Did Robb act better than Tywin conducting the war?

[Varysblackfyre321]

So sorry no one seems to be commenting on Robb's attempts to sway the Ironborn to raid and pillage the westerlands.

[Kandrax]

1 hour ago, Nowy Tends said:

Oh come on… Please don't tell us that you don't understand the meaning  of "set a land afire" when it's an order given to people like Gregor and Vargo whose reputation is well established…

 

I know that he was aware what they would do, but, surely, it is posible to set a land afire without raping.

[Kandrax]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So sorry no one seems to be commenting on Robb's attempts to sway the Ironborn to raid and pillage the westerlands.

I think that Robb was aware what would they do.

[Blackwater Revenant]

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What accusatory assumptions? Quote me

Your accusatory assumption that Robb ordered his men to raid and pillage the Westerlands. There is no indication whatsoever that this is the case. You don't know what his orders were. How do you know that his command wasn't to occupy these regions and put down any military resistance by Lannister forces?

There is also your accusation that Robb had anything to do with Roose's actions. If you want to hold Robb responsible or accountable, because Roose was his man, fine, but to judge his ethical integrity based on the actions of another man is ludicrous in my opinion. Why don't you provide some quotes confirming Robb's involvement or knowledge of these acts that you are so quick to condemn him for?

You make comments such as this regarding the Blackfish:

Quote

He's not going to be with the thousands of soldiers he's over sight of and he can only really do anything if someone reported to him-which no one really will else he get punished by his fellow soldiers. 

Why don't you extend this same type of understanding and leeway to Robb?

Seven hells, the fact that you found it necessary to start this thread, and ask a question that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the books, is an insinuation and veiled accusation as to Robb's lack of ethics in his war campaign as well.

Quote

Its not an accusation as much as it is a maxim. Some People on the Internet  throw at the word troll if they feel it discredits everything they had to say. And they take it as a victory. 

Sure, if you say so.

I'm sure you weren't insinuating anything with, "And there it is."

Quote

Ok you need to be more specific. How does my comment conflict with any arguement I have put forth.

I've quoted it, and you responded. I didn't find your response to be very satisfactory, but if that's your explanation, so be it.

Quote

What exactly do you think my position is? If you can specificly quote me where you think I show what you think it is please.

No, no thanks. I'm not going to waste my time searching through your posts, and be sucked into your little games here. Why don't you clarify your position, so we can avoid any further misunderstandings?

11 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, you hyperfixated on the whole troll thing.

Not at all. I am short on time, and just wanted to address that while I had a moment. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the effort on my part to clarify a matter that you claimed was "blantantly disgusting."

[cpg2016]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Actually no. The raping and pillaging and murder that had been going on in the Riverlands had been going on well before Karstark murdered Robb's hostages hell before Robb and his generals met to discuss Cats's release of the king-slayerHell when Jamie and Briene go to the inn "Husband" remarks it was likely wolves were the ones to have killed the previous.

There is zero evidence of this. Karstark turns his men loose before he murders the Lannister boys, and those men are, in large part, mounted - hence, they make better time than Jaime and Brienne.

Seeing as Robb's forces are jointly Rivermen and Northerners, it actually makes sense from a story perspective that they would be showing more compassion to the Riverlanders; indeed, one of Edmure's few truly admirable qualities is his desire to protect his smallfolk.

But most importantly, when comparing Tywin and Robb, are two items.  First off, Tywin authorizes an obviously illegal and vicious chevauchee into the Riverlands that is directly meant to set the region on fire.  Robb's war is a reaction to the illegal imprisonment and execution of Ned.  Full stop, Robb has the moral high ground here.  And moreover, Tywin has a long history of commanding sickeningly brutal attacks that go well beyond the pale of Westerosi norms.  Our assumption should be that Tywin Lannister will act in an evil manner.

