Tywin Lannister

[A wilding]

But did Henry VII had to marry Elizabeth of York, in order to get power or legitimacy? I ask this because I'm really not into the particular topic, but anyway, if he had to marry Elizabeth, that proves my point - his strength looks undermined to me.

I would not say that he had to, having won Bosworth he could have made himself king anyway. However it did unquestionably strengthen his position. He might well have got away with not marrying her, but it would have increased this risk of a Yorkist rebellion at some point, perhaps years later. So the parallel with Robert still holds I think.

Incidentally, there were a couple of Yorkist rebellions during his reign anyway, but they were fairly easily put down. Also, while Henry did not wipe out the House of York, he did kill a few of the more dangerous ones off.

On topic, I agree that Aegon had to die, or just possibly, be made to join the NW. Rhaenys needed to be married either to Robert or Robert's heir, but there would have been an awkward interval before any such marriage could be consummated, during which she might have been seized and used against Robert. Failing a marriage, she also needed to die, or possibly made to join the Silent Sisters, if that would definitely prevent her ever marrying.

[Rinso]

From what I gathered in the thread and looked briefly on the Internet, the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York put an end of the feud between the Lancasters and the Yorks and reunited the two royal houses. And even with that, there were still pretenders that caused trouble later-on.

Robert, however, had no need to reconcile House Baratheon and House Targaryen, even to strengthen his claim. This is where his descendance from Egg comes in handy. He already has a tie to House Targaryen, even if it is tiny and incignificant. And if he had killed both Aegon & Rhaenys and Dany & Viserys, he would have been the only person left with a drop of royal Targaryen blood. Even the most fervent loyalist Houses would have had no choice but to kneel. So no need to marry Rhaenys to strengthen his claim; she is more useful dead than alive.

As for Aegon to the Night's Watch, Rhaenys to the Silent Sisters... Still risky, especially with Aegon. Better to kill them.

[A wilding]

From what I gathered in the thread and looked briefly on the Internet, the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York put an end of the feud between the Lancasters and the Yorks and reunited the two royal houses.

Yes, but the reason that this is the summary given in history books is because that was the story Henry decided to tell and, because he won, it stuck.

Robert might, if he had been willing and able to marry Rhaenys, have pushed a similar official line: "The Targaryens were basically a good bunch, but then came madman Aerys and rapist Rhaegar. Heroic cousin Robert dealt with them and then ensured peace and reconciliation, starting a new dynasty, by marrying Rhaegar's daughter."

(An additional interesting parallel there would be his need still to kill Aegon, perhaps not utterly dissimilar to the deaths of Elizabeth's brothers, the Princes in the Tower.)

And possibly there might still have been abortive rebellions, in favour either of Viserys, or of people who claimed to be Aegon, secretly escaped from KL.

[Hazel]

From what I gathered in the thread and looked briefly on the Internet, the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York put an end of the feud between the Lancasters and the Yorks and reunited the two royal houses. And even with that, there were still pretenders that caused trouble later-on.

Robert, however, had no need to reconcile House Baratheon and House Targaryen, even to strengthen his claim. This is where his descendance from Egg comes in handy. He already has a tie to House Targaryen, even if it is tiny and incignificant. And if he had killed both Aegon & Rhaenys and Dany & Viserys, he would have been the only person left with a drop of royal Targaryen blood. Even the most fervent loyalist Houses would have had no choice but to kneel. So no need to marry Rhaenys to strengthen his claim; she is more useful dead than alive.

As for Aegon to the Night's Watch, Rhaenys to the Silent Sisters... Still risky, especially with Aegon. Better to kill them.

Thing is, I don't think the Martells hate him because tried to kill all the Targaryens, but because he killed two children who had 50% Martell blood (Not to mention Elia, but that's not really the point here). By killing ALL the Targaryens Robert would ensure the Martell's hatred anyway, but at least here they wouldn't have anyone to rally to.

Aegon truly needed to die, but Rhaenys could have been the key to stopping the Martell's secret feud from ever developing in the first place. I mean, I doubt the Martells would go to war against their beloved half-Martell Queen, would they? I know that Dorne isn't THAT strong on its own, but Oberyn DID want to continue the war just because of the deaths of Elia and the children. And even worse, Doran's been plotting on how to help out the exiled Targaryens since then.

