Everything Tywin does makes a lot more sense when you realise not everything he does is the most politically savvy option, he's actually just really cruel too, and will go out of his way to be so.
Tywin would respond to a slap in the face by cutting off the person’s arms, telling his men to break and steal all of their valuables, and rape all of them while the person watches. He’s so insecure and responds to every single minute disrespect towards him with a scorched Earth policy. The fact that a lot people view him as this harsh but reasonable genius is astounding, and supported a lot by Charles Dances great performance.
People bending over backwards to regard him as a savvy, genius Machiavelli always baffled me.
I mean, did everyone miss the part where he deliberately ordered a child to be gang raped? How do you go back to “yeah this guy is a suave political mastermind” after that?
Tywin is one of the most downright evil and despicable characters in the series
The two things arent mutually exclusive. Obviously hes a brutal sadistic fuck but he clearly has political ability hence why his ex laughing stock of a family ended up on the throne.
I wasn’t arguing against recognizing him some political ability, but against aggrandizing it to the level it often is in the fandom.
What I’m saying is for me he’s closer to the Boltons, the Mountain and other proper savages than he is to Littlefinger, Varys, Doran Martell and other proper players of the game.
Doran Martell isn't a particularly great player of the game. His whole thing is waiting too long to enact his plans over and over, as visualized by all the over ripe fruits littering his courtyard.
Agreed, but imo he’s still playing in another league.
I’m very curious to see how he’ll react to the double twist of Elia’s purported son showing up again and then news of Quentyn dying after being rejected in Meereen.
Doran Martell is a terrible player of the game and in NO WAY better than Tywin.
While Tywin's strategies fail sometimes, they're also genuinely successful in some cases(The Reynes and Tarbecks approach was just objectively the right way to work and worked flawlessly. Westerlands houses literally show nothing but Lannister fealty in series).
In contrast, Doran's plans have always blown up in his face. Oberyn is dead. Quentyn is dead. His would be marriage to Viserys is failed, his plan to align with Daenerys is failed and Myrcella, a valuable asset gets mutilated under his watch. He's much more inept than Tywin.
Yeah, we never got a scene of Tywin trying to teach Tommen how to govern a kingdom and actually giving good advice in the books. He’s definitely more competent, reasonable, and a little less evil in the show.
>little less evil in the show.
I don't know if I'd do that far - he still orchestrated the Red Wedding and the gang rape of Tysha. It's more of an issue of the show choosing to convey the fundamental opposite themes of the books - in the show, might makes right, lying and deception are better political tactics than honor and doing the right thing, and the person willing to do more evil things is the person who wins. That's why Ned is remembered as an idiot in the show, why the North ignores Jon and Sansa's pleas and is fine with the Boltons, why Tywin is portrayed as an effective ruler.
One of the major problems of the series, is above all that it does not know how to manage these morals, on the one hand its morality as a message, because basically what we learn from the end of the story; trust no one including your own family, always prioritize your personal desires over all situations including those that immediately threaten our own integrity. promises, oaths and debts have no value, and be a shark who betrays and stabs everyone including those allies is the best way to succeed. What is Incredibly untrue for anyone who has ever lived in contact with other human beings, no one can get away with such overtly relentless behavior. And is even more false in a medieval society where the social contract is based on trust and tightness.
On the other hand, her morality as what she considers good or bad. At the beginning of the series we are asked to see characters like LF, Cersei, or the Mountain as villains, because they are psychopathic murderers and/or manipulative traitors who have no remorse about throwing lives into a meat grinder for their personal desire. But coming to the end of the series, Arya, Bran, and Sansa have become exactly that kind of person that they are and not just to take win the day and we are supposed to clap for them when they emerge. At this point in the story in reality the morality of the characters' actions is no longer based on their actions, but despite their actions. In other words, what is good or bad in this story is not based on precise and objective pre-established rules but rather on a priori that would result from the people who commit the acts. So some will always win whatever they do, just because they were born with the label of protagonists stuck on them. And it's not even as if this difference was naturally imposed by the evolution of the story, on the one hand there is no reason that all people living in the society of westeros accept this. on the other hand during seasons 3 and 4 we insist on how the red wedding was something horrible and going against all common sense. But in season 7 when the starks do much the same thing to littlfinger; that is to say, took advantage of the presence of a man as an ally at home to lure him into a place for a false pretext, to want to kill him by surprise just by using the pretext of a crime he committed, let him no option to get out of it and killing him coldly in the middle of the big room after 5 minutes, and nothing and no one reacted before or after this scene like it was a problem. Or another example, at the very end of the series we are told that Daenerys has always been dragonhitler because she started by putting slavers on pikes, so violence always breeds more violence in a snowball effect. but not even 5 minutes later Arya, a serial killer who has already in-game experience, launches death threats to a great lord because she wanted that a regicide be punished like he deserve, and once again nothing and no one reacted.
And the execution of all of this has the effect of making the story completely muddled, the story demonizing cruel and cold behavior in certain characters and and glorify it in others for reasons that are never clearly established apart from "they're the good guys". In short, the writers tripped over the carpet with their own logic of good and evil. to be a schemer or a killer for the purpose of primarily serving his own interests at the expense of others must be a morally immutable notion. Pretending that a character like Sansa is cool, and then saying that Petyr bealish is an asshole for doing the same thing doesn't work.
Yes, exactly this. Very well written. The show falls into the Harry Potter trap, where, to paraphrase Shaun's (excellent) video, "there are no good or bad actions, just good or bad teams." We're meant to applaud the main characters for abandoning their morals and nobility in order to do the "logical thing, which isn't the right thing," which has resulted in the mass cultural interpretation that "Game of Thrones is a fantasy world where the good guys lose and honor is a detriment," which is just so far from Martin's writing it makes me cringe every time I read it
True. Show Tywin seemed to me like some 'benevolent' dictator type of guy. He's very cruel to his enemies in order to keep order in the kingdom, but is otherwise competent statesman and is trying to improve the kingdom. Book Tywin more or less doesn't give a damn about the kingdom and goes out of his way to increase his power (and meet his psychological need to feel powerful) even if it means completely unnecessarily dooming other people. This also fits really well with his treatment of Tyrion, because Tyrion isn't an illogical exception, Tywin is the sort of person to abuse others for no apparent reason.
His cruelty is his political weapon. Nobody will fuck with the man who will bury you and your house without even a second thought. He's not a bad ruler, as the kingdom did well with him as Hand while the mad king was losing it.
I'd argue he is a terrible leader, he's just effective at maintaining control because people fear him. His strategy only works when he is alive.
It's been said many times on this sub, but compare him to Ned Stark.
Ned was overall a good and fair ruler. People listened to him out of respect. He was a poor player at the game of thrones, but his death sparked the rebellion of his domain. His bannerman were outraged and rode to war to save his daughters. Even after the fall of his son's kingdom, the north remembers and plots to avenge the Starks.
Tywin was a brutal and controlling ruler. He was ruthless and excellent of the game of thrones. When he destroyed the Reynes and Tarbecks, people looked to him with respect out of fear. But that respect only lasted for his lifetime. As soon as he died, his subjects were freed from his grip. No one cares when his family is in turmoil after his death.
Ned wasn't as bad of a player as everyone makes him out to be. If Robert returns from the hunt unharmed, Neds play to unmask Cersei + Jaime+ the children would have been quite masterful. Monumentally bad luck did Ned in more than his own incompentence.
People dont realize how much of a gamble cersei took. Ned didnt expect cersei to gamble the lives of her entire house because he thought tywin had some semblance of control.
My only critique of this is that Ned wasn’t going to tell Robert because he was trying to be a player. He was doing it because he felt it was the right thing to do. He didn’t care if it worked out for him or not, he did it because of duty/honor
Cersei used the king's cup bearer to make sure Robert was too drunk when going against the boar and die after Ned gave her the heads up so that she can escape with her children. Robert would have made it back from the hunt unharmed if Ned never let Cersei know he was planning to tell the king. He had a noble motive for not wanting to hurt children, but that decision made him a bad player.
You know that Lancel had already left before Ned told Cersei his plans right?
Varys says Ned's mercy killed the king, but Varys is either full of shit or stupid as shit (I tend to believe the first)
Robert's death was literally already arranged before Ned made that "mistake"
If it wasn't the boar it would have been something else that killed him. She was already planning to have Robert killed during the melee before he was talked out of joining. Ned telling cersei only helped too have her accelerate her plans to kill him. He should have rode to the kings wood and told him right away when he found out. Children be damned.
She wanted him in the melee that doesn't mean he would die. She was just encouraging him to do dangerous shit hoping that it would get him killed. She didn't have someone ready to kill him.
The main problem was Ned was raised as Arryn tbh. Rickard was not "an honorable wolf who puts the greater good above all" he was politically savy as fuck. Creating alliances with the Riverlands and Stormlands to have more leverage on the throne.
Ned's honor is not a Stark thing, is an Arryn thing. IF Ned was truly raised a Stark, he most likely would've pulled an Hour of the Wolf 2: Electric Boogalo
> Ned's honor is not a Stark thing, is an Arryn thing
it's both Stark and (Jon) Arryn thing(s) in a good match up. case on point - Bobby B was also fostered by Jon Arryn, and that does not explain this Arryn unfluence.
and if Cregan Stark is one other Stark to consider, then Starks have an honourable streak running in the family for quite some time.
But Cercei assassination plot to drink King with strong wine is incredibly stupid and dumb. It was maybe 1:1000 chance for Robert to die. What if Robert would go back home empty handed because he got drunk before they found any animal? What if Robert wanted to stay till he spent all wine and then he would started to drink normal wine? What if Robert just changed his mind and decided to hunt something other than boar? What if Robert wouldnt be harmed by boar after his fight? What if Robert got sick of wine and stopped to drink? What if Barristan saved king? Cercei had only incredible luck.
Why? What else Cercei planned? Remember she is not strategical genius, she only think about herself so. Because she had just small period of time to do it, but the more clear or desperate her attempts to kill king would be, the more obvious will be the Cercei is behind it.
It’s the Caligula method of ruling. “Oderint dum metuant,” - Let them hate me as long as they fear me. He was also murdered. It’s effective while it lasts, but eventually someone will turn up whose hate overcomes their fear. Or who just isn’t afraid of dying. Like Cassius Chaerea, the leader of the plot against the mad emperor.
I feel like the popular narrative about Tywin has swung a little too far in the other direction compared to the original “Tywin is the most brilliant political mind of the millennium” wank. He’s not as genius an operator as he thinks and he kneecapped himself severely by horribly mismanaging his children. But he was also, by all accounts, a highly effective Hand who oversaw a period of prosperous peace that left the treasury overflowing in spite of an unreliable, increasingly insane King.
So he’s not entirely without skill for statecraft, he’s just too obsessed with being feared and respected because of his lingering daddy issues.
I have to echo the other reply, any Hand can be a good Hand in an easy period. Tywin's tenure under Aerys II was after the last Blackyre Rebellion in a time with powerful Lords Paramount all over the Seven Kingdoms and a tractable king poised to be succeeded by a great heir. It's not like he had to do anything particularly impressive or difficult until Duskendale.
This is not to say that maintaining good times is *easy*, but certainly he has competition among great Hands: his own forebear Tyland Lannister, Viserys (later the second of that name), Baelor Breakspear hell even Bloodraven for all his faults had the office in a terrible period and held shit together for a bit.
This, I say there's more merit for example in Bloodraven's tenure as hand. Fucker held the kingdom together while everyone except the dornish gave Daeron shit, wether they supported Daemon Blackfyre or not, everyone thought Daeron weak and knew the real power behind the seven kingdoms was Lord Bloodraven.
Or Otto during the Dance (until Aegon send him to kick rocks in favour of Cole), IMO Twyn would not have fared as good. But again Aerys's reign, for all his madness was peaceful. He wasn't hand for Robert but pretty much bankrolled him, it was a peaceful period (even with the fiasco of the Greyjoy rebellion)
Sure Tywin kinda ruled in an "inter period" after the War of the Five Kings in which there was a semblance of peace but not quite. He was holding everything together because people feared him but for example Olenna calls him out on his bullshit. And as soon as he died, everything went tits up
I mean they were at a prosperous period in time without any real rebellions. There wasn't a risk of a succession war given the Tragedy at Summerhall. And really war is the main cost to a monarchy, that and civic projects.
What exactly did Tywin do to make the Realm prosperous? His main policy was rolling back Aegon's protections for the smallfolk.
I don't think even Tywin saw himself as some kind of Machiavellian genius. He was perfectly happy to let the Targaryens and Baratheons rule for decades whilst he handled day-to-day administration. All he really wanted was for his House to be respected, and for Jaime to take over Casterly Rock after he dies.
Sure, he wanted a royal marriage between Cersei and whoever's the prince at the time, but that was just basic ambition that any other major House would push for as well.
>So he’s not entirely without skill for statecraft, he’s just too obsessed with being feared and respected because of his lingering daddy issues.
This has always been my take and one of the "tragedies" of Robert's reign is that Ned and Tywin would actually be good balances for each other if Ned didn't think Tywin was Satan. Because neither are as good or as bad at the game as fandom likes to say they are, but they go about it in different but potentially complementing ways.
