Tywin Lannister, OMG may not be that bad afterall

[complexphoenix]

Kill the children, and you have to kill Elia. In fact, realpolitik dictates killing the entire Martell family, once you begin with Aegon and Rhaenys.

No, actually, you don't. (And wiping out the Martells wouldn't have been possible anyway.) In fact, I'd say that keeping Elia alive would have been more to Tywin's advantage, since she could have been used as a hostage to encourage her brother to bend the knee to Robert.

As much as I despise Tywin, I believe he was telling the truth when he told Tyrion that he never mentioned Elia when giving Gregor his orders. Tywin is brutal, Tywin is cruel, Tywin is cynical and has no moral regard for human life, but he's not senseless or stupid, nor does he delight in violence for its own sake. Every death he commissions is meant to serve a political purpose (at least in his mind - you can argue in many cases, and I do, that he went farther than necessary), and there was no purpose in Elia's death, since she was not herself a Targaryen and was no threat to anyone by herself.

Sparing her would have been small mercy, though - the deaths of both her children, and her inability to produce more, would have left her an emotional wreck for the rest of her life. But her survival would not have made the Martells more likely to seek vengeance than they were after she died. She had no skill at arms and was not a Lady of anything in her own right, so the decision whether to seek vengeance, and how, would have rested with her brothers - just as it did after she died. So Tywin truly gained nothing from her death.

[SeanF]

His partiality is subtle at first, and I don't think he put in any outright falsehoods for the period prior to the Rebellion. Rather, I believe he lied by omission, exhaustively detailing all of Aerys' lapses while never acknowledging any of Aerys' good points except as necessary to make Tywin look good, and detailing all of Tywin's good work while omitting anything that would make him look bad. Ser Barristan tells Dany that there was much good to be said of Aerys, but you'd never know that from reading what Yandel wrote. Yandel makes it sound like Aerys was a completely useless and shitty king even before he went insane, and credits everything that went right in his reign to Tywin.

You also see the slant in how Rhaegar is portrayed. Everyone we meet in the novels who knew Rhaegar personally describes him as amazing, but Yandel ignores or downplays all of his virtues except his courage

and skill at arms - which is really just to make Robert, who slew him, look better.

I don't really blame Yandel for all this - politics is dangerous, and offending powerful people who are still living is generally a bad idea. But being able to see the slant and correct for it is key if we, the readers, want to get at the truth of what happened.

Those are good points, and maybe I've been too harsh to Aerys, pre-Duskendale. That said, his behaviour towards Joanna and his wife, torturing his mistress and her family, and removing Ser Ilyn's tongue are bad at any level.

If Dany wins the IT, I expect that Yandel will extensively revise his chronicle.

[SeanF]

No, actually, you don't. In fact, I'd say that keeping Elia alive would have been more to Tywin's advantage, since she could have been used as a hostage to encourage her brother to bend the knee to Robert.

As much as I despise Tywin, I believe he was telling the truth when he told Tyrion that he never mentioned Elia when giving Gregor his orders. Tywin is brutal, Tywin is cruel, Tywin is cynical and has no moral regard for human life, but he's not senseless or stupid, nor does he delight in violence for its own sake. Every death he commissions is meant to serve a political purpose (at least in his mind - you can argue in many cases, and I do, that he went farther than necessary), and there was no purpose in Elia's death, since she was not herself a Targaryen and was no threat to anyone by herself.

Spraing her would have been small mercy, though - the deaths of both her children, and her inability to produce more, would have left her an emotional wreck for the rest of her life. But her survival would not have made the Martells more likely to seek vengeance than they were after she died. She had no skill at arms and was not a Lady of anything in her own right, so the decision whether to seek vengeance, and how, would have rested with her brothers - just as it did after she died. So Tywin truly gained nothing from her death.

Elia would have been a permanent embarrassment to the new regime, as she sought justice for her children. And her brothers would still want vengeance.

[John Suburbs]

It seems to me that much of the Aerys chapter was sourced from Maester Pycelle, a Tywin cheerleader if ever there was one. So I doubt this is a truly unbiased account of all that went on between Tywin and Aerys.

[complexphoenix]

Those are good points, and maybe I've been too harsh to Aerys, pre-Duskendale. That said, his behaviour towards Joanna and his wife, torturing his mistress and her family, and removing Ser Ilyn's tongue are bad at any level.

If Dany wins the IT, I expect that Yandel will extensively revise his chronicle.

