Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[LordPathera]

47 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

That's the thing, you're expecting over much of late middle ages quality troops and command structures and creating a scenario that will have the best pay off and then saying Tywin would take it because he's a pragmatist.

On the other hand opening the gate and piling in is brutal and dangerous but it works and mitigates the majority of casualties storming the city would create, the primary defences have been surpassed in one swoop and the majority of the defenders will likely break or withdraw from the walls towards the citadel faced with overwhelming force and the loss of their fortifications, morale would crumble but there'd still be enough resitance to be consistent with what characters mention when discussing the sack. 

Your scenario has too many what ifs, what if some of his men, eager for plunder break off and begin looting as soon as they're in the city, what if an eager commander gives an order too soon, how is the order to strike circulated through the ranks at the right time, how are they to keep several thousand men in order in a rich city when fighting breaks out, what if something goes wrong and the defenders learn of their intention and they're driven back and the gates are closed. What if a beast like Gregor can't keep his sword in its scabbard.  

I don't argue against this theory to spare Tywin the blame for the sack, the blame is his from the second he decided to take the city but I'll argue against it because I just don't think it's realistic and it seems you're creating a scenario just to give Tywin complete control over whether the sack happens or not once the attack has already begun. 

If this brilliant move of a coordinated surgical strike was what actually happened, why is it never described specifically because it's an incredible feat of discipline, command and planning and certainly something you'd think would come up in the countless times people describe how dangerous Tywin is.  

More likely, they got enough men in to overwhelm the gate and opened it for the main body of the army circumventing the only defence of the city proper, something so simple that it doesn't warrant any specific highlighting from any character that talks about the sack of King's Landing. 

 

It feels like this discussions getting way more complicated and roundabout than it needs to be.

As far as having Tywin attack city after the gates open are concerned, the strength of a castle lies in keeping the other army out. In this regard, a defending army is capable of holding off a much larger army due to having walls and defenses that mitigate the advantages and numbers of the invaders.

The moment that the gate is breached (or opened in this case), the city's best inherent defense is lost. Even if the main keep is stronger than the city walls, it will be typically easier to surround and overwhelm or starve out the keep than it would be to do the same for the whole city. But if the defenders can hold out or beat down the invaders strength to where they're no longer a threat, then the attackers are the ones in danger of running out of supplies or even being attacked from rear by a relieving attack force or even sorties by the defenders from hidden gates or postern ways.

Tywin wanted to avoid this entirely by pretending to be a friend to the city. As soon as the gates opened, Tywin's 12,000 men were ripe to go wild on the surprised and shocked King's Landing. Based on what we know about Tywin, it's a reasonable assumption to believe that he intentionally allowed his men to commit mass slaughter, rape and mayhem for both pragmatic reasons of securing the city and to further impress on Robert that he had joined the Rebel's side. In this regard, he could be held at least indirectly responsible for the actions of his men since he at least did nothing to stop them or to maintain order.

While there was still fighting by the time that Ned and the Rebel Vanguard arrived, the only one in denial about Tywin's victory was Aerys himself. As far as Aerys is concerned, nothing can be said here that hasn't already been said.

So it seems that there's a lot of back and forth about whether Tywin should be held morally or ethically accountable for his actions or that of his troops in the Sack. The way I see it, Tywin clearly deserves a lot of moral and ethical damning for what he did. I say this with a full understanding of his motivations and objectives.

Let's count off his King's Landing deeds:

He lies to his sovereign king about arriving to help with the intention of betraying him (Fraud and High Treason, all in one)

Carries out his betrayal of said king and his army commits numerous atrocities against the people of the city (Mass Murder; Mass Rape; Mass Plundering; High Treason (again))

Orders his knights to murder the Crown Prince's children and the Crown Prince's wife. (Party to Child Murder; Party to Rape and Murder)

So apart from the tired argument of "Everyone did it", explain how Tywin isn't ethically or morally damnable despite the facts (verifiable by the books no less)?

[Trigger Warning]

I wholeheartedly agree. 

The only thing I've argued against in this thread is the idea that the sack in itself was something Tywin specifically ordered and had complete control over which more often than not seems to be what's in contention. 


 

[LordPathera]

27 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

I wholeheartedly agree. 

The only thing I've argued against in this thread is the idea that the sack in itself was something Tywin specifically ordered and had complete control over which more often than not seems to be what's in contention. 


