Deconstructing Tywin

[iamthedave]

Iamthdave,

Such a scathing reply. You say I made it rather easy for you to deconstruct my deconstruction of Tywin. But I don't see where you did any such thing. I was judging his decisions, not the outcome of said decision, however fortuitous that outcome may be. Mistreatment of a valuable ally who is your son, whether it's an emotional response or not, is stupid. Not handing Gregor over to justice to appease Dorne is not the shrewd use of a tool, it is a huge political mistake borne of arrogance and bad judement. Having a couple turncoats willing to betray and murder your enemy is just plain lucky. And sitting out the usurper war "brooding" is petulant and dangerous. The only way this benefits House Lannister is if Robert does win and Lyanna dies and Robert names a Hand who urges him to marry Cersei AND he agrees to do so. All of which constitutes a fair amount of luck. The fact that he felt it necessary to present murdered children to the king as an act of loyalty is striking, because thus far his lack of actions made him suspicious to rebels and royalists alike.

So you're saying Tywin didn't find excellent use for Gregor Clegane? That the Dornish would have just gone 'okay!' if he'd handed him over and killed him?

It wouldn't have made a difference. The Dornish wanted Tywin, and he was never going to hand himself over. Gregor was always just a token.

You're still ignoring the fact that despite sitting out the usurper war, Tywin and his house ended up the most powerful house in the seven kingdoms. Aerys WELCOMED him when he turned up. He probably would have showered him with rewards if Tywin's arrival had resulted in victory.

[iamthedave]

I don't think he's got all that much political acumen, tbh. He got lucky by having a big pile of gold and some hot, talented (at fighting, at least) kids he could pawn off in lieu of actually making the alliances and compromises of good politics that would go on for more that five minutes after the royal marriage falls apart. Cercei - the Kate Middleton of Westeros. Only theres no tabloids to profit from the attention.

Honestly, I think discussing ASOIAF intrigue is just a bit facile. Plots and schemes will turn out the way the story needs them to turn out. They're not actually some way to judge how intelligent or competent the character is, except where its clearly signposted that this is something we're supposed to find impressive/dumb.

In that case the entire discussion is pointless and it's impossible to measure the intelligence of anyone, because it's a largely political story and most of the significant actions ARE political.

It's like saying you can't discuss ASOIAF war because strategies and battles will turn out the way the story needs them to turn out. Every comment in this thread about Tywin being 'overrated' in war is invalidated because it's not ACTUALLY a way to judge how good Tywin was, because the battles turned out the way the story needed them to and they could have turned out the other way, and thus we'd be saying how awesome Tywin was at war.

It's a silly stance that makes no sense whatsoever.

I've already said that if you look around the forum for the arguments, you'll quickly realize that no character in the series is competent. This stance of yours renders every character stupid, since half the most intelligence ones can only point to politics as an area of success (Tyrion especially). Extending it to war as well you can rule out Dany and Robb as well, whose only real successes to date have been found on the battlefield (both are unproven as statesmen).

So we're left with.... who? The Maesters and pretty much no-one else as intelligent, competent characters, since we know the maesters are learned and taught in many disciplines (and scholarly pursuits don't really seem to be that broadly adopted in Westeros).

[Datepalm]

In that case the entire discussion is pointless and it's impossible to measure the intelligence of anyone, because it's a largely political story and most of the significant actions ARE political.

Well, rather, yes.

To put it a different way, I'm not watching the olympic games here, and have no particular interest in rankings of intellegence or prowess or beauty or anything else. The story is not one of a race, it has no agreed upon criteria or stakes for victory, and I do find the exercise of trying to compare and contrast this way entirely pointless.

That said, I may be somewhat eccentric as a reader, and plenty of people plainly enjoy and get a great deal out of these kinds of discussions, so by all means have at it.

However, I do think this kind of tallying up of points given and deducted is only one part of examining the characters in the books, and personally find it more interesting to put that aspect aside for a less, er, competition based assesment of Tywin's character. You are entirely free to not have to engage with it in any way.

Preamble over with, I therefore stand by my opinion that Tywin is a catastrophic failure of a human being on almost every imaginable level. His (IMO, unimpressive) acheivments as a military leader and a politician are entirely insufficient to raise him to earning any kind of dignity or respect from me as a reader.

