Tywin Lannister, OMG may not be that bad afterall

[marsyao]

As the RWoC says, using Greyjoy's rebellion as an example of how harsh punishments are usual in Westeros is really odd, as it proves exactly the opposite:

• What Balon did (unprovoked attacks at the mainland) was far worse than what the Tarbecks and the Reynes did (not paying taxes).

Robert was in a much weaker position than Tywin, being in a newfounded dinasty with many enemies at home and a rival claimant at the other side of the Narrow Sea.

Still after the rebellion, Balon was left alive, Euron was left alive, Victartion has left alive, Aeron was left alive, Asha was left alive, and only Theon was kept as a hostage by a major lord who treated him honorably and raised him among his own children.

What are you talking about? Robert was in a very strong position, first no one like Ironborns, second, he had Stomeland, westland, Riverrun, the North, the Vale firmly behind him

[Chaircat Meow]

Just a point: the Reynes and Tarbecks weren't in trouble for non-payment of taxes.

First it was loans, not tax. More importantly though it was direct defiance of lannister authority and attacks on lannisters. The Tarbecks answered the arrest of lord Tarbeck by seizing lannisters and holding them hostage to force compliance. The Reynes and Tarbecks were likely involved in the disturbances that caused three royal interventions in the west in Aegon V's reign. Roger Reyne had also come to be the outstanding military leader in the west, leading the westermen contingent on the stepstones after the death of Tytos's brother.

House Lannister's ability to be a paramount family was clearly in enormous danger, even though they were not in danger of destruction as a House.

[John Suburbs]

As the RWoC says, using Greyjoy's rebellion as an example of how harsh punishments are usual in Westeros is really odd, as it proves exactly the opposite:

• What Balon did (unprovoked attacks at the mainland) was far worse than what the Tarbecks and the Reynes did (not paying taxes).

Robert was in a much weaker position than Tywin, being in a newfounded dinasty with many enemies at home and a rival claimant at the other side of the Narrow Sea.

Still after the rebellion, Balon was left alive, Euron was left alive, Victartion has left alive, Aeron was left alive, Asha was left alive, and only Theon was kept as a hostage by a major lord who treated him honorably and raised him among his own children.

Yes, and where is that major lord now? How has his family fared? What is the state of his castle? And who is responsible for much of that downfall?

Tywin, at least, plays to win, and in winning gets to make the rules as to what is moral and what is not. It's harsh, but that's the way it goes.

To paraphrase: "Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

[Northern light]

Those are pretty terrible analogies. Hell if Tywin had defeated the Reynes and Tarbecks, but not utterly eliminated them, and took their children as wards/hostages akin to Theon (and treated them as Ned did Theon), people would think far more highly of him. What Tywin did to Tysha was wanton and completely outside of any laws (regardless of how tenuous any idea of law is) of Westeros

Agree.

[Talleyrand]

If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

And that omelet shot Tywin with a crossbow, turns out Tywins a shit metaphorical cook

[Maia]

Well, of course Tywin was "bad", and I say it as a fan of his character.

OTOH, I don't think that he was much out of line when dealing with Tarbecks and Reynes, nor that he had much of a choice re: either dealing with them decisively and permanently, or ending up with a blood feud against them on his hands, once he killed a few of them. Unless he bumped off his old man, that is.

Now, what a lot of his critics seem to forget is that Tywin couldn't successfully deal with them in more traditional ways, because Tytos was liable to undo everything he had accomplished, overturn his sentences, forgive and reward the 2 families, like he did previously, etc. And that's what they were very clearly counting on and the reason why Tywin couldn't besiege Castamere for a couple of years or so. Or why he couldn't have sent their men to NW. As seen with Bittersteel, apparently people can be intercepted and freed until they actually reach the Wall.

So, he was not at all hypocritical when he told Joff " when your lords are on their knees before you, you must help them back to their feet". Because Tarbecks and Reynes had not only transgressed many, many times, but they also never admitted their defeat and authority of Casterly Rock. Had they done so, it is pretty clear that they would have been dealt with in customary manner, as defeated Stormlords, etc., were after the Battle of the Blackwater.