 

Devil's Advocate: What aspects of the attack suggests that Tywin didn't have control over his army?

And in this case how is the sack not synonymous with the attack which Tywin ordered? Didn't he come there with the intent to take control of the city? What suggests that Tywin didn't order the brutal sack or the actions that his army committed?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

7 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

 

If it was deliberate, then it was avoidable. If Tywin did not want it to happen and he had full command and control of his men the whole time, then it would not have happened. Why would he waste soldiers on plundering the city when they are needed to take the RK and rescue Jaime?

He has 12,000 soldiers. Explain how he can keep them all in order as they are attacking the several thousand loyalist soldiers? This is not even a pitched battle in a field were some kind of discipline can be achieved put pitched warfare in the city amongst half a million civilians some of whom are going to be helping the several thousand loyalist soldiers.

Maybe if he had more time he could have done so but truthfully I don't think that was one of his priorities.

Medieval warfare things get out of hand and I imagine, as sacking settlements were pretty common, that Tywin knew that would be a consequence of the fighting and securing of the city.

Given the location and the objectives it was unavoidable.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

The only thing I've argued against in this thread is the idea that the sack in itself was something Tywin specifically ordered and had complete control over which more often than not seems to be what's in contention. 
 

I mean we can tell there would be some kind of chaos given that even his top officers are not exactly sure what is supposed to happen.

"Tell them the Mad King is dead," he commanded. "Spare all those who yield and hold them captive."

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking?

Now if Lord Crakehall, the man Tywin trusted his son and heir with as his squire, is a little unsure of exactly what is happening you can guarantee that the majority of the 12k will be in the same boat.

Tywin hastily had to pick a side once he heard of the Rebels victory at the Trident and quickly march East to Kings Landing. Many are not going to know what exactly was happening. There is no time for a debriefing or a heavily planned out strategy.

 

Now while Tywin may have an incredibly disciplined personal guard the army of 12k is going to be largely made up from his Vassals, who are not going to be as well trained and a fair share of Sellswords who mainly join armies for the prospect of plunder. The sacking of the city was unavoidable as the loyalists bravely fought against a treacherous act by Tywin.

"The castle is ours, ser, and the city," Roland Crakehall told him, which was half true. Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory"

[Beorn Snow]

Just think of the money it saves him to have the soldiers pillage KL rather than the treasure chests at CR.

[Trigger Warning]

8 hours ago, LordPathera said:

Devil's Advocate: What aspects of the attack suggests that Tywin didn't have control over his army?

And in this case how is the sack not synonymous with the attack which Tywin ordered? Didn't he come there with the intent to take control of the city? What suggests that Tywin didn't order the brutal sack or the actions that his army committed?

Because it's not necessary to order a city to be sacked, I won't deny that he probably didn't try to stop it he probably encouraged it. He'd likely have the Lion's share of the plunder and tribute. But the fact is that when a city is stormed in medieval warfare it is sacked, I don't buy into the idea that there was a scenario where he marched into the city executing the entire attack with complete control, he has 12,000 men, vassal levies, free riders, camp followers etc, 12,000 men dispersing into a wealthy city occupied by enemy soldiers, he can't sit on his horse controlling them all and the feudal command structure isn't rigid enough to be performing these precise military operations in complete discipline.

I will agree to a statement that Tywin ordered the sack in ordering his men to take the city. I won't agree to the idea that Tywin was mid taking the city, his men all performing military tasks in complete discipline then he goes, "oh go sack it as well" it seems like nothing more than an attempt to make Tywin more evil than the guy already is he can already be blamed for the sack so why do we need this scenario that makes him even more responsible, cities are sacked but in Tywin's case it has to be a special order that was given. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

That's how he rewarded his troops.  They got the spoils of war. 

[ravenous reader]

5 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

so why do we need this scenario that makes him even more responsible, cities are sacked but in Tywin's case it has to be a special order that was given. 

It's not a matter of having complete control over the sack; the notion of a 'controlled sack' is a contradiction in terms.  In its essence, sacking involves a chaotic upheaval of some established order, so it's intended to include a degree of unpredictability and disorganization.  In so far as the intention for this state of chaos can be attributed to one individual's design, we may hold Tywin responsible.  Now, to your question, how can we conclude that 'a special order was given' before things got underway? 

