Tywin and Tyrion's discussion of Elia

[JonCon's Red Beard]

For a seven pages thread, I feel like we've already discussed the same things at least three times.

1. Evidence against Tywin. His conduct:

a) He's know to pay violently any offence, even minor, either to him or his House.

b )He never acts of his own. He has "dogs" doing the dirty work.

c) He always looks way to justify his actions.

d) He's power hungry.

2. Evidence against Tywin: the motivation.

Aerys offended him by refusing to marry his daughter to Rhaegar and call him "servant". Aerys insulted his house (see a) ).

He has Gregor Clegane under his service, a man known to be viciously cruel (see b )

He needed to take the change to make Cersei the next Queen. That couldn't happen with Elia being alive, as she would always being called "the Rightfull Queen/Princess" by any Targaryen loyalist (see d )

Tywin is known to be a master politician and commander, by his own defenders. He would NEVER forget to take a valuable hostage given the chance and Elia WAS valuable. Even if he actually didn't order Gregor to kill her, he knew Gregor would not only kill her but rape her or hurt her (gregor DOES THIS) and didn't specifically orderer her to get her alive and safe because he didn't mind. Everything else is simply try to justify his actions.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

What evidences? There are just assumptions and opinions, no more, no less.

Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand. The fact that Tywin ordered Aegon's death and Gregor went overboard, would already be considered a crime, since Gregor is Tywin's subordinate. And I don't want to sound presumptious, but no court in the world would consider Tywin's character a positive way of handling the argument, nor any possible attorney. The fact that Tywin would have to plead the fifth on the stand, would not do him favors. lol

Nobody would presume Tywin is innocent. /thread.

For a seven pages thread, I feel like we've already discussed the same things at least three times.

1. Evidence against Tywin. His conduct:

a) He's know to pay violently any offence, even minor, either to him or his House.

b )He never acts of his own. He has "dogs" doing the dirty work.

c) He always looks way to justify his actions.

d) He's power hungry.

2. Evidence against Tywin: the motivation.

Aerys offended him by refusing to marry his daughter to Rhaegar and call him "servant". Aerys insulted his house (see a) ).

He has Gregor Clegane under his service, a man known to be viciously cruel (see b )

He needed to take the change to make Cersei the next Queen. That couldn't happen with Elia being alive, as she would always being called "the Rightfull Queen/Princess" by any Targaryen loyalist (see d )

Tywin is known to be a master politician and commander, by his own defenders. He would NEVER forget to take a valuable hostage given the chance and Elia WAS valuable. Even if he actually didn't order Gregor to kill her, he knew Gregor would not only kill her but rape her or hurt her (gregor DOES THIS) and didn't specifically orderer her to get her alive and safe because he didn't mind. Everything else is simply try to justify his actions.

The prosecution would crush his defense, especially if it's based on "He didn't knew what monster he had in his hands." lol All in all, JonCon, /thread.

[Arakan]

There is no support for your thesis as well.

Only Tywin's words. Which have been a lie a thousand times.

I have no thesis at all. I recject the absolutism in some users' opinion that Tywin ordered the murder of Elia without clear textual proof.

And I stated that before very clearly.

The only FACTS we have:

1) Elia was murdererd

2) she was murdered by Gregor Clegane

3) Gregor Clegane is bannerman of House Lannister

4) as a conclusion Tywin as his liege lord bears political responsibility for Elia's murder

5) Tyrion's suspicions are driven by his own past experiences and he clearly is biased on a personal level when it comes to Tywin

Everything else is just speculation and interpretation. I would say that my reasoning is supported by logic.

"In dubio pro reo" should always be sacred.

Or to make it simple: based on the given (or lack of) facts, no RL court in the world would convict Tywin of personally ordering the murder and rape of Elia Martell. Of course assuming a FAIR trial :).