[Rinso]

Hazel,

I personally think that the Martells are pissed off mainly because of Elia's horrible death. Which was a bad mistake, even Tywin admitted so, but he just miscalculated by sending Gregor of all people to kill Aegon, while having more pressing concerns on his mind.

Doran and Oberyn - the men who made the important decisions in Dorne - might not have been happy with the deaths of their nephew and niece, but they probably hardly knew them at all. However, what happened to their sister was what probably the deciding final straw, which made the feud really personal and bitter. Perhaps if Elia had been spared and not harmed, they wouldn't have been so inclined to betray the new dynasty.

Especially Oberyn was way too temperamental and frivolous to care that the Martells' influence in the Court had disappeared if he knew that his sister was okay, and Doran is so cautious that he probably would have done nothing, like usual. After all, if their sister had come alive from all the dangers of the war (which was almost entirely the Targaryens' fault), I think that this would have been a reward enough for those two - they couldn't have hoped for more after Rhaegar's epic fail at the Trident. But Elia's rape and death really made them hate the new regime.

A wilding,

Why would there have been need for Robert to do this? Besides his own bannermen from the Stormalands, he already had the unconditional support of the Starks, the Tullys and the Arryns, and the Lannisters were almost desperate to get on his good side. Who would have been won over by a marriage with Rhaenys? The Tyrells wouldn't have cared much, because it would have won them nothing, and while it may have gotten him in cahoots with the Martells, was it really necessary? If he had destroyed Aegon, Rhaenys, Dany and Viserys but had spared Elia, they would have been won over either way - Doran and Oberyn's sister would have been alive and even of they still gathered resentment, there would have been no one to turn to. And since they are the weakest of the Great Houses, they wouldn't have dared to rebel on their own.

[Alexia]

Oh, yes, Tywin is an utter asshole. But if you want to prove that, don't go any further that the treatment of his kids.

Eh, his treatment of his kids is the least of his sins.

Back on topic: I just don't see the Dornish as being all that formidable, sorry. Yes, the Martells have been sulking in Dorne for the past 15 years vowing veagance. In the meantime, a) Robert is killed by Cersei; b) Tywin is killed by Tyrion; c) Ned Stark is killed by Joffrey; d) Lorch is killed by a bear. Viserys, whom they supposedly support, is an utter nutcase (should do a poll as to who would be a worse king, Joff or Viserys) and the daughter they want to marry to him is plotting against them and has never been taught jack about statesmanship, in spite of the fact that she's supposed to marry the insane Viserys. Then Dany is married off to the savage Dothraki when a marriage to a Tyrell would have been much better for them. If that's Doran's grand revenge I'd hate to see what happens when he's not doing anything.

I'm still with Rinso, Aegon and Rhaenys are much safer dead and Robert's big mistake was to not kill Dany and Viserys as well to prevent them from being used as rallying points.

[Rinso]

Alexia,

I think his biggest sin is what he did to Tysha and Tyrion, but that was somewhat included in his parenting.

Nevermind.

[Alexia]

Alexia,

I think his biggest sin is what he did to Tysha and Tyrion, but that was somewhat included in his parenting.

Nevermind.

See, I would list that up there but I don't know if its even the biggest. In the major sins I have:

1. The Tysha incident

2. Terrorism, that is sending Gregor, Lorch, and Hoat out to rape, pillage, and massacre thousands of defenseless peasants

3. That poor innkeeper that he hung (she didn't DO anything!)

4. His plotting of the Red Wedding, a massacre that outraged standard Westerosi morals, during which his theme song was played

5. The Reynes of Castamere, which I would love more details about

6. The deaths of Elia and her children...even though they were necessary they were still done too brutally, he ordered the deaths and chose the thugs for the job, and then is actively lying and hiding his thugs from justice because they are just too useful for terrorism

[Rinso]

1. no argument.

2. this is called war.

3. no argument.

4. see point 2.

5. the Reynes and the Tarbecks openly mocked his father and, IIRC, rebelled against him when he became head of House Lannister. What was he supposed to do? Btw, if the Starks had done the same with the Boltons centuries ago, Robb might still have been alive and Winterfell might not have burned...

