Mad Monkey Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I think sons are still Lords... anyone with lands of his own... and people on the King's Council. Well, Catelyn kept snapping at anyone who called Edmure 'Lord' before Hoster died, and Robert wasn't on the Council as far as I can recall. But knowing Tywin he probably doesn't consider traitors people and was only referring to his loyal men dying. Given the overwhelming advantages Roose and Walder had it is possible that their side did only loose a dozen or so rather than the hundreds Tywin would have lost fighting Robb in a winning battle. Does he consider his men people too? And I specifically remember him saying the word "kill". As in, "How is it more noble to kill ten thousand men ... " that is, killing Robb Stark's men. Tywin is a lying lier-er who lies a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieG Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I noticed this one today while re-reading ACoK: Speaking of the Comet: "In the streets they call it the Red Messenger," Varys said. "They say it comes as a herald before a king, to warn of fire and blood to follow" (Bolded text emphasized by me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pita Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 But knowing Tywin he probably doesn't consider traitors people and was only referring to his loyal men dying. Given the overwhelming advantages Roose and Walder had it is possible that their side did only loose a dozen or so rather than the hundreds Tywin would have lost fighting Robb in a winning battle. Tywin meant the lords at the red wedding, not the soldiers. Man I hate quotes when taken out of context. He's still a douche, but not a hypocrite. In battles, both a lord and a soldier have pretty much the same chance of surviving (so they'd be considered the same), unless they're Hated Bastard Dwarf=Tyrion=Immortal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMalcolm Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Pretty clear, aye... but in this series if I don't see it specifically laid out, I don't believe it happened. And I didn't see Robb sign the paper or declare the edict so I have my doubts. Mayhaps Robb realized that he should finally start listening to his mother after the Jeyne incident? His mother suggested to choose nearest distant cousin, but she wasn't able to remember their name exactly. So even if Robb wanted to follow that advice, he couldn't, at that moment. The alternative was to name Jon or to delay signing the decree until clarification. Since we know sighing wasn't delayed, it should be Jon, nobody else fits. Unless you could believe he named the Imp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Tywin meant the lords at the red wedding, not the soldiers. Man I hate quotes when taken out of context. He's still a douche, but not a hypocrite. In battles, both a lord and a soldier have pretty much the same chance of surviving Utter bullshit. "How is it more noble to kill ten thousand men..." At no point did Robb have 10,000 lords fighting for him. Tywin is including the entire fighting force, plain and simple. And common soldiers have a decidedly worse chance of survival in battle due to inferior armour and equipment, and the complete lack of anyone sparing their live out of hopes of a rich ransom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delete this account pls Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I still don't think Tywin's point is invalidated by the ammount of men killed at the Red Wedding. He's questioning perceptions of honour and nobility, not trying to duck responsibility for the deaths of a few thousand commoners who, let's be honest, he wouldn't give a stuff about anyway. His point is that the Starks are his enemies, and in wartime you kill your enemies by any means available. So why, Tywin asks, is the Red Wedding a black mark against his name whilst an event like the ambush at Whispering Wood only added to Robb's reputation? Edited for spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The way he makes his point is outrageously dishonest, though. It's not a matter of 12 men vs 10,000 men, it's closer to 4,000 of the enemy's men vs 6,000 of the enemy's men and 4,000 of his own men. That's still a substantial difference, and all the Lannister, Frey, and Bolton men who's lives were spared would probably be very grateful. But underestimating the actual losses as he did was ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roasted In Armor Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It may have been mentioned, but on re-reading the series, in GAME, Tyrion is talking to Jon outside of the Dinner Party, and he vaults off of a ledge, landing on his hands and does a flip (or some such acrobatic trick), and for the rest of the series so far, he has been in pain from simple things like walking. It puzzles me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 This has been referenced quite a bit. GRRM addresses a similar question here in the So Spake Martin collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roasted In Armor Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I thank you for the reference. I was concerned that I might be bringing up something that has been beaten to death, but wasn't sure. Thank you again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the silent speaker Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Besides, if you vaulted off a ledge, landed on your hands and did a flip, you'd be in pain thereafter too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delete this account pls Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 The way he makes his point is outrageously dishonest, though. It's not a matter of 12 men vs 10,000 men, it's closer to 4,000 of the enemy's men vs 6,000 of the enemy's men and 4,000 of his own men. That's still a substantial difference, and all the Lannister, Frey, and Bolton men who's lives were spared would probably be very grateful. But underestimating the actual losses as he did was ludicrous. Is he being dishonest, or does he just not know (or care) about the actual death toll? We don't know to what extent Tywin was involved in the Red Wedding, beyond that he knew something was happening in advance and had given his approval. After the fact, all his information on the event came via ravens from the Twins. Even if he does know exactly, it needn't be dishonesty behind his sentiment. Opinion in general seems to be little concerned with the fate of those soldiers. The horror and disgust towards the