Is Tywin a fool, or is GRRM sloppy?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Well Tywin is arrogant and overrated.

If Robert had not been dead and been a little savvy he´d have taken this oppurtunity to do A: Crush the person he owes most of his debt to. B: Getting rid of an older wife for a younger, Margaery ... hey, or Sansa  :ack:  not saying it´s great but this would be something a strong medieval king would consider.

He´d show the Tyrrels and Martells what happens when they defy the IT, get rid of a lot of debt and get a new set of heirs.

 

 

The debt would still be there. It is owed to House Lannister, not Tywin. The debt does not disappear when Tywin dies. 

[The Wolves]

 
 
The debt would still be there. It is owed to House Lannister, not Tywin. The debt does not disappear when Tywin dies. 

I think it will, I don't think anybody who holds the throne will be paying that debt back to house Lannister.

[Beorn Snow]

 

 

The debt would still be there. It is owed to House Lannister, not Tywin. The debt does not disappear when Tywin dies. 

 

You don´t think defeating Lannister´s forces on the battlefield and putting Lannisport under siege might effect the debt-situation?

[King of the Narrow Sea]

 

Robert didn't seem to punish Jaime when he put Ned in a coma.

 

"Abductions on the kingsroad and drunken slaughter in my streets," the king said. "I will not have it, Ned."

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp - "

"I said, I will not have it! To hell with her reasons. You will command her to release the dwarf at once, and you will make your peace with Jaime."

 

If Ned is captured, and relatively unharmed, then he would be exchanged for Tyrion. Job done. Robert is not going to war against his father-in-law just like he didnt go to war against Cat for kidnapping his brother-in-law. He was invested in a united Westeros and was still paranoid about the Targs. He was not going to start a war against his own family and divide his House.

 

He would have forced Ned and Tywin to apologize to each other, there may have been some minor punishment for breaking the Kings peace but Robert was very, very wary of conflict.

 

Robert actually couldn't punish Jaime though. At that time, the KG was a lifetime institution as it's not till after Robert's death that Cersei becomes the first person to fire a KG in Barristan (failing to protect Robert from the boar) and Boros (failing to protect Tommen from Tyrion's sellswords). Having accepted Jaime into his KG when he took the throne, Robert was stuck with Jaime unless he decided to kill Jaime as that's the only thing that can be done to Jaime is to end his life to end his service.

 

The only punishments he could give out would be ones that don't kill Jaime. But he's not exactly going to lop off Jaime's sword hand as punishment when Jaime's sword hand is also what protects him and he'd be stuck with a cripple till Jaime died if he did that. Robert could have been an asshole and commanded Jaime to go guard a privy that he just took a dump in as punishment, but he couldn't actually physically punish his KG as he was stuck with Jaime for life and he'd have to suffer any physical punishment he dolled out to Jaime by having a weakened KG.

 

Robert's only option was either to do nothing to Jaime, or kill him.

[Lady Sharya]

Robert actually couldn't punish Jaime though. At that time, the KG was a lifetime institution as it's not till after Robert's death that Cersei becomes the first person to fire a KG in Barristan (failing to protect Robert from the boar) and Boros (failing to protect Tommen from Tyrion's sellswords). Having accepted Jaime into his KG when he took the throne, Robert was stuck with Jaime unless he decided to kill Jaime as that's the only thing that can be done to Jaime is to end his life to end his service.
 
The only punishments he could give out would be ones that don't kill Jaime. But he's not exactly going to lop off Jaime's sword hand as punishment when Jaime's sword hand is also what protects him and he'd be stuck with a cripple till Jaime died if he did that. Robert could have been an asshole and commanded Jaime to go guard a privy that he just took a dump in as punishment, but he couldn't actually physically punish his KG as he was stuck with Jaime for life and he'd have to suffer any physical punishment he dolled out to Jaime by having a weakened KG.
 
Robert's only option was either to do nothing to Jaime, or kill him.