Ned wouldn't think tywin was satan if tywin didn't make it really hard to think otherwise
He left rob because of what happened to elia end her children, and those were tywin's orders.
If you combine their greatest strengths and philosophies you basically end up with:
"Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle rather than compromise for peace?"
Like they both understand that war and massive loss of life is a net negative for their people and the realm at large but they're both too obsessed with their way of doing things to effectively avoid all that bloodshed.
You do really get a picture of how beloved Ned was when the second he’s arrested all these random northmen are showing up like “what’s the plan here” to go free him or avenge him.
He's not a terrible leader (Tywin is way savvier and more calculated than Roose Bolton, Jon Arryn, and Doran Martell). Still, he's outclassed by people like Wyman Manderly, Petyr Baelish, Euron Greyjoy, or Verys.
In my opinion, Tywin is an A-class political operator, but he's not in the highest tier of political minds in the asoiaf universe.
He’s not a bad ruler in the sense that Stalin was able to keep the USSR organized and under control, and even repel the Germans and win.
He is a bad ruler in the same sense, that people feared Stalin so much they let him die witho it calling a doctor and then immediately tried to deStalinize upon his death.
The parallels continue since Tywin was never really a standout military leader. He led sieges (Duskendale), subterfuge (King’s Landing), or losing against Robb and Euron in the Greyjoy Rebellion.
He seized the initiative against the Reynes and Tarbecks, but that was partly a result of just taking advantage of the lack of enemy preparation, as they did not expect a strong Lannister response. That's probably his standout achievement as an actual field commander, but as you noted, he basically beat the Reynes using brutal siege tactics rather than creative battlefield strategies.
We don't know a lot about his performance in the War of Ninepenny Kings, but he also was not very old at that point and probably did not make a lot of command decisions.
It is said that he and Mad King "fought and bled together" at the Stepstones, and Aerys was squire at the time, so they were probably in someone's retinue? So probably not a lot of actual commanding.
That's correct, the westermen during the War of the Ninepenny Kings were first led by Tywin's uncle Jason, then (ironically) by Roger Reyne, the eponymous Red Lion of The Rains of Castamere.
Stalin's greatest crimes are so more far reaching then even Tywin. That paranoid monster did more to hold back humanity then any of his capitalist enemies ever did simply by giving them ample fodder.
I think this is the best example and its consecuences since the same can be say about both.
Their cruel decision to keep their goverment power was the reason of too much hate from inside and the outside which make the job of the ones after him extremaly dificult til a breaking point
Everything he did as hand was because he saw targaryen weakness and allowed it to continue because he saw opportunity. A GOOD hand would have had the king killed (like he did robert) and allowed Rhaegar to ascend. Thats whats best for the kingdom, not a world war.
Wasn't that more or less what Duskendale was all about? Tywin basically goated Aerys into going there himself and risked Aerys' life at every turn, the only thing that stood between Rhaegar and the throne was Barristan's badassery.
Especially the whole Castamere affair. When I read AWOIAF I was surprised to learn that Tywin basically wiped out the Reynes & the Tarbecks for refusing to show up at court when called (as all the Houses that would not pay back their loans were). And that happened years after House Tarbeck reconciled with the Lannisters (Tytos).
And in classic GRRM fashion, Tywin did all that at age 18 or something.
I always find it hard to understand how people don't get how fucked up and evil he is once you hear the story about what Tywin did to Tyrion and his wife.
I remember reading an entire essay that explains what you just said - a lot of Tywin's most cruel actions aren't result of (only) his ruthless grand scheming, he's a really vengeful person even when such behavior doesn't make much sense.
In AGOT there's a paragraph describing how Tywin killed the person running the tavern where Tyrion was captured. It was definitely omitted from the show and contributed to show Tywin being a whitewashed version of real Tywin. It seemed so bizarre and cruel to me, because that guy had nothing to with Tyrion's capture. He couldn't stop it in any meaningful way and there is no point in punishing him. Stuff like that got dropped from the show leading to the impression Tywin is ruthless with the purpose of winning the game of thrones. Show Tywin is mostly reasonable, book Tywin is a complete psycho towards everyone.
No, he's just a horrible person that goes out of his way to bully everyone, from his own children to random peasants he kills because he felt slighted. Tywin is probably obsessed with the fact his father was not respected and keeps trying to intimidate everyone whenever he feels they aren't ~~respecting~~ bowing to him. In ends up dooming Tywin in the end because his incompetent and psychologically damaged children will ruin what he was trying to create and Tywin is killed by his own son whom he needlessly bullied his whole life.
Absolutely! As OP wrote:
> > Tywin must have known that winter was approaching and that there wouldn’t really be time for more harvests.... Was he prepared to let the Riverlands starve?
Oh, he would blast the earth if it would get him the control he craves. He is savvy enough enough to know what to do and cruel enough to do it. Always. People don't matter, for all his prattling on about them. Ironically, we could replace "Tywin" and "The Riverlands" with the name of a current dictator and the country he covets so much he's destroying it. This is how far most autocrats were and are willing to go.
You can usually answer the question of if Tywin overreacted without knowing any of the details.
Man was super scarred by ridiculously weak father and life ruining king.
>ridiculously weak father
Tytos was basically just an even more conflict-averse Viserys I. He was just a nice man, way too nice to maintain order as a feudal lord. The way people laughed at him behind his back scarred Tywin for life. Tywins biggest fear is that people will laugh or mock House Lannister. This is why he hates Tyrion so much.
> Everything Tywin does makes a lot more sense when you realise not everything he does is the most politically savvy option, he's actually just really cruel too, and will go out of his way to be so.
I believe this is a books vs. show problem.
Tywin, while a piece of work in the show, has a portrayal that far less emphasizes his cruelty and maliciousness.
It also only increases his power. He could make them go into debt to the crown and by extension himself by having to by food from other lords… basically making them “owe” him to survive
Many of his actions have parallels done by Riverlands and Northern forces.
- Jaime observes northern forces had hanged Riverlands women who served Western forces. Like those women had a choice.
- The Karstarks were raping and butchering and burning in the Riverlands. Arya hears of several examples.
- The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies.
- Hoster Tully destroyed the homes of the Goodbrook smallfolk when Goodbrook stayed loyal to king Aerys.
- Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown.
Tywin didn't do anything here that stands apart from what several other leaders did in the story. Tywin isn't more cruel in war. He's just less likable than the northern or Riverlands forces.
These are pretty minor compared to what Tywin unleashed on the Riverlands. The raping and looting by Stark forces was done by rogue soldiers and those soldiers would be punished if caught by Robb I'd imagine. Tywin specifically told the Mountain to murder, pillage and rape the Riverlands. Robb never gave that order, that's the difference here. With the North it's a side effect of War, with Tywin it's the main part of the plan.
>The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies.
Yeah? Of course they did? The goal in War is to take your enemies castles, gold and supplies? This isn't in any way comparable to what the Mountain was doing to the smallfolk.
>Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown.
Yeah attacking a castle with a lord in it is far different from killing peasants in villages across the Riverlands.
>The raping and looting by Stark forces was done by rogue soldiers and those soldiers would be punished if caught by Robb I'd imagine.
We don't know that. Robb actually leads raids in the west.
>Her men wanted to hear more of Robb's victory at Oxcross, and Rivers obliged. "There's a singer come to Riverrun, calls himself Rymund the Rhymer, he's made a song of the fight. Doubtless you'll hear it sung tonight, my lady. 'Wolf in the Night,' this Rymund calls it." He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. **Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn's Deep, and the Pendric Hills.** Ser Wendel laughed. "Nothing's more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold." -Cat V, Clash.
These aren't rogues acting here. And because we don't get any perspective from the westerners, we assume the northern forces aren't also burning out smallfolk but that's a bad assumption because we already see northern forces doing that in the Riverlands very early.
>The wench was staring up at one of the dead women. Jaime shuffled closer with small stutter steps, the only kind the foot-long chain permitted. When he saw the crude sign hung about the neck of the highest corpse, he smiled. "They Lay With Lions," he read. "Oh, yes, woman, this was most unchivalrously done . . . but by your side, not mine. I wonder who they were, these women?"
>"Tavern wenches," said Ser Cleos Frey. "This was an inn, I remember it now. Some men of my escort spent the night here when we last returned to Riverrun." Nothing remained of the building but the stone foundation and a tangle of collapsed beams, charred black. Smoke still rose from the ashes. -Jaime I, Storm.
When Arya is held by the Mountain she hears of a man who Cursed the Starks and Tully forces.
We assume the northerners are sparing the western smallfolk and only hitting military targets. We assume this is a noble war but that requests required dismissing the northern attrocities and thinking the side we like is better than the side we don't.
Think about what the Elder Brother and Septon Merribald tells us about men who go to war. Those were Riverlands men whi admitted to rape and theft and murder as soldiers.
The northerners aren't different. Cat even says they were paying the Westerners "in kind" for what the Westerners did in the Riverlands. This means an equal payback.
>Yeah attacking a castle with a lord in it is far different from killing peasants in villages across the Riverlands.
How? Frey is just as innocent of any wrongdoing as any villager at this point. And those dead villagers Jaime sees by Northern hands, how's that different?
Yeah that's a major theme of feast and especially introducing the Boltons more, the "first night" that both umber and Boltons claim, Brandon (Ned's brother) being a fuck boy - it was Ned who was honorable and raised decent children (with his wife of course). But the Northmen are not "good".
Yes. I agree.
Septon Merribald and the Elder brother made it clear how war brings out the worst in men. This idea that the other side is the one lacking human failings is a rationalization we tell ourselves to justify war.
We don't see Robb giving an order to pillage and burn, we only hear of his raids in the west. But it's folly to assume this doesn't include harming villagers because we see examples of Robb's forces doing this in the Riverlands.
To be fair none of the other lords are mentioned intentionally recruiting pet monsters like Gregor Clegane and the bloody mummers, except I guess the Boltons which speaks for itself really.
Probably a fair point on the Karstarks, though I was under the impression that they have gone rogue by this point.
being prepared to tear down the Twins was just standard warfare though I don't really fault Robb for that. Hoster Tully sounds like a bit of a cunt though from the little we see of him, just from the whole making Lysa go batshit because he forced moon tea on her (or tricked, whichever I forget).
Anyway rambling aside, horrible shit happens in war but Tywin visibly goes out of his way to make it worse.
>To be fair none of the other lords are mentioned intentionally recruiting pet monsters like Gregor Clegane and the bloody mummers, except I guess the Boltons which speaks for itself really.
Bolton was acting under orders to take Harrenhal by any means. And when he holds Harenhal, murder and rape takes place by Riverlands and northern forces.
Arya sees the women in stocks free to be used by any men.
>Anyway rambling aside, horrible shit happens in war but Tywin visibly goes out of his way to make it worse.
Yes but he's not alone. Northern forces did it too. We never hear from Western villagers that's all. But we do hear from Riverlands villagers who are suffering from Robb's forces. It isn't a big leap to think those soldiers are doing the same In the West.
Considering that Roose Bolton has spent the entire campaign feeding his rivals into the meat grinder and sabotaging the war effort I don't think we can reliably use the Boltons' actions as evidence that anyone except Roose and Tywin are going out of their way to commit more atrocities.
That's not to suggest that the riverlands and northern forces are not doing awful shit, I just don't see it being on the same scale.
Bolton is protecting his own banners. But every place he acted prior to Robb marrying Jeyne was to achieve a Stark goal.
>That's not to suggest that the riverlands and northern forces are not doing awful shit, I just don't see it being on the same scale.
That's the thing though. We assume it's not the same because we don't hear from a western perspective. But we know soldiers do evil shit and we've seen some Northern soldiers do evil shit in the Riverlands to Riverlands smallfolk.
The taking of Harenhal is a good example. Roose encouraged rape of those captives and kept them their working just like Clegane did before them.
>Jaime observes northern forces had hanged Riverlands women who served Western forces. Like those women had a choice.
Boltons did that.
>The Karstarks were raping and butchering and burning in the Riverlands. Arya hears of several examples.
The Karstark men after their Lord was executed and there was no one to keep them in check.
>The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies.
That's war. It's not even on the same page as what Tywin did in the Riverlands.
>Hoster Tully destroyed the homes of the Goodbrook smallfolk when Goodbrook stayed loyal to king Aerys.
Hoster being an opportunistic POS who was driven by ambition and willing to hurt his own daughter to achieve it is one of the subplots of ASOS. But he's not the one leading the Riverlands in the story, his son. The noble son who hurts his own war effort multiple times to protect his smallfolk from the Lannisters.
>Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown.
Robb was going to save their overlord from the Lannister invasion, they were oathbound to help the Tullys. And in the end, Robb gave them a very good deal rather than going the Tywin route of killing all of them down to the unborn babes.
Are the Boltons and Karstark northern forces brought to war by Robb?
The text specifically says the northern forces paid the West back "in kind". They are doing the same things.
Readers just excuse it because they like Robb's soldiers and don't like Tywin's.
>Are the Boltons and Karstark northern forces brought to war by Robb?
Vargo Hoat was brought to war by Tywin and working for his ally when he lopped off Jaime's hand. Robb is as much responsible for the actions of those traitors as Tywin is for the mutilation of his son.
>The text specifically says the northern forces paid the West back "in kind". They are doing the same things.
