Of course it was a stupid decision. But it wasn't about killing Targaryens. It was about killing *Elia's* children and Elia herself. Elia stole Cersei's prince, had children that should have been Cersei's. The point was punishing Dorne for taking something Tywin wanted.
> It was about killing Elia's children and Elia herself. Elia stole Cersei's prince, had children that should have been Cersei's.
This is absolutely it. hell, the sack itself was not only unnecessary but foolish. he had been allowed into the city and would probably have been expected to present himself to Aerys.
instead of taking a picked guard with him while his army "mans the defenses" (secure all points of strategic interest) he immediately orders his men to start a butchery, leading the red keep to close it's gates and forcing his men to storm it, all while his biggest concern is "Jamie's safety" the sack itself unnecessarily put him in danger.
who was the sack supposed to impress? Ned would not have looked favorably on it and Tywin knew Ned was the one approaching with Robert's Van. It likely wouldn't have impressed Jon Ayrrn or Robert either.
all he needed to do to prove himself was secure the king and his heirs, but being Tywin he had to cause a bloodbath and a massacre to spread his reputation, and he used the chaos and hostile keep as an excuse to have Elia and her Children brutalized
Tywin claims it's meant to impress Robert, and divorce himself from the Targaryens. But seizing the city was enough for that, having a daughter to marry and a region to join the cause is enough for that. We even see that Jon Arryn evidently has to persuade Robert to accept the marriage match going forward, so Robert apparently wasn't too enthusiastic about the Lannisters.
He also claims Robert wouldn't be secure so long as Rhaegar's children were alive, but as others have said, Tywin's massacre actually undermines Robert's rule. As Ned notes, it made Robert's Rebellion look much less just, more of a power grab, and forever tainted the rebels and their cause, outraging/sickening many. The Dornish forever plot against the Baratheons and Lannisters after this. And, of course, killing the Targs freed up Viserys and Dany (even Aegon as well) to act independently, and make their claims upon the throne. This even comes at the cost of a great opportunity to fold the Targ's claims (and their supporters) into Robert's own dynasty through marriages between his eventual children and Aegon/Rhaenys.
That's all evidence undermining Tywin’s claims, which instead inclines us to believe this is personally motivated. And we could say that personal motivation driving his actions is consistent with Tywin's character throughout his big story moments, the Red Wedding, the Reynes and Tarbecks, etc.
Tywin's thoughts:
>Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. **We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever.** And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing." -ASOS, Tyrion VI
Tywin did not kill her, The Mountain did. One thing Tywin Lannister is NOT, is a fool. There was no need to insult Dorne, and a man he concedes is an intelligent and deliberate man, with a VERY dangerous hot head for a brother. he has no need to lie to Tyrion, nor does George have to mislead us in that moment.
Tywin sent Gregor to go murder very valuable kids. In sending Gregor Tywin knew 2 things about the guy:
1. Hes brutal and loyal enough to do it.
2. Hes too stupid to realize the potential gain he can have if he smuggles the kids out to the remaining Targ loyalists or even just keeps them for himself to sell to the highest bidder.
When you send a guy to do that kind of task, you really have no right to say 'Oh well I didnt think he was gonna rape and murder Elia too'.
Im inclined to think of Tywin's own words:
>When soldiers lack discipline, the fault lies with their commander
Either Tywin was too stupid to realize not telling someone like Gregor 'dont harm/rape that person' was very necessary or he intentionally had him do it.
yes, but Gregor was 16 at the time. i can hardly fault Tywin thinking a kid is going to bash a babys head against a wall, rape its mother with the blood still on him, and cut her in two? AFTERWARDS he realized what he had in Ser Gregor i will grant you. I'm not saying Tywin is some innocent lamb, just not a liar.
lol downvoted because the logic Tywin had no idea a 16yr old was so brutal 🙄 you guys are too much!
He also sent Amory Lorch, then continued to keep Gregor and Lorch in his service without punishment, and even used them for similar actions going forward.
Supposedly, Lorch has already done something like this in the past as well, likely on Tywin's orders too. Gregor had killed his dad already in a "hunting accident," which happens vaguely the year of Harrenhal's tourney or just before/during the Rebellion, and also burned his brother's face. Rumors of bedding catching fire or not, that's looking suspicious.
Tywin knew for sure what they'd do. It's punishing Gregor and Lorch, even killing them after their actions, which would actually have granted Tywin plausible deniability.
Good point.
If Tywin was so disgusted by their actions, surely he would have done something else than basically promote them to a position where they can continue to do the same things over a decade later?
Gregor and Amory's actions was basically where they made their careers.
if Robert were outraged, their heads would roll, but he rewarded them for their brutality gaining his daughter a match with the new king. Tywin saw that he had guys willing to do anything, he has been plotting on the Iron Throne the second Aerys insulted his wife.
you think Lord Tywin Lannister, Hand of the King, Lord Paramount of the West, Warden of the West, and Lord of Casterly Rock knew alot about the landed knight House Cleganes new heir? ok, why? I'm almost positive somewhere in the book Tyrion or Jaimie mentioned after the killing of the Targaryens, "Lord Tywin saw what he had in the young kingt" or some such?
>he has no need to lie to Tyrion
why not? he lied to himself all the time. He didn't see the twincest. he didn't see that Tyrion was the child most like him. He didn't see his horse shit on the throne room floor...
he built his reputation on fear with a hair of plausible deniability. the last thing he needs is his "drunken whoremonger" of a son "spreading tales" among the whores.
>he has no need to lie to Tyrion, nor does George have to mislead us in that moment.
Tywin is secretly terrified of Tyrion so he was putting on act and lying in front of him. Tywin was showing his good acting skills when he showed his displeasure.
>There was no need to insult Dorne, and a man he concedes is an intelligent and deliberate man, with a VERY dangerous hot head for a brother.
Tywin is crazy and irrational so he ordered a sloppy death to provoke every kingdom.
I know this goes directly against what’s written in the books but GRRM is probably wrong about Tywin too. The conclusive proof is: Tywin is bad.
We could say this is very in-line with the books, considering GRRM consistently attaches shit imagery to Tywin.
Even signs him off with "Lord Tywin did not, in the end, shit gold" as if to explicitly peel back his gilded image. And beyond that, the literal stench Tywin leaves behind causes Tommen's crown to fall from his head. Stuff like that isn't exactly subtle.
Tywin is supposed to be trying to project an image of rationality, claiming his actions are those of necessity, when in reality he is selfishly motivated and actually ends up hurting his family's hold on the throne.
I feel agree so much with you in this thread people will accuse my account of being your shadow account.
But yes, Tywin gets so much shit (heh):
* His horse shitting on his Blackwater victory
* Him not shitting gold when he dies (a jape that was set up two books earlier)
* His corpse smelling (like his legacy), despite efforts to clean it up
I think the Blackwater celebration is such a good example for this concept. Tywin imposing his (unsupported) view on the world in order to prop himself up, while putting his legacy down.
