Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mario Seddy

Did Tywin's decisions cause problems for Westeros?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Annalee said:

It increased the power of the Great Lords and decreased the power of the minor houses.  It would depend upon who you ask.  The Great Lords would say he helped bring on law and order.  The minor houses might say he took away their right to voice.

Are you talking about Castamere? Because if so you may be wrong about that, the Reynes and Tarbecks were using their power to bully smaller houses into giving up their lands. The general chaotic nature of the Westerlands meant that before Tywin intervened some smaller lords were changing allegiance to the Tyrells as Tytos' refusal to rule was a detriment to these smaller Houses.

 

The Reynes and Tarbecks power block made them the equivalent of a Great House, it altered the hegemony of the Westerlands, something that was not good for the other Houses of the West.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 11:51 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Tywin's dead because Varys, someone he never really made an enemy of and at some point must have spared, released his son who murdered him. Varys does not seem to have killed Tywin (and Kevan [who seems to be a more caring father to Lancel than we've seen Tywin be to his kids]) due to hate, but because they were obstacles to his own challenger in the Game of Thrones.

Varys would have had to remove Tywin regardless of how he treated his children. Do people really disagree with this?

And Tywin did not just create enemies, he also created allies. Him bringing peace to the Westerlands would have brought him allies amongst the Westerland men, his rule as Hand for 20 years would have brought him allies, his support of Robert would have brought him allies and his rewarding Reach and Stormlords who changed sides in the War of the Five kings brought him allies. It is not one way traffic of Tywin making nothing but enemies.

Well he was a shit father that much is true. Yes he helped his realm but at what cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Well he was a shit father that much is true. Yes he helped his realm but at what cost?

You tell me. What was the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin's decisions were catastrophic for Westeros. The consequences of the Red Wedding are obvious for the long term impacts of the sacred Westerosi institution of guest right. The importance of this to the core of Westerosi culture can not be underestimated. The dire consequences of Tywin's plotting with the Freys and Boltons have been playing out in the North and will likely do so in Westoros generally for some time.

Tywin's total war approach to the War of the Five Kings and the savage deployment of of the Mountain et al and the Brave Companions in the Riverlands was devastating in terms of human suffering and rapid degradation of social and economic cohesion in Westeros generally. I don't think you can counter these arguments without overtly generous Tywin apologism. 

Tywin also could have projected Lannister power more decisively during RR and probably ended the war rapidly in favor of whichever side he chose. This would have saved a lot of bloodshed. Instead, Tywin bided his time - which can be seen as astute from his perspective - but thousands of lives could've been saved had Tywin intervened swiftly perhaps to install Rhaegar and depose his ungrateful, insane monarch (who may or may not have raped his wife - it's a rather obvious justification for Tywin to turn on the Mad King if he truly had a lion's courage) or accomplish the same end by joining the rebels sooner.  Instead, Tywin sacks KL and his men brutally murder the royal family. Again, the  negative consequences for the long term stability of Westeros cannot be overstated given the justifiable Dornish hatred for the Lannisters. I also don't imagine House Lannister endeared itself to the people of Kings Landing with his sack. 

Tywin is effective in his brutality in the short term, but for what? His house is crumbling due to the incestuous and incompetent actions of his children. This is Tywin's failure, especially since he seems so concerned with the honor of his family and the greatness of his legacy. Under the surface, Tywin's toxic pride (seen passed on to Cersei) cripples his decision making. His lack of empathy blinds him to the negative consequences of his own actions on Westeros and the impending collapse of his own house due to incompetence and incest. Tywin's fatal pride results in underestimation of enemies evidenced in his defeats by the teenage Robb Stark. Thus, I find Tywin overrated and his actions have deeply harmed the Westerosi smallfolk and institutions.

Share this post


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

Tywin's decisions were catastrophic for Westeros. The consequences of the Red Wedding are obvious for the long term impacts of the sacred Westerosi institution of guest right. The importance of this to the core of Westerosi culture can not be underestimated. The dire consequences of Tywin's plotting with the Freys and Boltons have been playing out in the North and will likely do so in Westoros generally for some time.

How will they be catastrophic?

Are you under the impression that Guest rights had never been broken before the Red Wedding?

