Did anybody else like Tywin Lannister?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

But, none of that was authorized by Hoster or Edmure. And Tywin had little reason to presume that it was. Nor did he even make the slightest attempt to verify that was the case.

And?

The crime took place in the Riverlands, by Riverland soldiers. They are also culpable.

[The Wolves]

And?

The crime took place in the Riverlands, by Riverland soldiers. They are also culpable.

Then he makes an appeal to the Lord of the Riverlands and the King not attack first. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Then he makes an appeal to the Lord of the Riverlands and the King not attack first. 

He did. We hear about it just before Jaime attacks Ned.

"It would seem he has met some trouble on the road. My lord father is quite vexed. You would not perchance have any notion of who might have wished my brother ill, would you?"

"Your brother has been taken at my command, to answer for his crimes," Ned Stark said.

 

We know that Ned was ordered by Robert to release him but this seems to have been ignored by Ned.

[OldGimletEye]

And?

The crime took place in the Riverlands, by Riverland soldiers. They are also culpable.

I just got to say, that I think the thrust of this argument seems like it was constructed from the philosophy department of Kooleesi U. with it's rather week attempt to assign collective guilt upon Hoster or Edmure Tully for the actions of Cat Stark. Such attempts typically lead into chains of highly suspect reasoning.

A man like Tywin Lannister is a big believer in the system. That is to say Tywin really believes that he, and his family, are better than there underlings. So when Tywin orders his men to do something, he doesn't expect them to start playing twenty questions. And for some reason, I just believe, that if Joanna Lannister or Cersei Lannister ordered one of Tywin's underlings to do something most of those underlings would conclude that it would be in their best interest to do what they were told by Cersei or Joanna. In fact, probably most of those underlings would take a mere "request" or would take being "asked" to something as kin to an order or command. When the wife or daughter of your overlord "ask" you do something, it would probably behoove you to do what was "asked" and to do it quickly. If Tywin were asked and if he were to give an honest answer he would agree with the following statement: "A soldier or underling has a presumptive right to rely on the lawfulness and appropriateness of his socially better's command or order".

The upshot here is that their is nothing particularly egregious here about how the men in Masha Heddle's establishment acted to Catelyn's command or request. I think they had a right to rely on Catelyn's representations. I think it would be a bit ridiculous to expect the soldiers in Masha's establishment to write letters to some Maester in Oldtown, about thorny jurisdictional issues, before deciding to obey Cat.

And even if the soldiers were wrong to Obey cat, I am not sure how that implicates Hoster or Edmure. In short, the inferential chain your making here, which is:

Cat Wrong -> Soldiers Wrong - > Hoster or Edmure Wrong

Fails spectacularly.

Also, Edmure did send emissaries to Casterly Rock to find out Tywin's intentions and Tywin wouldn't even talk to them.

He did. We hear about it just before Jaime attacks Ned.

"It would seem he has met some trouble on the road. My lord father is quite vexed. You would not perchance have any notion of who might have wished my brother ill, would you?"

"Your brother has been taken at my command, to answer for his crimes," Ned Stark said.

 

We know that Ned was ordered by Robert to release him but this seems to have been ignored by Ned.

Am I aware of Robert giving Ned an order to have Tyrion released after the Jaime incident. I am not aware of Robert giving any such order before that incident, unless I'm mis-remembering it. And, if Ned had been given such an order it wouldn't be his usual mode of operation to ignore the order in secret. Ned didn't have much of a problem telling Robert when he didn't like something Robert was doing.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

I just got to say, that I think the thrust of this argument seems like it was constructed from the philosophy department of Kooleesi U

The author makes it pretty clear that it was dangerous act and not a wise move. I'm happy conceding to his knowledge on his own fictional universe.

 

 

Am I aware of Robert giving Ned an order to have Tyrion released after the Jaime incident. I am not aware of Robert giving any such order before that incident, unless I'm mis-remembering it.

When did I say it was before the incident?

"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."

 

And, if Ned had been given such an order it wouldn't be his usual mode of operation to ignore the order in secret. Ned didn't have much of a problem telling Robert when he didn't like something Robert was doing.

We have access to Ned's POV, and we have no evidence of him sending messages to Cat to release Tyrion nor do Cat or Robb receive such messages ipso facto Robb ignored his Kings orders.

[The Bold Wolf]

I didn't like Tywin Lannister. I wouldn't want to be chums with him, or be in his company. He had children murdered to prove his loyalty to Robert Baratheon, he burned the Riverlands and has a man like Greggor Clegane in his service. That being said, I did respect him in some aspect. He was a great tactician, he was smart, cold, and calculating, with his enemies and even his "friends". He ran the realm well when he was hand for Aerys, and restored his house to its former glory. He's still a dick head though. 

[Swordofmorning]

Yep, you can love him or you can hate him but you gotta respect the man.

I don't agree with most of his decisions but was sure as hell interesting to read. He sure would make my top 5 fav list.

