Did Robb act better than Tywin conducting the war?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes you have. Like, literaly the guy has shown he's not so much an idiot in regards to what happens in war that the mere thought of a large portion of his men are raping and murdering people when he sends them out on civilian targets

No I haven't. Furthermore your accusation that "a large portion" of his men are raping & murdering is unfounded. 

 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

, this has thoroughly been discussed in the thread already. In the westerlands Lady mormont was charged with seizing cattle(which people would need to make their living), Karstark and Glover to raid, and Greatjon would seize the gold mines. Civilian populated targets. Like Bernie Mack has pointed out we don't have pov charachter in the Westerlands just to see how badly the Northmen are acting but we really don't need to-their conduct in the Riverland make abundantly clear the smallfolk were brutalized as much by the wolves, as they were the Lanister's goons; and the river landers were their allies. One needn't expect them to act any better once they're set on to attack their actual enemies.

If you don't want to discuss because it's already been discussed that's fine. What has been stated is not the equivalent of what Tywin sent Gregor & Co to do by any stretch of the imagination. 

Maybe you don't need a Westerland POV to come to that conclusion but I need more than what we have been given to come to the same conclusion. 

To be clear I'm not debating that the northern army possibly participated in some raping & pillaging. It has probably happened. But seizing cattle to return to the people who have been ravaged & starved & seizing the gold mines of the person who commanded these war crimes be committed is not raping nor is it equal to stealing everything that can be stolen & burning what is left. 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

it simply isn't. The next warden of the North hell just about any noble with a competent Maestor when learning history will cover the IB detail on the IB and their ways. They'd been literaly terrorizing the north for centuries and Robb as the future Warden would be expected to learn as much about how they wage war and their culture as he can. The only way your tale works if Robb is an idiot. He'd completely be buzzed off when Luwin or Nan was teaching  him of the IB. Like, you say you don't think lowly of his intelligence yet remark upon it's likely he'd lack basic knowledge of one of his people's greatest enemies. 

To question what a person has or has not been taught when we have no definite answer does not mean I'm questioning his intelligence or that I think he is stupid. 

 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I say he had malicious intent? No. I said he bears at least some responsibility for the bad things Theon had done after he was sent to pyke

I didn't say you said it. It's the point I'm trying to prove; Robb IMO did not operate with malicious intent. I know what you said & said I disagree. 

 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again discussed in this thread plenty enough. As Bernie Mack pointed out there'd been established contact through Ravens between Harenthal while under control by the Roose. There is zero reason for Robb not to know how exactly Roose took Harenthal.

And again if you don't want to discuss it any further because it has already been discussed don't. But pick one or the other. Don't tell me this or that has already been discussed in what I assume to be an effort to tell me it shouldn't be discussed further or that all that can be said about it has been & then continue to discuss it. 

That reasoning is absurd. Here the thing is we don't have to assume Tywin had knowledge we are not sure he did or conjure up a way he could have or should have known because Tywin commanded these things be done. We don't know what Robb knew & what he didn't no matter how likely you think it is he knew. He may have, he may not have. We will probably never know because George went to great lengths to write (among many others) two very different characters in Robb & Tywin. To argue these very different people with very different mindsets & priorities & morals conducted themselves in the same or very similar manner is nonsense. 

Robb made mistakes, Tywin won the war. Robb conducted himself & his army in a more honorable fashion than Tywin IMO. You obviously disagree which is ok. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No I haven't. Furthermore your accusation that "a large portion" of his men are raping & murdering is unfounded. 

No it isn't. You cannot unleash thousands of liege rate feudal men upon civilian populace with having given them the objective to steal and destroy with the expectation rape and murder being isolated incidents.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If you don't want to discuss because it's already been discussed that's fine. What has been stated is not the equivalent of what Tywin sent Gregor & Co to do by any stretch of the imagination

Ok  you asked What horde of illiterate feudal men has he Unleashed on civilians?

  If the answer had been given a thread and discussed thouroughly it's annoying to have restate it again.  And while they're raiding and pillaging they're (the north's soldiers), are going to act much the same way(if not worse)  they did in the Riverlands; which was just as bad as the lions. 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe you don't need a Westerland POV to come to that conclusion but I need more than what we have been given to come to the same conclusion. 

Yes, I don't need a pov charachter to think the egregious behavior the many of north's army displayed in the Riverlands wouldn't suddenly become uncommon once they're moved to enemy territory.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To be clear I'm not debating that the northern army possibly participated in some raping & pillaging. It has probably happened. But seizing cattle to return to the people who have been ravaged & starved

Ok yes they certianly did happen.  And stealing the livestock of westerlands's smallfolk(they need that to make their living and eat), wouldn't go down bloodlessly and many soldiers tasked to retrieve the livestock would take partake in the same liberties with the peasantry as they had done so in the Riverlands. Where exactly are you getting this was even done to give food back the smallfolk in the Riverlands? Like, if anything wouldn't it be used to you know feed the army?

