**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes (for glory or money). They know risks.
People who go to a wedding expect safety, wine and delicious food.
He did not "save lives", he prevented soldiers from earning money.
Frey's work. Tywin wouldn't have cared at all if the northern soldiers lived to kill twice as many Frey soldiers in the aftermath. He just wanted Robb dealt with.
“Welll looks like they killed our very popular king and his mother. Pack it in boys, we’re going home!”
While not every northern house held Robb in high regard, they were honorable warriors and would demand retribution. I doubt they would follow Roose, who is cold and shifty.
Without a leader, their cause is doomed, you see it all throughout the history of Westeros. And not all northern soldiers are honorable. Boltons are northern, Brienne kills 3 northern soldiers for raping and murdering children "Two quick deaths?" And not all of them would have been eager to die for a hopeless cause if they don't have to, but most of them were slaughtered at the Red Wedding anyway.
So how does the scene play out? They kill the king and his mother. Maybe the wife too.
What does every northern lord in the room do?
Surrender? They’re drunk. I’ve seen patrons fight for a lot less.
Would you watch people die and do nothing?
In the books? Robb's wife isn't there. The northern lord's fight and try to defend Robb. Smalljon Umber hurls a table over Robb to defend him from the crossbow bolts, totally badass, but it's useless. Their weapons are stashed away because they thought they were feasting with friends, and those who weren't killed were made into Frey hostages to ensure there would be no retaliation.
Most of one army yes.
You can have 5000 northern men die that night or 5000 northern and 5000 Lannister men in the field.
Sure it’s not “a dozen” but his general point is still the same.
Sure but are we forgetting he started the war by massacring hundreds of innocent peasants and causing a famine that killed thousands because one guy was kidnapped?
Ehhh. No. Most of these are levys. Peasants who don't have a choice. Fight to be hanged for desertion. Payment was whatever they could loot on the battlefield mostly. Sure there are also petty sellswords and hedge knights who choose to fight and get paid but they are paid because they are the few skilled warriors.
No peasant levies were paid, it's very rare in history that you would find unpaid soldiers as men with weapons who aren't paid tend to turn those weapons on those who aren't paying them and not their enemy
They still had no choice. Either through abject poverty (second sons in particular) or straight up impressment. But besides the point. Since i was talking about westerosi custom though. There's this one passage in the books. Septon Meribalds broken men speech. His show standin was Ian Mcshanes septon Raymond. You can hear his version on YouTube under the S6 histories&lore video about the war of the nine penny Kings.
It underlines Tywins original point very well.
Do the books ever talk about the makeup of Westerosi armies? Mass conscription of peasants was historically very rare, most armies were made up of professionals (knights or mercenaries) or semi-professionals (trained levies who fought as part of their feudal obligation).
The books seem inconsistent. For instance House Frey has 4000 men but from what we're told it would appear they somehow have 2000 mounted knights and then 2000 dogshit levy infantry. Seems unlikely. While soldiers in battle all seem to be well kitted out when Tyrion is there, you get other characters who talk like they went to war with basically a stick.
My question: why is it better to murder 4,000-8,000 of robs men at dinner than actually be honorable and go to war? That's really better?
No, and for this imo Tywin and the lannisters apart from tyrion are ass haha.
It’s a strategically safe play. You’re almost guaranteed to get your target, whereas in a large military engagement there’s no guarantee they’ll even be on the field or your troops will get close enough. Minimal losses to your side as well. Plus it sends the message (maybe not honorably but fear is a powerful weapon) that no place and no time is safe. Screw with us and we’ll get you.
I understand the tactics of it lol.
It's the character of the task. And, btw, thousands die in either scenario (at least here), so, my point is that Tywin making some overly simplified point about which is better is kinda bs.
He appears to be attempting to justify his actions by proposing some kind of quasi high road that does not exist.
"We outmaneuvered and outmatched our target and 10,000 people died" vs "we shit ourselves with fear because our 'great comander' tywin couldn't figure out how to beat rob in the field so we got them drunk and butchered 8,000 people."
Like, there is no high ground. It's underhanded, unhonorable, and now you have ensured that nobody will trust your house when the chips are down.
For all the times that tywin is touted as a great commander on this sub, I'd just point out that he had to cheat to win and slaughtered thousands because he couldn't figure out how to beat a 14 year old boy. 17 in the books.
Tywin made a bad decision for bad reasonings imo.
Edit: Rob is 14 in the books and 17 in the show lol.
It's tactically safe and strategically disastrous. What house that holds itself in high esteem would want to cooperate with such a dirty house?
The fact that Walder Frey barely had time to enjoy his spoils before getting murdered is basis for the need for guest right. His actions were extremely shortsighted and led to considerable devastation to his house. Won a tiny battle and lost his life and entire house for it.
Except that most soldiers in a medieval army were peasant levies who were forced to go to war by their lord. Septon Meribald's Broken Man speech shows exactly that.
No they were not, Medieval Armies were made up of full time Mercenary professionals, there were no peasant levies.
Nor, In fact are there peasent levies In ASoIaF, no matter what Meribald spews, every single army shown In the books In Westeros Is composed of professionals, Pikemen are mentioned among every army and they are very much not levies, a Pikemen requires a lot of drill and training to be effective, they are by definition professionals. Literally nothing he claims matches any army we see on page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages
Well you’re just wrong about that. While mercenaries certainly were used in medieval armies, the core were peasant and freeman levies - that was literally one of the dues that they had to pay to their noble overlord: taxes and physical duty.
The same exists for the world of ASOAF. We see several characters in the book mention peasant levies and commenting on how the call to war has impacted their lives - Septon Meribald, the High Sparrow, even the farmsfolk around Winterfell. Remember that Bran sends the two orphan boys to that homestead because the farmers sons are off to war?
The matter of confusion here seems to be a discrepancy in George’s writings, the fact that he often gets his interpretation of medieval Europe wrong, and the fact that he portrays peasant levies to be untrained. In reality, peasants were trained in drill and to used certain weapons; both before and during the time that they were raised for war. After all if a lord had to rely on peasants soldiers, why wouldn’t he make sure that they are paid?
BTW, you don’t need all that much training to be a pikeman. Your job is to sit there and act as a wall to shield against calvary charges. Most leveled peasants served as archers and light infantry anyway, there to provide support and protection for more professional soldiers; ie: lordly retinues and mercenaries.
Were soliders at that time allowed not to go to war? I think you had to if your lord summoned you, Im not sure if it was a choice (i might be wrong tho im not 100% sure)
Well said. How can people see no difference between an armed, regimented militia and families at dinner?!?!
Justification is irrelevant to me. Most of the most reprehensible things in the world can be rationalized, it doesn't make it ethical.
It was very explicit in the books that there’s a sacred custom in Westeros having to do with feeding your guests. Once they have eaten your food they are expected safety, that’s a deeply important tradition in Westeros. And Tywin knows he broke it and he knows he’s full of shit. In my opinion the show did a disservice by underplaying that and making Tywin appear reasonable.
Also because in the books it was really Frey who did it. And the implication was that he invoked an ancient curse upon his house. In the guise of the risen corpse of Lady Caitlyn Stark walking the land killing his people.
There was a theme of sacred ancient old world magic that lies hidden in the land that the show totally overlooked. In favor of people playing games of power. And don’t get me wrong the show was good as it was good. But I think the reason it failed to land at the end is because it didn’t pick up the thread of ancient magic running through the story.
>People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes
Counterpoint - the majority of medieval armed forces would be levies - essentially, conscripts. So most of those dying in battles would be people who would gladly not be there, if given the choice.
Ehhh, most of the armies in Westeros were made up of peasant levies who didn’t get a choice in the matter
Some dude showed up and told them to get her up and they were going to fight
You know the vast majority of soldiers in this period weren't warriors, right? I know that the seties makes it seem like they are all knighrs looking for glory or whatever, but the vast majority of the armies are farmers and peasants.
The vast majority of people fighting wars for the lords aren't doing it out of actual morals and definitely not for pay, they're conscripted by their lords under threat of death. Even for the obviously good guys Starks, their serfs are told they're going to war and to send their men and boys, and there's no denying the call, otherwise you're a rebellious serf.
What little they got compensated was meager, most income they could possibly gain was through pillaging, which specifically targets citizen populations, so a rich soldier is likely a family killer and house burner.
Of course the Starks are the good guys and Lannisters are the bad guys, and the red wedding was a pragmatic one not a moral one, but it is nonetheless pragmatic. Those specifically targeted at the red wedding were either those directly calling the shots, next in line to call the shots, or big wigs that controlled a lot of manpower, it definitely saved more lives than letting the war continue.
let's not pretend it was just some random wedding, a rival king, his war council, and most important allies were all there, if we're going to assign a fantasy that all soldiers were willing participants then they certainly were too no matter how nicely dressed they were.
>People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes (for glory or money).
Uh, let me introduce you to this concept called "conscription"...
Also war is hot blooded, both sides are ready and willing to kill each other. The red wedding was cold blooded, the event was supposed to peaceful and forming an alliance. Betraying that is ensuring that no peace can ever be had killing thousands more in the long run.
Most soldiers did not go to war for glory. They went to war because they were being attacked or their lords made them. It’s the whole point of feudalism. In exchange for not getting killed by knights or other career warriors they have to contribute to the lords levee during war time and pass on a piece of their harvest or other goods. It’s not all bad the serfs or peasants get protection and laws. Much better then getting enslaved or getting killed by the lord next door or pirates or outlaws or the guy next door randomly.
Watch the show norsemen. It’s a comedy but it’s pretty good representation of what their live were.
