Kaibaman Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Well I am not sure if they would though - Robb understands that Frey was pissed off and he would most likely appreciate him not taking the slight too seriously - leaving a garrison with a man who you already offended is not exactly a great way of thanking him. Besides, Robb cannot leave too many men behind as he needs them for war - so, even if he did, then he would only leave a small amount behind, certainly less than Freys who would have a genuine reason to leave someone behind (to protect their house) - therefore, in case of a battle, that small garrison of Stark men can be dealt with, either by getting them out for some trivial reason (getting them to camp outside for lack of room, etc.) or simply wiping them out. I absolutely agree with that part of your post - you do not want to be laughed at and seemed as weak because that is almost as bad as being hated. Well if the Freys still have enough muscle at the Twins then they could find a way to either expel Robb's men from the Twins or just slaughter them when the gloves come off. But if they can't get rid of them and its too troublesome to just kill them all, Walder could as an ironic gesture invoke guest rights to the commander of Robb's garrison and his men. I'm sure as Northmen, they would feel uneasy about slaughtering the Freys under their own roof after agreeing to this sacred non-aggression pact. Even if the Freys managed to slay their king in battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The non-bastard Bolton Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 YOu know you are a worm when the old Blackfyre supporters won't deal with you. What I would have done is tell Robb that if he wants my support, he will name Edmure King of the Riverlands. that way my daughter will be a Queen, I will have Kingly grandsons, and Robb will lose half a kingdom to his uncle. I would then betray Roose at the wedding, and be hated only by the Dreadfort. Als name my new born son the lord of the Twins. Heh. I do not think that Robb would agree to your terms, to be honest - the rivermen declared him king not Edmure - going back on that would make him look weak and make him look like he is unable to rule both areas; also, Walder was promised not just Queenship of the riverlands but the North as well - giving him queenship of just the riverlands is too similar to what he was offered in the book. Plus, if you betray Roose, you would gain an enemy that is dangerous (I would never discount people who have a flayed man as their banner) - and you are risking that Robb might not actually believe you that Roose was going to betray him - he might see your efforts as an attempt to finish him off, one bannerman at a time (especially when Catelyn's opinion of Walder is not exactly high). Well if the Freys still have enough muscle at the Twins then they could find a way to either expel Robb's men from the Twins or just slaughter them when the gloves come off. But if they can't get rid of them and its too troublesome to just kill them all, Walder could as an ironic gesture invoke guest rights to the commander of Robb's garrison and his men. I'm sure as Northmen, they would feel uneasy about slaughtering the Freys under their own roof after agreeing to this sacred non-aggression pact. Even if the Freys managed to slay their king in battle. Yes, I agree that they would probably not attack Freys under their roof - but, you never know with people who just lost their king and his entire army - people who lose everything have nothing left to lose. However, what then though - both forces would be unable to fight each other because of the pact? Would Walder then slaughter them? That would still be breaking the pact and guest rights and would leave him in the same position as Red Wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Not really. George said their motive was revenge. Pffff... what does he know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaibaman Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yes, I agree that they would probably not attack Freys under their roof - but, you never know with people who just lost their king and his entire army - people who lose everything have nothing left to lose. However, what then though - both forces would be unable to fight each other because of the pact? Would Walder then slaughter them? That would still be breaking the pact and guest rights and would leave him in the same position as Red Wedding. Hopefully the Twins has its own Godswood, then the Northmen would feel even less inclined to kill him even if their lives are at risk. I suppose it would be a standoff with both sides sleeping with one eye open and waiting for the other to make the first move. But once Walder's army returns, he can use the extra muscle to drag them out of the Twins and kill them outside. I don't think guest rights stipulates anything about kicking people out of your home and then killing them while they are no longer "under your roof". