Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

3 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

 

That Stannis's army killed more non-combatants is pure speculation. Some among hundreds ran into his advancing cavalry, doesn't equal an army of 12 000 sacking a city in a fashion that is seen as quite brutal.

Hundreds were killed at Kings Landing. Stannis attacked a Wildling camp and killed a thousand.

Even Azor Ahai did not win his war alone. I killed a thousand wildlings, took another thousand captive, and scattered the rest, but we both know they will return

He certainly killed more women and children than Tywin did.

3 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Your third quote is Cercei speaking. She doesn't know Stannis. Whereas the second quote, from someone who actually saw him operate, states he keeps his men well in hand. I'll take it as stronger evidence than the statement of a half-drunk, paranoid woman trying to scare Sansa.

lol So Cersei staged that whole scene for Sansa's benefit.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

3 hours ago, Sullen said:

Davos is confused because the waters were not properly scouted.

If you go back to the chapter before the Blackwater, Davos criticized Imry's decision not to send any scouts over the water, if they did, it's likely they would have spotted the suspicious recent towers on both sides of the Blackwater.

Renly is not as meritocratic as people say, he too is victim to petty politics, and until Davos he actually engages in nepotism way more than any of the other Kings bar maybe Balon, but even then, Balon's choices are actually capable unlike Stannis's, and when unsure of the loyalty/capability of Theon, he makes sure that his position as commander is only nominal by pairing him with Aeron.

You overestimate the duration of the siege of Storm's End, it literally lasts a night, Stannis has Penrose murdered the very night after the parley, it won't save Stannis enough time to make a difference. The wildfire still is prepped, meaning Stannis still loses most of his fleet and the Blackwater is ruined for commerce, which means no food coming in either (By the way, he doesn't only have to feed his men, he has to feed King's Landing 500k population as well). Besides, it's not as if Stannis had the monetary means to do trade. The Red Keep doesn't fall as soon as the city falls either, it's meant to be sieged, Stannis would face severe losses should he try to take it by storm.

Taking King's Landing would have weakened him, massively. When Tywin and Mace come running, he's toast.

Stannis had plenty of men with experience with cavalry, and almost none with experience leading ships. Considering his only show of military genius came from the battle of Fair Isle, one would have thought he'd stick with what he knows best.

Actually you're completely wrong here. Stannis gave a Penrose a fortnight to consider his conditions. 

[Jasta11]

Just now, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Hundreds were killed at Kings Landing. Stannis attacked a Wildling camp and killed a thousand.

Even Azor Ahai did not win his war alone. I killed a thousand wildlings, took another thousand captive, and scattered the rest, but we both know they will return

He certainly killed more women and children than Tywin did.

lol So Cersei staged that whole scene for Sansa's benefit.

 

Where does he say that those thousand wildlings were non-combatants? 

She actually did to an extent. She doesn't know Stannis's stance on discipline with his soldiers, and clearly enjoys scaring the crap out of Sansa and dispelling her illusion that Stannis could be her savior (the "you'd like that, wouldn't you?" bit). 

When compared to the comment of someone that actually saw how Stannis handles his men, Cercei's speech isn't the most compelling of evidences. From what we know of Stannis, I don't see him setting his men into defenseless women on purpose, or leave any rape by his men unpunished.

Cripes, unless I'm mistaken at one point Cercei muses that she could seduce Stannis. That bit alone makes it clear she doesn't know the man at all.

[Sullen]

1 minute ago, Jasta11 said:

 

Where does he say that those thousand wildlings were non-combatants? 

She actually did to an extent. She doesn't know Stannis's stance on discipline with his soldiers, and clearly enjoys scaring the crap out of Sansa and dispelling her illusion that Stannis could be her savior (the "you'd like that, wouldn't you?" bit). 

When compared to the comment of someone that actually saw how Stannis handles his men, Cercei's speech isn't the most compelling of evidences. From what we know of Stannis, I don't see him setting his men into defenseless women on purpose, or leave any rape by his men unpunished.

And yet Ser Clayton Suggs, a known torturer of women, is one of Stannis's most fervant supporters.

