Wouter Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 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. Gregor's boys took plenty of plunder. Anyway, those lords fought for Tywin and as his liege lord it is in his interest to reward his loyal lords, not punish them for taking part in his campaign. And the Lannisters are rich enough to keep their most important resource, their commoners, alive. The people in the Riverlands didn't like the wolf, but most of the wolves they disliked had a skinned man underneath. Leaving Roose Bolton to gallivate around the Riverlands wasn't one of Robb's best moves. "Paying back in kind the devastation" does imply that Robb used the same methods, but this was said by someone who didn't witness Robb's campaign in the Westerlands. The only action from Robb in the Westerlands that we do have a firsthand account from, is the storming and taking of the Stag, and that didn't seem to work the same way as comparable examples in the Riverlands (Gregor taking Darry castle, Roose taking Harrenhal, Gregor re-taking Harrenhall). Roose and the "special" Lannister forces have a habit of killing or raping/torturing even when they take castles. By comparison, it's quite clear that Robb didn't have any executions after the Crag surrendered. Else Jeyne would not have loved him. Else Ser Spicer would have been dead. It's not a stretch to assume that Robb's attitude when "touring" through the enemy land is also different from the usual modus operande of such men like Gregor and Roose. Sure, Robb's individual lords may be every bit as vicious as Roose Bolton (the latter was basically acting in his own interests and against Robb's orders anyway), but I very much doubt he ordered them to do what Tywin did order his men to do. For example, when Karstark executed captives (something which Gregor and Hoat do regularly), Robb beheaded him for that. Even though he would have been repaying the Lannisters "in kind" for killing Ned. But he saw a murder. Would he look more kindly upon a lord or soldier in his army who burns a farm and kills its inhabitants, even if those don't resist the army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red Widow of Coldmoat Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The arrest was not legal, so your point is moot. How was it not legal? So it was legal for Tywin to commit mass murder using his father's authority, but not legal for Catelyn to arrest one man using her father's authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindcrash Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 How was it not legal? So it was legal for Tywin to commit mass murder using his father's authority, but not legal for Catelyn to arrest one man using her father's authority? Sure it was legal, incredibly stupid with horrific consequences, but legal all the same. Just another example of why Catelyn is the biggest idiot in the series, maybe aside from Cersei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Sure it was legal, incredibly stupid with horrific consequences, but legal all the same. Just another example of why Catelyn is the biggest idiot in the series, maybe aside from Cersei. Mindcrash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingkingq Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Ridiculous, insulting terms. What LordQorgyle said. Raynald was the smart Reyne, not the aggressive soldier Reyne. He knew he was in a terrible situation, and would have tried to salvage what he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 What LordQorgyle said. Raynald was the smart Reyne, not the aggressive soldier Reyne. He knew he was in a terrible situation, and would have tried to salvage what he could. The reading differs from the woiaf primarily by omission. We know terms were sent from the woiaf book. The best bet as to what they were is the reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 What LordQorgyle said. Raynald was the smart Reyne, not the aggressive soldier Reyne. He knew he was in a terrible situation, and would have tried to salvage what he could. Or they thought they could hold out until Tytos recovered and reined in his son. Which may also be why Tywin felt he had to finish his business with both Houses once for and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingkingq Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The reading differs from the woiaf primarily by omission. We know terms were sent from the woiaf book. The best bet as to what they were is the reading. Unless GRRM et al. changed their minds between drafts. There's quite a few big changes between readings to final when it comes to a lot of important issues of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingkingq Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Or they thought they could hold out until Tytos recovered and reined in his son. Which may also be why Tywin felt he had to finish his business with both Houses once for and all What recovery? Tytos wasn't ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Unless GRRM et al. changed their minds between drafts. There's quite a few big changes between readings to final when it comes to a lot of important issues of fact. Only the fall of Tarbeck Hall actually changed though. The rest was just omissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 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.I still think he tends to automatically go for the most brutal option. I have tried to outline some alternatives but your mileage may vary as their efficiency. He usually has a