Wmarshal Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 To those that feel sorry for the reynes, what do think Tywin's answer should have been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 How about that strange concept of justice? Punishing the Lord, executing him, end the Rebellion with some basic human decency... Contrary to popular belief, that is achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 How about that strange concept of justice? Punishing the Lord, executing him, end the Rebellion with some basic human decency... Contrary to popular belief, that is achievable. Doesn't send a very strong message, if Reyne is able to just sit in his castle while Tywin tries to starve Reyne the other lords might try help him or Tytos might even call him off and pardon Reyne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Doesn't send a very strong message, if Reyne is able to just sit in his castle while Tywin tries to starve Reyne the other lords might try help him or Tytos might even call him off and pardon Reyne. Have you read my post? I haven't mentioned starving Reyne... Doesn't it? So, every lord who ever rebelled got his House extinct? Oh, wait... Killing Lord Reyne, IMO, would have been necessary, but not his family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Have you read my post? I haven't mentioned starving Reyne... Doesn't it? So, every lord who ever rebelled got his House extinct? Oh, wait... Killing Lord Reyne, IMO, would have been necessary, but not his family He couldn't get to Reyne so trying to starve him out is the only option No but the next time a lord started getting rowdy all Tywin had to do was send a singer to play the Rains of Castamere and it stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted July 30, 2014 Author Share Posted July 30, 2014 Didn't lord Reyne lock him and his family in his castle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 No but the next time a lord started getting rowdy all Tywin had to do was send a singer to play the Rains of Castamere and it stopped. Yes, and on the first sign of weakness, entire thing collapses. As we have seen time after time, brutality sometimes brings you nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Yes, and on the first sign of weakness, entire thing collapses. As we have seen time after time, brutality sometimes brings you nowhere. Jaime gets thousands of men slaughtered between Whispering Wood and the Camps, Stafford gets thousands more killed at Oxcross, Tywin had a massive hostile army forming in the south to destroy him and Robb and the Riverlords to his north. That looks like pretty dire straits to me, but remind how many of his bannermen rebelled against him or deserted him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannisaurus2 Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Leaving Reyne/Tarbeck family members alive in a medieval world like Westeros is just inviting for a revenge-rebellion from the next one or two generations to happen, a lesson the Starks regret not knowing earlier (at a time in history Bolton rebelled against the Starks). Of all the horrible bad sh*t Tywin pulled (like unleashing Gregor on the Riverlands' people) the whole Reyne/Tarbeck thing is one I can very easily overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Wolf Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Do something that actually benefits House Lannister. Kill the Lords Reyne and Tarbeck, and any others who conspired against House Lannister. Exile their male heirs and marry their daughters to Lannisters, so your House can claim the lands and incomes of both Houses. This buys you enough time to win over their knights and bannermen in case the exiled heirs ever decide to return home to recalim their fathers' lands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Jaime gets thousands of men slaughtered between Whispering Wood and the Camps, Stafford gets thousands more killed at Oxcross, Tywin had a massive hostile army forming in the south to destroy him and Robb and the Riverlords to his north. That looks like pretty dire straits to me, but remind how many of his bannermen rebelled against him or deserted him? Westerlings :) Simple fact is that even if we can argue the efficiency of Tywin's methods, fact is that there are more noble and sometimes effective ways. Robert was turning his enemies into his friends, and no one rebelled against him. Acting as this is the only right way showed how narrow-minded Tywin was. Leaving Reyne/Tarbeck family members alive in a medieval world like Westeros is just inviting for a revenge-rebellion from the next one or two generations to happen, a lesson the Starks regret not knowing earlier (at a time in history Bolton rebelled against the Starks). Of all the horrible bad sh*t Tywin pulled (like unleashing Gregor on the Riverlands' people) the whole Reyne/Tarbeck thing is one I can very easily overlook. As I know, rare are the rebellions where entire families are destroyed. Skagosi and Boltons rebelled against Starks, and they continued to exist after it. Houses were on opposite sides of wars, and they weren't killing entire families to make point. I suppose ability to overlook at murdering children while being disgusted by Gregor is a strange notion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterJack Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 He did the right thing, Start Strong then every time later when you give a normal punishement ppl will think you are merciful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannisaurus2 Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 As I know, rare are the rebellions where entire families are destroyed. Skagosi and Boltons rebelled against Starks, and they continued to exist after it. Houses were on opposite sides of wars, and they weren't killing entire families to make point. True it is rare, but like I said Starks are probably regretting that right now. Houses fighting opposite sides is normal, betrayal is a different thing. I suppose ability to overlook at murdering children while being disgusted by Gregor is a strange notion... I am overlooking it in the medieval context it took place because it potentially saved lives by preventing future possible uprisings (same with killing the Targaryen kids, just look at the Blackfyre mess - or Dany who is about to invade Westeros for that matter.