402 replies to this topic

[apt54]

Yes, it was justified.

Just as Tywin said: How is it more noble to 10,000 men on the battlefield than a dozen at a diner?
And I daresay that if the war dragged on much, much more people would have died than 10,000. If the kingdoms didn't want winter to catch them with their "breeches down", one of the two sides must have gone down ASAP.

[starki]

Whiskeyjack Targaryen, on 30 June 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

The Frey's receive an awful lot of hatred both in this world and Westeros due to the Red Wedding but does anyone think that they may not deserve all of it? There seem to be two main reasons for all the flak they get:

1/They betray the Starks.

By that point Robb's war effort is looking less and less promising. With the Ironborn holding the North and Maot Cailin, Robbs initiative against the Lannisters petering out, and the newly formed major southern alliance between Lannister, Tyrell and to a lesser extent Dorne, I don't think "Robb's North" (including the Riverlands) would have had any chance in the long run maintaining their independence. It's important to note that the riverlands would be the first in line to be taken out by the southern forces, and the Twins, gaurding such a strategically important spot, would definitely have to be taken.

Walder Frey's main price for his allegiance to Robb, despite all the small appendages (wards, squires, marriage to Arya) was the chance to be father to the Queen in the North - a chance thrown back in his face after he had already sacrificed many of his own men including Ser Stevron, by all accounts an able man and the best suited to take over Frey leadership. I don't think having his daughter marry the Lord of the Riverlands in his stead is much compensation as the southeners would probably soon defeat the Riverlands and place they're own man as the Lord.

I can't see what the Frey's would have to gain by staying with the Northerners, and I can see a lot of what they would have to lose. I expect the hatred they get is less because of the change in allegiance and more due to the manner of it.

2/ They manner of the betrayal.

There's not a whole lot I can say here; clearly, such a wanton violation of guest right represents a cultural transgression on a mammoth scale. I do understand how the manner of their betrayal has poisoned attitudes towards them, perhaps permanently. Nonetheless, Tywin makes a valid point with his statement "Explain to me why it's more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner" and his own sack of King's Landing seems a somewhat similar incident that isn't remarked upon nearly as often.  



I do hope that the Frey's aren't destroyed. I don't think they're completely evil and it would be too stereotypical of them to be exterminated.

1) and 2) not being enough to dislike Freys on their own ? Robb apologized for what he did and they did consent for another Stark/Frey wedding. His marrying Jeyne did not warrant the slaughter of all Stark troops, beheading Robb's corpse and throwing Catelyn's naked body into the river.

As for that statement by Tywinn. There's plenty of difference in killing a house guest at a wedding and killing soldiers in war. Then again, this is a man who wants to believe the blood isn't on his hands. It is; planning a vicious crime isn't any less bad if you don't execute it.

[Marcus of the South]

Except the Boltons and Freys offed the Stark army while it was camped outside. So it was 10,000 at a dinner AND a dozen at a wedding.

As someone said earlier, this would be like Kim Jong-il assassinating the whole Cabinet while at treaty negotiations, and bombing every military base at the same time.

[SubDeity]

I'm in the camp that finds the Red Wedding rather justified. It's not like the Freys betrayed the Starks out of nowhere; they'd already been betrayed through Robb Stark not upholding his agreement with them. When Robb came groveling back to restore the alliance, they had a stark (heh) choice:

1. Rejoin themselves to an army with only a few thousand men and no homeland and risk the destruction of their house.
2. Refuse and go to war with Robb, which would likely result in an attack on the Twins that would kill tons of family members and devastate their land and people.
3. Use trickery of some sort to win the war at a stroke.

People make a big deal about guest rights, but if we're able to justify Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and other acts that go against Westerosi morality I don't see why we can't go against Westerosi morality here. Heck, I imagine most people here were happy Joff got poisoned, and that's really any different except in scale.