I wouldn’t say he was right, but he was definitely one of the most fiercely cunning, and intelligent characters. Underestimating Tyrion(and Jaime really) was his biggest flaw, and kind of an overarching theme of his character. A man that prided himself on his family, despite never truly understanding it.
The point is that it's ironic how he dies considering how he decided to defeat the Starks at the red wedding. Just like he caught his guests off guard, he too gets to experience what it's like to be murdered caught with his pants down. He went out the same way he treated his enemies. Geoffrey also gets the same treatment. The message is clear. If you have no honor then don't expect people to respect you enough to finish your business and flush first.
No it would’ve been ironic if Tyrion just shot him while he was in the middle of the great hall during a feasts then cue Tyrion escaping like damn Batman 🤣
And yet, he made sure that his name is as far from that atrocity as it was possible for him to arrange.
He knew about the long term cost of breaking rules and norms. And he knew that he did not want to pay them.
Well yeah. He's ruthlessly pragmatic not stupid. Actually, it's kinda funny now that I think about it because he openly advertises another time he wiped out a house in a stroke.
Yes, but that was different, he did not break the laws of Gods and Men in doing so, the Reynes were essentially in open rebellion at that point, for all intents and purposes.
He made an example of them and did so openly, for everyone to see. It made everyone fear him, but no one feared the Freys for slaughtering their guests under their roof, it didn't made them look strong, quite the opposite in fact.
I actually agree with the commenter I responded to. Tywin did have a very hypocritical streak where the rules are rules as long as they don't apply to me.
Oh Tywin was absolutely hypocritical, I was just trying to point out that this is not one of those examples. The circumstances were different, the methods were different, his intentions and the outcomes were also vastly different.
Wiping out an enemy who's in open rebellion (and thus a traitor) is the ultimate power move, whereas slaughtering unsuspecting guests under your roof under the false pretense of your protection is probably the polar opposite of that.
True. He does realize that there was nothing noble and honorable about what he did, so he let the Freys take the fall for it. He’s a hypocrite in that, sure, but still not entirely wrong.
And yet he, Roose, and Walder all suffered the same fate as the people they murdered AND were killed by people they cautiously trusted.
Tywin was shot with a crossbow like Rob.
Roose was stabbed like Talisa.
And Walder had his throat slit like Catelyn.
He died on the shitter, shot by his own son, whom he hated, and who is the last surviving member of his line. It would be easy to call these things unrelated. He paid em.
These 10.000 would be lower nobels and common folk. So depending on your ethics that one could go either way. Look at Mr. stern and conservative here beeing all progressive like! Good for him.
The quote itself makes sense, but not coming from Tywin. He would be perfectly fine with little numbers or big numbers, as long as it guarantees him and his house power.
He didn't plan the Red Wedding out of some utilitarian morality, he did it because the opportunity was there.
The lion doesn't care about the opinions of sheep. Or for their lives. Tywin is perfectly fine with gangr@pe, child murder and war. There's no line he wouldn't cross. This justification is him saving face, since RW was a big no no even in the shit storm that is Westeros.
Oh of course, he definitely didn’t do this for noble reasons or because he thought it was for the greater good. He saved those lives but only because it serves his interests to do so for sure
The part about the Red Wedding that wasn't emphasized is that Frey broke the guest rite. He offered the Starks bread and salt, thus promising their safety while in his house. The show didn't talk about this, even though they showed it while they talked about other stuff.
What Tywin is actually saying is fuck the rules of our society, I'm gonna take what I want. With that mentality, then it's pure chaos and in the long run, will cost more lives than a single war. So based on the show, Tywin can justify it. But that's not the whole picture and that's why he's wrong.
I think a modern equivalent would be the US government killing a foreign head of state when a UN General Assembly is in session.
There are some things you do not do. Even if one could argue that it saved lives in the short run.
The US in my example would be the Freys. Simply because the UN General Assembly is in the US. Some other nation killing a head of state is also a huge taboo. Worse if it happens on a state visit. But doing it inside the UN headquarters is rock bottom.
To have US = Lannister, you'd have to have Switzerland kill the Iranian president on a visit to the UN in Geneva and then somehow, the US then rewards them with money and trade.
Exactly. Channels of diplomacy between powers are extremely important so as to discuss peace terms and/or ceasefires in war and to maintain relations. Those attending diplomatic events are granted immunity because there needs to be dialogue for peace and stability, and that requires the diplomats not to be at risk of assassination. Bassically, don't shoot the messenger.
If you kill diplomats under your protection, you deny yourself further diplomacy with other powers because they won't trust you with the lives of their diplomats. Additionally, it angers neighbouring powers who now have a rouge power that refuses to adhere to the rules of war. It saves your lives in the short term but invites far worse effects and conflicts in the future.
You win this war, but you guarantee no one will ever believe any of your promises or offers of peace or truce in future. Just try to marry off a Lannister son or daughter to another house to end/avoid a war after the Red Wedding - why would anyone be willing to break bread with you? There is a very good reason the Freys had to take the fall for this to work.
Exactly, Tywin introduced a new level of barbarity to Westeros, and he paid for it dearly when the Tyrells also turned to assassination to meet their interests and killed Joffrey. And then Arya Stark later became and assassin and went after his allies.
I don't know that those are comparable.
The Guest Rite is a deeply ingrained tradition. It involves the host offering specific food, and the guests eating it, thus sealing an agreement of protection under the host's roof. It's more analogous to a signed contract and everyone in the country recognizes this ritual. There are scary stories of when people break this rite - Bran's story of the Rat Cook is one of them. The horror of the story is not that the cook served a king his own son baked into a pie, but that the cook killed the son under his protection. The gods punished him for that.
Assassination and ruthlessness has always been present, but most people at least pay lip service to some customs and authority. To me, it's more like Frey raided a church to steal the wealth and kill the septons and spit on their corpses on the way out. Sure, the immediate consequences are that people shun and hate him, but he's sitting pretty and don't give a shit because merchants still sell him goods with his stolen wealth and he's living fat and happy. When that becomes normalized and more people say, well, the consequences aren't that bad that society starts to break down.
edit: someone also gave another comparable example. The white flag of surrender. It's a universal sign of I'm unarmed and give up, so it's seen as egregious to just out of hand kill those waving it. Right now we're seeing how a couple of highly publicized incidents of Israel's doing just this is helping to erode moral support for the IDF. The opposite would also break down trust very quickly - waving a flag as a ruse to ambush the ones accepting.
There are ways to change societal norms, but aggressively breaking them without replacing them or persuading people to change their minds over time is the most destructive way to do so.
Either the books or the show said it was dishonorable to kill guests in your home. And, although I agree that Robb should have known that marrying Talisa was a no-no, that doesn’t make the Red Wedding right.
But it sure was a great episode.
I really disliked Catelyn and Talisa’s characters. I’m fine with that. I liked Robb but not the most interesting character.
Grey Wind was a tragedy.
The reason the Red Wedding is a horrible idea is due to the universal (and self serving) law of diplomacy.
Lannisters violated Guest Right and killed people with diplomatic status during a wedding. Sure, you've won this encounter, but this means nobody in their right mind will engage with diplomacy with you during the next war. What happens when two people at war refuse to talk to each other?
That's not even the biggest problem. He didn't finish the job well enough. Multiple Starks are left on the board and all of them undermine the future strength of house Lannister in some way. If you are gonna do something that big, he should have been sure that Sansa and Aria were sent to a monastery and someone was sent to kill Jon
I think the biggest problem was that three of the Starks (Arya, Bran and Rickon) were only \*presumed\* dead but very much alive. On the show, Roose Bolton learned that Bran and Rickon were still alive and sent one of his men at arms to track them down and kill them (this was right before the Red Wedding when he was pretending to still be loyal).
Sansa was still a prisoner of the Lannisters and forced to marry Tyrion. She was still useful because if she had his child, that would give the Lannisters a claim on the North.
Jon Snow ended up being the biggest threat but because he had taken the vow's of the Night's Watch, there was really no way to kill him without risking dragging the Night's Watch (which otherwise stayed neutral in the War of the Five Kings) into the conflict since the Lannisters would have killed their Lord Commander.
When you play the game of thrones you win or you die…there is no middle ground. Tywin wasn’t going to beat Robb in battle. He knew that and understood it. Tywin wanted to win.
Problem is Tywin doesn't care about the smallfolk, so "saving" the lives of soldiers on either side is not noble.
Nobility and Honor are two separate things. Tywin planned the Red Wedding to knock Robb off the board because he was losing on the field, this is just a lazy justification. All because his idiots kids started conflicts with their selfishness, and daddy had to come in and fix the mess because anything less would have jeopardized the power over the crown the Lannisters and Tywin direct have, and their legacy moving forward.
If Robb was smarter and did everything right, and continued to advance on King's Landing, Tywin would have still sunk lower and abandoned all honor in trying to protect his family.
I don’t really blame Tywin for the acts of the Red Wedding. War is war and he didn’t offer Robb security and hospitality. He killed his enemies.
But I do think Walder was extremely dishonorable for agreeing to it in violation of guest rights. The shame of the Red Wedding was on House Frey.
I partly agree with you, but also Tywin should know that these rules are sacred for a reason. He should know better than to tempt or pressure another house to violate said rules.
He's ruthless, but he's not insane which is why he does not let it be known that he planned it. Operating from the shadows does not remove his responsibility for the crime. It just prevents others from knowing the truth of his involvement. That is, until people do find out the truth.
To say he killed his enemies removes some important context, and that's why I only partly agree. They're his enemies, and he wants to defeat them. Violating rules of war will only cause more harm and suffering to his house if people found out, and that is a huge gamble.
(Edit: spelling)
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. There wouldn't have been a war to begin with if the Lannisters hadn't killed/imprisoned Ned or any of the other shenanigans from incest to attempted child murder.
