Is Tywin a fool, or is GRRM sloppy?

[larastone]

both. tywin has been extremely overrated by fans as some mastermind machiavelli when in reality he's a vindictive,hypocritical and petty man which the biggest madonna/whore complex on the planet. every single one of tywin's so called brilliant moves has bitten him in the ass in one way or another and fans still continue to go on and on about brilliant he is. and well...GRRM's writing definitely has flaws.

[The Wolves]

Most of your posts can be responded to with "hindsight is 20/20." Robert couldn't have known his life would take the downspiral it did. He couldn't have known being King would give him absolutely no gratitude or happiness. He's a human character who can't see the future.

He may have been against the idea of being king, but not so against it that he turns it down when his best friend and father figure suggest he do it. If my father and best friend strongly suggest that I could or should do something, and I don't hate the idea personally, I'd probably do it.

What did Robert expect his life to be as King?

Even the stupidest person would know what a king is suppose to do the responsibility that's comes with a job like that. And Robert was the lord of the Stormlands he should have had some idea on what the job would require. Though I firmly believe that Robert did not govern the Stormlands he appointed someone to do that for him, Ned and Arryn should have taken his lack of governing to clue them in on him not being the right person for the job.

And if my foster brother or father tried to get me to take a position I don't want I would tell them no and yeah I believe it's that simple.

[Son of Jon]

I agree with the points that it was Tywin's hubris. Sending the mountain was dumb since as someone pointed out earlier b/c he is the most recognizable person in Westeros.

 

Also, as far as Tywin knows the Ned is a BAMF. Anyone worth their salt knows that the Ned won the battle of the bells, not Robert. The Ned rode his horse into the thrown room not knowing if he would find friend or foe. The Ned lifted the siege at Storms End. And as far as the entire realm knows the Ned killed Arthur Dayne then had the balls to walk right into Starfall. Ned was a commander at Pyke. There was no guarantee the Mountain would trap, defeat, and capture Ned at all.

 

What did Tywin due during the Greyjoy rebellion? What did Tywin do during Robert's Rebellion? What did Tywin do during the defiance of Duskendale? Tywin beat smaller armies before they could join up then drown the Rayne's in their castle. Tywin is way overrated. Tywin is ruthless and opportunistic, but not a good commander.

 

I've also found that Tywin's strategy in GOT to be lacking. He split his army in two with an uncrossable river between them. He also had one flank open to the Vale not knowing if Lysa Arryn would come to the aid of her sister and nephew. He allowed both his armies to be cut off from the westerlands. All while not knowing if the Baratheon brothers would join together and aid the Starks. He vastly underestimated Robb and called him a green boy. The only smart thing Tywin did was retreat to Harrenhall before Rob could take it and destroy him.

 

The Lannisters, Tywin included, were lucky. They lucked out the boar killed Robert. They lucked out that Tyrion won his trial. They lucked out that Littlefinger supported them over Ned.They lucked out the Baratheons fought each other. They lucked out that Lysa Arryn sat out the war. They lucked out that Robb pissed off Walder Frey. They lucked out that the Tyrells didn't join Stannis or the Starks. They lucked out that Cat let Jaime go and that Rob didn't take his head.

[larastone]

The Lannisters, Tywin included, were lucky. They lucked out the boar killed Robert. They lucked out that Tyrion won his trial. They lucked out that Littlefinger supported them over Ned.They lucked out the Baratheons fought each other. They lucked out that Lysa Arryn sat out the war. They lucked out that Robb pissed off Walder Frey. They lucked out that the Tyrells didn't join Stannis or the Starks. They lucked out that Cat let Jaime go and that Rob didn't take his head.

 

agreed. the scene between Tyrion and Cersei in A Clash of Kings when they find out that Stannis and Renly were fighting each other best highlights this too.

[The Wolves]

 
The Lannisters, Tywin included, were lucky. They lucked out the boar killed Robert. They lucked out that Tyrion won his trial. They lucked out that Littlefinger supported them over Ned.They lucked out the Baratheons fought each other. They lucked out that Lysa Arryn sat out the war. They lucked out that Robb pissed off Walder Frey. They lucked out that the Tyrells didn't join Stannis or the Starks. They lucked out that Cat let Jaime go and that Rob didn't take his head.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

 
The Lannisters, Tywin included, were lucky. They lucked out the boar killed Robert. They lucked out that Tyrion won his trial. They lucked out that Littlefinger supported them over Ned.They lucked out the Baratheons fought each other. They lucked out that Lysa Arryn sat out the war. They lucked out that Robb pissed off Walder Frey. They lucked out that the Tyrells didn't join Stannis or the Starks. They lucked out that Cat let Jaime go and that Rob didn't take his head.