[Grazdan of Ghis]

From where I stand, Tywin is as vile as villains go - he commits most gruesome atrocities (genocide, murder of innocent children, gang-rape of his own daughter in law, Red Wedding etc.) and has no moral quarrels whatsoever about doing those things. Yes, he believes he is doing those things to achieve some greater goals, but so did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the likes of them. Does it justify any of them?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

From where I stand, Tywin is as vile as villains go - he commits most gruesome atrocities (genocide, murder of innocent children, gang-rape of his own daughter in law, Red Wedding etc.) and has no moral quarrels whatsoever about doing those things. Yes, he believes he is doing those things to achieve some greater goals, but so did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the likes of them. Does it justify any of them?

When did he commit genocide?

 

Surely there is enough to dislike about him without resorting to exaggeration.

[Grazdan of Ghis]

When did he commit genocide?

During Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion. Well, maybe not strictly "genocide" in the modern sense, but pretty damn close.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

During Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion. Well, maybe not strictly "genocide" in the modern sense, but pretty damn close.

Not at all. It was nothing like genocide. Either you don't understand what genocide means or you don't know what took place in that brief war.

 

 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Like or hate is too POV , I understand why he did what he did that doesn't mean I condemn or condone it .The honor of his family means everything to him  which I like, but personally speaking Tywin as the ability to turn friends and allies into enemies .

[The Wolves]

From where I stand, Tywin is as vile as villains go - he commits most gruesome atrocities (genocide, murder of innocent children, gang-rape of his own daughter in law, Red Wedding etc.) and has no moral quarrels whatsoever about doing those things. Yes, he believes he is doing those things to achieve some greater goals, but so did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the likes of them. Does it justify any of them?

Word he's a monster the biggest one in the series yet his actions are defended by some sick idea of honor. And I don't get the people saying "you gotta respect the man" no I really don't, there is nothing to respect there. He's a freak a sick fuck who have spent years murdering thousands of innocents while better man like Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn should have put that beast to sleep years ago yet they didn't what idiots. 

 

The greatest act done in the books is Tyrion murdering Tywin. 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Genocide is not the word. The word is "massacre". Makes no difference, though.

[khal drogon]

I hate hate Tywin for all his atrocities but I am sad that most of the Lords in Westeros are not that different from him. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Word he's a monster the biggest one in the series yet his actions are defended by some sick idea of honor. And I don't get the people saying "you gotta respect the man" no I really don't, there is nothing to respect there. He's a freak a sick fuck who have spent years murdering thousands of innocents while better man like Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn should have put that beast to sleep years ago yet they didn't what idiots. 

 

Thousands? Are you sure?

 

[The Wolves]

Thousands? Are you sure?

 

I don't doubt it one bit. 

I'm sure if you add up the innocents that died from his war campaigns against the Tarbeck, Reynes, KL, War against the Riverlands, etc.. the number will probably be in the thousands. 

[Grazdan of Ghis]

The honor of his family means everything to him  which I like.

Yes, he speaks a lot about doing what he does for the sake of his family... yet in the process he ruins the lives of his own children. Ironic, isn't it?

Not at all. It was nothing like genocide. Either you don't understand what genocide means or you don't know what took place in that brief war.

 

 

The word "genocide" derives from Latin "gens" and "caedere". The latter means "to kill". The former term is often taken to mean "ethnic group", but more accurately means "clan" in the original Roman usage. What Tywin did - he wiped out the entire Reyne and Tarbeck clans, which is, quite literally, a "genocide". Later, the same was done to Darklyns... presumably at Aerys' orders, but since Tywin was the Hand at the time - chances are that he bares part of responsibility for that too.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

The word "genocide" derives from Latin "gens" and "caedere". The latter means "to kill". The former term is often taken to mean "ethnic group", but more accurately means "clan" in the original Roman usage. What Tywin did - he wiped out the entire Reyne and Tarbeck clans, which is, quite literally, a "genocide

No, it is not. First of all some Tarbecks survived. He only killed the male members of that family. And I sincerley doubt that every person with Reyne blood was killed in Castamere, afterall there is a Reyne bastard House, Vikary, that still exists today.

So no, it was not a genocide.

And that is ignoring the fact that the Reynes and Tarbecks were the same ethnic group and culture as Tywin.

I don't doubt it one bit. 

I'm sure if you add up the innocents that died from his war campaigns against the Tarbeck, Reynes, KL, War against the Riverlands, etc.. the number will probably be in the thousands. 

I imagine it would not be in the thousands of innocents. Many of them were soldiers who knew what they were doing and Tywin was not the only one responsible for the massacre in the Riverlands. Quiet a few Wolves had a hand in that as well.

 

[John Doe]

Yes, he speaks a lot about doing what he does for the sake of his family... yet in the process he ruins the lives of his own children. Ironic, isn't it?

 

Tell me how he ruined the twins' lives?