[iamthedave]

Preamble over with, I therefore stand by my opinion that Tywin is a catastrophic failure of a human being on almost every imaginable level. His (IMO, unimpressive) acheivments as a military leader and a politician are entirely insufficient to raise him to earning any kind of dignity or respect from me as a reader.

Oh I agree with him being a failure as a human being. He seems to be one of those people who sunk too much into his lady love and couldn't handle it when she died, from the accounts we have.

I find his force of personality and political acumen worthy of some respect though.

It's an issue of comparison; in most stories he'd be a simple villain, but in this one he's one of the few characters who shows himself to be an even competent ruler. Ruthless or not, when he's in King's Landing he moves the realm closer to peace than anyone else.

Would it be fair to say you're more interested in a character's moral character and values and such then?

[Kittyhat]

Preamble over with, I therefore stand by my opinion that Tywin is a catastrophic failure of a human being on almost every imaginable level. His (IMO, unimpressive) acheivments as a military leader and a politician are entirely insufficient to raise him to earning any kind of dignity or respect from me as a reader.

Well, that's a position I can respect and even agree with. I think, though, in comparing characters in this manner, some people are always going to point to a character's effectiveness, too.

Example: Littlefinger is very effective politically. It does not follow that he is a good person and should be emulated. However, his skill in the game is undeniable.

It's in that spirit that I say that I believe Tywin was more intelligent and politically skilled than Cersei (though this is really not saying much). That doesn't make him a worthwhile human being, though. He wasn't. He was worthless, arrogant, self-serving trash, and he deserved an even more humiliating and painful fate than the one he actually suffered.

What really chills me is when I read people defending Tywin morally ... and I have seen that. I don't think he was all that effective (though not the least effective in the series either), but if someone wants to argue that he was truly brilliant, well ... fine. I won't agree, but fine. But then there are the people who insist he wasn't evil, that he was just "practical" ...

Those are the people who really make me worry.

[Datepalm]

I find his force of personality and political acumen worthy of some respect though.

...

Would it be fair to say you're more interested in a character's moral character and values and such then?

Sure, that too. And feelings, motivations, relashionships, etc. Don't get me wrong, I like reading about Tywin. I think he's twisted and fascinating. I just don't find him impressive, and I think the perception of him as someone cold and competent is rather wrong. He'actually acts on emotional whims and is motivated by personal pride and vanity more than by any political principles. (Entirely different debate lurking over here about the purposes of politics.) I also think that 'doing anything for your house', which is often trotted out for Tywin, is a bizzare justification, and a pathetic achievment when actually considering the condition of his children, for whom he is supposedly doing all this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Free Northman,

I disagree. I think Tywin was the most brilliant strategist on the side of the bad guys by a long shot.

But I have no cause to defend him, as his evil was breathtaking. As this exchange between Jaime and the Blackfish acknowledged:

Jaime: My father is dead as well.

Blackfish: May the father judge him justly.

Jaime (to himself): Now there's a terrifying prospect. (Or something along those lines).

This is echoed by Doran Martell when he says that Tywin is howling in hell for his sins or something to that effect.

He was a terrible man. End of story. But a very astute one nevertheless.

Your biggest mistake here is assuming anyone is a "Bad Guy". Way too simplistic a view of the characters in this series.

[Kittyhat]

Free Northman,

Your biggest mistake here is assuming anyone is a "Bad Guy". Way too simplistic a view of the characters in this series.

I strongly disagree. Tywin was in no way morally equivalent to, say, Eddard. Tywin was a "bad guy," most definitely. Oh yes. Quite evil. Eddard, for all his faults, was a "good guy," or tried his best to be.

If you're trying to sell meta-ethical relativism, then I'll just say in advance I'm not buying. I've long considered it to be a cop-out in discussions of morality, akin to saying, "Since love is hard to define, that must mean there's no such thing as love."

Nah. Even if Hitler thought he was right, he was still evil. And so was Tywin.

[iamthedave]

Sure, that too. And feelings, motivations, relashionships, etc. Don't get me wrong, I like reading about Tywin. I think he's twisted and fascinating. I just don't find him impressive, and I think the perception of him as someone cold and competent is rather wrong. He'actually acts on emotional whims and is motivated by personal pride and vanity more than by any political principles. (Entirely different debate lurking over here about the purposes of politics.) I also think that 'doing anything for your house', which is often trotted out for Tywin, is a bizzare justification, and a pathetic achievment when actually considering the condition of his children, for whom he is supposedly doing all this.

