Generals Of Westeros

[Chaircat Meow]

I agree we should not factor plot gifts negatively when judging someone, then tywin would not have the tyrells and robb would have to face another 10,000 westermen. Renly would win.

Except that no one gives Tywin any credit for the Tyrell alliance. Its the product of Tyrion and Littlefinger, in so far as anyone is responsible. Its comes about because of the shadowbaby too.

Likewise, with Stannis and the shadowbaby, we look at how good a general he is based on how he leads his army. How he got the army does not redound to his credit as a general though, because he used a magical assassin.

Its not about judging him negatively, its just saying this is such a one off, magical sort of event, it tells us little to nothing about the individual's skills as a military leader.

[Bourne]

What i meant is we dont know Ned was never defeated but we do know Robb was undefeated. And yes i agree with your plot gift stance. I dont see Grey Wolfs ability to find a goats path any bigger than those given to other commanders in places was my point

Then we merely have a difference of opinion. As it's kinda subjective, to each his own.

[King Aerys the Just]

Conversely, If you were to place Robb in Tywin's situation, Robb could have chosen to march to King's Landing and aid Tyrion instead of chosing to cross the Riverlands. Same for Tywin. Even if Edmure hadn't harried Tywin, the Lannister forces could have still turned around. Any commander in the same position would have been capable of marching to KL. That is not true of any commander in Robb's position.

Essentially, a plot gift is something that is extraordinary to the average human. The ability to swordfight, even at Jaime's level, is not a plot gift. The ability to warg is. Dragons are a plot gift, shadowbabies are a plot gift, being repelled in a skirmish is not.

If you start counting every fortunate thing that happens to a character as a plot gift then you have to consider the Tyrell's having the largest army a plot gift or Robb being born a Stark as a plot gift. Somethings are just plot.

ETA: Also, not all plot gifts are created equal. Robbs ability to war is a big gift. Stannis having the shadowbabies is a gigantic gift. Dany having the Dragons is bigger than all the other plot gifts combined.

I agree. The entire Stark campaign in the Westerlands relied on the author pulling a deus ex machina, or a huge plot gift as you called it.

The Lannisters have been holding the Golden Tooth for as long as millenia (depending on which timeline you believe in) and it has been the principal path into their kingdoms. During the turbulent era before Aegon landed in Westeros there were likely dozens, if not hundreds, of battles and sieges fought there. When an enemy king tried to invade the Westerlands, he would first have to break the Golden Tooth. During all these centuries neither a single enemy nor Lannister, of the standing garrison who would have kept constant watch in the area, ever noticed the magical goat track that would let eight thousand heavy cavalry bypass all the goddamn defenses in a night. It beggars belief.

I had an easier time buying Dany tricking the Slavers at Astapor actually. Considering that she both gives off the impression of being a stupid teenage girl, and that what she offers to sell them in return for their garrison (which they normally wouldn't permit) is basically equal to an entire arsenal of nuclear ICBM's, for a modern comparison. They must have thought she was completely daft, and thus of no danger to them. Whatever suspicions they might have had, wcould have been blinded by the greed of them getting their hands on something that could essentially give them world domination.

[Mulled Wino]

3. Tyrion Lannister

Got the chain through the Blackwater Bay

Sent his hillstribes to kill Stannis's scouts and pillage his lines

Held KL against a much larger force

Great cyvasse player (ok that one is a joke)

Rofl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean the whole post is a joke?

[Frey Pie]

I agree. The entire Stark campaign in the Westerlands relied on the author pulling a deus ex machina, or a huge plot gift as you called it.

The Lannisters have been holding the Golden Tooth for as long as millenia (depending on which timeline you believe in) and it has been the principal path into their kingdoms. During the turbulent era before Aegon landed in Westeros there were likely dozens, if not hundreds, of battles and sieges fought there. When an enemy king tried to invade the Westerlands, he would first have to break the Golden Tooth. During all these centuries neither a single enemy nor Lannister, of the standing garrison who would have kept constant watch in the area, ever noticed the magical goat track that would let eight thousand heavy cavalry bypass all the goddamn defenses in a night. It beggars belief.

