Why did Tywin sack Kings Landing?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Are you trying to say that the sack had not started  until after Ned got there?

Nope, I or anyone else in this thread has said that. How exactly have you jumped to this conclusion? No one has said that.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The king is dead, Jaime is on the throne, but the city is at peace?

Again no one has said this either, though eventually there was peace.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 

Please, just because there is no text that says "by the time Ned arrive the city was in flames" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You have fabricated something out of nowhere. There is zero mention of the city being a flame so your claims that they were are absolute bullshit.

You are making up shit that did not happen.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Put yourself in Tywin's position: you have your army inside the city and no one is raising a finger against you because you are their last hope for survival.

No one? Tywin entered the city and once he and some of his men were in started attacking and taking control of the gates.

Fighting broke out as, quite understandably, the several thousand Loyalists are not going to just sit on their ass while this happens.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

But the king has your son and heir in the Red Keep. Remember how Tywin reacted when Jaime was captured in the Whispering Wood? All of the other lords are fretting about the loss of the army and failure of the siege, but Tywin turns on them and roars "They have my son!" All other concerns are secondary to him: the battles, the war, the crown... All that matters is that his line is in danger.

Nope. That is demonstrably false. If all other concerns were of a secondary nature than he would made a deal, any deal, to get Jaime back.

Tyrion makes it clear what happened once Jaime was captured.

Lord Tywin rose abruptly. "You are my son."

That was when he knew. You have given him up for lost, he thought. You bloody bastard, you think Jaime's good as dead, so I'm all you have left.

 

Cold, pragmatic Tywin moved on. Started grooming Tyrion for command by making him his stand in Hand. He'd written Jaime off at that point.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 

I don't see how you could possibly think that dispatching maybe 4,000 loyalists with 12,000 troops would be so all-fire difficult, especially since the 12G have the element of surprise.

You keep on saying it is easy. Name these medieval cities with populations of a similar size that were taken down in less than day.

Just because you constantly repeat that it was easy does not make it so. Tywin being able to control a medieval  city in less than day is only slightly more believable than Dragons existiing. Expecting him to do it peacefully is ludicrous.

But I eagerly await these real life examples to educate me. Provide away.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Look at how Rorge and Biter took out seven of the eight guards that were holding Glover at Harrenhall.

WTF does this even mean?

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Show me your text that says Tywin did not have his entire army, or nearly all of it, inside the city.

Again, you seem to be ignoring the distance between the Gates and the Red Keep. There is absolutely no reason why Tywin would need to march his army there. None whatsoever.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Show me the text that says Tywin had only hours to work with. And how many hours is that? Three? Six? 12? Could he have had half a day or more to march his men in and set them up?

I had more pressing concerns. Ned Stark's van was rushing south from the Trident, and I feared it might come to swords between us.

He had very little time, which backs up what we are told from Ned.

"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."

So yeah, time was clearly an issue given the distance bewtween the Trident and Kings Landing and the Westerlands and Kings Landing. It was a matter of hours not days.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 

He could march half his army through and still be able to secure the walls, gates and weapons stores.

With no casualtues? Bullshit, provide real life examples rather than endlessly call somthing easy that any sane person can recognized as monumentally difficult.

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

And since you agree that Tywin's command structure was intact for the entire battle, then I don't see how you can possibly argue that his men are running riot through the streets of their own accord.

There is pitched battle in a city with a population of half a million people with several thousand loyalists.

Please give these medieval examples of these taking place without casualties.

 

14 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

If C&C is still in place, then obviously they have been ordered to do that, no?

No idea what you are referring to here which makes it the most logical thing you have written in the entire post.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Nope, I or anyone else in this thread has said that. How exactly have you jumped to this conclusion? No one has said that.

Again no one has said this either, though eventually there was peace.

You have fabricated something out of nowhere. There is zero mention of the city being a flame so your claims that they were are absolute bullshit.

You are making up shit that did not happen.

No one? Tywin entered the city and once he and some of his men were in started attacking and taking control of the gates.

Fighting broke out as, quite understandably, the several thousand Loyalists are not going to just sit on their ass while this happens.

Nope. That is demonstrably false. If all other concerns were of a secondary nature than he would made a deal, any deal, to get Jaime back.

Tyrion makes it clear what happened once Jaime was captured.

Lord Tywin rose abruptly. "You are my son."

That was when he knew. You have given him up for lost, he thought. You bloody bastard, you think Jaime's good as dead, so I'm all you have left.

 

Cold, pragmatic Tywin moved on. Started grooming Tyrion for command by making him his stand in Hand. He'd written Jaime off at that point.

