Stannis and Tywin?

[Peasant with No Story Arc]

Since the Red Wedding was a Frey-Bolton plot I don't see why Tywin would concern himself overtly much with it. He didn't even know it was supposed to be a massacre as opposed to a regular assassination.

Can I get a citation for that? Tywin was deeply involved in planning the Red Wedding. The only deviation I know of was Catelyn wasn't supposed to be killed.

Also unlike what some people think wars in Westeros are not fought according to the Genevá Convention. You think Robb was handing out candy in the West? Tywin wanted to win the war and used the most effecient tactics that were available in his time and culture. Also Tywin didn't do anything to the Darklyns but Aerys had them executed. Blame the right guy because surely you don't need to make things up to throw at Tywin?

Both sides were responsible for atrocities but you can't compare the scale of the two. A systematic campaign of terror against the smallfolk wasn't the most efficient way for Tywin to win the war. It wasn't necessary and had little if any discernible effect on the outcome. Tywin ordered one because it's his style to be punitive. It's an exercise of power. Political strategy, not military.

Fair point about the Darklyns, but if it'd been Tywin's decision it would've been the same one.

.. we have very little information about Tywin's time as Hand and thus we don't know what he did or did not do. You are right that Tywin isn't a knight in shinning armor but neither is he the psychopath some people try to make him out to be.

He isn't Gregor Clegane, but if he's not amoral he's as close as makes no real difference.

[Castel]

Both sides were responsible for atrocities but you can't compare the scale of the two. A systematic campaign of terror against the smallfolk wasn't the most efficient way for Tywin to win the war. It wasn't necessary and had little if any discernible effect on the outcome. Tywin ordered one because it's his style to be punitive. It's an exercise of power. Political strategy, not military.

Except it was, notice how all the riverlords were forced to choose between gathering in an army or defending their lands. Notice how those men were denied to Edmure and then Robb.

[Silmarien]

Except it was, notice how all the riverlords were forced to choose between gathering in an army or defending their lands. Notice how those men were denied to Edmure and then Robb.

Yes, except it also spawned a resistance movement called the BwB. Hardly a great strategy, since Tywin was losing most of that war, anyway....

[Castel]

Yes, except it also spawned a resistance movement called the BwB. Hardly a great strategy, since Tywin was losing most of that war, anyway....

A resistance movement that did little in the large scale of things. Tywin losing, which is debatable, had little to do with them or the riverlords. Keep in mind they were smashed and scattered and their lands were being systematically destroyed. Even if they didn't feel it at that moment, they surely would come winter. Also, keep in mind when this started Tywin worked in the shadows, he was trying to goad Edmure into attacking him.

[Peasant with No Story Arc]

There are certain customs in Westeros there to prevent total war and create a situation where peace is viable. They take hostages, at the end of the war the opposing party is taxed heavily, their lands are taken or their children are taken as hostages to ensure loyalty.

Tywin just skips past all of this and extinguishes entire families. Even in the worst wars in the books people expect that they can surrender and go to the Wall or give hostages to secure peace. Not so with Tywin.

There are exceptions, though. He lets plenty of houses and former enemies bend the knee and pledge fealty after defeat in the WotFK, as per his advice to Joffrey, who wanted everyone's head. Several lords paramount (the Starks, the Tullys and presumably if Storm's End had fallen in his lifetime, the Baratheons) are stripped of their titles but none of them are intentionally extinguished. They're taken captive and even if it was a sham in the case of the Starks Lordship would've still come from their line (from "Arya" and Ramsay or, preferably, Tyrion and Sansa). I assume something similar would've been planned after Stannis was defeated with Shireen (with Martyn or someone else marrying her).

The only times he acts out Joffrey's sickest fantasies are with the Reynes, the Tarbecks and the Bloody Mummers. Prior station is very important to him. You can go to war with him, lose and not have your family massacred. You just can't have been his bannerman or in his service when you did. If you're not from the Rock and not in his employ, you'll be treated the same way you would've by most of the other lords. Robert and the Starks seem to be among the few with a history of letting rebellious vassals keep their lands and titles (with the Greyjoys and the Boltons).

Tywin's a little more pragmatic than you're giving him credit for, at least at a time when Joffrey's throne isn't secure. Post-WotFK, I would expect any rebellious vassal to have gotten the Reyne/Tarbeck treatment if he'd had his way.