I had an easier time buying Dany tricking the Slavers at Astapor actually. Considering that she both gives off the impression of being a stupid teenage girl, and that what she offers to sell them in return for their garrison (which they normally wouldn't permit) is basically equal to an entire arsenal of nuclear ICBM's, for a modern comparison. They must have thought she was completely daft, and thus of no danger to them. Whatever suspicions they might have had, wcould have been blinded by the greed of them getting their hands on something that could essentially give them world domination.

I believe the figure is closer to 6000 and probably less. There have been goat paths used in battles before such as Thermopylae, wether this was widely known easily found etc i dont know. The path GW found may have been known but though of little consequence as its so small. In any case the pass at the Golden Tooth is not the only way west. Look at the map and you will see how big the west is. Its not like the Marshes and MC for the North. I agree it was a plot gift but i dont think it should diminish robbs victorys

[Frey Pie]

Then we merely have a difference of opinion. As it's kinda subjective, to each his own.

At least we wont fall out over it :cheers:

[Kittyhat]

I had an easier time buying Dany tricking the Slavers at Astapor actually. Considering that she both gives off the impression of being a stupid teenage girl, and that what she offers to sell them in return for their garrison (which they normally wouldn't permit) is basically equal to an entire arsenal of nuclear ICBM's, for a modern comparison. They must have thought she was completely daft, and thus of no danger to them. Whatever suspicions they might have had, wcould have been blinded by the greed of them getting their hands on something that could essentially give them world domination.

I'd like to add on to this that despite the fact that everyone keeps wanting to say this only worked because the slavers were "supernaturally stupid," the truth is, intelligent people are said to often be the best victims for a good con precisely because they think they're too smart to be conned. And in practice, it's often very well-educated and bright people who fall for such schemes, then afterwards wonder, "How could I be so stupid?"

Bottom line: I'd be willing to bet money that most or all of the people on these forums would have been suckered had they been in the slavers' place. Only after would they wonder how they could have been "so stupid." It was so obvious! ... in hindsight.

And the poster saying that Sun Tzu would say Tywin's method (the Red Wedding to end Robb) shows him to be a superior general might have a point ... but he'd have said the same thing about Daenerys at Yunkai. She basically dismantled the enemy completely before battle was even joined!

Show me when Robb ever did that.

Edit: Hell, show me when Tywin did.

[The Crow's Eye]

None of these lists include Euron Greyjoy, a huge oversight. He masterminded Victarion's victory at the Shield Islands, as well as the raid of Lannisport. We don't really know to much about him besides these two victories, but they are more than quite a few of these people.

[Pod The Impaler]

GREAT:

Robb Stark - Undefeated in battle. Smashes the Lannisters time and time again in the field. High degree of discipline camps and marches; creative and instictive mind for battle; bold; decisive commander; leads by example, but not egotistical. Is a teenager, so while this makes much of it more amazing, it also leads to some of his mistakes. Flaw (political issues aside) - leaves the North too undefended.

Eddard Stark: Undefeated (apparently) in battle. Sober and serious, but not tentative; excellent order and discipline, decisive, respected, leads by example, not egotistical. (He is Robb's dad, so this goes without saying.) Flaws: "Go it alone" mentality ? But that's in politics.

Khal Drogo - Undefeated in a culture where warriors fight all the time over anything. Led largest khalasar in existence. Flaw: Disdain for proper medical care.

Robert Baratheon - Took over Seven Kingdoms without benefit of dragons. Known for rapid marches, courage, ferocity, personal skill. Charismatic. No stranger to danger. Defeated once (Ashford), but won the war handily against superior forces. Flaws: Many !

COMPETENT:

Jon Snow - Courageous, disciplined, respected by most. Very young to be Lord Commander, but in a short amount of time has defended the Wall twice against wildling armies, and begun re-activating moribund Night's Watch. Flaw: With friends like he has, who needs enemies ?

