only misleading but disingenuous. The Lord of Casterly Rock is basically making excuses.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I disagree with his statement because what happened at the Red Wedding wasn't killing, but straight up terrorism. They weren't soldiers at the Wedding they were guests. Major difference.

[complexphoenix]

I disagree. Tywin neglects to mention one fact: The custom of guestright ensures stability and peace overall. It's the only way to enable diplomacy, peace-brokering, alliances and more.

If it's broken for good, you are pretty much forced to sit in a chamber with a loaded crossbow for the rest of your life, because you can never trust anybody. You'd be forced to completely eradicate any opponent (enemy would be to strong a word yet), because you could never trust them to not do the same to you.

In the end, keeping that custom alive is worth ten thousand lives - because it saves millions, maybe even billions.

This.

I'll add: in a Malthusian economy, life is cheap, and in a feudal society the few strong institutions that exist are precious. So yes, killing ten thousand in a conventional and expected fashion *is* better than killing a dozen in brazen violation of law and custom.

[kiasyd]

This is a fine example of a classic utilitarian argument (Tywin's argument) vs. a categorical imperative argument. If you guys would like to deep dive in this, I recommend reading some authors who worked on morals and justice philosophy. Good examples, IMHO: John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism), I. Kant (categorical imperative) and John Rawls as well.

If these references are TL;DR, just check the trolley cart problem and its variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). It's a nice way to pinpoint what's "wrong" in Tywin's argument.

[Daemon Stark]

Why is it more noble ? Easy : Just ask yourself this, how would you prefer to die, fighting for peace or murdered ? Tywin gave them an unfair death, and in my opinion, Tywin should have had a death like he had, he should have suffered, he deserved to suffer a lot for all he did. I see nothing wrong with dying fighting for something, it's a good death. Murder is the worst death someone could have. Everyone should have the right to fight for his/her life. I've pretty much explained it and didn't even need to talk about the guest rights which is also very important.

What is in bold is pretty much what is important not to forget.

[complexphoenix]

To put some non-theoretical examples on the table:

In the Finnish-Soviet War, the Soviets once used the white flag to propose a ceasefire and negotiations. When the Finnish came out into the open to do so, the Soviets opened fire with machine guns.

The result? The Finnish rallied despite their losses, won the battle, shot every single wounded, made the prisoners draw lots and shot every fifth one. Battle losses in most cases are way, way below 10%...

And it was considered a just, even merciful reaction, by the way. Could have gotten far worse.

In the Second World War, many wounded Japanese soldiers kept pistols or grenades, trying to kill the Marines taking them prisoner and treating their wounds.

The result? The unofficial standard procedure of the Marines became to shoot or bayonet every wounded soldier or the corpses not being definitely dead by being blown up or stuff.

In both examples, committing a war crime led to a horrific backlash.

Except that the North, the Riverlands and even the Faith are preaching Lannister involvement from every corner. The seven-damned Faith! In KL itself!

Great history.

When Tywin said "the blood is on Walder Frey's hands, not mine" he was being too clever by half and massively underestimating the intelligence of the Westerosi public. Even if Catelyn hadn't taken control of an outlaw band after hearing the words "Jaime Lannister sends his regards" and coming back from the dead (something Tywin never could have foreseen) people surely would have noticed the sudden spate of Lannister-Frey marriages and the giving of the North to Roose Bolton, and it's blatantly obvious that the Lannisters were the biggest beneficiaries of the Red Wedding. Does he really think that people won't put it together? Or does he think that once they've won, no one will dare oppose them?

In AFFC Cersei seems to think that the backlash from the Red Wedding has nothing to do with her; I'd say she's wrong. As it stands, her brother is currently at very high risk of dying for it. Other Lannisters at risk include Daven, Genna and her children and grandchildren, and Joy Hill as well if her promised Frey bastard marriage actually goes through.

[Winnief]

While I'm willing to entertain the theory that assassination can sometimes be preferable to all out war, I'm gonna have to call this quote self-serving BS on Tywin's part-and not simply because I like the Starks but for the following reasons.

