Wall Flower Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 44 minutes ago, Kandrax said: Well, if Tywin ordered Gregor and his men to don't rape, they would be obliged to listen. If Gregor's employer didn't chastise him for raping a royal princess, the man is not going to hold back with smallfolk women. The buck (gold dragon?) stops with Tywin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Topspin Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 26 minutes ago, Agent Orange said: Punishment should be consistent to have justice. Robb doesn't hold the squires responsible for the sins of their knights but then he turned around and held the man guarding the cells responsible for following the command of his superior officer. Beyond that Rickard and Aerys are so culturally different that it's not a shocker that they have different opinions on the treatment of squires. The Targaryens are more Andal than the Karstarks. They followed the teachings of chivalry and Aerys was a squire in his youth. Aerys had to follow the teachings of chivalry. Rickard follows the Old Gods and we don't know if he was an anointed knight. Robb followed the Old Gods too but he was so confused he didn't know his ass from his nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow is the man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Well I am sure we missed things but if it's rob against tywin then rob did much better on moral grounds. While we know roose bolton did horrible things (and surely the northmen weren't saints) we don't know that rob ordered his men to do that or even encouraged it. Roose seemed to be acting on his own. Now tywin essentially told a bunch of psychos to rape and pillage until they drop.I mean he hired mercenaries for the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilians of the riverlands. Now I understand it's war and it's not pretty and innocent people always get hurt. But tywin is specifically targeting non combatants where as rob doesn't. I mean tywins orders will probably kill over half the riverlands from starvation come winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow is the man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, Gabbie Roxas said: Punishment should be consistent to have justice. Robb doesn't hold the squires responsible for the sins of their knights but then he turned around and held the man guarding the cells responsible for following the command of his superior officer. Beyond that Rickard and Aerys are so culturally different that it's not a shocker that they have different opinions on the treatment of squires. The Targaryens are more Andal than the Karstarks. They followed the teachings of chivalry and Aerys was a squire in his youth. Aerys had to follow the teachings of chivalry. Rickard follows the Old Gods and we don't know if he was an anointed knight. Robb followed the Old Gods too but he was so confused he didn't know his ass from his nose. wait are you talking about rob punishing the guard for letting karstark kill two children because they were lannisters? Karstarks sons died in battle where as karstark murdered two prisoners who were thirteen years old or something like that and unarmed for a crime they had no real part of. Also the guard probably had orders from rob on who to let in or not and I imagine karstark was not on that list. And rob is king so there is no higher authority. So I don't get how this is even a question. Also while karstark may not have squires because they aren't knights but I imagine they have something similar but they don't call them squires. So it's not like they have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow is the man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 35 minutes ago, Wall Flower said: If Gregor's employer didn't chastise him for raping a royal princess, the man is not going to hold back with smallfolk women. The buck (gold dragon?) stops with Tywin. Ah but tywin at the time didn't know how brutal gregor was and thus didn't order him not to harm the princess (he told tyrion this). But in the riverlands he ordered gregor and his men to destroy and terrorize the riverlands. Not saying he was morally right in either of them. I mean he did order two little children to be killed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow is the man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 On 1/4/2018 at 7:14 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said: So sorry no one seems to be commenting on Robb's attempts to sway the Ironborn to raid and pillage the westerlands. I forgot about this but to be fair it was mainly to just take lannisport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I think people are focusing too much on rape. When you send men raiding in enemy territory you're basically giving them permission to treat the populace as they please, to specify anything specific about raping or not raping would be entirely out of the norm and frankly strange. Both Robb and Tywin unleash soldiers on a civilian population, Tywin just does it to a greater extent. The idea that Robb's lords raiding the West would be civil affair just comes across as an attempt to whitewash Robb when in reality ordering your men to forage and raid is more or less par for the course for a medieval commander. It's better to argue the extent to which a commander uses brutality on a civilian population rather than whether he does or doesn't at all because it'd be out of the norm for one not to when on campaign in an enemy's lands. The way I see it it's pretty clear that Robb has commanded his forces to attack the infrastructure of the West and attacking that infrastructure is the same as attacking the civilian population "Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun", for this to happen in a way where soldiers weren't raping burning and pillaging would be simply bizarre. Does this make Robb a bad person? Perhaps, perhaps not, what is does make him though is a medieval commander that's acting in a fashion typical for his time. Tywin's doing that as well but on a much greater scale, they are both morally wrong but you can argue which was worse due to the scale of the devastation. I simply don't buy that Robb's men can "raid" and steal cattle in a bloodless fashion and I don't think GRRM would have wanted us to take it like that either. Not to mention the idea that loot is expected on campaign, depriving his men of pillage in the rich westerlands wouldn't go down very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow is the man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Agent Orange said: I want to give Lady Catelyn a break