Tywin Lannister

[Alexia]

Ah, so can support the oppression of peasants just as long you don't like them :devil:

But it's not the peasants I don't like, it's the Greyjoys. The peasants are collateral damage. :smash:

And now, taking my tongue out of my cheek, I think the Lord of Light is actively dangerous and a destabilizing force right now. In Feast they were talking about his growing popularity in the Riverlands.

SPOILER: DWD

Melisandre and Stannis were processing forced conversions on the wildlings...making them burn weirwood in exchange for moving south of the Wall.

If you ask me, the Riverlands are gone. They've been too abused by followers of the Faith and the old gods. The only people (brigands) who have been helping them follow the Lord of Light. I believe it's too late to reverse that process now.

The North will be a harder nut to crack since they haven't been abused in the same way the riverlands peasants have been. Get rid of Stannis and his people and that ends that. But, Stannis is presumably going to be around for a while. It will be interesting to see how all that pans out in the upcoming books.

[Rinso]

But when the Brotherhood without Banners was led by Beric Dondarrion, they didn't try to convert anyone of the people they saved. In ASOS they saved a bunch of septons from the Bloody Mummers and not only they didn't try to convert them or anything, but they even agreed not to pray to R'hllor while under their roof.

And now, under the command of Catelyn, the Brotherhood seems more concerned with revenge towards the Boltons, the Freys and the Lannisters rather than with spreading their faith.

Not to mention that in AFFC septon Meribald seemed to be greeted well by the smallfolk. And the sept at the Quiet Isle is nothing but friendly, IIRC.

The Riverlands - and the rest of Westeros - have been worshipping the Seven for thousands of years. During which hundreds of wars happened. It will take more than the War of the Five Kings to shake the foundations of the Faith. Especially with the new movement that is closer to the smallfolk than ever. It can be said that the War of the Five Kings helped to create a different face of the Faith, but it didn't destroy its influence.

All of this, however, can change when the Others come. When you are threatened by a horde of ice demons and unkillable zombies that are vulnerable only to fire, you don't care for a Smith God, a Mother Goddess or even a Warrior God. You want a Fire God.

As for the spoilers.

SPOILER: ADWD

I'm not sure how reliable this measure is. The Wildlings are newly converted, and not on their free will. If Stannis or Melisandre (or both) happens to die, that shaky foundation won't last for long. And knowing the Wildlings, they might rebel either way.

[the average Other]

You don't choose a king. He's not a president. Robert became a king because he was strong enough to defeat the royal House in an open war and because he was the only one of the rebels who had a drop of royal blood himself. It wasn't a matter of choosing.

Robert was chosen, first as the leader of their rebellion and then as king, over Ned Stark, who had won battles as well, and Jon Arryn, who was older and more experienced, and Tywin Lannister, whose men had taken King's Landing and The Red Keep. Because he was not only strong and charismatic but also related to Targaryens.

No, it's not. If the murder of Rhaegar's children wasn't considered useful and helpful, even if it was cruel, then nobody would have rewarded the Lannisters for it. As it happens, they were rewarded generously.

They had also killed Aerys and taken King's Landing. Are you saying that doesn't count for anything?

No, how many times must I repeat myself? Seriously? Dany and Viserys should have been killed as well. The fact that the rebels didn't do it (Robert says it was because of Jon Arryn) just shows that they had cotton between their ears and that they did a half-assed job in securing the throne.

Now I'm wondering why Tywin didn't have them killed. He could have secretly sent assassins after them anytime during those fourteen years, but for some reason didn't. :unsure:

Near all the examples you gave are marriages designed to ensure that the groom will take the lands and the castle of the bride's family. Which is not even remotely the same as a marriage that would concern the taking of the Iron Throne and the whole of the Seven Kingdoms.

They are about creating a claim and/or strengthening an already existing claim through marriage. Not a different thing, in my eyes.

By the way, concerning Daeron II, I suggest you read "The Sworn Sword". During the Blackfyre Rebellion, Daemon Blackfyre was so fucking popular amongst the nobility and the warriors in Westeros exactly because they percieved Daeron II as a weakling who took a Martell for his wife, sold his sister to the Martells and filled the Court with Dornishmen, while Daemon enjoyed the reputation of a regal badass.

I have. Daeron was seen as weak since childhood because he wasn't a warrior like his half-brother and because their father favored Daemon. His marriage was not the original reason, though Blackfyre propaganda undoubtedly used that as a point against him, as they did everything else.