Don't be silly. Robert was the king and could do anything he wanted with Jaime. Dealing with Cersei over it is another matter.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Tywin's justification was simple - the Starks started it.

 

Anyone who thinks Ned being captured would cause Robert to go to war against his father-in-law (and wife, basically) is ignoring the characters involved in order to make Tywin look stupid or insane. The Robert we see in AGOT would have banged his fist on the table, complained about what a pain in the ass the Starks and Lannisters had become, and then ordered them to trade their hostages.

 

Robert's main concern at this point was the Targaryen/Dothraki threat from the East, so he wouldn't want a war between his strongest allies

 

 

Also, people make too big a deal of the whole "riding under the King's banner" thing. The fact is, Robert did not authorize Ned to go play the hero in the Westerlands. 

[Valyrian Blade]

If Robert had been worth anything he would've rallied all of the other houses against Lannister for attacking his last friend, damn Ned being loyal to the wrong person. Crush Casterly Rock, and seize their gold mines.

 

I know it's not possible, but damn it how can he let Jaime attack his "brother" as he calls Ned and not give a flying fuck about it?

[Fat Mac]

Also, people make too big a deal of the whole "riding under the King's banner" thing. The fact is, Robert did not authorize Ned to go play the hero in the Westerlands. 

While I agree with most of your post, wasn't Robert hunting at the time Ned formed the party to arrest Gregor? (I can't remember so correct me if I'm wrong). I believe officially when the King is absent the hand speaks with his voice, even if it isn't something Robert would particularly sanction.

[Ramsay Gimp]

While I agree with most of your post, wasn't Robert hunting at the time Ned formed the party to arrest Gregor? (I can't remember so correct me if I'm wrong). I believe officially when the King is absent the hand speaks with his voice, even if it isn't something Robert would particularly sanction.

 

That's true, Ned technically had the authority to do what he did. But Robert never sanctioned it, and probably would have refused if Ned asked. 

 

So while Ned was "officially" speaking with Robert's voice and acting in his name, Tywin capturing him wouldn't be treated as if he had captured Robert himself. If people made a fuss about the legalities Tywin could just invoke the King's name and say that as Warden of the West he captured a rogue Hand  :P  

[Nordahl iceskin]

This seems like a common thread, but anyone who feels tywin was foolish has the power of hindsight. He does not know what happens in the future, and despite being a fool and a lackwit he manages to hold a debt over the IT, put his grandson on the throne and his daughter in position as queen regent, and also manages to subdue most of the realm. Also he basically ruled while Aerys held the throne. He was regarded as a genius, but really he was just a smart tactician willing to do horrible things to accomplish his goals.

[Nordahl iceskin]

Also If you consider that Cat capturing Tyrion could on its own start a feud, then having his greatest forces between the north and KL means Tywin puts himself in great position should a war breakout.

[falcotron]

I think many people understand medieval feudal systems at all.

What kind of king would let two of his bannermen fight each other? Every medieval king who ever existed. Two bannermen raising arms against each other was a common occurrence. And we see that the same is true in Westeros, from The Sworn Sword to Ramsay's Hornwood adventures. One of the key benefits of feudalism is that the liege doesn't have to get involved in every little squabble, unless things get too bad to ignore (or there's some advantage to the liege, or he's compelled by an alliance). Real-life kings only raised armies (and usually not their full banners) every 5 years or so, and more often than not that was to put down an open rebellion (which seem a lot less common in Westeros) or to intervene in a foreign dispute (which basically don't exist in Westeros, since there are no feudal obligations and very few alliances that cross the border).

What kind of king would deal with two of his courtiers attacking each other just outside the court by just telling them to apologize to each other and quit it? Every medieval king in history. Well, a real king might also demand that they both re-pledge fealty, but that's about it. A liege goes out of his way to have to avoid judging his people, not the opposite. Not to mention that in Westeros, as in the real-life Germanic countries, the typical way of judging between two nobles is just to have them fight anyway.

