Castel Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Tywin didn't have to interfere in the trial. He should have nipped it in the bud. Tywin has the clout, both as Lord of Casterly Rock and as Hand, to have kept things from going that far and no one is going to accuse him of having been involved. Would you doubt that he would have done exactly that had it been Jaime? Tywin saw the trial as an opportunity to send Tyrion to the Wall and finally get rid of him while keeping him from inheriting Casterly Rock. The only reason Tywin went to war in the Riverlands was because of Lannister pride not because of his love for his youngest son. And Tywin still has Tommen to offer the Tyrells.Cersei accused him in the middle of the throne room, and he was the one pouring the drink, why would he nip something like that in the bud? It would be almost as bad as interfering in the trial, the thought is in everyone's minds already. What should he have done, leaned on Cersei? He has allies that are his equals now, Mace and his ilk will be quite curious as to why someone that hates Tyrion so much changed her mind so suddenly (if she would) Jaime isn't Tyrion to be honest. Somethings are more plausible for some people than others, and Jaime wasn't in said position so we'll never know. Also, you're assuming that Tywin believes that Tyrion is innocent. All evidence, including threats spoken in his presence, points to him as the murderer.Also, if Tywin wanted to get Tyrion off the council or off the face of the earth I doubt he needs a pretext. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 And in cases of war, I have no problem with Tywin's mode of thinking.This is not specifically with you, but how and when did we arrive at the point when being at war trumps basic morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 This is not specifically with you, but how and when did we arrive at the point when being at war trumps basic morality?Since war in general is a "fuck you" to what most people understand as basic morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Cowardly...and stupid.Coward because Tywin was afraid of being humiliated on the field yet again by a boy that was almost 4 times younger.Idiotic for all of them.It gives their enemies a common cause: destroy the freys and the ones who protect them(the lannisters)That, and this plan only works if Tywin lives...forever, and House Lannister remains as the most powerful one in the Seven Kingdoms...forever.Its genius if you can seal the deal (total war win, subjugation of westeros), otherwise it will spell longterm doom. Im betting on doom.There's that as well.And it was also stupid because of the lack of a long-term viewing- from now on, every war that involves houses Frey, Bolton and Lannister will have to be fought to death because the enemy can't trust you to sit down and have a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Since war in general is a "fuck you" to what most people understand as basic morality?Maybe it is these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Scorpion Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 And in cases of war, I have no problem with Tywin's mode of thinking.problem is Tywin way of war is extremly shortsighted and well I wouldn't be surprised if the lannisters LOOSE much after the war(how much? I think they'll lose their northern coast and fair isle to the iron born, three quarters of their gold will be used to rebuild the kingdoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulled Wino Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 This is not specifically with you, but how and when did we arrive at the point when being at war trumps basic morality?forever is the first answer that comes to mind......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Maybe it is these days.If by basic morality you mean despising killing, rape, looting and the like, then war has always been suchIf you meant things like following particular rules of engagement then I might see your point. But I'm not sure I can look at that as basic morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 If war is meant to be so low, I wonder when people ever found the craft to paint the military as something to be passed of as honorable, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulled Wino Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 problem is Tywin way of war is extremly shortsighted and well I wouldn't be surprised if the lannisters LOOSE much after the war(how much? I think they'll lose their northern coast and fair isle to the iron born, three quarters of their gold will be used to rebuild the kingdomsno, its short an mid-term sighted. winter is upon them and the northerners are not coming south through the neck in the dead of winter.plus it frees up resources for their current problems allowing them time to plan for the coming assult from the north, which they were going to have to deal with regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaMartell Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 For Tywin it was a practical option at the time but unforseen events means that at this moment in time, the Lannisters and Freys are vulnerable due to the part they played in that incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 If war is meant to be so low, I wonder when people ever found the craft to paint the military as something to be passed of as honorable, folks.Because it convinces young, impressionable people to sign up. What better way to get people to kill others than to appeal to their caveman jingoism and the urge to protect "their tribe" in "honorable" combat?And from a perfectly logical perspective, it pays to send men to die for their tribe. So much so that it would not be a lie to claim that it's in society's wider benefit to do so, so the soldiers get to die, and also get the shallow social "respect" that drew them to the service in the first place. It's painted as honorable to make it more alluring.Also, that appeal does not logically matter to whether war has always led to situations of rape, murder, looting and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's not Tywin's fault that one particular idiot made the Faith a political player again in one stroke.inb4 "He should have predicted it!!!"No, but is his fault that this particular idiot is clueless (he could have thought her better, but was only interested in use her to get a marriage) and that this particular idiot has power (he had plenty of opportunities to ship her off to Casterly Rock never to return). Tywin didn't have to interfere in the trial. He should have nipped it in the bud. Tywin has the clout, both as Lord of Casterly Rock and as Hand, to have kept things from going that far and no one is going to accuse him of having been involved. Would you doubt that he would have done exactly that had it been Jaime? Tywin saw the trial as an opportunity to send Tyrion to the Wall and finally get rid of him while keeping him from inheriting Casterly Rock. The only reason Tywin went to war in the Riverlands was because of Lannister pride not because of his love for his youngest son. And Tywin still has Tommen to offer the Tyrells.Yes, all Tywin had to say was "I see no evidence