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

& seizing the gold mines of the person who commanded these war crimes be committed is not raping nor is it equal to stealing everything that can be stolen & burning what is left. 

I didn't say it was. You didn't address the out and out raids by Karstark and Glover.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I didn't say you said it. It's the point I'm trying to prove; Robb IMO did not operate with malicious intent. I know what you said & said I disagr

There's no point to prove because I didn't say anything that runs the opposite of that. 

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To question what a person has or has not been taught when we have no definite answer does not mean I'm questioning his intelligence or that I think he is stupid. 

You clearly do. Like, this is basic history  that he as the next warden of the north would have to be taught because again the IB have been terrorizing the north for centuries. Like seriously there does not need to be a flashback of Maestor going over how the IB been plaguing the north for generations for us to know Robb would have to have been taught these  things due to his setting and position. If he doesn't he is an idiot. You could not get get more insulting to a person's intelligence if you'd asked them if they knew how to tie their own shoes. 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

And again if you don't want to discuss it any further because it has already been discussed don't. But pick one or the other. Don't tell me this or that has already been discussed in what I assume to be an effort to tell me it shouldn't be discussed further or that all that can be said about it has been & then continue to discuss it. 

I didn't chastize you for offering your thoughts on the subject; I answered your question and pointed out someone had already done so much earlier in the thread.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That reasoning is absurd. Here the thing is we don't have to assume Tywin had knowledge we are not sure he did or conjure up a way he could have or should have known because Tywin commanded these things be done. We don't know what Robb knew & what he didn't no matter how likely you think it is he knew. He may have, he may not have. We will probably never know because George went to great lengths to write (among many others) two very different characters in Robb & Tywin.

You're arguing that since we've haven't seen(mostly we've not the privellage of a Roose Bolton pov) Roose writing a raven detailing how he took Harenthal we can't say he did. Robb is leading the war effort. How the hell Roose was able to squire Harenthal would demand an explanation and Roose would give the answer. We don't need a Arya Stark to go all the way to the westerlands just say the Northmen are acting the same(probably worse), way they did in the Riverlands. We don't need an entire flash dedicated to Robb being taught of one of his realm's greatest enemies and their barbaric ways to know as the next warden of the north he'd have to know these things. 

You've shown you've little interest in continuing this conversation.  If so I very much feel the same way.  Let's discontinue this conversation else each starts to get repetibd. I give credit for trying(y) in trying to be polite in this conversation.

[Impbread]

Stannis' men did not rape many wildlings after they won because they knew their king would not accept it. So you could therefore assume that Robb's men may have in fact acted better then Tywins

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 6:14 PM, Trigger Warning said:

I really don't see any reason why we should assume that Robb's soldiers would act in any way better than basically any other group of soldiers in history have when unleashed against a civilian populace. 

"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"

They're raiding and stealing livestock, it pretty much goes without saying that they're also burning, raping and murdering, it would be weird and entirely out of the norm if they weren't. Tywin just takes it further by centring his campaign around chevouchee. 

Robb's men would probably be up in arms against Robb himself if he refused them plunder whilst attacking the infrastructure of the West.

Stannis' men did not rape many wildlings after they won because they knew their king would not accept it. So you could therefore assume that Robb's men may have in fact acted better then Tywins

[The Sunland Lord]

We read here and there that "the Wolves" burned or sacked this sept, for example, but then again every northmen who were present in the Riverlands were classified as "Wolves". 

So we don't have a textual evidence that Robb himself ordered burning or raping, but we have so for Tywin. I don't know why is this even a question. Tywin was involved in the Red Wedding. Does anyone takes this into consideration? To compare these two in some moral aspect is idiotic to say the least. 

[Myrish Lace]

On 12/29/2017 at 5:41 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

but did wage it more ethically than Tywin in your mind.

He did in terms of trying to adhere to the laws of war (although with his Dad and sister imprisoned, he was heavily incentivized to do so). But concerning how Northmen behaved themselves in the field, I doubt a random peasant would see much difference between the two:

He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. 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. Ser Wendel laughed. "Nothing's more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold."

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It's called A Song of Ice and Fire. You should give it a read sometime, I highly recommend it.

What lies are these? In the story I read, she gave him a trial, and when he was found innocent, she had him released.

Tyrion didn’t plot to murder her son.

