(TWOIAF Spoilers) Bloodraven almost as ruthless as Tywin

[Chaircat Meow]

Concerning Elia's murder:

Tyrion thinks it wasn't a coincidence, it was purely intentional just because Cersei's candidature was discarded in favour of the Dornish princess.

It's safe to assume that Elia did nothing to Tywin, he got his revenge on her (for Aerys' slight) out of pure malice.

Although Tyrion's a gray character, he doesn't lie in his thoughts. I'll take his judgement over Tywin's words any day.

I do think Tywin was lying, although I think he was motivated by more than the Dornish marriages.

But where does Tyrion think this? Iirc he does not address the issue in his thoughts in an unambiguous way. After he sees Shae in Tywin's bed he says he didn't know what he (Tywin) was until then. Does that mean he thought there was no blood in him before. It might.

[John Doe]

Tyrion makes many mistakes he trusts Shae and Varys, for example. And he is pretty biased against his father.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

and to top that, Dameon III attacked three years later and Maelys around 30 years later.

executing Aenys achieved nothing.

Daemon III's attack was basically the direct result of BR murdering Aenys.

[Mr Hodor]

Tyrion makes many mistakes he trusts Shae and Varys, for example. And he is pretty biased against his father.

To be fair, Tyrion never trusts Varys and Shae in his thoughts. He even considers himself stupid for trusting Shae.

[John Doe]

To be fair, Tyrion never trusts Varys and Shae in his thoughts. He even considers himself stupid for trusting Shae.

True, but he doesn't act like not trusting them.

[Mr Hodor]

True, but he doesn't act like not trusting them.

He doesnt. but my point is that his internal monologues usually lead him to the right direction. Though he often goes the opposite way.

However i cant remember him not trusting Tywin's word for Elia's death. Need to hit the books again.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Just as ruthless, but a lot smarter as well. He knew when to use force and when a decisive and ruthless moves were necessary and when his goals could be accomplished by other means. He doesn't commit atrocities just because he could and it doesn't appear to have been his first choice either.

This describes Tywin to a T. He isn't Ramsay - all of his atrocities (besides Tysha) had a sound strategic logic

I'm still of the opinion that he didn't order what happened to Elia

[Ramsay Gimp]

Funny how you don't mention the Nights Watch...

And only in the head of the biggest Tywin fanboys a 20 year old that is not even the ruling Lord that successfully defeated their 2nd most powerful vassal that was disrespecting the family and stealing lands from other lords, sent all of them to the Wall and had confiscated all their lands and gold mines would "not be respected", with the only alternative being the murder of hundreds of innocents, including women and children.

You do realize that both of these Houses refused to surrender, right? The Reynes demanded Tywin's brothers as hostages for chrissakes

Tywin showed ruthlessness in that campaign, but it wasn't much beyond the Westerosi norm really. Not many Great Lords would be inclined to show mercy to two vassals who had rebelled multiple times in a generation and then refused to surrender when they were clearly beaten.

[John Doe]

You do realize that both of these Houses refused to surrender, right?

Appearently not.

[John Doe]

He doesnt. but my point is that his internal monologues usually lead him to the right direction. Though he often goes the opposite way.

However i cant remember him not trusting Tywin's word for Elia's death. Need to hit the books again.

I agree with both statements.

[Wouter]

Tywin is way worse then Robb, but Robb made the Westerlands reap what Tywin had sown.

Maege Mormont captured cattle, which means pissing off farmers, which means killing farmers. Great herds of cattle also damage the land to.

Greatjon Umber captured mines, which means slaying miners and mine guards.

Galbart Glover and Rickard Karstark raid along the coast. And I can tell you, they aren't attacking the ironborn.

Capturing cattle may mean killing farmers, if those resist. It may also mean surviving farmers dying of famine later, but then their lords should prevent that (once they regained control of their lands). Capturing mines does not have to mean slaying miners, particularly not if you intend to use those mines for your own use. And sure, as I acknowledged Robb was raiding and plundering the Westerlands. However, he did not give orders like those explicitly given to Gregor Clegane and his ilk, to burn the lands for many leagues and not only plunder everything, but kill indiscriminately. I'm sure of that because we know Robb and we witnessed what Tywin said.

Gregor and co murdered entire villages, sometimes burning men, women and children alike, even if there was zero resistance. We saw what Gregor did with the survivors: marching them off (as slaves effectively, not unlike the fashion of the Ironborn and the Dothraki) while randomly torturing people and with scores of rapes thrown in. Roose Bolton did similar things, aye, but he was where Robb wasn't looking. There is no evidence Maege and Galbart and co came near this kind of extreme, and if they did they would not do so on Robb's orders or with Robb's knowledge.

Consider what happened when Robb's forces stormed and took the Crag, and what happened when Gregor stormed the Darry castle. In the former, the captives were spared and treated well (better than Connington treated his own kin after he took Griffin's Roost). At Darry, everybody was put to the sword. What Bolton did when he took Harrenhal, we also know.

I daresay Robb is not near as ruthless as Roose or Tywin are.

[John Doe]

I doubt they were raiding the western shore without Robbs' consent. And don't forget the hanged women at the beginning of ASOS, they were hanged for sleeping with lions. Nice.

And how are the lords supposed to feed the surviving farmers when reaving northmen took the provisions away?

[Chaircat Meow]

However, he did not give orders like those explicitly given to Gregor Clegane and his ilk, to burn the lands for many leagues and not only plunder everything, but kill indiscriminately. I'm sure of that because we know Robb and we witnessed what Tywin said.

