Did anybody else like Tywin Lannister?

[John Doe]

Why? He didn't break guest rights? The Freys and Boltons did. He certainly benefited from it but he was neither the host or the guest.

A fact many people seem to miss.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

 

1. There are also innocent women and a burned down village, but alittledragons quotes work very well too to describe how there is little to no difference between northern and western brutality.

2. Prove it, in this case they'd be deserters.

3. Yes, I know. The quote shows the abscence of kindness, nothing more, nothing less. 

4. Not legitimizing him wouldn't have stopped him from committing atrocities, and I doubt Roose would have cooperated without getting Ramsay legitimized. Besides Robb employed Ramsay as well.

1. I never claimed the westerners were crueler than the northerners. I don't believe that. I claimed that Tywin's way of conducting war, which includes choosing what kind of men he wants to use for specific reasons (terror, mayhem, etc.) is way more brutal and crueler than Robb's and the majority of lords in the time the main narrative takes place. You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur. I have two massacres conducted under Tywin's consent.

2. Prove what? That Robb wasn't behind the acts of random soldiers? Why would he do that? It doesn't have a purpose and it's cruel. They would not be deserters. They would be soldiers committing a crime that Robb would most likely never hear about and if he did he would never find the culprits.

3. Not merely the absence of kindness. Basically the extreme opposite of kindness according to her metaphor.

4. Robb never employed let alone rewarded Ramsay. He doesn't say Ramsay's supposed actions in Winterfell would keep him from being executed for his past crimes. When he knew about the facts, Ramsay already had brought Theon and the remaining household of Winterfell to the the Dreadfort. He would deal with it after returning to the North and we don't know how he would have acted.

Not legitimizing Ramsay would keep him from being the second most powerful person in the realm and giving free range to his proclivities without having to hide his acts from higher authorities. We see him doing this in ADWD. The Lannister enabled him.

They shouldn't being cooperating with Roose in the first place. They knew he was a traitor and also rewarded him because he was doing their dirty task. So that excuse doesn't work.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1. I never claimed the westerners were crueler than the northerners. I don't believe that. I claimed that Tywin's way of conducting war, which includes choosing what kind of men he wants to use for specific reasons (terror, mayhem, etc.) is way more brutal and crueler than Robb's and the majority of lords in the time the main narrative takes place. You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur. I have two massacres conducted under Tywin's consent.

Robb choose Roose Bolton to lead the majority of his men for most of the war. Gregor Clegane is picked for being one of the strongest knights in the realm. He seems an accomplished leader in the field.

According to Robb's own side he went West to pay them back in kind. To dish out to the Westerlands what they did to the Riverlands. There is no difference.

2. Prove what? That Robb wasn't behind the acts of random soldiers? Why would he do that? It doesn't have a purpose and it's cruel. They would not be deserters. They would be soldiers committing a crime that Robb would most likely never hear about and if he did he would never find the culprits.

He went West to pay them back in kind, he wanted his Northern men to do similar actions to Gregor.

[dariopatke]

It was the Targaryens who outlawed First Night, a practice that had taken place for thousands of years under the Starks. A practice that still took place under Stark rule.

Not sure how Boltons flaying Starks is a bad thing for the Smallfolk? Infact who have the Boltons flayed since they have came to power? Ironborn enemies who were invading the lands.

Oh just wait if somehow Jon is dead and Stannis defeated so they can rule unchallenged, when there are no more enemies Ramsay will have to flay someone just to be in good shape.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

No we cant. We have direct evidence from the Riverland smallfolk that they were both committing similar atrocities. They saw little difference between these two groups. And if that is what they were doing in the Riverlands then they must have been commiting similar, if not worse, actions on the Westerland small folk.

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.

The people suffering at Harrenhal actually find it worse under Northern rule than they did under Westerland rule.

"I hate this lot worse. Ser Amory was fighting for his lord, but the Mummers are sellswords and turncloaks. Half of them can't even speak the Common Tongue. Septon Utt likes little boys, Qyburn does black magic, and your friend Biter eats people."

The worst thing was, she couldn't even say he was wrong. The Brave Companions did most of the foraging for Harrenhal, and Roose Bolton had given them the task of rooting out Lannisters.

The major difference is that Robb's military (the 6k of Northermn, sellswords and Freys) looks better as we are seeing them through Robb Starks mother who does not see any of the battles, only sees the top officers who are on their best behaviour around Lady Stark.

We have no reason to think that the North does have their own equivalents of Lorch and the Mountain(well not as powerful) in their ranks. It is just that we don't get the point of view from the Westerland smallfolk who would have experienced first hand the Northern versions.

