Tywin Lannister, Shield of Westeros

[Raven Tooth]

Not sure how this has not been mentioned yet but: Tysha. Seriously Tywin was an asshole. I liked him as a villain but I don't really think of him as a bad-ass for using guys like Clegane, Lorch, Brave Companions and massacring the riverlands. As a lord he was awful to the smallfolk and as a father he was awful to his children. Not sure what there is to look up to in him.

[Nihlus]

You said you dont care about the wiki, obviously you do. Once again you have been caught in a lie. Obviously you will deny this, and whine about nitpicking.

Right, the closest landmark is in the Westerlands and according to the Westerlands map in the World of Ice and Fire the Golden Tooth is pretty far away from the border.

Again, not conclusive but more evidence points towards that battle taking place in the West.

Basic logic suggests going by the name of location to establish were a battle took place. If a battle took place near the Dreadfort I'm going to assume that took place on Bolton land and not Manderly, if a battle took place near the Twins I'm going to assume that the batte took place in the Riverlands and not the North and if a battle took place near the Golden tooth I am going to assumer to took place in the Westerlands.

And when does Ned say that the Riverlords have not set foot in the West. Provide this quote if it exists.

"The west had been a tinderbox since Catelyn had seized Tyrion Lannister. Both Riverrun and Casterly Rock had called their banners, and armies were massing in the pass below the Golden Tooth. It had only been a matter of time until the blood began to flow. The sole question that remained was how best to stanch the wound."

Except it's not a lie. Editing something occasionally doesn't mean you care. Obviously you will continue to bitch about exact wording and ignoring context in an attempt at an irrelevant redirect while ignoring the main argument which you will continually be unable to refute.

No, it just proves that there's nothing much around there in the Riverlands area, and/or that the Golden Tooth pass is the most notable thing there in spite of that. We know that, whether this happened in the Riverlands or the Westerlands, it wasn't a violation of the king's peace on the part of the Riverlanders.

Basic logic suggests that they weren't breaking the king's peace, because both the Riverlords and Ned said that they weren't breaking the king's peace. This is extremely simple, yet for some reason you still can't grasp it.

He doesn't. He states that they're not violating the king's peace. In the same scene where he hears about Riverlands troops at the Golden Tooth.

[Lord Wraith]

Say what you will about the guy, but Tywin Lannister got shit done. No matter how you feel about the guy personally, you can't deny the guy was a badass. The first time I read through ASOIAF I knew like everyone that he was important and a major player in the intrigues of the high lords but what really emphasizes how important he was to the realm was his death. After he dies so graciously at the hands of Tyrion, we hear from various characters in vastly different places about how opportune the moment is for their various goals now that Tywin Lannister is dead.

So, how do you feel about Tywin? Is he a tragic figure who strives for perfection and takes it incredibly serious or is he just a humorless dick

I have never liked Tywin, I have always respected him and his accomplishments.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Except it's not a lie. Editing something occasionally doesn't mean you care. Obviously you will continue to bitch about exact wording in an attempt at an irrelevant redirect while ignoring the main argument which you will continually be unable to refute.

No, it just proves that there's nothing much around there in the Riverlands area, and/or that the Golden Tooth pass is the most notable thing there in spite of that. We know that, whether this happened in the Riverlands or the Westerlands, it wasn't a violation of the king's peace on the part of the Riverlanders.

Basic logic suggests that they weren't breaking the king's peace, because both the Riverlords and Ned said that they weren't breaking the king's peace. This is extremely simple, yet for some reason you still can't grasp it.

He doesn't. He states that they're not violating the king's peace.

1. The only people who edit wiki pages are people who care about the content or are trolling. You are one or the other.

2. Or that the battle took place in the Westerlands. The word map is pretty clear on its location and how far away it is to the border. This is a case of Occam's razor.

3. The kings peace is not officially broken till battle takes place. But as this is on Westerland territory the Lannisters have a right to attack an invading army.

4. Not once does he say it's not in the West, he even mentions it taking place in the West.

[The Wolves]

Not sure how this has not been mentioned yet but: Tysha. Seriously Tywin was an asshole. I liked him as a villain but I don't really think of him as a bad-ass for using guys like Clegane, Lorch, Brave Companions and massacring the riverlands. As a lord he was awful to the smallfolk and as a father he was awful to his children. Not sure what there is to look up to in him.

To the bolded it's probably that the dude got lucky through his lifetime.

He accomplished little IMO for Westeros his only real feat is that of putting the Westerlands back in order though that's not something all that great when the other regions have been setting their regions in order over and over for thousands of years.