choice as to the methods and he seems to always choose the most bloody. The main variable with Reynes/Tarbecks is Tytos, but then Tytos doesn't come across as a man to raise an army against his own son either, so it's not a foregone conclusion he would let Tywin do his thing. IMHO he could have come up with a strategy that would only punish the guilty, but in this case I can understand wanting to send a message. I don't think plain old execution would affect the future loyalty much. With Riverlands, he continues past Riverlands army having been soundly defeated, and his excuse for an attack is extremely flimsy in the first place since Robert orders Tyrion released more or less immediately. ANd yes, I think just getting rid of Robb would have been an option since with no heirs the Northern lords will most likely sue for peace. And Robb was heading North anyway, and all those soldiers with him. ETA: If his goal (or even one of his considerations) was to minimise suffering and death, there's no sign of that within his methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 No lord wants to minimize death for his subjects (except maybe for Doran, and even he wants to start a war because... well, I have no clue why) , so there is no need to critize Tywin for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 How was it not legal? You can't just go around arresting members of other great houses without expecting any consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 You can count me on the side that don't get how Aegon could take moral fallout from Bloodraven. Bloodraven was punished as soon as possible and so I don't really see what more that Aegon could reasonably do. What recovery? Tytos wasn't ill. Recover from his extreme outbursts of meekness and offer pardons and perhaps also hostages to the Tarbecks and Reynes so that "peace" could go on. Add gold to recompensate them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 EDITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 No lord wants to minimize death for his subjects (except maybe for Doran, and even he wants to start a war because... well, I have no clue why) , so there is no need to critize Tywin for it. Utilitarianism is basically the only viable justification for acting in a Machiavellian fashion/pursuing realpolitik. It's also the reason Tywin himself uses to justify his atrocities. It's saying that your actions, while cruel, dishonourable and breaking the established rules, are also utilitarian because they reduce future death and suffering. It's better to kill one man (whatever the method and circumstances) than risk a war that will kill thousands. Killing an envoy or an infant is normally despicable, but what if it saves hundreds, can we really condemn it? Utilitarianism. Take that away, and you're just left with cruel and dishonourable actions and no way to morally explain them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 At that time Tytos couldn't do nothing about it those forces were loyal to Tywin and to lord Brax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I still think he tends to automatically go for the most brutal option. But that's because you're only looking at his most infamous and brutal acts. He wanted Ned to be spared, he pardoned Stannis's and Robb's bannermen (against Joffrey's wishes), he worked with the Tyrells, etc. I have tried to outline some alternatives but your mileage may vary as their efficiency. He usually has a choice as to the methods and he seems to always choose the most bloody. But in almost all of those cases the mot ruthless choice was also the cheapest and most efficient: He could have chosen to keep fighting Robb on the battlefield, losing thousands of his own soldiers and continuing the war for years. He could have spared Aegon and Rhaenys, which would have meant a constant threat to him and all the other rebels. As for the Riverlands, there was a lot more going on there than just retaliating for Tyrion's arrest. Tywin's actual invasion of the Riverlands only came after King Robert was dead and Ned had been arrested for trying to unseat Joffrey - war was obviously inevitable at that point so Tywin was trying to pre-emptively take out the Starks' allies before they could join forces. What was he supposed to do, let the Starks, Tullys, and Baratheons all march on King's Landing and kill his family? For the record I'm not defending him as a "greater good" type. You just seem to be arguing that Tywin chooses brutality out of some bloodthirsty compulsion; I'm arguing that he does it when it it's in his interest. Tysha (and maybe Elia) being the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 As for the Riverlands, there was a lot more going on there than just retaliating for Tyrion's arrest. Tywin's actual invasion of the Riverlands only came after King Robert was dead and Ned had been arrested for trying to unseat Joffrey - war was obviously inevitable at that point so Tywin was trying to pre-emptively take out the Starks' allies before they could join forces. Edmure started the official war by stationing his soldiers at the golden tooth. They were smashed there, then Tywin begin his march on the Riverlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Edmure started the official war by stationing his soldiers at the golden tooth. They were smashed there, then Tywin begin his march on the Riverlands. Maybe, but Tywin was clearly preparing for war before that. He knew about Ned's arrest and was getting info on Stannis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.