[apt54]

starki, on 01 July 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

1) and 2) not being enough to dislike Freys on their own ? Robb apologized for what he did and they did consent for another Stark/Frey wedding. His marrying Jeyne did not warrant the slaughter of all Stark troops, beheading Robb's corpse and throwing Catelyn's naked body into the river.

As for that statement by Tywinn. There's plenty of difference in killing a house guest at a wedding and killing soldiers in war. Then again, this is a man who wants to believe the blood isn't on his hands. It is; planning a vicious crime isn't any less bad if you don't execute it.

Apology doesn't mend such things. It might help you when you steal a candy but not when you deal serious insult to a house that is fighting a war for you. Though I agree that sewing Grey Wind's head to his body and throwing naked Cat into river was unnecessary savagery. But even that can be argued to be a bit justified as well:
Lord Walder has always been looked down by his "betters" just because their houses happened to be older than his. So, in my opinion, such treatment of the bodies was not exactly to spite Stark and Tully, but rather to send "Don't f*ck with us" message to Lannisters, Baratheons, etc

You are wrong. Tywin was never the one to back away from taking responsibility for his actions. He admits issuing the order to kill Rhaegar's children, he admits taking part in Red Wedding. Lord Tywin may be a cruel, Machiavellian type of man, even a child abuser to some extent (poor Tyrion), but, as I recall, he never deluded himself or the others that he was some kind of a saint.

Edited by apt54, 01 July 2011 - 03:56 AM.

[Rinso]

SubDeity, on 01 July 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

Heck, I imagine most people here were happy Joff got poisoned, and that's really any different except in scale.

You know, that's an excellent example. I wish I could have thought of it last night, but I was mildly drunk  

Olenna Tyrell was a guest beneath Joffrey's roof, on his own wedding. She ate his food and drank his wine. And she arranged for him to be poisoned. And we're all so happy, because Joffrey was an evil piece of shit and deserved to die, and we cheer while he gurgles for air. So what? Isn't that a violation of the guest right as well? When you're someone's guest, you don't go to kill them. Are the Tyrells cursed? Or honorless? And aren't we happy when they killed Joffrey just because we hate Joffrey, while we (you?) are angry when the Freys killed Robb and Catelyn just because we (you) love Robb and Catelyn?

[Ser Pistus]

SubDeity, on 01 July 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

People make a big deal about guest rights, but if we're able to justify Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and other acts that go against Westerosi morality I don't see why we can't go against Westerosi morality here. Heck, I imagine most people here were happy Joff got poisoned, and that's really any different except in scale.

This is easy. Murdering your guests is bad, but killing a mad tyrant is justice. I don't think I am alone here with this view.

[starki]

apt54, on 01 July 2011 - 03:52 AM, said:

Apology doesn't mend such things. It might help you when you steal a candy but not when you deal serious insult to a house that is fighting a war for you. Though I agree that sewing Grey Wind's head to his body and throwing naked Cat into river was unnecessary savagery. But even that can be argued to be a bit justified as well:
Lord Walder has always been looked down by his "betters" just because their houses happened to be older than his. So, in my opinion, such treatment of the bodies was not exactly to spite Stark and Tully, but rather to send "Don't f*ck with us" message to Lannisters, Baratheons, etc

You are wrong. Tywin was never the one to back away from taking responsibility for his actions. He admits issuing the order to kill Rhaegar's children, he admits taking part in Red Wedding. Lord Tywin may be a cruel, Machiavellian type of man, even a child abuser to some extent (poor Tyrion), but, as I recall, he never deluded himself or the others that he was some kind of a saint.

"Their blood is on Frey's hands. Not mine." Tywinn wants to dodge responsibility but it won't work.

None of it is justified. Neither is Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and Joffrey getting poisoned. All murders.

[Autumn Wind]

Ser Pistus, on 01 July 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

This is easy. Murdering your guests is bad, but killing a mad tyrant is justice. I don't think I am alone here with this view.

