Tywin Lannister, Shield of Westeros

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Sooooo, after losing two of his three children, or maybe all of them, and ALL of his grandchildren are killed, how are the Lannisters in a better position at the end then they were in the beginning? Being something of an asshole father created something of a dysfunctional family.

It is the medieval ages, people die. The Lannisters position has not weakened from the time he took control, it has actually gotten stronger.

[Nihlus]

King of Westeros: Tommen.

Ruler of the Westerlands: Cersei

Warden of the West: Daven

Man, it sucks for the Lannisters right now, how will they ever cope.

Tommen: Tyrell puppet.

Cersei: in prison after pulling a Tywin and messing things up even more.

Daven: probably about to get RW'd.

Jaime: captured by pissed off Riverlanders.

Tyrion: sold into slavery, soon to be working for another Lannister enemy.

Myrcella: Dornish hostage.

Kevan: murdered by the crown's own former Master of Whisperers.

Tywin: killed by his own son.

Tyrek: Dead, murdered by pissed off Crownlanders.*

Lancel: joined the "fuck the Lannisters" movement.

Man, things are great for the Lannisters right now.

*Unless he actually got kidnapped by Varys.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Not really. Machiavelli said that one should never be hated by those you intend to rule. As Hand of the King, and really the king in all but name, Tywin made many, many people hate him. It's why House Lannister is in such a bad position right now. If you rule solely through fear, everyone will start kicking you the moment you look like you're weak.

Tywin indirectly created both the Sparrows (with his war crimes and invasion) and Cersei (with his shitty parenting), while driving away his only competent heir. So yeah, his responsibility again. And House Lannister is screwed for a lot more reasons than just thought- unless you think that making enemies out of half the continent doesn't matter.

He should have predicted that the pissed off Riverlanders would be a problem, yes.

I don't see the evidence that Tywin was hated by anyone that actually matters, outside of Dorne. Powerful men make enemies, that is not always the same as being hated. Machiavelli didn't say "never fight a war"

If you think Tywin would have handled the Sparrows the same as Cersei (i.e. arming them in order to avoid paying debts/as a weapon against the Tyrells) then I guess that's up to you. I disagree.

Outlaws in the Riverlands and freezing rebels in the North are not serious threats to the Lannister regime. The serious threats are the Faith Militant, created solely by Cersei, and Aegon, who can only win if the Tyrells turn on the Lannisters.

[Winterfell is Burning]

If the guy that made sure half the country will starve to death in winter because he burned the crops and murdered the peasants was doing so because he was shielding Westeros, I'd hate to see what he would do if he decided to be the Bane or the Scourge of the Seven Kingdoms :rolleyes:

[Ramsay Gimp]

Cersei: in prison after pulling a Tywin and messing things up even more.

"Pulling a Tywin" as in winning a war? As in destroying Lannister enemies? As in managing the realm effectively for 20 years?

How exactly did Cersei pull a Tywin?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Man, things are great for the Lannisters right now.

Yup. I knew you'd eventually realize.

The Lannisters and the Westerlands were better under Tywin than they were with his predecessor Tytos and his successor Cersei.

[Ramsay Gimp]

If the guy that made sure half the country will starve to death in winter because he burned the crops and murdered the peasants was doing so because he was shielding Westeros, I'd hate to see what he would do if he decided to be the Bane or the Scourge of the Seven Kingdoms :rolleyes:

"Half the country"??

[Nihlus]

I don't see the evidence that Tywin was hated by anyone that actually matters, outside of Dorne. Powerful men make enemies, that is not always the same as being hated. Machiavelli didn't say "never fight a war"

If you think Tywin would have handled the Sparrows the same as Cersei (i.e. arming them in order to avoid paying debts/as a weapon against the Tyrells) then I guess that's up to you. I disagree.

Outlaws in the Riverlands and freezing rebels in the North are not serious threats to the Lannister regime. The serious threats are the Faith Militant, created solely by Cersei, and Aegon, who can only win if the Tyrells turn on the Lannisters.

The Sparrows don't matter? The Northern lords don't matter? The Riverlands don't matter? His own son doesn't matter? They all seem pretty important...

They were already effectively armed. I'm not sure what Cersei really did in that regard besides recreate the Warrior's Sons. It was just a pissed off group of refugees led by a charismatic popular revolutionary, you seriously think they didn't already have clubs and knives?