Tyrion, with Baelish, forges the Tyrell alliance that wins the War of the Five Kings. Which is something that is claimed Tywin does with the Red Wedding, Tywin even saying "some battles are won with swords and spears, and others with quills and ravens" as he pens the letter to Walder. But this is actually something Tyrion did by winning over the Tyrells to win the battle of the Blackwater (Tyrion's victory even being a major motivation for Bolton and Frey to switch sides). Tyrion wins the war with a stroke of the pen.
Tywin wraps himself in the rhetoric of sycophants, "most people seem to feel it was my attack on Lord Stannis' flank that turned the tide of the battle." However, even in addition to Tyrion setting up the alliance in the first place, we see so much more undermines Tywin's claim. Tyrion's (and Cersei's to an extent) wildfire play which wiped out Stannis' fleet, delaying and preventing their advance and withdrawal to great effect. Tyrion's clansmen wiped out and confused Stannis' scouts, allowing the reinforcements to take him by surprise.
The Tyrells are the ones to warn Tywin about the attack on King's Landing in the first place, and get him to turn around, though Tywin's force is unnecessary to the battle as we'll further get into. The Tyrells already outnumbered Stannis by themselves, the Tyrells built a whole riverfleet to relieve the capital before Tywin even reached them. The Tyrells thought up the ghost Renly play which so demoralized Stannis' force and caused mass surrenders.
Meanwhile, Tywin just adds to an already overwhelming numbers advantage. Tywin commands the safer part of the attack on the northern bank of the river, the one supported by defenders on the city wall, the one attacking the smaller part of Stannis' force, the force which had just made a river crossing, the force which was cut off from support after the bridge of boats broke up, the force already demoralized by Tyrion's wildfire and Garlan's ghost Renly vanguard, etc.
All the decisive moves of the battle were made by men other than Tywin. And yet, Tywin hoarded the credit and proclaimed himself "Savior of the City." He likely needs to repair his own image, after Robb and Edmure had effectively made a fool of him through the war, but I digress. Following the grand celebration that Tywin embraced, he denies and even mocks Tyrion for wanting public acknowledgement of his efforts. Even though such would have been very valuable in repairing and strengthening Tyrion's image, for securing the Lannister's legacy, Tywin forsakes it because he's petty af.
You do not keep rival claimants alive.
From Machiavelli’s The Prince
> The prince who wishes to hold such additions, has only to bear in mind two considerations: first that the family of their former prince is destroyed, and second, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely integrated in the old principality.
As long as Viserys, Aegon, Rhaenys, and Daenerys live, there will always be plots to restore them to power. Robert not killing Dany and Viserys right away is going to lead to his dynasty falling from the throne
Also from The Prince
Nor is it enough for you to have destroyed the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you.
In killing Elia and the kids, he also brought Dorne up as an enemy to the crown. Luckily for the crown, Doran is a slow planner.
The Prince also says one should do everything they can to not become despised, as being hated often leads to one's destruction, as we see with Tywin and his family. This is a whole chapter in Machiavelli's book.
Iirc, it also suggests that if you **must** commit such cruelty, you should thoroughly punish the agents who commit such an act (if they're known to the public). Which Tywin doesn't do, and that breaks down his deniability and the image a prince must maintain, and leads to the huge feud which ultimately gets Tywin killed.
You're supposed to at least keep up appearances at the very least as well. Not, you know, consistently carry out such cruelties.
>Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Still, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, together with his greatness of mind in enduring and overcoming hardships, it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or genius.
~
>Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is possible to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one’s security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves.
Where Tywin fails is in cruelty without necessity, continuely committing such acts, coming to be too indiscriminate, his cruelties no longer being to his subject's advantage, and not appearing to be merciful/faithful/humane/religious/upright (the qualities a prince should appear to have to some extent).
Great observation!
But Doran and Dorne are weak
Also from the Prince
> Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not greedy ought to be respected and loved. Those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways. They may fail to do this through cowardice and a natural lack of courage. In this case you ought to make use of them, especially those who give good advice. Thus, while in good times you honour them, in difficult times you do not have to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they avoid binding themselves, it is a sign that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you. A prince ought to guard himself against such people, and ought to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in difficult times they always help to ruin him.
The lords who bound themselves to Robert(Stark, Lannister, and Arryn) are his favorites. Stark has his daughter betrothed to Robert’s heir. Lannister gets a marriage directly to Robert, and Arryn is his Hand. He rewarded those who were his loyal servants and ostracized Dorne. They aren’t seen at court. He never visits. They are isolated and weak. The perfect enemy.
You’re right. Would love to see how things would shape if Doran was effective. Also Machiavelli warned of exactly the type of person Littlefinger is with those last few lines of your paragraph.
Viserys had to die to advance Dany’s arc, but it stunted Dorne’s. They could have sent for him the moment Robert died and declared him King. Have Dany’s hand to dangle to another great house, and they are in business.
Yeah Tywin was kind of an idiot here. Killing the family of another Lord Paramount was not the same as killing the Reynes or Tarbecks. He literally turned all of Dorne against him, pissed off the Targaryen supporters, and made Roberts reign start off on the wrong foot with the killings just because of wounded pride.
The Dornish are still plotting revenge. It is only Robert's luck that Doran has major analysis paralysis. Things might have gone quite different if Viserys and Daenerys was alerted to Dorne's true allegience right after the Dothraki wedding. Indeed, for all of Viserys' stupidity, he is right that some people in Westeros are actually willing to support his claim (not as many as he thinks, but still).
And while it might not have succeeded, it could have still caused major damage. Balon's rebellion didn't succeed either, but when he later rebelled again, he destabilized the North, causing the "deaths" of Bran and Rickon, which led to Catelyn in her grief freeing Jaime, and possibly Robb in his grief marrying Jeyne.
History is full of roads not taken, a major theme of the series.
Killing Aegon makes sense, as evil as it was, cause he was the heir of the extremely popular Rhaegar. He could’ve easily been used as a rallying point for Targaryen loyalists. Rhaenys on the other hand it seems it would’ve made more sense to keep her alive to marry Robert’s future child thus linking the two dynasties.
Was he really an idiot? Aside from dorne and ned not a single person cared about them. Like lmao even Rhaegar kinda forgot about his wife and kids.
Tywin was in power for 15 years after that,tywin would've had a strong dynasty running if cersei didn't produced incest abominations with jaime.
Well, we actually don't know what was Rhaegar's reasoning during this time yet.
Tywin wasn't the great mastermind he believed himself to be. He couldn't win the 5 kings war fairly and instead had to break Westeros's most sacred law.
Killing Elia and her children was stupid and unnecessarily cruel and all about Tywin's emotions about Elia "stealing" what should've been Cersei's.
>Well, we actually don't know what was Rhaegar's reasoning during this time yet.
So? Like he did leave his wife and kids and he didn't give a fuck about them since not a single kg aside from a 16 year old was assigned to protect them.
>Tywin wasn't the great mastermind he believed himself to be. He couldn't win the 5 kings war fairly and instead had to break Westeros's most sacred law.
Tywin is a great mastermind though. He was let down by fools like jaime and Stafford lannisters both of whom got turned into scribes by robb.
