Jump to content

Bernie Mac

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bernie Mac

  1. 1 hour ago, Nevets said:

    This quote might be of interest

    AGOT, Jon IV

    This would suggest that such events are not automatically rape.  A statement by the girl or other evidence of force is required. 

    Nowhere in that quote does it claim he took her without her consent or that he used force. It may well be she confirmed they had sex, which in the medieval world would make him a rapist. Without her confirming it he's not really done anything wrong, certainly nothing worthy of giving up his life to the Wall.

    Are you under the impression that I am making this up about medieval life? That the wiki on the history of rape, the essay I provided were all fake and that this claim is not true?


    1 hour ago, Nevets said:


    As to Rhaegar, Bran is under the impression that Lyanna was raped, but we don't know where he got the information from.  Given Ned's reticence on the matter, I doubt it was him. 

    Who else would have told him? Ned is the Lord of his castle, when he did not want Arthur Dayne and his sister mentioned it was no longer brought up by the servants.

    Ned is in charge of his children's education, the Maester is not going to be teaching them anything that he does not want them to know.

    The medieval understanding of rape was different to ours, it had a broader meaning, not just violent non consenting sex.

    There is not one source in the entire series that claims that Lyanna did not willingly give herself to Rhaegar, it was still rape. And despite the entire realm knowing he was a rapist it has not damaged his reputation among most of the realm, Kevan, Cersei, Barristan, Jaime and many others look at him admiringly.

    She thought of Daario. If ever there was a man who could rape a woman with his eyes . . .
    To be sure, she was just as guilty. Dany found herself stealing looks at the Tyroshi when her captains came to council, and sometimes at night she remembered the way his gold tooth glittered when he smiled.
    The word had more meaning than it does today.



  2. 5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Ah except that this is martins world. Not the medieval world.

    According to the author it is based on the medieval world. Am I the only person in this thread who is aware of that?

    In fact on GRRM's pet peeves is by authors who do not understand the logistics of the medieval world.


    GRRM:: I was also reading a lot of historical fiction. And the contrast between that and a lot of the fantasy at the time was dramatic because a lot of the fantasy of Tolkien imitators has a quasi-medieval setting, but it’s like the Disneyland Middle Ages. You know, they’ve got tassels and they’ve got lords and stuff like that, but they don’t really seem to grasp what it was like in the Middle Ages.


    GRRM: And then there are some things that are just don’t square with history. In some sense I’m trying to respond to that. [For example] the arranged marriage, which you see constantly in the historical fiction and television show, almost always when there’s an arranged marriage, the girl doesn’t want it and rejects it and she runs off with the stable boy instead. This never fucking happened. It just didn’t. There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned. Yeah, occasionally you would want someone else, but you wouldn’t run off with the stable boy.

    And that’s another of my pet peeves about fantasies. The bad authors adopt the class structures of the Middle Ages; where you had the royalty and then you had the nobility and you had the merchant class and then you have the peasants and so forth. But they don’t’ seem to realize what it actually meant. They have scenes where the spunky peasant girl tells off the pretty prince. The pretty prince would have raped the spunky peasant girl. He would have put her in the stocks and then had garbage thrown at her. You know.


    Genuine question to you and the people  who have liked your post, are you really not aware that the series is set in a culture that reflects our own middle ages?

    Is this really what you are arguing about now?


    5 hours ago, The Young Maester said:


    When I mean rape, is that she was taken forcefully. That’s what everyone in Westeros thinks. Not that Lyanna gave herself to Rhaegar.

    By all means quote the people who state that. If you think everyone thinks that you will have no problem backing this up.


  3. 53 minutes ago, corbon said:

    I don't need to read anything else...

    Then you are missing the point. A noble girl's consent, if she was an unmarried virgin, was meaningless in the the medieval age, the consent of her father was the issue. By the law of the day Robb had raped Jeyne as he had sex with her without her father's consent.

    It is the same reason why Ned teaches his children that their aunt was raped by Rhaegar. Their definition of rape was not the same as ours,  but in their world what Rhaegar and Robb did would be considered rape. It is likely one of the reasons why Robb felt honour bound to marry her, he had sullied her name.



    2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    He is clearly very knowledgeable in asoiaf @Bernie Mac, and from time to time he makes some interesting points. But when it involves a discussion about a character he dislikes, his emotions get the better of him.

    There are actually characters I dislike in the series, Robb is not one of them. He's kind of vanilla, his siblings and parents are far, far more interesting (due to being more fleshed out) but I don't dislike him.

    3 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    This reminds me of all the famous sportsman and singers that always get accused of rape by women.

    Gods so by your standards if a woman gives herself willingly it is rape? What if Jeyne fancies the young wolf. A handsome warrior king that has captured her home and taken her family captive, maybe it turns her.

    It is not my standards, it is the standards of the medieval world. Read up on the subject.

    Young unmarried women were not in charge of their bodies, their fathers/patriarchs/matriarchs were, thus them consenting to sex would matter little to their society, it would still be viewed as rape.

    This is not my feeling on the world, it is the world itself. Obviously we live in a far better and enlightened time, but the middle ages had different rules. Robb, like Rhaegar, raped his captive regardless if their captives consented or even initiated sex.

  4. 6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Show me where in text any of this is cited as the reason Robb didn't marry a Frey. 

    Robb was in lust, he fancied his prisoner Jeyne and by the standards of the day raped his prisoner.




    No. Cat releasing Jaime did nothing to justify the RW. 

    That is correct. The Red Wedding would have happened regardless of Jaimes' release.



    The argument is whether or not the RW was justified.

    And from Walder's perspective it was.



    No one seems to think Robb was justified in breaking his promise to marry.

    Some do. I have read many people on this forum who wish Robb married Margaery or some other noble with a bigger army than the Freys after he made that promise.

    I've seen some argue that Robb was justified in breaking his promise because he had few other options.

    Like I said to Frenin, it is a bad idea to use absolutes on topics like this where there are a multitude of opinions. This is one of the most discussed topics in the fandom, with hundreds of indepth discussions on this very forum. There is not some clear answer, If there was it would not be a topic that raises its head every few weeks.



    Oddly enough those same people think Walder completely justified in slaughtering them all. 

    Do they? 'Those same people'.

    Generalizations are never a good tactic.


    First of all you are very condescending.

    lol you called my entire argument erroneous without bothering to justify your stance other than you were correct and you think I'm the only one being condescending in this discussion? Look in the mirror.



    Citing Cersei doesn't make anyone desperate.

    You mean wrong citing Cersei. As I proved, she did not say what he thought she said.

    Is this really the hill the two of you want to die on, arguing over something Cersei did not actually say?

    He was mistaken, it happens to us all, its a very large series, unless you have an eidetic memory the likelihood is that misremembering is going to happen. It's not a big deal.



    The poster is showing that even the house that supported the RW knows the Frey's will likely suffer mass consequences for it.

    The poster didn't, the poster claimed that Cersei would let House Frey fall as soon as Walder died. The poster was wrong. You do realize that, right?

    Cersei thought the new Lord of House Frey would be happy to see a few relatives pay for those crimes. Cersei, certainly AFFC onwards, is not a great judge of character on how others react.



    He/she didn't say anything about it being a good idea to piss off Frey's etc. So maybe you ought to read like you have stated to this poster a couple times.

    Not once did I claim he did. Please quote where you think I said that?

    What I did say that Cersei would be an idiot, even more so than she is in the books, if she was to allow House Frey, one of the few allies to her son's Crown, to fall. That is what I said. Please reread my post and when you reply to this one maybe reread it a few times before wrongly jumping to conclusions on what I have or have not said. It will save us both some time.


    That is willingly joining them no? 

    No, that is joining them over a contract.

    If your employer decided to not pay you at the end of the month would you not have a problem with that?



    Not remotely what I was arguing.

    No, who said it was? I was giving an analogy to what happened to why the Freys were pissed when Robb fucked them over.