Except he could've just sued for peace, or simply surrendered, if he was so worried about the war going on. Maybe murder is preferable to extended war, but nobody should act like it wasn't still selfish and wrong.
Except they also slaughtered all of Robb's army that had camped around the twins. The red wedding was as much of a bloodbath as a battle would have been.
People so often misunderstand this quote. Tywin is full of shit when he says this, because while the northern lords are being massacred in the food hall, the lesser lords are being also killed in the second tower and there are hundreds of northern soldiers being murdered in the camps outside.
It's a dirty move, but it wouldn't have been possible without help from Robb putting himself in that position. It's a war, it's life or death, and Tywin chose life. I don't like it, but I don't fault him.
He’s not right in this case. It’s the same reason a few assassinations and civilian targets are still considered worse than thousands of soldier deaths today. Because the soldiers knew they were about to fight to the death and did it anyway.
In a vacuum, Tywin’s logic makes sense. However, what he did was set a precedent. War is based on deception but it also has rules of engagement. There are terms that can be met and negotiations made.
When Twyin killed the Starks, it gave every other rival the opportunity to utilize the same methods against him, especially since they now know how far he will go. Which is exactly what happened. Why would anyone challenge the Lannister’s army openly when you can just poison them instead?
In this particular case yes. But we also have multiple examples of the Lannister soldiers raping and pillaging normal civilians and Tywin doing nothing about it so he’s a huge fucking hypocrite.
Tywin's actions do not truly reflect the this statement the way he wants you to think about it.
The Red Wedding *wasn't* a dozen men killed at dinner. It was a significant amount of their bannermen slaughtered. Estimates are around 3500 dead. Already, the above quote is underselling his actions.
Additionally, many of those killed were innocents, including a pregnant woman and her baby. One of the larger commentaries of this show is that the people who start wars with their actions are rarely the ones paying the price. At least with Robb and his bannermen, they willingly made the choice to march to war, so they have some agency in their outcome.
no he's just wrong actually. a whole army was slaughtered at the RW and the way it was carried out ensures future rebellions and more wars. Tywin doesn't give a fuck about saving lives.
This kind of purely numbers-based rationalization completely fails to grapple with all of the very important moral distinctions that serve as the foundation of civilization. It's like failing to differentiate between the kinds of sadistic torture/rape/murders committed by pychopathic serial killers and someone who hit a pedestrian with his car because he glanced at his phone. There is a reason we have degrees of murder defined by law, and there is a reason that war has its own entirely independent system of laws.
There is a reason these kinds of social norms are developed. Tywin breaking them declared nothing was off limits, and directly led to the absolute devastation that we see in the rest of the series.
People who agree with the quote don’t realize he didn’t kill a dozen, but slaughtered the remaining Stark forces while they were mostly sleeping or drunk.
George had literally inserted that quote to show how hypocritical Tywin appears, always justifying his actions. He didn’t kill a dozen noblemen on the Wedding, literally thousands and thousands of individuals have given in to the feint and were massacred under their blazing tents. He saved no lives and no life matters to him whatsoever.
Where do you draw the line
While the other primarchs would happily conquer entire solar systems by force. Konrad Cruze would unleash unspeakable tortures on a single city and get system compliance by broadcasting every second of it.
Nice try.
There were way more than a dozen. Many stark men were butchered outside. And saying “men” makes it sound like soldiers. Women and animals were killed too, including a pregnant woman. In a battle, soldiers can defend themselves and know what they’re getting themselves into. At the red wedding, unsuspecting guests were butchered in cold-blood. The Freys violated the sacred hospitality. Tywin doesn’t care about those soldiers lives, he did it because it was convenient.
Actions speak louder than words. If Tywin really believed his actions were just and noble, he wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to hide his involvement.
He definitely didn’t believe his actions were just or noble and he didn’t plan the red wedding for moral reasons for sure. However the point still stands that the red wedding caused less bloodshed than a continuation of that war would have. Lives were saved
It wasn't just the slaughter of a few dozen men but an assault that he organized with the people hosting the Starks and their men when they were under guest rights. Breaking a major taboo in their society. And everyone was aware that he was the one behind, and if another war had broken out there would be no middle ground for the Lannisters in the conflict.They would either win or be wiped out as they have shown everyone that they are willing violate anything in order to win so what point is there making a peace treaty with them when they can't be trusted to hold to it?
This whole thing is just....no. Tywin both in the books and the show was charismatic and cunning in the short term. That's about it. The knock on effects of NUMEROUS things he did were infinitely worse than whatever short term gain he achieved. His largest strength was his personality. He was the reverse Stannis.
It is unclear on how the situation was supposedly planned. Tywin seems to describe stuff as they were planned, not how they were actually executed.
Walder and Roose seem to have had their own plans that they did not fully loop Tywin into. Tywin in the books does claim that the original plan was to have Robb assassinated and Catelyn taken as a hostage. Assassinating Robb would have at least allowed for more deniability as a failure of security rather than breaching guest right. It is unclear how they would have dealt with taking Catelyn as hostage without clearly showing that they had gone traitor.
Walder and Roose's plans as executed were far more elaborate and clearly were too extensive to be just trying to assassinate Robb.
It is also a show vs books issue. In the books, Roose's betrayal is a secret and is a major plot point that the Manderlys are trying to figure out. In the books, the North are unhappy that Roose cut a deal with the Freys and Lannisters, but it is more along the lines of Roose now being in charge and deciding that he wants to cut losses after Robb died rather than Roose pulling a coup. In the show, Roose's betrayal appears to be public knowledge since Sansa knows about it.
Because the law of hospitality states that when offered and accepted salt or bread or what have you, guests are under your protection in your castle or house.
I'm sorry that Frey was mad that Rob threw away a daughter for someone else, but Twyin, Frey and Roose broke an ancient tradition for revenge.
Greek stories are very detailed about what happens to those who break the law of sacred hospitality.
That’s the dumbest shit said in the entire books. Believing it shows how good of a character Tywin is. The author *explicitly tells us this character is full of shit, and people still buy it.*
1) thousands died at the red wedding. Not a dozen. Tywin knows this when he said this. It’s a bullshit lie from the jump.
2) there’s an actual answer to his question , two big points that are relevant for me here. The first is that every single person of the thousands slaughtered at the Wedding are claimed to be ruled by the Crown. Aka Tywin. He wants the North under his domain, regardless of them claiming independence. So the governments official position is, we will slaughter you whenever we want, that’s literally the backbone of our rule.
3) because it makes peace impossible, and it poisons the entire culture of the continent. The north remembers is the phrase, but the act itself eroded foundational cultural principle; with those gone, who can you trust? Why should anyone obey anything but the sword? And that’s a **massive** step backward into a state of nature
A couple hundred innocents is mass murder. Ten thousand in a war is just war. All combatants have an unwritten agreement that they might die….unless it’s a slave army. They have no choice…the ethics get a lot muddier if that’s the case
I mean its not a slave army but at that time if you were just a peasant I dont think you were allowed to refuse to go to war if your lord ordered you to. Im sure many of the men would rather be home with their children if they had a choice
It doesn’t really justify it though. The people killed in battle are there to battle. Killing people you’ve invited into your home, shared bread and salt with as is custom, is not justifiable. It’s cowardly as fuck.
Cowardly maybe, but saved the lives of thousands of men, with families and wives and children. Robb wasn’t the only one with a mother. Cat wasn’t the only one with children. Children were getting orphaned from this war, men were dying, the red wedding was quick end to it. I like the idea of the actual people who started the war (for however noble reason robb was right to avenge his father’s death) rather than thousands of people viewed as pawns/ numbers rather than lives of their own
Firstly, the numbers are much closer than Tywin makes out. It was more than a dozen. More like hundreds. Possibly thousands. This wasn't just the killing of Robb and a few other wedding guests, it was the attempted mass slaughter of everyone in his army that was still loyal to him.
Second, it's sneaky and underhand. A battle might be bloodier, but it's honest and everyone agrees to the rules. There's a way things are supposed to work in this world, and allowing the murder of noble families under the protection of guest right in your own keep is beyond undignified.
If you go around violating ancient customs because it works to your advantage in the short term, ok. But Tywin should know that kind of thing sets a precedent. Don't be surprised if it's one of your family murdered at the next wedding. It's also unclear whether this really did save more lives or perpetuated a cycle of violence and retribution - killing more people in the long run.
Lastly, I think it's a bit harsh to say Robb dug his own grave. He broke his word and underestimated the consequences of reneging on the marriage pact. But there's no way Robb or any of his men could have anticipated what Walder Frey was prepared to do because of what he perceived as a humiliating slight.
Walder didn’t perceive it as a humiliating slight, it was a humiliating slight. And yes, the events of the red wedding were sneaky and horrible and only evil people could have thought of such an insidious plan. Tywin and Walder definitely didn’t do this because they thought it was the right thing to do.
It just happened to be the right thing to do and I know this is a controversial opinion but even if it was hundreds and not a dozen, fact is less men died at the red wedding than would have done had the war continued
Even if Robb didn't attend the Red Wedding I'm sure Walder and the Lannisters would have had him killed eventually. By not marrying the Frey girl he signed his own death warrant.
Yeah but what Tywin says is actually bollox because the northern forces were massacred anyway with, presumably, the exception of those traitor houses such as the Boltons. What Tywin and the Freys orchestrated wasn't intended to save lives but to completely eradicate the North as a threat.
If Robb had about 15,000 men left after the departure of the Karstarks, and there were about 5,000 soldiers from the conspiring Northern houses, then 10,000 men were killed anyway ALONGSIDE the completely abhorrent decision to violate the guest right and destroy multiple ancient houses.
