Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Thunderfist

[Book Spoilers] I´m starting to love Tywin Lannister

Recommended Posts

Watching that scene again, I can't get over how good Dance is as Tywin. Such a sheer badass... Close second to Nikolaj for me.

I feel they're making most of the Lannisters a little more likeable (Jaime aside, though that changes on its own); Cersei is much less of a bitch, Tyrion's own shortcomings aren't really prevalent yet, and Tywin's big entry into S2 is a scene that good -- saving two major characters from torture and walking all over his pet monsters.

Joff, on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dance rocks as Tywin. I would agree that the show is making Cersei and Tywin more likeable.

I can't believe there is still an argument about whether or not Tywin is a douche. I did not know that effective leader/administrator = not a douche. He is a total arrogant egotistical prick. He is utterly ruthless and heartless. He has zero conscience and only worries about himself.

Yes, he is not a sick sadist like Ramsay, Joffery, or The Mountain, but IMO he is pretty much a sociopath. He doesn't partake in monstrous acts himself because he would look bad and he does not want to get his hands dirty. However he has 0 problem ordering people to do monstrous acts. What was the greater good accomplished by having his sons lowborn wife gang-raped in front of him?

So if you think a person is only judged by how effectively they collect and maintain their power than you fundamentaly believe differently than me (and others I would say) and further arguing may be pointless.

For all of ASOIAF plot twists there is one thing that is pretty formulaic: If you are honorable your plans will fall apart and you will lose. Only if you are completely ruthless and pragmatic do you really stand a chance (or maybe really lucky/magic, i.e. Dany).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read AFFC? I don't know if GRRM could have emphasized the destruction made by each faction any more. Wolves, lions, crackens, no matter. They all hurt the commoners. Jorah also emphasized this. War is never good--especially for those who already live simple lives and depend on livestock, crops, etc.

Well aware of that.

If you want to use this against Tywin, use it against Robb as well. When invading enemy lands, the soldiers take their rewards (women, gold, shelter, etc.)

Nope, not Robb, because Robb does not encourage it, and would certainly more than frown upon it and put a stop to it if he had the power (he doesn't, obviously).

(Hell, even Theon of all people punishes the drunken squabblers and the rapists during the capture of Winterfell.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morrigan:

Each one of your arguments against Tywin you find convienent (and rarely true) excuses for the other characters.

As Robb goes through his war he knows full well what Roose Boilton is; Ned was aware of Roose for qwuite some time (on the TRident ROose advocates executing prisoners like Barristan Selmy). I asked you if Ned was as bad as Tywin because TYwin had Gregor and Ned had Roose. Both men committed attrocities on their lands; both men had multiple wives die under mysterious circumstances; both men have gruesome reputations. For Ned- NOPE Ned is honorable and good and fluffy and pets his kids direwolves and hugs his wife at night. So he's good.

Tywin is mean! HE says bad thinsg about Tyrion and ... and ... he ... he once helled at a guardsman... and ... and he.. he's SO MEAN! So, he's bad.

That's the thing- I accept Tywin and Ned as part and parcel of being an effecttive and juditious lord. I accept Jon Arryn and Doran Martel and MAce Tyrel as well (according to your logic, btw, because we have never heard of any attrocities committed by Mace Tyrel, the man is a paragon of virture). You make a moral judgment.

Now, I understand that Tywin did really bad things that are terrible- Tysha; his attitude towards Tyrion etc. I also accept that Ned Stark lied to his wife for their entire relationship about an adulterous affair he never had; that he was so caught up in "honor" that he utterly ruined his family in the face of pretty obvious danger. Hey, it happens; that does not make Ned a bad guy.

And I accept that in war both men had to do pretty bad things to continue the momentum of battle and victory; I accept that Tywin needs the Mountain like Ned needs Roose. I accept that Robb needed Roose as well and that his Wolves - like the ones who chopped off Jaime's hand (who when they worked for Tywin I bet you thought they were MONSTERS!!!! But when they worked for Robb? Hmmm... that... that was Roose, right? Curiouser and curiouser.- and Tywin needed his lions. They all do terrible things. Robb's romp in the West was a guerrilla warfare plan he tore uup farmlands and slaughtered cattle etc.