6. Elia wasn't supposed to die, he just miscalculated by sending Gregor after Aegon. As for the brutal deaths, he mentioned that he later confronted Lorch for the brutal way he murdered Rhaenys (he had stabbed her awfully many times). Lorch just responded that she kicked him. Why is Tywin to blame if Lorch is a brutal idiot? And yes, he protected Gregor from justice, but first, that was war and second, those who demanded justice weren't going to be pleased just with Gregor, as Oberyn made it clear time and time again. So by protecting Gregor, he protected himself. Which does not make it okay, but it's not unfathomable. Plus, I would even dare to go deeper - Gregor was one his most loyal bannermen, always doing his dirty and dangerous job. And a Lannister always pays his debts.

[Alexia]

1. no argument.

2. this is called war.

Massacring and torturing civilians isn't war, it's terrorism. It would be different if they were combatants but remember the story those villagers told Ned Stark? About some apprentice boy being chased back and forth by horsemen until they cut him down? And Chiswyck's story about the innkeeper's daughter? That's not war, that's the face of evil.

3. no argument.

4. see point 2.

Robb could have been killed without violating guest right. I'm in the bunch that thinks the only interesting thing Robb ever did was die, but at his killer's dinner table?

5. the Reynes and the Tarbecks openly mocked his father and, IIRC, rebelled against him when he became head of House Lannister. What was he supposed to do? Btw, if the Starks had done the same with the Boltons centuries ago, Robb might still have been alive and Winterfell might not have burned...

Once again, I need more details but I'm not sure why it was necessary to wipe out the entire family instead of just those responsible.

6. Elia wasn't supposed to die, he just miscalculated by sending Gregor after Aegon. As for the brutal deaths, he mentioned that he later confronted Lorch for the brutal way he murdered Rhaenys (he had stabbed her awfully many times). Lorch just responded that she kicked him. Why is Tywin to blame if Lorch is a brutal idiot? And yes, he protected Gregor from justice, but first, that was war and second, those who demanded justice weren't going to be pleased just with Gregor, as Oberyn made it clear time and time again. So by protecting Gregor, he protected himself. Which does not make it okay, but it's not unfathomable. Plus, I would even dare to go deeper - Gregor was one his most loyal bannermen, always doing his dirty and dangerous job. A Lannister always pays his debt.

Tywin is to blame because a commander is responsible for the actions of his soldiers. He should have known what they were capable of doing...hadn't Gregor killed his father and sister by then? And if he had shortened Gregor and Lorch immediately and sent their heads to Dorne with a sincere apology nobody would have blamed him for what they did. The whole thing about Gregor being loyal (and a useful terrorist) is absolutely what Tywin is thinking but it doesn't stop it from making him a horrible person to protect him from justice so that he can continue to deploy him.

[Hazel]

2. Terrorism, that is sending Gregor, Lorch, and Hoat out to rape, pillage, and massacre thousands of defenseless peasants

I agree with most of what you've said. However, it was quite a standard procedure to send men into your enemy's lands to rape, pillage and plunder. In fact, the English often ONLY did that in their campaigns, hardly fighting any pitched battles or sieges. It saps your enemy's resources, morale and distracts his attention. I will, however, admit that Tywin was an EXCEPTIONALLY brutal general. Not only did he assign complete psychopaths to take care of the aforementioned tasks, his employment of the Brave Companions was a clear show of Tywin employing unrivaled cruelty in order to wage war.

It all depends on the commander, though. Whereas we've heard of no serious atrocities committed by the Northerners under King Robb in the Westerlands, the Northerners under Roose Bolton were damn brutal in the Crownlands.

4. His plotting of the Red Wedding, a massacre that outraged standard Westerosi morals, during which his theme song was played

I actually blame the Freys more. Even though Tywin might have proposed the idea (Which, yes, was a very underhanded and honorableness move), it was the Freys who carried it out within their own halls, and they could always have rejected the plan.

5. The Reynes of Castamere, which I would love more details about

I also believe that he had to put down the rebellion, and put it down well, but I also believe that Tywin was too exceptionally brutal here. If the English kings or dukes had, whenever there was a rebellion, razed the rebelling castles, killed all its inhabitants and utterly wiped out the rebelling nobles' families, I doubt that England would have been half as populated or had as many castles and noble families surviving into the 15th century intact.

[Alexia]

I'll grant you guys the Reynes of Castamere since what we're really arguing is a matter of excessiveness. I'll agree that the Freys are more responsible for the Red Wedding (although Tywin's hands are nowhere near clean).