    In your scenario the buyer willingly bought the house. Period.

    Nope, reread.



    I didn't say anything about not wanting justice because the house was trashed or whatever. Even if the house was trashed the issue the buyer has is that the property was not as bought, not that they were forced into buying it. 

    Similar scenario, hotel suite. Trashed and then the guests (Robb) refused to pay for the damages. The Hotel (the Freys) would be right to want revenge.


    No I haven't moved any goal posts.

    Yeah, you have. At no point did I, the person you are replying to, claim it was legal or moral.

    Once again you are moving the goal posts due to a poorly thought out argument.



    If it's not justified legally or morally how exactly is it justified?

    I'm English, maybe Justified has a different meaning where you are from, but in the UK you can be justified doing something without it being legal or moral, Walder had a valid reason for wanting revenge.

    Besides, legal is a dumb argument to make given that Robb and Walder were rebels at the time. They were not subject to the laws of Westeros.

    The only 'law' Walder broke was the law of the gods, if they are real and they truly care about guest rights then he will soon suffer a deserved punishment for that.


    According to who? 

    According to Robb.

    "We must win back the Freys," said Robb. "With them, we still have some chance of success, however small. Without them, I see no hope. I am willing to give Lord Walder whatever he requires . . . apologies, honors, lands, gold . . . there must be something that would soothe his pride . . ."    

    Robb was in desperate need of the Frey army to help him retake the North.



    You made the claim, you quote it.

    So that's a no, then? You can't prove it via a quote.



    Show me what text suggests Robb was a horny 16 year old

    Most 16 year old boys are horny. Robb does not seem to be any different and the fact that he raped an attractive prisoner and then married her seems to confirm this.

    “His Grace King Robb is wed.” Bolton spit a prune pit into his hand and put it aside. “To a Westerling of the Crag. I am told her name is Jeyne. No doubt you know her, ser. Her father is your father’s bannerman.”  “My father has a good many bannermen, and most of them have daughters.” Jaime groped one-handed for his goblet, trying to recall this Jeyne. The Westerlings were an old house, with more pride than power.  “This cannot be true,” Brienne said stubbornly. “King Robb was sworn to wed a Frey. He would never break faith, he -”  “His Grace is a boy of sixteen,” said Roose Bolton mildly. “And I would thank you not to question my word, my lady.”  Jaime felt almost sorry for Robb Stark. He won the war on the battlefield and lost it in a bedchamber, poor fool.


    The Westerling mines had failed years ago, their best lands had been sold off or lost, and the Crag was more ruin than stronghold. A romantic ruin, though, jutting up so brave above the sea. "I am surprised," Tyrion had to confess. "I thought Robb Stark had better sense."


    Jeyne is bright as well as beautiful. And kind as well. She has a gentle heart."
    It is swords you need, not gentle hearts. How could you do this, Robb? How could you be so heedless, so stupid? How could you be so . . . so very . . . young. Reproaches would not serve here, however.
    "That night, she . . . she comforted me, Mother."
    Catelyn did not need to be told what sort of comfort Jeyne Westerling had offered her son. "And you wed her the next day."
    He was a horny 16 year old who betrayed the Freys because he wanted to get laid.


    let alone that is why he broke his promise. 

    He broke his promise when he married Jeyne, who he barely knew. Many of us, not all, who hear about  teenagers who marry after a few weeks of knowing each other would call that lust, not love.

    His dick made him break his promise.


    You are contradicting yourself here. If no one cares who Robb sleeps with what possible bearing could Robb being horny & sleeping with someone have on the RW?? 

    I'm not contradicting myself. Robb being horny is not an issue, Robb being so horny that he married the person he lusted after was the problem.


    Yeah the RW was one big fit in response to Robb not marrying one of his kin. 

    As well as the loss of Frey hundreds, maybe even up to a thousand Frey vassal lives including Walder's heir.

    There can be more than one reason, you do understand that, right?


    You are the only one I've seen likening the Frey's to Jews.

    And? Am I responsible for who you talk to on this subject? I made a connection

    • In the middle ages the Jews features were frequently compared to rats, the Freys to Weasels
    • In the middle ages the Jews were not trusted because they were good with money, the same is true of the Freys


    Whether it is deliberate by the author or not there are parallels between how people talk about the Freys in the series and how people talked about the Jews in the middle ages.




    I haven't dehumanized them at all.

    You have, you just have not realized it.



    Nor have I said once Walder wasn't right to be angry. 

    No,  but you are completely ignoring legitimate reasons why he is angry, like the loss of many Frey lives on Robb's broken promise.

    By ignoring this and making out the only reason he is unhappy is due to the wedding you are dehumanizing him.



    Well it was your claim that they do so really you should prove it but not one Frey lost their life because Robb married Jeyne.

    They lost their life because Robb made an agreement, an agreement he pissed on when he decided he wanted to get laid and marry the attractive Jeyne.

    "You have done House Frey a grievous insult, Robb."
    "I never meant to. Ser Stevron died for me"
    Robb fucked over the Freys, he himself can admit it.


    If part of Walders wrath is due to losing people on the battle field it's just further proof of his ridiculousness.

    lol there you go dehumanizing him again.

    Robb goes to war because his father is arrested. I guess only the characters you like are allowed to be upset when their family members are hurt.



    If he sent his men into battle believing none would be killed & that if they were he could hold Robb responsible & seek out revenge for it then I'm hard pressed to see how anyone thinks Walder is very smart. 

    Why are you arguing in bad faith?  Had Robb not made an agreement with the Freys then they would never have fought for him.

    I presume that you have a job, a job where your employer has made a deal with you to pay you a certain amount at the end of the month for what you have agreed to do. Would you not be angry if your employer refused to pay you what you had agreed after you had already done the work?

    The Freys bled for Robb's broken promise. They have a right to be pissed.



    I think you would have a hard time proving rape in a court but ok.

    eh? I was more than clear with what I wrote. Why the need to constantly argue in bad faith?


    As a consequence, the rape of a virgin was often a more serious crime than of a non-virgin, even a wife or widow, and the rape of a prostitute or other unchaste woman was, in some laws, not a crime because her chastity could not be harmed. Furthermore, the woman's consent was under many legal systems not a defense. In seventeenth-century France, even marriage without parental consent was classified as rape

    In the medieval world what Robb (and Rhaegar) did was rape regardless if Jeyne (Lyanna consented).  In our world Rhaegar would still a rapist given he had sex with a 15 year old girl, it's crazy how some people will defend and fetishize such behaviour.



    His being horny would have been fulfilled by the rape or sex alone no? So it hardly explains the marriage.

    Eh? No, not at all. If he was that attracted to her and wanted to have regular sex with her he'd marry her so he could continue banging her.

    Many marriages happen due to lust, is this the first you are hearing of this?



    The thing that ACTUALLY broke the contract with Walder. People don't get married because they are horny. 

    Yeah, they do. My parents did.

    Many marriages between people who barely know each other discover that they were in lust, not love. Many others have happy, loving marriages, but it genuinely surprises me that you have never heard of people marring out of lust. Either you are being genuine or you are lying to make a point.


    If he will suffer deserved retribution then how we're his acts justified? 

    I said his need for vengeance was justified, which it was.

    Look, I'm English, I'm using the English definition of the word. I'm sorry if whichever country your from has a different definition of the word, I respect that we may both be correct on this matter and are simply arguing semantics.

    If the gods are real he will suffer deserved retribution, just as Robb did.


    You are using Robb breaking a marriage contract as a justification for the RW

    A bit more than that. I am using the loss of lives who died for Robb's broken promise as justification for Walder's revenge.




    Again there is no textual basis for Robb thinking with his dick equalling Robb breaking his betrothal.

    Yeah, there is. I have given four quotes that insinuate that Robb was acting as a dumb teenage boy, which he was.




