Daenerys in Slaver's bay is to show us that.

[Jory Cassel]

Yet Robb's host also murdered, raped sacked and foraged.

Did you even read the books? read the Arya's and Brienne's POV they are the best, as they portray the Riverlands from the perspective of commoners.

For average Pate, the red wedding was a gift because war stopped, for them it was the same lion and wolf. Only because we only follow the noble houses as if the tens of thousands that marched mattered not.

When did Tywin commited genocide btw? and serfdom was slavery. Just look at how Ramsay treats his "freemen".

Funny that you suppose others have not read the books when you present an utterly distorted view.

The accounts of "wolves" raping and pillaging in the Riverlands are presented after Rickard sent his men on his fool's quest - they were not at Robb's command anymore.

Roose Bolton had his own agenda all along, no knowing where he parted from Robb's orders.

Tywin, on the other hand, deliberately applied mayhem and destruction in order to spread fear - Robb did not.

And the Red Wedding was not a gift for the common folk/levies/soldiers, this is a total misconception; not only a few bannermen were killed at the Red Wedding - the entire Stark-loyalist host was butchered, but you convienently left that out in the op.

And Robb was not moving on Tywin, nor on the Tyrells, he was moving North - no imminent threat to the Lannisters anyway, no threat to the crown, but apparently it's okay now to butcher thousands of people to make one's son Lord of Winterfell and to dispose of a possible future foe.

[Rod123]

You're taking an utilitarian point of view that I simply can't agree. If you think killing and raping Elia Martell brutally, after killing her children in front of her, and call it "The right to do", then I can't even argue with you. This kind of thinking justified the death of thousands of minorities in the XX century. I'd rather die like Ned and be able to live with myself than die like Tywin, that with all of his misjudgements ended up murdered by the son that was more like him. And look at what he did to his own family. Dorne is coming for them, his ambition and his lack of parenthood made Jaime and Cersei what they are. His daughter, the proud of CR, had to do the WOS, Lady Stoneheart is planning the second RW, Joffrey died choking and his line is sure to end. That's what Tywin got by being ruthless. A good leader knows that you can't control people only with hate and fear. It is the balance between love and fear that makes the good Leader.

I already pointed out that Tywin failed in his house. And funny how are you comparing killing 1 person to a genocide of minorities? That makes no sense.

Of coure is easy to do the right thing, but its doing the right thing is now how you governed a kingdom back then, because your power is not supreme, your administrative infraestructure is not capable of extending your direct rule beyond your seat of power. And since positions are gained through inheritance and not merit, there will be ambitious and unscrupulous people that will need to be controlled.

Again, its easy to do the "right" thing even if it means the killing of millions? say for arguments sake you get to choose between killing toddler Hitler or not. And for the sake of argument lets say that if you kill toddler Hitler WW2 is prevented saving 40 million lives countless more injured and far more devastation.

Take into account that Daenery is indeed looking to get back to Westeros with "Fire and blood", Viserys was also coming back and he was as bad as Joffrey. Dorne was ready to back them up that meant a bloody civil war, where thousands of innocents were or will going to die.

Also who said Tywin was only fear? he was fear for his enemies, to everyone else he was a fair ruler that brought prosperity. He made alliances, he paid his debts (good and bad) and he never showed any pleasure from being cruel, he was being cruel from an utilitarian point of view

His only fault was not appreciating Tyrion who was just as capable as him. Jamie, Cersei and Joffrey only received love and they grew up fucked up.

[Rod123]

Funny that you suppose others have not read the books when you present an utterly distorted view.

The accounts of "wolves" raping and pillaging in the Riverlands are presented after Rickard sent his men on his fool's quest - they were not at Robb's command anymore.

Roose Bolton had his own agenda all along, no knowing where he parted from Robb's orders.

Tywin, on the other hand, deliberately applied mayhem and destruction in order to spread fear - Robb did not.

And the Red Wedding was not a gift for the common folk/levies/soldiers, this is a total misconception; not only a few bannermen were killed at the Red Wedding - the entire Stark-loyalist host was butchered, but you convienently left that out in the op.

And Robb was not moving on Tywin, nor on the Tyrells, he was moving North - no imminent threat to the Lannisters anyway, no threat to the crown, but apparently it's okay now to butcher thousands of people to make one's son Lord of Winterfell and to dispose of a possible future foe.

No, the specific account of Karstark raping is indeed after the break up, but Barristan points out that every army rapes, sacks and murders and thats why the unsullied were a good thing, because they wouldnt rape and sack unless ordered as opposed to westerosi armies.