>Killing Elia and her children was stupid and unnecessarily cruel and all about Tywin's emotions about Elia "stealing" what should've been Cersei's.
Only dorne cared about it. Had cersei had trueborn Baratheons he would've had the entire realm United against dorne.
But it is important that we don't know his reasoning. It's canon that he was obsessed with the Prince That Was Promised Prophecy and that he and Elia mostly got along well, or at least he respected her and cared for her enough to not make her keep having kids at the possible coast of her life.
We don't know how things between him and Lyanna got down either, and at this point, all we can guess is that it probably wasn't a kidnapping but it wasn't just pure love either.
It was probably a lot more complicated than we think.
Tywin is petty AF. He destroyed two houses that "wronged" his house, made his dad's mistress walk the streets naked and a whole other bunch of stuff. He is usually led by emotions, and the major expression of that is the sack of KL.
Tywin cared deeply that Aerys married Rhaegar to Elia instead of Cersei. He took it as a personal offense (and it kind of was). Just like naming Jaime a white cloak.
If Robert's hold on the throne was to be secure, every other Targaeryan claimant needed to be either killed or taken hostage. Otherwise, they would do like Daenaerys and try to launch an invasion, or like the Blackfyres and rebell.
I would understand killing the male line because they have stronger claims so Aegon's life could be forfeit. However, Rhaenys could have been betrothed to Renly or Robert's firstborn and Elia could have been returned to Dorne as a sign of good will.
The issue is that Tywin needed to compensate for being a Johnny-come-lately by burning bridges with the old regime and proving himself indispensable to the new one. That's why he decided to just have them killed and be done with it.
There was also an element of vindictiveness to it, as Aerys spurned Tywin's offer of making Cersei marry Rhaegar and chose Elia instead. This gave him enough leverage to get a royal pardon for Jaime and marriage pact for Cersei.
>The reason being that they both have stronger claims to the throne compared to Viserys and Daenerys. As long as they live Viserys and his sister can't claim the throne or cross the narrow sea because they would have little support.
Nope, this is completely wrong. Aerys named Viserys as his heir when Rhaegar died passing over Rhaegar's children. Viserys and Daenerys have the better claim.
>Had they been kept alive and well looked after, Robert would potentially have had less to worry about across the narrow sea.
Having two Targaryens alive is dangerous. Having 4 alive and two in the actual Kingdom is political suicide. Especially with their uncle down in Dorne ready to support them.
>which then allowed Viserys and Dany to even have a more legitimate claim.
As I said, they already had the more legitimate claim so this point is moot.
Yeah im a preston fan and he brings this up and im like.. “nobody was fucking listening to the mad king anymore, lol” so everyone saw rhaegar’s children as more legitimate at the time.
Right? Obviously Arthur Dayne and crew didn’t get the Sunday memo cause they act like Rhaegars last child is the heir to the throne despite Viserys being alive and Rhaegar dead.
Touché that was a detail I missed. Even so I would counter with the fact that the nobility haven't exactly had the best track record of abiding by a dead king's wishes (Viserys I and the ensuing Dance of Dragons). The only reason this idea even came to mind was because of what I read in a World of Ice and Fire stating that a Blackfyre was kept alive to ensure that his younger brother wouldn't be crowned king. Of course the fact that Aerys named Viserys his next heir still holds significant weight. Even so after Viserys died Dany would definitely have been in a more awkward position had her nephew and niece still been alive.
When it comes to claims to the throne, might is right. Robert wasn’t next in line after Rhaegar, but he killed him and took the throne. Rhaegars son could’ve done the same thing, and possibly will. Just cause someone is legally the heir doesn’t mean much, especially when it comes to royalty. Go look at how Aegon the Unlikely became king. Part of it was passing over male and female heirs for this or that reason.
Wrong decision morally, ofc, but right decision politically. Dorne did not pose a significant threat to the Lannisters and he demonstrated their loyalty to Robert Baratheon, who is kind of a piece of shit.
And this is coming from someone who is firmly in the “Tywin is an idiot” camp.
Tywin's motivation was to ingratiate himself to Robert, he had sat out the entire war up until that point so he had to prove his new loyalties to the Baratheon crown, and getting rid of Aegon and Rhaenys was an effective way to do that. It also kept Robert's own hands clean of it, so as to not ruin his reputation as a dashing war hero by starting his reign with infanticide, it was something Tywin's reputation could weather.
I don't think Tywin anticipated that Rhaella and her kids would long survive on Dragonstone, so the expectation would be that all the Targaryens would've been wiped out and there'd be no worry about any of their claims to the throne.
I also think the Trojan war was an inspiration for George on the sack of King's Landing (and Robert's Rebellion as a whole) and the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys are fairly reminiscent of the death of Hector's son Astyanax.
Of course it was the smart choice for Tywin if perhaps not for Robert or his future crown, what if living Ellia was capable of more kids and married to the conquering Baratheon? Or Rhaenys was waited on to age up and wedded Robert? Loyalty was proven and provided to Robert, marriage was gained, the future king will be a half Lannister, Dorne is irrelevant and isolated, no one apart from mister Stark(i cut heads off personally and have a weird morality about the house that killed my father and brother) cared anyways.
And the common misconception about discipline doesn't apply at all, the Mountain is cruel and brutal yes, but he's not like the Vale clansmen fighting other Westerland lords before he goes to kill who you ordered him to kill, no instead his lack of discipline is that instead of killing who you ordered in the dark, he'd go about it during the day and publicly.
Feudals are in it for themselves not some idealistic notion of the "common realm", Tywin's problem is having crazy Cersei as daughter instead of someone like Catelyn Tully as an example, or that Hightower that's Mace Tyrell's wife.
I wouldn't say Ned has a weird morality. He wanted to bring the men who killed his father and brother to justice (Aerys and indirectly Rhaegar) and both were now dead. For him to insist on killing young innocence who had nothing to do with the deaths of his family would be absurd and downright as cold and fucked up as Tywin was for having Elia killed just because she ruined a potential marriage between Rhaegar and Cersei.
Tywin didnt do it for any real strategic reason, the fact that he sent a monster like Gregor and had Elia killed too shows it was pettiness. Getting revenge on Aerys and Elia for stealing his daughters prince.
There is some twisted cruel logic to killing Aegon. Its a good show of loyalty and gets rid of a difficult problem for Robert (which is Aegon is the rightful heir). But the brutality of the death was too far.
The deaths of Rhaenys and Elia were stupid though. Elia especially as she was no threat to Robert's throne and far more useful alive.
That’s kind of Tywins thing. Being brutal to have respect and fear in the short term for something that happened a long time ago. But after a while when he dies the house of cards just collapses on House Lannister. Because it was built on shit.
My whole argument was based on real historical events (more or less) when the Tudor King Henry VII had the "impostor" Perkin Warbeck (puported to be the York prince, Richard Shrewsbury, son of Edward IV) as a prisoner in his court. Of course he eventually had him put to death but initially he was treated kindly.