Looking at it from a 21st century perspective, that kind of disorder seems implausibly intolerable. But these aren't 21st century people.

So, what was Tywin really risking here? If Robert decided that the Mountain's actions were too bad to ignore, he'd just demand that Tywin get his men in line, and also demand that Ned call back the men he sent out under the royal banner and get his wife to hand Tyrion over. Tywin was risking a minor chastisement, not going into open rebellion.

[ConfusedCounselor]

I think many people understand medieval feudal systems at all.

What kind of king would let two of his bannermen fight each other? Every medieval king who ever existed. Two bannermen raising arms against each other was a common occurrence. And we see that the same is true in Westeros, from The Sworn Sword to Ramsay's Hornwood adventures. One of the key benefits of feudalism is that the liege doesn't have to get involved in every little squabble, unless things get too bad to ignore (or there's some advantage to the liege, or he's compelled by an alliance). Real-life kings only raised armies (and usually not their full banners) every 5 years or so, and more often than not that was to put down an open rebellion (which seem a lot less common in Westeros) or to intervene in a foreign dispute (which basically don't exist in Westeros, since there are no feudal obligations and very few alliances that cross the border).

What kind of king would deal with two of his courtiers attacking each other just outside the court by just telling them to apologize to each other and quit it? Every medieval king in history. Well, a real king might also demand that they both re-pledge fealty, but that's about it. A liege goes out of his way to have to avoid judging his people, not the opposite. Not to mention that in Westeros, as in the real-life Germanic countries, the typical way of judging between two nobles is just to have them fight anyway.

Looking at it from a 21st century perspective, that kind of disorder seems implausibly intolerable. But these aren't 21st century people.

So, what was Tywin really risking here? If Robert decided that the Mountain's actions were too bad to ignore, he'd just demand that Tywin get his men in line, and also demand that Ned call back the men he sent out under the royal banner and get his wife to hand Tyrion over. Tywin was risking a minor chastisement, not going into open rebellion.

 

Couple of things. 

1. As I understand it, the feudal system was far from stagnant during it's existence, to the point where there exists a group of historians who want to do away with the term all together, at least for academic purposes. There might have been kings who acted in this way, but I doubt it is a universal law of feudalism.

2. This is not real world history. The ideal does not seem to be infighting. It happens sure, but Ramsey's adventures in the North are cause for concern and a reason for his execution. People are concerned about the situation and it does not appear these things were going on all the time. In The Sworn Sword an overlord is mentioned, I believe Rowan. There are specific reasons why he can't or won't intervene, meaning intervening was quite a common, if not expected occurrence.

3. The King's Peace matters. It is a core tenant of IT rule. Sure, there are minor quibbles and squabbles, but those are supposed to be minimized. It certainly isn't a policy to let it happen, whether you consider that good politics or not.  

4. Ned isn't just a bannerman. He is your hand. Jaime isn't just a bannerman, he is a KG. KG attacking the hand, the person that can speak with your voice, the only other person allowed to sit the throne is NOT OK.  

 

Had Robert been a capable king, Tywin/Jaime would be in trouble. Had Robert kept up with his 3 hobbies (drinking, whoring and fighting) after the Greyjoy Rebellion rather than just the two (drinking whoring), he might have thought a war might not be so bad indeed.

 

However he didn't and it all went to shit. 

[falcotron]

Couple of things. 
1. As I understand it, the feudal system was far from stagnant during it's existence, to the point where there exists a group of historians who want to do away with the term all together, at least for academic purposes. There might have been kings who acted in this way, but I doubt it is a universal law of feudalism.

Of course, feudalism is a loose term invented retroactively well after the contemporary period. But you can just look at the history of any European country from the 11th to 14th centuries and see the commonalities that led people to invent a name to organize them under. One of those commonalities is that kings don't get involved in every little dispute between their bannermen, and that they use the legal structure of vassalage and fealty to allow them to avoid doing so.