But his treatment of the peasants of Westeros cannot be defended. I know Robb Stark did some of the same in the Westerlands, as did Roose Bolton in the Crownlands. That just makes them animals too. But I don't think Bolton or Stark rivaled Tywin for pure evil on that score. The English often did that (including during the War of the Roses). It's currently happening in some parts of Africa and Asia. The Russians did it to the Germans during World War II.

I don't think I ever got over reading Chyswick's description of what they all did to that 13 year old girl, though. It just can't be defended...how does torturing her help them win?

[Rinso]

Yes, it is war. Those were peasants from enemy territory. I'm not saying it's okay, but that's how wars are fought in Westeros. And the peasants always get the short end of the stick.

Chiswyck's story about the inkeeper's daughter has nothing to do with Tywin. Gregor did this before Tywin started the war, on his way home, because he was angry how Loras embarassed him at the Tourney of the Hand. It was evil and cruel, but Tywin had no role in it. He probably never even knew that it happened.

How exactly Robb could have been killed without the Red Wedding? Tywin arranged the Wedding exactly because he realized that Robb is too wary on the battlefield and the war could have dragged for another year or more. Again, it wasn't pretty, honourable or admirable, but he did what he did to win the war. I cannot blame him for that.

At the time of the Sack of King's Landing Tywin still didn't knew Gregor that well. He (Gregor) was only 17 at the time, IIRC, so he still had a long way to go to reach the level of infamy he had during the War of the Five Kings. If he knew that Gregor would kill Elia, I'm sure that he wouldn't have sent him. I assume that the case was same with Lorch; Tywin wondered why it was needed to butcher Rhaenys when Lorch could have just soothed her with a few words and then strangle her with a pillow or something.

If Tywin had executed Gregor and Lorch, he would have admitted that the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys were a crime. Instead of a necessary deed of war. Besides, he was the one who presented their corpses to Robert in front of everyone. After that, he couldn't have just pretended to be sincerely affected by what his soldiers did. And again, the Dornish weren't going to be pleased with just Gregor and Lorch. It was best for Tywin to just ignore them, even if it was morally wrong.

And yes, he's a horrible person. So is Gregor. Perhaps that's why they ere so fond of each other :ninja:

[Hazel]

But his treatment of the peasants of Westeros cannot be defended. I know Robb Stark did some of the same in the Westerlands, as did Roose Bolton in the Crownlands. That just makes them animals too. But I don't think Bolton or Stark rivaled Tywin for pure evil on that score. The English often did that (including during the War of the Roses). It's currently happening in some parts of Africa and Asia. The Russians did it to the Germans during World War II.

I don't think I ever got over reading Chyswick's description of what they all did to that 13 year old girl, though. It just can't be defended...how does torturing her help them win?

It doesn't. Those are just individual acts of cruelty. These armies consist of thousands of men, and each man has his own personality. If it happens that some soldiers are exceptionally cruel, as are their officers, well... those things are bound to happen.

Robb Stark was only as cruel as he had to be with his enemies (We're talking about quite a pillar of honor here), and he was able to keep his men in comparable reign, only entering the Westerlands with 6,000 horsemen and commanding them himself. Tywin sent out his armies of 20,000 and was never amongst the men. I actually doubt he ever even cared.

By the way, let's not forget the cruelest of all participants of World War 2: Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Now THERE you can find some grueling stories of unnecessary cruelty. I think the Germans were pretty lucky getting through the Russian invasion as they did, considering what they had done to Russia/Ukraine.

I mean, they wanted to EXTINGUISH Leningrad. Raze the city and kill EVERY SINGLE INHABITANT.

But I agree that Tywin was far crueler than anyone else, if just because he said, 'Send out Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch' whiles knowing perfectly well what they were capable of. Those guys were just complete lunatics.

[TrueMetis]

Of course the people who supported him and betrayed Robb get rewards. That's just war. The Starks are not losing their lands, marriages were arranged for Sansa and fake Arya with the intent that Winterfell go to a Stark child. The male heirs are all dead or presumed as such. Making an example out of the Tullys is not necessarily bad either, if nobody else gets the same treatment.

Sansa and fake-Arya aren't being married so winterfell went to a Stark child. The marriages were arranged to give Tyrion and then Bolton control if it was about giving it to Stark kids they wouldn't have made up a fake-Arya.

