Opinions on the Rains of Castamere?

[Chaircat Meow]

Omission or alteration, it's a distinction without a difference. If GRRM cut something from his draft he cut it on purpose, and once cut, it's gone and for all intents and purposes it didn't happen. Unless another book is published later that says it did happen, or GRRM gives an SSM saying it did, I'm going to consider it non-canon.

Of course there is a huge difference. All of the omissions could have happened, since they are not contradicted by the woiaf text. Like the example I gave about the Reyne terms to Tywin. The woiaf book says the terms were sent, it doesn't say what they were. But obviously they said something, and our best source for that is the reading, which detailed them! So I'm considering the reading semi-canon, i.e. true for now, subject to alteration in later books.

Certainly Pycelle's influence explains some of the slant, especially in the account of Aerys's reign pre-Rebellion, but Yandel's obscenely biased account of the Sack of King's Landing - not acknowledging any civilian casualties except Elia and her children and making it sound like those were some tragic accident that Tywin had nothing to do with - can't be attributed to Pycelle alone. There were thousands of witnesses to those events, and Pycelle was not even the only maester present, so the Citadel ought to have several accounts, including from some who were serving Northern lords and had no reason to be Tywin fanboys. The slant in that part is a deliberate choice on Yandel's part, proving that Yandel was willing to bias his narrative in Tywin's favor. So if the narrative on the Rains of Castamere had any slant, it would be for Tywin, not against him.

What he did is hardly indicative of obscene bias. He didn't even lie, he just said he didn't know and cited some incorrect rumours. What do you expect him to do, blacken the entire regime? Robert and Jon accepted Tywin's offer of fealty after all, thus implicating themselves, at least to a degree. I would not use the account of the sack to suggest the whole history was similarly partial, given it would so unwise to tell the truth about what happened on that one occasion.

Incidentally, Ran said that it wasn't originally even intended to be Yandel who that did that. They wanted to use a texture change to signal the fact someone else had altered the manuscript at that point.

[SeanF]

Of course there is a huge difference. All of the omissions could have happened, since they are not contradicted by the woiaf text. Like the example I gave about the Reyne terms to Tywin. The woiaf book says the terms were sent, it doesn't say what they were. But obviously they said something, and our best source for that is the reading, which detailed them! So I'm considering the reading semi-canon, i.e. true for now, subject to alteration in later books.

What he did is hardly indicative of obscene bias. He didn't even lie, he just said he didn't know and cited some incorrect rumours. What do you expect him to do, blacken the entire regime? Robert and Jon accepted Tywin's offer of fealty after all, thus implicating themselves, at least to a degree. I would not use the account of the sack to suggest the whole history was similarly partial, given it would so unwise to tell the truth about what happened on that one occasion.

Incidentally, Ran said that it wasn't originally even intended to be Yandel who that did that. They wanted to use a texture change to signal the fact someone else had altered the manuscript at that point.

From early in AGOT, the major players seem to have a pretty good idea of what happened to Elia and her children. The only real argument seems to be over the extent of Tywin's responsibility for it, and whether Elia was raped as well as being murdered. It's so notorious that many of the Smallfolk of Kings Landing likely have a good idea of what happened.

Now, for someone lower down the food chain, like Yandel, it might be unwise to enquire too closely into the matter. But, he's an intelligent man, and any intelligent man would know that a story like Elia smashing her own child's head of the wall is rubbish; it's like the Freys trying to claim that Robb turned into a wolf at the Red Wedding.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Drowning them in the caves was BRUTAL! I always thought it was a burning situation, had no idea it would be drowning. Tywin took a leaf out of the Ent's book when they dealt with Saruman in LOTR.

When reading these passages, it is clear that Tywin has some daddy issues, It's like he was trying to make the entire kingdom stop laughing at his father and family with this one brutal act. Which yielded the exact results he wanted.

[C.T. Phipps]

In the Godfather part II, especially the book, Michael has a huge ton of problems with the American Mafia as a whole due to his actions at the end of the first movie. Basically, Michael was a soldier who fought in WW2, and what he did was target the officers of the families who'd gone after his family. The thing is, mafia culture, is very different from a war as the officers are supposed to be immune.

I probably would have done the same thing as Tywin and destroyed House Reynes via the flood because it's a bloodless victory on his side. It's absolutely brutal but how many soldiers would have died otherwise?

The sad fact, is of course, I doubt his own men were any concern when Tywin did it.

It was a display of power, not tactics.

[teemo]

My opinion of Tywin Lannister went way, way down after reading that section.

