Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, LordPathera said:

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

I consider it evil, but in their society she is a homeless peasant and at the very bottom of the barrel. It is a caste system and most nobles will automatically think that she was less than them. And sadly she will not have been the only peasant raped by a noble that day.

We all agree that Ned is a great guy but he clearly values his honour over the realm going to war (he says as much to Littlefinger). Thousands of smallfolk will suffer, but there are more important things for the nobles to consider such as their own personal honor or teaching their sons that marrying homeless peasants is stupid.

Infact Ned seems visibly relieved when it is a dead peasant friend of his daughters rather than a dead pet.

Bending, Ned pulled back the cloak, dreading the words he would have to find for Arya, but it was not Nymeria after all. It was the butcher's boy, Mycah, his body covered in dried blood. He had been cut almost in half from shoulder to waist by some terrible blow struck from above.

Now how Tysha is treated is abhorrent, but brothels and prostitutes are everywhere in Westeros and a good deal of these women will have been made (even threatened) to enter this life (see poor Jeyne Poole for a rare highborn example) yet no one is calling Tyrion, Edmure and pretty much the majority of the male nobles evil for the treatment of some of these women. Just look at Robert's latest bastard

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she'd been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough.

Now I think what Tywin did was no doubt an evil act but their society views the smallfolk as being lesser. It is tragic, but true. It is the reality GRRM is trying to capture. In a more enlightened society Tywin would certainly be evil but the world view of Westeros is incredibly ignorant. He, like the majority of nobles, was raised to see themselves as better than the smallfolk and as a consequence have less respect for their lives.

 

GRRM:

And that’s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don’t’ seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.

I mean, the class structures in places like this had teeth. They had consequences. And people were brought up from their childhood to know their place and to know that duties of their class and the privileges of their class. It was always a source of friction when someone got outside of that thing. And I tried to reflect that.

 

 

[LordPathera]

23 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

snip

 

 

So you don't deny act was evil, but since Westeros doesn't care about smallfolk then that makes it okay? Looks like classic absolvement to me, especially since that one act was what most contributed to Tywin's death at Tyrion's hands and the fall of his house.

And of course Ned is relieved to see another boy apart from his own daughter. Arya's safety was paramount in that situation over that of a boy that he didn't know. That didn't mean that Ned didn't care about him. I'd also point out that Ned likely knew subconsciously or consciously that going with Littlefinger's suggestions would just lead to war anyway. War was inevitable with the cards given, Ned choose what he believed to be the lesser of two evils even if it was the most difficult. 

The existence of brothels is horrific, however frequenting one is not an automatic clause for being an evil person. It depends on the person's morality and ethics before they enter. Or is Pod suddenly as evil as the Mountain (a known and infamous rapist) because he had a foursome

GRRM's commentary brings up an interesting point, but there's a good reason why most authors don't have the prince rape the peasant girl. Because that prince is likely a major character if not the main character whom the audience is supposed to feel empathy for and be able to relate with. That intention fails when the prince crosses the moral event horizon (point where the audience loses sympathy and care for a character due to a truly evil act. Example: Empire blowing up Alderaan or the Red Wedding for the Freys) with the act of rape. That causes a disconnect between the audience and the character which makes the story less engaging because the supposed hero is a cruel rapist. You'd have to be a really talented and ambitious writer to try and minimize that disconnect (which Martin appears to be) as others wisely stir clear because they judge such a complication to not be worth the risk.

Also, it seems that some fans of Martin forgets that fantasy stories are fictional stories and are not beholden to follow reality's statutes by their very nature as fictional stories (dark or gritty, its still make-believe). The low/dark fantasy that Martin writes is just one of many ways that these stories can be told and how well they do depends on the writer's ability, not on how light or dark they are or how fantastical or realistic they are.

Back on topic, Tysha is Moral Event Horizon, not just because its an act of rape against an innocent girl who did nothing to deserve it. But its also because Tywin had multiple guards all rape Tysha (100 guards apparently); this was an act done against the wife of his son; he forced his son to partake in this evil act; he lied to Tyrion about Tysha; and he did all of it as the ultimate spit in the face to his lawful son and heir for the crime of being a dwarf and marrying a commoner.

You can't use Westeros' standard of living or morality to hand-wave this. At least I won't buy it for what that's worth, but I digress.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, LordPathera said:

So you don't deny act was evil, but since Westeros doesn't care about smallfolk then that makes it okay?