You keep on saying it is easy. Name these medieval cities with populations of a similar size that were taken down in less than day.

Just because you constantly repeat that it was easy does not make it so. Tywin being able to control a medieval  city in less than day is only slightly more believable than Dragons existiing. Expecting him to do it peacefully is ludicrous.

But I eagerly await these real life examples to educate me. Provide away.

WTF does this even mean?

Again, you seem to be ignoring the distance between the Gates and the Red Keep. There is absolutely no reason why Tywin would need to march his army there. None whatsoever.

I had more pressing concerns. Ned Stark's van was rushing south from the Trident, and I feared it might come to swords between us.

He had very little time, which backs up what we are told from Ned.

"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."

So yeah, time was clearly an issue given the distance bewtween the Trident and Kings Landing and the Westerlands and Kings Landing. It was a matter of hours not days.

With no casualtues? Bullshit, provide real life examples rather than endlessly call somthing easy that any sane person can recognized as monumentally difficult.

There is pitched battle in a city with a population of half a million people with several thousand loyalists.

Please give these medieval examples of these taking place without casualties.

 

No idea what you are referring to here which makes it the most logical thing you have written in the entire post.

Sorry, the more you post, the more confusing it gets. You asked for text to prove that the sack had begun before Ned arrived. There is none, but it is inconceivable that the king would be dead and Jaime on the throne and the city is sleeping peacefully. So your contention is that the sack is underway, but there is no fire. Fine, I thought there was something about Jaime looking out over the city and seeing smoke, but it's not worth finding because this argument has grown beyond ridiculous, again.

You also keep ignoring the fact that no one raises a hand against Tywin until Tywin struck first, a point that you have already conceded. You also have no text to back up your claim that there were only "hours" to play with, when in fact it could have been a full day or more. So there is no reason to think Tywin felt compelled to launch an attack against the king immediately after the gates are open. That would mean Tywin is trying to fight thousands of targ loyalists while the vast majority of his army is still outside the city -- a surefire way to maximize his own casualties. So as long as Tywin maintains the fiction that he is there to fight for the Targs, not against them, yes, he can march an entire division to the RK and no one would think anything of it.

You also directly refute the text in the World Book, which states unequivocally that "one inside the walls" the soldiers started the sack. Not "once the gates were open", not "once the first few soldiers entered the city" but "once inside". And the sack had to involve the bulk of his army because if it was just a few rogue units then it wouldn't have gone down in history as "The Sack of King's Landing." Also note that Yandel is the biggest Tywin propagandist in the story, constantly peppering his text with "Tywin saw his duty to the realm" and Tywin had to bring justice to the king. But in the sack, there is no sugar-coating at all: Tywin's men suddenly starting sacking the city. It doesn't say: when Tywin attempted to disarm the defenders on the walls, a few of his less honorable followers started slaying civilians..." No cause is given. No provocation. No excuses.

Still, it's amusing how you agree with all the critical points, and yet still feel compelled to argue with the conclusion: if Tywin's chain of command is intact throughout the battle, and particularly at the very beginning when his soldiers first start sacking the city, which again you say happens immediately after the gates are opened, then how is it that the sack is taking place beyond Tywin's control? Who is ordering the soldiers to fight civilians in the streets rather than the fighters on the walls and in the RK?

 

 

 

 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry, the more you post, the more confusing it gets. You asked for text to prove that the sack had begun before Ned arrived.

 

When did I ask that? Show me the post were I asked that?

So much bullshit coming from you right now that it is pointless reading any further of your post when you start off with a lie.

You seem to have trouble with reading from not only the books but from the forum.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:53 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

When did I ask that? Show me the post were I asked that?

So much bullshit coming from you right now that it is pointless reading any further of your post when you start off with a lie.

You seem to have trouble with reading from not only the books but from the forum.

 

3/4, 5:58 p.m.

Quote

Remember, virtually the entire city is aflame when Ned gets there,

Littledragon: Source for the city being aflame?

You seem to be inventing a lot of things that did not happen.

 

So by that, I can only conclude that you either believe the sack took place without any fire, or that Ned arrived before it started. Which is it?

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

 

3/4, 5:58 p.m.

Littledragon: Source for the city being aflame?

You seem to be inventing a lot of things that did not happen.

 

So by that, I can only conclude that you either believe the sack took place without any fire, or that Ned arrived before it started. Which is it?

 

Maybe this is a language barrier but when you said aflame I presumed you meant on fire. That is what it means in English. There is zero evidence that Kings Landing was aflame or that Tywin's men torched the City like you also claimed.

