Varysblackfyre321

Did Robb act better than Tywin conducting the war?

214 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

You know, I can't help but notice that everytime someone uses the old 'Catelyn started the war' argument they tend to forget the part where Cat tries to avoid any and all interaction with Tyrion at the Inn. She only acts once he recognizes her and even then only because of the risk he poses to her husband and daughters safety.

So Tyrion started it for recognising a woman he was on cordial terms with only few months earlier? Really? Tyrion forced Cat to arrest him?

I disagree with the idea that Cat started the war, many people were responsible, I don't think anyone was truly to blame, but this is a pretty sloppy argument to make. Cat had a choice, she chose wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

So Tyrion started it for recognising a woman he was on cordial terms with only few months earlier? Really? Tyrion forced Cat to arrest him?

I disagree with the idea that Cat started the war, many people were responsible, I don't think anyone was truly to blame, but this is a pretty sloppy argument to make. Cat had a choice, she chose wrong. 

I didn't say Tyrion was at fault. Arresting him is still on Cat. My point is people seem to like the argument that Cat came across Tyrion at the Inn and instantly chose to arrest him when in fact she tried to hide her identity and only acted when recognized. Still her call, still her fault but not a hasty, emotional decision. As far as she could see, she didn't really have another choice. If Tyrion returned to King's Landing and reported that he'd crossed paths with an incognito Catelyn Stark at the Inn at the Crossroads what do you think would happen? Cersei's instantly going to suspect something's up and move her plans forward. Everything happens the same except just quicker. Cat fears for her family and tries to prevent it from happening.

Also, people like to blame her for the war starting. Not really true. Her abduction of Tyrion caused Tywin to send raiders into the Riverlands. But it was Ned Stark's arrest that started the war and he was arrested for opposing Joffrey. It would have happened either way.

Did she make the right call? No. I'm not saying she is. But I am saying that she did not start the war so we seem to be in agreement on that. Perhaps I worded my previous post badly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Adam Yozza

I agree with your take on this matter, it's just another case of people having irrational hatred of characters, and twisting the text in a sad attempt to justify that hatred. This thread is ample evidence of such.

52 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Her abduction of Tyrion caused Tywin to send raiders into the Riverlands.

Interesting fact here. Tywin is sending men to raid the Riverlands, not as a tactic to draw out an opposing army, but to cause senseless destruction in order to display his strength and fury in response to a perceived slight to himself.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. That's sort of what makes his death tragic. Robb had promise. The Starks that we've come to know tend to use honor and benevolence to motivate their people. Which is much more difficult than the likes of Ramsey and Bolton, Tywin etc who use fear and intimidation.

I hear a lot of people boast of Tywin's ability to end a war. And I ask myself, are we reading the same book? Because from where I'm sat the war looks far from over. The Lannister's are spent and they are almost without any allies. Stannis lives. Remember him? He's the bloke Tywin told us would be the most dangerous. There are TWO targaryens on the way both of whom will be more than aware of the details of the Lannister's involvement in the cous. I would argue that Tywin is responsible for so much animosity and hate that his methods really need to be called out for what they are. Callous and abhorrent. 

The problem with the aforementioned lunatics is that they do not win peoples loyalty with their tactics. It's only temporary at best. There are men and women in the Riverlands who will tell tales of the evil Westermen and their rapings. The tale of the RW will be made a song and the entire family of Freys will be forever damned. Plus, consider the motives of those who only did what they did due to Tywin's pressure. With him gone, there's little and less reason to stay true to any vow they swore. 

You have to ask, who's kingdom would be better. Tywins or Robb's? Both have the audacity to end up dead despite all the trouble they started. But I believe only one ever wanted peace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

o's kingdom would be better. Tywins or Robb's? Both have the audacity to end up dead despite all the trouble they started. But I believe only one ever wanted peace. 

Tywin sure did-kidding sorta lol. I don't think either Robb or Tywin relished fighting this war(especially Robb who was terrified all the time but could really put on a brave face), but I'm they'd each enjoy a peace-a peace where the other side yielded first sure but peace. 

