Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-02-28 at 0:48 PM, Neds Secret said:

When the gates were opened to the Lannisters at the end of Roberts Rebellion why did Tywin sack Kings Landing? He had previously been hand and Robert was fighting to topple the mad King and Tywin joined the rebellion with this act but couldn't he just have had his forces storm the red keep and depose Aerys. Kings Landing is part of the realm they were fighting for and its not as if his men had had a long  campaign and deserved spoils. It seems to me like a really bad PR move for a new dynasty to start by raping and pillaging their own capital as one of their first acts, Tywin himself had spent a lot of his life living in this city and wisely governing these people only to put the city to the sword whilst toppling the King, Aerys was the enemy,  not the people of Kings Landing as Jaime saw clearly when he saved them from the wildfire plot! Thoughts?.

The Sack happened because Tywin was determined to take the city and as his men spread out into streets and alleys it was literally impossible to keep a central watch over them and it would be stupidity of a monumental dimension to alienate his own men for the sake of an enemy city. The important thing with Tywin is that as an aristocrat he isn't very concerned with the smallfolk and their lives, just like most of the Westerosi nobility. I don't think Tywin ever sat it as a goal that smallfolk in King's Landing would die or be raped, he just accepted that it would happen when he accomplished the objectives he determined to be his and went to work.

The reason that the Red Keep couldn't just be stormed but rather why the city had to be taken was that there were several thousands of defenders and the paranoid Aerys was unlikely to allow Tywin to enter the keep with a force large enough to threaten the king's garrison in that castle. Also remember that Tywin had several objectives to accomplish. He needed to take control over the city so that he could deliver it to the rebels and prove he had taken part and bloodied his sword, so to speak, so that his loyalty to Robert Baratheon wouldn't be questioned. The death of the Targaryen kids also factor into this same objectives. And he would want to rescue Jaime. to do so he would need to gain the Red Keep as fast as possible before Aerys could send his goons on Jaime and kil Tywin's heir.

In regards to the dynasty I don't really see the issue. The blood was on the Lannister name, if any, while Robert's was clean and Robert could continue to dream of himself being a hero.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 3:02 PM, LionoftheWest said:

The Sack happened because Tywin was determined to take the city and as his men spread out into streets and alleys it was literally impossible to keep a central watch over them and it would be stupidity of a monumental dimension to alienate his own men for the sake of an enemy city. The important thing with Tywin is that as an aristocrat he isn't very concerned with the smallfolk and their lives, just like most of the Westerosi nobility. I don't think Tywin ever sat it as a goal that smallfolk in King's Landing would die or be raped, he just accepted that it would happen when he accomplished the objectives he determined to be his and went to work.

The reason that the Red Keep couldn't just be stormed but rather why the city had to be taken was that there were several thousands of defenders and the paranoid Aerys was unlikely to allow Tywin to enter the keep with a force large enough to threaten the king's garrison in that castle. Also remember that Tywin had several objectives to accomplish. He needed to take control over the city so that he could deliver it to the rebels and prove he had taken part and bloodied his sword, so to speak, so that his loyalty to Robert Baratheon wouldn't be questioned. The death of the Targaryen kids also factor into this same objectives. And he would want to rescue Jaime. to do so he would need to gain the Red Keep as fast as possible before Aerys could send his goons on Jaime and kil Tywin's heir.

In regards to the dynasty I don't really see the issue. The blood was on the Lannister name, if any, while Robert's was clean and Robert could continue to dream of himself being a hero.

Sorry, disagree. It was ordered deliberately to achieve the goals you stated. It didn't just happen and it wasn't an inevitable consequence of taking the city. Tywin retained full control of his men throughout the entire process.

Not even arch-Tywin propagandist Yandel makes any excuses for Tywin. Nothing about "as he attempted to exert control of the city, some of his less honorable followers broke ranks and went on a rampage..." The gates were opened and "once inside" the Lann army began the sack, suddenly and without warning or pretext.

