Jump to content

Was Tywin justified in killing all the Reynes?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

He still could have executed those he felt responsible. Nothing is stopping them there. The men-at-arms might well be included but the women, servants, and whatnot didn't need to die. They were neither Reynes nor Tarbecks. Kinda easy to control them once they leave though. Lack of arms and armor combined with a 10K (or stronger) army would put Tywin in unassailable control.

Sure, he could have done that. At Tarbeck Hall those same women, servents and whatnot were allowed to flee. 

Her defiance was misplaced.  Tarbeck Hall was an old castle, and most of its defenders had ridden into battle with Lord Walderan, and were dead or fled.  Those who remained were daunted by the size of the Lannister host, and dismayed to see the heads of their own lord and his sons impaled beneath their banners....The fighting lasted less than an hour, accounts agree.  As the ram smashed through the castle’s main gates, two other gates were opened from within, and the Lannisters came swarming through.  Those who fled were spared;

Now the Reyne loyalists could have done the same. And the Reynes themselves could have sent these same people out.  They chose not to. 

Though can I ask what nobles in the series have done anything like that when they put a castle under siege? Talked specifically to the 'women, servants, and whatnot' in castles and given them a chance to escape their Lord's fate? If you are asking me should they, then I wholeheartedly agree but it is a kind of compassion that we don't really see in Westeros. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure, he could have done that. At Tarbeck Hall those same women, servents and whatnot were allowed to flee. 

Her defiance was misplaced.  Tarbeck Hall was an old castle, and most of its defenders had ridden into battle with Lord Walderan, and were dead or fled.  Those who remained were daunted by the size of the Lannister host, and dismayed to see the heads of their own lord and his sons impaled beneath their banners....The fighting lasted less than an hour, accounts agree.  As the ram smashed through the castle’s main gates, two other gates were opened from within, and the Lannisters came swarming through.  Those who fled were spared;

Now the Reyne loyalists could have done the same. And the Reynes themselves could have sent these same people out.  They chose not to. 

Though can I ask what nobles in the series have done anything like that when they put a castle under siege? Talked specifically to the 'women, servants, and whatnot' in castles and given them a chance to escape their Lord's fate? If you are asking me should they, then I wholeheartedly agree but it is a kind of compassion that we don't really see in Westeros. 

Ramsay? Kind of?

The OP (and others) asked what could possibly have been done. I gave an answer. I didn't say it was likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO clearly not.

I think what Tywin did with the Reynes and Tarbeck was setting a quasi* precedent in terms of extreme punishment by a liege (* of course complete extermination of rebel families wasn't unheard off, but in the whole history after the Andal invasion there are like 5 or 6 examples in the whole history book covering milleniums, untill we suddenly get 5 in Tywin era - the Reynes and Tarbecks by himself, the Darklins and Hollards by Aerys while he was Hand and finally a line-ending attempt against the Targaryan with Tywin again being involved in Rhaegar childs murder).

I mean count the number of families who are thousands years old in the 7 kingdoms, tracing back to the age of heroes despite being known for having been rebellious at some periods or involved in long feuds (and only getting their current ruler executed, or some demesnes seized for that). If all overlords (or war winners) felt allowed to behave like Tywin most 7K families wouldn't be more than two or three centuries old.

What Tywin "the one time in a millenium ruler" did was changing the rules, turning the traditionnal feudal system into a totalitarian reign of the overlord. His actions marked a degenerescence of 7 kingdoms morals (collective and definitive punishment including clear innocents for faults that would have justified individual ones / temporary ones at the scale of the family) and affected the legitimacy of the noble class as a whole (you don't end whole lineages if you consider noble blood sacred, you may kill actual enemies but you convert their sons you take as wards or marry their daughters making sure their blood survive).

The dialog between Jaime and the Blackwood boy shows how much Tywin behavior was revolutionnary : despite their families having been involved in a thousand years feud the idea of one completely exterminating the other is alien to the boy thoughts. And the fact Jaime casually mentions this marvelous "solution" shows how much the bad influence his war criminal of a father had changed the mentalities even of people with a strong (if a bit paradoxal) sense of honor.

Tactical circonstances may give some excuses to Tywin in the particular case of the Reynes (them being fortified in mines etc...) but considering their extermination was just part of a trend, I think it's lessening Tywin impact on history to consider them. He's the one time in a millenium ruler who got the "genius" idea to end all the rebellions and never ending feuds : "just kill them all and their sons too".  In 300 years the Tyrells never had one to end the Florent line,  nor in 3000 the Martels to get rid of the Yronwoods or in 7000 the Starks to finish the Boltons. Let's not tarnish Tywin's memory denying him his main contribution to history, likely to be a major source of inspiration for all overlords (and non overlords) in the centuries to come. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well seeing as how Tywin is a pretty poor father figure to his own children in every way, it makes sense that he would be a detached feudal overlord as well.  

