(TWOIAF Spoilers) Bloodraven almost as ruthless as Tywin

[Wouter]

Did Tywin explicitly give that order? Iirc he did not.

“Let them,” Lord Tywin said. “Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers.

Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three

hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork.”

“They will burn, my lord,” Ser Kevan said, rising. “I shall give the commands.” He bowed and

made for the door.

When they were alone, Lord Tywin glanced at Tyrion. “Your savages might relish a bit of

rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like-goods, stock, women,

they may take what they want and burn the rest.”

He did. We saw the results, from close by.

[Chaircat Meow]

He did.

Huh.

How in Hades does that conversation say what you claimed it did?

[John Doe]

He told Kevan to tell Gregor to put the Riverlands to the torch IIRC.

Yes, a normal war tactic back then.

[Wouter]

I doubt they were raiding the western shore without Robbs' consent. And don't forget the hanged women at the beginning of ASOS, they were hanged for sleeping with lions. Nice.

And how are the lords supposed to feed the surviving farmers when reaving northmen took the provisions away?

With the plunder those same lords took from the Riverlands, for example. Or with the earnings of their rich mines, or with the support of the rich overlords for whom they had been fighting a war (and left their homelands barely defended).

As for raiding, sure, Robb ordered raiding. But there is not a shred of proof that he ordered them to "set the westerlands afire from one end to the other" nor "that they might relish a bit of rapine". Maybe the northern lords did quite a bit of that anyway, but not on his orders nor within his sight. Taking livestock, riches, food, sure, killing those who resisted, sure, but not quite what Gregor did. Stannis doesn't fight in the way Gregor and co does either, so it's not impossible in Westeros to have a large army and yet not to act like Dothraki.

After all, Robb didn't "relish a bit of rapine" and then "burned the rest" when he took the Crag. Nor do I think he treated the surrounding villages like Lorch, Hoat and Clegane did. It's no coincidence that the Brotherhood holds sway in the Riverlands, and that the religious uprising also seems to originate from there. The Westerlands were barely touched in comparison.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Bloodraven threw himself on a grenade. Tywin threw other people on grenades.

[Wouter]

Yes, a normal war tactic back then.

Normal for some. Not for Robb or Stannis. Seriously, what Clegane and Hoat and Lorch did is notable even by Westerosi and medieval standards. Notable for extreme brutality, and indeed, ruthlessness.

[Wouter]

Huh.

How in Hades does that conversation say what you claimed it did?

Wat baten kaars en bril als de uil niet zienen wil?

[Ramsay Gimp]

I disagree - Tywin repeatedly goes over the top or tries the most aggressive option first:

- He doesn't just execute the guilty Tarbecks and Reynes, he slaughters their entire extended family (even though in this case he's got a somewhat decent excuse)

- when Aerys opens the gates he doesn't just kill/detain Aerys, he sacks the entire city and orders a death of two innocent children (if Elia was an accident, it was a foreseeable one)

- he doesn't banish or kill Tysha, he has her gang raped

- it's not enough to defeat the Riverland armies in battle, he insists on setting Gregor&co to rape, pillage and burn the place to the ground

- his idea of killing 'a few men' at a wedding involves murder of thousands. Contrast Olenna, or even BR and Aenys.

But you said Tywin does atrocities just because he can. In Tysha's case that may be true, and it would be true if he ordered Elia raped and murdered (I don't think he did but I acknowledge it's ambiguous).

But killing the Reynes/Tarbecks rid the West of two treasonous Houses and set a precedent that Tywin benefited from his whole life (notice how loyal the Westerlands have been since then). Killing Rhaegar's children secured the throne for Robert. Raping and pillaging the Riverlands caused Edmure's army to disperse and try to defend their own lands. As for the Red Wedding, he got rid of the Northern leadership and army in one feel swoop. You think it would have been smarter to kill the King and then leave those thousands of soldiers alive?? That wouldn't even be possible, let alone smart.

Like Chrisdaw said, most of this is spelled out in the text.

[John Doe]

With the plunder those same lords took from the Riverlands, for example. Or with the earnings of their rich mines, or with the support of the rich overlords for whom they had been fighting a war (and left their homelands barely defended).

As for raiding, sure, Robb ordered raiding. But there is not a shred of proof that he ordered them to "set the westerlands afire from one end to the other" nor "that they might relish a bit of rapine". Maybe the northern lords did quite a bit of that anyway, but not on his orders nor within his sight. Taking livestock, riches, food, sure, killing those who resisted, sure, but not quite what Gregor did. Stannis doesn't fight in the way Gregor and co does either, so it's not impossible in Westeros to have a large army and yet not to act like Dothraki.

After all, Robb didn't "relish a bit of rapine" and then "burned the rest" when he took the Crag. Nor do I think he treated the surrounding villages like Lorch, Hoat and Clegane did. It's no coincidence that the Brotherhood holds sway in the Riverlands, and that the religious uprising also seems to originate from there. The Westerlands were barely touched in comparison.

