Let's talk about Tysha and Lannister soldiers

[Protagoras]

55 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Just because that law isn't mentioned doesn't mean that having your men rape someone a hundred odd times is 100% legal.

No, but until the law is mentioned it is certainly wrong to assume that it would be illegal as well. In addition, it heavy collides wth the structure of feudalism. The "right of pit and gallows" means authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons. That is, you are allowed to make a judgment on who is getting a punishment and what that punishment is.

So, no - I can´t 100% say it is legal, but everything point that way - and certainly enough to base an assumption. You are the one who need to find the evidence for such laws existance. I never have to prove a negative, especially not in a case where it is unlikely that such a negative exist.

Quote

We don't hear about 99% of the laws that exist in Westeros, that doesn't mean they don't exist. By that logic, having an innocent man murdered is legal as long you get your knight to do it for you. While that does happen a lot, it's probably not legal, e.g. Ned calling Gregor to King's Landing for judgement.

Indeed, and what we have here is a higher instance overriding a lower one and for a political reason. But I need to point out that pit and gallows only applies on your own territory, so calling Gregor over this is one thing since he looted and pillaged "someone elses" smallfolk. Calling him to King´s landing to answer for those missing servants and relatives of his at Clegane´s Keep is quite another story. I challenge you to find one example that a lord is punished for something happening on their own territory (that end in a lawful argument, that is - not a war to decide who is "right").

And tbh, I find your case pretty flimsy. You assume that there are more laws we havn´t heard about, that those laws would make a difference in Tyshas case and that somehow the concept of innocent should make something less legal. Because Tywin is, on his land , the sole decider on who is innocent or not. And certainly, he is not going to punish any innocent. So, everyone punished by him are not innocent. Because he say so. Welcome to westerosi justice.

I very much doubt that many royal laws exist. As seen in the case of Aegon V, such laws tend to be very inpopular and seen as "depriving us of our gods-given rights and liberties". So it certainly look like that the tradition is on the side of those lords who want to do whatever they please and the process curbing that is pretty recent.

I also think you use the wrong language here. A lord doesn´t have "an innocent man murdered", he has a guilty man executed. Similary, a lord doesn´t have "an innocent woman gang-raped", he has a guilty woman recieving a sexual punishment. And due to pit and gallows, they have the authority to decide what´s what.

Quote

There's multiple instances of rapists being punished in the series. Randyll Tarly gelds his own men when they rape, I doubt it would be legal if he told them to do it. If anything that would make him part of it.

Are we talking about the same Randall Tarly who thought Brienne needed a good, hard raping?

And if Brienne is raped, do you really think Randall Tarly would punish them if he was the one sending them. Do you think any one else would, apart maybe as a political move? Considering that Randyll is now Master of laws, I find that unlikely.

What I think you miss is that justice in Westeros are connected to individuals. And when you are high up on the hierarchy there is really no one who can tell you no.

Name an example of a rapist being punished that was a lord, raping people on its own territory. And that said rape was not an example of the royal law against first night.

So, if Lord Mooton had raped those people in Maidenpool - it wouldn´t have been an offence (with the exception of, again, the royal law against First night - the only royal law against rape that we know of).

Quote

I can't see Robert Baratheon or the majority of the lords in Westeros being okay with this, hence I doubt its common knowledge. Or else people must think its a rumour. 

I don´t think it matters if Robert Baratheon or the majority of the lords in Westeros are okay with this. Tywin has the right to perform what he considers justice on his territory. So, unless you can point on a law that tells Tywin no - like say something similiar to the law against first night, there is no reason to assume that his gang-rape of Tysha is illegal. In fact, having women raped was used as a punishment by Roose Bolton on Pretty Pia and the others, and he made no secret about it (since they were tied up naked out in the open in the largest castles in the realm). Any one soldier or passer-by could have told Robb, if it had been so illegal. Yet we never hear about it again. And we have a sexual punishment on Cersei by the Faith! The moral authority in the whole (almost) of Westeros. This clearly send the signal to me that sexual punishments are seen as ok (if sufficient authority is behind it).

Then certainly, if you have a commander like Stannis who orders rapes to be prohibited, then you will certainly be punished for it - but such a command needs to be stated. And then we are certainly far away from this case. Again - this is about a Lord doing something on their own land, something royal laws in feudalism usually doesn´t regulate.

Quote

Yes rape happens a lot in this series, yes it's awful and many of the lords know about it and turn a blind eye. But it would be weird if they all were allowed to get away with it as long as they command their soldiers to do it. 

?

If someone has their soldiers rape someone it is at best a matter for their superiours, but even they can´t make up laws at a whim. Hadn´t first night been illegal, Roose wouldn´t have gotten a reason to "fear Lord Richard". It is still his territory and whatever fealty he owes has already been decided through the bond between the houses.

At bare minimum, you have to present your dislike. Robert need to actually tell Tywin, that any kind of rapes are a big no-no. And even then, this will be seen as an infringement in Tywins rights, not Robert upholding laws no one seem to know about. It will take years for such a decree to hold sway (because of tradition).

[NorthWestern]

In times past the concept of rape was different from what we consider rape today.

Rape or not rape was depending on the victim, the perpetrator and their relationship.

• Marriage was seen as a lifelong agreement to have sex with each other. Martial rape didn't exist.
• A slave was legal property of the master. Master on slave rape didn't exist.
• A prostitute was free for everyone to have sex with. Rape against a prostitute didn't exist, what existed was "theft of service" if the rapist didn't pay.

The crime of rape applied only to women of virtue = virgin maidens, honorable wives and respectable widows.