 

Of course they are. The North men at Septy Stone were raping women at Stoney Sept. Shit, the Northerners were stabbing each other at Winterfell.

 

Yes you did. You claimed that Robb would never employ psychopaths, clearly that is wrong. Both sides would have their fair share of 'monsters' in their ranks as sadly in medieval war were you are regularly hacking other humans to pieces it robs many men of their humanity. By being a monster you not only survive longer but are more useful to your Lord.

And Tyrion was. He was abducted (the Kings language own words) which is being harmed. He was given no choice, taken by force and swordpoint.

Why? He didn't break guest rights? The Freys and Boltons did. He certainly benefited from it but he was neither the host or the guest.

You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur. I have three massacres conducted under Tywin's consent during the Wot5k. We have the murder of Elia and her children that is well known in the whole realm. We have Tysha. We have Masha Heddle. We have the Reynes and the Castamere. I don't claim that there aren't horrible people in Robb's army or that he is above any act of ruthlessness. Seriously, my whole point was about the motivation of using such soldiers as prominent generals, an act that Robb doesn't do as far as we know (who is the equivalent of Gregor Clegane in terms of renowned brutality in all Westeros?). I claimed that Tywin is the one who uses and rewards these kind of people for this very reason (I know he uses people for their competency too, but the fact he has such a criminal as his right hand in the battlefield is no coincidence). I know that Tywin is way more cruel than your average lord and that he is a horrible person and the narrative proves that repeatedly despite the whitewashing some fans try to do. Gregor Clegane is infamous in the whole realm, as well as Amory Lorch. Vargo Hoat and the Brave Companions only set foot in Westeros because Tywin employed the nefarious mercenaries in the first place. There is no instance in the books when Robb hires men or sends men to do a task because they act like psychopaths. He does because he sees them as competent, cunning, etc. His tactics are never shown to be as foul as Tywin. In TWoW we may find otherwise but for now we have no reason to believe Robb was just as brutal as Tywin. Robb was no saint either but nowhere near Tywin in terms of villainy unless proved otherwise. The characterization each character had till now points to Tywin showing unmitigated cruelty when he can get away with it and it serves his purposes and Robb being way more merciful in the instances we know he has control over. See Osha, for example. There is no dancing around this fact.

Catelyn and her allies would say Tyrion was arrested. And they would be just as right, which is not the same as harming someone. Tyrion wasn't physically harmed. As far as Masha knew he would be brought to King's Landing to wait the king's justice. You brought up that the northerners were killing themselves in Winterfell. Does anyone mention guest right in this occasion or hold Robb, Roose or their commanders responsible for breaking this sacred law just because one Bolton soldier killed a Cerwyn? No, because at worst they were negligent. Masha as well is not responsible for actions that happen despite her will in her inn, actions that didn't even constitute maiming someone and may or not be lawful. If a suspected criminal is discovered under a roof he can not be arrested?

I'm sorry but promising pardon and reward for a bunch of men to massacre hundreds of people in their roof is being a culprit. The fact that Tywin is not physically present at the moment doesn't mean much. He was still perfectly aware that he was enabling one of the most reviled acts in the world he lives in to take place. Few people in-universe say it out loud but it's pretty obvious to everyone with a functioning brain that Tywin was behind the Red Wedding. He is a criminal and guilty as charged.

 

[Light a wight tonight]

Chevauchee was a normal medieval war tactic. The wolves harassed civilians too, both in the Riverlands and Westerlands. 

Does that include the actions of Gregor's Merrie Men at that fishing village, torturing individuals to death over a day's time?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

You have no quote that points to Robb directly ordering a brutal massacre to occur.

 

We know that the northern soldiers were raping and pillaging in the Riverlands. We know that Robb went West to pay the Lannisters back in kind.

Can you show all the quotes of Tywin ordering brutal massacres?

 

I have three massacres conducted under Tywin's consent during the Wot5k.

Ordered by Tywin? Please provide them as if you are only counting things that we see Robb actually order then you should so the same for Tywin.

Provide quotes showing Tywin ordering these three massacres.

 

  Seriously, my whole point was about the motivation of using such soldiers as prominent generals,

Generals like Roose?

 

 Vargo Hoat and the Brave Companions only set foot in Westeros because Tywin employed the nefarious mercenaries in the first place.

And they were also employed by the North, just like Robb took on the foreign sellswords at Riverrun.

 

There is no instance in the books when Robb hires men or sends men to do a task because they act like psychopaths.

