Why was there no justice given to Elia Martell and her children ?

[Targknight]

2 hours ago, Orm said:

So battle of Ashford is where Randyll met Rob in single combat and Rob was wounded.......... Or was it Rob fought in the front lines, saw that he was outnumbered/outsmarted, made a tactical retreat and got wounded somewhere in the process?

Where did he get the wound from? If Robert got the wound from some cannon fodder or Jon Connington. He isn’t a unbeatable fighter like his fanbase claims. 

Why didn’t Robert fight Randyll? Randyll behead Lord Cafferen? Randyll Tarly physically defeated Robert’s forces including Robert.

Daemon Targaryen speed blitzed Craghas Drahar. 

[frenin]

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That I understand.  I'll reiterate.  I think that Robert, Jon Arryn, Ned had every right to raise their banners, once Aerys called for their heads.  That was a breach of the feudal bargain.  Once they did so, Aerys had to die, and so realistically, did Rhaegar, once he chose to fight for his father.  Plainly, innocents were going to die in such a conflict, but the rebels could not be expected to act as Aerys' doormats.

Agree.

 

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

But, I think Robert's decision to claim the throne endangered the royal children, as much as Richard III's decision to claim the throne endangered Edward and Richard of York. 

Disagree,  contrary to Richard, Westeros gives different parties the tools to get rid of political opponents without actually killing or harming them in any way, and those tools have been used for thousand years. So what actually stops the rebels from pulling a Nymeria and send Aegon  in golden chains to the wall?? Sure, sucks for Aegon and all, but it's better than having his head bashed over a wall. And Rhaenys from being sent to the sisters, again yet another foolproof trick to get rid of female claimants or simply be married to Robert's own line, we can say for sure that the decision to take the crown meant that the children's life was going to suck and the rebels were ok with that. But...

There was no reason whatsoever for the rebels to believe that they were signing over the children's deaths.

 

PD: Yes, children in the wall are a thing.

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that his decision to condone - and I would argue, reward - the murder of Elia and her children was a huge black mark against him.

It wasn't a reward, as the decision wasn't related to Tywin's actions but to the reality of dead Lyanna, Cersei became the most eligible bride. But yes, condoning the murder of children and innocent women it's a huge black mark against anyone, te kind that don't leave no matter the times you wash it.

 

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It sends the message that not only will such murders not be punished by the new King, but that the way to gain reward from him is to act similarly in the future.  A man who discovered the identity of Jon Snow, or who captured Rhaella, Viserys, or Daenerys - and slew them - could expect similar treatment at Robert's hands.

Doubtful, War is war, said treatment in peace is another matter entirely. 

Dany and Viserys were completely at the mercy of not only Robert but to everyone that believed that Robert would reward their heads, they were left alone, perhaps people do seem to understand the difference after all.

If people had a reason to believe Robert would grant pardons, titles and honors for silver haired children heads, his court would've been like Cersei's did after she put a price for her brother's head.  That would've been quite an spectacle. Because, heads are heads, they don't need to actually give Robert the heads he wants.

 

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's not even very intelligent on Robert's part.  A ruler who was either more ethical, or more cunning, would have very publicly executed Clegane and Lorch, proclaiming his horror at their deeds, boosting the standing of the new regime in the eyes of his subjects. 

Agreed. 

People aren't that idiot anyway, and even the dumbest could tell that Gregor, no one knew about Lorch's involvement, didn't act on his own, while most didn't know with certainty what had happened to the children and Elia, absolutely everyone knew that Tywin was behind it.

 

[Orm]

28 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Where did he get the wound from? If

Take a guess........ Could be an arrow to the shoulder for all we know......

 

30 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

If Robert got the wound from some cannon fodder or Jon Connington. He isn’t a unbeatable fighter like his fanbase claims. 

Robert beat Jon Con's ass while wounded and alone with a blade...... That along with Myles Mooton and 5 other men........

And to quote Barristan, "Any fighter could beat another fighter if luck favours it"

Rob at his prime is the best since Daemon Blackfyre......

35 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Why didn’t Robert fight Randyll? Randyll behead Lord Cafferen? Randyll Tarly physically defeated Robert’s forces including Robert.

