Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[Jasta11]

13 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

When did Tywin ever claim that Elia stole Rhaegar?

Tywin arranges the marriages of his own children, even some of his nephews and nieces. he is going to bemore aware than anyone that Elia would have little say on the marriage. It would have been primarily down to Aerys, then Lady Martell and then possibly Rhaegar. Elia stole no one and very few people in their society would have thought that she was the one who made that marriage alliance.

I'm not certain Tywin thinks that way in all cases. He very much is capable of being emotional about such things despite his aura of being a perfectly cold politician, such as when he blames Tyrion for his mother's death.

This is my own interpretation, mind. But I do not believe that he forgot about Elia. Not for a second. He simply did not care if she lived or died, and he's smart enough to know that she is probably going to defend her children and that the guys he sends to kill children in cold blood won't hesitate to kill and/or rape a woman, especially if she attempts to stop them.

[Fierce Seeress]

On 2/28/2016 at 8:02 AM, Neds Secret said:

Yes, after rereading that passage of dialogue it would seem as if Tywin was a little bit disturbed by the manner of the Elias death and perhaps a little unimpressed with the incompetence of Lorchs murder of Rhaenys. If he is speaking truthfully it would appear as if he took no joy in the murder of Prince Rhaegars family, but it still was carried out in his name and whether it was necessary or not is open to hot debate. I still maintain that Sacking the city seemed unnecessarily cruel on the average small folk of the city and is a blight on his character, and as such I cannot see any real motivation for his harsh  treatment of the weak and the common people throughout the series especially for a man who supposedly dreamed of his son becoming a great Knight.

Knowing the story of what he did to the Reynes of Castamere, I'm not surprised he would have King's Landing sacked.  He intentionally drowned all the Reyne's smallfolk with them when he wiped them out.  He seems to me like a borderline psychopath with no remorse and no feelings, especially where it concerns smallfolk.

He keeps his monster men knowing full well what they do when he sends them out. 
I remember in ADWD John Connington remembers trying to find Robert Baratheon when he was hiding in the whorehouse in Stoney Sept, and lamenting his failure he thinks how if it was Tywin who had been given the mission, he would have just burned the town and everyone in it. That's not a man who cares about the people.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 minute ago, Fierce Seeress said:

Knowing the story of what he did to the Reynes of Castamere, I'm not surprised he would have King's Landing sacked.  He intentionally drowned all the Reyne's smallfolk with them when he wiped them out.

All the Reynes smallfolk? Nope. What he did was certainly harsh, but there is no need to exaggerate it. The Reynes smallfolk were fine, the Reynes garrison, servants and extended family (around 300 in total) were screwed.

“You cannot fight your way in, and we have food and water sufficient for three years,” he wrote, “but grant us full pardon for any past offenses, and send your brothers down to us as hostages against deceit, and we shall once again be your true and leal servants.”

They refused to surrender and were in a castle that was impossible to storm. Tywin could have backed down, when the Reynes had already been telling the Westerland Lords how ineffectual the Lannisters were or he could make an example of them. He choose the latter and the people of the Westerlands were much better for it.

1 minute ago, Fierce Seeress said:

 

 He seems to me like a borderline psychopath with no remorse and no feelings, especially where it concerns smallfolk.

It is a caste system. Many of the nobles don't really care about the smallfolk. Just look at Cat's reaction to Edmure bringing in the smallfolk into Riverrun or the Blackfish who soon kicks them out while stripping the land of food they themselves will need.

Look at the many Northern Lords who still carry out 'First Night'. The Smallfolk in Westeros are treated awfully, just like they would have been done in our own middle ages.

Tywin is certainly an elitist who looks at the Smallfolk as second class citizens (if that) but he is not alone in this regard. That is what their society is.

1 minute ago, Fierce Seeress said:

 

He keeps his monster men knowing full well what they do when he sends them out. 
I remember in ADWD John Connington remembers trying to find Robert Baratheon when he was hiding in the whorehouse in Stoney Sept, and lamenting his failure he thinks how if it was Tywin who had been given the mission, he would have just burned the town and everyone in it. That's not a man who cares about the people.

Sure. Hoster Tully did something similar to his own vassals, one of the villages of Goodbrook.

"This place was put to the torch a long time ago."

"Who did it, then?" asked Gendry.

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."

The Goodbrooks crime was staying loyal to the Crown while Hoster had sold his loyalty to the Rebels and killed a Lord and destroyed a village and its people as an example.

 

[Fierce Seeress]

24 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Sure. Hoster Tully did something similar to his own vassals, one of the villages of Goodbrook.

"This place was put to the torch a long time ago."

"Who did it, then?" asked Gendry.

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."

The Goodbrooks crime was staying loyal to the Crown while Hoster had sold his loyalty to the Rebels and killed a Lord and destroyed a village and its people as an example.

