Did Robb act better than Tywin conducting the war?

[Blackwater Revenant]

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Fucking hell, you have a high opinion of yourself don't you mate.

Well yes, of course I do. Just as I hold a high opinion of many members of this forum, both agreeable and contrarian, who carry themselves in a mature and respectful manner.

Why, do you not have a high opinion of yourself? If not, it might explain why you feel the need to conduct yourself in the manner that you do.

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

How many people in this thread have you labelled a troll just because you disagree with them?

None, perhaps you should pay attention to the reasons why so many people accuse you of such, instead of constantly resorting to this same strawman defence I've seen you in need of so often.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On January 5, 2018 at 0:51 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

Robb personally elicits the Iron Born to fight the Lannisters: oh OK, rejection withdrawn.

Roose elicits the Bloody Mummers without Robb's knowledge to fight the Lannisters: shame on Robb, how unethical of him.

Logic at its finest. 

Thought you were done with me? Yes, Robb attempts to enlist the aid of the IB to wage war against his enemies-obviously knowing that the IB glorify their soldiers who commit rape, murder and other manner of cruelties and he'd accept it as a unfortunate consequence. 

 And now, you're outright claiming Robb didn't even know about BCs were enlisted by Roose altogether. Really this is why trying to have conversation with you is pointless-you're clearly deadset on trying to excuse Robb's responsibility  as much you can from anything that bad happened in the north. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Thought you were done with me?

I thought you said you felt the same way? Why are you quoting me and trying to engage with me again? Do you miss me already?

Anyway, have I quoted you and/or posted a rebuttal to any of your arguments since? I don't think I have.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Tywin gave direct orders to do vile & vicious things & Robb would not do that.

Such as?

 

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

hould he have known there would be raping & pillaging going on?

If he's not an idiot or as naive as Sansa was at the start of the series.  Like 

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Possibly but I would assume we can all agree that if one of his men, or a group of his men were set before him guilty of rape that Robb would have Karstarked them all. Tywin would not.

Probably would. You know this reminds me of Dany saving those few women from being raped by Drogo's Khalshar. Like couple (some had already been violated). Now seeing this doesn't really change her want for Drogo to lead his Khalshar to Westeroes. Now just to be clear we all know Dany hates such abuse to be enacted to such women and if she saw one being sexually abused by one of her men she'd stop it but wouldn't alter her course that's causing thousands of other rapes to be committed. 

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It could be argued Tywin is the better man, and most certainly the better military Commander because he knows his men & uses their strengths to reach his desired goal. For example Tywin would never let Gregor Clegane care for children he wanted to keep alive

Well better military commander,yeah hotly debatable. Truth be told I think the fandom greatly overestimates him in terms of how good he is at war-but I digress. 

Dont know about Gregore. I mean although viscous and cruel and sadistic Tywin probably thinks he's a firm lease on this beast. 

I mean he allows the hound to guard Joffery. 

Though probably not since he serves most valuable as a weapon not a shield

Dragons don't grow trees, Laninsters always pay their DEDTS and if you run into a mountain you're going to probably get hurt.

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Robb should have never let the Lannister boys anywhere in the vicinity of the Karstarks. (Not saying they take a liking to Gregor, just proving a point) He should have either given them some task to satiate them for the time being or put the hostages somewhere they could not be reached.

Looking back at it yeah he dropped the ball on that one but I kinda want to give the guy some slack. He knew yes Karstark was furious(unjustly so), but really can anyone have predicted his rage would be so great he'd outright murder literal children and jeopardize his entire house's standing in the north? Still Robb should have taken extra precautions to procure their security.

 

On January 5, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Tywin would have known that.

Largely because he himself is a vengeancful prick lol. But I feel he wouldn't even had to ponder the matter out. I feel he would have killed hostages(at least one), if they failed to actually get his opponents alter their course to prove his threats have mettle.

 

One of the lessons this series tells us over & over is that the good guy doesn't always win & if you put honor above all else it may leave you with an honorable reputation but minus a head.

And may leave everyone you ever loved dead/or brutalized and whole bunch of people who you never met.  

Is Robb the better man for behaving more honorably than Tywin at the cost of his crown & his head or is Tywin the better man for keeping his realm & head intact no matter the means used to get him there? 

Tywin can be argued to be a better leader.

Whatever his follies he never is shown something that expressly hurt his side or jeopardize his followers because he's so "honorble" and has to prove it. As for who waged the war more honorable? Pre-red wedding about the same given their context. Both have shown they don't much care the pain their feud is causing to everyone else, that they are each willing to unleash their men on the smallfolk if it served their war efforts and accept every cruelty as a consequence for succeeding their goal. Tywin unleashed the mountain(for he inspires fear), but Robb took on the BC(at the very least gave his blessing by not ordering Roose to detain them), and tried to form a pact with the IB to they'd direct their cruelty on to Robb's enemies. The difference mostly Robb would take on these monsters because they serve interest and excuse their brutality, while Tywin keeps the mountain on because of his known reputation of brutality makes Tywin's enemies quake with fear and thus serve his interest. In my opinion the former is better by the latter but by not that huge of a stretch. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Such as?

