Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 6:59 PM, John Doe said:

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

I think it's more accurate to say that it delayed Aerys from taking Jaime into custody and roasting him alive on the wall of Red Keep until Tywin could get enough men in place to assault the Red Keep.

[John Suburbs]

6 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

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.

Tywin had everything he needed to neutralize the armed defenders in the city quickly and without much actual fighting. He has a 12,000-man army and they have all been invited into the city to defend it. Tywin, as lord commander, has full authority to deploy his men wherever they are needed -- on the walls, the battlements and all key points in the city, all except the Red Keep which is holding thousands of his most loyal fighters. There is nothing suspicious about this at all. How else is he supposed to defend the city if he can't deploy his men where they are needed?

The number of Targaryen loyalists has been put at "several thousand", and the only place they are mentioned is in the Red Keep, which would be in keeping with Aerys' paranoia to have his trusted men guarding him rather then out in the city. So the vast number of "defenders" in the city are probably gold cloaks, which numbered about 5,000 in Robert's day, but only about 1,000 are trustworthy. There could be more or less for Aerys, but it's pushing it to think there are more than 4,000 armed men in the city, and they are mostly trained for police work, not fighting off hostile armies. In truth, Tywin probably has even better than 4:1.

He also has something better than numbers: the element of surprise. All he has to do is deploy his superior forces wherever city defenders are stationed, and at a predetermined time slit their throats. No, they don't have radios, but they do have horns, flags and other ways to communicate. And if the bells of the sept are used as normal in a medieval city, they are rung every hour. If Tywin loses a dozen men doing it this way I would question the ability of his subcommanders to execute even the most rudimentary battle plans. Look at the way Rorge and Biter took out seven of the eight guards watching Glover and his men at Harrenhall.

This is really the only way the sack could have happened. If Tywin simply started attacking defenders openly in the streets, then it would have taken hours to get to the Red Keep. In the meantime, word would have gotten right back to Aerys and quicker than you can say "kingslayer", Jaime would be roasting in his golden armor on the walls of the Red Keep above a big cauldron of wildfire.

Tywin had to have either ordered the sack directly or staged the assault on defenders deliberately to initiate the sack in order to keep Aerys guessing long enough to get sufficient men close enough to the RK so as to draw off defenders and allow Crakehall, Westerling and the other knights to get to Jaime. It's still risky, but it was the only way.

I will amend my earlier statement about Yandel not sugarcoating the truth. But he clearly says that the defenders were attacked, blood ran in the streets and then the keep was assaulted. Tywin had to have some way to cover his approach, and a nice sacking full of blood, fire, screaming and confusion fit the bill to a t.

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

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

 

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

Ok no offense, that's what I thought (I'd have done something similar). As we are not in the 1600s, I do not feel bad.

P.S. Also my apologies if English is a 2nd language. German is my 2nd language and Lord knows I've butchered it plenty

[LordPathera]

5 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

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

 

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

How mature.

9 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Looks like classic absolvement to me

No, the two different situations you brought up had different contexts. There's literally nothing there that has Robb compare ethically or morally to Tywin's sack of king's land or the rape of tysha.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

16 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

How mature.

No, the two different situations you brought up had different contexts. There's literally nothing there that has Robb compare ethically or morally to Tywin's sack of king's land or the rape of tysha.

Yeah there is. The fact that you can't admit that Robb not only ordered evil acts but was quite willing to do them speaks volumes. You are clearly heavily in denial and are not at all consistent in your argument.

 

[LordPathera]

 

15 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Yeah there is. The fact that you can't admit that Robb not only ordered evil acts but was quite willing to do them speaks volumes. You are clearly heavily in denial and are not at all consistent in your argument.

 

"blinks in disbelief"

So an angry response/threat against a lukewarm lord whose sitting back and letting his liege and fellow Rivermen die is equivalent to deception, betrayal, mass slaughter and having your son's wife get gang-raped?

1) Invading the Westerlands in of itself is not evil. The Lannisters objectively started and escalated this whole conflict out of nowhere. Its not evil to fight back against your enemy as long as you're not acting as bad or worst as said enemy. For instance, we've yet to hear of how Robb's men are committing mass slaughter or rape on the people of the Westerlands, have we? From what information we have available, all Robb's men did were kill Lannister troops and raid the land for gold, livestock and food. This does not compare to the Sack of King's Landing at all.

