Jump to content
Mario Seddy

Why did the rebels reward Tywin Lannister ?

Recommended Posts

During the rebellion why did the rebels reward the lannisters by sparing Jaime and giving Cersei a royal marriage ? Why did they let Tywin Lannister and his henchmen get away with their crimes, couldn't they atleast execute Gregor and amory lorch ? Wouldn't it taint Robert's throne and the rebels cause with the murder of innocent mother and children ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mario Seddy said:

During the rebellion why did the rebels reward the lannisters by sparing Jaime and giving Cersei a royal marriage ? Why did they let Tywin Lannister and his henchmen get away with their crimes, couldn't they atleast execute Gregor and amory lorch ? Wouldn't it taint Robert's throne and the rebels cause with the murder of innocent mother and children ? 

Might be because they feared him. You don’t want to be on the bad side of a guy like Tywin Lannister, with his wealth and ability to intimidate. He also has The Mountain at his disposal, a man who can chop someone in two and squeeze a head until it explodes. He could pay any assassin to kill you for crossing him. Also, the rebels probably knew/believed that the Targaryens had to go, and it just so happened that the Westermen did it and Robert didn’t have to; Robert had no problem killing his kinsman Rhaegar.

On the other hand, I would not call being married to Robert a reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mario Seddy said:

During the rebellion why did the rebels reward the lannisters by sparing Jaime

Because Robert did not think Jaime did anything wrong. You are assuming that all the rebels thought like Ned did, we know Robert did not.

"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."

Robert was grateful, not annoyed, with what Jaime had done.

 

Just now, Mario Seddy said:

and giving Cersei a royal marriage ?

This was not a reward. It was a pragmatic decision to secure peace and Robert's throne.

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,"

Aerys and Rhaegar being dead does not grant peace to the realm, Robert needed support and support from the most powerful Lord in Westeros was an intelligent move. A wife from House Tyrell or Hightower probably would have sufficed as well, but Robert needed more support than just the rebels he had if Westeros was to remain united.

On top of being a Lannister, her age and beauty made her an obvious choice for the King. It is only with the benefit of hindsight do we know they were awful for each other.

Just now, Mario Seddy said:

 

Why did they let Tywin Lannister and his henchmen get away with their crimes, couldn't they atleast execute Gregor and amory lorch ?

It was war. There was no official 'crime' committed.

And with 12,000 Lannister men at the capital and his army untapped in the Westerlands it would be foolish to start a war over something that was possibly going to happen anyway.

Just now, Mario Seddy said:

Wouldn't it taint Robert's throne and the rebels cause with the murder of innocent mother and children ? 

He was a usurper, his throne would be tainted no matter what.

However, with regard to who was responsible for the deaths of Elia and her children, this was kept a secret from the public. Only a small number of people knew the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering why this poster keeps starting silly threads but doesn't participate in any of them?

Bit rude if you ask me.

But it is his right

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert had 4/7 Great Houses with him. Why not make them 5 by adding the wealthiest House? Robert thought it was necessary for Aerys and his grandchildren to be killed so why punish Lannisters? Even if Jon Arryn insisted on giving justice, then only Jaime, the Mountain and Amory Lorch are punished.Cersei is innocent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Because Robert did not think Jaime did anything wrong. You are assuming that all the rebels thought like Ned did, we know Robert did not.

"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."

Robert was grateful, not annoyed, with what Jaime had done.

We know that if most people thought like Robert, Jaime wouldn't be half reviled he was, we have yet to see more rebels thinking than a KG killing his king is cool to actually not believe Robert was just the exception, even the Westermen were appalled by what Jaime pulled.

 

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

This was not a reward. It was a pragmatic decision to secure peace and Robert's throne.

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,"

Aerys and Rhaegar being dead does not grant peace to the realm, Robert needed support and support from the most powerful Lord in Westeros was an intelligent move. A wife from House Tyrell or Hightower probably would have sufficed as well, but Robert needed more support than just the rebels he had if Westeros was to remain united.

On top of being a Lannister, her age and beauty made her an obvious choice for the King. It is only with the benefit of hindsight do we know they were awful for each other.

 

It might serve, Tyrion had to concede, but the snake will not be happy. "Far be it from me to question your cunning, Father, but in your place I do believe I'd have let Robert Baratheon bloody his own hands."
Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. 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. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing.
"

Robert already had the support of the most powerful lord in Westeros, the Sack and everything that happened there was for Tywin could prove he was Robert's man, in this perspective, knowing that Robert was offering his valuable asset for something he already  is natural people see it as a reward.

Why Jon Arryn didn't see that marrying Robert to a Hightower would def break Targ power in the South is something i don't understand, but perhaps everything wasn't as straight forward as they are telling yo us.

 

 

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

However, with regard to who was responsible for the deaths of Elia and her children, this was kept a secret from the public. Only a small number of people knew the truth.

Was it?? The Martells knew the truth and the Rowan, Tyrell and Redwyne could do a very easy sum, if Tywin men were sacking the city and later Tywin presents the children corpses to Robert wrapped in Lannister cloaks, i don't know how anyone would have a hard time connecting the dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

This was not a reward. It was a pragmatic decision to secure peace and Robert's throne.

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,"

Aerys and Rhaegar being dead does not grant peace to the realm, Robert needed support and support from the most powerful Lord in Westeros was an intelligent move. A wife from House Tyrell or Hightower probably would have sufficed as well, but Robert needed more support than just the rebels he had if Westeros was to remain united.

This.

People need to remember that the Reach forces were nearly intact after the war and Dorne was ready to jump for the sake of vengeance. There were a number of people who would like the return of the Targaryens at that time. By marrying Cersei (and also marrying Stannis to Selyse Florent), they were sending a powerful message to any Targaryens loyalists and in particular to Mace Tyrell and Doran Martell.

Of course, antagonizing Tywin was not an option, whilst he couldn't become a targaryen fan anymore, he could still cause other sort of problems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frenin said:

We know that if most people thought like Robert, Jaime wouldn't be half reviled he was, we have yet to see more rebels thinking than a KG killing his king is cool to actually not believe Robert was just the exception, even the Westermen were appalled by what Jaime pulled.

I'm sorry? What is your point here?

Robert did not want Jaime punished. It does not seem that Jon Arryn wanted Jaime punished. The question asked was why Jaim was not punished, do you not think I did not answer it adequately enough?

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Robert already had the support of the most powerful lord in Westeros,

Short term he may have, Jon Arryn was thinking long term.

Again, this is a direct quote from the books of why Cersie was chosen as Robert's bride. Are you disputing this?

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

the Sack and everything that happened there was for Tywin could prove he was Robert's man,

Yes. For how long?

Historically alliances in this era and before was cemented with marriage alliances to give both parties a continued reason to stay loyal to each other.

I don't mean to come off as rude, but how do you not get this?

At one point Tywin was Aery's man and when Aerys most needed him he was not. What Robert and Tywin had after the sack was a temporary alliance. Jon Arryn wanted to solidify it. Again, this is pretty much laid out in the quote I gave.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

in this perspective, knowing that Robert was offering his valuable asset for something he already  is natural people see it as a reward.

Again, you would be ignoring the words in the book given to why Arryn arranged the wedding and to actual historical context.

Robert had destabilized the Kingdom, Arryn knew that this could potentially see many kingdoms arise from this and Westeros undone. He saw the best method for stabilization was marriage to House a bride from House Lannister (though I strongly suspect House Tyrell and Hightower would have been just as acceptable) to secure the throne.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Why Jon Arryn didn't see that marrying Robert to a Hightower would def break Targ power in the South is something i don't understand, but perhaps everything wasn't as straight forward as they are telling yo us.

He may have. There are all sort of reasons why a Hightower was seen as a slightly worse choice

  • Hightower may have been unwilling at that alliance
  • There may have been no Hightower bride available to produce heirs for Robert
  • There may have been no Hightower women as seen as a better catch as Cersei
  • Hightower at the time may not have been in a position of strength

 

Tywin is the most powerful Lord in the realm. His control of his region is more secure than the Tyrell in the Reach. It makes sense that Cersei was the top choice above a bride of Hightower or Tyrell, though I'd say both would have been just as acceptable to unity.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

 

Was it??