To be sure. I'm not defending Aerys - even after correcting for likely slant, he still comes off as one of the worst kings Westeros ever had. Only Maegor was worse in my opinion - he and Aerys being the only two kings bad enough that the realm rose to depose them. I don't doubt that the specific incidents Yandel recounts - the crass comment about Joanna's breasts, that huge asshole move he pulled on Tywin about the port taxes, that hilarious bit about having his food taster lick the nipples of Viserys' wet nurse, all the stuff you mentioned - were all true.

Perhaps GRRM will give us a Second Edition world book after the series is over. It will certainly be... interesting... to see how the slant shifts.

[Lion of the West]

There's no such thing as "ready" by your definition. Elites always resist having their power and privilege reduced, and reforms never come without a fight. Tywin could have used his skills to quell the unrest and cement Aegon's reforms, but instead he chose to use his skills to do away with them and restore the power and privilege of his own class. Tywin is an elitist with no regard for the smallfolk, he's demonstrated it time and again. He didn't do this for the good of the realm, he did it for the good of himself and his own kind.

Yes there is such a thing as "ready". The realm was "ready" for the First Night to be abolished because it had a clever king who had peace and stability and understood that you can't throw people from 1 to 100 in a few years without disasterous results. If Aegon had been clever he would see that the realm could've been ready for a single reform. I don't know the exact laws and noble rights but if Aegon had chosen one, put that through and then let the rest be its much more likely for the nobility to let it slide and then grow used to it. Like they have mostly grown used to the absence of the First Night.

When you try to push on things that Westeros isn't ready for you get rebellions and revolts and eventually a backlash to, as we see, put things even more back or return to the status quo.

Sure he is. How many more thousands did he need to order to be murdered, raped or tortured for his fanboys to admit it?

Absolutely, we all know how deeply Tywin cares about the smallfolk. It had nothing to do with keeping his own power, no, Sir.

No he isn't. And I don't know how many. I'll have to count on it.

No, it wasn't for the smallfolk but given how they apparently brought Aegon who instituted them nothing but revolts and uprisings I can see why it they being rolled back ensured stability instead. Never did I claim that Tywin did it for the smallfolk, I only claimed that Aegon pressed things to fast and far and that I think that stability is better for the smallfolk than semi-constant civil wars. Sorry for being unclear but I don't share in the romantic view of war for the smallfolk.

[complexphoenix]

Yes there is such a thing as "ready". The realm was "ready" for the First Night to be abolished because it had a clever king who had peace and stability and understood that you can't throw people from 1 to 100 in a few years without disasterous results. If Aegon had been clever he would see that the realm could've been ready for a single reform. I don't know the exact laws and noble rights but if Aegon had chosen one, put that through and then let the rest be its much more likely for the nobility to let it slide and then grow used to it. Like they have mostly grown used to the absence of the First Night.

When you try to push on things that Westeros isn't ready for you get rebellions and revolts and eventually a backlash to, as we see, put things even more back or return to the status quo.

No he isn't. And I don't know how many. I'll have to count on it.

No, it wasn't for the smallfolk but given how they apparently brought Aegon who instituted them nothing but revolts and uprisings I can see why it they being rolled back ensured stability instead. Never did I claim that Tywin did it for the smallfolk, I only claimed that Aegon pressed things to fast and far and that I think that stability is better for the smallfolk than semi-constant civil wars. Sorry for being unclear but I don't share in the romantic view of war for the smallfolk.

Aegon himself had already rescinded his most problematic efforts. The ones Tywin rescinded had made it through the reign of Jaehaerys II intact, so they were probably well on their way to being accepted when Tywin did away with them. Done in the name of stability? Not even slightly. This was about class privilege, pure and simple.

And also: there have been many times in history when reforms were made, there was unrest, and then the reformists won. The short-term unrest is bad for people, but in the long term they are better off. All Tywin did was ensure that all the strife that had already occurred was for nothing.

And you don't need to have a romantic view of ordinary people to recognize that they are people, and oppressing them is wrong.

[Winterfell is Burning]

There's no such thing as "ready" by your definition. Elites always resist having their power and privilege reduced, and reforms never come without a fight. Tywin could have used his skills to quell the unrest and cement Aegon's reforms, but instead he chose to use his skills to do away with them and restore the power and privilege of his own class. Tywin is an elitist with no regard for the smallfolk, he's demonstrated it time and again. He didn't do this for the good of the realm, he did it for the good of himself and his own kind.

Yes. I remember that scene in Mad Men (2nd or 3rd season, I'm not sure) in which Betty says blacks aren't ready for equality or something in that sense, and her maid has a "what's that stupid bitch talking about?" look on her face. That comment reminds of that.

[Aetta]

:agree:, I still don't like a lot of things that Twyin did however, there is more of a back story to him. Now, I can see where he is coming from ( not that I would have done a lot of the stuff that the did).