But I'm sure in your world if any peasants or townsfolk opbjected, good ol' Robb came out and gave them a stern lecture and then spanked their bottoms and said "Now go on you big lugs before I get angry!" And everyone laughed

No. No no. Those people would still starve when RObb burned their crops and destroyed their livlihoods. Robb just was in the West shorter than Tywin was in the Riverlands.

I believe that's why they call that war. Again.

But you will be happy to note that I do know how to read whether or not somebody has drawn a stritke-through line through the word "Internet" (super clever of you, btw). Perhapse you should learn to argue better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean - sorry for this - you knwo that when we first meet Eddard he's chopping a guy's head off? Now, I say "That's fine" because the man was a deserter (then again... when Jon deserted it was all cool); if Tywin did that I would venture to guess that you would say that is proof on how horrible he is. Eddard killed a man because that's the law of the land (though in the series its worse- Ned kills the man ... and then starts asking questions about the man's claims. Ned Stark- launching investigations after he's killed the star witness).

Doran Martell's brother is a killer who slaps women and poisons people. Cool, right? Does this make Doran a horrible person because the Red Viper served him?

My point is this- in war horrible, horrible things happen in this world. They are not advanced enough to have things like "The Geneva Convention" etc. And men like Tywin have Gregor; men like Doran have Obyren; men like Ned have Roose. That's par for the course. These are hard men with hard, hard servants. And in war you play to win. ITs easy for me to say- having never served in one myself -but from the descriptions we have all been exposed to, war is pretty fucking terrible. And merely because Tywin does not reign in Gregor or Robb gives Roose Harrenhal or Doran sends Obyren to court, that does not mean these actions are or were in and of themselves horrible acts, or makes one "douchey" (I don't know what this discription is so ....)

It makes their world hard to live in; it makes it hard to navigate; it makes it hard to survive. Ned was a tremendous father (Arya is not entirely his fault just like Cersei is not entirely Tywin's fault- both men were doing other things); Tywin a tremendous lord. Tywin was a monster to Tysha (an event so perposterous that we have to believe it) but he had his (shitty) reasons- Tyrion cannot marry a common woman. Period. Ned chops mens heads off. Why? Because there cannot be deserters. Preiod.

To then malke them intimately responsible for every bad act every one of their men takes at all times i a highly questionable process one that leads nowhere becasue that means RObb's a monster, Ned's a monster, Jon Arryn's a monster, Dany is a monster, etc etc etc ad mosium. THey are all not mosnters (for the actions you described during war).

And that was may point the whole time. If you want to say Tywin is an asshole for what he did to Tysha (ugh... lame) than I have no problem with that. At all. BUt you seem to have a very real problem in acceotuing that during war these men must act in these ways. And sometimes, in "peace" to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawman, strawman, tu quoque, strawman, deliberate obtuseness, false equivalencies, non-sequitur... I lost count of all the fallacies. And that's just in the first post, I'm not even gonna bother reading past this garbage.

You think that if Robb or Ned knew of the torture going on at the Dreadfort, he would have allowed it? Really? Robb is creeped out by Roose when he's around him. He does keep him around because he needs him to lead soldiers, but he doesn't let him get away with atrocities if he has the power to stop them. Both Ned and Robb make active efforts to stop atrocities from happening whenever they can. Tywin, on the other hand, not only encourages them, but he lets Gregor get away with tons of crimes (even before the war, mind you) because Gregor is convenient to him. On the flipside, if Ned learns of atrocities or severe crimes being committed by his bannermen, guess what he does? He goes himself to arrest them. Ser Jorah, anyone? Jorah was lucky enough to escape before Ned made it to Bear Island, but it goes to show that Ned wouldn't let a slaver get away with his crimes. If you think for a second that he'd close his eyes on the atrocities at the Dreadfort if he had known of them, you're deluding yourself. (Not to mention that Ned would have never done something like Tywin did to Tysha to "punish" his son.)