It seems to me that he deliberately provoked them into rebelling with the intent, decided beforehand, that he would kill them all. He never offered them the chance the yield or negotiate, he just went and killed everyone who was a Tarbeck or a Reyne, making no distinction between the guilty and the innocent. It was brutality for brutality's sake, nothing more or less. I understand why he wanted to kill Lady Ellyn (because holy crap what an ambitious scheming bitch) but wiping out everyone related to her by blood or marriage, even distant cousins who had nothing to do with anything? That was wrong, it was cruel, it was evil. Previously I thought they'd brought it on themselves to at least some degree, but now I consider Tywin's actions to be beyond justification. With a bit more patience and willingness to be reasonable he could have brought them to heel without wiping out their entire families, even if Lady Ellyn herself probably needed to lose her head. Killing them all was a choice, a choice made for no good reason.

These are my opinions exactly. I also agree with others who say he was trying to look like a badass, which he did, but damn. I don't want to argue with anyone, but justifying it by saying it prevented a bloody battle is kind of like the people who justify the Red Wedding.

[C.T. Phipps]

These are my opinions exactly. I also agree with others who say he was trying to look like a badass, which he did, but damn. I don't want to argue with anyone, but justifying it by saying it prevented a bloody battle is kind of like the people who justify the Red Wedding.

Tywin's opinion had merit.

Of course, so did Tyrion's.

In a real way, I think the Reynes biggest mistake was taking for granted the kind of cutthroat world they lived in. They were willing to take advantage of Tytos and abuse him because they sensed he was weak. The problem is, in Westeros, those actions have consequences and they contributed to making Tywin into the man he was today--a man who made them an example.

In a very real way, I find myself having less pity for them than I perhaps should like the Blackfyres.

You can't start a fight and then complain when the guy turns out to be an MMA champion. You can't go into a war expecting mercy either. You have to go into it expecting the worst.

Tywin didn't start the war but he finished it.

[Maia]

I don't want to argue with anyone, but justifying it by saying it prevented a bloody battle is kind of like the people who justify the Red Wedding.

I am not sure where this comparison comes from. Tywin and the Reynes were in open war, there was no treachery. They wouldn't submit even after being beaten, he saw a way to take their castle quickly and used it. Or, do you seriously think that less innocents died when Jon Arryn and Robert stormed Gulltown? Or Lordsport? Or Pyke? IMHO, there are double standards being applied here, just because Tywin found a clever "engineering" solution to taking Castamere, rather than stormed it head-on.

Execution of all captive male Tarbecks was more morally problematic than the drowning of Castamere, IMHO.

[C.T. Phipps]

I am not sure where this comparison comes from. Tywin and the Reynes were in open war, there was no treachery. They wouldn't submit even after being beaten, he saw a way to take their castle quickly and used it. Or, do you seriously think that less innocents died when Jon Arryn and Robert stormed Gulltown? Or Lordsport? Or Pyke? IMHO, there are double standards being applied here, just because Tywin found a clever "engineering" solution to taking Castamere, rather than stormed it head-on.

Execution of all captive male Tarbecks was more morally problematic than the drowning of Castamere, IMHO.

I agree.

Of course, I'm with Show Daenerys. "Execute every Master in Yunkai."

Jorah is like, "Then you'll be a monster."

And I'm like, "Screw those guys."

I do think, though, that war is based around beating the other guy with as few casaulties as possible.

Tywin used a method similar to the Targaryens.

"Have an overwhelming natural force destroy them."

I can't blame him for using it anymore than I blame Aegon for using his dragons. There's also the fact Tywin is under no obligation to show them mercy. Its EXPECTED to show them mercy but that's something he made no offers of. The Tarbecks and Reynes went into the war acting like they got to dictate terms.

And they did not.

Which is how war goes. I can't help but think both houses suffered from a serious case of the stupid. They were Summer Knights, playing at war.

[Corvinus85]

I do think, though, that war is based around beating the other guy with as few casaulties as possible.

Machiavelli would disagree

[mvd10]

Well, I think the Reynes (and Tarbecks) mightve done exactly the same if they got the chance to kill all Lannisters, besides that they have been mocking Tytos for years and a rebellion might have happened anyways. Tywin was brutal but imo it was necessary, not just for stopping the Reynes but more for showing that the lion has awoken and still is to be feared.

[Northern light]

I am not sure where this comparison comes from. Tywin and the Reynes were in open war, there was no treachery. They wouldn't submit even after being beaten, he saw a way to take their castle quickly and used it. Or, do you seriously think that less innocents died when Jon Arryn and Robert stormed Gulltown? Or Lordsport? Or Pyke? IMHO, there are double standards being applied here, just because Tywin found a clever "engineering" solution to taking Castamere, rather than stormed it head-on.

Execution of all captive male Tarbecks was more morally problematic than the drowning of Castamere, IMHO.

Well, I think the situation from a philosophical POV is similar to the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and I know my answer in that question.

[C.T. Phipps]

Well, I think the situation from a philosophical POV is similar to the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and I know my answer in that question.

I'm a pacifist in real life but the question is, of course, were the lives of Tywin's soldiers worth less than those of House Reynes?

Again, this is an odd moral question to be asking since Tywin has shown no care whatsoever to them.

But an interesting philosophical question.