I do agree that The King Putting Jamie in the KG was the last straw from twyin. Still twyin retired from the hand with respect toward the king. He did not bad mouth him or when leaving or pointed out that the man was BSC.

Twyin has become shades of grey for me than just the Black & White.

Now, here we go again. Twyin is gone & the Kingdom will crumble once again without him. 1st there was The King & now they will have a Mad Queen Regent ( Poor Tommen).

I would have loved to hear even more of the back story on twyin.

I will miss Charles Dance this coming season.

The same can be argued of Aerys II. Forced to marry his sister because some witch declared that Aerys & Rhaella would bare a child that would outshine Aerys-TPtwP, as if Aerys's reign was nothing more than a breeding program for the really important king (Rhaegar). Who cares about Aerys? We want our prophecized Prince, and it sure ain't Aerys!

The type of freedom to love a woman like Joanna gone to him. A mental disorder inherited. People thought him so weak that they teased it was Tywin running his realm. Then when his "PtwP' came along, he was comely and smart, and the realm swooned. Poor Aerys, the old ugly, dried up stud that no one gave a shit about.

Point is, I am sure there are aspects of Aerys that we could also come to sympathize with, doesn't make him any more admirable, to me. Tywin's reasons don't negate the monstrosities.

[Lion of the West]

Aegon himself had already rescinded his most problematic efforts. The ones Tywin rescinded had made it through the reign of Jaehaerys II intact, so they were probably well on their way to being accepted when Tywin did away with them. Done in the name of stability? Not even slightly. This was about class privilege, pure and simple.

And also: there have been many times in history when reforms were made, there was unrest, and then the reformists won. The short-term unrest is bad for people, but in the long term they are better off. All Tywin did was ensure that all the strife that had already occurred was for nothing.

And you don't need to have a romantic view of ordinary people to recognize that they are people, and oppressing them is wrong.

Eh, no that don't make much sense. Jaehaerys II sat on the throne for like three years so just because some reforms made it through his reign don't mean that they were about to be accepted or that he wouldn't have done away with them. Its true that Aegon was smart enough to see he was building a house of cards and so took away most of them before the house could collapse. Also note that it said "Tywin won the approbation of many great lords by repealing what remained of the laws that Aegon V had enacted to curb their powers." Sounds like those laws were not accepted and could be a breeding ground for further upheavals.

Considering that Aegon had to withdraw his own laws and was dreaming of having dragons as the only way to enforce his will I'd say that he had already lost the battle.

And problem is that Westeros and the Targaryen reign is build on oppression. There is zero power whatsoever with which to balance the power of the nobility and the royal lands themselves are so small that they can't support enough armies by far to, I would guess, even strongarm the Crownlands. Simply put, it will take dragons for the king or queen to be able to challenge the status of nobility for real. And the dragons were gone by that point, hence why Aegon tried to bring them back.

If anyone will be able to change anything it will be Daenerys because she's got dragons. Trying to change things without dragons looks like a lost cause to me.

Yes. I remember that scene in Mad Men (2nd or 3rd season, I'm not sure) in which Betty says blacks aren't ready for equality or something in that sense, and her maid has a "what's that stupid bitch talking about?" look on her face. That comment reminds of that.

I haven't seen Mad Men but I would assume that you talking nonsense. Comparting blacks in the 60s with Westerosi smallfolk is about as shallow as it gets. There are some superficial similarities to trigger the imagination of the ignorant but that's it.

[LordStoneheart]

The blood of Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon is not washed away from Tywin Lannister's hands because he had a tough early reign.

[Chaircat Meow]

Elia would have been a permanent embarrassment to the new regime, as she sought justice for her children. And her brothers would still want vengeance.

If Tywin had thought that was a good reason to kill her he would have said so himself.

Agree that the Martells would want revenge anyway, obviously.

[complexphoenix]

Eh, no that don't make much sense. Jaehaerys II sat on the throne for like three years so just because some reforms made it through his reign don't mean that they were about to be accepted or that he wouldn't have done away with them. Its true that Aegon was smart enough to see he was building a house of cards and so took away most of them before the house could collapse. Also note that it said "Tywin won the approbation of many great lords by repealing what remained of the laws that Aegon V had enacted to curb their powers." Sounds like those laws were not accepted and could be a breeding ground for further upheavals.

Considering that Aegon had to withdraw his own laws and was dreaming of having dragons as the only way to enforce his will I'd say that he had already lost the battle.

And problem is that Westeros and the Targaryen reign is build on oppression. There is zero power whatsoever with which to balance the power of the nobility and the royal lands themselves are so small that they can't support enough armies by far to, I would guess, even strongarm the Crownlands. Simply put, it will take dragons for the king or queen to be able to challenge the status of nobility for real. And the dragons were gone by that point, hence why Aegon tried to bring them back.