Why don't you start a thread about why Robert was a weak ass and got lucky in all the battles he was at?........ Vent there your hate for Bobby B........

 

41 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Daemon Targaryen speed blitzed Craghas Drahar. 

You mean the fodder pirate?

[Bernie Mac]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Sack of Kings Landing was a dishonourable act on the part of the rebels, by in-universe standards.  A city that offers resistance can expect a sacking, when taken by storm.

No, in universe (and in actual real life) a sacking was almost unavoidable for large settlements changing hands. Aerys and the thousands of royalists were not about to give up. The city was still offering resistance by the way, just now they were facing an army inside the city not outside of it.

But fundamentally people don't seem to understand what a sacking of a medieval settlement it. It is the period when there is no control, when soldiers from both sides and peasants take advantage of the chaos.

 

Now Tywin could have done more to prevent the chaos, but he had bigger issues to deal with than the safety of the Kings Landing people.

• Capturing/disposing of Aerys
• Capturing/Disposing of the Royal Family
• Capturing the Small Council and other important positions of the City
• Securing the Ports
• Securing the Gates
• Securing the Treasury

GRRM does actually let the reader know what a sacking is when the naive Sansa asks what is about to happen to them when Stannis attacks

 

“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.”

Sansa was horrified. “These are women, unarmed, and gently born.”

“Their birth protects them,” Cersei admitted, “though not as much as you’d think. Each one’s worth a good ransom, but after the madness of battle, soldiers often seem to want flesh more than coin. Even so, a golden shield is better than none. Out in the streets, the women won’t be treated near as tenderly. Nor will our servants. Pretty things like that serving wench of Lady Tanda’s could be in for a lively night, but don’t imagine the old and the infirm and the ugly will be spared. Enough drink will make blind washerwomen and reeking pig girls seem as comely as you, sweetling.”

And through Dany he points out sackings were unavoidable

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

The show gets many things wrong, but what they nail is a sacking of a city. Jon would certainly have been far more proactive than Tywin in trying to stop it, but real sackings of large settlements were just pure chaos. It was rarely a case of a general being able to control it

Quote

The slaughter of the villagers, by Hoster Tully?  Here, I think is a case of values dissonance.  Very few people, in-universe, would see anything wrong with it.  Nor with whole concept of the chevauchee. 

Sure. But Ned does not have an issue with the sack, but Tywin's treachery (as well as the murder of noble children).

 

 

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

How so?? Lorch was pretty easy to find too.

Was he? Where is that stated in the books?

2 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm sorry... What slaughter of villagers??

 

Goodbrook Village.

The village was just where Notch had promised it would be. They took shelter in a grey stone stable. Only half a roof remained, but that was half a roof more than any other building in the village. It's not a village, it's only black stones and old bones. "Did the Lannisters kill the people who lived here?" Arya asked as she helped Anguy dry the horses.

"No." He pointed. "Look at how thick the moss grows on the stones. No one's moved them for a long time. And there's a tree growing out of the wall there, see? This place was put to the torch a long time ago."

"Who did it, then?" asked Gendry.

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."

[SeanF]

 

e

[SeanF]

41 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, in universe (and in actual real life) a sacking was almost unavoidable for large settlements changing hands. Aerys and the thousands of royalists were not about to give up. The city was still offering resistance by the way, just now they were facing an army inside the city not outside of it.

But fundamentally people don't seem to understand what a sacking of a medieval settlement it. It is the period when there is no control, when soldiers from both sides and peasants take advantage of the chaos.

 

Now Tywin could have done more to prevent the chaos, but he had bigger issues to deal with than the safety of the Kings Landing people.

• Capturing/disposing of Aerys
• Capturing/Disposing of the Royal Family
• Capturing the Small Council and other important positions of the City
• Securing the Ports
• Securing the Gates
• Securing the Treasury

GRRM does actually let the reader know what a sacking is when the naive Sansa asks what is about to happen to them when Stannis attacks

 

“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.”

Sansa was horrified. “These are women, unarmed, and gently born.”

“Their birth protects them,” Cersei admitted, “though not as much as you’d think. Each one’s worth a good ransom, but after the madness of battle, soldiers often seem to want flesh more than coin. Even so, a golden shield is better than none. Out in the streets, the women won’t be treated near as tenderly. Nor will our servants. Pretty things like that serving wench of Lady Tanda’s could be in for a lively night, but don’t imagine the old and the infirm and the ugly will be spared. Enough drink will make blind washerwomen and reeking pig girls seem as comely as you, sweetling.”