 

Still not sure if we're debating whether he was morally justified or legally justified.  It seems to me that he was legally justified but that he had no moral high ground to speak of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally the Westerosi legal system's biggest, huge flaw is there is no good way to bring legal charges against a Lord Paramount or his family. It's even worse than actual medieval law (much worse). When you're dealing with misbehavior by Lords Paramount, you pretty much have to fly over on a dragon - or ride over on a horse if you're not that fancy - and depose them by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Well the mines in question were left untouched after the particular event and the Lannisters are not out of gold

I'm fairly certain Tywin just fucking hated the Reynes. They did kill his grandafather after all and humiliate his house, which is one thing we know he doesn't abide by.

I went back and re-read the TWOIAF pages about this, and it is pretty clear that Tywin hated the Reynes, I admit.

I also agree that the Lannisters were not out of gold, but the source of that gold is debatable. The passage from The Princess and the Queen you cited in the link says this:

Ser Tyland Lannister was named master of coin in place of the late Lord Beesbury, and acted at once to seize the royal treasury. The crown’s gold was divided into four parts. One part was entrusted to the care of the Iron Bank of Braavos for safekeeping, another sent under strong guard to Casterly Rock, a third to Oldtown. The remaining wealth was to be used for bribes and gifts, and to hire sellswords if needed.

It's not clear to me that the money was restored to the treasury after the Dance of the Dragons. What if the Lannisters just kept it and Tywin and the Iron Bank of Braavos have been loaning the Iron Throne its own money all these years? Maybe that's even a double-meaning of the Dance of the Dragons: gold coins danced off to remote locations and were not repatriated when the civil war ended because the Master of Coin stayed on the small council and others involved in moving the money had died or had other reasons to keep silent.

I know GRRM doesn't deceive his readers, but look carefully at what he said about the mines of Casterly Rock: the mines haven't emptied, they are considered the best in the world. They're not empty if they contain a quarter of the stolen loot of the monarchy. Considered "the best" by whom? The archmaesters who received the other quarter of the treasury at their Citadel during the civil war? Maybe Tytos was freely giving away money because he knew it wasn't Lannister money in the first place, and he felt guilty that his family had stolen it. 

This is largely speculative, I admit. But why would GRRM give us that whole long story about the Dance of the Dragons and Criston Cole if it didn't really have an impact on the current events of the story? There's got to be something important in the depths of Casterly Rock because Tyrion was put in charge of sewers and drains and Jaime had a dream that (he guessed) took place under Casterly Rock.

I think it's possible that a good bit of the current generation (or the last three or four generations) of Lannister gold was imported from King's Landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seams said:

I went back and re-read the TWOIAF pages about this, and it is pretty clear that Tywin hated the Reynes, I admit.

I also agree that the Lannisters were not out of gold, but the source of that gold is debatable. The passage from The Princess and the Queen you cited in the link says this:

Ser Tyland Lannister was named master of coin in place of the late Lord Beesbury, and acted at once to seize the royal treasury. The crown’s gold was divided into four parts. One part was entrusted to the care of the Iron Bank of Braavos for safekeeping, another sent under strong guard to Casterly Rock, a third to Oldtown. The remaining wealth was to be used for bribes and gifts, and to hire sellswords if needed.

It's not clear to me that the money was restored to the treasury after the Dance of the Dragons. What if the Lannisters just kept it and Tywin and the Iron Bank of Braavos have been loaning the Iron Throne its own money all these years? Maybe that's even a double-meaning of the Dance of the Dragons: gold coins danced off to remote locations and were not repatriated when the civil war ended because the Master of Coin stayed on the small council and others involved in moving the money had died or had other reasons to keep silent.

I know GRRM doesn't deceive his readers, but look carefully at what he said about the mines of Casterly Rock: the mines haven't emptied, they are considered the best in the world. They're not empty if they contain a quarter of the stolen loot of the monarchy. Considered "the best" by whom? The archmaesters who received the other quarter of the treasury at their Citadel during the civil war? Maybe Tytos was freely giving away money because he knew it wasn't Lannister money in the first place, and he felt guilty that his family had stolen it. 

This is largely speculative, I admit. But why would GRRM give us that whole long story about the Dance of the Dragons and Criston Cole if it didn't really have an impact on the current events of the story? There's got to be something important in the depths of Casterly Rock because Tyrion was put in charge of sewers and drains and Jaime had a dream that (he guessed) took place under Casterly Rock.

I think it's possible that a good bit of the current generation (or the last three or four generations) of Lannister gold was imported from King's Landing.

