Why is Tywin Lannister hated while Brynden Tully is not?

[Nihlus]

So the rape is already excluded.

How was the slaughter he intended for his last standing at Riverrun necessary?

Had it actually been conducted like a normal siege, what he did would be entirely typical and acceptable. Sieges could last a few years; more than enough time for the war to turn around, as it will if Stannis, fAegon, and Euron win the upcoming battles. Or at least enough time to bleed the besiegers and negotiate favorable terms. His only error was throwing out everyone but the soldiers. The whole feudal system is based on the agreement that the common people can rely on their lords for protection.

[John Doe]

The whole feudal system is based on the agreement that the common people can rely on their lords for protection.

Exactly. Also, he completely forgot about his family ties to Edmure (or his duty to his lord, shich Edmure clearly was).

[Lost Umber]

But he was already defeated. A blind man could have seen that.

So, it made no sense letting his castle be destroyed, his dynasty killed and his smallfolk starved just for the sake of a glorious death. At least Tywin had some sense of duty.

Holding out in Riverrun is his only leverage to bargain for terms and wait for opportunities. Riverrun is not an easy castle to take.

We don't know if he's had contact with the BwB, or Greywater, or Manderly. Regardless, giving up to a Frey is the surest way to find his head on a pike.

Plus don't forget, some river Lords are still out there and have not submit yet either. Jaime remarks on this when he notices the banners at the siege.

[Ser RoddyRuinuous]

The Blackfish didn't abuse his children (of course, he didn't have any), didn't start a war, didn't murder people who came in peace to a wedding... by Westerosi standards, a bit of 'foraging' doesn't make him bad.

[John Doe]

The Blackfish didn't abuse his children (of course, he didn't have any), didn't start a war, didn't murder people who came in peace to a wedding... by Westerosi standards, a bit of 'foraging' doesn't make him bad.

Tywin did neither, since the Tysha incident is excluded.

[Gerg Sknab]

But he was already defeated. A blind man could have seen that.

So, it made no sense letting his castle be destroyed, his dynasty killed and his smallfolk starved just for the sake of a glorious death. At least Tywin had some sense of duty.

And was Stannis defeated at the seige of Storm's End...by your logic he was and should raised the white flag....

[TeethGrinder]

So you think this is the only reason Tywin is hated?

I'm saying that's an unforgivable act which will influence any opinion of him from that point on.

Had Brynden done that to Edmure you would see everything he done afterwards in a different light. It's a pretty damn extreme act that defines Tywin's capability for cruelty. Brynden has done nothing even remotely close to that.

[John Doe]

And was Stannis defeated at the seige of Storm's End...by your logic he was and should raised the white flag....

Stannis had reason to hope to be relieved, he did not do it for personal glory, he did not accept to have Robert killed in front of his walls, so yeah. And he did not fight for a dead king, lol.

Also, holding Storms End served a purpose in the war. Brynden's actions did not.

[John Doe]

I'm saying that's an unforgivable act which will influence any opinion of him from that point on.

Had Brynden done that to Edmure you would see everything he done afterwards in a different light. It's a pretty damn extreme act that defines Tywin's capability for cruelty. Brynden has done nothing even remotely close to that.

Ok, I agree.

[Humble Maester]

The Blackfish didn't abuse his children (of course, he didn't have any), didn't start a war, didn't murder people who came in peace to a wedding... by Westerosi standards, a bit of 'foraging' doesn't make him bad.

It is sort of funny how you decide to list things that Tywin didn't do. Only thing out of those three evil things he did was abusing children.

[Veloknight]

Read the OP.

Only if you have a very optimistic and unrealistic understanding of medieval warfare. Also, explain how Brynden's scorched earth policy was better.

I'll bite: his need was immediate. He had a castle, an army about to besiege it, a smallfolk they'd gain nothing at this stage by killing, and limited food. He wanted to outlast his besiegers, and had no particular malice to the smallfolk, even if he knew many would not survive. Tywin sent Gregor Clegane to deliberately terrorize an entire kingdom and hundreds of thousands of innocents for pure pride and spite. Ruthlessness and terror tactics aren't the same thing.

[John Doe]

I'll bite: his need was immediate. He had a castle, an army about to besiege it, a smallfolk they'd gain nothing at this stage by killing, and limited food. He wanted to outlast his besiegers, and had no particular malice to the smallfolk, even if he knew many would not survive. Tywin sent Gregor Clegane to deliberately terrorize an entire kingdom and hundreds of thousands of innocents for pure pride and spite. Ruthlessness and terror tactics aren't the same thing.