 

Sacking the city and it being aflame/torched are tow different things. I apologize if English is not your first language but sacking means plundering a city, torching it or setting it aflame has a totally different meaning.

[Whitering]

On 3/4/2016 at 5:30 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Which one, the first one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29

Nope, can't be that one as that one was incredibly bloody, one of the bloodies in the middle ages.

Possibly you mean the second one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281187%29

Totally different scenario, and quite a remarkable one. Definitely not the norm. The King was dead and Balien and the Crusaders had agreed to leave. Saladin got everything he wanted including a huge tax from the majority of the population of Jerusalem for allowing them to leave unharmed and not be forced into slavery.

It seems many of you want gloss over a pretty pertinent fact. Tywin had hours to do this, not days or weeks. Hours to secure the city, the King, the Royal Family, the treasury etc. before the Rebels shown up and took the credit.

I agree it could have been a much more manageable affair of he had more time, he didnt.

And yes I agree Saladin was pretty great but he could be just as ruthless as Tywin.

Oh come on, that is a pretty stupid response. Like does not come into it, he is the King and their recognized leader. Thousands had died for him what makes you think they would have stopped there and then? We are certainly not told that.

And while Tywin did outnumber the several thousand defenders it was hardly by a huge margin. And with a population of half a million to also keep in check the problem while simultaneously keeping the gates and docks secure it becomes a much bigger task.

I meant the people of King's landing, umm, point me to a place outside of Dorne where we've seen the people actually liking the person who rules them, which isn't true even in Dorne, they liked Oberyn and his daughters, they don't appear to like Doran overly much. So...ya, pretty stupid response, from someone with a minor in sociology and history and an understanding of human development re social progress through the ages, but thanks.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

5 minutes ago, Whitering said:

I meant the people of King's landing, umm, point me to a place outside of Dorne where we've seen the people actually liking the person who rules them, which isn't true even in Dorne, they liked Oberyn and his daughters, they don't appear to like Doran overly much. So...ya, pretty stupid response, from someone with a minor in sociology and history and an understanding of human development re social progress through the ages, but thanks.

Sorry but it was a stupid response. The war had waged for around a year with many people fighting and dying for Aerys. The idea that suddenly the people of Kings Landing are going to decide that they don't like Aerys after all and not bother fighting is at best naive and at worst monumentally ignorant. 

As for people liking their rulers? Another dumb question. The people of Winterfell adore the Starks who rule them, Balon is loved on the Iron Islands, the Tyrells seem popular in their homeland. You will find that most of the Lords are liked (even loved) in the places they rule from.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

double post

[kissdbyfire]

On 28 February 2016 at 8:48 AM, Neds Secret said:

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

Because he's a spiteful mean petty arsehole. In my opinion, of course. 

[kissdbyfire]

Dp

[kissdbyfire]

On 28 February 2016 at 8:48 AM, Neds Secret said:

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

Because he's a spiteful mean petty arsehole. In my opinion, of course. 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:53 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 3:30 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Maybe this is a language barrier but when you said aflame I presumed you meant on fire. That is what it means in English. There is zero evidence that Kings Landing was aflame or that Tywin's men torched the City like you also claimed.

 

Sacking the city and it being aflame/torched are tow different things. I apologize if English is not your first language but sacking means plundering a city, torching it or setting it aflame has a totally different meaning.

 

Sorry for the confusion then. English is my first lang too, but there is a thing called a simile where you can use a non-literal description to make language more vivid and pointed. So city aflame is a simile for the sacking in this case. It's pretty inconceivable that it would go down in history as "The Sack of King's Landing" without at least some fire.

But this is all irrelevant. The point is Tywin obviously had plenty of time on his hands to enter the city peacefully and then deploy his men as needed. If Ned was only minutes, or even an hour, away, outriders would have spotted them and the gates would never have been open.

So the idea that Tywin had to attack immediately after the gates were opened is a non-starter. He is facing thousands of loyalists and perhaps an equal number of gold cloaks. So which makes more sense, to attack immediately and confront these fighters with the few hundred men you can get through the gate at any one time, or feign the peace until you gain numerical superiority and the element of surprise?

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Sorry for the confusion then. English is my first lang too, but there is a thing called a simile where you can use a non-literal description to make language more vivid and pointed. So city aflame is a simile for the sacking in this case. It's pretty inconceivable that it would go down in history as "The Sack of King's Landing" without at least some fire.

Not only dis you say that Tywin set Kings Landing aflame but you also in the same said his men torched the city.

