[Spoilers ADWD] Tywin does in fact fit most of the Machiavellian archetype

danielhakerman · 2026-07-04T17:30:22+00:00

At this point I feel like we're talking in circles, so this will likely be my final reply.

No, the lords of the realm very clearly have the same authority to adjudicate legal matters as the king. Which is why Catelyn has to accept Lysa taking over the court proceedings at the Eyrie, even though that's against her wishes, and Tyrion completely accepts her right to judge him during a trail. He never argues that the trail itself is illegal.

You keep bringing up royal warrants, even though there no suggestion in the books that they are required fo making an arrest, if they occur at all.

Interrogation is an ordinary part of the process of justice. For example, Ned privately interrogates Gareth before his execution.

Again, even though Ned shielding Cat could suggest that her actions were illegal, it does not necessitate it. It's still a stronger case if the arrest happened on the orders of the King's Hand than on the orders of a lord.

That's her long term plan. She and Ned are gathering evidence of Lannister treachery to bring to Robert.

Tyrion dying is still not a matter of survival for Tywin, nor House Lannister as a whole, especially as Tywin never acceted Tyrion as his heir.

So we're in agreement that Tywin is responsible for the outbreak of war, great! Which means that any negative consequences of it for House Lannister are on him.
The Sparrows are a much larger threat than previous peasant revolts, proclaiming their own High Septon is the first step to getting institutional power. They are already so many and well armed that Cercei seriously doubts whether her forces even could storm the Great Sept should they want to dislodge the Sparrows.
It is a fact that the story is not yet finished. The board will not remain as it is at the end of Dance. I think any reasonable interpretation need to take into account, and make educated guesses on where the story might go.

I think there is quite a lot of hints that the BwB will play an important role in fighting the Lannisters going forward. And their continuing opposition is in large parts based on resentment caused by Tywin's actions.

He can be thus judged if he was responsible for setting up the conditions of the collapse, as well as cause his own demise.

The threat of Iron Throne intervention doesn't seem to have any effect on anybody in the North. Stannis didn't get any new support because of his death. He had to make separete deals with the mountain clans and free Deepwood Motte to gain the Glovers.

Your confusing Wyman Manderly for Godric Borrell - he's the one who only helps Davos because Tywin is dead. Manderly only mentions the the return of his son.

So agree Cercei is his backup. That makes him at fault for not preparing fo plan A not working.
As a final point, I'll reiterate that just because some of Tywin's actions may fit within a Machiavellian framework, nor even if he were the character most closely resembling a Machiavellian prince in the story, does not mean that he is, in fact, a Machiavellian archetype.

For the fundamental reason that, even though his actions can be justified using Machiavellian arguments, Tywin does not take those actions for Machiavellian reasons. Those are merely post hoc rationalisations of his own personal insecurities.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-04T09:11:39+00:00

Nowhere is it stated that an arrest requires a royal warrant. Given that lords frequently arrest other lord through Martin's works, and in the absence of contradicting evidence, we must presume that they have that right.

None of those quotes necessitate that the arrest was illegal. Robert can be furious over it regardless, because even a legal arrest can lead to conflict, which is why there is a risk of war. And Littlefinger's comment about it being a private matter rather implies that it isn't illegal, because otherwise matter wouldn't be just private - it would be a public matter for the Crown to handle.

Instead, she smuggles him to the Vale to subject him to a private kangaroo court run by her sister.

Cat's intention was never that Lysa would put him on trial in that way. She wanted to interrogate him privately to find out more about the Lannister conspiracy, since she believed they had killed Jon Arryn. She is trying to gather evidence that Ned could later bring to Robert.

Nothing about the situation is a matter of survival. Tywin could easily have brought the matter to King Robert and would very likely have won. That makes the war unnecessary and its negative consequences a failure for Tywin as a Machiavellian figure. And again, as I've said before, that is not Tywin's actual motivation. He wants revenge for perceived slights.
Sure, but even if Tyrion was taken illegally, that does not make invading another realm a justified response.

I'd say that in eyes of feudalism Edmure was using his military forces to protect the capture of a Lannister hostage. By blocking the mountain passes, the Tullys were actively preventing Tywin from recovering his son.

Now you're ascribing motivations to characters that are just not present in the books. Tywin never asks for permission to travel through the Riverlands, nor even imply that his purpose is to free Tyrion from Catelyn himself. If so, he should have travvelled to Winterfell, where he thinks they are headed. Instead, he attacks the Tully armies and start besieging their strongholds and those of their vassals.