on this. She begins to regret this decision later on after arriving at River run. But you know this is the kind of world where you can't afford to show weakness and letting the dwarf get away with an attempt to kill the son of your house will show weakness. It's not the correct decision but I can see why she made it. This is where we see Robb's boyish immaturity again. He meant to show justice for the murdered Lannister squires and killed Karstark. He was trying to do what he thought was right in his own clumsy way. It seemed obvious. You punish Karstark for killing unarmed squires. Because even King Aerys himself chose to show mercy to Brandon's squire. It's poor manners to kill a squire. Robb wanted to do what he thought was right but what is right is not the best decision from a war tactics consideration. A smarter general would prioritize and forgive Karstark because keeping the man and his soldiers in the fold helps increase the chances of all his men staying alive. Robb tried to act more ethically except for breaking his pact with Walder. His other decisions were made with intentions towards ethics but they didn't turn out that way. Tywin didn't bother with ethics but in the end he successfully stopped a rebellion with minimal casualties on both sides. Ending the war the way he did actually spared many lives from both sides. Robb thought it's ethical to punish his own loyal man for killing unarmed enemy POWs. As a matter of fact it might have been more ethical to spare Karstark even if it means the two squires get no justice. It's a dilemma but Dany handled her challenge better. She gave Jorah the breaks to admit his treason and failing that she banished him. She didn't execute him. Ending someone's life is too permanent and it was a good choice from Dany. I am also of the opinion that Jon should have sent Janos to freeze his butt in the ice cells for a few days instead of chopping his head off. It's more acceptable to kill a squire who works for the enemy than to kill a man who answered your call to arms and lost his sons fighting for you. With minimal casultiues? Tywin bruend food stocks and all that stuff for people who weren't even in the war. If half the population of the riverlands doesn't starve or die of exposure due to tywins direct actions then it would be a miracle. Tywin essentially did a "win at all cost" He only did the red wedding because he couldn't beat rob in the field. It was about pride more then anything that tywin was a part of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 12 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said: Tywin is reacting to Cat’s imprisoning his son... illegally and under false accusation. Rolling Stoptional I think there are two distinctions to be made here. First, Robb's motivations are just, as he is fighting for his father's life. Tywin doesn't give a fuck whether Tyrion lives or not - which he most likely is hoping he doesn't - and is terrorizing the commoners over a perceived slight to his ever so fragile ego. Secondly, Tywin has other options or means to deal with his son being unjustly apprehended. He could have simply gone to Robert, and had him demand that Tyrion be released, without starting a war over it. Robb didn't have that option. Quote 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 5 hours ago, snow is the man said: Well I am sure we missed things but if it's rob against tywin then rob did much better on moral grounds. While we know roose bolton did horrible things (and surely the northmen weren't saints) we don't know that rob ordered his men to do that or even encouraged it. Roose seemed to be acting on his own. Now tywin essentially told a bunch of psychos to rape and pillage until they drop.I mean he hired mercenaries for the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilians of the riverlands. Now I understand it's war and it's not pretty and innocent people always get hurt. But tywin is specifically targeting non combatants where as rob doesn't. I mean tywins orders will probably kill over half the riverlands from starvation come winter. I agree with this, just one note I'd like to point out. When Tywin ordered the raiding of the Riverlands, it wasn't a part of war; there was no war at that time. This criminal act, committed for the purpose of assassinating the Hand of the King and to satiate Tywin's ego, is in fact what started the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 On 2018-1-5 at 4:54 PM, Trigger Warning said: The way I see it it's pretty clear that Robb has commanded his forces to attack the infrastructure of the West and attacking that infrastructure is the same as attacking the civilian population How is attacking infrastructure the same as attacking a civilian population? Attacking infrastructure serves as a means to weaken your opponent and establish control of enemy territory. Besides, the only infrastructure that is mentioned is of several gold mines being captured, clearly a strategic target, meant to draw Tywin's attention. There is also mention of Lady Mormont herding cattle, hardly a violent or unnecessary act, as food shortages are a serious concern, especially thanks to Tywin's efforts of setting the entire region ablaze. The only claim by Rivers of concern is that of the Karstarks and Glovers raiding the coast - and again, a second hand report of what's happening, and nothing indicating what Robb's actual orders were - with no specifics mentioned, and certainly not enough information to confirm the accusations and assumptions being made against Robb. Unfortunately, these raids are a reality of war, and along with being used as a strategic tactic, a means to ensure needed supplies and resources to an army with vast logistical concerns to address. A Clash of Kings - Catelyn V Quote Her men wanted to hear more of Robb's victory at Oxcross, and Rivers obliged. "There's a singer come to Riverrun, calls himself Rymund the Rhymer, he's made a song of the fight. Doubtless you'll hear it sung tonight, my lady. 'Wolf in the Night,' this Rymund calls it." 