Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canon Claude

Why did Tywin have to sack King’s Landing?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rondo said:

Raping, booty, stolen goods, are ways a commander can reward his soldiers.  The northern forces would have done the same thing, though to a much lesser extent because Ned would have disapproved.  The Unsullied are guaranteed to not do this.  If your city is going to get taken, you had better hope it is by The Unsullied.  

That does make me wonder what Eddard would have been willing to do in order to keep discipline. We know Stannis gelds rapists, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eddard would threaten to do something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Canon Claude said:

That does make me wonder what Eddard would have been willing to do in order to keep discipline. We know Stannis gelds rapists, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eddard would threaten to do something similar.

It would depend if it was done in hot or cold blood.  No one is going to punish men who murder or rape, straight after taking a city by storm.  If they’re still doing so, 24 hours after the city fell, the provosts will start hanging and gelding.

While Cersei plainly enjoyed frightening Sansa, I don’t think she’s wrong about what would have happened, had the city fallen.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaak said:

How many of Tywin´s soldiers knew they were certain to attack the city?

As far as Aerys and his men on the walls knew, Tywin´s army was coming as allies to defend a friendly city. Which meant no loot unless they could crush Eddard and loot Eddard´s camp - and Eddard´s army was the bigger and might retreat in good order even if repulsed.

Who knows, that is a wish thinking. I’d imagine he told his lords and knights in his service. The lords would tell their retainers and captains, and word would spread slowly. At some point they’d have to be told of their true plans so they arent caught off guard.

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

The usual rule, up till 1945 or so, was that if the city’s commander rejected an offer of quarter, or made plain that they were uninterested in quarter, then you were entitled to sack the city if you took it.

No such rule existed in the Middle Ages. You are referring to the renaissance era where war was treated as the gentle mans game.

6 hours ago, saltedmalted said:

False, because the city has already opened its gates. It doesn't get more peaceful than that.

The fault lies with their commander: Tywin Lannister. 

So what the city opened their gates. What was Tywin supposed to do afterwards? Join in with the loyalist and toast to the health of king aerys? He had to take the city and the men whom would try and stop him from taking it were the men that opened the gates and are patrolling the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

So what the city opened their gates.

It means they were not resisting him because he was supposed to aid them.

6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

What was Tywin supposed to do afterwards?

Keep up the charade, take control of the city. Getting as close as possible to the Red Keep should have been a priority. 

6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

oin in with the loyalist and toast to the health of king aerys?

Stop strawmanning. 

6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

He had to take the city and the men whom would try and stop him from taking it were the men that opened the gates and are patrolling the streets.

He started sacking the city immediately. There was no long siege.

As soon as the Westerlanders got into the city they started massacring not only the city watch but also the people.The Watch couldn't have resisted for long anyway, but with the backstab they were slaughtered with barely any struggle.

In case you missed it: the slaughter of the people did not take place after a long struggle. 

 

 

Edited by saltedmalted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

It means they were not resisting him because he was supposed to aid them.

Keep up the charade, take control of the city. Getting as close as possible to the Red Keep should have been a priority. 

Stop strawmanning. 

He started sacking the city immediately. There was no long siege.

As soon as the Westerlanders got into the city they started massacring not only the city watch but also the people.The Watch couldn't have resisted for long anyway, but with the backstab they were slaughtered with barely any struggle.

In case you missed it: the slaughter of the people did not take place after a long struggle. 

Keep up the charade? Why take the risk of marching up the red keep without taking control of the gates and streets. Their is a reason why aerys is called the mad king. Why would Tywin risk his army by entering the city and marching up the castle. His men would be surrounded by loyalist.

Grrm wasnt writing a Hollywood movie where the protagonists comes up with some brilliant and risky plan that helps liberate the city from the mad man. Their are risks and choices, Tywin took the easiest path, and it proved successful for his son survived, the red keep and the city were seized, and his butcher of the children was done.

A peaceful way of taking the city is just wish thinking because lots of people have an unbiased hate towards Tywin so they want to pin everything on him, but are unable to see through common sense of things.

The only way ive seen in history a city being taken without a sack is when the army is liberating the inhabitants. Like during the war of the roses Edward iv and his brother sent a vanguard of horsemen to seize the gates of the city of York, and once the vanguard secured the gates, Edward and his army arrived and began killing the Lancashire garrison.

Even that battle wasn’t peaceful.

17 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

In case you missed it: the slaughter of the people did not take place after a long struggle. 

If you’ve ever been in a fight you’ll notice that your blood starts getting up almost instantly. All it takes is a 2min fist fight between you and someone else and you’re already high on adrenaline. It wouldnt have been so different for these westermen.