Randyll Tarly - dangerous, but not invincible. Skilled, disciplined, respected. Flaw: is 3/4 asshole.

Stannis Baratheon - Defends well, can win at sea, fairly bold and certainly disciplined and relentless. Feared / respected. Flaw: enemy recognition problems.

Tywin Lannister - Manages his war effort well enough, respected and experienced; but gets trounced by Robb Stark. Flaws: Arrogant, reliant on superior numbrs, well known for war atrocities.

Tyrion Lannister: no great natural battle ability, but cunning, organized, creative, disciplined, fairly courageous and charismatic. Would be rated higher, but war experience consists of one desperate city defense (won) and one command of an expendable vanguard (won, more or less), one skirmish with Vale wildlings (survived).

Victarion Greyjoy - burned Lannisport & fleet; lost to Stannis; won Moat Cailin but then groiund down by Crannogman insurgents; smashed Tyrell fleet at Shield Isles. Bold, disciplined, leads by example. (Flaw: warped macho code, and his brother Euron).

Danaerys Targeryen: Controversial to name her as a "general" / war leader at all, when most of what she's destroyed or conquered has been by surprise attacks. But thus far when she has used force, she has come out on top. Did her own "Long March" through the Red Waste.

Loras Tyrell - Personally skilled, brave, well-respected by anyone not named Cersei. Fought on winning side at Blackwater; captured Dragonstone (pyrrhic victory though).

Mance Rayder - His army lost the battle at the Wall, but he had few troops that could stand against professional soldiers and knights. The fact he was able to assemble a unified army of wildlings at all is a pretty big feat.

WIN-SOME-LOSE-SOME:

Beric Dondarrion - ambushed and killed in opening skirmish of war, but leads fairly successful guerilla war

Roose Bolton - mixed record under Robb's command. Not an idiot, but one expects better from a major bannerman.

Gregor Clegane - great at atrocities, mixed record in actual battles

Jaime Lannister - obviously didn't suck at Pyke, was useful against Kingswood Brotherhood (but not in charge of anything either); got royally owned by Robb Stark. Smart enough, but only now recently beginning to use it: captured some defiant enemy strongholds by guile rather than arms.

Theon Greyjoy - Pro: Captured Winterfell with only tiny force; Con: captured Winterfell with only a tiny force.

Asha Greyjoy - Has commanded ships and military operations successfully; failed to escape the North after telling Theon to so himself.

Jon Connington: Lost Battle of the Bells, but improved since then as a sellsword; took Griffins Roost and a few other castles by surprise.

POOR:

Mace Tyrell - Just goes through the motions. Should get out of his sons' way whenever possible.

Ryman Frey - Should get out of his own way, but doesn't.

Imry Florent - Fleet got suckered in at the Blackwater, thanks to his lack of caution.

LAUGHABLY AWFUL:

Balon Greyjoy - Relatively competent execution does not make up for the fact all his military campaigns are actually terrible ideas.

Masters of Yunkai - completely reliant on sellswords and foreign allies; own "army" resembles a travelling carnival.

Cersei Lannister - best remembered for her role in collapsing morale during the battle of Blackwater. Has 3 bad ideas for every 1 good one. Refuses all good advice. Actively discourages surviving son Tommen from developing any leadership skills or character whatsoever.

NO IDEA (YET):

Brienne of Tarth - She can fight, but we have yet to see her lead troops.

Renly Baratheon - Pro: assembled impressive army on short notice; Con: treated march to battle like a military parade.

Obara Sand

Barristan Selmy - Can fight, can train, but can he really command the whole thing? (We'll soon see)

[LordBloodraven]

If I moved Tywin down I think Tarly ought to go down too seeing we don't know much about Ashford and I can't remember it being portrayed as decisive.

I think Tywin is on a level with Stannis really. After his defeat at Blackwater Stannis' only significant victory is the battle at the wall (Deepwood Motte doesn't really count). So, like Tywin, for Stannis we rely on his reputation and details of his previous achievements, SE and Fair Isle.