I'm not sure if anyone, except for the Starks who are presumed dead anyway, are getting the lose are your land, your seat, and your freedom treatment but plenty are getting the lose a large portion of your land, a lot of your power, and the freedom of your heir treatment. Now hostages are fair game they're to be expected it the other two treatments that will cause resenments among the rebel houses, plus the resentment of having a frey in Riverrun and Littlefinger as lord paramount. As well as Bolton in control of the North that will piss of most of the Northern houses.

Also, the honorable Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon forced Balon Greyjoy to give up his ten year old son as a hostage when he rebelled. That seems to be standard Westerosi treatment for losers and therefore not something that would breed undue resentment.

Hostages are fair game and very useful, notice how Greyjoy didn't do anything untill the starks were pretty much defenceless? It's the other things like the loss of power and land that piss people off. Greyjoy was still the most powerful house on the Iron islands. Had they taken away land and given it to Roberts people wou can bet that the Iron Islands would have rebeled again pretty quick.

I stated the same idea in this thread before he did.

I know I tryed to say the same thing as well He just summed it up very nicely.

[Alexia]

And yes, he's a horrible person. So is Gregor. Perhaps that's why they ere so fond of each other :ninja:

As long as we agree on that. :)

As for the innkeeper's daughter, I don't think that happened on their way back from the tourney. Or did I completely miss something? Quote, please.

Even if I'm mistaken on that one, it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't care. Didn't he order some whores private parts washed out with lye for servicing Northmen? As though they had a choice and there was any point besides wanton cruelty. What about the Sack of Kings Landing? The city surrendered but the Lannisters raped and looted as they pleased.

Westeros needs a French Revolution, come to think of it. :smash:

By the way, let's not forget the cruelest of all participants of World War 2: Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Now THERE you can find some grueling stories of unnecessary cruelty. I think the Germans were pretty lucky getting through the Russian invasion as they did, considering what they had done to Russia/Ukraine.

You are of course correct. I was thinking that the Holocaust didn't quite count as scorched earth so didn't list it but forgot about their invasion of Russia. And Imperialist Japan was a nightmare and a half...I would actually compare Lord Twyin's policy to theirs.

[wakiki]

I stated the same idea in this thread before he did.

That's correct. I didn't mean to take credit, if it appeared that way. :)

[Hazel]

Westeros needs a French Revolution, come to think of it. :smash:

Oh no, please no.

Please, anything but the wigs.

But yeah, I also felt very uncomfortable and outraged when I first read about the cruelties of war in Westeros. But since then I've become a misanthrope, so I can now enjoy ASoIaF to the fullest. :thumbsup:

[Rinso]

As long as we agree on that. :)

Nobody argues about that. We just seem to squabble over details.

As for the innkeeper's daughter, I don't think that happened on their way back from the tourney. Or did I completely miss something? Quote, please.

Sigh. As you wish, m'lady.

"After the Hand's tourney, it were, before the war come," Chiswyck was saying, "We were on our ways back west, seven of us with Ser Gregor."

I don't see a point in quoting the whole scene. It's in an Arya chapter, when she's in Harrenhal, if you want to read it.

Even if I'm mistaken on that one, it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't care. Didn't he order some whores private parts washed out with lye for servicing Northmen? As though they had a choice and there was any point besides wanton cruelty.

I'm pretty sure you confuse him with Randyll Tarly here.

What about the Sack of Kings Landing? The city surrendered but the Lannisters raped and looted as they pleased.

Well... The city didn't technically surrender... They just thought that the Lannisters were their friends... Which makes it even worse, but it wouldn't have happened if Aerys hadn't done all he could to make Tywin his enemy. Plus, they (the Lannisters) were in a hurry to show that they're in cahoots with the rebels.

Westeros needs a French Revolution, come to think of it. :smash:

I actually wonder why it hasen't happened yet...

[Alexia]

Nobody argues about that. We just seem to squabble over details.

That's what makes the discussion fun. :smoking:

I just pulled out my book. You're right, I'm wrong. So I'll take that crime off Tywin's list.

I believe Randyll Tarly had a woman washed out with lye for giving some of his soldiers an STD and that Twyin did it for servicing Northman.

But yeah, I also felt very uncomfortable and outraged when I first read about the cruelties of war in Westeros.

Yea, I find it way too easy to project myself into the heads of the female characters so every time I read it I get outraged all over again. For Pia, Lysa, Catelyn, Sansa, the innkeeper's daughter, etc. Even for Cersei, when they were waiting during the Battle of the Blackwater and she's terrified remembering what happened to Elia.