2 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Cripes, unless I'm mistaken at one point Cercei muses that she could seduce Stannis. That bit alone makes it clear she doesn't know the man at all.

She says the opposite, that she has more chances seducing his horse.

[dariopatke]

Of course, the point is that you should underestimate capable commander. Renly needs every man, if he doesn't his march to KL would be much shorter so this is why I don’t get this action.

Running on ships I though.

I dont know there might be a way to use his position, you just cant be sure about someones weakness and motives. Stannis was sure he will take Lannister fleet without major loses, Theon was sure he can hold WF, Dotrakhi wrre sure Qohor is weak and I believe they would attack the city even if They knew about Unsullied, oh and Good Master hugely underestimated Dany, too.

How many men do you think Stormlands have?

I was thinking about naval transport, but yes, it Redwyne son dies Stannis is doomed certanly. You should know Stannis would have Sansa in that case, that could be interesting too. Point is, if he can somehow make naval transport work and not kill Redwyne he will have a chance, not big ofc but still a chance. I still think he should have attacked Bitterbridge.

Very well said about Blackfish.

[TheDornishScorpion]

Gregor Clegane and others like him probably had more to do with sacking the city then Tywin

[Jasta11]

6 minutes ago, Sullen said:

And yet Ser Clayton Suggs, a known torturer of women, is one of Stannis's most fervant supporters.

She says the opposite, that she has more chances seducing his horse.

 

Alright, I wasn't sure about that particular quote. 

Point about Suggs, but I suppose his position as a knight makes him less touchable. The scenario as envisioned by Cercei, that Stannis will set his men upon the Red Keep and let them be raped, mutilated and murdered with reckless abandon, doesn't seem very likely.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Just now, Jasta11 said:

 

Where does he say that those thousand wildlings were non-combatants? 

We have a description of the camp that Stannis attacked:

Soon they were among the tents. It was the usual wildling camp; a sprawling jumble of cookfires and piss pits, children and goats wandering freely, sheep bleating among the trees, horse hides pegged up to dry. There was no plan to it, no order, no defenses. But there were men and women and animals everywhere.

Many ignored him, but for every one who went about his business there were ten who stopped to stare; children squatting by the fires, old women in dog carts, cave dwellers with painted faces, raiders with claws and snakes and severed heads painted on their shields, all turned to have a look.

 

And we are told how Stannis attacked and how women and children were caught and killed in the attack

 

hundreds of women and children rushing away from the battle, some of them blundering right under the hooves of garrons.

It does not seem that Stannis and his soldiers are only targeting male adults in their attack.

Now a thousand died from Stannis and hundreds from Tywin. Stands to reason there were more women and children casualties in that battle.

Just now, Jasta11 said:

She actually did to an extent. She doesn't know Stannis's stance on discipline with his soldiers, and clearly enjoys scaring the crap out of Sansa and dispelling her illusion that Stannis could be her savior (the "you'd like that, wouldn't you?" bit). 

But she does. She is not saying that Stannisis ordering the rapes she is saying in the period when there is no one directly controlling the Castle and City (neither Stannis or the Crown) then that is the period when lawlessness and rapes will happen.

Once Stannis takes command it will stop but level of control does not happen very soon. It takes time.

Just now, Jasta11 said:

When compared to the comment of someone that actually saw how Stannis handles his men, Cercei's speech isn't the most compelling of evidences. From what we know of Stannis, I don't see him setting his men into defenseless women on purpose, or leave any rape by his men unpunished.

These things happen in the middle of battle. It is unfortunate but it does. It is relatively easier to police your soldiers actions when not in battle and when trying to bring peace and order to a region, which is what we see of Tarly and Stannis.

Just now, Jasta11 said:

Cripes, unless I'm mistaken at one point Cercei muses that she could seduce Stannis. That bit alone makes it clear she doesn't know the man at all.

No she does not.

"Were it anyone else outside the gates, I might hope to beguile him. But this is Stannis Baratheon. I'd have a better chance of seducing his horse."

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

9 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

 

 

Point about Suggs, but I suppose his position as a knight makes him less touchable.