She has neither the consent nor authority to make arrests in Robert’s name. 

She doesn’t have the soldiers she’s enlisted the help of bring Tyrion to Winterfell.

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Who's this everyone? What are you even talking about?

Varys explains it pretty clearly to Illyrio when he’s overheard by Arya. 

Even Yoren understands, that’s why he rode hard to tell Ned.

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

No, you seem to want to talk about some definition you are making up in order to support your little witch hunt here.

Do tell me, where did you get the definition that you provided from? You know, the one that discredited your argument. Was that a quote from the novels?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/act-of-war

But just as an example, how about Helen of Troy... it’s only the classic example of an act of war, abduction.

Is it the real reason Agamemnon goes to war, of course not. I’m not saying Tywin doesn’t have alterior motives. But abduction is still an act of war.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But seizing cattle to return to the people who have been ravaged & starved

I'm sorry just one last thing where you getting that that was the reason they'd seized cattle? 

[Nowy Tends]

26 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

But just as an example, how about Helen of Troy... it’s only the classic example of an act of war, abduction.

Is it the real reason Agamemnon goes to war, of course not. I’m not saying Tywin doesn’t have alterior motives. But abduction is still an act of war.

You're comparing Helen of Troy, daughter of a King of Sparta, wife of a King of Sparta, with Tyrion the Imp, a nobody who has zero politic importance (at this moment) ????

and you're making a confusion between "Act of war" and "casus belli". And again in my opinion Tyrion's abduction is not necessarily a casus belli…

[LiveFirstDieLater]

29 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

You're comparing Helen of Troy, daughter of a King of Sparta, wife of a King of Sparta, with Tyrion the Imp, a nobody who has zero politic importance (at this moment) ????

Yes?

Tyrion is brother-in-law to the king... as Helen was sister in law to Agamemnon.

Why is it different from Helen? Because he’s a dwarf not a beautiful woman?

Quote

and you're making a confusion between "Act of war" and "casus belli". And again in my opinion Tyrion's abduction is not necessarily a casus belli…

In this case, the abduction of Tyrion was an act of war, which one could argue was casus beli for Tywin wage war.

But wether a war is just or not is something that’s almost always debatable. So “just cause” is subjective, but abduction by force of a ruler’s family member seems to fit that too.

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Yes?

Tyrion is brother-in-law to the king... as Helen was sister in law to Agamemnon.

Why is it different from Helen? Because he’s a dwarf not a beautiful woman?

In this case, the abduction of Tyrion was an act of war, which one could argue was casus beli for Tywin wage war.

But wether a war is just or not is something that’s almost always debatable. So “just cause” is subjective, but abduction by force of a ruler’s family member seems to fit that too.

Lords are not free to declare war on each other in Westeros. Ergo it cannot be an act of war unless the king wills it. The king calls it an abduction and doesn't declare war on the RL. In fact the man he left in his stead more or less declared on Tywin unless he showed up to court. That once again reinforces that the crown can unilaterally declare war but the vassals cannot.

Seizing Tyrion is a cassus belli as is raiding the Riverlands unprovoked, but it is not an act of war because Tywin lacks the authority to do so and it  was justified under the king's authority.

“In the name of King Robert and the good lords you serve, I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the king’s justice.”

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

26 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Lords are not free to declare war on each other in Westeros.

But they do, frequently...

Quote

Ergo it cannot be an act of war unless the king wills it.

That is ridiculous... you can say it’s not a just war, or that’s it’s a civil war... but it’s still a war.

Quote

The king calls it an abduction and doesn't declare war on the RL. In fact the man he left in his stead more or less declared on Tywin unless he showed up to court. That once again reinforces that the crown can unilaterally declare war but the vassals cannot.

Again you can debate the justice or righteousness of it... but war is war, and it doesn’t take some special dispensation. Just two sides willing to fight. 

Quote

Seizing Tyrion is a cassus belli as is raiding the Riverlands unprovoked, but it is not an act of war because Tywin lacks the authority to do so and it  was justified under the king's authority.

Again you can say it’s unjust, but to claim wars require some special authority is ignoring reality. 

Also, if abducting Tyrion is cassus beli then raiding the riverlands isn’t unprovoked, by definition. It might be disproportionate, or dishonorable, but it was provoked.

Quote

“In the name of King Robert and the good lords you serve, I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the king’s justice.”

 

She had no right nor legitimacy to arrest anyone in Robert’s name... nor does she take him to Winterfell to wait on the king’s justice. These are lies used to coerce soldiers into using force against a man innocent of the crime he’s being accused of.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm sorry just one last thing where you getting that that was the reason they'd seized cattle? 