Come now. Let's not play this game if we are to conversate ok? You know as well as I do the orders Tywin has given to some of his men. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

he's not an idiot or as naive as Sansa was at the start of the series.  Like 

That's my point. There are good men & bad men & men somewhere in between on every side. It is possible he didn't  though. Unlikely maybe but he is barely considered a man, seeing his first war, & commanding  for the first time. It really isn't  that outrageous to think maybe he thought his men good men that wouldn't rape & such. The difference Tywin & Robb is that Robb would never condone it. Tywin is a seasoned Commander, knows exactly what happens sometimes in war & not only doesn't tell his men not to rape but sends the most vile of them, knowing exactly what he is capable of & what he will do, to torture the small folk. Something Robb's honor would not have allowed him to do. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well better military commander,yeah hotly debatable. Truth be told I think the fandom greatly overestimates him in terms of how good he is at war-but I digress. 

I disagree whole-heartedly. Tywin uses strategies to reach the desired end that Robb never even began to think of. Tywin uses his men effectively & knows part of the war is won with swords & part with pen. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dont know about Gregore. I mean although viscous and cruel and sadistic Tywin probably thinks he's a firm lease on this beast

I doubt it. Tywin knows he is an uncontrollable monster. IIRC he even says something to that effect. He doesn't think he has a grip on Gregor he just picks when & where to unleash him. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

mean he allows the hound to guard Joffery. 

Though probably not since he serves most valuable as a weapon not a shield

Right but the Hound is not The Mountain. Vile & Vicious as he is he has proven himself to be an obedient dog. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Looking back at it yeah he dropped the ball on that one but I kinda want to give the guy some slack. He knew yes Karstark was furious(unjustly so), but really can anyone have predicted his rage would be so great he'd outright murder literal children and jeopardize his entire house's standing in the north? Still Robb should have taken extra precautions to procure their security.

Agreed. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Largely because he himself is a vengeancful prick lol. But I feel he wouldn't even had to ponder the matter out. I feel he would have killed hostages(at least one), if they failed to actually get his opponents alter their course to prove his threats have mettle.

Yes. & Had Tywin demanded something from the person's he held hostages from & they did not deliver he most certainly would have carried through on his threat. Although depending on the hostage he may not have threatened to kill them at all. For instance he knows Sansa Stark is a valuable hostage. He is smart enough not to threaten to behead her if Robb does not lay down his swords because if Robb does not then lay down his swords he has to behead Sansa, effectively hurting his own cause more than helping it. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

hatever his follies he never is shown something that expressly hurt his side or jeopardize his followers because he's so "honorble" and has to prove it

Exactly. 

 

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

As for who waged the war more honorable? Pre-red wedding about the same given their context. Both have shown they don't much care the pain their feud is causing to everyone else, that they are each willing to unleash their men on the smallfolk if it served their war efforts and accept every cruelty as a consequence for succeeding their goal. Tywin unleashed the mountain(for he inspires fear), but Robb took on the BC(at the very least gave his blessing by not ordering Roose to detain them), and tried to form a pact with the IB to they'd direct their cruelty on to Robb's enemies. The difference mostly Robb would take on these monsters because they serve interest and excuse their brutality, while Tywin keeps the mountain on because of his known reputation of brutality makes Tywin's enemies quake with fear and thus serve his interest. In my opinion the former is better by the latter but by not that huge of a stretch. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Varysblackfyre321

I don't know who waged war more honorably but Robb is the more honorable person IMO. I give Robb a lot of slack, maybe too much, because he is naive. This is his first war. What he knows of the IB comes from Theon who until he turned was almost a brother to Robb. He may have believed as the rightful heir to the IB that Theon would direct them to behave with honor. He is neglectful at times (like not addressing the fact that Roose hired the BC) but I don't believe it's maliciously or purposefully. He is way over his head & trying to keep all his juggling balls from hitting the ground. The balls directly in his presence get more attention than the ones far away. 

[LordMiddleFinger]

One could argue that Tywin did what he had to do to win the war and to protect his family ( More like his House and reputation than his actual family but the end results are basically the same ). Tywin won the war, House Lannister is still around, weakened but still in power and his eldest son is still alive, which was very important to Tywin because he wanted Jaime to become the next Lord of Casterly Rock after his death. What did Rob achieve? Is his family safe? Are the Starks still in power? Who is his heir, Jon? A bastard who got stabbed by the members of the Night's Watch? Sansa Lannister, Littlefinger's favorite puppet? Oh he named Jon as his heir before he died! Great, too bad very few people actually know about this and, you know... that his heir is now dead. The end justifies the means, Tywin protected House Lannnister, Rob ( and his mother ) destroyed House Stark. 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

On 1/6/2018 at 3:54 PM, Nowy Tends said:

No it's not. There's a huge difference between sending the worst war criminals put a region afire before any casus belli is established, and sending regular troops pillaging a region in a middle of a war.

Wait a minute, there is a lot wrong with this...

1st, kidnapping a man’s son, and trying to have him executed, without just cause or authority, is “casus beli”. 

2nd, there are no “regular troops”. Armys consist of household guard, mercenaries, and peasant recruits. The practice of maintaining a professional standing army isn’t something seen in England until Oliver Cromwell (1600s).