Ive given good examples on my post #8. Go give that read so you can see why sacks actually happen. And that is because in the Middle Ages commanders didn’t have a tight leash over their soldiers. Their is a reason why it is called the dark ages, and that is because social, economic, and scientific advancement stalled after rome fell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Grrm wasnt writing a Hollywood movie where the protagonists comes up with some brilliant and risky plan that helps liberate the city from the mad man.

GRRM's worldbuilding is about as realistic as Hollywood scripts, or even less. None of it makes sense.

 

7 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

A peaceful way of taking the city is just wish thinking because lots of people have an unbiased hate towards Tywin so they want to pin everything on him, but are unable to see through common sense of things.

 

The WoIaF says the same thing.

 

The rest of your comment is a repetition of your pervious ones which I have already addressed.

 

Share this post


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

The rest of your comment is a repetition of your pervious ones which I have already addressed.

Not exactly I have addressed all of your comments and given you good examples as to why sacks happen. You meanwhile have failed to either give me a quote or a good example of why should your point stand. Whilst also failed to address my examples of why such massacres happen in war.

You haven’t also given me an alternate way that Tywin could take the city. All you said was keep up the charade and March to the red keep, which has many flaws on itself.

I more than willing to address all your points because the fact is that sacks happen, and they are uncontrollable. Standing armies helped commanders and officers keep a tight leash on their soldiers. Unfortunately the Middle Ages and asoiaf lack this advancement so these lords will have to contend with calling a bunch of unknown man at arms that have little to no discipline.

So you can give me a functional alternate way Tywin could take the city, or a good historical example where backstabbing your Ally didn’t end with killing something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I more than willing to address all your points because the fact is that sacks happen,

Why didn't Connington sack the Stoney Sept? Why didn't Ned's soldiers start behaving in the same way as the Lannisters?

21 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

So you can give me a functional alternate way Tywin could take the city, or a good historical example where backstabbing your Ally didn’t end with killing something.

ASoIaF is not a historical setting so your medieval analogy fails (never mind it is wrong).

Is the soldiers were really fighting then they wouldn't have had the time to sack the city simultaneously. There was barely any fighting because the Gold Cloaks got stabbed in the back. 

It is Tywin Lannister who puts the blame on the commander, so in his own words he is responsible. 

25 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

and they are uncontrollable. Standing armies helped commanders and officers keep a tight leash on their soldiers.

Tell that to Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Who knows, that is a wish thinking. I’d imagine he told his lords and knights in his service. The lords would tell their retainers and captains, and word would spread slowly. At some point they’d have to be told of their true plans so they arent caught off guard.

No such rule existed in the Middle Ages. You are referring to the renaissance era where war was treated as the gentle mans game.

So what the city opened their gates. What was Tywin supposed to do afterwards? Join in with the loyalist and toast to the health of king aerys? He had to take the city and the men whom would try and stop him from taking it were the men that opened the gates and are patrolling the streets.

I disagree.  There was a reason for sacking cities that offered resistance, and it applied from ancient times.  It induced other cities to surrender without a fight. The converse is that if a city surrenders on terms, or is friendly, than its people should not be molested. 

European commanders based their approach on Deuteronomy 20:10.  Roman commanders applied the rule that the defenders could seek terms at any point up until the first ram struck the city walls. 

That's not to say there were not commanders like Tywin, who were prepared to turn on an allied city, but such behaviour would be condemned, and is condemned in this quasi-medieval society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Why didn't Connington sack the Stoney Sept?

They arrived at the town with no resistance and occupied it. Jon ordered his army to search for robert and his band of stormlanders. 

48 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Why didn't Ned's soldiers start behaving in the same way as the Lannisters?

If you are referring to the battle of the bells, thats because that wasnt neds army. It was a joint army led by rivermen and northmen. Stoney sept is a riverlander town, and the townspeople clearly sided with the rebels when they hid robert. Cant expect rivermen to slaughter their own people can you.

edit: Realised you meant kings landing. We dont even know when exactly ned arrived. Did he arrive after the sack and things were settling down, or did he arrive during the on goings of the sack. It is safe to say that neds army didnt even enter kings landing, I certainly wouldnt, mainly out of fear of causing more senseless violence, and probably because their was already 10k westermen inside the city. We have a quote from jorah that says he saw kings landing after the sack (although we dont know how to interpret that).

48 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

ASoIaF is not a historical setting so your medieval analogy fails (never mind it is wrong).

Your choice, your words. Tell me what is wrong about it?

