80 replies to this topic

[The Frosted King]

Gurkhal, on 03 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I think the oath to the nearest House is what counts for the most. Thus for Lannister it would be to Targaryen but for Marbrand the most important oath would be to House Lannister. Hence I think that the oath to House Frey was the most important one.  



In Robert's Rebellion it was wrong by Grafton, Corbray etc. to not support their liege lord, even if it was understandable, and the same goes with the situation in the Riverlands or the Stormlands. But at the same time it was very wrong by Hoster to betray his king for the sake of profit for his House. Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon and the other Houses who had their members murdered were justified in raising arms against Aerys II but Hoster, and in honesty Tywin, were not justified since they had not been attacked by the mad king. In fact I'd be willing to give a pass to Mallister for going rebel even if Hoster didn't go rebel as House Mallister was directly transgressed against.

In terms of punishment I would think that a condemtion would be more than sufficient with the following social stigma. In fact I think that they shouldn't be punished at all as they only followed their oaths to their liege.




Actually, you are wrong. You can follow the Kingsroad and skip the Twins entirely when going north, or encircle the Twins from two sides fairly easily if you're coming from the south.



Because he has already set them on the path to destruction instead of gaining the respect he always wanted?



That's cold. Even some Aerys/Joffrey material. I'm glad Hoster wasn't one of those guys even if he was an asshole.

All i care about is whats addressed to me.

How is that cold? He waited until the fight was over to bring his levies.
He disobeyed a summons from his leige lord.
He was known to be a untrustworthy lord who held an invaluable strategic position.

If I was Hoster, i'd slay his family and raise a minor lord to the post who's proven loyalty.
The balance of power in the feudal era was decided by strengthening internal strong points and weakening external strong points.

Tywin was cold and ruthless, but his destruction of the Tarbecks was justified, though i can't recall if the Reynes were as well.

[Silmarien]

Gurkhal, on 03 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

I agree.



Ok lets try and see where this is going. You are arguing from the perspective of our world. I'm standing kind of halfway between our world and Westerosi world. So I take it that we're going to discuss this from our world's perspective, yes?

Because in that case then obviously Old Walder, Lothar Frey, Roose Bolton etc. should be given time in prison, Ramsay should be given criminal health due to his mental illness (I don't know what its called in English but Kriminalvården in Swedish) and that's it. No one should die, as death penalty has been abolished in the developed world by today except for the USA, and I doubt that association by family will be allowed to harm any relatives economical situation. So basically a bunch of guys would go to prison and that's it. The Frey bannermen would probably be out after a few decades.

That's how I think that it would be played out anyway.

No.  I'm not talking about our world.  Westeros has a concept of "war crimes".  As when Ned from the throne ruled for Robert that the pillaging and raping of the Riverlands was unlawful as it targeted civilians.

Guest right is not just sacred, it's necessary.  Assassinating an entire army under pretenses of a wedding was a major Westerosi war crime (they might not call it that, which is probably why you think I'm trying to discuss it in modern terms such as the Geneva Convention - I'm not, there just is not a better word I can come up with to describe the atrocity of the RW).

Lord Walder deserves beheading, or taking the Black - though he'd be a USELESS NW member.  Everyone involved in the RW (murderers dressed up as musicians) and planners deserve summary execution by Westeros law.  And the Freys should lose all land and titles in perpetuity.

Those Freys who were innocent should not be punished - but their family's crime means they should not be allowed to hold their seat either.

[Silmarien]

Scootydowop, on 03 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

All i care about is whats addressed to me.

How is that cold? He waited until the fight was over to bring his levies.
He disobeyed a summons from his leige lord.
He was known to be a untrustworthy lord who held an invaluable strategic position.

If I was Hoster, i'd slay his family and raise a minor lord to the post who's proven loyalty.
The balance of power in the feudal era was decided by strengthening internal strong points and weakening external strong points.

Tywin was cold and ruthless, but his destruction of the Tarbecks was justified, though i can't recall if the Reynes were as well.

I do believe the Tarbecks bended once Tywin sent them a musician who played The Rains of Castamere, though I could be wrong.  The Reynes were definitely destroyed though, I believe for holding a Lannister captive trying to ransom him for gold.

[Gurkhal]

Scootydowop, on 03 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

All i care about is whats addressed to me.

How is that cold? He waited until the fight was over to bring his levies.
He disobeyed a summons from his leige lord.
He was known to be a untrustworthy lord who held an invaluable strategic position.

If I was Hoster, i'd slay his family and raise a minor lord to the post who's proven loyalty.
The balance of power in the feudal era was decided by strengthening internal strong points and weakening external strong points.