If Westeros is anything like our real word in centuries past and Tysha was considered a whore neither Tywin nor his soldiers nor Tyrion had committed a crime by raping her. She got paid.

[Clegane'sPup]

On 4/6/2017 at 8:53 AM, King Gendry Baratheon said:

First I know that westeros is a very grim place where many bad things happen, but let's once more think about the disturbing rape of Tysha. Tyrion said that after the gang rape she had over 100 silver coins and 1 gold coin. So that means that she would had slept with over 100 men during that day.

Why the fuck would a fan of this saga want to keep bringing this shyte up?.
 

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion VI     "He did better than that," Tyrion said. "First he made my brother tell me the truth. The girl was a whore, you see. Jaime arranged the whole affair, the road, the outlaws, all of it. He thought it was time I had a woman. He paid double for a maiden, knowing it would be my first time.

"After Jaime had made his confession, to drive home the lesson, Lord Tywin brought my wife in and gave her to his guards. They paid her fair enough. A silver for each man, how many whores command that high a price?

He sat me down in the corner of the barracks and bade me watch, and at the end she had so many silvers the coins were slipping through her fingers and rolling on the floor, she …"

The smoke was stinging his eyes. Tyrion cleared his throat and turned away from the fire, to gaze out into darkness. "

Lord Tywin had me go last," he said in a quiet voice. "And he gave me a gold coin to pay her, because I was a Lannister, and worth more."

After a time he heard the noise again, the rasp of steel on stone as Bronn sharpened his sword. "Thirteen or thirty or three, I would have killed the man who did that to me."

 

 

Reading the books it seems pretty clear to me that Tywin resented that he had fathered a dwarf child. I guess the ^ above was one of thoses sharp lessons. Strangely though Tywin doesn’t seem to pass the idea along that perhaps Tyrion might suffocate accidentally when Tyrion was a babe.

I’m to lazy to look for the quote of when Tyrion was in the cells after Joffrey's death and Jaime told his truth about the situation. Words are wind I guess.

[theblackdragonI]

3 hours ago, Protagoras said:

No, but until the law is mentioned it is certainly wrong to assume that it would be illegal as well. In addition, it heavy collides wth the structure of feudalism. The "right of pit and gallows" means authority to hang people and toss them into dungeons. That is, you are allowed to make a judgment on who is getting a punishment and what that punishment is.

So, no - I can´t 100% say it is legal, but everything point that way - and certainly enough to base an assumption. You are the one who need to find the evidence for such laws existance. I never have to prove a negative, especially not in a case where it is unlikely that such a negative exist.

 

Well it seems neither of us will definitively know so whether said law exists or not. That is unless George publishes the constitution of the Iron Throne tomorrow. I do understand your points that within his/her realm the lord is the law. However, I would imagine there are certain crimes that result in punishment regardless of your station, i.e. murder, rape, regicide, treason. That the ordering or participation of these crimes could lead to the gallows or the Night's Watch.

 

3 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 But I need to point out that pit and gallows only applies on your own territory, so calling Gregor over this is one thing since he looted and pillaged "someone elses" smallfolk. Calling him to King´s landing to answer for those missing servants and relatives of his at Clegane´s Keep is quite another story. I challenge you to find one example that a lord is punished for something happening on their own territory (that end in a lawful argument, that is - not a war to decide who is "right").

And tbh, I find your case pretty flimsy. You assume that there are more laws we havn´t heard about, that those laws would make a difference in Tyshas case and that somehow the concept of innocent should make something less legal. Because Tywin is, on his land , the sole decider on who is innocent or not. And certainly, he is not going to punish any innocent. So, everyone punished by him are not innocent. Because he say so. Welcome to westerosi justice.

I very much doubt that many royal laws exist. As seen in the case of Aegon V, such laws tend to be very inpopular and seen as "depriving us of our gods-given rights and liberties". So it certainly look like that the tradition is on the side of those lords who want to do whatever they please and the process curbing that is pretty recent.

 

 

 

Well Ser Rodrick thinks he kills Ramsay for the abduction of Lady Danella and the raping of an innocent woman. Admittedly he is not a lord but he is still a noble.

I think you've inflated my own argument for me. I was just pointing out that I think it's unlikely that it's legal to rape on your own lands. I wasn't inferring that there being more laws we haven't heard about would make a difference in Tysha's case. You're right innocence in a feudal justice system is subjective. I guess it comes down to whether if Robert or any king would see it as rape and condone it or not.

3 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Are we talking about the same Randall Tarly who thought Brienne needed a good, hard raping?

And if Brienne is raped, do you really think Randall Tarly would punish them if he was the one sending them. Do you think any one else would, apart maybe as a political move? Considering that Randyll is now Master of laws, I find that unlikely.

Name an example of a rapist being punished that was a lord, raping people on its own territory. And that said rape was not an example of the royal law against first night.

So, if Lord Mooton had raped those people in Maidenpool - it wouldn´t have been an offence (with the exception of, again, the royal law against First night - the only royal law against rape that we know of).

I don´t think it matters if Robert Baratheon or the majority of the lords in Westeros are okay with this. Tywin has the right to perform what he considers justice on his territory. So, unless you can point on a law that tells Tywin no - like say something similiar to the law against first night, there is no reason to assume that his gang-rape of Tysha is illegal. In fact, having women raped was used as a punishment by Roose Bolton on Pretty Pia and the others, and he made no secret about it (since they were tied up naked out in the open in the largest castles in the realm). Any one soldier or passer-by could have told Robb, if it had been so illegal. Yet we never hear about it again. And we have a sexual punishment on Cersei by the Faith! The moral authority in the whole (almost) of Westeros. This clearly send the signal to me that sexual punishments are seen as ok (if sufficient authority is behind it).

