Ned and Tywin, a Contrast in Leadership Styles

[John Doe]

Are You talking about same Kennedy who sent American soldiers to their deaths and eventual shameful defeat in 'Nam?

Ned would have done the same. Going to war because Joffrey wasn't Robert's son, I mean.

[John Doe]

Sure, Tywin Lannister's bannermen feared him, and that kept them in line. But now he's dead and his heirs are not nearly so intimidating. His 'legacy' is being dismantled, and so far we don't see any hardcore pro-Lannister people who feel particularly moved to preserve it in the absence of a strong Lannister lord. That's not exactly a powerful endorsement of Tywin Lannister.

What movementes do you expect? Since House Lannister didn't lose the hold ver it's lads in contrast to the Stark, they aren't necessary.

[John Doe]

Really? You think his house is doing well?

Compared to the Starks, yes.

[RainGhost]

I don't believe there's such a thing as an ideal leader. Tywin and Ned both had very different leadership styles but they were both effective leaders with their good points and their bad points. Ultimately, both of their Houses were in trouble once they died but I think they'll both pull through in the end. I don't think there is such a thing as the perfect balance between them.

[TheRevanchist]

Well they don't love or adore him, but Cersei and Tyrion both at least try to emulate Tywin when they are given power. And I disagree with the commonly-made claim that Tywin was a horrible father to to the twins. He was stern and had high expectations for them. Tyrion was different of course

And yet, the Starks were ultimately betrayed by their bannermen while the Westerlands houses continue to remain completely loyal to the Lannisters (even when they appeared doomed early in the war). Of course that's more of a knock against Robb than Eddard, but I wouldn't discount the loyalty Tywin earned from his bannermen.

Until it's confirmed, the "Oberyn poisoned Tywin" theory really shouldn't be used as evidence against Tywin's leadership. But I agree, his relationship with Tyrion was a real weakness of Tywin's. Of course there's always the possibility that Tyrion was not Tywin's progeny but actually the Mad King's, and Tywin suspected as much, which would make his behavior more understandable (while still unjustified)

I doubt GRRM is ever going to give us a "perfect" leader in ASOIAF, but I'm curious to see how people answer. I agree with ^Frey Pie that Jon may end up striking a good balance. Hear Me Meow recently had a good thread about whether Jon would have to eventually commit evil for the greater good

Only one of Stark' bannermen betrayed Robb. And he was a Bolton, and we all know that Bolton and Starks historically fought for the control of the North. That would have been like Reyne betraying Lannisters (which could have happened if Tywin didn't kill all of them).

Anyway, Tywin is a better leader and more smarter than Ned (Ned was dumb on politics). Ned is the better man, and maybe I am doing blasphemy here, but also the better general. We all hear how good a general Tywin is, but he hasn't ever shown that. Always striked only when he was more powerful than the enemy, and even there Robb schooled him.

[TheRevanchist]

What reason did Ned have to think Littlefinger would not come through for him? Littlefinger was a childhood friend of his wife and Ned trusts Catelyn's judgement. Littlefinger has been playing everyone, so to say Ned is dumb for trusting littlefinger is to say Tywin is dumb, Cersei is dumb, the Vale lords are dumb and everyone he has encountered is dumb which is obviously not the case. Ned just had poor luck and the handicap of being a good person amidst a sea of terrible people.

Trusting Littlefinger is dumb by definition, but Ned was already fighting a lost cause there.

What he should have done was executing Cersei and Joffrey immediately while he had power, and taking the other two children in custody. Proclaim Stannis king (when it became clear what happened with Robert) and defend KL until Stannis come. Prepare the terrain for an open war with Lannisters (at-least Dorne would have been happy to participate on it). Alternately, he could have rushed to go to Robert (knowing that he has Lannisters near him) instead of making offers to Cersei.

The other possibility was to take Renly's offer and take Lannisters into custody. That would have at-least delayed Tywin's attack, until reinforcements from the North, Riverlands, Stormlands and possibly Dorne will come.

He didn't do the first one because he didn't like to kill children and women and didn't do the second one because Stannis - not Renly - was the rightful king.

He chose the least pragmatic way of doing things.

And his Grandson is still King of Westeros, his daughter still Lady of the Westerlands.

Both already on borrowed time.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Anyway, Tywin is a better leader and more smarter than Ned (Ned was dumb on politics). Ned is the better man, and maybe I am doing blasphemy here, but also the better general. We all hear how good a general Tywin is, but he hasn't ever shown that. Always striked only when he was more powerful than the enemy, and even there Robb schooled him.

Ned was a better man, yes, but Tywin was an excellent general. Check out this thread http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/115331-tywin-the-commander/

[Fire Eater]

That's what the Karstarks and Roose Bolton did.

People say "they only were loyal out of fear" as if that is a bad thing. Love is nice for an overlord, but it won't keep men like Roose Bolton, Roger Reyne, or Walder Frey in line. Kevan took over for the Lannisters after Cersei's fall, and if he had ordered an attack on the Sparrows it would have happened.