[Lion of the West]

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, disagree. It was ordered deliberately to achieve the goals you stated. It didn't just happen and it wasn't an inevitable consequence of taking the city. Tywin retained full control of his men throughout the entire process.

Not even arch-Tywin propagandist Yandel makes any excuses for Tywin. Nothing about "as he attempted to exert control of the city, some of his less honorable followers broke ranks and went on a rampage..." The gates were opened and "once inside" the Lann army began the sack, suddenly and without warning or pretext.

No, he did not. He gav his orders and objectives and his various lords bannermen set out to reach them and did so beyond the kind of control that satelites, radio and the like, gives commanders today. These bannermen would have been all sorts from the Marbrand-type to the Clegane-typ and everything in between. It was inevitable that when soldiers are fighting, soldiers who have no pension system or other welfare, would take the chance to enrich themselves when given a shot or who was under the condition of "the blood was in them" after and when fighting Aerys' loyalists. And also that their commanders would not seek to alienate their own men for the sake of an enemy city.

That second part is perfectly explained by my part above. I have not stated that Tywin sought to hold his men back. I believe, and wrote, that he couldn't give fuck about smallfolks getting murdered or raped by his soldiers. He's a Westerosi aristocrat and as such don't care for smallfolk more than he cares for his herds or silver spoons. This is a common attitude in Westeros.

As for without warning, that's a part of using the element of suprise. Robb Stark could sign his name on that one.

[LordPathera]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

He's a Westerosi aristocrat and as such don't care for smallfolk more than he cares for his herds or silver spoons. This is a common attitude in Westeros.

As for without warning, that's a part of using the element of suprise. Robb Stark could sign his name on that one.

Doesn't absolve him. Even then, Tywin's sack is pointed out by multiple sources to be notoriously horrendous, which means that it was an exceptionally horrific and bloody sack even by Westerosi standards.

Also, we have in-universe evidence to infer that Tywin isn't above letting vicious and savage commanders loose on his enemies knowing what they were capable of. Thus, it's impossible to completely absolve Tywin of the actions of his troops for the fact that he ordered the attack and that he's clearly not above ordering or allowing brutal crimes against humanity to occur. As long as the brutality achieves his ends, then he'd not only let it occur, but he'd also place the brutality in areas that will benefit him best. (See his usage of the Mountain, Lorch and the Brave Companions)

False equivalency. There's a difference between surprising your mutually acknowledged enemy and telling someone that you're a friend only to surprise them with mass murder and rape. When Robb surprised Tywin, they were enemies and there was no debate about this. When Tywin surprised Aerys, he told the latter that he'd come as a friend as a lie for an opening to destroy him.

[John Doe]

5 hours ago, LordPathera said:

Doesn't absolve him. Even then, Tywin's sack is pointed out by multiple sources to be notoriously horrendous, which means that it was an exceptionally horrific and bloody sack even by Westerosi standards.

It's only considered extremely horrendous because of the treason to Aerys involved. Very few people care about the smallfolk. 

 

5 hours ago, LordPathera said:

Also, we have in-universe evidence to infer that Tywin isn't above letting vicious and savage commanders loose on his enemies knowing what they were capable of. Thus, it's impossible to completely absolve Tywin of the actions of his troops for the fact that he ordered the attack and that he's clearly not above ordering or allowing brutal crimes against humanity to occur. As long as the brutality achieves his ends, then he'd not only let it occur, but he'd also place the brutality in areas that will benefit him best. (See his usage of the Mountain, Lorch and the Brave Companions.

There are differences though. Tywin's chevauchee served a strategic purpose, the sack didn't gain him anything. To the contrary, while his men were busy slaying civilians left and right they wouldn't be able to serve their commander if he needed them. And, as I already pointed out, sacks were common once a city was taken, so King's Landing was the rule rather than the exception. 

5 hours ago, LordPathera said:

When Robb surprised Tywin, they were enemies and there was no debate about this. When Tywin surprised Aerys, he told the latter that he'd come as a friend as a lie for an opening to destroy him.