 

 Regarding Tarly I think there's a difference between saying something actually doing it. Tarly says she needs a raping, he has the men to order it, he clearly wants to make her learn her role, so why doesn't he? What's stopping him? 

In fairness, there's not exactly a top ten list of lords who rape for me to refer to is there.

Is Cersei raped by the Faith? I honestly cannot remember, it's been a while since I read Dance.

As you say it's an individualist system. Ned for example, probably wouldn't tolerate half of the shit Roose gets up to under his nose, i.e. raping a woman beneath her hanging husband. I really doubt he knows about that. Likewise, I think if Robb executed Karstark for killing unarmed prisoners he might have a problem with Roose allowing public gang-raping of innocents. People are probably too afraid of the likes of Roose and Tywin to run and tell their superior lord, especially when judgement could be so volatile. Then again, I could be wrong and you could be correct that people know this stuff goes on and its normal. It most likely is a mix, a don't ask don't tell situation between lords and vassals.

[foxberlin]

I still have the feeling, Tywin created a system of shame here. It works in both ways. His soldiers knowing they rape no common whore and Tyrion unable to resist treating his wife like a whore. The whole Brotherhood without Banners thing directly resulted in Tywins dogs getting out of control with Gregor Clegane. Sandor is amongst those in need to recover from that treatment. They were Tywins whores in a way and no loyal bannermen at all. Tywin's system of shame is likely to boomerang, his children paying that notorious Lannister debt.

[Protagoras]

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

Well it seems neither of us will definitively know so whether said law exists or not. That is unless George publishes the constitution of the Iron Throne tomorrow. I do understand your points that within his/her realm the lord is the law. However, I would imagine there are certain crimes that result in punishment regardless of your station, i.e. murder, rape, regicide, treason. That the ordering or participation of these crimes could lead to the gallows or the Night's Watch.

I can´t see this at all. Tbh I think this is our modern values that believe that should exist but nothing points that certain crimes are always punished. In fact, it more looks like that certain crimes are likely to be punished if you 1. Do it toward a noble and 2. Do it on someone elses land.

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

 

Well Ser Rodrick thinks he kills Ramsay for the abduction of Lady Danella and the raping of an innocent woman. Admittedly he is not a lord but he is still a noble.

Another bad example. Lady Donella is a noble. She is also kidnapped after the feast at Winterfell (which forces the starks to punish since free passage is included). And finally, it didn´t happen on Dreadfort lands, which means Ramsay does nt have pit and gallows there.

In addition, Ramsay is not a lord. And he is never sentenced for rape. He is sentenced for an illegal marriage, kidnapping and murder of Lady Donella. Note that no one say in the books that Ramsay should be tried for his (well known) hobby of forcing naked women to run, hunt them down and the later to flay and rape them. Yet the Starks make no move against Ramsay until he cross the rules. That Ramsay did what he did towards smallfolk on "his" lands didn´t cross the rules. Because, I have a hard time seeing that the Starks just accepted it if it did.

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

I think you've inflated my own argument for me. I was just pointing out that I think it's unlikely that it's legal to rape on your own lands.

No, I havn´t inflated it. I just point out that there is nothing that points this way - even if you want it to be. Pit and Gallows means you have jurisdiction, the proper authority. The same way Eddard performs a legal execution of those who run from the watch. Its in his office, so its not really murder. Murder means that you lack rights to kill. In the same way, Tywin can performed legalized rape which differ from normal rape, ie rape that lacks authority. Tywin do to rape what Eddard did to the deserter. And I think you see the difference between execution and murder, right?

Indeed, all this comes down to authority, and apart from a few royal laws, there seems to be very little that is forbidden for nobles on their own soil. And again - this is very likely due to the tradition of feudalism. Granted, religious guidelines and tradition exist too - and few nobles want to be seen as assholes, but said religious laws and tradition are more of unwritten laws and not binding unless you want them to be.

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

 Regarding Tarly I think there's a difference between saying something actually doing it. Tarly says she needs a raping, he has the men to order it, he clearly wants to make her learn her role, so why doesn't he? What's stopping him? 

In fairness, there's not exactly a top ten list of lords who rape for me to refer to is there.

Tarly clearly has opinions, but I think whats holding him back is his own self-importance, combined with Briennes letter combined with that he tries to follow the religious guidelines. Tarly doesn´t want to "sully himself" to learn Brienne said lesson.

I think there are several examples apart from rape. Gregors servants and relatives are just "gone", Tywin strip a women naked in Lannisport, Doran marries spotted sylvia against her will to and old guy (which mean she will suffer marital rape as part of her punishment). Everything point in the same way - the lord can do as he pleases IF it is his territory (which gives him or her the authority). And we never see anyone dispences higher justice on these things. Its always about someone does something outside their sphere of influence (Cat taking Tyrion, Gregor pillaging, Ramsay kidnapping Lady Hornwood).

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

Is Cersei raped by the Faith? I honestly cannot remember, it's been a while since I read Dance.

Never said she was raped. Cersei is recieving a sexual punishment by the faith when she is forced to strip and walk King´s landing naked. This is a clear sexual punishment targeting women to shame them. And this is ordered by the faith! The intitution for westerosi morals and religious guidelines! Clearly, sexual punishments are seen as ok (again with enough authority).