1. In this thread, I laid out my reasons for why the RW was actually a highly destabilizing event....http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/102621-why-the-red-wedding-hurts-everyone/

2. Thousands actually did die during dinner thanks to the Frey's collapsing the tents and killing Robb's army-they literally had a thousand corpses in the river alone to deal with.

3. The "I'm trying to save lines in the long run" defense would be a LOT more convincing coming from someone who hadn't brutally sacked KL and ordered the murder of children to put him in good with the new regime. Someone who didn't greet the news of the kidnapping of the child he'd long wished dead as being such a slight on his honor, that he sent out his favorite pet monster Gregor Clegane and 300 handpicked psychopaths on a mission whose actual stated purpose was to terrorize the civilian population and commit atrocities. Both sides of the war have their share of innocent blood on their hands, "They lay with lions," but Tywin Lannister is the one who essentially builds his whole official strategy around war crimes. As Jaime later bitterly, notes, Tywin's ultimate legacy was the tens of thousands of bodies he left for the crows.

No, I could have believed the "I was just being pragmatic" argument, (as cold-blooded as it was) from the likes of Varys, but from Twyin, I think he was just going overboard, (as he would later melting down Ice) to 'avenge' the fact that Robb humiliated him so thoroughly in battle.

[complexphoenix]

This is a fine example of a classic utilitarian argument (Tywin's argument) vs. a categorical imperative argument. If you guys would like to deep dive in this, I recommend reading some authors who worked on morals and justice philosophy. Good examples, IMHO: John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism), I. Kant (categorical imperative) and John Rawls as well.

If these references are TL;DR, just check the trolley cart problem and its variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). It's a nice way to pinpoint what's "wrong" in Tywin's argument.

It's only utilitarian from a selfish, short-term perspective on Tywin's part. If you take a broader, more even perspective and look at the utility lost on the other side from loss of life and account for the important social role of guest right, it's not utilitarian at all for Westeros as a whole.

[Gneisenau]

Personally I think if Robb pulled the RW on the Lannisters people wouldn't be complaining as much.

[Daemon Stark]

Personally I think if Robb pulled the RW on the Lannisters people wouldn't be complaining as much.

Well, i can't talk for everybody but i personnaly despise Robb for what he did to the Frey ( Saying he will marry his daughter and take his men, send them to slaughter and not honor his engagements ), so i would still think the same thing. But even if it would be from a character i liked, exemple Tyrion ( Who would anyway never do something this low ) i would still complain as much about it.

[The Wolves]

Personally I think if Robb pulled the RW on the Lannisters people wouldn't be complaining as much.

I sure wouldn't, Tywin and his monsters deserve nothing less.

[The Santa of House Claus]

It's not the killing that is the problem, it is the breach of trust and the way it was done (not to mention to whom it was done to and by). As far as the best way to end a war, you kill the opposing leaders, not just the opposing foot soldiers. It becomes more noble to kill the 10,000 because in the killing of "the dozen" they were, at the time, innocents and noncombatants, not to mention they were assumed to be under the very sacred protection of guest right.

Killing the leaders or "the dozen" instead of just going army to army is one of the main reasons I like the Jack Ryan character by Tom Clancy, he realizes that the right thing to do, in the circumstances he is faced with, is to go for the business men in Japan making the decisions and the Ayatollah in Iran, rather then try to fight each country. Tywin knew that the best way for him to beat Robb was not on the battlefield, he kept failing at that, well more accurately, Robb kept winning there. Tywin had to find a better way, and that was to use the opening presented by the fact that Robb broke his marriage pact with the Freys, that he would have to try to make peace with them at some point in the near future, and that both the Freys and Boltons are rather treacherous and wanting more power for themselves.

I maybe wrong, but it seems most of the blame for and hatred from the Red Wedding goes to the Freys then the Boltons, and not Tywin, because, well Tywin is a much more likable character (at least the show version is) and that it was not he that broke any sacred and ancient laws or betrayed his lord and king.