Tywin's strange notions of hostage negotiations

[James Steller]

We're told that when Walderan Tarbeck was captured by Tywin, his wife immediately seized three Lannister hostages of her own. One of whom was a direct relative of Joanna Lannister.

When he hears about it, Tywin suggests to his father that they should return Walderan in three pieces, shocking Tytos and presumably everyone else in the room.

Obviously the situation is used to show Tytos constantly failing to grow a backbone, but really, Tywin? Really??? What the hell is wrong with you? Would your cousin have married you if she found out that your ruthlessness resulted in the death of her brother? And also, if you send Lord Tarbeck back in three pieces, you not only condemn the Lannister hostages to a gruesome death, but you cause the Reynes and Tarbecks to revolt and gather their full strength for open war. It's not like Tywin would be prepared and have the upper hand this time. They would know exactly what they're dealing with and would prepare for war. No ambush or surprise by Tywin to get the drop on them. It would be a civil war which the Lannisters might not win.

And what would that kind of attitude have gotten him when he found out that Jaime was taken hostage and Ned was executed? Was he expecting the Starks to send him Jaime's head in reprisal?

[SeaWitch]

See: Reasons why Lysa Arryn might not want to leave her spawn to his child-minding.

(The little horror might be materially improved by slice'n'dice, but...)

[Canon Claude]

Joanna would be less likely to blame Tywin for provoking Stafford's death than blame the Reynes for kidnapping Stafford in the first place. And the Reynes and Tarbecks would never win a war with Casterly Rock. It might have taken longer, and cost far more lives, but the Lannisters weren't going to lose that fight.

[HaeSuse]

I've thought the same thing. People give Joff hell for shortening Ned by a head. But it is precisely what Tywin has shown he would do. If anything, it's not quite AS brutal as Tywin has been, and not quite AS stupid. After all, they only had the Imp in return.

[Ingelheim]

Tywin was 19 when he said that. He matured with time, like every one of us do. His ruthlessness though did not. He simply matured, he knows he cannot threaten Lords who have hostages like he did in those years, but Tywin feels caged in any of these kind of situations.

[The Mountain That Flies]

48 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

Tywin was 19 when he said that. He matured with time, like every one of us do. His ruthlessness though did not. He simply matured, he knows he cannot threaten Lords who have hostages like he did in those years, but Tywin feels caged in any of these kind of situations.

Not only was Tywin young, but he had just come back from winning a war. It makes sense that he would be inclined toward hardline approaches.

[James Steller]

56 minutes ago, The Mountain That Flies said:

Not only was Tywin young, but he had just come back from winning a war.

Not only that, but the leader of the Westerlander forces was Roger Reyne, after Jason Lannister died. Roger was already renowned for his martial skills, and the War would only have solidified his reputation as a leader and warrior. He would have been a dangerous enemy to have if he was actually prepared to fight instead of being surprised by what amounted to a sneak attack upon the Tarbeck lands.

[Trigger Warning]

He probably wanted to provoke them into open rebellion. 

[James Steller]

3 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

He probably wanted to provoke them into open rebellion. 

But again, that would be stupid because at this point, the Reynes and Tarbecks would have the time and motivation to fully prepare for war and it would have been a very bloody war.

[Trigger Warning]

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

But again, that would be stupid because at this point, the Reynes and Tarbecks would have the time and motivation to fully prepare for war and it would have been a very bloody war.

Tywin probably thought that was still preferable to having vassals kidnap Lannisters with impunity, perhaps he feared that other vassals would see this as a case of House Lannister no longer being able to enforce their rule, perhaps he feared House Reyne and Tarbeck would grow even more powerful if they weren't forced into open rebellion sooner rather than later or that more vassals would join them if Tytos gave into their threats.  

We know Tywin's not exactly a stupid man, I would imagine he thought he would have the manpower to defeat them should he provoke a rebellion. We don't really have enough information regarding their dispositions to say whether it was foolish or not. 

[Lord Wraith]

7 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

He probably wanted to provoke them into open rebellion. 

Indeed better to help create the time and place instead of letting them do it on their own. It was only a matter of time...

