[Book Spoilers] Let's Be a Frey for a Day (heh, heh)

[Howling Mad]

Answers? No answers, just a discussion. There is no one truth here my dear Plato. I am here to discuss, not argue. I make my points, they are debated. I am not fishing for answers. I am trying to open the forums eyes to a new perspective that we oft not take--the one of a Frey. Some people agree with what I say, others do not. It is called an opinion and we are all entitled to our own. I have said, the Freys were not right with what they did. But they should have been pissed and should have wanted revenge.

I never guessed that you premised your thread on Cartesian doubt. :dunno:

[7V3N]

I never guessed that you premised your thread on Cartesian doubt. :dunno:

But that was to state my opinion and open up a debate. If there was no other side, than this discussion would only be one post. Post here if you want to contribute, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

[Howling Mad]

But that was to state my opinion and open up a debate. If there was no other side, than this discussion would only be one post. Post here if you want to contribute, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

My substantive posts are #9 and #38. I previous post in #41 was a freindly jibe at being referred to by you as Plato. IMO if you are unwilling to accept the substantive comments made by readers on your thread then you are wasting our time.

[7V3N]

My substantive posts are #9 and #38. I previous post in #41 was a freindly jibe at being referred to by you as Plato. IMO if you are unwilling to accept the substantive comments made by readers on your thread then you are wasting our time.

Yes, and I welcome you to continue as such. But posting things just to try to diminish my ethos (some Aristotle for you ;)) is not contributing.

I accept everyone's opinion and input as long as it relates to the discussion. I may not always agree, but that is part of the beauty of ASOIAF--everyone has their own take and few can be "wrong."

Again, sorry for the prior hostility. My mood could be partly because I am running on 6 hours of sleep in 3 days.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think saying "the Freys would have crossed Robb anyway" is silly. It seems to me that Walder Frey wanted power for his House, and few things would give his House more power than a king in the line, controlling the Riverlands and the North. The Freys in the Twins would have the ear of the North and all of the Riverlands. WF would not shy away from betrayal, but I do not see a reason he would have without Robb's betrayal to him.

So you don't think that if Frey thought that the tide was shifting against Robb, he would've have turned on him? I think that's kind of naive. The Freys are fair-weather friends to the highest degree. The minute Frey suspected Robb might not win, he'd've been gone. It just so happens that Robb bailed on the marriage contract before Frey had the chance to bail on Robb. Here's a question to ponder — why did Walder not insist on Robb marrying his daughter before the northern host crossed the river? That seems like the smart thing to do — if you're actually in it for the long haul. By waiting until the fighting was done, Walder left himself an "out" that wouldn't have been there if his daughter had married Robb at the start. From the beginning, he left an exit clause.

[lostinwesteros]

The Freys of the twins. The one thing that all readers basically agree on: these guys need to suffer. But let's remove our biases.

Walder Frey has a reputation for having conditional loyalty. It was this that earned him the nickname "the late Lord Frey." He is bitter. Nobody has ever respected him. He has so many children and grandchildren and he can barely marry any of them off.

Lord Walder Frey finally receives a golden opportunity when the Young Wolf Robb Stark needs to pass through the Twins to have a chance of success. He gets to name his own price. After much fighting things look very optimistic. This Young Wolf has been named the King in the North. A Frey shall be queen, and the Kings in the North shall have Frey blood in them. The Lannisters seem to be weakening, and have Renly (temporarily) and Stannis to deal with. The Young Wolf is in the West and better--he is winning. But then [when] Robb Stark had to choose between dishonoring Jeyne and House Westerling or dishonoring Lord Walder and all of House Frey. Robb chose [to dishonor] the Freys.

But would you not want [some sort of] vengeance? Robb betrayed his oath to the Freys while Lord Walder sent men [including his own kin] to fight a war he had no desire to fight in. But Robb says "Thanks for the men, I'll put them to good use," and moves on.

I am not supporting the Freys, but I think we need to at least empathize.