Tywin was cold and ruthless, but his destruction of the Tarbecks was justified, though i can't recall if the Reynes were as well.

The point I was making was that Frey behaved like a dick but that's no ground to kill an entire family. The Tarbecks and Reynes rose in full rebellion against the Lannisters while Frey just hanged back to avoid the fight. I think these are different scenarios and the best/worst that I would go for if I was Hoster would be to hang Lord Walder Frey as and oathbreaker and let Stevron take over the lordship. Killing the entire House Frey for something like that would be a bit of an overkill and not entirely justified.

Silmarien, on 03 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

No.  I'm not talking about our world.  Westeros has a concept of "war crimes".  As when Ned from the throne ruled for Robert that the pillaging and raping of the Riverlands was unlawful as it targeted civilians.

Silmarien, on 03 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Guest right is not just sacred, it's necessary.  Assassinating an entire army under pretenses of a wedding was a major Westerosi war crime (they might not call it that, which is probably why you think I'm trying to discuss it in modern terms such as the Geneva Convention - I'm not, there just is not a better word I can come up with to describe the atrocity of the RW).

You are right in that there arn't any laws of war like there are in the modern world. I would think the word you are looking for is "dishonorable" rathern than war crime.

Silmarien, on 03 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Lord Walder deserves beheading, or taking the Black - though he'd be a USELESS NW member.  Everyone involved in the RW (murderers dressed up as musicians) and planners deserve summary execution by Westeros law.  And the Freys should lose all land and titles in perpetuity.

It was mercenaries dressed up as musicians and while I'll agree that those directly involved in the planning and conducting of the Red Wedding should be physically punished I would think that after a good cleaning of members within that House the House should be allowed to remain. At worst I would kill of exile most members and let some sworn knight of mine marry some Frey girl/woman and take the title of lord Frey if anyone would have it. Possibly I'd relocate the origional House Frey to be a House of landed knights but that's as far as I would probably go.

Silmarien, on 03 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Those Freys who were innocent should not be punished - but their family's crime means they should not be allowed to hold their seat either.

When you take their homes away I think that you'll be punishing them rather severely as it is.

Silmarien, on 03 April 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I do believe the Tarbecks bended once Tywin sent them a musician who played The Rains of Castamere, though I could be wrong.  The Reynes were definitely destroyed though, I believe for holding a Lannister captive trying to ransom him for gold.

I'm afraid you've got it a bit mixed up now. This is how it happend as far as I can tell.

Lord Tarbeck did something, unspecified what, and was taken prisoner by the Lannisters, and in respons lady Tarbeck took three Lannisters as hostage and demanded her husband be sent back. Tywin adviced that they would carve up lord Tarbeck in three pieces and so send one piece for each hostage but lord Tytos caved in and let lord Tarbeck go.

Later the Tarbecks and Reynes rose together in revolt against House Lannister and were defeated and destroyed as a result of this.

Some years later lord Farman on Fair Island was making a fuss about something and in respons lord Tywin sent a musician who played the Rains of Castamere at which point lord Farman backed down.

[Quint]

I'd be happy if every member of house Frey and those that knowingly participated in the Red Wedding died, along with Olyvar and Perwin because I feel like the only punishment worthy of Waldar Frey is the extinction of his house.

[Silmarien]

Gurkhal, on 04 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

I'm afraid you've got it a bit mixed up now. This is how it happend as far as I can tell.

Lord Tarbeck did something, unspecified what, and was taken prisoner by the Lannisters, and in respons lady Tarbeck took three Lannisters as hostage and demanded her husband be sent back. Tywin adviced that they would carve up lord Tarbeck in three pieces and so send one piece for each hostage but lord Tytos caved in and let lord Tarbeck go.

Later the Tarbecks and Reynes rose together in revolt against House Lannister and were defeated and destroyed as a result of this.

Some years later lord Farman on Fair Island was making a fuss about something and in respons lord Tywin sent a musician who played the Rains of Castamere at which point lord Farman backed down.

Ah, okay.  I concede, I did not recall the story well.  Though I do remember than there was SOME bannerman who tried to mess with the Lannisters and they caved in terror when Tywin sent a musician who played "The Rains of Castamere".  Or is that some kind of weird misremembering/amalagamation of events that I have gotten totally wrong?

[Faint]

I'd honestly be surprised to see a resolution to this issue within the pages of the story. It really is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. There are far bigger houses to contend with when it comes to subject of possible extinction (i.e., Freys, Lannisters, etc.), so if we are going to get any elaboration on this kind of thing it will be for bigger houses.