That's why it's considered horrendous. 

[Kal-L]

No one could have blame Tywin to not openly take the arms against Aerys, however Ned had a problem with the fact he enters in the war when the issue was already determined. To those who had fought, risked their life and probably the future of their family in that war he was just an opportunist just like the Freys.

[Lion of the West]

8 hours ago, LordPathera said:

Doesn't absolve him. Even then, Tywin's sack is pointed out by multiple sources to be notoriously horrendous, which means that it was an exceptionally horrific and bloody sack even by Westerosi standards.

Also, we have in-universe evidence to infer that Tywin isn't above letting vicious and savage commanders loose on his enemies knowing what they were capable of. Thus, it's impossible to completely absolve Tywin of the actions of his troops for the fact that he ordered the attack and that he's clearly not above ordering or allowing brutal crimes against humanity to occur. As long as the brutality achieves his ends, then he'd not only let it occur, but he'd also place the brutality in areas that will benefit him best. (See his usage of the Mountain, Lorch and the Brave Companions)

False equivalency. There's a difference between surprising your mutually acknowledged enemy and telling someone that you're a friend only to surprise them with mass murder and rape. When Robb surprised Tywin, they were enemies and there was no debate about this. When Tywin surprised Aerys, he told the latter that he'd come as a friend as a lie for an opening to destroy him.

I didn't say it absolved him. What I said was that the Sack, horrible as it was, was not specifically ordered or engineered by Tywin to kill as much smallfolk as possible but rather a side effect of what Tywin wanted and did, not an object in itself. The reason it gets mentioned is because many people dislike the Lannisters and throw all the dirt then can find at these Lannisters, regardless of how valid that dirt is. The only sacks that I can recall also mentioned in Westeros was the sack of the Tumbleton and, if you count it as a sack, Aegon the Dragon, destroying Harrenhall. And neither of these two were particular pleasent affairs. At most other times what we've seen is that cities are smart enough smart to surrender, like Oldtown to both Andals and Aegon the Dragon.

I agree that Tywin can't be completely absolved for it, but neither does he bear responsibility for what other men did. Gregor, Amory Lorch and Vargo Hoat were at all times able to say "No, I'm not going to do this." and Tywin had no ability to warg into any of them to make them do it. All the people murdered and raped were so because individual soldiers decided to, murder or rape them. There's no doubt much guilt to go around in regards to the Sack, and many more than Tywin who should get blame for it. In addition I utterly reject your use of the concept of "crimes against humanity" in Westeros. There's no such concept to which any Westerosi person would have been exposed. I understand that this is a guilt-by-association by which you want to associate Tywin with real world, less than admirable, leaders. However that is a very false comparison. In answer I give you a much better comparison with Tywin Lannister and Carl Andrew Spaatz. Lots of civilian German of Japanese people died due to Allied bombing raids, but that don't mean that the Allied air commanders or bomber crews were guilty of crimes against humanity.

2 hours ago, Kal-L said:

No one could have blame Tywin to not openly take the arms against Aerys, however Ned had a problem with the fact he enters in the war when the issue was already determined. To those who had fought, risked their life and probably the future of their family in that war he was just an opportunist just like the Freys.

I agree that Tywin should have taken arms against Aerys alongside Robert, Eddard, Jon and Hoster, to kick the living shit out of the dragon and taken sweet vengeance. However I would also like to point out that to my knowledge Tywin never communicated anything with Aerys. Pycelle wanted the king to open the gates while Varys wanted them shut. In the end Aerys listened to Pycelle and opened the gates, not because Tywin to my knowledge came to the gate and said that he was a Targaryen loyalist.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

 The only sacks that I can recall also mentioned in Westeros was the sack of the Tumbleton and, if you count it as a sack, Aegon the Dragon, destroying Harrenhall.