First and foremost, we can draw inferences about someone's character, based on how he operates in other circumstances where we have seen him at work.  While admittedly not a 'proof,' the best predictor of someone's future behavior is still his past patterns of behavior; and vice versa.  Indeed, one of Tywin's favorite strategies is to accomplish his intimidation tactics under cover of chaos, using directed chaos precisely in order to effectively accomplish his brutal design, while simultaneously shifting the responsibility for that brutality away from himself.  Tywin's not one to throw himself into the fray; he has a very disciplined approach to warfare, and this discipline includes unleashing select undisciplined forces strategically. 

There is a paradox at work here; perhaps that's why people are arguing.  Instead of viewing discipline and undiscipline as diametrically opposed to each other in warfare, and the psychology of warfare, perhaps it would be helpful to consider the ways in which they are not incompatible with each other for Tywin.  We've seen that his favorite position on a battlefield is to take the high ground for himself, in order to watch how his precisely worked-out battle plans unfold beneath him, critically assessing the changing configurations on the ground, before swooping in at the last moment to make his decisive move, and seize the day.  So Tywin himself is very surgical on the battlefield; for the vanguard for his attack, however, Tywin often prefers to send in a particularly aggressive, unruly party ahead of him, to shake things up, intimidate the enemy, and clear the way for him. 

In this vein, I've posted this quote before, but I'll post it again, with clarification as to why I think the inferences we can draw are so significant:

Quote

Ser Kevan frowned over the map, forehead creasing. "Robb Stark will have Edmure Tully and the lords of the Trident with him now. Their combined power may exceed our own. And with Roose Bolton behind us . . . Tywin, if we remain here, I fear we might be caught between three armies."

"I have no intention of remaining here. We must finish our business with young Lord Stark before Renly Baratheon can march from Highgarden. Bolton does not concern me. He is a wary man, and we made him warier on the Green Fork. He will be slow to give pursuit. So . . . on the morrow, we make for Harrenhal. Kevan, I want Ser Addam's outriders to screen our movements. Give him as many men as he requires, and send them out in groups of four. I will have no vanishings."

"As you say, my lord, but . . . why Harrenhal? [why Harrenhall?...this is Tywin's version of taking the prudent high ground] That is a grim, unlucky place. Some call it cursed."

Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. ['reaving' is a synonym for 'sacking' or 'plundering'; this is therefore a direct order to his most undisciplined soldier (chosen specifically for his predictable lack of discipline) to stir up the most fearsome sort of disorder] Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork." [Tywin always fond of 'overkill,' for good measure giving another direct order to his second most undisciplined soldier to burn and destroy everything in his wake]

"They will burn, my lord," Ser Kevan said, rising. "I shall give the commands." He bowed and made for the door. [there's no doubt, an order has been given; nor no doubt who is the boss here, and therefore responsible for the coming carnage]

When they were alone, Lord Tywin glanced at Tyrion. "Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like - goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest." [Tywin appears to be on a roll; never one to waste the opportunity of harnessing the 'talents' of a good savage (who is not likely to subscribe to the Geneva convention) to the cause, and who would have the additional benefit on not being easily traced back to Tywin, he gives Tyrion leave to order his wild Vale mountain clans to 'plunder as they like - goods, stock, women...burn the rest'..(just in case there is any doubt about what he intends, Tywin uses two synonyms, 'rapine' and 'plunder' for the same concept, and adds the injunction to 'burn'...sounds like condoning, in fact orchestrating, a sack to me...Where is the ambiguity of responsibility?)]

"Telling Shagga and Timett how to pillage is like telling a rooster how to crow," [ok, so again, just in case there's any doubt as to what is meant, if Tywin suddenly grows a conscience and would like to still call it off, we have a fourth synonym offered by Tyrion, who colorfully highlights that these are folk not given to holding back on their savage impulses (on a more somber note, all of these descriptions, 'colorful' as they may be, are actually just euphemisms for murder)...] Tyrion commented, "but I should prefer to keep them with me." Uncouth and unruly they might be [more evidence that these 'soldiers' have been selected for their undiscipline], yet the wildlings were his, and he trusted them more than any of his father's men. He was not about to hand them over.

"Then you had best learn to control them. I will not have the city plundered." [aaah....very interesting...so, Tywin is capable of controlling his troops, if he so chooses.  The arena of undiscipline has been precisely defined, i.e. from the God's Eye to the Red Fork; likewise, the arena of discipline, King's Landing, has been equally clearly demarcated...So, if he deems it fitting, Tywin is quite capable of making provision to exclude King's Landing from the chaos he has ordered elsewhere.]