And as others have said, neither Robb, nor Tywin, nor anyone else, can fully account for the actions of the men under their command.  However, Tywin has a long history of tolerating, and perhaps eve rewarding, the brutality of his men.  Clegane and Lorch both go unpunished after the Sack of Kings Landing (which Tywin orders, obviously).  When Rickard Karstark murders two boys, Robb has him executed.  I'm not sure what else can be done to prove that Robb's intentions are more just than the actual act of meting out justice.

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

accusatory assumption that Robb ordered his men to raid and pillage the Westerlands. There is no indication whatsoever that this is the case. You don't know what his orders were. How do you know that his command wasn't to occupy these regions and put down any military resistance by Lannister forces?

 

He's the bloody leader. It's not as though these people are some independent agency acting on they're own he sent them there and they (his)generals wouldn't have start raiding smallfolk of there livestock if they didn't have his direction to do so. Your question is by no means plausible since they diidnt really try to go after the big town or military outpost . It was the smallfolk that they targeted specificly.Jesus Christ now you're just trying to absolve of everything.

 

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

There is also your accusation that Robb had anything to do with Roose's actions. If you want to hold Robb responsible or accountable, because Roose was his man, fine, but to judge his ethical integrity based on the actions of another man is ludicrous in my opinion.

Again leader. What Roose is allowed to do by Robb holds him as culpable for it as Roose himself. And judging a man for what he allows his followers to do is by no means ludicrous.  If manager sees one of his employee sexually harass a female on the job yes I am going to judge the managager for not intervening.  Robb gave his blessing by not saying anything. These people committed a litany of crimes and would continue to commit a litany of crimes against the people he'd call his subjects but he would allow them to live because they may prove an iota of use to his war-effort. 

Not really unethical in his context as I said.

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

No, no thanks. I'm not going to waste my time searching through your posts, and be sucked into your little games here. Why don't you clarify your position, so we can avoid any further misunderstandings?

 

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Why don't you extend this same type of understanding and leeway to Robb?

 

   How have I not? I didn't say Robb wanted the rapes and murders to occur just that he couldn't prevent them if he didn't change his strategy. Does that mean Robb has no responsibilty for the mass suffering that's going to happen due to it? Not really.  

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Seven hells, the fact that you found it necessary to start this thread, and ask a question that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the books, is an insinuation and veiled accusation as to Robb's lack of ethics in his war campaign as well.

I came out days ago and out right said he and Tywin (until the RW)mostly acted in accordance with the ethical behavior to be expected in a feudal society. 

Hell I restated  it yesterday.

 

 

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Quote

 

No, no thanks. I'm not going to waste my time searching through your posts, and be sucked into your little games here. Why don't you clarify your position, so we can avoid any further misunderstandings?

See above. Now what did state that in any way conflicts with that? 

 

15 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Not at all. I am short on time, and just wanted to address that while I had a moment. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the effort on my part to clarify a matter that you claimed was "blantantly disgusting

 If you didn't have time to give a reply  that even addresses most of what I said then yet choose to only address 1/5 of it then don't. Just adress it later when you have time to do a full response this is a conversation neither of us is any pressing need to finish it. At the very least say you're short on time.You didn't leave any indication you'd address the rest of what I said later. I asking you to actually address the rest content in my content(which is must of it) isn't acting ungrateful. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Seeing as Robb's forces are jointly Rivermen and Northerners, it actually makes sense from a story perspective that they would be showing more compassion to the Riverlanders; indeed, one of Edmure's few truly admirable qualities is his desire to protect his smallfolk.

Actually no. The feeling of "kinship" between the peasants of a medieval which do make up the major bulk of Robb's army was far more local than national. NatiPeople more identify home more to the local village they grew up in then some abstract concept of the north. It's also worth a lot of these people would have been conscripted into the war to make up for the north's smaller population size compared to the south. So yeah they'd want a little something extra for all the hard they've been asked to do. As well as just feed themselves 

Edmure desire to protect all of his smallfolk is mostly seen as the exception rather than the rule for most lords. Which is why I love the guy.