    Furthermore if Walder was extremely worried about losing his son that he had groomed for 60 years to the point that he was willing to slaughter unarmed people if he died in battle he probably should not have sent him into battle. 

    lol so it's Walder's fault. Not Robb for breaking his promise?

    Walder would have accepted his son dying, but his son dying for a broken promise is an insult. Just like your manager refusing to pay you your earned salary would be an insult to you, no?


    So every battle Commander is directly responsible for the lives lost under him

    No, not one did I say that. Please stop creating straw man arguments.

    The Freys supported Robb due to a deal he made, they bled, some died, for that deal. They fulfilled their part of the deal, Robb refused to do his. They have a right to be angry and seek retribution.


    I'll respond to the rest of your post later, it is getting tiring replying to so many straw arguments.



  5. 3 hours ago, frenin said:

    No, I'm not, Cersei is just the general outcry that is let's see how we can blame the Frey for all and that House Lannister and the Crown.

    You wrongly claimed that Cersei would let House Frey fall as soon as Walder was dead. You were wrong and I quoted the books to show that you were mistaken.

    Is it that hard to admit that you may have been mistaken about something written in a huge volume of work or are you just going to double down on what you wrote rather than admit that you may have been mistaken?


  6. 2 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

    I didn't say Tywin killed anyone. In fact, I said he didn't kill a few ppl.

    Excellent, we are on the same page. Tywin did not kill anyone at the Red Wedding. Glad you agree.


    The soldiers were celebrating a wedding with allies.

    And they were still soldiers. On their way to fight another war.

    Just like the soldiers at Oxcross who were sleeping it is their commanders fault that they were not more alert.


    ....I'm trying to be polite and insinuate that certain individuals may condone Tywin's plan, but the mass readership has never been able to.

    At no point have I or anyone else claimed otherwise. What is with the constant need to move the goalposts? Can none of you accept a claim was wrong rather than just change the entire argument?

    It is a fantasy series, obviously the majority of people are going to side with the primary characters and be biased towards them. That is how fiction is often set up.




    I wouldn't want to cast aspersions. There are a few reasons why someone would admire the RW. Some people are contrarians who cannot bring themselves to agree with a majority.

    lol the condescension. Get over yourself.

    Are you so arrogant that the only reason you can conclude that people disagree with you on a subject is that they are a contrarian?

    People have different opinions, especially when it comes to an event in a work of fiction.




    And as mentioned further up-stream, some people come here to post their thinly veiled hatred of the Starks. In a world of Anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers, one can never be too sure who they're talking to. I left it ambiguous. 

    You are replying to me, not some nameless bogeyman.

    From the Stark side I think Cat is one of the greatest characters in the series, Sansa and Arya's are both heroic and Ned's chapters were pure medieval noir, one of my favourite genres in literature. Robb had the potential to be one of the greatest leaders in Westeros, but he was also a teenager who made mistakes down to his inexperience.

    Not everyone loves the Starks, that is not a crime, but by the same token not everyone who makes a point about the Starks that you deem to be negative does so because they hate the characters. Many people are not as invested in these fictional characters as you are, some of us can see characters who have both negative and positive traits.

    It is bad enough that civilized debate about politics is impossible online without someone ignoring your entire reply only to invalidate it because you are a Dem/Republican but for that to happening about literature is just ridiculous. People like yourself who are desperate to shut down discussion by labelling anyone whose opinion you don't like as a hater is a cancer to nuanced debate online. Well done on that!



    Sure. But not at any cost. Some would resort to killing children. Some wouldn't.

    Like Robb. Robb had no problem with killing the Children in the Twins in AGOT.

    "Damn the man," Robb swore. "If the old fool does not relent and let me cross, he'll leave me no choice but to storm his walls. I'll pull the Twins down around his ears if I have to, we'll see how well he likes that!"

    It is a medieval world, many would resort to children casualties if it meant getting their way.



    And this is the crux of the argument. Not the what, but the how. The methods used by Walder Frey were cowardly and pathetic. Not just in the eyes of us readers, but in the eyes of in-book characters who are products of their society. 

    Cowardly and pathetic you say? By all means quote 5 characters who use call it that.

    It was hugely dishonourable, no one in the books calls it cowardly or pathetic. You are making up your own head cannon.



    If you're at war. And there is an enemy out there looking for you, and they catch you asleep. You will wake with a blade in your belly if at all. Armies are known to do this. It's not difficult to differentiate this from a wedding feast. Where men are suppose to let their guard down. They were celebrating with allies

    The soldiers were not invited to the wedding, Robb was going home and taking his army with him. They were outside the castle and were not provided food.

    They were at war and had constantly caught enemy armies by surprise, they should have known better.



    It wasn't clever though.

    It was the intelligent option. It removed Robb and his generals from the board.

    Military it was a clever move, a dishonourable move, but an intelligent one no matter what.



    It was cowardly.

    Cowardly would be doing nothing. Allowing Robb who had fucked the Freys over to get away with it.



    If we had a dispute. And I invited you to my home to discuss and make terms. And then, after offering you a sandwich, I came up behind you with a bread-knife, would you truly think I had 'outsmarted' you? Would anyone? 

    That was not Walder, or Tywin. That was a Northman.

    And who claimed anything about outsmarting? Can you please actually reply to what I have said rather than write paragraph after  paragraph of points you imagine I have made. This need to strawman and argue in bad faith is quite telling at this point.


    If there was any merit to what you were saying, then why do the Frey's lie about it?

    What am I saying? What do you think I have said?

    You are making up points that I have never said.



    The clever thing to do would of been to just shut their gates.

    That would have been pragmatic, but Walder would not have got his revenge for the thousand or so Frey men who had lost their lives over Robb's broken promise.

    But reread what I wrote, at no point did I claim Walder was clever in what he did. You have imagined an argument never made.

    Here is the breakdown of the conversations

    • YOU: The one clever bit of the RW was the way that Tywin managed to shift the entire focus of Northern hostility away from House Lannister and squarely onto The Freys. 
    • ME: The clever thing was eradicating the majority of the Northern force, by having them kill each other. There was 7,000 Northern soldiers at the Twins. 3,500 on each side of the 'battle'

    Why are you bringing Walder into this when your original point was about Tywin, I quoted that and replied about Tywin.

    Either you are disingenuous and are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said or you have issues with reading comprehension. Which is it?


  7. 1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

    Why would Mace agree to this if Margaery's children would come behind Joffrey and Tommen in succession? She's his only daughter, and Robert wasn't exactly taking care to ensure his own longevity.

    Because his daughter would be Queen and his grandchildren would be royalty, expected to be powerful and influential in their own right.  Being the King's father-in-law would be a boon for Mace, it usually comes with extra influence, as does being the Kings brother-in-law. Jaime was made Warden of the East because he was the King's brother-in-law.

    Robert, even with sons, is still the best match in the entire kingdom. Ancient Walder Frey with hundreds of heirs is still able to get Houses invested in marrying women to him, Robert is the King.


    3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

    What's to stop someone like Joffrey offing Margaery's children just because he thinks they might be a threat?

    The laws of the realm. His royal siblings are not the children of penniless whores, they'd have their own defences.

    No one was expecting that Joffrey would murder his brother Edric, the expectation is that family would care for each other. It would be Robert and Margaery's job to make sure all the children got along, but even if they did not, it would be within Robert's power to ensure their power and influence that would protect them when he eventually dies.

    Robert was only in his mid 30's. He was still a relatively young man.

  8. 2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Walders men losing their lives in a battle they willingly joined does not give justificaction for the RW. No matter how you twist it. 

    They didn't willingly join, they joined for a price, a price that Robb refused to pay.

    How exactly am I twisting that?

    If you ae trying to sell your House, someone agrees to buy it, trashes the House before they pay for it and then back out of the deal are you not going to be angry and want justice?

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Nope. Revenge is never 'justified'. Wanting revenge is understandable but not justified, not legally, not morally. 