21 hours ago, theblackdragonI said:

As you say it's an individualist system. Ned for example, probably wouldn't tolerate half of the shit Roose gets up to under his nose, i.e. raping a woman beneath her hanging husband. I really doubt he knows about that. Likewise, I think if Robb executed Karstark for killing unarmed prisoners he might have a problem with Roose allowing public gang-raping of innocents. People are probably too afraid of the likes of Roose and Tywin to run and tell their superior lord, especially when judgement could be so volatile. Then again, I could be wrong and you could be correct that people know this stuff goes on and its normal. It most likely is a mix, a don't ask don't tell situation between lords and vassals.

Yeah, but there Ned can do something since it is a clear breach against First night. You seem to believe that Ned can act as he pleases towards Roose, but the thing is that if he disapproves on, say Ramsays "fun", then there is not much he can do without a clear casus belli (which the situation does not warrant). At the end of the day, Dreadfort is not Neds to govern.

Certainly, Ned could attack anyway (maybe he didn´t liked the Boltons and looked for any type of excuse) - but then it would be seen by the other nobles in the North that Ned is the agressor, infringing on their independence and tries to demand more than the feudal contract gives him right to. And next time he goes to war, he will find less nobles interested to pay up with soldiers - just as what happened Robb with the Karstarks. Look at Aerys - he also believe he could do whatever he wanted against his noble subjects.

And as for that example you are once again missing that Richard Karstark never had the authority to do as he did. They were Robbs prisoners and not his (as compared to Rooses smallfolk). And certainly it exist a a don't ask, don't tell policy. No/few nobles want to be seen as an moral asshole and few overlords want to mess with a noble who follows the feudal agreement and send the soldies when he is supposed to. My point in all this is to the question of the law. Having people raped is usuallty seen as bad. But that doesn´t mean that said rape is illegal and needs to be interfered against. Because if you do, you make a precentent - that pit and gallows have limits. and next time you do something, questionable or not, you will find that other nobles will dictate what you can and can´t do.

[NorthGirl]

Well, in short, yes they are vile but we can't forget it's because societies like Westeros encourage and promote sociopathic behaviour. And groups are stupider than individuals so when socially low men are given leeway to have sex and assert there power on an acceptable target, they do it. Even in modern time, soldiers can behave in very questionable ways when either under the impression of invulnerability or given orders. Doesn't change the awfulness of the act.

Everyone in this situation but Tysha is an aggressor. Tyrion is both a victim and an assailant. And Tywin is full on disgusting, cruel and clearly abusing them both.

I actually didn't realise there was a number given for the soldiers who raped Tysha. Although the initial recounting was shady. I mean, even before knowing she was not a whore, I figured that it was rape because it's really hard to imagine that a 14 year old girl was on board from start to finish after only ever having slept with Tyrion.

But yeah, Tywin is a morally corrupt, petty and heartless monster who actively likes to torture his son and go way above and beyond what is necessary to punish people he perceives as having slighted him. Hmmm...wonder where Cersei gets it from, huh?

 

[Orphalesion]

Considering the kind of people Tywin employs it's not exactly far reached to assume that some of the guards might have been very up to it.

There probably were also a lot of guards who didn't want to do that (frankly this is way outside the things a commander can ask of his soldiers) but...their only other choice was to displease their employer and lord by refusing... displease Tywin Lannister by refusing, the psycho who exterminates a whole family down to the last child for defying him, has the largest city in Westeros sacked because the King pissed him off/to show that he has changed sides, has a toddler and an infant assassinated and their mother raped to death for being on the wrong side in a war and unleashes complete horror over the population of a whole region because the daughter of the lord paramount of that region took hold of his "property", not because of any affection for his kidnapped son, but merely as a statement about his House being inviolable.

As others have said erections are not always voluntary and not always caused by sexual desire or go along with a wish to have sex.

Plus considering Tywin he might have asked those guards unwilling and/or unable to perform to do....other things to the girl, which would still be rape. 

Personally I had never any respect for Tywin or enjoyed reading about him, in his own way Tywin is just as short sighted, dumb and petty as Cersei, plus he's a hypocrite. He asks things and sacrifices of his children he himself would never do. If he was so interested in the glory of his house and so determined to not see it pass to Tyrion he WOULD and SHOULD have gotten a second wife to produce more sons no matter how much he loved Joanna.

I don't think the number is that unrealistic. Look up some diaries, letters or witness reports of women living during wartime (Chinese and  Korean women under Imperial Japanese occupation, Eastern European women under Nazi occupation, German women under Soviet attack, the list goes on) A scenario like that is, sadly, not impossible.

[Hodor the Articulate]

Haven't you ever heard of the Milgram experiments? People can exert a great amount of cruelty to others under the instruction of an authority figure, even while finding their own actions morally reprehensible. Add to that, Tywin's reputation and power, who would dare refuse him? It takes an extraordinary person (or a suicidal one) to selflessly challenge someone like Tywin in a situation like that.

[Lion of the West]

3 hours ago, NorthGirl said:

Well, in short, yes they are vile but we can't forget it's because societies like Westeros encourage and promote sociopathic behaviour. And groups are stupider than individuals so when socially low men are given leeway to have sex and assert there power on an acceptable target, they do it. Even in modern time, soldiers can behave in very questionable ways when either under the impression of invulnerability or given orders. Doesn't change the awfulness of the act.

Everyone in this situation but Tysha is an aggressor. Tyrion is both a victim and an assailant. And Tywin is full on disgusting, cruel and clearly abusing them both.

I actually didn't realise there was a number given for the soldiers who raped Tysha. Although the initial recounting was shady. I mean, even before knowing she was not a whore, I figured that it was rape because it's really hard to imagine that a 14 year old girl was on board from start to finish after only ever having slept with Tyrion.