[Davos is King]

Everything points towards the house being totally screwed. Maybe not flat-out extinct, but definitely significantly damaged. I don't see how this can't be held against Tywin, as it's in this position mostly because of his own actions. He shouldn't have made enemies out of everybody.

Tywin's branch most likely but then Kevan's sons become the main branch. The house is in a pretty fucked up state atm I guess.

[Humble Maester]

...

You should know better than debate Nihlus. There is a better chance of head-butting through the Wall than getting through to him :P

Anyways Tywin is pretty much archetypical efficient evil overlord, and as some do I also find him very fascinating (Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars usually pops into my mind as a comparison, though he is obviously way less-built character in the movies).

But yeah I guess the gist of it is that as a human being he was far from perfect (I won't call a man monstrous when his actions caused far more good than evil) but as a ruler he was probably in the top 3 we've seen in all of ASoIaF. At the point of his death everything was going his way. Too bad that all of his children are rotten but you can hardly put all the blame for the children on one parent, especially when he didn't practically raise any of them.

[BrainFireBob]

I'm going to regret getting sucked into this, but I hate misused logic.

Given that these are fantasy characters, not real people:

1) Tywin is no more responsible for the actions of others than anyone else. ie, if say one of his children does something, Tywin is not culpable- it is not his decision, it is not identical to his decision, and it should not be assumed to be his decision.

2) Tywin's duties and responsibilities should not be assumed where unknown, but assumptions clearly stated

3) A grey area in the law is a grey area in the law. Means it's neither legal nor illegal. Therefore, not being definitely illegal does not make the thing legal. It means it needs a ruling by an arbitrating authority according to due process.

To hit a few key points:

1) The War of Five Kings. Stannis had made his intentions fairly clear; the wife of the Hand had seized the son of the Warden of the West in her position as wife of the Warden of the North without due process or trial. The Hand, who was also Warden of the North, retroactively backed the arrest. This makes it dodgy- proper channels should be Tyrion's own liege lord, then the King. When word reaches the King, the King is furious and orders Tyrion's immediate release- which incidentally doesn't happen. Tyrion is instead tried by combat and found innocent. Incidentally, this should make that trial a violation of the law, since the King is ruling that the arrest, while made via a grey area, is not valid to maintain.

2) The Riverlords are maintaining that they are keeping the king's peace. Ned agrees. This statement is made, like all statements, inside a context. To whit: We didn't start this, therefore we're not the ones breaking the peace. However, in the case where the arrest is illegal, Ned and his wife's family did start this, so their presumptive statements of innocence are moot- it is for the king to decide who started it. Further, by going to war instead of simply appealing to the king and yes, letting their lands be burned, they are contributing to the problem. This is discussing laws, not morality, which dictates protecting their own.

3) Responsibility for the Riverlands.

We are never given any indication at all that any Lord Paramount is lesser in rank to the others. Frankly, the Riverlands are Hoster Tully's problem, not Tywin's. Tywin is Lord Paramount of the Westerlands and Warden of the West. Blaming Tywin for the state of the Riverlands- well, the Riverlands lost a war they could have avoided by handing over either Catelyn or Tyrion. Tywin's title of Warden of the West isn't clear. Why aren't all Lords Paramount Wardens? What are the Wardens for? In the classic Medieval sense, a marcomte or marquis rules a territory established as a buffer state- is this the model? It could be- the Wardens each "ward" against a threat under that model. The Wardens of the South "ward" against Dorne (unincorporated when the position was created); the Wardens of the North "ward" against the wildlings; the Wardens of the East "ward" against Essos, one assumes, since this is the path the Andals took and it'd be a pain to attack the Vale from the west to drive out an invader- which leaves the Warden of the West to "ward" against a threat to the West- for instance, those pesky, unreliable, reaving Ironborn. Means the Riverlands aren't Tywin's responsibility if true.

What decisions did Tywin make that would jeopardize his house? He ended the War of Five Kings by collaboration with the Freys- who take the blame for violating guest right. He was participant in a war that - while an argument to the contrary may be made- he didn't start or act as the aggressor (he was a provocateur) that in turn ravaged the Riverlands; which incidentally are now not even remotely a threat to the Westerlands. He brought the Tyrells in on his side instead of pouncing like vultures on his weakened strength.