    Who was claiming it was either moral or legal? You are moving the goalposts here.

    Justified merely means you have a good reason for something, at least here in the UK it does. Walder had a good reason for wanting his revenge.

    As for moral that is up to the individual to decide his moral compass, and legally it is a sore spot considering as rebels Robb was not protected by the laws of Westeros.

    Theologically it was wrong, if the gods exist in Westeros and they actually care about 'guest rights' then Walder and his kin will pay for their sins in the next life.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    I disagree this is the only reason he tries to make amends but what difference does it make if it is? He still tried to make amends. 

    Because he has to, because he has no other option. It is too late to make amends.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    It's hard to have a conversation with you when you continuously say the same erroneous things.

    If you think I am incorrect about something please quote from the books to disprove what I said.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:



    Robb didn't break his promise because he was horny.

    Sure he did. He fancied Jeyne and, by medieval law, raped her and then married her. He was horny.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    That's absolutely ridiculous.

    How is a 16 year old being horny ridiculous? Have you never met a 16 year old boy?

    Teenagers make idiotic decisions all the time, Robb is no different.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    He could have fulfilled whatever lust he had over & over again without breaking any promises. He never promised not to sleep with anyone. 

    He was horny, attracted to Jeyne and sickened at the idea of having to marry a weasel looking Frey. He allowed his cock to guide him when he was feeling down about Winterfall and the Battle of Blackwater.

    Men make weak decisions, this was a weak decision on Robb's part.

    And literally no one cares about Robb sleeping with other people. They care about him breaking his promise that hundreds of Frey men had lost their lives for. All he had to do was marry a Frey, instead he got horny and slept with a female prisoner.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Walders threw a fit because of a broken marriage proposal.

    When did he throw this fit? Can you quote it?

    "the King in the North arises. Seems we killed some of your men, Your Grace. Oh, but I'll make you an apology, that will mend them all again, heh."    

    Seems he's pretty pissed at Robb thinking all will be forgiven over an apology.

    I get it, a lot of fans of the series want to dehumanize the Freys, much like the Jews were in the medieval times (both were called rats/weasels and looked down upon for being good with money) but it is not just the Starks and who are capable of being angry over their family members being killed.


    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    The loss of anyone during the battle takes no part in this.

    Can you prove this?

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    Robb's reasons are much more justified. 

    Him thinking with his dick was more justified than Walder losing the son he had been grooming for 60 years

    His father was querulous and stubborn, with an iron will and a wasp's tongue, but he did believe in taking care of his own. All of his own, even the ones who had displeased and disappointed him. Even the ones whose names he can't remember. Once he was gone, though . . .
    When Ser Stevron had been heir, that was one thing. The old man had been grooming Stevron for sixty years, and had pounded it into his head that blood was blood.


    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Walders doesn't get a free-for-all pass because someone broke a promise to him.

    Who said he should? He, like Robb, will most likely suffer retribution for what he had done. Deservedly so in my opinion.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    If you lie to me & then I kill you am I justified?

    No, but if I am responsible for the death of your son, grandson and possibly as many as a thousand of your men then yes you are justified in murdering me.

    The problem here is you want to ignore all the human life lost their life on Robb's promise.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    Because you slighted me first. That's the logic you are using here.

    No, I have been very clear with the logic I am using. By all means disagree with my opinion, but don't make up an argument I never made.

    My argument is clear and it is not the argument you are presenting.

    2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:


    There are acceptable & justified ways Walder could have received justice or even paid Robb back in kind - the RW wasn't one of them by any stretch of the imagination.

    Are there? Name them.

  9. 2 hours ago, frenin said:

    Cersei has said that she would let the Freys fall as soon  as Walder dies, Walder hasn't done any favor to his family.

    First of all if you are citing Cersei then you must be desperate. Cersei, AFFC onwards, is constantly making bad decisions that puts herself in a worse situation whether it is ignoring Kevan's advice, antagonizing the Iron Bank or arming the Faith. Every time she thinks of a short term solution it creates a long term problem. Pissing off the Freys, holders of the Twins, Darry and Riverrun as of AFFC, is a ridiculous idea.


    Secondly I'm pretty sure she does not say what you think she says.

    "Lord Walder will never sacrifice his own," said Pycelle.
    "No," mused Cersei, "but his heirs may be less squeamish. Lord Walder will soon do us the courtesy of dying, we can hope. What better way for the new Lord of the Crossing to rid himself of inconvenient half brothers, disagreeable cousins, and scheming sisters than by naming them the culprits?"
    Unless I'm mistaken at no point does she say she is willing to let House Frey fall. Where in the books is that claimed?

  10. 3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    No. I didn't say Robb was justified. I'm saying if Robb wasn't justified then how in the world can Walder be justified? 

    You don't understand why Walder was justified in seeking revenge?

    • Walder fulfilled his part of the deal, Robb's forces was allowed through his lands
    • Every battle Robb's forces fought in was with Frey assistance
    • Between 500- 1k Frey men lost their lives on Robb's promise
    • Including his heir Stevron
    • And his grandson who was butchered as a prisoner under Robb's protection

    Personally I think Walder should have taken another option, a more pragmatic approach, but he was certainly justified in wanting revenge against a 'king' who had made it clear that he could not be trusted to keep his promise.

    Robb proved his promises mean shit, Walder was just offering him a similar promise, one he had no intention of fulfilling.

    3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Robb backed out of a betrothal & then tried to make amends for it. 

    He backed out after the price was paid in blood.

    And as he points out, without the Freys he had no hope. He only tries to make amends because he has no other option.

    3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    Walder agreed to said terms, took his end of the bargain & then killed Robb & Co. 

    Sure. Robb had already proven that his word was meaningless. Walder was paying him back in kind.

    3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    It isn't fair to say Walder is justified because reasons but Robb isn't. He had reasons also. 

    It is fair to say that Walder had valid reasons to break his promise to someone who had done the same to him, Robb broke his promise, after receiving payment in blood, because he was horny.

    Both had reasons for breaking their promise to the other, Walder's reasons are more justified. Robb's reasons for the loss of Stevron and hundreds if not a thousand Frey lives is less so.

  11. 6 hours ago, frenin said:

     @Bernie Mac

    I see pretty much everyone in the books giving Robb military praise

    You are really going to have to stop exaggerating your posts. There are thousands of characters in the books, quote just 10 of them praising Robb's military might.

    And what does that have to do with your original point that I disagreed with? At no point did I claim that Robb was not praised, you are moving the goalposts. Maybe reread your orginal comment and then reread what I said to you. My disagreement had zilch to do with how effective Robb was in battle.



    6 hours ago, frenin said:


    i see many fans arguing whether Robb deserves that praise or not

    Sure, but that is a separate discussion to what is being talked about now. There is no need to go off onto a separate tangent when I've not made any negative comment on Robb's ability to lead in my reply to you.

    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    i had never seen up until this point, someone who try to equate Oxcross and the Red Wedding,  the Red Wedding was succesful but it was purely backstabbing, i don't see how can be comparable, nor do i see people saying that Walder Frey diserves military praise for that

    Again, reread what I actually said. You are jumping to conclusions that was not made in what I wrote.

    They are not exactly the same, as I already said, they were both battle strategies. Obviously the Red Wedding was far, far more dishonourable than Robb attacking a sleeping, untrained army of green boys. But some of  Robb's victories were not honourable either.

    The objective in war by some is victory even if that means sacrificing honour.


    6 hours ago, frenin said:


    It's deceptive murder, pure and simply, trying to hype it up won't change it, there are a lot of succesful exemples of it, but I've never seen the Black Dinner being revered as an exemple of Battlefield tactic or battlefield tactic at all but I do see people praising the Night Attack of Targoviste .

    I've not revered it. I've just pointed out that it was a successful strategy. I literally call it very dishonourable in the post you have quoted it. How exactly is that being revered?