But yeah, Tywin is a morally corrupt, petty and heartless monster who actively likes to torture his son and go way above and beyond what is necessary to punish people he perceives as having slighted him. Hmmm...wonder where Cersei gets it from, huh?

 

Unless you want to claim that Tywin is warging Cersei I am pretty sure that Cersei gets it from....herself. She is responsible for what she does and Tywin is responsible for what he does. There's no overlapp between them.

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Considering the kind of people Tywin employs it's not exactly far reached to assume that some of the guards might have been very up to it.

Might absolutely have been because hurting other people at the command of their lords is the job description of a man-at-arms or a knight in Westeros.

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

There probably were also a lot of guards who didn't want to do that (frankly this is way outside the things a commander can ask of his soldiers) but...their only other choice was to displease their employer and lord by refusing... displease Tywin Lannister by refusing, the psycho who exterminates a whole family down to the last child for defying him, has the largest city in Westeros sacked because the King pissed him off/to show that he has changed sides, has a toddler and an infant assassinated and their mother raped to death for being on the wrong side in a war and unleashes complete horror over the population of a whole region because the daughter of the lord paramount of that region took hold of his "property", not because of any affection for his kidnapped son, but merely as a statement about his House being inviolable.

Don't forget to act that soldiers of several Riverland Houses aided in the kidnapping and that Tyrion was taken as far away from any kind of justice as Catelyn could get him.

Also neither the Reynes nor the Tarbecks were exterminated for defying Tywin. They rebelled on their own and then refused offers to surrender. When the enemy refuses to surrender Tywin is under no obligation to go in with silken gloves.

Sacks always happen so far when cities fall. It happened at Meereen when Daenaerys took the city and it happened at Tumbleton when the Greens took it. Tywin sacking King's Landing is nothing out of the extraordinary given that he was capturing a hostile city.

To that you might want to add that Tywin is in good company with the Starks for going to war over relatives being taken prisoner for crimes they are accused of on reasonably good basis.

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Plus considering Tywin he might have asked those guards unwilling and/or unable to perform to do....other things to the girl, which would still be rape. 

Or more likely he just picked the right men for the task. "There's a tool for every task and a task for every tool."

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Personally I had never any respect for Tywin or enjoyed reading about him, in his own way Tywin is just as short sighted, dumb and petty as Cersei, plus he's a hypocrite. He asks things and sacrifices of his children he himself would never do. If he was so interested in the glory of his house and so determined to not see it pass to Tyrion he WOULD and SHOULD have gotten a second wife to produce more sons no matter how much he loved Joanna.

Problem is that Jamie was his heir also in the Kingsguard, which for example Eddard Stark is aware of and don't raise objections to for the Lannisters of this generation don't treat traditions as all that important, while a brood of children to a second wife would likely give a Dance of the Lions, no need for that. And to that Tywin can actually pick any other person or even have Cersei and later her children become the lords of Casterly Rock, and then take the Lannister name further down the line, without problem.

2 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

I don't think the number is that unrealistic. Look up some diaries, letters or witness reports of women living during wartime (Chinese and  Korean women under Imperial Japanese occupation, Eastern European women under Nazi occupation, German women under Soviet attack, the list goes on) A scenario like that is, sadly, not impossible.

A horrible thing it was and sadly not impossible, I agree.

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Haven't you ever heard of the Milgram experiments? People can exert a great amount of cruelty to others under the instruction of an authority figure, even while finding their own actions morally reprehensible. Add to that, Tywin's reputation and power, who would dare refuse him? It takes an extraordinary person (or a suicidal one) to selflessly challenge someone like Tywin in a situation like that.

Not really. If Harrys Swyft dares to call Jamie a fool to Tywin's face then I am pretty sure that Tywin isn't remotely as hateful of dissidents as many would like to think. More likely he just picked the men he knew would do it.

[NorthGirl]

21 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Unless you want to claim that Tywin is warging Cersei I am pretty sure that Cersei gets it from....herself. She is responsible for what she does and Tywin is responsible for what he does. There's no overlapp between them.

I sincerely hope you're being purposely obtuse because clearly I am talking about his general qualities. I saw similarities in their sadistic streak and eagerness to "pay back" affronts, especially because their favourite chew toy is Tyrion, and pointed it out.

This is what I said right before bringing up Cersei.

"Tywin is a morally corrupt, petty and heartless monster who actively likes to torture his son and go way above and beyond what is necessary to punish people he perceives as having slighted him. Hmmm...wonder where Cersei gets it from, huh?"

 I wasn't aware a parent and a child sharing similar characteristics ad beliefs was particularly outrageous, what's weird about her being like her father who raised her? Who talked about responsibility of Cersei's actions? Of course she's responsible for them, just because her father believes in a certain way of thinking doesn't mean she has no choice. My family believes in keeping with traditional values and I'm a progressive, I had a choice somewhere in between. Same for Cersei.

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

32 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. If Harrys Swyft dares to call Jamie a fool to Tywin's face then I am pretty sure that Tywin isn't remotely as hateful of dissidents as many would like to think. More likely he just picked the men he knew would do it.

Harys Swyft is lord with power of his own. Tyrion and Tywin's soldiers have nothing independent of Tywin.

It doesn't matter if Tywin is actually as merciless as all that. The only thing of relevance is that he has a reputation, and that reputation is enough to scare people into submission.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 4/6/2017 at 9:53 PM, King Gendry Baratheon said:

 

I know it was Tywin who Say what you want, but Tywin really is in the same scum as Euron Greyjoy or actually worse.

 

Exactly! Tywin is the worst. What makes him worth than sociopaths like Euron or Ramsay is he has managed to convince everyone his ways are acceptable. He is an evil sick tyrant.