Or that they will never be respected again?

Can you elaborate on the dire consequences? And give a run down on the situation the North would be in if the Red Wedding did not take place?

 

11 hours ago, RainwoodOwl said:

 

Tywin's total war approach to the War of the Five Kings and the savage deployment of of the Mountain et al and the Brave Companions in the Riverlands was devastating in terms of human suffering and rapid degradation of social and economic cohesion in Westeros generally. I don't think you can counter these arguments without overtly generous Tywin apologism. 

That is how warfare is in Westeros. The Northern army was using similar tactics.

 

11 hours ago, RainwoodOwl said:

Tywin is effective in his brutality in the short term, but for what? His house is crumbling due to the incestuous and incompetent actions of his children.

His house is not crumbling. The Lannisters of the Westerlands are still in a pretty healthy situation, regardless of what happens to his children.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 4:43 AM, Bernie Mac said:

How will they be catastrophic?

Are you under the impression that Guest rights had never been broken before the Red Wedding?

Or that they will never be respected again?

Can you elaborate on the dire consequences? And give a run down on the situation the North would be in if the Red Wedding did not take place?

 

That is how warfare is in Westeros. The Northern army was using similar tactics.

 

His house is not crumbling. The Lannisters of the Westerlands are still in a pretty healthy situation, regardless of what happens to his children.

 

 

Lannister apologism. Yawn. 

"How will they be catastrophic?" It's pretty clear reading the text. The destruction in the Riverlands in AGoT and violent instability everywhere else thereafter in Westeros under the Lannister regime is evidence enough of the consequences of Tywin's decisions. I'm not going to lay out all of Tywin's atrocities as the text speaks for itself nor write a counterfactual about what could have been without the Red Wedding, that seems a rather pointless exercise. 

I never argued that guest right had never been broken nor that it would never be again. However, violation of guest right isn't going well for the violators: Freys are getting picked off and Tywin is dead and his incestuous legacy will not long survive him. 

"That is how warfare is in Westeros". No. It's disturbing to consider simply accepting slaughter of civilians as business as usual. GRRM through various characters in ASOIAF and in AWOIAF vividly describes the especially ruthless conduct of Tywin from the Reynes of Castamere onward to Connington's POV in ADWD. Tywin explicity orders the Mountain to ride disguised in order to rape and pillage the smallfolk of the Riverlands. No combatant in war is innocent and Bolton is the worst of the Northern commanders in terms of brutality and the reader's response shouldn't be to shrug and accept wanton, indiscriminate brutality as inevitable. We're supposed to be repulsed by the repugance of the Boltons or Tywins brutality and call it what it is.  It's frankly scary if one doesn't find their actions repulsive.  There is a distinction between the Trident, Redgrass Field or Whispering Wood and the sack of Tumbleton or the Reynes of Castamere or Sack of Winterfell. It is disingenuous to pretend that all sides are culpable to the same degree in TWo5K. Making excuses for war criminals is never a good look.

The only way you can argue the Lannisters are doing well is with your thrumb on the scale. They've had a costly multifont war on the verge of winter combined with massive debts to the Iron Bank while KL is full of dubiously allied Tyrell soldiers while the Lannister army is occupied in the Riverlands. Worse, Tywin is dead and Cersei is disgraced and incompetent but may be back in charge again anyway after the only sane Lannister in KL was killed by Varys. Jaime went off with Brienne, perhaps to his death by Stoneheart. Tywin cared a lot about legacy and family honor so dismissing the fate of his children as a reflection of Tywin himself as unimportant is just trying to cover up his weaknesses as head of his house. Furthermore, fAegon has landed in the Stormlands bringing more problems Lannisters don't have the money or talent to counter. Remember the new fleet they built only to have Aurane Waters sail off into the sunset with it? They are not in a good position to face fAegon, let alone the Others or Dany. Good news for the Lannister apologists is that Varys might have Tyrek Lannister waiting so after the current brood of Lannisters are wiped out over the next couple books we could have a compliant Lannister figurehead to support Dany or whomever has power at the end of the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin's warfare is the reason behind the Sparrows, so one could argue day and night if that's good or bad. At least they care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 1:21 AM, EccentricHorse11 said:

Well Westeros does not belong to the Targaryens anymore. Also if the people of a land would want to declare independence they can do. It cannot be seen as attempted robbery(heh Robb-ery get it?).  Using your logic, Americans have "robbed" america from the british through the American Revolutionary War. 