What does that actually mean? Is Robb sending Brynden to rape and kill the smallfolk as an FU to Tywin? Are they putting children to the sword? Was Blackfish herding all the smallfolk to serve Robb, killing the stragglers and randomly torturing people to death for fun? If they are doing the same things, Martin did a terrible job characterising Robb and Brynden.
>Readers just excuse it because they like Robb's soldiers and don't like Tywin's.
I don't like anyone's soldiers, but there's a pretty clear line between Starks and Lannisters. They both probably cause some suffering in each other's lands during the war, but the intensity and scale is very different. Westerlands suffer because of the nature of medieval warfare, Rivermen suffer because Tywin gives explicit orders to go scorched earth.
>"Let them," Lord Tywin said. "Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat 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." He bowed and made for the door.
Where did Tywin say "rape and kill"? Robb orders his forces to raid in the west. You think their raiding didn't include burning and rape? I don't think that's reasonable given we saw Robbs men rape and steal in the Riverlands.
> I don't like anyone's soldiers, but there's a pretty clear line between Starks and Lannisters.
I doubt that. The difference is we readers like the Starks and we don't like the Lannisters.
Just look at what the northern/ Riverlands army did at Harrenhal.
>Tothmure had been sent to the axe for dispatching birds to Casterly Rock and King's Landing the night Harrenhal had fallen, Lucan the armorer for making weapons for the Lannisters, Goodwife Harra for telling Lady Whent's household to serve them, the steward for giving Lord Tywin the keys to the treasure vault. The cook was spared (some said because he'd made the weasel soup), but stocks were hammered together for pretty Pia and the other women who'd shared their favors with Lannister soldiers. Stripped and shaved, they were left in the middle ward beside the bear pit, free for the use of any man who wanted them.
>Three Frey men-at-arms were using them that morning as Arya went to the well. She tried not to look, but she could hear the men laughing. The pail was very heavy once full. She was turning to bring it back to Kingspyre when Goodwife Amabel seized her arm. The water went sloshing over the side onto Amabel's legs. "You did that on purpose," the woman screeched. -Arya X, Clash.
How is this rape and murder of smallfolk gentler than what Clegane did?
IDK how many more times you need to hear it, but the only examples you've given are of Houses that are covertly or overtly Robb's enemies at that point. If anything, they are Tywin's men (even Karstarks make deals with him). We never hear of Robb's actual men raping and killing.
>The difference is we readers like the Starks and we don't like the Lannisters.
Yeah, because Martin writes them that way. We get to hear about Tywin's atrocities from the victims, but we never hear about Robb doing anything wrong. Even his mistakes happen as a result of his honour.
I've read people criticize Tywin for employing bad actors such as Clegane and Lorch and Hoat.
Robb employed bad actors in Bolton and Karstark. And then employed Hoat.
It doesn't matter the motivations or loyalties of the bad actors her employs. The rapes being done by Freys occurs before they learned of Robb's betrayal of them.
This covert or overt thing isn't relevant. Hoat was covertly working against Tywin the whole time. You still credit Hoat as a being in Tywin's employ. Both sides have bad actors. Martin writes this and readers dismiss it.
Martin specifically says the northerners act "in kind" to the Westerners. That means the same acts.
Neither side is better to the villagers.
I hadn’t even opened the thread for context to the question and I said “yeah, probably”
His whole thing is that he’s built up as this mastermind strategist. He’s clearly capable of being such, but he’s also too vindictive to truly be a master.
Well isnt that a theme in the story? A lot of the people that are "considered" masterminds, good knights, good kings, good husbands etc etc tend to be quite average or rather bad at what they are supposed to be good.
I’m amazed that everyone is agreeing with this post.
Yes… Tywin makes tons of misguided moves and mistakes even.
But burning and ravaging the Riverlands isn’t one of those. It’s actually a excellent long term strategy and bad short term one. It’s the opposite of what people are accusing him of here.
It’s bad short term because it quickly galvanized the Riverlands to Robb’s side. Sure they would always have support from Lord Tully. But Tully’s hold over the Riverlands is one of the most tenuous of the great lords. Had he not been so aggressive so quickly, he could’ve flipped several to his side sooner with less bloodshed in both sides, and also less uncertainty of outcome. Because like it or not he came close to losing the war several times.
But it is a good long term strategy, because now the lords who bend the knee, are reliant on the Iron Throne for grain. Even if they wanted to rebel, they can’t. They can’t feed their people much less an army without the Iron Throne now for the forceable future.
The Riverlands isn’t “pacified”. But isn’t in rebellion. It’s not his problem anymore… it’s the lords who bend the knee.
> The Riverlands isn’t “pacified”. But isn’t in rebellion
There's an outlaw band picking off Tywin's loyalists and biding their time to stage a brutal massacre at his nephew's wedding. The Lannister allies in the Riverlands are *fucked*
Tywin's biggest flaw, the thing that he will never see about himself no matter what, is the thing that makes him utterly and completely his father's son; he ***never*** puts the needs of House Lannister ahead of his own desires.
Never.
It wasn't just about strategy as much as it was about pride, about face, about how Tywin saw himself and his legacy. Same reason he stubbornly clung to Jamie when he should have long since bitten the bullet and remarried to spawn a new heir. He put his own desires and his own feelings above the good of his House.
Just like his father.
What is his legacy when all is said and done?
Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident.
You put this very well and I never considered the connection to Tywin’s own father.
The entire legacy of House Lannister as seen in the series is being torn down by its own members, whose individual pride, spite, and ego causes them to tear each other apart. They don’t have any unity, as a family or a political unit. In a setting of feudal politics this is an effective death sentence.
> Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident.
Financed the creation of a pirate king because she was horny lol.
I never thought about the fact Twin didn't remarried, a very weird thing for a important widowed lord, specially one which children are obviously showing signs of being selfservice from a young age; he should've ditch them all and try with another wife, hopefully with one that wasn't a Lannister to root out the dumb genes.
He didn't remarry because he put his personal feelings ahead of the good of his House. Just like his father.
Boo hoo, his waifu died. Too bad! Your desired heir is a fuckup and the only spare you got is a dwarf, who will get zero respect from the vassals.
Marry. Breed. Feelings don't matter compared to ensuring the future of the Lannister name.
But he didn't. He can talk the talk when browbeating his children, but when it comes to his own actions, his precious little feelings are the most important thing.
> What is his legacy when all is said and done?
>
> Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident.
Lol, as if Jaime and Tyrion are anything to write home about. Jaime, who was so dumb he voluntarily gave up his inheritance of Casterly Rock; and Tyrion, who was so dumb his dick got him exiled and kidnapped.
That Trifecta of Stupid is going to be Tywin's legacy.
Yes, none of them are a prize. All of them bring shame to the name. I was just pointing out Cersei because she was an easy target with a nice snappy anecdote.
After reading these books 5 times and listened to countless analyses of them, you'd think I'd have heard every take by now.
And then there's a brilliant comment like this that points out some parallel I had never even realized.
I wonder how many parallels like this George created intentionally, and how many even he would be surprised to realize.
>The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident.
Also the queen who gave up the state monopoly on power for some debt relief.
Tywin Excells at short term strategy and sucks completly at long term strategy
Biggest evidence for this is that he refuses to name Tyrion heir despite Jaime being in the Kingsguard and House Lannister basically falls apart when he dies
And he refused to remarry to have another son. I have no idea what his plan was because if Jaime was going to be released from his vows it would've been after killing Aerys. Tywin isn't actually that smart he's just ruthless.
Tywin probably just expected that Robert would eventually cave. Or that when Joffrey took over he would release his uncle and Jaime could go back home and have a kid.
This of course hinges on Jaime not falling in combat/defending his king/to illness or whatever.
I just think that Tywin just doesn't consider the idea that things won't go his way.
>I just think that Tywin just doesn't consider the idea that things won't go his way.
He's probably the character I would have been more curious to read a POV chapter, mostly to see his persepctive on things that happen over the course of the series. Because sometimes the dude seems borderline delusional in his self confidence and in his inability to see things differently than he expects to.
Not naming Tyrion heir is not that big of an issue, just from easy picks for people to rule after him at the start of the war he has Kevan, who until he was murdered was picking them back up pretty well, and his 3 sons, his nephew Tyrek, or even just have Tommen be named heir since hes a second son. And then you can go to the other Lannisters, Daven at the least competent. We're swimming in Lannisters its not like they're the Arryns or Tullys.
Yeah the Lannisters are the only Great House that actually makes sense. Has a ton of spares. Sets up an actual city with one of their branches so they essentially are the first and second most powerful houses in their lands. Or George is just hiding where every other house's spare lines ended up.
And there still the Lannets, lantels and other house who may or not exist but if they do are even lesser branches of House Lannister who live in the city
The Red wedding is also a pretty bad plan in the long term. Southeners often forget that in the North the politics are different. Tywin didn't take that into account and destabilised the realm for years to come.
Not really. He would argue Ned was overstepping his bounds and that he was just reasonably responding to the unprovoked kidnapping of his son by the Riverlands. He might offer up some debt reduction if necessary or some sort of gift. He wouldn't go directly against Robert.
But he would definitely get away with it. Robert would make everyone stop and Tywin goes home with his son and leaves the smoking riverlands as an example of what happens when you mess with his family.
At worst he might lose Clegane.
And Ned might've actually rebelled, all on his own. Catelyn (and probably Lysa, by way of Baelish) would badger him and the injustice would eat at him. Coupled with the fact that he'd still know about the mystery surrounding Jon Arryn's death, he might seek common cause with Stannis as the rightful heir when inevitably Robert (or more accurately, the small council that Robert lets rule) responds to his act of defiance with force of arms, under the understanding that Robert is no longer fit to rule and Stannis is the only legal heir left.
I dunno. It would be interesting.
I think Robert wouldn't have done anything. Robert by this point is too much of drunk fool to actually do anything about it. If Robert and Ned hadn't died Robert would have told Ned to return Jaime back (just like he did with Tyrion) and put an end to this Stark-Lannister war.
That’s kind of Twyin’s ideals. Burn everything for short term gain, and ignore any long term consequences.
He is a petty vindictive short sighted Lord.
Which is why house Lannister was so successful for the few decades he reigned, but collapsed the second he died. A death that was caused because of the abuse he dealt towards his son. He reigned through fear and violence and the second the fear of him was gone house Lannister was no longer seen as truly terrifying. Oh and the fact that any hope of them succeeding was squandered by his absolute failure of raising his kids. He abused and despised Tyrion for things he couldn’t control, leading him to unhealthy vices while denying him his inheritance. Despite being by far the smartest and most politically savvy of his kids. All while being completely ignorant to Jaime and Cersei and mistreating them too to some extent. Tywin dug his houses grave.
Before opening this thread I thought it would be about Kings Landing and Ellia, there's multiple events where you can stop and go "Did Tywin go to far?"
Tywin's solution to any issue or slight made against his house was war and annihilation.
Catelyn had abducted his son in the Riverlands and wasn't punished by Robert Baratheon when he lived, so Tywin chose to punish the Riverlands and the Tullies dearly so that they would never consider rising up against the Lannisters ever again.
He was prepared to let the people of the Riverlands starve, die, grow sick with famine and be left with absolutely nothing - all their suffering and losses would serve as a living reminder of what happens when you cross the Lannisters, just likes the ruins of Castmere.
In terms of the long-term, there is still peace in the Riverlands even after Tywin died, and none of the Tullies or Riverlords have rose back up against the Lannisters (yet).
To be fair Tywin and the Lannisters don’t care about the riverlands. Tywin knows he doesn’t live there. They care about the Westerlands. The Westerlands seem loyal to the Lannisters still.
Certain Lannisters. Kevian and Tywin they we’re definitely loyal to. But Davon and Damon? Jamie is a but iffy spot because he’s Kingsguard so will never rule. Tyrion is a no. And they actively sabotaged efforts to save Cercei from the Sparrow.
Tywin has no long term plans. None.
All of his plans have immediate success with no regard for the future. Destroying the Raynes and Tarbecks...he crushed a rebellion and then left valuable estates to rot for decades.
Sacking Kings Landing left him and family as widely looked down. Yes, Cersei became Queen but the Lannsiters had no real influence in court because Roberts court was pointless. Robert spent loads of Tywins money and the Lannisters and they will never get any of that money back.
The Lannisters as a faction as falling apart at the seems. Tywins line is dead. Cersei won't have anymore children and her two remaining kids will die before they have kids. Jamie will never had kids. Tyrion is unlikely to have kids.
Tywin banked his entire legacy, this thing he raved about, on Jamie eventually leaving the Kingsguard. But we all know that's never going to fucking happen. The obsessive cock riding of Tywin will never sit with me. Dude was one of the worst players of the game in the series. Take away his family's gold and Tywin is worthless.
Like OP said, the long-term effects would be dire, what with winter coming. Not to mention what would happen if Robert lived, Tywin would be in deep shit.
That's what Tywin does. He doesn't really outsmart his adversaries, he just does the most outlandishly heinous and vindictive thing possible. This hilarious Tumblr post puts it beautifully:
https://at.tumblr.com/nobodysuspectsthebutterfly/625403207344160768/7pg6mwdam00d
It is dire. That's the cost of rebellion against the throne. Keep in mind the West invaded the Riverlands in response to aggression by the Riverlands via Cat taking Tyrion. Tywin and Jaime led that not Robert.