Yes. We know that from the World Book. We also know that from Oberyn as he wants confirmation on what he suspects to be the truth.

The people responsible for Elia's and her children's death was not public knowledge.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

The Martells knew the truth and the Rowan, Tyrell and Redwyne could do a very easy sum,

I'm sorry, but you seem to do this in every thread, miscomprehended what is actually said. I very specifically said only a small number of people knew the truth. I did'nt say no one knew, yet that seems to be how you are responding..

In future, before responding to me, can you please reread what I have actually said a few times before responding. It would save us both some time.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

if Tywin men were sacking the city

That is not what a sack is. When settlements are being sacked it is, more often than not, both armies and the local population doing the sacking. It is not just one side doing it. Not only should this be common sense, but GRRM goes over this when a sack is explained to the 12 year old Sansa.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

and later Tywin presents the children corpses to Robert wrapped in Lannister cloaks, i don't know how anyone would have a hard time connecting the dots.

How is this news supposed to get out? Do you think Robert and Tywin went into the middle of the Dragonpit to do this? And televised it for the rest of Westeros to see?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Short term he may have, Jon Arryn was thinking long term.

Again, this is a direct quote from the books of why Cersie was chosen as Robert's bride. Are you disputing this?

I don't disputing that was Jon Arryn believed, i'm arguing that his thinking wasn't correct.

We have a quote from Tywin himself being perfectly clear where his loyalty lied after the Trident.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. For how long?

Historically alliances in this era and before was cemented with marriage alliances to give both parties a continued reason to stay loyal to each other.

I don't mean to come off as rude, but how do you not get this?

At one point Tywin was Aery's man and when Aerys most needed him he was not. What Robert and Tywin had after the sack was a temporary alliance. Jon Arryn wanted to solidify it. Again, this is pretty much laid out in the quote I gave.

You always come off as rude, i getting used to it by now.

Since the only options available were either Robert or Targs and it's very doubtful, to not say impossible, that any restore Targ would just forget Tywin's and Jaime's role in their fall, i think that what Robert and Tywin had after the sack was far more solid than a temporary alliance, as Tywin himself  says.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Again, you would be ignoring the words in the book given to why Arryn arranged the wedding and to actual historical context.

Robert had destabilized the Kingdom, Arryn knew that this could potentially see many kingdoms arise from this and Westeros undone. He saw the best method for stabilization was marriage to House a bride from House Lannister (though I strongly suspect House Tyrell and Hightower would have been just as acceptable) to secure the throne.

And you would be ignoring Tywin's words. If we take Tywin's words, the marriage is pretty much a waste, since there were still powerful loyalists who needed to be win over than Tywin, who already was in the Baratheon camp and the Targ door forever closed for him. Arryn did not fear, as far as we know, a fractured Westeros, he feared Viserys return.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

He may have. There are all sort of reasons why a Hightower was seen as a slightly worse choice

  •  Hightower may have been unwilling at that alliance
  • There may have been no Hightower bride available to produce heirs for Robert
  • There may have been no Hightower women as seen as a better catch as Cersei
  • Hightower at the time may not have been in a position of strength

 

Of all the possibilities i found only credible the first one, the third one is certainly dubious, since winning over the Hightowers certainly breaks the south, but let's agree to disagree here because we simply lack of ages and details.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin is the most powerful Lord in the realm. His control of his region is more secure than the Tyrell in the Reach. It makes sense that Cersei was the top choice above a bride of Hightower or Tyrell, though I'd say both would have been just as acceptable to unity.

Quote

It doesn't really matter that Tywin s the most powerful lord in the Realm, what matters is that at the time Tywin's loyalty was something sure and the Reach lords simply wasn't the priority should be getting on board hte most powerful Reach lords,  where is said that Mace control over the Reach was less secured than Tywin's?? I didn't asked for the Tyrells simply because at the time Mace had no daughters.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm sorry, but you seem to do this in every thread, miscomprehended what is actually said. I very specifically said only a small number of people knew the truth. I did'nt say no one knew, yet that seems to be how you are responding..

In future, before responding to me, can you please reread what I have actually said a few times before responding. It would save us both some time.

 I should ask first, who do you mean when you said that only a few people knew the truth, the Reach lords and the Martells weren't nowhere near KL and yet they have a very clear picture of what happened, so if they had a very clear picture, who didn't know??

 

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is not what a sack is. When settlements are being sacked it is, more often than not, both armies and the local population doing the sacking. It is not just one side doing it. Not only should this be common sense, but GRRM goes over this when a sack is explained to the 12 year old Sansa.

Quote

We have yet to see the Targ men butchering their people then.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. We know that from the World Book. We also know that from Oberyn as he wants confirmation on what he suspects to be the truth.

The people responsible for Elia's and her children's death was not public knowledge.

 
Gods, I hope not. "Wars and weddings have kept us well occupied, Prince Oberyn. I fear no one has yet had the time to look into murders sixteen years stale, dreadful as they were. We shall, of course, just as soon as we may. Any help that Dorne might be able to provide to restore the king's peace would only hasten the beginning of my lord father's inquiry—"
"Dwarf," said the Red Viper, in a tone grown markedly less cordial, "spare me your Lannister lies. Is it sheep you take us for, or fools? My brother is not a bloodthirsty man, but neither has he been asleep for sixteen years. Jon Arryn came to Sunspear the year after Robert took the throne, and you can be sure that he was questioned closely. Him, and a hundred more. I did not come for some mummer's show of an inquiry. I came for justice for Elia and her children, and I will have it. Starting with this lummox Gregor Clegane . . . but not, I think, ending there. Before he dies, the Enormity That Rides will tell me whence came his orders, please assure your lord father of that." He smiled. "An old septon once claimed I was living proof of the goodness of the gods. Do you know why that is, Imp?"
"No," Tyrion admitted warily.
 
What Oberyn wants is evidences, he didn't want any confirmation nor he had any suspects, he wanted a tangible evidence that Tywin was behind it.
Have we seen any noble doubt about who killed the Elia and her children to say it's not public knowledge??
 
 
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

How is this news supposed to get out? Do you think Robert and Tywin went into the middle of the Dragonpit to do this? And televised it for the rest of Westeros to see?

 

And yet enough, the Reach lords knew it, if they knew it it's safe to say it's the worst kept secret ever.

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm sorry? What is your point here?

Robert did not want Jaime punished. It does not seem that Jon Arryn wanted Jaime punished. The question asked was why Jaim was not punished, do you not think I did not answer it adequately enough?

Short term he may have, Jon Arryn was thinking long term.

Again, this is a direct quote from the books of why Cersie was chosen as Robert's bride. Are you disputing this?

Yes. For how long?

Historically alliances in this era and before was cemented with marriage alliances to give both parties a continued reason to stay loyal to each other.

I don't mean to come off as rude, but how do you not get this?

At one point Tywin was Aery's man and when Aerys most needed him he was not. What Robert and Tywin had after the sack was a temporary alliance. Jon Arryn wanted to solidify it. Again, this is pretty much laid out in the quote I gave.

Again, you would be ignoring the words in the book given to why Arryn arranged the wedding and to actual historical context.

Robert had destabilized the Kingdom, Arryn knew that this could potentially see many kingdoms arise from this and Westeros undone. He saw the best method for stabilization was marriage to House a bride from House Lannister (though I strongly suspect House Tyrell and Hightower would have been just as acceptable) to secure the throne.

He may have. There are all sort of reasons why a Hightower was seen as a slightly worse choice

  • Hightower may have been unwilling at that alliance
  • There may have been no Hightower bride available to produce heirs for Robert
  • There may have been no Hightower women as seen as a better catch as Cersei
  • Hightower at the time may not have been in a position of strength

 

Tywin is the most powerful Lord in the realm. His control of his region is more secure than the Tyrell in the Reach. It makes sense that Cersei was the top choice above a bride of Hightower or Tyrell, though I'd say both would have been just as acceptable to unity.