 

 

8 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

There is zero evidence of this. Karstark turns his men loose before he murders the Lannister boys, and those men are, in large part, mounted - hence, they make better time than Jaime and Brienne.

Before there's even deliberations between Robb &Karstark and the rest of Robb's generals on the matter of Catelyn releasing Jamie it's clear there's been pillaging and raping and murdering being done by the Northmen. For quite some time.

 

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

authorizes an obviously illegal and vicious chevauchee into the Riverlands that is directly meant to set the region on fire.  Robb's war is a reaction to the illegal imprisonment and execution of Ned.  Full stop, Robb has the moral high ground here.  And moreover, Tywin has a long history of commanding sickeningly brutal attacks that go well beyond the pale of Westerosi norms.  Our assumption should be that Tywin Lannister will act in an evil manner.

Illegal??? I was under the impression the ruling monarch was well-within his rights to imprison those suspected of treason and deliberate whether or not he or she is guilty. From Joffery and everyone whose not aware of the twincest that's what Ned did. Hell Ned confessed to the crimes he was accused of. Does it matter to Robb? No. He didn't know what Ned had truly done to get arrested. Nor would it influence him trying to save his father from being beheaded even if he was guilty of treason. 

 

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

However, Tywin has a long history of tolerating, and perhaps eve rewarding, the brutality of his men.  Clegane and Lorch both go unpunished after the Sack of Kings Landing (which Tywin orders, obviously). 

Like Robb would have tolerated the IB's heinous acts would have been accepted if his proposal to raid the iwesterlands had been accepted? Like Hoat and company crimes would be excused so long as they directed their viscousness on Robb's enemies.

 

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

y).  When Rickard Karstark murders two boys, Robb has him executed.  I'm not sure what else can be done to prove that Robb's intentions are more just than the actual act of meting out justice.

Selective meting out Justice and doesn't help that Rickard goaded Robb into taking his head by mocking the thought of Robb showing mercy.

[Blackwater Revenant]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He's the bloody leader. It's not as though these people are some independent agency acting on they're own he sent them there and they (his)generals wouldn't have start raiding smallfolk of there livestock if they didn't have his direction to do so. Your question is by no means plausible since they diidnt really try to go after the big town or military outpost . It was the smallfolk that they targeted specificly.Jesus Christ now you're just trying to absolve of everything.

 

Again leader. What Roose is allowed to do by Robb holds him as culpable for it as Roose himself. And judging a man for what he allows his followers to do is by no means ludicrous.  If manager sees one of his employee sexually harass a female on the job yes I am going to judge the managager for not intervening.  Robb gave his blessing by not saying anything. These people committed a litany of crimes and would continue to commit a litany of crimes against the people he'd call his subjects but he would allow them to live because they may prove an iota of use to his war-effort. 

Not really unethical in his context as I said.

 

   How have I not? I didn't say Robb wanted the rapes and murders to occur just that he couldn't prevent them if he didn't change his strategy. Does that mean Robb has no responsibilty for the mass suffering that's going to happen due to it? Not really.  

I came out days ago and out right said he and Tywin (until the RW)mostly acted in accordance with the ethical behavior to be expected in a feudal society. 

Hell I restated  it yesterday.

 

 

See above. Now what did state that in any way conflicts with that? 

 

 If you didn't have time to give a reply  that even addresses most of what I said then yet choose to only address 1/5 of it then don't. Just adress it later when you have time to do a full response this is a conversation neither of us is any pressing need to finish it. At the very least say you're short on time.You didn't leave any indication you'd address the rest of what I said later. I asking you to actually address the content in my content(which is must of it) isn't acting ungrateful. 

Really?? I don't even know where to begin with this type of a response, nor do I have the patience for this rubbish. Perhaps I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I feel outright foolish to have indulged you this long.

Take care.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Really?? I don't even know where to begin with this type of a response, nor do I have the patience for this rubbish. Perhaps I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I feel outright foolish to have indulged you this long.