I'd also argue that extinguishing of Houses absolutely happened everywhere when circumstances warranted it. There are a lot of extinguished Houses in the North, for instance, and I am sure that the Blackwoods didn't run away to the Riverlands for a lark, but because of existential danger. Ditto Manderlies going to the North. Would they have commited such a gamble if they weren't staring complete anihilation in the face? Not IMHO. I mean, alone successfully moving from the Reach to the North with some of their liquid wealth must have been a very risky adventure, without any certainty of welcome at the end.

Peakes, Boltons and so on still exist, because for one reason or another, getting rid of them in immediate aftermaths of their escapades was more inconvenient than letting them continue. It wouldn't surprise me, for instance, if Maekar had been trying to de-Peake Westeros once and for all when that boulder fell on him...

I sort of wonder that there was, apparently, no outcry from the Houses into which female Reynes must have married. Lord Tarbeck only had sons and given the sorry state of his House pre-Ellyn, they must have been intermarried with unimportant families. And Ellyn's own daughters were apparently married to Walderran's grandsons by his earlier wives.

But it is specifically mentioned, that Ellyn Reyne did have nieces back when she was Tion's wife, and Reyne girls would have been good catches for any House in the West.

It is also very curious that Ser Kevan, who had spent most of his youth among the Reynes, seemed to be totally on-board with their drowning.

Re: how Lannisters were in no danger of being overthrown because Tywin was good friends with the crown prince - well, you'd think that Reynes and Tarbecks would have taken it into account and not opposed Tywin so blatantly in the first place. Clearly, they didn't, likely emboldened by the failure of Egg's interventions and by the fact that Jaehaerys II was non-martial, sickly, and struggling with the PR-backlash of Summerhall and consequences of the War of Ninepenny Kings.

Anyway, the Sack of King's Landing and the Tysha incident are completely different in that they were acts of completely unnecessary and partly counter-productive villainy, which had more to do with Tywin enacting his Aerys issues on innocent bystanders.

Yes, in both instances he had to do something, but what he ended up doing was completely over-the top and not particularly conducive to his goals.

If the Rains of Castamere gave Tywin a reputation of being "hard but fair" and made him respected and feared,

after the Sack he was rightly seen as treacherous and cruel and became hated, which has harmed House Lannister in the long run.

Also, was it Gerion or Tygett, who had told Tyrion that "best part of Tywin died with Joanna"? And that he wasn't he same man afterwards? Which yea, we now know that Tywin's younger brothers, while family, were not his greatest fans, but they still thought that there was some "best" side to him to begin with.

[marsyao]

On the Tysha incident, yes, Tywin is unecessary cruel, if I were him, I will simply have Tysha killed and that would be end of it. But on the sacking of King's Landing, well, in the Medieval time, when an army broke into a rich city like King's Landing, a sacking would be a certainty, no commander, even Tywin, could prevent it. In our world, British and French army sacked Europen cities until middle of 19 century

[John Suburbs]

The thing is, he sacked KL after the gates had been thrown open and the army entered peacefully. There was no reason for it as his army could have easily overcome the gold cloaks and establish martial law. He could have even depose the king if he wanted, but Jaime eliminated that possibility. The only reason to create such chaos, IMHO, is to provide cover for the murder of the crown prince and princess, regardless of what he told Tyrion. This, more than anything, is why the smallfolk don't like him, and by extension Cersei and Joffrey, because many of them still consider the sack a huge betrayal.

[marsyao]

The thing is, he sacked KL after the gates had been thrown open and the army entered peacefully. There was no reason for it as his army could have easily overcome the gold cloaks and establish martial law. He could have even depose the king if he wanted, but Jaime eliminated that possibility. The only reason to create such chaos, IMHO, is to provide cover for the murder of the crown prince and princess, regardless of what he told Tyrion. This, more than anything, is why the smallfolk don't like him, and by extension Cersei and Joffrey, because many of them still consider the sack a huge betrayal.