"The city?" Tyrion was lost. "What city would that be?"

"King's Landing. I am sending you to court."

It was the last thing Tyrion Lannister would ever have anticipated.

He reached for his wine, and considered for a moment as he sipped. "And what am I to do there?"

"Rule," his father said curtly [unlike Robert Baratheon, Tywin is a cunning, flexible strategist.  He knows that winning a kingdom and ruling that kingdom are not the same thing; and therefore, for the greater discipline of ruling, one must appoint a more disciplined soldier-commander.  Please do not underestimate how savvy Tywin is; Aerys did not make him Hand for nothing.  It's clear, for the job of sacking/plunder/rapine/raping/burning/pillaging/reaving/murder/whatever-euphemism-floats-your-boat..., he chooses the Mountain, the goat, and the savages.  For the job of ruling, however, he chooses a different sort of man, to suit a different sort of purpose.  What is evident, is that he again chooses the best man for the job, in this case, his most cerebral, calculating, conniving, controlled man, a formidable political opponent, whom on some level he knows, although will never acknowledge it, is second only to himself --  Tyrion!]

I have no doubt Tywin deliberately ordered the sack of Kings Landing.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

 

I have no doubt Tywin deliberately ordered the sack of Kings Landing.

Sure. I don't think Trigger or myself are saying he didn't. I think we have both been clear that he ordered the city taken (which in medieval times would, more often than not, result in a sacking) what we are saying is that given that there was still several thousand loyalists in the city it still had to be took through violence and that violence would get out of hand.

It is still a treacherous act and Tywin very clearly prioritized a great many things above the safety of the smallfolk of the city but given that he wanted to take the city before the Rebels got there (which could have been hours away), as well securing the King, the Royal family, the Treasury, possibly the Small Council as well as the docks and the gates. The discipline of every single one of his 12,000 men (many of whom he will never have actually never trained) is not going to be a priority.

What we are arguing about is this idea that Tywin had taken control of the biggest city in Westeros peacefully with  little-to-no resistance and only after it was taken peacefully did he then order his soldiers to sack the city like some cartoon super villain.

 

[ravenous reader]

47 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

what we are saying is that given that there was still several thousand loyalists in the city it still had to be took through violence and that violence would get out of hand.

We are in agreement then.  Few things Tywin ever did were without violence (as a sadist, he probably enjoyed making it happen and watching it play out), even those wars of his supposedly won with only 'quills and ravens'...The additional point I was making was that perhaps we should entertain the idea that 'violence getting out of hand' is precisely one of Tywin's strategies. I know it's not in the books, but the philosophy behind show-Littlefinger's maxim, 'chaos is a ladder'...is what I'm getting at.  Like LF, Tywin not only takes advantage of, but also provokes chaos, in order to establish a new order -- his order.

47 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The discipline of every single one of his 12,000 men (many of whom he will never have actually never trained) is not going to be a priority.

Definitely true.  Again, I think many of these men, particularly their leaders like Gregor Clegane, Amory Lorch, etc., are selected on account of their ruthlessness.  Tywin wanted to traumatize Kings Landing: it proved his 'loyalty' to Robert; allowed him to dispatch the heirs to the throne under cover of 'the fog of war,' scoring one on Aerys, and settling the "Lannister debt' between them into the bargain; satisfied the appetites of his soldiers, so that the gold of Casterly Rock would not have to foot the bill; disrupted existing institutions and allegiances; and established Robert's rule on a shaky platform, thereby positioning himself and the Lannisters as indispensable allies, with which Robert could not risk dispensing, in the construction of a new regimen.

47 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

What we are arguing about is this idea that Tywin had taken control of the biggest city in Westeros peacefully with  little-to-no resistance

No resistance does indeed sound unreasonable.  Moreover, my point is that Tywin does nothing without premeditation.  He entered the city's gates on a ruse; however, it was always his intention to sack it.  As an analogy, consider the set-up of the Red Wedding, whereby the assassins pose as musicians, and Rob Stark attends the wedding under the pre- and mis-conception that all in attendance will respect the 'sacred' obligation of 'guest right.'  These moves and masquerades are planned out in advance of the massacre, as is also demonstrated in the quote I cited.  I see him and Tyrion as master strategists; few other characters can think out as many moves in advance, pre-empting the moves of their opponents (the same talent Tyrion employs in order to win at cyvasse), and make a virtue of duplicity.  They both also accept the notion of 'collateral damage' a little too blithely.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 11:02 PM, Trigger Warning said:

That's the thing, you're expecting over much of late middle ages quality troops and command structures and creating a scenario that will have the best pay off and then saying Tywin would take it because he's a pragmatist.