And through Dany he points out sackings were unavoidable

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

The show gets many things wrong, but what they nail is a sacking of a city. Jon would certainly have been far more proactive than Tywin in trying to stop it, but real sackings of large settlements were just pure chaos. It was rarely a case of a general being able to control it

Sure. But Ned does not have an issue with the sack, but Tywin's treachery (as well as the murder of noble children).

 

 

Stannis was trying to take the city by storm.  Daenerys did take Meereen by storm.  In either case, a sack was both inevitable and expected, by both attackers and defenders.  It would be considered the legitimate reward for soldiers who had risked their lives, and a fitting punishment for failing to surrender, when called upon to do so. 

Henry V expresses it thus:

"Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt'ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.

The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow'ring infants.

What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,

If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command

Upon th' enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan"

What makes Tywin's behaviour reprehensible, by the lights of his world. is putting Kings Landing to the sack, when it opened its gates peacefully to him, in the belief that he was on their side.  It would be like Henry V accepting the surrender of Harfleur, and then turning his army loose on the inhabitants.  To contemporaries, that would be seen as a war crime.

What the show got very wrong was the idea that a surrender ought to be respected, after the walls had been breached.

[frenin]

42 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Was he? Where is that stated in the books?

Amory Lorch is member of House Lorch and he's down with murdering royals.

 

44 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Goodbrook Village.

Yep...  Notch argues that the village was torched by Hoster, not that the villagers were slaughtered by Hoster.

 

53 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But fundamentally people don't seem to understand what a sacking of a medieval settlement it. It is the period when there is no control, when soldiers from both sides and peasants take advantage of the chaos.

And yet  the Sacking is always and by everyone put squarely on the Lannisters feets, not other army.

 

 

 

[Wall Flower]

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Stannis was trying to take the city by storm.  Daenerys did take Meereen by storm.  In either case, a sack was both inevitable and expected, by both attackers and defenders.  It would be considered the legitimate reward for soldiers who had risked their lives, and a fitting punishment for failing to surrender, when called upon to do so. 

Henry V expresses it thus:

"Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt'ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.

The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow'ring infants.

What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,

If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command

Upon th' enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan"

What makes Tywin's behaviour reprehensible, by the lights of his world. is putting Kings Landing to the sack, when it opened its gates peacefully to him, in the belief that he was on their side.  It would be like Henry V accepting the surrender of Harfleur, and then turning his army loose on the inhabitants.  To contemporaries, that would be seen as a war crime.

What the show got very wrong was the idea that a surrender ought to be respected, after the walls had been breached.

I feel like Cersei is doing a bit of projecting in her conversation with Sansa. She expects a brutal sack and mass rape because that's what her father's troops would do (and have done in the past). Stannis would certainly execute Cersei herself, as well as her children and Tyrion but I seem to recall that he is known for gelding rapists and hanging looters among his own troops. Wasn't it Tywin who said that troops are only as disciplined as their commander? Of course, that doesn't mean that lives wouldn't be lost in the taking of the city.

Ned aside, the only justice the rebels cared about was their own. The new king and his regime not only effectively condoned Tywin's actions but rewarded him with a marriage alliance. Karma is a bitch though, and lying down with lions ended up destroying the regime.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I feel like Cersei is doing a bit of projecting in her conversation with Sansa. She expects a brutal sack and mass rape because that's what her father's troops would do (and have done in the past). Stannis would certainly execute Cersei herself, as well as her children and Tyrion but I seem to recall that he is known for gelding rapists and hanging looters among his own troops. Wasn't it Tywin who said that troops are only as disciplined as their commander? Of course, that doesn't mean that lives wouldn't be lost in the taking of the city.

Ned aside, the only justice the rebels cared about was their own. The new king and his regime not only effectively condoned Tywin's actions but rewarded him with a marriage alliance. Karma is a bitch though, and lying down with lions ended up destroying the regime.