 

 

We can do that for most leaders as many are lucky until, eventually, their luck runs out.

 

Robb was lucky that he found a magical direwolf. Robb was lucky that the Freys made a deal with him against the Crown. Robb was lucky that Renly was planning on usurping his nephews throne. Robb was lucky that Jaime ignored all his scouts disappearing and went himself to check it out. Robb was lucky that the Karstarks and Hornwood were in Jaime's way before he could kill him. Robb was lucky that he found a secret passage that the Westerland people were not aware of. Robb was lucky that Stafford had no guards or scouts posted.

[Orphalesion]

 

 

 

I thought the whole point of Ned not telling him the truth about his children was to not hurt his feelings. Could he have not lied to the dying man and exaggerated about how good a king he was.

 

Ned was a honourable man, he was able to withhold information in order to keep people save or spare their feelings but he would not have been able to tell such an outrageous lie.

 

Besides why? Ir's not like Robert wasn't responsible for his own failures.

 

He didn't want to be king? So what? Boo-hoo. Ask the millions of starving peasants in Westeros if they want to live their lives hungry, cold, filthy and in constant danger.

it's not like Fatass didn't enjoy the endless supply of wine, women and food that cae with the position.

 

Same with Cersei. So her husband was a drunkard who didn't love her. So what? She still got to live in the lap of luxury. 

[falcotron]

Thing is, you claimed many people didn't understand feudalism. If GRRM was revering to your concept of feudalism and people apparently do not get it, he is doing a poor job communicating.

A handful of readers loudly insist that GRRM is sloppy because they want to treat everything as exactly like their intuition of the 21st century, or their idea of medieval Europe based on one TV show that they half watched. But many thousands of other readers understand what he's writing, and millions just accept it without thinking. I don't see how you can blame GRRM's communication skills for that handful of readers. You can find a handful of readers of Tolkien, Iain M. Banks, or any other fantasy or sci-fi writer you can think of accusing him of being sloppy over something that actually makes perfect sense, until you inject some unwarranted assumption.

Let me try to summarize the whole thing: Every real-world brand of feudalism makes central power usually weak. Every indication that we have in-story implies that the same is true for Westeros's brand of feudalism. Most kings are not so exceptional that they can overcome this, and that includes Robert. Therefore, the fact that Tywin's plan relies on central power being weak does not make Tywin a fool, nor does it make Robert an inconsistent or implausible character, nor does it make GRRM's sociopolitical system historically implausible or poorly designed. The fact that there are parallels to Tywin's actions throughout the history of feudal Europe backs this up. The only way to construe Tywin a fool or GRRM sloppy is to assume that law and order in the Seven Kingdoms works like some modern absolute monarchy, which it clearly doesn't.

What part of that are you arguing with? You're trying to argue about the acceptable boundaries of the definition of feudalism, but I doubt you're trying to stretch it to include something like Wilhelm II's Prussia or Saud's Arabia, especially since even your own favored definition starts off with "instead of having strong centralized power" and "no troops directly loyal/sworn to the central power". You're trying to argue that Robert was weak, which doesn't in any way contradict the fact that Tywin should expect Robert to be weak. You're trying to put different hypotheticals in my mouth than the ones you asked me to respond to so you can go off on tangents that have less and less to do with the point. Just tell me what part of that summary you think is wrong, and we can start from there.

Let me give just one example:

The whole point of feudalism is having 'ownership' over a larger area despite not having enough centralized authority to actively govern it all. How you deal with your vassals is secondary. Also, 'let them fight' as a policy is very different than 'order them to keep the peace'.

What is this supposed to argue for? "Order them to keep the peace" is a direct quote of what I said Robert could and likely would do. You're suggesting that this is not something he could or would do because... it's not the same as something different that you find even less likely? Of course it's not the same. So what?

[King of the Narrow Sea]

Nope I lost any positive or sympathtic feelings that I would ever have for Robert when I learned how he stood over the bodies of babies BABIES and dismissed, and dehumanized their deaths. That's when he lost me forever.


Plus Robert's life is of his own making he took the throne when he knew he wasn't suited for it and than continued to suck in every possible way especially being King.