That you refuse to see the difference is nothing short of disingenuous. (I do admit to being impressed at the mental gymnastics required to compare Ned to Tywin, though.)

Tywin is mean! HE says bad thinsg about Tyrion and ... and ... he ... he once helled at a guardsman... and ... and he.. he's SO MEAN! So, he's bad.

Right, because that was my argument. "Tywin is evil because he says bad things about Tyrion and he yelled at a guardsman". Seriously, listen to yourself. The straw is so thick I couldn't even cut it off with a perfectly sharpened katana (not to mention that you sound like a petulant brat).

I'm done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is this- in war horrible, horrible things happen in this world.

This is very simplistic, isn't it? War is horrible, of course. At the end, it's people killing each other. But the ones who participate in it can try to minimize its horrors or can try to increase them. Robb did the former, Tywin did the later.

As Robb goes through his war he knows full well what Roose Boilton is; Ned was aware of Roose for qwuite some time

Robb is a boy of sixteen. Do you really believe he would have given him the command of half of his forces if he knew "full well what Roose Bolton is"?

I think it's telling that all the acts of "cruelty" attributed to Robb's army have been done by the part of the army commanded by Lord Bolton. Where Robb was commanding, we've never heard of burning fields, killing peasants, mistreat prisoners, rapes,...

And I accept that in war both men had to do pretty bad things to continue the momentum of battle and victory; I accept that Tywin needs the Mountain like Ned needs Roose. I accept that Robb needed Roose as well and that his Wolves - like the ones who chopped off Jaime's hand (who when they worked for Tywin I bet you thought they were MONSTERS!!!! But when they worked for Robb? Hmmm... that... that was Roose, right? Curiouser and curiouser.

You keep saying that Ned (or Robb) needs Roose. And this is false. Reread the AGOT chapter where Robb decides to give Roose the command of half of his army. He is not looking for someone harsh or ruthless, but for someone cautious (that's why he refuses his first option, the Greatjon).

You are comparing very different things. Tywin sends Gregor to the Riverlands to raze and pillage. Robb sends Roose to defend a land he claims as his own (and for this reason, all the acts of cruelty against the peasants of the Riverlands were against Robb's interests!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawman, strawman, tu quoque, strawman, deliberate obtuseness, false equivalencies, non-sequitur... I lost count of all the fallacies. And that's just in the first post, I'm not even gonna bother reading past this garbage.

You think that if Robb or Ned knew of the torture going on at the Dreadfort, he would have allowed it? Really? Robb is creeped out by Roose when he's around him. He does keep him around because he needs him to lead soldiers, but he doesn't let him get away with atrocities if he has the power to stop them. Both Ned and Robb make active efforts to stop atrocities from happening whenever they can. Tywin, on the other hand, not only encourages them, but he lets Gregor get away with tons of crimes (even before the war, mind you) because Gregor is convenient to him. On the flipside, if Ned learns of atrocities or severe crimes being committed by his bannermen, guess what he does? He goes himself to arrest them. Ser Jorah, anyone? Jorah was lucky enough to escape before Ned made it to Bear Island, but it goes to show that Ned wouldn't let a slaver get away with his crimes. If you think for a second that he'd close his eyes on the atrocities at the Dreadfort if he had known of them, you're deluding yourself. (Not to mention that Ned would have never done something like Tywin did to Tysha to "punish" his son.)

That you refuse to see the difference is nothing short of disingenuous. (I do admit to being impressed at the mental gymnastics required to compare Ned to Tywin, though.)

Right, because that was my argument. "Tywin is evil because he says bad things about Tyrion and he yelled at a guardsman". Seriously, listen to yourself. The straw is so thick I couldn't even cut it off with a perfectly sharpened katana (not to mention that you sound like a petulant brat).

I'm done here.

You need to read the books again. Robb's soldiers raped and pillaged just like the Lannisters'. Tywin is indeed an asshole, but your argument is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morrigan:

You think that if Robb or Ned knew of the torture going on at the Dreadfort, he would have allowed it?