I think that Stannis would restore order more swiftly than Tywin did, if he took the city.  But, I think it would be impossible to prevent a sack given the fierceness of the fighting.  Not even the Duke of Wellington, who was as tough as they came, could stop his soldiers from going on the rampage at Badajoz or San Sebastian, after a very fierce fight in both cases.  At Badajoz, his army took 4,500 casualties, fighting their way in;  there was no way of stopping them exacting revenge, once they broke through.

[Hugorfonics]

5 hours ago, frenin said:

You have the text and you have their exploits, I'm too sleepy right now to quote anything else.

So when your fully awake please show me the quotes of Dany and Robb burning a village to cinders

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Stole some cows... So did Hoster Tully then. If you're just retorting to plausible deniability...

Some Frey says Karstsrk and Glover are raiding, this does not equate to Robb torching the West. Specifically because Robbs plunder of the west was a ruse to trap and defeat Tywin.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

What's the point of giving an example If you're just going to ignore whatever that example says to try and fit it with your preconceived notion??

What perceived notion? That executing villages to send a message is dishonorable?

Quote

"Put his castle to the torch and his people to the sword, I say," Ser Axell concluded. "Leave Claw Isle a desolation of ash and bone, fit only for carrion crows, so the realm might see the fate of those who bed with Lannisters."

5 hours ago, frenin said:

He didn't go after the folj, he went after Goodbrok, for like tenth time.

Say it 11, shit even 12. It won't change the fact that Hoster massacred his own village

5 hours ago, frenin said:

You will certainly have to show me, because we're not told that he just massacred the smallfolk

I did

19 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The village was just where Notch had promised it would be. They took shelter in a grey stone stable. Only half a roof remained, but that was half a roof more than any other building in the village. It's not a village, it's only black stones and old bones.

and the fact that the remains are still prevalent shows that the smallfolks family also died, hence no one to bury the dead.

Fucking massacre 

5 hours ago, frenin said:

What's the dishonorable part about that??

Acting like a smuggler is dishonorable. Strong arming the rebel faction with your daughter is dishonorable. Hiding with a bunch of women while the battle is happening outside is hysterically dishonorable. 

If you disagree, then I got a question. What do you consider dishonorable?

5 hours ago, frenin said:

What law??

Tywin himself never admitted the crime

Murder??

He hand delivers them like fucking postmates

[illrede]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

People aren't that idiot anyway, and even the dumbest could tell that Gregor, no one knew about Lorch's involvement, didn't act on his own, while most didn't know with certainty what had happened to the children and Elia, absolutely everyone knew that Tywin was behind it.

 

I'd attribute it to something else- the issue lies with Tywin. He is ruled by his obsessions. Tywin refuses to be criticized, or be seen to have been compromising in the matter of avenging insult ("a Lannister pays his debts"). You couldn't do the usual thing and offer up a pair of expendable tools, because that would tarnish the power of House Lannister in perception. Elia's mother had to know what happened and why, because it was vengeance for a humiliation- and it had to be unmitigated by compromise that would protect the dignity of an enemy being punished. Jon Aryn made that visit to placate Dorne, if he could have preceded it with Gregor and Lorch's heads or at the very least used them in a settlement I think that he would have.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

So when your fully awake please show me the quotes of Dany and Robb burning a village to cinders

 

Quote

Her men wanted to hear more of Robb's victory at Oxcross, and Rivers obliged. "There's a singer come to Riverrun, calls himself Rymund the Rhymer, he's made a song of the fight. Doubtless you'll hear it sung tonight, my lady. 'Wolf in the Night,' this Rymund calls it." He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn's Deep, and the Pendric Hills. Ser Wendel laughed. "Nothing's more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold."

 

Quote

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

 

Quote

“Unsullied!” Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” She raised the harpy’s fingers in the air … and then she flung the scourge aside. “Freedom!” she sang out. “Dracarys! Dracarys!”

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Some Frey says Karstsrk and Glover are raiding, this does not equate to Robb torching the West. Specifically because Robbs plunder of the west was a ruse to trap and defeat Tywin.

Sure it does and btw, how Robb's plan fails if he torches the west exactly??

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

What perceived notion? That executing villages to send a message is dishonorable?

No, that the situation is comparable.