3rd, once Tyrion has been abducted war was inevitable, arguably begun already begun. It was by no means the only reason for the war, but it was the crime which set off the fireworks.

Rob waging war to free Ned is no more just than Tywin waging war to free Tyrion. Wether you believe these are their real motivations or not is irrelevant. 

Cat put her family in a horrible situation by kidnapping Tyrion, she started a war they were unprepared for.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Wait a minute, there is a lot wrong with this...

1st, kidnapping a man’s son, and trying to have him executed, without just cause or authority, is “casus beli”. 

Agreed. So he should have declared war on, ya know, the people who did it.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

2nd, there are no “regular troops”. Armys consist of household guard, mercenaries, and peasant recruits. The practice of maintaining a professional standing army isn’t something seen in England until Oliver Cromwell (1600s).

3rd, once Tyrion has been abducted war was inevitable, arguably begun already begun. It was by no means the only reason for the war, but it was the crime which set off the fireworks.

Rob waging war to free Ned is no more just than Tywin waging war to free Tyrion. Wether you believe these are their real motivations or not is irrelevant. 

Robb was waging open warfare in defiance of the crown. Tywin led a shadow insurgency before formally declaring war (or however you ant to define it). Robb's war was more just because of how it was conducted, not the reason why.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Cat put her family in a horrible situation by kidnapping Tyrion, she started a war they were unprepared for.

Indeed

[cpg2016]

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Actually no. The feeling of "kinship" between the peasants of a medieval which do make up the major bulk of Robb's army was far more local than national. NatiPeople more identify home more to the local village they grew up in then some abstract concept of the north. It's also worth a lot of these people would have been conscripted into the war to make up for the north's smaller population size compared to the south. So yeah they'd want a little something extra for all the hard they've been asked to do. As well as just feed themselves 

Edmure desire to protect all of his smallfolk is mostly seen as the exception rather than the rule for most lords. Which is why I love the guy.

Except, most medieval armies are levies, and it is made explicit that most of the Northern force is levied.  Thus, there is an element of shared experience there.

But that isn't even the point.  The commanders of Robb's forces will automatically be more inclined to treat their smallfolk and their lands with compassion/respect, at least a basic level, because at the end of the day, thos are their lands that they'll be pillaging and looting.  The lords may not care much about their smallfolk, but they have the basic grasp of agriculture necessary to know that starving their peasants off their land is a good way to cripple their own economic base.

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Before there's even deliberations between Robb &Karstark and the rest of Robb's generals on the matter of Catelyn releasing Jamie it's clear there's been pillaging and raping and murdering being done by the Northmen. For quite some time.

Quote, please.  The earliest I recall hearing of "wolves" burning out peasants is in SOS Jaime II, after Karstark has sent his men rogue.

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Illegal??? I was under the impression the ruling monarch was well-within his rights to imprison those suspected of treason and deliberate whether or not he or she is guilty

Please go reread the books.  You're arguing MY point.  Tyrion is arrested (ostensibly on the orders of the Hand, the highest legal authority in the absence of the king, who is in fact absent), and Tywin, who has no legal authority whatsoever, and certainly none to order attacks on innocent third parties (like the Riverland lords) orders the chevauchee into the Riverlands. 

If you don't understand the timeline, don't argue it.

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 Hell Ned confessed to the crimes he was accused of. Does it matter to Robb? No. He didn't know what Ned had truly done to get arrested. Nor would it influence him trying to save his father from being beheaded even if he was guilty of treason.

First off, you have no way of knowing that.  Second, Robb is explicit that part of his reason for marching south is to help his Tully relatives against the Lannisters, who have clearly broken the law, even outside the fairly obvious fact that they forced Ned to make a false confession, so right off the bat his actions are wholly justified.  The last legal word on the matter was that Tywin Lannister was to be accosted for his crimes.

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like Robb would have tolerated the IB's heinous acts would have been accepted if his proposal to raid the iwesterlands had been accepted? Like Hoat and company crimes would be excused so long as they directed their viscousness on Robb's enemies.

The IB?  I don't even know who that is.

But you're argument is awful, on literally every level.  Robb does absolutely nothing to excuse the Brave Companions, it is explicit Roose Bolton who sanctions them.  It's pretty clear, in the text, that Robb won't act on behalf of any promises made to the Brave Companions.

And if you are unable to see the difference between a raid on the Westerlands in the course of a war the Lannisters started, and Tywin sacking Kings Landing after the city surrendered to him, then you are an evil and immoral person.

On 1/5/2018 at 2:05 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Selective meting out Justice and doesn't help that Rickard goaded Robb into taking his head by mocking the thought of Robb showing mercy.

How is that selective meting out of justice?  It is just justice.  Show a place where what Robb does is fundamentally unjust.  Tywin's history is replete with it - in both his personal and political life he's an evil, unethical scumbag.  He knows it; the threat of disproportionate violent response is explicitly his governing philosophy.  We have evidence of this going back at least 40 years, to the illegal and obviously excessive extinction of the Reynes and Tarbecks, through the attempt to sack Duskendale and the actual sack of Kings Landing, through the numerous examples of hypocrisy and illegality in ASOIAF proper.