2) The Frey point is redundant since Robb does make an alliance with the Freys and tried to make amends with them after breaking the original marriage pact. Again, nowhere near as bad as the Sack of King's Landing or Tysha's rape.

In neither of these situations did Robb act like he was another lord's friend and then brutally and viciously slaughter, pillage and rape the lord's people. In neither of these situations did Robb order the gang-rape of his child's wife or any family member's wife. We've also yet to hear of Robb knowingly sending cruel and evil men to sow terror and chaos on his enemy's people. (Roose doesn't count since he was clearly undermining Robb for his own gain)

So no, there is no comparison in the examples you brought up. As I said before, different situations with different contexts. I'm not even sure where your acknowledged pettiness came from anyway.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

12 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

 

"blinks in disbelief"

lol Great come back.

12 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

1) Invading the Westerlands in of itself is not evil.

Yes, just like Gregors actions, ordered by Tywin, were evil in the Riverlands. Robb went West to: "pay the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands"

Yet he didn't bother to attack Lannisport or the Rock. It was the Westerlands smallfolk who paid and Robb went there to do what the Westerland men had done to the Riverlands.

It was an evil act, it does not make Robb evil as this is a problem with their society. But I love your hypocrisy here as you try and excuse Robb's actions in the West as OK but will happily label Tywin evil for ordering the same in the Riverlands.

12 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

2) The Frey point is redundant

 

No it is not. The Freys wanted to stay neutral. Joffrey was King, Tywin was Hand so their loyalty was divided. Though it is important to remember they owed Robb Stark and his Northern army, that were shooting down his ravens and preventing him from communicating with Hoster or his King, nothing. 

What did Robb Stark want to do to this House that wanted to stay neutral?

"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 luckily for the Freys, and the innocents who live in their holdings, that the Twins is a strong well defended Keep otherwise Robb and his generals would have got their wish and destroyed them for wanting to stay neutral. Robb's thoughts here are clearly evil yet you will once again show how hypocritical you are by bending over backwards to excuse them.

Weirdly the 'Lannister' fans can recognize an evil, disgusting,  abhorrent act committed by Tywin but here you are jumping through hoops to try and lay the blame elsewhere. It is hilarious and quite naive.

The truth of it is that they live in an ignorant society were actions that we see as  quite clearly evil  are readily accepted and condoned. Obviously you are in denial about this and rather than admit that Robb is just as capable of evil actions as some of the 'antagonists' of this series you instead make up your own fanfictions excusing Robb. I get why fans like you need to simplify the series into goodies and baddies, but not everyone views it the same.

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

Robb definitely did evil, but wasn't evil.

Tywin did *more* evil, but I don't thing he was evil, just a giant, effective asshole. Brutally pragmatic is probably the best phrase I can think of. The rape of Tysha is beyond despicable, but we also get narrative from Roose and several other nobles/leaders about the nonchalance of rape. Nearly everything in ASOIAF is a shade of grey. Tywin is nearly black, but he's not evil imo.

[LordPathera]

15 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

snip

There is no blame to shift because its a false equivalency through and through. 

1) Retaliation for an unjustified and unprovoked (as far as Hoster Tully's concerned) invasion isn't evil. Even with Tyrion's kidnapping, a more sensible response would be to open diplomacy and try to negotiate for Tyrion's release or give a warning to have Tyrion released or there would be war. Instead? Tywin immediately sends his most vicious and evil servant to raid villages and towns to lure out Ned Stark. All very excessive and he continues his actions even after Tyrion is released.

Robb was also trying to lure Tywin west away from the Riverlands (which would have spared many riverlands smallfolk of further suffering by virtue of Tywin's main host leaving) so that he could trap him and force him to terms to end the war quickly. I won't downplay the suffering the Westerlanders smallfolk went through, but objectively the fault of the conflict falls on House Lannister. Tywin brought that suffering on his own people by provoking and escalating a war with the Riverlands and later the North. 