I can't really find any part of your premise arguable. You acknowledged that the execution of the RW was horrible (and I'd add abominable, but the descriptor is neither here nor there), and I do agree that Walder Frey was 'shot down' in a big way, setting aside the RW issue. Thus I can empathize with him to some extent, though there are other considerations which make me less likely to. One such consideration with which I'd 'balance' my empathy would be his practice of 'bedding'/marrying so many women, some of them little more than children (I see him as a mid-Westeros Craster!), and so, of course, I think that's part of his problem in not being able to have sons taken as 'wards' or daughters 'married' (i.e., the sheer size of the family he's created, to say nothing of the sheer dysfunction of it. I actually wanted to take a shower, or at least give a shudder of relief, when Catelyn actually got out of the Frey castle). I can't help but think most of his sons have got to be significantly emasculated, being subjected to his extremely dysfunctional style of 'ruling' the family. So, that is a point where my empathy for him is significantly limited (again, aside from the RW.)" I do judge the man, based on his actions, to be

harsh, mean, petty, and vengeful by nature, completely outside of the RW. Thus, although I do agree with what you mention in your premise, I see much more to the picture that makes it harder for me to uncategorically empathize with him.

Then, I also wonder at the "a Frey" in your title -- 'cause, of course, Walder isn't the only Frey. Even though most Freys would be intimidated and virtually brain-washed by Walder, surely there would also be some (at least one???) who thinks for himself/herself and sees what a horribly messed up sense of values and behavior choices Walder has made. If I were that Frey, I think I'd be contemplating poisoning Walder or 'warning' Robb of the RW plans -- pure speculation, though.

Interesting . . . and, going back to the analogy I drew with Craster, seems to me a wonder that someone hasn't poisoned him, too -- though the mark of an abused victim, I know, is fear of leaving the abusive situation, basically influenced by the Stockholm Syndrome and feeling totally dependent on their abuser.

[Ragnorak]

Like I said, please leave out the whole "but the Red Wedding...." thing. Sorry for the hostility, but I find it annoying when I explicitly point out how I want to avoid something, and multiple people immediately hit home on it. Then there is some idiot who comes up with the brilliant response "Never." Sorry (I do mean that).

But revenge was warranted. That is my point. Robb was foolish to expect the Freys to accept being pissed on again, this time worse than ever. They were a major part of his army. Losing them was (IMO) too great of a loss to accept, given the state of the North and the Lannisters' ability to focus on Robb's Rebellion (huh).

Walder Frey got a marriage to a Lord's heir, a marriage to a Lord's daughter, a squire to a Lord's heir's son, and 2 fosterings with a Lord for a river crossing. Granted he also threw in his military support. Robb was declared King later. So even after Robb acted like the 16 year old he is, Walder Frey still has a marriage to a Lord (Edmure) instead of a Lord's heir, a marriage to a King's sister instead of a Lord's daughter, a squire to a King instead of a Lord's heir's son, and 2 fosterings with a King instead of a Lord. So Edmure for Robb is actually an upgrade from the original deal-- a Lord for a Lord's heir. This new Lord means that Walder's new liege lord will eventually be his own great grandson which is also an upgrade from the original deal.

Breaking a marriage contract is not a small issue but it isn't an act of war either. Walder was entitled to be angry and entitled to either break of the alliance or accept compensation. Frey has more sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters than he can ever hope to provide with marriages. He could have demanded Edmure and Robb provide for marriages for all his offspring. He is entitled to make as many demands as he feels are appropriate and Robb is entitled to accept the new terms or not. He was never remotely entitled to a single death as compensation much less the mass murder of thousands through betrayal.

As to Frey complaining about his own marriage guests and his difficulty with so many children, he has no legitimate cause to complain. It was his eight marriage not his first. I couldn't be bothered to show to my own fourth wedding, forget about somebody else's eigth. Even the Tommen/Margaery wedding was a muted affair compared to Joffrey. If he wanted the Tullys to show up to his wedding he should have shown up to Robert's Rebellion. He spends enough time bragging about going "son for son" with all these other lords, it might occur for him to do the same math with sons and daughters. He has too many damn children for the rest of Westeros to support with marriages. The other combined Lords have already given him a more than reasonable number of marriages for his station.

Put differently-- Are you seriously asking if Lord Mayhaps is entitled to revenge for someone else reneging on a deal?

[Darth Rivers]

Betrayal for betrayal. If Walder didn't do something loud he'd be seen as weak. Though I suppose he could have done it way simpler - give orders from the start that if Robb breaks the oath, any of the Freys accompanying him must kill him, on the spot. If a Frey ran into Robb's wedding and stabbed him, it'd make a clear impression yet wouldn't be an affront to tradition.

[7V3N]

So you don't think that if Frey thought that the tide was shifting against Robb, he would've have turned on him? I think that's kind of naive. The Freys are fair-weather friends to the highest degree. The minute Frey suspected Robb might not win, he'd've been gone. It just so happens that Robb bailed on the marriage contract before Frey had the chance to bail on Robb. Here's a question to ponder — why did Walder not insist on Robb marrying his daughter before the northern host crossed the river? That seems like the smart thing to do — if you're actually in it for the long haul. By waiting until the fighting was done, Walder left himself an "out" that wouldn't have been there if his daughter had married Robb at the start. From the beginning, he left an exit clause.