Tywin does destroy two powerful bannermen at a time when the lannister's are laughed at by their vassals. Presumably Tywin at least took, in some way, two well defended castles, and maybe won an engagement in the field. I think it probable he couldn't rely on the full muster of the westerlands given the war with the Reynes and Tarbecks was about re-asserting lannister authority over their vassals. I think these are reasonable inferences. So that's nearly as good as, say, Fair Isle or SE there.

JonCon thinks Tywin's trademark brutal measures would have ensured him success at Stony Sept. This bears out Kevan's judgement that Tywin would have been the most competent leader to command Aerys' forces in the war.

Tywin is also responsible for Jaime's success against Edmure as its his strategy to force the Tully's to disperse by raiding.

At the GF I don't see Tywin did anything too wrong. Granted, Robb foxed him. However, Tywin doesn't appear to have had bad outriders. Marbrand is respected and Tywin does know where the Stark army is, and isn't surprised when Bolton tries his surprise attack. The highly competent Blackfish was screening Robb's movements and managed to stop Tywin's outriders noticing the split in the Stark army. Marbrand was in contact with the Stark host when it was coming down the causeway and Tywin was still at the fords of GF (GoT). So his military intelligence is pretty good (unlike Jaime's).

His judgments about Robb and the Freys were all pretty reasonable imo. Robb is green about a lot of things, Frey was unlikely to commit and Robb was afraid to face Tywin's army (which was why Tywin started advancing). Tywin is praised for his caution and is said to be difficult to take by surprise.

Also the GF was still a reasonable enough battle, circa 20,000 lannisters, with around 4,000 horse vs circa 15,000 Stark infantry. That's not a foregone conclusion by any means.

Was also likely c-in-c at Blackwater.

So I put him in very good because his reputation and achievements are close to those of Stannis.

For JonCon I wasn't taking the Arianne gift chapter into account because I'm not factoring in tWoW yet.

I recall Ran did an analysis of Robert's Rebellion and at Ashford Robert tried to take the Castle so as to prevent the Reach lords to join the Targ's Army. The siege wasn't successful and Tarly took him from the rear. It's afterwards that he moved to the Riverlands (Stony Sept) to join Ned, the Tullys and the Arryns.

I have to disagree with you. Stannis is a better strategist than Tywin. So far, the latter has smashed the rebellions of two bannermen, sacked a city and took Stannis from the Rear. The battles against the Tarbecks and the Reynes is not comparable to Storm's End or Fair Isle: they are not on the same scale and we are talking about a great house and a powerful bannerman. Even if Tywin couldn't muster all the Westerlands force, the Lannisters are powerful enough by themselves to outnumber any of their bannerman. Lannisport is a huge basin for levies and for all we know, the Tarbecks and Reynes fought in open battle. Tywin's acts were more ruthless than anything else. And that's why he would have succeeded where JonCon failed at the Stony Sept, not because he's a better general.

At the Green Fork, he fought against an all-foot army that was more keen to harass and retreat than fight to win. And the victory was hollow since there were no strategic reaping afterwards. He kept the ground but Roose Bolton and most of the northern army just retreated to the Fords while Robb was riding hard to Riverrun.

And the Blackwater doesn't show any kind of commandership. Using the barge was sound but attacking an army entagled in a crossing while using the "ghost" of a dead pretender is ingenious and not much more. Blackwater was all about breaking the enemy's formation, just as Theoden did at the Pelennor Fields, but less fantastically. Tywin is experienced, competent and politically savvy but nowhere near Stannis or Robert Baratheon

[big.chivichanga]

IMO Tyson is the greatest general/leader. He was respected by his soldiers and feared as well by all. He knew how to win wars because he was an excellent strategist. He may have lost battles but we all know war>battle. Tywin was as cunning as a fox and fierce as a lion.

[big.chivichanga]

I meant tywin. Damn autocorrect made it seem like I'm talking about mike tyson.