Jaime told him he would attack the castle and Blackfish did not care. So no, he did it not out of necessity, but out of pure pride and spite, as you would put it.

Tywin used medieval tactics that worked pretty well, that's a big difference to what you said.

[TallTyrion]

There's a difference between burning the lands of a country you're conducting a war of aggression against and burning your own lands to defend against said aggressors.

It's not like any of that grain was going to end up with the small folk of the Riverlands. It was the last harvest of the year and the and the Westerland/Frey soldiers needed something to eat. When your options are destroy the food so your enemies can't have it or allow your enemies to steal it, seems like a pretty simple problem for me the end result for the smallfolk is the same in either case.

[Alaynsa Starne]

Heinous deeds aside, Brynden immediately comes across as a loving uncle. We see him from Cat's perspective, and we see that she loves and repsects him. The first time we see Tywin, it's through the eyes of Tyrion who greatly dislikes him. Brynden supports the woman whose child has been thrown through a window and attacked in an assassination attempt, while Tywin is the man who sends Gregor out to the Riverlands to harrass inmocent people in retribution for his son. From first impressions, Brynden really does seem to be the more likeable character.

If we do include the heinous deeds, one of the first times we hear about Tywin, we learn that he is connected to and bears some --though perhaps not total -- responsibility for the brutal murders of an infant and a 3 year old. Tywin also bears some responsibility for the Red Wedding and is the patriarch of the family that killed Ned, abused Sansa, crippled Bran, forced Arya into the war-torn Riverlands where she had the opportunity to experience the cruelty of Lannister men, sent soldiers to kill bastard children and NW recruits, were emotionally cruel to Tyrion and accused and convicted him of a crime he didn't commit, and on and on it goes. Tywin does bad things and is associated with people who do bad things, therefore he is in general an unlikeable character.

Brynden, on the other hand, is on the side of "the heroes" and doesn't hold the siege until well into the series by which time most readers have an enormous pile of grievances (whether rightly or wrongly) against Tywin. While throwing the peasants out is certainly cruel and possibly unnecessary, Riverrun is Brynden's ancestral home. Most readers probably feel that he has the right to defend it from attackers -- which just so happen to the Lannisters -- even if other readers think that the attempt to defend his land is futile and stupid.

[John Doe]

There's a difference between burning the lands of a country you're conducting a war of aggression against and burning your own lands to defend against said aggressors.

Agreed. The first harms your enemies, the latter your own people you're sworn to protect.

[TallTyrion]

Agreed. The first harms your enemies, the latter your own people you're sworn to protect.

Weird how you neglected to respond to the second part of my statement. Leaving food for an enemy army to steal doesn't help your smallfolk either.

[DigitalCount]

Also, is there any reason why we're excluding Tywin's most heinous act but not Brynden's? If there is bias it's in the premises of the question.

[John Doe]

Weird how you neglected to respond to the second part of my statement. Leaving food for an enemy army to steal doesn't help your smallfolk either.

Had he surrundered, I doubt the Freys would have stolen food from the smallfolk since a Frey would have become the new lord. So, in Brynden's case, the statement that he committed these terror acts because of pride and spite is actually true.

[John Doe]

Also, is there any reason why we're excluding Tywin's most heinous act but not Brynden's? If there is bias it's in the premises of the question.

No it isn't. I already gave an explanation.

[Veloknight]

Had he surrundered, I doubt the Freys would have stolen food from the smallfolk since a Frey would have become the new lord. So, in Brynden's case, the statement that he committed these terror acts because of pride and spite is actually true.

I would not consider delivering the smallfolk into the faction that has been carrying out this brutal campaign to be responsible, and Brynden Tully does not know that Tywin's faction this time is going to refrain from pulling a Castamere.

You're rightfully pointing out that waging warfare is an inherently evil thing, but there's a difference between preventing an enemy from winning a coming siege and deliberately terrorizing an entire country. Brynden's wars are awful, but seem typical to me for a skilled warrior - Tywin's war are deliberately as over-the-top and cruel as possible, to instil fear and maintain his reputation.

Finally, you have no problem lauding Tywin for doing absolutely heinous things out of personal pique to win, but then fault Brynden Tully for doing hard things to avoid losing to such a man. This to me screams more of Tywin adoration than anything else, coupled with your insistence of ignoring his personal depravity - which when combined with his political decisions, helps complete the picture of Tywin as an innately violent and cruel man.