Yes. We know that from the World Book. We also know that from Oberyn as he wants confirmation on what he suspects to be the truth.

The people responsible for Elia's and her children's death was not public knowledge.

I'm sorry, but you seem to do this in every thread, miscomprehended what is actually said. I very specifically said only a small number of people knew the truth. I did'nt say no one knew, yet that seems to be how you are responding..

In future, before responding to me, can you please reread what I have actually said a few times before responding. It would save us both some time.

That is not what a sack is. When settlements are being sacked it is, more often than not, both armies and the local population doing the sacking. It is not just one side doing it. Not only should this be common sense, but GRRM goes over this when a sack is explained to the 12 year old Sansa.

How is this news supposed to get out? Do you think Robert and Tywin went into the middle of the Dragonpit to do this? And televised it for the rest of Westeros to see?

 

This is so true but I think obert and Tywin went into the middle of the Dragonpit to do it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin captured the capital city and citadel while it was garrisoned by thousands of royalists then wiped out Rhaegar's line so Robert wouldn't have to get blood on his hands, why wouldn't he reward him? Those kids weren't surviving regardless, better for Robert that they die during the sack.  Most people didn't care like Ned cared, if anything I'd imagine most people would expect the royal family to be killed.

Edited by Trigger Warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't disputing that was Jon Arryn believed, i'm arguing that his thinking wasn't correct.

You've not done a great job of it.

How can Robert be secure in House Lannister's loyalty a year after he is coronated?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

We have a quote from Tywin himself being perfectly clear where his loyalty lied after the Trident.

No, we have a quote of Tywin not wanting Robert as an enemy after the war. If Robert had secured a marriage with a Hightower, Tyrell or even bride from a foreign power then Tywin is out in the cold.

Rebellions happen, frequently to new kings who have usurped their power. Robert, even two decades later, is worried about the realm rebelling against him

"There are still those in the Seven Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed, and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors will join him."

He needed to secure a powerful alliance, Tywin was a powerful alliance. But Robert could not take their alliance for granted anymore than the Targs did.  Aerys thought Tywin was loyal to him, do you not see a lesson there?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

You always come off as rude, i getting used to it by now.

Apologize for that. But it is frustrating having to basically repeat myself to you every time you reply to me because you have not properly read or understood what I have said. In fairness that may well be just as much my fault as it is yours.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Since the only options available were either Robert or Targs and it's very doubtful,

They are not the only options. We see in the War of the Five Kings that it is never just a case of just two options.

And yeah, the Targs were still an option. They'd hardly be the first Pretender to forgive a former enemy if it meant a change at regaining the Throne.

Alliances are often fluid, look at Goodbrook, one of Edmure's closest friends despite Hoster murdering his father.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

to not say impossible, that any restore Targ would just forget Tywin's and Jaime's role in their fall,

Well I'd disagree with you here and so would history. If regaining the Throne meant making an alliance with House Lannister then Viserys would have done so in a heartbeat.

 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

i think that what Robert and Tywin had after the sack was far more solid than a temporary alliance, as Tywin himself  says.

He says it is more than a temporary alliance? That he can never pick another side, or even independence or some other form of opposition? Can you quote him on this one rather than imply he said something, which I'm pretty sure he did not.

If Tywin and Mace form an alliance then all of a sudden Robert's crown looks very vulnerable. If they both decide they don't want to pay taxes or offer military assistance to Robert then his throne becomes a target for others.

 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

And you would be ignoring Tywin's words.

Not at all. Please provide these words, because it seems you may be misreading them.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

If we take Tywin's words, the marriage is pretty much a waste,

Tywin says this? I think not.

Why does Tywin accept the marriage of a Tyrell to Tommen? Why does he suggest that Cersei marry Loras? Because alliances need to be maintained.

Tywin, more so than any other character, knows the value in maintaining alliances. That just because the Tyrells fought Stannis on the Blackwater, does not mean that if they are not kept sweet they could not become an ally of Stannis in the future.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

since there were still powerful allies who needed to be win over than Tywin, who already was in the Baratheon camp

For how long would Tywin be in the Baratheon camp?

How long was he in the Targ camp when Aerys married his son to a Martell?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

and the Targ door forever closed for him.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge exaggeration.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Arryn did not fear, as far as we know, a fractured Westeros, he feared Viserys return.

You do know what that means right? Civil war, a literal fractured Westeros.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Of all the possibilities i found only credible the first one, the third one is certainly dubious, since winning over the Hightowers certainly breaks the south, but let's agree to disagree here because we simply lack of ages and details.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to convey here?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

It doesn't really matter that Tywin s the most powerful lord in the Realm,

Yeah, it does. A new King who just usurped the Throne can not afford to make enemies of the most powerful Lords in the realm. He needs to forge strong, long-lasting alliances with them.

 

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

what matters is that at the time Tywin's loyalty was something sure

Except it was not. Aerys thought it was sure, do you not think there is a lesson to be learned there?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

and the Reach lords simply wasn't the priority should be getting on board hte most powerful Reach lords, 

The priority was a powerful alliance, as I hav repeated multiple times in this thread, it matters little if it was Lannister, Tyrell or Hightower.

However, you are demonstrably wrong about a Reach house being the priority because one Reach House does not guarantee all the Reach. Tywin guaranteed all of the Westerlands.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

where is said that Mace control over the Reach was less secured than Tywin's??

Have you read the War of the Five Kings? How many Reach Houses are not with Mace? How many Westerland Houses are not with Tywin?

Look, I find no joy in having to be this condescending, can you please reread what I have said or the books and not ask silly questions. You are making us both look bad here.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I didn't asked for the Tyrells simply because at the time Mace had no daughters.

Was Hightower willing to forge an alliance with Robert?

Did he have an available daughter who was of an age to procreate?

Please answer these.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I should ask first, who do you mean when you said that only a few people knew the truth,

What do you think that sentence means? It means what it says. Only a few people knew the truth. Some may have heard the rumours, or suspected. They would be the minority of the population of Westeros.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

the Reach lords and the Martells weren't nowhere near KL and yet they have a very clear picture of what happened, so if they had a very clear picture, who didn't know??

You keep on saying Reach lords plural? Name all of them who knew the truth?

And suspecting something, is not the same as knowing something. Again, sorry to be condescending, but you do understand this, right?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

We have yet to see the Targ men butchering their people then.

What? Come on, don't be this person.

Sacks happen, they are unavoidable. This is spelt out by the Targ protagonist of the series

She was pleased. Meereen had been sacked savagely, as new-fallen cities always were, but Dany was determined that should end now that the city was hers. She had decreed that murderers were to be hanged, that looters were to lose a hand, and rapists their manhood.

In a sack all parties are involved, this is as true in real life history as it is in GRRM's fictional universe.

"And who will protect us from my guards?" The queen gave Osfryd a sideways look. "Loyal sellswords are rare as virgin whores. If the battle is lost, my guards will trip on those crimson cloaks in their haste to rip them off. They'll steal what they can and flee, along with the serving men, washerwomen, and stableboys, all out to save their own worthless hides. Do you have any notion what happens when a city is sacked, Sansa? No, you wouldn't, would you? All you know of life you learned from singers, and there's such a dearth of good sacking songs."
"True knights would never harm women and children." The words rang hollow in her ears even as she said them.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if the castle should fall?"
"You'd like that, wouldn't you?" Cersei did not wait for a denial. "If I'm not betrayed by my own guards, I may be able to hold here for a time. Then I can go to the walls and offer to yield to Lord Stannis in person. That will spare us the worst. But if Maegor's Holdfast should fall before Stannis can come up, why then, most of my guests are in for a bit of rape, I'd say. And you should never rule out mutilation, torture, and murder at times like these."

