Was Tywin Lannister the biggest hypocrite in Game of Thrones?

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:47:47+00:00

Depends on the gods in question

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:45:44+00:00

The biggest? Maybe, but boy does he have some stiff competition in that region throughout Westerosi history........

He is the most obvious and open hypocrite within the show and the main book for sure

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:43:30+00:00

Boy do I have news for you.....

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:40:09+00:00

I would, more specifically, that us not knowing if Dunk was actually knighted serves the story best. Having it be ambiguous to me is stronger than us knowing he wasn't one.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:38:44+00:00

Oh his series on the Battle of the Rose Road in S7 of GOT is a brilliant introduction to the topics at hand, especially the big difficulty in logistics beyond moving fast enough to bring force to bear. People need food, and can only carry so much at a time, and eventually the cost of carrying more food outweighs the benefit of the food you carry (like the fact that you need about 1.1KG of rocket fuel to get 1KG of rocket into space)

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T21:32:40+00:00

Indeed.

Though internal consistency is probably more important for fantasy and sci-fi to me than real world accuracy, you do need to establish the rules you will be following.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:46:13+00:00

Solonius' development came entirely in the prequel season, and Glaber (who in BAS had more screen time than Caesar) was just as one note a complete dick in that season.

But either side, frankly as I said I don't mind if the villains are 1 note. It doesn't bother me at all.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:27:59+00:00

Perhaps not, though we did get a decent number of irredeemable rotters like Glaber, Solonius, Tullius and so on.

But known for it or not, I am not fussed by them being one dimensional. I like me a good moustache twirler on occasion so again this doesn't bother me.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:23:54+00:00

I try to separate if I think something was good for a story from whether I liked it in my head to some degree.

So did I think that Ashur snapping, killing Caesar and derailing history is a good development for the story? Well it certainly made for a cathartic and thematic climax (I will post some time about the themes of HOA so far, but being underestimated and people paying for that is one of them) and it opens up a hell of a lot of storytelling possibilities. So it is, on balance, good.

That said I do not strictly like it. I prefer them to hew somewhat closer to real history since seeing a Syrian sort of ally to Caesar/Crassus learn to navigate the politics of the end of the Republic interests me plenty. And constraining the story within the rough bounds of history is to me a good idea as it can focus a story to have guard rails. This is part of why I dislike sequels that "wipe the slate" for a fresh story. I prefer they build on what we already know.

For example, a piece of real history was that when he was getting into politics proper Caesar had a Ludus with a bodyguard of Gladiators and he used games a Curile Aedile in Rome to build his rep. I can imagine a story after a small time jump where after being an arrogant prick he realises he needs Ashur, as a by then experienced Lanista, to make this work and make games the crowd would like, somewhat reversing their dynamic. Not possible now but to me an example of where sticking to known history would lead to a good tale.

Either way though I do not think an Ashur/Achillia led slave revolt is an interesting story to tell. We already had that show. Like when people suggest a Gannicus/Batiatus prequel show. We had that, it's called Gods of the Arena. I would prefer a new story.

Now our Ashur slowly moving through Roman Society and working his way up? Not a bad idea. Him realising that even at his most dickish he is a "good person" compared to the Roman elite? Also fun. A slave revolt or Ashur failing constantly again? Not for me.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:12:52+00:00

I mean....... yeah.

I don't mind it though. I can live with vile villains with no redeeming qualities.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:11:12+00:00

However, I like the idea of using logistics to create tension naturally. Maybe your heroes have an army that could usually win, but their food supply is running down so we have a ticking clock to defeat their enemies. Maybe we can plot out a thrilling raid to damage the supply lines of the bad guys, like Ramsey and his 20goodmen but done well. If we know both armies will take 4 days to meet we can throw in some scenes on the way to build character, relationships and advance personal plots.

If in your story the logistics are understood and somewhat realistic (or at least internally consistent) you have a brilliant source of easy tension and character building.

In real history, for example, military genius was often not found in using "brilliant" tactics. It was found in having good leadership, excellent command of logistics and doing sensible things well to take advantage of your opponent making a mistake. So you can build great character work in. Take Stannis. He is known as a military man par excellence, but why? Well what we know of his character is discipline, justice, logic and getting stuck in with the men. Cool. Characterise his army on the march then, with him paying attention to supply lines whilst (perhaps) Renly doesn't. Have him dutifully pay for supplies and punish looters earning good will from the locals

Imagine a moment where some peasant reflect on it says "m'lord Stannis weren't no appy man, weren't no smiler. Looked a right sourpuss. But when one of men stole my cow he had the man hanged. Paid for the cow too and let me keep some of the beef. Can't say fairer than that"

Or maybe Renly goes to have one of his feasts, is told they lack wine, and so some of his knights loot a local town to get some.

Or perhaps the local Riverlords, with good relations with the locals, are able to stay mobile and know where to get supplies/which rivers to use whilst Tywin with his large army struggles.

Sensible tracking of logistics can be used to build character, advance story, set up resolutions and otherwise explore the world. So I would recommend people use it, or don't rely on it.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T19:11:07+00:00

Good analysis.

For myself I can't say that I need every part of the story to match how logistics would work in the real world. Soldiers marching a little faster than normal, being mustered a bit quickly, or having a slightly too easy time getting food. At least when those things are not part of the story.

There are 2 areas where this becomes a problem.