On the other hand opening the gate and piling in is brutal and dangerous but it works and mitigates the majority of casualties storming the city would create, the primary defences have been surpassed in one swoop and the majority of the defenders will likely break or withdraw from the walls towards the citadel faced with overwhelming force and the loss of their fortifications, morale would crumble but there'd still be enough resitance to be consistent with what characters mention when discussing the sack. 

Your scenario has too many what ifs, what if some of his men, eager for plunder break off and begin looting as soon as they're in the city, what if an eager commander gives an order too soon, how is the order to strike circulated through the ranks at the right time, how are they to keep several thousand men in order in a rich city when fighting breaks out, what if something goes wrong and the defenders learn of their intention and they're driven back and the gates are closed. What if a beast like Gregor can't keep his sword in its scabbard.  

I don't argue against this theory to spare Tywin the blame for the sack, the blame is his from the second he decided to take the city but I'll argue against it because I just don't think it's realistic and it seems you're creating a scenario just to give Tywin complete control over whether the sack happens or not once the attack has already begun. 

If this brilliant move of a coordinated surgical strike was what actually happened, why is it never described specifically because it's an incredible feat of discipline, command and planning and certainly something you'd think would come up in the countless times people describe how dangerous Tywin is.  

More likely, they got enough men in to overwhelm the gate and opened it for the main body of the army circumventing the only defence of the city proper, something so simple that it doesn't warrant any specific highlighting from any character that talks about the sack of King's Landing. 

 

Really? Blundering through the gates and throwing perhaps 100 men at a time against maybe 1000 or more loyalists/gold cloaks who would be there to welcome the new lord into the city would produce fewer casualties and create a more certain victory than marching your entire 12,000-man army in under a peace banner and then turning on the defenders all at once without warning?

And men marching in orderly fashion under the direct control of their superiors will result in them running off to look and pillage, but launching a direct attack won't? That seems like a silly argument from someone who says the sack began because men ran off to loot and pillage in the chaos of the battle.

And I'm not arguing that this surgical strike ever happened either. I'm saying that it Tywin's intention was to simply dismantle the city's defenses, then that's the way he would have done it. The defenders are on the walls, the gates, the battlements and in the Red Keep, and if he wanted to take them out it could have been done quickly and easily considering they all thought Tywin's men were there to fight with them, not against them. It didn't happen that way. The soldiers suddenly and without warning started to loot, and yes burn, the city with no evidence whatsoever that Tywin ever lost his command structure. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the sack was launched deliberately, and not just so Tywin could prove to everyone what a tough guy he is.

As for your last point, suppose Tywin did take that one gate. Now the entire city knows he is against them, so to take all the other gates, keeps, battlements, etc., he has to suffer maximum casualties to his own army, which he will need at its fullest possible strength in order to have any say at all in the post-war peace negotiations. Your plan would squander an extremely rare opportunity: your target thinks your his friend. You can either attack when the vast majority of your forces are still outside and then fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground, or you can maintain the fake friendship for just a little while -- long enough to march your soldiers to their targets unmolested so they can take out the remaining defenders with vastly superior numbers. Even Ramsey didn't start the slaughter in Winterfell when just a handful of men had passed through the gatehouse. He waited until the entire regiment was in place.

Sorry, but the argument that the sack just happened from the fighting flies in the face of the facts. There was an easier, less costly way to take control of the city. Unfortunately, it would have left Jaime vulnerable and would have left no doubt that the children were killed in cold blood.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 0:09 AM, LordPathera said:

It feels like this discussions getting way more complicated and roundabout than it needs to be.

As far as having Tywin attack city after the gates open are concerned, the strength of a castle lies in keeping the other army out. In this regard, a defending army is capable of holding off a much larger army due to having walls and defenses that mitigate the advantages and numbers of the invaders.

The moment that the gate is breached (or opened in this case), the city's best inherent defense is lost. Even if the main keep is stronger than the city walls, it will be typically easier to surround and overwhelm or starve out the keep than it would be to do the same for the whole city. But if the defenders can hold out or beat down the invaders strength to where they're no longer a threat, then the attackers are the ones in danger of running out of supplies or even being attacked from rear by a relieving attack force or even sorties by the defenders from hidden gates or postern ways.