On 4/6/2017 at 10:09 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

It seems that the 101st violator has once again been conveniently left out of the moral outrage. Surely Tyrion was the most evil of the lot, given that he was the last. Not to mention that she was someone close to him.

 

I agree. Let's not also forget that Tyrion raped a slave before Jorah Mormont grabbed him in ADwD. And he murdered Shae despite her not attacking him. 

Anyways, I am so glad to see everyone hating on Tywin. He is a well written character, but he is despicable. He gave Walder Frey the go ahead to murder people at a wedding, he murdered people in a castle (many of which were guiltless), his attack strategy in the Riverlands may be the worst of all (raping and murdering peasants is disgustingly awful), and he treated Tyrion horribly. He is awful. He has absolutely no concious. Anyways, feels good to hate on that ****er. 

[Lion of the West]

4 hours ago, NorthGirl said:

I sincerely hope you're being purposely obtuse because clearly I am talking about his general qualities. I saw similarities in their sadistic streak and eagerness to "pay back" affronts, especially because their favourite chew toy is Tyrion, and pointed it out.

This is what I said right before bringing up Cersei.

"Tywin is a morally corrupt, petty and heartless monster who actively likes to torture his son and go way above and beyond what is necessary to punish people he perceives as having slighted him. Hmmm...wonder where Cersei gets it from, huh?"

 I wasn't aware a parent and a child sharing similar characteristics ad beliefs was particularly outrageous, what's weird about her being like her father who raised her? Who talked about responsibility of Cersei's actions? Of course she's responsible for them, just because her father believes in a certain way of thinking doesn't mean she has no choice. My family believes in keeping with traditional values and I'm a progressive, I had a choice somewhere in between. Same for Cersei.

 

I think we kind of agree mostly here, although I wouldn't call Tywin a monster. He's just as much or little human as you or me or anyone else, likeable or not. My point was that at many times fans of one character or another wants to protect their favorites from their own responsibility, like "Doran is responsible for Arianne's mistakes" or that "Cersei is responsible for Robert turning into the kind of figure he ended up as" or some such thing. Since it would seem that you don't argue like that I would say that I simply missunderstood you.

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Harys Swyft is lord with power of his own. Tyrion and Tywin's soldiers have nothing independent of Tywin.

It doesn't matter if Tywin is actually as merciless as all that. The only thing of relevance is that he has a reputation, and that reputation is enough to scare people into submission.

Harys Swyft is also a known fool who no one holds in high regards to my knowledge. And I am reasonably sure that Tywin's men could have found employment away from the Westerlands, or in a non-military fashion, if they had, had enough of the Lannisters. But I also agree that it was much easier for them go along with Tywin's orders and keep their jobs.

But I agree that Tywin has a reputation for doing evil to people who he thinks does him wrong.

And for the record I don't agree with Tywin regarding the Tysha episode and think that a much more lenient approach would have been sufficient. For myself I would have arrange for either the marriage to be absolved or let Tyrion move out from the Rock and drastically reduce his access to Lannister money. Not cut out entirely, but with a drastically reduced access, as well as tell him that he'll no longer a candidate to get the Rock on my death. Or if the marriage is absolved then sent Tysha on her way, told her that she should not seek out or get into contact with Tyrion and then get Tyrion into a career in the Faith as I think was already in the works when Tyrion met Tysha.

[Lion of the West]

17 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Exactly! Tywin is the worst. What makes him worth than sociopaths like Euron or Ramsay is he has managed to convince everyone his ways are acceptable. He is an evil sick tyrant.

I agree. Let's not also forget that Tyrion raped a slave before Jorah Mormont grabbed him in ADwD. And he murdered Shae despite her not attacking him. 

Anyways, I am so glad to see everyone hating on Tywin. He is a well written character, but he is despicable. He gave Walder Frey the go ahead to murder people at a wedding, he murdered people in a castle (many of which were guiltless), his attack strategy in the Riverlands may be the worst of all (raping and murdering peasants is disgustingly awful), and he treated Tyrion horribly. He is awful. He has absolutely no concious. Anyways, feels good to hate on that ****er. 

You don't seem my hating on him.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

Don't think she necessarily got raped 101 times i think that is just said too mean she got raped many many times.

[Orphalesion]

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

.Don't forget to act that soldiers of several Riverland Houses aided in the kidnapping and that Tyrion was taken as far away from any kind of justice as Catelyn could get him.

There's a authority of law in the kingdom in the form of the royal court and more specifically the king, both of which the Lannisters all but run. No need to brutalize smallfolk who are innocent on the matter.

Quote

To that you might want to add that Tywin is in good company with the Starks for going to war over relatives being taken prisoner for crimes they are accused of on reasonably good basis.

You mistake me for somebody who thinks that Robb's "King in the North!" BS was in any way justified, righteous or admirable.

Quote

Problem is that Jamie was his heir also in the Kingsguard, which for example Eddard Stark is aware of and don't raise objections to for the Lannisters of this generation don't treat traditions as all that important, while a brood of children to a second wife would likely give a Dance of the Lions, no need for that. And to that Tywin can actually pick any other person or even have Cersei and later her children become the lords of Casterly Rock, and then take the Lannister name further down the line, without problem.

Except that being in the Kingsguard disqualified Jaime from inheriting Casterly Rock and the Westerlands. Yet Tywin until the very moment Tyrion shot him on the privy held on to the idea that Jaime was going to be his successor, just like Cersei was going to be queen even though Rhaegar was married to Elia. Yes Tywin could have chosen anyone but he failed to do so, because in his rigid mind Jaime was going to be the Lord of Casterly Rock and LP of the Westerlands.