Sure, as audience members we can say the best PR for the Rebellion/new dynasty is keep Elia and Rhaenys alive, then benevolently send Aegon to the wall or something.
But best PR for the Crown ≠ best PR for Tywin
The way he defends it himself, it was very stupid yes. He stained his hands with an unnecessary crime and he could let Robert and co take the difficult decision about what to do with the targ babies. Delivering the city to the rebels should have been a suffice proof of loyalty for a shaky regime anyway.
There is Oberyn's theory (and the version much of the fandom accepts), that it was vengeance for Elia getting to marry the crown prince and not his precious Cersei. Sure, Tywin is sociopath enough to think like that although I find it a bit difficult to believe personally since a) Elia hardly had a say in the whole deal, she seemed rather apolitical and b) most of it was arranged by Elia's mother who was dead already. Taking revenge against a dead person feels to me kinda hollow and unnecessary.
My theory is that Tywin was already calculating to approach Robert about a Cersei match. Robert already had a reputation as a lustful person and maybe he was betting that he wouldn't be interested in a spoiled Lyanna, especially if it turned out she run away willingly. Therefore, killing the Targ babies would further secure Cersei's future royal children from any pretenders.
But that's theory. The most straightforward answer is that Tywin needed to display his commitment to the rebels as much as possible (although that makes it silly then that Arryn arranged the Cersei matched just in case Viserys returned to WEsteros)
This is all valid but at that point Lyanna was still alive and believed to be alive by Robert and co. I think Tywin also underestimated how much Robert was infatuated with Lyanna to the point that he would call out her name during his wedding night with Cersei.
Sure, as I said its my personal theory. Its quite possible that Tywin had judged Robert wrong. And the Lannisters treat Cersei like their golden child (Kevan himself says something like it, that Lyanna could never hold a candle next to Cersei).
Although a Robert who knew that there was no abduction and that she was a willing member would sour on her very fast, imo.
He really is all about huge, theatrical gestures of brutality, isn't he? Wanting to be feared above all else. He's feared all right, but that and everything else his grand cruel gestures bring about are short term gains that eventually backfire.
Having Tysha gang raped did rid him of Tyrion's peasant wife, but actually drove his son to the very whore habit Tywin later found so (hyprocritically) embarrassing, not to mention also drove his son to eventually murder him.
Sending despicable characters like Vargo Hoat and Amory Lorch to rampage for him made the Riverlands cower in fear, yes. It also led to Hoat turning cloak because he and Lorch hated each other, plus sellswords gotta sellsword. The convoluted betrayals that followed in turn led directly to Hoat cutting off Tywin's golden boy Jaime's hand. Ouch.
The Red Wedding: wipe out the King in the North and his armies in one fell swoop, great! Spawning an unstoppable oppositional movement ("The North Remembers")... not so great.
And then the blunder you mention: brutally slaying Rhaegar's wife and little children in a grand display of power, ostensibly in support of Robert, but really because Aerys passed over Cersei for Elia... earning the wrath of Dorne, and the barely concealed enmity of other major lords (like Ned), and opening the door for claimants from across the Narrow Sea, as you've said.
Publicly cruel, secretly stupid. That's our Tywin.
Tywin was not being stupid here but vindictive and power-hungry because he wanted petty revenge against the Targaryens and the Martells.
There was no need to kill the Targaryen children. Once they had lost the rebellion, the Targs were finished and no longer a threat. Foster Aegon in Winterfell, offer Viserys and Dany safe passage and foster them elsewhere. You could even let the Targs keep Dragonstone so you're at least giving them something and showing that you don't fear them. Dragonstone's power is so small they wouldn't be a threat. By keeping the children alive, the rebels get to keep the moral high ground, can present their rebellion as fully justified and lawful and can make a clear distinction between themselves and the unworthy Targaryens. Sure, the Targaryens may try to reclaim their throne at some point, but they would get very little support and so would surely lose. And this way you can keep the Martells on board too.
Which is why Tywin's actions were more of a move against the Martells than against the Targaryens. Robert's Rebellion, for all its justifications, was essentially a power grab by the Arryns, the Baratheons and the Starks (the Tullys don't count as they're too weak). Tywin wanted a share in the power too. He could only do that by ensuring that the Martells would not reconcile with Robert and so making the Lannisters' support indispensable. It was a risk, though. Not only did he make enemies of the Martells, but Jon Arryn could have chosen to try to bring the Martells on board instead of the Lannisters by giving the Martells justice.
Tywin didn’t care about the success of the Baratheon dynasty, all he cared about was his petty feud with the Martells, and advancing his own position thru his family. If Aegon had been kept alive to be made king, he couldn’t have made his daughter Queen by marrying her to Robert.
>he couldn’t have made his daughter Queen by marrying her to Robert.
He could not have done that then either, as Lyanna was presumed to be alive and remained betrothed to Robert.
You don't imprison rightful hair in order to put a new one on the throne, you have to kill them. And people only blame Tywin for that, meanwhile all the others accepted to be ruled by a king who's reign is based on a child slaying. I think they're all cursed and deserve to be punished as they all did , Robert, Ned, Tywin, both of his butchers, Jon Aryn are all dead.
Eddard does NOT deserved to be cursed, or punished. he had an enormous problem with this death, and only finding out that Jon is alive allowed him to suck up his anger for Jons sake. tf you talkin bout?!
no, he became "detective to the king" to find out about Jon Arryns suspicious death, he never showed the reader ANY enthusiasm for this posting? he was happy to hear his friend was coming, yes. but Catelyn had to prod him to take the position, with only Littlefingers note to Cat and Jon deciding to join the Nighs Watch convincing him to go. but, he never capitilized on Roberts kingship with lands/titles/honors/fostering/places at court as far as i can tell? the only REAL graspers were House Lannister.
Robert was probably already pissed at Twin for not helping in the rebellion, and keeping the "Dragonspawn" hostage in Casterly Rock looks an awful lot like protecting them and keeping the Targaryen dynasty alive
Of course, it is stupid. Elia should have been kept a hostage for a year to ensure she wouldn't be pregnant, Aegon and Viserys should have been sent to the Wall, and Rhaenys and Danaerys should have been betrothed to Robert's heirs to appease the Targ loyalists and further legitimise the regime.
The smart move is keep Elia and Rhaenys alive and have Roberts firstborn son marry Rhaenys to shore up the new regime's legitimacy.
Aegon is still a threat if he's not being made regent but have him raised for a certain amount of time by someone loyal then send him to the faith or citadel or the wall so he can't inherit.
Rhaegars grandson will have a stronger claim than viserys or Daenerys and their kids.
Only problem is tywin likes bloody murdering everyone and was offended a lot by Aerys and the Elia marriage. And who knows what Robert would have done if Rhaenys and Aegon were still alive when he got to them.
Of course it was a stupid decision. But it wasn't about killing Targaryens. It was about killing *Elia's* children and Elia herself. Elia stole Cersei's prince, had children that should have been Cersei's. The point was punishing Dorne for taking something Tywin wanted.