Tywin wanted to avoid this entirely by pretending to be a friend to the city. As soon as the gates opened, Tywin's 12,000 men were ripe to go wild on the surprised and shocked King's Landing. Based on what we know about Tywin, it's a reasonable assumption to believe that he intentionally allowed his men to commit mass slaughter, rape and mayhem for both pragmatic reasons of securing the city and to further impress on Robert that he had joined the Rebel's side. In this regard, he could be held at least indirectly responsible for the actions of his men since he at least did nothing to stop them or to maintain order.

While there was still fighting by the time that Ned and the Rebel Vanguard arrived, the only one in denial about Tywin's victory was Aerys himself. As far as Aerys is concerned, nothing can be said here that hasn't already been said.

So it seems that there's a lot of back and forth about whether Tywin should be held morally or ethically accountable for his actions or that of his troops in the Sack. The way I see it, Tywin clearly deserves a lot of moral and ethical damning for what he did. I say this with a full understanding of his motivations and objectives.

Let's count off his King's Landing deeds:

He lies to his sovereign king about arriving to help with the intention of betraying him (Fraud and High Treason, all in one)

Carries out his betrayal of said king and his army commits numerous atrocities against the people of the city (Mass Murder; Mass Rape; Mass Plundering; High Treason (again))

Orders his knights to murder the Crown Prince's children and the Crown Prince's wife. (Party to Child Murder; Party to Rape and Murder)

So apart from the tired argument of "Everyone did it", explain how Tywin isn't ethically or morally damnable despite the facts (verifiable by the books no less)?

You don't need to loot and pillage a city in order to control it. All you need to do is take out the armed men. Tywin had the full faith and confidence of everyone in the city right up until the sack began, so if he wanted to control it all he had to do was take out the defenders and gold cloaks with his four-to-one or better odds. But he can't do that if nine-tenths of his army is still outside the gates.

So it controlling the city is Tywin's objective, he can do that with far fewer casualties by maintaining the friendship as long as he can in order to position his men to dispatch the resistance quickly and easily. The fact is, though, the controlling the city is not his only objective: he also needs to rescue Jaime and dispose of the royals. A straight-up assault would be the most colossally stupid thing Tywin could do. It is a sure way to get Jaime killed because there is no question that Tywin has turned traitor. Chaos and confusion the streets, however? Well, who knows what's going on.

This whole idea that Tywin's men would simply start running amok at the first sight of blood is simply silly. If done properly, the defenders would have been dead in a matter of minutes with virtually no losses to Tywin's men or his command structure.

[Trigger Warning]

I never argued that your plan wouldn't achieve better results, I argued that I didn't think it was possible or that it was possible for something so tactically brilliant to happen without being directly mentioned in the text. So I haven't really got a counter point other than, I disagree. 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:06 AM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

He has 12,000 soldiers. Explain how he can keep them all in order as they are attacking the several thousand loyalist soldiers? This is not even a pitched battle in a field were some kind of discipline can be achieved put pitched warfare in the city amongst half a million civilians some of whom are going to be helping the several thousand loyalist soldiers.

Maybe if he had more time he could have done so but truthfully I don't think that was one of his priorities.

Medieval warfare things get out of hand and I imagine, as sacking settlements were pretty common, that Tywin knew that would be a consequence of the fighting and securing of the city.

Given the location and the objectives it was unavoidable.

 

He has bannermen who have lieutenants who have sergeants who issue orders to the men, and he has squires and other messengers, plus horns, bells and other means to conduct a coordinated surprise attack.

He also has the element of surprise and overwhelming odds so that any fighting would be over in an instant -- literally, no longer than it took Rorge and Biter to take out seven of the eight guards watching Glover and his men. And you'll note that even those two rabid dogs didn't start slaying all the smallfolk at HH just because they were in a fight.

He has plenty of time to get his army inside and get them deployed. If Ned was that close, then the gates would never have been opened and Tywin could have been directed to march the few leagues north and cut down Ned's van. He has hours, if not days.

The only way things could have gotten out of hand is to stage that attack in your manner: start smashing heads when the vast majority of your army is still outside. After all that is in the text, how can you possibly think Tywin is that stupid?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:20 AM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I mean we can tell there would be some kind of chaos given that even his top officers are not exactly sure what is supposed to happen.