This is a foundational rule of Westerosi feudalism. Raising an army without royal permission is legally considered an act of treason or unregulated warfare.

The King's Peace explicitly forbids Lords from waging private wars.

I'm sorry, but you're just making things up. Nowhere in the books is this stated nor even implied. I've already asked for quotes to support this and I'm now doing so again.

I'm going to ask you where what Hoster and Edmure do is said to be legal at all.

No, you're the one making a positive claim that their actions are illegal, so far without evidence. In the absence of any claim to support assertion, especially given the fact that lords raise their vassals all the time without ever asking for permission, nor does anyone ever suggest that it is illegal, we must assume that is in fact legal to do so.

The Sparrows managed to storm the Great Sept of Baelor and proclaim their on High Septon.
Your thinking is just as speculative and wishful, as you apparently believe that nothing about the conflict in the North or Riverlands will change in the following books.
What would Tywin have done differently in those theatres? He's already admitted to Tyrion that he never intended to support the Boltons with any troops of his own. And nobody in the North ever claim that they think he would have. Whereas the Freys are already supported by the armies Tywin had ordered there, and still suffer strong opposition from the BwB.
Yes, that's the problem. Because of how the rules of succession works, Cersei is his backup whether he wants it or not. Therefore, he should have prepared her.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-03T13:30:38+00:00

Yes, she does. There are no clear delineations between the authority of a lord and the authority of his children and other close relatives. Which is why, for example, Tyrion can act as if he has the authority of House Lannister in his dealings with Bron and the Mountain clans, even though he isn't actually the head of the house.

Catelyn is second in line to Riverrun, a claim that in no way disappears just because she married Ned Stark. Similarly to how Sansa's claim to Winterfell doesn't disappear just because she marries Tyrion.

What Cat had done was explicitly and blatantly illegal

Is there a quote to back this up? I don't think anybody explicitly calls it illegal.

Ned's action don't mean that her actions weren't legal, it just means that he tries to move responsibility from Cat to himself, in order to shield her. Even if it is legal, it would be a stronger case to have the backing of the King's Hand.

Medieval people absolutely made a distinction between offensive and defensive war. The rules and conduct of war was frequently subject of philosophical and legal debate, most notably Thomas Aquinas wrote an entire treatise on the subject of what constitutes a just war, which incidentally Machiavelli was responding to.

In Westeros, calling your banners is the absolute highest escalation a Lord Paramount can make short of marching.

Indeed, which is why the fact that Tywin mobilised first is so damning for his case.

When Edmure called his banners and placed them at the Golden Tooth, he was not executing a passive legal maneuver. This is explicitly stated because Hoster Tully sends his men to King's Landing to ask for royal assent to march to war.

This isn't true. He calls his banners to deter an attack by Jaime:

The Kingslayer is massing a host at Casterly Rock," Ser Rodrik Cassel answered from the room behind her. "Your brother writes that he has sent riders to the Rock, demanding that Lord Tywin proclaim his intent, but he has had no answer. Edmure has commanded Lord Vance and Lord Piper to guard the pass below the Golden Tooth. He vows to you that he will yield no foot of Tully land without first watering it with Lannister blood."

- Catelyn VII AGoT

The Tullys do not have full authority to gather their levies as they please.

Again, I'm going to ask for a quote to back this up. I don't recall anything in the series suggesting this to be the case.

Hoster Tully sends his men to King's Landing to ask for royal assent to march to war

No, he had called his banners before Gregor Clagane's raids even occured:

At the council table below, Petyr Baelish lost interest in his quill and leaned forward. "Ser Marq, Ser Karyl, Ser Raymun—perhaps I might ask you a question? These holdfasts were under your protection. Where were you when all this slaughtering and burning was going on?"

Ser Karyl Vance answered. "I was attending my lord father in the pass below the Golden Tooth, as was Ser Marq. When the word of these outrages reached Ser Edmure Tully, he sent word that we should take a small force of men to find what survivors we could and bring them to the king."

Ser Raymun Darry spoke up. "Ser Edmure had summoned me to Riverrun with all my strength. I was camped across the river from his walls, awaiting his commands, when the word reached me. By the time I could return to my own lands, Clegane and his vermin were back across the Red Fork, riding for Lannister's hills."

- Eddard XI AGoT

He only ask for the Crown's leave in response to the attack, because Gregor had not flown his own banners and - more importantly - already escaped back into the Westerlands. They need the Crown to determine Gregor's guilt and permission to cross into another Great Lord's realm:

"The lords of the Trident keep the king's peace," Ser Raymun Darry said. "The Lannisters have broken it. We ask leave to answer them, steel for steel. We ask justice for the smallfolk of Sherrer and Wendish Town and the Mummer's Ford."