     Again, you need to stop talking as if everything is an absolute, there is middle ground. It can be both a battle strategy and dishonourable. War is often dishonourable, the Freys actions at the Red Wedding amongst the most dishonourable we have seen in the series.

    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    Nothing, i thought it wrong.

    How so?


    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    I meant a lie, i was thinking in other thing, I don't think Tywin was thinking of just killing a few in a dinner because he wanted to spare his soldiers of more war.

    How is it stupid? You called his point stupid. How so?

    Tywin did not want his own men killed when the option was there for his enemies to kill themselves.

    6 hours ago, frenin said:



    When people use an absolute, rarely is an absolute but a general opinion, when i say no one would care, i mean the majority of the North wouldn't care,

    Firstly are you under the impression that you are the very first person I have ever spoken to? You are not, most people I communicate with do not speak in absolutes when they don't mean to. Now that is just the average person I communicate with, I understand that your social circle, both online and in real life, may well communicate to each other like that but don't presume your echo chamber is the norm.  Not trying to be rude, just a heads up.

    Secondly based on what? Prove it? Come up with actual evidence that the majority of the North would not care about their Lords and the majority of their army being killed in battle?

    Have you never studied history? Rarely is the losing side happy with defeat and the death of its people. Scotland, one of the inspirations for the Northern people, were never happy when they were beat by the English in England and vice versa.


    6 hours ago, frenin said:


    neither they'd have a reason to object against a fair and absolute defeat, but even if they do, it isn't the same being betrayed in a fair fight and being offered a pardon and being brutally betrayed.

    Not once did I claim it was the exact same. I pointed out that you were mistaken in your claims.

    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    And at the cost of undermining his House, so much that even the HS was furious about it.

    Who is HS?

    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    Are you comparing a death trap with a battle when the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor??

    I was very clear in what I said. Tywin, like all successful commanders, cares about unnecessary casualties of war. If there is a option to beat an enemy army without dropping blood from your own men then most commanders will take it, Tywin included. We have seen him do this at least three times in the series

    • Castamere
    • The use of the Mountain Clans in the battle of Green Fork
    • The use of the Freys and Boltons to rid himself of Robb

    He's not vainglorious.

    You are the one making a claim, I have given you examples disproving it. You need to prove your assertion that "and since when the man cared that much about cassualties in war??"

    You made an unsubstantiated claim, prove it.

    6 hours ago, frenin said:


    The fact that i can try think about Tywin's reasonings, doesn't mean it's a battle strategy, the Black Dinner isn't a battle strategy even when it largely achieved what its perpetrators wanted.

    Then you clearly don't understand the words you are using.


    The meaning of strategy is very clear, in your own interpretation of Tywin's actions you have described a strategy to rid himself of the Northern threat. That is a strategic move.


    6 hours ago, frenin said:

    And now, one can't trust his host or guest which is a very important thing given the world they live in, what a wonderful world to be.


    1) Robb did not trust the Freys, he makes this clear. He trusted his army "Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt."

    Now just because Robb was betrayed by his own Northern army does not mean Lords are going to stop using their own vassals when they go to war

    2) I imagine that Lords who have fucked over the Freys are not going to trust their 'word' at the Twins. But their allies are not going to have the same problem.

  12. 3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

    For sure. But if Robb wasn't justified in backing out on what he agreed upon how can Walder be justified in backing out what he agreed upon & then killing him? 

    How was Robb justified in backing out of the wedding after the Freys had paid their portion of the agreement? How had the Freys wronged him at that point?

    The Freys went overboard in their need for revenge, but their was cause for it due to Robb's actions. Robb had no such justification, he was just a horny teenager.

  13. 3 hours ago, frenin said:

    Battle tactics and using deception and treason to kill an enemy are two very differents, glory in battle doesn't entail just pitched battles.

    No, not very different.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.

    3 hours ago, frenin said:

    And everyone can see that,

    You speak for yourself, you don't speak for everyone. You do realize that, don't you?

    The fact that multiple people disagree with you kind of proves that not everyone sees it that way.

    3 hours ago, frenin said:

    that's why no one really liked the death of Aegon II and it won the war,

    Again, who is 'no one'. Are you unable to speak in anything but absolutes?

    Some, maybe even the majority did not like it, but saying 'no one' is not really true.

    3 hours ago, frenin said:


    no one saw it as a battle strategy.

    Of course  not. No army was involved.   

    There was multiple armies involved at the Red Wedding, it was battle strategy to remove one of those armies as a threat to Roose and Walder. That is battle strategy. Hugely dishonourable strategy, but strategy nonetheless.

    3 hours ago, frenin said:

    Well given the fact that not even the Lannisters condone it entirely and Cersei is ready to let the Freys suffers whoever's wrath as soon as Walder dies...

    I'm sorry, what on earth does that have to do with my reply you have quoted?

    3 hours ago, frenin said:


    Tywin saying that why is better kill 10k in a battle than a dozen in a wedding is directly stupid,

    How so?

    3 hours ago, frenin said:


    Tywin should've known than no one would care and many would cheered had he just smashed Robb in battle

    And? This option allows him to do so without using any of his own forces. It was a completely bloodless victory from Tywin's viewpoint.

    And of course some would care. Stop using absolutes for every statement you make. Are you incapable of nuanced thought?

    Some in the North would  care that their Northern army was obliterated in the South and would want revenge. Rickard Karstark is an example of such a matter, his two sons were killed fairly in battle and he cared.


    3 hours ago, frenin said:

    or even set up a betrayal during in other moment but a wedding, shit happens in war, and since when the man cared that much about cassualties in war??

    Since he was a teenager when he refused to send his own men down Castamere were thousands would die and instead looked for other means to secure victory.

    Designed for defense, the mines at Castamere had never been taken.  There were only three ways down into them, all cramped, narrow, twisting, and studded with deadfalls, pits, and murder holes.  Two armored knights, standing side by side, could hold the largest tunnel against a thousand, for attackers had no way around, and if they tried to cut their way past, defenders would be pouring boiling oil and pitch down on them from murder holes above as they fought.


    Neither did he intend to send men to die in the dark, fighting their way down.  Instead Tywin Lannister commanded that mines be sealed.


    Obviously he cares about casualties in war. He's not vainglorious.

    3 hours ago, frenin said:

    What i think is that Tywin feared Robb could make it to the North, repel the IB and recover the North where with Winter at the door it'd be impossible to take him out, that and the fact that in the North and with Winter at the door, he could pull a Cregan and levie a small army of hungries with the threat of Lysa finally aiding her family and reigniting the war always hanging, the Red Wedding was the best hope for him.

    If you think all that then you clearly recognize that neutralizing his army at the Twins, before Robb could do all that, is battle strategy.


  14. 8 hours ago, trazayn said:

    You make out like Lord Tywin was really hopped up for restoring peace in the land. No he wanted to smash his enemies. 

    The two are not mutually exclusive, he can want both. Peace was his goal as peace is easier to manage and less expensive than war.

    7 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

    There’s basically no textual support for the the Freys losing anything much less a bridge. People who bent the knee before and after the RW were barely punished (see Brackens)

    There is textual evidence for the Freys to be fearful of the consequences of a wrathful Tywin. Whether he would have been is another matter, but being fearful of the the potential repercussions is a valid concern even if it never materialized.


    5 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

    Even then, anyone with a pulse, a brain and a lick of political aptitude knows that Tywin Lannister was the mastermind behind it all.

    I mean, it's obvious.

    We are told in the books who the masterminds behind it was, Roose and Lame Lothar.

    Tywin condoned it, rewarded the Houses who did it, but there is nothing in the books that point to him being the mastermind. Unless you have a different understanding of the word 'mastermind' than the English dictionary I'm failing to see how you have came to the conclusion.


    5 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:


    No, he wanted to completely obliterate any anti-Lannister, pro-northern, pro-Stark sentiment by any means necessary.