IIRC, the riverlands were part of Robb's kingdom, and not hostile enemy territory. It wasn't over the invasion of the North, but issues regarding Bolton's ambition and Lannister being freed and Karstark's desire for vengeance.

Except fear can only get you so far as Tyrion knew. It fails the moment they find something/someone they fear more than you. Those men you describe are amoral opportunists, for the most part, who have no true loyalty to anyone. The problem with that argument is that Frey and Bolton didn't love the Starks. Do you really think if they did they would have betrayed them? Reyne opposed the Lannisters a large part because of Lord Tytos's mismanagement and weakness. Kevan didn't order an attack on the Sparrows, and none of his bannermen showed up to help Cersei.

It must be great to have a time machine. Can you tell me next weeks lottery numbers as well.

I can tell your future in that you are just about to get owned.

"Gold shall be their crowns and gold their shrouds," she said. "And when your tears have drowned you, the valonqar shall wrap his hands about your pale white throat and choke the life from you."

It's not time travel, but in a similar vein, prophecy. It is actually paying attention to the text, particularly Maggy's prophecy which predicts the death of Cersei and her children. Prophecy is basically written in stone in this series.

Do you really think GRRM is going to let them have the IT in the end?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I can tell your future in that you are just about to get owned.

Perhaps the lamest threat on the internet.

If you are about to 'own' someone you shouldn't need to explain in the same post that you are doing so.

Only one of Stark' bannermen betrayed Robb.

You do know that Karstark men participated at the Red Wedding as well, right?

And when Winterfell was captured by first the Ironborn and then the Boltons why did the Northern Vassals send so few men to help Robbs family. In a sense the Northern bannermen betrayed Robb then.

[Fire Eater]

Perhaps the lamest threat on the internet.

If you are about to 'own' someone you shouldn't need to explain in the same post that you are doing so.

Funny, you don't seem to show the same sense of humor when you wrote the last post. Bitter, are we? :laugh:

You do know that Karstark men participated at the Red Wedding as well, right?

And when Winterfell was captured by first the Ironborn and then the Boltons why did the Northern Vassals send so few men to help Robbs family. In a sense the Northern bannermen betrayed Robb then.

No, they didn't. Nothing in the text suggests that. They were just part of the Northern army killed by Bolton's men.

Because, Theon supposedly killed the boys before even the closest army, Cassel's, was able to get to WF.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

No, they didn't. Nothing in the text suggests that. They were just part of the Northern army killed by Bolton's men.

Except this part in the text were Roose meets Cat and Robb at the Twins and he is asked point blank which men he has brought to the Twins.

"How many men have you brought my son?" she asked Roose Bolton pointedly.

His queer colorless eyes studied her face a moment before he answered. "Some five hundred horse and three thousand foot, my lady. Dreadfort men, in chief, and some from Karhold. With the loyalty of the Karstarks so doubtful now, I thought it best to keep them close. I regret there are not more.

So there you have it, booth Bolton and Karstark men betrayed Robb.

[TheRevanchist]

Ned was a better man, yes, but Tywin was an excellent general. Check out this thread http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/115331-tywin-the-commander/

This get said all the time. But we have only 4 things to conclude how good a general he was (unless I am missing something):

1) Against house Reyne of Castamere. Kudos to him. He defeated and then exterminated all of them.

How difficult was this though? Lord Paramount's are generally stronger then their bannermen. Has ever happened in an open fighting (discounting things as treachery like Bolton with Robb) for a bannermen to defeat his Lord? Probably the closest was Boltons some time ago, but Starks ultimatelly won.

2) He didn't participate on Robert's rebellion. And then destroyed an unprotected city. No points given here.

3) Battle at the Kingslanding. Element of surprise, boom, won the battle. Although, it was LF' idea at the first place. I doubt that Tywin could have defeated Stannis without the Tyrells.

4) vs Robb. Repeatedly lost against a 16 years old kid, despite having a far stronger army.

I think that he was a terrific strategist (planning things in advance) but he hasn't done much to be count as a great general.

Robert Baratheon was a great general winning consistently against his odds. Ned probably too (defeating JonConn against the odds), and then going after Tyrells who immediately withdrawn. Tarly seems to be a great general too.

Tywin? I don't know. Probably yes, but I think that he is more a Julius Caesar rather than an Alexander. More a strategist than a general.

[TheRevanchist]

Perhaps the lamest threat on the internet.

If you are about to 'own' someone you shouldn't need to explain in the same post that you are doing so.

You do know that Karstark men participated at the Red Wedding as well, right?

And when Winterfell was captured by first the Ironborn and then the Boltons why did the Northern Vassals send so few men to help Robbs family. In a sense the Northern bannermen betrayed Robb then.

To be fair, forgot that Karstark participated on it.

Still, it was Robb's ultimate mistake to kill their Lord. That was like pushing for betrayel.

Until Robb beheaded the Karstark Lord, they were some of his most loyal bannermen. Robb was stupid though. Talented general and with good intentions, but had the intelligience of a fish.