Maidenpool has been sacked a few times in the war

"Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

There is a quite telling remark from Dany about it as well.

She was pleased. Meereen had been sacked savagely, as new-fallen cities always were, but Dany was determined that should end now that the city was hers.

Which is pretty much what most of us have been trying to explain in this thread, there is a depressing reality to the nature of taking a settlement through violence and that it will be sacked regardless of how well disciplined the General is, he is not going to be instantly able to control a 12,000 army in a city with the population of half a million when they have been tasked to take it by force. Kings Landing had several thousand defenders who all are not going to roll over, its civilian population are going to panic and may even respond. It is a hugely chaotic situation and Tywin, as good as a commander as he is, is not capable of that kind of control. But he knew the consequences and he ordered it anyway, the City being sacked was a consequence of him getting what he wanted; the City, the King and the heirs.

 

Now we also have a first hand account of the Sack from Jorah:

"Your Grace," said Jorah Mormont, "I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count. There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs. The scent of blood is all it takes to wake him. Yet I have never heard of these Unsullied raping, nor putting a city to the sword, nor even plundering, save at the express command of those who lead them"

Now while this is no doubt horrifying to hear it is clear that he is putting the blame on the soldiers rather than a direct order from Tywin to do as they please as violently as possible. And to reiterate, this does not excuse Tywin as he clearly knew that this was almost a certainty of the situation. But the idea that he could take the city in hours and have total control of his 12,00 strong army (some of whom would be sellswords who were there purely for the opportunity to plunder) is extremely naive. 

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Text

Thank you for these illustrating quotes from the books. And I agree that pretty much all settlements taken by storm can be relied on to be sacked savagely. I feel dumb for forgetting these many sacks, but there you have it.

[LordPathera]

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Maidenpool has been sacked a few times in the war

"Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

There is a quite telling remark from Dany about it as well.

She was pleased. Meereen had been sacked savagely, as new-fallen cities always were, but Dany was determined that should end now that the city was hers.

Which is pretty much what most of us have been trying to explain in this thread, there is a depressing reality to the nature of taking a settlement through violence and that it will be sacked regardless of how well disciplined the General is, he is not going to be instantly able to control a 12,000 army in a city with the population of half a million when they have been tasked to take it by force. Kings Landing had several thousand defenders who all are not going to roll over, its civilian population are going to panic and may even respond. It is a hugely chaotic situation and Tywin, as good as a commander as he is, is not capable of that kind of control. But he knew the consequences and he ordered it anyway, the City being sacked was a consequence of him getting what he wanted; the City, the King and the heirs.

 

Now we also have a first hand account of the Sack from Jorah:

"Your Grace," said Jorah Mormont, "I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count. There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs. The scent of blood is all it takes to wake him. Yet I have never heard of these Unsullied raping, nor putting a city to the sword, nor even plundering, save at the express command of those who lead them"

Now while this is no doubt horrifying to hear it is clear that he is putting the blame on the soldiers rather than a direct order from Tywin to do as they please as violently as possible. And to reiterate, this does not excuse Tywin as he clearly knew that this was almost a certainty of the situation. But the idea that he could take the city in hours and have total control of his 12,00 strong army (some of whom would be sellswords who were there purely for the opportunity to plunder) is extremely naive. 

So after ordering the attack, he did nothing to stop the excessive violence against the civilians even after he won.

Sorry, he doesn't get to be commander and be completely absolved of what his troops did. The actions of his troops are an extension of Tywin's orders to take the city. We've seen examples of capable commanders being able to control their men in folk like Tarly, Mance and Stannis. As capable of a commander as he's supposed to be, you can't tell me that Tywin wouldn't have been able to stop at least "some" of the violence if he wanted to.

But the violence worked for what he wanted, so he let it occur without a backwards glance. This is not villainizing Tywin either, this is after all a man who had his son's wife gang-raped and then forced his own son to partake in the act. Plus, recall his usage of Lorch, the Mountain and the Brave Companions knowing of they were capable of.