 

Quote

Lord Ardrian Celtigar had fought beneath the fiery heart on the Blackwater, but once taken, he had wasted no time in going over to Joffrey. He remained in King’s Landing even now. “Too frightened of His Grace’s wrath to come near Dragonstone, no doubt,” Ser Axell declared. “And wisely so. The man has betrayed his rightful king.” Ser Axell proposed to use Salladhor Saan’s fleet and the men who had escaped the Blackwater— Stannis still had some fifteen hundred on Dragonstone, more than half of them Florents— to exact retribution for Lord Celtigar’s defection. Claw Isle was but lightly garrisoned, its castle reputedly stuffed with Myrish carpets, jeweled cups, magnificent hawks, an axe of Valyrian steel, a horn that could summon monsters from the deep, chests of rubies, and more wines than a man could drink in a hundred years. Though Celtigar had shown the world a niggardly face, he had never stinted on his own comforts. “Put his castle to the torch and his people to the sword, I say,” Ser Axell concluded. “Leave Claw Isle a desolation of ash and bone, fit only for carrion crows, so the realm might see the fate of those who bed with Lannisters.” Stannis listened to Ser Axell’s recitation in silence, grinding his jaw slowly from side to side. When it was done, he said, “It could be done, I believe. The risk is small. Joffrey has no strength at sea until Lord Redwyne sets sail from the Arbor. The plunder might serve to keep that Lysene pirate Salladhor Saan loyal for a time. By itself Claw Isle is worthless, but its fall would serve notice to Lord Tywin that my cause is not yet done.” The king turned back to Davos. “Speak truly, ser. What do you make of Ser Axell’s proposal?”

Sure, so you can see the whole purpose of the party and the differences between both.

Btw, it's not dishonorable anyway, it's inmoral, which in fairness has little to do with morals.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that Stannis would restore order more swiftly than Tywin did, if he took the city.  But, I think it would be impossible to prevent a sack given the fierceness of the fighting.  Not even the Duke of Wellington, who was as tough as they came, could stop his soldiers from going on the rampage at Badajoz or San Sebastian, after a very fierce fight in both cases.  At Badajoz, his army took 4,500 casualties, fighting their way in;  there was no way of stopping them exacting revenge, once they broke through.

Agreed, Robert's, Tywin's and Ned's men sacked and plundered the Iron Islands when they were forcing landings and Stannis served under them.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Say it 11, shit even 12. It won't change the fact that Hoster massacred his own village

I did

It seems so because we're told he torched it, you hear from that he just pulled a Theon Stark.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

and the fact that the remains are still prevalent shows that the smallfolks family also died, hence no one to bury the dead.

Fucking massacre 

Are you kidding me??

Ofc that people died there.

 

Quote

"Hoster Tully." Notch was a stooped thin grey-haired man, born in these parts. "This was Lord Goodbrook's village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword. After the Trident, Goodbrook's son made his peace with Robert and Lord Hoster, but that didn't help the dead none."

 

Ofc that there old bones, Lord Goodbrook's and his army fell there and i'm sure the folk got caught in the crossfire, what it doesn't say is that Hoster actively targetted the folk.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Acting like a smuggler is dishonorable.

He didn't.  Perhaps you're confusing him with Davos.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Strong arming the rebel faction with your daughter is dishonorable.

Because... That's just the custom.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Hiding with a bunch of women while the battle is happening outside is hysterically dishonorable. 

There wasn't a battle outside. Don't you remember?? Robert was hiding while he was alone and came out  when he heard the bells, the bells signaling the fighting, before that, he had no way of knowing it.

 

Quote

Before they could find him, though, Lord Eddard and your grandfather came down on the town and stormed the walls. Lord Connington fought back fierce. They battled in the streets and alleys, even on the rooftops, and all the septons rang their bells so the smallfolk would know to lock their doors. Robert came out of hiding to join the fight when the bells began to ring.

 

Quote

The whole town was a nest of traitors. At the end they had the usurper hidden in a brothel. What sort of king was that, who would hide behind the skirts of women? Yet whilst the search dragged on, Eddard Stark and Hoster Tully came down upon the town with a rebel army. Bells and battle followed, and Robert emerged from his brothel with a blade in hand, and almost slew Jon on the steps of the old sept that gave the town its name.

 

Quote

If you disagree, then I got a question. What do you consider dishonorable?