The Sparrows? There have been wars before that did not result in this kind of religious movement; predicting it is therefore completely unreasonable. We didn't see a new Faith Militant after the Blackfyre Rebellion or the Dance, why should we (or specifically Tywin) expect one now? Did he order his men to burn farms, rape women, kill children, and waggle their fingers at the surviving men and say "You bad boys, go be religious zealot warriors now, ok!" No! The sparrows- or rather, the High Sparrow- appears to have organized this on his own. Did Tywin know of it? No, so his failure to stop something completely atypical given the history of Westeros is not something that's his fault. Did his stupidly short-sighted and ignorant daughter legitimize and empower them? Yes. Is he responsible for that decision? No, by point 1 above, he's not, except insofar as he never sat Cersei down and said "Daughter, when you are queen regnant and your smart brother is gone and I'm assassinated and you've alienated the only counsellor I've listened to in all my years who happens to be your uncle, remember, no matter what the stripper tells you, there's no sex in the champagne room do not arm the Faith, something that's completely irrelevent for the last two centuries that for some reason I, the all-knowing Tywin, foresee will occur again."

Is the House near-extinct? Well, Tywin had three brothers, one of which has 1-2 living sons; and his cousin has at least two grown sons. So no, fine there.

Varys assassinating Kevan? He did that specifically so no-one could fix the mess Cersei created in only a few months after her father's death. Her arrest? Well, he didn't try to setup Margaery for failure, nor did he make Cersei have promiscuous sex after arming religious fundamentalists. Those are on Cersei.

Is he admirable? No, I rather think he's a deliberately Machiavellian figure; interesting because he asks the hard questions ("Why is it more admirable to kill thousands in battle than quietly kill a few dozen at dinner?") and because not only is Tyrion just like him, but we always see him from the eyes of his children- I personally am partial to the idea that he had warmed to Tyrion during the war because he realized that Tyrion had the brains in the next generation. Does it make in ineffective? No. Does it make him responsible for the actions of others? No.

Also, being insulting and claiming that the most basic logic backs your assumptions, while never showing critical breakdowns or reasoning- specifically, trying to diminish and belittle other arguments by hand-waving- does not come across as mature or convincing, and in fact is a classic form of logic fallacy. It's a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

[Lykos]

Tywin reminds me most of Frederick William I of Prussia, a man I detest with all my heart, a cautious deliberate ruler that cherished discipline and military prowess above all. So much so that he had the friend of his son, who tried to flee his tyranny with the son, executed before the eyes of his son.

Martin made Tywin channel Frederick William I, who alledgedly said "The pen is mightier than the sword", by letting him state that "Wars are won with quills and ravens"

I think Tytos Lannister was not half as bad for the Westerlands as the current generation of Lannisters makes him out to be.

The Father of Frederick William I, Frederick I was regarded as a comparably weak ruler by historians who followed the evaluation of his grandson Frederick II - "All in all he was great in small matters, and small in great matters." - which determined his image for over a hundered years, only recently historians have come to rectify this image and come to the conclusion that Frederick I successfully furthered Prussia's influence with positive contributions and deft diplomacy.

[BrainFireBob]

Well, yes, but it's rather like the discussion of the war monarchy of the Edwards, isn't it? Do we condemn their warmongering out of a Hegellian sense of the natural evolution of human society, or do we look at what they did within the context of their understanding of how the world worked?

As someone noted in the thread, smallfolk mean less than a great lord in this society. George isn't writing a morality play about that being bad and how we should engage in the five minute hate about it; he's providing - I'd argue, over-correcting for a lack of in fantasy literature generally- realism.

[Waiting for Howland]

I'm going to regret getting sucked into this, but I hate misused logic.

Given that these are fantasy characters, not real people:

1) Tywin is no more responsible for the actions of others than anyone else. ie, if say one of his children does something, Tywin is not culpable- it is not his decision, it is not identical to his decision, and it should not be assumed to be his decision.

2) Tywin's duties and responsibilities should not be assumed where unknown, but assumptions clearly stated

3) A grey area in the law is a grey area in the law. Means it's neither legal nor illegal. Therefore, not being definitely illegal does not make the thing legal. It means it needs a ruling by an arbitrating authority according to due process.

To hit a few key points:

1) The War of Five Kings. Stannis had made his intentions fairly clear; the wife of the Hand had seized the son of the Warden of the West in her position as wife of the Warden of the North without due process or trial. The Hand, who was also Warden of the North, retroactively backed the arrest. This makes it dodgy- proper channels should be Tyrion's own liege lord, then the King. When word reaches the King, the King is furious and orders Tyrion's immediate release- which incidentally doesn't happen. Tyrion is instead tried by combat and found innocent. Incidentally, this should make that trial a violation of the law, since the King is ruling that the arrest, while made via a grey area, is not valid to maintain.