The people of the Riverlands didn't like the wolf more than the lion. And there was no plunder from the Riverlands the lords in the westerlands posessed, if anything, it was used to feed Tywin's army, and the rest was burned.

And "paying back in kind the devastation" heavily implies for me that the Northmen used the same methods the westermen had previously used in the Riverlands.

[Aemond's Eye]

The people of his time did hate Bloodraven. And in turn, he hated them.

Aenys Blackfyre is one person... Tywin killed hundreds, thousands.

Aenys is nothing compared to that. Only because it was treachery was it bad.

Really? I never got that impression. His appearance, being a worshipper of the old gods and the whisperings that he dabbled in the black arts made him a dark character in the eyes of many, and it seemed to me that Brynden used it to his advantage for the benefit of his family and by extension the realm as a whole.

[Elkrider]

I think that Bloodraven and Tywin were both ruthless men, who would do anything if they thought the ends were justified. There are enough examples of both of them being ruthless earlier in this thread. The reason I feel more positively towards Bloodraven is that his ends appear to be more positive than Tywin's. Bloodraven in the D&E era was focused on preserving the realm, and at the current time is focused on protecting humanity from the Others*.

Tywin's motivations appear to be feeding his own ego and making sure that he is never laughed at the way his father was. While there are some similarities with wanting their Houses to be strong, Tywin's completely counterproductive parenting has ensured that that will never happen. Tywin's story is one of his children undoing all that he did after he dies, and how he fails to build a legacy despite his Machiavellian politics (esp. compared to Ned). Bloodraven, meanwhile, symbolizes continuing traditions as a greenseer, and his legacy includes Egg becoming King.

*I leave the possibility that his real goals are more complicated than that open, a la "The children are related to the Great Other" crack theories. Still, the Others have been presented as the big bad of the series so far, and protecting humanity against them as, if not 'good', then what everyone needs to be doing, as opposed to messing about in political power plays.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And "paying back in kind the devastation" heavily implies for me that the Northmen used the same methods the westermen had previously used in the Riverlands.

There was probably plenty of looting, rape, and pillage, but I doubt the Northmen set up the kind of systematic torture and mass murder the Mountain practiced in ACOK. Tywin didn't specifically order that either, but he knows what Gregor is

[John Doe]

The problem is, we have no pov in the westerlands at that time.

[chrisdaw]

Tywin's motivations appear to be feeding his own ego and making sure that he is never laughed at the way his father was. While there are some similarities with wanting their Houses to be strong, Tywin's completely counterproductive parenting has ensured that that will never happen. Tywin's story is one of his children undoing all that he did after he dies, and how he fails to build a legacy despite his Machiavellian politics (esp. compared to Ned).

Way too soon on that, a new Age of Heros is on the way.

[Vikingkingq]

Regarding the Reynes not surrendering, I think people are forgetting that Raynald had sent terms to Tywin. That's not an unconditional surrender, that's an offer to negotiate. Tywin was the one who closed off negotiations by sealing them in and then diverting the river.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Regarding the Reynes not surrendering, I think people are forgetting that Raynald had sent terms to Tywin. That's not an unconditional surrender, that's an offer to negotiate. Tywin was the one who closed off negotiations by sealing them in and then diverting the river.

Ridiculous, insulting terms.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The problem is, we have no pov in the westerlands at that time.

We've got Jeyne Westerling falling in love with Robb and her brothers admiring him. Could you see Jayne Bracken fall in love with the Mountain?

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Tywin sent Gregor Clegane out to rampage the Riverlands when he had absolutely no justification to do so. His son had been arrested, yes, but under the lawful authority of the daughter of the Lord of Riverrun. A legal arrest is not a particularly good reason to send a monster like Gregor loose to ravage the Riverlands (Ned, speaking with the King's voice, certainly didn't think so anyway). It was petty revenge. What Tywin ordered done after war was already underway is a secondary consideration, considering what he did in the first place, to instigate that war. I don't really see what any of that has to do with Bloodraven (or comparing Tywin to Bloodraven), though.

[LordQorgyle]

The ridiculous terms only come in the westerlands reading...in the world book that is not said

[John Doe]

Tywin sent Gregor Clegane out to rampage the Riverlands when he had absolutely no justification to do so. His son had been arrested, yes, but under the lawful authority of the daughter of the Lord of Riverrun. A legal arrest is not a particularly good reason to send a monster like Gregor loose to ravage the Riverlands (Ned, speaking with the King's voice, certainly didn't think so anyway). It was petty revenge. What Tywin ordered done after war was already underway is a secondary consideration, considering what he did in the first place, to instigate that war. I don't really see what any of that has to do with Bloodraven (or comparing Tywin to Bloodraven), though.

The arrest was not legal, so your point is moot.