[cpg2016]

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Instead they rape and pillage the Westerlands...

OK?  What the hell is your point?  The Westerlands instigated a highly illegal, highly destructive war.  I'm not saying Robb's actions are 100% ethical by modern standards, merely that they are far less immoral than Tywin's; Robb has cause, Tywin does not.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Tywin is reacting to Cat’s imprisoning his son... illegally and under false accusation. Rolling Stoptional.

Well, this isn't true, so lets unpack it.  First, a false accusation and a wrong accusation are not the same thing, so maybe try and get a better grasp of English,and legal concepts, before you start nitpicking.  False suspicion is the proper term here, because Catelyn has plenty of evidence for her accusation (whereas, for example, Littlefinger can be accurately said as having made a false accusation).

Second, Tywin is reacting to Catelyn Stark arresting his son, sure.... by attacking innocent people?  Tywin is pretty clear that his intent is to force Ned to take the field, then capture him in battle, then exchange him for Tyrion.  In other words, his actions are neither proportional to the "crime" committed, nor directed against the parties he holds responsible.  All of which ignores the fact that Tywin has potential legal recourse in the person of the king, his son-in-law no less; he does NOT pursue this option, but instead sets the Riverlands on fire.  He explicitly eschews the legal justice route in favor of violence on uninvolved parties.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I don’t think they are outsides the norms of Westeros or war.

No, you just don't think.  The extinction of the Reynes and Tarbecks is clearly outside Westerosi norms; we almost NEVER see entire Houses punished for the actions of the few, and those few times it does happen, it's called out as being beyond the pale.  We only have a very few examples that I can think of, the only one being Houses Darklyn & Hollard, and their extinction is explicitly tied to Aerys' deepening madness.  And mind you, they kidnap the king - the Reynes and Tarbecks don't actually do anything illegal (only Tywin, who has no authority to do anything at that point, acts illegally).

The Sack of Kings Landing is also explicitly called out as something that isn't considered within "the rules of war," which is why such a big deal is made that the city opened it's gates to Tywin and THEN was sacked, and not the other way around.  The expectation IRL, and presumably (and rationally) in Westeros, is that if you surrender without a fight, you get spared.  So much effort wouldn't have been put into making it clear that Tywin sacked the city after being let in, if it wasn't important.

And Tywin's plot of the Red Wedding is SO outside the pale of Westerosi ethics and morality that it literally resonates on a metaphysical level, with various characters psychically experiencing it.  

That Tywin is an unethical actor in Westerosi terms is undeniable, and is made clear in the text.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Robb has no track record to be judged on... Tywin also rules the realm in all but name for years of peace and prosperity.

Um... of course Robb has a track record to be judged on, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it disproves your point.  Robb handles his vassals equally (listening to their advice in turns, not playing favorites).  Robb attempts to treat justly with the defeated vassals of his enemies (such as Jeyne Westerling), and tries to make amends with those he has wronged (the Freys, who are acting in bad faith and thus don't deserve it anyway).  We don't hear of a SINGLE action in which Robb acts with undue violence, or unjustly.  That he has less time in which to establish his reputation can't be held against him.

Tywin... he also forces the gang rape of an innocent girl, the public humiliation of his father's mistress (who did nothing wrong), the hypocrisy of his prostitute habit, etc.  We have very little information on the specifics of his time as Hand, but just because the kingdom prospered doesn't mean he was a "just" ruler.  Rome did very well indeed under Septimius Severus despite him being a brutal military dictator.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Again, after Cat committed treason by releasing Jaime. There is a world of difference between good intentions and just rule... Robb broke his oath, lost his kingdom and his life, as well as pillaging the Westerlands. 

Right, but again, this is the difference between Robb and Tywin (or Robb and Rickard).  Catelyn releases Jaime, which can reasonably be construed as treasonous, I agree.  But Rickard doesn't go after Catelyn - he goes after two innocent people, just like Tywin, who has justifiable cause to be upset with Catelyn, goes after a bunch of innocent Riverlanders and not, you know - Catelyn or the Starks.

Robb has both good intentions (which is self evident) AND is a just ruler.  You seem to be confusing justice with some personal notion of everything going right, which isn't the case.  Rickard commits outright treason, and is explicit about it, and is killed as a result (which is what he wants, FYI).

And yes, Robb broke his oath, but please don't tie that to his losing the war.  The Freys were planning on betraying him either way after the Blackwater, which has long since been proven by smarter men than me, and the broken marriage contract only added to the ferocity of Walder's revenge.  And how culpable we hold Robb to be in breaking his oath is also debatable, as he was taken advantage of in a period of emotional and physical weakness/instability.  Yes, he should be held responsible for his action, but some allowance must be made for the circumstances surrounding it.

And his pillaging of the Westerlands is very clearly within the norm of warfare in Westeros.  The Lannisters and their bannermen are enemies, plain and simple; refusing to attack them or weaken their economic base (and we hear nothing of Stark forces committing any atrocities on the local population, in the way Tywin does, as an FYI) means not waging war at all.

On 1/5/2018 at 5:47 PM, Agent Orange said:

As a matter of fact it might have been more ethical to spare Karstark even if it means the two squires get no justice.

