Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panther2000

Tywin Lannister, OMG may not be that bad afterall

Recommended Posts

You honestly think he could have just attacked the Red Keep and no fighting would have broken out in the wider city? King's Landing's population would have suffered regardless of who got there first; there's no way Aerys was gonna surrender. The only differences are that Tywin's treachery minimized rebel casualties, and he killed Rhaegar's family (which Ned would not have done)

It's a sort of misleading and manipulative trick GRRM pulls by making Tywin the sacker of the city, rather than Ned, Robert, Stannis, Jon Arryn, etc. Ned may have pouted about all the dead babies and raped women, but there's no reason to believe the Northmen would have been any more gentle than the Westermen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think he could have just attacked the Red Keep and no fighting would have broken out in the wider city? King's Landing's population would have suffered regardless of who got there first; there's no way Aerys was gonna surrender. The only differences are that Tywin's treachery minimized rebel casualties, and he killed Rhaegar's family (which Ned would not have done)

It's a sort of misleading and manipulative trick GRRM pulls by making Tywin the sacker of the city, rather than Ned, Robert, Stannis, Jon Arryn, etc. Ned may have pouted about all the dead babies and raped women, but there's no reason to believe the Northmen would have been any more gentle than the Westermen

There's a difference in degree, however. Collateral damage is to some extend inevitable, as there's neither the technology or intelligence to be surgical about these things. The good commanders who care seem able to keep their men in check to an acceptable point and should have the authority and capability to make their expectations clear. The reports we have of the sack point to the rape and murder not an unfortunate side-effect, but the main strategy, from what went on in the city streets all the way to Elia's bedchamber. There's every reason to believe that Ned would keep his men in a better check because unlike Tywin he does care about the suffering of the smallfolk and doesn't seem to consider rape and murder a legitimate military strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin believes in fear as a tactic against dissension.



The Tarbacks and Reynes didn't believe the Lannister name had any credibility.



He knew he needed to change that dramatically.



And it worked.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think he could have just attacked the Red Keep and no fighting would have broken out in the wider city? King's Landing's population would have suffered regardless of who got there first; there's no way Aerys was gonna surrender.

Yes I do, Aerys lacked men to defend the city, and they should be dealt easily with once Lannisters were inside the fortifications. Unarmed people with spoons hardly posed a threat to Lannister host, nor were they likely to fight for the Mad Kings lost cause.

but there's no reason to believe the Northmen would have been any more gentle than the Westermen

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone considers murder a legitimate military strategy. Even the Ned.

Maybe murder was the wrong expression, but there's a difference between killing enemy soldiers (and regrettably the people who get in the way) and sanctioning wholesale killing of civilians on purpose as a tactic to achieve the maximum possible terror. We know where Tywin and Ned fall on this spectrum.

I agree.

There is - the Northmen's commander condemns such actions and is likely to outright forbid it, take steps to prevent it, and probably punish you for disobedience. Tywin won't care or might even reward you (like with Gregor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but there's a difference between killing enemy soldiers (and regrettably the people who get in the way) and sanctioning wholesale killing of civilians on purpose as a tactic to achieve the maximum possible terror. We know where Tywin and Ned fall on this spectrum.

This difference did not exist in Medieval time, it is a post WWII concept at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This difference did not exist in Medieval time, it is a post WWII concept at best

I don't know about medieval history, but it definitely exists in ASOIAF. For example, one of the reasons Dany decides to acquire the Unsullied is because they're more disciplined than regular soldiers and therefore less likely to rape and kill civilians, and Stannis gelds rapists after the Battle at the Wall. If they can tell the difference, so can other people in their society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is the deal. In allied regions or regions that you want to win to your cause you try to keep your forces on best behavior. that is why Henry V kept his men disciplined, because he wanted people of France to accept him as their rightful king, and didn't want his men to pillage what he viewed as 'his land'.


Tywin couldn't care less if people of Riverlands like him or not. Devastation caused by war will also force Riverlords to concentrate on rebuilding their own regions rather than plot vengeance, once they submit. Which is what happened.


Tarly also keeps his men in order, because he is in allied land, also has gained some lands for his son, and wants him to be accepted as a lord.


Danny also wants to be accepted as ruler, and desperately wants to be loved. Though every time she tries to reduce suffering she fails miserably.


But chevauchee or armed raid into enemy land is pretty much businesses as usual in Weteros.