48 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Is the soldiers were really fighting then they wouldn't have had the time to sack the city simultaneously. There was barely any fighting because the Gold Cloaks got stabbed in the back. 

They got stabbed in the belly. Where in the books it says that their was barely any fighting? A thousand enemy soldiers arent just dispatched in mere minutes. The entire city garrison didnt just happen to go towards the gate where tywins army were. They were spread out between the city. Kings landing holds a population of half a million, that makes it atleast a thousand square km. The fighting was easy for Tywin because he caught the city watch off guard and didnt give them time to retaliate. But it still is a battle same as how every other ambush was a battle where it resulted with dead on both side.

48 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Tell that to Stannis.

Stannis has never seized a city. Had Stannis won blackwater it is common knowledge that the city wouldve been sacked. Stannis cant keep a leash on an army that is 20k strong. Especially considering that the entire army is made up of turncloaks. 

Edited by The Young Maester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I disagree.  There was a reason for sacking cities that offered resistance, and it applied from ancient times.  It induced other cities to surrender without a fight. The converse is that if a city surrenders on terms, or is friendly, than its people should not be molested. 

European commanders based their approach on Deuteronomy 20:10.  Roman commanders applied the rule that the defenders could seek terms at any point up until the first ram struck the city walls. 

That's not to say there were not commanders like Tywin, who were prepared to turn on an allied city, but such behaviour would be condemned, and is condemned in this quasi-medieval society.

Sure, any city or town that surrendered got it the easy way. Tywin would certainly be condemned for his unchivalrous methods. But wouldnt be considered a war criminal, because no such thing ever existed on either worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

They arrived at the town with no resistance and occupied it. Jon ordered his army to search for robert and his band of stormlanders. 

Robert was already inside the town. Why didn't Connington start sacking the city as the battle began?

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

It was a joint army led by rivermen and northmen.

Northmen follow Ned. Why didn't he lose control? 

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

and the townspeople clearly sided with the rebels when they hid robert.

No indication of that.

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

and the townspeople clearly sided with the rebels when they hid robert.

You dragged the comparison. ASoIaF doesn't have military realism other than in purely superficial matters.

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Where in the books it says that their was barely any fighting? A thousand enemy soldiers arent just dispatched in mere minutes.

To face an enemy bands of men have to be set and ready to fight.

Whenever you get taken unawares the result is a one-sided slaughter.

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

The fighting was easy for Tywin because he caught the city watch off guard and didnt give them time to retaliate. But it still is a battle same as how every other ambush was a battle where it resulted with dead on both side.

Ambushes are famously lopsided. 

25 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

But wouldnt be considered a war criminal, because no such thing ever existed on either worlds.

Westeros doesn't have a working judiciary so I guess nothing really matters.

34 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Stannis cant keep a leash on an army that is 20k strong. Especially considering that the entire army is made up of turncloaks. 

That is your and Cersei Lannister's assumption. Nevermind Blackwater and the sack are vastly different. His troops fought north of the Wall as well.

The city wasn't the victim of sporadic acts of violence, it was given to the troops for sacking.

Tywin Lannister would judge himself guilty. You will have to accept his word over your own opinion.

 

Edited by saltedmalted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Robert was already inside the town. Why didn't Connington start sacking the city as the battle began?

Because he had rebel soldiers to kill? Isnt it obvious. And I already said the city was actually occupied with no resistance.

20 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Northmen follow Ned. Why didn't he lose control? 

They were liberating a riverlander town.

21 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

No indication of that.

Yes their is, by hiding robert they are essentially traitors. Notice how they didnt give him up whilst connington was searching for him.

22 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

You dragged the comparison. ASoIaF doesn't have military realism other than in purely superficial matters.

Not sure what it has to do with qoute.

23 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

To face an enemy bands of men have to be set and ready to fight.

Who made this rule? You? some history professor? some general?

24 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Whenever you get taken unawares the result is a one-sided slaughter.

Of course it would, and a slaughter still turns men into beasts. It is not hard to see, when the killing starts, the pillaging also begins.

30 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

Ambushes are famously lopsided. 

Again contribute to nothing in regards to quote.

31 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

That is your and Cersei Lannister's assumption. Nevermind Blackwater and the sack are vastly different. His troops fought north of the Wall as well.

That is your assumption as well. We have tons of evidence where a medieval siege always leads to a sack, especially considering the widlfire that tyrion just pulled. 

42 minutes ago, saltedmalted said:

The city wasn't the victim of sporadic acts of violence, it was given to the troops for sacking.

Tywin Lannister would judge himself guilty. You will have to accept his word over your own opinion.