 

Soldiers from both sides, as well as the common people (especially the criminal element) take advantage of the chaos a city being taken over brings.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

What Oberyn wants is evidences, he didn't want any confirmation nor he had any suspects, he wanted a tangible evidence that Tywin was behind it.

Exactly. Why would he need that if it was already known?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:
Have we seen any noble doubt about who killed the Elia and her children to say it's not public knowledge??
 

Is this your argument for everything?

How many nobles have questioned who killed Elia? Name them all?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yet enough, the Reach lords knew it, if they knew it it's safe to say it's the worst kept secret ever.

 

You mean Rowan suspected it. We don't know how many other Reach Lords knew or suspected. Can you list all the Reach nobles who knew the truth and the evidence from the books to back this up.

And, again, you are missing the point. It is now known. History has been changed and the only people who hang onto this are the Martells and the men who are known to be especially honourable, such as Ned and Rowan. What percentage of the population of Westeros know or even care about the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

During the rebellion why did the rebels reward the lannisters by sparing Jaime and giving Cersei a royal marriage ? Why did they let Tywin Lannister and his henchmen get away with their crimes, couldn't they atleast execute Gregor and amory lorch ? Wouldn't it taint Robert's throne and the rebels cause with the murder of innocent mother and children ? 

 

15 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Might be because they feared him. You don’t want to be on the bad side of a guy like Tywin Lannister, with his wealth and ability to intimidate. He also has The Mountain at his disposal, a man who can chop someone in two and squeeze a head until it explodes. He could pay any assassin to kill you for crossing him. Also, the rebels probably knew/believed that the Targaryens had to go, and it just so happened that the Westermen did it and Robert didn’t have to; Robert had no problem killing his kinsman Rhaegar.

On the other hand, I would not call being married to Robert a reward.

Political reasons.  Tywin was not initially open to rebellion.  In other words, he was not part of the pact.  They needed his support of the fledgling Baratheon reign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You've not done a great job of it.

How can Robert be secure in House Lannister's loyalty a year after he is coronated?

Perhaps because the House Lannister had killed more Targs than he ever did.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, we have a quote of Tywin not wanting Robert as an enemy after the war. If Robert had secured a marriage with a Hightower, Tyrell or even bride from a foreign power then Tywin is out in the cold.

Rebellions happen, frequently to new kings who have usurped their power. Robert, even two decades later, is worried about the realm rebelling against him

"There are still those in the Seven Kingdoms who call me Usurper. Do you forget how many houses fought for Targaryen in the war? They bide their time for now, but give them half a chance, they will murder me in my bed, and my sons with me. If the beggar king crosses with a Dothraki horde at his back, the traitors will join him."

He needed to secure a powerful alliance, Tywin was a powerful alliance. But Robert could not take their alliance for granted anymore than the Targs did.  Aerys thought Tywin was loyal to him, do you not see a lesson there?

We have a quote from Tywin not only saying that he did what he did so to everyone had clear he was Robert's man from then on and he had forever forsaken any ties he might have with the Targs.

Robert two decades later is worried about some people still calling him usurper rebel, ofc, rebellions happens, be it a conqueror or a usurper, a new dynasty is going to face rebellions, Robert is worried that some might  rebel against him.

He needed a powerful alliance and he needed to make sure that those who opposed him didn't have any incentive to do it again forming an alliance with those who oppossed and securing their loyalty is more profitable than securing the alliance of someone who already is on your boat.

Aerys feared Tywin throughout the whole conflict and the years prior, he didn't think he was the most loyal of his vassals and at the end a desperate mad man was tricked into opening his gates,hardly the same situation.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

They are not the only options. We see in the War of the Five Kings that it is never just a case of just two options.

And yeah, the Targs were still an option. They'd hardly be the first Pretender to forgive a former enemy if it meant a change at regaining the Throne.

Alliances are often fluid, look at Goodbrook, one of Edmure's closest friends despite Hoster murdering his father.

They were, since no one in the south had any separatists ideas, any of the claimants wanting to sit on the Iron Throne last name was either Baratheon or Targaryen, not even the Martells were interested in secesion and Ned had Robert back, so the Noth is also out, the only one who did have secesionist dreams and tried to achieve it was Balon.

Forgive an enemy?? Sure, forgive the Baratheons and the Lannisters, i think that the Starks should be on the list too.

Deaths in wars always happen and even if difficult can be solved, treason, deception and the likes are far more personal tho.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well I'd disagree with you here and so would history. If regaining the Throne meant making an alliance with House Lannister then Viserys would have done so in a heartbeat.

 

Only to kill him later if he ever were to trust him, history is full of contradictory events, picking only the one that suits you is rather pointless. And certainly Viserys would not forget Tywin and Jaime's role in his father fall.

 

Quote

Not at all. Please provide these words, because it seems you may be misreading them.

He says it is more than a temporary alliance? That he can never pick another side, or even independence or some other form of opposition? Can you quote him on this one rather than imply he said something, which I'm pretty sure he did not.

It might serve, Tyrion had to concede, but the snake will not be happy. "Far be it from me to question your cunning, Father, but in your place I do believe I'd have let Robert Baratheon bloody his own hands."
Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. 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. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing.

 

Tywin makes perfectly clear that there was no going back to the Targs for him and that he did what he did to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert's cause.

 

Quote

If Tywin and Mace form an alliance then all of a sudden Robert's crown looks very vulnerable. If they both decide they don't want to pay taxes or offer military assistance to Robert then his throne becomes a target for others.

 If Tywin and Mace form and alliance they would still have to contend with Robert's one and old Jon is ratheer clear than his only concern are the Targs. Who others?? The Martells going after both Tywin and Robert?? Or Robert's alliance which sat him on the Throne??

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin says this? I think not.

Why does Tywin accept the marriage of a Tyrell to Tommen? Why does he suggest that Cersei marry Loras? Because alliances need to be maintained.

Tywin, more so than any other character, knows the value in maintaining alliances. That just because the Tyrells fought Stannis on the Blackwater, does not mean that if they are not kept sweet they could not become an ally of Stannis in the future.

Tywin says he was proving his loyalty, Tywin accept the marriage with a Tyrell to Tommen, didn't that bethrothal happened when he died?? The man was trying to marry Margaerys with Jaime iirc, because the Lannister-Tyrell alliance was entirely based in a marriage one, no marriage no alliance and because the Tyrells were the only reason the Lannisters had an edge over their enemies, they needed them desperatly.

And it's not the same fighting an enemy in battle than using deceptive murder and betrayal.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

For how long would Tywin be in the Baratheon camp?

How long was he in the Targ camp when Aerys married his son to a Martell?

Since we know that the man still wanted to be called to serve as Hand prior the Bells, i'd say that still a while, but you're acting as if only the broken bethrothal was the only reason Tywin left the Targ camp.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge exaggeration.

Quote

Not at all.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You do know what that means right? Civil war, a literal fractured Westeros.

Quote

And united one when the war's done, i really don't understand this.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, it does. A new King who just usurped the Throne can not afford to make enemies of the most powerful Lords in the realm. He needs to forge strong, long-lasting alliances with them.

 

But why on earth would Robert be making a enemy there?? Tywin acted on his own, without hoping to receive any marriage in reward, he didn't put any condition for his loyalty, so why would he be an enemy?? And why aren't more pressing the Reach lords whose army, navy and wealth would give everyone pause??

A new King who just usurped the Throne need to gain the most powerful lords in the realm, not on his side.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Except it was not. Aerys thought it was sure, do you not think there is a lesson to be learned there?

Quote

Yeah, never trust a guy you've been messing with for a decade, who you suspects that tried to kill you, whose wife you may have abused and whom you were terrified with right until the moment he showed up on your gates.

I don't think however that Aerys had a reason to doubt Tywin's loyalty in their youth.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The priority was a powerful alliance, as I hav repeated multiple times in this thread, it matters little if it was Lannister, Tyrell or Hightower.