Which is why the Riverlanders are about to capture the Warden of the West and Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, and why the Northerners are now the primary supporters of House Lannister's worst enemy?

I don't think the Tyrells will turn on the Lannisters. I think Aegon will snatch up support in the Stormlands and Crownlands... and possibly from certain lords in the Reach. Mainly Hightower. They've always been Targ-friendly.

If the guy that made sure half the country will starve to death in winter because he burned the crops and murdered the peasants was doing so because he was shielding Westeros, I'd hate to see what he would do if he decided to be the Bane or the Scourge of the Seven Kingdoms :rolleyes:

The Riverlands are screwed.

Yup. I knew you'd eventually realize.

I see you have no rebuttal to the shit state that all of the above Lannisters are in right now directly due to Tywin's actions?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Yep. Goddamn, the Riverlands are screwed.

Hoster, Edmure and Robb really screwed the pooch when they ruled those lands. Thank goodness that the Lannisters have finally brought peace to the Riverlands.

I see you have no rebuttal to the shit state that all of the above Lannisters are in right now directly due to Tywin's actions?

Why would I need a rebuttal.

1) The conversation is about Tywin, not what happened after his reign.

2) The Westerlands is still comfortably ruled by the Lannisters. I have yet to see any evidence that that is in jeopardy.

[Nihlus]

Hoster, Edmure and Robb really screwed the pooch when they ruled those lands. Thank goodness that the Lannisters have finally brought peace to the Riverlands.

Yep, they really should have predicted that Tywin would act completely irrational and psychotic by breaking the king's peace when he's still alive, starting a war with several kingdoms (each of which are as militarily powerful as his one), and burning crops right before winter to cause millions of deaths.

Last I checked, the Riverlands were a lawless hellhole with rebellions still raging.

Hoster, Edmure and Robb really screwed the pooch when they ruled those lands. Thank goodness that the Lannisters have finally brought peace to the Riverlands.

Why would I need a rebuttal.

1) The conversation is about Tywin, not what happened after his reign.

2) The Westerlands is still comfortably ruled by the Lannisters. I have yet to see any evidence that that is in jeopardy.

1. It's about Tywin's ability as a ruler, and the effects of his actions are directly tied to that.

2. Then you've just been ignoring the last two books. All of the Lannisters right now are screwed (Jaime, Cersei, Tyrion, Daven, Tyrek, Tywn, Myrcella, Tommen, Kevan), and their enemies (of which there are many, thanks to Tywin) keep getting stronger.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Yep, they really should have predicted that Tywin would act completely irrational and psychotic by breaking the king's peace when he's still alive, starting a war with several kingdoms (each of which are as militarily powerful as his one), and burning crops right before winter to cause millions of deaths.

Last I checked, the Riverlands were a lawless hellhole with rebellions still raging.

lol

Tyrion was kidnapped in the Riverlands, Tywin reacted to a Westerlands citizen being illegally captured by another realm.

The first battle was at the Golden Tooth when a 4,000 invading Riverland army were in the Westerlands.

As of the last three books all the Lords of the Riverlands have sworn fealty to the Crown. Now the rebuilding can begin.

[EastTymor]

Yep, they really should have predicted that Tywin would act completely irrational and psychotic by breaking the king's peace when he's still alive, starting a war with several kingdoms (each of which are as militarily powerful as his one), and burning crops right before winter to cause millions of deaths.

Last I checked, the Riverlands were a lawless hellhole with rebellions still raging.

1. It's about Tywin's ability as a ruler, and the effects of his actions are directly tied to that.

2. Then you've just been ignoring the last two books. All of the Lannisters right now are screwed (Jaime, Cersei, Tyrion, Daven, Tyrek, Tywn, Myrcella, Tommen, Kevan), and their enemies (of which there are many, thanks to Tywin) keep getting stronger.

Raging? C'mon.

[Nihlus]

Tyrion was kidnapped in the Riverlands, Tywin reacted to a Westerlands citizen being illegally captured by another realm.

The first battle was at the Golden Tooth when a 4,000 invading Riverland army were in the Westerlands.

As of the last three books all the Lords of the Riverlands have sworn fealty to the Crown. Now the rebuilding can begin.

Bullshit. He responded to a lawful arrest conducted under the authority of the Hand of the King by starting a war with an invasion and a series of massacres. The Starks correctly predicted that the Lannisters had tried to kill Bran, twice, and they didn't respond like that.