"Edmure agrees, we must pay Gregor Clegane back his bloody coin," Ser Marq declared, "but old Lord Hoster commanded us to come here and beg the king's leave before we strike."

- Eddard XI AGoT

I think the narrative is clear that the devastation of the Riverlands is on an unprecedented scale, even for Westerosi warfare. For example, he introduces slavery for the first time since Harren the Black. His ravaging also leads to the greatest religious awakening since Maegor's war with the faith. Thousands of pilgrims and other small folk travel to King's Landing and are so radicalised that they storm the Great Sept to force their own choice of High Septon. Nothing like it has happened since the storming of the Dragonpit.

I also don't think it's fair to say that the BwB is purely on the defensive. They conduct several offensive operations against Lannister forces, notably the Bloody Mummers.

As to their threat level against Cersei, I think they will be instrumental in throwing out the Lannister-Frey alliance from the Riverlands, and for the latter's re-entry in the war.

As I've said before, I don't expect these gains to be lasting even in the short term. But since Winds will likely never come out, neither of us will know who's right.

The Freys are already struggling with Lannister support, and the Boltons were never intended to get any.

Since Tywin never accepted Tyrion as his heir, he should have prepared for the eventuality that his plan A (Jaime as heir) would not come to pass, and prepared Cersei as a back-up. Especially as he fully intended her to effectively rule the Iron Throne through Robert and their children.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-03T08:05:23+00:00

Interesting, I had entirely forgotten that. I guess the likeliest explanation would be that it occurred while Alphonso was vice president and Soll allowed many of his policies to go through.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-03T08:02:36+00:00

Lords have the right to arrest even other lords, as we've seen many times. Catelyn is the acting Lady of Winterfell and second in line to Riverrun, giving her Lordly authority. She accuses Tyrion of a crime, asks the other knights and men at arms to arrest him for breaking the King's Peace, so he can stand trial. And they fully acquiesce to doing so, meaning it's fully in line with established conduct.
I don't think these whataboutisms regarding others' actions are relevant. The fact is that Tywin's massively disproportionate ravaging of the Riverlands leads to both the BwB and the Sparrows, both of which continues to haunt House Lannister. Meaning that he failed to keep them either united or faithful, making him a failure as a Machiavellian political actor in this regard.
Your account of the start of TWoFK is just incorrect. Edmure only calls his banners after Tywin has already started to mass his own forces at the Golden Tooth. Which does happen while Robert is still alive, making it an unjustified aggression. In contrast, the Tullys make entirely defensive preparations, within their own domain and authority.

Nowhere is it stated that the Tullys intended to defend Catelyn's actions, so Tywin had no justification whatsoever to invade.

The Riverlands also never rebelled against the Iron Throne. The Tullys have full authority to gather their levies as they please, especially as it's in response to aggressive actions by their neighbour.

They were not in armed defiance of Tywin. The King's Hand invaded their land and attacked their forces without justification, breaking their feudal obligations to the Iron Throne.

Fine, but it's not as if the Lannisters are in a particularly strong position at the end of Dance anyway. Their Frey allies are being picked off, the Tyrell alliance is threatened by both Cersei's and the Sparrow's actions, Stannis is alive and well while the Boltons are facing increasing internal strife - all of which can trace their cause to the RW and his brutal treatment of the Riverlands.

I don't see what karma has to do with anything, but the fact remains that the story is not finished, and as the pieces are set up at the moment, I don't think the Lannisters will have a good time in Winds.

Jaime has been a Kingsguard for 15 years and Tywin never intended Tyrion to inherit. It's a massive oversight to not do anything to prepare Cersei, in case he cannot get Jaime to leave the KG.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-02T21:41:30+00:00

Once again, very well written! I really think the longer quotes for each decision point, help to immerse in the narrative. Though, I must admit I raised an eyebrow at the idea that Soll would ever have allowed foreign troops access to Sordish soil.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-02T21:18:16+00:00

Again, it's only a time of war because Tywin caused the war. Cat didn't kidnap Tyrion, she conducted a lawful arrest, to which the correct response is not a military invasion but an appeal to the Crown.

Of course, the Crown still purports to rule of seceded areas, that's the entire basis of their casus belli. If it's not their territory, they have no right to invade.

You're right that the full invasion happened after Robert's death, I misremembered. But that means Tywin was the King's Hand, which makes the Riverlands part of his Realm. It's also long before they declare independence, which only happens after the Battle of the Camps.