You made a mistake, you claimed something that never happened

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

But this is all irrelevant. The point is Tywin obviously had plenty of time on his hands to enter the city peacefully and then deploy his men as needed.

Plenty of time? lol Ok then name these similar settlements taken peacefully in less than a day.

 

The discussion is pointless as you seem to think taking a half a million city is far, far easier than it actually is.

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Not only dis you say that Tywin set Kings Landing aflame but you also in the same said his men torched the city.

You made a mistake, you claimed something that never happened

Plenty of time? lol Ok then name these similar settlements taken peacefully in less than a day.

 

The discussion is pointless as you seem to think taking a half a million city is far, far easier than it actually is.

Lol, a sack without fire. Hysterical. Almost as funny as someone who claims to be a native English speaker but doesn't know a simile when he sees one. When an engine "roars to life" do you imagine a living, breathing engine? Are words really "just wind"?

Nobody is talking about "taking" the city in less than a day. For all you know, Ned didn't show up until a week later. And taking a city by guile is far easier than with blunt force, and Tywin has the best ruse imaginable. It is inconceivable that he would be stupid enough to pass up the opportunity to march his entire army into the city unmolested just so he can prove what a big man he is by slaying unarmed civilians in their homes.

All Tywin has to do is maintain the fake truce long enough to get his men into place to disable the loyalists, gold cloaks and other armed men. Those in the Red Keep, unfortunately, are beyond his reach, as is Jaime. So in order for him to complete the first part of the plan -- disable the resistance in the city -- he has to create turmoil and confusion so no one in the RK knows who is attacking whom, thus, the sack -- the intentional, deliberate sack. Once the chaos starts, he can scale the RK walls and get his men to Jaime before anyone else does.

If he simply started attacking the city as soon as the gates were opened, the whole ruse is blown, Jaime is a dead man and Tywin guarantees himself a significantly diminished army when all is said and done.

 

[Neds Secret]

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol, a sack without fire. Hysterical. Almost as funny as someone who claims to be a native English speaker but doesn't know a simile when he sees one. When an engine "roars to life" do you imagine a living, breathing engine? Are words really "just wind"?

Nobody is talking about "taking" the city in less than a day. For all you know, Ned didn't show up until a week later. And taking a city by guile is far easier than with blunt force, and Tywin has the best ruse imaginable. It is inconceivable that he would be stupid enough to pass up the opportunity to march his entire army into the city unmolested just so he can prove what a big man he is by slaying unarmed civilians in their homes.

All Tywin has to do is maintain the fake truce long enough to get his men into place to disable the loyalists, gold cloaks and other armed men. Those in the Red Keep, unfortunately, are beyond his reach, as is Jaime. So in order for him to complete the first part of the plan -- disable the resistance in the city -- he has to create turmoil and confusion so no one in the RK knows who is attacking whom, thus, the sack -- the intentional, deliberate sack. Once the chaos starts, he can scale the RK walls and get his men to Jaime before anyone else does.

If he simply started attacking the city as soon as the gates were opened, the whole ruse is blown, Jaime is a dead man and Tywin guarantees himself a significantly diminished army when all is said and done.

 

Yeah, his main goal would have to have been to save Jaime, perhaps the sack was a ruse to get to him, proving Tywins respect for the common man.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Lol, a sack without fire. Hysterical. Almost as funny as someone who claims to be a native English speaker but doesn't know a simile when he sees one. When an engine "roars to life" do you imagine a living, breathing engine? Are words really "just wind"?

I'm sorry but when someone states

On 03/03/2016 at 9:07 PM, John Suburbs said:

Remember, virtually the entire city is aflame when Ned gets there,

and also

On 03/03/2016 at 9:07 PM, John Suburbs said:

 

 Why is Tywin allowing his men to torch the city when he needs them to take the RK and rescue Jaime?

I am going to assume he means what he said. Where is it ever claimed Kings Landing was set on fire by Tywin. You seem to have invented this, which I guess explains this whole thread. You are arguing to people about events that did not take place in the pages but in your fanfiction.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

16 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

I'm sorry but when someone states

and also

I am going to assume he means what he said. Where is it ever claimed Kings Landing was set on fire by Tywin. You seem to have invented this, which I guess explains this whole thread. You are arguing to people about events that did not take place in the pages but in your fanfiction.

 

 

You can always tell when someone has given up on their main argument when they start quibbling over pointless details.