[Bourne]

I recall Ran did an analysis of Robert's Rebellion and at Ashford Robert tried to take the Castle so as to prevent the Reach lords to join the Targ's Army. The siege wasn't successful and Tarly took him from the rear. It's afterwards that he moved to the Riverlands (Stony Sept) to join Ned, the Tullys and the Arryns.

I have to disagree with you. Stannis is a better strategist than Tywin. So far, the latter has smashed the rebellions of two bannermen, sacked a city and took Stannis from the Rear. The battles against the Tarbecks and the Reynes is not comparable to Storm's End or Fair Isle: they are not on the same scale and we are talking about a great house and a powerful bannerman. Even if Tywin couldn't muster all the Westerlands force, the Lannisters are powerful enough by themselves to outnumber any of their bannerman. Lannisport is a huge basin for levies and for all we know, the Tarbecks and Reynes fought in open battle. Tywin's acts were more ruthless than anything else. And that's why he would have succeeded where JonCon failed at the Stony Sept, not because he's a better general.

At the Green Fork, he fought against an all-foot army that was more keen to harass and retreat than fight to win. And the victory was hollow since there were no strategic reaping afterwards. He kept the ground but Roose Bolton and most of the northern army just retreated to the Fords while Robb was riding hard to Riverrun.

And the Blackwater doesn't show any kind of commandership. Using the barge was sound but attacking an army entagled in a crossing while using the "ghost" of a dead pretender is ingenious and not much more. Blackwater was all about breaking the enemy's formation, just as Theoden did at the Pelennor Fields, but less fantastically. Tywin is experienced, competent and politically savvy but nowhere near Stannis or Robert Baratheon

And that's exactly why he's a better general.

[Chaircat Meow]

I recall Ran did an analysis of Robert's Rebellion and at Ashford Robert tried to take the Castle so as to prevent the Reach lords to join the Targ's Army. The siege wasn't successful and Tarly took him from the rear. It's afterwards that he moved to the Riverlands (Stony Sept) to join Ned, the Tullys and the Arryns.

Fair enough.

I have to disagree with you. Stannis is a better strategist than Tywin. So far, the latter has smashed the rebellions of two bannermen, sacked a city and took Stannis from the Rear. The battles against the Tarbecks and the Reynes is not comparable to Storm's End or Fair Isle: they are not on the same scale and we are talking about a great house and a powerful bannerman. Even if Tywin couldn't muster all the Westerlands force, the Lannisters are powerful enough by themselves to outnumber any of their bannerman. Lannisport is a huge basin for levies and for all we know, the Tarbecks and Reynes fought in open battle. Tywin's acts were more ruthless than anything else. And that's why he would have succeeded where JonCon failed at the Stony Sept, not because he's a better general.

I think strategy means having an overall plan and idea as to how you are going to win the war. Stannis actually isn't necessarily that astute at this, see DwD (his needing advice from Jon Snow), and neither FI or SE demonstrate that type of skill at all! I think Tywin does have as good an appreciation as Stannis does as to how he is going to achieve victory.

I think Tywin's early achievements are comparable to FI and SE. We don't even know the numbers involved for the first of these, saving it was all westeros vs the Ironborn. And conducting a successful campaign, ending in the destruction of two of your bannermen, seems in the same ballpark as holding a castle for a year under terrible conditions to me.

And I think Tywin's willingness to use brutal measures does make him a better general if these actions bring victory in the campaign, which JonCon clearly thinks they would have done. Its his willingness to burn the riverlands that causes Tully forces to disperse, making victory easier to achieve. That is about being a good general. [bourne kinda ninjad me here]

At the Green Fork, he fought against an all-foot army that was more keen to harass and retreat than fight to win. And the victory was hollow since there were no strategic reaping afterwards. He kept the ground but Roose Bolton and most of the northern army just retreated to the Fords while Robb was riding hard to Riverrun.

I've discussed this on other threads but I think Roose was trying to win the battle. Making a march to try and catch the foe by surprise and engaging his force, on the battlefield, when you have no horse to screen a retreat, makes no sense if you just want to harass and retreat, imo. And the numbers of men in the two armies are not wildly disproportional, 20,000 to 15,000. And Tywin is clearly described as routing the Stark army and driving them from the field. Roose later tells Robb he took heavy losses on the GF.