And if I'm not wrong, Nymeria didn't even fought against the Martells. She joined them - at the time they weren't the rulers of Dorne yet - and together with Mors Martell she conquered all of Dorne. So, a totally different and irrelevant example.

She allied herself through marriage to solidify her position instead of conquering everything single-handedly. Nobody seems to think that undermined her power or made her look weak.

What troubles exactly a marriage with Rhaenys would have saved him that the murdering of all Targaryen heirs wouldn't have saved? Such marriage wouldn't have been wise, it would have been merciful.

Lannisters taking over the realm. Resentment of Dorne. Fight with Ned. The need to plot the murders of even more children (since that troubled him, apparently). And, in hindsight, having children who are not his and becoming assassinated.

[Rinso]

Robert was chosen, first as the leader of their rebellion and then as king, over Ned Stark, who had won battles as well, and Jon Arryn, who was older and more experienced, and Tywin Lannister, whose men had taken King's Landing and The Red Keep. Because he was not only strong and charismatic but also related to Targaryens.

The word "choosing" would imply that anyone of the others was actually considered to be king. Which I don't think was the case. From the get-go they probably had the idea that if they succeed in the rebellion, then Robert would become king. Which is, yes, related to his tie to the Targaryen family, but it’s not a matter of choosing - it's a matter of blood right. Just like you don't choose a lord - he inherits the position.

And for the record, what battles did Ned win in the War of the Usurper? In the Battle of the Bells he saved Robert from Jon Connington, but that was more of a teamwork thing. And he lifted the siege of Storm's End, but the Tyrells chose not to give fight.

They had also killed Aerys and taken King's Landing. Are you saying that doesn't count for anything?

It counts. But so does the killing of Rhaegar's children. Which was done by the Lannisters because they wanted to prove their loyalty. And it worked. Their loyalty was proven and Robert was relieved and thankful.

Now I'm wondering why Tywin didn't have them killed. He could have secretly sent assassins after them anytime during those fourteen years, but for some reason didn't. :unsure:

The only reason why Tywin didn't have them killed was that they weren't in King's Landing during the Sack. They were in Dragonstone. And after the Sack, Stannis was sent to capture Dragonstone, while Viserys and the pregnant queen were still there.

I would imagine that once Viserys and Dany were smuggled away in the Free Cities, they stopped being considered a threat. Much later, this was Ned's main argument (besides "It's honorless!") to not sent assassins after them when they heard that Dany was carrying Drogo's child. Which, as the books prove beyond the shred of a doubt, was a big mistake for the securing of the throne. It's just that the rebels destroyed each other before the plans of Viserys and later Dany could come into motion. But on principle, Dany and Viserys should have been killed as early as possible.

I have. Daeron was seen as weak since childhood because he wasn't a warrior like his half-brother and because their father favored Daemon. His marriage was not the original reason, though Blackfyre propaganda undoubtedly used that as a point against him, as they did everything else.

Yes, Daeron didn't have a great reputation even before that, but the marriages with the Martells were considered a bad and weak decision by many. Besides, the Targaryens had failed in conquering Dorne before that; Robert didn't fail in defeating and crushing the Targaryens. The marriage with Myriah Martell might have been Daeron's only chance of claiming Dorne; Rhaenys wasn't Robert's only chance to claim the Iron Throne.

She allied herself through marriage to solidify her position instead of conquering everything single-handedly. Nobody seems to think that undermined her power or made her look weak.

Yes, but she didn't wage war on the Martells, like Robert did with the Targaryens. She wasn't seen as the person who will overthrow and destroy the Martell rule (there wasn't any at the time, but still). Nor did she have a very personal grudge with the Martells. All of this makes the example totally different. Basically, the example with Nymeria and Mors Martell is closer to what happened with Ned and Catelyn - an alliance of non-warring with each other factions through marriage.

Lannisters taking over the realm. Resentment of Dorne. Fight with Ned. The need to plot the murders of even more children (since that troubled him, apparently). And, in hindsight, having children who are not his and becoming assassinated.

Lannisters taking over the realm - is not so bad. Plus, if Robert didn't marry Cersei, then the Lannisters might have been in a need of another reward - probably making Tywin the Hand of the King again. Which would have once again led to a Lannister take over and wouldn't have been so bad.

Resentment of Dorne - in a previous post I talked how Elia should have been spared. I believe that if that has happened, a great deal of Dorne's resentment could have been avoided, since Doran and Oberyn probably didn't knew Rhaegar's children that well, but cared greatly about their sister. And even if Dorne still gathered resentment, with Aegon, Rhaenys, Dany and Viserys dead, there would have been virtually no one to turn to. On their own they are weak and they know it. So they would have had to suck it up and be glad that Elia is okay. That, however, didn't happen. A mistake on Tywin's side.