Again, you understand neither ethics nor justice.  Rickard Karstark is a murderer, plain and simple, and a traitor to boot.  And moreover, Robb gains no advantage from sparing Karstark.  He doesn't manage to keep the Karstark soldiers, because they've already left even before their Lord is executed (which is the plan; Rickard wants to die).  He simultaneously broadcasts that he has no control over his own men, who can act as they will.  To paraphrase Davos, sometimes meting out justice means making hard choices.  Yes, Rickard Karstark's pain is understandable, he lost two children (in combat, mind you), but Robb can either allow him whatever vengeance he wants, or he can uphold the law.  He chooses to uphold the law, which is clearly the moral and just response.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:33 AM, LiveFirstDieLater said:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes bad men make better rulers/leaders than good men. Results matter.

Edited Friday at 11:38 AM by LiveFirstDieLater

Right.  And Tywin's legacy crumbles the minute he dies, and Robb (and by extension, Ned's) lives on.  The Stark notion of justice is going to literally save the world, and Tywin's is going to lead to the extinction of his line, by the hands of his own children.

Both Ned and Robb were excellent leaders and good men.  Tywin was a bad man, and possibly a good leader, but his legacy will be one of mistrust and hatred, whereas the Starks will be one of loyalty and justice, hence why even their memory is inspiring people to fight for them.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

OK?  What the hell is your point? 

I thought I was pretty clear, the distinction of who “acted better” during the war of five kings, considering both Robb and Tywin isn’t so clear... and there are multiple parallels as well as ways to analyze the question to be considered.

Despite your rudeness I will try to explain my meaning.

Quote

The Westerlands instigated a highly illegal, highly destructive war. 

I would contend that Cat started the war by FALSLY ACCUSING Tyrion. 

Quote

I'm not saying Robb's actions are 100% ethical by modern standards, merely that they are far less immoral than Tywin's; Robb has cause, Tywin does not.

I’m not defending the man Tywin or arguing that he is more moral than Robb. I’m addressing the question at hand, their behavior during the war of five kings.

Quote

Well, this isn't true, so lets unpack it.  First, a false accusation and a wrong accusation are not the same thing, so maybe try and get a better grasp of English,and legal concepts, before you start nitpicking. 

You are wrong. Cat accused Tyrion of trying to kill Bran, he didn’t, it’s a false accusation. 

• Quote

  An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent.

   

Quote

False suspicion is the proper term here, because Catelyn has plenty of evidence for her accusation (whereas, for example, Littlefinger can be accurately said as having made a false accusation).

Call it whatever you want, she took an man prisoner when he was innocent of the crimes she charged him with, and she did not have the authority to do so in the first place. This started the War of Five Kings.

Quote

Second, Tywin is reacting to Catelyn Stark arresting his son, sure.... by attacking innocent people? 

Because innocents suffer when lords play their games? Just ask the westerlands pillaged by wolves.

Quote

Tywin is pretty clear that his intent is to force Ned to take the field, then capture him in battle, then exchange him for Tyrion. 

Yes war has begun, prisoner taken, and he is responding... I agree that pillaging isn’t a good or nice behavior, but it’s war, and Rob does it too, which is my point.

Quote

In other words, his actions are neither proportional to the "crime" committed, nor directed against the parties he holds responsible. 

Just like when Robb pillages the Westerlands to draw out Tywin... literally the same concept.

Quote

All of which ignores the fact that Tywin has potential legal recourse in the person of the king, his son-in-law no less; he does NOT pursue this option, but instead sets the Riverlands on fire.  He explicitly eschews the legal justice route in favor of violence on uninvolved parties.

Only after Cat, who also had access to legal recourse started the war by eschewing the legal justice route in favor of inprosoning an uninvolved party.

Quote

No, you just don't think. 

You are a child.

Quote

The extinction of the Reynes and Tarbecks is clearly outside Westerosi norms; we almost NEVER see entire Houses punished for the actions of the few, and those few times it does happen, it's called out as being beyond the pale.  We only have a very few examples that I can think of, the only one being Houses Darklyn & Hollard, and their extinction is explicitly tied to Aerys' deepening madness.  And mind you, they kidnap the king - the Reynes and Tarbecks don't actually do anything illegal (only Tywin, who has no authority to do anything at that point, acts illegally).

Blackfyre? Grey stark? Hoare? Gardener? Strong? Lothson? Rosby? Teague? Qoherys? Mudd? Harroway? Greyiron?

This is silly...

Quote

The Sack of Kings Landing is also explicitly called out as something that isn't considered within "the rules of war," which is why such a big deal is made that the city opened it's gates to Tywin and THEN was sacked, and not the other way around.  The expectation IRL, and presumably (and rationally) in Westeros, is that if you surrender without a fight, you get spared.  So much effort wouldn't have been put into making it clear that Tywin sacked the city after being let in, if it wasn't important.

Ya Tywin is a brutal dude, not debating that, but this wasn’t during the war of five kings...

Quote

And Tywin's plot of the Red Wedding is SO outside the pale of Westerosi ethics and morality that it literally resonates on a metaphysical level, with various characters psychically experiencing it.  