[Gurkhal]

Silmarien, on 04 April 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ah, okay.  I concede, I did not recall the story well.  Though I do remember than there was SOME bannerman who tried to mess with the Lannisters and they caved in terror when Tywin sent a musician who played "The Rains of Castamere".  Or is that some kind of weird misremembering/amalagamation of events that I have gotten totally wrong?

You are entirely right. The bannerman was lord Farman.

http://awoiaf.wester...hp/House_Farman

[GrandPoobah]

The Last Direwolf, on 29 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Going along with the Red Wedding was supporting a rebellion against their liege lord's liege lord. They are no less guilty. They should be given fair trials, yes, but let off without punishment is not an option.

It was a time of civil war, and they acted in favor of the arguably rightful king against a northern lord who had no real right to name himself king no matter what. Given that Robb's side lost the war, Lord Frey isn't likely to face charges for betraying him.

What the Freys are DEFINITELY guilty of was killing those with guest rights. Guest Right is one of the most primary laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Per Old Nan's tale of the Rat Cook, the gods do not forgive that.

[The Last Direwolf]

dtones520, on 03 April 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

As far as i know that when the Starks and the rest of the North bent the knee to Aegon, they agreed to follow their laws in terms of governance of the realm. So, if that means following who the Faith annoints as king, so be it. Hence the titles thst come after The Kings name "King of the andals, the rhoynar, the first men, blah, blah, blah."

Besides im pretty sure the Stark kids now follow both the old gods and the new, based on Sansa's chapters mainly. Considering their mother followed the Seven.

Plus, the crown owns the north lands anyways, which is why Robb asked for them to succeed dominion over the North in his peace terms. Which, basically means they get no taxes from the North. Thats about it.

So, this does, technically, make Robb a rebel king. No different than Balon Greyjoy. So Lord Freys original pledge to Robb was treason, him killing Robb ended Robbs rebellion, thus restoring his house into good standing with the Throne, making him not a traitor any longer. A huge asshat, but a traitor.

Im a huge Robb fan too, he is my favorite character, but he was a rebel. He says as much in the tv show "You married a rebel and mothered a rebel."

Yes, they bent the knee to Aegon and the Targaryens never did he bend the knee to a Baratheon. Surely then, once their dynasty was deposed, none of the Kingdoms, be it the Reach, the Vale or the North, etc, owed any fealty to the Iron Throne?

So another king claiming dominion over your lands makes you a rebel? The crown owns the North on the condition that the Lord of Winterfell pays fealty. Therefore, once he stops doing so, the North stops becoming part of the Seven Kingdoms and is an independent nation... Or so I thought. I could be wrong I suppose.

Edited by The Last Direwolf, 04 April 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[The Last Direwolf]

GrandPoobah, on 04 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

It was a time of civil war, and they acted in favor of the arguably rightful king against a northern lord who had no real right to name himself king no matter what. Given that Robb's side lost the war, Lord Frey isn't likely to face charges for betraying him.

What the Freys are DEFINITELY guilty of was killing those with guest rights. Guest Right is one of the most primary laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Per Old Nan's tale of the Rat Cook, the gods do not forgive that.

So a bastard born of incest without a drop of royal blood is their king versus a king who actually has ancestors who were kings? I don't see the logic in that.

Frey's aren't going to face charges for their treasons...? I wouldn't be so sure about that. When Sansa marches with the strength of the Vale and the Riverlords behind her they had better hope their walls are strong...

[gordonah]

Do we know that the Frey bannermen swore any sort of oath to the throne?

In medieval England all nobles swore fealty to the crown, but I don't think this was the case everywhere. I think sometimes fealty was given in a hierarchical manner; the lord swore to the duke, the duke to the crown.

I don't recall the detail, but I remember seeing this somewhere as a difference in the feudalism the Normans introduced in England.

[The Last Direwolf]

gordonah, on 04 April 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Do we know that the Frey bannermen swore any sort of oath to the throne?

In medieval England all nobles swore fealty to the crown, but I don't think this was the case everywhere. I think sometimes fealty was given in a hierarchical manner; the lord swore to the duke, the duke to the crown.

I don't recall the detail, but I remember seeing this somewhere as a difference in the feudalism the Normans introduced in England.

They swore fealty to House Tully and House Tully swore fealty to Robb. They were betraying Robb by betraying House Tully.

[The King in the South]

The Last Direwolf, on 29 March 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Going along with the Red Wedding was supporting a rebellion against their liege lord's liege lord. They are no less guilty. They should be given fair trials, yes, but let off without punishment is not an option.

Going along with Robb Stark was supporting a rebellion against their liege lords liege lord (for the Freys that is)...

[The Last Direwolf]

The King in the South, on 04 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Going along with Robb Stark was supporting a rebellion against their liege lords liege lord (for the Freys that is)...