Yes, Walder certainly left an "exit clause" but it is really hard to say if he would have backed out. If it weren't for the betrayal, I think Robb might have been able to win.

Robb's plan to retake the North was a good one (though my knowledge of medieval military strategy is limited) and his flank would have been secure while doing so. He would then be able to take back the North (I doubt the ironborn would have stood a chance), and moved back South to fight the Lannisters and Tyrells. This is where it gets complicated (and my memory gets more fuzzy).

The Lannisters have a lot of choices after Blackwater. Stannis could be left to rot or crushed once and for all. There is also Storm's End to worry about, so close to King's Landing. The Riverlands are fairly vulnerable and could be put under siege, or taken by force with high casualties. Stannis would probably not ally with Robb, due to his nature.

So at this point it is the Starks and Tullys vs. the Tyrells and Lannisters. Many would say this favors the Lannisters, but I would say it is even due to Robb's success vs. the Lannisters thus far. We have no idea if LF (or whomever) will still execute the Purple Wedding, or if Tywin would leave the war for the wedding (I doubt it since he doesn't care too much for Joff, and his presence in the army is vastly inportant), so Tyrion cannot kill him. So, IMO, the Freys would stay on board to this point if Robb did not betray them.

ETA: In reply to the "still marrying a major lord" argument:

Robb did not promise (well, agree to since Cat spoke for him) that a lord would marry a Frey, the agreement was that Robb would marry a Frey. If Robb were to say, "But I am a king now, not a lord," he is basically saying he is too good for a Frey. That is just insult on top of insult.

ETA2: Also, what's up Apple Martini. Long time no see.

[Ragnorak]

ETA: In reply to the "still marrying a major lord" argument:

Robb did not promise (well, agree to since Cat spoke for him) that a lord would marry a Frey, the agreement was that Robb would marry a Frey. If Robb were to say, "But I am a king now, not a lord," he is basically saying he is too good for a Frey. That is just insult on top of insult.

I never said breaking the marriage wasn't an offense; it was regardless of whether or not Robb ever became King. I just said it wasn't an act of war. The fact remains that Walder Frey's agreement with Robb was substantially upgraded across the board when he became King. The offer of Edmure in marriage is technically a better match than Robb was at the time they made the deal. We're overlooking the mass murder of thousands here to objectively and fairly consider the degree to which Walder Frey was shafted. Can we at least be equally objective with the deal Frey made and Robb? He was 16 and had sex with a highborn girl while wounded and in shock over the betrayal of Theon and murder of his two younger brothers that he felt responsible for. "I'm too good for a Frey because I'm King now" had nothing to do with it and everyone knows that.

[7V3N]

I never said breaking the marriage wasn't an offense; it was regardless of whether or not Robb ever became King. I just said it wasn't an act of war. The fact remains that Walder Frey's agreement with Robb was substantially upgraded across the board when he became King. The offer of Edmure in marriage is technically a better match than Robb was at the time they made the deal. We're overlooking the mass murder of thousands here to objectively and fairly consider the degree to which Walder Frey was shafted. Can we at least be equally objective with the deal Frey made and Robb? He was 16 and had sex with a highborn girl while wounded and in shock over the betrayal of Theon and murder of his two younger brothers that he felt responsible for. "I'm too good for a Frey because I'm King now" had nothing to do with it and everyone knows that.

I simply meant to add my opinion to the argument. It was not specifically directed at you.

Yes, Robb was in a weak moment. He made a mistake, but there are other topics discussing that so we will not talk about that here.

Try not to ignore things I say for the sake of your argument next time. "If" completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

If Robb were to say, "But I am a king now, not a lord," he is basically saying he is too good for a Frey. That is just insult on top of insult.

Edited for organization and spelling.

[Castel]

Betrayal for betrayal. If Walder didn't do something loud he'd be seen as weak. Though I suppose he could have done it way simpler - give orders from the start that if Robb breaks the oath, any of the Freys accompanying him must kill him, on the spot. If a Frey ran into Robb's wedding and stabbed him, it'd make a clear impression yet wouldn't be an affront to tradition.

Meh, there's little to be done here. Lord Walder was promised a marriage to a Stark because that was what was available. Robb fucked him, true,but he gave him a similar deal to the one they had originally made. The problem here is that Robb got upgraded in the meantime, so it looks like Lord Walder is missing out.

