[Spoilers ADWD] Tywin does in fact fit most of the Machiavellian archetype
I can't believe this boring slander has made me defend someone like Tywin but here we go.
Since people have started using that one terrible video instead of their own opinions...
The usual ones.
- Tywin was too cruel not like Cesare Borgia.
Borgia was governing a highly localized, urbanized population of city dwellers. He needed the civilians to stop rioting so he could tax them efficiently.
Tywin however is operating in a continent sized feudal empire. His primary threats are not street riots but military insurrections by rival Great Houses.
In a feudal society, your power is entirely dependent on your military reputation (prestige). If Tywin sacrifices Ser Gregor Clegane to appease the Martells of Dorne or the smallfolk of the Riverlands, he signals to the entire realm that Lannister power can be pressured by moral outrage or political demands.
Machiavelli explicitly addresses this in The Prince (Chapter 17), noting that a ruler cannot care about a reputation for cruelty if it keeps his subjects united and loyal:
\*A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise.\*
Machiavelli, The Prince
By keeping the Mountain on a leash, Tywin is trying to use a psychological deterrent and while horrific it is a coherent Machiavellian strategy aimed at preventing future wars through absolute intimidation.
- Tyrells.
Tywin did not give the Tyrells pieces of the realm out of foolish generosity.
He gave them what they had already earned with their spears.
The Tyrells possessed the largest army on the continent and completely controlled the food supply of a starving capital.
If Tywin was stupid enough to try and cheat them hem on rewards at the victory council, he would have triggered an immediate palace coup or a secondary civil war that the Lannisters, deeply in debt and militarily exhausted, could not possibly win.
Machiavelli notes in The Prince that a prince must never make common cause with a more powerful party unless necessity forces him to do so.
\*A prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others, unless necessity compels him... because if you conquer, you are at his discretion.\*
Tywin didn't, because no one can create a perfect, risk free world. He had to navigate a massive political crisis the best way he could.
The moment the immediate military threat was neutralized, Tywin instantly began implementing counter measures to box the Tyrells.
He forcibly married Tyrion to Sansa Stark to steal the North out from under a Tyrell plot.
He arranged a marriage between Cersei and Willas Tyrell to infiltrate Highgarden's internal succession.
He systematically delayed filling key positions on the Small Council to prevent Mace Tyrell from stacking the court.
Tywin was actively playing the Machiavellian game of containment; he simply ran out of time because he was assassinated.
- RW
There's no such thing as a plot that eliminates 100% of your rivals or doesn't create malcontent.
It's an absolutely impossible standard and it's a baffling one.
No single political act eliminates 100% of all future threats.
The objective of the Red Wedding was to smash the structural cohesion of the Northern rebellion, and in that, it was perfectly successful.
By breaking guest right and destroying the Stark leadership in a single night, Tywin:
Ended a continental war with minimal Lannister casualties.
Reclaimed the Riverlands without a single siege.
Placed his own proxy, House Bolton, in control of the North.
Machiavelli’s advice on handling conquered territories that are used to living under their own laws is brutal: you either have to ruin them, go live there in person, or permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing an oligarchy that will keep them friendly to you (The Prince, Chapter 5). Tywin chose the third option by empowering Roose Bolton and Walder Frey.
The fact that the North remains bitter doesn't mean the strategy was wrong, it means the Lannisters were dealing with the natural friction of governance.
Machiavelli never promised that power would be easy or clean, something many people act like he did, he promised that absolute, decisive strokes would buy you the time and space to consolidate.
- Tywin ded.
The video bafflingly confuses and conflates domestic, psychological tragedy with a systemic political failure.
Tywin did not die because his tax policies failed, or because his armies were beaten, or because the smallfolk rose up in a revolution of hatred. He died because he was a dick to his son all his life.
Tyrion shooting his daddy has little to do with Machiavellian theory, it's just your run of the mill drama tragedy.
When Tywin died, the treasury was being stabilized, the Tyrells were being managed, the Starks were broken, and the Iron Throne held total de facto control over the continent.
Tywin didn't fail because he was a bad Machiavellian; he succeeded so completely as a Machiavellian that he left behind a system dependent on competency but his heirs began infighting.
Normally his brother would have taken cared of things but he was taken care of because of that.
No Tywin's not a good person. Yes, Tywin's a dick to his son and that's why he dies. No, Tywin being an evil man has little to do with Tywin being an incredibly competent leader. He's acknowledged as such by everyone in the series, even his biggest haters. He's acknowledged as such by the author.
You can be competent and evil. They are not mutually exclusive.