So long story short, if the excessive stuff wasn't his explicit orders then he's responsible for not trying to contain or control it. Allowing it to occur because it fit his desires is the only thing that keeps his credibility as a commander intact or else it weakens him for not being able to control his own troops.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

26 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

So after ordering the attack, he did nothing to stop the excessive violence against the civilians even after he won.

Were is that stated? That he did nothing after he won? That the sack was allowed to go on indefinitely till the Westerland army presumably got bored and moved on?

 

Ned got to the capital before it was fully under control, not after.

"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, Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch were scaling the walls of Maegor's Holdfast, and Ned Stark was leading his northmen through the King's Gate even then, but Crakehall could not have known that. He had not seemed surprised to find Aerys slain; Jaime had been Lord Tywin's son long before he had been named to the Kingsguard.

Eventually peace was brought to the capital but is impossible to do so while you have other things to do. Dany is quite clear about that in regards to Meereen, peace comes after it is taken not during. The same is brought up when Stannis attacks Kings Landing.

"If I'm not betrayed by my own guards, I may be able to hold here for a time. Then I can go to the walls and offer to yield to Lord Stannis in person. That will spare us the worst. But if Maegor's Holdfast should fall before Stannis can come up, why then, most of my guests are in for a bit of rape, I'd say. And you should never rule out mutilation, torture, and murder at times like these."

 

The period were there is no clear law (neither the Crown nor Stannis/Tywin) is the time when the worst events happen as the war leaders are preoccupied trying to win a battle to hold control of their armies.

[John Suburbs]

16 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, he did not. He gav his orders and objectives and his various lords bannermen set out to reach them and did so beyond the kind of control that satelites, radio and the like, gives commanders today. These bannermen would have been all sorts from the Marbrand-type to the Clegane-typ and everything in between. It was inevitable that when soldiers are fighting, soldiers who have no pension system or other welfare, would take the chance to enrich themselves when given a shot or who was under the condition of "the blood was in them" after and when fighting Aerys' loyalists. And also that their commanders would not seek to alienate their own men for the sake of an enemy city.

That second part is perfectly explained by my part above. I have not stated that Tywin sought to hold his men back. I believe, and wrote, that he couldn't give fuck about smallfolks getting murdered or raped by his soldiers. He's a Westerosi aristocrat and as such don't care for smallfolk more than he cares for his herds or silver spoons. This is a common attitude in Westeros.

As for without warning, that's a part of using the element of suprise. Robb Stark could sign his name on that one.

The common soldiers would only do that if their commanders were killed and their bloodlust was up, if, for example, they had to storm the gates or come over the walls. That didn't happen here. The gate was opened and Tywin marched his soldiers in to cheering crowds. All he had to do then was deploy his men to all the key defensive positions, where he would have had at least 4:1 odds over the loyalists. They could have been dispatched quickly and quietly with little or no actual fighting.

But he didn't do that. Instead, his men started sacking the city suddenly and without warning or provocation. Again, not even Yandel sugarcoats this by saying Tywin was merely trying to overcome the armed loyalists and things got out of hand.

The reason is, as you said, to cause confusion so Aerys would not up and kill Jaime before Tywin could get his men into the RK, and to provide a plausible (barely) excuse for the murder of the children.

But no, the sack was not accidental nor was it the product of indifference to small folk. It was a calculated and deliberate move to achieve Tywin's main objectives.

 

[John Suburbs]

9 hours ago, John Doe said:

There are differences though. Tywin's chevauchee served a strategic purpose, the sack didn't gain him anything. To the contrary, while his men were busy slaying civilians left and right they wouldn't be able to serve their commander if he needed them. And, as I already pointed out, sacks were common once a city was taken, so King's Landing was the rule rather than the exception. 

 

The sack gained him Jaime's life. Without it, word would have gotten back to the RK that Tywin had turned his cloak hours before his men could fight their way to the RK. As long as there is chaos in the streets, Aerys doesn't know what to think. For all he knows, the citizens are starting to riot the way they did before the Blackwater and Tywin is trying to quell the unrest.