Not just Suggs. Even in ADWD it was very hard for Jon and Stannis to protect the women.

 

"Any trouble from the stockades last night?"

"Not since you put guards on the guards, m'lord."

 

"Good." A thousand wildlings had been penned up beyond the Wall, the captives Stannis Baratheon had taken when his knights had smashed Mance Rayder's patchwork host. Many of the prisoners were women, and some of the guards had been sneaking them out to warm their beds. King's men, queen's men, it did not seem to matter; a few black brothers had tried the same thing. Men were men, and these were the only women for a thousand leagues.

9 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

 

The scenario as envisioned by Cercei, that Stannis will set his men upon the Red Keep and let them be raped, mutilated and murdered with reckless abandon, doesn't seem very likely.

You have clearly misread what she actually said

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

she is not saying that Stannis would order it, but if the castle falls before he takes control then rape will be a consequence of the brief period of lawlessness.

[Dofs]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I don't think Tywin is that big a fool. When I say there was no resistance, I mean there was no resistance until Tywin's army started the attack. Up til then, the entire city thinks Tywin is their savior. He certainly would not need to fight his way across the city to get to the Red Keep.The easiest way to do it, and the best way to maintain his own numbers, is to put his men in all the key defensive positions right next to the loyalists, including in the Red Keep. Then in one quick strike take out as many of the armed men as he can. Remember, he has probably four soldiers to every one loyalist, but he still needs to keep his army as large as possible in order to have leverage when crafting the post-war peace.

We have Jaime's recollections that do indicate that the fighting between Tywin's army and the loyalists started indeed in the city and that Tywin didn't ride in the Red Keep pretending to be a saviour. 

Here Jaime recalls how he was tasked to organize the defence of the Red Keep against his father, which means that his father did not yet take it, probably didn't even reach it yet:

"It fell to me to hold the Red Keep, but I knew we were lost. I sent to Aerys asking his leave to make terms. "

Here Jaime recalls that the fighting between Lannisters and loyalists was still on even when Ned was already entering the city:

"Targaryen loyalists were still dying on the serpentine steps and in the armory, Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch were scaling the walls of Maegor's Holdfast, and Ned Stark was leading his northmen through the King's Gate even then"

So Lannisters started to fight in the city, they had to take Red Keep by force and Tywin taking full control over the city was not quick and easy, as fighting was still going on when Ned had already arrived.

 

[ravenous reader]

1 hour ago, TheDornishScorpion said:

Gregor Clegane and others like him probably had more to do with sacking the city then Tywin

We'll never know for sure, will we?  However, there are indications elsewhere in the text that Tywin was not above, either giving a direct order to sack/pillage/burn/rape//exterminate, etc.-- i.e. an act of 'commission'-- or, alternatively, indirectly allowing atrocities, via deliberately 'unleashing' his 'dogs,' 'goats,' 'monsters,' and 'savages' in a targeted fashion...basically, giving them 'free reign,' which was not really so 'free,' considering how Tywin is orchestrating the action, so that he could keep his hands clean of the 'dirty work' that needed doing.  The extreme version of the latter is an act of 'omission' (i.e. strategically refraining from giving an order that might have prevented a crime, based on an outcome which Tywin might have reasonably anticipated).  Tywin is quite capable of 'turning a blind-eye' to his soldiers accountability, while simultaneously fixing his own predatory gaze on his target. 

Consider the following insight into Tywin's military strategy:

Quote

So . . . on the morrow, we make for Harrenhal. Kevan, I want Ser Addam's outriders to screen our movements. Give him as many men as he requires, and send them out in groups of four. I will have no vanishings."

"As you say, my lord, but . . . why Harrenhal? That is a grim, unlucky place. Some call it cursed."

"Let them," Lord Tywin said. "Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork."

"They will burn, my lord," Ser Kevan said, rising. "I shall give the commands." He bowed and made for the door.

When they were alone, Lord Tywin glanced at Tyrion. "Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like - goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest."

"Telling Shagga and Timett how to pillage is like telling a rooster how to crow," Tyrion commented, "but I should prefer to keep them with me." Uncouth and unruly they might be, yet the wildlings were his, and he trusted them more than any of his father's men. He was not about to hand them over.