I think Ned allowed quite a bit. For starters, the legends and rumors surrounding Roose and Ramsey are no less horrid than the ones surrounding Gregor. I think Ned knew or should have known and also knew that the North respected stuff like that. I mean if your argument is that Ned was, by-in-large, a simpleton who needed stuff drilled into his head before he knew what was going on, you get no argument from me. My point is that Ned had a good read on the men that served under him and he knew Roose was a bad guy at the Trident at the latest.

Really? Robb is creeped out by Roose when he's around him. He does keep him around because he needs him to lead soldiers, but he doesn't let him get away with atrocities if he has the power to stop them.

And Tywin kept the Mountain around because he was good at commanding men. See? Why is one behavior "acceptable" in one and "war crimes" in another?

Both Ned and Robb make active efforts to stop atrocities from happening whenever they can.

Not really. Robb is pretty silent on atrocities; we know his plan in the West was to raise havoc so I am not sure how that’s not an atrocity (given your lax definition). And we never see Ned command troops in battle or on campaign. I think its safe to say that Ned and Robb are good people, but in war that changes and mortifies. I think Robb especially was going to make the West bleed.

Tywin, on the other hand, not only encourages them, but he lets Gregor get away with tons of crimes (even before the war, mind you) because Gregor is convenient to him.

I would say “effective.” Again, I am unclear how Robb’s plan in the West was any different that Tywin’s unleashing of the Mountain after Cat illegally kidnaps Tyrion.

From the books:

But if he did not attack, he would have been trapped in the west, a thousand leagues from where he needed to be. All the while we would have lived off his land, instead of him living off ours.”

Martin, George R.R. (2003-03-04). A Storm of Swords: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Three (p. 199). Bantam. Kindle Edition.

What did you think “live off the lands” meant? You think he was going to share the wheat in the fields with the Westerners? Pay them for their time? His army was something like 12,000 men almost all on horseback; not likley he could spare to parlay with these people. Seriously, you are delusional if you think otherwise.

On the flipside, if Ned learns of atrocities or severe crimes being committed by his bannermen, guess what he does? He goes himself to arrest them. Ser Jorah, anyone? Jorah was lucky enough to escape before Ned made it to Bear Island, but it goes to show that Ned wouldn't let a slaver get away with his crimes.

Its unclear what Tywin would have done about slaves because we never have seen it. Tywin does have a knack for executing people, just like Ned, though. And I would say that Ned going out to Bear Island ALLOWED Jorah to escape. When Tywin wants a man taken, that man gets taken. See?

If you think for a second that he'd close his eyes on the atrocities at the Dreadfort if he had known of them, you're deluding yourself.

Again, I think its pretty clear that Ned either knew about Roose’s actions or should have known (the rumors and talk does not creep up overnight). Ned was Warden of the North and really should have been able to figure out Roose’s propensities. Other lords would have probably dropped a few subtle hints (beyond, you know, the banner being a flayed man and all). I think to some degree Ned knew that guys like Roose had a value.

And so did Robb, it should be noted.

Glad I impressed you though.

The hairy bear

This is very simplistic, isn't it? War is horrible, of course. At the end, it's people killing each other. But the ones who participate in it can try to minimize its horrors or can try to increase them. Robb did the former, Tywin did the later.

I think both men did what they needed to do to win. Again Robb was going to live off the land in the West, much to the discomfort of those who lived there. Historically speaking “living off the land” is a dicey proposition; but we have a good example of it: William Techumsa Sherman’s 1864-65 “March to the Sea” in the US Civil War. And that type of warfare was pretty horrible on the population there. Was that more Robb? Or more Tywin? I say it’s a little bit of both and that both men carried out some version of that war.

Also, Robb spent the VAST majority of the war in his lands or in his allies lands, hence the chances for him to damage enemy land was small. When he was in the west, the record is clear: he planned on uprooting that land for his and his army’s own ends. And there is nothing wrong with that in war. Tywin, by contrast, spends almost his entire war on enemy soil- either in the East or in the Riverlands and he does in the East what Robb had planned to do in the East. He also has to deal with guerrilla fighters, most notably Dondarion and that’s not small. In doing so he has to fight that war that way. Had Robb stayed West he would be doing much the same.