We've already been over this. Your assertion that they were invading is total bullshit, as Ned hears about armies massing under the pass near the Golden Tooth, and the Riverlands lords being there, and still says that they're keeping the king's peace. Not to mention your version of the events make zero sense (not that this has ever mattered to you if it meant wanking Tywin), since you're assuming that a small army marched a hundred miles into the Westerlands to engage a much bigger army against the orders of the Hand of the King and one of their biggest allies. Stop repeating shit that's already been debunked.

Both Riverrun and Casterly Rock had called their banners, and armies were massing in the pass below the Golden Tooth. It had only been a matter of time until the blood began to flow.

At the council table below, Petyr Baelish lost interest in his quill and leaned forward. "Ser Marq, Ser Karyl, Ser Raymun—perhaps I might ask you a question? These holdfasts were under your protection. Where were you when all this slaughtering and burning was going on?"

Ser Karyl Vance answered. "I was attending my lord father in the pass below the Golden Tooth, as was Ser Marq [Piper]."

Too bad that the Riverlords still hate the Lannisters, and rebelling Riverlanders are still a huge problem.

Raging? C'mon.

There's an open state of lawlessness, and Jaime has been captured. Not sure what else you could call what's going on the Riverlands.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Bullshit. He responded to a lawful arrest conducted under the authority of the Hand of the King

Uh no, that's not what happened. Ned only sanctioned the kidnapping after-the-fact. And you know that fat guy Robert, the actual King of the Andals, Rhoynar, and First Men? He then ordered the Starks to release Tyrion. The arrest was never lawful

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yep, they really should have predicted that Tywin would act completely irrational and psychotic by breaking the king's peace when he's still alive, starting a war with several kingdoms (each of which are as militarily powerful as his one), and burning crops right before winter to cause millions of deaths.

Again, not what happened. Catelyn Stark broke the King's peace, and Tywin responded with some raids while keeping plausible deniability. The actual Lannister invasion of the Riverlands did not occur until after King Robert was dead, and there was a mortal threat to the Lannister regime from Stannis and the Starks (allied with the Tullys).

So rather than wait for his enemies to join forces and place Cersei and Joffrey's heads on spikes for the new King Stannis, Tywin took out the Tullys before the North could march. Look at the timeline and it all makes sense.

Nothing irrational on Tywin's part. In fact it was brilliant.

[Nihlus]

Uh, no. That's not what happened. Ned only sanctioned the kidnapping after-the-fact. And you know that fat guy Robert, the actual King of the Andals, Rhoynar, and First Men? He then ordered the Starks to release Tyrion. The arrest was never lawful

A SSM by GRRM said it was kind of a grey area between lawful and unlawful. Solely speaking about Cat's actions. Ned's sanction as Hand of the King should be enough to tip the balance. Robert telling Ned to let Tyrion go doesn't retroactively make it illegal, it just means that he now orders the prisoner's release.

Again, not what happened. Catelyn Stark broke the King's peace, and Tywin responded with some raids while keeping plausible deniability. The actual Lannister invasion of the Riverlands did not occur until after King Robert was dead, and there was a clear threat to Cersei and Joffrey from the Starks and Stannis.

Nope, she did not. It had the approval of the Hand of the King, effectively the king's authority, and Ned himself is clear that the Riverlanders had not violated the king's peace. The Riverlanders themselves are clear on that, as well.

"If your fields and holdfasts are safe from harm," Lord Petyr was saying, "what then do you ask of the throne?"

"The lords of the Trident keep the king's peace," Ser Raymun Darry said. "The Lannisters have broken it."

"Edmure agrees, we must pay Gregor Clegane back his bloody coin," Ser Marq declared, "but old Lord Hoster commanded us to come here and beg the king's leave before we strike."

Thank the gods for old Lord Hoster, then. Tywin Lannister was as much fox as lion. If indeed he'd sent Ser Gregor to burn and pillage—and Ned did not doubt that he had—he'd taken care to see that he rode under cover of night, without banners, in the guise of a common brigand. Should Riverrun strike back, Cersei and her father would insist that it had been the Tullys who broke the king's peace, not the Lannisters.

And plausible deniability? Lol, how many 8 foot tall plate-armored raiders are there?