2) Also at the time when the Riverlands were being attacked, Robert was king and the conflict was merely one between the Riverlands and the Westerlands. Walder Frey has no reason to stay neutral apart from spite. That's not absolving Robb of non-existent evil, it's the truth. I am reading page 535 of Game of Thrones as well as previous pages which validate Robb's anger and in no way make his rant or his feelings evil. He's frustrated with Walder's inaction and apparent lack of interest in helping the invaded Riverlands. He wants to get South as quickly as possible to save his uncle and father with Walder's selfishness acting as a clear obstacle.

Not absolvement, the truth from the text itself. Even acknowledging that his supposed childishness is partially justified even if his mother's rebuke is on point. But there's no backwards bending because none is necessary.

Just like its the truth that Tywin invaded the Riverlands first. First through using the Mountain to raid the borders and by raising a host for an eventual attack. Hoster was preparing defenses by gathering his vassals and Walder had no excuse to not be among them. Again, this is before Robert died and even afterwards, this is still merely a conflict between the Riverlands and the Westerlands for the moment. 

Hope typical to start throwing dirt on other characters with clearly higher moral fiber to make Tywin seem better. When did this escalate from a simple question regarding Tywin's act against Tysha to suddenly comparing Robb to Tywin and concluding that Robb's just as evil as Tywin?

Stop throwing around false equivalencies, filibusters and insults around, it's derailing the topic. Also, how mature of you to belittle my intelligence just because I'm not swallowing your nonsense. You seem more and more mature already.

Also, shades of grey don't invalidate the existence of good and evil. Having this viewpoint doesn't make you any less intelligent or credible of a reader. Even Martin himself as called the Starks the "heroes of the story" and even he has yet to portray them in a light that makes them as morally evil as folk like Tywin, Cersei, the Boltons and etc. Get off of your high horse.

Or stay on it if you want, I'm done here. 

1 hour ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

34 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

Robb was also trying to lure Tywin west away from the Riverlands (which would have spared many riverlands smallfolk of further suffering by virtue of Tywin's main host leaving) so that he could trap him and force him to terms to end the war quickly.

Why can't you call it what it is? It is an evil act, just like what Tywin did to the Riverland smallfolk. The hypocrisy in your argument in outstanding. Tywin reasons for doing something is that he is evil, Robb doing the exact same actions are excused.

And no, Robb was not trying to end the war quickly. He could have shortened it considerably by swearing fealty to either Stannis or Renly. He didn't, not that there is anything wrong with him having his own motivations but it further outlines the lengths you will go in absolving Robb of the evil acts he has committed.

 

34 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

2) Also at the time when the Riverlands were being attacked, Robert was king and the conflict was merely one between the Riverlands and the Westerlands. Walder Frey has no reason to stay neutral apart from spite.

 

You seem to be confused about the timeline . The Freys were (minimally) involved as the Blackfish tells Robb how they killed some Lannister men. It is not Walder's fault (or the Mallisters) that the Tullys were beaten so quickly.

When Robb got to the Twins Joffrey was King and Tywin was Hand. Now I can see in your simplistic view of the series that the only reason Walder could have done this because he too was a 'baddie' but the truth of the matter is that he had divided loyalties at the time and any choice he made would have been a betrayal to someone.

He had plenty of reason to stay neutral. Going against the King and the Hand is reason enough.

 

edit: USD has got it spot on. His answer was far better than mine and I wish he posted it a day or so ago so I could have just agreed with that one.

[LordPathera]

11 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Now I can see in your simplistic view of the series...

More condescension and pushing your false equivalency just to make Tywin less guilty. It's also irrelevant considering the presented facts of the story. According to said facts, Tywin's more evil than Robb while Robb like most of his family are fairly close to good if not outright good entirely. Even Martin will agree with that assessment and he's the author of the story. So drop the veiled insults already.

USD is right, but as of right now the text has NO evidence of Robb committing evil that makes him comparable to Tywin. Even your sentence that you brought up is really hyperbole in the context of the invaded going on the offensive. Other than that? You have nothing. Robb's actions are not evil. Grey? Certainly. However, he's done nothing that's on level with Tywin's inexcusable treatment of Tysha or Tyrion.