However, you are demonstrably wrong about a Reach house being the priority because one Reach House does not guarantee all the Reach. Tywin guaranteed all of the Westerlands.

And since Tywin's loyalty was something he was offering in exchange of nothing, the Reach loyalist should be a more pressing concern, Robert don't need all the Reach so his throne might be secured, he only needs that all the Reach don't join the first Targ pretender who happens to be there so his throne might be secured, breaking the loyalist in the south when they are stronger, by forming an alliance with the Hightowers would certainly give pause to  any loyalist talk in the south.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Was Hightower willing to forge an alliance with Robert?

Did he have an available daughter who was of an age to procreate?

Please answer these.

You should also rea what i wrote, i already told to you that the opinion Leyton might have of Robert is a good point, unlikely that he didn't want to marry his daughter to the king but a good point nonetheless.

But Leyton at least have Malora Hightower's hand to offer to Robert.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What do you think that sentence means? It means what it says. Only a few people knew the truth. Some may have heard the rumours, or suspected. They would be the minority of the population of Westeros.

Quote

Ofc, if we count smallfolk, do you know about people who really didn't know or have conflicting sources about what had happened there??  Unless Tywin gift was offered to Robert, old Jon and Ned alone, there would a huge amount of high lords and soldiers there to later spread the truth. But sure, i don't doubt that a fisherman  from White Harbor knows nothing.

Overall you keep thinking that having proof of something is the only way of knowing something

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You keep on saying Reach lords plural? Name all of them who knew the truth?

And suspecting something, is not the same as knowing something. Again, sorry to be condescending, but you do understand this, right?

I can name the only ones who we are shown, Redwyne, Rowan and Tyrell, i find unconvincing that what they may know or suspect, the other reach lords don't, especially having in mind they were all in the Stormlands.

Suspecting something, knowing something and having evidence of something is not the same, you're not condescending you're right, the fact that the Reach lords may or may not know what happened there don't mean or even imply they have evidence of it.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What? Come on, don't be this person.

Sacks happen, they are unavoidable. This is spelt out by the Targ protagonist of the series

She was pleased. Meereen had been sacked savagely, as new-fallen cities always were, but Dany was determined that should end now that the city was hers. She had decreed that murderers were to be hanged, that looters were to lose a hand, and rapists their manhood.

In a sack all parties are involved, this is as true in real life history as it is in GRRM's fictional universe.

"And who will protect us from my guards?" The queen gave Osfryd a sideways look. "Loyal sellswords are rare as virgin whores. If the battle is lost, my guards will trip on those crimson cloaks in their haste to rip them off. They'll steal what they can and flee, along with the serving men, washerwomen, and stableboys, all out to save their own worthless hides. Do you have any notion what happens when a city is sacked, Sansa? No, you wouldn't, would you? All you know of life you learned from singers, and there's such a dearth of good sacking songs."
"True knights would never harm women and children." The words rang hollow in her ears even as she said them.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if the castle should fall?"
"You'd like that, wouldn't you?" Cersei did not wait for a denial. "If I'm not betrayed by my own guards, I may be able to hold here for a time. Then I can go to the walls and offer to yield to Lord Stannis in person. That will spare us the worst. But if Maegor's Holdfast should fall before Stannis can come up, why then, most of my guests are in for a bit of rape, I'd say. And you should never rule out mutilation, torture, and murder at times like these."

 

Soldiers from both sides, as well as the common people (especially the criminal element) take advantage of the chaos a city being taken over brings.

I should have explain myself better, we don't hear nothing about a Targ loyalist going crazy in the sack, only bout the defending themselves and the Lannisters butchering them and causing mayhem, but i don't understand the point of this either, isn't Tywin responsible of the Sack in your mind then??

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Exactly. Why would he need that if it was already known?

Quote

Because he needs to prove their guilt.

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Is this your argument for everything?

How many nobles have questioned who killed Elia? Name them all?

For now it is yes.

How many nobles were shown to care about the Elia incident and doubted that Tywin had a hand in there?? How many nobles believe the alternative versions, if there are  any because we didn't hear them until twoiaf which was written and rewritten in Tommen's reign,

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You mean Rowan suspected it. We don't know how many other Reach Lords knew or suspected. Can you list all the Reach nobles who knew the truth and the evidence from the books to back this up.

 And, again, you are missing the point. It is now known. History has been changed and the only people who hang onto this are the Martells and the men who are known to be especially honourable, such as Ned and Rowan. What percentage of the population of Westeros know or even care about the truth?

 

There are only three Reach lords who had shown any knowledge or interest on the matter, Rowan, Redwyne and Tyrell, none of them show that they have any doubts about what happened.

History has been changed you say, but we never hear about Elia killing himself in the saga, nrwe hear about Aerys killing her children, all we hear about is Tywin and Gregor.

I agree that mostof Westeros don't give a damn and that is true for the great majorityof the lords, i disagree however that people don't know it, unless ifc you count the people who either have not pronounced on the matter or don't care as people who don't know. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, frenin said:

Perhaps because the House Lannister had killed more Targs than he ever did.

You have ignored my question. Why do you constantly do that?

  • It is the Middle Ages, killing relatives was often overlooked if it meant gaining powerful alliances to try and win the Crown. The History of the War of the Roses is full of such alliances. Thomas Stanley, the man who many believe was responsible for the Death of the Princes in the Tower, was one such Lord.
  • What is stopping Tywin from rebelling himself or joining another faction?

You ignored my question, so I will ask it again, how can Robert and Jon be secure that Tywin abandon their cause like he did Aerys?

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

We have a quote from Tywin not only saying that he did what he did so to everyone had clear he was Robert's man from then on and he had forever forsaken any ties he might have with the Targs.

Yes. I know that. How does that answer any of my points I asked of you?

Two questions

  1. How long does this last for precisely? In your opinion?
  2. Did Tywin reveal this to Jon Arryn? Is Jon Arryn psychic?
3 hours ago, frenin said:

Robert two decades later is worried about some people still calling him usurper rebel, ofc, rebellions happens, be it a conqueror or a usurper, a new dynasty is going to face rebellions, Robert is worried that some might  rebel against him.

Why are you repeating what I have just said?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

He needed a powerful alliance and he needed to make sure that those who opposed him didn't have any incentive to do it again forming an alliance with those who oppossed and securing their loyalty is more profitable than securing the alliance of someone who already is on your boat.

Except they have no idea how long Tywin would be on ' their boat' for.

The question was why the marriage happened. I quoted why Jon Arryn suggested the marriage. Where in the books is it claimed that Jon Arryn took Tywin's alliance for granted?

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Aerys feared Tywin throughout the whole conflict and the years prior, he didn't think he was the most loyal of his vassals and at the end a desperate mad man was tricked into opening his gates,hardly the same situation.

How is it not?

Is Tywin trustworthy in your opinion? Please answer this one

3 hours ago, frenin said:

They were, since no one in the south had any separatists ideas,

Well that is a lie. We know a Baratheon in the recent past had rebelled, we know some Lords in Dorne had desires of independence in multiple Vulture wars. The Ironborn also had desires of independence.

And more importantly, no Baratheon had ever toppled the Targs before and became King. Just because something had not happened before does not mean it could not. You get that right?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

any of the claimants wanting to sit on the Iron Throne last name was either Baratheon or Targaryen,

And yet there was two kings in the war of the Five Kings who were not called Baratheon or Targaryn. You know that, right?

This is what happens when a Kingdom is usurped, more factions think they can do the same. I have been trying to explain this to you and for some reason you refuse to listen. Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon was right to be worried of a fractured kingdom, the events of the series proves. How do you still not get this?

You are like some flat earther who refuses to believe the earth is round unless you can see for yourself. Jon Arryn could see the political landscape. Most people reading the books and have a rudimentary understanding of history can also see this. Robert, by taking the Throne away from the Targaryens, had fundamentally changed what Westeros was and could be.

