So about this Tywin guy......

[Frey Pie]

Oh, I agree. I just think it's a misunderstanding to see Ned's orders as only directed against 'war crimes' in some abstract sense. Tywin is basically taking a piss on Robert.

That said, I think the Starks and some other people in westeros are more genuinely noble than most nobles in RL middle ages seem to have been. I do think Tywin is portrayed as extreme even for westerosi standards, but 1) he is inline with standard medieval practice a lot of the time and 2) it's wrong to say what he does is utterly outrageous if you read the books as set in some quasi-realistic feudal setting. He's more brutal than other lords, but it's very much an issue of degree.

Ya Ned is enforcing the law. Hed do the same thing to Hoster if they had begun raiding the West.

I do agree that the burning and looting is part of war. However, the rape of KL, wouldnt really be standard for any RL situation. Also his callousness with Tyrion and Tyshas rape sets him out.

[Scipio Africanus]

However, the rape of KL, wouldnt really be standard for any RL situation.

Whenever a fortress or city surrendered citizens were generally left alone and armies either were captured or were allowed to march out with their colours. The Lannister sack of KL reminds me of the Spanish Fury (Antwerp) during the 80 years war. But again a surrendering city sacked like that was very rare.

I still disagree with that targeting civilians was normal in warfare since all time. In certain conditions they were. But if you read about most of the bigger conflicts from antiquity till the Napoleontic wars, direct citizen deaths due to army actions is limited compared to civilian deaths due to disease and famine.

There's a reason why genocide is a 20th century word.

[Gannicus]

But almost the whole small council agreed to the assassination of Daenerys and her unborn baby, and it's implied that Rhaenys and Aegon would have had to go no matter what - if Tywin hadn't ordered it, it would have happened another way. I'm not saying it's no awful, I'm just saying it isn't something only Tywin would have done.

To me, the same applies to sending Gregor. It doesn't seem beyond the pale by Westeros standards, armies rape and pillage when wars start - that's how it goes.

Even the annihilation of the Reynes and Tarbecks doesn't seem completely unprecedented. The same happened to Dontos's family, and has probably happened other times as well.

All of that above seem more like power politics/war stuff to me. The Tysha thing and his father's mistress were pure personal vindictiveness.

I agree with some of what you are saying but I was responding to this quote.

I don't think Tywin has done anything much worse than most of the other major characters in the book

While other characters might have also committed those same acts. I think most characters in the book would not have.

It's totally standard practice in lots of periods in the middle ages.

And what do you think Robb's men got up to in the west?

Ned is a lot better than most westerosi lords, but of course attacking the king's peasants and breaking his peace warrants a response. It doesn't imply at all that targeting civilians isn't a pretty normal part of warfare.

It is not standard practice for a Lord to tell his men to savage the land/population for the sole purpose of creating chaos. In any war there is bound to be civilian causalities. There is a big difference between mistakes or random acts by your troops vs being ordered to create havoc.

What was the strategic value of savaging the Riverlands? This was not Sherman burning the fields as he marched through Georgia. In the end it left the Lannister army with less food and more refugees than the opposition. This was nothing more than a ruthless move initiated to cause fear.

[Chaircat Meow]

It is not standard practice for a Lord to tell his men to savage the land/population for the sole purpose of creating chaos. In any war there is bound to be civilian causalities. There is a big difference between mistakes or random acts by your troops vs being ordered to create havoc.

I gave lots of RL examples where it was standard practice for strategic reasons.

What was the strategic value of savaging the Riverlands? This was not Sherman burning the fields as he marched through Georgia. In the end it left the Lannister army with less food and more refugees than the opposition. This was nothing more than a ruthless move initiated to cause fear.

It caused Edmure to split his army facilitating Jaime's victory and it was also intended to draw Ned west. In CoK Tywin wanted Robb to come and fight on his ground at HH so he attacked his smallfolk. A king can't let that stand because it's his duty to protect his people. So he either goes to attack and remove the threat (what Tywin wanted) or lets his men disperse to defend their lands and is bereft of an army. Robb managed to evade the trap but there was a clear strategy behind Tywin's actions.

[Real Heir of Bear Island]

I don't think he killed Joffrey. He didn't kill Tyrion before, and he hated him much more than he did Joffrey, who was still just a unruly kid. Tywin is no kinslayer.

I must agree with this. He would not shorten his bloodline no matter what. I think the murder was a larger conspiracy between the Tyrells and Littlefinger.

[ManlessFace]

What was the strategic value of savaging the Riverlands? This was not Sherman burning the fields as he marched through Georgia. In the end it left the Lannister army with less food and more refugees than the opposition. This was nothing more than a ruthless move initiated to cause fear.