From Aerys:

"I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you'll bring me his head, or you'll burn with all the rest. All the traitors. Rossart says they are inside my walls!"

Notice how Aerys doesn't come to the conclusion that Tywin is a traitor until Lannister men are inside the keep? If the fighting had started in the street and it began when Lannisters attacked armed loyalists, then Aerys would have known of the treason much earlier.

And then Westerling, Crakehall and the others burst in "to see the last of it." So the assault on the keep was lightning fast while the sack dragged on for hours.

[John Doe]

50 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The sack gained him Jaime's life. Without it, word would have gotten back to the RK that Tywin had turned his cloak hours before his men could fight their way to the RK. As long as there is chaos in the streets, Aerys doesn't know what to think. For all he knows, the citizens are starting to riot the way they did before the Blackwater and Tywin is trying to quell the unrest.

From Aerys:

"I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you'll bring me his head, or you'll burn with all the rest. All the traitors. Rossart says they are inside my walls!"

Notice how Aerys doesn't come to the conclusion that Tywin is a traitor until Lannister men are inside the keep? If the fighting had started in the street and it began when Lannisters attacked armed loyalists, then Aerys would have known of the treason much earlier.

And then Westerling, Crakehall and the others burst in "to see the last of it." So the assault on the keep was lightning fast while the sack dragged on for hours.

If anything, the sack delayed his men attacking Targaryen loyalists. 

[Britannia Pacificatrix]

On 28/02/2016 at 0:42 PM, The Wolves said:

He's a monster and that's what evil pieces of shit do. 

Nah, he wasn't evil.

[The Wolves]

3 minutes ago, Britannia Pacificatrix said:

Nah, he wasn't evil.

He really was. Tywin committed nearly every possible human atrocity imaginable for power, pride, petty slights and cause he's a asshole. He is downright evil. 

[Britannia Pacificatrix]

1 minute ago, The Wolves said:

He really was. Tywin committed nearly every possible human atrocity imaginable for power, pride, petty slights and cause he's a asshole. He is downright evil. 

He's an arsehole for sure, but I still wouldn't call him evil... 

[The Wolves]

Just now, Britannia Pacificatrix said:

He's an arsehole for sure, but I still wouldn't call him evil... 

I would and will continue to do so. 

Hes disgusting in every possible way. I don't know what you consider evil but Tywin is defiantly that in my book. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

41 minutes ago, Britannia Pacificatrix said:

He's an arsehole for sure, but I still wouldn't call him evil... 

In fairness evil is a subjective term, what you consider Evil others may not and vice versa.

Personally I don't think he is evil but willing to do evil things if he feels they necessary just as he is willing to do good things if he feels they are necessary (his first term/20 years as Hand seems to have seen a lot of good done for the people of Westeros and like it or not but he has also been good for the people of the Westerlands). I don't think he goes out of his way to do evil (or good) but I can certainly see why some view him as being evil.

He is a product of his society that has greatly rewarded him for acting the way he has. A good man would have used his power and influence to try to change that society, but alas Tywin is not a good man (far from it) who seems perfectly fine in the world he lives in.

[LordPathera]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

In fairness evil is a subjective term, what you consider Evil others may not and vice versa.

Personally I don't think he is evil but willing to do evil things if he feels they necessary just as he is willing to do good things if he feels they are necessary (his first term/20 years as Hand seems to have seen a lot of good done for the people of Westeros and like it or not but he has also been good for the people of the Westerlands). I don't think he goes out of his way to do evil (or good) but I can certainly see why some view him as being evil.

He is a product of his society that has greatly rewarded him for acting the way he has. A good man would have used his power and influence to try to change that society, but alas Tywin is not a good man (far from it) who seems perfectly fine in the world he lives in.

So you consider having Tysha gang-raped not evil? Just being a devil's advocate here.