No, where did I say that it was OK? That is a huge fucking leap, and frankly an idiotic conclusion to come to.

Most of what happened in their own society (and in our own middle ages) was fucked up and wrong and it is fantastic that we have progressed so much. 

I also think Ned cutting off Gared's (a man who has been at the Wall since he was a child and having lost body parts in serving the realm) head just because that has been the rules for thousands of years is an evil act but does not make Ned evil.

Many of the characters do acts that we would consider evil, it is a different society with different values. I have big issues with how that society lived but only an idiot would ignore environmental factors.

Just now, LordPathera said:

 

Looks like classic absolvement to me,

Why bother asking for someone's opinion if you are going to be so condescending about it?

 

 

 

[LordPathera]

10 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

No, where did I say that it was OK? That is a huge fucking leap, and frankly an idiotic conclusion to come to.

Most of what happened in their own society (and in our own middle ages) was fucked up and wrong and it is fantastic that we have progressed so much. 

I also think Ned cutting off Gared's (a man who has been at the Wall since he was a child and having lost body parts in serving the realm) head just because that has been the rules for thousands of years is an evil act but does not make Ned evil.

Many of the characters do acts that we would consider evil, it is a different society with different values. I have big issues with how that society lived but only an idiot would ignore environmental factors.

Why bother asking for someone's opinion if you are going to be so condescending about it?

 

 

 

You inferred such a sentiment with that rant about how highfolk view smallfolk as better than them. It's not an idiotic at all in the context of your lengthy reply to my simple original question. It's like you agreed that it was evil and then hurriedly came up with a wordy reply to try and make the act less evil than it objectively is. If that's not your intention then cool, I can't read your mind after all.

False equivalency to the topic at hand since death for desertion is not objectively evil. Gared's death was unfortunate, but he knew the rules and pretty much brought his death on himself by fleeing south instead of returning to the Wall to warn his fellow brothers in the Night's Watch. In fact, if he'd done that instead of deserting, the Night's Watch may have learned about the Others sooner. The penalty for desertion from the Night's Watch is death and this was also a common punishment across multiple armies for good reason (this includes modern armies like the USA where desertion during wartime is punished via death). Deserting means abandoning your comrades and land to be overrun by your enemies and if this act isn't punished then others will be encouraged to desert as well. Thus, executing or otherwise harshly punishing deserters serves as a warning to anyone courting the idea.

I'm not condescending, I'm honest and rather unapologetic. It looked like you were excusing Tywin by saying that what he did wasn't bad by his culture's standards therefore he himself somehow has less responsibility for raping his son's wife.

[Wall Flower]

None of the nobility has entirely clean hands and all of them are a little too careless of the lives and welfare of those below them. However, Tywin's actions go far beyond what someone like Ned would do - so even within Westerosi society there is a critique Tywin's extreme ruthlessness and vindictiveness.

Even Jorah, the self-pitying slaver was shocked by what he saw on entering Kings' Landing and I can't in a million years imagine Ned ordering the gang rape of his son's small folk wife. The biggest critique of Westerosi society is that it allows powerful men to operate in the way that Tywin does. Robert and Jon Arryn should at least have demanded that Tywin hand over Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch for punishment. Instead they sent Tywin a clear message that he could continue to operate the way he always had and continue to employ monsters to do his dirty work. 

[SeanF]

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

I consider it evil, but in their society she is a homeless peasant and at the very bottom of the barrel. It is a caste system and most nobles will automatically think that she was less than them. And sadly she will not have been the only peasant raped by a noble that day.

We all agree that Ned is a great guy but he clearly values his honour over the realm going to war (he says as much to Littlefinger). Thousands of smallfolk will suffer, but there are more important things for the nobles to consider such as their own personal honor or teaching their sons that marrying homeless peasants is stupid.

Infact Ned seems visibly relieved when it is a dead peasant friend of his daughters rather than a dead pet.

Bending, Ned pulled back the cloak, dreading the words he would have to find for Arya, but it was not Nymeria after all. It was the butcher's boy, Mycah, his body covered in dried blood. He had been cut almost in half from shoulder to waist by some terrible blow struck from above.