[Castel]

There are exceptions, though. He lets plenty of houses and former enemies bend the knee and pledge fealty after defeat in the WotFK, as per his advice to Joffrey, who wanted everyone's head. Several lords paramount (the Starks, the Tullys and presumably if Storm's End had fallen in his lifetime, the Baratheons) are stripped of their titles but none of them are intentionally extinguished. They're taken captive and even if it was a sham in the case of the Starks Lordship would've still come from their line (from "Arya" and Ramsay or, preferably, Tyrion and Sansa). I assume something similar would've been planned after Stannis was defeated with Shireen (with Martyn or someone else marrying her).

The only times he acts out Joffrey's sickest fantasies are with the Reynes, the Tarbecks and the Bloody Mummers. Prior station is very important to him. You can go to war with him, lose and not have your family massacred. You just can't have been his bannerman or in his service when you did. If you're not from the Rock and not in his employ, you'll be treated the same way you would've by most of the other lords. Robert and the Starks seem to be among the few with a history of letting rebellious vassals keep their lands and titles (with the Greyjoys and the Boltons).

Tywin's a little more pragmatic than you're giving him credit for, at least at a time when Joffrey's throne isn't secure. Post-WotFK, I would expect any rebellious vassal to have gotten the Reyne/Tarbeck treatment if he'd had his way.

No doubt, I just think that the fact that he totally destroyed the Reynes and Tarbecks instead of stripping the majority of their lands or sending them to the Watch or trying to seize hostages like Sansa adds a certain layer of menace to those stories. No one is safe.

That's not to say that he's doing it now, but it makes those tales ...larger.

As for him not doing it recently, he doesn't need to. Or he can't. The Tullys are gone as a force,,he'll marry off Edmure's daughter and kill him. The Starks are also dead as far as he knows, he had the only confirmed Stark in King's Landing. The Baratheons are also mostly dead, with Stannis' death guaranteed if he could find him. He can achieve a lot more through marriage here. The problem with the Reynes and Tarbecks was that they had little to offer him while alive. While he has complete control of the westerlands he can achieve more in places like the north or the riverlands by putting patsies there.

EDIT: God, just typing that out reminded me that four of the Great Houses are in serious trouble, three of them can actually be extinguished. God.

[Mulled Wino]

Stannis' abandonment of KL in aGoT seemed self serving and cowardly to me.

Self-serving? Game of Thrones? Who would have thunk it?

I thought there was some text about Stannis giving warning that he was leaving because he knew what was going to haPpen. Either that or Robert didnt listen. I could mislead by my Stannis love though (it happens).

[Istakhr]

No doubt, I just think that the fact that he totally destroyed the Reynes and Tarbecks instead of stripping the majority of their lands or sending them to the Watch or trying to seize hostages like Sansa adds a certain layer of menace to those stories. No one is safe.

That's not to say that he's doing it now, but it makes those tales ...larger.

As for him not doing it recently, he doesn't need to. Or he can't. The Tullys are gone as a force,,he'll marry off Edmure's daughter and kill him. The Starks are also dead as far as he knows, he had the only confirmed Stark in King's Landing. The Baratheons are also mostly dead, with Stannis' death guaranteed if he could find him. He can achieve a lot more through marriage here. The problem with the Reynes and Tarbecks was that they had little to offer him while alive. While he has complete control of the westerlands he can achieve more in places like the north or the riverlands by putting patsies there.

EDIT: God, just typing that out reminded me that four of the Great Houses are in serious trouble, three of them can actually be extinguished. God.

But you are forgetting the greatest flaw in Tywin's actions. From a young age he was exploiting the feudal system by breaking its rules and conventions, and he is admired for that. But since during the WotFK the effects of his actions are so large, it has resulted in the near total collapse of law and social order in Westeros. These laws and conventions are not meaningless, without them Lannister dynasty does not exist and Tywin is just a warlord with an ever weakening army.

[7V3N]

Tywin is an excellent military commander. Lord Reyne of Castamere was said to be a great militant leader, and Tywin (at age 15 or so IIRC) crushed them.

Tywin has excellent PR. He only pays his debts when he has to (see the Mountain Clans, as opposed to the Tyrells), but "A Lannister always pays his debts" is one of the most popular and well-known sayings in Westeros and is said like it is a known fact.