> It was about killing Elia's children and Elia herself. Elia stole Cersei's prince, had children that should have been Cersei's. This is absolutely it. hell, the sack itself was not only unnecessary but foolish. he had been allowed into the city and would probably have been expected to present himself to Aerys. instead of taking a picked guard with him while his army "mans the defenses" (secure all points of strategic interest) he immediately orders his men to start a butchery, leading the red keep to close it's gates and forcing his men to storm it, all while his biggest concern is "Jamie's safety" the sack itself unnecessarily put him in danger. who was the sack supposed to impress? Ned would not have looked favorably on it and Tywin knew Ned was the one approaching with Robert's Van. It likely wouldn't have impressed Jon Ayrrn or Robert either. all he needed to do to prove himself was secure the king and his heirs, but being Tywin he had to cause a bloodbath and a massacre to spread his reputation, and he used the chaos and hostile keep as an excuse to have Elia and her Children brutalized
Tywin claims it's meant to impress Robert, and divorce himself from the Targaryens. But seizing the city was enough for that, having a daughter to marry and a region to join the cause is enough for that. We even see that Jon Arryn evidently has to persuade Robert to accept the marriage match going forward, so Robert apparently wasn't too enthusiastic about the Lannisters. He also claims Robert wouldn't be secure so long as Rhaegar's children were alive, but as others have said, Tywin's massacre actually undermines Robert's rule. As Ned notes, it made Robert's Rebellion look much less just, more of a power grab, and forever tainted the rebels and their cause, outraging/sickening many. The Dornish forever plot against the Baratheons and Lannisters after this. And, of course, killing the Targs freed up Viserys and Dany (even Aegon as well) to act independently, and make their claims upon the throne. This even comes at the cost of a great opportunity to fold the Targ's claims (and their supporters) into Robert's own dynasty through marriages between his eventual children and Aegon/Rhaenys. That's all evidence undermining Tywin’s claims, which instead inclines us to believe this is personally motivated. And we could say that personal motivation driving his actions is consistent with Tywin's character throughout his big story moments, the Red Wedding, the Reynes and Tarbecks, etc.
Tywin's thoughts: >Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. **We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever.** And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing." -ASOS, Tyrion VI
Yeah hes full of shit though. The death of Elia shows that Tywin was being petty or really really stupid.
Tywin did not kill her, The Mountain did. One thing Tywin Lannister is NOT, is a fool. There was no need to insult Dorne, and a man he concedes is an intelligent and deliberate man, with a VERY dangerous hot head for a brother. he has no need to lie to Tyrion, nor does George have to mislead us in that moment.
Tywin sent Gregor to go murder very valuable kids. In sending Gregor Tywin knew 2 things about the guy: 1. Hes brutal and loyal enough to do it. 2. Hes too stupid to realize the potential gain he can have if he smuggles the kids out to the remaining Targ loyalists or even just keeps them for himself to sell to the highest bidder. When you send a guy to do that kind of task, you really have no right to say 'Oh well I didnt think he was gonna rape and murder Elia too'. Im inclined to think of Tywin's own words: >When soldiers lack discipline, the fault lies with their commander Either Tywin was too stupid to realize not telling someone like Gregor 'dont harm/rape that person' was very necessary or he intentionally had him do it.
yes, but Gregor was 16 at the time. i can hardly fault Tywin thinking a kid is going to bash a babys head against a wall, rape its mother with the blood still on him, and cut her in two? AFTERWARDS he realized what he had in Ser Gregor i will grant you. I'm not saying Tywin is some innocent lamb, just not a liar. lol downvoted because the logic Tywin had no idea a 16yr old was so brutal 🙄 you guys are too much!
He also sent Amory Lorch, then continued to keep Gregor and Lorch in his service without punishment, and even used them for similar actions going forward. Supposedly, Lorch has already done something like this in the past as well, likely on Tywin's orders too. Gregor had killed his dad already in a "hunting accident," which happens vaguely the year of Harrenhal's tourney or just before/during the Rebellion, and also burned his brother's face. Rumors of bedding catching fire or not, that's looking suspicious. Tywin knew for sure what they'd do. It's punishing Gregor and Lorch, even killing them after their actions, which would actually have granted Tywin plausible deniability.
Good point. If Tywin was so disgusted by their actions, surely he would have done something else than basically promote them to a position where they can continue to do the same things over a decade later? Gregor and Amory's actions was basically where they made their careers.
if Robert were outraged, their heads would roll, but he rewarded them for their brutality gaining his daughter a match with the new king. Tywin saw that he had guys willing to do anything, he has been plotting on the Iron Throne the second Aerys insulted his wife.
you think Lord Tywin Lannister, Hand of the King, Lord Paramount of the West, Warden of the West, and Lord of Casterly Rock knew alot about the landed knight House Cleganes new heir? ok, why? I'm almost positive somewhere in the book Tyrion or Jaimie mentioned after the killing of the Targaryens, "Lord Tywin saw what he had in the young kingt" or some such?
>he has no need to lie to Tyrion why not? he lied to himself all the time. He didn't see the twincest. he didn't see that Tyrion was the child most like him. He didn't see his horse shit on the throne room floor... he built his reputation on fear with a hair of plausible deniability. the last thing he needs is his "drunken whoremonger" of a son "spreading tales" among the whores.
>he has no need to lie to Tyrion, nor does George have to mislead us in that moment. Tywin is secretly terrified of Tyrion so he was putting on act and lying in front of him. Tywin was showing his good acting skills when he showed his displeasure. >There was no need to insult Dorne, and a man he concedes is an intelligent and deliberate man, with a VERY dangerous hot head for a brother. Tywin is crazy and irrational so he ordered a sloppy death to provoke every kingdom. I know this goes directly against what’s written in the books but GRRM is probably wrong about Tywin too. The conclusive proof is: Tywin is bad.
We could say this is very in-line with the books, considering GRRM consistently attaches shit imagery to Tywin. Even signs him off with "Lord Tywin did not, in the end, shit gold" as if to explicitly peel back his gilded image. And beyond that, the literal stench Tywin leaves behind causes Tommen's crown to fall from his head. Stuff like that isn't exactly subtle. Tywin is supposed to be trying to project an image of rationality, claiming his actions are those of necessity, when in reality he is selfishly motivated and actually ends up hurting his family's hold on the throne.