Joffrey has the makings of a bad tyrant but he is still a very young king that can change.  Cruel yes, but none of his actions at this point has truly "hurt" the realm he rules. Killing him because he isn't a "good" king is not justice at all. Just murder.

Also, if you ask any Frey or Bolton (and Kastark) they'll likely tell you that the Red Wedding was all about killing a mad tyrant as well.

[Lord Wyman Manderly]

Eaglewood, on 30 June 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

I know it's just trolls but... sigh here we go.

In medieval times (which Westeros is clearly based on) there were no police. There was little law. You traveled out of your castle at your own risk. That is why a complex system arose to create a place of safety based entirely on honor. A man is worth nothing more than his word, and his word was never more valuable than at his own keep, when his guests gave him their safety entirely to him. It's a concept rooted in history before the middle ages, into ancient times (read a bible), and one that continued on even into the wild west only a century ago. Once you broke bed under a mans roof he was responsible for your safety, even if he hated you and you him. The minute you left you guest right ended because you were back in the wild again.

On Robb's own betrayal -- did the Freys have a right to break off the alliance the moment Robb married Jeyne? Absolutely. They have a right to retribution? Arguably yes. Did they have a right to butcher Robb and his men wholesale while under the protections of the guest right? Absolutely not. It is the vilest of treachery a man could commit and as the poster above me mentioned - they are now person non grata. Do you think any man will ever feel safe under the roof of a Frey again? Of course not. They have stepped out of the bounds of society, and even war.

Roose is an interesting case but he's just as terrible. He had even less reason than the Freys for the betrayal, and the blood of his lord liege is directly on his hands. I'm also very curious who witnessed him killing Robb. There is not a whole lot of difference between him and the Kingslayer in that act... and we all know how the world views/treats Jamie.

On a topic such as this there are bound to be people with differing opinions. I mean just because an opinion could be considered provoking does not mean that when such an opinion is put forth it is with the intention to provoke.

It is a discussion about whether the RW could be justified. A bit of a hot potato, yes. The RW had a great impact on most, stirring a lot of emotion. I get that. I was shocked by the RW myself. That does not mean I can’t see the act as being justified.

But why not just have civil discussion without labeling people with the different opinion trolls?

No need to pull the troll-card. Really.

Edited by Orell the German Shepherd, 01 July 2011 - 05:46 AM.

[Ser Pistus]

Autumn Wind, on 01 July 2011 - 05:35 AM, said:

Joffrey has the makings of a bad tyrant but he is still a very young king that can change.  Cruel yes, but none of his actions at this point has truly "hurt" the realm he rules. Killing him because he isn't a "good" king is not justice at all. Just murder.

Also, if you ask any Frey or Bolton (and Kastark) they'll likely tell you that the Red Wedding was all about killing a mad tyrant as well.

The Freys or Boltons can surely say so, but it does not make it true

And are you seriously suggesting that Joff was not a mad tyrant?

[Ser Pistus]

starki, on 01 July 2011 - 04:42 AM, said:

None of it is justified. Neither is Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and Joffrey getting poisoned. All murders.

Jaime saved many thousands of people. If you call that a "murder", than what is the definition of "heroism" in your book?

[Maester Zoidberg]

Rinso, on 30 June 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Heh. As a Bulgarian, I can say that's really more of a show off of some old tradition, we're not that stuck in the Middle Ages and we don't usually greet guests this way. They probably did that with you because you were a foreigner and they wanted to impress you.

That's not what I wanted to say, it was just an example of how deeply ingrained this tradition is that elements of it survive into this day.

Quote

And anyway, important or not, it's just a tradition, nothing more. The Freys had a lot at stake.

It's not simply a tradition in the time and place we're talking about. It's part of the code of honour and a kind of unwritten law. They had a lot at stake, and so they had the choice between doing what's honourable and right, or political survival (there certainly were other ways but this one was fast and certain) . Somehow it seems like the same decision Ned Stark had to make, only he chose honour. We know where that ended. No easy choice, and all paths are dangerous in that time.