Fight with Ned - they managed to work things out after Lyanna's death, so that wasn't that big a deal.

The need to plot murders of even more children - Robert hated those children. When he saw the corpses of Rhaenys and Aegon, he called them "dragonspawn". That didn't trouble him at all.

Having children who are not his and getting assassinated - that couldn't have been foreseen. Besides, Robert could have made the marriage with Cersei work. On their wedding night she didn't hate him and was actually enjoying having sex with him, until he called out Lyanna's name. Everything went downhill after that, and his drinking, bullying and whoring didn't help a bit. But I think that Robert could have made it work; he just missed the chance to do so.

[Lord Varys]

It was actually Jon Arryn's Rebellion, not Robert's. He became a figurehead, and important because he could sway defeated Lords to his side (Ned, Jon and Hoster had more problems with bannermen who remained faithful to the Iron Throne), but it were Jon and Ned who secured the support of House Tully and parts of the Riverlands to the Rebel cause.

I assume the fact that made Robert King was the Trident. More exactly, the fact that he made the war a personal thing between him and Rhaegar, a fight for Lyanna, and the fact that he slew him personally.

If Rhaegar had died elsewhere (maybe killed by Jaime, for example), things might very well ended differently. Robert did not really want to become King. Neither did Ned. Jon most likely, too. But he would have been a more competent ruler. There would have been the succession issue, as Jon had no children; that, and maybe the fact that Jon could not now how long he was going to live prevented him from taking the throne himself.

Actually, it was Jon Arryn who forced the Realm to accept the new regime. It was him who arranged Robert's marriage. It was him who convinced Prince Doran to shut up and stay calm.

The killing of all Targaryens was not really necessary. Rhaenys and Aegon could still be alive and kicking in the Free Cities, and the Baratheon dynasty would rule save and sound, if Robert had been smart enough to remove Pycelle and Varys from his Council, and had Jaime removed from his Kingsguard.

Of course it was better for Robert and his heirs to have no living Targaryens around (that's why Renly sees no problem in assassinating Dany and Viserys). But it was never necessary. Aerys and Rhaegar needed to die. No one else.

And I doubt that Oberyn and Doran would have just looked the other way with Elia living, but her children dead. They loved Elia. Oberyn most likely even more than Doran. And Doran cares for children. Even for Myrcella.

[the average Other]

And for the record, what battles did Ned win in the War of the Usurper? In the Battle of the Bells he saved Robert from Jon Connington, but that was more of a teamwork thing. And he lifted the siege of Storm's End, but the Tyrells chose not to give fight.

I was referring to those two, yes. The latter is not a battle as such, but certainly a victory. TOJ could be counted as one, too.

The only reason why Tywin didn't have them killed was that they weren't in King's Landing during the Sack. They were in Dragonstone. And after the Sack, Stannis was sent to capture Dragonstone, while Viserys and the pregnant queen were still there.

I would imagine that once Viserys and Dany were smuggled away in the Free Cities, they stopped being considered a threat. Much later, this was Ned's main argument (besides "It's honorless!") to not sent assassins after them when they heard that Dany was carrying Drogo's child. Which, as the books prove beyond the shred of a doubt, was a big mistake for the securing of the throne. It's just that the rebels destroyed each other before the plans of Viserys and later Dany could come into motion. But on principle, Dany and Viserys should have been killed as early as possible.

You mistake my point. I was wondering why Tywin didn't arrange their deaths afterwards, if it indeed was so important to have the legitimate Targaryen heirs killed. He had the means (men, gold, info) and the ruthlessness. That he didn't implies in my opinion that he didn't think that killing the Targ kids was necessary at all, after he had secured his own position in the new reign. Killing Rhaenys and Aegon (and Elia) was all about Tywin's personal profit.

Lannisters taking over the realm - is not so bad.

Depends on the point of view.

Plus, if Robert didn't marry Cersei, then the Lannisters might have been in a need of another reward - probably making Tywin the Hand of the King again.

I doubt Jon Arryn would have given up that position. Lannisters could have been rewarded with lands and castles.

Resentment of Dorne - in a previous post I talked how Elia should have been spared. I believe that if that has happened, a great deal of Dorne's resentment could have been avoided, since Doran and Oberyn probably didn't knew Rhaegar's children that well, but cared greatly about their sister.

I agree with Lord Varys. No way the Martells would have just shrugged and forgotten about it, even if Elia had lived. And what about Elia herself? I think she might have been slightly upset and women aren't powerless in Dorne, as we've seen.