2. This is not real world history. The ideal does not seem to be infighting. It happens sure, but Ramsey's adventures in the North are cause for concern and a reason for his execution. People are concerned about the situation and it does not appear these things were going on all the time. In The Sworn Sword an overlord is mentioned, I believe Rowan. There are specific reasons why he can't or won't intervene, meaning intervening was quite a common, if not expected occurrence.

The ideal wasn't infighting in the real world either. Feudalism wasn't some ideal system that some philosopher proposed that would solve all of the problems in the world; it was just something that evolved because it was better than they had before, and better than anything they knew how to change to. Infighting happened. Sometimes the liege would interfere; sometimes he wouldn't; neither is uncommon enough to be surprising. Which is exactly what we see in Westeros from The Sworn Sword.

We don't have many other examples, because we've only got three novellas that show life at the level of minor lords and hedge knights (and three novellas plus a few chapters of a novel that show life during peacetime at all). But that's not a cause to ignore the one example we have. Especially when that example fits with what you'd expect given the feudal structure of their system. And when we have so many other examples that show that people think, personally and politically, much more like medieval Europeans than like modern Americans. And when GRRM uses words like "feudal", "vassal", and "fealty" without giving us any indication that they have a completely different meaning in his world despite Common otherwise being so much like English. And so on.

3. The King's Peace matters. It is a core tenant of IT rule. Sure, there are minor quibbles and squabbles, but those are supposed to be minimized. It certainly isn't a policy to let it happen, whether you consider that good politics or not.

Again, the whole point of having a system where your vassals swear unconditional allegiance is that you can order them to keep the peace, so you don't have to take care of it yourself.

If Robert had lived, the simplest way to solve the strife in the Riverlands would be to order Tywin to get his men in line, order Ned to recall his men and get Tyrion released, and then tell them "don't do that again". It's their duty to comply with those orders, and he would expect them to do so, so he would give those orders.

If Tywin actually refused such an order, or tried to weasel out of it ("Sorry, sire, I can't control my own sworn swords" or "We didn't receive any messages, and Lord Tywin definitely did not shoot this delicious, plump-breasted raven"), then he'd be in trouble. In fact, he'd be in open rebellion. But he wasn't in any significant risk of real trouble yet; he was only at risk of being ordered to bring the Mountain to heel. Which he could do as soon as ordered.

4. Ned isn't just a bannerman. He is your hand. Jaime isn't just a bannerman, he is a KG. KG attacking the hand, the person that can speak with your voice, the only other person allowed to sit the throne is NOT OK.

So, what do you do about it? Throw them both in the dungeons? Hold a trial to resolve their differences, so they can just fight again with the blessing of the Gods?

[King of the Narrow Sea]

Don't be silly. Robert was the king and could do anything he wanted with Jaime. Dealing with Cersei over it is another matter.

 

No he could not. KG's served for life up until Cersei decided to change that after Robert's death. Robert could have changed that himself if he'd ever thought about it but it had never crossed anyone's mind that KG were fireable before Cersei did it. Robert was bound by a 300 year old tradition that once a KG swore his vows he served for life. Until Cersei changed that, the only real options for Robert was to do nothing, or kill Jaime.

 

We see from Jaime's thoughts on how much Cersei and Tywin shamed the KG order by their firing of Boros and then re-instation of him that that simply wasn't how people understood the order. The KG served for life. Even King Robb and King Stannis had no notion that they could remove Jon from his Night's Watch vows, which the KG order was based off of, until Cersei herself freed Barristan from his KG vow. It just wasn't done in either organization. You swore the vow and then you were stuck in that order until you died.

[Lady Sharya]

No he could not. KG's served for life up until Cersei decided to change that after Robert's death. Robert could have changed that himself if he'd ever thought about it but it had never crossed anyone's mind that KG were fireable before Cersei did it. Robert was bound by a 300 year old tradition that once a KG swore his vows he served for life. Until Cersei changed that, the only real options for Robert was to do nothing, or kill Jaime.
 