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 RW or not I would had killed Robb. Maybe even taking my time and enjoyed it a bit, maybe while forcing Cat to witness. As for the rest drug them imprison them and give them to the Lannisters. But Robb would be mine to kill, no Lannister would take that pleasure away from me. You said it yourself, he's a kid. If he was a kid he should had stayed to his house doing his homework and drinking his hot milk before bedtime. Once he chose to attack innocent people for what their Lord he stopped to be a kid and he was a fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat of the Rivers Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Commence the RW as planned, then break the fourth wall, enter the real world, make an account on the forums and personally defend my own honor. Heh. On a more serious note I would just officially change my allegiance from Stark to Lannister. Then I would spend more quality time training my heir like I did with Stevron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christi84 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Why didnt Walder Frey make sure Robb married one of his kids BEFORE he crossed the Twins? I never understood that...for all he knew Robb couldve died in battle and he still wouldnt have one of his daughter be Queen, or Robb couldve knocked someone up and legitimized his bastards..or Robb wouldvem arried someone else and still won the war without the Freys...too many variables to consider..he shouldve made sure it happened beforehand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sword of the Morgan Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 First of all, I would have stopped sulking when Robb first showed up and wanted to make the crossing, opened the bridge to him because I'm a Tully Bannerman. No demands, no marriage pacts, just giving Robb some men to head south with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 First of all, I would have stopped sulking when Robb first showed up and wanted to make the crossing, opened the bridge to him because I'm a Tully Bannerman. No demands, no marriage pacts, just giving Robb some men to head south with. That would be pretty silly. The Tullys were given authority by the Iron Throne that they were rebelling against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainGhost Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 That's a very good question. As far as I can see, I have two options: 1. I would be quite within my rights to respond to their offer of Edmure with a 'Fuck You'. I would keep all my men close to me. The Starks and Tullys will be too busy worrying about Lannisters, Tyrells, ironmen and probably Bolton in the end to try taking the Twins. 2. Accept their offer, marry Roslin to Edmure and let Robb's army cross the bridge. However, I'm going to tell him that I need all my men to stay in the south to protect my lands. He can't really refuse because he's allowing all the other river lords to keep their men with them (I would make him promise this before I agree to the wedding, knowing full well he can't afford to break a second promise and also that he basically has to bend to my will. Ha!). This way none of my men die taking back the north (which I don't care about) and it leaves me with the option of arriving late when Ser Brynden calls the banners. I would probably go with the second option because staying neutral is risky in war and this option really wouldn't gain me anything. With option 2 I get a marriage with Edmure, which is what I've always wanted. I might demand something else as well, though, because the boy did dishonour us, so we really should get more than was originally promised as recompense (and I know the boy's desperate enough to give us whatever we want, as he was last time). I would remember that my castle is located right on the border between the riverlands and the north, so I really don't want to make enemies of those Houses. I've already fought against the Lannisters and attacked their lands, so I can't really make my situation with them worse. There's safety in numbers here - are the Lannisters really going to dispossess every single river lord of their castles? No, they'll just want hostages. Fine, I might even be pleased by the chance to rid myself of another family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 If I were Walder Frey I would have done everything exactly the same, just like GRRM wrote it, because that is not going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Fuck you wolfboy!! Now geet offa ma land before I get pissed!! Yeeehawwww!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 First of all, I would have stopped sulking when Robb first showed up and wanted to make the crossing, opened the bridge to him because I'm a Tully Bannerman. No demands, no marriage pacts, just giving Robb some men to head south with. So you would had become a traitor just because someone else was a traitor too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Has Said Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. If I personally were in Walder Frey's place? That's easy. I would never have betrayed my liege lord to begin with, Robb would have crossed the bridge without any issues, and with no obligations to wed any of my daughters. That would have been my clear duty under Westerosi conventions. (where, and this has been discussed before, loyalty to your liege lord takes precedent over loyalty to the crown. The only time that this has not pertained was when the consequences were a lot higher: namely dragons.) Because