Take care.

I feel the same way quite frankly. You've shown time and time again you've really little idea on what was going on in the Riverlands(like I shouldn't have to explain to you what exactly the BC's mission was while working for the north, that Tywin didn't order the rapes and murders), and to be dead set on excusing Robb from everything that came as result of his strategy to out denying what was clearly his actual strategy or excuse/deny/ downplay the north in general for whatever bad thing it's people did. And you've shown to act offended at being asked to offer evidence for your accusations or ignoring the request all toghether. 

Yet I tried to be civil and made one last effort to have a fruitful conversation. That was a clear mistake. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Still no real to attempt to justify Robb's on proposal to the IB to raid Robb's enemies.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Still no real to attempt to justify Robb's on proposal to the IB to raid Robb's enemies.

Mostly because the only things Balon talk about are sinking Lannister ships and attacking CR and Lannisport. Theon confirms that.

So raiding would almost certainly happen, but it doesn't appear as if Robb asked for it.

“Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb’s army and Lannisport, which means the city will be undefended when we descend on it by sea. If the gods are with us, even Casterly Rock itself may fall before the Lannisters so much as realize that we are upon them.”

“Lord Balon grunted. “Casterly Rock has never fallen.”

“The pup says nothing about a reward. Only that you speak for him, and I am to listen, and give him my sails and swords, and in return he will give me a crown.”

“Casterly Rock is too strong, and Lord Tywin too cunning by half. Aye, we might take Lannisport, but we should never keep it.”

War is a sight different than mere raiding. And if you want to argue that sacking a city is something worthy of Tywin (it is), pretty much every time a city that has been conquered in Westerosi city has been sacked if conquered. The only one I can think of that avoided it was Oldtown (once) and they threw open the gates.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Mostly because the only things Balon talk about are sinking Lannister ships and attacking CR and Lannisport. Theon confirms that.

So raiding would almost certainly happen, but it doesn't appear as if Robb asked for it.

“Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb’s army and Lannisport, which means the city will be undefended when we descend on it by sea. If the gods are with us, even Casterly Rock itself may fall before the Lannisters so much as realize that we are upon them.”

“Lord Balon grunted. “Casterly Rock has never fallen.”

“The pup says nothing about a reward. Only that you speak for him, and I am to listen, and give him my sails and swords, and in return he will give me a crown.”

“Casterly Rock is too strong, and Lord Tywin too cunning by half. Aye, we might take Lannisport, but we should never keep it.”

War is a sight different than mere raiding. And if you want to argue that sacking a city is something worthy of Tywin (it is), pretty much every time a city that has been conquered in Westerosi city has been sacked if conquered. The only one I can think of that avoided it was Oldtown (once) and they threw open the gates.

Rejection withdrawn. I thank you for pointing this out to me. Don't think it reflects  better or worse on what I had thought Robb explicity asked of them. 

[Nowy Tends]

On 01/04/2018 at 1:18 PM, Kandrax said:

I know that he was aware what they would do, but, surely, it is posible to set a land afire without raping.

What are you trying to say? That Tywin could have tell Gregor/Vargo's bands of thugs they're forbidden to rape? It would be as effective as asking them not to say foul language…

[LiveFirstDieLater]

18 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Seeing as Robb's forces are jointly Rivermen and Northerners, it actually makes sense from a story perspective that they would be showing more compassion to the Riverlanders; indeed, one of Edmure's few truly admirable qualities is his desire to protect his smallfolk.

Instead they rape and pillage the Westerlands...

Quote

But most importantly, when comparing Tywin and Robb, are two items.  First off, Tywin authorizes an obviously illegal and vicious chevauchee into the Riverlands that is directly meant to set the region on fire.  Robb's war is a reaction to the illegal imprisonment and execution of Ned.

Tywin is reacting to Cat’s imprisoning his son... illegally and under false accusation. Rolling Stoptional.