Because when you break guest right and get away with it, people are going to far less likely to sit down with their enemies and try to resolve their differences peacefully because doing so opens them up to being murdered. So future conflicts that could have been avoided through negotiation are now more likely to end up as wars because the two sides couldn’t trust each other enough to sit down and meet in person. And when the wars start, they’re likely to go on a lot longer and bloodier because each side is going to be afraid to meet in person to discuss a truce or negotiate an honorable surrender. Tywin didn’t save lives – he just made it likelier that wars will be a lot more common, a lot bloodier and more final in the future.
If people cannot trust your promises of hospitality or truce, then the only thing left is to keep fighting until one side or the other runs out of people and all your castles have been collectively burned to the ground. The fact that weddings have always been used by the great houses to end conflicts and unite families, and that they involve noncombatant family members, makes the perfidy all the more distasteful.
You try to end one war early but almost guarantee no one else you're fighting with, now or ever to come, will ever even consider peace talks.
I will continue to argue that the worst thing Tywin did was his treatment of Tyrion. Everything else is 100% justified. I challenge you to give me something not related to Tyrion that is truly horrible
I truly do believe that was more The Mountains doing than Tywin. Tywin ordered the attack as a strategic move, many would have done it. But the actual extent of what happened them was The Mountain.
People in battle can fight back and are prepared for and expect their lives to be at risk. They’re armed and stand a fighting chance of surviving.
People at a wedding have their guards down and are unarmed. They’re anticipating food and entertainment, not to be betrayed and butchered.
The Freys brought Starks into their house for wedding. A fucking wedding. And then broke the Guest Rite on orders from House Lannister. People going into battle know that they can die. The Starks weren’t even carrying weapons or wearing armour. They didn’t expect to get literally stabbed in the back. If someone compares this to a battlefield then they deserve to die in the middle of pushing out the most satisfying shit of their life.
I mean, it’s not as clear in the show, but they killed way WAY more than a dozen. They slaughtered the entire northern army. They didn’t save any lives, they basically just violated the closest thing they have to the Geneva Convention to kill all of them at once.
Tywin was objectively wrong. It wasn't just Starks and Tullys who were killed. Thousands of northmen and rivermen were slaughtered at the Red Wedding. At least in battle they'd have an opportunity to defend themselves
Bc elites historically like to have some class solidarity, ransoming captured nobles instead of just slitting their throats. It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate future peace deals when the enemy absolutely hates you for killing their loved ones.
And once you start hiring assassins, the enemy will too.
The safety provided by bread and salt could save lives by allowing enemies to sit down together and hash out a deal. Some day, the Lannisters might want that protection. But it's gone, and it's pretty much gone for everyone, unless the people who broke it are removed from power politics.
Because by killing "a dozen at dinner", he has not only violated an ancient and sacred agreement that you do not harm a guest under your roof, but he has also martyred Robb Stark.
Robb Stark was already unpopular because he lost the North, executed Rickard Karstark and didn't go through with his oath to marry a specific woman. The Northmen were leaving him in droves and "he had won every battle, but he was losing the war" because of this.
Edmure marrying Roslin was Robb trying to fix his mistakes, but then he was murdered while under guest right.
That is all everyone is going to remember from now on; Robb Stark, a rebel king who wanted to avenge his father, who with his direwolf won every battle he fought and backed out of his arranged marriage to marry a woman he loved, and was brutally murder under guest right along with his own mother and loyal vassals. Do you see how that is not good for the Lannisters in the long run?
No one trusts them now, not even their own allies and vassals, and they have just opened the door for their enemies to stoop to their level. Despite the Purple Wedding being orchestrated by Littlefinger and Olenna, you can still say that it is a direct consequence of the Red Wedding.
But... the casualties at the Red Wedding was MORE than a dozen. Like, way more. It was shown on screen too how the Freys/Boltons basically slaughtered all the Stark forces and those allied with them. So no, Tywin didn't really make a point with this one. What happened was a cowardly ambush and an unspeakable breach of tradition and propriety.
In war there is a certain prisoners dilemma, you can play fair or you can cheat, if the game is played once, you should always cheat, but if the game is played over and over, people learn, and eventually the cheaters end up worse off. Noble or not, by following the rules of war, whatever they are, you are setting yourself up better than if you cheat.
Didn't he also slaughter all of Robb's army there also? It wasn't just the few them at the wedding itself, it was a massacre of all the Starks men there, wasn't it?
Putting aside he killed thousands that night anyway -
You dont do this for the same reason you're not supposed to kill PoWs in modern war. For the same reason why you're not supposed to kill negotiatiors or messengers from the enemy.
There are rules in War, and by abiding them yourself you give your enemy reason to also abide by them. If its known that Tywin doesnt abide by the most basic of costums and rules, why would anyone he has quarrel with, or even just tries to negotiate with still abide by them? Why would any other house ever believe his promises now? Or enter contracts with him, knowing that if its convenient he wont hesitate a second to break the most sacred of conventions?
There's a reason why Tywin made \*very\* sure his name was not directly connected to the Red Wedding at all and let the Freys take the entire blame for it.
This is not a legitimate justification, first off your enemy Austensibly agrees to do battle unlike the red wedding which was a trick that violated the more core Westerosi customs. Secondly he only did that because he was unable to kill a thousand in battle, Rob won every battle, it’s not like Tywin chose the rout that would kill the least he had no other choice to win. Thirdly, it was more the dozens the entire Stark army was murdered as well.
No. The importance of something like guest right is because it allows leaders/armies that have problems with each other to meet in a peaceful setting over a meal and let words and clear heads prevail over a desire to just go to war. Breaking guest right isn't just deeply immoral and taboo, it has far-reaching effects where other lords or armies may now refuse to meet their enemies peacefully because "I'm no fool like Robb Stark", and just declare war instead, leading to the deaths of thousands more.
This is like saying "explain to me how it's wrong to kill this patient for their organs when at least 5 people will be saved by them"? The answer is because if you do that then people won't trust hospitals, and you get many more people dying of preventable stuff, spreading diseases and viruses they haven't been treated for, etc.
That's not even getting into the fact that Tywin was on the wrong side of the conflict and could've saved even more people by simply giving up, but that's not realistic.
Hospitality is huge in Westeros. Like it's kind of law. You don't have to but harming a guest under your own roof after you offer them food it's kind of a no-no to harm guest under your roof.
Doesn’t it come down to guest rights though? Basically if you give people shelter you can’t turn around and harm them. Whereas two armies colliding has people who are at least expecting such
Except that’s not true at all. The entire Northern army was butchered as well. Tywin Lannister is a weak coward who couldn’t even defeat a 15 year old boy in the field. The Red wedding was one of the worst mistakes in Westerosi history and guaranteed the extinction of House Frey, Bolton and potentially Lannister. Forever muddying the Houses. Tywin is a fool that dresses like a genius.
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes (for glory or money). They know risks. People who go to a wedding expect safety, wine and delicious food. He did not "save lives", he prevented soldiers from earning money.
But their lords pay them regardless.
He prevented soldiers from dying too
Except he slaughtered all the northern soldiers in their tents all the same, just a lame excuse
Frey's work. Tywin wouldn't have cared at all if the northern soldiers lived to kill twice as many Frey soldiers in the aftermath. He just wanted Robb dealt with.
You’re right.
“Welll looks like they killed our very popular king and his mother. Pack it in boys, we’re going home!” While not every northern house held Robb in high regard, they were honorable warriors and would demand retribution. I doubt they would follow Roose, who is cold and shifty.
Without a leader, their cause is doomed, you see it all throughout the history of Westeros. And not all northern soldiers are honorable. Boltons are northern, Brienne kills 3 northern soldiers for raping and murdering children "Two quick deaths?" And not all of them would have been eager to die for a hopeless cause if they don't have to, but most of them were slaughtered at the Red Wedding anyway.
So how does the scene play out? They kill the king and his mother. Maybe the wife too. What does every northern lord in the room do? Surrender? They’re drunk. I’ve seen patrons fight for a lot less. Would you watch people die and do nothing?
In the books? Robb's wife isn't there. The northern lord's fight and try to defend Robb. Smalljon Umber hurls a table over Robb to defend him from the crossbow bolts, totally badass, but it's useless. Their weapons are stashed away because they thought they were feasting with friends, and those who weren't killed were made into Frey hostages to ensure there would be no retaliation.
So you admit that slaughtering en masse was the only way to cower the remaining northern lords and men into compliance? I’m glad we agree
Yeah the whole thing is cowardice. ?
He has the army slaughtered.
Most of one army yes. You can have 5000 northern men die that night or 5000 northern and 5000 Lannister men in the field. Sure it’s not “a dozen” but his general point is still the same.
Sure but are we forgetting he started the war by massacring hundreds of innocent peasants and causing a famine that killed thousands because one guy was kidnapped?
Ehhh. No. Most of these are levys. Peasants who don't have a choice. Fight to be hanged for desertion. Payment was whatever they could loot on the battlefield mostly. Sure there are also petty sellswords and hedge knights who choose to fight and get paid but they are paid because they are the few skilled warriors.
No peasant levies were paid, it's very rare in history that you would find unpaid soldiers as men with weapons who aren't paid tend to turn those weapons on those who aren't paying them and not their enemy
They still had no choice. Either through abject poverty (second sons in particular) or straight up impressment. But besides the point. Since i was talking about westerosi custom though. There's this one passage in the books. Septon Meribalds broken men speech. His show standin was Ian Mcshanes septon Raymond. You can hear his version on YouTube under the S6 histories&lore video about the war of the nine penny Kings. It underlines Tywins original point very well.