 

I guess Hoster isn't a good person either!  Either way, Tywin was a prick since the beginning, and had grown an understandable hatred for Aerys, so it makes sense to me that he'd sack Aerys city.  An elitist douchebag for sure, lol

[thelittledragonthatcould]

3 minutes ago, Fierce Seeress said:

I guess Hoster isn't a good person either!  Either way, Tywin was a prick since the beginning, and had grown an understandable hatred for Aerys, so it makes sense to me that he'd sack Aerys city.  An elitist douchebag for sure, lol

The City was going to be sacked no matter what. Either by Tywin or Robert/Ned. Aerys had no intention of surrendering and as a result the City would be taken by force.

[Fierce Seeress]

4 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The City was going to be sacked no matter what. Either by Tywin or Robert/Ned. Aerys had no intention of surrendering and as a result the City would be taken by force.

I definitely agree.  Could be the reason was literally as simple as that, and Tywin just let the dogs out, haha

[Fierce Seeress]

On 2/29/2016 at 6:36 PM, Protagoras said:

Why not? Sacking is what you do if your enemies refuse to surrender - and it keeps your troops happy. You can then yourself do some plundering, taking treasures and invaluable artifacts for yourself. It was very much within the rules of war back in the days, so why do something else than the rest of Westeros does?

Are people really that naive to think Tywin is doing something extreme here? That butchering and rape is out of the ordinary? Please...

The things he really did that was out of line was the murder of Elia and the children, an act Robert pardoned and rewarded. This also means that Robert is responsible for it as well as the sack itself. If a judge refuses to convict a criminal that either means that the criminal is not a criminal or that the judge takes the sin on the criminal upon himself and washes it away. In the second case the blame of the act therefore lies on the judge from that point.

I agree with this entire post.  Sacking the city would just make sense. They all have blood on their hands, the whole lot of them.

[Fierce Seeress]

19 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Just think of the PR: Yeah, Aerys's regime was murderous and brutal, and we're gonna replace it with a better one. All hail new dynasty and new king. And this new dynasty will begin its rule with wanton slaughter of the very citizens it's supposed to rule.

Nicely put.  I think the better question would be: Why did the people accept Robert as their ruler if he pardoned Tywin? 
Oooh, I just realized... If Varys truly has the best interests of the realm at heart, then this would be a prime example of why he works against the Lannisters and kills Kevan.

[Trigger Warning]

41 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The City was going to be sacked no matter what. Either by Tywin or Robert/Ned. Aerys had no intention of surrendering and as a result the City would be taken by force.

Exactly, Tywin did choose to sack the city in choosing to take the city. That, the treachery of feigning friendship and his motivations are what should be up for debate.  

He knew what would happen to the city should he storm it, so there people can argue that his intentions were petty revenge or whatever but It's always framed in a way like Tywin was midway through taking the city and he turns to his men and goes "go kill, rape and loot."


 

[Jasta11]

A commander can have some hold over his men. Stannis, for example, manages to keep the raping to a bare minimum after his victory at the Wall.

Not to mention Tywin's soldiers haven't endured, well, anything at this point. It's no like the other rebels who had to march and fight for a year or more and have loads of pent-up aggression. Tywin's troops literally just walked into an open city with no opposition and having fought no one the entire war. 

Now, it's a city being taken, so of course I'd expect a spot of rape and pillages, heck if some allegations are true this still happens to this day in modern and highly disciplined Western armies. But the way people speak of the Sack suggests it was pretty brutal, perhaps above and beyond what is ''normal'' in Westeros. So I wouldn't be overly surprised if Tywin made absolutely no effort to contain his men, or maybe told them to have at it since it served his purposes. If memory serves, by medieval custom a really violent sack happened if a city resisted. King's Landing did not resist and was sacked anyway. I don't think it was inevitable.

[Neds Secret]

1 hour ago, Fierce Seeress said:

I definitely agree.  Could be the reason was literally as simple as that, and Tywin just let the dogs out, haha

I do not agree, I definitely do not believe Ned Stark would have sacked the city, but that's just me

[Sullen]

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

(Because a army suddenly popped in?).

Because he should have kept track of an hostile army that was in the fields, yes.

That very same army deciding to attack you is not "Bad luck", it's predictable as hell. Luck has nothing to do with it. 

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

So, it was a mistake by him to not predict the dude was a shitty admiral?

Absolutely.

If you delegate a task of the highest importance to someone with no qualifications whatsover, you're a moron, you're the one making a mistake.

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Scout a river? Do you think he should've sent swimmers to investigate what was underneath the lake?

I think you're being dumb on purpose here.

You scout the borders of the water, genius, which Stannis attempted to do. (But got trumped by Tyrion who foresaw that and used the Mountain clans to intercept any scouting party Stannis would send ahead)

He still charged blind, and that's a huge tactical error.