"Then you had best learn to control them. I will not have the city plundered."

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

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

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

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

"Rule," his father said curtly

Tyrion hooted with laughter. "My sweet sister might have a word or two to say about that!"

"Let her say what she likes. Her son needs to be taken in hand before he ruins us all. I blame those jackanapes on the council - our friend Petyr, the venerable Grand Maester, and that cockless wonder Lord Varys. What sort of counsel are they giving Joffrey when he lurches from one folly to the next?

What's most interesting here is that Tywin is quite capable of making advance provision, should it be important to him to spare a certain party, or safeguard a city.  Based on everything one can glean about Tywin's character, I don't for a naïve moment believe that Elia and her children simply 'slipped' his mind, and that they got lost as collateral in the fog of war.  On the contrary, they would have been foremost in his mind, if not his ultimate target, and he would have made very specific arrangements for them.  As the legitimate heirs to the throne, and the descendants of his greatest rival and arch-nemesis, whom he had waited a lifetime to finally 'best,' they were important bargaining chips in satisfying the requirements of Tywin's political power-play and personal ego-trip.  He knew exactly how he wanted it to end.  A while ago, I had an interesting discussion with several astute readers on another thread regarding who is the greatest 'villain', where it was pointed out to me that Tywin is not only a psychopath, but sadistic to boot, and I agree with this assessment.  One shames a sadist at ones peril...and Aerys had 'yanked the lion's tail' one too many times.  After all, 'a Lannister always 'pays' his debts [with interest]'!

[Whitering]

On 2/28/2016 at 4:34 AM, Maester of Valyria said:

It's possible (though I concede unlikely) that Tywin simply lost control over his soldiers. Unfortunately, rape and murder of innocents was a large part of medieval warfare; and it would have been very difficult for any commander to retain control over (I think) 12,000 men as they entered an enemy city filled with defenceless civilians.

It's part of modern warfare as well, it's just not been experienced by large parts of the west for a long time, but check into Poland or such, or Serbia and see maybe read some UN Reports. War just plain assed sucks for women generally, and civilians more broadly.

[Trigger Warning]

3 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Can you give me a timeline on your sequence of events? Are you saying that once inside, Tywin launched an attack against the Red Keep and the defenders tried to stop him and that is what led to the sack, much to Tywin's surprise?

I don't think Tywin is that big a fool. When I say there was no resistance, I mean there was no resistance until Tywin's army started the attack. Up til then, the entire city thinks Tywin is their savior. He certainly would not need to fight his way across the city to get to the Red Keep.The easiest way to do it, and the best way to maintain his own numbers, is to put his men in all the key defensive positions right next to the loyalists, including in the Red Keep. Then in one quick strike take out as many of the armed men as he can. Remember, he has probably four soldiers to every one loyalist, but he still needs to keep his army as large as possible in order to have leverage when crafting the post-war peace.

I don't see how anyone can think that the Targ loyalists viewed the Lannister army as hostile right from the start. The entire city thought that Lord Tywin, whom they already admired for having managed the realm through the good years of Aerys' reign, had come to their rescue once again. There is absolutely no reason in the world why anyone would attack the Lannister army unless the army attacked first. And they wouldn't do that without a direct order from Tywin. 

But I think it would really help if you could give use your exact sequence of events from the moment the gate was opened...

 

 

That's just adding complexity to his plan and massively increasing the risk of something going wrong. The simplest solution is often the best, the most bloody part of storming a city is overcoming the walls. They open the gate, they start to march in and kill the gate defenders, now the entire army can flood in. That's them taking advantage of the betrayal. 

A scenario where hundreds if not thousands of Western soldiers that know what's going to happen going to all these positions then simultaneously turning on the other defenders just seems too complex a scenario compared to, we have the gate... storm the city. 

For example what if someone makes a move too soon and the defenders of King's Landing still outnumber them, overcome them and close the gate.

Capturing the gatehouse and flooding in is basically game over for the defenders already, it's just a matter of time at that point. 

If Tywin's plan was this complex he'd probably have something better lined up for the citadel instead of just sending some men to try and scale the walls. 