Edited by Maester Zoidberg, 01 July 2011 - 07:44 AM.

[apt54]

starki, on 01 July 2011 - 04:42 AM, said:

"Their blood is on Frey's hands. Not mine." Tywinn wants to dodge responsibility but it won't work.

None of it is justified. Neither is Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and Joffrey getting poisoned. All murders.

Indeed blood is on Freys. It would have been much more profitable for Tywin if Robb and Cat became his hostages.

Yes you are right. Jaime should have let Aerys burn the entire city and Olenna should have allowed Joff to mentally scar Margarey as he did Sansa. (Sarcasm!!)

While it is difficult for me to defend Tyrion (Tywin kinda had it coming), Jaime and Olenna I am backing  up 100%. What they did was justice. Tell me starki, do you condemn Colonel Stauffenberg and Field Marshal Rommel for conspiring to kill Hitler?
But if you consider Aerys and Joff any better than Hitler then our discussion is over.

Edited by apt54, 01 July 2011 - 08:24 AM.

[Alexia]

Howdyphillip, on 30 June 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:

The manner in which the betrayal took place is unpardonable. To invite someone into your home to slaughter them and then violate their bodies is viscous to a degree that ANYONE would have to say is sick. They cut off the head of his pet and sewed it onto his decapitated body. This is AFTER they violated a rule that almost every society in the history of their world holds in high esteem. You do not kill people that you are breaking bread with.
They were the REAL losers of the Red Wedding

I'm going to agree with this in its entirety (clipped for space).  You just don't do things like this.  The Freys are entirely justified in betraying Robb, abandoning his cause, siding with Tywin, et al.  Robb deserved that.  But you do NOT invite enemy leaders in under a flag of truce, under pretenses of making an alliance through a wedding, and then murder them all at your dinner table!  It simply isn't done - its despicable behavior.

None of this exonerates Robb, who is a fool who condemned countless men to die for him because he couldn't keep it zipped and had to rebel against mommy and prove what an independent grownup he was.  He had the Frey betrayal coming.  But the manner of it was absolutely hideous, a war crime, and I suspect House Frey will never recover from this.  Nobody will ever trust them or deal with them again - Robb's betrayal should have stained his own honor and made him somewhat untrustworthy (Frey's heir died fighting Robb's war for him!) but the Frey betrayal eclipsed everything Robb did.  When Tywin wanted to send a message to the Reynes, he managed to do it without utterly destroying the honor of his own house.  Lord Frey should have taken a page from his book - he played the song but didn't understand the message.

As for the question of Joffrey's poisoning, Margaery is a very likely candidate for the poisoner - and as Joffrey's wife, she is not there under guest right.

[11th Heaven]

Ser Pistus, on 01 July 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

This is easy. Murdering your guests is bad, but killing a mad tyrant is justice. I don't think I am alone here with this view.

Joffrey's poisoning (assuming it was the Tyrells) and The RW were both violations of guest right, so it seems very arbitrary to excuse one and not the other on the basis that one of the victims deserved it more.

Also, the issue of how much Robb deserves his fate is redundant for most people (I think). I do agree that Joffrey was evil and Robb was "good", but the more important factor seems to be the violation of guest right, not that Robb was betrayed.

[Maester Zoidberg]

If you want to compare the poisoning of King Joffrey and the Red Wedding, there are some things to consider. The principle of guest right is first and foremost a duty the host has towards the guest. Guest right is called guest right because it protects the guest (of course this relies on reciprocity, but more in the sense of "If you protect me while I'm your guest, I will protect you when you're mine). Poisoning the Host is murder, but hasn't got much to do with a violation of guest right. It's murder, which is as despicable, but might be justified as tyrannicide (If you believe in such a thing as justified murder), which can itself be considered a honourable deed.