Weeeeeeeell, that's not so simple.

'Your house' isn't actually the same as doing it for your children. You're doing it for, quite literally, your house, which is a rather floaty concept but it definitely is valid and he's not the only one who could be described as thinking that way.

Look at Doran Martell, who is also an appalling father. Most of his children hate him, because he's allowed himself to be perceived as weak and powerless, all to avenge a slight on his house (a pretty hefty one at that). While I've defended Hoster Tully, he made enormous mistakes with Lysa Arryn, again, for his house.

So doing something for the house does not necessarily mean doing things that are good for your children. If your children are completely miserable wreckage but your HOUSE gains lands, power and influence, then you're acting in benefit for your house even though you're wrecking the lives of your kids. It's a very cold and inhuman way of operation, but it's what the phrase means.

While Tywin's the most obvious example, you can see lots of people who act in the same way. The Starks don't really seem to, but most of the Southern houses do to varying degrees.

And yes, Tywin is surprisingly emotional at the core of things. He is the way he is because of the death of his wife, an undeniably emotional wound, and he treats Tyrion the way he does because of that. He is cold at other times, though, and appears to have been from childhood. He's a very interesting character, and actually does stand up to a proper deconstruction, which is a sign of good writing since he never gets that much page time and not a huge amount is said about him.

I strongly disagree. Tywin was in no way morally equivalent to, say, Eddard. Tywin was a "bad guy," most definitely. Oh yes. Quite evil. Eddard, for all his faults, was a "good guy," or tried his best to be.

If you're trying to sell meta-ethical relativism, then I'll just say in advance I'm not buying. I've long considered it to be a cop-out in discussions of morality, akin to saying, "Since love is hard to define, that must mean there's no such thing as love."

Nah. Even if Hitler thought he was right, he was still evil. And so was Tywin.

I sort of agree and disagree with this. I agree he's not morally comparable to Eddard. He is also unquestionably a villain. In fact I'd say he's the most clear cut villain in the series up to AFFC, where some grey elements come in. I mean, even Cersei is liked by SOME people. The only one who seems to like Tywin is his brother and lady Genna, I think it is (who is understandably biased).

However, you shouldn't ignore his depiction by Martin. There's a REASON there's that line where Tywin justifies the Red Wedding to Tyrion, and Tyrion has no answer. Tyrion who always has an answer. As someone very eloquently put it (Myrish Swan I think), the point of Tywin's character is to raise the question that if someone is immoral, ruthless, cold, brutal, and in almost every measurable sense a bad person but is nonetheless capable and equipped to establish and maintain peace in the realm, should that person not rule?

That question's not easy to answer. You can measure him inferior, morally, to everyone in the series. But the fact is - and it is a fact - Tywin comes closest to bringing peace to the realm, and it's the actions of characters with MORE moral fiber who prevent him from achieving that aim.

While Tywin's a flashpoint subject because people are biased for and against him, I think it's worth mentioned Varys as well. Varys' primary goal is peace, and he's willing to do anything to anyone to bring that about. Ned being a moral, upstanding man, is completely irrelevant to Varys the moment Ned becomes a problem (i.e. once Ned is put in prison and his son calls the banners, bringing about a possible situation of war).

Is Varys wrong for siding against Ned? Or is he doing the best thing for the most people rather than being self-serving about it?

Likewise, as brutal and cruel as Tywin is, he comes close to benefitting more people than any of the 'moral' characters in the series. And it's a matter of record that he was the best Hand there's been in a long time. Most of the others were ineffective and ended up dead, while Tyrion managed to accomplish some successes (most notably defending Kings' Landing), but was unable to really bring peace to Kings' Landing, and was wildly unpopular with the common people. Bit like his dad in that regard, but less effective nonetheless.

[Datepalm]

I think there is an argument to be made that keeping the realm at peace in such a way that it explodes into a rebellion that overthrows a 300 year old dynasty the minute ones back turned is...not keeping the realm at peace particularly well, but honestly I don't think we have the data to judge one way or another, so i'll leave that argument aside for the moment.

The comparison to Varys is an interesting one. I totally admit to having much more sympathy for Varys as a person, despite his undoubtedly ruthless political methods. I guess that while Tywin might raise the means/ends questions in passing as a narrative function of the character, I think he dosen't actually ever engage with them as a person. (Tyrion, Varys and Stannis, for example, do.) I don't think Tywin ruled the realm well (if he did) because he thought the lives of the smallfolk should be pleasant, and I don't think he carried out the red wedding to end a war. He did both because they were of personal benefit.