Re-read the book to be safe and no, I'm not confused. When Robert went hunting, Tywin had already sent troops under Clegane's command to raid and attack the Riverlands. Conflict was already mounting with Tywin being the clear perpetrator and due to the silence given to Edmure's demands for Tywin's intentions. A fact confirmed by Tywin had no intention to relent from his attended invasion. Tywin had broken the king's peace through his actions and the invasion he commences. An invasion that continues even after Tyrion was released from the Vale.

There were no divided loyalties as of yet and just about everyone comments that Walder Frey is a fickle and untrustworthy lord. Something further confirmed when he goes ahead and goes against the King's peace for his own benefit after abandoning his liege out of spite. So much for a neutral man and even the neutral nonsense is thrown out the window at the Red Wedding. Surely you won't say that's not evil will you?

Like I said, different contexts and situations. No one's being excused because in the context of his situation, Robb has nothing to be excused for and hasn't done anything objectively evil even in the text itself. At the same time, taking King's landing from a tyrant king would't be so infamous if Tywin hadn't taken the city in such a brutal and horrific manner following deception and betrayal and follow up with sending vicious men to kill Rhaegar's children and rape his wife. 

So again, point out to me where Robb had a girl gang-raped and forced her husband to go last? Point out to me where Robb ravaged a city that he'd previously told he was going to help? Point out to me where Robb orders vicious and murderous thugs to kill babies and rape their mother before smashing her head like a pumpkin? There's nothing to equate until you can find text-based examples of things Robb does that puts him on the same level as Tywin.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

12 hours ago, LordPathera said:

 

Or stay on it if you want, I'm done here. 

Oh well if you are done you are done. Let's see how long that lasts.

40 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

More...

lol how predictable.

40 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

More condescension and pushing your false equivalency

You sure do love that phrase. This is what, the 5th time you have used it on this page?

And no it is not a case of false equivalence. It is demonstrating that many of the characters do evil deeds, that does not necessarily make them evil.

It is also showing how hypocritical you are in this argument, rather than admit that Robb has done evil deeds you have to deny it, stick your head in the sand.

 

40 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

 

USD is right, but as of right now the text has NO evidence of Robb committing evil that makes him comparable to Tywin.

Whoa there Sparky, when did I say they were the same level or that Robb was as bad as Tywin?

The almost 60 year old Tywin has certainly done worse shit than 16 year old Robb. No one, least of all me, has suggested otherwise.

Both Robb and Tywin have committed evil in a society that both encourages and rewards them for it.

40 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

There were no divided loyalties as of yet and just about everyone comments that Walder Frey is a fickle and untrustworthy lord.

 

Yes there was. It is even mentioned in the conversation at the Twins.

"Why don't you?" she challenged him.

Lord Walder snorted with disdain. "Lord Tywin the proud and splendid, Warden of the West, Hand of the King, oh, what a great man that one is

Tywin is the Hand of the King, he is also related to Walder through a marriage alliance. He has a son, grandsons and greatgrandsons at the Rock. He is clearly compromised in his support. The fact that you can't see that Walder has divided loyalties is a little ridiculous. He very clearly has, the text does not lie.

40 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

 

Re-read the book to be safe and no, I'm not confused.

 Yeah, you clearly are.

Quote

 

When Robert went hunting, Tywin had already sent troops under Clegane's command to raid and attack the Riverlands.

Sure there was raiders without banners in the Riverlands. Edmure responded by sending a 4k Riverland army to the Golden Tooth. The Tullys made the first official act of war.

Quote

Conflict was already mounting with Tywin being the clear perpetrator

 lol no. There was many people to blame including Tywin, Ned, Edmure and Cat.

But of course in the 'goodies and baddies' world all the blame lays on Tywin as he is the chief meanie.

I appreciate that your reading of the series is just as valid as mine is. Some of us may even seen complexities were they don't exist and the books really are intended for 6 year olds who love watching Autobots fight Decepticons.

Quote

 A fact confirmed by Tywin had no intention to relent from his attended invasion.

Really. Provide a source for this, any evidence at all rather than Tywin being a 'mean old poopoo head'.

Quote

 

 Tywin had broken the king's peace through his actions

Actually Ned and Cat had. We know this because the King actually says so.

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

"Catelyn had good reason for taking the Imp—"

 

So Ned and Cat broke the Kings peace before Tywin did. Though I'm sure you will be equally in denial about this than you are about everything else.