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 On 04/01/2018 at 10:52 AM, Nowy Tends said: Oh come on… Please don't tell us that you don't understand the meaning of "set a land afire" when it's an order given to people like Gregor and Vargo whose reputation is well established… Surely the same is true of Robb having his men pay the Lannisters back in kind in the Westerlands? Both commanders would have been idiots to not realise what would have happened. On 03/01/2018 at 2:18 AM, Blackwater Revenant said: 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(Tywin) out into a vulnerable position(Harrenhal while Kings Landing is in under threat) wherein he is enforcing and upholding the King's justice, with the intent to assassinate him. Ned Tywin is one man with a small detail of household guards, residing in King's Landing, preforming his duties. What Tywin Robb did is an unacceptable, unethical, and treasonous act. War can be pretty subjective. This impassioned response of yours could just as easily be about Tywin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon ami Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 I think so. Tywin sent his blood-thirsty henchman to the Riverlands because the daughter of the lord arrested his son. Why not use dialogue first and work it out with the Starks before attacking innocent people who had nothing to do with Catelyn Stark. Barring that just go ahead and attack the Starks directly instead of punishing the wrong people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 20 minutes ago, Mon ami said: I think so. Tywin sent his blood-thirsty henchman to the Riverlands because the daughter of the lord arrested his son. Why not use dialogue first and work it out I agree he should have, but this age lords didnt often do this. Same can be said of Robb when his father was arrested, he could have tried to settle it with dialogue instead of calling his banners and going to war. 20 minutes ago, Mon ami said: with the Starks before attacking innocent people who had nothing to do with Catelyn Stark. Barring that just go ahead and attack the Starks directly instead of punishing the wrong people. Cat abducted Tyrion in the Riverlands using Riverland soldiers using her father's name to gain their loyalty. The Riverlands was not actually blameless in this. Plus it did not help that Cat made sure to confuse people about where she was heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowy Tends Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said: Surely the same is true of Robb having his men pay the Lannisters back in kind in the Westerlands 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, 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. lol what is a regular troop? Do you think Clegane and Lorch went to some special 'war criminal school' to learn their trade? Ride on by." "What did they do?" she asked him. "They put eight people to the sword at Tumbler's Falls," he said. "They wanted the Kingslayer, but he wasn't there so they did some rape and murder." He jerked a thumb toward the corpse with maggots where his manhood ought to be. "That one there did the raping. Now move along." "A swallow," the fat one called down. "Ha' mercy, boy, a swallow." The old one slid an arm up to grasp the bars. The motion made his cage swing violently. "Water," gasped the one with the flies in his beard. She looked at their filthy hair and scraggly beards and reddened eyes, at their dry, cracked, bleeding lips. Wolves, she thought again. Like me. Was this her pack? How could they be Robb's men? I hate to be rude but you seem to be naive when it comes to medieval troops, or at least the medieval troops GRRM is talking about. Every faction has its share of men who rape and plunder and they are all 'regular troops'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater Revenant Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 43 minutes ago, 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. Don't bother, the poster you are responding to has shown he isn't interested in discussing the story that GRRM wrote. He only wants to play the role of contrarian by inserting his own fan fiction version of things while ignoring all context, circumstances, and what the actual text states and plainly lays out to the reader. This has been pointed out to him several times, with text to support it, however he just continues to deny the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowy Tends Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: I hate to be rude but you seem to be naive when it comes to medieval troops, or at least the medieval troops GRRM is talking about. Every faction has its share of men who rape and plunder and they are all 'regular troops'. Oh, now the guys known as "Bloody Mummers" and the Mountain's men are regular troops? That's ridiculous… Anyway I don't get what you're trying to do in this thread; obviously you don't convince anyone… btw I have a degree in History from Paris VII University… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 34 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said: Don't bother, the poster you are responding to has shown he isn't interested in discussing the story that GRRM wrote. He only wants to play the role of contrarian by inserting his own fan fiction version of things while ignoring all context, circumstances, and what the actual text states and plainly lays out to the reader. Fucking hell, you have a high opinion of yourself don't you mate. Anyone who does not share your opinion is only doing it to be a contrarian? How many people in this thread have you labelled a troll just because you disagree with them? Quote This has been pointed out to him several times, with text to support it, however he just continues to deny the facts. Point out these several times (with text to support it) as I think you may be imagining events that did not happen. 14 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said: Oh, now the guys known as "Bloody Mummers" The bloody mummers spent as much time fighting for the North than they did the Crown. Quote and the Mountain's men are regular troops? That's ridiculous… Yes, of course the Mountain's men are regular troops. How do you think they are different from the average men plucked from a landed knights/petty lords lands? The Broken man chapter in AFFC points out quite clearly what GRRM thinks of war and its effect on soldiers. Quote Anyway I don't get what you're trying to do in this thread; obviously you don't convince anyone… Do you speak for everyone in this thread? Everyone on this forum? Congrats on that, you are clearly very special. Quote btw I have a degree in History from Paris VII University… lol well done. I'm not sure what bearing that has on the fictional universe GRRM is writing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowy Tends Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: The bloody mummers spent as much time fighting for the North than they did the Crown. They were hired by Tywin, and then Roose Bolton, the guy who stabbed his King, made them change side. Don't bother to respond I'm going to use the "ignore user" function. Happy trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.