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Westerlings :) Simple fact is that even if we can argue the efficiency of Tywin's methods, fact is that there are more noble and sometimes effective ways. Robert was turning his enemies into his friends, and no one rebelled against him. Acting as this is the only right way showed how narrow-minded Tywin was. As I know, rare are the rebellions where entire families are destroyed. Skagosi and Boltons rebelled against Starks, and they continued to exist after it. Houses were on opposite sides of wars, and they weren't killing entire families to make point. I suppose ability to overlook at murdering children while being disgusted by Gregor is a strange notion... Lord Westerling had no part of it, Sybell and Rolph seemed to have been plotting against the Starks the whole time. So while other lords have their bannermen outright killing them at their own wedding and murdering hostages, Tywin's only slight hint of rebellion among his underlings his a horny 15 year old girl from one of the weakest houses in his region. There may have been better ways but brutality always worked for Tywin so why would he do anything else. And no one rebelled under Robert? Uh, Balon Greyjoy anyone? Also some of the Stormlords sided with Aerys during Robert's Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 True it is rare, but like I said Starks are probably regretting that right now. Houses fighting opposite sides is normal, betrayal is a different thing. Well, this is God knows which Bolton Rebellion. I think the last one was during Kings in the North, so at least several hundreds years ago... Not, if the High House is fighting for one side, and bennermen for other. I am overlooking it in the medieval context it took place because it potentially saved lives by preventing future possible uprisings (same with killing the Targaryen kids, just look at the Blackfyre mess - or Dany who is about to invade Westeros for that matter.) There is no medieval context of this. Politics is politics. Simply, there are lines. Tywin never knew these lines, and his children now have more enemies than it can be counted for. Simply, there are ways to end Rebellions that don't entail destroying Houses completely. Otherwise, we wouldn't have half the Houses in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pentos Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 There is no medieval context of this. Politics is politics. Simply, there are lines. Tywin never knew these lines, and his children now have more enemies than it can be counted for. Simply, there are ways to end Rebellions that don't entail destroying Houses completely. Otherwise, we wouldn't have half the Houses in Westeros. Lines? Are we reading the same books dude. This is a world in which brutal violence is never far away. Only the strong and ruthless can prosper. Every house is a potential rival. Disobedient bannermen have to be killed before they kill you. Tywin made sure no western house would ever challenge the Lannisters again while he lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Lines? Are we reading the same books dude. This is a world in which brutal violence is never far away. Only the strong and ruthless can prosper. Every house is a potential rival. Disobedient bannermen have to be killed before they kill you. Tywin made sure no western house would ever challenge the Lannisters again while he lived. I don't know what you read, dude, but there are lines here... Some people don't have them, but they usually pay for that too... Too much aggression demands retaliation and usually is quite horrific. Tywin's politics brought him some advantages, but it also costed him substantially. Let we not pretend that RW isn't a looming shadow over both Boltons and Freys, or that Tywin hadn't left his children quite the number of enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 This particular conflict wasn't your average run-of-the-mill, let me see what I can get away with, type of affair.You can argue it was a family squabble. And those can get ugly; just witness the Starks getting rid of the Greystarks for siding with the enemy.The Reynes and Tarbecks weren't just insubordinate, they tried to embarrass and ridicule Tytos Lannister. And ultimately went too far with the taking of hostages. The Reynes decided that they could out-Lannister the Lannisters. You can't expect any quarter to be given. Killing children is abhorrent and I applaud Ned for not going that route, but in Westeros it seems to be, if not accepted, at least tolerated.The other question you have to ask is what the Reynes might have done if they had gained the upper hand? Would they have shown mercy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pentos Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I don't know what you read, dude, but there are lines here... Some people don't have them, but they usually pay for that too... Too much aggression demands retaliation and usually is quite horrific. Tywin's politics brought him some advantages, but it also costed him substantially. Let we not pretend that RW isn't a looming shadow over both Boltons and Freys, or that Tywin hadn't left his children quite the number of enemies. The destruction of the Reynes and Tarbecks had no negatives for Tywin that I can see. Lannisters continued to be the paramount house in the west, he himself went on to be Hand twice. His grandchildren sit the IT. What price did he pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 The destruction of the Reynes and Tarbecks had no negatives for Tywin that I can see. Lannisters continued to be the paramount house in the west, he himself went on to be Hand twice. His grandchildren sit the IT. What price did he pay? The fact what he did with Reynes served him, but it also blurred the lines people usually don't cross. From what happened to Elia and her children to Red wedding. His cruelty and viciousness know no boundaries... He created himself enemies that his children, and grandchildren will have to fight against. And those enemies are not nearly as weak as he thought them to be. Simply, he will be paying some debts... And his children, and his grandchildren. Those that sit at IT. Lannisters always pay their debt. It goes both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.