2) The Riverlords are maintaining that they are keeping the king's peace. Ned agrees. This statement is made, like all statements, inside a context. To whit: We didn't start this, therefore we're not the ones breaking the peace. However, in the case where the arrest is illegal, Ned and his wife's family did start this, so their presumptive statements of innocence are moot- it is for the king to decide who started it. Further, by going to war instead of simply appealing to the king and yes, letting their lands be burned, they are contributing to the problem. This is discussing laws, not morality, which dictates protecting their own.

3) Responsibility for the Riverlands.

We are never given any indication at all that any Lord Paramount is lesser in rank to the others. Frankly, the Riverlands are Hoster Tully's problem, not Tywin's. Tywin is Lord Paramount of the Westerlands and Warden of the West. Blaming Tywin for the state of the Riverlands- well, the Riverlands lost a war they could have avoided by handing over either Catelyn or Tyrion. Tywin's title of Warden of the West isn't clear. Why aren't all Lords Paramount Wardens? What are the Wardens for? In the classic Medieval sense, a marcomte or marquis rules a territory established as a buffer state- is this the model? It could be- the Wardens each "ward" against a threat under that model. The Wardens of the South "ward" against Dorne (unincorporated when the position was created); the Wardens of the North "ward" against the wildlings; the Wardens of the East "ward" against Essos, one assumes, since this is the path the Andals took and it'd be a pain to attack the Vale from the west to drive out an invader- which leaves the Warden of the West to "ward" against a threat to the West- for instance, those pesky, unreliable, reaving Ironborn. Means the Riverlands aren't Tywin's responsibility if true.

What decisions did Tywin make that would jeopardize his house? He ended the War of Five Kings by collaboration with the Freys- who take the blame for violating guest right. He was participant in a war that - while an argument to the contrary may be made- he didn't start or act as the aggressor (he was a provocateur) that in turn ravaged the Riverlands; which incidentally are now not even remotely a threat to the Westerlands. He brought the Tyrells in on his side instead of pouncing like vultures on his weakened strength.

The Sparrows? There have been wars before that did not result in this kind of religious movement; predicting it is therefore completely unreasonable. We didn't see a new Faith Militant after the Blackfyre Rebellion or the Dance, why should we (or specifically Tywin) expect one now? Did he order his men to burn farms, rape women, kill children, and waggle their fingers at the surviving men and say "You bad boys, go be religious zealot warriors now, ok!" No! The sparrows- or rather, the High Sparrow- appears to have organized this on his own. Did Tywin know of it? No, so his failure to stop something completely atypical given the history of Westeros is not something that's his fault. Did his stupidly short-sighted and ignorant daughter legitimize and empower them? Yes. Is he responsible for that decision? No, by point 1 above, he's not, except insofar as he never sat Cersei down and said "Daughter, when you are queen regnant and your smart brother is gone and I'm assassinated and you've alienated the only counsellor I've listened to in all my years who happens to be your uncle, remember, no matter what the stripper tells you, there's no sex in the champagne room do not arm the Faith, something that's completely irrelevent for the last two centuries that for some reason I, the all-knowing Tywin, foresee will occur again."

Is the House near-extinct? Well, Tywin had three brothers, one of which has 1-2 living sons; and his cousin has at least two grown sons. So no, fine there.

Varys assassinating Kevan? He did that specifically so no-one could fix the mess Cersei created in only a few months after her father's death. Her arrest? Well, he didn't try to setup Margaery for failure, nor did he make Cersei have promiscuous sex after arming religious fundamentalists. Those are on Cersei.

Is he admirable? No, I rather think he's a deliberately Machiavellian figure; interesting because he asks the hard questions ("Why is it more admirable to kill thousands in battle than quietly kill a few dozen at dinner?") and because not only is Tyrion just like him, but we always see him from the eyes of his children- I personally am partial to the idea that he had warmed to Tyrion during the war because he realized that Tyrion had the brains in the next generation. Does it make in ineffective? No. Does it make him responsible for the actions of others? No.

Also, being insulting and claiming that the most basic logic backs your assumptions, while never showing critical breakdowns or reasoning- specifically, trying to diminish and belittle other arguments by hand-waving- does not come across as mature or convincing, and in fact is a classic form of logic fallacy. It's a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

Flawless analysis. Only thing ill add is, and maybe just simplify ur whole statement is, great Lord, bad father.