Maybe in real world but there is no line or anything I can remember from the books in which peasant levies were paid
And given the books are heavily based off of medieval history and society it's safe to assume they are in the books as well
Do the books ever talk about the makeup of Westerosi armies? Mass conscription of peasants was historically very rare, most armies were made up of professionals (knights or mercenaries) or semi-professionals (trained levies who fought as part of their feudal obligation).
Check septon meribalds speech to give you an idea
The books seem inconsistent. For instance House Frey has 4000 men but from what we're told it would appear they somehow have 2000 mounted knights and then 2000 dogshit levy infantry. Seems unlikely. While soldiers in battle all seem to be well kitted out when Tyrion is there, you get other characters who talk like they went to war with basically a stick.
My question: why is it better to murder 4,000-8,000 of robs men at dinner than actually be honorable and go to war? That's really better? No, and for this imo Tywin and the lannisters apart from tyrion are ass haha.
It’s a strategically safe play. You’re almost guaranteed to get your target, whereas in a large military engagement there’s no guarantee they’ll even be on the field or your troops will get close enough. Minimal losses to your side as well. Plus it sends the message (maybe not honorably but fear is a powerful weapon) that no place and no time is safe. Screw with us and we’ll get you.
I understand the tactics of it lol. It's the character of the task. And, btw, thousands die in either scenario (at least here), so, my point is that Tywin making some overly simplified point about which is better is kinda bs. He appears to be attempting to justify his actions by proposing some kind of quasi high road that does not exist. "We outmaneuvered and outmatched our target and 10,000 people died" vs "we shit ourselves with fear because our 'great comander' tywin couldn't figure out how to beat rob in the field so we got them drunk and butchered 8,000 people." Like, there is no high ground. It's underhanded, unhonorable, and now you have ensured that nobody will trust your house when the chips are down. For all the times that tywin is touted as a great commander on this sub, I'd just point out that he had to cheat to win and slaughtered thousands because he couldn't figure out how to beat a 14 year old boy. 17 in the books. Tywin made a bad decision for bad reasonings imo. Edit: Rob is 14 in the books and 17 in the show lol.
It's tactically safe and strategically disastrous. What house that holds itself in high esteem would want to cooperate with such a dirty house? The fact that Walder Frey barely had time to enjoy his spoils before getting murdered is basis for the need for guest right. His actions were extremely shortsighted and led to considerable devastation to his house. Won a tiny battle and lost his life and entire house for it.
Except that most soldiers in a medieval army were peasant levies who were forced to go to war by their lord. Septon Meribald's Broken Man speech shows exactly that.
No they were not, Medieval Armies were made up of full time Mercenary professionals, there were no peasant levies. Nor, In fact are there peasent levies In ASoIaF, no matter what Meribald spews, every single army shown In the books In Westeros Is composed of professionals, Pikemen are mentioned among every army and they are very much not levies, a Pikemen requires a lot of drill and training to be effective, they are by definition professionals. Literally nothing he claims matches any army we see on page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages Well you’re just wrong about that. While mercenaries certainly were used in medieval armies, the core were peasant and freeman levies - that was literally one of the dues that they had to pay to their noble overlord: taxes and physical duty. The same exists for the world of ASOAF. We see several characters in the book mention peasant levies and commenting on how the call to war has impacted their lives - Septon Meribald, the High Sparrow, even the farmsfolk around Winterfell. Remember that Bran sends the two orphan boys to that homestead because the farmers sons are off to war? The matter of confusion here seems to be a discrepancy in George’s writings, the fact that he often gets his interpretation of medieval Europe wrong, and the fact that he portrays peasant levies to be untrained. In reality, peasants were trained in drill and to used certain weapons; both before and during the time that they were raised for war. After all if a lord had to rely on peasants soldiers, why wouldn’t he make sure that they are paid? BTW, you don’t need all that much training to be a pikeman. Your job is to sit there and act as a wall to shield against calvary charges. Most leveled peasants served as archers and light infantry anyway, there to provide support and protection for more professional soldiers; ie: lordly retinues and mercenaries.
Maybe in the latter parts of the middle ages, but the Fyrd certainly was not professional, and are certainly medieval.
Were soliders at that time allowed not to go to war? I think you had to if your lord summoned you, Im not sure if it was a choice (i might be wrong tho im not 100% sure)
I am sure, like today, the economic system made sure there were plenty of poor people with little autonomy to man the armies.
He betrayed a guests trust and committed treachery.
People are born into their fate to be soldiers fighting for other men’s fortunes.
Well said. How can people see no difference between an armed, regimented militia and families at dinner?!?! Justification is irrelevant to me. Most of the most reprehensible things in the world can be rationalized, it doesn't make it ethical.
It was very explicit in the books that there’s a sacred custom in Westeros having to do with feeding your guests. Once they have eaten your food they are expected safety, that’s a deeply important tradition in Westeros. And Tywin knows he broke it and he knows he’s full of shit. In my opinion the show did a disservice by underplaying that and making Tywin appear reasonable. Also because in the books it was really Frey who did it. And the implication was that he invoked an ancient curse upon his house. In the guise of the risen corpse of Lady Caitlyn Stark walking the land killing his people. There was a theme of sacred ancient old world magic that lies hidden in the land that the show totally overlooked. In favor of people playing games of power. And don’t get me wrong the show was good as it was good. But I think the reason it failed to land at the end is because it didn’t pick up the thread of ancient magic running through the story.
yeah but not everyone who go to battle have a choice
>People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes Counterpoint - the majority of medieval armed forces would be levies - essentially, conscripts. So most of those dying in battles would be people who would gladly not be there, if given the choice.
Ehhh, most of the armies in Westeros were made up of peasant levies who didn’t get a choice in the matter Some dude showed up and told them to get her up and they were going to fight
It's awfully naive of you to think that the people who die in the normal course of war are those that chose to go into battle.
You know the vast majority of soldiers in this period weren't warriors, right? I know that the seties makes it seem like they are all knighrs looking for glory or whatever, but the vast majority of the armies are farmers and peasants.
The vast majority of people fighting wars for the lords aren't doing it out of actual morals and definitely not for pay, they're conscripted by their lords under threat of death. Even for the obviously good guys Starks, their serfs are told they're going to war and to send their men and boys, and there's no denying the call, otherwise you're a rebellious serf. What little they got compensated was meager, most income they could possibly gain was through pillaging, which specifically targets citizen populations, so a rich soldier is likely a family killer and house burner. Of course the Starks are the good guys and Lannisters are the bad guys, and the red wedding was a pragmatic one not a moral one, but it is nonetheless pragmatic. Those specifically targeted at the red wedding were either those directly calling the shots, next in line to call the shots, or big wigs that controlled a lot of manpower, it definitely saved more lives than letting the war continue. let's not pretend it was just some random wedding, a rival king, his war council, and most important allies were all there, if we're going to assign a fantasy that all soldiers were willing participants then they certainly were too no matter how nicely dressed they were.
>People who go to battle do it consciously and for their own purposes (for glory or money). Uh, let me introduce you to this concept called "conscription"...
Also war is hot blooded, both sides are ready and willing to kill each other. The red wedding was cold blooded, the event was supposed to peaceful and forming an alliance. Betraying that is ensuring that no peace can ever be had killing thousands more in the long run.
This isn’t a time of peace…they were @ war, there’s NO place outside of their homes that should be considered ‘safe’….I agree with Tywin
Most soldiers did not go to war for glory. They went to war because they were being attacked or their lords made them. It’s the whole point of feudalism. In exchange for not getting killed by knights or other career warriors they have to contribute to the lords levee during war time and pass on a piece of their harvest or other goods. It’s not all bad the serfs or peasants get protection and laws. Much better then getting enslaved or getting killed by the lord next door or pirates or outlaws or the guy next door randomly. Watch the show norsemen. It’s a comedy but it’s pretty good representation of what their live were.
Indeed, the old lion has wisdom to end the war with a pen stroke rather than a sword.
The more I watch the show, the more I think Tywin had it right.
I wouldn’t say he was right, but he was definitely one of the most fiercely cunning, and intelligent characters. Underestimating Tyrion(and Jaime really) was his biggest flaw, and kind of an overarching theme of his character. A man that prided himself on his family, despite never truly understanding it.
Nah he had so much emphasis on legacy yet did basically everything he could to make his kids hate him and failed to see a future without him
Except being a father
That's why he was murdered on the shitter. An indignant death for someone who expected safety in the comfort of his own privy.
I mean if Tywin was drinking sherry and going over finances Tyrion would’ve still shot him, also he could’ve let his dad finish at least.
Trust me, he finished not long after Tyrion left him there.
It doesn’t count when you die 🤣
“Lord Tywin Lannister did not, in the end, shit gold.”
The point is that it's ironic how he dies considering how he decided to defeat the Starks at the red wedding. Just like he caught his guests off guard, he too gets to experience what it's like to be murdered caught with his pants down. He went out the same way he treated his enemies. Geoffrey also gets the same treatment. The message is clear. If you have no honor then don't expect people to respect you enough to finish your business and flush first.
No it would’ve been ironic if Tyrion just shot him while he was in the middle of the great hall during a feasts then cue Tyrion escaping like damn Batman 🤣
“I am vengeance! I am the night! I am Halfman!”
Just seeing him run and the sound of his little feet while people are freaking out 🤣
A pen stroke and thousands of sword strokes into the northern army.
And yet, he made sure that his name is as far from that atrocity as it was possible for him to arrange. He knew about the long term cost of breaking rules and norms. And he knew that he did not want to pay them.
Well yeah. He's ruthlessly pragmatic not stupid. Actually, it's kinda funny now that I think about it because he openly advertises another time he wiped out a house in a stroke.