[1000th Lord Commander]

Tywin sees the fact that people can take Lannnisters with impunity as a slight upon his family's honour. Even over thirty years later, he still has the same attitude. Tywin knows that war with the Tarbecks and Reynes is coming, and can probably summon enough vassals to defeat them. Also, he has a close friendship with the heir to the Iron Throne, and could probably count on assistance from the rest of Westeros in the event of a long drawn out war

[Traverys]

To me, it's not unlike the idea where countries take a hard stance of "we do not negotiate with terrorists." You legitimize their cause, their actions, and set a precedence for others to try the same against you. By killing your hostage instead of trading you also make a statement of "don't even try that because it won't work" and "you killed your own kinsman by your own actions."

I think there's also something to be said of trying to force Tywin's hand or cage him, and that part delves more into his personality.

[devilish]

18 hours ago, James Steller said:

We're told that when Walderan Tarbeck was captured by Tywin, his wife immediately seized three Lannister hostages of her own. One of whom was a direct relative of Joanna Lannister.

When he hears about it, Tywin suggests to his father that they should return Walderan in three pieces, shocking Tytos and presumably everyone else in the room.

Obviously the situation is used to show Tytos constantly failing to grow a backbone, but really, Tywin? Really??? What the hell is wrong with you? Would your cousin have married you if she found out that your ruthlessness resulted in the death of her brother? And also, if you send Lord Tarbeck back in three pieces, you not only condemn the Lannister hostages to a gruesome death, but you cause the Reynes and Tarbecks to revolt and gather their full strength for open war. It's not like Tywin would be prepared and have the upper hand this time. They would know exactly what they're dealing with and would prepare for war. No ambush or surprise by Tywin to get the drop on them. It would be a civil war which the Lannisters might not win.

And what would that kind of attitude have gotten him when he found out that Jaime was taken hostage and Ned was executed? Was he expecting the Starks to send him Jaime's head in reprisal?

The Lannisters were Wardens of the West who had the support of most bannermen. That means that the Reynes/Talbecks knew that there was no chance in hell they could go toe to toe against them. 

However, that was not the only way to get past a stronger opponent. As warden of the West the Lannisters were representing the king in the region. That is something that Tythos had failed to do. The Lannister Lord was a weak person who struggled to balance the books and he didn’t even bothered leading his own men to war (ie the war of 9 penny kings). That’s a matter of concern for the Targs who relied heavily on their wardens for support.  Roger Reyne provided the Targs with a great alternative to Tythos. He was rich, he knew the land very well and he was a war hero. 

Tywin knew that his father was on borrowed time. The warden of the west had to take ownership over his region by balancing the books and put the Lords in their place.  As warden he had no right to strip House Reyne and House Tarbeck from their lands and titles so he needed them to give him the necessary casus belli to remove this threat once and for all.  That was provided to him on a silver platter when House Talbeck took hostages in response to a legitimate response done by the Lannisters. If only they could be provoked to rebel, then the Lannisters could have annihilated them with the full blessing from the crown who wouldn’t dare appeasing rebels in the first place.

Regarding Joanna, marrying Tywin was a coup for her and her family. Her house was joining houses with the most powerful house in Westeros and that would have a positive impact on her life and that of her family. I am pretty sure that Tywin would have made sure to set the scores with Joanna’s family after the war was over. After all, the Lannisters always pay their debts.

[Protagoras]

10 hours ago, Traverys said:

To me, it's not unlike the idea where countries take a hard stance of "we do not negotiate with terrorists." You legitimize their cause, their actions, and set a precedence for others to try the same against you. By killing your hostage instead of trading you also make a statement of "don't even try that because it won't work" and "you killed your own kinsman by your own actions."

This. 

When people take hostage, you either have to play hardball or accept their demands. And Tywin hade no intention of hostage negotiations at all (so OPs title is wrong and misleading). Yes, people die with that approach, but isn´t that better than the option of falling on the floor, groveling like a little bitch, in service of human lives - willing to sell out whatever that is needed to sell out in order to ensure lives. And what will happen next time when they see your weak emotional state. That´s right, more kidnapping and more death. All utilitarians would laugh at this. 

Tywin is aware that in war, people die. That is to be expected. There is nothing wrong with that attitude by default nor is it strange. 