What we are told it is. Otherwise we're just confusing  honor with morals and that's simply not it,  Arthur Dayne wouldn't be a signing beacon of honor otherwise.

The smuggling part and the hiding between a bunch of women, i admit that you lost me there.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Murder??

He hand delivers them like fucking postmates

Sure, which makes anyone with half a brain can get their conclussions.

Tywin is certainly fond of plausible deniability however and without evidence to link him to the murder, you can only charge him of delivering  the corpses.

 

 

[Targknight]

12 hours ago, Orm said:

Take a guess........ Could be an arrow to the shoulder for all we know......

 

Robert beat Jon Con's ass while wounded and alone with a blade...... That along with Myles Mooton and 5 other men........

And to quote Barristan, "Any fighter could beat another fighter if luck favours it"

Rob at his prime is the best since Daemon Blackfyre......

Why don't you start a thread about why Robert was a weak ass and got lucky in all the battles he was at?........ Vent there your hate for Bobby B........

 

You mean the fodder pirate?

Robert has only defeated Cannon Fodders. Rhaegar isn’t that skilled, and manage to wound Robert. This is after Robert was healed in the Battle Of The Bells. 

It is ironic that you are lowballing Robert. You really think a arrow will slow him down. You argue Daemon, and other greatest fighters would get killed by Robert. Yet a tiny arrow can stop them. This isn’t Lord Of The Rings. Randyll Tarly gave the wound to Robert this is why he fled.

Daemon Targaryen is a speed, and dexterity fighter like Oberyn. He killed a admiral pirate, and defeat the pirate and his forces over two years. My point is Daemon speed blitzed him before the pirate can react. He this the same thing when he was 49 when he speed blitzed Aemond Targaryen.

 

[Orm]

12 hours ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Robert has only defeated Cannon Fodders. Rhaegar isn’t that skilled, and manage to wound Robert. This is after Robert was healed in the Battle Of The Bells. 

It is ironic that you are lowballing Robert. You really think a arrow will slow him down. You argue Daemon, and other greatest fighters would get killed by Robert. Yet a tiny arrow can stop them. This isn’t Lord Of The Rings. Randyll Tarly gave the wound to Robert this is why he fled.

Daemon Targaryen is a speed, and dexterity fighter like Oberyn. He killed a admiral pirate, and defeat the pirate and his forces over two years. My point is Daemon speed blitzed him before the pirate can react. He this the same thing when he was 49 when he speed blitzed Aemond Targaryen.

 

[Content deleted by moderator]

[Bernie Mac]

15 hours ago, illrede said:

I'd attribute it to something else- the issue lies with Tywin. He is ruled by his obsessions. Tywin refuses to be criticized,

This is blatantly false, you get that right?

Tywin served the second half of his term under Aerys constantly being criticized.

History of the Westerlands; Day by day and year by year, Aerys II turned ever more against his own Hand, the friend of his childhood, subjecting him to a succession of reproofs, reverses, and humiliations

The World of Ice and Fire: When a delegation of small lords and rich merchants came before the Iron Throne to complain, however, Aerys blamed the Hand for the exactions, saying, "Lord Tywin shits gold, but of late he has been constipated and had to find some other way to fill our coffers." Whereupon His Grace restored port fees and tariffs to their previous levels, earning much acclaim for himself and leaving Tywin Lannister the opprobrium.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Aerys II could, of course, have dismissed Tywin Lannister at any time and named his own man as Hand of the King, but instead, for whatever reason, the king chose to keep his boyhood friend close by him, laboring on his behalf, even as he began to undermine him in ways both great and small. Slights and gibes became ever more numerous; courtiers hoping for advancement soon learned that the quickest way to catch the king's eye was by making mock of his solemn, humorless Hand. Yet through all this, Tywin Lannister suffered in silence.

Tywin spent much of his time being insulted by the King and his lickspittles, the idea that he refuses to be criticized is not exactly backed up in the books.

Obviously he does not like it, but that is not to say he refuses for it to happen.

 

Quote

 

or be seen to have been compromising in the matter of avenging insult ("a Lannister pays his debts").

Why would any house?

Quote

 

You couldn't do the usual thing and offer up a pair of expendable tools, because that would tarnish the power of House Lannister in perception.