 

That was from Ned's angry POV. Tywin tells the story quite differently

 

 It might serve, Tyrion had to concede, but the snake will not be happy. "Far be it from me to question your cunning, Father, but in your place I do believe I'd have let Robert Baratheon bloody his own hands."

Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing."

 

Robert didn't dehumanize their deaths at all according to Tywin. Tywin says that Robert knew they had to die, yet he didn't want to kill them as they were children. That he was relieved when someone took the matter out of his hands as Robert didn't actually want to kill Rhaegar's children.

 

This is really just an exercise in unreliable POV narrators. Ned didn't like that Rhaegar's children were killed so he's angry about it and puts an angry spin on the event to justify why he left King's Landing to continue the war alone. Tywin on the other hand won himself to Robert's cause by his actions so he mentions different details of the event than Ned does. Neither is telling the full story of the event, but combined you get the full picture. Robert didn't want the children killed, but once it was done he justified it that they were Targaryens and the Targaryens had to die to ensure that the realm was at peace under his rule.

 

If you only look at one POV of course you're going to come away with a flawed understanding of events as you're only seeing the event through that man's view when there's other things at play

[The Wolves]

 
That was from Ned's angry POV. Tywin tells the story quite differently
 
 
Robert didn't dehumanize their deaths at all according to Tywin. Tywin says that Robert knew they had to die, yet he didn't want to kill them as they were children. That he was relieved when someone took the matter out of his hands as Robert didn't actually want to kill Rhaegar's children.
 
This is really just an exercise in unreliable POV narrators. Ned didn't like that Rhaegar's children were killed so he's angry about it and puts an angry spin on the event to justify why he left King's Landing to continue the war alone. Tywin on the other hand won himself to Robert's cause by his actions so he mentions different details of the event than Ned does. Neither is telling the full story of the event, but combined you get the full picture. Robert didn't want the children killed, but once it was done he justified it that they were Targaryens and the Targaryens had to die to ensure that the realm was at peace under his rule.
 
If you only look at one POV of course you're going to come away with a flawed understanding of events as you're only seeing the event through that man's view when there's other things at play

Robert stood over Rhaenys and Aegon's brutalized bodies and called them "dragonspawns" dismissing their deaths because he hated their father. Standing over dead babies and than calling them dragonspawns is certainly dehumanizing them and it was cruel and unecessary.

I hate him for that alone Rhaenys and Aegon didn't deserved that.

[King of the Narrow Sea]

Robert stood over Rhaenys and Aegon's brutalized bodies and called them "dragonspawns" dismissing their deaths because he hated their father. Standing over dead babies and than calling them dragonspawns is certainly dehumanizing them and it was cruel and unecessary.

I hate him for that alone Rhaenys and Aegon didn't deserved that.

 

You're really just proving my point. Tywin was in that room too and he says that Robert didn't want those children dead and didn't dehumanize them. He knew they had to die but he didn't want to have to kill any children. You're choosing to only look at Ned's memory of the event and declare that recollection as all that happened when we have another narrator say that there's more to the story.

 

If you choose to hate someone because one POV decided not to tell the whole story, than that's on you. But you don't just get to declare that only that POV is what actually happened. There's two versions of the event, you can't just ignore Tywin's as if it never happened. It's an objective fact that Robert had more of a reaction than Ned says he did. Ned's account is a subjective recollection, it's not the entire story.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

You're really just proving my point. Tywin was in that room too and he says that Robert didn't want those children dead

 

When does he say that?

 

When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children.

 

If he didnt want those children dead he would have shared Ned's anger, he would not have sent Stannis after the other Targaryen children on Dragonstone and he would not have sent an assassin after the pregnant 13 year old Dany.

 

His problem with the dead children was his reputation, not that he wanted them to live.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

 

Holding the Hand of the KIng hostage would be a direct attack on the authority of the King, and force the Iron Throne to intervene it what was previously a feud between two great houses.

 

Tywin is the most powerful lord in the realm and the crown is indebted to his gold.  He expected to get away with murder and worse.

[YunoGasai]

 

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."

That's right. I also think Robert is 'closing his eyes' as usual.

[Fat Mac]

 
When does he say that?
 
When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children.
 
If he didnt want those children dead he would have shared Ned's anger, he would not have sent Stannis after the other Targaryen children on Dragonstone and he would not have sent an assassin after the pregnant 13 year old Dany.
 
His problem with the dead children was his reputation, not that he wanted them to live.