[TheDornishScorpion]

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

We'll never know for sure, will we?  However, there are indications elsewhere in the text that Tywin was not above, either giving a direct order to sack/pillage/burn/rape//exterminate, etc.-- i.e. an act of 'commission'-- or, alternatively, indirectly allowing atrocities, via deliberately 'unleashing' his 'dogs,' 'goats,' 'monsters,' and 'savages' in a targeted fashion...basically, giving them 'free reign,' which was not really so 'free,' considering how Tywin is orchestrating the action, so that he could keep his hands clean of the 'dirty work' that needed doing.  The extreme version of the latter is an act of 'omission' (i.e. strategically refraining from giving an order that might have prevented a crime, based on an outcome which Tywin might have reasonably anticipated).  Tywin is quite capable of 'turning a blind-eye' to his soldiers accountability, while simultaneously fixing his own predatory gaze on his target. 

Consider the following insight into Tywin's military strategy:

What's most interesting here is that Tywin is quite capable of making advance provision, should it be important to him to spare a certain party, or safeguard a city.  Based on everything one can glean about Tywin's character, I don't for a naïve moment believe that Elia and her children simply 'slipped' his mind, and that they got lost as collateral in the fog of war.  On the contrary, they would have been foremost in his mind, if not his ultimate target, and he would have made very specific arrangements for them.  As the legitimate heirs to the throne, and the descendants of his greatest rival and arch-nemesis, whom he had waited a lifetime to finally 'best,' they were important bargaining chips in satisfying the requirements of Tywin's political power-play and personal ego-trip.  He knew exactly how he wanted it to end.  A while ago, I had an interesting discussion with several astute readers on another thread regarding who is the greatest 'villain', where it was pointed out to me that Tywin is not only a psychopath, but sadistic to boot, and I agree with this assessment.  One shames a sadist at ones peril...and Aerys had 'yanked the lion's tail' one too many times.  After all, 'a Lannister always 'pays' his debts [with interest]'!

Oh no doubt Elia and her children were on purpose. I was just saying that the whole sackingof the city probably wasn't ordered as he would just have to spend his money rebuilding what they broke. I'm sure he wanted to make sure certain people in the city didn't survive though.

[7-KG]

17 hours ago, Sullen said:

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. 

Well, he should've, true. But you can't blame him for not predicting the Tyrell alliance. Tywin Lannister was far from them and Stannis must've thought Robb was fighting him.

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.

Yes, it was a mistake to not choose another more qualified captain; but the man not having qualifications doesn't necessarily means he's a noob admiral.

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.

Wasn't it Florent?

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.

Robb. Was. Fighting. Tywin.

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 (I was being sarcastic), the food crisis would have been made several times worse by the time Stannis takes the city.

Do you remember those guys screaming "Stannis" in the riot? They'd only start to blame Stannis if they were still starving after some months, which I'm sure he could get some food.

*Snip*.

(I will ignore this part because it's a bit off-discussion).

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.

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

Do you don't know what sarcasm means?The exaggerations were on purpose, dude.

 

[Neds Secret]

On 1 March 2016 at 2:34 AM, Protagoras said:

 

[Neds Secret]

9 hours ago, TheDornishScorpion said:

Gregor Clegane and others like him probably had more to do with sacking the city then Tywin

Tywin himself says that "when soldiers lack discipline the fault lies with their lord commander"!

[TheDornishScorpion]

4 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

Tywin himself says that "when soldiers lack discipline the fault lies with their lord commander"!

Yes the blame lies on him. Just not entirely sure it was his idea except for in the case of what happened to Elia.

[Walda]

18 hours ago, PCK said:

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.

While that is a simple reason, and one Robert found convincing, it wasn't necessary. Consider the case if Rhaegar had won the Trident. Tywin could simply have remained incommunicado at Casterley Rock, and let the Northerners besiege King's Landing, and yield to them when they arrived at Casterly Rock. His failure to support Aerys in any way for the previous two years, was proof of his neutrality. True, he had not answered the rebel cause and raised his banners against his king, but he had not answered his king's orders and raised his banners against the rebels, either.