I'm not a low-life treacherous piece of dung.I'd have called my banners and given full support to the Tully/Stark cause. If offered any other opportunities by the Lannisters or the Boltons, I would have used that to screw the Lannisters and/or the Boltons to the maximum extent possible. `~~` If I were LIKE Lord Walder, and had already betrayed my liege, and blackmailed an ally (and the son of the liege's daughter) earlier on in the story - that matter is already settled.We know what Walder actually did, and if we are adhering to his personality type as depicted in the novels, he does all the same things for the same reasons. Namely, that he's a low-life treacherous piece of dung. `~~`ETA: ninja'd by Jaime the Humbled on the first point and by White Corvus on the second. Probably by more people further up thread.As is my custom, I respond to the OP first, then read other responses, and if appropriate, I then respond to those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'm not exactly sure that I understand the question. If I personally were in Walder Frey's place? That's easy. I would never have betrayed my liege lord to begin with, Robb would have crossed the bridge without any issues, and with no obligations to wed any of my daughters. That would have been my clear duty under Westerosi conventions. (where, and this has been discussed before, loyalty to your liege lord takes precedent over loyalty to the crown. The only time that this has not pertained was when the consequences were a lot higher: namely dragons.) Because I'm not a low-life treacherous piece of dung. Nope. Especially when your liege Lords power was given to them by the people they rebelled against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Has Said Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 So you would had become a traitor just because someone else was a traitor too? I wouldn't be throwing the 'traitor' term around so cavalierly if I were you, without first considering the timeline. - Tywin sent Gregor Clegane and his murderous troupe into the Riverlands While Robert Was Still ALIVE! Quite some time before his death, in fact, IIRC. This means that from that moment, Frey had a legal obligation to help defend his liege lord from an illegal incursion. Jaime's attack on Eddard was also illegal, but that's not relevant to Frey's situation, IMO And it makes no damned difference that Caitlin had captured Tyrion and put him on trial for the attacks on Bran. Legally, Caitlin was no longer a Tully, but a Stark. I think we can safely infer that from the Westerosi wedding ceremony, where the cloak of the parents' house is exchanged for that of the husband's house. I think it's a credit to GRRM that he writes things in such a way as to create all these legal niceties and fine points for us to quibble over. After Robert's demise, and that of Eddard, the situation regarding treason to the crown may have been straightforward, but by then, ..if the legal niceties had been observed by Frey.. House Frey would already have been at war with House Lannister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Has Said Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Nope. Especially when your liege Lords power was given to them by the people they rebelled against. Nope. With all due respect, you're just plain wrong on this point. The Tullys were installed by House Targaryen (who actually created the Riverlands as an independent Great Fief after Aegon's Conquest. Prior to that it was ruled by House Hoare of the Iron Islands.) - NOT by House Baratheon, and certainly not by House Lannister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Tully aid in Robert's Rebellion was bought with marriages. Feudalism is a continuous balancing act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Man Has Said Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Tully aid in Robert's Rebellion was bought with marriages. Feudalism is a continuous balancing act. Again, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The Tullys had already thrown in their lot with the Starks from the time that Catelyn was betrothed to Brandon. Do you not think that murdering Hoster's future son-in-law was sufficient cause on its own for him to go to war with the Mad King? As to Lysa's betrothal to Jon Arryn, that was a marriage of convenience on both sides. Lysa was known to be 'spoiled goods' due to her affair with Littlefinger and subsequent pregnancy - desperate to find a mate. Jon Arryn was, I guess "a catch" as a Lord Paramount, but was also without heir, and quite aged. He was equally desperate to find a wife who was PROVED to be fertile. Lysa suited his needs, and Lord Hoster was more than happy to have found her such a felicitous marriage, yes. But it was not the price paid for his participation in Robert's Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Nope. With all due respect, you're just plain wrong on this point. The Tullys were installed by House Targaryen (who actually created the Riverlands as an independent Great Fief after Aegon's Conquest. Prior to that it was ruled by House Hoare of the Iron Islands.) - NOT by House Baratheon, and certainly not by House Lannister. They rebelled against the Targs too. Their authority comes from the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.