Yes there is.. The Westerlands campaign was suppsed to mirror what the Westerland men did in the Riverlands.

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.

Robb could not hurt the Lannisters home of the Rock or Lannisport so had to focus on hurting the innocent smallfolk. If you can provide evidence that Robb was somehow gentler than the Lannister army then I would be grateful but until then the evidence suggests there was little difference, that Robb went West to replicate Tywin. 

 His tactics are never shown to be as foul as Tywin.

They are exactly the same in the Westerlands. No difference.

Catelyn and her allies would say Tyrion was arrested. And they would be just as right,

The King is the Law and he calls it what it is.

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

Now this seems to be your whole argument, bad things dont count if they are committed by a Stark.

 

 Tyrion wasn't physically harmed.

He was taken by sword point. What would have happened if he refused to go peacefully?

 

As far as Masha knew he would be brought to King's Landing to wait the king's justice.

So? Show me the small print in Guest rights which stipulate that in some cases it is OK to ignore them?

It is funny how the Stark fans wont shut up about how sacred guest rights are when it comes to Robb yet don't really care about Heddle and Cat breaking them here.

You brought up that the northerners were killing themselves in Winterfell.

I brought it up because you mentioned that it was only the meanie Westerland soldiers who stabbed people to death. We have seen Northerners attack each other in the North, their allies in the Riverlands and you expect me to believe that they treated the Westerlands any better.

 

  Masha as well is not responsible for actions that happen despite her will in her inn, actions that didn't even constitute maiming someone and may or not be lawful.

He was not a suspected criminal and Cat Tully is not a Lord. It is not for her to arrest people.

 

If a suspected criminal is discovered under a roof he can not be arrested?

So if the Freys turn around and say that they tried to arrest Robb and his men, as they were suspected criminals and that they had to kill them because they were resisting arrest then that would be fine?

Of course not, guest rights does not work like that.

I'm sorry but promising pardon and reward for a bunch of men to massacre hundreds of people in their roof is being a culprit.

No it is not. Guest rights is about the guest and the host. Tywin was neither.

 

The fact that Tywin is not physically present at the moment doesn't mean much.

Yeah, it does. It means that he is not cursed by the gods. Just like Robert, who benefited from Jaime Kingslaying is not a Kingslayer himself. Pretty simple.

[King Brandon Ice Eyes]

Robb choose Roose Bolton to lead the majority of his men for most of the war. Gregor Clegane is picked for being one of the strongest knights in the realm. He seems an accomplished leader in the field.

According to Robb's own side he went West to pay them back in kind. To dish out to the Westerlands what they did to the Riverlands. There is no difference.

He went West to pay them back in kind, he wanted his Northern men to do similar actions to Gregor.

 

Everyone knows Roose Bolton as a cold, hard, cautious and cunning man. No one knows him as a rapist, a child killer who would never shy away from committing unspeakable atrocities (at least by the time Robb gave him the command). Tywin knows exactly what Gregor is. Him and the whole realm. The situations are not comparable. Of course he uses him because he is huge and a good fighter as well. One thing doesn't change the other. Tywin sees great use in a sadist like Gregor just the same. 

It's just a line. It's not a proof that he employed the same unbelievably cruel tactics to hurt his enemy. And then there is the rest of the quote.

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 toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn’s Deep, and the Pendric Hills. Ser Wendel laughed. “Nothing’s more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold.”

No mentions about killing babies, torturing peasants or raping people as tactics to spread fear. I'm not denying that there were many casualties and that the smallfolk suffered but the targets described here seem to be the land, the resources, the gold and the enemy's armies, not the civillians.

If Robb had done anything close to what people like Gregor did, people would probably comment about it. AFFC is a book that focuses mainly on the Lannisters and we never hear about specifics and detailed acts of cruelty committed by Robb and his allies in the Westerlands. If its people were as decimated as the Riverlands I think we would hear it. We hear a lot about Saltpans, for example, which was very similar to the acts done by Gregor, Amory and their men.

Of course Robb and his allies were pissed and wanted to hurt the enemies in their own land. It doesn't mean they employed the same brutality as Tywin did. Innocent people were raped and killed, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean Robb and his allies supervised or instructed these acts. Burning fields, killing soldiers and stealing resources hurt your enemy just fine. Stannis castrates his men for raping; that doesn't mean he is seen as a less formidable enemy. He still hurt his adversaries without sinking to Tywin's lows. You don't have to find ways to sadistically murder civillians to conduct warfare. On the other hand we know that Tywin ensured the Red Wedding, that he presided the constant torture in Harrenhal, that he ordered Gregor to massacre peasants while disguised to trick Eddard into a trap.