Moreover, his personal failings overshadow this for me. Its hard for me not to see Tysha's gang rape and the Red Wedding (and Castamere, and his treatment of his children, and the sack of KL, and the reaving of the riverlands, and the employment of people like Hoat and the Mountain, etc,) as products of the same overblown ego and driven by the same mad petulance.

Personal and political, Tywin runs to overblown theatricality. Ordering a fourteen year old girl your son loves gang raped to teach him a lesson is not a calculated, rational decision in any possible reading I can come up with, wherein I accept that the characters, are, like, human. Neither is a mass assassination, at a wedding, flagrantly breaking powerful ancient taboos. Its really all very...Kill Bill, or Clockwork Orange. Ultraviolence, stylized, artistic even. (And he is a vain, showy man. Theres not a lady's dress anywhere in the books described as lushly as Tywin's armour.) This is not practicality, and its not pragmatism, and its not someone making a means/ends choice. Its someone indulging a need to hurt others and to be famous.

[Blue Steel]

Tywin was an average military commander at best.

He lost the tactical and strategic battles against Robb. First, he split his forces leaving most of his calvary at Riverrun and fell for Robb's diversion. Because of this, he lost most of his calvary forces and got cut off from the West, which was his main base of supplies since Renly and Stannis were to the east and south. After all of his blunders, he wast left with a force that consisted mostly of infantry that was on the wrong side of the Trident. If it wasnt' for an Act of God, aka Melisandre's magical ability to assasinate Renly, his entire cause would have been lost the moment he fell for Robb's diversion.

Robb was one of the best battle commanders (but not perfect) and if he had been better, perhaps by letting Edmure know the extent of his plans, then Tywin would have been crushed completely.

Conclusion: Tywin was overrated.

[Kittyhat]

However, you shouldn't ignore his depiction by Martin. There's a REASON there's that line where Tywin justifies the Red Wedding to Tyrion, and Tyrion has no answer. Tyrion who always has an answer. As someone very eloquently put it (Myrish Swan I think), the point of Tywin's character is to raise the question that if someone is immoral, ruthless, cold, brutal, and in almost every measurable sense a bad person but is nonetheless capable and equipped to establish and maintain peace in the realm, should that person not rule?

Actually, for me, the answer to this is simple, and it's a resounding "no." There's always a price to be paid in the end for embracing evil and discarding morality, even if in the short-term, the benefits seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In the long run, I feel that inviting that kind of thinking in influences and changes people and even whole communities, and needless to say, not for the better.

You can even see that in a very small way in Martin's books, in the differences between the families prior to the start of the chaos we've been reading about. Forgetting for a moment about the events of the books, including Ned going to King's Landing and all that followed from that, would you rather be a Stark? Or a Lannister? Would you cheerfully sell your soul (figuratively speaking) for power?

Your mileage may vary, but it's an easy question for me. I'll always embrace principle, justice and a strong moral character over pure "efficiency." Even if I get mad at Ned for making such silly blunders.

[Joy Lannister]

Actually, for me, the answer to this is simple, and it's a resounding "no." There's always a price to be paid in the end for embracing evil and discarding morality, even if in the short-term, the benefits seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In the long run, I feel that inviting that kind of thinking in influences and changes people and even whole communities, and needless to say, not for the better.

You can even see that in a very small way in Martin's books, in the differences between the families prior to the start of the chaos we've been reading about. Forgetting for a moment about the events of the books, including Ned going to King's Landing and all that followed from that, would you rather be a Stark? Or a Lannister? Would you cheerfully sell your soul (figuratively speaking) for power?

Your mileage may vary, but it's an easy question for me. I'll always embrace principle, justice and a strong moral character over pure "efficiency." Even if I get mad at Ned for making such silly blunders.

Completely disagree. Uncapable ruler, no matter how honorable and good as a person he may be, is the worst thing that can happen to a country. Your friends you may choose by their morals and amiability. That's the point of them, after all - they are people whose company you enjoy. A leader, however, is chosen by efficiency. That's all that matters. Different tools for different tasks, as Tywin would have said. ;)

btw I'm aware that Tywin is far from the most popular character in the series, but serisouly, why do some of you feel the need to turn their dislike into irrational disdain by refusing to acknowledge that even he has his strengths? There is nothing in the books that supports the idea that Tywin's even half as uncapable, stupid and untalanted as his haters want him to be. Actually, the completely opposite is demonstrated quite efficiently. So much that it's clear that capable and efficient is how Martin sees him, how he's created the character. Read again his dialoges and the way he manages the councils. Objectively. The man is formidable and far from overrated.