"Tell them the Mad King is dead," he commanded. "Spare all those who yield and hold them captive."

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking?

Now if Lord Crakehall, the man Tywin trusted his son and heir with as his squire, is a little unsure of exactly what is happening you can guarantee that the majority of the 12k will be in the same boat.

Tywin hastily had to pick a side once he heard of the Rebels victory at the Trident and quickly march East to Kings Landing. Many are not going to know what exactly was happening. There is no time for a debriefing or a heavily planned out strategy.

 

Now while Tywin may have an incredibly disciplined personal guard the army of 12k is going to be largely made up from his Vassals, who are not going to be as well trained and a fair share of Sellswords who mainly join armies for the prospect of plunder. The sacking of the city was unavoidable as the loyalists bravely fought against a treacherous act by Tywin.

"The castle is ours, ser, and the city," Roland Crakehall told him, which was half true. Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory"

Please, this is hours into the sack when the chaos is well underway. And there is no way you can say that Tywin planned for Jaime to kill the king. All of this is new information to Crakehall, so naturally he is going to wonder what to do next.

Tywin has men like Clegane, Crakehall, Brax and countless other knights and experience warriors. Read again how they marched from Harrenall: all orderly columns with banners and commanders all down the line. It isn't just Tywin with a few handpicked me and then a great rabble of foot.

If this is your impression of what medieval armies were like, no wonder you're confused.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

On 13/03/2016 at 5:48 PM, John Suburbs said:

He has bannermen who have lieutenants who have sergeants who issue orders to the men, and he has squires and other messengers, plus horns, bells and other means to conduct a coordinated surprise attack.

It was a surprise attack. Who has claimed differently?

Quote

He also has the element of surprise and overwhelming odds so that any fighting would be over in an instant

lol Bullshit, pure and unadulterated bullshit. There were several thousand loyalists and we know that the fighting was still going on when Lord Crakehall had got from the Gates to the Red Keep, inside the castle and to the Throne Room.

 

But of course I expect nothing less from you in this discussion. You have invented things that have not happened such as the Westerland forces setting fire to Kings Landing and the several thousand loyalist soldiers all refusing to fight back or defend their city.

 

If you had any evidence, ANY AT ALL, for your claims it would be great. But you don't.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 9:14 AM, Trigger Warning said:

Because it's not necessary to order a city to be sacked, I won't deny that he probably didn't try to stop it he probably encouraged it. He'd likely have the Lion's share of the plunder and tribute. But the fact is that when a city is stormed in medieval warfare it is sacked, I don't buy into the idea that there was a scenario where he marched into the city executing the entire attack with complete control, he has 12,000 men, vassal levies, free riders, camp followers etc, 12,000 men dispersing into a wealthy city occupied by enemy soldiers, he can't sit on his horse controlling them all and the feudal command structure isn't rigid enough to be performing these precise military operations in complete discipline.

I will agree to a statement that Tywin ordered the sack in ordering his men to take the city. I won't agree to the idea that Tywin was mid taking the city, his men all performing military tasks in complete discipline then he goes, "oh go sack it as well" it seems like nothing more than an attempt to make Tywin more evil than the guy already is he can already be blamed for the sack so why do we need this scenario that makes him even more responsible, cities are sacked but in Tywin's case it has to be a special order that was given. 

The city was not stormed. The city opened their gates to allow Tywin entry and then "once inside" the soldiers suddenly started the sack. So there was no chaos, no fighting, nothing at all to break Tywin's chain of command over his men until Tywin's men, suddenly and without warning, starting smashing heads. So this idea that fighting just broke out and then Tywin lost all control is simply ludicrous.

If the gates were opened and Tywin attacked right away, Jaime would be dead. There is no way they could have fought all the way from the Gate of the Gods to the RK in any reasonable amount of time for Jaime to hold off even 100 guardsmen, let alone the thousands that are said to be the RK. He needed the sack to cause confusion so as to buy enough time to scale the RK walls and get Jaime out, plus kill the children while still claiming it as an accident of war.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Sure. I don't think Trigger or myself are saying he didn't. I think we have both been clear that he ordered the city taken (which in medieval times would, more often than not, result in a sacking) what we are saying is that given that there was still several thousand loyalists in the city it still had to be took through violence and that violence would get out of hand.