[Protagoras]

On 2017-05-08 at 6:09 PM, Canon Claude said:

Joanna would be less likely to blame Tywin for provoking Stafford's death than blame the Reynes for kidnapping Stafford in the first place. 

I am also very much in favor of this logic. If person X kidnap my mom and person Y, on my side, decides to play hardball, I would certainly blame person X for her death. X was after all the person that placed the threat. 

It is also very clear the the Reynes/Tarbecks are trying to avoid their fealty obligation and tries to usurp the Lannisters. If you are looking for an argument that Tywin is the cause to the situation in the first place, then their is none since his REaction is a consequence of their action. And the person causing something is the one that are to blame. Not the one that reacts to it. 

[Lion of the West]

Pretty much agree with @Traverys and @Protagoras here. Bending over for the sake of hostages opens you up to further mistreatment from your enemies and oppertunists and is only the path down to further problems.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 5/8/2017 at 11:10 AM, HaeSuse said:

I've thought the same thing. People give Joff hell for shortening Ned by a head. But it is precisely what Tywin has shown he would do. If anything, it's not quite AS brutal as Tywin has been, and not quite AS stupid. After all, they only had the Imp in return.

Right. Because the first thing he wants to do is give Robb Stark an excuse to execute his son and presumed heir.

“You have the right of it about Stark. Alive, we might have used Lord Eddard to forge a peace with Winterfell and Riverrun, a peace that would have given us the time we need to deal with Robert’s brothers. Dead …” His hand curled into a fist. “Madness. Rank madness.”

And that is overlooking the advice he gives to Joffrey about enemies:

“Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.”

 

[Traverys]

Joffrey and Tywin may arrive at the same conclusion, but their reasoning would be entirely different. Tywin is politically savvy while Joffrey is driven by thoughts of "the king does as he likes." Ned Stark called him a bastard, so he thought he should die. Simple as that. Tywin may have also thought that Ned needed to die for claiming such a thing (though true), but he would have a more nuanced rationale. He would have contemplated the before, present, and after of his actions and adjust any strategy accordingly. Joffrey just took of his head as an exercise of his newfound power. I also wouldn't be surprised if his irrational hate for Sansa also factored into his decision..

[velo-knight]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:10 AM, Traverys said:

To me, it's not unlike the idea where countries take a hard stance of "we do not negotiate with terrorists." You legitimize their cause, their actions, and set a precedence for others to try the same against you. By killing your hostage instead of trading you also make a statement of "don't even try that because it won't work" and "you killed your own kinsman by your own actions."

I think there's also something to be said of trying to force Tywin's hand or cage him, and that part delves more into his personality.

On 5/9/2017 at 11:39 AM, Protagoras said:

This. 

When people take hostage, you either have to play hardball or accept their demands. And Tywin hade no intention of hostage negotiations at all (so OPs title is wrong and misleading). Yes, people die with that approach, but isn´t that better than the option of falling on the floor, groveling like a little bitch, in service of human lives - willing to sell out whatever that is needed to sell out in order to ensure lives. And what will happen next time when they see your weak emotional state. That´s right, more kidnapping and more death. All utilitarians would laugh at this. 

Tywin is aware that in war, people die. That is to be expected. There is nothing wrong with that attitude by default nor is it strange. 

On 5/9/2017 at 1:28 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Pretty much agree with @Traverys and @Protagoras here. Bending over for the sake of hostages opens you up to further mistreatment from your enemies and oppertunists and is only the path down to further problems.

Despite the bluster, countries negotiate with terrorists and other asymmetrical opponents all the time. It may be politically and legally convenient to deny them status as traditional belligerents, but that can't change the facts on the ground, and so prisoner transfers, private ransoms facilitated by governments, and even sometimes ceasefires or peace accords are signed. In the real Middle Ages in Europe, prisoners were captured, held hostage, ransomed, etc., all the time, and for good reasons. The fact that hostage swaps and ransoms exist in so many types of conflict should probably be a sign to us that the typical view of "any negotiation means capitulation" is a fantasy.

Tywin does seem the type to buy in to the myth that credibility is everything in foreign policy - and in a medieval world where politics is so fiercely personal, he might have a point; but at the end of the day you can negotiate while still setting a firm line. You just have to be prepared to actually hold that line and accept the consequences of your decisions, which is something I think Tywin certainly could have managed.