to put Tyrion at trial". Mace Tyrell might complain, but so what? It wasn't his grandson that died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 No, but is his fault that this particular idiot is clueless (he could have thought her better, but was only interested in use her to get a marriage) and that this particular idiot has power (he had plenty of opportunities to ship her off to Casterly Rock never to return).Has Cersei ever been misinformed in regards to the political situation in Westeros? The mistakes Cersei makes are due to entrenched personality problems that have been there for as long as we can see,and are probably the result of, or amplified because of her treatment at the hands of Robert Baratheon, we have no idea if this is a genetic problem or not, it may well be. You can't teach someone to ignore their personality. Add to this that Cersei was acting when a series of terrible tragedies hit her all at once, and you can see the problem. Not to mention that in any predictable scenario she would never have ruled.Why would he send her back when he had already marginalized her and held all the power? It would be an admission of some sort of split, and quite frankly her position was in court. It would look more than passing odd, especially since he was going to marry her off soon anyway (which pretty much would have done the job you're talking about).Yes, all Tywin had to say was "I see no evidence to put Tyrion at trial". Mace Tyrell might complain, but so what? It wasn't his grandson that died. But it was his daughter that almost died. From what I can tell his only daughter. He could quite easily come to the conclusion that this was the Lannisters shutting the door on a formal alliance. It would be stupid but possible, that's a possibility you don't want to deal with.No evidence? No evidence? What? Putting aside all of Tyrion's public threats, he poured the wine, he was the number one suspect! Why on earth would anyone assume otherwise. A king was poisoned, you don't just brush that under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 no, its short an mid-term sighted. winter is upon them and the northerners are not coming south through the neck in the dead of winter.Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Scorpion Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 no, its short an mid-term sighted. winter is upon them and the northerners are not coming south through the neck in the dead of winter.plus it frees up resources for their current problems allowing them time to plan for the coming assult from the north, which they were going to have to deal with regardlessthe problem is robb was the one of his enemys who didn't want the throne his grandson sits upon (were I tywin I would even insist of a marriage to house Lasnnister and help keeping the ron thronne to his family) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 In short term, it was a brilliant move, at least for Tywin and the Lannisters. It eleminated charismatic enemy king immediately, killed most of his army, demoralized the rest and gave opportunity for blackmailing Northern families with hostages.In long term, however, it was far from brilliant. First and foremost, while it did eliminate the enemy, it drastically changed the warfare customs - for the worse. It established that killing thousands of unarmed guests is okay thing to do and legitimate way of leading a war. Before RW, such act was unthinkable - Cat and Robb thought they were safe once Walder Frey offered them food and drink. They, along with the rest of Northern army, did not even consider the possibility of Frey betrayal while protected by guest right. Now, every subordinate of Bolton, Frey and Lannister houses has legitimate excuse to do similar thing to their own overlords. Ultimately, it makes future wars more treacherous and more costly.Secondly, it made excellent rallying point for Northmen (much like American battle cry "Remember the Alamo", and yes, I'm aware that Alamo was a siege, not guest-slaying. I'm just stating that defeat at Alamo made great unifying point for all American soldiers). Before, North could bow the knee under right conditions. I think Robb's resolve to prolong the war would weaken over time, and Robb, with right leverage, would consider making peace (much like Ned). Nowdays, every existing Northmen will be hell-bent on revenge. Instead of usual enemy, L&B&F got themselves rabid "determinators" who will fight to the very end. RW made the war personal for them.And thirdly - instead of inexperienced and falliable teenager king, his enemies are now facing the legend of martyr. This is much related to second point explained above.Please note - whole post above was simply musings about practical consequences of RW. From moral point of view, I think it's disgusting.ETA:Yes, all Tywin had to say was "I see no evidence to put Tyrion at trial". Mace Tyrell might complain, but so what? It wasn't his grandson that died.Yes, but his daughter might have. He seems completely clueless that she would be on the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnorak Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The Red Wedding did in fact go unanswered as far as we can tell. Only the BwB have done anything, despite people knowing about it, so I think we can judge it on it's merits by now.Did you miss the Frey Pies? There's a lot going on at and around Winterfell and nearly all of it is about the RW. Definitely way too soon to judge the RW on its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Cersei accused him in the middle of the throne room, and he was the one pouring the drink, why would he nip something like that in the bud? It would be almost as bad as interfering in the trial, the thought is in everyone's minds already. What should he have done, leaned on Cersei? He has allies that are his equals now, Mace and his ilk will be quite curious as to why someone that hates Tyrion so much changed her mind so suddenly (if she would) Jaime isn't Tyrion to be honest. Somethings are more plausible for some people than others, and Jaime wasn't in said position so we'll never know. Also, you're assuming that Tywin believes that Tyrion is innocent. All evidence, including threats spoken in his presence, points to him as the murderer.Also, if Tywin wanted to get Tyrion off the council or off the face of the earth I doubt he needs a pretext. What? This is Tywin, the most feared man in Westeros, we're talking about. All in all, it was a bad move on Tywin's part. The Tyrells murder Joffrey right under his nose in order to have their daughter and Loras manipulate an easily-influenced Tommen. A lot of the 'genius' is evaporating right before my eyes.Edited to add: Forgot to mention that the Tyrells actually hit a triple in that Tyrion is gone, Joff is dead and Tommen is under the influence of Marg and Loras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Scorpion Knight Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Edited to add: Forgot to mention that the Tyrells actually hit a triple in that Tyrion is gone, Joff is dead and Tommen is under the influence of Marg and Loras.and discarded their(much needed) aces in case the dragon return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.