It's possible but highly highly doubtful. Aegon III need to run the kingdom and administration after the Dance of the Dragons. Tyland had more or less immediate access to the money in CR, and he was both a regent and Hand. He's getting that money back one way or another. Plus in the draft version of the WL history:

Johanna (cross referenced with MUSH, seems she was a Westerling) was Lord Jason’s widow. She reclaimed Lannister glory, fought against the Greyjoys, and lent gold to King’s Landing to help rebuild from the damage caused during the Dance of the Dragons (which was extensive!)

http://www.historyofwesteros.com/concarolinas-westerlands-reading/

http://www.historyofwesteros.com/concarolinas-westerlands-reading/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a quick way to overcome a formidable fortress at the cost of killing all of the people inside. Even if it wasn't his intention to kill everyone it would still make sense to choose this option. Had he stormed the fortress he'd have lost many men or perhaps may not even be able to take it and even if he did most of those people inside would probably die in the attack or he could besiege it and wait for them to yield, giving other vassals the chance to intervene, spending money on food and men or inviting the chance of any number of things breaking the siege in such a lengthy commitment of time. 

They refused to submit unless Tywin gave them hostages, Tywin chose the most smart and expedient option he had. Shame about everyone dying inside but he had seen a way to destroy them with relative ease without the need for siege or storm, would be silly if he didn't use it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

He saw a quick way to overcome a formidable fortress at the cost of killing all of the people inside. Even if it wasn't his intention to kill everyone it would still make sense to choose this option. Had he stormed the fortress he'd have lost many men or perhaps may not even be able to take it and even if he did most of those people inside would probably die in the attack or he could besiege it and wait for them to yield, giving other vassals the chance to intervene, spending money on food and men or inviting the chance of any number of things breaking the siege in such a lengthy commitment of time. 

They refused to submit unless Tywin gave them hostages, Tywin chose the most smart and expedient option he had. Shame about everyone dying inside but he had seen a way to destroy them with relative ease without the need for siege or storm, would be silly if he didn't use it. 

I'd just argue he could have done the same thing without blocking the exit (or leave one open). I don't remember if there were multiple exits or not. Damning the river was by far the most prudent way to handle the situation but Tywin was needlessly brutal and ruthless with his final solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GyantSpyder said:

Legally the Westerosi legal system's biggest, huge flaw is there is no good way to bring legal charges against a Lord Paramount or his family. It's even worse than actual medieval law (much worse). When you're dealing with misbehavior by Lords Paramount, you pretty much have to fly over on a dragon - or ride over on a horse if you're not that fancy - and depose them by force.

I think that's basically true.

 

I would presume that not all are this way.  Dorne, we don't know how the law is practiced but it seems to generally be more lenient.  Arryn has its house code and its love of honor.  Starks seem justified in applying an iron handed justice because of both the size of their territory and the unruliness of northerners in the world of Westeros.

Overall the system is one of those that isn't as bad in theory as in practice.  Ned was right to pronounce Gregor Clegane of knighthood and title.  In his view, anyone who harmed the people had broken his knightly vows.  The same thing for the Hedge Knight in reverse, where Dunk becomes the people's champion because (as Baelor Breakspear tells him), he kept his vows and defended the innocent.  So basically apathetic rulers letting their servants get away with transgressions is the problem, and by the time of the novels it is out of hand to where even the Lords Paramount are suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Vance II said:

Overkill? absolutely. But it sent the message. I wouldn't say it was justified, but what was anyone going to do about it? I almost think Tywin was teetering on mad at this point, not like Targ mad, but he would do anything to undo the failures of his father and restore his house (what he knew would soon be all his). I'd like to think a mature Tywin wouldn't have handled it the same way. 

What other choice he had? Any less punishment than "kill them all" would be no use, his father would give any survivor a pardon and gave back anything they lost and it would start all over again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, giant snake said:

I would presume that not all are this way.  Dorne, we don't know how the law is practiced but it seems to generally be more lenient.  Arryn has its house code and its love of honor.  Starks seem justified in applying an iron handed justice because of both the size of their territory and the unruliness of northerners in the world of Westeros.

Yeah - the trick is when you try to go from one to the other. Like when you try to apply Stark and Arryn justice to a Lannister (Cat/Lysa v. Tyrion), or Targaryan justice to a Stark (Aerys v. Rickard/Brandon), or Dornish justice to a Lannister (Oberyn v. Tywin). 