 

Quote

 

and the invasion he commences. An invasion that continues even after Tyrion was released from the Vale.

Tyrion was released long after the Tullys sent an army to the Golden Tooth.

[LordPathera]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

snip

Nothing here worth replying to.

Now I'm done. At least in regards to you my friend.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

23 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

Nothing here worth replying to.

And yet you replied all the same.

 

[ravenous reader]

3 hours ago, LordPathera said:

There's nothing to equate until you can find text-based examples of things Robb does that puts him on the same level as Tywin.

Another way of putting the difference between the two: while both leaders accept a certain unavoidable 'collateral damage' attending their war plans, only Tywin orders atrocities-- employing atrocities like rape and murder as weapons, not just regretting them as inevitable 'side-effects' of a sack-- in addition to consciously failing to punish those committing atrocities in his name.  Rob, on the other hand, is meticulous about punishing atrocities; this is why he beheads his closest ally and kin Karstark (which some readers have condemned as 'stupid' strategy).  So, while Rob is prepared to engage in 'stupid' strategy in the name of preserving discipline, honor, law, and justice, even if this means crippling his war effort and hastening his own death, Tywin is only concerned with winning, at all costs.  Tywin would never indulge in such 'stupid' strategy (which I believe would be Tywin's conception of such moral 'trivialities,' if challenged).  If this were not so, why did he not try Amory Lorch or the Mountain for any of their war crimes (especially the rape and murder of the royal family)?  Why are men of this caliber still in his employ, after the depravity they have evidenced on numerous occasions?  Why did he allow an innocent to be gang-raped with impunity, all in the name of ostensibly teaching his son 'a sharp lesson'?  It's 'overkill' of a different magnitude to Rob; it's uncaring of a different degree.  

Quote

"So much for guest right."

"The blood is on Walder Frey's hands, not mine."

"Walder Frey is a peevish old man who lives to fondle his young wife and brood over all the slights he's suffered. I have no doubt he hatched this ugly chicken, but he would never have dared such a thing without a promise of protection."

"I suppose you would have spared the boy and told Lord Frey you had no need of his allegiance? That would have driven the old fool right back into Stark's arms and won you another year of war. Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner." When Tyrion had no reply to that, his father continued. "The price was cheap by any measure.

Tywin, ever the sophisticated sophist, poses us a philosophical question here: should one measure 'evil' by numbers (utilitarian argument), or by intention (deontological argument)?  If ones predilection is the former, then Rob is just as, if not more, 'evil' than Tywin, since he was willing to subject the realm to further war and bloodshed, while Tywin in his targeted magnanimity so mercifully cut any further suffering short.  If, however, one favors the latter in ones 'ethical calculations,' then Tywin is obviously more malignant.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

23 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

  Rob, on the other hand, is meticulous about punishing atrocities; this is why he beheads his closest ally and kin Karstark (which some readers have condemned as 'stupid' strategy).

Robb is very, very clear why he punished Karstark.

"In battle I might have slain Tion and Willem myself, but this was no battle. They were asleep in their beds, naked and unarmed, in a cell where I put them. Rickard Karstark killed more than a Frey and a Lannister. He killed my honor. I shall deal with him at dawn."

It is not the atrocity he is punishing, but the slight on his reputation.

Now while I am happy to say that the 16 year old Robb has done far, far less questionable shit than the almost 60 year Tywin this is not an example of it.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-03-17 at 2:03 AM, John Suburbs said:

Tywin had everything he needed to neutralize the armed defenders in the city quickly and without much actual fighting. He has a 12,000-man army and they have all been invited into the city to defend it. Tywin, as lord commander, has full authority to deploy his men wherever they are needed -- on the walls, the battlements and all key points in the city, all except the Red Keep which is holding thousands of his most loyal fighters. There is nothing suspicious about this at all. How else is he supposed to defend the city if he can't deploy his men where they are needed?

The number of Targaryen loyalists has been put at "several thousand", and the only place they are mentioned is in the Red Keep, which would be in keeping with Aerys' paranoia to have his trusted men guarding him rather then out in the city. So the vast number of "defenders" in the city are probably gold cloaks, which numbered about 5,000 in Robert's day, but only about 1,000 are trustworthy. There could be more or less for Aerys, but it's pushing it to think there are more than 4,000 armed men in the city, and they are mostly trained for police work, not fighting off hostile armies. In truth, Tywin probably has even better than 4:1.