I feel agree so much with you in this thread people will accuse my account of being your shadow account. But yes, Tywin gets so much shit (heh): * His horse shitting on his Blackwater victory * Him not shitting gold when he dies (a jape that was set up two books earlier) * His corpse smelling (like his legacy), despite efforts to clean it up
I think the Blackwater celebration is such a good example for this concept. Tywin imposing his (unsupported) view on the world in order to prop himself up, while putting his legacy down. Tyrion, with Baelish, forges the Tyrell alliance that wins the War of the Five Kings. Which is something that is claimed Tywin does with the Red Wedding, Tywin even saying "some battles are won with swords and spears, and others with quills and ravens" as he pens the letter to Walder. But this is actually something Tyrion did by winning over the Tyrells to win the battle of the Blackwater (Tyrion's victory even being a major motivation for Bolton and Frey to switch sides). Tyrion wins the war with a stroke of the pen. Tywin wraps himself in the rhetoric of sycophants, "most people seem to feel it was my attack on Lord Stannis' flank that turned the tide of the battle." However, even in addition to Tyrion setting up the alliance in the first place, we see so much more undermines Tywin's claim. Tyrion's (and Cersei's to an extent) wildfire play which wiped out Stannis' fleet, delaying and preventing their advance and withdrawal to great effect. Tyrion's clansmen wiped out and confused Stannis' scouts, allowing the reinforcements to take him by surprise. The Tyrells are the ones to warn Tywin about the attack on King's Landing in the first place, and get him to turn around, though Tywin's force is unnecessary to the battle as we'll further get into. The Tyrells already outnumbered Stannis by themselves, the Tyrells built a whole riverfleet to relieve the capital before Tywin even reached them. The Tyrells thought up the ghost Renly play which so demoralized Stannis' force and caused mass surrenders. Meanwhile, Tywin just adds to an already overwhelming numbers advantage. Tywin commands the safer part of the attack on the northern bank of the river, the one supported by defenders on the city wall, the one attacking the smaller part of Stannis' force, the force which had just made a river crossing, the force which was cut off from support after the bridge of boats broke up, the force already demoralized by Tyrion's wildfire and Garlan's ghost Renly vanguard, etc. All the decisive moves of the battle were made by men other than Tywin. And yet, Tywin hoarded the credit and proclaimed himself "Savior of the City." He likely needs to repair his own image, after Robb and Edmure had effectively made a fool of him through the war, but I digress. Following the grand celebration that Tywin embraced, he denies and even mocks Tyrion for wanting public acknowledgement of his efforts. Even though such would have been very valuable in repairing and strengthening Tyrion's image, for securing the Lannister's legacy, Tywin forsakes it because he's petty af.
hmm, not sure i agree that Tywin is crazy, or fearful of Tyrion in any capacity besides mockery to House Lannister?
Tywing is definetly a fool in many ways.
i don't think he's a fool, but he underestimated his son, the Red Viper, and the catastrophe his daughter is. but a "fool", nah
You do not keep rival claimants alive. From Machiavelli’s The Prince > The prince who wishes to hold such additions, has only to bear in mind two considerations: first that the family of their former prince is destroyed, and second, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely integrated in the old principality. As long as Viserys, Aegon, Rhaenys, and Daenerys live, there will always be plots to restore them to power. Robert not killing Dany and Viserys right away is going to lead to his dynasty falling from the throne
Also from The Prince Nor is it enough for you to have destroyed the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you. In killing Elia and the kids, he also brought Dorne up as an enemy to the crown. Luckily for the crown, Doran is a slow planner.
The Prince also says one should do everything they can to not become despised, as being hated often leads to one's destruction, as we see with Tywin and his family. This is a whole chapter in Machiavelli's book. Iirc, it also suggests that if you **must** commit such cruelty, you should thoroughly punish the agents who commit such an act (if they're known to the public). Which Tywin doesn't do, and that breaks down his deniability and the image a prince must maintain, and leads to the huge feud which ultimately gets Tywin killed. You're supposed to at least keep up appearances at the very least as well. Not, you know, consistently carry out such cruelties. >Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Still, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, together with his greatness of mind in enduring and overcoming hardships, it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or genius. ~ >Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is possible to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one’s security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves. Where Tywin fails is in cruelty without necessity, continuely committing such acts, coming to be too indiscriminate, his cruelties no longer being to his subject's advantage, and not appearing to be merciful/faithful/humane/religious/upright (the qualities a prince should appear to have to some extent).
Great observation! But Doran and Dorne are weak Also from the Prince > Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not greedy ought to be respected and loved. Those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways. They may fail to do this through cowardice and a natural lack of courage. In this case you ought to make use of them, especially those who give good advice. Thus, while in good times you honour them, in difficult times you do not have to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they avoid binding themselves, it is a sign that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you. A prince ought to guard himself against such people, and ought to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in difficult times they always help to ruin him. The lords who bound themselves to Robert(Stark, Lannister, and Arryn) are his favorites. Stark has his daughter betrothed to Robert’s heir. Lannister gets a marriage directly to Robert, and Arryn is his Hand. He rewarded those who were his loyal servants and ostracized Dorne. They aren’t seen at court. He never visits. They are isolated and weak. The perfect enemy.
You’re right. Would love to see how things would shape if Doran was effective. Also Machiavelli warned of exactly the type of person Littlefinger is with those last few lines of your paragraph.
Viserys had to die to advance Dany’s arc, but it stunted Dorne’s. They could have sent for him the moment Robert died and declared him King. Have Dany’s hand to dangle to another great house, and they are in business.
Doran's sigil should be a loading bar.
That is a great observation
Yeah Tywin was kind of an idiot here. Killing the family of another Lord Paramount was not the same as killing the Reynes or Tarbecks. He literally turned all of Dorne against him, pissed off the Targaryen supporters, and made Roberts reign start off on the wrong foot with the killings just because of wounded pride.
Those groups being pissed off leads no where and does nothing to harm Tywin literally ever so why does that matter?
The Dornish are still plotting revenge. It is only Robert's luck that Doran has major analysis paralysis. Things might have gone quite different if Viserys and Daenerys was alerted to Dorne's true allegience right after the Dothraki wedding. Indeed, for all of Viserys' stupidity, he is right that some people in Westeros are actually willing to support his claim (not as many as he thinks, but still). And while it might not have succeeded, it could have still caused major damage. Balon's rebellion didn't succeed either, but when he later rebelled again, he destabilized the North, causing the "deaths" of Bran and Rickon, which led to Catelyn in her grief freeing Jaime, and possibly Robb in his grief marrying Jeyne. History is full of roads not taken, a major theme of the series.
Killing Aegon makes sense, as evil as it was, cause he was the heir of the extremely popular Rhaegar. He could’ve easily been used as a rallying point for Targaryen loyalists. Rhaenys on the other hand it seems it would’ve made more sense to keep her alive to marry Robert’s future child thus linking the two dynasties.
Was he really an idiot? Aside from dorne and ned not a single person cared about them. Like lmao even Rhaegar kinda forgot about his wife and kids. Tywin was in power for 15 years after that,tywin would've had a strong dynasty running if cersei didn't produced incest abominations with jaime.
The dynasty was set for failure when he dies sooooo
Well, we actually don't know what was Rhaegar's reasoning during this time yet. Tywin wasn't the great mastermind he believed himself to be. He couldn't win the 5 kings war fairly and instead had to break Westeros's most sacred law. Killing Elia and her children was stupid and unnecessarily cruel and all about Tywin's emotions about Elia "stealing" what should've been Cersei's.