We see from Jaime's thoughts on how much Cersei and Tywin shamed the KG order by their firing of Boros and then re-instation of him that that simply wasn't how people understood the order. The KG served for life. Even King Robb and King Stannis had no notion that they could remove Jon from his Night's Watch vows, which the KG order was based off of, until Cersei herself freed Barristan from his KG vow. It just wasn't done in either organization. You swore the vow and then you were stuck in that order until you died.

So, let me get this straight...you don't think the King of the Realm in this monarchy can dispose of a KG, but within weeks of his death, the queen regent can dispose of the Lord Comander of the KG and then another KG member within a year after that.;)
There was also a KG member (Glendon Ball?) who was striped of his white cloak and sent to the Wall for fathering 16 children on 3 women.

[RoamingRonin]

Tywin's justification was simple - the Starks started it.

 

Bingo.

 

Ned assumes (and rightfully so) that Tywin ordered the Mountain and his men to attack the Riverlands. He has no solid proof to back up this accusations so Tywin can easily deny his role in the events. If Ned attacks him, he will just say he was defending himself because he's innocent of any wrongdoings. Ned will look like the bad guy and his imprisonment will be legally justified. Tywin wouldn't execute him like Joffrey did (unless he had to, of course). It was a solid plan. But of course, plans don't go well in this story.

[King of the Narrow Sea]

So, let me get this straight...you don't think the King of the Realm in this monarchy can dispose of a KG, but within weeks of his death, the queen regent can dispose of the Lord Comander of the KG and then another KG member within a year after that. ;)
There was also a KG member (Glendon Ball?) who was striped of his white cloak and sent to the Wall for fathering 16 children on 3 women.

 

You're making a strawman argument. I've never said that. I said that that's just not what people thought were options. Before Cersei fired Barristan and Boros everyone believed that the KG served for life. That was a set in stone belief for people.

 

Robert could do whatever the fuck he wanted as a king as he was the source of law for the country. But that doesn't mean that he'd believe that he'd have that option to do whatever the fuck he wanted to Jaime. Nowhere in the text does any think that Cersei did something that was an option before she decided to make it an option. Everyone reacts to Cersei's dismissals of Barristan and Boros as complete game changers.

 

And you're thinking of Lucamore Strong. But I don't think he's a particularly good example of your argument seeing as Jaehaerys I simply traded Lucamore's life of service to himself as a KG, to a life of service to the realm as a Night's Watch brother. Cersei freed Barristan from his vow and even gifted him lands, servants, and a keep for his service, and she simply freed Boros to go do whatever the hell he wanted so long as it wasn't guard Tommen. In both cases she simply let them go and erased their vows as KG. Jaehaerys I on the other hand made Lucamore take a vow that would supersede his KG vow as the Night's Watch vow frees a brother from every single aspect of their past life and would therefore free him from his KG oath. Jaehaerys didn't strip Lucamore of his cloak, Lucamore becoming a Night's Watch brother did.

[Lady Sharya]

You're making a strawman argument. I've never said that. I said that that's just not what people thought were options. Before Cersei fired Barristan and Boros everyone believed that the KG served for life. That was a set in stone belief for people.

I'm not making a strawman....

Robert actually couldn't punish Jaime though...Having accepted Jaime into his KG when he took the throne, Robert was stuck with Jaime unless he decided to kill Jaime as that's the only thing that can be done to Jaime is to end his life to end his service.
 
Robert's only option was either to do nothing to Jaime, or kill him.

 

[King of the Narrow Sea]

I'm not making a strawman....
 

 

I don't know how to put this any clearer so that you can understand this simple concept, but before Cersei fired Barristan everyone thought that KGs served for life. You cannot just invent that Robert could have stripped Jaime of his white cloak when no one thought that was an option at the time simply because Robert theoretically always had the power to do so if Cersei had the power to do so as Joffrey's regent. What Robert could do, and what Robert thought he could do are two completely different things. And what Robert would think he could do is that he couldn't fire Jaime as no one had ever fired a KG before.