Jump to content

Let's talk about Tysha and Lannister soldiers


Recommended Posts

On 2017-04-17 at 2:00 PM, 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.

 

20 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

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.

Catelyn have illegally taken control of Tyrion and refused to give him proper justice. They have already decided guilt and were only looking for proof, not argument against. Indeed, she was (quite cleverly) distorting where they would take him, in order to avoid that people would try to free him. Certainly, she had good reasons to act as he did, but things escalated from a situation she created. If Lysa had executed Tyrion then both sisters had been responsible. 

Tyrion was placed in a position where he was closed to be killed in a process the Vale chooses to call justice. There is no way the king nor other nobles can accept this due to the signal it sends. Suddenly, any noble could get his son kidnapped and "held trial over" in another province. Just imagine, a Bracken could be kidnapped by a Blackwood and "held trial" over. An unauthoritized trial, with no legal authority, biased judges and punishments based on rivalry. This is what Lysa do here. Her trial is a sham. And becuase Catelyn transported him there, she is responsible for his eventual death too.

This is a situation best solved by violence like the raiding Tywin did, or a straight out war. It was more or less seen by Robert as a covert war against Riverlands, and he didn´t exactly disapprove, so the message went home. I think people need to understand that a provocation of this magnitude is an excellent casis belli for war and I personally am 100% for letting innocents suffer as a response to a suffered injustice. Injustice should be met with injustice. Rules mean nothing if the other side doesn´t follow it. And if the authority of law exist, then it should clearly condemm Catelyn, not the lannisters. I find it baffling that people on one end want the law to interfere, yet said nothing when Tyrion was taken. Especially since striking back is an honourable action. Striking first is not. Now, Catelyn think that the lannisters struck first by killing Jon Arryn, but we as readers should know better.

As for political response, other than "have the crown execute Lysa and Cat for murder and holding an unauthoritized trial" solution, I could see a sentencing, involving some public Stark shaming, shit-ton of money and/or resources for Tyrions compensation, increased Lannister influence at court (like forcing Robert to accept Tywin as hand for the next ten years) and a ward or two (Likely Arya and/or Rickon) sent to Casterly Rock to make sure of the Norths good behaviour. As you say yourself, the king´s justice would have been too late so in which way do you suggest that Catelyn, Lysa and the starks should be punished? Because what I hear is a desperate act in order to let the Starks go scot free in the name of all innocent civilians, conveniently forgetting that those innocent civilians was put at risk because of Catelyn, Lysa, Ned (who backs Catelyn) and rivermen who should know better.

I think all those accusing Tywin for being a rotten PoS who raid the riverlands, rape the peasants and steals their shit forget this. There is an excellent need to brutalize smallfolk over this. Signals are needed to be sent and one of those are that principles of justice matter more than innocent human lives. You simply do not do what Catelyn did and people need to accept that or burn all bridges to any kind of peaceful solution. In general, I also think that if your grandmother have issues with the bombings, then she can take that up with Hitler and the germand high command, not the allies. They have a right to respond to past history. And if you commit terrible crimes in the east, they you only got yourself to blame when that country pays back in kind. 

Edit: It also should be pointed out that riverlands are not innocent in this. Tyrion was taken by riverlanders after all and Lord Hoster is the father to both Tully sisters. I have a hard time to believe that he would simply let the westerland army just pass in its way to liberate Tyrion and accept the just execution of his children. And this is another thing when it comes to war and suffering - if the riverlands doesn´t want their populace brutalized due to an act they are semi-responsible for. Ok, then they have the moral responsibilty to submit to Westerland demands. A crime have taken place and either you assist in getting justice or you protect the criminals with all the sufferings to smallfolk that follows. In short - Tywin makes to rules and Hoster obeys, or it is a justified war from Tywins side. To assume that Tywin just should ignore all this and allow the Starks have a field day, hiding between innocents is just hypocritical and biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

You are correct in that Tywin and the Lannisters can mostly get what they want from Robert, or at least have so far, and I think they also got what they wanted from Robert given how Robert tells Eddard that Eddard should tell Catelyn to let Tyrion go free. But what I think is the most important part here is that while the Lannisters takes matters into their own hands, so does Lady Stark and since the Starks have so far, with the apparent cooperation from the Riverlands and the Vale, disregarded all notions of royal justice Tywin expects that he'll have to fight as the word of the king don't seem to hold much weight north of the Crownlands. Thus I don't claim, as I hope it was understood, that the Lannisters are playing nice, far from it, but because he has, again in my mind correctly, judged that the situation is such that the opposition isn't going to accept a peaceful solution to this which isn't more or less the volunteerly demolishment of House Lannister and Tywin lost the chance to make the war into a limited one when Eddard couldn't ride west after Gregor Clegane. As such a major war is boiling up and he needs to take action before he finds himself facing three Great Houses at once. And thus Tywin picked war, and the blood of the innocents watered the earth.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

I pretty much agree. When Robert made Eddard Hand of the King the two of them, Lannister and Stark, were on a war path and events only heightened their mutal hostility.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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. 

I naturally cannot understand the horror, misery and suffering your grandmother went through during the war. I can only hope that she found happiness and peace after the war ended.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

I agree that war is an evil thing, among the most horrible things among the many horrible ideas concocted by mankind, and should be practiced accordingly. But I will not shut the door in that war, aweful as it is, may at times be necessary and the lessons from 1933-1945 is that to turn a blind eye to a problem has a great chance of making it worse.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

I think this leads us to the great problem of class division in Westeros where the nobles rather simply see the smallfolk as so much cattle they are exploting for their benefit. And this persepctives comes up time and against across Westeros with hom Catelyn scolds her brother and how Brynden makes Riverrun ready for a siege and so on. Very few nobles seems to consider the lives of smallfolk to have some significant value.

But we also comes to how to deal with leaders whose power rests on the innocent.

For example many Germans in German Empire surely had no impact on what policies that the goverment and military persused yet Germany's ability to wage war was broken by a blockade which strangle the entire country and no doubt caused untold suffering among many men, women and children who had no say over the actions that provoced the blockade.

To be honest, I am not sure how to get at leaders without the people living under them suffering. So either let innocents suffer while the leaders are stopped or let leaders who can hide behind the innocents a free reign to hurt other innocents? So far I believe that leaders who acts wrong should be stopped.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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.

I agree that Tywin didn't need to send Gregor. My explanation, which shouldn't be mistaken for an excuse for it, is that I think that Tywin wanted there to be blood and suffering enough to provoke the honorable sensibilities of Eddard Stark and so get him out into the field where he could be captured, if the Riverlands couldn't be provoked into attacking the Westerlands outright and let Tywin go to war with a superficial justification. And for that purpose Gregor was just the tool to do the deed and send the message.

17 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

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

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I agree.

You're welcome to both. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...