He also has something better than numbers: the element of surprise. All he has to do is deploy his superior forces wherever city defenders are stationed, and at a predetermined time slit their throats. No, they don't have radios, but they do have horns, flags and other ways to communicate. And if the bells of the sept are used as normal in a medieval city, they are rung every hour. If Tywin loses a dozen men doing it this way I would question the ability of his subcommanders to execute even the most rudimentary battle plans. Look at the way Rorge and Biter took out seven of the eight guards watching Glover and his men at Harrenhall.

This is really the only way the sack could have happened. If Tywin simply started attacking defenders openly in the streets, then it would have taken hours to get to the Red Keep. In the meantime, word would have gotten right back to Aerys and quicker than you can say "kingslayer", Jaime would be roasting in his golden armor on the walls of the Red Keep above a big cauldron of wildfire.

Tywin had to have either ordered the sack directly or staged the assault on defenders deliberately to initiate the sack in order to keep Aerys guessing long enough to get sufficient men close enough to the RK so as to draw off defenders and allow Crakehall, Westerling and the other knights to get to Jaime. It's still risky, but it was the only way.

I will amend my earlier statement about Yandel not sugarcoating the truth. But he clearly says that the defenders were attacked, blood ran in the streets and then the keep was assaulted. Tywin had to have some way to cover his approach, and a nice sacking full of blood, fire, screaming and confusion fit the bill to a t.

I agree that Tywin had what he needed in a strong army and an element of suprise by Aerys opening the gates of the city.The idea however that the city's defenders would go down without a fight seems very unlikely to the point of impossible. For the first thing, the gates had been opened and we don't know what orders Aerys or his hand Rossart intended to send to Tywin. But even as a lord Tywin is outranked by both Aerys and his Hand so they call the shots until the king says otherwise. Tywin does not hold some supreme authority to do as he likes, lord or not. And the most strange, to the point of unbelievable, part of your cases is this; if the Red Keep houses thousands of loyalists and Tywin can't deploy there, how do you suppose that he'll take them down with "little to no fighting"? By your own scenario that don't make much sense at all.

The problem with the loyalists all being penned up in the Red Keep is that it kind of breaks down when we look at how the battle develops but also where these guys comes from. Eddard tells us that the remains of Rhaegar's army fled back to King's Landing.

"So when the Targaryen host broke and ran, you gave the pursuit into my hands. The remnants of Rhaegar's army fled back to King's Landing. We followed. Aerys was in the Red Keep with several thousand loyalists. I expected to find the gates closed to us."

The idea that Rhaegar's army had been destroyed to the point of non-existance from some, 40 000 soldiers if the Wiki is to be believed. Say that there are about 1000 Gold Cloaks that can fight, then I'd add about 4000-5000 soldiers, at the least, to the city's garrison, while I think that 6000-8000 men are more likely as I don't think that the royal army was devastated so hard that only about 10% made it back from the Trident. But I do not pretend to have some hard sources for these numbers. However we get a description of Yandel about how the battle developed. He writes that.

"Once inside the walls of the city, his soldiers assaulted the defenders of King's Landing, and blood ran red in the streets. A handpicked cadre of men raced to the Red Keep to storm its walls, and seek out King Aerys so that justice might be done. The Red Keep was soon breached..."

While you could reasonably doubt the part of doing justice to King Aerys, I find little reason to question the outline of the battle. The main army attacks the bulk of Targaryen defenders at the walls while Clegane and Lorch go straight for the Red Keep before Aerys can organize an effective response, and quickly makes it inside the castle. If Aerys had several thousand soldiers inside the Red Keep, there's no way that Clegane and Lorch would have been able to scale the walls and go to action. They would need to await reinforcements and proper siege equipment likes covered batterings rams etc. but I dare say that we know they didn't need that. For a final part, I utterly reject the notion that Tywin had a 4:1 advantage on Aerys.