    If that was the case why didn't he? With an 80k army at his disposal why did he not do just that in the Riverlands instead of accepting the fealty of his enemies.

    Same goes for the captured Stormlords, Reachlords and Crownland lords after the battle of Blackwater. He had the means of obliterating them all, he chose not to and allowed the ones who wanted peace to come back under the Crown's rule.



  15. 3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

    Tywin Lannister talks out of his ass. He didn't kill a few people over dinner.

    Tywin didn't kill anyone. Frey and Northmen did all the killing.

    And while it was more than a few people, it was not that much more. Many of the guests in the castle were taken hostage, some killed but we are talking a maximum of hundreds.

    The soldiers outside, not protected by Guest Rights, are another matter.

    3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:


    It was a massacre, at a wedding. And nobody, apart from individuals such as yourself can respect or condone this strategy. 

    Yes. Correct. The only people who can respect or condone this strategy are the people who respect or condone this strategy.

    Brilliant insight!

    3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

    The Westerossi respect brave fighters.

    Sure. They also respect victory.

    3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:


    That's what they like to see. It's bloodshed, but there's some honour in meeting your foe with steel in hand.

    Unless they are sleeping? Like Robb often did, attack sleeping enemies. The green lads at Oxcross were reportedly untrained and unarmed when Robb slaughtered them. It's war, victory is more important than honour.

    3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:


    They also like to feel safe when visiting one another's castles and the guest right is the solitary pillar which holds this value aloft. To see both values being perverted this way is disturbing to the Westerossi. It's shameful and cowardly. 

    True. I agree with this. I feel Walder was justified, but obviously there are negative consequences to his actions. To a lesser extent this is true for every leader in a war.

    3 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

    The one clever bit of the RW was the way that Tywin managed to shift the entire focus of Northern hostility away from House Lannister and squarely onto The Freys. 

    The clever thing was eradicating the majority of the Northern force, by having them kill each other. There was 7,000 Northern soldiers at the Twins. 3,500 on each side of the 'battle'.

  16. 15 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

    An army does have to eat, and the army will usually forage (purchase / seize / collect as tax) because it's impossible for a medieval army to bring all the food they need with them. But they definitely bring food with them. We see Robb's army brought supplies at MC

    “It fell away slowly beneath them as they rode past smoky peat fires, lines of horses, and wagons heavy-laden with hardbread and salt beef.”

    And Roose's leftovers when they came back:

    “Farther back came the baggage train—lumbering wayns laden with provisions and loot taken in the war,”

    However using a monologue of the broken man, who is explicitly *not* part of an army just doesn't really hold water, especially when you're in friendly territory. Note that doesn't apply to the post ASOS Karstarks or the Lannister forces anywhere but Oxcross until AFFC. Broken men don't have baggage trains.

    We don't see Stannis' army or Renly's army send out foragers at all. Jaime's 2nd army and Tarly's army are strictly forbidden from doing anything of the sort or are rebuilding the RL. Even the RR Frey army (!)  isn't sending out foragers as they "only enough food and fodder for their own."


    Sorry, what is your point?

    Do you disagree with the my point that the Northern soldiers were pillaging from the Riverland smallfolk?

  17. 21 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

    Sorry Bernie, but I don't recall any text reporting Robb's army burning and murdering its way from the Twins to Riverrun.

    Why would you? Cat is the first POV we hear about the Riverlands and she is not going to be told that, the Riverlords who themselves have been burning their own fields to starve the Lannisters are not going to be reporting Northern atrocities to Cat. Arya is told that but she only makes her move away from Harrenhal after the Blackwater and Brienne hears about the monstrosities of the Wolves and Lions in AFFC.

    Which character were you expecting to hear this from?

    "Would I tell you if I did?" The man spat. "Likely it were wolves' work, or maybe lions, what's the difference? The wife and I found them dead. The way we see it, the place is ours now."     - A Storm of Swords - Jaime II

    This, according to the timeline document, happens less than three weeks after the battle of Blackwater. Already Wolves are mentioned in the same breath as Lions. That does not suggest that the smallfolk were particularly fond of them.

    The books are full of lions and wolves being a blight on the smallfolk of the Riverlands


    It is naïve to think that it is a recent development, an army has to eat and the monologue of the broken man explains exactly how armies operate during a war.

    "If they want new boots or a warmer cloak or maybe a rusted iron halfhelm, they need to take them from a corpse, and before long they are stealing from the living too, from the smallfolk whose lands they're fighting in, men very like the men they used to be. They slaughter their sheep and steal their chickens, and from there it's just a short step to carrying off their daughters too. And one day they look around and realize all their friends and kin are gone, that they are fighting beside strangers beneath a banner that they hardly recognize. They don't know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they're fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground.


    When Robb marched South he had no idea what he was doing, he did not know there was going to be a year long war, he did not even have the supplies to stay at Moat Cailin. Roose's army would need to feed themselves, they'd be pillaging from the smallfolk.

    Lem glowered. "Your lion friends ride into some village, take all the food and every coin they find, and call it foraging. The wolves as well, so why not us? No one robbed you, dog. You just been good and foraged."     

    21 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:



    I would imagine that since the Blackfish is with them, and Robb is the grandson of Hoster Tully, most smallfolk would be happy to do what they can help stop the Lannister army, which is burning and murdering its way through the riverlands. Even when Robb was plundering the westerlands, we don't hear about him murdering smallfolk by the thousands

    Who would you hear it from?

    The reason we hear of the atrocities in the Riverlands is Jaime, Brienne and Arya are all POV characters interacting with the smallfolk in the Riverlands who tell the POV/reader of the atrocities in the region, committed by both Lions and Wolves. There is no one in the Westerlands doing the same.

    What we do know is that Robb is doing what Tywin did to the Riverlands

    Without siege engines there was no way to storm Casterly Rock, so the Young Wolf was paying the Lannisters back in kind for the devastation they'd inflicted on the riverlands.

    Robb was doing the same, we just don't have a POV characters witnessing it. The thousands of cattle stoles will have had smallfolk protectors, men and women trying to defend their livelihoods and being killed in the process. if the Northern men had no problem raping smallfolk in the Riverlands it stands to reason they were doing the same to the smallfolk in the West.

    One of the annoying things about the fandom is how some have assumed there is good and bad and only the bad guys act badly during war, both sides do. The smallfolk are screwed over by all sides.


  18. 9 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

    Karstark fielded 2,300 men for Robb. 

    2,000 of which is foot. There is a huge difference between a foot soldier and a knight. The Karstarks can field more men, but I'd take the Florent army against the Karstark army in a battle.

    The Florents are far richer, influential and prestigious than the Karstarks. Why would Robert and Jon have Stannis marry a Karstark, a region they are not worried about rebelling?

    5 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:


    But there are more powerful and influential houses like Hightower. 

    Did they have women available at the time? Were they willing to make a marriage alliance to the Baratheons at that time? Did Robert and Jon Arryn perhaps think that a Florent option would be better than a Hightower considering Mace was married to a Hightower and could expect their support if he rebelled?

  19. 11 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

    Right, but I was talking about the earlier phase of the war: Tywin's initial foray into the Riverlands, before the Blackwater.


    That would be true in the earlier phase of the war. Robb's foot was around 18k, they did not have the supplies to last at Moat Cailin so they'd only have one means of feeding themselves in the Riverlands, by taking from the local populace. This is just what happens in war, it is brutal for the smallfolk.



  20. 3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

    A marriage between Stannis Baratheon and Selyse Florent seems like an odd match, aside from a lack of any other suitable candidate. She’s not pretty (mustache and large ears),

    She is not pretty now. We have no idea what she looked like almost a decade ago when she married Stannis.

    Plus, appearance is not really that high on list of reasons why nobles marry.

    3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

    has an odious personality

    11 years of being married to Stannis might do that to anyone.