Besides the purple wedding? Or the rat cook? 

I don’t know what the hell you are talking about characters psychically experiencing it? The little bells, the Frey?

Quote

That Tywin is an unethical actor in Westerosi terms is undeniable, and is made clear in the text.

I have never debated this...

Quote

Um... of course Robb has a track record to be judged on, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it disproves your point. 

Not compared to Tywin, who ruled a realm in all but name for years when it appears it was relatively peaceful and prosperous. Robb lost he only war he ever fought, saw Winterfell sacked, and came dangerously close to seeing the line of Starks ended.

Honor and justice is great, but results matter.

Quote

Robb handles his vassals equally (listening to their advice in turns, not playing favorites).

I guess? But he chooses who to put in charge of his Foot terribly.

Quote

  Robb attempts to treat justly with the defeated vassals of his enemies (such as Jeyne Westerling), and tries to make amends with those he has wronged (the Freys, who are acting in bad faith and thus don't deserve it anyway). 

He slept with the maiden daughter of his defeated foe, most wouldn’t consider this justice... and he broke his oath to the Freys.

Quote

We don't hear of a SINGLE action in which Robb acts with undue violence, or unjustly.  That he has less time in which to establish his reputation can't be held against him.

He pillaged the Westerlands to draw out Tywin, this could be considered undue or not, it’s part of war no doubt. But he failed to punish Cat for her treasonous jailbreak of Jaime Lannister. He broke his oath to the Freys. He slept with the Westerling Girl. Nobodies perfect and Robb is pretty close to as noble and just as a man can be, this isn’t my point. The point is that if you are comparing the two men in the context of the war of five kings, the results matter. Robb got many of his men killed, his kingdom pillaged by Ironborn, and his capital raised.

Quote

Tywin... he also forces the gang rape of an innocent girl, the public humiliation of his father's mistress (who did nothing wrong), the hypocrisy of his prostitute habit, etc. 

Yes... again I’m not defending Tywin as a man...

Quote

We have very little information on the specifics of his time as Hand, but just because the kingdom prospered doesn't mean he was a "just" ruler.  Rome did very well indeed under Septimius Severus despite him being a brutal military dictator.

All evidence points to him being a competent ruler during a prosperous time.

Quote

Right, but again, this is the difference between Robb and Tywin (or Robb and Rickard).  Catelyn releases Jaime, which can reasonably be construed as treasonous, I agree.  But Rickard doesn't go after Catelyn - he goes after two innocent people, just like Tywin, who has justifiable cause to be upset with Catelyn, goes after a bunch of innocent Riverlanders and not, you know - Catelyn or the Starks.

So we forgive Cat because of her concern over her daughters but not Rickard’s anger over his sons deaths? Robb’s failure to deal with Cat begets Rickards murder... not an act I’m defending. Murderig children is wrong.

Quote

Robb has both good intentions (which is self evident) AND is a just ruler. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions... being good and just doesn’t always translate into being a successful leader/ruler. And considering the question of “acting better”, results are important.

Quote

You seem to be confusing justice with some personal notion of everything going right, which isn't the case.  Rickard commits outright treason, and is explicit about it, and is killed as a result (which is what he wants, FYI).

I’m not talking about justice... I’m talking about acting better... which as I’ve said the whole time is not nearly so clear cut.

Quote

And yes, Robb broke his oath, but please don't tie that to his losing the war. 

What?

Quote

The Freys were planning on betraying him either way after the Blackwater, which has long since been proven by smarter men than me, and the broken marriage contract only added to the ferocity of Walder's revenge. 

No sense it discussing roads not taken.

Quote

And how culpable we hold Robb to be in breaking his oath is also debatable, as he was taken advantage of in a period of emotional and physical weakness/instability.  Yes, he should be held responsible for his action, but some allowance must be made for the circumstances surrounding it.

Absolutely, the Westerlings plotted to get him to wed the girl!

This doesn’t change the results however, nor absolve Robb of his responsibility.

Quote

And his pillaging of the Westerlands is very clearly within the norm of warfare in Westeros.  The Lannisters and their bannermen are enemies, plain and simple; refusing to attack them or weaken their economic base (and we hear nothing of Stark forces committing any atrocities on the local population, in the way Tywin does, as an FYI) means not waging war at all.

We have no PoV’s in the Westerlands, but are repeatedly told how the small folk suffer from men under banners of wolves and lions... and that’s just in the Riverlands.

Quote

Again, you understand neither ethics nor justice. 

Grow up.

Quote

Rickard Karstark is a murderer, plain and simple, and a traitor to boot.

So are half the lords in the series. There is a certain kind of honor in his actions.

Quote

  And moreover, Robb gains no advantage from sparing Karstark.  He doesn't manage to keep the Karstark soldiers, because they've already left even before their Lord is executed (which is the plan; Rickard wants to die).  He simultaneously broadcasts that he has no control over his own men, who can act as they will.  To paraphrase Davos, sometimes meting out justice means making hard choices.  Yes, Rickard Karstark's pain is understandable, he lost two children (in combat, mind you), but Robb can either allow him whatever vengeance he wants, or he can uphold the law.  He chooses to uphold the law, which is clearly the moral and just response.