It caused Edmure to split his army facilitating Jaime's victory and it was also intended to draw Ned west. In CoK Tywin wanted Robb to come and fight on his ground at HH so he attacked his smallfolk. A king can't let that stand because it's his duty to protect his people. So he either goes to attack and remove the threat (what Tywin wanted) or lets his men disperse to defend their lands and is bereft of an army. Robb managed to evade the trap but there was a clear strategy behind Tywin's actions.

Exactly. Tywin is actually says (I believe this to be overheard by Arya when under the service of Lord Tywin at Harrenhall) that the reason he sent Gregor and the rest of the brigands into the riverlands to harry the smallfolk was to draw out Ned to the field to remove him from the game, a ploy that was spoiled when Jaime killed Ned's men and broke Ned's leg.

And going back a bit further to the topic of "Who killed Joffrey"...

Aside from whether or not Tywin may have had prior knowledge of the impending attempt on Joffrey's life is unclear, but unless LF was lying (which he is wont to do) when he described to Sansa the manner of Joffrey's murder (he and the QoT and the black pearls from Asshai in Sansa's hairnet), this is cut and dry. Dontos being in the employ of LF and giving the hairnet to Sansa, which was then finagled by the QoT at the feast, all clearly expressed in the book, paint a pretty clear picture of that specific case of regicide.

There is the matter of the old gold coin depicting one of the Gardener kings of old, known to be carried around by the QoT, which was found in the gaolers cell. This oversight is so very unlike any of LF's schemes, which are notoriously difficult to unravel. This has Varys written all over it; another step to sow discontent and mistrust between the Lannisters and the Tyrells, by playing on Cersei paranoid delusions and power hungriness. But that is just speculation.

[Chaircat Meow]

Exactly. Tywin is actually says (I believe this to be overheard by Arya when under the service of Lord Tywin at Harrenhall) that the reason he sent Gregor and the rest of the brigands into the riverlands to harry the smallfolk was to draw out Ned to the field to remove him from the game, a ploy that was spoiled when Jaime killed Ned's men and broke Ned's leg.

Well, not in the books. The info is in Arya III (or maybe II) in SoS where Harwin tells her what he thinks Tywin's plan was as regards the luring out of Ned.

[ManlessFace]

Ah ha. My mistake. Sorry about that.

[Kolantero]

Tywin is guilty of many things either directly (Tysha) or indirectly (butchering and raping in the Riverlands).

But, given the context and society events are taking place, i don't see what's the big deal of his treatment to his father's mistress.

Someone in his place would either be "weak" and let a scheming woman take over what was rightfully (by Westeros society) his through sex or he would have been "strong" and put her head on a spike as soon as his father died. At least he let her live. Since we are talking about medieval times here, she should count herself lucky.

[Lion of Judah]

Ironic thing is that he fought so hard for his family name only to have his children sabotage him.

[Jaime's Wench]

Tywin is guilty of many things either directly (Tysha) or indirectly (butchering and raping in the Riverlands).

But, given the context and society events are taking place, i don't see what's the big deal of his treatment to his father's mistress.

Someone in his place would either be "weak" and let a scheming woman take over what was rightfully (by Westeros society) his through sex or he would have been "strong" and put her head on a spike as soon as his father died. At least he let her live. Since we are talking about medieval times here, she should count herself lucky.

I never received the impression that this mistress wished to take over Casterly Rock. She was his father's mistress and therefore a comfort to him, a companion, and perhaps advisor. He adorned her with far too many jewels and favours, like many medieval lords/kings had been known to do, but that doesn't mean she sought power after he died.

It says a lot for the type of Lord Tywin intended to be. It's like if I decided to give half my class a detention at the beginning of the year because I heard they had a bad reputation for their previous teacher. It would certainly show a clear message - but hardly instills respect.

[Kolantero]

I never received the impression that this mistress wished to take over Casterly Rock. She was his father's mistress and therefore a comfort to him, a companion, and perhaps advisor. He adorned her with far too many jewels and favours, like many medieval lords/kings had been known to do, but that doesn't mean she sought power after he died.

It says a lot for the type of Lord Tywin intended to be. It's like if I decided to give half my class a detention at the beginning of the year because I heard they had a bad reputation for their previous teacher. It would certainly show a clear message - but hardly instills respect.

There is plenty of evidence from a Lannister POV chapter in the books (i'm 95% sure its Kevan's Epilogue in ADWD) that she was going for power not just after Tytos died, but even before. She was ordering servants and knights around and she kept a circle of friends whom she did favors to (and expected support in return), although all of them abandoned her when Tywin went after her.

There was even a saying in the lines of "If you wanted to speak to Lord Tytos you should speak between her mistress legs cause that's were his head is" (paraphrasing). She preety much acted as the head of the house and made important decisions in Tytos' place even when he was alive.