Lannisters, Northmenin in Westerlands ans Crownlands and Hoster Tully have all practiced it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, back to this again. Scroll up Lion and Ramsey and we tried to sort this out ad nasueum. I personally think the sack was ordered by Tywin deliberately in order to provide cover for the murder of Elia and the children -- "in the heat of battle, my bannermen exceeded their orders..."



Others think that it just happened by accident as the fighting spilled from the RK to the city and then all hell broke loose. I find this argument less compelling because even if there was a decision to take the RK, it would have required relatively few soldiers and they would have been overseen by commanders on the ground to focus their attention on the keep, not go rampaging through the city.



As Marsyao said, sacks did happen and they continue to happen today -- it is not just a medieval phenomenon. But they always -- always -- happen after a fierce, pitched battle with a hardened enemy -- even if the enemy is a hostile occupier and the sackers are in fact the ones there to liberate it.



You'll note that the supposed rabid northmen came upon a city that was already aflame, and nobody talks about them running wild through the streets -- just the Lannsiter army.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll note that the supposed rabid northmen came upon a city that was already aflame, and nobody talks about them running wild through the streets -- just the Lannsiter army.

Rabid Northmen.

I like that, rabies, wolfs, get it. :cool4:

To be fair, there wasn't much left for them when they arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the "Game of Thrones" has no good guy or Bad guy, there are those you like and those you don't like. I don't like Tywin but I understand him completely. I did what was best for his house and they prospered. He was a very strong, but ugly pillar that held everyone craziness together. as soon as he died, Chaos.

This is precisely how I feel about him, and because he was that pillar I do find myself missing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the OP, just because your buddy/boss was a madman/jerkass doesn't excuse or otherwise mitigate the fact that you are a pretty scummy guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, everything controversial that Tywin did was in fact justified (except for the gang rape of Tysha).



If he didn't put down the Reynes and Tarbecks in the way he did, it is likely they would have done the same to the Lannisters.



If he didn't harry the Riverlands after Tyrion was captured, people would get the idea that you can harm a Lannister and pay no consequences for it.



Ordering the sacking of kings landing... iffy at best.... why again is it that he couldn't have ordered his soldiers not to rape and pillage and kill civilians?



Ordering the deaths of Elia's children, while brutal was justified as well. If he let them live, there would be guaranteed bloodshed in the future. If one lets them live, that means one must be ok with a future conquest or rebellion with more lives being lost.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, at least this is something tangible that at the very least we can agree to disagree on. I wish you guys had mentioned this, like, 100 posts ago and we could have avoided a lot of grief. This is why I asked you for you timelines so long ago.

Here is why that scenario does not work for me:

First, Jaime was in the Red Keep the whole time and he never saw any fighting. Not on the throne room, not when the messenger tells him that the King has need of him, not when he kills Rossert. I know you'll say that just because he didn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I find it implausible that all this was going on while Lannister men were storming the keep.

Second, when soldiers do show up in the throne room, it is not Lord Tywin or a Lannister bannerman or even a Lannister foot soldier; it is Ned Stark. How could he have gotten all the way to the throne room first when Lannisters had been fighting their way in for several hours?

And third, with Jaime in the keep with Aerys, Tywin would never risk a direct assault because the MK would just threaten to cut off his head and Tywin would have to call it off. Also, it puts Jaime in the uncomfortable position of having to either defend the king against Lannisters, and possibly his own uncle or a cousin, or break his KG vows. This was before he became the kingslayer, so Tywin would not risk tainting the future Lord of the Rock with dishonor.

And honestly, why do you guys think Tywin's intention was to capture the city and take over the keep? He knows Robert and Ned will be there soon, so it's not like he is going to get to keep them. And he also knows that Aerys will be executed for his crimes. The only loose ends are the children, so he has to make sure he gets to them and kills them before Ned or Robert do something stupid like set them free.

And to your points Dragon, as long as Tywin maintains the fiction that he is there to save the city, the gold cloaks and the citizenry will let him do anything he wants. So marching across the main avenue from the God's Gate, past the Great Sept and to the Red Keep would not be unusual at all, as he is merely presenting himself to his king and bringing reinforcement to guard the keep.