Now how Tysha is treated is abhorrent, but brothels and prostitutes are everywhere in Westeros and a good deal of these women will have been made (even threatened) to enter this life (see poor Jeyne Poole for a rare highborn example) yet no one is calling Tyrion, Edmure and pretty much the majority of the male nobles evil for the treatment of some of these women. Just look at Robert's latest bastard

The girl had been so young Ned had not dared to ask her age. No doubt she'd been a virgin; the better brothels could always find a virgin, if the purse was fat enough.

Now I think what Tywin did was no doubt an evil act but their society views the smallfolk as being lesser. It is tragic, but true. It is the reality GRRM is trying to capture. In a more enlightened society Tywin would certainly be evil but the world view of Westeros is incredibly ignorant. He, like the majority of nobles, was raised to see themselves as better than the smallfolk and as a consequence have less respect for their lives.

GRRM:

And that’s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don’t’ seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.

I mean, the class structures in places like this had teeth. They had consequences. And people were brought up from their childhood to know their place and to know that duties of their class and the privileges of their class. It was always a source of friction when someone got outside of that thing. And I tried to reflect that.

Martin's not entirely correct. The class structure had teeth, and some Kings and nobles could be vicious. Others could be pretty benign. Edward III's members of Parliament were free to criticise him, and he took it to heart. His rival, Philip VI, responded to criticism by threats and death, especially as the military situation turned against France. The accounts of Edward I and II record them paying compensation to servants they hit, when they lost their temper, something which Tywin Lannister would never do.

And Martin doesn't really follow the precept in his own stories. It's inconceivable that people like Dany, Ned, Catelyn, Doran, Baelor Breakspear, Rhaegar would have smallfolk raped or tortured simply for being a bit insolent. Aerys, Tywin, Joffrey, Cersei are plainly a different type.

Take Doran and Daemon Sand. After he took Arianne's virginity, Doran "punished" him by making him the Red Viper's squire. If it had been Cersei, Tywin would have had the youth castrated.

[Trigger Warning]

Dragon's not saying the act isn't evil, he's saying that in the setting where the common man is treated very harshly by the nobility especially for assuming to be above their station it puts Tywin on the harsher end of a spectrum of dicks but doesn't necessarily make him "evil". 

I'd say murdering non combatants would be an evil act from my own morality but I wouldn't consider for example the Black Prince evil for committing his campaigns of chevauchee.

Tywin's cruel and brutal but in a brutal setting I don't think that makes him evil, this by no means absolves him of any responsibility or any judgement for his often unnecessary brutality and he's certainly on the more brutal end of the standards of his own culture but by the standards of the setting "evil" seems overly dramatic. 

I'd consider someone like Ramsay that murders and rapes for sport closer to what could be described as evil. 

[SeanF]

Dragon's not saying the act isn't evil, he's saying that in the setting where the common man is treated very harshly by the nobility especially for assuming to be above their station it puts Tywin on the harsher end of a spectrum of dicks but doesn't necessarily make him "evil".

I'd say murdering non combatants would be an evil act from my own morality but I wouldn't consider for example the Black Prince evil for committing his campaigns of chevauchee.

Tywin's cruel and brutal but in a brutal setting I don't think that makes him evil, this by no means absolves him of any responsibility or any judgement for his often unnecessary brutality and he's certainly on the more brutal end of the standards of his own culture but by the standards of the setting "evil" seems overly dramatic.

I'd consider someone like Ramsay that murders and rapes for sport closer to what could be described as evil.

Oh, I take his point. Tywin is a complex man, who does have some good qualities. He seems to have done a good job as Hand, and he is probably well respected by the Smallfolk, as Lord of the West. People like the Reynes and Tarbecks had likely made themselves hated, with their petty wars. Above all, what the lower classes wanted in medieval societies was protection from brigands, outlaws, and minor lords who devastated each other's lands. I'm sure Tywin's iron rule gives them that protection in the West. I think he's one of Aemon's bad men who are good rulers.

But, he is a bad man. To those who are not under his protection, or who offend him in some way, he is very cruel, even by the standards of his class, and his society. He inflicts brutality which goes beyond the needs of war.

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Oh, I take his point. Tywin is a complex man, who does have some good qualities. He seems to have done a good job as Hand, and he is probably well respected by the Smallfolk, as Lord of the West. People like the Reynes and Tarbecks had likely made themselves hated, with their petty wars. Above all, what the lower classes wanted in medieval societies was protection from brigands, outlaws, and minor lords who devastated each other's lands. I'm sure Tywin's iron rule gives them that protection in the West. I think he's one of Aemon's bad men who are good rulers.