It is still a treacherous act and Tywin very clearly prioritized a great many things above the safety of the smallfolk of the city but given that he wanted to take the city before the Rebels got there (which could have been hours away), as well securing the King, the Royal family, the Treasury, possibly the Small Council as well as the docks and the gates. The discipline of every single one of his 12,000 men (many of whom he will never have actually never trained) is not going to be a priority.

What we are arguing about is this idea that Tywin had taken control of the biggest city in Westeros peacefully with  little-to-no resistance and only after it was taken peacefully did he then order his soldiers to sack the city like some cartoon super villain.

 

I've always felt this argument was more about semantics more than anything. I'm glad you finally agree that he deliberately ordered the sack. I think we still differ as to why Tywin would want the city sacked, though.

My contention is that plunder and rewarding his troops is not enough. Since when has Tywin cared about the common folk? I also don't think it's just a case of Tywin being indifferent or that it was unavoidable. The defenders are in the keep and on the walls. If Tywin maintains command and control -- which you already agree that he did -- then why is he allowing his men to run amok in the city rather than subduing the military/paramilitary forces he needs in order to take control?

Nobody talks about "just a few Lannister soldiers did some sacking and looting." The city was razed badly enough to go down in history as "The Sack of King's Landing" and still produces bad blood among many of the smallfolk at the time of Tywin's death. Obviously, we're talking about thousands of soldiers going AWOL, which would only happen if Tywin's C&C structure had suffered a significant loss, and nowhere in the text is this even hinted at.

The only answer that makes sense is what I've said. He needed a way to foment confusion to buy time to get Jaime out of the RK, and it also provides cover for the murders. Both of these are strategic objectives for Tywin's long-term interests, so I don't see why you dismiss them so casually. He could care less whether some common foot soldier makes off with a brass candlestick.

The only reason Tywin would want to take the city for its own sake was if he was thinking of naming himself king. Otherwise, he just has to hand it over to Robert in a few weeks, but now his army is several thousand men shorter than it otherwise would have been, weakening his bargaining position for the post-war peace.

[John Suburbs]

23 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

It was a surprise attack. Who has claimed differently?

lol Bullshit, pure and unadulterated bullshit. There were several thousand loyalists and we know that the fighting was still going on when Lord Crakehall had got from the Gates to the Red Keep, inside the castle and to the Throne Room.

 

But of course I expect nothing less from you in this discussion. You have invented things that have not happened such as the Westerland forces setting fire to Kings Landing and the several thousand loyalist soldiers all refusing to fight back or defend their city.

 

If you had any evidence, ANY AT ALL, for your claims it would be great. But you don't. Good luck and enjoy your fanfiction and I'm done with this discussion.

 

 

Again, you're confused. I am not saying that this surgical strike actually happened. I'm saying this is how it could have been done if Tywin wanted it so.

Tywin has four-to-one odds over the loyalists in the city and on the walls, at least. Plus he has the element of surprise. So just as Rorge and Biter were able to kill the guards in Harrenhall (feigned friendship, element of surprise, and they are actually outnumbered nearly 4:1), that his how quickly Tywin's men could dispatch the loyalists outside of the RK. He marches his men into the city under a peace banner, deploys them to all the key points under his authority as the commander in defense of the city, then a simple horn blast or some other signal has four Lannister soldiers taking out one Targ fighter.

So literally in a matter of minutes, Tywin could have disposed all armed resistance in the city, and even if a few managed to survive and started fighting back, it is ludicrous to think this would unleash a full, rabid uncontrollable sack. Only the complete breakdown of Tywin's command chain would do that, unless Tywin ordered it.

The problem is, this still leaves Jaime, the MK and the children in the RK amid thousands of Targ loyals. Here, Tywin has no choice but to scale the walls and take the keep by force. So what is to prevent the MK from taking Jaime into custody and launching his severed head back to Tywin at the first sign of an assault? Chaos and confusion. As long as no one in the keep knows who is fighting whom out in the city, the MK doesn't know whether to keep Jaime for protection or use him for leverage. By the time he does realize what's going on and orders Jaime to bring him Tywin's head, it's too late: everyone is off fighting and all MK can do is light the wildfire.

Again, though, I don't see the argument here. You admit the sack was ordered deliberately and yet you still contend that it was just an unavoidable consequence of the fighting. If it was just going to happen anyway, then why would Tywin need to order it?