The Americans won.  Robb lost.  All of the land belonged to the British until after the Americans won.  The Starks were trying to win and they came close.  But as they say, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare.  In Robb's case, it was not good enough.  The north at no point was ever separate from the kingdom ever since the Targaryens build kingdom.  The Starks needed to win the war first and then they can declare independence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, U. B. Cool said:

The Americans won.  Robb lost.  All of the land belonged to the British until after the Americans won.  The Starks were trying to win and they came close.  But as they say, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare.  In Robb's case, it was not good enough.  The north at no point was ever separate from the kingdom ever since the Targaryens build kingdom.  The Starks needed to win the war first and then they can declare independence. 

In real world that is not so simple. For instance Estonia, Latvia and Lithuenia gained their independency when Imperial Russia collapsed. But they were victims of victorious Soviet Union (and their allies) during WW II and so they became part of Soviet Empire until Soviet Union itself ceased to exist and so those countries became sovereign again. But very interesting question is that how legal that occupation was? Or did those countries really "disappear" for about 70 years?

Another thing is that Israel seems to have even longer memory. Or that nation claims to be successor of political entity that disappeared almost 2000 years ago. So compared to that only 300 years of Targ occupation is very short time.

Besides we do not know what happens during later books of the serie, So it is possible that if Dany and all her dragons would die then there would not be anyone strong enough left to keep Westeros united. That would divide Westeros again to many petty kingdoms and 1 one of them could be the North. So one possible future is that the independent North will rise again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 8:28 AM, U. B. Cool said:

The Americans won.  Robb lost.  All of the land belonged to the British until after the Americans won.  The Starks were trying to win and they came close.  But as they say, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare.  In Robb's case, it was not good enough.  The north at no point was ever separate from the kingdom ever since the Targaryens build kingdom.  The Starks needed to win the war first and then they can declare independence. 

Even if they lost, that does not make it attempted robbery. Even if the americans had lost, it still would not be robbery. If a region tries to get independence, it is not robbery regardless of the result. 

But in your previous post you disagreed with this.

Quote

They swore to the Targaryens. They could pack up and go beyond the wall if they want and build their own kingdom.  Westeros belongs to the Targaryens.  It was attempted robbery to even try to take the north away.

How on earth does westeros belong to the targaryens? The current official rulers are the "baratheons". The original inhabitants were the Children of the Forest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 2:20 AM, Mario Seddy said:

Did Tywin's decisions like the red wedding, Rains of Castamere, sack of kings landing etc cause long term negative effects on Westeros ? 

Yes, all of the Kings Landing politicking had a negative affect and Tywin participated in that.Tywin wasnt really serving the realm, he was serving two Mad Kings. He was cleaning up after their mistakes in increasingly brutal ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 5:53 AM, RainwoodOwl said:

Lannister apologism. Yawn. 

Yeah. Its best to just stan Tywin as villain like a Vince Gilligan character. Instead of trying to make a cartel boss into the Citizen of the Year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 9:28 PM, U. B. Cool said:

The Starks needed to win the war first and then they can declare independence. 

If people want independence they should have it without having to go to war. The fact that they do, means the overlord government is a tyranny. Just because people are able to conquer something doesnt make them morally right. And the Targaryens lost their war and their kingdom, just like Robb lost his. So your argument is contradictory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the damage inflicted will make the victim unable to retaliate - then no. Example is the Castamere & Reyne rebellion. No one is left there to seek revenge.

Red Wedding- yes, it already does for House Frey and I predict for house Bolton too. We don't know whether the Faith Militant will demand a scapegoat to be tried for the Red Wedding in the capital, now that Tywin is dead. 

Sack of King's Landing-It does, but not too much. The mob is hostile to Lannisters much of the time and Tywin saving the city from probably another sacking by Stannis Baratheon wasn't enough. But one would expect more from Doran Martell who did nothing to punish the perpetrators, so I'd say the consequences are not that big after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

Lannister apologism. Yawn. 