Why would Tywin need to? Robert, the King, did not care.

Had Robert cared, then Tywin would have offered up expendable tools.

This is a bizarre discussion given people expect Tywin to punish his own men for something the King did not think of as a crime. Few Lords would do that in Tywin's shoes.

 

[Bernie Mac]

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

Stannis was trying to take the city by storm.  Daenerys did take Meereen by storm.

Well she sneaked her army inside.

Tywin's army was inside, as was several thousand royalists. It was still needed to be taken by force.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

 

What makes Tywin's behaviour reprehensible, by the lights of his world.

The sack is not seen as reprehensible by the lights of this world, his sanctioning the murder of royal children is, his trickery to get into the city is, the sack itself not so much.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

is putting Kings Landing to the sack, when it opened its gates peacefully to him,

Yes, his treachery. Not the sack itself.

Kings Landing did not surrender to Tywin, they wrongly thought he was an ally. He was not. Twyin still had to secure a city with several thousand loyalist soldiers and a mad King.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

 

in the belief that he was on their side.  It would be like Henry V accepting the surrender of Harfleur, and then turning his army loose on the inhabitants. 

Rereead what you just said. THAT IS NOT THE SAME GIVEN KINGS LANDING DID NOT SURRENDER TO TYWIN!

The fact that you have to make false comparisons to try and prove your point is its own point.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

To contemporaries, that would be seen as a war crime.

The betrayal, not the sacking. The sacking was inevitable as long as the King was there and he had a royalist army.

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

What the show got very wrong was the idea that a surrender ought to be respected, after the walls had been breached.

What the show got right is it is almost impossible to control an army in such circumstances.

 

17 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Amory Lorch is member of House Lorch and he's down with murdering royals.

Why dodge the question? Why continuously make points and then refuse to back them up?

• Where is it claimed that Amory and Clegane were easy for Tywin to find?
• Where is it claimed that the Westerlands has more such men than any other kingdom in Westeros?

17 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Yep...  Notch argues that the village was torched by Hoster, not that the villagers were slaughtered by Hoster.

lol are you for real?

17 hours ago, frenin said:

 

And yet  the Sacking is always and by everyone put squarely on the Lannisters feets, not other army.

 

eh? Did you misunderstand what I said? Did you disagree with it, if so which parts?

If you disagree with what I said about sacks then that is fine, but please actually respond to the comment and not just make a statement that has little bearing on what was actually said to you.

Obviously Tywin is to blame for the sack, just like he was to blame for the raping of Elia and the brutality of the murders of the children. Nowhere in the post have I claimed that the ultimate responsibility for these actions are with Tywin, whether he ordered them that way or not.

However sackings are more nuanced than your arguments seem to suggest. They are something that are very, hard to control, with a period of chaos that means soldiers from both sides as well as peasants can take advantage of the lack of law.

Sackings are not always a case of a war lord saying 'sack the city boys'.

 

17 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I feel like Cersei is doing a bit of projecting in her conversation with Sansa. She expects a brutal sack and mass rape because that's what her father's troops would do (and have done in the past).

That is what most sides do. The medieval warfare was a brutul and ugly time.

Dany's sack of Mereern seems to be far more brutal than Tywin's of Kings Landing.

The Northmen sacked settlements in the war of the five kings as well

"Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Maidenpool seemed to have been sacked just as bad as Kings Landing.

War is brutal by all sides, the Northmen set up rape camps in the middle of Harrenhal, this idea that it is only the enemies of the Starks whose men commit such atrocities is a misreading of the world they live in.

17 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

 

Stannis would certainly execute Cersei herself, as well as her children and Tyrion but I seem to recall that he is known for gelding rapists and hanging looters among his own troops.

Yes. Don't you see, rape happens. All large armies have men amongst them who do so even when their Lords are known to severly punish them for it.

Some Lords like Tarly, have strong reputations for gelding rapists and hanging looters, but the fact of the matter is it happens.

17 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

 

Wasn't it Tywin who said that troops are only as disciplined as their commander?

This is true. He was talking about a specific situation when there was not meant to be fighting among allies, but as I've said before, Tywin could have made the sack less worse than it was. He simply prioritized other things over the residents of Kings Landing.

 

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well she sneaked her army inside.