Yes, moral and just (from one point of view), but a disservice to his cause and kingdom.

Quote

Right.  And Tywin's legacy crumbles the minute he dies, and Robb (and by extension, Ned's) lives on.  The Stark notion of justice is going to literally save the world, and Tywin's is going to lead to the extinction of his line, by the hands of his own children.

Maybe, this is a lot of leaping... I do think there is long term good to be had from consistent and just rule... but I’m not sure the story is going to play out how you would like. If Tyrion ends up with any power or as a good ruler, you’re clearly just wrong, even if he isn’t Tywin’s blood...

Quote

Both Ned and Robb were excellent leaders and good men.  Tywin was a bad man, and possibly a good leader, but his legacy will be one of mistrust and hatred, whereas the Starks will be one of loyalty and justice, hence why even their memory is inspiring people to fight for them.

Yes, but would you rather have been a peasant soldier for Robb or Tywin? You could be feasting in King’s Landing or dead at the Twins...

Is it worth killing a few innocents to save many others?

I think you entirely missed the core argument I was making and defaulted back to judging these men based only on some subjective sense of honor and justice.

Either way, I hope you will reassess the way you talk to people on this forum. 

[Adam Yozza]

@LiveFirstDieLater

Yeah that's all well and good. But disregarding the fact that I disagree with a large portion of the comments you made, the question of the thread is who had better conduct during the war. We aren't talking about political ability, how they ended the war or any of that. The entire point of the thread, as far as I understand it, is to compare their character based on how they acted during the War of the Five Kings. So unless I've misunderstood something in your post then your argument is moot. Robb as a person acted with more honour and justice than Tywin did. That's the question being asked and that's even the answer you gave.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

14 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

@LiveFirstDieLater

Yeah that's all well and good. But disregarding the fact that I disagree with a large portion of the comments you made, the question of the thread is who had better conduct during the war. We aren't talking about political ability, how they ended the war or any of that. The entire point of the thread, as far as I understand it, is to compare their character based on how they acted during the War of the Five Kings. So unless I've misunderstood something in your post then your argument is moot. Robb as a person acted with more honour and justice than Tywin did. That's the question being asked and that's even the answer you gave.

If you equate Robb’s sense of honor with acting better then there isn’t really a discussion to be had. But we should question wether seemingly arbitrary rules of honor really equate with acting better, and if there are other things to take into account.

If we are talking justice, then the fact that the Starks started the war unjustly (Cat capturing Tyrion) and Robb’s oath breaking into account.

And as I’ve repeated, I’m not defending Tywin as a man, nor defending his reprehensible actions.

But when there are thousands of lives each is responsible for, “acting better” should take into account the repercussions of each’s actions, and the results on all those each is responsible for.

So when I’m comparing Tywin and Robb’s actions during the war, I feel compelled to look at not only if they followed an archaic code of honor, or that we are satisfied with the justice of their choices, but also in the results of their actions. This is a logic at least as old as Plato.

If we want to compare things like Robb’s oathbreaking his promise to Lord Frey, and falling upon Jaime unawares... to Tywin’s convincing Frey and Bolton to carry out the Red Wedding, we can. Or compare the rape and pillage of the River Lands to that of the Westerlands, we can. 

But Cat started the war unjustly, there isn’t really anything to equate to this.

Robb rebelled against his King, and crowned himself, this isn’t really debatable.

We could argue about the morals of these character’s decisions and try to measure them against one another. But morals and honor are very subjective and point of view matters.

Quote

 

"Ned Stark a traitor?" Ser Jorah snorted. "Not bloody likely. The Long Summer will come again before that one would besmirch his precious honor."

"What honor could he have?" Dany said. "He was a traitor to his true king, as were these Lannisters."

 

What I’m saying is that there is another side which should be important to the discussion. The results of their actions.

Jaime provides a perfect example in the text. His killing Aerys and earning the monicker “Kingslayer” was clearly not honorable. He broke his oath, stabbed an unarmed man in the back, and killed his king. But I don’t think it’s hard to argue that this was a good action. He saved thousands of lives by preventing the destruction of King’s Landing. The results matter.

So to reduce this question of comparing Robb and Tywin down to who better fit a subjective definition of honor is missing a huge part of what matters, the practical repercussions.

[Blackwater Revenant]

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

But Cat started the war unjustly, there isn’t really anything to equate to this.

I'm just going to re-post a portion of my previous reply to you, as you haven't responded to it and I see that you insist on stating this factually incorrect statement in all of your responses. 

Cat’s inprisonment of Tyrion not only literally started the war,

This is where I disagree with you in regards to Cat as well. Her abduction of Tyrion may be why Tywin reacted as he did, but he is the one to start the war, not her. He is accountable for how he handled the injustice of Tyrion's imprisonment, and is the one who sent armed forces to raid and burn the villages of another Liege Lord's territories, not Cat.

  Quote

She kidnaps Tyrion without cause or right

Also, she may not of had the right, but she did have cause, however misguided.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

45 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm just going to re-post a portion of my previous reply to you, as you haven't responded to it and I see that you insist on stating this factually incorrect statement in all of your responses. 

