Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angel Eyes

Was Reynard Reyne’s cunning all a lie?

Recommended Posts

So Reynard Reyne’s cunning is widely spoken of, but it really seems misplaced since the only person he dupes is the infamously naive Tytos Lannister, while he tries to make a deal with Tywin with no leverage. Doesn’t sound like he’s smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said:

So Reynard Reyne’s cunning is widely spoken of, but it really seems misplaced since the only person he dupes is the infamously naive Tytos Lannister, while he tries to make a deal with Tywin with no leverage. Doesn’t sound like he’s smart.

We know literally next to nothing about the character and what he did in the 30-40 years of his life.

If historical records say he was known for his cunning we can assume there are reasons for that. It is a shorthand way for GRRM to give us some flavor to a minor character.

 

Also he had leverage. Castamere being flooded was not thought of as an option. He was under the impression that he could wait Tywin out, that them holding the Reynes under siege indefinitely would weaken them in the process.

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 3:26 AM, Angel Eyes said:

So Reynard Reyne’s cunning is widely spoken of, but it really seems misplaced since the only person he dupes is the infamously naive Tytos Lannister, while he tries to make a deal with Tywin with no leverage. Doesn’t sound like he’s smart.

He was so cunning you could stick a tail on him.....

...  I think this was George's hat-tipping towards Reynard the Fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 12:25 AM, Bernie Mac said:

We know literally next to nothing about the character and what he did in the 30-40 years of his life.

If historical records say he was known for his cunning we can assume there are reasons for that. It is a shorthand way for GRRM to give us some flavor to a minor character.

 

Also he had leverage. Castamere being flooded was not thought of as an option. He was under the impression that he could wait Tywin out, that them holding the Reynes under siege indefinitely would weaken them in the process.

It's also worth pointing out that cunning implies working within a system, whereas Tywin consistently engages in norm-violating behavior.  Basically everything he does during the conflict with the Reynes and Tarbecks is either illegal (i.e. raising his own armies and pursuing his own form of unsanctioned "justice", also known as being a brigand) or so far beyond the pale of what his society considers normal behavior (eradicating an entire House for basically not paying back a loan) that his contemporaries probably aren't prepared to deal with just how far he's willing to go.

 

Which again, is the point of Tywin Lannister's story.  He's not a genius, he's not a savvy politician, he's a person who thinks he's above things like "laws" and "traditions," and because of that attitude everything he's built on the back of murder and taboo-breaking will boomerang home and ruin the legacy he wanted to leave.  Yes, he crushed the Reynes and Tarbecks because he was willing to do things his peers considered horrific, but at the end of the day the very fact that he was that ruthless, that very attitude, is going to result in the destruction of his family.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

It's also worth pointing out that cunning implies working within a system, whereas Tywin consistently engages in norm-violating behavior.  Basically everything he does during the conflict with the Reynes and Tarbecks is either illegal (i.e. raising his own armies

Raising his own armies is not illegal. By all means quote a single person in the series who describe it as being illegal?

Robb raises a host, Edmure raises a host. This idea that sons of Great Lords can't raise hosts is clearly not something that is suggested in the books.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

and pursuing his own form of unsanctioned "justice", also known as being a brigand)

Again, you may be confusing your own headcannon for the 'laws' of Westeros.

No source suggests that Tywin raising his own armies and perusing Lords who rebelled is illegal.

There are two men who could call it illegal, his father Tytos, or the King of Westeros. Neither do so. In actual fact far from being seen as an illegal act, it seen as a commendable one as he basically becomes Hand on the back of it.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

or so far beyond the pale of what his society considers normal behavior (eradicating an entire House for basically not paying back a loan)

No, you are being disingenuous. They rebelled. They thought they could win, rebelled and lost.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

that his contemporaries probably aren't prepared to deal with just how far he's willing to go.

eh?

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

Which again, is the point of Tywin Lannister's story.  He's not a genius,

No one has claimed he is.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

he's not a savvy politician,

He clearly is. For the politics of his society he was more than savvy.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

he's a person who thinks he's above things like "laws" and "traditions,"

Yes. Much of the powerful Lords of the time think like that.

GRRM: The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

and because of that attitude everything he's built on the back of murder and taboo-breaking will boomerang home and ruin the legacy he wanted to leave. 

What is the legacy he wanted to leave?