I don't think the Red Wedding can be justified in the same way. Robb was, as far as we know, not a tyrant, and the goal of the Red Wedding was to assure the survival of House Frey in beneficial circumstances. There were other options, all of them more honourable (I seriously cannot see what else could have been done to make the whole deed even more despicable or dishonourable). It can be explained, but not justified.

Of course that's just my opinion, it all comes down on whether you take honour and the rules and customs of society as the rule against which to measure the Red Wedding. If you do, it can't be justified.

Edited by Maester Zoidberg, 01 July 2011 - 09:19 AM.

[Lord Qorgyle]

SubDeity, on 01 July 2011 - 02:38 AM, said:

People make a big deal about guest rights, but if we're able to justify Jaime killing his liege, Tyrion kinslaying, and other acts that go against Westerosi morality I don't see why we can't go against Westerosi morality here. Heck, I imagine most people here were happy Joff got poisoned, and that's really any different except in scale.

Guest rights ARE a big deal in Westeros (or in any western civilized society of the middle ages).

However, Jaime killing his liege is a different thing for the readers because we know he was a mad tyrant about to destroy the entire city (justified because it saved the lives of all people in KL and there was no other way). Of course, the Westerosi don't have this piece of information, so yeah, Jaime is dishonorable, untrustworthy scam for all the nobility in the Seven Kingdoms. That's why his redemption is so important. Because what he did was gross, but necessary and selfless.

Tyrion killing his father was a passionate crime, fueled by years of fatherly abuse, so I can forgive him. Same as I wouldn't blame Samwell Tarly if he killed his father. Kinslaying is very very wrong but Tyrion's position was desperate. Of course he will be frowned upon if he ever comes back to Westeros and receives royal pardon for the murder, but Tywin had it coming.

But the way Joff was murdered can't be justified either. Not just because it was the reverse of the Red Wedding (a guest killing his host) but also because it was a cowardly move from his (presumed) allies. He deserved dying horribly, to be sure, but it's morally worse than the Red Wedding (at least, the Freys could be expected to be angry, but nobody in the court imagined that the Tyrells would kill the King they're marrying into)

[Boheme]

I don't think there is a valid excuse for the Red Wedding.  It's a cowardly way to win something and it's bad for peace in the realm.  Weddings are for alliances, usually very strained ones.  If now houses must now consider whether their frenemies are actually going to "pull a Frey" when they marry off their kids, it makes the peace of Westeros difficult.  

On the other hand I also have a poor opinion of the poisoning of Joffrey.  I was happy to see him go, but I'm 99% sure the "Queen of Thorns" didn't care who would be blamed for it, as long as it wasn't her.  I'm sure it crossed her mind that the traitor's daughter and the Imp might be the ones blamed.

[iamthedave]

It's perfectly justifiable from Tywin's perspective. Robb had proven far too competent in the field to guarantee that a military campaign would be over quickly, even if winning would be inevitable. Northmen being Northmen, they were likely not to bend the knee for a long time, and at that point Westeros was in no shape for further prolonged warfare. Kill Robb, the war's over.

Nice and simple.

Bolton's angle is equally justifiable. Robb is going to lose. He's mismanaged the war and botched everything with his allies. He needs to do something to get into Tywin's good books, and nothing's better than handing him the war.

Frey's angle on the other hand, is different. He's doing the entire thing because of his pride. While Tywin is being practical and Bolton selfish, Frey is simply being petty and vindictive. I would imagine that much of the post-death shenanigans were Frey's doing (just because we know Bolton prefers to skin his dead enemies though I suspect we'll find out for sure during ADWD; the Red Wedding will surely come up), and if so it just further shows what kind of man he is.

The Wedding itself is justified, but the manner of thing is not and the aftermath is ridiculous. I seem to recall even Tywin thought it folly. Isn't there a line about him saying he wanted Robb shot by an arrow in the field?