[ManlessFace]

I never received the impression that this mistress wished to take over Casterly Rock. She was his father's mistress and therefore a comfort to him, a companion, and perhaps advisor. He adorned her with far too many jewels and favours, like many medieval lords/kings had been known to do, but that doesn't mean she sought power after he died.

It says a lot for the type of Lord Tywin intended to be. It's like if I decided to give half my class a detention at the beginning of the year because I heard they had a bad reputation for their previous teacher. It would certainly show a clear message - but hardly instills respect.

She may not have actually intended to take over the rock, but she was living far above her station, upjumped by Tytos. She presumed too much and was restored to her proper place when Tywin took charge.

Tytos was a laughing stock as far as the rest of the great Lords of Westeros were concerned. A great example is when his sister Genna was given away to a non-inheriting Frey at the behest of Walder Frey. Tywin was the only person to stand up against the betrothal, even as a boy of 10, to the horror and astonishment of his weakling father.

Tywin must be furious that after a lifetime of trying to re-establish the legitimacy, prestige and power of house Lannister that his end found him unceremoniously slumped over a chamber pot with a whore (his dwarf sons leavings no less) in his bed.

[Stannis ftw]

Well, not in the books. The info is in Arya III (or maybe II) in SoS where Harwin tells her what he thinks Tywin's plan was as regards the luring out of Ned.

Well, Tywin found another reason to do this long after Ned´s head was on the spike:

"Unleash ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoath and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork."

"They will burn, my lord", Ser Kevan said, rising. "I shall give the commands."

(AGOT last Tyrion chapter)

All in all, Scipio Africanus has it historically much more right than Bran the Cute concerning methodical brutality towards common people in middle ages. It was not a common practice, Tywin´s actions were not "standard". Systematic butchering of civilians is much more product of 20th century wars (like II world war) than middle ages, where two armies faced each other in open field.

All in all, reading threads like this make me want to puke. But then thats just me. Better switch to another thread where ppl are horrified about Tyrion slapping somebody, thinking something bad or visiting a brothel.

[Gurkhal]

Well, Tywin found another reason to do this long after Ned´s head was on the spike:

"Unleash ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoath and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork."

"They will burn, my lord", Ser Kevan said, rising. "I shall give the commands."

(AGOT last Tyrion chapter)

All in all, Scipio Africanus has it historically much more right than Bran the Cute concerning methodical brutality towards common people in middle ages. It was not a common practice, Tywin´s actions were not "standard". Systematic butchering of civilians is much more product of 20th century wars (like II world war) than middle ages, where two armies faced each other in open field.

All in all, reading threads like this make me want to puke. But then thats just me. Better switch to another thread where ppl are horrified about Tyrion slapping somebody, thinking something bad or visiting a brothel.

You are aware that pitched battles were fairly rare and that massacres of civilian populations were very common also before the modern age? I recall for instance that the Thirty Years' War left a scar on Germany.

[Stannis ftw]

You are aware that pitched battles were fairly rare and that massacres of civilian populations were very common also before the modern age? I recall for instance that the Thirty Years' War left a scar on Germany.

Im not aware. Not very common and certainly not "all right" by the moral standards of that time.

[Gurkhal]

Im not aware. Not very common and certainly not "all right" by the moral standards of that time.

The victims most likely didn't think it was ok but the aggressors most likely considered it to be ok. Kind of the same as today I would say, but then again I haven't studied Medieval mentality or law to a greater degree.

[Stannis ftw]

The victims most likely didn't think it was ok but the aggressors most likely considered it to be ok. Kind of the same as today I would say, but then again I haven't studied Medieval mentality or law to a greater degree.

So thats all you have to say about similar actions in today's world also? Say, Sudanese troops slaughtering the Darfurian villages (few years ago): victims didnt really like it, aggressors kind of thought its ok, and thats all there is to it, right?

[Gurkhal]

So thats all you have to say about similar actions in today's world also? Say, Sudanese troops slaughtering the Darfurian villages (few years ago): victims didnt really like it, aggressors kind of thought its ok, and thats all there is to it, right?

No, I have alot more to say about such things in today's world. But since I have also went to university I am aware that the understanding of what is right and wrong, acceptable and not, has changed a great deal throughout human history and between various cultures. And I am pretty lacking in knowing exactly what was considered acceptable and not in war during the Middle Ages.

[Lux in Tenebris]

No way would he kill Joffrey.

If Joffrey had become a liability, just think of how Twyin saw Tyrion. He could have easily killed Tyrion when he was small and blamed it on his deformities/birth, or really had him killed at any point in his life that he chose.

If Joffrey were to be killed, as others have mentioned, doing so publicly on his birthday in front of hundreds in a manner that would potentially cause his son to be blamed makes no sense. Death in that fashion, followed by the trial, is the exact opposite of what Tywin wants for his house.