And even if Dorne still gathered resentment, with Aegon, Rhaenys, Dany and Viserys dead, there would have been virtually no one to turn to. On their own they are weak and they know it.

Yet Targaryens never managed to conquer them. Even with dragons.

I agree that Doran isn't war-like. He doesn't wish bloodshed, especially as he has other plans ripening. If the Targ restoration hadn't been possible, however, he might have hatched other kinds of plans to get his vengeance.

Fight with Ned - they managed to work things out after Lyanna's death, so that wasn't that big a deal.

I don't know. They don't seem that close to me when we see them in AGOT. Def. not as close as brothers, as they used to be.

The need to plot murders of even more children - Robert hated those children. When he saw the corpses of Rhaenys and Aegon, he called them "dragonspawn". That didn't trouble him at all.

Plotting the assassination of Dany and her baby troubled him so much that he cancelled his order.

Having children who are not his and getting assassinated - that couldn't have been foreseen. Besides, Robert could have made the marriage with Cersei work.

That's why I said 'in hindsight'. As to their marriage... When they were wed Cersei was already sleeping with Jaime and she hated Robert for killing Rhaegar, as we find out from her thoughts in AFFC. That Lyanna thing, otoh, is something she told Ned in a situation where she was trying to win Ned to her side. I'm not saying it never happened (it sounds believable to me) but it wasn't that important - Cersei is only playing it for sympathy.

[Rinso]

You mistake my point. I was wondering why Tywin didn't arrange their deaths afterwards, if it indeed was so important to have the legitimate Targaryen heirs killed. He had the means (men, gold, info) and the ruthlessness. That he didn't implies in my opinion that he didn't think that killing the Targ kids was necessary at all, after he had secured his own position in the new reign. Killing Rhaenys and Aegon (and Elia) was all about Tywin's personal profit.

Their deaths weren't arranged by Tywin - or anyone else - because, like I said, they weren't considered a threat. But in the moment when it became known that Dany and Viserys are in cahoots with a Dothraki warlord (i.e. they became a threat), an assassination was ordered. And that was the right thing to do in that situation. It was still a late reaction, however. It would have been better to do it as soon as possible. It's just that the rebels were too... I don't know... arrogant, by believing that since the remaining Targaryens were exiled in the Free Cities, they weren't a threat anymore.

Besides, Tywin may not have done it, because it wasn't his job. There was a king sitting on the Iron Throne, with a Hand and a Small Council, and everything. If they didn't saw fit to assassinate Dany and Viserys, why does Tywin has to do it on his own?

Depends on the point of view.

Probably. Though, like I pointed out before, there was a period when a Lannister was in charge of the realm and years later it's still remembered as a great time of peace and plenty.

I doubt Jon Arryn would have given up that position. Lannisters could have been rewarded with lands and castles.

Maybe. Though we don't know if Jon Arryn was rewarded the position or he had requested it. From the little we know of him, I don't think that he was a one to insolently demand rewards and cling to offices. I may be wrong though.

I agree with Lord Varys. No way the Martells would have just shrugged and forgotten about it, even if Elia had lived. And what about Elia herself? I think she might have been slightly upset and women aren't powerless in Dorne, as we've seen.

After the Martells have just participated a war, in which they were on the losing side (that's very important!), they would have been happy to keep their heads. That just wasn't the time to be upset about losing your influence in the court (which is what the deaths of Rhaenys and Aegon really mean for them). When you lose a war in Westeros, you're lucky if you keep your head, your lands and your power. The Martells kept their lives, their lands and the rulership over Dorne. What more could they have demanded, if Elia was alive and well?

As for Elia's own feelings, they don't matter. Second daughters in Dorne are just as powerless as second sons everywhere else in Westeros. Doran was the one who made the deicions and if he didn't go to war when Elia was killed and there were still living Targaryens, he wouldn't have done it if Elia was spared and there were no Targaryens left. I stand by this point.

Yet Targaryens never managed to conquer them. Even with dragons.

The Targaryens conquered Dorne. They just didn't manage to keep it conquered.

I agree that Doran isn't war-like. He doesn't wish bloodshed, especially as he has other plans ripening. If the Targ restoration hadn't been possible, however, he might have hatched other kinds of plans to get his vengeance.

Vengeance for what? For a nephew and a niece that he quite possibly never met? And what plans could he possibly have hatched?

I don't know. They don't seem that close to me when we see them in AGOT. Def. not as close as brothers, as they used to be.