"Your Grace," said Jorah Mormont, "I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped than you can count. There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs. The scent of blood is all it takes to wake him."

You fail to remember that asoiaf was built on the foundations of medieval history. Grant you their are lots of unhistorical differences between both worlds, but the similarity is still there. Read a good historical book based on the middle ages and youll notice the similarities between both worlds.

You are still unable to provide me evidence or quotes to back your claim. And any evidence I give you, you decide to push it away as "ASoIaF is not a historical setting so your medieval analogy fails (never mind it is wrong)." I ask you Why it is wrong but you decide to not reply to that comment. This already tells me all I need to know.

All in all, you are just arguing in bad faith so I shall rest my case here. bîgengnes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Canon Claude said:

Someone brought this up in another discussion, and it seems like they made a really good point. Tywin didn’t have to sack the city, he was welcomed in by King Aerys. Tywin could simply have strolled into the Red Keep with a number of his bannermen and killed or captured King Aerys and the rest of the royal family. Meanwhile, he could have sent other men to different parts of the city where there might be opposition (Tywin would have been very familiar with the gold cloaks’ distribution, after all his years as Hand) and quickly put down any opposition before it began. No citizens needed to be harmed, and the city could have been given intact to Robert on a plate. Jaime never needs to kill the king himself, and untold numbers wouldn’t have died.

He can say what he likes, but Tywin really does enjoy massacres, it seems

The sack was the only way to get Jaime out alive.

Tywin could not just stroll into the Red Keep and kill Aerys. Tywin is at the city walls and Aerys is in the keep, a good three miles away. Aerys has plenty of defenders in the keep to protect him, so any movement of troops from the walls to the keep would be seen as a hostile act, which would put Jaime's life in jeopardy.

This puts Tywin in a bind. He has to do something before Ned arrives or else he will have to either join the rebels, which would cost Jaime his life, or defend the city, which would put him on the wrong side of the war. What to do? How about send his own men into the city dressed as commoners to start lighting fires and stirring up trouble? In this way, Tywin has an excuse to send his men toward the keep, close enough to launch an attack against the gates while sending Westerling, Crakehall and others over the walls to get to Jaime before Aerys can take him into custody and parade him to the top of the keep walls with a noose around his neck. Fortunately, Tywin knows Jaime is a superior fighter and Aerys doesn't allow anyone else in his presence with arms or armor, so he has some time to work with. Any open betrayal to Aerys before that would cost Tywin his favorite son and heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rondo said:

Raping, booty, stolen goods, are ways a commander can reward his soldiers.  The northern forces would have done the same thing, though to a much lesser extent because Ned would have disapproved.  The Unsullied are guaranteed to not do this.  If your city is going to get taken, you had better hope it is by The Unsullied.  

The northern forces did arrive at the city while it was full on fire and yet no one talks about them joining the plunder, just the Lannister men. And northerners are supposed to be uncontrollable barbarians, just a step above wildlings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

They were liberating a riverlander town. 

Doesn't make a difference to them. Soldiers do not care about the lives of ordinary people.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Because he had rebel soldiers to kill? Isnt it obvious. And I already said the city was actually occupied with no resistance.

And the Lannisters didn't? You are the one who were putting grat importance on the Gold Cloaks resistance to the Lannisters.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Yes their is, by hiding robert they are essentially traitors. Notice how they didnt give him up whilst connington was searching for him.

There is no "they" when you are talking about a town full of people. Nobody voted to hide Robert.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Not sure what it has to do with qoute.

You were the one who compared ASoIaF favourable to Hollywood's realism when it is not better.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Who made this rule? You? some history professor? some general?

Generals, books on warfare. I am surprised you didn't know that despite bringing up "realism".

Infantry fighting turned into a slaughter when an enemy attacks you from the back unexpectedly.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

It is not hard to see, when the killing starts, the pillaging also begins.

Literally any fighting can turn men into beasts. Officers exist to control them.

KL isn't Badajoz. 

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

It is not hard to see, when the killing starts, the pillaging also begins.

It does but you are blind to it. Ambushing your enemy means you don't take a lot of casualties which cuts into your argument explaining away the sack.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

We have tons of evidence where a medieval siege always leads to a sack, especially considering the widlfire that tyrion just pulled. 

That is your assumption which is no better than mine.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

You are still unable to provide me evidence or quotes to back your claim.

Rich of you to say when all you post is gish-gallop. 

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

I ask you Why it is wrong but you decide to not reply to that comment. This already tells me all I need to know.

George's worldbuilding is full of gaping holes. The distances do not make sense, the strategy and tactics don't make sense. But I am supposed to believe your (incorrect) analogy, why?