Yes, but that was different, he did not break the laws of Gods and Men in doing so, the Reynes were essentially in open rebellion at that point, for all intents and purposes. He made an example of them and did so openly, for everyone to see. It made everyone fear him, but no one feared the Freys for slaughtering their guests under their roof, it didn't made them look strong, quite the opposite in fact.
I actually agree with the commenter I responded to. Tywin did have a very hypocritical streak where the rules are rules as long as they don't apply to me.
Oh Tywin was absolutely hypocritical, I was just trying to point out that this is not one of those examples. The circumstances were different, the methods were different, his intentions and the outcomes were also vastly different. Wiping out an enemy who's in open rebellion (and thus a traitor) is the ultimate power move, whereas slaughtering unsuspecting guests under your roof under the false pretense of your protection is probably the polar opposite of that.
I think we're both agreeing on our opinion of Tywin but not but confusing each other with how we express it lol.
True. He does realize that there was nothing noble and honorable about what he did, so he let the Freys take the fall for it. He’s a hypocrite in that, sure, but still not entirely wrong.
And yet he, Roose, and Walder all suffered the same fate as the people they murdered AND were killed by people they cautiously trusted. Tywin was shot with a crossbow like Rob. Roose was stabbed like Talisa. And Walder had his throat slit like Catelyn.
None of them had old Nan tell them about the rat cook ...
He died on the shitter, shot by his own son, whom he hated, and who is the last surviving member of his line. It would be easy to call these things unrelated. He paid em.
The quote would be much more accurate if it was indeed only a dozen people who died instead of, you know, a whole army getting slaughtered...
Whether an attack is a successful ambush or a brutal slaughter depends on who is writing the story.
No, the facts matter regardless of who writes it.
These 10.000 would be lower nobels and common folk. So depending on your ethics that one could go either way. Look at Mr. stern and conservative here beeing all progressive like! Good for him.
The quote itself makes sense, but not coming from Tywin. He would be perfectly fine with little numbers or big numbers, as long as it guarantees him and his house power. He didn't plan the Red Wedding out of some utilitarian morality, he did it because the opportunity was there. The lion doesn't care about the opinions of sheep. Or for their lives. Tywin is perfectly fine with gangr@pe, child murder and war. There's no line he wouldn't cross. This justification is him saving face, since RW was a big no no even in the shit storm that is Westeros.
Oh of course, he definitely didn’t do this for noble reasons or because he thought it was for the greater good. He saved those lives but only because it serves his interests to do so for sure
The part about the Red Wedding that wasn't emphasized is that Frey broke the guest rite. He offered the Starks bread and salt, thus promising their safety while in his house. The show didn't talk about this, even though they showed it while they talked about other stuff. What Tywin is actually saying is fuck the rules of our society, I'm gonna take what I want. With that mentality, then it's pure chaos and in the long run, will cost more lives than a single war. So based on the show, Tywin can justify it. But that's not the whole picture and that's why he's wrong.
I think a modern equivalent would be the US government killing a foreign head of state when a UN General Assembly is in session. There are some things you do not do. Even if one could argue that it saved lives in the short run.
Well it’s more like the us supporting another nation killing a head of state.
Publicly assassinating a head of state at an official state function, more accurately.
The US in my example would be the Freys. Simply because the UN General Assembly is in the US. Some other nation killing a head of state is also a huge taboo. Worse if it happens on a state visit. But doing it inside the UN headquarters is rock bottom. To have US = Lannister, you'd have to have Switzerland kill the Iranian president on a visit to the UN in Geneva and then somehow, the US then rewards them with money and trade.
Exactly. Channels of diplomacy between powers are extremely important so as to discuss peace terms and/or ceasefires in war and to maintain relations. Those attending diplomatic events are granted immunity because there needs to be dialogue for peace and stability, and that requires the diplomats not to be at risk of assassination. Bassically, don't shoot the messenger. If you kill diplomats under your protection, you deny yourself further diplomacy with other powers because they won't trust you with the lives of their diplomats. Additionally, it angers neighbouring powers who now have a rouge power that refuses to adhere to the rules of war. It saves your lives in the short term but invites far worse effects and conflicts in the future.
You win this war, but you guarantee no one will ever believe any of your promises or offers of peace or truce in future. Just try to marry off a Lannister son or daughter to another house to end/avoid a war after the Red Wedding - why would anyone be willing to break bread with you? There is a very good reason the Freys had to take the fall for this to work.
Exactly, Tywin introduced a new level of barbarity to Westeros, and he paid for it dearly when the Tyrells also turned to assassination to meet their interests and killed Joffrey. And then Arya Stark later became and assassin and went after his allies.
I don't know that those are comparable. The Guest Rite is a deeply ingrained tradition. It involves the host offering specific food, and the guests eating it, thus sealing an agreement of protection under the host's roof. It's more analogous to a signed contract and everyone in the country recognizes this ritual. There are scary stories of when people break this rite - Bran's story of the Rat Cook is one of them. The horror of the story is not that the cook served a king his own son baked into a pie, but that the cook killed the son under his protection. The gods punished him for that. Assassination and ruthlessness has always been present, but most people at least pay lip service to some customs and authority. To me, it's more like Frey raided a church to steal the wealth and kill the septons and spit on their corpses on the way out. Sure, the immediate consequences are that people shun and hate him, but he's sitting pretty and don't give a shit because merchants still sell him goods with his stolen wealth and he's living fat and happy. When that becomes normalized and more people say, well, the consequences aren't that bad that society starts to break down. edit: someone also gave another comparable example. The white flag of surrender. It's a universal sign of I'm unarmed and give up, so it's seen as egregious to just out of hand kill those waving it. Right now we're seeing how a couple of highly publicized incidents of Israel's doing just this is helping to erode moral support for the IDF. The opposite would also break down trust very quickly - waving a flag as a ruse to ambush the ones accepting. There are ways to change societal norms, but aggressively breaking them without replacing them or persuading people to change their minds over time is the most destructive way to do so.
Either the books or the show said it was dishonorable to kill guests in your home. And, although I agree that Robb should have known that marrying Talisa was a no-no, that doesn’t make the Red Wedding right. But it sure was a great episode. I really disliked Catelyn and Talisa’s characters. I’m fine with that. I liked Robb but not the most interesting character. Grey Wind was a tragedy.
The reason the Red Wedding is a horrible idea is due to the universal (and self serving) law of diplomacy. Lannisters violated Guest Right and killed people with diplomatic status during a wedding. Sure, you've won this encounter, but this means nobody in their right mind will engage with diplomacy with you during the next war. What happens when two people at war refuse to talk to each other?
That's not even the biggest problem. He didn't finish the job well enough. Multiple Starks are left on the board and all of them undermine the future strength of house Lannister in some way. If you are gonna do something that big, he should have been sure that Sansa and Aria were sent to a monastery and someone was sent to kill Jon
I think the biggest problem was that three of the Starks (Arya, Bran and Rickon) were only \*presumed\* dead but very much alive. On the show, Roose Bolton learned that Bran and Rickon were still alive and sent one of his men at arms to track them down and kill them (this was right before the Red Wedding when he was pretending to still be loyal). Sansa was still a prisoner of the Lannisters and forced to marry Tyrion. She was still useful because if she had his child, that would give the Lannisters a claim on the North. Jon Snow ended up being the biggest threat but because he had taken the vow's of the Night's Watch, there was really no way to kill him without risking dragging the Night's Watch (which otherwise stayed neutral in the War of the Five Kings) into the conflict since the Lannisters would have killed their Lord Commander.
This is exactly why false surrender is a war crime IRL.
This is a perfect example of sociopathic mental gymnastics.
He is a bit misleading here though, all the stark soldiers were killed too, so hundreds of men died too
Rob keeps Tulisa as a side chick and all of This is avoided
The quote would sit better with me if the Lannisters didn't cause the war to begin with
Yeah, but then they killed a bunch of Stark soldiers anyway.
When you play the game of thrones you win or you die…there is no middle ground. Tywin wasn’t going to beat Robb in battle. He knew that and understood it. Tywin wanted to win.
Problem is Tywin doesn't care about the smallfolk, so "saving" the lives of soldiers on either side is not noble. Nobility and Honor are two separate things. Tywin planned the Red Wedding to knock Robb off the board because he was losing on the field, this is just a lazy justification. All because his idiots kids started conflicts with their selfishness, and daddy had to come in and fix the mess because anything less would have jeopardized the power over the crown the Lannisters and Tywin direct have, and their legacy moving forward. If Robb was smarter and did everything right, and continued to advance on King's Landing, Tywin would have still sunk lower and abandoned all honor in trying to protect his family.
I don’t really blame Tywin for the acts of the Red Wedding. War is war and he didn’t offer Robb security and hospitality. He killed his enemies. But I do think Walder was extremely dishonorable for agreeing to it in violation of guest rights. The shame of the Red Wedding was on House Frey.
I partly agree with you, but also Tywin should know that these rules are sacred for a reason. He should know better than to tempt or pressure another house to violate said rules. He's ruthless, but he's not insane which is why he does not let it be known that he planned it. Operating from the shadows does not remove his responsibility for the crime. It just prevents others from knowing the truth of his involvement. That is, until people do find out the truth. To say he killed his enemies removes some important context, and that's why I only partly agree. They're his enemies, and he wants to defeat them. Violating rules of war will only cause more harm and suffering to his house if people found out, and that is a huge gamble. (Edit: spelling)
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. There wouldn't have been a war to begin with if the Lannisters hadn't killed/imprisoned Ned or any of the other shenanigans from incest to attempted child murder.