No problem? He made it a problem by failing to plan for that.

Of the three children, only Tyrion would have been any potential problem to any additional Lannister sons (and good luck to Tyrion in finding enough support to challenge a younger brother who isn't a Dwarf). Cersei or Cersei's children would have no case against any younger brothers, while Jaime does everything in his power in order not to inherit. So there would not have been a "Dance of Lions".

Quote

Or more likely he just picked the right men for the task. "There's a tool for every task and a task for every tool."

Quote

Not really. If Harrys Swyft dares to call Jamie a fool to Tywin's face then I am pretty sure that Tywin isn't remotely as hateful of dissidents as many would like to think. More likely he just picked the men he knew would do it.

I think you are underestimating the power of authority, especially in a rigid system like feudalism a bit. While it's true that Tywin would have his pick of guards and likely chose those he knew would be good tools for the task, it's very possible that, given a large number like that, there would have been people among them who weren't the best tool for the task but who would have been pressured into it, simply because their commander ordered it.

Tywin isn't infallible and I doubt he knows the exact moral code of each and every of his servants.

[Hodor the Articulate]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Harys Swyft is also a known fool who no one holds in high regards to my knowledge. And I am reasonably sure that Tywin's men could have found employment away from the Westerlands, or in a non-military fashion, if they had, had enough of the Lannisters. But I also agree that it was much easier for them go along with Tywin's orders and keep their jobs.

But I agree that Tywin has a reputation for doing evil to people who he thinks does him wrong.

And for the record I don't agree with Tywin regarding the Tysha episode and think that a much more lenient approach would have been sufficient. For myself I would have arrange for either the marriage to be absolved or let Tyrion move out from the Rock and drastically reduce his access to Lannister money. Not cut out entirely, but with a drastically reduced access, as well as tell him that he'll no longer a candidate to get the Rock on my death. Or if the marriage is absolved then sent Tysha on her way, told her that she should not seek out or get into contact with Tyrion and then get Tyrion into a career in the Faith as I think was already in the works when Tyrion met Tysha.

Harys Swyft is still a noble with lands and some wealth. The soldiers have no power whatsoever, and would thus be easy to be pushed into following Tywin's orders. I think it would be far more than loss of employment they'd fear. I mean, they're being ordered to rape a peasant girl right in front of Tywin and Tyrion.

And again, look up Milgram's experiment.

[Lion of the West]

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

There's a authority of law in the kingdom in the form of the royal court and more specifically the king, both of which the Lannisters all but run. No need to brutalize smallfolk who are innocent on the matter.

For one thing the Lannister don't run the court, King Robert does and if the Lannister ran it, then Tywin and not Eddard would have been named Hand of the King after Jon Arryn. To that comes that the Lannisters' enemies cares about as much for the royal court as the Lannister do. Its no use subjecting yourself to the court if you are the only one to do it.

In regards to attacking the smallfolk I believe it was an unavoidable part after Tywin decided to go to war. And those smallfolk are in fact the economical strength on which the enemy's war effort relies. There's about as much need to attack those smallfolk as there was a need for Sherman's March to the Sea in the 1860s or the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan in the 1940s.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

You mistake me for somebody who thinks that Robb's "King in the North!" BS was in any way justified, righteous or admirable.

I am happy to hear that.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Except that being in the Kingsguard disqualified Jaime from inheriting Casterly Rock and the Westerlands. Yet Tywin until the very moment Tyrion shot him on the privy held on to the idea that Jaime was going to be his successor, just like Cersei was going to be queen even though Rhaegar was married to Elia. Yes Tywin could have chosen anyone but he failed to do so, because in his rigid mind Jaime was going to be the Lord of Casterly Rock and LP of the Westerlands.

Well, Tywin wasn't the only one to think that Jamie would follow him. Eddard Stark does the same.

Robert kicked his horse back into motion and started down the ridge toward the barrows. Ned kept pace with him. The king rode on, eyes straight ahead. "Yes," he said at last. A single hard word to end the matter.

A Game of Thrones, Eddard II

 

Quote

 

"Kingslayer," Ned said. The rumors were true, then. He rode on dangerous ground now, he knew. "An able and courageous man, no doubt," he said carefully, "but his father is Warden of the West, Robert. In time Ser Jaime will succeed to that honor. No one man should hold both East and West." He left unsaid his real concern; that the appointment would put half the armies of the realm into the hands of Lannisters.

 

"I will fight that battle when the enemy appears on the field," the king said stubbornly. "At the moment, Lord Tywin looms eternal as Casterly Rock, so I doubt that Jaime will be succeeding anytime soon. Don't vex me about this, Ned, the stone has been set."

 

 

So given that Tywin usually gets what he wants, I would say that Jamie would have inherited Casterly Rock and not given a moment to the traditions of the Kingsguard. In fact both Robert and Eddard seems to have pretty much accepted that the Lannisters don't care for traditions and so would have gone through with it.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

No problem? He made it a problem by failing to plan for that.

It only became a problem until after Jamie met Brienne who really changed Jaime's outlook. If Tyrion had not shot Tywin with a crossbow I would say that Tywin could well have looked forward to at least 5-10 years more of life before it would be time to die, and that would have given him time to make Jamie come around, provided he would not have named a new heir after Jamie's rejection of him. Simply put, I don't think that Tywin lived long enough after Jaime picked the white over the red for Tywin to have picked a new successor.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Of the three children, only Tyrion would have been any potential problem to any additional Lannister sons (and good luck to Tyrion in finding enough support to challenge a younger brother who isn't a Dwarf). Cersei or Cersei's children would have no case against any younger brothers, while Jaime does everything in his power in order not to inherit. So there would not have been a "Dance of Lions".