Cat’s inprisonment of Tyrion not only literally started the war,

This is where I disagree with you in regards to Cat as well. Her abduction of Tyrion may be why Tywin reacted as he did, but he is the one to start the war, not her. He is accountable for how he handled the injustice of Tyrion's imprisonment, and is the one who sent armed forces to raid and burn the villages of another Liege Lord's territories, not Cat.

  Quote

She kidnaps Tyrion without cause or right

Also, she may not of had the right, but she did have cause, however misguided.

I didn’t respond because it seems like quibbling... but to be clear:

Taking a lord’s son prisoner, without the authority to do so, let alone when he is innocent of the charges leveled against him, is an act of war.

I don’t really understand how this is even debatable. 

Rob uses Ned’s improsonment as his justification for war, and that is far more of a questionable rational.

[Lion of the West]

I think on a personal level Robb probably conduted the war better than Tywin. But we really don't know yet what's in:

Quote

Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn's Deep, and the Pendric Hills.

Before we get to the West and hear of the Norhmen's work there I think its to early to say yes or no if Robb is much better than Tywin. But we do know that Robb at least didn't have the Mountain in his ranks.

[Blackwater Revenant]

20 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I didn’t respond because it seems like quibbling... but to be clear:

And your insistence on blaming Cat for starting the war seems like someone with an irrational hatred of a character attempting to justify that hate.

Quote

Taking a lord’s son prisoner, without the authority to do so, let alone when he is innocent of the charges leveled against him, is an act of war.

She had a man apprehended whom she had cause to believe committed a heinous crime against her, with the intent on giving him a trial. That is not an act of war.

And as far as Tywin knows, she acted on the authority of Ned, the Hand of the King

If you feel it's fair to exonerate Tywin of his actions because of Cat's, you should have no problem exonerating her due to the actions of Jaimie and Littlefinger.

---

An interesting side note, Tywin did the exact same thing to Tyrion; accused and apprehended him for a crime he did not commit. The difference being, he knew Tyrion was innocent, and yet held a mock trial and sentenced his innocent son to death. Cat released her prisoner when his trial proved his innocence.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

35 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And your insistence on blaming Cat for starting the war seems like someone with an irrational hatred of a character attempting to justify that hate.

Admittedly, I think she is aweful... but I don’t think that is irrational. 

Quote

She had a man apprehended whom she had cause to believe committed a heinous crime against her, with the intent on giving him a trial. That is not an act of war.

Yes it is... I can’t believe this is even a question!

People can’t just go around trying kidnapping each other for perceived crimes. It would have been an act of war even if she was right, the fact that she did this to an innocent man only compounds the crime.

Quote

And as far as Tywin knows, she acted on the authority of Ned, the Hand of the King

What does this have to do with anything? If it’s even true...

And, Ned had resigned as Hand... and likely would have simply departed King’s Landing if Cat hadn’t abducted Jaime’s brother.

Quote

If you feel it's fair to exonerate Tywin of his actions because of Cat's, you should have no problem exonerating her due to the actions of Jaimie and Littlefinger.

I’m not exonerating anyone, please stop putting words in my mouth.

But, his actions were in response to the abduction of Tyrion... explicitly so.

And, in the context of a discussion about “just war”, it’s important to note who was the aggressor.

Quote

---

An interesting side note, Tywin did the exact same thing to Tyrion; accused and apprehended him for a crime he did not commit. The difference being, he knew Tyrion was innocent, and yet held a mock trial and sentenced his innocent son to death. Cat released her prisoner when his trial proved his innocence.

Yes, Tyrion is tried twice for two murders he didn’t commit and both times elects trial by combat.

Trial by combat is a travesty which shouldn’t merit being called a trial nor confused with justice.

But in both cases Cat and Tywin are in the wrong, and in both cases they pay with their lives.

[Universal Sword Donor]

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And your insistence on blaming Cat for starting the war seems like someone with an irrational hatred of a character attempting to justify that hate.

She had a man apprehended whom she had cause to believe committed a heinous crime against her, with the intent on giving him a trial. That is not an act of war.

And as far as Tywin knows, she acted on the authority of Ned, the Hand of the King

If you feel it's fair to exonerate Tywin of his actions because of Cat's, you should have no problem exonerating her due to the actions of Jaimie and Littlefinger.

---

An interesting side note, Tywin did the exact same thing to Tyrion; accused and apprehended him for a crime he did not commit. The difference being, he knew Tyrion was innocent, and yet held a mock trial and sentenced his innocent son to death. Cat released her prisoner when his trial proved his innocence.

Robert, ostensibly the sole arbiter of war declaration and law in the 7 kingdoms, called it an abduction. And either way, Tywin still ATTACKED THE WRONG PEOPLE

[LiveFirstDieLater]

5 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Robert, ostensibly the sole arbiter of war declaration and law in the 7 kingdoms, called it an abduction. And either way, Tywin still ATTACKED THE WRONG PEOPLE

You mean sending The Mountain into the Riverlands?

It was Riverlands soldiers who Cat cajouls into helping her abduct Tyrion.

But yes, the people who suffer from war are almost always not the ones responsible...