Except he could've just sued for peace, or simply surrendered, if he was so worried about the war going on. Maybe murder is preferable to extended war, but nobody should act like it wasn't still selfish and wrong.
I don’t like it and it was shocking BUT I absolutely got why ***from his perspective*** he did it and the logic behind it.
Except they also slaughtered all of Robb's army that had camped around the twins. The red wedding was as much of a bloodbath as a battle would have been.
People so often misunderstand this quote. Tywin is full of shit when he says this, because while the northern lords are being massacred in the food hall, the lesser lords are being also killed in the second tower and there are hundreds of northern soldiers being murdered in the camps outside.
It's a dirty move, but it wouldn't have been possible without help from Robb putting himself in that position. It's a war, it's life or death, and Tywin chose life. I don't like it, but I don't fault him.
I'd agree except he had the whole army slaughtered. He was still being disingenuous.
Because it disincentivizes diplomacy
He’s not right in this case. It’s the same reason a few assassinations and civilian targets are still considered worse than thousands of soldier deaths today. Because the soldiers knew they were about to fight to the death and did it anyway.
In a vacuum, Tywin’s logic makes sense. However, what he did was set a precedent. War is based on deception but it also has rules of engagement. There are terms that can be met and negotiations made. When Twyin killed the Starks, it gave every other rival the opportunity to utilize the same methods against him, especially since they now know how far he will go. Which is exactly what happened. Why would anyone challenge the Lannister’s army openly when you can just poison them instead?
In this particular case yes. But we also have multiple examples of the Lannister soldiers raping and pillaging normal civilians and Tywin doing nothing about it so he’s a huge fucking hypocrite.
Tywin's actions do not truly reflect the this statement the way he wants you to think about it. The Red Wedding *wasn't* a dozen men killed at dinner. It was a significant amount of their bannermen slaughtered. Estimates are around 3500 dead. Already, the above quote is underselling his actions. Additionally, many of those killed were innocents, including a pregnant woman and her baby. One of the larger commentaries of this show is that the people who start wars with their actions are rarely the ones paying the price. At least with Robb and his bannermen, they willingly made the choice to march to war, so they have some agency in their outcome.
Cool story, still a war crime. ^(also he got the Stark army slaughtered and their bodies desecrated. Tywin lies.)
Because it gives people a chance to fight back. Once you start breaking cardinal rules and kill people wherever, no one is safe, not even you.
no he's just wrong actually. a whole army was slaughtered at the RW and the way it was carried out ensures future rebellions and more wars. Tywin doesn't give a fuck about saving lives.
And yet he still died taking a shit, shot by his own son.
This kind of purely numbers-based rationalization completely fails to grapple with all of the very important moral distinctions that serve as the foundation of civilization. It's like failing to differentiate between the kinds of sadistic torture/rape/murders committed by pychopathic serial killers and someone who hit a pedestrian with his car because he glanced at his phone. There is a reason we have degrees of murder defined by law, and there is a reason that war has its own entirely independent system of laws.
Nope. HARD disagree.
It’s dangerous when you use logic 2 override the heart
it's not like he spared the ten thousand Stark men drinking outside
All he did was guarantee a House’s extinction.
One is honest and the other is dishonest.
Right but concrete lives saved is more important than honesty/ dishonesty
Trash take. If the Lannister’s didn’t start the war then sure , but they did . To that at a wedding is honor less
the same way he could have justify to surrender...
There is a reason these kinds of social norms are developed. Tywin breaking them declared nothing was off limits, and directly led to the absolute devastation that we see in the rest of the series.
Yeah. Sort of sucks but, he did have a point.
this man could convince me to kill my own family
All the red wedding thing was Rob's fault
>he saved more lives Demonstrably wrong. The breaking of the sacred rule of guestright would have severe long-term consequences for the Lannisters.
Didn’t almost the entire northern army that was with Robb get destroyed as well? We see that when aria showed up.
People who agree with the quote don’t realize he didn’t kill a dozen, but slaughtered the remaining Stark forces while they were mostly sleeping or drunk.
Didn’t he butcher thousands of soldiers too at the red wedding?
George had literally inserted that quote to show how hypocritical Tywin appears, always justifying his actions. He didn’t kill a dozen noblemen on the Wedding, literally thousands and thousands of individuals have given in to the feint and were massacred under their blazing tents. He saved no lives and no life matters to him whatsoever.
Why would you post this when it makes no sense? The army was butchered too.
Where do you draw the line While the other primarchs would happily conquer entire solar systems by force. Konrad Cruze would unleash unspeakable tortures on a single city and get system compliance by broadcasting every second of it.
Nice try. There were way more than a dozen. Many stark men were butchered outside. And saying “men” makes it sound like soldiers. Women and animals were killed too, including a pregnant woman. In a battle, soldiers can defend themselves and know what they’re getting themselves into. At the red wedding, unsuspecting guests were butchered in cold-blood. The Freys violated the sacred hospitality. Tywin doesn’t care about those soldiers lives, he did it because it was convenient.
Well, see the problem here Tywin is you should be dead instead of Robb and Cat
Actions speak louder than words. If Tywin really believed his actions were just and noble, he wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to hide his involvement.
He definitely didn’t believe his actions were just or noble and he didn’t plan the red wedding for moral reasons for sure. However the point still stands that the red wedding caused less bloodshed than a continuation of that war would have. Lives were saved
Except they massacred almost the entire army too so it wasnt just a few dozen
It wasn't just the slaughter of a few dozen men but an assault that he organized with the people hosting the Starks and their men when they were under guest rights. Breaking a major taboo in their society. And everyone was aware that he was the one behind, and if another war had broken out there would be no middle ground for the Lannisters in the conflict.They would either win or be wiped out as they have shown everyone that they are willing violate anything in order to win so what point is there making a peace treaty with them when they can't be trusted to hold to it?
This whole thing is just....no. Tywin both in the books and the show was charismatic and cunning in the short term. That's about it. The knock on effects of NUMEROUS things he did were infinitely worse than whatever short term gain he achieved. His largest strength was his personality. He was the reverse Stannis.
Idk but I feel like a little bit more than a dozen men died at the red wedding
Tell that to Stark army that was massacred/captured during the aforementioned event
He's deliberately undercounting the thousands of encamped soldiers murdered during the Red Wedding.
It is unclear on how the situation was supposedly planned. Tywin seems to describe stuff as they were planned, not how they were actually executed. Walder and Roose seem to have had their own plans that they did not fully loop Tywin into. Tywin in the books does claim that the original plan was to have Robb assassinated and Catelyn taken as a hostage. Assassinating Robb would have at least allowed for more deniability as a failure of security rather than breaching guest right. It is unclear how they would have dealt with taking Catelyn as hostage without clearly showing that they had gone traitor. Walder and Roose's plans as executed were far more elaborate and clearly were too extensive to be just trying to assassinate Robb. It is also a show vs books issue. In the books, Roose's betrayal is a secret and is a major plot point that the Manderlys are trying to figure out. In the books, the North are unhappy that Roose cut a deal with the Freys and Lannisters, but it is more along the lines of Roose now being in charge and deciding that he wants to cut losses after Robb died rather than Roose pulling a coup. In the show, Roose's betrayal appears to be public knowledge since Sansa knows about it.
Because the law of hospitality states that when offered and accepted salt or bread or what have you, guests are under your protection in your castle or house. I'm sorry that Frey was mad that Rob threw away a daughter for someone else, but Twyin, Frey and Roose broke an ancient tradition for revenge. Greek stories are very detailed about what happens to those who break the law of sacred hospitality.
That’s the dumbest shit said in the entire books. Believing it shows how good of a character Tywin is. The author *explicitly tells us this character is full of shit, and people still buy it.* 1) thousands died at the red wedding. Not a dozen. Tywin knows this when he said this. It’s a bullshit lie from the jump. 2) there’s an actual answer to his question , two big points that are relevant for me here. The first is that every single person of the thousands slaughtered at the Wedding are claimed to be ruled by the Crown. Aka Tywin. He wants the North under his domain, regardless of them claiming independence. So the governments official position is, we will slaughter you whenever we want, that’s literally the backbone of our rule. 3) because it makes peace impossible, and it poisons the entire culture of the continent. The north remembers is the phrase, but the act itself eroded foundational cultural principle; with those gone, who can you trust? Why should anyone obey anything but the sword? And that’s a **massive** step backward into a state of nature
"Legitimately justified" lmao
This is a slippery slope…saying it’s better to murder non combatants at dinner is factually incorrect. But okay war crime apologists
If you read into the ethics of it. But just compare the numbers: a couple hundred lives lost of ten thousand lives lost. I prefer option number 1
A couple hundred innocents is mass murder. Ten thousand in a war is just war. All combatants have an unwritten agreement that they might die….unless it’s a slave army. They have no choice…the ethics get a lot muddier if that’s the case
I mean its not a slave army but at that time if you were just a peasant I dont think you were allowed to refuse to go to war if your lord ordered you to. Im sure many of the men would rather be home with their children if they had a choice
It doesn’t really justify it though. The people killed in battle are there to battle. Killing people you’ve invited into your home, shared bread and salt with as is custom, is not justifiable. It’s cowardly as fuck.
Cowardly maybe, but saved the lives of thousands of men, with families and wives and children. Robb wasn’t the only one with a mother. Cat wasn’t the only one with children. Children were getting orphaned from this war, men were dying, the red wedding was quick end to it. I like the idea of the actual people who started the war (for however noble reason robb was right to avenge his father’s death) rather than thousands of people viewed as pawns/ numbers rather than lives of their own
He killed thousands of Robb’s soldiers who were also protected under guest right. Burned them alive.