Stannis is too strict in his judgement of others. There is no leniency. He could be replaced by a book of laws and a strong military commander.

[Castel]

But you are forgetting the greatest flaw in Tywin's actions. From a young age he was exploiting the feudal system by breaking its rules and conventions, and he is admired for that. But since during the WotFK the effects of his actions are so large, it has resulted in the near total collapse of law and social order in Westeros. These laws and conventions are not meaningless, without them Lannister dynasty does not exist and Tywin is just a warlord with an ever weakening army.

Except it hasn't? Not really. I mean, all conventions may have a history behind them but they are kept in force by military might. It's that same might, and ambition of course that is guaranteeing Lannister rule. No one gives a shit that the Lannisters aren't descended from Targs like the Baratheons for example.

I think that people jump on the Red Wedding and claim that it will 'echo for millenia' or somesuch thing, it might, but I doubt it'd affect the current political balance that much. The only people that would do something about it can't.

[7V3N]

I think that people jump on the Red Wedding and claim that it will 'echo for millenia' or somesuch thing, it might, but I doubt it'd affect the current political balance that much. The only people that would do something about it can't.

I agree. All it did was give people an excuse to no longer consider the guest right as a sacred, untouchable thing concept.

Edit: thing was a bad word choice.

[Castel]

I agree. All it did was give people an excuse to no longer consider the guest right as a sacred, untouchable thing concept.

Edit: thing was a bad word choice.

I doubt it'd have that effect in the minds of most people really, at best people now weigh the consequences of breaking the guest right against the benefits and most of the time I don't think that it would be worth it.

[Gurkhal]

Can I get a citation for that? Tywin was deeply involved in planning the Red Wedding. The only deviation I know of was Catelyn wasn't supposed to be killed.

Sure.

Two different quotes in fact.

"So much for guest right."

"The blood is on Walder Frey's hands, not mine."

"Walder Frey is a peevish old man who lives to fondle his young wife and brood over the slights he's suffered. I have no doubt that he hatched this ugly chicken, but he would never have dared such a thing without a promise of protection."

"I suppose you would have spared the boy and told Lord Frey you had no need of his alliegiene?[...]"

[...]The Red Wedding was my father's work, and Ryman's and Lord Bolton's. Lothar rigged the tents to collapse and put the crossbowmen in the gallery with the musicians, Bastard Walder lead the attacks on the camps..."

While I understand how you think I think that you are wrong in blaming Tywin for more than offering protection after the deed. The act itself was hatched, planned and executed by the Freys and Bolton.

Both sides were responsible for atrocities but you can't compare the scale of the two. A systematic campaign of terror against the smallfolk wasn't the most efficient way for Tywin to win the war. It wasn't necessary and had little if any discernible effect on the outcome. Tywin ordered one because it's his style to be punitive. It's an exercise of power. Political strategy, not military.

I think that I can do that. In both cases it was an attempt to destroy the enemy's capability to wage war by destroying the economical base. And destroying that base is very much an act of military thinking.

Fair point about the Darklyns, but if it'd been Tywin's decision it would've been the same one.

What makes you think that? Tywin never did the same after he'd sorted out the Reynes and Tarbecks.

He isn't Gregor Clegane, but if he's not amoral he's as close as makes no real difference.

I can accept that you term him as amorale, but he's no sociopath.

[Istakhr]

Except it hasn't? Not really. I mean, all conventions may have a history behind them but they are kept in force by military might. It's that same might, and ambition of course that is guaranteeing Lannister rule. No one gives a shit that the Lannisters aren't descended from Targs like the Baratheons for example.

I think that people jump on the Red Wedding and claim that it will 'echo for millenia' or somesuch thing, it might, but I doubt it'd affect the current political balance that much. The only people that would do something about it can't.

Most conventions are not really protected by any force. That's why breaking them is advantageous. People do give a shit about appearance. Lannisters can crown only Cersei's children and they know it.

RW is just part of Tywin's contributions to the collapse of the system. He is the first one to practice total war. He also breaks all conventions about dealing with opposing nobles. His total war has brought faith back to power.

Westeros was an almost stable feudal society, and now it simply isn't. Tywin is the perfect example of when you break the rules a little you get ahead, but if you break them too much the system will collapse and you get nothing.