Tywin had already betrayed one King. Nothing was stopping him from doing the same again.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

not even the Martells were interested in secesion and Ned had Robert back, so the Noth is also out, the only one who did have secesionist dreams and tried to achieve it was Balon.

Two questions

  1. Are all the characters immortal?
  2. Are the characters incapable of change?

Your whole opinion is flawed. The characters may all have that opinion in 283. No one knows what they will be thinking in 286, 295 or 300.

Jon Arryn wanted to secure a long term peace, he wanted Robert to align with the most powerful House in the realm. I will repeat myself for the 5th time to you, Hightower and Tyrell would also have been acceptable, but no more so than the Lannisters.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Forgive an enemy?? Sure, forgive the Baratheons and the Lannisters, i think that the Starks should be on the list too.

Sorry, what does this even mean?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Deaths in wars always happen and even if difficult can be solved, treason, deception and the likes are far more personal tho.

What does this even mean? You are making zero points here. Can you stop being vague and make points that have meaning rather than generic statements that no one is arguing against.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Only to kill him later if he ever were to trust him, history is full of contradictory events, picking only the one that suits you is rather pointless. And certainly Viserys would not forget Tywin and Jaime's role in his father fall.

Could he not? Is this the same guy who was willing to sell his own sister into slavery to get a Crown?

It is more than clear that Viserys would do anything to win back the Throne.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Tywin makes perfectly clear that there was no going back to the Targs for him and that he did what he did to demonstrate his loyalty to Robert's cause.

Do you take 'forever' literally?

Tyrion was working with Aegon, is planning on working with Dany.  Forever is a figure of speech. You get that, right?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

 If Tywin and Mace form and alliance they would still have to contend with Robert's one and old Jon is ratheer clear than his only concern are the Targs. Who others?? The Martells going after both Tywin and Robert?? Or Robert's alliance which sat him on the Throne??

What?

If the Reach and Westerlands decide to become independent, and the likes of the Ironborn and Dorne follow suit then Westeros is no more.

These are the sort of possibilities that Jon Arryn was trying to avoid.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Tywin says he was proving his loyalty, Tywin accept the marriage with a Tyrell to Tommen,

Yes. Exactly. Because even though the marriage was agreed to Joffrey, he knew that he needed to keep the Tyrells on side. He was not an idiot. Jon Arryn was not an idiot. They did not take alliances for granted.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

didn't that bethrothal happened when he died?? The man was trying to marry Margaerys with Jaime iirc, because the Lannister-Tyrell alliance was entirely based in a marriage one, no marriage no alliance and because the Tyrells were the only reason the Lannisters had an edge over their enemies, they needed them desperatly.

Bingo! The same goes for Robert and the Lannisters.

Without the Lannisters (or Tyrells, or Hightowers) the rebel King Robert has no edge over his potential enemies.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

And it's not the same fighting an enemy in battle than using deceptive murder and betrayal.

No one claimed it was exactly the same. Please answer the question and stop trying to avoid it.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Since we know that the man still wanted to be called to serve as Hand prior the Bells, i'd say that still a while, but you're acting as if only the broken bethrothal was the only reason Tywin left the Targ camp.

No I am not. I have not said that or even suggested that was the only reason.

Why ignore my question and invent a strawman argument?  Stop deflecting every question you are asked.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Not at all.

A little bit more is needed than that. Why are you wasting both of our time when you can't even answer simple questions?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

And united one when the war's done, i really don't understand this.

No shit.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

But why on earth would Robert be making a enemy there?? Tywin acted on his own, without hoping to receive any marriage in reward, he didn't put any condition for his loyalty, so why would he be an enemy??

Time does not cease after that war. You do understand that, right?

Jon Arryn is concerned with keeping Robert's throne. Marrying Robert to the most daughter of the most powerful Lord in the realm helps do that. Tywin and Aerys were once best friends. Times change.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

And why aren't more pressing the Reach lords whose army, navy and wealth would give everyone pause??

We have no idea if they are even an option.  Do you know if they were an option? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

A new King who just usurped the Throne need to gain the most powerful lords in the realm, not on his side.

Some simple questions

  1. Were any such brides available from those Houses?
  2. Were they the right age for procreation in the short term?
  3. Were their Lords willing to make such an alliance with Robert at that time? 
  4. Do the Hightowers or Tyrells have the same control over their bannerman that Tywin did?
3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Yeah, never trust a guy you've been messing with for a decade, who you suspects that tried to kill you, whose wife you may have abused and whom you were terrified with right until the moment he showed up on your gates.

eh? What is the point of this?  How does this help your argument or disprove mine?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't think however that Aerys had a reason to doubt Tywin's loyalty in their youth.

Again? How does Aerys and Tywin's close friendship in their youth have any bearing on our conversation?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

And since Tywin's loyalty was something he was offering in exchange of nothing,

Short term, maybe, we have no idea longterm. You do understand this, right?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

the Reach loyalist should be a more pressing concern,

Not really. The Reach had surrendered. They'd lost men in the war and were historically divided. No one House could guarantee the entire Reach. House Lannister guaranteed the Westerlands.

Tywin guarantees an entire region. Mace, 18 years later, could not, what makes you think he was more competent during Robert's Rebellion? What makes you think Jon Arryn or Robert Baratheon had that much faith in Mace? Please answer these questions.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Robert don't need all the Reach so his throne might be secured,

So how does this make either Reach Lord any better than Tywin?

Tywin guarantees his region. Can you not see how Jon Arryn may have favoured this?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

he only needs that all the Reach don't join the first Targ pretender who happens to be there so his throne might be secured,

Not really. The Reach and Dorne hate each other. With the Westerlands behind the Crown he can expect that the Reach and Dorne will not unite.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

breaking the loyalist in the south when they are stronger, by forming an alliance with the Hightowers would certainly give pause to  any loyalist talk in the south.

Is there any part in the books that suggests that Jon Arryn thought this?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

You should also rea what i wrote, i already told to you that the opinion Leyton might have of Robert is a good point, unlikely that he didn't want to marry his daughter to the king but a good point nonetheless.

I did read your point. As i said in previous posts, I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Jon Arryn thought Cersei Lannister was the best option due to

  • Her House
  • Her age
  • Her appearance

You are arguing that Jon Arryn was wrong. Name the alternative women?

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

But Leyton at least have Malora Hightower's hand to offer to Robert.

  • How old is she? Had her child rearing years past her?
  • Was she someone attractive that Robert would want?
  • Would she want Robert?
  • Would her father?
  • What did Leyon bring to the table that was better than Tywin?

Please answer all these questions.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Ofc, if we count smallfolk,

Why would you not. When I said Westeros, what part of that statement made you think I was not talking about all of Westeros?

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

do you know about people who really didn't know or have conflicting sources about what had happened there??

I asked you first. Don't deflect a question. Name all the characters who knew about who ordered the death of those Royal children?

You originally claimed it was common knowledge, prove it?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

  Unless Tywin gift was offered to Robert, old Jon and Ned alone, there would a huge amount of high lords

Don't be vague. How many is huge in your opinion. How many soldiers and lords do you think was present? Where do you think this took place?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

and soldiers there to later spread the truth. But sure, i don't doubt that a fisherman  from White Harbor knows nothing.

Do you think all the nobility in White harbour know?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Overall you keep thinking that having proof of something is the only way of knowing something

Stop dodging questions. If you have no proof then just say so rather than continually deflect questions.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

 

I can name the only ones who we are shown, Redwyne, Rowan and Tyrell,

We don't even know if they know. Tyrion thinks they might, we have no idea.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

i find unconvincing that what they may know or suspect, the other reach lords don't, especially having in mind they were all in the Stormlands.

All of them? Where is that said?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Suspecting something, knowing something and having evidence of something is not the same, you're not condescending you're right, the fact that the Reach lords may or may not know what happened there don't mean or even imply they have evidence of it.