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

The sack was the only way to get Jaime out alive.

Jaime Lannister was lucky to escape with his life. By sacking the city the Lannisters showed their true colours to Aerys who could have shortened Tywin's son by a head.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

He has to do something before Ned arrives or else he will have to either join the rebels,

Tywin Lannister had made up his mind once the Targaryens lost at the Trident. He marched from the Westerlands to attack KL.

Ned's arrival has nothing to do with his decision.

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

or defend the city, which would put him on the wrong side of the war.

He never meant to defend the city. 

47 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Any open betrayal to Aerys before that would cost Tywin his favorite son and heir.

He could have sent men to start talks with the rebels (in secret). Tywin Lannister could have played the longer ruse if he wanted to maximize his son's safety.

Edited by saltedmalted

Share this post


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

Doesn't make a difference to them. Soldiers do not care about the lives of ordinary people.

 

And the Lannisters didn't? You are the one who were putting grat importance on the Gold Cloaks resistance to the Lannisters.

 

There is no "they" when you are talking about a town full of people. Nobody voted to hide Robert.

 

You were the one who compared ASoIaF favourable to Hollywood's realism when it is not better.

 

Generals, books on warfare. I am surprised you didn't know that despite bringing up "realism".

Infantry fighting turned into a slaughter when an enemy attacks you from the back unexpectedly.

Literally any fighting can turn men into beasts. Officers exist to control them.

KL isn't Badajoz. 

 

It does but you are blind to it. Ambushing your enemy means you don't take a lot of casualties which cuts into your argument explaining away the sack.

That is your assumption which is no better than mine.

Rich of you to say when all you post is gish-gallop. 

George's worldbuilding is full of gaping holes. The distances do not make sense, the strategy and tactics don't make sense. But I am supposed to believe your (incorrect) analogy, why?

Jaime Lannister was lucky to escape with his life. By sacking the city the Lannisters showed their true colours to Aerys who could have shortened Tywin's son by a head.

Tywin Lannister had made up his mind once the Targaryens lost at the Trident. He marched from the Westerlands to attack KL.

Ned's arrival has nothing to do with his decision.

He never meant to defend the city. 

He could have sent men to start talks with the rebels (in secret). Tywin Lannister could have played the longer ruse if he wanted to maximize his son's safety.

Mate come back when you are capable of providing any sources or quotes to back you up. Because you keep dodging some of my quotes and comments, and handpicking the ones you want, just to type things in which you have no evidence to back your claim with.

And read a book also, it will help with keeping good knowledge on certain aspects of this fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I seem to remember Alliser Thorne was a ranking member of the Gold Cloaks. He and likely a good amount of the City Watch gave some battle / skirmishes to Tywin's army and got sent to The Wall after surrendering and putting his weapons down. 

I'd speculate Tywin selected him out personally because he commanded his men to fight (he's a Targaryen loyalist)

As soon as his army got into the city the first thing he would do is secure all the gates, posts and garrison barracks. Initially in the beginnings of the take-over even some of those who surrendered would have been killed. Just how it is, so they potentially can't pop up later and fight you. Once they had control of key strategic places it'd be easier to issue demands of surrender.


Tywin & his Westermen had a lot to gain from the looting and plundering. Once he held the clear power, it was always going to be a Sack. I doubt he could entirely control his men either. Pretty sure it's also stated that he emptied Aerys treasury & took all his riches before the Alliance arrived as well. While his men would have predated on the merchants and wealthy of the city.

 

All in all, a solid performance. 8/10, would pillage again.

Edited by lrresistable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Who knows, that is a wish thinking. I’d imagine he told his lords and knights in his service. The lords would tell their retainers and captains, and word would spread slowly. At some point they’d have to be told of their true plans so they arent caught off guard.

So what the city opened their gates. What was Tywin supposed to do afterwards? Join in with the loyalist and toast to the health of king aerys? He had to take the city and the men whom would try and stop him from taking it were the men that opened the gates and are patrolling the streets.

The logical thing would be instructions "IF and when Mad King betrays us, disarm his soldiers and kill any who resist. This is the horn signal that we have been betrayed. So long as you have not heard this signal, act like allies and take up positions at all gates."

The ordinary chivalrous knights in Lannister army do not have the need-to-know that it was Tywin who betrayed Aerys, not Aerys who betrayed Tywin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

And read a book also, it will help with keeping good knowledge on certain aspects of this fantasy.

Cope harder.

Geoge hasn't constructed a realistic world. Accept it instead of closing your ears and acting like a know-it-all.

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...