Did Tywin explicitly give that order? Iirc he did not.

[Maia]

and to top that, Dameon III attacked three years later and Maelys around 30 years later. executing Aenys achieved nothing.

We don't know what the situation was, but I dare say that Bloodraven thought that Aenys was a real and immediate threat to Egg being chosen as king. So, execution of Aenys did achieve something - namely, the reign of Aegon V. And I dare say that knowing Egg, BR did expect that there would be consequences for himself for it.

The length Tywin went to to punish the Reynes was extreme, even for him, and it wasn't for practical reasons.

It was for very practical reasons - he couldn't get at them otherwise. And Tywin had to deal with them quickly, before Tytos had the chance to whistle him back - which was, BTW, what both Tarbecks and Reynes had been counting on and waiting for. That's why they refused to subordinate themselves, even after being beaten. They never went to their knees, so they were given steel and fire (and water).

Civilians die in war, that is regrettable. All armies kill civilians and the Rebel armies during Robert's Rebellion killed far more of them than Tywin did when he drowned Castamere. Heck, Hoster Tully put villages of his loyalist vassals to the sword - how many women and children died then? Did Hoster have a "pathological need for respect and fear" too? Though, I don't dispute that Tywin has developed something like that later in life, likely due to the fact that no matter how powerful he became, he still had to take public humiliations from Aerys. And also, because "Rains of Castamere" did work out so well for him.

The Sack of KL was evil and over-the-top and harmed Lannisters in the long run, I don't dispute that.

Concerning Elia's murder:

Tyrion thinks it wasn't a coincidence, it was purely intentional just because Cersei's candidature was discarded in favour of the Dornish princess.

It's safe to assume that Elia did nothing to Tywin, he got his revenge on her (for Aerys' slight) out of pure malice.

No, Oberyn thought that and told Tyrion about it. Tyrion was considering whether Oberyn could have been right, but didn't come to any conclusion, IIRC. And also, despite his high intelligence and shrewdness, Tyrion didn't always judge motivations and capabilities of the members of his family accurately. His emotions blinded him. He was quite wrong about Kevan, for instance, about whom he has been as dismissive as Cersei and whose good will towards himself, he never appreciated.

OTOH, since the murder of Princess Rhaenys already looks even more evil and unnecessary in retrospect, because claims of females to the Iron Throne have been revealed as far more tenious than they seemed in AGoT - ASoS, as well as due to the fact that marrying her to Robert's future son would have strengthened the new Baratheon dynasty, there is no doubt that personal revenge was in play for Tywin, regardless of his orders regarding Elia or lack thereof.

Ditto the Sack itself. IMHO, Tywin didn't really need to prove his loyalty to the new regime. They would have wanted to bind him to the new dynasty by marriage of Robert to Cersei anyway, that was only good sense. Maybe he was trying to save Jaime. But extreme savagery of the Sack was Tywin's "I wish I had enough poison for you all" moment, IMHO. KL was the stage of his humiliations, nobles and citizens didn't appreciate him, etc.

[John Doe]

Did Tywin explicitly give that order? Iirc he did not.

He didn't

[Maid So Fair]

This describes Tywin to a T. He isn't Ramsay - all of his atrocities (besides Tysha) had a sound strategic logic

I'm still of the opinion that he didn't order what happened to Elia

I disagree - Tywin repeatedly goes over the top or tries the most aggressive option first:

- He doesn't just execute the guilty Tarbecks and Reynes, he slaughters their entire extended family (even though in this case he's got a somewhat decent excuse)

- when Aerys opens the gates he doesn't just kill/detain Aerys, he sacks the entire city and orders a death of two innocent children (if Elia was an accident, it was a foreseeable one)

- he doesn't banish or kill Tysha, he has her gang raped

- it's not enough to defeat the Riverland armies in battle, he insists on setting Gregor&co to rape, pillage and burn the place to the ground

- his idea of killing 'a few men' at a wedding involves murder of thousands. Contrast Olenna, or even BR and Aenys.

The whole argument behind utilitarianism is that by doing something unsavoury to a few you can sometimes avoid unnecessary death and suffering to countless others. The problem with Tywin is that he walks a very fine line and arguable even stands it on its head since his actions probably cause more evil than they prevent.

He didn't

He told Kevan to tell Gregor to put the Riverlands to the torch IIRC. Even if he didn't explicitly say it, that's hardly relevant, since it's implied. He knew perfectly well what Gregor would do and it's in fact the very reason he chose him for the job.

ETA: People need to decide whether Tywin is a magnificent bastard or someone not entirely aware of or in control of his subordinates. I certainly prefer the former.

[chrisdaw]

There was quite clearly strategic reasoning behind all those Tywin actions, and you offered no argument against that by rehashing them.

[Maid So Fair]

There was quite clearly strategic reasoning behind all those Tywin actions, and you offered no argument against that by rehashing them.

I didn't just repeat them, I outlines what might have been constituted a ruthless act carried out for purely strategic reasons and outlined how Tywin goes above and beyond so to speak.

[John Doe]

There was quite clearly strategic reasoning behind all those Tywin actions, and you offered no argument against that by rehashing them.

:agree:

[chrisdaw]

I didn't just repeat them, I outlines what might have been constituted a ruthless act carried out for purely strategic reasons and outlined how Tywin goes above and beyond so to speak.

That's nonsense and simplistic. There are, for example, whole conversations in the text dedicated to explaining the strategic reasoning behind Tywin's decision to order the deaths of Elia's children. You don't even have to fill in the obvious logic, GRRM literally wrote it out.