As the head of a Lordly house, with his son effectively held hostage by Aerys, Tywin could perhaps be forgiven for not launching out in open opposition to Aerys. Eddard would understand that, surely. Note that Mance, who led a host against Robert, and besieged Stannis, was allowed to drop his banners, swear his loyalty to King Robert, and keep his title and lands.

But Tywin wanted more than he had. Tywin nearly became King Tywin that day. If his son had represented him strongly, instead of surrendering the throne to Eddard Stark, things could have gone very differently. The way it went saved a lot of bloodshed, but Twyin was not one to care about that. So another reason, beyond demonstrating fealty to King Robert, was to ensure that he got a controlling stake in the rule of the seven kingdoms.

People tend to forget that, at the time, Robert was gravely wounded, still in the Riverlands, and neither he nor anyone else had set out with the intention of killing Aerys and placing themselves on the throne, until the Lannisters had put that on the agenda. Robert's rebellion was a reaction, not a revolution. Robert did not raise his banners to be a king, but to defy a king.  In his memory, it was Eddard and Jon Arryn who decided between them that he was to be the King.

Quote

“Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I loved you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon.”
“You had the better claim, Your Grace.”
“I told you to drink, not to argue. You made me king, you could at least have the courtesy to listen when I talk, damn you. Look at me, Ned. Look at what kinging has done to me. Gods, too fat for my armor, how did it ever come to this?”
“Robert …”
“Drink and stay quiet, the king is talking. I swear to you, I was never so alive as when I was winning this throne, or so dead as now that I’ve won it. And Cersei … I have Jon Arryn to thank for her. I had no wish to marry after Lyanna was taken from me, but Jon said the realm needed an heir. Cersei Lannister would be a good match, he told me, she would bind Lord Tywin to me should Viserys Targaryen ever try to win back his father’s throne,” (AGoT, Ch.30 Eddard VII)

Eddard insists that Robert had a better claim to the Iron throne that he did, implicitly agreeing that he had a say in putting Robert on the throne. He had nothing to do with crowning Cersei, though. That was arranged by Jon Arryn after he had left. I can't help but think it was terribly convenient for Tywin, that Lyanna died when she did.

Another reason Tywin might have taken the trouble to get to the capital before Eddard is - to destroy evidence. I don't really know what evidence there would be, or what it's import would be, as Tywin had not been in the capital for two years. Also, as Maester Pycelle was on his side, he could be reasonably sure that any incriminating ravens he had sent during that time were carefully destroyed either before or immediately after their import was communicated. But if he knew there were ledgers in the Red Keep, or documents prepared by Aerys, that would reveal that Tywin had supported, influenced,  advised Aerys, or worked for him, in a way that resulted in the deaths of the Starks, or of Elbert Arryn, he would want to get there before they did.

If anyone was making Aerys kingdom a police state, it would be Tywin, and he would be like the head of the Stasi after the wall came down. I do wonder what his relationship with Varys was, but as the next 18 years show, Varys is more about peddling information than maintaining a police state.

Tywin says that he had to murder Elia's children to show fealty to Robert. He reminds Tyrion:

Quote

When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert’s relief was palpable.(ASoS, Ch.53 Tyrion VI)

Eddard, on the other hand:

Quote

remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar’s wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder;... Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna’s (AGoT, Ch.12 Eddard II)

Again, terribly convenient for Tywin's cause, that Eddard left when he did (his being the only one of the Northern generals who had directly witnessed the role the Lannisters played in Robert's Rebellion), Again, terribly convenient how Lyanna died just as Jon Arryn perceived the need for something more than dead babes to bind Tywin more permanently to their cause.

I don't think Tywin ever did anything for simple reasons.

ETA: @TheDornishScorpion's post reminds me of another reason Tywin wanted to get there: he had invested a sizeable amount of the wealth of Casterley Rock in the coffers of the King. There is no evidence to suggest that Aery's court was kept more frugally than Roberts - if anything the reverse.