Entirely my point.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

I should have explain myself better, we don't hear nothing about a Targ loyalist going crazy in the sack,

We don't hear any Lannister loyalist going crazy during the sack either, do we?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

only bout the defending themselves and the Lannisters butchering them and causing mayhem,

Nope. You have invented that part.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

but i don't understand the point of this either, isn't Tywin responsible of the Sack in your mind then??

The city was going to be sacked no matter what. Sacks are unavoidable and they are down to attacking army.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Because he needs to prove their guilt.

To who? What do you think is going to happen?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

How many nobles were shown to care about the Elia incident and doubted that Tywin had a hand in there?? How many nobles believe the alternative versions, if there are  any because we didn't hear them until twoiaf which was written and rewritten in Tommen's reign,

 

Sorry, once again you've avoided answering a question by askin another one.

I will gladly answer your question though.

  1. None to our knowledge
  2. We have no idea

See, that is pretty easy. Now can you answer all the questions in this post and all the ones you avoided in my original reply.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

There are only three Reach lords who had shown any knowledge or interest on the matter, Rowan, Redwyne and Tyrell, none of them show that they have any doubts about what happened.

eh? How have you came to that conclusion?

We have zero idea if Redwyne and Tyrell have heard the rumours or even care. What are you basing your position on?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

History has been changed you say, but we never hear about Elia killing himself in the saga, nrwe hear about Aerys killing her children, all we hear about is Tywin and Gregor.

But we do hear about Elia being killed by other people. So I'm confused about your point.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

I agree that mostof Westeros don't give a damn and that is true for the great majorityof the lords, i disagree however that people don't know it, unless ifc you count the people who either have not pronounced on the matter or don't care as people who don't know.

eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

You have ignored my question. Why do you constantly do that?

  • It is the Middle Ages, killing relatives was often overlooked if it meant gaining powerful alliances to try and win the Crown. The History of the War of the Roses is full of such alliances. Thomas Stanley, the man who many believe was responsible for the Death of the Princes in the Tower, was one such Lord.
  • What is stopping Tywin from rebelling himself or joining another faction?

You ignored my question, so I will ask it again, how can Robert and Jon be secure that Tywin abandon their cause like he did Aerys?

I didn't, I flat out tell you because Tywin had killed a lot of Targs, so him turning cloak is far less likely than say a powerful loyalist who has been remained a loyalist through the whole war. Btw in Westeroskinslaying is not overlooked.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. I know that. How does that answer any of my points I asked of you?

Two questions

  1. How long does this last for precisely? In your opinion?
  2. Did Tywin reveal this to Jon Arryn? Is Jon Arryn psychic?

Because apparently you don't like what it says, if not those points you wouldn't have a problem seeing that the whole point was answered.

  1. No alliance is eternal but Tywin pretty much closed the Targ door.
  2. Don't know why the strawman, i never said that Tywin told to old Jon, I said that old Jon should have used both Robert and Stannis matches better than he did.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Why are you repeating what I have just said?

Quote

I didn't i corrected it, Robert is not worried that the Realm raises against him, he's worried for some houses doing it,

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Except they have no idea how long Tywin would be on ' their boat' for.

The question was why the marriage happened. I quoted why Jon Arryn suggested the marriage. Where in the books is it claimed that Jon Arryn took Tywin's alliance for granted?

They certainly knew that the south wasn't on their board, getting your foes on your board is a much pressing urgent than appeasing someone who has declared for you and is not asking nothing in exchange.

And is clear that old Jon didn't take Tywin for granted, that's why he did that, why are you even discussing this?? 

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

How is it not?

Is Tywin trustworthy in your opinion? Please answer this one

Because neither Robert and his allies had a bitter feud with Tywin, nor were they mad men, nor Tywin had treated to killed them before, nor they had abused of Tywin's wife.

As trustworthy as Mace.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Well that is a lie. We know a Baratheon in the recent past had rebelled, we know some Lords in Dorne had desires of independence in multiple Vulture wars. The Ironborn also had desires of independence.

And more importantly, no Baratheon had ever toppled the Targs before and became King. Just because something had not happened before does not mean it could not. You get that right?

 I love how i talk about the current times and you just start talking about 30 years back in time and 200 years back in time, if i told that Westeros wasn't outraged with Targ incest anymore you would call me liar because during the first decades of their dynasty they were.

At the moment of Robert's ascension, the only one who had separatist ideas was Balon, not even in Dorne there was talk about secesion, there was talk about raising the Targ banner.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

And yet there was two kings in the war of the Five Kings who were not called Baratheon or Targaryn. You know that, right?

This is what happens when a Kingdom is usurped, more factions think they can do the same. I have been trying to explain this to you and for some reason you refuse to listen. Jon Arryn and Robert Baratheon was right to be worried of a fractured kingdom, the events of the series proves. How do you still not get this?

You are like some flat earther who refuses to believe the earth is round unless you can see for yourself. Jon Arryn could see the political landscape. Most people reading the books and have a rudimentary understanding of history can also see this. Robert, by taking the Throne away from the Targaryens, had fundamentally changed what Westeros was and could be.

Tywin had already betrayed one King. Nothing was stopping him from doing the same again.

 

  • Neither of those two King wanted the Iron Throne.
  • So, Egg must've been  usurper then, because Lyonel crowned himself in his rebellion, so was Aenys when Jonos rebelled. Those factions did the same because there was a mad cruel king on the Throne and they just don't want to live under his rule, it's not about people believing there is free rain, but people refusing to live under a tyrant, since the Greyjoys had been rebelling and reaving in everytime they sensed a weak Westeros i don't think this applies.
  • I was about to answer this but even when i usuallly ignore your insults and condescendence, this upset me a little.
  • The fact that the other dynasty would want his head on a spike.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Two questions

  1. Are all the characters immortal?
  2. Are the characters incapable of change?

Your whole opinion is flawed. The characters may all have that opinion in 283. No one knows what they will be thinking in 286, 295 or 300.

Jon Arryn wanted to secure a long term peace, he wanted Robert to align with the most powerful House in the realm. I will repeat myself for the 5th time to you, Hightower and Tyrell would also have been acceptable, but no more so than the Lannisters.

  1. No, are all the characters wanting to secede??
  2. Yes and why would they want to secede?? Or, because characters change.

Characters like people may change their minds but that kind of thoughts usually had been there for a long while, Greatjon didn't woke some day and decided he wanted the North independant, so if a character never has shown an interest for secesion is not likely that sai characters would have them later unless something shocking happened, but if we are entering in this slippery slope, then everything might happened from good to bad because people die or change their minds, no matter how unlikely it sounds.

I will repeatt myself to the 5th to you,  both Tyrells and Hightowers were more convenient than the Lannisters.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Sorry, what does this even mean?

Quote

Lannisters, Baratheons and Starks, the main leaders of the Robellion were out of the forgiving zone.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

What does this even mean? You are making zero points here. Can you stop being vague and make points that have meaning rather than generic statements that no one is arguing against.

Quote

Vague?? It's not the same Hoster facing Goodbrok in combat and killing him that Hoster inviting Goodbrok to his home and killing him. First is fotgivable because shit happens in war, the second is not.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Could he not? Is this the same guy who was willing to sell his own sister into slavery to get a Crown?

It is more than clear that Viserys would do anything to win back the Throne.

It's more than clear than Viserys would anything to get the Throne and to get back at those who disposed him and betray his family.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Do you take 'forever' literally?

Tyrion was working with Aegon, is planning on working with Dany.  Forever is a figure of speech. You get that, right?

Is Tyrion Tywin?? Or are you saying that the sins of the fathers are also the sins of the sons??

Did Dany even talk about how despicable is the dwarf son of Tywin Lannister or how obnoxious the son of the Cold hearted Ned Stark might be??

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

What?

If the Reach and Westerlands decide to become independent, and the likes of the Ironborn and Dorne follow suit then Westeros is no more.

These are the sort of possibilities that Jon Arryn was trying to avoid.