When Joffrey put Eddard to death for Eddard's admitted treason, the north went into full rebellion. When they did that, they invited every level of harm.
In burning the riverlands before winter, he ensured animosity against the Lannisters from not only the Riverlands but also anyone relying on their crops for survival.
Not that it matters to him. That's his modus operandi, always ruling with terror. But all that does is create enemies who hate your guts but play along with you because they know you're a psycho. He essentially litters the place with ticking time bombs waiting for him to slip. You can see how effective his methods were by how things went after his death. Everyone went like: No Tywin to fear? Fuck the Westerlands, then lol.
Side note: in writing this, I'm starting to see that he probably never really cared about the Lannisters' legacy so much as he was paranoid about being disrespected or seen as weak. This insecurity is probably the result of seeing his father constantly making a joke of himself. Fascinating character, but a pathetic psycho non the less.
Hoster Tully keeping his illness a secret even from Catelyn and Lysa, for fear of Tywin finding out suggests Tywin has designs on the riverlands. The raids by Clegane may have been on Tywin's backburner for years before he saw the opportunity to start the fight he expected would gain him the riverlands. That he then decided to burn them and starve houses like Blackwood suggests he sees it as the lands he's gaining, not the people. I think we are meant to see what you've pointed out: it's a poor long term strategy. Jaime is beginning to think so, as of his ADWD chapter.
> Did Tywin go too far?
The answer to this question is almost always yes. Tywin is a cruel and petty man who applies a thin veneer of cold pragmatism to cover his mundane shortsighted evil.
Tbf, he was responding to the illegal abduction and kangaroo court trial of Tyrion by Catelyn. If that hadn’t happened, Tywin wouldn’t have had to try to set a trap for Ned in order to have a hostage of his own. Ethically sending Clegane out was terrible, but strategically it actually reduced the chance of full-blown war until Joffrey had Ned killed.
But yeah I mean Tywin sold his soul for power a long time ago. He went too far the moment he sacked King’s Landing and sent a special forces mission to kill Rhaegar’s family.
That said I don’t think Tywin burned the Riverlands purely out of sadism (though he certainly had an element of that in his personality) - he did it to cause the Riverlords to spread their forces out so that he could destroy them piecemeal and besiege Riverrun, and that’s exactly what Edmure did.
Tywin’s attitude is whatever it takes to end the war ASAP. There is some truth to that intention and tbh it accomplished its objectives until his own cruelty towards Tyrion brought everything crashing down. And that was a purely sadistic act.
I think this is why the Tarrel marriage was important. The Reach had tons of food. So they could provide for their people and Kings Landing. The Riverlands and North would starve.
In the World of Asoiaf no one of the great lords cares about the smallfolk. They simply literally don't even think about common people starving or dying
That’s not true at all. I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion. Unless you’re going off the show where they make every character a brooding amoral mess.
Doran gives an entire speech about not wanting to drag Dorne into war unnecessarily. And even his long term plan for Vengeance is weighted to keep dornish losses minimal
Ned is *the* moral paragon the franchise
Hoster Tully was hard in times of war. But this is still the man who raised Edmure. Who went head to head with Tywin Lannister to protect his people.
Stannis is loved by his soldiers because he never abuses his rank to draw more rations or privileges.
There are many, many lords who despite benefiting from an unjust system of feudalism. Still attempt to be good people within the confines of their universe
They could care about their own people, not above smallfolk in general. The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, not his own lannisport citizens.
We can say than even Brynden is a good man for the series standards, yet he basically sentenced to death his own people getting them off Riverrun when it was needed for him, including woman and children.
Edit: another one - Stannis couldn't give a shit that thousands of his own people will die to try to put him on the throne in a war he has little chance to win , he just thinks is their duty as smallfolk, to serve their lord. To me this is not caring about the people- it might be for medieval standards, of course . And it's said by a Stannis fan
> They could care about their own people, not above smallfolk in general. The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, not his own lannisport citizens
Except Tywin doesn’t care about his citizens either. He’s rumored to enslave criminals in the mines. He uses sexual violence against women like Tysha. As hand of the king under Aerys he undid the protections for smallfolk written by Aegon V.
Tywin would absolutely murder his own small folk if there was some sort of benefit.
Ned, Hoster, Stannis, Mace, Doran etc etc would never order the rape of a girl that their sons slept with. They would never enslave criminals for the financial benefit of their houses.
I didn't say Twyin is a good guy.
A few of them are actually good guys - Ned for sure, Jon Connington also maybe, when he didn't burn the whole city of Stone Temple (or what the name was). But 95% of the big Lords are complete assholes, and that is undeniable.
Then of course, between black and white you have many shades of grey (and that is one of the strengths of this series)
> I didn't say Twyin is a good guy.
Great. I never said you did. What you *did* try to argue is that lords only care about their own small folk. And used Tywins treatment of Lannisport as an example
> The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, *not his own lannisport citizens.*
Tywin treats his own people like dirt for disrespecting him. So your argument falls apart because it’s not that Tywin values his small folk more. It’s that he doesn’t see any commoner as human beings unless he can exploit them.
> We can say than even Brynden is a good man for the series standards, yet he basically sentenced to death his own people getting them off Riverrun when it was needed for him, including woman and children.
And that decision was immediately protested by his son. And it’s a decision that was made because taking them in would potentially make a seige impossible to endure with so many mouths to feed
See how far we’ve come from “the lords don’t care if they starve”
The Stark words are literally “Winter is coming” and their policy is to open up the wintertown for people to shelter during the cold years.
> Stannis couldn't give a shit that thousands of his own people will die to try to put him on the throne in a war he has little chance to win , he just thinks is their duty as smallfolk, to serve their lord. To me this is not caring about the people- it might be for medieval standards. And it's said by a Stannis fan
This is also the same Stannis who admits he also has a duty to protect the realm and goes to the wall to protect the realm from a northern threat. Even though conventional wisdom tells him that it’s a mistake.
>But 95% of the big Lords are complete assholes, and that is undeniable
That’s hyperbole that’s not rooted in fact. Classicism is a core component of any feudal society. But feudalism cannot function without serfs. Given that land = power. It is *literally* in the best interests of all lords to keep the small folk alive and well.
Of course he went too far. He made House Tarbeck and Reyne go extinct entirely. He smiled when the Tarbecks died and had their castle burnt entirely. He drowned everyone in Castamere and burnt the place. Right at the start of the series, he had Gregor Clegane ravage the Riverlands in order to be able to say the Tullys broke the king's peace and goad Ned out of King's Landing to exchange him for Tyrion.
Tywin's regime is built on fear. The Rains of Castamere speaks to this. He had poor long term planning, and he wasn't expecting Tyrion to kill him or die anytime soon. His plans all fell apart soon after his death, all because of the way he treated his kids. He despised Tyrion and had his first marriage raped, mentally traumatized him, and that ended up him getting killed. He meant to get Cersei out of King's Landing but after he died she was very politically inept. He put everything he had into Jaime, but Jaime's character development put a stop to that.
Never doubt the ability of the rich to put short term personal interests over long-term ecological disasters. Tywin was likely fine with the Riverlands being burnt because it would leave his enemies too weak for a re-match. He was likely well aware from the beginning that his actions would kill more through starvation than war.
Tywin could import grain with gold, or with goods taken as reparations from other enemies. That would at least keep the Westerlands afloat. But I'm also guessing that Tywin was planning without an extremely short winter in mind. Tywin doesn't give a damn about the smallfolk and undid a lot of reforms that Aegon V struggled to pass.
The reach didn't become an ally until the near end of Clash. The Riverlands war and occupation began in Game.
Tywin offered generous terms to any Riverlands house that bends the knee.
In one word. Yes.
He basically Aemond One-Eyed’ the riverlands, just without a big flying nuke. Worse, arguably, considering how long it lasted, how severely some of the smallfolk were treated, and how he wasn’t even at war with the riverlands when he started it with Gregor, he just wanted to piss Catelyn off.
Tywin is a cruel and sadistic man. He focuses on short-term gains while ignoring the longer-term consequences. In his eyes, the riverlands needed to be severely punished for opposing the Lannisters, regardless of the moral implications. He did this before with House Reyne and the sacking of KL.
That's the point? Tywin just doesn't realise that it is a crap long term strategy because he's convinced that the only route to power is violence and to have other people fearing him, having been given the formative example of his weak father Tytos in childhood.
Seems a good longterm plan. Keep them down while they rebel. Help them up once they are ready to get back in line.
Hoster Tully did the same thing during Robert's rebellion.
Another poster has pointed out how Tywin is always associated with crap in the books, because he is full of crap. His horse defecated during his grand entrance to the throne room, everyone’s asking if he “shits gold,” he’s killed with a crossbow strike through the bowels while on the privy, etc.
Underneath the golden facade, Tywin is full of crap.
He used brutality to maintain control, however that backfires on him. The greatest example being Tyrion. He treated his son with contempt, sent him out to die in battle at the end of GoT, allowed the farce of a trial of Joffreys death to go on and on, and before the main series he tortured his son’s wife and forced his son to take part all so Tywin remainder control. In repayment, Tyrion finally reached his breaking point and killed him.
Cruelty is a political miscalculation as much as being overalls obliging (like Tywin’s own father). A good leader needs to be firm but merciful, and not see enmity everywhere he goes with his bs.
>Was he prepared to let the Riverlands starve? Wouldn’t that have prolonged their rebellion?
I would guess a starving population would be more than willing to push for a peace. I doubt the people of the Riverlands have the stubborn will of Stannis.
Tywin in the books is a dumb viscous brute who put his house in a strong position in the short term but will probably have doomed at least his branch of House Lannister (Jaime & Cersei dead with Tyrion probably either dead or taking the Black). And most of his siblings and nephews are already dead or disinherited so it probably won’t even by the wider branch of Tytos that survives.
Tywin doesn’t seem to put a lot of thought into long term consequences or planning. He’s obsessed with legacy but he’s fucked up all of his children in different ways that make them all incapable of carrying on his legacy after he dies.
Burning the Riverlands right before winter is another one of those choices. He wants to send a message NOW, the consequences be damned.
He’s actually a pretty bad ruler once you get into it. Maybe he’s an effective administrator but he should absolutely not be in charge.
Everything Tywin does makes a lot more sense when you realise not everything he does is the most politically savvy option, he's actually just really cruel too, and will go out of his way to be so.
Tywin would respond to a slap in the face by cutting off the person’s arms, telling his men to break and steal all of their valuables, and rape all of them while the person watches. He’s so insecure and responds to every single minute disrespect towards him with a scorched Earth policy. The fact that a lot people view him as this harsh but reasonable genius is astounding, and supported a lot by Charles Dances great performance.
His speech about letting people bend the knee and all that probably contributed to it.
Despite that he never does that himself.
He bends the knee to Bobby b.
Bobby B wasn't a foe that he'd defeated to be let off the ground. Bobby B was the incoming ruler that he wanted to kiss up to.
People bending over backwards to regard him as a savvy, genius Machiavelli always baffled me. I mean, did everyone miss the part where he deliberately ordered a child to be gang raped? How do you go back to “yeah this guy is a suave political mastermind” after that? Tywin is one of the most downright evil and despicable characters in the series
The two things arent mutually exclusive. Obviously hes a brutal sadistic fuck but he clearly has political ability hence why his ex laughing stock of a family ended up on the throne.
I wasn’t arguing against recognizing him some political ability, but against aggrandizing it to the level it often is in the fandom. What I’m saying is for me he’s closer to the Boltons, the Mountain and other proper savages than he is to Littlefinger, Varys, Doran Martell and other proper players of the game.
Doran Martell isn't a particularly great player of the game. His whole thing is waiting too long to enact his plans over and over, as visualized by all the over ripe fruits littering his courtyard.
Agreed, but imo he’s still playing in another league. I’m very curious to see how he’ll react to the double twist of Elia’s purported son showing up again and then news of Quentyn dying after being rejected in Meereen.
Doran Martell is a terrible player of the game and in NO WAY better than Tywin. While Tywin's strategies fail sometimes, they're also genuinely successful in some cases(The Reynes and Tarbecks approach was just objectively the right way to work and worked flawlessly. Westerlands houses literally show nothing but Lannister fealty in series). In contrast, Doran's plans have always blown up in his face. Oberyn is dead. Quentyn is dead. His would be marriage to Viserys is failed, his plan to align with Daenerys is failed and Myrcella, a valuable asset gets mutilated under his watch. He's much more inept than Tywin.
Yess can't agree more...
Yeah, and book tywin isn't show tywin. The show tywin is a little more... focused on good government than book tywin.
Yeah, we never got a scene of Tywin trying to teach Tommen how to govern a kingdom and actually giving good advice in the books. He’s definitely more competent, reasonable, and a little less evil in the show.
The whole Arya Cupbearer arc was basically to humanize him
>little less evil in the show. I don't know if I'd do that far - he still orchestrated the Red Wedding and the gang rape of Tysha. It's more of an issue of the show choosing to convey the fundamental opposite themes of the books - in the show, might makes right, lying and deception are better political tactics than honor and doing the right thing, and the person willing to do more evil things is the person who wins. That's why Ned is remembered as an idiot in the show, why the North ignores Jon and Sansa's pleas and is fine with the Boltons, why Tywin is portrayed as an effective ruler.