Come on dude, you've got to do better than that.

  1. A Yawn suggests disinterest, someone above a response. Your detailed four paragraph response after that kind of makes the yawn a pointless flex.
  2. Resorting to calling others haters/apologists/fanboys only reveals your own bias rather than the other persons.
On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

"How will they be catastrophic?" It's pretty clear reading the text.

It is not, otherwise it would not be such a regularly asked question, would it?

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

The destruction in the Riverlands in AGoT and violent instability everywhere else thereafter in Westeros under the Lannister regime is evidence enough of the consequences of Tywin's decisions.

Yes, War is bad. Very bad. But OP was asking about the long term negative consequences for Westeros.

The Riverlands is always hit pretty bad in Westerosi civil wars. It is remarkably resilient, frequently bouncing back.

Robb and Tywin's war in the Riverlands is unlikely to have long term problems for the region.

As for 'instability everywhere else', that is not really on Tywin. The North chose to rebel, the Iron Islands chose to rebel, the Stormlands and Reach chose to rebel.

Those regions issues is not on Tywin.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

I'm not going to lay out all of Tywin's atrocities as the text speaks for itself nor write a counterfactual about what could have been without the Red Wedding, that seems a rather pointless exercise. 

You said very little in this response. Either you want to defend your position or you don't, Making claims about how good your argument is if you could only be bothered to type it out is meaningless. It suggests you don't really have a decent argument.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

I never argued that guest right had never been broken nor that it would never be again.

No, no one claimed that you did. I asked you to clarify your position. The clue was the question mark at the end.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

However, violation of guest right isn't going well for the violators:

It is actually going pretty well for the violators.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

Freys are getting picked off

Yup, they lost some members. But then they may have lost some members either way. They'd already lost some members and hundreds of men before that.

However, they gained Riverrun and Darry. So far, it is going really well for them. Right now if you were to ask Walder Frey if he would do that again, he'd say yes.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

and Tywin is dead

Yes. People die. Tywin not being immortal is clearly an issue.

Tywin died because of his actions to Tyrion and Varys needing him out the way. It was not as a result from the Red Wedding.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

and his incestuous legacy will not long survive him. 

Most likely. Some nephew or cousin will end up ruling Casterly Rock by the end of the series. It happens. Houses that have existed for thousands of years will have many branches that come to an end.

The Lannisters will live on, Tywin's legacy, as one of the longest serving Hands, the father of a Queen, grandfather to two kings will also live on.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

"That is how warfare is in Westeros". No.

Yes.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

It's disturbing to consider simply accepting slaughter of civilians as business as usual.

Sure, I agree with you here. We live in a more enlightened time. But moral relativism exists in our society and if Westeros ever reaches a similar period of enlightenment it will likely exist in theirs.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

GRRM through various characters in ASOIAF and in AWOIAF vividly describes the especially ruthless conduct of Tywin from the Reynes of Castamere onward to Connington's POV in ADWD.

Yes. And they sing songs about it to Tywin. In their world it is something that is praised. Theirs is very much a might makes right world. In their eyes Tywin's actions are not seen as bad.

Connington looks on Tywin's ruthlessness and regrets he was not the same.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

Tywin explicity orders the Mountain to ride disguised in order to rape and pillage the smallfolk of the Riverlands.

Yup. But this is not going to have long term issues for Westeros.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

No combatant in war is innocent and Bolton is the worst of the Northern commanders in terms of brutality

Is he? We actually don't know that, that is pure speculation on your part.

Roose may be, but it may also be Umber or the dead Karstark who butchered sleeping prisoners and whose men were raping and pillaging from the Riverlands in their pursuit of Jaime.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

and the reader's response shouldn't be to shrug and accept wanton,

We are not talking about the reader. You seem to have missed the point of OP's question. It is not about the readers feelings.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

indiscriminate brutality as inevitable. We're supposed to be repulsed by the repugance of the Boltons or Tywins brutality and call it what it is.  It's frankly scary if one doesn't find their actions repulsive.  There is a distinction between the Trident, Redgrass Field or Whispering Wood and the sack of Tumbleton or the Reynes of Castamere or Sack of Winterfell. It is disingenuous to pretend that all sides are culpable to the same degree in TWo5K. Making excuses for war criminals is never a good look.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

You have written almost nothing of substance with regard to OP's question or my own points that you seem to disagree with.