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

Yes, he crushed the Reynes and Tarbecks because he was willing to do things his peers considered horrific,

No, they don't. His peers don't consider that horrific at all. His peers Houses and empires were built on similar actions. They don't look back at their ancestors in disgust.

 

3 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

 

but at the end of the day the very fact that he was that ruthless, that very attitude, is going to result in the destruction of his family. 

No. Two things

  • House Lannister is looking fine. A large and healthy house with plenty of intermarriages with their vassals means that they should be fine
  • His children are likely doomed, but not because Tywin was ruthless, but because the twins were idiotic enough to cuckold the King. Had Cersei had Robert's children House Lannister would be fine, regardless of Tywin's 'ruthlessness'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Raising his own armies is not illegal. By all means quote a single person in the series who describe it as being illegal?

Robb raises a host, Edmure raises a host. This idea that sons of Great Lords can't raise hosts is clearly not something that is suggested in the books.

Edmure raises a host in response to an invasion of his lands; moreover, his father is mentally incapacitated.  Robb raises a host to liberate his father from the grip of a tyrannical monarchy; his own father is likewise incapacitated.

Tytos Lannister has his wits about him; Tywin is raising troops against his lord's wishes and in order to pursue ends his father explicitly does not condone.  How is that so hard to understand?

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Again, you may be confusing your own headcannon for the 'laws' of Westeros.

No source suggests that Tywin raising his own armies and perusing Lords who rebelled is illegal.

You seem to have this assumption that Westeros is an absolute monarchy where the lords (and theoretically smallfolk) have no rights whatsoever, and owe their lives and freedoms to the person up the feudal food chain.  This isn't the case.  We see Tywin, in rapid succession, demand repayment of loans that aren't due to him, imprison innocent petitioners who protest this, and demand the capture and imprisonment of anyone who disagrees.  This is extremely similar to the circumstances around Robert's Rebellion, with the only difference being Tytos doesn't go full-Aerys and allow his son to dismember Walderan Tarbeck.

Mind you, those lords have their loans forgiven in the interim, so no crimes are committed and no further monies are owed.  This is common sense, and as we see in Robert's Rebellion, these kinds of actions are seen as voiding the feudal contract.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

There are two men who could call it illegal, his father Tytos, or the King of Westeros. Neither do so. In actual fact far from being seen as an illegal act, it seen as a commendable one as he basically becomes Hand on the back of it.

By a pyromaniac madman... that doesn't seem to support your point much.

And for the record, Tytos effectively does call it illegal.  He explicitly forgives the debts of the Tarbecks, which is an open rebuke to Tywin, and then refuses to endorse Tywin's actions.  The fact that he is then presented with a fait accompli, because there are no Reynes or Tarbecks left, is not the same as forgiving or endorsing it.  All of the evidence we have suggests that Tytos does not approve, and because this is relevant to the evidence we have, lets mention the source.  The World of Ice and Fire is ostensibly written by Maester Yandal, to Tommen, Tywin's grandson.  Of course it will refuse to condemn Tywin for his crimes - from a Watsonian perspective this is a given and needs to be accounted for.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

No, you are being disingenuous. They rebelled. They thought they could win, rebelled and lost.

Well, I won't disagree with this; this is a fact.  It's the motives that matter.  The Reynes and Tarbecks are justified in their rebellion, just the same as Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn are.  They're dealing with a counterparty who isn't acting in good faith, who is disregarding the rules and norms of their society and expecting compliance with no legal basis.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

No one has claimed he is.

He clearly is. For the politics of his society he was more than savvy.
 

Well this seems to be you claiming that he's a "more than savvy" politician.  Perhaps that doesn't rise to the level of genius, but still, most of the evidence we have is that Tywin Lannister wins by either acting contrary to the norms of his society and hoping to get away with it, or by authorial fiat.  If the needs of the story didn't dictate Robert dying, in an unrelated manner, at exactly the moment Tywin initiates the WOT5K, he'd have been slaughtered when he invaded the Riverlands.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Much of the powerful Lords of the time think like that.

