Jump to content

Is Tywin's role in the Red Wedding morally reprehensible?


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, sexyprinceviserys said:

Stannis ran from Tywin. If he is so great. Why not stand, and fight? Stannis knows Tywin will send his regards.

I don't know.........  Things called Strategic retreat and diversion maybe......

 

12 minutes ago, sexyprinceviserys said:

Stannis couldn’t beat Reny, so he had to use magic to kill Renly. 

I do agree that the killing of Renly like that was not right......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2020 at 10:30 AM, The hairy bear said:

We certainly cannot all agree on that. Particularly when we are talking about empires forged through conquest.

How do you think the great lords became "great" lords?  By conquest.  The Starks themselves had to battle the other families in the north to become the Kings in the North.  Achieved through violence.  Probably hundreds of years of violence against men, women, and children.  Most of Aegon's victories were at least against soldiers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

How do you think the great lords became "great" lords?  By conquest.  The Starks themselves had to battle the other families in the north to become the Kings in the North.  Achieved through violence.

 

On 7/2/2020 at 8:04 PM, The hairy bear said:

I'm aware of that. That's why you will neither see me argue that "preserving the North as a whole" is a good thing. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2020 at 3:35 PM, Aldarion said:

Oaths go both ways however. You are not obliged to serve a lord (or a king) who does not fulfill his duties. Tywin was already burning Riverlands before Robert had died. And after Robert died, nothing was done - to my knowledge - to prevent it. In fact, Lannisters held the throne, so it was quite clear nothing would be done to stop Tywin's atrocities. At that point, Tullys at least had no obligations towards the throne which would not fulfill its obligations towards them, and thus were in full right to secede. Starks are a bit different matter, and their secession could be discussed (does Iron Throne not fulfilling its duties re:Riverlands justify secession of North?).

Right, Robb has the same casus belli to forswear Joffrey as Robert did Aerys, he broke the feudal oath.

But does this oath even exist in ASOIAF? 

If Aerys was no longer fit to be king because of his actions, people shouldn't be calling Robert a usurper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, S. D said:

Right, Robb has the same casus belli to forswear Joffrey as Robert did Aerys, he broke the feudal oath.

But does this oath even exist in ASOIAF? 

If Aerys was no longer fit to be king because of his actions, people shouldn't be calling Robert a usurper.

People who are calling Robert usurper are Targaryen loyalists... humans have a rather amazing ability to twist views of reality so as to conform to their preconceptions. So to them it doesn't matter that Aerys broke feudal oath, because they remained loyal and thus everyone else should have remained loyal. I do agree that at least some should be able to see that Robert had right to rebel, but well... plus, people I can recall calling Robert a usurper are either a) Targaryens or b) people very close to Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...