If anyone will be able to change anything it will be Daenerys because she's got dragons. Trying to change things without dragons looks like a lost cause to me.

I haven't seen Mad Men but I would assume that you talking nonsense. Comparting blacks in the 60s with Westerosi smallfolk is about as shallow as it gets. There are some superficial similarities to trigger the imagination of the ignorant but that's it.

Dragons don't exist in the real world, yet reforms and democratic transitions still managed to happen. You are full of it here.

And of course the nobles were pleased with Tywin for restoring their class privilege. That doesn't mean they were in the midst of rebelling, or planning on rebelling over those reforms. Their acceptance would have been grudging, but that's how these things always go. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Tywin did a good thing for Westeros by rescinding those.

[complexphoenix]

Elia would have been a permanent embarrassment to the new regime, as she sought justice for her children. And her brothers would still want vengeance.

Her death is a permanent embarrassment to the regime in any case. So where is the gain? There wasn't any. The only concrete effect of her death was to rob the victors of a potentially valuable hostage.

[The Wolves]

Her death is a permanent embarrassment to the regime in any case. So where is the gain? There wasn't any. The only concrete effect of her death was to rob the victors of a potentially valuable hostage.

Tywin didn't even know that Robert and the rebels were thinking of taking the crown because he was sitting in Casterly Rock waiting. He had no idea what Robert, Ned, and Jon were going to do with Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys. Tywin saw an opportunity to get back at Aerys he's a monster.

[complexphoenix]

Tywin didn't even know that Robert and the rebels were thinking of taking the crown because he was sitting in Casterly Rock waiting. He had no idea what Robert, Ned, and Jon were going to do with Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys. Tywin saw an opportunity to get back at Aerys he's a monster.

No.

Tywin knew what news the ravens carried, and as such he knew that the rebels had put forth Robert as king. When he commanded his men to sack the city, he commanded it in Robert's name. He ordered Rhaegar's children killed in order to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert by helping to secure Robert's throne, and to get brownie points by sparing Robert from having to carry out that ugly task himself. There is no reason to believe that he lied to Tyrion about any of that, when he explained his reasoning in ASOS.

[The Wolves]

No.

Tywin knew what news the ravens carried, and as such he knew that the rebels had put forth Robert as king. When he commanded his men to sack the city, he commanded it in Robert's name. He ordered Rhaegar's children killed in order to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert by helping to secure Robert's throne, and to get brownie points by sparing Robert from having to carry out that ugly task himself. There is no reason to believe that he lied to Tyrion about any of that, when he explained his reasoning in ASOS.

Okay

[Lion of the West]

Dragons don't exist in the real world, yet reforms and democratic transitions still managed to happen. You are full of it here.

And of course the nobles were pleased with Tywin for restoring their class privilege. That doesn't mean they were in the midst of rebelling, or planning on rebelling over those reforms. Their acceptance would have been grudging, but that's how these things always go. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Tywin did a good thing for Westeros by rescinding those.

Problem is that feudal society developed very differently in RL than in Westeros. In real world the king was usually the most powerful man in the kingdom. He didn't have vassals who could field ten times the number of men that he could field himself, and when similar things happened he was in for trouble. Furthermore there was a growth of power outside of the aristocracy like the burghers that meant that social change happend in a way which is not seen in Westeros, not to mention the power of the Church and cities ruled by burghers and so on, which are all absent from Westeros.. So I am not full of it, you are however very ignorant.

EDITED: I should also add the technological progress which also made the previous power of nobility a memory.

The fact that they were not openly rebelling is not reason to allow something to stand which could help to tip them over to some pretender further down the line. I'll say this again. The nobility has about ALL power in Westeros. Not most of it, not much of it but they have all of it and so keeping them happy is paramount to ensuring stability and peace. There is no force whatsoever in the whole realm that can aid the king against the nobles, save other nobles. Thus alienating nobles is not a road to success as Aegon and the realm learned to their sorrow.

[Northern light]

I'm not under the impression that wiping out whole houses is the norm in Westeros when it comes to rebellious vassals. Executing the ruling lord? Yes. Take hostages? Yes. Killing all children and women? No.

So Tywin is still a major asshat in my book.

[marsyao]

I'm not under the impression that wiping out whole houses is the norm in Westeros when it comes to rebellious vassals. Executing the ruling lord? Yes. Take hostages? Yes. Killing all children and women? No.

So Tywin is still a major asshat in my book.

It was all about circunstance, Lannisters was weak and in a very vulnerable position, so a brutal example has to be set