Tywin's army was inside, as was several thousand royalists. It was still needed to be taken by force.

The sack is not seen as reprehensible by the lights of this world, his sanctioning the murder of royal children is, his trickery to get into the city is, the sack itself not so much.

Yes, his treachery. Not the sack itself.

Kings Landing did not surrender to Tywin, they wrongly thought he was an ally. He was not. Twyin still had to secure a city with several thousand loyalist soldiers and a mad King.

Rereead what you just said. THAT IS NOT THE SAME GIVEN KINGS LANDING DID NOT SURRENDER TO TYWIN!

The fact that you have to make false comparisons to try and prove your point is its own point.

The betrayal, not the sacking. The sacking was inevitable as long as the King was there and he had a royalist army.

What the show got right is it is almost impossible to control an army in such circumstances.

 

Why dodge the question? Why continuously make points and then refuse to back them up?

• Where is it claimed that Amory and Clegane were easy for Tywin to find?
• Where is it claimed that the Westerlands has more such men than any other kingdom in Westeros?

lol are you for real?

eh? Did you misunderstand what I said? Did you disagree with it, if so which parts?

If you disagree with what I said about sacks then that is fine, but please actually respond to the comment and not just make a statement that has little bearing on what was actually said to you.

Obviously Tywin is to blame for the sack, just like he was to blame for the raping of Elia and the brutality of the murders of the children. Nowhere in the post have I claimed that the ultimate responsibility for these actions are with Tywin, whether he ordered them that way or not.

However sackings are more nuanced than your arguments seem to suggest. They are something that are very, hard to control, with a period of chaos that means soldiers from both sides as well as peasants can take advantage of the lack of law.

Sackings are not always a case of a war lord saying 'sack the city boys'.

 

That is what most sides do. The medieval warfare was a brutul and ugly time.

Dany's sack of Mereern seems to be far more brutal than Tywin's of Kings Landing.

The Northmen sacked settlements in the war of the five kings as well

"Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Maidenpool seemed to have been sacked just as bad as Kings Landing.

War is brutal by all sides, the Northmen set up rape camps in the middle of Harrenhal, this idea that it is only the enemies of the Starks whose men commit such atrocities is a misreading of the world they live in.

Yes. Don't you see, rape happens. All large armies have men amongst them who do so even when their Lords are known to severly punish them for it.

Some Lords like Tarly, have strong reputations for gelding rapists and hanging looters, but the fact of the matter is it happens.

This is true. He was talking about a specific situation when there was not meant to be fighting among allies, but as I've said before, Tywin could have made the sack less worse than it was. He simply prioritized other things over the residents of Kings Landing.

 

By contemporary standards, it would be even worse to sack a city, after pretending to be an ally, than it would be to sack it after it surrendered on terms.  By analogy, it's like Henry V rolling up to a Burgundian town, and then sacking it after it admitted him peacefully.

[Bernie Mac]

Just now, SeanF said:

By contemporary standards, it would be even worse to sack a city,

Sorry, I assumed you were talking about Tywin's contemporaries, not ours.

Just now, SeanF said:

 

after pretending to be an ally, than it would be to sack it after it surrendered on terms.  By analogy, it's like Henry V rolling up to a Burgundian town, and then sacking it after it admitted him peacefully.

But Kings Landing, the several thousand soldiers of Kings Landing, did submit peacefully to Tywin.

The difference between the fight is that instead of being on the other side of the wall, they were inside it.

This kind of shit was not that uncommon, though not in these exact circumstances. Lord Stanley did something similar at the Battle of Bosworth. He switched sides during the battle, betraying Richard III despite starting the day on his side.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sorry, I assumed you were talking about Tywin's contemporaries, not ours.

But Kings Landing, the several thousand soldiers of Kings Landing, did submit peacefully to Tywin.

The difference between the fight is that instead of being on the other side of the wall, they were inside it.

This kind of shit was not that uncommon, though not in these exact circumstances. Lord Stanley did something similar at the Battle of Bosworth. He switched sides during the battle, betraying Richard III despite starting the day on his side.

I am talking about in-universe standards - which largely mirror those of 15th century Europe.  Nobody talks of the sack of Kings Landing as something the inhabitants brought on themselves by defying Lord Tywin.