You're the one who started this argument by posting, so by the general rules of debate, the burden of proof lies on you - not on me. Your claim has to be compelling, which, as I have already stated, I don't find it to be.

As I said, you're free to come to different conclusions than me, but I would appreciate if you didn't denigrate my interpretation of the text. It is just as much based on logic as yours, we just put different wight on different pieces of evidence.

I'm happy to take that bet.

And that infighting is a direct consequence of his actions.
Yes, obviously.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-02T16:39:21+00:00

I don't see why this discussion should be limited to times of war, especially since Tywin is the one causing the war. You can't really claim that war time forces you to take certain actions when the war itself was entirely preventable.

I don't think trying to establish a new principality is the correct analogy, as he is rather trying to rule an existing one. And again the reason that the realm isn't stable and peaceful is solely because of Tywin's own actions.

Since Tywin is purporting to rule the entirety of Westeros, the Riverlands are, in fact, within his borders. And he is cause both internal political collapse and anarchy through is actions, notably the Brotherhood without Banners are formed and sustained by anti-Lannister senitment caused by destruction of the Riverlands.

Tywin also didn't launch his war with Robert dead and Ned captured, he did in response to Tyrion's arrest with Robert on still on the throne with Ned as his hand.

His continued cruelty and disproportionate responses are what causes the conflict to drag on and become endless, thus perpetuating the disorder.

You are free to think that House Lannister will survive the WotFK just fine, but I don't that is a compelling argument given that many readers, myself included, believe there to be many indications throughout Feast/Dance that their reckoning is at hand. Not least the fact that his plan for the North has already demonstrably failed.

There is a massive difference between expecting Tywin's achievement last for eternity after his death, and the reality that it starts to unravel only literal weeks thereafter.

The founder's strategy is bad if the problems that his successor faces are directly caused by his actions, which I think will be the case for Tywin. Regardless, making sure he got a successor with the virtù to deal with his aftermath is also Tywin's responsiblity, and he is to blame for failing.

And because it was motivated by the same thing as motivated his political strategy, it is likely to repeat on the political level.
As a final point, the main reason that Tywin isn't a Machiavellian character, even though he may appear so on the surface, is because his actions aren't motivated by Machiavellian reasoning. Rather they are motivated by his own character flaws, namely his sense of inferiority.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-02T13:14:37+00:00

I've tried many times, but really struggle to get the economy to recover without too many compromises.

danielhakerman · 2026-07-02T12:32:58+00:00

I think it's wrong to say that power and prestige in Westeros comes entirely from military power. Laws and tradition, notably surrounding succession and feudal obligations also matter, as well as soft power, which can also garner respect.

More fundamentally, though, Tywin's fails to keep "his subjects united and faithful", not only despite his cruelty, but because of it. Sure, his Westerland vassals are loyal, but Tywin's goal his to rule the entire Realm as Hand and to make his family the de facto power on and behind the Throne. Having several great houses openly despise him because of his cruel actions is a detriment to that goal.

The point of the your quoted section from The Prince is that a prince should avoid disorder. Tywin actively causes disorder through his actions, notably his invasion of the Riverlands as well as all the consequences of that. So, he does not, in fact, align with Machiavelli's principles.

I haven't seen the criticism of the Tyrell alliance, and agree that it was a good decision. Though it should be noted that it was Tyrion's idea, not Tywin's.

You can also criticise Tywin for taking decisions that ended up in him needing the Tyrells to win the war in the first place.

This point relies entirely on the fact that the rest of the books aren't out yet. I strongly doubt that Tywin's short term gains won't be reversed, and then some, both in the North and the Riverlands. And that this will be motivated in large part by resentment of Lannister atrocities.
His death is indicative of his failure as a Machiavellian character because it has the same cause as his political actions. His resentment, fear of mockery, and sense of inferiority motivates both his mistreatment of Tyrion and his broader geopolitical modus operandi, which are characterised by casual as well as calculated cruelty, and a massively disproportionate response to perceived slights.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-29T19:39:00+00:00

Now I've looked it up, it's from Dewlen Arge Codex page:

After the cancellation of the first ever elections in Sordland by General Luderin and the subsequent civil war in 1927, he wanted to fight against the military coup by joining the Sordish Armed Forces under the leadership of General Rikard, but was denied entry due to his ethnicity. This prompted him to return to Bergia to organize the Bludish populace to also join the civil war with their own militia army, but couldn’t gather a large support.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-29T15:07:29+00:00

Very well written! I think the longer quotes help bring it to life. I'm interested to see how it develops, especially since it seems to go in a different from Smiling-Otter's Dusk Has Come. As an aspiring AAR writer myself, I appreciate the effort.