GRRM: The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

This is not at all the same thing.  In the case of the Hornwood lands, the players involved are at least going through the motions.  People go to Winterfell to petition the Starks for the right to marry Donella Hornwood, they don't just show up and murder everyone and assert that it's theirs.  And the one guy who does  do that is explicitly shown to not only be among the most evil, immoral characters in the series (Ramsay), it doesn't work!  No one respects the fact of his forced sham marriage to take the Hornwood lands (which has some precedent in medieval history, and you'll note is again an action within the theoretical confines of "how things work"), and as a result Ramsay doesn't even have control; the Manderlys step in to keep him from getting away with it until a permanent settlement can be made, and Ramsay is hunted down like a criminal!  This cannot be stressed enough.  Yes, the Boltons are "getting away with it" through obvious subterfuge and force of arms, but from a moral sense, no one is buying it and they are considered to have done something illegal and worthy of punishment.  This can't be stressed enough.  Force of arms is all well and good, but we see in the Hornwood case that ignoring the legal rights and precedents involved means being attainted a criminal, not a "more than savvy" guy, and Ramsay doesn't even act as horrifically as Tywin does.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

No, they don't. His peers don't consider that horrific at all. His peers Houses and empires were built on similar actions. They don't look back at their ancestors in disgust.

We have no evidence that his peers don't consider it horrific.  What we know are what the normal responses to those situations are.  We know Robert is widely loved for his mercy, and Stannis disliked because of his perceived lack of same.  The very fact that most Houses have a history that stretches back thousands of years means that full-sale eradication of noble lineages is intensely frowned upon.  Especially when you consider that Tywin has no legal authority to be enforcing or precipitating those decisions; he is not a lord except by courtesy, and his father is in full control of his faculties - Tywin is in open rebellion against House Lannister as well.

On 4/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, Bernie Mac said:

No. Two things

  • House Lannister is looking fine. A large and healthy house with plenty of intermarriages with their vassals means that they should be fine
  • His children are likely doomed, but not because Tywin was ruthless, but because the twins were idiotic enough to cuckold the King. Had Cersei had Robert's children House Lannister would be fine, regardless of Tywin's 'ruthlessness'.

House Lannister is losing members left and right.  And while foreshadowing isn't evidence, it seems obvious to any reader that the ranks of the Lannisters are going to be further culled by the Red Wedding 2.0 and Cersei's folly.

And his children are doomed precisely because they are attempting to think as Tywin does.  You think Cersei is in trouble because the kids aren't Robert's?  Right now, Tommen and Joffrey before him should have had an unassailable position as king - with Stannis beaten on the Blackwater, and the Boltons in their camp, the Iron Throne should be in an unbeatable position.  Cersei is letting a winning hand slip through her fingers precisely because she is acting like Tywin.  She is internalizing the lesson Tywin Lannister left his children; that Lannisters are worth more, than everyone else is a species of sub-human.

Hell, look at what is going on within the family.  Kevan will only support Cersei if she leaves the capitol.  The whole realm is plunged into a destructive war on the eve of the apocalypse because Tywin got in a snit that he was "insulted".  His body literally rots on it's funeral bier, a pretty glaring example of authorial condemnation - Tywin's funeral is surrounded by the full pomp and circumstance of everything he sought in life; a Lannister king, to be buried in full Lannister regalia, etc, and yet the stench of his rotting body, an obvious analogue for his rotting legacy, drives his own son from the room retching.  And the regime he built is likewise collapsing, as grasping allies try their best to wrench what they can from what he's left behind

By contract, Ned Stark has multiple factions fighting at great personal risk to avenge him and place his descendants in their rightful place of power.  If you aren't understanding this, then you've missed the entire thematic point of Feast for Crows.  Tywin ruled through fear and ruthlessness, and so everything he worked for in life and achieved through those means is lost and more by his successors.  Ned Stark ruled through love and a kind of benevolent paternalism, and so his legacy is being fought for by people who might otherwise take the opportunity to seize more power for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 11:26 PM, cpg2016 said:

Edmure raises a host in response to an invasion of his lands;

Tywin does so in response to Lords declaring themselves rebels.

Can you quote from the books where one is legal and the other illegal? No one thinks either decision is illegal. No one suggests it. You've added your own fanfiction to something. Lets try not to do that, it wastes both of our time.

Quote

 

moreover, his father is mentally incapacitated. 

And? Who is aware of this? Certainly not the King or his Hand, or even his own family such as Cat.

Are you under the impression that Edmure's Lords and Ned would think what he was doing was illegal?

There is nothing illegal about raising an army in Westeros. Kevan, who is not even a Lord, is free to do this.