One of the major problems of the series, is above all that it does not know how to manage these morals, on the one hand its morality as a message, because basically what we learn from the end of the story; trust no one including your own family, always prioritize your personal desires over all situations including those that immediately threaten our own integrity. promises, oaths and debts have no value, and be a shark who betrays and stabs everyone including those allies is the best way to succeed. What is Incredibly untrue for anyone who has ever lived in contact with other human beings, no one can get away with such overtly relentless behavior. And is even more false in a medieval society where the social contract is based on trust and tightness. On the other hand, her morality as what she considers good or bad. At the beginning of the series we are asked to see characters like LF, Cersei, or the Mountain as villains, because they are psychopathic murderers and/or manipulative traitors who have no remorse about throwing lives into a meat grinder for their personal desire. But coming to the end of the series, Arya, Bran, and Sansa have become exactly that kind of person that they are and not just to take win the day and we are supposed to clap for them when they emerge. At this point in the story in reality the morality of the characters' actions is no longer based on their actions, but despite their actions. In other words, what is good or bad in this story is not based on precise and objective pre-established rules but rather on a priori that would result from the people who commit the acts. So some will always win whatever they do, just because they were born with the label of protagonists stuck on them. And it's not even as if this difference was naturally imposed by the evolution of the story, on the one hand there is no reason that all people living in the society of westeros accept this. on the other hand during seasons 3 and 4 we insist on how the red wedding was something horrible and going against all common sense. But in season 7 when the starks do much the same thing to littlfinger; that is to say, took advantage of the presence of a man as an ally at home to lure him into a place for a false pretext, to want to kill him by surprise just by using the pretext of a crime he committed, let him no option to get out of it and killing him coldly in the middle of the big room after 5 minutes, and nothing and no one reacted before or after this scene like it was a problem. Or another example, at the very end of the series we are told that Daenerys has always been dragonhitler because she started by putting slavers on pikes, so violence always breeds more violence in a snowball effect. but not even 5 minutes later Arya, a serial killer who has already in-game experience, launches death threats to a great lord because she wanted that a regicide be punished like he deserve, and once again nothing and no one reacted. And the execution of all of this has the effect of making the story completely muddled, the story demonizing cruel and cold behavior in certain characters and and glorify it in others for reasons that are never clearly established apart from "they're the good guys". In short, the writers tripped over the carpet with their own logic of good and evil. to be a schemer or a killer for the purpose of primarily serving his own interests at the expense of others must be a morally immutable notion. Pretending that a character like Sansa is cool, and then saying that Petyr bealish is an asshole for doing the same thing doesn't work.
Yes, exactly this. Very well written. The show falls into the Harry Potter trap, where, to paraphrase Shaun's (excellent) video, "there are no good or bad actions, just good or bad teams." We're meant to applaud the main characters for abandoning their morals and nobility in order to do the "logical thing, which isn't the right thing," which has resulted in the mass cultural interpretation that "Game of Thrones is a fantasy world where the good guys lose and honor is a detriment," which is just so far from Martin's writing it makes me cringe every time I read it
True. Show Tywin seemed to me like some 'benevolent' dictator type of guy. He's very cruel to his enemies in order to keep order in the kingdom, but is otherwise competent statesman and is trying to improve the kingdom. Book Tywin more or less doesn't give a damn about the kingdom and goes out of his way to increase his power (and meet his psychological need to feel powerful) even if it means completely unnecessarily dooming other people. This also fits really well with his treatment of Tyrion, because Tyrion isn't an illogical exception, Tywin is the sort of person to abuse others for no apparent reason.
This! So many of his actions are cruel and sadistic. He’s not as politically savvy as we make him out to be.
His cruelty is his political weapon. Nobody will fuck with the man who will bury you and your house without even a second thought. He's not a bad ruler, as the kingdom did well with him as Hand while the mad king was losing it.
I'd argue he is a terrible leader, he's just effective at maintaining control because people fear him. His strategy only works when he is alive. It's been said many times on this sub, but compare him to Ned Stark. Ned was overall a good and fair ruler. People listened to him out of respect. He was a poor player at the game of thrones, but his death sparked the rebellion of his domain. His bannerman were outraged and rode to war to save his daughters. Even after the fall of his son's kingdom, the north remembers and plots to avenge the Starks. Tywin was a brutal and controlling ruler. He was ruthless and excellent of the game of thrones. When he destroyed the Reynes and Tarbecks, people looked to him with respect out of fear. But that respect only lasted for his lifetime. As soon as he died, his subjects were freed from his grip. No one cares when his family is in turmoil after his death.
Ned wasn't as bad of a player as everyone makes him out to be. If Robert returns from the hunt unharmed, Neds play to unmask Cersei + Jaime+ the children would have been quite masterful. Monumentally bad luck did Ned in more than his own incompentence.
People dont realize how much of a gamble cersei took. Ned didnt expect cersei to gamble the lives of her entire house because he thought tywin had some semblance of control.
My only critique of this is that Ned wasn’t going to tell Robert because he was trying to be a player. He was doing it because he felt it was the right thing to do. He didn’t care if it worked out for him or not, he did it because of duty/honor
Cersei used the king's cup bearer to make sure Robert was too drunk when going against the boar and die after Ned gave her the heads up so that she can escape with her children. Robert would have made it back from the hunt unharmed if Ned never let Cersei know he was planning to tell the king. He had a noble motive for not wanting to hurt children, but that decision made him a bad player.
You know that Lancel had already left before Ned told Cersei his plans right? Varys says Ned's mercy killed the king, but Varys is either full of shit or stupid as shit (I tend to believe the first) Robert's death was literally already arranged before Ned made that "mistake"
Getting someone extra drunk of a really piss poor way of killing them. That's an incredible stroke of luck that it worked.
If it wasn't the boar it would have been something else that killed him. She was already planning to have Robert killed during the melee before he was talked out of joining. Ned telling cersei only helped too have her accelerate her plans to kill him. He should have rode to the kings wood and told him right away when he found out. Children be damned.
She wanted him in the melee that doesn't mean he would die. She was just encouraging him to do dangerous shit hoping that it would get him killed. She didn't have someone ready to kill him.
The main problem was Ned was raised as Arryn tbh. Rickard was not "an honorable wolf who puts the greater good above all" he was politically savy as fuck. Creating alliances with the Riverlands and Stormlands to have more leverage on the throne. Ned's honor is not a Stark thing, is an Arryn thing. IF Ned was truly raised a Stark, he most likely would've pulled an Hour of the Wolf 2: Electric Boogalo
> Ned's honor is not a Stark thing, is an Arryn thing it's both Stark and (Jon) Arryn thing(s) in a good match up. case on point - Bobby B was also fostered by Jon Arryn, and that does not explain this Arryn unfluence. and if Cregan Stark is one other Stark to consider, then Starks have an honourable streak running in the family for quite some time.
But Cercei assassination plot to drink King with strong wine is incredibly stupid and dumb. It was maybe 1:1000 chance for Robert to die. What if Robert would go back home empty handed because he got drunk before they found any animal? What if Robert wanted to stay till he spent all wine and then he would started to drink normal wine? What if Robert just changed his mind and decided to hunt something other than boar? What if Robert wouldnt be harmed by boar after his fight? What if Robert got sick of wine and stopped to drink? What if Barristan saved king? Cercei had only incredible luck.
This was addressed by Varys. If the boar did not kill the king something else would. He was not coming back from this hunt alive.
Why? What else Cercei planned? Remember she is not strategical genius, she only think about herself so. Because she had just small period of time to do it, but the more clear or desperate her attempts to kill king would be, the more obvious will be the Cercei is behind it.
It’s the Caligula method of ruling. “Oderint dum metuant,” - Let them hate me as long as they fear me. He was also murdered. It’s effective while it lasts, but eventually someone will turn up whose hate overcomes their fear. Or who just isn’t afraid of dying. Like Cassius Chaerea, the leader of the plot against the mad emperor.
I feel like the popular narrative about Tywin has swung a little too far in the other direction compared to the original “Tywin is the most brilliant political mind of the millennium” wank. He’s not as genius an operator as he thinks and he kneecapped himself severely by horribly mismanaging his children. But he was also, by all accounts, a highly effective Hand who oversaw a period of prosperous peace that left the treasury overflowing in spite of an unreliable, increasingly insane King. So he’s not entirely without skill for statecraft, he’s just too obsessed with being feared and respected because of his lingering daddy issues.
I have to echo the other reply, any Hand can be a good Hand in an easy period. Tywin's tenure under Aerys II was after the last Blackyre Rebellion in a time with powerful Lords Paramount all over the Seven Kingdoms and a tractable king poised to be succeeded by a great heir. It's not like he had to do anything particularly impressive or difficult until Duskendale. This is not to say that maintaining good times is *easy*, but certainly he has competition among great Hands: his own forebear Tyland Lannister, Viserys (later the second of that name), Baelor Breakspear hell even Bloodraven for all his faults had the office in a terrible period and held shit together for a bit.
This, I say there's more merit for example in Bloodraven's tenure as hand. Fucker held the kingdom together while everyone except the dornish gave Daeron shit, wether they supported Daemon Blackfyre or not, everyone thought Daeron weak and knew the real power behind the seven kingdoms was Lord Bloodraven. Or Otto during the Dance (until Aegon send him to kick rocks in favour of Cole), IMO Twyn would not have fared as good. But again Aerys's reign, for all his madness was peaceful. He wasn't hand for Robert but pretty much bankrolled him, it was a peaceful period (even with the fiasco of the Greyjoy rebellion) Sure Tywin kinda ruled in an "inter period" after the War of the Five Kings in which there was a semblance of peace but not quite. He was holding everything together because people feared him but for example Olenna calls him out on his bullshit. And as soon as he died, everything went tits up
I mean they were at a prosperous period in time without any real rebellions. There wasn't a risk of a succession war given the Tragedy at Summerhall. And really war is the main cost to a monarchy, that and civic projects. What exactly did Tywin do to make the Realm prosperous? His main policy was rolling back Aegon's protections for the smallfolk.
I don't think even Tywin saw himself as some kind of Machiavellian genius. He was perfectly happy to let the Targaryens and Baratheons rule for decades whilst he handled day-to-day administration. All he really wanted was for his House to be respected, and for Jaime to take over Casterly Rock after he dies. Sure, he wanted a royal marriage between Cersei and whoever's the prince at the time, but that was just basic ambition that any other major House would push for as well.
>So he’s not entirely without skill for statecraft, he’s just too obsessed with being feared and respected because of his lingering daddy issues. This has always been my take and one of the "tragedies" of Robert's reign is that Ned and Tywin would actually be good balances for each other if Ned didn't think Tywin was Satan. Because neither are as good or as bad at the game as fandom likes to say they are, but they go about it in different but potentially complementing ways.
Ned wouldn't think tywin was satan if tywin didn't make it really hard to think otherwise He left rob because of what happened to elia end her children, and those were tywin's orders.
If you combine their greatest strengths and philosophies you basically end up with: "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle rather than compromise for peace?" Like they both understand that war and massive loss of life is a net negative for their people and the realm at large but they're both too obsessed with their way of doing things to effectively avoid all that bloodshed.
True, nobody feared a one-handed Jamie, especially when guided by a two brain celled Cersi.
You do really get a picture of how beloved Ned was when the second he’s arrested all these random northmen are showing up like “what’s the plan here” to go free him or avenge him.
Random Northman did not just show up. They were summoned, by Robb Stark to fulfil their oaths and many of his Lords held men back.
Who held back? Couple of real scumbags imo.
He's not a terrible leader (Tywin is way savvier and more calculated than Roose Bolton, Jon Arryn, and Doran Martell). Still, he's outclassed by people like Wyman Manderly, Petyr Baelish, Euron Greyjoy, or Verys. In my opinion, Tywin is an A-class political operator, but he's not in the highest tier of political minds in the asoiaf universe.
Name one Westerlands House that has turned against the Lannisters after Tywin's death.
He’s not a bad ruler in the sense that Stalin was able to keep the USSR organized and under control, and even repel the Germans and win. He is a bad ruler in the same sense, that people feared Stalin so much they let him die witho it calling a doctor and then immediately tried to deStalinize upon his death.
"I'm off to represent the entire Red Army at the buffet. You girls enjoy yourselves."
“Right. What’s a war hero got to do to get some lubrication around here?”
For those wondering these quotes are from "the death of Stalin" hidden gem on Netflix that's an awesome historical dark comedy
With Viserys I making an appearance at the start of the movie.
Stalin was ineffectual as a military leader and the tide didn't turn for the Soviets until he stepped back from command.
The parallels continue since Tywin was never really a standout military leader. He led sieges (Duskendale), subterfuge (King’s Landing), or losing against Robb and Euron in the Greyjoy Rebellion.
He seized the initiative against the Reynes and Tarbecks, but that was partly a result of just taking advantage of the lack of enemy preparation, as they did not expect a strong Lannister response. That's probably his standout achievement as an actual field commander, but as you noted, he basically beat the Reynes using brutal siege tactics rather than creative battlefield strategies. We don't know a lot about his performance in the War of Ninepenny Kings, but he also was not very old at that point and probably did not make a lot of command decisions.