You do not understand, even King's Landing was taken by deceit not storm, but when the soldiers saw such a rich city in front of them, there is no way anyone, Seven includes, could stop them from sacking it, before the modern time, any city without signed an formal surrender treaty would be subject to sack, even these city formally surrendered would not be gaurrenteed be safe from looting. As I said, as late as Napoleon War, British army even brutally sacked Spanish cities who were their allies, Duke Willington was disgusted, but helpless to do anything about it

[stangles]

Yes, and where is that major lord now? How has his family fared? What is the state of his castle? And who is responsible for much of that downfall?

Tywin, at least, plays to win, and in winning gets to make the rules as to what is moral and what is not. It's harsh, but that's the way it goes.

To paraphrase: "Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

What? Morals aren't determined by the victor. Your thinking of History not moral. What is moral doesn't change.

Anyway. Tywin could have killed all the close member of those houses and that would have been enough. To kill everyone else there was SOLELY to increase the stories about how terrible his wrath is. Why kill people from other houses married to distant Reynes for example? What possible threat could they pose? Why kill commoners who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Once the major members of the house were dead and there lands potentially given to someone else the surviving distant Reynes and Tarbecks would have been no threat anymore. And even if his dad gave most distant cousin the lands back do you really think after what had just happened everyone would have continued to refuse to pay back loans? No one would risk it.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Anyway. Tywin could have killed all the close member of those houses and that would have been enough. To kill everyone else there was SOLELY to increase the stories about how terrible his wrath is. Why kill people from other houses married to distant Reynes for example? What possible threat could they pose? Why kill commoners who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Once the major members of the house were dead and there lands potentially given to someone else the surviving distant Reynes and Tarbecks would have been no threat anymore. And even if his dad gave most distant cousin the lands back do you really think after what had just happened everyone would have continued to refuse to pay back loans? No one would risk it.

He didn't have much choice in the Reyne situation as they were quite comfortably safe in Castamere which was impossible to be captured. Tywin could have had Castamere under siege for a year without any result.

The architecture that they thought would protect them actually doomed them and the people who supported them.

[David Selig]

You do not understand, even King's Landing was taken by deceit not storm, but when the soldiers saw such a rich city in front of them, there is no way anyone, Seven includes, could stop them from sacking it, before the modern time, any city without signed an formal surrender treaty would be subject to sack, even these city formally surrendered would not be gaurrenteed be safe from looting. As I said, as late as Napoleon War, British army even brutally sacked Spanish cities who were their allies, Duke Willington was disgusted, but helpless to do anything about it

Yeah, sure, Tywin the Butcher just let his soldiers sack the capital against his orders and didn't execute at least a few hundred of them as a punishment, a likely story...

Funny how Ned's men didn't sack even though they have actually fought in the war against Tywin who just on their asses all rebellion. I guess Ned had superpowers or something...

[John Suburbs]

You do not understand, even King's Landing was taken by deceit not storm, but when the soldiers saw such a rich city in front of them, there is no way anyone, Seven includes, could stop them from sacking it, before the modern time, any city without signed an formal surrender treaty would be subject to sack, even these city formally surrendered would not be gaurrenteed be safe from looting. As I said, as late as Napoleon War, British army even brutally sacked Spanish cities who were their allies, Duke Willington was disgusted, but helpless to do anything about it

Cities are rarely sacked if the army is allowed to march peacefully through the front gate. Only when there is a protracted struggle and the invaders surge into the city with battle lust raging do you get the kind of uncontrolled sack that KL saw, unless, of course, the army gets explicit commands from its leadership. The sack of KL didn't happen beyond Tywin's control, it was the result of direct orders to his knights and bannermen.

What? Morals aren't determined by the victor. Your thinking of History not moral. What is moral doesn't change.

Anyway. Tywin could have killed all the close member of those houses and that would have been enough. To kill everyone else there was SOLELY to increase the stories about how terrible his wrath is. Why kill people from other houses married to distant Reynes for example? What possible threat could they pose? Why kill commoners who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Once the major members of the house were dead and there lands potentially given to someone else the surviving distant Reynes and Tarbecks would have been no threat anymore. And even if his dad gave most distant cousin the lands back do you really think after what had just happened everyone would have continued to refuse to pay back loans? No one would risk it.