 

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

The only way you can argue the Lannisters are doing well is with your thrumb on the scale.

No, you have moved the goalposts.  You claimed his House was crumbling. It was a dumb argument based on what has been published so far.

Tywin is dead, his children and grandchildren will all probably be dead by the stories finish, but his House is looking fine. Many Lannisters, many intermarriages, the army sent home, the Navy still intact, the Capital and City well defended.

Tywin's heirs; those nephews and cousins, will still be in control of the Westerlands by the end of the series based on what has been seen in the books so far. I'm only going by the books.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

They've had a costly multifont war on the verge of winter combined with massive debts to the Iron Bank while KL is full of dubiously allied Tyrell soldiers while the Lannister army is occupied in the Riverlands.

No, some of the Lannister army is occupied in the Riverlands, the rest was sent home.

But yeah, the Baratheons of Kings Landing are likely to lose their seat. To no longer be rulers of Westeros. They are not Lannisters though.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

Worse, Tywin is dead and Cersei is disgraced and incompetent but may be back in charge again anyway after the only sane Lannister in KL was killed by Varys. Jaime went off with Brienne, perhaps to his death by Stoneheart.

Really, what does this have to do with OP's discussion or your point?

House Lannister is still not crumbling.

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

Tywin cared a lot about legacy and family honor so dismissing the fate of his children as a reflection of Tywin himself as unimportant is just trying to cover up his weaknesses as head of his house.

? Want to quote me where I said any of that?

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

Furthermore, fAegon has landed in the Stormlands bringing more problems Lannisters don't have the money or talent to counter. Remember the new fleet they built only to have Aurane Waters sail off into the sunset with it? They are not in a good position to face fAegon, let alone the Others or Dany. Good news for the Lannister apologists

My god, do you not see how resorting to calling people 'apologists' only makes your own argument look biased?

On 5/26/2020 at 1:53 PM, RainwoodOwl said:

 

is that Varys might have Tyrek Lannister waiting so after the current brood of Lannisters are wiped out over the next couple books we could have a compliant Lannister figurehead to support Dany or whomever has power at the end of the series.

Sure. So his House is not crumbling. Which is what I disagreed with. You've just argued against your point. Four paragraphs to come to the same conclusion as the person you were disagreeing with. Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:20 AM, Mario Seddy said:

Did Tywin's decisions like the red wedding, Rains of Castamere, sack of kings landing etc cause long term negative effects on Westeros ? 

Remaining are not an issue, but there are massive problems flowing from Red Wedding. Take a look at what, exactly, Red Wedding called into question:

1) Honour. Honor is the very basis of a medieval society. You follow a lord because you trust the lord to protect you. That is the very basis of lord-vassal relationship. If you cannot trust your lord to protect you, you have no reason to be his vassal. The entire system of vassalage - which is to say, the entire feudal system, falls apart. But I don't think Martin really ever understood that point. He is applying postmodernist morals to a feudal society - sorry GRRM, but people in Middle Ages were much more honourable and less psychotic than people today are. They simply had to be.

2) Guest right. This is just extension of the above - honour - but also fairly important on its own. Without guest right, you have no diplomacy, because nobody will believe messanger will not get killed. You have no travel and trade, because there are no hotels, and inns are far between - people who travelled usually had to rely on guest right to avoid sleeping out in the open.

3) Diplomacy. As already pointed out, negotiations are only possible because you believe you will not get killed during peace talks, and that garrisons will not get slaughtered upon surrender. If one - or both - of these assurances is denied, then there is no room for negotiations. This means that the only option left is a fight to the death. Result of such a situation is that wars will become far longer and far more damaging.

4) Morals. While Martin has forgotten this, medieval society was highly dependant on morals, because law enforcement was not that reliable, and because entire society was based on trust and honour. Now, morals were often honoured in the breach, but that was typically done - if possible - in secret. Red Wedding is a) public and b) done by vassals against their lords. There was historical Black Dinner, but that was directly by king (or on his orders) against his vassals, and even so there were immediate consequences.

 

Basically, Tywin has burned down the house to kill a spider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...