The only possibility old Jon was trying to avoid was the possibility of Viseryss getting back his father's throne, he don't say anything about Westeros becoming 5 Kingdoms.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Exactly. Because even though the marriage was agreed to Joffrey, he knew that he needed to keep the Tyrells on side. He was not an idiot. Jon Arryn was not an idiot. They did not take alliances for granted.

Bingo! The same goes for Robert and the Lannisters.

Quote

Because without the marriage, there was no alliance, the Tyrells didn't pledge to the Lannister in exchange of nothing, like Tywin did do with Robert, they were bought with a marriage, without marriage, there simply was no alligiance.

Tywin however, killed royalties, specifically to prove his loyalty to Robert, he was expecting nothing, he  demanded nothing (as the Tyrells did do), this is like apples to oranges. If Tywin were to be bought before the Trident, then the situation would apply, he wasn't.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

No I am not. I have not said that or even suggested that was the only reason.

Why ignore my question and invent a strawman argument?  Stop deflecting every question you are asked.

I'm not deflecting anything, you're acting as if the context didn't matter, Tywin had a very personal vendetta with Tywin but even then he was ready to answer his call until the robellion got serious.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Time does not cease after that war. You do understand that, right?

Jon Arryn is concerned with keeping Robert's throne. Marrying Robert to the most daughter of the most powerful Lord in the realm helps do that. Tywin and Aerys were once best friends. Times change.

But that wasn't what you were implying was it?? You were implying that not marrying Robert to Tywin's daughter would make him Robert's enemy, we have absolutely zero reasons to believe that. time don't cease after that war, marrying Robert to Aerys most powerful loyalists helps to make sure that any Targ is going to receive much help, if any, of their earlier zones of influence.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

We have no idea if they are even an option.  Do you know if they were an option? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Quote

Why wouldn't they be an option?? If they all had sworn fealty to Robert, the idea that they wouln't want to marry their daughters to him is far fetched.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Some simple questions

  1. Were any such brides available from those Houses?
  2. Were they the right age for procreation in the short term?
  3. Were their Lords willing to make such an alliance with Robert at that time? 
  4. Do the Hightowers or Tyrells have the same control over their bannerman that Tywin did?

 

  1.  Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. We don't have any reason to believe they weren't.
  4. We don't know.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

eh? What is the point of this?  How does this help your argument or disprove mine?

Quote

You keep ignoring their background to just conclude that Tywin betraye him.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Short term, maybe, we have no idea longterm. You do understand this, right?

Quote

And do you understand that Robert didn't have the Reach alligiance not even short term??

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Not really. The Reach had surrendered. They'd lost men in the war and were historically divided. No one House could guarantee the entire Reach. House Lannister guaranteed the Westerlands.

Tywin guarantees an entire region. Mace, 18 years later, could not, what makes you think he was more competent during Robert's Rebellion? What makes you think Jon Arryn or Robert Baratheon had that much faith in Mace? Please answer these questions.

We don't hear that no Reach lord stayed put and didn't obey Mace, just as during the beginning of the War, the whole Reach is behind Mace and Renly.

Robert didn't need the Reach were behind him, he needed they weren't behind Viserys and he needed breaking the hold the Targs still had over themm marrying them achieved that, marrying someone who had killed the royal princes in your name, didn't.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Not really. The Reach and Dorne hate each other. With the Westerlands behind the Crown he can expect that the Reach and Dorne will not unite.

Quote

Can he?? The Reach and Dorne hate each other but they would hate more the usurper and both would have reasons to plot against him and especially Dorne wouldn't reject any help.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Is there any part in the books that suggests that Jon Arryn thought this?

Quote

No, we  are only said he was worried about Viserys return.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

I did read your point. As i said in previous posts, I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Jon Arryn thought Cersei Lannister was the best option due to

  • Her House
  • Her age
  • Her appearance

You are arguing that Jon Arryn was wrong. Name the alternative women?

Jon Arryn never talks about Cersei being the best option due her age and beauty, Cersei could've looked like Seylse that the man would've get Robert to marry her.

And about the alternative woman, Malora Hightower was perfect.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:
  • How old is she? Had her child rearing years past her?
  • Was she someone attractive that Robert would want?
  • Would she want Robert?
  • Would her father?
  • What did Leyon bring to the table that was better than Tywin?

Please answer all these questions.

  • Malora was older than Alerie.
  • Robert didn't really care about that and what was necessary was an heir.
  • Would Cersei?? She went to her wedding resenting Robert for killing Rhaegar, as long as Malora didn't have a twin brother i think she'd do.
  • We have no info about that, but giving that Leyton bent the knee and six years hhe allowed Jorah to marry his daughter, i find hard to believe he wouldn't want.
  • Leyton was tied with several powerful houses in the Reach, including the Tyrells,  who would not support the Targs giving the case, he aso counted with the power and wealth of Oldtown

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Why would you not. When I said Westeros, what part of that statement made you think I was not talking about all of Westeros?

Because usually when people talk about Westeros, they want to talk about the nobility.

 

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

I asked you first. Don't deflect a question. Name all the characters who knew about who ordered the death of those Royal children?

You originally claimed it was common knowledge, prove it?

I'm not deflecting anything, you're using the fallacy of ignorance here, every character who have talked or implied those events, knew perfectly who were behind that, no one had any doubts.

If you're saying that npcs don't know about it, that's hardly a prove.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Don't be vague. How many is huge in your opinion. How many soldiers and lords do you think was present? Where do you think this took place?

Quote

It took place in the Throne room, so every soldier and lord who fit in there, Ned's soldiers and the Lannisters were able to be there, so with only 100 people there, the tale would spread like fire.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Do you think all the nobility in White harbour know?

Quote

Yes.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Stop dodging questions. If you have no proof then just say so rather than continually deflect questions.

Quote

Again, i'm not dodging nothing, you keep implying or saying that people don't know what happened there because they don't have proves, Oberyn knows what happened there, he's not expressing any doubt or crack, the only thing he lacks and the only reason he was there were evidences.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

We don't even know if they know. Tyrion thinks they might, we have no idea.

Quote

Then pretty much the point is moot, we're not moving from there.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

To who? What do you think is going to happen?

Quote

Don't know, don't care but if he didn't want evidence he would just killed Gregor, not keep asking him who told her to do it and try to make him confess.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Sorry, once again you've avoided answering a question by askin another one.

I will gladly answer your question though.

  1. None to our knowledge
  2. We have no idea

See, that is pretty easy. Now can you answer all the questions in this post and all the ones you avoided in my original reply.

Every npc character who talks or implies the Sack, blames Tywin but you want to use the absence of evidence to say that is not common knowledge and i don't buy it, we have yet to find characters who doubt about the version or even who offer more adequates version to believe so.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

eh? How have you came to that conclusion?

We have zero idea if Redwyne and Tyrell have heard the rumours or even care. What are you basing your position on?

I will bet everything that they don't give a damn, certainly Redwyne don't seem to care, but not caring is not the same of not knowing and given that neither Redwyne nor Tyrell were there, they certainly had to hear from someone.

 

On 11/26/2019 at 2:42 AM, Bernie Mac said:

But we do hear about Elia being killed by other people. So I'm confused about your point.

Quote

Do we?? The only one in universe who talk about Elia being killed by other people but Gregor is Tywin trying to frame Amory lorch iirc.

 

Quote

 

About the Sack, people in King's landing still blame Tywin 17 years later, they don't seem to think that it was their neighbours who went wild but yet again, we don't know much about that.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 10:54 PM, Mario Seddy said:

During the rebellion why did the rebels reward the lannisters by sparing Jaime and giving Cersei a royal marriage ? Why did they let Tywin Lannister and his henchmen get away with their crimes, couldn't they atleast execute Gregor and amory lorch ? Wouldn't it taint Robert's throne and the rebels cause with the murder of innocent mother and children ? 

Keep in mind that the Lannisters did the job that Robert didn't want to do himself. As Tywin once mused - Kings do not kill children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It demonstrates the moral corruption of Robert and Jon Arryn that they were willing to condone the murder of Elia and her children, and reward the perpetrator of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×