Also Sandor Clegane showed us the hypocresy of the knight and points out logistical facts who are usually missing from medieval fantasy, how a feudal host was gathered and importantly how they marched.

All armies forage, medieval armies didnt had a supply lines, the administrative infraestructure was too weak for a country to plan a supply network, so armies carried what they could and everything else they took from the land (AKA farmers) at sword point. When Sandor steals the pig cart, he calls it sarcastically "Im not stealing, im foraging".

Of course its hard to comprehend if you dont read enough of actual medieval history.

For example when Brynden scours all the surrounding lands of food, what do you think will happen to the women, old, boys and men not fit for fighting outside the garrison? They die out of starvation. Because the sieging army also has needs for foraging and doesnt has a need for useless mouths.

Medieval warfare was a war of hunger, whoever ran out of food first lost, and that meant starving anyone not worth to fight.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I already pointed out that Tywin failed in his house. And funny how are you comparing killing 1 person to a genocide of minorities? That makes no sense.

Of coure is easy to do the right thing, but its doing the right thing is now how you governed a kingdom back then, because your power is not supreme, your administrative infraestructure is not capable of extending your direct rule beyond your seat of power. And since positions are gained through inheritance and not merit, there will be ambitious and unscrupulous people that will need to be controlled.

Again, its easy to do the "right" thing even if it means the killing of millions? say for arguments sake you get to choose between killing toddler Hitler or not. And for the sake of argument lets say that if you kill toddler Hitler WW2 is prevented saving 40 million lives countless more injured and far more devastation.

Take into account that Daenery is indeed looking to get back to Westeros with "Fire and blood", Viserys was also coming back and he was as bad as Joffrey. Dorne was ready to back them up that meant a bloody civil war, where thousands of innocents were or will going to die.

Also who said Tywin was only fear? he was fear for his enemies, to everyone else he was a fair ruler that brought prosperity. He made alliances, he paid his debts (good and bad) and he never showed any pleasure from being cruel, he was being cruel from an utilitarian point of view

His only fault was not appreciating Tyrion who was just as capable as him. Jamie, Cersei and Joffrey only received love and they grew up fucked up.

Yes, Tywin was basically fear. Don't you see how he had no regards whatsoever with Cersei, only trying to grow his power and influence? You're arguing that Tywin gave love to his children, but not one of them mourn his death. He was IMO, awful to Cersei and Jaime.

Also, your train of thought is what Hitler used. This kind of argument that sacrificing one to save thousands is what he used to justify the murder of Jews and other minorities, as their burden to Germans alike. Elia and her children might be only three, but before there were many other Jews, there was only one, or two. Thing is, who am I to judge who lives and who dies? I'm nobody. I'm a person, same as you. Imagine if to make society better, you'd have to torture innocent people, in order to make a point to your enemies. Would you do it? That's what Tywin did with Elia and her children. Nothing justifies the death of the Princess of Dorne.

Also, what has Tywin to do with any of this? I thought this was a Dany thread. I guess I was wrong...

[Jory Cassel]

No, the specific account of Karstark raping is indeed after the break up, but Barristan points out that every army rapes, sacks and murders and thats why the unsullied were a good thing, because they wouldnt rape and sack unless ordered as opposed to westerosi armies.

Also Sandor Clegane showed us the hypocresy of the knight and points out logistical facts who are usually missing from medieval fantasy, how a feudal host was gathered and importantly how they marched.

All armies forage, medieval armies didnt had a supply lines, the administrative infraestructure was too weak for a country to plan a supply network, so armies carried what they could and everything else they took from the land (AKA farmers) at sword point. When Sandor steals the pig cart, he calls it sarcastically "Im not stealing, im foraging".

Of course its hard to comprehend if you dont read enough of actual medieval history.

For example when Brynden scours all the surrounding lands of food, what do you think will happen to the women, old, boys and men not fit for fighting outside the garrison? They die out of starvation. Because the sieging army also has needs for foraging and doesnt has a need for useless mouths.

Medieval warfare was a war of hunger, whoever ran out of food first lost, and that meant starving anyone not worth to fight.

Nice straw man, and a personal attack to spice that up.

And no point did I deny that Robb (or rather Robb's army) lived off the land, Robb himself states that was his plan in the Westerlands.

You relativated Tywin's monstrosities by bringing up ones that Robb and his army supposedly committed, that is exactly what I referred to in my post, maybe you should read it.