Robb is a boy of sixteen. Do you really believe he would have given him the command of half of his forces if he knew "full well what Roose Bolton is"?

I do. First, I am utterly unmoved by Robbs age. Robb was a man grown by Westeros standards. Robb made many hard decisions, had a great understanding of the men who served under him (ie- why he executed the Karstarks; knowing the Umbers would be bad at certain things, etc); and knew the mettle of war. Second Robb has inklings of Roose and he seems to be creeped out by Roose at certain points (Morigan says as much above). I think Robb thinks something like, “He’s a dangerous man. I am going to give him certain authority. I am glad he does not commit atrocities around me. The less I know about his maliciousness the better.” Its called “excusable neglect”; maybe Robb doesn’t know but he’s HAPPY he doesn’t know.

I think it's telling that all the acts of "cruelty" attributed to Robb's army have been done by the part of the army commanded by Lord Bolton. Where Robb was commanding, we've never heard of burning fields, killing peasants, mistreat prisoners, rapes,...

Again, by that same logic we could say that all of the rapes and cruelty done accredited to "Lions" was done by the Mountain and leave it at that on Tywin, but certain people do not. Also, the story finds cruelty in war in many geographic areas and its not just by lions and wolves in THIS certain area; the peasants et al talk about it in every area and they attribute the horrors to wolf and lion alike. I think Martin was very clear on this and does not make exclusions for either side.

Now, here me out- if you were to plop me down in Westeros and describe for me “THIS” example of an atrocity and have me wager who committed it, I would probably guess “Lannsiter” more times than not. And that has to do with a multitude of factors. First, Robb IS a nicer man than Tywin. Second, Tywin is the one who is fighting the war in enemy controlled areas and dealing with guerrilla warfare. Third, Tywin has a more pronounced history of this sort of thing; we have not followed Robb much once he leaves Riverrun, therefore we do not see the war from a LANNISTER POV to guage how bad the war was there. Fourth, after Robb returns we never see Robb in the field again other than to execute the Karstarks, something he was 100% justified in doing. But how come when Robb executes people its fine, but when Tywin does its murder? That, to me, is the nonsequituer.

Again, look at the Mountain- the story that Raff/Dunsen/Wees/Poliver (I confuse them) wherein the Mountain pays an inkeep to RAPE that inkeeps daughter is despicable. Horrible. Its stomach turning. And the Mountain is a terrible person for doing it.

Again, look at the Boltons and the flaying etc. That’s despicable. Horrible. Its stomach turning. And Roose and Reek are horrible people for allowing it.

If you allow Ned/Robb off the hook for one, and blame Tywin for the other its really not fair. Either they are both horrible or both “excusably neglectful.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockroi,

Jon's desertion is totaly different from the guy ned executed. Bad example. Other than that, no probs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Rockroi, there isn't evidence from the books of Ned setting Roose loose on people the way Tywin set the Mountain loose.

End. of. discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Rockroi, there isn't evidence from the books of Ned setting Roose loose on people the way Tywin set the Mountain loose.

I never claimed he did. I said that Tywin doing those things was not beyond the pale of that day and age (just so we are clear the Hand's Wife kidnaped Tywin's son and accused him of murder). I said that Ned was aware (or should have been aware) that Roose Bolton was a terrible person and capable of extreme maliciousness. Same thing with Tywin v the Mountain. Tywin DID, absolutely, unleash the Moiuntain on Tully homelands as a result of Catlyn's actions. Not the nicest thing a person could have done, but a proporational response to such a flagrant disregard of the KIng's peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I reckon Dance is fantastic as Tywin.Nearly as good as Sean Bean as Ned.

But not enough screen time for an overall judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed he did. I said that Tywin doing those things was not beyond the pale of that day and age (just so we are clear the Hand's Wife kidnaped Tywin's son and accused him of murder). I said that Ned was aware (or should have been aware) that Roose Bolton was a terrible person and capable of extreme maliciousness. Same thing with Tywin v the Mountain. Tywin DID, absolutely, unleash the Moiuntain on Tully homelands as a result of Catlyn's actions. Not the nicest thing a person could have done, but a proporational response to such a flagrant disregard of the KIng's peace.

