Ramsay Gimp Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 This has been discussed at length in other threads. Tywins army is always ~20,000, even in ASOSThe Tyrells were not using their superior manpower to push around Tywin, so I'm not sure what you're going for there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Excactly. He knew that and as you say did do everything to hold on to the alliance. The point I am getting at is that Tywin relied on a lot of people to remain calm and in line, as he himself could not have enforced stability without the Tyrells. And that he knew that.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migalhone Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 To me, it made sense. Tywin's untimely death sets Westeros ripe for dissent and chaos, ripe for Aegon and/or Daenerys to come and restore the Targaryen dynasty. Whether they one of them succeeds... Well, we'll see about that (...i hope) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I swear by Ice and Fire Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Something else that is imo often overlooked is the events after Tywins death. Kevan was well on his way to enforce his will upon Cersei and take the reigns of the realm, so close that Varys needed him dead to prevent it. So of Tywins death and Cerceis rulership, Cerceis rurelship is the more important factor for the upcoming chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihlus Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This has been discussed at length in other threads. Tywins army is always ~20,000, even in ASOSThe Tyrells were not using their superior manpower to push around Tywin, so I'm not sure what you're going for thereNope. We know that it took many losses, so it's not anywhere near 20,000. Tyrion was just being really generous with rounding and/or was misinformed about the total numbers, as often happened in medieval warfare (and even in that same book; 50,000 Dornish soldiers, anyone?). Again, 15,000 is assuming that he, after three batles and one major defeat, plus 2 years in enemy territory on the losing side of a war (where desertion would be a huge issue), plus a lot of skirmishing and minor sieges, lost a smaller percentage of his army than Robb did while mostly in friendly territory and only fighting three crushing, one-sided victories (Robb started with more than six thousand, lost a little over a thousand men after the Frey and Karstark desertions, and then was down to 3,500 at the Red Wedding; so 1,500 must have died in combat of the original ~6,000). I'm literally ignoring basic logic and history to be as stupidly generous to Tywin as I can possibly be (I'm more inclined to say he had 10-14k), and you're still trying to say that I'm not being generous enough. This is right up there with "Ned started the war and Tywin didn't". Last I checked, they held all of the cards. They had had a daughter installed as queen, killed and replaced the Lannister monarch with someone easier to manipulate when it was convenient for them, built up tons of positive PR, and had an army several times the size of the Lannister one, as well as the food that was being used to feed the Crownlands. Tywin was doing nothing at this time. Later, the Tyrells seize even more power. Do not confuse correlation for causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metheos Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This is complete nonsense. Stannis intended to kill Cersei and her children no matter what Tywin did, and Ned tried to launch a coup against them in King's Landing. I suppose Tywin should have just sat at Casterly Rock and let that happen? He had no choice but to strike fast and hard. Tywin didn't start a war, Ned, Cersei/Jaime, and Littlefinger did. The Lannister army didn't actually invade the Riverlands until after Robert had died and Ned attempted his coup First, Tywin sent a hundred armored men to destroy Riverlands villages before Ned even knew about the incest. That in itself counts as an act of war (many real wars have been started for less), and that the men didn't have banners suggests it was done with the intention of provoking a reaction that would allow Tywin to declare war while claiming innocence. Second, he'd already started amassing an army at this point. Third, when the incest was exposed, Tywin could have given up the Lannister claim to the throne, especially after Ned allowed Cersei time to flee. Instead, the Lannisters got the king killed and continued the lie about Cersei's children. That makes them very much guilty of starting a war to preserve a fraudulent claim to the throne. Contrary to what you say, he did have a choice, and he chose to make his family's power a more important priority than the lives of everyone who died in the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cladinator Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Tywin's death allows many significant parts of the story to go forward. He might not have been the most likable or friendly character but the realm was fairly squared away with his influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNinjaDC Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Yes. It allowed us to see Ned's legacy vs Tywin's legacy, and the downsides of Machiavellian politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Again, not getting into your contrived, silly interpretation of Tywin again Nihlus. But the Fords was not a "bad defeat" in terms of losses. Tywin had around 20,000 men there (confirmed by Edmure/Cat), and the "bloody nose" Edmure gave him isn't going to be more than a few thousand casualties First, Tywin sent a hundred armored men to destroy Riverlands villages before Ned even knew about the incest. That in itself counts as an act of war (many real wars have been started for less), and that the men didn't have banners suggests it was done with the intention of provoking a reaction that would allow Tywin to declare war while claiming innocence. Second, he'd already started amassing an army at this point. Third, when the incest was exposed, Tywin could have given up the Lannister claim to the throne, especially after Ned allowed Cersei time to flee. Instead, the Lannisters got the king killed and continued the lie about Cersei's children. That makes them very much guilty of starting a war to preserve a fraudulent claim to the throne. First, this was done in response to his son being kidnapped. But that still doesn't mean a war wouldn't have started regardless once Ned was arrested for treason. I love how you guys seem to think Renly, Stannis, LF, Ned, Jaime/Cersei, etc. all would have gotten along fine if it weren't for Big Mean Tywin Starting Wars For No Reason :lol: Second, of course he amassed an army when his son was