Furthermore the more complex a plan is, the more things that can go wrong. And your plan kind of depends on that the loyalists have all lost their wits and same with Aerys, because all it would need is a swing of mood in the king or a minor commanders smelling something fishy with the Westermen for everything to go to hell or a thousand other complications. For all we know Aerys could demand that Tywin march out and turn back Lord Stark's van when that appeared, and the whole plan would go to shit, not to mention that any need to change the plan would essentially be impossible given how spread out the Westermen would have been. The idea that the Brave Companion's feat could have been replicated with thousands of times without complications seems unlikely to me.

And last, Tywin didn't need a way to cover the approach. He set his army loose on the defenders while Clegane and Lorch struck straight at Aerys while the king's defenders were preoccupied with defending themselves and thus unable to come to his aid.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 0:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

snip

You're almost there. Just a few more realizations and you'll get it.

Tywin has virtual control of the entire city. On paper, yes, the king and the hand outrank him, but for all practical purposes he is top dog for all things going on outside the Red Keep. At this point, both Aerys and Rossart are planning to torch the entire city, so where or how Tywin deploys his troops is of no concern to them.

So Tywin has all the authority he needs to take whatever actions he needs to prepare for the defense of the city. The only thing he cannot do is assemble and then march the thousands of men he needs to take the Red Keep by force through the city in open defiance of the king. Such an act would instantly be seen as a betrayal, and long before they could get there, Aerys will have Jaime strung up over a vat a wildfire ready for roasting.

Tywin has to keep Aerys guessing right up to the last possible moment, and with the city at peace, there is no way to approach the RK with any real force. But with a city in turmoil, the game has changed. Aerys does not know who is attacking whom, whether it is rioters or northmen or gold cloaks. All he knows is that there is fighting in the city and that Lannister soldiers are now in the streets, but whether they are attacking or defending is unclear. And he is not about to rid himself of his last sworn sword until he is sure.

The rest is right off the page: by the time Aerys does conclude that Tywin has in fact betrayed him, Lannister soldiers are already "inside my walls!" But by then it's too late. Jaime slits his throat and before Aerys is even dead, Crakehall, Westerling and the other knights are in the throne room.

Without the sack, Jaime would have had to defend himself for upwards of an hour before help arrived. With it he only has to hold out for maybe a minute.

I don't see how you could possibly think that if the remnants of Rhaegar's army had made it back to KL before the sack began that Tywin would let them into the city. Why do people always have Tywin making the stupidest of all possible decisions that would merely result in unnecessary and substantial casualties to his own army? Tywin is nothing without his army.

And there is nothing in the text about thousands upon thousands of loyalists throughout the city. The only fighters we hear of are Aerys' own garrison and they are seen nowhere but the Red Keep, which is in perfect keeping with Aerys' paranoia and his plan to immolate the city. Indeed, the whole reason he opened the gates to Tywin in the first place is to draw him in so that he, Ned and their entire armies would go up in a green ball of wildfire while Aerys flies away in his new dragon form. So all Aerys needs to do is hold out in the RK until Ned arrives, which is why he has virtually all of his fighters with him the RK. He could care less what happens out in the city, unless, of course, Tywin turns out to be false and attempts to storm the RK before Aerys is ready to put the wildfire plan into action.

 

[Lion of the West]

14 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

You're almost there. Just a few more realizations and you'll get it.

Tywin has virtual control of the entire city. On paper, yes, the king and the hand outrank him, but for all practical purposes he is top dog for all things going on outside the Red Keep. At this point, both Aerys and Rossart are planning to torch the entire city, so where or how Tywin deploys his troops is of no concern to them.

So Tywin has all the authority he needs to take whatever actions he needs to prepare for the defense of the city. The only thing he cannot do is assemble and then march the thousands of men he needs to take the Red Keep by force through the city in open defiance of the king. Such an act would instantly be seen as a betrayal, and long before they could get there, Aerys will have Jaime strung up over a vat a wildfire ready for roasting.

Tywin has to keep Aerys guessing right up to the last possible moment, and with the city at peace, there is no way to approach the RK with any real force. But with a city in turmoil, the game has changed. Aerys does not know who is attacking whom, whether it is rioters or northmen or gold cloaks. All he knows is that there is fighting in the city and that Lannister soldiers are now in the streets, but whether they are attacking or defending is unclear. And he is not about to rid himself of his last sworn sword until he is sure.