I don't understand this idea that everyone in the city is instantly hostile to Tywin as soon as he crosses the gate. This is the guy who ruled the kingdom in the good years, and ever since he left things have gone downhill. Furthermore, he is there to protect the city from the clear danger and certain sack that is coming from the northmen. so why do you think there would be all this panic and uncertainty just because Tywin is back in town and moving troops around. He is their hero. It would be more unsettling if he wasn't doing any of these things.

Most interesting discussion indeed, the whole thread, but Winterfell, The Wolves, and @John Suburbs contributions have intrigued me the most.

John, I am new to these boards, but your rationale and logic was 200% transparent and could not have been stated any clearer or decisively, for that matter in regards to the Sack of KL (from LT's motivations, to who has the better POV betwixt Jamie and Ned, to the fact that a man like Tywin would not helm an army he did not have complete control over and would not sack without his express orders.

I was always under the impression that the MK and the city populous (including soldiers) thought genuinely they were being aided, since Jamie never said otherwise in talking with Brienne about that entire day.

I am nowhere near as intelligent as you lot on here, but I honestly thought your analyses were common knowledge accepted as such.

I enjoyed the circular argument because you never failed to back up your claims without proof. And you didn't come off as a douche about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view of Tywin Lannister isn't all that changed, really, since I knew most of this anyway. His father was a big pushover and Tywin has been overcompensating ever since. He's a man who feels he needs to shank the biggest guy in the prison yard so people will fear him and does. The thing is, Tywin only knows brutality and cruelty as a means of getting what he wants and does a lot of petty evil things as well as harsh but effective ones.



The revoking all of Aegon V's reforms, for example, was just awful and ironic.



As horrible as the Tysha thing was, that act of quillwork probably ruined more lives than anything.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The revoking all of Aegon V's reforms, for example, was just awful and ironic.

As horrible as the Tysha thing was, that act of quillwork probably ruined more lives than anything.

Aegons reforms died with him. There was no good will to see them trough with Lords of the Realm, they only made them more prone to rebel, or the new kings.

It was just common political sense to abolish that laws that nobody, who actually held any power wanted, and win lords to his side.

But Tywin really gets more shit than hes due. Hes no Ramsey, Gregor, Vargo or Joffrey that enjoys murder and torture just for his perverted pleasure.

He lacks empathy for sure, violence it's just the mean to an end to him. How ever, once the end has been met, he is very competent and fair ruler. I don't think that much can be disputed.

Reynes, Tarbecks, Tullys, Targariens and Starks are all dealt with brutally (''Dead men take no vengeance.''), but their vassals are forgiven and accepted back in to kings peace. If you do the tally this ''brutal'' lord has actually forgiven more houses than he actually exterminated.

''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...we will restore the king’s peace and the king’s justice.''

Stannis still grinds his teeth because he had to forgive the lords who declared for Renly if he wanted his army, which he did, and cant just have head of every lord, landed knight and peasant who ever took up arms against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think no one can deny his effectiveness as a ruler, commander, and politician. I would say that to an extent he is fair and he is playing by the game of thrones rule book. I think he until his demise, played the game the best and if not the best, certainly in the top three.

The irony is that he was not brought down by enemies or even frenemies who he had some form of control over for most of his adult life, because of methods. No, he was brought down by his own son. Why? Because he tried to use those same GoT tactics on his children. They are not his soldiers, subjects (in the general sense), servants, etc. By treating them as such and in such unfatherly way, it goes to show you that the ends do not always justify the means when interacting with OTHER humans with feelings and opions different of your own with added element of familial ties. Even with the midev views of children as property, there is still a way to relate to your offspring. You can be strict and resolute but you have to show your children some type of love and not resent them for wanting autonomy or something different or being different . Even if you have to correct their behavior (Tysha/Tyrion comes to mind and if Tywin had been any kind of father to Tyrion at all, Tysha might not have happened in the first place), it can be done lovingly.

Tywin the Lord is cruel but in the context of war, I am indifferent to most of his actions because in the GoT, and given his own damaged upbringing, it's understandable and justifiable. However, he has done unjustifable things for no good reason other than his pride and sense of self-importance. There were other courses of action that would yield the same results. Still, it is a war for ultimate power which brings the worst out in men at times. And given the stakes he was playing for, it's understandable why HE felt he needed to be extreme in some matters.

Tywin's major flaw is not being as adjustable in his parenting as he was with his GoT play. He's a bad guy, no changing that. He is not respectable as a human being, but he was a hell if a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×