But, he is a bad man. To those who are not under his protection, or who offend him in some way, he is very cruel, even by the standards of his class, and his society. He inflicts brutality which goes beyond the needs of war.

Even in the Westerlands, smallfolk must have suffered as a result of Tywin's policies. When Tywin took down the Reynes and Tarbecks a lot of their smallfolk must have died with their lords and I shudder to think what went on in Gregor Clegane's household and lands. Would Tywin have cared what he got up to as long as he remained a useful tool? Ned at least went after Jorah for selling poachers into slavery and even Roose had to keep his abuses on the down low. Somehow, I don't think too many peasants dared to go Casterley Rock to seek justice.

[Trigger Warning]

Well it's not like commoners are going to Winterfell to complain about Boltons and Umbers still practising first night, most peasants wouldn't be able to just go on a journey to their lord's, lord's, lord's overlord without their local ruler supporting it and there wasn't a drawn out campaign on Reyne and Tarbeck land, they were defeated quite quickly. The only peasants that would have suffered will be the people that lived in or by the castles. If Tywin did receive a load of complaints and noble complaints about a certain vassal I would imagine he would take action because he's a ruthless bastard and having unruly retainers makes him look weak. 

[John Doe]

14 hours ago, Britannia Pacificatrix said:

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

Never trust someone with a Stark avatar/username to give a correct assestment of Tywin's character. 

[The Wolves]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

Never trust someone with a Stark avatar/username to give a correct assestment of Tywin's character. 

This is a stupid statement. 

And Tywin fanboys who defend his atrocities need to stop thinking that people who think he's an evil person is because he went to war with the Starks. 

He had a girl gangraped by his soldiers. He ordered the deaths of babies and is the cause of the massacre of innocent hundreds in KL and who knows the many innocents that died in his war against the Reynes and Tarbecks. 

But apparently Tywin can't be hated or judged beyond what he did to the Starks. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

 

11 hours ago, LordPathera said:

You inferred such a sentiment with that rant about how highfolk view smallfolk as better than them

Rant? You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. I guess you were not interested in it after all and only wanted to take a cheap shot.

11 hours ago, LordPathera said:

I'm not condescending, I'm honest and rather unapologetic. It looked like you were excusing Tywin by saying that what he did wasn't bad by his culture's standards therefore he himself somehow has less responsibility for raping his son's wife.

Fair enough. Are you consistent in your opinions though? Robb Stark is certainly responsible for some evil acts, does that make him evil?

• Robb went West  "so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands." Most of his victims in the West will have been peasants who had no say in Tywins actions.
• In AGOT when the Freys were staying neutral between the Starks and the Crown Robb and his generals response was to destroy the Twins (and the people inside it) "Damn the man," Robb swore. "If the old fool does not relent and let me cross, he'll leave me no choice but to storm his walls. I'll pull the Twins down around his ears if I have to, we'll see how well he likes that!"

Now Robb has done evil, was willing to do evil and yet there is not the same condemnation for his actions.

[Lion of the West]

19 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

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.

 

For the first part you are both wrong and right. You are wrong in that soldiers would only do so if their commanders were dead, as commanders are not per definition saints and thus can also engage in or encourage those very activities among their men. You are right in that this can happen when the bloodlust is up, like when fighting urban battles against Aerys' loyalists in the streets of King's Landing. The gate was opened by Aerys thanks to Pycelle's advice to the king, and then Tywin attacked. There is to my knowledge no info in the books about Tywin ever going in peacefully or doing so to cheering crowds.

What do you base your idea on that Tywin had a 4:1 advantage over Aerys' men?

There were no reason as to think the loyalists would 1, surrender without a fight or 2, that they wouldn't findis suspecious how Tywin starts to group his men over town. This is an age without radios or com-links so there's every reason to think that this plan would not hold. A plan as complex as that would be very, very hard to pull off without it going to fuck and Tywin essentially losing his element of suprise.

I'll give you a quote from Yandel and the world book, since you mention him.

"Once inside the walls of the city, his soldiers assaulted the defenders of King's Landing, and blood ran red in the streets."

Where is it suggested that Tywin's men attacked smallfolk to kill and rape as many as they could on Tywin's orders?