No. Their liege lord's liege lord was Robb Stark.

[The King in the South]

The Last Direwolf, on 04 April 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

No. Their liege lord's liege lord was Robb Stark.

The tullys had started fighting long before they had sworn fealty to robb. Their liege lord at the time was the crown.

[The Last Direwolf]

The King in the South, on 04 April 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

The tullys had started fighting long before they had sworn fealty to robb. Their liege lord at the time was the crown.

The crown had virtually abandoned the Tullys, and it was the Queen's own family that was terrorising the Riverlands; it was obvious that Riverrun would not stay loyal to King's Landing for long. Their banners being called for Robb was almost certain.

[The King in the South]

The Last Direwolf, on 04 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

The crown had virtually abandoned the Tullys, and it was the Queen's own family that was terrorising the Riverlands; it was obvious that Riverrun would not stay loyal to King's Landing for long. Their banners being called for Robb was almost certain.

Except, the Freys were not being attacked, it was their liege lords problem with the crown. Are you saying that the Freys owed their allegiance to their immediate liege lord over instead of their overall lord?
Because if you are, then you can't fault the Frey bannermen for standing with the Freys instead of betraying them to the starks/tullys.

[Ser Hippie]

The Frey bannermen are a good illustration of the dangers posed to even nobles further down the totem pole in society by the machinations of Westerosi politics, so I do have some sympathy for them. As the books open the "loyalty tree" is Bannerman > Frey > Tully > Crown. Everything is hunky dory.

Then Walder Frey calls his banners. His bannermen must know he's hedging his bets but what do they do? If they bring their troops in they risk being involved in a war they don't want and possibly on a side they don't agree with. If they don't bring their troops, then they've opened themselves up to retaliation for not being loyal to their liege lord.

Then, it gets worse, Frey declares for Robb Stark (Bannermen > Frey > Tully > Stark)

Well, what's a loyalist Frey bannerman to do? He either betrays his oath to the Freys and Tullys or to the crown, but he cannot be loyal to both. When Frey switches sides again (Bannermen > Frey > Crown), the same dilemna is posed only for those loyal to Robb Stark. They're forced on this path, willing or not, and don't really have options other than to hope the Freys pick the "right" side.

It's easy for a Lord Frey to equivocate, like he did during Robert's rebellion, much harder for some of the Frey bannermen we run into.

Edited by Ser Hippie, 04 April 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[The Frosted King]

Gurkhal, on 04 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

The point I was making was that Frey behaved like a dick but that's no ground to kill an entire family. The Tarbecks and Reynes rose in full rebellion against the Lannisters while Frey just hanged back to avoid the fight. I think these are different scenarios and the best/worst that I would go for if I was Hoster would be to hang Lord Walder Frey as and oathbreaker and let Stevron take over the lordship. Killing the entire House Frey for something like that would be a bit of an overkill and not entirely justified.





You are right in that there arn't any laws of war like there are in the modern world. I would think the word you are looking for is "dishonorable" rathern than war crime.



It was mercenaries dressed up as musicians and while I'll agree that those directly involved in the planning and conducting of the Red Wedding should be physically punished I would think that after a good cleaning of members within that House the House should be allowed to remain. At worst I would kill of exile most members and let some sworn knight of mine marry some Frey girl/woman and take the title of lord Frey if anyone would have it. Possibly I'd relocate the origional House Frey to be a House of landed knights but that's as far as I would probably go.



When you take their homes away I think that you'll be punishing them rather severely as it is.



I'm afraid you've got it a bit mixed up now. This is how it happend as far as I can tell.

Lord Tarbeck did something, unspecified what, and was taken prisoner by the Lannisters, and in respons lady Tarbeck took three Lannisters as hostage and demanded her husband be sent back. Tywin adviced that they would carve up lord Tarbeck in three pieces and so send one piece for each hostage but lord Tytos caved in and let lord Tarbeck go.

Later the Tarbecks and Reynes rose together in revolt against House Lannister and were defeated and destroyed as a result of this.

Some years later lord Farman on Fair Island was making a fuss about something and in respons lord Tywin sent a musician who played the Rains of Castamere at which point lord Farman backed down.

Having untrustworthy men in positions of power that could make or break your own House, is stupid. Hoster had the perfect excuse when the Freys came late, but he didn't take it.
As the Lannisters did the Tarbecks and Reynes, so too should the Tullys done the Freys and the Starks done the boltons.
And if the women were complicit in the RW, then they too must die. Root and stem my friend.

And the coming of the Golden Company does present new strategic options.
Send ravens offering the Mudds and other exiled river lords the castles and lands of the Freys and Brackens, and the Darrys in exchange for swearing oaths to the Tullys when they rise up again.