Morality changes all the time, and across distances. It used to be immoral for unmarried men and women (or men and men/women and women) to sleep together before marriage. Now, it's fair to say that large portions of the west do not believe that any more. As well, many Asian cultures consider suicide to be an honorable act, while much of the west considers it cowardly and tragic.

Tywin's biggest concern is not the morality of a situation, but the results of his actions. And his overriding goal is the safety and security of his house, his family and his and legacy. All other considerations, including morality, are secondary.

[stangles]

Morality changes all the time, and across distances. It used to be immoral for unmarried men and women (or men and men/women and women) to sleep together before marriage. Now, it's fair to say that large portions of the west do not believe that any more. As well, many Asian cultures consider suicide to be an honorable act, while much of the west considers it cowardly and tragic.

Tywin's biggest concern is not the morality of a situation, but the results of his actions. And his overriding goal is the safety and security of his house, his family and his and legacy. All other considerations, including morality, are secondary.

Of course different people have different morals. My point is your own morals shouldn't change. So while Tywin may have thought his actions moral I think they aren't. I don't believe that you can say his actions are moral but if it happened in the real world it wouldn't be. And my morals are not strictly in line with todays morals either. For example suicide is not something I believe that you can morally judge as it was his choice do what he did with his own life. Its just as selfish to want someone to stay alive when they want to die just so you don't feel sad. And religious reasons against suicide are silly. Even if god was true he is only hurting himself.

[stangles]

Also using the argument that most people in that world thought Tywins actions were moral and therefore it is standard for the time is dubious. For example what about the child hostages in Meeren that Ser Barristan refuses to kill? Tywin would do it in a second but Barristan obviously thinks it is an evil act because the children are innocent. Ned would disagree, Dany would probably disagree as well. Dany's revenge has always been directed at those guilty not innocents. I don't have a problem with Tywin killing the main Tarbecks and Reynes but he went too far.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Ned would disagree, Dany would probably disagree as well. Dany's revenge has always been directed at those guilty not innocents.

lol

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see."

[stangles]

lol

Yeah because slavers aren't guilty people are they. She also added to not kill any child that was born of a slaving family because she knew it was not there choice to be there. Everyone as an adult chose to be a slaver and a part of that culture and thus deserved what they got.

Put it this way Tywin would''t have bothered to save the slaves. And even if he did he would have killed all the babies of the slavers as well.

[Lion of the West]

The thing is, he sacked KL after the gates had been thrown open and the army entered peacefully. There was no reason for it as his army could have easily overcome the gold cloaks and establish martial law. He could have even depose the king if he wanted, but Jaime eliminated that possibility. The only reason to create such chaos, IMHO, is to provide cover for the murder of the crown prince and princess, regardless of what he told Tyrion. This, more than anything, is why the smallfolk don't like him, and by extension Cersei and Joffrey, because many of them still consider the sack a huge betrayal.

King's Landing was a hostile city taken by storm. The gates were not thrown open to surrender but to let a "friendly" force inside, at whichi point they stormed the city. At no, absolutely no, time did Aerys show any signs to surrender but ordered the city to be burnt when it could not have been held. We know about nothing of the city's defenses. It could have been spares with only the Gold Cloaks or it could've been bristling with soldiers.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The thing is, he sacked KL after the gates had been thrown open and the army entered peacefully. There was no reason for it as his army could have easily overcome the gold cloaks and establish martial law.

Would they have stayed peaceful if they knew Tywin was not there to join them but to kill the King?

And it was not just the Gold Cloaks but the survivors of the Trident.

"So when the Targaryen host broke and ran, you gave the pursuit into my hands. The remnants of Rhaegar's army fled back to King's Landing. We followed. Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us."

[Lion of the West]

Would they have stayed peaceful if they knew Tywin was not there to join them but to kill the King?

And it was not just the Gold Cloaks but the survivors of the Trident.

Thanks for the quote. :)

So then we have a quote that the city was well-defended by Targaryen loyalists.