The reason for the Sack was that fighting men filled to the brink with adrenalin, fighting Aerys' men, gav after for their base impulses as soldiers and warriors in Westeros often, in fact at most times when taking a settlement, do. At nowhere have I found something that Tywin created the Sack through design.

So yes, the Sack was an accidental byproduct of a complete disregard for the smallfolk of King's Landing by both Tywin and most likely also his noble commanders, as Tywin moved to reach his opbjectives.

[LordPathera]

39 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

Rant? You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. I guess you were not interested in it after all and only wanted to take a cheap shot.

Fair enough. Are you consistent in your opinions though? Robb Stark is certainly responsible for some evil acts, does that make him evil?

• Robb went West  "so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands." Most of his victims in the West will have been peasants who had no say in Tywins actions.
• In AGOT when the Freys were staying neutral between the Starks and the Crown Robb and his generals response was to destroy the Twins (and the people inside it) "Damn the man," Robb swore. "If the old fool does not relent and let me cross, he'll leave me no choice but to storm his walls. I'll pull the Twins down around his ears if I have to, we'll see how well he likes that!"

Now Robb has done evil, was willing to do evil and yet there is not the same condemnation for his actions.

Cheap shot? No. I asked a question. The way you answered it was merely suspect, nothing more.

 (rolls eyes) Speculative at best. However, Robb attacked the Westerlands in response to the conflict which the Lannisters started. The 18,000 men that he brought were meant to defend the Riverlands from Tywin's campaign of death and destruction that continued even after Tyrion was released from the Vale. (And based on some inferences, its very possible that Tywin planned the invasion with or without the kidnapping of his son)

Robb was pissed because of the Frey's clear and bold self-interests to where they didn't even send a token force to the aid of their sworn liege. And this was while the conflict was merely a fight between the Lannisters and the Tullys, so being loyal "to the crown" isn't an excuse at the onset. However, Robb still treated them with respect and after breaking the contract with them, tried to make amends as best as possible.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, LordPathera said:

Cheap shot? No. I asked a question. The way you answered it was merely suspect, nothing more.

 (rolls eyes) Speculative at best. However, Robb attacked the Westerlands in response to the conflict which the Lannisters started. The 18,000 men that he brought were meant to defend the Riverlands from Tywin's campaign of death and destruction that continued even after Tyrion was released from the Vale. (And based on some inferences, its very possible that Tywin planned the invasion with or without the kidnapping of his son)

Robb was pissed because of the Frey's clear and bold self-interests to where they didn't even send a token force to the aid of their sworn liege. And this was while the conflict was merely a fight between the Lannisters and the Tullys, so being loyal "to the crown" isn't an excuse at the onset. However, Robb still treated them with respect and after breaking the contract with them, tried to make amends as best as possible.

Looks like classic absolvement to me

[John Doe]

5 hours ago, The Wolves said:

This is a stupid statement. 

And Tywin fanboys who defend his atrocities need to stop thinking that people who think he's an evil person is because he went to war with the Starks. 

He had a girl gangraped by his soldiers. He ordered the deaths of babies and is the cause of the massacre of innocent hundreds in KL and who knows the many innocents that died in his war against the Reynes and Tarbecks. 

But apparently Tywin can't be hated or judged beyond what he did to the Starks. 

Dude, you say in every thread what monsters all the Lannisters are, whether it has anything to do with the Lannisters or not. That farce is as convincing as if a user named "The Lions" said on every thread what monsters the Starks were. 

[The Wolves]

28 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Dude, you say in every thread what monsters all the Lannisters are, whether it has anything to do with the Lannisters or not. That farce is as convincing as if a user named "The Lions" said on every thread what monsters the Starks were. 

I can actually back it up when I say the Lannisters are monsters and they are. But they're not evil because they fought the Starks so get that straight before trying to dismiss what I write because my favs happen to be the Starks. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Looks like classic absolvement to me

Ok serious random question. What does absolvement mean? I cannot find it anywhere, and it's not a word I've ever heard. Do we mean absolution or absolve? I don't believe you used it first, but my mental state is twitching because I can't find an answer other than someone just made a word up.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Ok serious random question. What does absolvement mean? I cannot find it anywhere, and it's not a word I've ever heard. Do we mean absolution or absolve? I don't believe you used it first, but my mental state is twitching because I can't find an answer other than someone just made a word up.

I admit I was being petty and just copy and pasted his response, but I found this.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/absolvement