There's no agreed-upon, set way to do it that actually works - no agreed-upon, legitimate courts - so everybody goes around making it up as they go along and ends up starting wars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point - they apply their justice to each other as they would in their own territory.  Then again, the question why they are in each other's territory or at each other's throats to begin with is another one.  Presumably you have mediation between the church and the various Kingdoms, to some extent.  It never really is explained.  It's also noteworthy that the Seven Kingdoms don't appear to have a chief justice or a chief attorney for the realm, which you would expect in a medieval society because those things both existed IRL.

 

I don't think Grand Maester Pycelle is anything close to either of those things btw.  It is obviously outside the bounds of a Maester's authority.  On that note, I don't see how such a slimy cuck like Pycelle got to be placed so highly when there are so many other Maesters of more reliability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I'd just argue he could have done the same thing without blocking the exit (or leave one open). I don't remember if there were multiple exits or not. Damning the river was by far the most prudent way to handle the situation but Tywin was needlessly brutal and ruthless with his final solution.


Yeah that's reasonable but I think we'd need a solid description of exactly how it happened for a real judgement, for example the mines may not even fill if he didn't seal all the exits. Tywin's obviously incredibly cruel anyway so it could be either but we just don't know if everyone dying was his intention or whether it was simply the only consequence of choosing the most quick and  effective means to defeat them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2017 at 6:36 AM, Brannis the Mannis said:

I'm inclined to be sympathetic to him in this particular scenario, especially when you look at all the details. The Reynes had essentially spit in the face of the Lannisters because of the weakness of Tytos, refusing to pay their debts, and even taking Lannister hostages once. And then they have the gall to rise up against the Lannisters when Tywin demands they answer for their crimes against their liege lord. So already they've made themselves unsympathetic. 

To make matters worse, after the defeat of the Tarbecks and it becomes clear that Tywin has all but won, the Reynes still have the nerve to demand hostages from the Lannisters in exchange for peace, showing that negotiating with them wasn't going to get anywhere. In addition, the mines that they hid in had passages that could be defended indefinitely, and they had plenty of food and water, so the Reynes couldn't be besieged with conventional tactics. So Tywin took the last option available to him after the arrogance and the insolence of the Reynes had forced him into that situation- flooding the tunnel and drowning them all. 

Those are my thoughts on the debacle, but I'd like to hear others points of view. 

i think that while he did not absolutely have to kill everyone of the reynes, he did it to make a point, and as a punitive measure. it showed the realm that he would not take slights on his house lightly, and to strongly discourage others from pitting their relatively puny wills against his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by the number of Tywin apologists here.

Tywin could certainly have set a trap, feigning to give in to Reynes demands or whatever to make them make a sortie, and arrested them,  executing the adults, and reintegrating the innocents in his peace, allowing their blood to survive, like most overlords would have done.

Showing mercy, forcing some surviving Reynes to marry into the Lannisters, etc... Would have gave him a different kind of reputation but not necessarily one detrimental for him (being respected as just rather than feared is not necessarily a bad point). He made the choice to be ruthless and base his reign on fear.

He may have considered that, to allow his family to recover from his father weak reign, he had to show extreme strength and justified it by pragmatism. But imo it's more the kind of excuse he'd have used to give way to his extremely resentful tendancies.

I think there are many hints in the text that Tywin coldness and pragmatism is just false, an excuse he uses to follow his impulses. He's in fact very passionate (especially about family matters) and just wants people who offended his family to suffer gruesome deaths or even crueler torture.

Everything he does something cruel, he's all about using necessity to excuse it, and adding half lies to that (I had a 14 year old raped by my guards to teach a lesson to my stupid son and it was a prostitute, I had to get Elia's childs killed to prove my loyalty to Robert and never asked for her being murdered too, etc...) and imo the "necessity" to make an example from the Tarbecks and Reynes, as presented in the official extremely pro-Tywin history book (Pycelle as contributor isn't really a sign of objectivity), is just one more example of this kind of excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Freypie said:

I

Tywin could certainly have set a trap, feigning to give in to Reynes demands or whatever to make them make a sortie, and arrested them,  executing the adults, and reintegrating the innocents in his peace, allowing their blood to survive, like most overlords would have done.

 

They demanded hostages in exchange for clemency for all of their crimes and agreeing to the demands of you vassals and then arresting them sets a very, very bad precedent in the eyes of your other vassals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

They demanded hostages in exchange for clemency for all of their crimes and agreeing to the demands of you vassals and then arresting them sets a very, very bad precedent in the eyes of your other vassals. 

They made one offer (+ the usual one nobody ever accepts of resolving the siege by a duel) and got no answer, then Tywin got them drowned 2 days after

Usually in negocitations the two sides start with their most extrem demands, then exchange offers until some acceptable middle ground is found, Nothing says Reynes demands would have been their definitive answer, Tywin not trying to get more reasonable surrender terms (or even asking for his own).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...