[Maia]

Well, I think the situation from a philosophical POV is similar to the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and I know my answer in that question.

Since it is pretty certain that more civilans died when Jon Arryn and Robert stormed Gulltown, or when Hoster Tully put the vilages of his royalist vassals to the sword, I don't get the comparison. Nuclear bomb was enormously destructive, Castamere was a surgical strike and claimed less lives than conventional warfare would have.

[Maid So Fair]

I'm a pacifist in real life but the question is, of course, were the lives of Tywin's soldiers worth less than those of House Reynes?

Again, this is an odd moral question to be asking since Tywin has shown no care whatsoever to them.

But an interesting philosophical question.

You could argue that by becoming soldiers they signed up for things like battles and storming castles and dying is a risk inherent to that job. But it's problematic in a medieval setting where soldiers are at least in part conscripted.

[C.T. Phipps]

You could argue that by becoming soldiers they signed up for things like battles and storming castles and dying is a risk inherent to that job. But it's problematic in a medieval setting where soldiers are at least in part conscripted.

Yeah, plus collateral damage is a thing in wars no matter what happens because there's no such thing as a clean war.

Its why war is such a dirty business.

On my end, I think House Reynes brought it on themselves. If you don't want to risk your life, don't go to war.

[Ser Lepus]

The saddest part is, if the Tarbecks had waited and asked good old Lord Tytos to please release lord Walderran instead of taking Lannister hostages, he would have done it without need to escalate things.

[King of the Rock]

It was definitely unnecessary, but he pretty much earned the unwavering loyalty of his bannermen. Not that he really needed to rule them with fear, the Lannister's are an old house that ruled the Westerlands since the Age of Heroes. On the up side, a great song came out of it.

[C.T. Phipps]

It was definitely unnecessary, but he pretty much earned the unwavering loyalty of his bannermen. Not that he really needed to rule them with fear, the Lannister's are an old house that ruled the Westerlands since the Age of Heroes. On the up side, a great song came out of it.

I'd be interested in what alternatives for dealing with the Reynes were.

Taking away their lands?

Execution?

[Khal Shaggydog]

I think we're dealing with a situation that is a little similar to the Ray Rice fight (not that its entirely appropriate to compare a fictional historical work to a present day instance of domestic violence). People heard that the guy hit his wife, but then were HORRIFIED when they saw him hit his wife. As if our imaginations couldnt fill in the blank.

We all knew that Tywin exterminated two houses of his bannermen. Like, all of them. Down to the last person. Now that we get an explanation of how he specifically did it, we are horrified at him? Doesnt really compute. This is Tywin Lannister - he's a terrifying and badass guy.

I liked the World version - and I think it accurately explains why exactly he did what he did. He was a proud kid, and he distinguished himself in war at a young age, and if anyone has any experience in an actual combat situation, it becomes IMMEDIATELY apparent just how ugly, brutal, disgusting and completely life changing that kind of experience is. Killing is no joke. Theres a great line in the book (dont have it in front of me), about Tywin and his brothers being fresh from combat when he returned to the Rock. At that point, he had no illiusions about how ugly it would be to carry out what he thought was necessary (like how someone else pointed out Michael Corleone when he stepped into the world of the mafia for real).

The Reynes and Tarbecks had been playing too long at acting up and disrespecting their liege lord. Tywin wasnt going to have that. He demanded their immediate obedience, and probably knew that there was at least an 80% chance they would laugh in his face, becuase he wasnt yet the Lord of the Rock, and didnt know how hard he was. Tywin, at this point an actual soldier, knew what comes next. You make a threat, you back it up. This was life and death, for him and his House. Reyne just didnt realize that Tywin saw the bigger picture yet. Done and done.

[C.T. Phipps]

The Reynes and Tarbecks had been playing too long at acting up and disrespecting their liege lord. Tywin wasnt going to have that. He demanded their immediate obedience, and probably knew that there was at least an 80% chance they would laugh in his face, becuase he wasnt yet the Lord of the Rock, and didnt know how hard he was. Tywin, at this point an actual soldier, knew what comes next. You make a threat, you back it up. This was life and death, for him and his House. Reyne just didnt realize that Tywin saw the bigger picture yet. Done and done.

Yeah, there's also the fact that weakness in Westeros is a fatal flaw because you need to be strong in order to maintain your position. The Blackfyre Rebellion and the reign of poor King Aenys were born from the fact that the Kings were accused of loving peace more than loving war. Which, in our society, is a good thing but is a monstrous flaw in a hereditary military dictatorship and warrior society like Westeros. Tywin wiped them out as an example to other Lords and he did so with very few casualties to his own men.

Mercy is a great thing but war is hell.

And we've seen how mercy can backfire horribly (the sparing of Bittersteel, Daeny's actions).

This isn't Tolkien where sparing Gollum saves the world.

Sad as that may be. Tywin's actions contributed to making him the second most powerful man in Westeros and probably saved a lot of lives.