[David Selig]

He has a lot of deluded fanboys who make up a lot of highly entertaining excuses for his atrocities. "But he had reasons for his actions thus he wasn't evil!" being the most used one which is a complete nonsense. Everyone has their reasons for their actions.

[Winter's Cold]

He's probably one of the most evil characters in Westeros. Even his sons were disgusted by his behavior. In the end, he reaped what he sowed.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Everyone knows Roose Bolton as a cold, hard, cautious and cunning man. No one knows him as a rapist, a child killer who would never shy away from committing unspeakable atrocities (at least by the time Robb gave him the command). Tywin knows exactly what Gregor is. Him and the whole realm. The situations are not comparable. Of course he uses him because he is huge and a good fighter as well. One thing doesn't change the other. Tywin sees great use in a sadist like Gregor just the same. 

Of course they are. They are both potential monsters but were given leadership positions because they were effective at their job.

It's just a line. It's not a proof that he employed the same unbelievably cruel tactics to hurt his enemy. And then there is the rest of the quote.

Yes it is proof. We are told why he went West and what his intentions were.

 

No mentions about killing babies, torturing peasants or raping people as tactics to spread fear. I'm not denying that there were many casualties and that the smallfolk suffered but the targets described here seem to be the land, the resources, the gold and the enemy's armies, not the civillians.

Paying back in kind means doing to the Westerland smallfolk what happened to the Riverland smallfolk. If any of the things you mentioned happened in the Riverlands then the intent was to do the same to the Westerlands.

That is what we are told. If you have any further information from the books then I will be happy to see it, but we are told that Robb went West to do to them as they did to the Riverlands.

The irony here is that the Northmen were also committing atrocities in the Riverlands. Now the fact that the Northmen were willing to do that to their own allies puts no doubt in my mind that they were doing similar actions in the West.

If Robb had done anything close to what people like Gregor did, people would probably comment about it.

It is commented on by the Riverland smallfolk.  I provided about 5 quotes of the Riverland smallfolk complaining about the Lions and Wolves to you. Are you just going to ignore evidence?

Unfortunately for the Westland smallfolk we don't have chapters with Arya, Brienne and Jaime talking to them and telling us what they suffered.

 

AFFC is a book that focuses mainly on the Lannisters and we never hear about specifics and detailed acts of cruelty committed by Robb and his allies in the Westerlands.

Not one chapter has been set in the Westerlands. It is hardly rocket science.

 

If its people were as decimated as the Riverlands I think we would hear it. We hear a lot about Saltpans, for example, which was very similar to the acts done by Gregor, Amory and their men.

Why do we hear about Saltpans? Because we had a chapter there.  And yeah, ignore the contribution that the Northmen had on the Riverlands.

Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

 

Of course Robb and his allies were pissed and wanted to hurt the enemies in their own land. It doesn't mean they employed the same brutality as Tywin did.

Nothing suggests otherwise. The one report we have says they went there for just that reason.

 

Innocent people were raped and killed, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean Robb and his allies supervised or instructed these acts.

Sure, Robb might be incompetent and not realize it is happening, or he might be a moral coward and just look the other way and pretend it is not happening. But it happened, that was the whole reason they went West.

 

  Stannis castrates his men for raping; that doesn't mean he is seen as a less formidable enemy.

He does it in peace time. Most nobles, probably even Tywin, do the same as rape in occupied territory or peace times is frowned upon. There is a difference between it. Stannis has his fair share of 'monsters':

Suggs was simply cruel. She had seen him at the nightfires, watching, his lips parted and his eyes avid. It is not the god he loves, it is the flames, she concluded. When she asked Ser Justin if Suggs had always been that way, he grimaced. "On Dragonstone he would gamble with the torturers and lend them a hand in the questioning of prisoners, especially if the prisoner were a young woman."

Rape was an unfortunate consequence of medieval (and before) warfare. In fairness, Robb might have been too young and knave to know about just how prevalent it was at the start of the war, but every army would have their fair share of vicious men and these men would often rise quite high. 

 

He still hurt his adversaries without sinking to Tywin's lows.

We don't know that, we know he went west to do the same as Tywin. Until we are told different I am going to assume the book is right.

 

You don't have to find ways to sadistically murder civillians to conduct warfare.

Now you are just being melodramatic. He wanted to cause chaos, I don't think there are any orders of sadism.