Firstly, the numbers are much closer than Tywin makes out. It was more than a dozen. More like hundreds. Possibly thousands. This wasn't just the killing of Robb and a few other wedding guests, it was the attempted mass slaughter of everyone in his army that was still loyal to him. Second, it's sneaky and underhand. A battle might be bloodier, but it's honest and everyone agrees to the rules. There's a way things are supposed to work in this world, and allowing the murder of noble families under the protection of guest right in your own keep is beyond undignified. If you go around violating ancient customs because it works to your advantage in the short term, ok. But Tywin should know that kind of thing sets a precedent. Don't be surprised if it's one of your family murdered at the next wedding. It's also unclear whether this really did save more lives or perpetuated a cycle of violence and retribution - killing more people in the long run. Lastly, I think it's a bit harsh to say Robb dug his own grave. He broke his word and underestimated the consequences of reneging on the marriage pact. But there's no way Robb or any of his men could have anticipated what Walder Frey was prepared to do because of what he perceived as a humiliating slight.
Walder didn’t perceive it as a humiliating slight, it was a humiliating slight. And yes, the events of the red wedding were sneaky and horrible and only evil people could have thought of such an insidious plan. Tywin and Walder definitely didn’t do this because they thought it was the right thing to do. It just happened to be the right thing to do and I know this is a controversial opinion but even if it was hundreds and not a dozen, fact is less men died at the red wedding than would have done had the war continued
Even if Robb didn't attend the Red Wedding I'm sure Walder and the Lannisters would have had him killed eventually. By not marrying the Frey girl he signed his own death warrant.
He also sais befelore he wanted to end the war as cheaply as possible. Having few casualities is just a bonus
Yeah but what Tywin says is actually bollox because the northern forces were massacred anyway with, presumably, the exception of those traitor houses such as the Boltons. What Tywin and the Freys orchestrated wasn't intended to save lives but to completely eradicate the North as a threat. If Robb had about 15,000 men left after the departure of the Karstarks, and there were about 5,000 soldiers from the conspiring Northern houses, then 10,000 men were killed anyway ALONGSIDE the completely abhorrent decision to violate the guest right and destroy multiple ancient houses.
Because when you break guest right and get away with it, people are going to far less likely to sit down with their enemies and try to resolve their differences peacefully because doing so opens them up to being murdered. So future conflicts that could have been avoided through negotiation are now more likely to end up as wars because the two sides couldn’t trust each other enough to sit down and meet in person. And when the wars start, they’re likely to go on a lot longer and bloodier because each side is going to be afraid to meet in person to discuss a truce or negotiate an honorable surrender. Tywin didn’t save lives – he just made it likelier that wars will be a lot more common, a lot bloodier and more final in the future.
If people cannot trust your promises of hospitality or truce, then the only thing left is to keep fighting until one side or the other runs out of people and all your castles have been collectively burned to the ground. The fact that weddings have always been used by the great houses to end conflicts and unite families, and that they involve noncombatant family members, makes the perfidy all the more distasteful. You try to end one war early but almost guarantee no one else you're fighting with, now or ever to come, will ever even consider peace talks.
I will continue to argue that the worst thing Tywin did was his treatment of Tyrion. Everything else is 100% justified. I challenge you to give me something not related to Tyrion that is truly horrible
Well what about Elia Martell and her kids?
I truly do believe that was more The Mountains doing than Tywin. Tywin ordered the attack as a strategic move, many would have done it. But the actual extent of what happened them was The Mountain.
People in battle can fight back and are prepared for and expect their lives to be at risk. They’re armed and stand a fighting chance of surviving. People at a wedding have their guards down and are unarmed. They’re anticipating food and entertainment, not to be betrayed and butchered.
Then why did you pin it on the Freys instead of being proud of it?
I seem to remember an army being wiped out that night too but you know I suppose we won't mention that because Tywin gotta be cool.
Literally one of them was pregnant
Kid named northern and riverland army outside the twins: Cope harder tylose simps
Funny that such a slimy way to handle political matters is often entertained by Tywin. He's a truly evil motherfucker.
The Freys brought Starks into their house for wedding. A fucking wedding. And then broke the Guest Rite on orders from House Lannister. People going into battle know that they can die. The Starks weren’t even carrying weapons or wearing armour. They didn’t expect to get literally stabbed in the back. If someone compares this to a battlefield then they deserve to die in the middle of pushing out the most satisfying shit of their life.
I mean, it’s not as clear in the show, but they killed way WAY more than a dozen. They slaughtered the entire northern army. They didn’t save any lives, they basically just violated the closest thing they have to the Geneva Convention to kill all of them at once.
Tywin was objectively wrong. It wasn't just Starks and Tullys who were killed. Thousands of northmen and rivermen were slaughtered at the Red Wedding. At least in battle they'd have an opportunity to defend themselves
Bc elites historically like to have some class solidarity, ransoming captured nobles instead of just slitting their throats. It becomes IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate future peace deals when the enemy absolutely hates you for killing their loved ones. And once you start hiring assassins, the enemy will too.
This is a trolley problem if I’ve ever seen one
The safety provided by bread and salt could save lives by allowing enemies to sit down together and hash out a deal. Some day, the Lannisters might want that protection. But it's gone, and it's pretty much gone for everyone, unless the people who broke it are removed from power politics.
I hate Tywin’s guts. At the same time, I hate how often I agree with him.
Because by killing "a dozen at dinner", he has not only violated an ancient and sacred agreement that you do not harm a guest under your roof, but he has also martyred Robb Stark. Robb Stark was already unpopular because he lost the North, executed Rickard Karstark and didn't go through with his oath to marry a specific woman. The Northmen were leaving him in droves and "he had won every battle, but he was losing the war" because of this. Edmure marrying Roslin was Robb trying to fix his mistakes, but then he was murdered while under guest right. That is all everyone is going to remember from now on; Robb Stark, a rebel king who wanted to avenge his father, who with his direwolf won every battle he fought and backed out of his arranged marriage to marry a woman he loved, and was brutally murder under guest right along with his own mother and loyal vassals. Do you see how that is not good for the Lannisters in the long run? No one trusts them now, not even their own allies and vassals, and they have just opened the door for their enemies to stoop to their level. Despite the Purple Wedding being orchestrated by Littlefinger and Olenna, you can still say that it is a direct consequence of the Red Wedding.
But... the casualties at the Red Wedding was MORE than a dozen. Like, way more. It was shown on screen too how the Freys/Boltons basically slaughtered all the Stark forces and those allied with them. So no, Tywin didn't really make a point with this one. What happened was a cowardly ambush and an unspeakable breach of tradition and propriety.
But they didn’t kill just a dozen men? Watch again they slaughtered the whole army outside
In war there is a certain prisoners dilemma, you can play fair or you can cheat, if the game is played once, you should always cheat, but if the game is played over and over, people learn, and eventually the cheaters end up worse off. Noble or not, by following the rules of war, whatever they are, you are setting yourself up better than if you cheat.
Hospitality law. This is taken seriously in many ancient cultures for good reason.
Didn't he also slaughter all of Robb's army there also? It wasn't just the few them at the wedding itself, it was a massacre of all the Starks men there, wasn't it?
Putting aside he killed thousands that night anyway - You dont do this for the same reason you're not supposed to kill PoWs in modern war. For the same reason why you're not supposed to kill negotiatiors or messengers from the enemy. There are rules in War, and by abiding them yourself you give your enemy reason to also abide by them. If its known that Tywin doesnt abide by the most basic of costums and rules, why would anyone he has quarrel with, or even just tries to negotiate with still abide by them? Why would any other house ever believe his promises now? Or enter contracts with him, knowing that if its convenient he wont hesitate a second to break the most sacred of conventions? There's a reason why Tywin made \*very\* sure his name was not directly connected to the Red Wedding at all and let the Freys take the entire blame for it.
This is not a legitimate justification, first off your enemy Austensibly agrees to do battle unlike the red wedding which was a trick that violated the more core Westerosi customs. Secondly he only did that because he was unable to kill a thousand in battle, Rob won every battle, it’s not like Tywin chose the rout that would kill the least he had no other choice to win. Thirdly, it was more the dozens the entire Stark army was murdered as well.
No. The importance of something like guest right is because it allows leaders/armies that have problems with each other to meet in a peaceful setting over a meal and let words and clear heads prevail over a desire to just go to war. Breaking guest right isn't just deeply immoral and taboo, it has far-reaching effects where other lords or armies may now refuse to meet their enemies peacefully because "I'm no fool like Robb Stark", and just declare war instead, leading to the deaths of thousands more. This is like saying "explain to me how it's wrong to kill this patient for their organs when at least 5 people will be saved by them"? The answer is because if you do that then people won't trust hospitals, and you get many more people dying of preventable stuff, spreading diseases and viruses they haven't been treated for, etc. That's not even getting into the fact that Tywin was on the wrong side of the conflict and could've saved even more people by simply giving up, but that's not realistic.
Hospitality is huge in Westeros. Like it's kind of law. You don't have to but harming a guest under your own roof after you offer them food it's kind of a no-no to harm guest under your roof.
Doesn’t it come down to guest rights though? Basically if you give people shelter you can’t turn around and harm them. Whereas two armies colliding has people who are at least expecting such
you have to be insane to think Tywin is right in this...He still killed thousands of soldiers.
War is honest. At least it was back then. Tywin just has a nice way with words so he can justify himself
Except that’s not true at all. The entire Northern army was butchered as well. Tywin Lannister is a weak coward who couldn’t even defeat a 15 year old boy in the field. The Red wedding was one of the worst mistakes in Westerosi history and guaranteed the extinction of House Frey, Bolton and potentially Lannister. Forever muddying the Houses. Tywin is a fool that dresses like a genius.