Remember the years under  Tywin'shandship brought prosperity under the realm and it wasn't due to him using fear and intimidation-it was him carefully branching out political alliances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

re are men and women in the Riverlands who will tell tales of the evil Westermen and their rapings.

And of the wicked Northmen and their rapings.

 

32 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

. Plus, consider the motives of those who only did what they did due to Tywin's pressure. With him gone, there's little and less reason to stay true to any vow they swore. 

Depends on the vow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And of the wicked Northmen and their rapings.

The northmen who are raping in the riverlands are either Karstark men let loose by their lord when he turned traitor against Robb, or broken men after the red wedding. Neither one is something Robb would have sanctioned, not least because Riverland peasants were his own peasants and it was against his own interests that they were harried.

 

In the west harrying of the peasants was in Robb's interests. We know cattle were seized and fields burnt because Cat was told as much when she returned to Riverrun. There is always some level of unauthorised looting and rape in war but Blackfish was in charge of outriders and I consider him competent enough that not much was done without his permission (just as there were rapes at Maidenpool under Tarly but not many as he punished them harshly). But there are no claims, either from the northern army that was there or angry westerlander lords, that there was widespread raping of peasants or looting of septs, so we must presume Robb did not authorise it of the army under his command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Still her call, still her fault but not a hasty, emotional decision.

Those two sentences don't really contradict one another. Cat made a hasty decision ---when she just could have walked away--- and prompted the war. The climate was already tense and a single spark could have turned on the poop storm and Cat actually did turned it on  based on a emotional, hasty decision, albeit supported by "evidence" (Bran's murder weapon). Cat did chose wrong, and she also made a rushed move.

Edited by King Merrett I Frey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And of the wicked Northmen and their rapings.

True enough, such is war. However I do not believe Robb and his Northmen were as synonymous with raping and pillaging to the extent that the Mountain and other outlaws - who were clearly Tywins trusted men - were. So I do not believe the singers will sing songs of rapey northmen when the Mountain has earned a greater reputation for it. He essentially confessed his crimes against the Dornish princess and her children already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that Tywin sanctions it knowingly without directly ordering too when the Mountain is told to take his men and cut loose on the Riverlands. Robb would punish such violations as rape. The Boltons probably do not care and the Karstarks, who knows. The Freys are also nasty when there are rumors about Black Walder and his own female kin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-12-30 at 7:33 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He orders his men to burn everything in their attacks on the riverlands, hell not even take anything just burn it. Which is why the villagers and Ned suspected they weren't the typical raiders  I don't remember using the word rape in any of his orders to the Moutain. Can be wrong if so, someone please correct me.

I find it curious that you would make this comment when you are making an argument (which to me appears quite disingenuous) claiming that the ravishing of the Riverlands ordered by Tywin is no different than the typical pillaging you would expect to see in times of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I find it curious that you would make this comment when you are making an argument (which to me appears quite disingenuous) claiming that the ravishing of the Riverlands ordered by Tywin is no different than the typical pillaging you would expect to see in times of war.

Before I respond to that can you please try to justify the north secession movement taking on the BC? Do you still claim it was for some greater good? You failed to actually address that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Before I respond to that can you please try to justify the north secession movement taking on the BC? Do you still claim it was for some greater good? You failed to actually address that.

First off, I never claimed it was for the greater good. I don't know where you are getting that from.

And no, of course I cannot justify the hiring of men as such. It's a horrible injustice that they are not all in shackles or with their heads on a spike. What Robb is doing is horrible too. He is waging war - a violent means which causes the senseless deaths and suffering of thousands of innocent people - in order to settle a dispute or grudge.

So is the way of Westeros and a feudal society. I cannot judge a man as ethically immoral for committing acts that I deem unethical, which are the societal norms to him.

Robb, though not even directly himself, took on men who were opposing his cause, and used them to fight his enemy. You even said it yourself, they were task with eliminating any Lannister support. What has been done here - by Roose, might I point out, not Robb - is not considered to be an unethical means to an end in the society that Robb lives in. 

What Tywin, himself personally did was go out and find a specific company of men, know for their excessively brutal and unethical ways, and hired them for the specific task of terrorizing the commoners. And as I pointed out in my previous post, he initially did this as a means to display his strength and fury in response to a perceived slight to himself, not even as a military strategy.