And the Blackwater doesn't show any kind of commandership. Using the barge was sound but attacking an army entagled in a crossing while using the "ghost" of a dead pretender is ingenious and not much more. Blackwater was all about breaking the enemy's formation, just as Theoden did at the Pelennor Fields, but less fantastically. Tywin is experienced, competent and politically savvy but nowhere near Stannis or Robert Baratheon

You make it sound like it does! Although some of those ideas weren't actually Tywin's.

And you can say the same about a lot of victories, Stony Sept (Ned), the Trident (Robert), the Wall (Stannis). Tactics aren't described in detail. You get a certain amount of credit for pulling off a win. I don't think tBoBWB is the greatest feather in Tywin's cap though, no.

[Pod The Impaler]

"Tywin's" victory at the battle of Blackwater amounts to this:

1A) Stannis is not able to rally all the men his brother Renly once controlled. The Tyrell's and some major bannermen stay out. [stannis]

1B) The Lannisters reach out to the Tyrells before Renly's corpse is even cold, securing marriage to Joffrey. [Tyrion]

2) Robb Stark's armies were prevented from being able to pursue him if he disengaged to go to King's landing, because somebody attacked the North and seized Winterfell. [Credit? Goes to Theon & the Greyjoys]

3) Careful preparation of King's Landing and training of new defenders, since most of the real troops were already gone to fight in the North. This includes chains and wildfire. [Tyrion]

3B) Good naval tactics to negate Stannis' naval advantage and lure his forces into a trap, buying the city crucial time [Tyrion]

4) Someone set loose a bunch of Vale clansmen to blind Stannis' army by killing all it's outriders in the Kingswood [Tyrion]

5) Someone defeated a conspiracy to open the gates for Stannis [Varys]

6) The Lannisters also convince someone to masquerade as Renly's vengeful ghost to boost the Tyrell side's morale and lower Stannis' own [Littlefinger]

7) And oh yeah, they hit Stannis' army in the rear while much of it was busy and on fire [Tywin with much help from Tyrell's best commanders]

But of course it's Tywin who gets the credit for smashing Stannis' attack.

I don't think Tywin should be counted as a fool, but arguments for his greatness seem to stem from his crushing his own bannermen, and from being Hand for many years. He is competent, politically savvy, and feared for his ruthlessness. A good general, maybe. Not a great one.

[PrinceHenryris]

Armies usually have more than one General. Did Franklin Roosevelt or King George VI ever take the field during WWII?

Even Eisenhower spent limited time in the field. The closest man to "royalty" on the Allied side to set foot on Normandy on D-Day was Theodore Roosevelt Jr.

Maybe Robert was the theoretical head of the rebellion, but I'd suspect that Ned, Jon Arryn, and Hoster Tully were firmly in control of their own forces.

[LordBloodraven]

And that's exactly why he's a better general.

Not exactly. It's not because you are willing to char and roast thousand of peoples that you are a better general than one who's willing to look house after house. You are just more machiavellian

Fair enough.

I think strategy means having an overall plan and idea as to how you are going to win the war. Stannis actually isn't necessarily that astute at this, see DwD (his needing advice from Jon Snow), and neither FI or SE demonstrate that type of skill at all! I think Tywin does have as good an appreciation as Stannis does as to how he is going to achieve victory.

I think Tywin's early achievements are comparable to FI and SE. We don't even know the numbers involved for the first of these, saving it was all westeros vs the Ironborn. And conducting a successful campaign, ending in the destruction of two of your bannermen, seems in the same ballpark as holding a castle for a year under terrible conditions to me.