Red Wedding is directed mainly at the deaths of Robb, Cat and the other wedding guests. Tywin doesn't feel the need to defend himself on the matter of the deaths of Robb's soldiers because few people are laying any blame at his feet where they are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Other-in-law Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Even if he does know exactly, it needn't be dishonesty behind his sentiment. Opinion in general seems to be little concerned with the fate of those soldiers. The horror and disgust towards the Red Wedding is directed mainly at the deaths of Robb, Cat and the other wedding guests. Tywin doesn't feel the need to defend himself on the matter of the deaths of Robb's soldiers because few people are laying any blame at his feet where they are concerned. Comparing apples (just the lords in the RW) to oranges (the lords and their thousands of soldiers in a battle) is inherently dishonest. By throwing "ten thousand" out there he's implicitly pretending to care about the commoners....when it suits his argument to do so. I suppose it's possible that he isn't aware of the deaths of all those soldiers at the RW, but it sounds incredibly naive coming from such a brutal realist as Tywin to me. You can't make that big of an omelette (destroying the Kingdom of the North and the Trident in one fell swoop) without breaking an awful lot of of eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handfalcon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Is it possible Tywin was just pulling numbers out of the air to make his point? A hypothetical dozen versus a hypothetical 10,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roasted In Armor Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Besides, if you vaulted off a ledge, landed on your hands and did a flip, you'd be in pain thereafter too. Especially with me being 6 feet 5 inches tall and tipping the poor scales at 295 lbs.!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barba Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 About Tywin: Do you think it was fair what Robb did at Oxcross. He caught Lannister host by surprise and wasted them. But everybody seems to consider it battle tactic. If what Tywin did was not tactic, but cold-blooded massacre, then what Robb did at Oxcross doesn't seem much different. If Tywin was cheating because he had traitors (Frey & Boltons) on his side, then Robb was cheating with having Grey wind at his side (Grey wind found narrow road across to mountains to get around military prepared host, whose purpose was to watch if Northen host will come, and just before the battle Grey wind scared horses away, so Lannister host was foot only. It is not hard for calvary to waste unprepared foot). The fact that we didn't see Battle at oxcross doesn't mean it was not massacre. Who knows how it happened, but it sounded like it was not very hard victory for Robb, and we know that Lannister host at Oxcross vas very large. Massacre or tactic. Call it as you will, but IMHO there was not much difference between the Red wedding and Oxcross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetyr Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Must have been some kind of battle if Jaime could slay both sons of Karstark while trying to go for Robb. Others will have had the same change as well, not only the Kingslayer. You will also have to consider that they were prepared for war and probably saw them coming, they just didn't see them in time before they could prepare properly. Considering that the Lannister host was an army ready for battle, there will have been many armed men and scouts as well. The red wedding was a massacre because the northmen were unarmed, drunk and properly set up in a trap, since a great deal of the host burned in the large tents. What the Frays and Tywin did was they pretended to be friends - in fact swore to be loyal - and stabbed them in the back as soon as they turned, both drunk and unarmed, thinking they have a friend at their back. It also has to be considered the northmen were under protection of the unspoken law of hospitality. Now compare this to surprising in army at night, so that they can get hardly ready before the northmen are on them. They are sober, they are armed and their forces are not scattered. AND there was no betrayal by their own people. It also has to be considered that the numbers were against Robb at Oxcross. Frey on the other hand had a much vaster army at the twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anya, Vengeance Demon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Must have been some kind of battle if Jaime could slay both sons of Karstark while trying to go for Robb. That was Whispering Wood, not Oxcross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Taking an enemy in the field by surprise is generally seen as acceptable battle tactics, historically speaking. The enemy was out there in force, they simply failed to do what was necessary to protect themselves, and thus made themselves an acceptable target. Encouraging an enemy to switch sides is, historically, also perfectly acceptable. But in Westeros, encouraging someone to break guest right ... well, clearly, that's seen as generally wrong, but of course when the winning side does it, it's not like a lot of people are going to make much of a fuss (especially if it means that they get to stop fighting and risking their lives on behalf of someone else's cause). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingslayer Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 The fact that we didn't see Battle at oxcross doesn't mean it was not massacre. Who knows how it happened, but it sounded like it was not very hard victory for Robb, and we know that Lannister host at Oxcross vas very large. I agree. Obviously what we hear is exaggerated (although even Robb's own men believe that he mutilated Stafford Lannister's corpse), but it seems likely that men were killed as they slept, or cut down while fleeing, etc. A great victory, but not so honorable. On a related note: 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. Now, can people please stop claiming Robb was morally superior to the Lannisters? He may have been totally unaware of the atrocities Bolton committed in his name (although I don't buy that; the flayed man and direwolf were feared and despised by just about all of the smallfolk we see)- it doesn't matter. Here we have direct news of Stark unleashing his reavers to terrorize the western smallfolk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.