This is not deemed a socially acceptable or ethical act in the society he lives in.

If you cannot differentiate between the two, I'm not sure, other than to troll, why you would even start this thread. If you feel that all acts committed during all wars by all men are equally unethical, despite motivation, circumstance, or context, then you've already made up your mind that not only are Robb and Tywin on the same despicable ethical level, but every single Lord or King in the history of Westeros is as well.

 

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

First off, I never claimed it was for the greater good. I don't know where you are getting that from

I get that from you saying it was better to have these men on his side than against his side. As if either hiring them or letting them go were the only options and taking them on the Northern secesion movement's payroll was some necessary act that Robb was pretty much forced to accept.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And no, of course I cannot justify the hiring of men as such. It's a horrible injustice that they are not all in shackles or with their heads on a spike. What Robb is doing is horrible too. He is waging war - a violent means which causes the senseless deaths and suffering of thousands of innocent people - in order to settle a dispute or grudge.

Glad we agree!

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So is the way of Westeros and a feudal society. I cannot judge a man as ethically immoral for committing acts that I deem unethical, which are the societal norms to him.

Fair

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Robb, though not even directly himself, took on men who were opposing his cause, and used them to fight his enemy. You even said it yourself, they were task with eliminating any Lannister support. What has been done here - by Roose, might I point out, not Robb - is not considered to be an unethical means to an end in the society that Robb lives in. 

What Tywin, himself personally did was go out and find a specific company of men, know for their excessively brutal and unethical ways, and hired them for the specific task of terrorizing the commoners. And as I pointed out in my previous post, he initially did this as a means to display his strength and fury in response to a perceived slight to himself, not even as a military strategy.

First, glad you conceded the fact you were mistaken on the BC's mission when working under Robb and that they were not as you said just looking for Jamie. Second,neither of these actions are really considered unethical in their society-doesn't make it right mind you but  reaping as much damage  on your enemies servents(smallfolk), really is something uncommon during a warYou keep pointing Robb not personally hiring these men as though it has any relevance-the North secession movement when Roose hired them. Roose I might add who Robb has been terrified of since the day he's met. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Robb, though not even directly himself, took on men who were opposing his cause, and used them to fight his enemy. You even said it yourself, they were task with eliminating any Lannister support. What has been done here - by Roose, might I point out, not Robb - is not considered to be an unethical means to an end in the society that Robb lives in. 

 

Yeah, they're still raping and pillaging and murdering the  commoners in the Riverland it's just that their doing it while getting paid by the  north. This is the consequence of keeping alive and using them.

And again these men committed a litany of crimes against Robb's subjects that you say were far more barbaric given the context of Westeroes. 

Still, hiring them on is not unethical given his context.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What Tywin, himself personally did was go out and find a specific company of men, know for their excessively brutal and unethical ways, and hired them for the specific task of terrorizing the commoners.

Robb's man hired these men who've a clear of terrorizing his people and are certianly not going to seize their crimes under creepy Roose. They were a means to an end. And, no hiring mercenaries in a feudal society to go out and forage wasn't unheard of or considered even that unethical given the context 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

If you cannot differentiate between the two, I'm not sure, other than to troll, why you would even start this thread. If you feel that all acts committed during all wars by all men, are equally unethical, despite motivation, circumstance, or context then you've already made up your mind that not only are Robb and Tywin on the same despicable ethical level, but every single Lord or King in the history of Westeros is as well.

And there it is. The instant victory move in any internet debate-call the opposition a troll especially if they're expressing an opinion that doesn't line up with a majority.

Alright  if you disagree with my opinion, ok I don't expect everyone to share my views but it's blantantly disgusting to insinuate they aren't really genuine because they don't line up with yours. 

Not all acts are as immoral given their context. Not all lords are on the ethical plane as Robb or Tywin. Didnt insinuate so. But I did argue each primarely acted in the purview of what is acceptable in a feudal society-the standard is pretty low were most of the ethics concern how exactly to treat nobility, the commoners eh fuck em. 