The rest is right off the page: by the time Aerys does conclude that Tywin has in fact betrayed him, Lannister soldiers are already "inside my walls!" But by then it's too late. Jaime slits his throat and before Aerys is even dead, Crakehall, Westerling and the other knights are in the throne room.

Without the sack, Jaime would have had to defend himself for upwards of an hour before help arrived. With it he only has to hold out for maybe a minute.

I don't see how you could possibly think that if the remnants of Rhaegar's army had made it back to KL before the sack began that Tywin would let them into the city. Why do people always have Tywin making the stupidest of all possible decisions that would merely result in unnecessary and substantial casualties to his own army? Tywin is nothing without his army.

And there is nothing in the text about thousands upon thousands of loyalists throughout the city. The only fighters we hear of are Aerys' own garrison and they are seen nowhere but the Red Keep, which is in perfect keeping with Aerys' paranoia and his plan to immolate the city. Indeed, the whole reason he opened the gates to Tywin in the first place is to draw him in so that he, Ned and their entire armies would go up in a green ball of wildfire while Aerys flies away in his new dragon form. So all Aerys needs to do is hold out in the RK until Ned arrives, which is why he has virtually all of his fighters with him the RK. He could care less what happens out in the city, unless, of course, Tywin turns out to be false and attempts to storm the RK before Aerys is ready to put the wildfire plan into action.

 

Please, improve your level of discussion.

I believe that you are wrong. Its very clear that as long as Aerys has not named Tywin Hand, Tywin is not in some unofficial command position in the city, or would be. Aerys is fully in his right as king to question or order Tywin to do this or that. We know from every war that if the king fancies something, he can order his bannermen to do it. Thus it really isn't out of the ordinary for the king to take an interest in how the defense of his capital is conducted. And again you are wrong. Aerys has a plan to tourch the city, but its only when he realzie the Lannisters are taking his city from him that he decides to go into action. Aerys is not determined to burn the city regardless of how the defense goes. If he was only concerned about burning the city, why would he care to let Tywin enter on Pycelle's advice? Its clearly writen in the sources that Aerys thought the Lannisters had come to save him, and that's why he opened the gates. This only makes sense if Aerys had intended to keep fighting.

Your whole conjecture on Tywin's plan on using the sack as a cover makese no sense. As soon as the fighting break out Aerys will figer that its Tywin who attacks. He knows his men are inside the city, he knows Tywin has arrived and the gates have opened to let Tywin inside, and then he learns there is fighting. Not even Aerys in his madness could be crazy enough to not figure out that Tywin is the one attacking him. There are no reports of Starks having come within sight of the walls when this happens so it automatically must be the Lannisters who attacks the city.

In regards to Rhaegar's army its easy to see how they made it inside. They came from the north and Tywin from the west. The remanents arrived first before Tywin could seal of the city, and thus could make it inside. Tywin not doing something about it simply because Tywin isn't there to stop them when they come.

There's plenty in the text of thousands upon thousands of loyalists in the city. There's the quotes above that I have provided for you as well as the reasoning for it. The idea that its only a rouse to open the gates to draw in Tywin and Eddard is something that I would dearly like some support in the text for. You say that Aerys wanted to tourch the city from the start, but how come that its not a group of Aerys' followers who finds Jaime after killing Aerys if the Red Keep is crawling with them? Taking a strongly held Red Keep would reasonably have taken hours and given Aerys plenty of time to enact his plot to burn the city but for some reason this doesn't happen.

[Trigger Warning]

 

14 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

 

I don't see how you could possibly think that if the remnants of Rhaegar's army had made it back to KL before the sack began that Tywin would let them into the city. Why do people always have Tywin making the stupidest of all possible decisions that would merely result in unnecessary and substantial casualties to his own army? Tywin is nothing without his army.

 

We don't, we believe he made decisions that revolve around an entirely different scenario than the one you think occurred, we simply disagree with the plausibility of your scenario, so there's no point in dragging the discussion out any further. 

You think Tywin not doing it this way is stupid, we think Tywin doing it that way is unrealistic and beyond his means and the means of his men. 

It's an agree to disagree scenario.