    3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:


    (Stannis’ friendship with Davos and actual care for the realm set him higher),

    eh? Davos is not his friend, he's his vassal who seems to worship him. I think we can all get along with people like that.

    His 'actual care of the realm' is entirely meaningless a decade ago when they married. And Selyse seems to be supportive of her husbands quest to save the realm. If anything this makes them a perfect fit, most wives with common sense may have tried to talk him out of it.

    3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:


    and she was pretty low on the totem pole of the Florents as the daughter of the third of four sons.

    At the time of the Wedding she may have just been another granddaughter of the current Lord Florent.

    Stannis did not marry her to inherit Brightwater Keep, so her place in the succession line is immaterial. Nobody thinks Roslin Frey is the worst marriage for Edmure amongst the Frey women despite the fact that she comes behind many 'sisters', nieces and grand nieces in the succession line.

    We have no idea who Ryam was married to, it may well be that Selyse had the best pedigree out of all the Florent women who were available to marry. Ryam himself may have been far more noteworthy than his brothers while he lived.

    3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:


    The Florents didn’t add much to Stannis’ cause, apart from Imry Florent, who led Stannis’ fleet into a trap at Blackwater. Plus they were divided when the WoFK started, which made them a liability. 

    Stannis had a Florent Castellan on Dragonstone, a Florent Hand and a Florent Admiral. Stannis points out in the aftermath of the Blackwater that the majority of his men are Florents.

    The marriage was not arranged so Stannis could have the military power to conquer the throne from Robert's children.

  21. 3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

    Where is this said?

    Fire and Blood. In the aftermath of the Dance of the Dragons it is pointed out that the Tully's were less powerful than a number of their vassals such as the Brackens, Blackwoods, Vances and Freys in terms of military strength and land.

    It is possible that has changed in the last century, but I'm not sure how given the Blackwoods and Brackens may have grown even more powerful in that time given their closeness to the royal family during the reigns of Aegon IV, Aerys I and Aegon V. I'd also imagine that the Freys have grown more powerful as time has gone on rather than weaker.

  22. 6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

    Actually, the fields were burned by the retreating river lords to deny Tywin fodder to feed his men and horses. All the towns, villages, keeps, holdfasts and murdered smallfolk, that was Tywin.

    Not all of it.

    "Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.


    "Pardoned?" The old man laughed. "For what? Sitting on his arse in his bloody castle? He sent men off to Riverrun to fight but never went himself. Lions sacked his town, then wolves, then sellswords, and his lordship just sat safe behind his walls.


    There are two armies in the Riverlands, both are raping and pillaging from the local populace and the Brotherhood are also doing the same

    "Be wary, woman. The next men you meet may not be as honest as my lads. The Hound has crossed the Trident with a hundred outlaws, and it's said they're raping every wench they come upon and cutting off their teats for trophies."    

    Tywin's invasion certainly started the war in the Riverlands, but Lions and Wolves alike are doing as they please.


  23. 19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    His power is mainly due to the geographical position of his castle, for which he must thank one of his ancestors. But he has looked after his inheritance all right - he was certainly clever enough to do that. 

    He may have even improved on it. They were powerful in Dance of the Dragons and the Dunk & Egg books, but there is no indication that they were the most powerful vassal House in the Riverlands at that point.

    Walder has ruled for at least half a century, he was Lord when Tywin was 10, he may have done more than maintained the status quo, which itself is not easy, many Houses fall in power regardless of their positon, but actually made them the power they are in the current series.


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    Walder may not have been the mastermind behind the Red Wedding. But, as the lord of the castle,  he had to orchestrate it and preside over it.

    He sanctioned it, but we are told that the organization was down to Roose and Lothar.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Sure he could have died before he committed his worst action, but he didn't, and now his character (I don't know about his past decades, but his character definitely) is defined to a large extent by that fact - precisely because of the enormity of the atrocity even by Westerosi standards.

    But he himself has done far, far more than the Red Wedding.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    ASOIAF is fiction, not real life, and the author shows us whatever he considers relevant for the story.

    Sure, and the author made a decision to give Merret Frey a POV chapter and have him explain to the readers some of the positives about Walder Frey's character.

    He's multi dimensional, he's not just the perpetrator of the Red Wedding. As Patriarch's go he is one of the best in Westeros going by that chapter.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    We can imagine all sorts of other things in Walder's past that he could be defined by, the fact remains that in the actual book, he is the one who orchestrated the Red Wedding - and that is what the reader learns about him first and foremost.

    But the reader learns other things about him and your post not only ignores them but contradicts them. I'm just pointing that out.

    Nowhere in the books does it claim or suggest that he's a hedonist, that seems to be your own head cannon not supported in the books. This is what tends to happen in fiction, protagonists are imagined to have no redeeming features.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


     If, in the coming books, Walder shows great remorse about the mass killings, about the breaking of guest right or at least about what he did to his own daughter, I will reconsider my judgement of him.  

    What did he do to his own daughter?

    And how does showing remorse change your earlier claim that he is a hedonist? That he does not care about his family? You said a lot of things that are not backed up by the books or actually contradicted them. Few are claiming that Walder was right (anger justified, yes, but he took it too far) in what he did at the Red Wedding,  most of us are on the same page about that, but that is one incident in his life, your post was about his entire life.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    It means he has been cunning enough to avoid answering the call of his overlord or to choose sides before the winner was known and get away with it.

    How is that a bad thing for him or his people?

    I didn't realize how much in favour some are for war in this fandom.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    That does not make him especially intelligent, only cunning.

    It makes him many things, cunning being one of them, but also intelligent.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Besides, we don't know how often he actually did that - or do we? - but the more often you play these tricks in that society, the more luck you need to really get away with it.

    How is it a trick? Hoster did the same in Robert's Rebellion. He ignored his lord and stayed neutral till his price was met, Cregan did the same during the Dance, demanding a payment to pick a side and still only sending a token force while he arrived when the war was over. House Tully during that conflict stayed neutral despite their promise to the late King.

    Plenty of powerful Lords get away with it. It is not about luck it is about understanding your own positon.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Once or twice you can be "late" for battle, but after the fifth time, the trick is bound to become suspicious. Anyway, he didn't stay out of the War of the Five Kings.

    He did not. So your claim that he only joins the winning side is kind of contradicted by this. He joined the rebels at a time when no one knew that the Reach and Stormlands would rebel.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    In fact, he was quite eager to sell himself for material advantage.

    He was not eager, Cat had to convince him and she did so by using his pride, not his need for material gain.


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    It makes one think that his earlier caution may have been due to the circumstance that simply no one offered him the right price... 

    Sure. Why is that bad? He's only following in the footsteps of Hoster, Cregan Stark and many others.


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    He is certainly not the only hedonist in the series.

    Where is your evidence that he is a hedonist? Please provide it.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    And, of course, a nonagenarian hedonist is in many ways different from a hedonist of thirty something. 

    Again, any evidence of him actually being a hedonist.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    Walder may have groomed an heir, but he had lots of other offspring, and he didn't succeed in creating a real, united family, where the family members could depend upon each other.

    To an extent they do. We get to see the Frey's reaction at Riverrun, Harrnenhal and with Robb to Robb's betrayal, they all feel betrayed.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    The continuation of the quote above is this:

    But Stevron had died whilst campaigning with the Young Wolf in the west—"of waiting, no doubt," Lame Lothar had quipped when the raven brought them the news—and his sons and grandsons were a different sort of Frey. Stevron's son Ser Ryman stood to inherit now; a thick-witted, stubborn, greedy man. And after Ryman came his own sons, Edwyn and Black Walder, who were even worse. "Fortunately," Lame Lothar once said, "they hate each other even more than they hate us."


    Yup. This is not that uncommon. The Baratheon brothers can barely stand each other, the Tully brothers were not speaking, the Corbray brothers dislike each other, one of the Hunter sons murdered his father and his planning on doing the same to his brother.

