Karstark. He executed Karstark for the murder of the POWs when he very well could have given him a pardon like he did his mother.
While this is true, Robb really had to execute the Karstarks. The Karstarks blatantly disobeyed Robb's direct order; he could not just let that go unpunished. While he did "pardon" Cat, he really could not have executed his own mother (fuck... even Tywin wouldn't do that... I .... I think). I think if a lord of Tywin Lannister disobeyed a direct order from Tywin Lannister, those bannermen would be just as dead. In tyhis regard I think that Robb and Tywin are much alike and I fault neither one for that kind of action. Its hard and brutal being a lord. (and in all my criticism of Robb Stark I maintain that killing the Karstarks was a sign of Robb being a good leader).
David Selig, on 03 May 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:
Robb was a bad and selfish lord too who screwed his subjects to satisfy his own pride. But this doesn't make Tywin a good lord.
That's not my point. My point is that Tywin is a good lord irrespective of how decent or humane he is. And if I were a bannerman of a household I would want to serev one who had his priorities in order. And "winning" has to be a huge priority.
Masha was one woman against dozens of armed men who represent the most powerful lords in the area, she couldn't do anything. What authorities are you talking about - the lords whose men participated in the taking of Tyrion? Lord Hoster, Cat's father? Yeah, that would work...
See what I mean? Masha allows Tyrion Lannister to be kidnapped in her inn. At the time of the kidnapping (Tyrion and Cat relay this fact later) although SOME men rose... many stayed seated. Masha just "didn't want any trouble." She could have said, "M'lady, this is Tyrion Lannister, a soon of the Rock..." Certainly some of the men in the inn would have put two and two together at that point. Masha could then have said, "This man is a guest in my inn and therefore is protected by hospitality rights (I love that every single person here COMPLETELY IGNORED this fact... a fact that Tywin and Frey are flayed for later on). She could have alerted somebody.
And who was her lord? Edmure/Hoster Tully... yeah SEE MY POINT!? Edmure and Hoster failed mightily in protecting their people! I cannot have that if I am a bannerman to somebody like Edmure (or a failing Hoster). I need a lord who will look out for me. Let me switch this around so you see exactly what I am getting at. Robb beat the tar out of the Crag and other areas of the West. And what happened to Robb? Oh, that's right, Tywin made sure that guy was killed. Edmure et al could not do anything like that for their people.
Tywin, as usual, didn't give a damn about fairness.
Which so why I would want him as my lord. This is not hop-scotch or checkers we're playing. Now, in dealing with his lords and his people Tywin has always ben fair; ruthless and stern maybe but never unfair like Joff or Lysa Arryn. .
If not for the shadowbaby, Tywin was doomed. He couldn't even defeat Robb in the field, if he had to fight Renly's 100 000 in addition, he would've been crushed.
You have no idea. None of us do. If the Shadowbaby had not come, Renly would probably have defeated Stannis (though Stannis is like a cockroach at this point- he'd survive nuclear winter). Renly would have still needed to wait for his foot to make it to SE; by the time Renly got that ponderous host moving towards KL Tywin could have taken some actions. Again, its speculation. The problem is that you draw these deep conclusions without evidence. As was said in the show, if numbers decided everything, mathematicians would rule.
How? What do you care if Tywin is more powerful if you die in the war he started or starve to death as a result of it? Even if you survive, how does his increased power benefit you?
Well, for starters, he didn't start that war, Cat did when she kidnapped Tyrion. Her source was a man known for trickery whom she had not seen in 15 years. You restate this point many times, but please do not mistake it- the wife of the Hand (the King's best friend) started the original War. Of this there can be no doubt. It was a foolish move made on a whim, without proper foresight or reflection. Its the textbook definition of why I would NEVER want to be a Stark bannerman (because Starks and their spouses do really crazy things). Just understand that: by you saying Tywin started the war that does not make it true.
And my point is not that by serving X lord or Y lord I am somehow immune to death or starvation; my point is that my odds of survival rise dramatically if I serve a lord who puts winning above all else; my chances rise if I serev a lord who avoids catastrophe, who is just and calculating; who will not do dumb things when it matters most. Any bannerman to ANY lord can die either from the war or starvation or disease- there are dead wolves all over the place; that does not make Robb Stark a bad lord, per se
. Its how they died that matters.
Look at the Green Fork. FUCK that would have sucked to have been a lord serving Robb at that moment- he sacrificed those men. But that's not Robb being a bad lord; that's simply trying to fight a war. THAT does not make Robb bad (and it should be noted that Bolton and Glover both survived the battle). Robb is a bad lord because he went back on his word and lead all his men to doom for his foolishness.
Again, I am not discussing absolutes here- I gain no absolute immunity from serving this lord or that prince. But the odds? They swing wildly in my favor if I serve somebody like Tywin or Stannis instead of Robb and Edmure.