[Red Tiger]

So what leaders, present or future could provide the correct balance of Tywin and Ned? And where is that balance?

Well, if you add past to that criteria, Baelor Breakspear

[Roose on the Loose]

This get said all the time. But we have only 4 things to conclude how good a general he was (unless I am missing something):

1) Against house Reyne of Castamere. Kudos to him. He defeated and then exterminated all of them.

How difficult was this though? Lord Paramount's are generally stronger then their bannermen. Has ever happened in an open fighting (discounting things as treachery like Bolton with Robb) for a bannermen to defeat his Lord? Probably the closest was Boltons some time ago, but Starks ultimatelly won.

2) He didn't participate on Robert's rebellion. And then destroyed an unprotected city. No points given here.

3) Battle at the Kingslanding. Element of surprise, boom, won the battle. Although, it was LF' idea at the first place. I doubt that Tywin could have defeated Stannis without the Tyrells.

4) vs Robb. Repeatedly lost against a 16 years old kid, despite having a far stronger army.

I think that he was a terrific strategist (planning things in advance) but he hasn't done much to be count as a great general.

Robert Baratheon was a great general winning consistently against his odds. Ned probably too (defeating JonConn against the odds), and then going after Tyrells who immediately withdrawn. Tarly seems to be a great general too.

Tywin? I don't know. Probably yes, but I think that he is more a Julius Caesar rather than an Alexander. More a strategist than a general.

I think Tywin saw his army as one part of a larger machine of statecraft that includes diplomacy and covert operations. He can buy a large host, but not a fierce loyal one because he doesn't have Ned's knack for that kind of thing. Tywin also believes that spying and scheming are more efficient and come with a lower body count. That's how he justified the Red Wedding.

It seems like a reasonable assumption Tywin makes, that young generals will behave rashly. Jamie proves the truth of it. I think Ned was able to teach prudence to Robb because Ned was one kind of father and Tywin was a different kind.

[TheRevanchist]

I think Tywin saw his army as one part of a larger machine of statecraft that includes diplomacy and covert operations. He can buy a large host, but not a fierce loyal one because he doesn't have Ned's knack for that kind of thing. Tywin also believes that spying and scheming are more efficient and come with a lower body count. That's how he justified the Red Wedding.

It seems like a reasonable assumption Tywin makes, that young generals will behave rashly. Jamie proves the truth of it. I think Ned was able to teach prudence to Robb because Ned was one kind of father and Tywin was a different kind.

Completely agree! Tywin was a decent general, but I think he shined and combining things like army, politics, spying, economy and diplomacy. When you combine all of these, he's second to none. As a general, I don't think that he ever did anything to put him on the piedestal.

[Red Tiger]

Aren't politics, spying, economy and diplomacy all parts of being a feudal general?

[Roose on the Loose]

Aren't politics, spying, economy and diplomacy all parts of being a feudal general?

Ned doesn't seem to think so.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2) He didn't participate on Robert's rebellion. And then destroyed an unprotected city. No points given here.

It wasn't unprotected. According to Ned there were still thousands of Royalists at the Capital.

Tywin used military strategy to get inside and attack them when they were not ready, just like Robb was able to attack Staffords army when they were unprepared and many asleep.

4) vs Robb. Repeatedly lost against a 16 years old kid, despite having a far stronger army.

Robb had the Riverlands and Northern army behind him while Tywin just had the Westerlands. It is Tywin who had the smaller army.

And them fighting was a lot closer than that. While Robb and Tywin never faced eachother directly in the field there was not much difference between the amount of victories each side had.

Generals are supposed to think of the bigger picture. While Tywin left enough men to protect King Landing, Lannisport and Casterly Rock Robb made the military mistake of leaving his capital poorly defended either with the amount of men he left behind or the leader he chose to defend it.

[The Once and Future King]

Well they don't love or adore him, but Cersei and Tyrion both at least try to emulate Tywin when they are given power. And I disagree with the commonly-made claim that Tywin was a horrible father to to the twins. He was stern and had high expectations for them. Tyrion was different of course

And yet, the Starks were ultimately betrayed by their bannermen while the Westerlands houses continue to remain completely loyal to the Lannisters (even when they appeared doomed early in the war). Of course that's more of a knock against Robb than Eddard, but I wouldn't discount the loyalty Tywin earned from his bannermen.

Until it's confirmed, the "Oberyn poisoned Tywin" theory really shouldn't be used as evidence against Tywin's leadership. But I agree, his relationship with Tyrion was a real weakness of Tywin's. Of course there's always the possibility that Tyrion was not Tywin's progeny but actually the Mad King's, and Tywin suspected as much, which would make his behavior more understandable (while still unjustified)

I doubt GRRM is ever going to give us a "perfect" leader in ASOIAF, but I'm curious to see how people answer. I agree with ^Frey Pie that Jon may end up striking a good balance. Hear Me Meow recently had a good thread about whether Jon would have to eventually commit evil for the greater good

How do you possibly say not to use Tywin being poisoned as a proof because its not canon and in the next sentence say Tyrion could be a Targ??