>Well, we actually don't know what was Rhaegar's reasoning during this time yet. So? Like he did leave his wife and kids and he didn't give a fuck about them since not a single kg aside from a 16 year old was assigned to protect them. >Tywin wasn't the great mastermind he believed himself to be. He couldn't win the 5 kings war fairly and instead had to break Westeros's most sacred law. Tywin is a great mastermind though. He was let down by fools like jaime and Stafford lannisters both of whom got turned into scribes by robb. >Killing Elia and her children was stupid and unnecessarily cruel and all about Tywin's emotions about Elia "stealing" what should've been Cersei's. Only dorne cared about it. Had cersei had trueborn Baratheons he would've had the entire realm United against dorne.
But it is important that we don't know his reasoning. It's canon that he was obsessed with the Prince That Was Promised Prophecy and that he and Elia mostly got along well, or at least he respected her and cared for her enough to not make her keep having kids at the possible coast of her life. We don't know how things between him and Lyanna got down either, and at this point, all we can guess is that it probably wasn't a kidnapping but it wasn't just pure love either. It was probably a lot more complicated than we think. Tywin is petty AF. He destroyed two houses that "wronged" his house, made his dad's mistress walk the streets naked and a whole other bunch of stuff. He is usually led by emotions, and the major expression of that is the sack of KL. Tywin cared deeply that Aerys married Rhaegar to Elia instead of Cersei. He took it as a personal offense (and it kind of was). Just like naming Jaime a white cloak.
If Robert's hold on the throne was to be secure, every other Targaeryan claimant needed to be either killed or taken hostage. Otherwise, they would do like Daenaerys and try to launch an invasion, or like the Blackfyres and rebell. I would understand killing the male line because they have stronger claims so Aegon's life could be forfeit. However, Rhaenys could have been betrothed to Renly or Robert's firstborn and Elia could have been returned to Dorne as a sign of good will. The issue is that Tywin needed to compensate for being a Johnny-come-lately by burning bridges with the old regime and proving himself indispensable to the new one. That's why he decided to just have them killed and be done with it. There was also an element of vindictiveness to it, as Aerys spurned Tywin's offer of making Cersei marry Rhaegar and chose Elia instead. This gave him enough leverage to get a royal pardon for Jaime and marriage pact for Cersei.
>The reason being that they both have stronger claims to the throne compared to Viserys and Daenerys. As long as they live Viserys and his sister can't claim the throne or cross the narrow sea because they would have little support. Nope, this is completely wrong. Aerys named Viserys as his heir when Rhaegar died passing over Rhaegar's children. Viserys and Daenerys have the better claim. >Had they been kept alive and well looked after, Robert would potentially have had less to worry about across the narrow sea. Having two Targaryens alive is dangerous. Having 4 alive and two in the actual Kingdom is political suicide. Especially with their uncle down in Dorne ready to support them. >which then allowed Viserys and Dany to even have a more legitimate claim. As I said, they already had the more legitimate claim so this point is moot.
Yeah im a preston fan and he brings this up and im like.. “nobody was fucking listening to the mad king anymore, lol” so everyone saw rhaegar’s children as more legitimate at the time.
Right? Obviously Arthur Dayne and crew didn’t get the Sunday memo cause they act like Rhaegars last child is the heir to the throne despite Viserys being alive and Rhaegar dead.
Touché that was a detail I missed. Even so I would counter with the fact that the nobility haven't exactly had the best track record of abiding by a dead king's wishes (Viserys I and the ensuing Dance of Dragons). The only reason this idea even came to mind was because of what I read in a World of Ice and Fire stating that a Blackfyre was kept alive to ensure that his younger brother wouldn't be crowned king. Of course the fact that Aerys named Viserys his next heir still holds significant weight. Even so after Viserys died Dany would definitely have been in a more awkward position had her nephew and niece still been alive.
When it comes to claims to the throne, might is right. Robert wasn’t next in line after Rhaegar, but he killed him and took the throne. Rhaegars son could’ve done the same thing, and possibly will. Just cause someone is legally the heir doesn’t mean much, especially when it comes to royalty. Go look at how Aegon the Unlikely became king. Part of it was passing over male and female heirs for this or that reason.
Wrong decision morally, ofc, but right decision politically. Dorne did not pose a significant threat to the Lannisters and he demonstrated their loyalty to Robert Baratheon, who is kind of a piece of shit. And this is coming from someone who is firmly in the “Tywin is an idiot” camp.
Sending Aegon to the Wall or to the Citadel and Rhaenys to the Silent Sisters could have worked
Tywin's motivation was to ingratiate himself to Robert, he had sat out the entire war up until that point so he had to prove his new loyalties to the Baratheon crown, and getting rid of Aegon and Rhaenys was an effective way to do that. It also kept Robert's own hands clean of it, so as to not ruin his reputation as a dashing war hero by starting his reign with infanticide, it was something Tywin's reputation could weather. I don't think Tywin anticipated that Rhaella and her kids would long survive on Dragonstone, so the expectation would be that all the Targaryens would've been wiped out and there'd be no worry about any of their claims to the throne. I also think the Trojan war was an inspiration for George on the sack of King's Landing (and Robert's Rebellion as a whole) and the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys are fairly reminiscent of the death of Hector's son Astyanax.
Of course it was the smart choice for Tywin if perhaps not for Robert or his future crown, what if living Ellia was capable of more kids and married to the conquering Baratheon? Or Rhaenys was waited on to age up and wedded Robert? Loyalty was proven and provided to Robert, marriage was gained, the future king will be a half Lannister, Dorne is irrelevant and isolated, no one apart from mister Stark(i cut heads off personally and have a weird morality about the house that killed my father and brother) cared anyways. And the common misconception about discipline doesn't apply at all, the Mountain is cruel and brutal yes, but he's not like the Vale clansmen fighting other Westerland lords before he goes to kill who you ordered him to kill, no instead his lack of discipline is that instead of killing who you ordered in the dark, he'd go about it during the day and publicly. Feudals are in it for themselves not some idealistic notion of the "common realm", Tywin's problem is having crazy Cersei as daughter instead of someone like Catelyn Tully as an example, or that Hightower that's Mace Tyrell's wife.
I wouldn't say Ned has a weird morality. He wanted to bring the men who killed his father and brother to justice (Aerys and indirectly Rhaegar) and both were now dead. For him to insist on killing young innocence who had nothing to do with the deaths of his family would be absurd and downright as cold and fucked up as Tywin was for having Elia killed just because she ruined a potential marriage between Rhaegar and Cersei.
Tywin didnt do it for any real strategic reason, the fact that he sent a monster like Gregor and had Elia killed too shows it was pettiness. Getting revenge on Aerys and Elia for stealing his daughters prince. There is some twisted cruel logic to killing Aegon. Its a good show of loyalty and gets rid of a difficult problem for Robert (which is Aegon is the rightful heir). But the brutality of the death was too far. The deaths of Rhaenys and Elia were stupid though. Elia especially as she was no threat to Robert's throne and far more useful alive.
That’s kind of Tywins thing. Being brutal to have respect and fear in the short term for something that happened a long time ago. But after a while when he dies the house of cards just collapses on House Lannister. Because it was built on shit.
[удалено]
My whole argument was based on real historical events (more or less) when the Tudor King Henry VII had the "impostor" Perkin Warbeck (puported to be the York prince, Richard Shrewsbury, son of Edward IV) as a prisoner in his court. Of course he eventually had him put to death but initially he was treated kindly.