I agree. All it did was give people an excuse to no longer consider the guest right as a sacred, untouchable thing concept.

Edit: thing was a bad word choice.

It also shows any lord that they are not bound by any rules or conventions. RW negates the concept of feudal bond as anything other than the guy with the bigger stick forcing the weaker guy, and nobody is strong enough to force everyone else to his rule, not even Tywin.

That Tyrell's are idiots who has not yet found out that it is advantageous for them to slaughter all Lannister's except Tommon and portray themselves as saviors of the realm against the evil is not to Tywin's credit.

[7V3N]

My thought on RW was that the Freys were planning it, Bolton had an idea it would happen and got in on it and they went to Tywin for insurance if they did execute such plan. All Tywin did was okay it. Although I hope the show goes with the "Anyone can be killed" response to the Red Wedding.

[Peasant with No Story Arc]

While I understand how you think I think that you are wrong in blaming Tywin for more than offering protection after the deed. The act itself was hatched, planned and executed by the Freys and Bolton.

Tywin knew what was going to happen and it wouldn't have happened without his approval. Cersei and the Small Council were talking about using some Freys as scapegoats as soon as AFFC. If Walder Frey and Roose Bolton received no guarantee from Tywin they could've assumed that they'd be used as the scapegoats immediately after. In fact, that would've been the ideal scenario for Tywin: Robb dead, his forces routed and a token force of Boltons and Freys left to mop up to "avenge" the Young Wolf and defend Guest Right, thereby winning favor in the North, the Riverlands and elsewhere. Walder and Roose would never have done it without assurances from Tywin. They're too shrewd.

In both cases it was an attempt to destroy the enemy's capability to wage war by destroying the economical base. And destroying that base is very much an act of military thinking.

Equating capturing gold mines with raping and murdering smallfolk and burning them out of their homes is "Tywin thinking," but I concede that there was some military strategy to it. Ned saw that in AGOT.

What makes you think that? Tywin never did the same after he'd sorted out the Reynes and Tarbecks.

Because it's, as you said, exactly what he did in the same situation.

[Peasant with No Story Arc]

A resistance movement that did little in the large scale of things. Tywin losing, which is debatable, had little to do with them or the riverlords. Keep in mind they were smashed and scattered and their lands were being systematically destroyed. Even if they didn't feel it at that moment, they surely would come winter. Also, keep in mind when this started Tywin worked in the shadows, he was trying to goad Edmure into attacking him.

That's fair. It was an overstatement on my part to say that there was no military value in it, but it remains amoral and it neither decided the conflict nor would have. Marrying Jeyne (and losing the Freys) and the Greyjoys raiding the North were setbacks for Robb, but what lost the war for him was the Tyrells joining the Lannisters, and that was the work of Tyrion and Littlefinger. In fact, I'd say he lost the war not, as Roose says, when Theon took Winterfell but when Renly was murdered.

Renly's host was always going to decide things. If Renly isn't shadow babied, Stannis dies in battle the next morning and Renly marches north. In all likelihood he then comes to terms with Robb. Renly's position was Robb could rule the North as he saw fit and even call himself King of the North but he had to acknowledge Renly as his overlord. They already had the basis of an agreement. All that was left was a bit of negotiation (which Cat should've been willing to stay and conduct after the battle that never happened). Pledging fealty to Renly, Robert's brother, is a lot different from pledging it to Joffrey, and Renly had the same position towards the Lannisters that Robb did. They just had to find the right form of words.

Robb + Renly was enough to overwhelm Tywin and then take King's Landing. It would've ended the war quickly. Instead, Tywin + the Tyrells made a victory for Robb highly unlikely. Best case was holding out (using the Neck, guerrilla tactics from the Reeds, etc.) long enough for a stalemate. Tywin's offer (the Boltons replace the Starks as Lords of Winterfell and Wardens of the North, the Freys replace the Tullys as Lords of Riverrun) was better than anything Robb could offer, allowing them to do what they wanted to (for the Freys getting revenge and for Roose achieving his ambition), but he was only in a position to make that offer because he had the support of the Tyrells. Tywin was competent enough to be in a position to take advantage of the luck that came his way but luck was what won it for him, not field strategy.