Tywin unleashed the Mountain to draw Ned out away from the capital into a trap so he could be killed.

Ned was aware that Bolton wasn't a good person, Tywin knew the Mountain to be a monster and used him as such; I'm just saying Tywin != Ned.

And yeah, the guy playing Tywin has been perfect in every scene; I'm still looking forward to the crossbow incident though, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was trying to get at. They're going to have to lay it on real thick (which I'm sure they will) to make sure that viewers despise him. If he comes across as an overly stern and sometimes abusive father it won't be enough to justify his demise (assuming they keep it as it was in the books).

Well...do viewers HAVE to utterly despise him? Of course they need to make him a bit blacker, but I don't think they're obligated to make Tyrion out to be a totally flawless hero. If people have doubts as to whether Tyrion's actions are justified, so much the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...do viewers HAVE to utterly despise him? Of course they need to make him a bit blacker, but I don't think they're obligated to make Tyrion out to be a totally flawless hero. If people have doubts as to whether Tyrion's actions are justified, so much the better.

For me, I think that the shock to non-book readers of the truly vicious cruelty Tywin did to Tyrion about his teen-aged marriage will have the viewers right there alongside Tyrion and his cross-bow. Think of all the years Tyrion's lived with it--thinking that once, ever, in his life, someone truly loved him. Then, finding out she was a paid whore. Living with that, all these years. And now finding out that she really was just a sweet girl did love him, and his father had her raped near unto death. I don't think there's going to be a problem... Whang!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that Ned had a good read on the men that served under him and he knew Roose was a bad guy at the Trident at the latest.

You keep saying that Ned knew Roose was a bad guy, with the only basis that he suggested to execute a sworn member of the enemy king's personal guard. Just after the heat of the battle, when Barristan had just killed many of their friends in battle. This can't be equated to a man who burned his brother's face, who had crashed Aegon's skull against a wall, who raped and murdered Princes Elia (when she was not to be killed), and who is rumored to have killed her wife.

Even if we accepted that Eddard suspected that Roose was "a bad guy" (which I deny. He suspected at the most), then you should still have to prove that he passed this information to Robb. You arew right that ar sixteen Robb was a man grown by Westeros standards. But it's also true that the fact that his father died so early and unexpectedly does not allow as to assume unequivocally that Ned pased to his son all the information about which lords he trusted, and which not.

Tywin DID, absolutely, unleash the Moiuntain on Tully homelands as a result of Catlyn's actions. Not the nicest thing a person could have done, but a proporational response to such a flagrant disregard of the KIng's peace.

A proportional response? Are we talking seriously here?

A proportional response would have been taking one of Catelyn's sons as a hostage. Attacking the armies of the North (Catelyn was acting as a Stark) or the Vale would be disproportionate, but still somehow understanable. Attacking the armies of the Riverlands already be out of proportion, since Hoster Tully had nothing to do with the arrest, but I still could see how some could defend it.

But attacking the peasants of the Riverlands? Withou declaration of war? Under no banners? And you call this "proportional"? Please, even Tywin wouldn't agree with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep saying that Ned knew Roose was a bad guy, with the only basis that he suggested to execute a sworn member of the enemy king's personal guard. Just after the heat of the battle, when Barristan had just killed many of their friends in battle. This can't be equated to a man who burned his brother's face, who had crashed Aegon's skull against a wall, who raped and murdered Princes Elia (when she was not to be killed), and who is rumored to have killed her wife.

Even if we accepted that Eddard suspected that Roose was "a bad guy" (which I deny. He suspected at the most), then you should still have to prove that he passed this information to Robb. You arew right that ar sixteen Robb was a man grown by Westeros standards. But it's also true that the fact that his father died so early and unexpectedly does not allow as to assume unequivocally that Ned pased to his son all the information about which lords he trusted, and which not.