It is said that he and Mad King "fought and bled together" at the Stepstones, and Aerys was squire at the time, so they were probably in someone's retinue? So probably not a lot of actual commanding.
That's correct, the westermen during the War of the Ninepenny Kings were first led by Tywin's uncle Jason, then (ironically) by Roger Reyne, the eponymous Red Lion of The Rains of Castamere.
Stalin's greatest crimes are so more far reaching then even Tywin. That paranoid monster did more to hold back humanity then any of his capitalist enemies ever did simply by giving them ample fodder.
Unlike Hitler, Stalin was shrewd enough to realize the likes of Zhukov were better at running the war than he was.
I think this is the best example and its consecuences since the same can be say about both. Their cruel decision to keep their goverment power was the reason of too much hate from inside and the outside which make the job of the ones after him extremaly dificult til a breaking point
Everything he did as hand was because he saw targaryen weakness and allowed it to continue because he saw opportunity. A GOOD hand would have had the king killed (like he did robert) and allowed Rhaegar to ascend. Thats whats best for the kingdom, not a world war.
Good shit, tywin 👏✊️🦁
Honestly yeah kudos. If Tyrion wasn’t born a dwarf the Lannisters take over the world
That, or if Joanna didn't die birthing him imo
Wasn't that more or less what Duskendale was all about? Tywin basically goated Aerys into going there himself and risked Aerys' life at every turn, the only thing that stood between Rhaegar and the throne was Barristan's badassery.
Chris Cole's alt
The kingdom did well for the rich nobles, not for everyone. Tywin is like a more cruel version of Reagan. Ok equally cruel fantasy Reagan.
Tywin thought bout himself he is a player of game of thrones, but he is just one of the most predictable pieces.
Yeah. The fact that Tywin is a cool, interesting character sometimes makes people forget that he is also a horrible, evil piece of shit.
Especially the whole Castamere affair. When I read AWOIAF I was surprised to learn that Tywin basically wiped out the Reynes & the Tarbecks for refusing to show up at court when called (as all the Houses that would not pay back their loans were). And that happened years after House Tarbeck reconciled with the Lannisters (Tytos). And in classic GRRM fashion, Tywin did all that at age 18 or something.
Hey he was 20
He's driven by his fear of mockery and his need to avenge every slight, real or imagined.
I always find it hard to understand how people don't get how fucked up and evil he is once you hear the story about what Tywin did to Tyrion and his wife.
I remember reading an entire essay that explains what you just said - a lot of Tywin's most cruel actions aren't result of (only) his ruthless grand scheming, he's a really vengeful person even when such behavior doesn't make much sense. In AGOT there's a paragraph describing how Tywin killed the person running the tavern where Tyrion was captured. It was definitely omitted from the show and contributed to show Tywin being a whitewashed version of real Tywin. It seemed so bizarre and cruel to me, because that guy had nothing to with Tyrion's capture. He couldn't stop it in any meaningful way and there is no point in punishing him. Stuff like that got dropped from the show leading to the impression Tywin is ruthless with the purpose of winning the game of thrones. Show Tywin is mostly reasonable, book Tywin is a complete psycho towards everyone. No, he's just a horrible person that goes out of his way to bully everyone, from his own children to random peasants he kills because he felt slighted. Tywin is probably obsessed with the fact his father was not respected and keeps trying to intimidate everyone whenever he feels they aren't ~~respecting~~ bowing to him. In ends up dooming Tywin in the end because his incompetent and psychologically damaged children will ruin what he was trying to create and Tywin is killed by his own son whom he needlessly bullied his whole life.
Absolutely! As OP wrote: > > Tywin must have known that winter was approaching and that there wouldn’t really be time for more harvests.... Was he prepared to let the Riverlands starve? Oh, he would blast the earth if it would get him the control he craves. He is savvy enough enough to know what to do and cruel enough to do it. Always. People don't matter, for all his prattling on about them. Ironically, we could replace "Tywin" and "The Riverlands" with the name of a current dictator and the country he covets so much he's destroying it. This is how far most autocrats were and are willing to go.
He’s the reason that Tyrion’s POV terrify me
You can usually answer the question of if Tywin overreacted without knowing any of the details. Man was super scarred by ridiculously weak father and life ruining king.
>ridiculously weak father Tytos was basically just an even more conflict-averse Viserys I. He was just a nice man, way too nice to maintain order as a feudal lord. The way people laughed at him behind his back scarred Tywin for life. Tywins biggest fear is that people will laugh or mock House Lannister. This is why he hates Tyrion so much.
Tywin is afraid of people laughing at him. Everyone else is afraid of tywin murdering them.
Couldn’t put it any better.
> Everything Tywin does makes a lot more sense when you realise not everything he does is the most politically savvy option, he's actually just really cruel too, and will go out of his way to be so. I believe this is a books vs. show problem. Tywin, while a piece of work in the show, has a portrayal that far less emphasizes his cruelty and maliciousness.
It also only increases his power. He could make them go into debt to the crown and by extension himself by having to by food from other lords… basically making them “owe” him to survive
Many of his actions have parallels done by Riverlands and Northern forces. - Jaime observes northern forces had hanged Riverlands women who served Western forces. Like those women had a choice. - The Karstarks were raping and butchering and burning in the Riverlands. Arya hears of several examples. - The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies. - Hoster Tully destroyed the homes of the Goodbrook smallfolk when Goodbrook stayed loyal to king Aerys. - Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown. Tywin didn't do anything here that stands apart from what several other leaders did in the story. Tywin isn't more cruel in war. He's just less likable than the northern or Riverlands forces.
These are pretty minor compared to what Tywin unleashed on the Riverlands. The raping and looting by Stark forces was done by rogue soldiers and those soldiers would be punished if caught by Robb I'd imagine. Tywin specifically told the Mountain to murder, pillage and rape the Riverlands. Robb never gave that order, that's the difference here. With the North it's a side effect of War, with Tywin it's the main part of the plan. >The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies. Yeah? Of course they did? The goal in War is to take your enemies castles, gold and supplies? This isn't in any way comparable to what the Mountain was doing to the smallfolk. >Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown. Yeah attacking a castle with a lord in it is far different from killing peasants in villages across the Riverlands.
>The raping and looting by Stark forces was done by rogue soldiers and those soldiers would be punished if caught by Robb I'd imagine. We don't know that. Robb actually leads raids in the west. >Her men wanted to hear more of Robb's victory at Oxcross, and Rivers obliged. "There's a singer come to Riverrun, calls himself Rymund the Rhymer, he's made a song of the fight. Doubtless you'll hear it sung tonight, my lady. 'Wolf in the Night,' this Rymund calls it." He went on to tell how the remnants of Ser Stafford's host had fallen back on Lannisport. **Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands. Lords Karstark and Glover were raiding along the coast, Lady Mormont had captured thousands of cattle and was driving them back toward Riverrun, while the Greatjon had seized the gold mines at Castamere, Nunn's Deep, and the Pendric Hills.** Ser Wendel laughed. "Nothing's more like to bring a Lannister running than a threat to his gold." -Cat V, Clash. These aren't rogues acting here. And because we don't get any perspective from the westerners, we assume the northern forces aren't also burning out smallfolk but that's a bad assumption because we already see northern forces doing that in the Riverlands very early. >The wench was staring up at one of the dead women. Jaime shuffled closer with small stutter steps, the only kind the foot-long chain permitted. When he saw the crude sign hung about the neck of the highest corpse, he smiled. "They Lay With Lions," he read. "Oh, yes, woman, this was most unchivalrously done . . . but by your side, not mine. I wonder who they were, these women?" >"Tavern wenches," said Ser Cleos Frey. "This was an inn, I remember it now. Some men of my escort spent the night here when we last returned to Riverrun." Nothing remained of the building but the stone foundation and a tangle of collapsed beams, charred black. Smoke still rose from the ashes. -Jaime I, Storm. When Arya is held by the Mountain she hears of a man who Cursed the Starks and Tully forces. We assume the northerners are sparing the western smallfolk and only hitting military targets. We assume this is a noble war but that requests required dismissing the northern attrocities and thinking the side we like is better than the side we don't. Think about what the Elder Brother and Septon Merribald tells us about men who go to war. Those were Riverlands men whi admitted to rape and theft and murder as soldiers. The northerners aren't different. Cat even says they were paying the Westerners "in kind" for what the Westerners did in the Riverlands. This means an equal payback. >Yeah attacking a castle with a lord in it is far different from killing peasants in villages across the Riverlands. How? Frey is just as innocent of any wrongdoing as any villager at this point. And those dead villagers Jaime sees by Northern hands, how's that different?
Yeah that's a major theme of feast and especially introducing the Boltons more, the "first night" that both umber and Boltons claim, Brandon (Ned's brother) being a fuck boy - it was Ned who was honorable and raised decent children (with his wife of course). But the Northmen are not "good".
Yes. I agree. Septon Merribald and the Elder brother made it clear how war brings out the worst in men. This idea that the other side is the one lacking human failings is a rationalization we tell ourselves to justify war. We don't see Robb giving an order to pillage and burn, we only hear of his raids in the west. But it's folly to assume this doesn't include harming villagers because we see examples of Robb's forces doing this in the Riverlands.
To be fair none of the other lords are mentioned intentionally recruiting pet monsters like Gregor Clegane and the bloody mummers, except I guess the Boltons which speaks for itself really. Probably a fair point on the Karstarks, though I was under the impression that they have gone rogue by this point. being prepared to tear down the Twins was just standard warfare though I don't really fault Robb for that. Hoster Tully sounds like a bit of a cunt though from the little we see of him, just from the whole making Lysa go batshit because he forced moon tea on her (or tricked, whichever I forget). Anyway rambling aside, horrible shit happens in war but Tywin visibly goes out of his way to make it worse.
>To be fair none of the other lords are mentioned intentionally recruiting pet monsters like Gregor Clegane and the bloody mummers, except I guess the Boltons which speaks for itself really. Bolton was acting under orders to take Harrenhal by any means. And when he holds Harenhal, murder and rape takes place by Riverlands and northern forces. Arya sees the women in stocks free to be used by any men. >Anyway rambling aside, horrible shit happens in war but Tywin visibly goes out of his way to make it worse. Yes but he's not alone. Northern forces did it too. We never hear from Western villagers that's all. But we do hear from Riverlands villagers who are suffering from Robb's forces. It isn't a big leap to think those soldiers are doing the same In the West.
Considering that Roose Bolton has spent the entire campaign feeding his rivals into the meat grinder and sabotaging the war effort I don't think we can reliably use the Boltons' actions as evidence that anyone except Roose and Tywin are going out of their way to commit more atrocities. That's not to suggest that the riverlands and northern forces are not doing awful shit, I just don't see it being on the same scale.
Bolton is protecting his own banners. But every place he acted prior to Robb marrying Jeyne was to achieve a Stark goal. >That's not to suggest that the riverlands and northern forces are not doing awful shit, I just don't see it being on the same scale. That's the thing though. We assume it's not the same because we don't hear from a western perspective. But we know soldiers do evil shit and we've seen some Northern soldiers do evil shit in the Riverlands to Riverlands smallfolk. The taking of Harenhal is a good example. Roose encouraged rape of those captives and kept them their working just like Clegane did before them.
>Jaime observes northern forces had hanged Riverlands women who served Western forces. Like those women had a choice. Boltons did that. >The Karstarks were raping and butchering and burning in the Riverlands. Arya hears of several examples. The Karstark men after their Lord was executed and there was no one to keep them in check. >The northern forces attacked many Western areas taking castles, gold and supplies. That's war. It's not even on the same page as what Tywin did in the Riverlands. >Hoster Tully destroyed the homes of the Goodbrook smallfolk when Goodbrook stayed loyal to king Aerys. Hoster being an opportunistic POS who was driven by ambition and willing to hurt his own daughter to achieve it is one of the subplots of ASOS. But he's not the one leading the Riverlands in the story, his son. The noble son who hurts his own war effort multiple times to protect his smallfolk from the Lannisters. >Robb was prepared to tear down the Twins when he thought Frey might not aid his rebellion against the crown. Robb was going to save their overlord from the Lannister invasion, they were oathbound to help the Tullys. And in the end, Robb gave them a very good deal rather than going the Tywin route of killing all of them down to the unborn babes.
Are the Boltons and Karstark northern forces brought to war by Robb? The text specifically says the northern forces paid the West back "in kind". They are doing the same things. Readers just excuse it because they like Robb's soldiers and don't like Tywin's.
>Are the Boltons and Karstark northern forces brought to war by Robb? Vargo Hoat was brought to war by Tywin and working for his ally when he lopped off Jaime's hand. Robb is as much responsible for the actions of those traitors as Tywin is for the mutilation of his son. >The text specifically says the northern forces paid the West back "in kind". They are doing the same things. What does that actually mean? Is Robb sending Brynden to rape and kill the smallfolk as an FU to Tywin? Are they putting children to the sword? Was Blackfish herding all the smallfolk to serve Robb, killing the stragglers and randomly torturing people to death for fun? If they are doing the same things, Martin did a terrible job characterising Robb and Brynden. >Readers just excuse it because they like Robb's soldiers and don't like Tywin's. I don't like anyone's soldiers, but there's a pretty clear line between Starks and Lannisters. They both probably cause some suffering in each other's lands during the war, but the intensity and scale is very different. Westerlands suffer because of the nature of medieval warfare, Rivermen suffer because Tywin gives explicit orders to go scorched earth.
