Jump to content

Alternate History: What if Tywin Lannister had never been born


Recommended Posts

A few hundred thousand more people would be alive right now.

No, Tywin never came close to that body count.

What would happen is that the Westerlands would mostl likely have regressed into anarchy with many thousands dead or displaced untill the Reynes or Tarbecks, but most likely the Reynes, usurped the Lannisters as the new Lords Paramount of the West and either set a very bad example for the rest of the realm if they were pardoned, or sparked a major civil war when the crown tried to put them down again. Bad news any way that goes.

Aerys would even faster have caused a major rebellion or potentially a series of minor rebellions which would have culminated in a major rebellion that either toppled him or allowed him to become even more tyrannical. And its entirely possible that Aerys would have managed to blow the entire capital to hell with wildfire, given that Jaime wouldn't have been there to stop him.

One can argue that in the later period of his life, Tywin did bad to horrible things, but to only focus on that would make people forget all the good things he did in the early parts of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Tywin never came close to that body count.

What would happen is that the Westerlands would mostl likely have regressed into anarchy with many thousands dead or displaced untill the Reynes or Tarbecks, but most likely the Reynes, usurped the Lannisters as the new Lords Paramount of the West and either set a very bad example for the rest of the realm if they were pardoned, or sparked a major civil war when the crown tried to put them down again. Bad news any way that goes.

Aerys would even faster have caused a major rebellion or potentially a series of minor rebellions which would have culminated in a major rebellion that either toppled him or allowed him to become even more tyrannical. And its entirely possible that Aerys would have managed to blow the entire capital to hell with wildfire, given that Jaime wouldn't have been there to stop him.

One can argue that in the later period of his life, Tywin did bad to horrible things, but to only focus on that would make people forget all the good things he did in the early parts of his life.

You're right. With winter coming and the Riverlands burned, it may reach "many hundreds of thousands", or even millions. Additionally, he invaded the Riverlands and massacred entire populations in addition to staging a massacre in King's Landing.

Of course, that's assuming that no one else takes any action against the Reynes and Tarbecks. Which, considering they're spitting on the Iron Throne's authority, and were crushed pretty easily with overwhelming power when someone actually bothered, is pretty silly. This would only be valid if Tywin's personal abilities carried the day. But they didn't, and in fact the rebellion never had a real chance at succeeding. Just look how easy it was for Tywin to gather 8,000 men (later increased to 16,000), and remember that Lord Reyne gathered a quarter of that when given more time than Tywin. It's pretty clear that no one wanted the Reynes and Tarbecks in charge, even without the Iron Throne getting involved.

Yes. If there is any positive that can be attributed to Tywin's existence, it's that he made Jaime, who then saved 500,000 people, and probably indirectly saved thousands of more lives in the Riverlands by not being a shit bag like his dad. Though that's pretty much it, and I'm not sure that Jaime alone negates the damage caused by Cersei, Tywin, Tyrion, and Jaime.

What was that, exactly? He was always brutal and monstrous. Even during his time as Hand, he focused more on keeping the working class down and building up power for his class rather than helping the people. How exactly did he save more lives than he took?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. With winter coming and the Riverlands burned, it may reach "many hundreds of thousands", or even millions. Additionally, he invaded the Riverlands and massacred entire populations in addition to staging a massacre in King's Landing.

Of course, that's assuming that no one else takes any action against the Reynes and Tarbecks. Which, considering they're spitting on the Iron Throne's authority, and were crushed pretty easily with overwhelming power when someone actually bothered, is pretty silly. This would only be valid if Tywin's personal abilities carried the day. But they didn't, and in fact the rebellion never had a real chance at succeeding. Just look how easy it was for Tywin to gather 8,000 men (later increased to 16,000), and remember that Lord Reyne gathered a quarter of that when given more time than Tywin. It's pretty clear that no one wanted the Reynes and Tarbecks in charge, even without the Iron Throne getting involved.