Quote

  Full stop, Robb has the moral high ground here.  And moreover, Tywin has a long history of commanding sickeningly brutal attacks that go well beyond the pale of Westerosi norms.  Our assumption should be that Tywin Lannister will act in an evil manner.

I don’t think they are outsides the norms of Westeros or war.

Quote

And as others have said, neither Robb, nor Tywin, nor anyone else, can fully account for the actions of the men under their command.  However, Tywin has a long history of tolerating, and perhaps eve rewarding, the brutality of his men.  Clegane and Lorch both go unpunished after the Sack of Kings Landing (which Tywin orders, obviously). 

Robb has no track record to be judged on... Tywin also rules the realm in all but name for years of peace and prosperity.

Quote

When Rickard Karstark murders two boys, Robb has him executed.  I'm not sure what else can be done to prove that Robb's intentions are more just than the actual act of meting out justice.

Again, after Cat committed treason by releasing Jaime. There is a world of difference between good intentions and just rule... Robb broke his oath, lost his kingdom and his life, as well as pillaging the Westerlands. 

I’m not arguing that Tywin isn’t an “evil” man or that Robb didn’t try his best. But at the end of the day, in regards to the way the war was carried out, and the results, I’m not at all sure this is so black and white as you make it seem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes bad men make better rulers/leaders than good men. Results matter.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

36 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Instead they rape and pillage the Westerlands...

Tywin is reacting to Cat’s imprisoning his son... illegally and under false accusation. Rolling Stoptional.

I don’t think they are outsides the norms of Westeros or war.

Robb has no track record to be judged on... Tywin also rules the realm in all but name for years of peace and prosperity.

Again, after Cat committed treason by releasing Jaime. There is a world of difference between good intentions and just rule... Robb broke his oath, lost his kingdom and his life, as well as pillaging the Westerlands. 

I’m not arguing that Tywin isn’t an “evil” man or that Robb didn’t try his best. But at the end of the day, in regards to the way the war was carried out, and the results, I’m not at all sure this is so black and white as you make it seem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes bad men make better rulers/leaders than good men. Results matter.

I mostly agree with this but before anyone gets the wrong idea I would like to clarify: I am a staunch Stark supporter. Tywin is a fascinating character & Robb really isn't BUT I like Robb as a person more, if that makes sense. 

Tywin gave direct orders to do vile & vicious things & Robb would not do that. Should he have known there would be raping & pillaging going on? Possibly but I would assume we can all agree that if one of his men, or a group of his men were set before him guilty of rape that Robb would have Karstarked them all. Tywin would not. Does that make one better or worse? I think it depends on what terms you are speaking. It's undoubtedly more likable, maybe even more honorable to do it Robb's way but at the end of the day results do matter. It could be argued Tywin is the better man, and most certainly the better military Commander because he knows his men & uses their strengths to reach his desired goal. For example Tywin would never let Gregor Clegane care for children he wanted to keep alive. This is not what Gregor is well suited for. Robb should have never let the Lannister boys anywhere in the vicinity of the Karstarks. (Not saying they take a liking to Gregor, just proving a point) He should have either given them some task to satiate them for the time being or put the hostages somewhere they could not be reached. Tywin would have known that. One of the lessons this series tells us over & over is that the good guy doesn't always win & if you put honor above all else it may leave you with an honorable reputation but minus a head. Just like Ned. In the end it's what is more important to you. Is Robb the better man for behaving more honorably than Tywin at the cost of his crown & his head or is Tywin the better man for keeping his realm & head intact no matter the means used to get him there? 

[Whitering]

The allies after world war 2 were not very pleasant to anyone who had collaborated with the Nazis, like they had any choice in the matter. A woman slept with a Nazi officer? Shave her head for shame...well, it's not as bad as in the Riverlands, but it's not so far from, the enemy to you helped the enemy, and traitors deserve everything they get, with no examination that the smallfolk had no freaking choice in the matter.