Also everyone keeps sayin he had to many enemies, but in the series, who really has friends? Who can you truely trust? Tywin understood it and was successful because of it.

Not a nice man though.

[David Selig]

Say what you will about the guy, but Tywin Lannister got shit done. No matter how you feel about the guy personally, you can't deny the guy was a badass.

Yes, I can. Ordering your goons to murder people isn't badass at all.

So, how do you feel about Tywin? Is he a tragic figure who strives for perfection and takes it incredibly serious or is he just a humorless dick

Tragic figure? WTF? He is a 100% monster, putting him down was by far the best thing Tyrion ever did.

"Half the country"??

Good point, it should be "most of the country".

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

1. The only people who edit wiki pages are people who care about the content or are trolling. You are one or the other.

2. Or that the battle took place in the Westerlands. The word map is pretty clear on its location and how far away it is to the border. This is a case of Occam's razor.

3. The kings peace is not officially broken till battle takes place. But as this is on Westerland territory the Lannisters have a right to attack an invading army.

4. Not once does he say it's not in the West, he even mentions it taking place in the West.

The problem with your entire argument is that it is something the sleaziest lawyer in the world would say, we know the Westerlands forces attacked first because we read the books (unless you're Preston Jacobs and the whole thing was made up) and Tywin knows his forces attacked first, Edmure knows that, Ned knows that, Robert accepts the death sentence for Gregor, implicitly stating that he accepts Tywin as the aggressor. So exactly what point you are trying to make is beyond me.

[Viserys - The last dragon]

I've always admire Tywin in ASOIAF for his political capabilities. After reading TWOIAF I actually felt kinda sympathetic towards him after seeing the way he was treated by Aerys and the rest of the court.

As a person he was a cunt make no mistake but unlike his brain aneurysm inducing daughter, Tywin was a badass cunt.

Yes, agreed. Ser Kiggit.

[Humble Maester]

I think Tytos Lannister was not half as bad for the Westerlands as the current generation of Lannisters makes him out to be.

Another case in which I have to ask "have you read all the books?". The World of Ice and Fire makes it abundantly clear that Tytos was one of the worst lords paramount ever. During his era the king had to send three different forces to restore order, his vassals grew unruly and stole from him, his stronger vassals stole lands from weaker ones, his own men were slaughtered by Reynes and he did nothing.

How much worse than that do the "current generation of Lannisters" make him out to be? He was pretty much as bad as one could be.

Also, if people want to blame Tywin for his children, there is much stronger causation between Tytos' weakness and what Tywin grew up to be. Ergo Tytos is responsible for everything evil Tywin ever did. (Good thing most people don't consider the whole "parent is 100% responsible for their children's actions" a legitimate argument).

[Lykos]

No, I haven't read The World of Ice and Fire, but I've read about the claims that the narrating Maester compiled.

As I said historians followed the evaluation of Frederick the Great about his granddad until recently, I think something similar is going on here, people are kissing Tywin's ass without being certain how things would have turned out had Tywin not restored order with fear but with reasonable measures.

[Humble Maester]

No, I haven't read The World of Ice and Fire, but I've read about the claims that the narrating Maester compiled.

As I said historians followed the evaluation of Frederick the Great about his granddad until recently, I think something similar is going on here, people are kissing Tywin's ass without being certain how things would have turned out had Tywin not restored order with fear but with reasonable measures.

But we weren't talking about Tywin, we were talking about Tytos. So two questions remain, one which of the following do you think are historical revisionism by a maester, while there are still dozens of living witnesses around:

-The King having to send his forces three times to pacify the West due to Tytos' imcompetence.

-Tytos' vassals practically stealing from him (loaning gold and never repaying).

-Tytos' vassals kidnapping members of his family, and getting off the hook with debts forgiven.

and from the semi-canon (or canon maybe, it has been posted on GRRM's page) Westerlands reading:

-Tytos' vassals preyed on other weaker vassals stealing their lands while their overlord did nothing.

-Reynes slaughtering men under Tytos' banner and getting off the hook with no reprecussions.

The second question is how exactly do the "current generation of Lannisters" make Tytos seem any worse than what he was?

[The Fallen]

I don't know if you can be referred to as the Shield of Westeros when you're probably more responsible for the disastrous civil war than any other party.

All powerful men will have their apologists and sympathisers. And so it is with Tywin. Tywin was born to the richest and one of the most powerful families in Westeros. And was able to use the advantages that his position afforded him to become Hand of the King and position his daughter as a possible future queen.