Yes. If there is any positive that can be attributed to Tywin's existence, it's that he made Jaime, who then saved 500,000 people, and probably indirectly saved thousands of more lives in the Riverlands by not being a shit bag like his dad. Though that's pretty much it, and I'm not sure that Jaime alone negates the damage caused by Cersei, Tywin, Tyrion, and Jaime.

What was that, exactly? He was always brutal and monstrous. Even during his time as Hand, he focused more on keeping the working class down and building up power for his class rather than helping the people. How exactly did he save more lives than he took?

No, no and no.

The people that dies in winter dies because of the folly of House Tully and Stark as much as Tywin Lannister. Because if that's the game we'll play, how many hundreds of thousands of people will Robb Stark have killed after plundering the West, when winter descends?

Tywin moved into the Riverlands, yes, and wasn't exactly humanitarian. But what you fail to understand is that during a sack the soldiers spread out into houses and allies and thus its about impossible for any commander to keep control. That very much goes for King's Landing as wel. But I'll give you that Tywin was unconcerned with the smallfolk of his enemies, so that can be a mark against him.

Considering that up untill that point NO ONe had managed to do anything and Tytos' only serious attempt was met with the death of Lord Marbrand at the hands of the Reynes, I would totally see that it wasn't as silly as you make it sound. Furthermore it was the personal initiative of Tywin which lead to the rebellion being so short-lived because Tywin didn't give the rebels time to muster their allies and bannermen before he descended on them and took care of them. I for one don't trust late comers and fence-sitters to much and so I don't find it unrealistic that if the battle had not gone in Tywin's favor as much as it did, those lords swelling his forces could easily have joined with the Tarbecks and Reynes to curry their favor instead. And the Iron Throne did get involved three times and you know what that lead to? No difference whatsoever.

Jaime is one good thing that Tywin brought to the world but not the end or sum of it.

Have you ever heard of peace? You know the thing that eludes people in Syria and northern Iraq at present and could go away from Ukraine as well? The thing that gives us stability and allow us to live what we would consider normal lives? Tywin gav peace by reigning in a madman on the throne and so prevent him from causing untold misery across Westeros. And when Tywin left, guess how much fun it was for the smallfolk to be raped, murdered and plundered by the armies of the nobility when Robert's Rebellion broke out? Peace is a good thing for the smallfolk, far better than war and strife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no and no.

The people that dies in winter dies because of the folly of House Tully and Stark as much as Tywin Lannister. Because if that's the game we'll play, how many hundreds of thousands of people will Robb Stark have killed after plundering the West, when winter descends?

Tywin moved into the Riverlands, yes, and wasn't exactly humanitarian. But what you fail to understand is that during a sack the soldiers spread out into houses and allies and thus its about impossible for any commander to keep control. That very much goes for King's Landing as wel. But I'll give you that Tywin was unconcerned with the smallfolk of his enemies, so that can be a mark against him.

Have you ever heard of peace? You know the thing that eludes people in Syria and northern Iraq at present and could go away from Ukraine as well? The thing that gives us stability and allow us to live what we would consider normal lives? Tywin gav peace by reigning in a madman on the throne and so prevent him from causing untold misery across Westeros. And when Tywin left, guess how much fun it was for the smallfolk to be raped, murdered and plundered by the armies of the nobility when Robert's Rebellion broke out? Peace is a good thing for the smallfolk, far better than war and strife.

All of this assumes that what Tywin was doing was considered acceptable and standard practise in terms of medieval warfare, which it wasn't in real life, and there is decent evidence that it isn't in westeros either, though the idea might have been normalised a bit by the actions of Aemond and Aegon I.

Armies forage, they burn crops if it is a strategic requirement, and they kill smallfolk that attempt to resist this, no doubt armies with commanders who are lax on such things will have rapes going on.

However the idea of going into a village, killing everything, burning people alive in their houses, commanding mass rapes and mutilations, using slave labour and hiring "soldiers" entirely for their reputation for brutality isn't even close to what would be considered standard or acceptable practise. The Brave Companions are guys who are widely recognised as the scum of the Earth, who are used as an example of cruelty and violence by Jorah who are worse than Meero, and Tywin brings them across the narrow sea before the war even gets ugly and you defend that?