Roose's reputation preceded him. By the time DwD rolls around its clear that the stories of Roose and Ramsey have been going around the realm for years and its not hard to fathom how these guys got their mutual reps. By the time Robb gets a hold of Roose he is getting first-hand exposure to Roose and its pretty obvious that Robb suspects pretty heavily that this guy is trouble. Add to that stories that have been streaming out of the Dredfort for, literally, generations, and you can figure out how upsetting this could all be.

Again, though, I don't think it makes Ned and Robb bad people; it makes them effective leaders. Warfare takes monsters- sometimes they are ragons, sometimes they are Vipers and Mountains. But they get the job done.

A proportional response would have been taking one of Catelyn's sons as a hostage. Attacking the armies of the North (Catelyn was acting as a Stark) or the Vale would be disproportionate, but still somehow understanable. Attacking the armies of the Riverlands already be out of proportion, since Hoster Tully had nothing to do with the arrest, but I still could see how some could defend it.

All utterly unrealistic and physically impossible. In order for Tywin to get North he would need to cut through Tully -controlled lands. He would then have to get up Moat Cailen etc. By tthat time Tyrion could be dead. Hmmm... not a good idea. He could have done the same thing by trying to besioege the Eerie, but again, he would havd to cut through Tully lands. Now, the last thing Tywin could have done (and its pretty silly to even consider it but its worth explring) would have been to make a B-Line for King's Landing and demand Tyrion's release from the King... except it would be the Hand who made the decision... Cat's husband... so, that's perposterous right there (consider if the rolls had been reveresed; what if Tywin had kidnapped Robb for some crime and Jaime sat as Robert's Hand- would it be reasonable for Ned to seek out Jaime to free Robb? Hardly). Also, if Cat really wanted to have done this correctly she would have returned to KL and demanded the Imp be arrested; again, perposterous: Robert's Wife is Tyrion's brother.

I bring this up to illustrate something pretty profound: Cat did not wait around to do things "By the Book" and because some guy she had not seen in 15 years lied to her and told her that her son was almost murdered by a dwarf she went and acted rashly (funny- when Joff acts rashly he's a monster; when Cat does it its because she loves her son. Amazing). But that's cool (because *sniff* she loved her son! *sniff*). What are Tywin's options? They all suck. So, he took the least terrible (from his POV- fuck everyone else's POV) and began tearing up the Riverlands. The Riverlands hjave lords to protect them; they all suck so that ended that. Ned then sent men to get the Mountain (so in other words, Ned "escallated hostilities") but, of course, did not order the return of Cat or Tyrion to the King's Justice.... wonder why? Beause he took the least terrible option... from his POV and fuck everyone else's POV!

Again, its injustice so long as somebody else does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, the last thing Tywin could have done (and its pretty silly to even consider it but its worth explring) would have been to make a B-Line for King's Landing and demand Tyrion's release from the King... except it would be the Hand who made the decision... Cat's husband... so, that's perposterous right there

Why would be silly? It would be the King (who was married to a Lannister and owed 3 mln. golden dragons to Tywin) who makes the decision, not the Hand - this is how it happened in the books after all, except it was Cersei who demanded it instead of Tywin. And it worked.

" You will command her to release the dwarf at once, and you will make your peace with Jaime.”

Again, its injustice so long as somebody else does it.

No, it's injustice in any case. You keep building all those strawmen how people would be totally OK if the Starks had done the same even though nobody has said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's got nothing to do with a proportionate response- by kidnapping one then the other of Tywin's sons, the Starks and Tullys declared war on the Lannisters and any actions are acts of war. Not that the acts would necessarily be seen as ethical in war even in Medieval times (though I think Tywin's tactics are pretty standard ones for that era), but war doesn't work in a "you attacked this town so I'll attack yours, an eye for an eye..." approach. It's both sides all out trying to defeat each other doing whatever they think is necessary and acceptable. There is no such thing as a proportional response unless Tywin didn't want to go to war for whatever reason, but it is perfectly justifiable from a noble's point of view to go to war when another House steals your heir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×