His reign as hand was good, similar to Jon Arryn's. The difference is that Tywin's insecurity led to him to create this image as a great man and then take it too seriously, to the point where he couldn't even laugh, never mind laugh at himself. Whereas Jon Arryn was humble and secure enough with himself that he didn't need to hear how great he was.

Also, we have to ask why Cersei felt the need to arm the Faith? Because she needed to stop the Tyrells from gaining more influence and tightening their grip on the throne. A move that began while Tywin was still alive; Joffrey's death.

And Tywin also alienated the one member of his family who actually did the most to ensure that the Lannisters would win the war. And for no other reason, that I can think of, than vanity. He didn't want an ugly dwarf to climb the seat of Casterly Rock.

[Humble Maester]

I don't know if you can be referred to as the Shield of Westeros when you're probably more responsible for the disastrous civil war than any other party.

Nope, no he wasn't. People who were more responsible for the War of the Five Kings: All Five kings, Cersei&Jaime, Robert... Tywin acted as proactively as he could but he neither started nor caused the war.

All powerful men will have their apologists and sympathisers. And so it is with Tywin. Tywin was born to the richest and one of the most powerful families in Westeros. And was able to use the advantages that his position afforded him to become Hand of the King and position his daughter as a possible future queen.

Tywin didn't become Hand of the King because he was the richest man in Westeros, or because he was a member of one of the most powerful families (except maybe tangentially by getting a chance to know the young Aerys). He became the hand because he proved himself to be a decisive and even ruthless leader of men, something Aerys wished for in his Hand.

His reign as hand was good, similar to Jon Arryn's. The difference is that Tywin's insecurity led to him to create this image as a great man and then take it too seriously, to the point where he couldn't even laugh, never mind laugh at himself. Whereas Jon Arryn was humble and secure enough with himself that he didn't need to hear how great he was.

Tywin's insecurity wasn't anything "he created himself". It all originated from the absolute weakness his own father showed and the ridicule and shame it brought upon his house. Jon Arryn, as far as I know, didn't have the worst lord in Westeros history as his father.

Also, we have to ask why Cersei felt the need to arm the Faith? Because she needed to stop the Tyrells from gaining more influence and tightening their grip on the throne. A move that began while Tywin was still alive; Joffrey's death.

After Joffrey died the even more malleable Tommen was around. There are a good amount of people who think that Tywin even orchestrated the assassination or allowed it (though I completely disagree), and why those people think that is because Joffrey's death was actually somewhat beneficial for Tywin.

Cersei has screwed her own pooch, you can't blame Tywin for that.

And Tywin also alienated the one member of his family who actually did the most to ensure that the Lannisters would win the war. And for no other reason, that I can think of, than vanity. He didn't want an ugly dwarf to climb the seat of Casterly Rock.

You do remember how his beloved wife died giving birth? Did you also know that Tywin is a man to whom Lannister prestige is everything and that one of his children was constantly whoring and drinking and dragging the name through the mud. You can try to guess which child it was but as a hint his name begins with T and ends with n. Also yrio inbetween there, just to be clear.

E: Also Tywin seemingly did appreciate Tyrion. He gave him a position the small council twice, he gave him one of the greatest brides in the realm, he was even willing to let him take the black after he was convicted of murdering Tywin's grandson, the King.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The problem with your entire argument is that it is something the sleaziest lawyer in the world would say, we know the Westerlands forces attacked first because we read the books (unless you're Preston Jacobs and the whole thing was made up) and Tywin knows his forces attacked first, Edmure knows that, Ned knows that, Robert accepts the death sentence for Gregor, implicitly stating that he accepts Tywin as the aggressor. So exactly what point you are trying to make is beyond me.

Robert is on his death bed and Ned has already informed him that he has sent men to kill the Mountain.

"I killed the bastard, didn't I?" A lock of matted black hair fell across his eyes as he glared up at Ned. "Ought to do the same for you. Can't leave a man to hunt in peace. Ser Robar found me. Gregor's head. Ugly thought. Never told the Hound. Let Cersei surprise him."

There is nothing he can do about it and he has bigger things to worry about. Nowhere does he say that the Mountain is guilty and there is definitely no mention of Tywin. But sure, feel free to call others 'sleazy lawyers' while you make up your own evidence.

And once again, a vassal committing a crime does not mean their Lord is also guilty. If Ramsay Bolton started attacking the Riverlands that would not make Ned guilty of it.