There is little to be done here, he was cheated out of a sudden windfall, and was offered the next best thing, whatever he chose he would have not gotten what was on the books already. But hey, Robb is a Stark, he gets to fuck over people like Lord Walder, and if it was anyone else he would have gotten away with it.

[7V3N]

But hey, Robb is a Stark, he gets to fuck over people like Lord Walder, and if it was anyone else he would have gotten away with it.

House Reyne would argue otherwise, but there is not a soul to hear. :P

[Castel]

House Reyne would argue otherwise, but there is not a soul to hear. :P

Which just goes to show, Great Houses can get away with a lot.

[Anvilbreaker]

they betrayed their lord for personal gain for a slight that was not that great. they still would have been one of the top 5 houses in the kingdom of the North if they had been loyal

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes, Walder certainly left an "exit clause" but it is really hard to say if he would have backed out. If it weren't for the betrayal, I think Robb might have been able to win.

Robb's plan to retake the North was a good one (though my knowledge of medieval military strategy is limited) and his flank would have been secure while doing so. He would then be able to take back the North (I doubt the ironborn would have stood a chance), and moved back South to fight the Lannisters and Tyrells. This is where it gets complicated (and my memory gets more fuzzy).

The Lannisters have a lot of choices after Blackwater. Stannis could be left to rot or crushed once and for all. There is also Storm's End to worry about, so close to King's Landing. The Riverlands are fairly vulnerable and could be put under siege, or taken by force with high casualties. Stannis would probably not ally with Robb, due to his nature.

So at this point it is the Starks and Tullys vs. the Tyrells and Lannisters. Many would say this favors the Lannisters, but I would say it is even due to Robb's success vs. the Lannisters thus far. We have no idea if LF (or whomever) will still execute the Purple Wedding, or if Tywin would leave the war for the wedding (I doubt it since he doesn't care too much for Joff, and his presence in the army is vastly inportant), so Tyrion cannot kill him. So, IMO, the Freys would stay on board to this point if Robb did not betray them.

You didn't answer my question. Why did Walder not insist on Robb marrying his daugter before he crossed the river?

I think it's pretty easy to say that he would've backed out — for all his complaints about the marriage contract being broken, he deliberately postponed the marriage itself (meaning, if Robb lost, the Freys weren't bound to the Starks by marriage and could get away clean), and he's known as an opportunist based on precedent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that Frey would've eventually betrayed Robb if the opportunity presented itself. Robb just beat him to the punch.

[LordBloodraven]

WF's problem is that even when he's wronged, he can't stop being a dick, who's going to be looked down by his peers. He doesn't answer his liege call for battle yet is angry when refused a marriage with said lord's heir. An army comes to relieve his lord who's besieged? He negociates two marriage contracts with a great lord, with a lord's daughter and fostering his two grandsons to a great lord before letting them cross. It's hard to call such a man honest.

Robb betrayed him. What does he do? He negociates a new marriage contract then kill all the guests and take some prisoners.

Robb wronged him and WF was entitled to a revenge? It's not by violating guest rights and mass murdering banqueteers that you will earn the respect of your peers. Even the Lannisters don't love them too much.

[LordBloodraven]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Walder not insist on Robb marrying his daugter before he crossed the river?

I think it's pretty easy to say that he would've backed out — for all his complaints about the marriage contract being broken, he deliberately postponed the marriage itself (meaning, if Robb lost, the Freys weren't bound to the Starks by marriage and could get away clean), and he's known as an opportunist based on precedent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that Frey would've eventually betrayed Robb if the opportunity presented itself. Robb just beat him to the punch.

See, WF is a sly bastard. He wanted the marriages after the war but wanter the two Walders to be fostered and Olyvar to be Robb's squire immediately. Walder Frey never wanted to commit himself fully in the war, but wanted to reap all he could. In AGOT, after they heard about Ned's death, Ser Stevron advises Robb to sue for peace with the Lannisters. And during ACOK, Hosteen and Aenys are already pushing for a peace or a truce, after they heard about the Blackwater. Robb gave them official reason but one thing is sure, Walder Frey was determined not to lose

[7V3N]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Walder not insist on Robb marrying his daugter before he crossed the river?

I did. I said it was certainly an exit clause. I just also said that there are too many variables to say for sure that Walder Frey would have backed out anyway. For all we know, the opportunity to leave may not have come. Robb could have sat nicely in Winterfell after beating the Lannisters, and offered King's Landing and the South to Stannis as terms of peace. We just cannot say for sure what would have happened.