Tyrion really, really wants the Rock and is clever and devious enough to make use of men like Bronn or, I believe its the Second Sons in Essos, to secure his prize. To that you might add that Cersei's children would be of royal blood and so could make whatever claim they wanted on the Rock, with Cersei whispering in their ears. And both of these people, Tyrion and Cersei, can get Jaime into fighting for them, Cersei for sure and possibly Tyrion as well. Given Jaime's earlier behavior I don't find out of character for the Lion of Lannister to screw his Kingsguard oaths and join in on a Lannister civil war.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

I think you are underestimating the power of authority, especially in a rigid system like feudalism a bit. While it's true that Tywin would have his pick of guards and likely chose those he knew would be good tools for the task, it's very possible that, given a large number like that, there would have been people among them who weren't the best tool for the task but who would have been pressured into it, simply because their commander ordered it.

I agree that Tywin's authority is great and that Westeros is a society in which obedience is held higher than in our society. Now this was kind of an off-hand remark by me and I didn't mean that Tywin handpicked all the men. But I do think that he got men who he think would pull it off. Be that because of them having a reputation or because they wouldn't dare to say no, or what else you've got.

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Tywin isn't infallible and I doubt he knows the exact moral code of each and every of his servants.

I agree entirely that Tywin isn't infallible and in fact he makes some serious mistakes, the most important being in the department of childrearing and after that in regards to diplomacty. Nor do I think that he knows all his men-at-arms by name, but he might know that a certain sergeant does not treat women very well.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Harys Swyft is still a noble with lands and some wealth. The soldiers have no power whatsoever, and would thus be easy to be pushed into following Tywin's orders. I think it would be far more than loss of employment they'd fear. I mean, they're being ordered to rape a peasant girl right in front of Tywin and Tyrion.

And again, look up Milgram's experiment.

I am aware of Milgram's experiment and I've read more beyond it as well on how otherwise normal and decent people do evil things to their fellow humans. In fact I think that you have a point here in regards to these guardsmen being normal people and the power of authority over the human mind.

[Orphalesion]

6 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

For one thing the Lannister don't run the court, King Robert does and if the Lannister ran it, then Tywin and not Eddard would have been named Hand of the King after Jon Arryn. To that comes that the Lannisters' enemies cares about as much for the royal court as the Lannister do. Its no use subjecting yourself to the court if you are the only one to do it.
 

The Lannisters held great influence and I think if Tywin really wanted something, Robert would not have been in the position to deny it. The question owuld have been whether the King's justice would have been fast enough to save Tyrion, but brutalizing civilians isn't exactly the fastest or most effective way to get your way either, as history shows. Particularly if the person you are trying to pressure doesn't really care for the life of peasants, which Catelyn didn't, as seen in her POV when she proclaims Edmure foolish for sheltering civilians in Riverrun.

I will however consent that Catelyn might not have cared much whether Robert would have commanded her to come to KL and even less if he had asked for Tyrion to be freed. I think it's often overlooked that both Ned and Cat were so blinded by their dislike/hate of the Lannisters that they wouldn't have trusted Robert to handle it and so blinded that they didn't see the real danger, of course.

Quote

In regards to attacking the smallfolk I believe it was an unavoidable part after Tywin decided to go to war. And those smallfolk are in fact the economical strength on which the enemy's war effort relies. There's about as much need to attack those smallfolk as there was a need for Sherman's March to the Sea in the 1860s or the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan in the 1940s.

I am aware that in every war it's the innocents/civilians who suffer the most. My grandmother was actually a survivor of Allied bombings who emigrated from Germany with her parents after the war and she told me about them when I was a kid. So the first narrative about war I have ever encountered was told from the perspective of a child who had done nothing to deserve the horror she had been placed in. 

While I understand that in that situation it was a necessary evil (I'm not calling the Allies soldiers evil here, I'm just saying that cooking children alive in a dark cellar isn't a noble act, no matter who does it and no better how good their reasons are) to combat an even greater evil  it left me with a mindset that I cannot condone war except if it is used as the last, desperate choice like back then.

So while I am not so naive to say that war is always avoidable and can relate tot he feeling of a father wanting his son back, I still believe that Tywin did not have the right to hurt thousands of innocents with deliberate attacks on villages and hamlets.

What I condemn more than anything was that "brutalizing Riverland peasants" was seemingly Tywin's first reaction to the mess with Cat and Tyrion. He didn't have to send Gregor of all people, for example or put emphasis on causing suffering. Suffering would have been there anyway, no need to put it on the agenda.

Quote

Tyrion really, really wants the Rock and is clever and devious enough to make use of men like Bronn or, I believe its the Second Sons in Essos, to secure his prize. To that you might add that Cersei's children would be of royal blood and so could make whatever claim they wanted on the Rock, with Cersei whispering in their ears. And both of these people, Tyrion and Cersei, can get Jaime into fighting for them, Cersei for sure and possibly Tyrion as well. Given Jaime's earlier behavior I don't find out of character for the Lion of Lannister to screw his Kingsguard oaths and join in on a Lannister civil war.

I have to admit that Jaime's love for Tyrion is a factor I had not accounted for, good catch.

Quote

I agree entirely that Tywin isn't infallible and in fact he makes some serious mistakes, the most important being in the department of childrearing and after that in regards to diplomacty. Nor do I think that he knows all his men-at-arms by name, but he might know that a certain sergeant does not treat women very well.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I agree.