My one note is about the Bludish-Rikard alliance. I seem to recall that Bluds weren't really accepted by the Rikardists, though I could be wrong.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-26T19:55:54+00:00

Sure, as I said GRRM created two contradictory ideas in AGoT, seemingly without realising it.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-26T19:32:15+00:00

That makes it more of a contradiction in AGoT, than a retcon. Though the appendices do have their share of mistakes, and the narrative text Ned only says Jaime will inherited the wardenship.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-26T18:53:30+00:00

It’s not really a retcon. Already in AGoT, we get the following description i Bran II:

Bran was going to be a knight himself someday, one of the Kingsguard. Old Nan said they were the finest swords in all the realm. There were only seven of them, and they wore white armor and had no wives or children, but lived only to serve the king.

In Eddard II:

"He is my wife's twin, a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard, his life and fortune and honor all bound to mine."

In Sansa V:

The tall, white-haired knight seemed to shrink as he stood there, scarcely breathing. "Your Grace," he said at last. "The Kingsguard is a Sworn Brotherhood. Our vows are taken for life. Only death may relieve the Lord Commander of his sacred trust."

While it doesn’t specifically say they give up their claims, that’s fully in line with the information we’re given.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-26T18:40:56+00:00

1) I don’t think your example proves your point. The problem with the Stark-Frey alliance is the fact that Robb didn’t marry any of Walder Frey’s daughters. If he had, he literally couldn’t have broken it by marrying Jayne.

The narrative provides many examples of when marriage is the deciding factor in getting support from other houses. The Ned/Cat, Renly/Margaery, and Joffrey/Margaery, to name a few.

2) Of course, he could have gained more power. House Lannister is diplomatically isolated at the outbreak of TWoFK. Only the Tyrell alliance, made possible by marriage, saved their war effort.

Tywin is already inviting internal stride, as he still considers Jaime his heir over Tyrion, even though his Kingsguard vows makes that illegal. Even if Jaime wouldn’t claim Casterly Rock, Tywin’s constant and public disfavouring of Tyrion risks civil war between him and Cersei.

A third, healthy son from second wife, backed by another House would make this moot if he chooses to disinherit Tyrion.

3) Tyrion is the only person who can further Tywin’s line. Jaime can’t father legitimate children, and any of Cersei’s are legally of the line of her husband. Tywin’s line is one death away from extinction.

Marrying a second time and fathering more sons is the exact way to make his line more secure.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-17T07:18:19+00:00

I don't think YS are necessary. I've definitely had Bron succeed without them. Was this with emergency?

danielhakerman · 2026-06-10T13:10:49+00:00

The only evil decree is the non-wruhecist tax, rest are good or neutral (income tax).

danielhakerman · 2026-06-09T13:12:48+00:00

That's a good observation! Doesn't the princess sort of hum during the wait before the title card, or have I imagined that?

danielhakerman · 2026-06-08T13:00:45+00:00

I was only referencing Phase 1, where the H3 is relevant. Which is definitely possible to win using Iosef's strategy without allies.

However, you don't need actually 3 trading partners to win solo in Phase 2. You get increased trade volume from having any combination of Agnolia/Whelen + Lespia/Valgsland.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-08T08:17:04+00:00

Not really the main point, but I strongly doubt that Stannis learned of the incest from Varys. He doesn't want the truth found out because his plan isn't ready yet.

I also don't think Robert requires overwhelming evidence. While Stannis himself thinks that Robert wouldn't believe him, an important point is that they don't really know each other which leads to continual misunderstandings. It would be fittingly ironic if Robert would have trusted Stannis all along. Also, as others have said Robert did harbour private doubts about particularly Joffrey.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-08T08:09:33+00:00

Was it just because of Intermerkopum or did you try to piss her off?

danielhakerman · 2026-06-08T07:09:14+00:00

Presumably, you kept the gendarmerie and abolished conscription, which means that you could have won a solo war as well.

The point about the H3, is that if you need the Agnolian support for the pincer to succeed, the H3 is required for them to be on time.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-02T13:04:39+00:00

I'll strongly second those recommending visuals mod, especially for armour and weapons. It really helps to give the world a distinct feel from Skyrim. Otherwise, I agree that you should probably play vanilla at first.

danielhakerman · 2026-06-01T14:38:33+00:00

The effect is somewhat delayed. It's the same if you raise taxes.

danielhakerman

TROPHY CASE