"I hold no lands, that is true. But I have certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside. My own father forgot none of his children when he died, and Tywin knew how to reward good service. I feed two hundred knights and can double that number if need be. There are freeriders who will follow my banner, and I have the gold to hire sellswords. You would be wise not to take me lightly, Your Grace . . . and wiser still not to make of me a foe."

'Reek' is not seen as doing something illegal when he promises to raise an army for Theon

"A hundred, might be. Two hundred. Maybe more." He smiled, his pale eyes glinting. "I was born up north here. I know many a man, and many a man knows Reek."

Nor is Benfred and his Wild Hares seen as doing anything illegal, stupid yes. But not illegal. This bizarre idea that raising armies is illegal in Westeros unless you are a Lord is not backed up in the series.

 

Quote

Robb raises a host to liberate his father from the grip of a tyrannical monarchy; his own father is likewise incapacitated.

eh? How is arresting someone for treason 'Tyranny'?

Why does he never mention this tyranny? Why was he okay with the monarchy before his father was arrested? A government his father was part of? Was Ned a part of the tyrannical monarchy?

Is it possible that you don't know what Tyranny means? And are just hoping no one picks on your hyperbolism?

Quote

Tytos Lannister has his wits about him; Tywin is raising troops against his lord's wishes

Woah there buddy? Against his wishes? Where is that said? Why does Tytos not punish him if this was illegal? Why does Jaehaerys II not punish him? Why does Edgar Sloane not act?

And anyone who is able to raise troops can raise troops. This is pointed out by Kevan Lannister to his niece the Queen.

 

Quote

 

and in order to pursue ends his father explicitly does not condone. 

Explicitly? Where is this claimed? Actually claimed, not you interpreting A to mean X.

If Tytos was explicitly against it, as Lord he has the power to do punish his son or his vassals who went along with his son. He does not and there is no suggestion from any source that he ever thought it illegal, that Tywin thought it illegal or that the lords and knights in Tywin's host thought it illegal. Nor does anyone come to that conclusion when listening to that song.

Quote

 

How is that so hard to understand?

I'm sorry dude, but your headcannon contradicts the text.

Why is there no mention of this illegality? Why is it actually celebrated in song?

Quote

You seem to have this assumption that Westeros is an absolute monarchy where the lords (and theoretically smallfolk) have no rights whatsoever, and owe their lives and freedoms to the person up the feudal food chain. 

Nope. Do you want to quote where I claimed that or do you now have a headcannon for what I think as well as the what GRRM has wrote about?

Try to stick to reality, not invent things to try and win an argument.

Quote

 

This isn't the case.  We see Tywin, in rapid succession, demand repayment of loans that aren't due to him,

They are due to his House. His father allows it, thus no crime.

Where in the books is it suggested that Tywin is breaking the law with his actions? Why would he allow Maesters to document this illegal activity for generations to come if what he did was seen as illegal?

Quote

 

imprison innocent petitioners who protest this,

Innocent how?

Quote

 

and demand the capture and imprisonment of anyone who disagrees. 

You mean people who refuse to pay their debts? Perfectly legal.

Quote

This is extremely similar to the circumstances around Robert's Rebellion,

In what way?

Quote

with the only difference being Tytos doesn't go full-Aerys and allow his son to dismember Walderan Tarbeck.

So not at all like it. Gotcha!

Quote

Mind you, those lords have their loans forgiven in the interim, so no crimes are committed and no further monies are owed.  This is common sense, and as we see in Robert's Rebellion, these kinds of actions are seen as voiding the feudal contract.

The feudal contract that Reyne and Tarbeck broke, you mean?

Quote

By a pyromaniac madman... that doesn't seem to support your point much.

eh? Aerys was not a pyromaniac when he appointed Tywin Hand?  Or was he in your fanfcition, I can't keep up?

And how does it not support my point? The Kings, both Jaehaerys and Aerys, had no issue with what Tywin did, nor it seems did his father.

Quote

And for the record, Tytos effectively does call it illegal. 

No, he does not. Stop making stuff up to suit your warped sense of what happened.

I've asked you before to quote where he suggests this and you refused. Why keep on making the same claim if you are never going to try and back it up?

Quote

 

He explicitly forgives the debts of the Tarbecks, which is an open rebuke to Tywin, and then refuses to endorse Tywin's actions. 