Just looking at descriptions of the Riverlands make the death toll rather obvious, Kevan even says the realm is in ruins, though doesn't seem to realise that his brother is the one that ruined it.

If the northmen did anything similar in the Westerlands please provide some textual evidence of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this assumes that what Tywin was doing was considered acceptable and standard practise in terms of medieval warfare, which it wasn't in real life, and there is decent evidence that it isn't in westeros either, though the idea might have been normalised a bit by the actions of Aemond and Aegon I.

Armies forage, they burn crops if it is a strategic requirement, and they kill smallfolk that attempt to resist this, no doubt armies with commanders who are lax on such things will have rapes going on.

However the idea of going into a village, killing everything, burning people alive in their houses, commanding mass rapes and mutilations, using slave labour and hiring "soldiers" entirely for their reputation for brutality isn't even close to what would be considered standard or acceptable practise. The Brave Companions are guys who are widely recognised as the scum of the Earth, who are used as an example of cruelty and violence by Jorah who are worse than Meero, and Tywin brings them across the narrow sea before the war even gets ugly and you defend that?

Just looking at descriptions of the Riverlands make the death toll rather obvious, Kevan even says the realm is in ruins, though doesn't seem to realise that his brother is the one that ruined it.

If the northmen did anything similar in the Westerlands please provide some textual evidence of such.

"He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back towards Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamer, Nun's Deep and Pendric Hills"

Chapter 39, Catelyn, A Clash of Kings.

That's the quote and I'll come back for a fuller reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no and no.

The people that dies in winter dies because of the folly of House Tully and Stark as much as Tywin Lannister. Because if that's the game we'll play, how many hundreds of thousands of people will Robb Stark have killed after plundering the West, when winter descends?

Tywin moved into the Riverlands, yes, and wasn't exactly humanitarian. But what you fail to understand is that during a sack the soldiers spread out into houses and allies and thus its about impossible for any commander to keep control. That very much goes for King's Landing as wel. But I'll give you that Tywin was unconcerned with the smallfolk of his enemies, so that can be a mark against him.

Considering that up untill that point NO ONe had managed to do anything and Tytos' only serious attempt was met with the death of Lord Marbrand at the hands of the Reynes, I would totally see that it wasn't as silly as you make it sound. Furthermore it was the personal initiative of Tywin which lead to the rebellion being so short-lived because Tywin didn't give the rebels time to muster their allies and bannermen before he descended on them and took care of them. I for one don't trust late comers and fence-sitters to much and so I don't find it unrealistic that if the battle had not gone in Tywin's favor as much as it did, those lords swelling his forces could easily have joined with the Tarbecks and Reynes to curry their favor instead. And the Iron Throne did get involved three times and you know what that lead to? No difference whatsoever.

Jaime is one good thing that Tywin brought to the world but not the end or sum of it.

Have you ever heard of peace? You know the thing that eludes people in Syria and northern Iraq at present and could go away from Ukraine as well? The thing that gives us stability and allow us to live what we would consider normal lives? Tywin gav peace by reigning in a madman on the throne and so prevent him from causing untold misery across Westeros. And when Tywin left, guess how much fun it was for the smallfolk to be raped, murdered and plundered by the armies of the nobility when Robert's Rebellion broke out? Peace is a good thing for the smallfolk, far better than war and strife.

Incorrect, they didn't burn their own fields and people. It's unknown how much damage Robb did with his pillaging; all we get is that he was repaying the Westerlands in kind for Tywin's campaign. If his level of savagery was similar to Tywin's, then he would also be responsible for a shit load of deaths. Thousands, certainly, maybe tens of thousands. But much less than Tywin, simply because he had fewer men to raid with, and the Westerlands aren't as populous as the Riverlands. Plus, the heaviest fighting of the War of the Five (Ten?) Kings took place in the Riverlands, because Tywin invaded there first. I can't imagine that's helped matters.