People here are just too biased against Tywin due to his other terrible deeds. Understandable but nonetheless irrelevant in a neutral and objective assessment of the situation and its circumstances.

in dubio pro reo

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Yeah, Aerys was no vicious idiot.

if you mean Aerys II, he wasn't an idiot. Before Rhaegar's death, he was taking quite acceptable decisions and got good people in charge. The Rebellion was a strong force he couldn't defeat and he was betrayed by Tywin at the very end, but that's none of his fault. And because I'm lazy enough to write the whole thing again, I simply quote me during a thread actually comparing him and Joffrey:

Even after his madness developed, even during the rebellion, he was able to make acceptable decisions, right up until the moment he named a pyromancer as Hand, at least, because honestly, neither Connington or Chelsted were bad choices (and neither Merrywheater nor Connington were roasted, so, Aerys didn't go around burning people like many assume). Also, the naming of the pyromancer wasn't that random or some mere act of a mad man: there is some sort of "logic" behind the chain of events that leaded Rossart to be named Hand: Merrywheater tried diplomacy and failed. Connington tried a military approach and failed. I can't remember what Chelsted did but he opposed the King, so, he failed. When Aerys realised they were going to lose the war, and it was all practically lost, he also lost his mind and tried to kill everybody.

Joffrey's rule, OTOH, was once mistake after another, starting with the murder of Ned Stark, which brought the North into the War. Up until that, I could even justify this mistake as his own inexperience as both a King and a person: he was 13 at the time, IICR. But later, we hear instances of him actually enjoying targeting living beings and hurt them, at that very same age we use to justify his lack of life experience. And while Aerys tried to set the whole city on fire after he saw himself defeated, Joffrey wanted everybody executed when he saw his own people discontent about his ruling. The only other person I remember being this level of crazy was Aerion Brightflame, who ended up drinking wildfire because he would be a dragon.

[Arakan]

Why are we arguing whether tywin ordered Elia killed?

It's obvious he did.Knowing his character it is quite obvious.

Elia married Rhaegar and not Cersei.

And also he "forgot to tell anything to the mountain about Elia" is a serious arguement?

Come on be real...

No one forces you to participate in this discussion if you find it obsolete :). Dozens of other intetesting active threads around.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Or to make it simple: based on the given (or lack of) facts, no RL court in the world would convict Tywin of personally ordering the murder and rape of Elia Martell. Of course assuming a FAIR trial :).

People here are just too biased against Tywin due to his other terrible deeds. Understandable but nonetheless irrelevant in a neutral and objective assessment of the situation and its circumstances.

in dubio pro reo

I personally believe Tywin would have no chance of escaping that crime. Even if he did not do it, the evidence is against him. The prosecution just has too many arguments at her feet.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

The prosecution would crush his defense, especially if it's based on "He didn't knew what monster he had in his hands." lol All in all, JonCon, /thread.

To put it even more simple, it's like a man owning a very dangerous dog that he always keep chained. Then, one day, he has a fight with a neighbour and the next day after that, such neighbour is attacked by the mean dog.

Yeah, he "forgot" to chain it that very night.

[Arakan]

I personally believe Tywin would have no chance of escaping that crime. Even if he did not do it, the evidence is against him. The prosecution just has too many arguments at her feet.

I repeat: he indeed IS responsible for Elia Martell's murder but in NO WAY can and will he be convicted of personally ordering her murder. There simply is no "smoking gun" and a conviction based on character assessment alone, without further hard evidence, is simply against the fundamentals of "in dubio pro reo".

Maybe he did order the murder. Maybe not. So far we simply DONT KNOW IT.

And it's annoying as hell when some users here like Ingelheim or nastydream are accusing others of "denial mode" when the only thing they themselves have to offer is opinion. At least users like Joncon or you try to argue with GOOD arguments...

[Magnar of Skagos]

Even you. Even your son whos wife you had commanded the guards of your garrison to rape because she dared to marry him. Even he would not accuse you of commanding the rape of the woman who dared to marry the man you meant for your daughter to marry?

The most confusing sentences I have ever read.

[Ingelheim]

I repeat: he indeed IS responsible for Elia Martell's murder but in NO WAY can and will he be convicted of personally ordering her murder. There simply is no "smoking gun" and a conviction based on character assessment alone, without further hard evidence, is simply against the fundamentals of "in dubio pro reo".

Maybe he did order the murder. Maybe not. So far we simply DONT KNOW IT.

And it's annoying as hell when some users here like Ingelheim or nastydream are accusing others of "denial mode" when the only thing they themselves have to offer is opinion. At least users like Joncon or you try to argue with GOOD arguments...

What? I'm just saying the denial is realy strong regarding some of Tywin's qualities.

Some of the Tywin defenders here said that killing Elia is "so out of his character". That, in my opinion, is denying everything Tywin is.

[Arakan]

What? I'm just saying the denial is realy strong regarding some of Tywin's qualities.