kidnapped and Stannis started gathering swords (which Tywin knew about for awhile). What did Robb Stark do when his father was arrested? Did he ask for reasons? Did he obey the commands of his enemies? Did he sit at home and do nothing? Third, what reason does Tywin have to believe the incest claims? They came from Stannis Baratheon, after all, and he happened to be the one individual with the most gain to from them. Ned was arrested before he could reveal anything. And even if Tywin knew the incest claims were true, only a coward would allow his family to be publicly disgraced and likely executed in such a way. Tywin is no coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Yes. It allowed us to see Ned's legacy vs Tywin's legacy, and the downsides of Machiavellian politics. All of the Stark kids are fugitives or presumed dead; some legacy. House Lannister is in deep shit, but at least it still exists and has a firm power base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihlus Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Again, not getting into your contrived, silly interpretation of Tywin again Nihlus. But the Fords was not a "bad defeat" in terms of losses. Tywin had around 20,000 men there (confirmed by Edmure/Cat), and the "bloody nose" Edmure gave him isn't going to be more than a few thousand casualties It's not really an interpretation, it's a plain observation of him and the entire basis of his character. A few thousand losses is a very bad defeat for medieval armies, actually. Heck, for any army; that'd be what, 25% of his host? And those reports were quite inaccurate considering Tywin had just fought the battle of the Green Fork, been locked in enemy territory for well over a year, suffered several desertions, undertook a death march, and fought several skirmishes. We know that sometimes people can get pretty generous about the word "near". But no no no. Let's instead insist that he really did have around twice Edmure's numbers, which would mean, in all of those skirmishes and death marches, he gained several thousand troops, and lost zero. Meanwhile, Robb, after gaining some mercenaries, lost 1/4 of his army in battle after getting nothing but a few incredible, one-sided victories. Yes. It allowed us to see Ned's legacy vs Tywin's legacy, and the downsides of Machiavellian politics. :agree: Though, Tywin isn't really Machiavellian. Machiavelli said that, above all, a leader must avoid being hated, a policy that Tywin didn't follow. Hence why he got a crossbow to the crotch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Though, Tywin isn't really Machiavellian. Machiavelli said that, above all, a leader must avoid being hated, a policy that Tywin didn't follow. Hence why he got a crossbow to the crotch. He got a crossbow to the crotch for abusing his son. It was a reflection on Tywin as a human being and father, not as a political ruler. Tywin is very Machiavellian. The only people we see that truly hate him are the Dornish and "usurper's dogs" Daenerys. The rest were just political enemies, and I'm pretty sure Machiavelli didn't give the impossible advice to "make no enemies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Though, Tywin isn't really Machiavellian. Machiavelli said that, above all, a leader must avoid being hated, a policy that Tywin didn't follow. Hence why he got a crossbow to the crotch. Well."Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."He's more feared than hated in general as a political entity, Tyrion however hates him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRANDON GREYSTARK Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Yes, The death of Tywin causes massive amount of instability and if he wasn't killed by Tyrion he would have been killed by Varys . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Maester Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 It's not really an interpretation, it's a plain observation of him and the entire basis of his character. A few thousand losses is a very bad defeat for medieval armies, actually. Heck, for any army; that'd be what, 25% of his host? And those reports were quite inaccurate considering Tywin had just fought the battle of the Green Fork, been locked in enemy territory for well over a year, suffered several desertions, undertook a death march, and fought several skirmishes. We know that sometimes people can get pretty generous about the word "near". But no no no. Let's instead insist that he really did have around twice Edmure's numbers, which would mean, in all of those skirmishes and death marches, he gained several thousand troops, and lost zero. Meanwhile, Robb, after gaining some mercenaries, lost 1/4 of his army in battle after getting nothing but a few incredible, one-sided victories. :agree:Though, Tywin isn't really Machiavellian. Machiavelli said that, above all, a leader must avoid being hated, a policy that Tywin didn't follow. Hence why he got a crossbow to the crotch. Machiavelli's point was that you can't be hated by your subjects. Of course your enemies may hate you but generally you do not rely on your enemies to keep you in power (duh?). Tywin Lannister's subjects did not hate him, they respected him and even feared him (for a good reason) and that is all Machiavelli would ask for.Pretty much every time the idea of "Machiavellian Tywin" is discussed someone claims that same thing, which is of course ridiculous. On topic:If Tywin had lived without any Varys-induced assassinations the series might had ended a bit boring with unified realm against any opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry the Hair Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 If he were still alive then Cersei wouldn't do such a great job of screwing everything up and I really enjoy reading about her incompetence as a monarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reginald blackfield Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I think Tywin died the only way he could die, by the only person who could kill him, it was inevitable and he deserved what he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Machiavelli's point was that you can't be hated by your subjects. Of course your enemies may hate you but generally you do not rely on your enemies to keep you in power (duh?). Tywin Lannister's subjects did not hate him, they respected him and even feared him (for a good reason) and that is all Machiavelli would ask for.Pretty much every time the idea of "Machiavellian Tywin" is discussed someone claims that same thing, which is of course ridiculous. On topic:If Tywin had lived without any Varys-induced assassinations the series might had ended a bit boring with unified realm against any opponents.This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.