Robb is not a glowing example of equality, I don't remember him ever really caring about the smallfolk one way or the other, instead chastising Edmure for doing so. And ya, he wanted the Ironborn to raid and what? Take a bunch of Westerlands saltwives, that's what. And he put Bolton in charge of the eastern force, well, it's not as explicit as putting Gregor or the Brave Companions out there, but it's also not something someone more aware, like Ned would have done.

Robb was desperate though, I still think he's quite a bit better than Tywin, and that Robb's own force would never torture or rape people, they still might burn the granaries and such though, which, well, starvation isn't exactly nice either.

[Blackwater Revenant]

Robb personally elicits the Iron Born to fight the Lannisters: oh OK, rejection withdrawn.

Roose elicits the Bloody Mummers without Robb's knowledge to fight the Lannisters: shame on Robb, how unethical of him.

Logic at its finest. 

[Kandrax]

7 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

What are you trying to say? That Tywin could have tell Gregor/Vargo's bands of thugs they're forbidden to rape? It would be as effective as asking them not to say foul language…

Well, if Tywin ordered Gregor and his men to don't rape, they would be obliged to listen.

[Adam Yozza]

5 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

Well, if Tywin ordered Gregor and his men to don't rape, they would be obliged to listen.

Yeah probably. They'd still do it. They'd just have a scapegoat.

[Darth Sidious]

On 12/29/2017 at 3:57 PM, Satoshi Takeda said:

Catelyn naps Tyrion.  Tywin responds by sending Gregor to terrorize Catelyn's family.

Cersei arrests Ned.  Robb responds by going to war. 

There are a lot of similarities there.  They are more alike than not.  It's hard to judge. 

Robb thinks its ethical to execute Karstark for killing pows.  Tywin thinks it's acceptable to break guest rights to make a quick end to the war. 

I want to give Lady Catelyn a break on this.  She begins to regret this decision later on after arriving at River run.  But you know this is the kind of world where you can't afford to show weakness and letting the dwarf get away with an attempt to kill the son of your house will show weakness.   It's not the correct decision but I can see why she made it.  

On 12/29/2017 at 11:41 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I decided to start this thread off the critism of other users that doing so in the obvious troll thread "Freys should be respected"  wasn't the place to have such a discussion.

I feel the overall North's conduct during the war doesn't really get examined much. 

Note: I'm not simply talking about besting Tywin in the battlefield: but did wage it more ethically than Tywin in your mind.

This is where we see Robb's boyish immaturity again.  He meant to show justice for the murdered Lannister squires and killed Karstark.  He was trying to do what he thought was right in his own clumsy way.  It seemed obvious.  You punish Karstark for killing unarmed squires.  Because even King Aerys himself chose to show mercy to Brandon's squire.  It's poor manners to kill a squire.   Robb wanted to do what he thought was right but what is right is not the best decision from a war tactics consideration.  A smarter general would prioritize and forgive Karstark because keeping the man and his soldiers in the fold helps increase the chances of all his men staying alive.

Robb tried to act more ethically except for breaking his pact with Walder.  His other decisions were made with intentions towards ethics but they didn't turn out that way.  Tywin didn't bother with ethics but in the end he successfully stopped a rebellion with minimal casualties on both sides.  Ending the war the way he did actually spared many lives from both sides.   

Robb thought it's ethical to punish his own loyal man for killing unarmed enemy POWs.  As a matter of fact it might have been more ethical to spare Karstark even if it means the two squires get no justice.   It's a dilemma but Dany handled her challenge better.  She gave Jorah the breaks to admit his treason and failing that she banished him.   She didn't execute him.  Ending someone's life is too permanent and it was a good choice from Dany.  I am also of the opinion that Jon should have sent Janos to freeze his butt in the ice cells for a few days instead of chopping his head off.  It's more acceptable to kill a squire who works for the enemy than to kill a man who answered your call to arms and lost his sons fighting for you.