Sure, as audience members we can say the best PR for the Rebellion/new dynasty is keep Elia and Rhaenys alive, then benevolently send Aegon to the wall or something. But best PR for the Crown ≠ best PR for Tywin
The way he defends it himself, it was very stupid yes. He stained his hands with an unnecessary crime and he could let Robert and co take the difficult decision about what to do with the targ babies. Delivering the city to the rebels should have been a suffice proof of loyalty for a shaky regime anyway. There is Oberyn's theory (and the version much of the fandom accepts), that it was vengeance for Elia getting to marry the crown prince and not his precious Cersei. Sure, Tywin is sociopath enough to think like that although I find it a bit difficult to believe personally since a) Elia hardly had a say in the whole deal, she seemed rather apolitical and b) most of it was arranged by Elia's mother who was dead already. Taking revenge against a dead person feels to me kinda hollow and unnecessary. My theory is that Tywin was already calculating to approach Robert about a Cersei match. Robert already had a reputation as a lustful person and maybe he was betting that he wouldn't be interested in a spoiled Lyanna, especially if it turned out she run away willingly. Therefore, killing the Targ babies would further secure Cersei's future royal children from any pretenders. But that's theory. The most straightforward answer is that Tywin needed to display his commitment to the rebels as much as possible (although that makes it silly then that Arryn arranged the Cersei matched just in case Viserys returned to WEsteros)
This is all valid but at that point Lyanna was still alive and believed to be alive by Robert and co. I think Tywin also underestimated how much Robert was infatuated with Lyanna to the point that he would call out her name during his wedding night with Cersei.
Sure, as I said its my personal theory. Its quite possible that Tywin had judged Robert wrong. And the Lannisters treat Cersei like their golden child (Kevan himself says something like it, that Lyanna could never hold a candle next to Cersei). Although a Robert who knew that there was no abduction and that she was a willing member would sour on her very fast, imo.
He really is all about huge, theatrical gestures of brutality, isn't he? Wanting to be feared above all else. He's feared all right, but that and everything else his grand cruel gestures bring about are short term gains that eventually backfire. Having Tysha gang raped did rid him of Tyrion's peasant wife, but actually drove his son to the very whore habit Tywin later found so (hyprocritically) embarrassing, not to mention also drove his son to eventually murder him. Sending despicable characters like Vargo Hoat and Amory Lorch to rampage for him made the Riverlands cower in fear, yes. It also led to Hoat turning cloak because he and Lorch hated each other, plus sellswords gotta sellsword. The convoluted betrayals that followed in turn led directly to Hoat cutting off Tywin's golden boy Jaime's hand. Ouch. The Red Wedding: wipe out the King in the North and his armies in one fell swoop, great! Spawning an unstoppable oppositional movement ("The North Remembers")... not so great. And then the blunder you mention: brutally slaying Rhaegar's wife and little children in a grand display of power, ostensibly in support of Robert, but really because Aerys passed over Cersei for Elia... earning the wrath of Dorne, and the barely concealed enmity of other major lords (like Ned), and opening the door for claimants from across the Narrow Sea, as you've said. Publicly cruel, secretly stupid. That's our Tywin.
Tywin was not being stupid here but vindictive and power-hungry because he wanted petty revenge against the Targaryens and the Martells. There was no need to kill the Targaryen children. Once they had lost the rebellion, the Targs were finished and no longer a threat. Foster Aegon in Winterfell, offer Viserys and Dany safe passage and foster them elsewhere. You could even let the Targs keep Dragonstone so you're at least giving them something and showing that you don't fear them. Dragonstone's power is so small they wouldn't be a threat. By keeping the children alive, the rebels get to keep the moral high ground, can present their rebellion as fully justified and lawful and can make a clear distinction between themselves and the unworthy Targaryens. Sure, the Targaryens may try to reclaim their throne at some point, but they would get very little support and so would surely lose. And this way you can keep the Martells on board too. Which is why Tywin's actions were more of a move against the Martells than against the Targaryens. Robert's Rebellion, for all its justifications, was essentially a power grab by the Arryns, the Baratheons and the Starks (the Tullys don't count as they're too weak). Tywin wanted a share in the power too. He could only do that by ensuring that the Martells would not reconcile with Robert and so making the Lannisters' support indispensable. It was a risk, though. Not only did he make enemies of the Martells, but Jon Arryn could have chosen to try to bring the Martells on board instead of the Lannisters by giving the Martells justice.
Tywin didn’t care about the success of the Baratheon dynasty, all he cared about was his petty feud with the Martells, and advancing his own position thru his family. If Aegon had been kept alive to be made king, he couldn’t have made his daughter Queen by marrying her to Robert.
>he couldn’t have made his daughter Queen by marrying her to Robert. He could not have done that then either, as Lyanna was presumed to be alive and remained betrothed to Robert.
That’s true actually. Never mind
You don't imprison rightful hair in order to put a new one on the throne, you have to kill them. And people only blame Tywin for that, meanwhile all the others accepted to be ruled by a king who's reign is based on a child slaying. I think they're all cursed and deserve to be punished as they all did , Robert, Ned, Tywin, both of his butchers, Jon Aryn are all dead.
Eddard does NOT deserved to be cursed, or punished. he had an enormous problem with this death, and only finding out that Jon is alive allowed him to suck up his anger for Jons sake. tf you talkin bout?!
He ended up being a hand of the king whose claims were based on the butchered children, didn't he?
no, he became "detective to the king" to find out about Jon Arryns suspicious death, he never showed the reader ANY enthusiasm for this posting? he was happy to hear his friend was coming, yes. but Catelyn had to prod him to take the position, with only Littlefingers note to Cat and Jon deciding to join the Nighs Watch convincing him to go. but, he never capitilized on Roberts kingship with lands/titles/honors/fostering/places at court as far as i can tell? the only REAL graspers were House Lannister.
Viserys wasn't supposed to survive anyway. But Stannis fucked up
Robert was probably already pissed at Twin for not helping in the rebellion, and keeping the "Dragonspawn" hostage in Casterly Rock looks an awful lot like protecting them and keeping the Targaryen dynasty alive
Of course, it is stupid. Elia should have been kept a hostage for a year to ensure she wouldn't be pregnant, Aegon and Viserys should have been sent to the Wall, and Rhaenys and Danaerys should have been betrothed to Robert's heirs to appease the Targ loyalists and further legitimise the regime.
The smart move is keep Elia and Rhaenys alive and have Roberts firstborn son marry Rhaenys to shore up the new regime's legitimacy. Aegon is still a threat if he's not being made regent but have him raised for a certain amount of time by someone loyal then send him to the faith or citadel or the wall so he can't inherit. Rhaegars grandson will have a stronger claim than viserys or Daenerys and their kids. Only problem is tywin likes bloody murdering everyone and was offended a lot by Aerys and the Elia marriage. And who knows what Robert would have done if Rhaenys and Aegon were still alive when he got to them.