I'm sorry but are you serious? You are snide & condescending every time I attempt to conversate with you & in your last post told me you were done discussing things with me. Do you seriously expect me to answer or reply to these questions? I think not. It seems as if it would be better if you & I did not discuss anything any further. Good day to you sir. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Tyrion didn’t plot to murder her son.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. Nobody has denied this, and it's irrelevant. Cat had cause to believe he did, and it's not like she took him out back of the Crossroads and had him hanged. Tyrion was given a trial to determine his innocence or guilt.

Quote

She has neither the consent nor authority to make arrests in Robert’s name. 

The soldiers she's enlisted the assistance of would seem to be in disagreement with you.

And again, as far as Tywin knows, she did have the consent of someone with the authority to make such an arrest.

Quote

She doesn’t have the soldiers she’s enlisted the help of bring Tyrion to Winterfell.

So? I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote

Varys explains it pretty clearly to Illyrio when he’s overheard by Arya. 

Explains what? 

Quote

Even Yoren understands, that’s why he rode hard to tell Ned.

Understands what? That Tywin would not be happy that his son was apprehended, and would react in an aggressive and disproportionate manner to this news?

Quote

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/act-of-war

But just as an example, how about Helen of Troy... it’s only the classic example of an act of war, abduction.

Is it the real reason Agamemnon goes to war, of course not. I’m not saying Tywin doesn’t have alterior motives. But abduction is still an act of war.

This is an equivalency fallacy. Was Helen apprehended under suspicions of attempted murder for the purpose of giving her a trial?

[LiveFirstDieLater]

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. Nobody has denied this, and it's irrelevant. Cat had cause to believe he did, and it's not like she took him out back of the Crossroads and had him hanged. Tyrion was given a trial to determine his innocence or guilt.

I think abducting someone for something they didn’t do is wrong. Maybe more importantly, people shouldn’t just run around abducting people from crossroads and trying them for whatever crimes they feel like. 

Quote

The soldiers she's enlisted the assistance of would seem to be in disagreement with you.

Not sure about that, they side with Cat, but she put them in tough spot and forced them to make a choice, appealing to their lords loyalty to her dad.

Quote

And again, as far as Tywin knows, she did have the consent of someone with the authority to make such an arrest.

What? Why would anyone think this?

Quote

So? I'm not sure what your point is.

Explains what? 

Understands what? That Tywin would not be happy that his son was apprehended, and would react in an aggressive and disproportionate manner to this news?

The point is that it’s no surprise that abducting Tywin’s son is going to start a war.

Quote

This is an equivalency fallacy. Was Helen apprehended under suspicions of attempted murder for the purpose of giving her a trial?

No, it’s an example of how abduction can be an act of war... because somehow that’s being disputed. I didn’t draw any conclusions from false equivalency... just provided you with an example, the act of war which sparked the most famous classical war of western civilization.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Ok  Lyanna won't answer(I can't really say I'm surprised nor blame her all that much), but still if anyone can point to anything that support what she said regarding the Northmen being tasked to steal cattle to feed the river landers,please provide it. If there is I will need to give credit to Robb for his humanitarian effort.  

If someone looks it (as I will try), and find nothing, I hope you don't put skeptism on the claim. 

I genuily puzzling the depths people are going to try to absolve Robb of any of the ill things the North's army had done in the war or sanitize the north in general.

[Blackwater Revenant]

44 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm sorry but are you serious? You are snide & condescending every time I attempt to conversate with you & in your last post told me you were done discussing things with me. Do you seriously expect me to answer or reply to these questions? I think not. It seems as if it would be better if you & I did not discuss anything any further. Good day to you sir. 

You put up a honorable and valiant effort. I commend you on your patience and civility dealing with this poster.   

[Blackwater Revenant]

53 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I think abducting someone for something they didn’t do is wrong.

Agreed.

Quote

Maybe more importantly, people shouldn’t just run around abducting people from crossroads and trying them for whatever crimes they feel like. 

Agreed as well. Of course, that is not what happened in the case we are discussing, so it's a moot point.

Quote

Not sure about that, they side with Cat, but she put them in tough spot and forced them to make a choice, appealing to their lords loyalty to her dad.

So? Do you think they would have complied with her request if she asked them to do something they felt was unreasonable. Why didn't they defend Tyrion due to their loyalty to their King? They made their choice to side with Cat; obviously they felt she was within her rights to apprehend a man suspected of committing a crime against her.

Quote

What? Why would anyone think this?

Because Ned took responsibility for her actions, and says exactly that.

Quote

The point is that it’s no surprise that abducting Tywin’s son is going to start a war.