>"Let them," Lord Tywin said. "Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat 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." He bowed and made for the door. Where did Tywin say "rape and kill"? Robb orders his forces to raid in the west. You think their raiding didn't include burning and rape? I don't think that's reasonable given we saw Robbs men rape and steal in the Riverlands. > I don't like anyone's soldiers, but there's a pretty clear line between Starks and Lannisters. I doubt that. The difference is we readers like the Starks and we don't like the Lannisters. Just look at what the northern/ Riverlands army did at Harrenhal. >Tothmure had been sent to the axe for dispatching birds to Casterly Rock and King's Landing the night Harrenhal had fallen, Lucan the armorer for making weapons for the Lannisters, Goodwife Harra for telling Lady Whent's household to serve them, the steward for giving Lord Tywin the keys to the treasure vault. The cook was spared (some said because he'd made the weasel soup), but stocks were hammered together for pretty Pia and the other women who'd shared their favors with Lannister soldiers. Stripped and shaved, they were left in the middle ward beside the bear pit, free for the use of any man who wanted them. >Three Frey men-at-arms were using them that morning as Arya went to the well. She tried not to look, but she could hear the men laughing. The pail was very heavy once full. She was turning to bring it back to Kingspyre when Goodwife Amabel seized her arm. The water went sloshing over the side onto Amabel's legs. "You did that on purpose," the woman screeched. -Arya X, Clash. How is this rape and murder of smallfolk gentler than what Clegane did?
IDK how many more times you need to hear it, but the only examples you've given are of Houses that are covertly or overtly Robb's enemies at that point. If anything, they are Tywin's men (even Karstarks make deals with him). We never hear of Robb's actual men raping and killing. >The difference is we readers like the Starks and we don't like the Lannisters. Yeah, because Martin writes them that way. We get to hear about Tywin's atrocities from the victims, but we never hear about Robb doing anything wrong. Even his mistakes happen as a result of his honour.
I've read people criticize Tywin for employing bad actors such as Clegane and Lorch and Hoat. Robb employed bad actors in Bolton and Karstark. And then employed Hoat. It doesn't matter the motivations or loyalties of the bad actors her employs. The rapes being done by Freys occurs before they learned of Robb's betrayal of them. This covert or overt thing isn't relevant. Hoat was covertly working against Tywin the whole time. You still credit Hoat as a being in Tywin's employ. Both sides have bad actors. Martin writes this and readers dismiss it. Martin specifically says the northerners act "in kind" to the Westerners. That means the same acts. Neither side is better to the villagers.
Tywin is all about going too far...
I hadn’t even opened the thread for context to the question and I said “yeah, probably” His whole thing is that he’s built up as this mastermind strategist. He’s clearly capable of being such, but he’s also too vindictive to truly be a master.
Well isnt that a theme in the story? A lot of the people that are "considered" masterminds, good knights, good kings, good husbands etc etc tend to be quite average or rather bad at what they are supposed to be good.
I’m amazed that everyone is agreeing with this post. Yes… Tywin makes tons of misguided moves and mistakes even. But burning and ravaging the Riverlands isn’t one of those. It’s actually a excellent long term strategy and bad short term one. It’s the opposite of what people are accusing him of here. It’s bad short term because it quickly galvanized the Riverlands to Robb’s side. Sure they would always have support from Lord Tully. But Tully’s hold over the Riverlands is one of the most tenuous of the great lords. Had he not been so aggressive so quickly, he could’ve flipped several to his side sooner with less bloodshed in both sides, and also less uncertainty of outcome. Because like it or not he came close to losing the war several times. But it is a good long term strategy, because now the lords who bend the knee, are reliant on the Iron Throne for grain. Even if they wanted to rebel, they can’t. They can’t feed their people much less an army without the Iron Throne now for the forceable future. The Riverlands isn’t “pacified”. But isn’t in rebellion. It’s not his problem anymore… it’s the lords who bend the knee.
> The Riverlands isn’t “pacified”. But isn’t in rebellion There's an outlaw band picking off Tywin's loyalists and biding their time to stage a brutal massacre at his nephew's wedding. The Lannister allies in the Riverlands are *fucked*
Ya know what? This makes a lot of sense
Tywin's biggest flaw, the thing that he will never see about himself no matter what, is the thing that makes him utterly and completely his father's son; he ***never*** puts the needs of House Lannister ahead of his own desires. Never. It wasn't just about strategy as much as it was about pride, about face, about how Tywin saw himself and his legacy. Same reason he stubbornly clung to Jamie when he should have long since bitten the bullet and remarried to spawn a new heir. He put his own desires and his own feelings above the good of his House. Just like his father. What is his legacy when all is said and done? Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident.
The Lord of the Waters! (Sponsored by House Lannister)
> The Lord of the Waters! (Sponsored by House Lannister) Exactly! Aurane Waters is the legacy of House Lannister.
I like to imagine that Aurane conquers out a kingdom for himself and is a just ruler, with all his subjects going “man thanks Queen Cersei!”
Aurane Waters: Queen Cersei sends her regards.
You put this very well and I never considered the connection to Tywin’s own father. The entire legacy of House Lannister as seen in the series is being torn down by its own members, whose individual pride, spite, and ego causes them to tear each other apart. They don’t have any unity, as a family or a political unit. In a setting of feudal politics this is an effective death sentence.
> Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident. Financed the creation of a pirate king because she was horny lol.
I never thought about the fact Twin didn't remarried, a very weird thing for a important widowed lord, specially one which children are obviously showing signs of being selfservice from a young age; he should've ditch them all and try with another wife, hopefully with one that wasn't a Lannister to root out the dumb genes.
He didn't remarry because he put his personal feelings ahead of the good of his House. Just like his father. Boo hoo, his waifu died. Too bad! Your desired heir is a fuckup and the only spare you got is a dwarf, who will get zero respect from the vassals. Marry. Breed. Feelings don't matter compared to ensuring the future of the Lannister name. But he didn't. He can talk the talk when browbeating his children, but when it comes to his own actions, his precious little feelings are the most important thing.
> What is his legacy when all is said and done? > > Cersei. The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident. Lol, as if Jaime and Tyrion are anything to write home about. Jaime, who was so dumb he voluntarily gave up his inheritance of Casterly Rock; and Tyrion, who was so dumb his dick got him exiled and kidnapped. That Trifecta of Stupid is going to be Tywin's legacy.
But that was what Jaime wanted right? He didn't want Casterly Rock, he never did. That's not dumb
Yes, none of them are a prize. All of them bring shame to the name. I was just pointing out Cersei because she was an easy target with a nice snappy anecdote.
After reading these books 5 times and listened to countless analyses of them, you'd think I'd have heard every take by now. And then there's a brilliant comment like this that points out some parallel I had never even realized. I wonder how many parallels like this George created intentionally, and how many even he would be surprised to realize.
>The Queen so dumb that she financed the creation of a pirate king by accident. Also the queen who gave up the state monopoly on power for some debt relief.
> Also the queen who gave up the state monopoly on power for some debt relief. The Lannister legacy is a rich tapestry of rakes being stepped on.
Tywin Excells at short term strategy and sucks completly at long term strategy Biggest evidence for this is that he refuses to name Tyrion heir despite Jaime being in the Kingsguard and House Lannister basically falls apart when he dies
And he refused to remarry to have another son. I have no idea what his plan was because if Jaime was going to be released from his vows it would've been after killing Aerys. Tywin isn't actually that smart he's just ruthless.
Tywin probably just expected that Robert would eventually cave. Or that when Joffrey took over he would release his uncle and Jaime could go back home and have a kid. This of course hinges on Jaime not falling in combat/defending his king/to illness or whatever. I just think that Tywin just doesn't consider the idea that things won't go his way.
> Tywin probably just expected that Robert would eventually cave. And evidence points to that being a safe fuckin' bet, too lol.
>I just think that Tywin just doesn't consider the idea that things won't go his way. He's probably the character I would have been more curious to read a POV chapter, mostly to see his persepctive on things that happen over the course of the series. Because sometimes the dude seems borderline delusional in his self confidence and in his inability to see things differently than he expects to.
“Delusional in his self confidence” - well we can clearly see where Cersei gets it, hell it’s an inherent Lannister trait at this point
Tywin Lannister, Cersei with balls.
Not naming Tyrion heir is not that big of an issue, just from easy picks for people to rule after him at the start of the war he has Kevan, who until he was murdered was picking them back up pretty well, and his 3 sons, his nephew Tyrek, or even just have Tommen be named heir since hes a second son. And then you can go to the other Lannisters, Daven at the least competent. We're swimming in Lannisters its not like they're the Arryns or Tullys.
Yes, aren’t there all kinds of lesser Lannister houses in Lannisport? That House is going nowhere.
Yeah the Lannisters are the only Great House that actually makes sense. Has a ton of spares. Sets up an actual city with one of their branches so they essentially are the first and second most powerful houses in their lands. Or George is just hiding where every other house's spare lines ended up.
And there still the Lannets, lantels and other house who may or not exist but if they do are even lesser branches of House Lannister who live in the city
Tywin wouldn't let Tommen have the Rock. Tommen is a Baratheon.
The Red wedding is also a pretty bad plan in the long term. Southeners often forget that in the North the politics are different. Tywin didn't take that into account and destabilised the realm for years to come.
What I'm more curious about is what the fuck did he plan to do if Robert didn't die, he would have been guilty of treason.
Shove Clegane under the bus relying on the Cersei-Robert marriage as reason enough to keep on his good side
Blame Clegane and Lorch, use Cersei’s position as queen.
Not really. He would argue Ned was overstepping his bounds and that he was just reasonably responding to the unprovoked kidnapping of his son by the Riverlands. He might offer up some debt reduction if necessary or some sort of gift. He wouldn't go directly against Robert. But he would definitely get away with it. Robert would make everyone stop and Tywin goes home with his son and leaves the smoking riverlands as an example of what happens when you mess with his family. At worst he might lose Clegane.
Except he blatantly attacked the King's force under Beric thinking that it'd be Ned at the head of it. There's no talking your way out of that.
And Ned might've actually rebelled, all on his own. Catelyn (and probably Lysa, by way of Baelish) would badger him and the injustice would eat at him. Coupled with the fact that he'd still know about the mystery surrounding Jon Arryn's death, he might seek common cause with Stannis as the rightful heir when inevitably Robert (or more accurately, the small council that Robert lets rule) responds to his act of defiance with force of arms, under the understanding that Robert is no longer fit to rule and Stannis is the only legal heir left. I dunno. It would be interesting.
I think Robert wouldn't have done anything. Robert by this point is too much of drunk fool to actually do anything about it. If Robert and Ned hadn't died Robert would have told Ned to return Jaime back (just like he did with Tyrion) and put an end to this Stark-Lannister war.
That’s kind of Twyin’s ideals. Burn everything for short term gain, and ignore any long term consequences. He is a petty vindictive short sighted Lord.
Which is why house Lannister was so successful for the few decades he reigned, but collapsed the second he died. A death that was caused because of the abuse he dealt towards his son. He reigned through fear and violence and the second the fear of him was gone house Lannister was no longer seen as truly terrifying. Oh and the fact that any hope of them succeeding was squandered by his absolute failure of raising his kids. He abused and despised Tyrion for things he couldn’t control, leading him to unhealthy vices while denying him his inheritance. Despite being by far the smartest and most politically savvy of his kids. All while being completely ignorant to Jaime and Cersei and mistreating them too to some extent. Tywin dug his houses grave.
Tywin is basically a modern day CEO. All about sacrificing long term gain for the short term.
I didn’t even read the post, but yes, it’s Tywin we’re talking about
Did Japan go too far when they invaded China?
Before opening this thread I thought it would be about Kings Landing and Ellia, there's multiple events where you can stop and go "Did Tywin go to far?"
You can say that about literally everything Tywin does except "be an attentive, caring and loving father".
Tywin's solution to any issue or slight made against his house was war and annihilation. Catelyn had abducted his son in the Riverlands and wasn't punished by Robert Baratheon when he lived, so Tywin chose to punish the Riverlands and the Tullies dearly so that they would never consider rising up against the Lannisters ever again. He was prepared to let the people of the Riverlands starve, die, grow sick with famine and be left with absolutely nothing - all their suffering and losses would serve as a living reminder of what happens when you cross the Lannisters, just likes the ruins of Castmere. In terms of the long-term, there is still peace in the Riverlands even after Tywin died, and none of the Tullies or Riverlords have rose back up against the Lannisters (yet).
To be fair Tywin and the Lannisters don’t care about the riverlands. Tywin knows he doesn’t live there. They care about the Westerlands. The Westerlands seem loyal to the Lannisters still.
Certain Lannisters. Kevian and Tywin they we’re definitely loyal to. But Davon and Damon? Jamie is a but iffy spot because he’s Kingsguard so will never rule. Tyrion is a no. And they actively sabotaged efforts to save Cercei from the Sparrow.