Some of the Tywin defenders here said that killing Elia is "so out of his character". That, in my opinion, is denying everything Tywin is.

But who is doing that? No one said that it's out of his character per se IIRC. But it is valid to counter those who say with absolute determination that Tywin ordered the murder of Elia.

[Ingelheim]

But who is doing that? No one said that it's out of his character per se IIRC. But it is valid to counter those who say with absolute determination that Tywin ordered the murder of Elia.

Well, this is what @John Doe said a few minutes ago:

What evidences? There are just assumptions and opinions, no more, no less.

Btw it's obvious he didn't. Knowing his character it is quite obvious.

/thread

That's just the opposite of saying: "It's quite obvious he did it. Knowing his character it is quite obvious. /thread"

That's the same absolute determination you say we are using.

That's why I mentioned the denial thing. Tywin may have or may have not killed her, but saying that it's "obvious" he didn't do it is quite an absolute and very refutable statement.

[Arakan]

I believe i just did write an arguement and you ignored it when you said "go to other threads"

nice try tho

Sorry but who is in denial :)? I simply commented your "why we are even discussing this" comment (not literally), which basically questions the legitimation of the pure existence of this thread, with a well intended recommendation that there are other active threads as well. Just in case you think this discussion is obsolete.

No harm intended :).

And I did respond to various valid arguments.

[Arakan]

Well, this is what @John Doe said a few minutes ago:

That's just the opposite of saying: "It's quite obvious he did it. Knowing his character it is quite obvious. /thread"

That's the same absolute determination you say we are using.

That's why I mentioned the denial thing. Tywin may have or may have not killed her, but saying that it's "obvious" he didn't do it is quite an absolute and very refutable statement.

Sorry. Didnt see this. Of course I do not support the absolutism of JD's claim at all :).

[nastydream]

The discussion will go on and on. Ah, I miss the Stark bias thread already.

Haha yeah the stark bias thread

Kept me up until 7 am.

[Ingelheim]

Sorry. Didnt see this. Of course I do not support the absolutism of JD's claim at all :).

It doesn't matter, don't worry.

[nastydream]

Sorry but who is in denial :)? I simply commented your "why we are even discussing this" comment (not literally), which basically questions the legitimation of the pure existence of this thread, with a well intended recommendation that there are other active threads as well. Just in case you think this discussion is obsolete.

No harm intended :).

And I did respond to various valid arguments.

Um I didn't say you were in denial...

[mormont]

[mod] Stick to discussing the topic, please - not discussing each other, or other threads. [/mod]

[SeanF]

I have no thesis at all. I recject the absolutism in some users' opinion that Tywin ordered the murder of Elia without clear textual proof.

And I stated that before very clearly.

The only FACTS we have:

1) Elia was murdererd

2) she was murdered by Gregor Clegane

3) Gregor Clegane is bannerman of House Lannister

4) as a conclusion Tywin as his liege lord bears political responsibility for Elia's murder

5) Tyrion's suspicions are driven by his own past experiences and he clearly is biased on a personal level when it comes to Tywin

Everything else is just speculation and interpretation. I would say that my reasoning is supported by logic.

"In dubio pro reo" should always be sacred.

Or to make it simple: based on the given (or lack of) facts, no RL court in the world would convict Tywin of personally ordering the murder and rape of Elia Martell. Of course assuming a FAIR trial :).

People here are just too biased against Tywin due to his other terrible deeds. Understandable but nonetheless irrelevant in a neutral and objective assessment of the situation and its circumstances.

in dubio pro reo

To convict Tywin, one would have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that either he ordered the murder and rape of Elia, or that he knew that's what Ser Gregor would do, and let him go ahead anyway. We don't have that information.

However, readers don't need that level of proof. We can find Tywin guilty on the balance of probabilities. I think it's probable that he ordered her murder, at least.

[Arakan]

We can find Tywin guilty on the balance of probabilities. I think it's probable that he ordered her murder, at least.

Absolutely. Never said that it would be out of the realm of possibility that he specifically gave that order. Even though I have a different approach.

At the end of the day, it is all just personal opinion due to lack of evidence. It's like with JFK. And as all the participants are either dead or zombified we pressumably will never get any further detail wrt Elia Martell's murder.

But do you agree, that it is not "total denial" or delusional to have another opinion on that matter?

I for once take the "in dubio pro reo" position and I think it's legitimate. Whether others agree or not. It's more often than not fair play to just agree to disagree.