Yet Aerys coffers were overflowing with gold. Lannister gold. That Tywin was unlikely to see again, as long as Aerys remained on the throne. Chances are very good that Robert not only took on the debts of Aerys, but borrowed still more from Lord Tywin so the crown could repair the damage done to Kings Landing in the seige.

Unlike Aerys, Robert made repayments on his Lannister debt, hence Jon Arryn getting Lord Baelish in, to rub two dragons together to make three, to take measures to increase economic growth tenfold throughout the kingdom, and probably more in King's Landing, if the fact that it has the largest docks in Westeros, and a huge new navy, is any clue (although Baelish is not overly zealous when it came to chasing smugglers or ensuring that  Lordly customs houses gave the King all that is his due, while he is open handed when new ships and tourneys and other stimulatory government expenditure are in the question).

In fact, Tywin is probably getting paid for the damage he did to King's Landing- he never would under Aerys. It is Robert and the crown that are losing money on the rebuild.

[Neds Secret]

10 minutes ago, Walda said:

While that is a simple reason, and one Robert found convincing, it wasn't necessary. Consider the case if Rhaegar had won the Trident. Tywin could simply have remained incommunicado at Casterley Rock, and let the Northerners besiege King's Landing, and yield to them when they arrived at Casterly Rock. His failure to support Aerys in any way for the previous two years, was proof of his neutrality. True, he had not answered the rebel cause and raised his banners against his king, but he had not answered his king's orders and raised his banners against the rebels, either.

As the head of a Lordly house, with his son effectively held hostage by Aerys, Tywin could perhaps be forgiven for not launching out in open opposition to Aerys. Eddard would understand that, surely. Note that Mance, who led a host against Robert, and besieged Stannis, was allowed to drop his banners, swear his loyalty to King Robert, and keep his title and lands.

But Tywin wanted more than he had. Tywin nearly became King Tywin that day. If his son had represented him strongly, instead of surrendering the throne to Eddard Stark, things could have gone very differently. The way it went saved a lot of bloodshed, but Twyin was not one to care about that. So another reason, beyond demonstrating fealty to King Robert, was to ensure that he got a controlling stake in the rule of the seven kingdoms.

People tend to forget that, at the time, Robert was gravely wounded, still in the Riverlands, and neither he nor anyone else had set out with the intention of killing Aerys and placing themselves on the throne, until the Lannisters had put that on the agenda. Robert's rebellion was a reaction, not a revolution. Robert did not raise his banners to be a king, but to defy a king.  In his memory, it was Eddard and Jon Arryn who decided between them that he was to be the King.

Eddard insists that Robert had a better claim to the Iron throne that he did, implicitly agreeing that he had a say in putting Robert on the throne. He had nothing to do with crowning Cersei, though. That was arranged by Jon Arryn after he had left. I can't help but think it was terribly convenient for Tywin, that Lyanna died when she did.

Another reason Tywin might have taken the trouble to get to the capital before Eddard is - to destroy evidence. I don't really know what evidence there would be, or what it's import would be, as Tywin had not been in the capital for two years. Also, as Maester Pycelle was on his side, he could be reasonably sure that any incriminating ravens he had sent during that time were carefully destroyed either before or immediately after their import was communicated. But if he knew there were ledgers in the Red Keep, or documents prepared by Aerys, that would reveal that Tywin had supported, influenced,  advised Aerys, or worked for him, in a way that resulted in the deaths of the Starks, or of Elbert Arryn.

Tywin says that he had to murder Elia's children to show fealty to Robert. He reminds Tyrion:

Eddard, on the other hand:

Again, terribly convenient for Tywin's cause, that Eddard left when he did (his being the only one of the Northern generals who had directly witnessed the role the Lannisters played in Robert's Rebellion), Again, terribly convenient how Lyanna died just as Jon Arryn perceived the need for something more than dead babes to bind Tywin more permanently to their cause.

I don't think Tywin ever did anything for simple reasons.

Yeah, which makes me ponder as to whether Tywin could have somehow schemed to set up the circumstances of Lyannas abduction, it wouldn't be beyond him and I seem to remember him saying in response to Robb Stark marrying Jeyne Westerling for honor that Robb was "his fathers son". I truly wonder what Tywin was alluding to?