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Yes, he didn't predicted Littlefinger was sent to arrange a alliance with the Tyrells and Tywin Lannister, who was in the far west. What a dumb dumb moron

That alliance could have been seen from miles away.

It's Stannis's job as a political/military leader to predict those alliances and act accordingly, but here he's clearly incapable to do so.

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Sure, because the population loves Joffrey

Their dislike for Joffrey doesn't translate to love for Stannis, he's the one they are going to blame once he takes King's Landing and they are left still starving. And in case you had forgotten they literally try to murder Joffrey a bunch of chapters earlier, the food crisis would have been made several times worse by the time Stannis takes the city.

7 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Yeah, he should've joined Good Guy Renly and only then attack King's Landing

If his goal was the good of House Baratheon, he should've absolutely joined Renly, but attacking King's Landing then would have been overly eager. You wait until it's properly starved, so that the local population comes to resent the current rulers to the point of helping you should a siege arise/welcome you once you take the city, and wait until both the Stark and Lannister forces have bled each other quite a bit, it gives you a stronger position when bargaining with the North, and generally weakens the only sizable opposition left before you. Still, both the logistics and local unrest issues are not applicable in this scenario, the Rose Road is re-opened, which relieves the population of the city and paints House Baratheon as a saviour and liberator.

If his goal was his own personal gain, he should have kept campaigning in the South, tried to get more nobles to rally to him, and at least attempt to patch things up with the Tyrells. Considering they wanted none of it though, he was doomed from the start.

I don't think anyone has ever said that Renly was a good guy either, he's a bully and an asshole, simply that he was sensible and pretty much did everything right. That doesn't translate in good moral character last time I checked. Besides, that is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

8 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Yes, I know; and he's a hypocritical, greedy, vile piece of shit, worst person ever, of course.

Stannis's moral character has literally nothing to do with this conversation, bringing this up is completely useless.

[dariopatke]

Absolutely.

If you delegate a task of the highest importance to someone with no qualifications whatsover, you're a moron, you're the one making a mistake.

Just curious, who do you think should be an admiral? I would go with Velaryon.

[Lion of the West]

6 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

If memory serves, by medieval custom a really violent sack happened if a city resisted. King's Landing did not resist and was sacked anyway. I don't think it was inevitable.

 

Your memory serves in some regards and fails in some. Its custom to sack resistant cities but like the Tywin-haters tends to conviently forget, there were thousands of Targaryen loyalists resisting in the capital when Tywin got there.

[Knight Of Winter]

20 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Then why do you seem so puzzled that it happened?

In hours? Tywin had hours a much larger army to control in a city with more temptations. They are not comparable situations, the fact that you are refusing to ignore hugely important variables suggests that either you are deliberately being obtuse or you have no idea what you are talking about.

There you go, it is an unprecedented situation. Acting like it was easy as pie to coordinate taking an city in hours, filled with several thousand loyalists, while maintaining order with your troops is an almost impossible situation. 

 

I've explained time and again why is Tywin's sack unnecessary, over the top brutal and vile in general. In any way, it could have easily been avoided and all would have been happier for it. And all you have to counter it is thesis that it was inevitable. Just like how in mathematics 3+2 always equals 5, in your linear thinking seizing the city always equals brutally sacking the city.

In reality, it depended the personality of the commander (Saladin was notorious for his mercy, for example), the amount of resistance the city offered, the relationship between the city and victorious army and probably any number of other factors. And yet you ignore all of it, claiming instead that winning army must always and ever sack the city, even questioning if I knew that sacks happened.

If Ned, Stannis or Jaime had been in charge, I'm 100% sure that sack would have been avoided, or at least largely diminished. If Tywin had uttered a command: „Sacking is forbidden, violators will be punished.“ his otherwise disciplined army would have remained disciplined and obeyed. That's it. Tywin could have avoided unnecessary bloodshed (or at least most of it), and the fact that he didn't just speaks one more time of his pettiness.

[Sullen]

4 hours ago, dariopatke said:

Just curious, who do you think should be an admiral? I would go with Velaryon.

Velaryon does sound like a sensible choice, the lords of the Narrow Sea are all very nautical in tradition, Davos and Sala could both have done a better job than Stannis's brother in law as well, and finally there was nothing stopping Stannis himself from leading his navy.

Stannis bent to nepotism in a time where he needed someone he could count on, that's not a case of bad luck, that's a case of terrible decision-making.

[PCK]

Tywin sacked the city for one simple reason. It was to show that he was on Robert's side more than anything else. He held out the Lannister forces to see who would emerge the winner of the conflict. He didn't want to help Aerys again, unless he really had to. Too much bad history between them.

[dariopatke]

Velaryon does sound like a sensible choice, the lords of the Narrow Sea are all very nautical in tradition, Davos and Sala could both have done a better job than Stannis's brother in law as well, and finally there was nothing stopping Stannis himself from leading his navy.