Tywin methodically employed monsters like Clegane and Lorch to cause fear and mayhem, to burn fields and villages, something Robb did not and there is no account at all that the methodical destruction of villages, rape and murder at will that Tywin made use of occured under Robb's order.

[Rod123]

Yes, Tywin was basically fear. Don't you see how he had no regards whatsoever with Cersei, only trying to grow his power and influence? You're arguing that Tywin gave love to his children, but not one of them mourn his death. He was IMO, awful to Cersei and Jaime.

Also, your train of thought is what Hitler used. This kind of argument that sacrificing one to save thousands is what he used to justify the murder of Jews and other minorities, as their burden to Germans alike. Elia and her children might be only three, but before there were many other Jews, there was only one, or two. Thing is, who am I to judge who lives and who dies? I'm nobody. I'm a person, same as you. Imagine if to make society better, you'd have to torture innocent people, in order to make a point to your enemies. Would you do it? That's what Tywin did with Elia and her children. Nothing justifies the death of the Princess of Dorne.

Also, what has Tywin to do with any of this? I thought this was a Dany thread. I guess I was wrong...

"When your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you. And any man who must say ‘I am the king’ is no true king at all. Aerys never understood that, but you will. When I’ve won your war for you, we will restore the king’s peace and the king’s justice. "

He was not a wicked man, the cruel things he did, he didnt do them for pleasure, he never killed or maimed for pleasure. The only one that he tortured unnecesarily was his son Tyrion. And even so he did so not for pleasure or revenge, is because he felt his son was going to be like Tytos. Tywin was open handed with anyone willing to work with him.

Tywin seems a hard man to you, but he's no harder than he's had to be. Our own father was gentle and amiable, but so weak his bannermen mocked him in their cups. Some saw fit to defy him openly. Other lords borrowed his gold and never troubled to repay it. At court they japed of toothless lions. Even his own mistress stole from him. A woman scarcely one step above a whore, and she helped herself to my mother's jewels! It fell to Tywin to restore House Lannister to its proper place. Just as it fell to him to rule this realm, when he was no more than twenty. He bore that heavy burden for twenty years and all it earned him was a mad king's envy. Instead of the honor he deserved, he was made to suffer slights beyond count, yet he gave the Seven Kingdoms peace, plenty and justice. He is a just man

Of course, we only see the bad side of Tywin, because in the books he is only portrayed in times of war and defending despicable people (Cersei, Joffrey, Jamie) with ruthless methods (these are medieval times after all)

And the killing the Jews thing was paranoical, the Elia example only reinforces my point, these sons were going to be used to initate a war of succession.

2 babies vs thousands, easy choice.

[Rod123]

Nice straw man, and a personal attack to spice that up.

And no point did I deny that Robb (or rather Robb's army) lived off the land, Robb himself states that was his plan in the Westerlands.

You relativated Tywin's monstrosities by bringing up ones that Robb and his army supposedly committed, that is exactly what I referred to in my post, maybe you should read it.

Tywin methodically employed monsters like Clegane and Lorch to cause fear and mayhem, to burn fields and villages, something Robb did not and there is no account at all that the methodical destruction of villages, rape and murder at will that Tywin made use of occured under Robb's order.

Nice straw man, and a personal attack to spice that up.

And no point did I deny that Robb (or rather Robb's army) lived off the land, Robb himself states that was his plan in the Westerlands.

You relativated Tywin's monstrosities by bringing up ones that Robb and his army supposedly committed, that is exactly what I referred to in my post, maybe you should read it.

Tywin methodically employed monsters like Clegane and Lorch to cause fear and mayhem, to burn fields and villages, something Robb did not and there is no account at all that the methodical destruction of villages, rape and murder at will that Tywin made use of occured under Robb's order.

Its not a strawman.

You are saying that Tywin was clearly an evil guy because his army was doing what every army does.

-Robb army didnt "supposedly" commited crimes, if they were foraging they were dooming people to die of starvation, they also as seen with the Karstak were prone to rape. The Boltons who were under his command commited crimes in Harrenhal and gave room to the brave companions. Setting the hounds on the sheep is the same crime as ordering the hounds on the sheep.

-Robb used monsters like Roose Bolton, so whats your point with Gregor and Lorch?

-If anything you are saying that Robb couldnt control his own host and Robb also lost the war, so its not a good point for the honorable folk.