Maybe not, but that is on Tywin. He is the one who choose to start a war over the situation, when there were far more reasonable and viable courses of action in which to settle his grievances by.

Quote

No, it’s an example of how abduction can be an act of war... because somehow that’s being disputed. I didn’t draw any conclusions from false equivalency... just provided you with an example, the act of war which sparked the most famous classical war of western civilization.

Cat didn't abduct Tyrion, as Helen was. She had him apprehended in the name of the King as a suspected criminal with the intent to have him tried for his crimes.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

38 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Agreed.

Agreed as well. Of course, that is not what happened in the case we are discussing, so it's a moot point.

Of course it is... the whole point of laws and justice is to prevent people from taking venegence on one another for perceived wrongs.

Cat broke the king’s peace.

Quote

So?

Just because you think someone has wronged you doesn’t mean you can abduct them and hold a trial. 

Catlyn didn’t have the authority to kidnap a traveler on the Kingsroad.

Quote

Do you think they would have complied with her request if she asked them to do something they felt was unreasonable.

Maybe, how would I know? Peasants do unreasonable things for highborn lords and ladies all the time.

Quote

Why didn't they defend Tyrion due to their loyalty to their King?

Their loyalty to their lords, who answer to Lord Tully.

Quote

They made their choice to side with Cat; obviously they felt she was within her rights to apprehend a man suspected of committing a crime against her.

Or they didn’t want to piss off Lord Tully’s daughter...

Quote

Because Ned take responsibility for her actions, and says exactly that.

After news got out and plans were put into motion and Robert clearly doesn’t approve.

Quote

Maybe not, but that is on Tywin. He is the one who choose to start a war over the situation, when there were far more reasonable and viable courses of action in which to settle his grievances by.

There were far more reasonable things to do than abduct a dwarf from an inn and starting a war.

Quote

Cat didn't abduct Tyrion. She had him apprehended in the name of the King as a suspected criminal with the intent to have him tried for his crimes.

She did, Robert even says so explicitly:

Quote

 

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp—" 

"I said, I will not have it! To hell with her reasons.

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Of course it is... the whole point of laws and justice is to prevent people from taking venegence on one another for perceived wrongs.

No, that's not what happened. Cat wasn't just running around and abducting people for whatever crimes she felt like.

She had reasonable cause to believe Tyrion was guilty, and tried to avoid him initially. It has already been explained to you earlier in the thread as to the situation Tyrion noticing her had put her in. You are just ignoring the situation and context in order to make Cat's actions seem more egregious than they were.

Quote

Cat broke the king’s peace

No, that's what Tywin did. The Riverlands were still in peace when she left and was headed to the Vale. The King's peace was broken when Tywin sent armed thugs to set ablaze the countryside.

Quote

Just because you think someone has wronged you doesn’t mean you can abduct them and hold a trial. 

Catlyn didn’t have the authority to kidnap a traveler on the Kingsroad.

Either way, I'm not attempting to assert that her actions were warranted or right. However, what she did was not an act of war, and did not justified the resulting response from Tywin, which was an act of war.

Quote

After news got out and plans were put into motion

No, Tywin's attacks on the Riverlands were after Robert confronted Ned in regards to what happened.

Even if not, Tywin decided to send armed forces into the field to attack innocent folks of another Liege Lord's territories - who had no involvement with Cat's apprehension of Tyrion - without knowing the situation, or pursuing a more reasonable, appropriate, and diplomatic means. Instead he decided to start a war, just because of a perceived slight to himself.

Quote

There were far more reasonable things to do than abduct a dwarf from an inn 

Agreed.

Quote

She did, Robert even says so explicitly:

No she didn't. Robert doesn't know what happened and is just repeating Cercei's accusations. The quote you provided even confirms that Robert didn't care what happened. He was being negligent of his duties and refusing to deal with the matter in a fair and impartial manner.

We as the reader, all except you apparently, know what actually happened.

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Or they didn’t want to piss off Lord Tully’s daughter...

And curry favor with their own families.

I have to say though other posters here really have brought up some valid points; Tywin could have brought this issue up to Robert to resolve and quite possibly gotten Tyrion back that way. Robb Stark did not try to go to KL beseech the IT to release Ned but, it's worth noting the risks involved would be entirely diffrent for each: For all he knew IT may imprison Robb much the same way they imprisoned his father his father gave instruction to prepare for war and that's exactly what Robb did.. Tywin would not have any chance of being imprisoned by Robert. But, even if Tyrion was released I wager Tywin feared Robert would show undue leincy to Ned for his wife's kidnapping of his son. This isn't to say he was justified but there was reason for cruelty He did however attack who he saw as responsible; house Tully through their subjects and land.