Which wasn't because of Rhaegar's children, but because they haven't seen each other since Greyjoy's Rebellion. While before the War of the Usurper, they grew up together.

Plotting the assassination of Dany and her baby troubled him so much that he cancelled his order.

On his deathbed. When he was in an extremely regretful mood.

That's why I said 'in hindsight'. As to their marriage... When they were wed Cersei was already sleeping with Jaime and she hated Robert for killing Rhaegar, as we find out from her thoughts in AFFC. That Lyanna thing, otoh, is something she told Ned in a situation where she was trying to win Ned to her side. I'm not saying it never happened (it sounds believable to me) but it wasn't that important - Cersei is only playing it for sympathy.

Cersei didn't hate Robert for killing Rhaegar, IIRC, she just thought that the wrong man won. I'm positive that she initially didn't hate Robert. That happened after their wedding night.

As for Jaime, I think there might have been a solution to that problem as well. There was a great deal of complaining about how Robert pardoned him for Aerys' murder and accepted him in his new Kingsguard. I've thought about that. Robert basically had three options with Jaime. 1) - to send him to the Wall, like Ned wanted. 2) - to pardon him and accept him in his KG. And 3) - to strip him from the white cape and give back Tywin his favorite heir (Tywin himself wanted to do this in ASOS).

1) is not a good decision, IMO. It would have made it look like Aerys' murder was considered a crime and I don't think that would have been good for Robert's legitimacy so early-on.

2) is still not perfect. You accept an oathbreaker as one of your trusted protectors and accomplices. It tarnishes both the reputation of the KG (as even Jaime himself realizes at one point) and your own honor.

3) however, is looking pretty good to me. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me like the perfect solution. You kill two birds with one stone. You acknowledge Jaime's transgression and react accordingly while you don't treat him like a criminal. Tywin gets back his heir (for whose loss he was very upset with Aerys) and Cersei gets rid of her lover. It's a win-win-win-win situation.

Of course, Robert made the choices he made, and they weren't perfect. But my point was - and still is - that his marriage could have worked. Sure, maybe it wouldn't have been absolutely perfect - both he and Cersei have awful personalities and there would have been occasional clashes. But it's not like it was doomed from the get-go to become what it became.

[Matarreyes]

It was actually Jon Arryn's Rebellion, not Robert's. He became a figurehead, and important because he could sway defeated Lords to his side.

I assume the fact that made Robert King was the Trident. More exactly, the fact that he made the war a personal thing between him and Rhaegar, a fight for Lyanna, and the fact that he slew him personally. If Rhaegar had died elsewhere (maybe killed by Jaime, for example), things might very well ended differently.

Sorry, can´t agree with you. Remember, even Jaime (an "enemy" soldier stuck in the Red keep since before the Trident) said to Ned when stepping down from the Iron Throne that he was "saving it for cousin Robert". From his POV, the options were two:

- The Arryn / Baratheon / Starks party is in charge -> King Robert.

- The Lannister party is in charge -> Viserys with Tywin as hand.

The second option probably wasn´t much of an option at all, but he clearly knew who the leader of the "other party" was - Robert. This must have been pretty much decided between Ned, Robert and Jon Arryn for quite some time, if even Aerys KG knew such things.

Of course, Robert made the choices he made, and they weren't perfect. But my point was - and still is - that his marriage could have worked. Sure, maybe it wouldn't have been absolutely perfect - both he and Cersei have awful personalities and there would have been occasional clashes. But it's not like it was doomed from the get-go to become what it became.

I have always imagined that Robert screwed his marriage in two steps: first calling Cercei Lyanna on their wedding night, and then whoring (specifically at the Greenshit castle with some female cousin of his - semingly the first time Cercei caught him at it). In fact, Cercei remembers being happy and seeing her brother upset at her wedding - it´s not like they had agreed to keep on screwing while Robert wasn´t looking. Six months afterwards (no mention of twincest) Cercei is displeased with her husband´s attentions and becomes suspicious of him being unfaithful. She has Jaime follow him, and his reaction after confirming the infidelity is to ask whether she wants Robert dead. Had Jaime/Cercei been regularly sleeping behind his back, I highly doubt Jaime would have been so bothered by Robert´s whoring. It was like a "I lost her because of you, and you don´t even appreciate her?" reaction. Of course, leave it to Cercei to answer "I want him horned". Again, since she later muses on that episode as the night they made Joff, I am inclined to think that it was their first time since the marriage.

Bottom line being, Robert had a fair chance to win Cercei´s tolerance and Jaime´s respect to the point where the after marriage twincest would not have happened at all.