Not really. Standard operating procedure is to maintain some manner of discipline in an army. And Tywin's army was fresh outside of King's Landing, having fought no battles, so that shouldn't have been difficult. The actions of Ned, Stannis, and even the likes of Jaime and Tarly, all suggest that Tywin's brutality is not the standard way to wage warfare. It wasn't in the actual War of the Roses, too.

They'd have to be rock-stupid to join the Reynes and Tarbecks. The Lannisters are the leaders under the authority of the Iron Throne, and much more powerful than the Reynes to boot. All it would take is literally any Lannister of note to call banners against Tarbeck and Reyne. 8,000 men gathered quickly to smash the rebels, while the Reynes when given more time gathered a quarter of that. Given more time, Tywin gathered a total of 16,000 on the march. You don't have to be a military genius to quickly put down this would-be civil war; in a scenario where Tywin is never born, another could have done it. Worst case scenario, they formally announce rebellion, and get besieged by Lannister bannermen and possibly Iron Throne forces. Because no way is such an act going to go unpunished.

No, Jaime's pretty much it. Again, if you can make a convincing argument that Tywin has saved more lives than he's taken with his impractically brutal Riverlands campaign (not even counting King's Landing, Duskendale, etc.), then I'd like to hear it.

Yes, a peace marked by numerous civil wars. One of which he started. The smallfolk can certainly blame him for starting the largest war in a century by breaking the king's peace. Tywin deserves no credit for the supposed peace in his years as Hand- we know what he did. Undo reforms expanding smallfolk rights, build up the power of his class and house, and deal with any problem with remarkable brutality. I don't see how any other competent man couldn't have done as well; the realm would be fine-ish falling even if the Almighty Saint Tywin wasn't around to run it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tytos would have continued with his follies, the lannisters would have fallen and replaced with Reynes as Lords of the westerlands.



The targaryen children (Rhaeneys, Aegon) and Elia may still live


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back towards Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamer, Nun's Deep and Pendric Hills"

Chapter 39, Catelyn, A Clash of Kings.

That's the quote and I'll come back for a fuller reply.

I didn't deny Robb was pillaging, I'm sure some Westerlands peasants went hungry and a few probably tried to defend their lands and died, not nice, but perfectly within the standard for how wars are fought. If Robb's actions were even close to "paying the Lannisters back in kind" then we would hear tales of atrocities committed by the Northmen even in King's Landing, Kevan would remember how he returned to the west to find blackened fields and empty villages, we hear plenty of horror stories about what Karstark's 300 did, and what Bolton's men did, since we don't hear of any savageries committed by the Northmen/Freys except the accusation that they were wargs, it is fair to assume there weren't any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't deny Robb was pillaging, I'm sure some Westerlands peasants went hungry and a few probably tried to defend their lands and died, not nice, but perfectly within the standard for how wars are fought. If Robb's actions were even close to "paying the Lannisters back in kind" then we would hear tales of atrocities committed by the Northmen even in King's Landing, Kevan would remember how he returned to the west to find blackened fields and empty villages, we hear plenty of horror stories about what Karstark's 300 did, and what Bolton's men did, since we don't hear of any savageries committed by the Northmen/Freys except the accusation that they were wargs, it is fair to assume there weren't any.

Unless of course GRRM simply forgot to include that detail in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world would have been a better place without that monster in it and his monstrous children and that inbreed evil bastard grandchild of his.

Seriously I think House Lannister would have been able to subdue the Reynes and Tarbecks without Tywin.

But KL wouldn't have bleed, Elia and her babies would most likely be alive, Tasha wouldn't have been brutally gangraped at the command of a monsterl, Westeros wouldn't have such a brutal war because Cersei and Jaime wouldn't have been born the freaks, etc... I'm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He clearly is, a few come close but not many.

Egg had made many reforms which benfited the poor citizens , but Tywin changed these to undo Aegon's doings.

The book has been written by a maester who has given more importance to the Lannisters because they're on the Iron throne. If they weren't, then people would have had second thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...