I don't think he necessarily wanted those children dead so much as he needed them dead. He didn't want to have to kill children, but saw that it needed to be done, and was relieved when Tywin did it, not only before he got to the city, but also without him having to order it.

I do think reputation plays a role. I don't think Robert wanted to be considered a child murderer, but then again I also don't think he wanted to murder a child.

[Boarsbane]

both. tywin has been extremely overrated by fans as some mastermind machiavelli when in reality he's a vindictive,hypocritical and petty man which the biggest madonna/whore complex on the planet. every single one of tywin's so called brilliant moves has bitten him in the ass in one way or another and fans still continue to go on and on about brilliant he is. and well...GRRM's writing definitely has flaws.

Actually only the gang rape of Tysha came back to bite him and that was pretty small scale compared to the other stuff. Might as well face it, Tywin was brilliant and left the world without paying for almost every crime he committed. His moronic spawn might pay for it but then again they've committed so many crimes of their own who knows.

[ConfusedCounselor]

A handful of readers loudly insist that GRRM is sloppy because they want to treat everything as exactly like their intuition of the 21st century, or their idea of medieval Europe based on one TV show that they half watched. But many thousands of other readers understand what he's writing, and millions just accept it without thinking. I don't see how you can blame GRRM's communication skills for that handful of readers. You can find a handful of readers of Tolkien, Iain M. Banks, or any other fantasy or sci-fi writer you can think of accusing him of being sloppy over something that actually makes perfect sense, until you inject some unwarranted assumption.

 

 

Oh, I do not think GRRM is sloppy. Sorry for any misunderstanding on that part. I disagree both with the sloppiness interpretation and your interpretation that real world feudalism applies in its totality to ASOIAF. Though I do not think ASOIAF monarchs have as much power as modern governments or 19th century monarchies, I do not think they are as weak as you portray them to be. Being unable to deal with infighting seems to be exception, with easily identifiable reasons, rather than the rule. Not a terribly uncommon exception, but certainly not a point of policy.  

 

I think Robert simply being a weak king fits the bill much better to explain this situation. 

GRRM shows that Robert is weak consistently throughout the story. His apathy to his walking nightmare of a son, his fiscal policy, his lack of control over his own small counsel, his unawareness of Cercei-Jaime and yes, his crisis management policy. He even stopped taking care of his body and his once legendary charisma doesn't seem to bind anyone but his old BFF Ned anymore. You seem to assume that Robert is some standard ASOIAF monarch and his response to the crisis is bog standard, normal and a reasonable political calculation. I think it is not.

 

 

Let me try to summarize the whole thing: Every real-world brand of feudalism makes central power usually weak. Every indication that we have in-story implies that the same is true for Westeros's brand of feudalism. Most kings are not so exceptional that they can overcome this, and that includes Robert. Therefore, the fact that Tywin's plan relies on central power being weak does not make Tywin a fool, nor does it make Robert an inconsistent or implausible character, nor does it make GRRM's sociopolitical system historically implausible or poorly designed. The fact that there are parallels to Tywin's actions throughout the history of feudal Europe backs this up. The only way to construe Tywin a fool or GRRM sloppy is to assume that law and order in the Seven Kingdoms works like some modern absolute monarchy, which it clearly doesn't.

 

 

Well, there we differ. In 300 years of united Westeros, the only significant case of major house on major house infighting that I can think of is when Dagon started raiding his neighbors after the first Blackfyre rebellion. Even there I suspect Blackfyre influence, but that is neither here nor there. Even in that case people blamed the crown for not interfering and only after Bloodraven showed he was unwilling to divert naval power to the other coast, did the Starks and Lannisters start taking matters in their own hands.

It might not be logical, but the IT has shown itself reasonable capable of preventing infighting, at least among upper tier vassals.   

 

What part of that are you arguing with? You're trying to argue about the acceptable boundaries of the definition of feudalism, but I doubt you're trying to stretch it to include something like Wilhelm II's Prussia or Saud's Arabia, especially since even your own favored definition starts off with "instead of having strong centralized power" and "no troops directly loyal/sworn to the central power".

 

 

Three points:

1. That real world medieval history is an very accurate description of ASOIAF feudalism. It lends the very basic idea, but the particulars might be different.  

2. That when two vassals fight the most reasonable response is to either let them have at it, or order them to stop without any real consequences if they do not. 

 

Honestly, these two seem to be disagreements of degree, which are probably not to productive to argue. 