I can diffrenciate the two actions Tywin and Robb committed but I don't particularly one as way better when compared.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Before I respond to that can you please try to justify the north secession movement taking on the BC? Do you still claim it was for some greater good? You failed to actually address that.

How about you address my initial post? In the meantime I must step away for a while, but will address your last post and your concerns over being accused of being disingenuous when I get the chance.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

The one quote something you already responded to yesterday and now have added new thoughts on it? What can you say? It's burning stuff. Not unheard in raids such as these, the only thing really having been unique is that they didn't fancy stealing some stuff. It's suspicious sure but that's the entire point. Getting Ned to come out. It's not that hard to figure out the 8 foot tall giant would be Gregore. It was bait As well as show house Laninster is still a force to be feared.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 4:00 PM, Blackwater Revenant said:

@Adam Yozza

Interesting fact here. Tywin is sending men to raid the Riverlands, not as a tactic to draw out an opposing army, but to cause senseless destruction in order to display his strength and fury in response to a perceived slight to himself.

Are you talking about Tywin sending Vargo, Gregor, and Lorch?

 
Quote

 

On 1/1/2018 at 3:09 PM, Adam Yozza said:

Her abduction of Tyrion caused Tywin to send raiders into the Riverlands.

 

Because your quote is in response to this, and we know the entire reason for sending Gregor to pillage the Riverlands was to provoke Ned into coming out and being captured:

Lord Tywin sent his Mountain across the Red Fork with fire and sword, hoping to draw your lord father. He planned for Lord Eddard to come west himself to deal with Gregor Clegane. If he had he would have been killed, or taken prisoner and traded for the Imp, who was your lady mother's captive at the time. Only the Kingslayer never knew Lord Tywin's plan, and when he heard about his brother's capture he attacked your father in the streets of King's Landing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2018-1-2 at 6:11 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

The one quote something you already responded to yesterday and now have added new thoughts on it? What can you say? It's burning stuff. Not unheard in raids such as these, the only thing really having been unique is that they didn't fancy stealing some stuff. It's suspicious sure but that's the entire point. Getting Ned to come out. It's not that hard to figure out the 8 foot tall giant would be Gregore. It was bait As well as show house Laninster is still a force to be feared.

 

On 2018-1-2 at 6:11 PM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Are you talking about Tywin sending Vargo, Gregor, and Lorch?

 

Because your quote is in response to this, and we know the entire reason for sending Gregor to pillage the Riverlands was to provoke Ned into coming out and being captured:

Lord Tywin sent his Mountain across the Red Fork with fire and sword, hoping to draw your lord father. He planned for Lord Eddard to come west himself to deal with Gregor Clegane. If he had he would have been killed, or taken prisoner and traded for the Imp, who was your lady mother's captive at the time. Only the Kingslayer never knew Lord Tywin's plan, and when he heard about his brother's capture he attacked your father in the streets of King's Landing."

One last thing before I run. Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of Tywin's defence? 

This is not chevauchee, a strategic war tactic used to weaken or draw out an opposing army. This is deliberately committing a vile and large scale crime, in order to draw the Hand of the King out into a vulnerable position wherein he is enforcing and upholding the King's justice, with the intent to assassinate him. Ned is one man with a small detail of household guards, residing in King's Landing, preforming his duties.

What Tywin did is an unacceptable, unethical, and treasonous act.

Edited by Blackwater Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

One last thing before I run. Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of Tywin's defence? 

This is not chevauchee, a strategic war tactic used to weaken or draw out an opposing army. This is deliberately commiting a vile and large scale crime, in order to draw the Hand of the King out into a vulnerable position wherein he is enforcing and upholding the King's justice, in order to assassinate him. Ned is one man with a small detail of household guards, residing in King's Landing, preforming his duties.

What Tywin did is an unacceptable, unethical, and treasonous act.

hashtag is that a serious question?

I've read the books. Tywin is a great character. This thread is less a debate and more plain exhibit. 

Tywin was ruthless, brutal, legally wrong, practically smart.

Robb was better, lesser, and never the star QB we wanted him to be :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's setting a bar incredibly low, for pretty much everyone ever acted better than Tywin conducting a war: Ned, Stannis, Robert, Randyll, Mace, Mance, Robb, Jaime, Edmure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now