[Kittyhat]

Completely disagree. Uncapable ruler, no matter how honorable and good as a person he may be, is the worst thing that can happen to a country. Your friends you may choose by their morals and amiability. That's the point of them, after all - they are people whose company you enjoy. A leader, however, is cosen by efficiency. That's all that matters. Different tools for different goals, as Tywin would have said. ;)

Well, then, that's a sticking point we'll never agree on.

I have no problem with practicality, but I cannot abide monsters, no matter the excuses for why I should.

[Faint]

Personal and political, Tywin runs to overblown theatricality. Ordering a fourteen year old girl your son loves gang raped to teach him a lesson is not a calculated, rational decision in any possible reading I can come up with, wherein I accept that the characters, are, like, human. Neither is a mass assassination, at a wedding, flagrantly breaking powerful ancient taboos. Its really all very...Kill Bill, or Clockwork Orange. Ultraviolence, stylized, artistic even. (And he is a vain, showy man. Theres not a lady's dress anywhere in the books described as lushly as Tywin's armour.) This is not practicality, and its not pragmatism, and its not someone making a means/ends choice. Its someone indulging a need to hurt others and to be famous.

This is the relevant point, right here. Tywin isn't half so competent or rational as many make him out to be. Many of his decisions are based on personal grudges and wounds to his massive ego. There are so many examples to choose from but ultimately, for what they will end up costing his House, his sack of King's Landing, his complicity in the fate of Elia Martell, and his participation in the Red Wedding are the choice bits. He basically ensured that the North, Dorne, the Riverlands, and King's Landing would be enemies to House Lannister for generations, and for what, really? He didn't need to destroy King's Landing, he didn't need to kill Elia Martell or have her children killed so viciously, and he didn't need the savagery of the Red Wedding either.

[Joy Lannister]

Why do you blame him for the Red Wedding? It was clear in the third book - Frey and Bolton approached him, both wanting to win his favor. What should he have done? Tell them, "No, my lords, I really want to go and lose my men fighting Robb Stark. Shame on both of you for thinking about doing such a horrible thing"? He just gave them his blessing, that's all. It was the right move. He didn't need to be concerned that the Starks will be displeased with him, because, you know, as far as he knew there were no Starks left and the North was already defeated. Why lose men and resources when he needs them to deal with Stanis and restore the peace? What exactly did house Lannister lose because of the Red Wedding?

The only undefeated enemies that the Lannisters have, as far as he knows, are the Martells.

[Faint]

Why do you blame him for the Red Wedding? It was clear in the third book - Frey and Bolton approached him, both wanting to win his favor. What should he have done? Tell them, "No, my lords, I really want to go and lose my men fighting Robb Stark. Shame on both of you for thinking about doing such a horrible thing"? He just gave them his blessing, that's all. It was the right move. He didn't need to be concerned that the Starks will be displeased with him, because, you know, as far as he knew there were no Starks left and the North was already defeated. Why lose men and resources when he needs them to deal with Stanis and restore the peace? What exactly did house Lannister lose because of the Red Wedding?

The only undefeated enemies that the Lannisters have, as far as he knows, are the Martells.

I actually give him more of a pass on the Red Wedding than anything else simply because the Starks looked finished at that point so there seemed to be no reasonable expectation of consequences. But even so, he should have insisted that Robb was simply killed and that his body wasn't desecrated. And he should have demanded that Catelyn be captured and not killed, no matter the outcome of things. He could have demanded anything he wanted since the Freys and Boltons would have never gone through with it without his backing.

Still, I agree that this is a situation where a lot of unexpected or unknown factors came into play which made the decision absolutely terrible in retrospect and which could not be foreseen beforehand. There was no way for Tywin to know that Bran, Rickon, and Arya are alive. Or that Sansa would escape. Or that Catelyn would be revived. Or that the Faith would rise up. Or that Jon Snow might actually be a Targaryen, as well as a Stark, and that he and his aunt might combine to bring the Lannister reign crashing down into oblivion in fire and blood.