And I think Tywin's willingness to use brutal measures does make him a better general if these actions bring victory in the campaign, which JonCon clearly thinks they would have done. Its his willingness to burn the riverlands that causes Tully forces to disperse, making victory easier to achieve. That is about being a good general. [bourne kinda ninjad me here]

I've discussed this on other threads but I think Roose was trying to win the battle. Making a march to try and catch the foe by surprise and engaging his force, on the battlefield, when you have no horse to screen a retreat, makes no sense if you just want to harass and retreat, imo. And the numbers of men in the two armies are not wildly disproportional, 20,000 to 15,000. And Tywin is clearly described as routing the Stark army and driving them from the field. Roose later tells Robb he took heavy losses on the GF.

You make it sound like it does! Although some of those ideas weren't actually Tywin's.

And you can say the same about a lot of victories, Stony Sept (Ned), the Trident (Robert), the Wall (Stannis). Tactics aren't described in detail. You get a certain amount of credit for pulling off a win. I don't think tBoBWB is the greatest feather in Tywin's cap though, no.

I think the Green Fork was all about covering the Northern cavalry march to Riverrun. That was its most important objectives and they did it. They may have had 15000 men but the Northerners were crossing the GF and that's where Tywin decided to attack them. Yet his plans to flank the other army didn't succeed as Roose proved himself very prudent. The Northern army wasn't routed, they retreated in good order under Roose's command.

[Dimadick]

Armies usually have more than one General. Did Franklin Roosevelt or King George VI ever take the field during WWII?

I know its a rhetorical question, but I can't resist. No reigning British monarch has personally participated in a battle since George II in the Battle of Dettingen (1743).

George VI only participated in a single naval battle before his rise to the throne: The Battle of Jutland (1916).

[Frey Pie]

I dont think you can compare Tywins victory over the Reynes and Tarbecks to Stannis' over the Ironborn. The ironborn live and breath the sea. Even catching them in a trap the fighting must have been fierce, and lets not forget its said Stannis shattered them. If the Reynes and Tarbecks were famed fighters and Spartan-like then it would be a huge deal but as far as we know they are powerful enough houses only. Lets also not forget that even if Tywin cant rely on his bannermen he still has all the money of the Lannisters behind him. Plenty of mercenary companies out there

Ruthlessness in a general is a two edged sword as i see it. It has its uses, as Jon Con points out. But we know that for all his ruthlessness Tywin couldnt root out the Brotherhood. Now we know about the Kingswood band and how they evaded men also. But Arthur Dayne won over the common folk and in that way was able to find and defeat them. So ruthlessness has its place but should only be used when absolutely necessary

[Scipio Africanus]

Ruthlessness in a general is a two edged sword as i see it. It has its uses, as Jon Con points out. But we know that for all his ruthlessness Tywin couldnt root out the Brotherhood. Now we know about the Kingswood band and how they evaded men also. But Arthur Dayne won over the common folk and in that way was able to find and defeat them. So ruthlessness has its place but should only be used when absolutely necessary

Ruthlessness can have its advantages on the battlefield, like Gregor Clegane inspired fear wherever he rode. Willingness to pillage, burn, murder and rape can be useful into cowing hapless civilian populations but does little else but to inspire hatred. Ruling such a population becomes very difficult and guerilla warfare inevitable. Surpressing guerilla warfare is extremely difficult as the best armies in the world (past and present) will tell you. The only solution, as the Assyrians or Stalin would say, is to either put the whole civilian population to the sword or deport them to other regions of your empire.

Tywin, as usual, did neither, and while most certainly inspired plenty of hatred he succeded in neither surpressing rebels and brigands performing said guerrila warfare nor win the actual war. It was only through betrayal in a non-combat situation not involving is own bannermen that the Lannisters could prevail. And we'll have to wait and see how long this "victory" will last. And I'm pretty sure it won't last very long. Tywin didn't win the hearts&minds in the Riverlands or the North, only fear and hatred, and soon the day will come when all Lannisters and their friends will be defeated in the Riverlands and the North.

In any case I'd rate Tywin Lannister poorly are a strategic commander and equally poor in politics (not reigning in Cercei for so long is really unforgivable, and it led in the mid-long term to the destruction of Lannister rule in KL).