Stannis bent to nepotism in a time where he needed someone he could count on, that's not a case of bad luck, that's a case of terrible decision-making.

Davos is better than Imry but still a bad choise. If you read that chapter you can see how confused Davos is, he escaped battleships, this was the first time he confronts them. He is better than Florent because he has sharp eyes and sharp mind. Salla is a good choise,too. He was a pirate, proven warrior on the sea and he probably saw dozens of battles.

Yes, this confuses me. Stannis began to change when he named Davos, during my first read I was certain Axel will take the position. I dont get why he does that, he doesnt owe them anything, quite oposite I would say, they chose Renly over him.

This does not change the fact that Stannis would win battle if storm hadnt occured and he attacked a week or a fortnight earlier. Loses would be minimal in that case and crucial for further fighting, but KL would fall. If he had 200 ships he could do naval trade and keep his men fed during Tywins siege.

Stannis himself, interesting choise, but I think Stannis saw naval part of the battle as a minor part. And men on ships were loyal to him and there was no need for King to fight with them to boost morale. I would go with cavalry,too.

[Little Lark]

37 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

 

I've explained time and again why is Tywin's sack unnecessary, over the top brutal and vile in general. In any way, it could have easily been avoided and all would have been happier for it. And all you have to counter it is thesis that it was inevitable. Just like how in mathematics 3+2 always equals 5, in your linear thinking seizing the city always equals brutally sacking the city.

In reality, it depended the personality of the commander (Saladin was notorious for his mercy, for example), the amount of resistance the city offered, the relationship between the city and victorious army and probably any number of other factors. And yet you ignore all of it, claiming instead that winning army must always and ever sack the city, even questioning if I knew that sacks happened.

If Ned, Stannis or Jaime had been in charge, I'm 100% sure that sack would have been avoided, or at least largely diminished. If Tywin had uttered a command: „Sacking is forbidden, violators will be punished.“ his otherwise disciplined army would have remained disciplined and obeyed. That's it. Tywin could have avoided unnecessary bloodshed (or at least most of it), and the fact that he didn't just speaks one more time of his pettiness.

You just said it yourself, Tywin really didn't care whether his soldiers raped and pillaged so long as he accomplished his objectives. Look at what Gregor did, Tywin claims that he didn't fully understand what a monster he had in Clegane until then, but at the end of the day he was just happy the job was done. Furthermore, he saw how useful Gregor could be to him in the future.

The other men that you've described all have totally different values from Tywin. Stannis, for example, is all about justice. Tywin is all about the house Lannister. 

Why sack King's Landing? Why not? Tywin would've seen it as a messy byproduct of battle but he wouldn't have been particularly worried about it. Tywin doesn't care about the love of the people so much as he cares about the power and pride of his house.

He's a dangerous combination of ruthlessness and pragmatism, so the fact that other people will think he was unnecessarily brutal would probably seem kind of stupid to him (i.e. He says of the Red Wedding: "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner?")

[thelittledragonthatcould]

10 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

A commander can have some hold over his men. Stannis, for example, manages to keep the raping to a bare minimum after his victory at the Wall.

Who is there to rape? They went out to do battle, the enemy fled and they returned to the Wall. They are completely different situations. Stannis attacked a camp which then fled while Stannis went back to the Wall, Tywin attacked a heavily populated city and took control of it.

Though lets face it, Stannis' army were massacring women and children as well. It is a definite possibility that more women and children were killed by Stannis then by Tywin.

But there was fear on the wildling side as well, hundreds of women and children rushing away from the battle, some of them blundering right under the hooves of garrons.

Again, the main difference is that the Wildlings were not hanging around while the Kings Landing people had no choice. Those that did hang around were robbed and there rapes, at least three.

"All I did was protect Val and the babe against looters when the wildlings fled, and keep them there until the rangers found us. I never captured anyone. King Stannis keeps his men well in hand, that's plain. He lets them plunder some, but I've only heard of three wildling women being raped, and the men who did it have all been gelded."

When Stannis was attacking Kings Landing we are told what would happen:

"And if the castle should fall?"

"You'd like that, wouldn't you?" Cersei did not wait for a denial. "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."

Now the point is that Stannis, when he had order, would stop the rapes but in the period when there was no order then there would be no control over what his men would do.

 

Quote

Not to mention Tywin's soldiers haven't endured, well, anything at this point. It's no like the other rebels who had to march and fight for a year or more and have loads of pent-up aggression. Tywin's troops literally just walked into an open city with no opposition and having fought no one the entire war. 

Ned states quite clearly there was opposition. Ned who is clearly no fan of the Lannisters.

Quote

 King's Landing did not resist and was sacked anyway. I don't think it was inevitable.

Where is the evidence of this? We know from Ned that there was several thousand loyalists in the city