[Castel]

It also shows any lord that they are not bound by any rules or conventions. RW negates the concept of feudal bond as anything other than the guy with the bigger stick forcing the weaker guy, and nobody is strong enough to force everyone else to his rule, not even Tywin.

I guess it depends on what we see in later books. But it certainly seems like it's heading in this direction, but not as rapidly as I think you think. I think people still care. The Tyrells, for example, wouldn't kill the Lannisters under their own roof I don't think. But we'll see. I just get skeptical when people come up with dramatic declarations like :" The Red Wedding was a huge blunder that will doom House Frey forever!" that aren't backed up.

Renly's host was always going to decide things. If Renly isn't shadow babied, Stannis dies in battle the next morning and Renly marches north. In all likelihood he then comes to terms with Robb. Renly's position was Robb could rule the North as he saw fit and even call himself King of the North but he had to acknowledge Renly as his overlord. They already had the basis of an agreement. All that was left was a bit of negotiation (which Cat should've been willing to stay and conduct after the battle that never happened). Pledging fealty to Renly, Robert's brother, is a lot different from pledging it to Joffrey, and Renly had the same position towards the Lannisters that Robb did. They just had to find the right form of words.

Renly wasn't promising anything different that what the Targaryens did. It was really different in name only, it was still de facto vassalization. It all depends on how realistic Robb is.If he's willing to accept a usurper and kinslayer since he's technically next in line (it baffles me that he literally ignored Joff's right to rule and refused to treat with someone doing the same). Renly was offering him the same thing as Stannis really. If he accepted, then yes, the war would have been won quickly, especially if Tywin Lannister was offered terms. It all depends on whether Robb was willing to put aside his crown. And I honestly don't know which way he would swing.

Tywin was very lucky to be honest. If Loras had waited a few more days and seen Stannis pardoning everyone and decided differently, he would have been fucked.

Tywin was competent enough to be in a position to take advantage of the luck that came his way but luck was what won it for him, not field strategy.

I could make the same argument about Robb, except for field strategy. He took advantage of an unavoidable tactical handicap Jaime had, and Stefford's idiocy and his own magical advantage. Tywin took advantage of Robb's own handicap, and Stannis'. It's the game.

Walder and Roose would never have done it without assurances from Tywin. They're too shrewd.

This. I mean, if Robb had died alone in an accident then Lord Walder could have used it as an excuse to kill off some children he didn't like, but as it stands the minute you open an inquiry only one conclusion can be reached.

[Gurkhal]

Tywin knew what was going to happen and it wouldn't have happened without his approval. Cersei and the Small Council were talking about using some Freys as scapegoats as soon as AFFC. If Walder Frey and Roose Bolton received no guarantee from Tywin they could've assumed that they'd be used as the scapegoats immediately after. In fact, that would've been the ideal scenario for Tywin: Robb dead, his forces routed and a token force of Boltons and Freys left to mop up to "avenge" the Young Wolf and defend Guest Right, thereby winning favor in the North, the Riverlands and elsewhere. Walder and Roose would never have done it without assurances from Tywin. They're too shrewd.

No he didn't know because he wasn't planning the whole thing. The Freys and Lord Bolton knew, not Lord Lannister. And while Lord Bolton is to shrewd I'd say that Lord Frey is to cowardly to do something like that successfully.

Equating capturing gold mines with raping and murdering smallfolk and burning them out of their homes is "Tywin thinking," but I concede that there was some military strategy to it. Ned saw that in AGOT.

I'm not equating captured goldmines. I'm equating the Stark forces murdering and pillaging in the West with Lannister forces murdering and pillaging in the Riverlands.

Because it's, as you said, exactly what he did in the same situation.

Except Tywin has never been in the same situation after the Reynes and Tarbecks had it so its impossible to know what he'd done.

[Batman]

"Stannis is like Tywin Lannister, only colder.

He is very organized, logical and abstain man.

He is not a evil/cruel man since he gets no satisfaction of cruelty.

King needs to be cold. No mercy for the enemy.

Stannis would have made the kingdom rich.

Ser Davos Seaworth can act as Stannis´s conscience, otherwise Stannis goes darkside.

Stannis´s character is quite opposite to Robert´s.

Stannis is no whoremonger, drinker or bloodthirsty."

This was an interesting comment that I found