I'll consider the case closed, then: the sack was unquestionably an intentional act on Tywin's part. He didn't just lose control of his men and he didn't simply rush in and start attacking smallfolk as soon as the gate was open. It was a deliberate tactic to cause confusion in the street so as to rescue Jaime from the RK and provide an excuse for the murders of the royal children.

And FYI, by "case closed" I do not mean there is a closed case somewhere. It means the evidence is incontrovertible and there is no other plausible explanation.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

You can always tell when someone has given up on their main argument when they start quibbling over pointless details.

It is not really meaningless. You created a fictitious scenario were the Westerland forces had set the city aflame. No such details exist in the text.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I'll consider the case closed, then: the sack was unquestionably an intentional act on Tywin's part.

Yup. At no point have I said differently.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

He didn't just lose control of his men and he didn't simply rush in and start attacking smallfolk as soon as the gate was open.

Nope, not smallfolk. The several thousand loyalist soldiers that were still inn the city.

Though Tywin planned for the sack it was also unavoidable given the amount of loyalists still in the city and the time needed to take control of the biggest city in Westeros before the Rebel forces got there.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

 

t was a deliberate tactic to cause confusion in the street so as to rescue Jaime from the RK and provide an excuse for the murders of the royal children.

If you want to say that. It was deliberate but that does not contradict the fact that it was alos unavoidable. Loyalists don't tend to surrender peacefully.

8 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

And FYI, by "case closed" I do not mean there is a closed case somewhere. It means the evidence is incontrovertible and there is no other plausible explanation.

lol

 

[John Suburbs]

I dunno dragon, you're talking in circles again.

If it was deliberate, then it was avoidable. If Tywin did not want it to happen and he had full command and control of his men the whole time, then it would not have happened. Why would he waste soldiers on plundering the city when they are needed to take the RK and rescue Jaime?

Simply charging through the gates the moment they were opened an attacking anyone -- smallfolk, loyalist or gold cloak -- would be the most colossally stupid thing to do ever. It turns a sure victory into a maybe and it guarantees many more casualties than marching in under pretense and removing virtually all defenders in one, quick surgical strike. Tywin is above all a pragmatist. He doesn't waste men or resources and he always works to have the largest army when the fighting is over. It's how he got to where he is -- basically ruling the kingdom.

[Trigger Warning]

44 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

I dunno dragon, you're talking in circles again.

If it was deliberate, then it was avoidable. If Tywin did not want it to happen and he had full command and control of his men the whole time, then it would not have happened. Why would he waste soldiers on plundering the city when they are needed to take the RK and rescue Jaime?

Simply charging through the gates the moment they were opened an attacking anyone -- smallfolk, loyalist or gold cloak -- would be the most colossally stupid thing to do ever. It turns a sure victory into a maybe and it guarantees many more casualties than marching in under pretense and removing virtually all defenders in one, quick surgical strike. Tywin is above all a pragmatist. He doesn't waste men or resources and he always works to have the largest army when the fighting is over. It's how he got to where he is -- basically ruling the kingdom.

That's the thing, you're expecting over much of late middle ages quality troops and command structures and creating a scenario that will have the best pay off and then saying Tywin would take it because he's a pragmatist.

On the other hand opening the gate and piling in is brutal and dangerous but it works and mitigates the majority of casualties storming the city would create, the primary defences have been surpassed in one swoop and the majority of the defenders will likely break or withdraw from the walls towards the citadel faced with overwhelming force and the loss of their fortifications, morale would crumble but there'd still be enough resitance to be consistent with what characters mention when discussing the sack. 

Your scenario has too many what ifs, what if some of his men, eager for plunder break off and begin looting as soon as they're in the city, what if an eager commander gives an order too soon, how is the order to strike circulated through the ranks at the right time, how are they to keep several thousand men in order in a rich city when fighting breaks out, what if something goes wrong and the defenders learn of their intention and they're driven back and the gates are closed. What if a beast like Gregor can't keep his sword in its scabbard.  

I don't argue against this theory to spare Tywin the blame for the sack, the blame is his from the second he decided to take the city but I'll argue against it because I just don't think it's realistic and it seems you're creating a scenario just to give Tywin complete control over whether the sack happens or not once the attack has already begun. 

If this brilliant move of a coordinated surgical strike was what actually happened, why is it never described specifically because it's an incredible feat of discipline, command and planning and certainly something you'd think would come up in the countless times people describe how dangerous Tywin is.  

More likely, they got enough men in to overwhelm the gate and opened it for the main body of the army circumventing the only defence of the city proper, something so simple that it doesn't warrant any specific highlighting from any character that talks about the sack of King's Landing.