On the other hand we know that Tywin ensured the Red Wedding,

No we don't. Lothar Frey and Roose Bolton planned it. Robb managed to alienate his own vassals, they wanted it and they planned it. Tywin certainly benefited from it.

The Freys and Boltons wanted Robb disposed off with as few casualties as possible, that is why they planned the Red Wedding.

 

that he presided the constant torture in Harrenhal,

According to Arya it was worse when Tywin left and Roose took over. An actual Starks words.

 

that he ordered Gregor to massacre peasants while disguised to trick Eddard into a trap.

Massacre? He ordered chevauchée, and it was carried out. Sadly for the smalllfolk the majority of the nobles of Westeros do not seem to care highly about them (Starks included).

[John Doe]

 

 

Does that include the actions of Gregor's Merrie Men at that fishing village, torturing individuals to death over a day's time?

Wait a sec.

 

A chevauchée (French pronunciation: [ʃəvoʃe], "promenade" or "horse charge", depending on context) was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest. The chevauchée could be used as a way of forcing an enemy to fight, or as a means of discrediting the enemy's government and detaching his subjects from their loyalty. This usually caused a massive flight of refugees to fortified towns and castles, which would be untouched by the chevauchée. 

(...)

Specific tactics were "a quick cavalry raid through the countryside with the intention of pillaging unfortified villages and towns, destroying crops and houses, stealing livestock, and generally disrupting and terrorizing rural society.

Yes.

[David Selig]

You guys realise that the "But other people (Robb Stark, medieval lords and kings in real world history, etc) committed the same kind of atrocities" excuse doesn't make Tywin look any better, right?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

You guys realise that the "But other people (Robb Stark, medieval lords and kings in real world history, etc) committed the same kind of atrocities" excuse doesn't make Tywin look any better, right?

I don't think anyone is trying to say he was a saint or even a good guy. Adding context to the situation is not the same as being a fanboy, like you earlier suggested.

Tywin was quite the asshole at times, but there seems to the underlying need to paint his behaviour at complete odds with the rest of his society. It wasn't, the main difference is that the bigger assholes in medieval (and before) history is they were often the guys with most power and longer careers.

 

[FuzzyJAM]

Did I ever defend Tywin's morality? Personally I think it's utterly ignorant to presume that all people can be shoehorned into two different categories and that the world isn't more complicated than that. But hey, how can I argue with logic like "if you don't agree with me then (insert random personal insult here)"?

There is nothing wrong with saying people shouldn't be simply described as "evil".  I largely agree.  I mean, there comes a point (e.g. Stalin, Mao) where that's pretty difficult to maintain, but I'm not going to get into it.  My issue is with you denying the word entirely.  Actions absolutely can be evil.  The gang rape of a 13 year old to teach your son a lesson is not ambiguous in the slightest.  It's evil.  If you want to say that evil actions do not make a person evil - fine, that's a position I can mostly agree with.  But that's not what you said, you denied the entire concept of evil.  That's not something I can agree with at all.

I wasn't offering a personal insult to be a dick, it's just that morality is an arational concept, and therefore all that can be said about someone who doesn't think they can call gang rapes of girls "evil" is that their worldview is messed up.  If you'd prefer, I'll explain that it's a synonym for "a worldview entirely different from mine, and if most people actually believed what you're saying, it would result in a far worse world than we have - at least by the standards of most people." 

[John Doe]

You guys realise that the "But other people (Robb Stark, medieval lords and kings in real world history, etc) committed the same kind of atrocities" excuse doesn't make Tywin look any better, right?

What characters do you not see as despicable, then?

[Light a wight tonight]

 

Yes.

Sorry, the explanation of chevauchee does not match what happened at that village, which was occupied over a long stretch, long enough for the corpses that were hung up to begin to rot, probably several weeks. What would match your example would be a quick raid, putting everyone who couldn't get away to the sword, stealing all the valuables burning down all the buildings, and driving off all the livestock, all in one day. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Does that include the actions of Gregor's Merrie Men at that fishing village, torturing individuals to death over a day's time?

Which fishing village?

[FuzzyJAM]

What characters do you not see as despicable, then?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's pretty obvious that most characters in the books do despicable things.  Though, again, I wouldn't generally use despicable to describe a person.  

There are plenty characters that follow the immoral ethics of their culture which I judge as more acceptable in terms of badness.  But it's rare for someone in the books to actually be a good person.  

[John Doe]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's pretty obvious that most characters in the books do despicable things.  Though, again, I wouldn't generally use despicable to describe a person. 

I'm just wondering because I view their actions in the context of their time. It's hard not to hate everyone otherwise.