 

3. That Robert was making good decisions any capable monarch would make in his place.

 

Will come back to this one. 

You're trying to argue that Robert was weak, which doesn't in any way contradict the fact that Tywin should expect Robert to be weak. You're trying to put different hypotheticals in my mouth than the ones you asked me to respond to so you can go off on tangents that have less and less to do with the point. Just tell me what part of that summary you think is wrong, and we can start from there.

 

 

Tywin correctly assumes Robert is weak. However, that weak is largely personal. He character makes him a weak king. I do not believe it is institutional. The system set certain upper limits on his power, but Robert operates far below them. Had Robert had had a different character, Tywin and/or Catelyn and/or Jaime might have been in a lot more trouble. Robert was weak like Tytos was, and just like Tywin, another king might have been stronger.  

 

To come back to point 3: 

 

We, as reader, are supposed to feel Robert is a weak king on a personality level. The whole Mycah/Joffrey/Arya/Sansa fiasco. Ned's constant dissapointment in him. When I read the "you're hand again, release the Imp, make up, you're even, cya I'm off hunting" part, I wasn't particularly impressed. I do not think we are supposed to be impressed. It is a weak response. Robert does not care whether Catelyn made a reasonable arrest based on evidence or a common abduction, he did not care that his kingsguard acted more like a Lannister than a KG. He barely cared that his best friend was quite badly hurt.

I do not think Robert has hitherto unknown depths and carefully considered his position and those of the Starks and Lannisters and decided that realpolitik came first and that this was the best solution. That he also didn't take the time to explain this to his friend who would rule while he was shooting animals. He just wanted things to go away and continue putting his head in the sand, preferably on hunting trips. He did not wait to see if his order was followed or how things progressed. The one supposed to put this all to rights was very much not impartial. He did not put back up plans in play in case things deteriorated.

He just called things even without checking whether they actually were and ran away after giving a weak ass order. Away he couldn't find out his order hadn't worked, for obvious reasons.    

[kimim]

Actually only the gang rape of Tysha came back to bite him and that was pretty small scale compared to the other stuff. Might as well face it, Tywin was brilliant and left the world without paying for almost every crime he committed. His moronic spawn might pay for it but then again they've committed so many crimes of their own who knows.

This. The only place where Tywin is blind is his spawn. imo he doesn't know about the incest, so he doesn't know his twins and grandkids are in danger at KL. He doesn't know Joff's psycho, so Ned's beheading takes him by surprise. He doesn't get how far he's pushed Tyrion, and pays for it. His ignorance about his kids would be deadly for him in other ways, without GRRM handing over plot gifts like manna all through the war of the five kings. 

 

Tywin's set to survive the Gregor foray, though, as Robert orders Ned to release Tyrion. That is no surprise, but completely in line with Robert's character, which Tywin is aware of. Without the incest, Ned would be forced to release Tyrion. What complicates things is that Ned knows about the incest when Tywin doesn't, warns Cersei, who then kills Robert. 

 

EDIT: Had Tywin known about the incest and known that his twins/heirs were vulnerable to the Hand, he wouldn't have risked sending Gregor. He uses Gregor, as he assumes the status quo: Weak king, weak Hand, strong Lannister queen.

[Lion of the West]

Well, there we differ. In 300 years of united Westeros, the only significant case of major house on major house infighting that I can think of is when Dagon started raiding his neighbors after the first Blackfyre rebellion. Even there I suspect Blackfyre influence, but that is neither here nor there. Even in that case people blamed the crown for not interfering and only after Bloodraven showed he was unwilling to divert naval power to the other coast, did the Starks and Lannisters start taking matters in their own hands.

It might not be logical, but the IT has shown itself reasonable capable of preventing infighting, at least among upper tier vassals.  

 

Just gonna point in that the Dance of the Dragons did feature extended infighting between Great Houses to the point of Lord Tully killing Lord Baratheon in single combat.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

Well, there we differ. In 300 years of united Westeros, the only significant case of major house on major house infighting that I can think of is when Dagon started raiding his neighbors after the first Blackfyre rebellion. Even there I suspect Blackfyre influence, but that is neither here nor there. Even in that case people blamed the crown for not interfering and only after Bloodraven showed he was unwilling to divert naval power to the other coast, did the Starks and Lannisters start taking matters in their own hands.

It might not be logical, but the IT has shown itself reasonable capable of preventing infighting, at least among upper tier vassals. 

 

Really. Who?