Two things,

  • only Tarbeck's debts, not the other Westerland lords.
  • this is evidence that Tytos did not like the escalation his son caused and was, in your own words, able to rebuke his son. He does no such thing for the later Reyne/Tarbeck rebellion, which suggests that he endorsed what happened, rather than rebuked it.

 

Quote

The fact that he is then presented with a fait accompli, because there are no Reynes or Tarbecks left, is not the same as forgiving or endorsing it. 

He's the Lord of the Westerlands. He can exile his son, like he did so when he was a child and sent him to Kings Landing.

There were probably other avenues he could have taken, he does not seem to have done any. When you can prove that he did so you may have a point. Otherwise you are just creating your own fanfiction.

Quote

All of the evidence we have suggests that Tytos does not approve,

Which evidence? Provide it? Don't endlessly waffle on and on about things you believe but refuse to back up.

And how does him not approving make it illegal?

Quote

 

and because this is relevant to the evidence we have, lets mention the source.  The World of Ice and Fire is ostensibly written by Maester Yandal, to Tommen, Tywin's grandson.  Of course it will refuse to condemn Tywin for his crimes - from a Watsonian perspective this is a given and needs to be accounted for.

Exactly!

If what he did was illegal he'd not allow these Maesters to writer it like that. He's not allow singers in the Westerlands to record it like that.

Instead Tywin is happy for the story to be told the way it is told. That, more than anything, suggests no official law was broken.

Quote

Well, I won't disagree with this; this is a fact.  It's the motives that matter.  The Reynes and Tarbecks are justified in their rebellion, just the same as Eddard and Robert and Jon Arryn are. 

No, they really are not.

The Reynes and Tarbecks stole land, caused chaos and murdered people as well as mocked their lord and encouraged others to refuse to obey him.

It is pretty dumb to compare them to Jon, Ned and Robert, all of whom did nothing wrong.  Either you are just unfamiliar with the source material or just lacking reason.

Quote

They're dealing with a counterparty who isn't acting in good faith, who is disregarding the rules and norms of their society and expecting compliance with no legal basis.

Again, where is your evidence for no legal basis?

Why don't they make their complaints to the King if it was illegal?

Quote

Well this seems to be you claiming that he's a "more than savvy" politician.

He is. By the standards in the series he is a more than savvy politician. To argue otherwise is to allow your emotions over a character you dislike to cloud your judgement.

Quote

This is not at all the same thing. 

Dude, the author gets to do what he wants. It is his sandbox. You don't get to tell him that he is wrong about something just because it upsets you.

Quote

We have no evidence that his peers don't consider it horrific. 

We have no evidence that they do. But you are the one making that claim.

Quote

 

What we know are what the normal responses to those situations are

There is no normal response as most cases are different. Various variables will dictate how a medieval problem is solved.

Quote

 

We know Robert is widely loved for his mercy,

No, Robert is loved for other things and some may have appreciated that quality, but you are going to have to provide evidence that was the reaoson he was 'widely loved'.

Quote

 

and Stannis disliked because of his perceived lack of same. 

Stannis seems to be disliked for his personality, not his lack of mercy.

The reason why some Lords may rebel if he was crowned is because of this perception, but that is not the reason is not liked.

Honestly, you come off as very disingenuous. Constant bad faith arguments.

Quote

House Lannister is losing members left and right. 

It is a pretty large House and they were just in the middle of a huge civil war. Of course they lost members, they are still in a very healthy position when it comes to living members.

Quote

And while foreshadowing isn't evidence, it seems obvious to any reader that the ranks of the Lannisters are going to be further culled by the Red Wedding 2.0 and Cersei's folly.

lol so why use it then? Why bring up what you think will happen as some kind of proof for your argument?

Quote

And his children are doomed precisely because they are attempting to think as Tywin does.

No, Jaime and Cersei were doomed for not thinking as he would have done. Their relationship does not strike me as something Tywin would have done.

 

Quote

 

  You think Cersei is in trouble because the kids aren't Robert's? 

Yup.

Quote

 

 

Hell, look at what is going on within the family.  Kevan will only support Cersei if she leaves the capitol.

They don't live in America. It is Capital.

Quote

 

 

By contract, Ned Stark has multiple factions fighting at great personal risk to avenge him and place his descendants in their rightful place of power.

Multiple factions fighting personally for Ned? Name them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...