But even saying all that, why be so callous with these things? Why make it so that the Lannisters are so vulnerable? Tywin seems to have no grasp of the human psyche. As soon as Tommen and Myrcella die, what will the Lannisters do? They have alienated every single House and people in Westeros, almost always unnecessarily.

[Kittyhat]

Read again his dialoges and the way he manages the councils. Objectively. The man is formidable and far from overrated.

You may recall I did defend him as more effective than Cersei. He's overrated to be sure, but he's not as overrated as some are making him out to be.

Not that it matters; I'd rather have Hodor running the kingdom than Tywin, personally. I do not deign to invite evil in, no matter how seductive it is.

[Blue Steel]

Read again his dialoges and the way he manages the councils. Objectively. The man is formidable and far from overrated.

It's pretty clear in the book that that's not the case. From the actual events in the book, Tywin was an inept battle commander or at best average in a field with far superior strategist.

Let's see:

He divides his forces, leaving the majority of his calvary and his son at Riverrun knowing that the northern forces will be joining the fight soon. This allows Robb to also split his forces making Tywin believe that Robb is marching down to the Green Fork to meet him when in reality, Robb took 9/10 of his calvary to attack Jaime and Tywin's calvary by surprise. If Tywin was a good tactician, he wouldn't have fallen for this ruse; and if he was a good strategist, he wouldn't have split his forces to begin with and instead gathered all of his stength to defeat Robb in a single battle allowing him to concentrate on the other factions to the south and east. Because of his strategic blunder, he gave Robb complete access to the western lands, lost most of his calvary forces, cut off his line of supply and trapped himself between Renly, Stannis and Robb without a shred of hope for military victory. In addition, Robb now had a more mobile force with better access and ability to choose the ground for fighting. In real life, choosing the site of battle is as much an important factor as numerical advantage. Just look at Khalid inb Al Walid's victories against the Persians and the Eastern Romans who routinely outnumbered his mobile calvary force by 5-1.

The only reason the Lannisters didn't face annihilation was because Melisandre used her magical powers to kill Renly. So an act of god, that no character including Tywin could have foreseen, saved Tywin's war effort.

The only evidence for Tywin being a good commander is heresy. He was probably the best politician in the series, but that's an entirely different argument.

I only go by what's in the story and in the story, Tywin made horrible tactical and strategical decisions in the actual war.

[zmflavius]

It's pretty clear in the book that that's not the case. From the actual events in the book, Tywin was an inept battle commander or at best average in a field with far superior strategist.

Let's see:

He divides his forces, leaving the majority of his calvary and his son at Riverrun knowing that the northern forces will be joining the fight soon. This allows Robb to also split his forces making Tywin believe that Robb is marching down to the Green Fork to meet him when in reality, Robb took 9/10 of his calvary to attack Jaime and Tywin's calvary by surprise. If Tywin was a good tactician, he wouldn't have fallen for this ruse; and if he was a good strategist, he wouldn't have split his forces to begin with and instead gathered all of his stength to defeat Robb in a single battle allowing him to concentrate on the other factions to the south and east. Because of his strategic blunder, he gave Robb complete access to the western lands, lost most of his calvary forces, cut off his line of supply and trapped himself between Renly, Stannis and Robb without a shred of hope for military victory. In addition, Robb now had a more mobile force with better access and ability to choose the ground for fighting. In real life, choosing the site of battle is as much an important factor as numerical advantage. Just look at Khalid inb Al Walid's victories against the Persians and the Eastern Romans who routinely outnumbered his mobile calvary force by 5-1.

The only reason the Lannisters didn't face annihilation was because Melisandre used her magical powers to kill Renly. So an act of god, that no character including Tywin could have foreseen, saved Tywin's war effort.

The only evidence for Tywin being a good commander is heresy. He was probably the best politician in the series, but that's an entirely different argument.

I only go by what's in the story and in the story, Tywin made horrible tactical and strategical decisions in the actual war.

Evidence for Jaime having most of the cavalry? From what I read, Jaime had roughly 6k armoured horse, and Tywin had around 5k, more, but not most.

Otherwise, most of what you say is true, though I don't think Tywin, or anyone could have anticipated Robb's move to split his forces, given that Robb was a wholly inexperienced 15-year old. Also, he did pick the site for the battle of the Green Fork, since he moved forward to a position where he could force Roose into battle, but still maintain a good position.