Also, im waiting on your opinion of Brynden the Blackfish as evil a man as Tywin? Or do you think farmers were all "sure winter is coming and there is no more time for another crop, so take all the food, ill just chillax all winter"

[Dire-Lion]

Maybe we should get a few things clear here

1. Forgaging is not a war crime
   
   
2. Raping people and killing babies are war crimes
   
   
3. Robb just ignored it, we don't know if he would have punished or not punished if they were caught doing these things.
   
   
4. Tywin actually commanded people to commit these crimes.
   

So you see for the average person, Tywin is bad because he won't punish people for harming them. And I'm using modern standards for war crimes because ASOIAF is a fantasy written in modern times and therefore medieval history/ values don't apply that much.

[devilrob6]

-The Sacking of King Landing was because of a war started by Aerys and finished by Robert, It was to secure Lannister loyalty, but also to end the war by cementing Robert as the only ruler. Had the sack of King Landing not happened these things would instead

1.- Jamie kills Aerys, Robert sacks King Landing, Robert kills the Targaryens.

2.- Jamie doesnt kills Aerys, Aerys razes Kings Landing.

3.- Jamie kills Aerys, Robert doesnt kills Targaryens, fight may continue, possible unrest after Robert's death.

And luckily now, thanks to the Lannisters, there was no unrest after Robert's death?

[Rod123]

Maybe we should get a few things clear here

1. Forgaging is not a war crime
   
   
2. Raping people and killing babies are war crimes
   
   
3. Robb just ignored it, we don't know if he would have punished or not punished if they were caught doing these things.
   
   
4. Tywin actually commanded people to commit these crimes.
   

So you see for the average person, Tywin is bad because he sees won't punish people for harming them. And I'm using modern standards for war crimes because ASOIAF is a fantasy written in modern times and therefore medieval history/ values don't apply that much.

1.- Foraging is not a war crime because there were not "war crimes back then" rules of law back then in war everything was fair game. Yet foraging kills more people than war itself, at least it forces displacement. Today? foraging is one of the worst war crimes, you dont mess with the ability of people to feed themselves. Foraging killed more people back then, than war itself.

Again, Brynden basically forced everyone near Riverrun to starve to death, is he a good guy?

2.- Sacking an enemy city is the norm according to Barristan Selmy.

3.- Robb very well knew what war brings to the commoners and eagerly sent his forces to do so. as someone pointed out, he planned to "live off the land" in Westerlands which means basically forcing every civilian to flee or die.

4.- Robb just had someone else to do it, how nice of a man.

[Rod123]

And luckily now, thanks to the Lannisters, there was no unrest after Robert's death?

Thanks to screw up Cersei/Jamie and their inbred son. And Robert for being a horned idiot.

The man wasnt even in KL when the war started.

[Jory Cassel]

Its not a strawman.

You are saying that Tywin was clearly an evil guy because his army was doing what every army does.

-Robb army didnt "supposedly" commited crimes, if they were foraging they were dooming people to die of starvation, they also as seen with the Karstak were prone to rape. The Boltons who were under his command commited crimes in Harrenhal and gave room to the brave companions. Setting the hounds on the sheep is the same crime as ordering the hounds on the sheep.

-Robb used monsters like Roose Bolton, so whats your point with Gregor and Lorch?

-If anything you are saying that Robb couldnt control his own host and Robb also lost the war, so its not a good point for the honorable folk.

Also, im waiting on your opinion of Brynden the Blackfish as evil a man as Tywin? Or do you think farmers were all "sure winter is coming and there is no more time for another crop, so take all the food, ill just chillax all winter"

It's exactly that, your whole post resolves around how Robb's army did forage, something I never doubted in any of my posts.

And I never said "that Tywin was clearly an evil guy because his army was doing what every army does."

If you keep on misrepresenting and twisting my points like this there is really no basis for discussion.

Again, as you apparently did not catch it the first time: the Karstarks had already deserted at that point, they were not under Robb's command anymore in any way.

Roose Bolton had the command, Robb neither set "hounds on the sheep" nor did he order "hounds on the sheep", Tywin however did, Lorch and Clegane were to ravage the Riverlands, they burned crops, raped, plundered gold and tortured to get there. Roose had no such orders, and there was no basis to suspect that Roose indeed was a monster he set loose, and he was not ordered to commit any atrocities, as opposed to Clegane and Lorch, so that's my "point" with them.

He lost grip on his host, yes, first on the Freys, then the Karstarks, the Boltons too but that is irrelevant here, as there is no account of him tolerating or ordering pointless destruction, rape or murders. He actually executed Rickard for the latter; for killing two unarmed boys.

And again, please show me where I called Tywin "evil" for foraging in order to supply his host. What he did went far, far beyond that.