Genuine question: do you know what an invasion is? Because Tywin's attacks and massacres of whole towns definitely fit the definition. Also note that he was massing armies at the same time he was launching this invasion.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Genuine question: do you know what an invasion is? Because Tywin's attacks and massacres of whole towns definitely fit the definition. Also note that he was massing armies at the same time he was launching this invasion.

Regardless, I meant the beginning of open, in-your-face warfare, with Tywin and Jaime leading hosts against the Riverlands, did not occur until after Robert was dead and Ned had attempted a coup against Cersei and her children.

Of course he was massing an army. Catelyn Stark/Tully had kidnapped his son, and Stannis was gathering swords on Dragonstone. It pays to be prepared, and Tywin's whole philosophy of war is to beat his enemy to the punch.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Bullshit. He responded to a lawful arrest conducted under the authority of the Hand of the King by starting a war with an invasion and a series of massacres. The Starks correctly predicted that the Lannisters had tried to kill Bran, twice, and they didn't respond like that.

The king is the law and he seems furious about it.

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp - "

"I said, I will not have it! To hell with her reasons. You will command her to release the dwarf at once, and you will make your peace with Jaime."

The King is the law.

We've already been over this. Your assertion that they were invading is total bullshit, as Ned hears about armies massing under the pass near the Golden Tooth, and the Riverlands lords being there, and still says that they're keeping the king's peace. Stop repeating shit that's already been debunked.

I'm not sure you know what debunked means.

The book states it took place near the Golden Tooth which is in the Westerlands, not the Riverlands all maps show that the Golden Tooth is not on the border and even the wiki states that the battle took place in the Westerlands.

While this not 100% conclusive, the evidence points towards the battle happening within the Westerlands.

Too bad that the Riverlords still hate the Lannisters, and rebelling Riverlanders are still a huge problem.

Does it matter if they hate the Lannisters?

There's an open state of lawlessness, and Jaime has been captured. Not sure what else you could call what's going on the Riverlands.

Didnt Jaime go willingly with Brienne?

And what does any of this have to do wit Tytos being a better Lord than his son Tywin? Have you given up on that idiotic argument?

[Nihlus]

Regardless, I meant the beginning of open, in-your-face warfare, with Tywin and Jaime leading hosts against the Riverlands, did not occur until after Robert was dead and Ned had attempted a coup against Cersei and her children.

Of course he was massing an army. Catelyn Stark/Tully had kidnapped his son, and Stannis was gathering swords on Dragonstone. It pays to be prepared, and Tywin's whole philosophy of war is to beat his enemy to the punch.

Well yeah, but that's a really irrelevant. They had already started invading and massing armies long before that. They had already effectively started the war.

Catleyn had not kidnapped anybody. I'm not going to repeat this. Stannis gathering his swords was no business of Tywin's, and was not the reason he raised an army.

The king is the law and he seems furious about it.

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp - "

"I said, I will not have it! To hell with her reasons. You will command her to release the dwarf at once, and you will make your peace with Jaime."

The King is the law.

I'm not sure you know what debunked means.

The book states it took place near the Golden Tooth which is in the Westerlands, not the Riverlands all maps show that the Golden Tooth is not on the border and even the wiki states that the battle took place in the Westerlands.

While this not 100% conclusive, the evidence points towards the battle happening within the Westerlands.

Does it matter if they hate the Lannisters?

Didnt Jaime go willingly with Brienne?

And what does any of this have to do wit Tytos being a better Lord than his son Tywin? Have you given up on that idiotic argument?

He can be as mad as he wants. It was still conducted by a Riverlands lady in a legal gray area, and then approved by the authority of the Hand, making it lawful. Robert wanting Tyrion released would just be the king negating the decision, it wouldn't retroactively make the arrest unlawful. Tywin's invasion, however, was definitely unlawful.

Except, you know, Ned and those other guys saying that the Riverlords are keeping the king's peace in the same scene that they hear about armies massing near the Golden Tooth with Riverlords being there. That, and basic logic.

Yes. The whole reason the Sparrow movement started, for example, was anger at the war crimes in the Riverlands.

Yes. To get captured by Riverlanders who are in rebellion because they hate the Lannisters.

Tywin's actions are directly responsible for all of the above. I think it's pretty telling that you haven't actually managed to refute any bit of this supposedly idiotic argument. That seems to be a trend with you.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Catleyn had not kidnapped anybody. I'm not going to repeat this.

Robert the King calls it an abduction. Your opinion on the matter is worthless, the King decides the law and he calls it a kidnapping.