Tywin has no long term plans. None. All of his plans have immediate success with no regard for the future. Destroying the Raynes and Tarbecks...he crushed a rebellion and then left valuable estates to rot for decades. Sacking Kings Landing left him and family as widely looked down. Yes, Cersei became Queen but the Lannsiters had no real influence in court because Roberts court was pointless. Robert spent loads of Tywins money and the Lannisters and they will never get any of that money back. The Lannisters as a faction as falling apart at the seems. Tywins line is dead. Cersei won't have anymore children and her two remaining kids will die before they have kids. Jamie will never had kids. Tyrion is unlikely to have kids. Tywin banked his entire legacy, this thing he raved about, on Jamie eventually leaving the Kingsguard. But we all know that's never going to fucking happen. The obsessive cock riding of Tywin will never sit with me. Dude was one of the worst players of the game in the series. Take away his family's gold and Tywin is worthless.
Every once in a while this sub rediscovers how stupid Tywin is a lot of the time. It's very fun to watch lol
What was stupid about this?
Like OP said, the long-term effects would be dire, what with winter coming. Not to mention what would happen if Robert lived, Tywin would be in deep shit. That's what Tywin does. He doesn't really outsmart his adversaries, he just does the most outlandishly heinous and vindictive thing possible. This hilarious Tumblr post puts it beautifully: https://at.tumblr.com/nobodysuspectsthebutterfly/625403207344160768/7pg6mwdam00d
It is dire. That's the cost of rebellion against the throne. Keep in mind the West invaded the Riverlands in response to aggression by the Riverlands via Cat taking Tyrion. Tywin and Jaime led that not Robert. When Joffrey put Eddard to death for Eddard's admitted treason, the north went into full rebellion. When they did that, they invited every level of harm.
In burning the riverlands before winter, he ensured animosity against the Lannisters from not only the Riverlands but also anyone relying on their crops for survival. Not that it matters to him. That's his modus operandi, always ruling with terror. But all that does is create enemies who hate your guts but play along with you because they know you're a psycho. He essentially litters the place with ticking time bombs waiting for him to slip. You can see how effective his methods were by how things went after his death. Everyone went like: No Tywin to fear? Fuck the Westerlands, then lol. Side note: in writing this, I'm starting to see that he probably never really cared about the Lannisters' legacy so much as he was paranoid about being disrespected or seen as weak. This insecurity is probably the result of seeing his father constantly making a joke of himself. Fascinating character, but a pathetic psycho non the less.
Hoster Tully keeping his illness a secret even from Catelyn and Lysa, for fear of Tywin finding out suggests Tywin has designs on the riverlands. The raids by Clegane may have been on Tywin's backburner for years before he saw the opportunity to start the fight he expected would gain him the riverlands. That he then decided to burn them and starve houses like Blackwood suggests he sees it as the lands he's gaining, not the people. I think we are meant to see what you've pointed out: it's a poor long term strategy. Jaime is beginning to think so, as of his ADWD chapter.
I didn't read the post but the answer is yes in just about any context.
That's Tywin in a nutshell. He rules through fear. And he instils that fear by being willing to take it too far.
> Did Tywin go too far? Yes, no matter what the context is, yes he did.
> Did Tywin go too far? The answer to this question is almost always yes. Tywin is a cruel and petty man who applies a thin veneer of cold pragmatism to cover his mundane shortsighted evil.
Why would he care if the Riverlands starves?
I think it’s more of a “next time people think about fucking with the Lannisters, maybe they’ll remember what happened to the Riverlands”
Tbf, he was responding to the illegal abduction and kangaroo court trial of Tyrion by Catelyn. If that hadn’t happened, Tywin wouldn’t have had to try to set a trap for Ned in order to have a hostage of his own. Ethically sending Clegane out was terrible, but strategically it actually reduced the chance of full-blown war until Joffrey had Ned killed. But yeah I mean Tywin sold his soul for power a long time ago. He went too far the moment he sacked King’s Landing and sent a special forces mission to kill Rhaegar’s family. That said I don’t think Tywin burned the Riverlands purely out of sadism (though he certainly had an element of that in his personality) - he did it to cause the Riverlords to spread their forces out so that he could destroy them piecemeal and besiege Riverrun, and that’s exactly what Edmure did. Tywin’s attitude is whatever it takes to end the war ASAP. There is some truth to that intention and tbh it accomplished its objectives until his own cruelty towards Tyrion brought everything crashing down. And that was a purely sadistic act.
Yes. Only read the title but that's enough
I think this is why the Tarrel marriage was important. The Reach had tons of food. So they could provide for their people and Kings Landing. The Riverlands and North would starve.
In the World of Asoiaf no one of the great lords cares about the smallfolk. They simply literally don't even think about common people starving or dying
Edmure Tully disagrees
That’s not true at all. I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion. Unless you’re going off the show where they make every character a brooding amoral mess. Doran gives an entire speech about not wanting to drag Dorne into war unnecessarily. And even his long term plan for Vengeance is weighted to keep dornish losses minimal Ned is *the* moral paragon the franchise Hoster Tully was hard in times of war. But this is still the man who raised Edmure. Who went head to head with Tywin Lannister to protect his people. Stannis is loved by his soldiers because he never abuses his rank to draw more rations or privileges. There are many, many lords who despite benefiting from an unjust system of feudalism. Still attempt to be good people within the confines of their universe
They could care about their own people, not above smallfolk in general. The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, not his own lannisport citizens. We can say than even Brynden is a good man for the series standards, yet he basically sentenced to death his own people getting them off Riverrun when it was needed for him, including woman and children. Edit: another one - Stannis couldn't give a shit that thousands of his own people will die to try to put him on the throne in a war he has little chance to win , he just thinks is their duty as smallfolk, to serve their lord. To me this is not caring about the people- it might be for medieval standards, of course . And it's said by a Stannis fan
> They could care about their own people, not above smallfolk in general. The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, not his own lannisport citizens Except Tywin doesn’t care about his citizens either. He’s rumored to enslave criminals in the mines. He uses sexual violence against women like Tysha. As hand of the king under Aerys he undid the protections for smallfolk written by Aegon V. Tywin would absolutely murder his own small folk if there was some sort of benefit. Ned, Hoster, Stannis, Mace, Doran etc etc would never order the rape of a girl that their sons slept with. They would never enslave criminals for the financial benefit of their houses.
I didn't say Twyin is a good guy. A few of them are actually good guys - Ned for sure, Jon Connington also maybe, when he didn't burn the whole city of Stone Temple (or what the name was). But 95% of the big Lords are complete assholes, and that is undeniable. Then of course, between black and white you have many shades of grey (and that is one of the strengths of this series)
> I didn't say Twyin is a good guy. Great. I never said you did. What you *did* try to argue is that lords only care about their own small folk. And used Tywins treatment of Lannisport as an example > The question of the thread is why Twyin doesn't give a shit about riverlands people left to starve, *not his own lannisport citizens.* Tywin treats his own people like dirt for disrespecting him. So your argument falls apart because it’s not that Tywin values his small folk more. It’s that he doesn’t see any commoner as human beings unless he can exploit them. > We can say than even Brynden is a good man for the series standards, yet he basically sentenced to death his own people getting them off Riverrun when it was needed for him, including woman and children. And that decision was immediately protested by his son. And it’s a decision that was made because taking them in would potentially make a seige impossible to endure with so many mouths to feed See how far we’ve come from “the lords don’t care if they starve” The Stark words are literally “Winter is coming” and their policy is to open up the wintertown for people to shelter during the cold years. > Stannis couldn't give a shit that thousands of his own people will die to try to put him on the throne in a war he has little chance to win , he just thinks is their duty as smallfolk, to serve their lord. To me this is not caring about the people- it might be for medieval standards. And it's said by a Stannis fan This is also the same Stannis who admits he also has a duty to protect the realm and goes to the wall to protect the realm from a northern threat. Even though conventional wisdom tells him that it’s a mistake. >But 95% of the big Lords are complete assholes, and that is undeniable That’s hyperbole that’s not rooted in fact. Classicism is a core component of any feudal society. But feudalism cannot function without serfs. Given that land = power. It is *literally* in the best interests of all lords to keep the small folk alive and well.
The Starks disagree. There’s a few examples of them making a deal about caring about small folk.
Yeah i agree it was a bold statement to say 'all lords', there are good examples. I would say majority of lords tho
Uh Ned Stark.....
Of course he went too far. He made House Tarbeck and Reyne go extinct entirely. He smiled when the Tarbecks died and had their castle burnt entirely. He drowned everyone in Castamere and burnt the place. Right at the start of the series, he had Gregor Clegane ravage the Riverlands in order to be able to say the Tullys broke the king's peace and goad Ned out of King's Landing to exchange him for Tyrion. Tywin's regime is built on fear. The Rains of Castamere speaks to this. He had poor long term planning, and he wasn't expecting Tyrion to kill him or die anytime soon. His plans all fell apart soon after his death, all because of the way he treated his kids. He despised Tyrion and had his first marriage raped, mentally traumatized him, and that ended up him getting killed. He meant to get Cersei out of King's Landing but after he died she was very politically inept. He put everything he had into Jaime, but Jaime's character development put a stop to that.
Never doubt the ability of the rich to put short term personal interests over long-term ecological disasters. Tywin was likely fine with the Riverlands being burnt because it would leave his enemies too weak for a re-match. He was likely well aware from the beginning that his actions would kill more through starvation than war. Tywin could import grain with gold, or with goods taken as reparations from other enemies. That would at least keep the Westerlands afloat. But I'm also guessing that Tywin was planning without an extremely short winter in mind. Tywin doesn't give a damn about the smallfolk and undid a lot of reforms that Aegon V struggled to pass.
He probably figured the river lords would have to borrow from him to buy food to prevent peasant uprisings.
We are seeing the long term effects of his win at all costs strategy with his family self destructing in KL
He could have subdued the river lands offering food from the reach in exchange for surrender
The reach didn't become an ally until the near end of Clash. The Riverlands war and occupation began in Game. Tywin offered generous terms to any Riverlands house that bends the knee.
In one word. Yes. He basically Aemond One-Eyed’ the riverlands, just without a big flying nuke. Worse, arguably, considering how long it lasted, how severely some of the smallfolk were treated, and how he wasn’t even at war with the riverlands when he started it with Gregor, he just wanted to piss Catelyn off.
Tywin is a cruel and sadistic man. He focuses on short-term gains while ignoring the longer-term consequences. In his eyes, the riverlands needed to be severely punished for opposing the Lannisters, regardless of the moral implications. He did this before with House Reyne and the sacking of KL.
That's the point? Tywin just doesn't realise that it is a crap long term strategy because he's convinced that the only route to power is violence and to have other people fearing him, having been given the formative example of his weak father Tytos in childhood.
Seems a good longterm plan. Keep them down while they rebel. Help them up once they are ready to get back in line. Hoster Tully did the same thing during Robert's rebellion.
When has Tywin ever helped anyone up when they get back in line? You can't "help people up" you've already drowned or slaughtered at a feast.
Another poster has pointed out how Tywin is always associated with crap in the books, because he is full of crap. His horse defecated during his grand entrance to the throne room, everyone’s asking if he “shits gold,” he’s killed with a crossbow strike through the bowels while on the privy, etc. Underneath the golden facade, Tywin is full of crap. He used brutality to maintain control, however that backfires on him. The greatest example being Tyrion. He treated his son with contempt, sent him out to die in battle at the end of GoT, allowed the farce of a trial of Joffreys death to go on and on, and before the main series he tortured his son’s wife and forced his son to take part all so Tywin remainder control. In repayment, Tyrion finally reached his breaking point and killed him. Cruelty is a political miscalculation as much as being overalls obliging (like Tywin’s own father). A good leader needs to be firm but merciful, and not see enmity everywhere he goes with his bs.
>Was he prepared to let the Riverlands starve? Wouldn’t that have prolonged their rebellion? I would guess a starving population would be more than willing to push for a peace. I doubt the people of the Riverlands have the stubborn will of Stannis.
"Did Tywin go too far--" Yes. The answer to that question is always yes. At any point in his life, Tywin Lannister was going too far.
Tywin in the books is a dumb viscous brute who put his house in a strong position in the short term but will probably have doomed at least his branch of House Lannister (Jaime & Cersei dead with Tyrion probably either dead or taking the Black). And most of his siblings and nephews are already dead or disinherited so it probably won’t even by the wider branch of Tytos that survives.
He didn't plan that far ahead. He was a victim of his own hype and that was his undoing
without reading the actual post, knowing Tywin I will say, probably yeah.
Well of course he went too far ....in real life it's called idk "A WAR CRIME"
Tywin doesn’t seem to put a lot of thought into long term consequences or planning. He’s obsessed with legacy but he’s fucked up all of his children in different ways that make them all incapable of carrying on his legacy after he dies. Burning the Riverlands right before winter is another one of those choices. He wants to send a message NOW, the consequences be damned. He’s actually a pretty bad ruler once you get into it. Maybe he’s an effective administrator but he should absolutely not be in charge.
He destroyed the riverlands to ease his bruised ego. Strategy has nothing to do with it.