[Lady Beyond the Wall]

I think it is safe to say that GRRM has really strongly developed multifaceted characters. None are inherently evil, nor are the good. Isn't that the best part of ASOIAF?

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

The situation of Queen Danaerys in the Slaver's Bay is very similar to what happen in Iraq after the USA forces overthrow the Saddam Housein's regime. No matter how much good you try to make it's not gonna end well if you try to impose your values over a culture that is so different to yours.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

1.- Foraging is not a war crime because there were not "war crimes back then" rules of law back then in war everything was fair game. Yet foraging kills more people than war itself, at least it forces displacement. Today? foraging is one of the worst war crimes, you dont mess with the ability of people to feed themselves. Foraging killed more people back then, than war itself.

Again, Brynden basically forced everyone near Riverrun to starve to death, is he a good guy?

2.- Sacking an enemy city is the norm according to Barristan Selmy.

3.- Robb very well knew what war brings to the commoners and eagerly sent his forces to do so. as someone pointed out, he planned to "live off the land" in Westerlands which means basically forcing every civilian to flee or die.

4.- Robb just had someone else to do it, how nice of a man.

Your OP is about how we can't apply modern morality to the medievalish ASOIAF. You use this argument to justify the Red Wedding. You are conveniently forgetting that the breaking of guest right is against the morality of Westeros. Apparently sending the Mountain et al to pillage the Riverlands was too, or he would have sent them out with banners instead of attempting anonymity to keep plausible deniability.

Also, the RW is based on the Black Dinner. A real life event that was also considered against the morality of the time.

[Rod123]

Your OP is about how we can't apply modern morality to the medievalish ASOIAF. You use this argument to justify the Red Wedding. You are conveniently forgetting that the breaking of guest right is against the morality of Westeros. Apparently sending the Mountain et al to pillage the Riverlands was too, or he would have sent them out with banners instead of attempting anonymity to keep plausible deniability.

Also, the RW is based on the Black Dinner. A real life event that was also considered against the morality of the time.

Which reinforces my point that an honourable ruler cant rule the kingdom for long because of the degree of autonomy given to people who are not chosen into a position.

You cant simply remove and appoint lords at will, you have to deal with what you got, if you are honourable and you are surrounded by Ramsay Boltons you wont last long.

[Rod123]

It's exactly that, your whole post resolves around how Robb's army did forage, something I never doubted in any of my posts.

And I never said "that Tywin was clearly an evil guy because his army was doing what every army does."

If you keep on misrepresenting and twisting my points like this there is really no basis for discussion.

Again, as you apparently did not catch it the first time: the Karstarks had already deserted at that point, they were not under Robb's command anymore in any way.

Roose Bolton had the command, Robb neither set "hounds on the sheep" nor did he order "hounds on the sheep", Tywin however did, Lorch and Clegane were to ravage the Riverlands, they burned crops, raped, plundered gold and tortured to get there. Roose had no such orders, and there was no basis to suspect that Roose indeed was a monster he set loose, and he was not ordered to commit any atrocities, as opposed to Clegane and Lorch, so that's my "point" with them.

He lost grip on his host, yes, first on the Freys, then the Karstarks, the Boltons too but that is irrelevant here, as there is no account of him tolerating or ordering pointless destruction, rape or murders. He actually executed Rickard for the latter; for killing two unarmed boys.

And again, please show me where I called Tywin "evil" for foraging in order to supply his host. What he did went far, far beyond that.

Which led to his ultimate downfall, Tywin was willing to do more things to win the war.

And Robb did set the hounds to the sheep by bringing a warhost to the riverlands.

[Jory Cassel]

Which led to his ultimate downfall, Tywin was willing to do more things to win the war.

And Robb did set the hounds to the sheep by bringing a warhost to the riverlands.

Yes and Yes. The first one does not prove the immorality of Robb's actions, though, the opposite actually, whereas the latter displays Tywin's utter ruthlessness.

"Setting the hounds on the sheep" - your wording. This directly implies that the "hounds" were ordered/intended to commit atrocities by Robb, this is not based on the text.

[Consigliere]

It shows us that Dany is more similar to Robert than she would like. She can conquer but she cannot rule.

[Rod123]

Yes and Yes. The first one does not prove the immorality of Robb's actions, though, the opposite actually, whereas the latter displays Tywin's utter ruthlessness.

"Setting the hounds on the sheep" - your wording. This directly implies that the "hounds" were ordered/intended to commit atrocities by Robb, this is not based on the text.

ok "loosing the hounds on the sheep", is that better?.