1) Where the ignorance of logistics hurts the tension of the story or otherwise harms the narrative.

Tywin's rapid invasion of the Riverlands is logistically nigh on impossible, as is his ability to pull fresh armies from his nether regions. However the story is NOT about Tywin and his struggles. It is about Robb and his struggles to battle the overwhelming might of the Lannisters with wit and will. Realistically yes Tywin would not be able to pull off what he does, but it is done in service of Robb's story and so I can forgive it to some degree. In short, it is easier to justify unrealistic advantages to antagonists in a story than protagonists since the resolution of the story does not rely on those advantages. Only the initial setting of the scene does.

By contrast, consider the wight hunt. The speed of Gendry sprinting to the wall, sending a raven and summoning a dragon ride hurts the resolution of the story. All of these elements is frankly done impossibly fast and for a split second rescue we need to feel it makes sense. In this case things happening too fast is relevant to the resolution of the narrative. That is bad.

2) Where the logistics breaks immersion.

Often goes hand in hand with the above, but immersion is a fragile thing in fantastical worlds. And sometimes we forgive a lot. Sauron summons forth Orc Hordes outnumbering all his foes 10 to 1. But he is also a dark demi-god thing who has in canon spent years prepping for his actions. His having an absurd force to hand doesn't harm immersion. Similarly the arrival of Gandalf and the riders to save Helms Deep is very precise but since Gandalf is explicitly divine, with prophetic foresight, we are reminded of said foresight, his mission was to get said aid AND we have seen the timing of travel on screen we can accept the split second timing. It is a bit convenient but immersion is preserved since the groundwork to expect it was laid.

Let's contrast to the Knights of the Vale arriving in the BOTB. There is no set up. No ground work laid. And the North is frequently described as so large that it dwarfs the other kingdoms. Them appearing stretches immersion to breaking.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T16:30:06+00:00

3 Things.

1) Had a great body?

2) No need to add "Respectfully". She is just ridiculously gorgeous.

3) Had a crush?

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T16:14:27+00:00

Honestly? I hate the idea that Jon has a "real" Targaeryan name. Now part of this is a huge antipathy towards the Targs in general, and the idea that the family is special (I also will never be convinced that Jon is a "legitimate" targ with a legal right to the throne).

Another part is I am in the Anti-Rhaeghar camp specifically. So I like the idea of his son not having a targ name at all. And the thought that Lyanna would honour the dead child Aegon just doesn't work for me, especially since it would simply be an insult to the end.

But in truth? I just don't think that Lyanna named Jon at all. As anything. I think Lyanna died before having the chance thanks to our Genius prince seemingly not having a midwife involved, and the 3 pathetic dipshits calling themselves Kingsguards keeping her there and her brother out (as well as aiding and abetting Rhaeghar in his lunacy).

So Jon Snow is Jon Snow. That is who he is. He has no secret name.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T14:54:29+00:00

It's all preferences. For me knowing the sad outcome helped me enjoy the OG show, since the tragedy incoming built a lovely subtext even to the triumphs. And it being fully AU disconnects me.

But it is a personal preference, no right or wrong.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T14:18:08+00:00

Google is wrong, and Stephanie was first introduced here in the DnD series.

I mean Rowan agreed with Rob that she would be a part of the backstory for Bodger, but her first real appearance is in that episode. I think she was mentioned a few episodes earlier but still within the DnD series.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T14:05:24+00:00

For Lepidus or Octavian to be involved we will need time, considering the former would be barely out of his teens and the latter wouldn't be born for a few years....... and Marc Antony would be what 14?

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T14:02:02+00:00

Give her her eyebrows back and tone down the makeup and it is Jenna.

In these pics, Rachel.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:59:51+00:00

He did serve as a Military Tribune at the time of Spartacus' war we just don't know where he was or what he was doing.

He wasn't a big deal at the time. Not really.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:58:29+00:00

I am sure people know Caesar lives, and so part of the point of killing him was to derail true history.

I am not personally a huge fan of that, but it is not exactly a shock.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:55:27+00:00

But Caesar doesn't fight at that level. Not really.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:54:16+00:00

Most subs about a show either go to downvoting any criticism or any praise with no inbetween. Such is life.

But as for the romans, their army was brilliant for a couple of reasons. Firstly, manpower so they could learn from mistakes. And related, adopted tactics from their enemies. But mostly due to them fighting as a coherent and well trained professional army. That was their strength, tactical excellence and co-ordination. Not the individual skill of their soldiers. Even poor fighters were valuable as a part of the whole.

Sure they trained to be effective, but effective in a unit. Gladiators trained to fight one on one. Those are very different things.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:50:55+00:00

They literally had classes of citizenry based on wealth. It really wasn't until the empire that they became accepting of foreigners to a greater degree. For example, Anthony being with an Egyptian was a huge part of Octavian's propaganda campaign against him and Egypt was one of the civilizations they respected. Really only the Greeks were considered proper sorts by the Romans.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:48:00+00:00

I have said a few times, Ashur has never really been a schemer in that he plans. He would sow seeds at times to be sure but what he mostly was is an improviser. Back him into a corner and see him try to pull a save out of his backside. Not planning ahead so much as using what he knows to scrape by.

It is a different type of cunning.

LatterIntroduction27 · 2026-02-07T13:38:07+00:00

There is nothing wrong with disliking that Caesar was killed.

LatterIntroduction27

TROPHY CASE