    Merret should be scared of his positon, he is useless and a great-nephew should not be responsible for caring for him. The Starks are not that different. There are other Starks, second cousins to Ned, they do not reside at Wintefell. Robb's has cousins in the Vale, he does not even know their names.

    Many Houses are going to be like this, Edwyn or Black Walder are not going to feel the need to look after other branches of their family who are useless.


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    That is also part of old Walder's legacy - hatred in the family - a rather poor achievement.

    Not really. There is ambition and distrust in most families, but the Freys are also pretty loyal to each other, we see the Frey's reaction to the missing Frey's at White Harbor and the death of young Walder at Wintefell.

    Like many families there is a mix but there is enough evidence that many of the Frey's do have a bond and loyalty to their House.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Even Merrett can see this although he is not at all smart and was brought up in an environment where Walder's word was law and it wasn't customary to question what the head of the family did or said. If Walder was such a dedicated family man, he would have seen to it that his children and grandchildren grew up in an environment of mutual respect and love.

    Jesus. This is the middle ages, not a commune in San Francisco.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    In these matters, upbringing is key. I'm afraid that grooming Stevron may have meant (in the distant past, of course) quite literally pounding things into his head (as Merrett put it, with a rather telling choice of word). No surprise that Stevron could not pass on a legacy of love and respect and unity even to his own sons. 

    Again these are all assumptions based on nothing but your dislike of the character. Walder was mean to the Starks ipso facto he has been mean his entire life.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    He allows them to live in the castle. He takes pride in having lots of offspring, and bastards are further proof of his virility. I think he also enjoys having power over his family, and the more of them there are whose existence entirely depends on him the better for his ego.

    More head cannon nonsense.

    Is it really that hard to grasp that Walder, who did an evil thing at the Red Wedding, is still a human being who can care for his family despite a horrific act of revenge he committed at the age of 91?

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    We see how he treats his family members,

    We do. And it is well.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    and he quite visibly finds pleasure in humiliating them.

    lol come on, not he does not. He is blunt, he is not humiliating them. Again, this is the middle ages.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    It is also quite probable that Walder manipulates his various family members by using the rivalry and enmity between them.

    How is that 'quite probable'? What evidence from the books make that quite probable? How does that benefit Walder?

    There are plenty of hacky writers who do books like this, characters are either black or white, GRRM has more nuance than that.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    I don't watch the TV show, so whatever. As for book Freys being Puritans... The Tyrells, Lannisters and Baratheons are high lords / royal family, it is not surprising that they have much more luxury than the Freys.

    You claimed Walder was a hedonist, I was just pointing out that nothing in the books suggests this, no description from othe characters, no examples from the Twins or how Walder and the Freys present themselves.


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Besides, I don't think Walder's hedonism extends to cover similar tendencies in his whole family. I think Lord Walder has all his creature comforts and the rest of the family should be thankful to have food and whatever he deigns to give them.

    But that is not the case. We know his Symond's wife had multiple handmaidens. We know how expensive it is to make a son a knight, Lord Sunderland has seven sons and it is bankrupting him with them becoming knights.

    There is zero evidence that his family are thankful to have food. That is just pure bullshit.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Dowries and ransoms and bribes... that's probably the standard expenditure of Heads of Houses in Westeros. Hardly unique (provided that there is money to spend, of course). 

    A hedonist would ignore these standards and just spend on what pleases him. The fact that Walder does not, he's the only one of Robb's Lords willing to pay the ransoms for his sons and is willing to pay a huge dowry to see his daughter married speaks that his primary concern is not about self gratification.

    There is much evidence to contradict your claim that he is a hedonist, and none to support it.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    If you say so...

    I don't say so, the books say so. No need to be petulant.

    What part of that post do you disagree with? I'm happy to discuss it cordially with you, but please don't act like a child and just ignore it because it offers an alternative and logical reason why someone who grew up when hundreds of thousands of people had died in a short period of time may value family.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    His wives died at a fast rate though, while Walder was thriving, and when we see how he treats the current one, we can easily tell that her status is not that of a respected lady of a noble House.

    How does he treat the current one?

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    She is being used and she is terrified,

    She is? Please back this up.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    and we can guess what she can expect after Walder's death. (I know, Ramsay is worse, but that doesn't make Walder a caring husband.)  

    Please share? What can she expect after Walder's death?

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    But that's it, they didn't manage to pass on any "ideals" to their family members. Merrett knows that after Walder is gone, Freys will be killing Freys,

    No, he is saying there will likely be a power struggle and that the more distant and useless members will not be supported in the same way that Walder did.

    Merret is a drunk, that is all he has done in the last 20 years. So your earlier claim that the Frey's only received food under Walder is again disproved.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    and he probably will not have a place in the family home any longer.

    He probably would not, not unless he started to prove useful. Which is the same of most Houses, few Houses give their members, let alone ancillary members such a free ride that Merret has received these last 20 years.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    (And maybe he also suspects that being a Frey outside the Twins will not be the best position in this world either.)

    Again, same for any noble in his positon. This is not just limited to Freys. Nobles are expected to contribute to society, Merret does not.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    Of course, Walder's regime is preferable to that, but it does not mean it is good. Merrett simply does not know better. 

    Merret's reputation is as the biggest drunk in the Twins. That is through his own doing, since he failed to become a Knight he was happy to give into gluttony and excess and it is only now, with the death of Stevron, the soon to be death of his father, that he is worrying about the consequences of a life wasted and is trying o show Ryman and his sons that he is not a complete waste.

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    Unfortunately, that is how he is depicted. The very first time we meet him, he boasts: 

    "I'll match you son for son, and I'll still have eighteen when yours are all dead."


    "I'll match him son for son, and I'll still have nineteen and a half left when all of his are dead!"

    How does a figure of speech show that he does not care whether they live or die?

    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

    Why does the writer give these words (two very similar statements in the same scene) into this character's mouth the very first time we meet him?

    lol he's not being literal? He is showing how many sons he has, he is not literally asking to have such a competition.

    Cat has came into his home and threatened him with the army outside, he is commenting on the lack of respect he gets from the likes of the Starks, Tullys and Lannisters and shows pride in the size of his family, but he is not trying to sacrifice them.

    Is that really what your take away from that chapter was?


    19 hours ago, Julia H. said:


    But he does use them as pawns - just ask Roslin. She is definitely used as a pawn and sacrificed to carry out the Red Wedding.

    How is she sacrificed? She marries Edmure. She does not get to be Lady of Riverrun, but she is not being sacrificed.


  24. On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:18 PM, Julia H. said:

    The smartest? Lord Walder is a cunning old man and he knows how to organize a bloodbath ,but that doesn't make him the smartest man in Westeros.

    He's likely not the smartest, but he's certainly smart. Not Maester smart, but certainly in Lordship terms. The only time the word intelligent is used in the entire book series is in regard to the ancient Walder


    Walder has been in charge for House Frey for decades and either they have grown to become the most powerful House in that time or he has maintained that position, which is no easy feat, and has done so without royal favour or  support from the Lord of the Riverlands.

    As for organizing a bloodbath, we know that it was Roose and Lothar who organized that. Furthermore Walder is ancient by their standards. He's 92 and he's only ever committed one 'bloodbath'. Had he died a few months earlier he'd have gone 91 years without ever committing a bloodbath, it seems odd that this should define his character and his more than half a century of rule.  

    If anything the defining part of his rule is the fact that he has always been cautious about going to war.

    On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:18 PM, Julia H. said:


    The reason why he has so many children and grandchildren is that he is a hedonist, whose main interest is seeking pleasure.

    That is not really true. Robert is a hedonist, spending his time drinking and fucking and taking zero responsibility for his actions. Walder is not, quite the opposite, his dedication to family shows this.

    And when he goes, everything will change, and not for the better. His father was querulous and stubborn, with an iron will and a wasp's tongue, but he did believe in taking care of his own. All of his own, even the ones who had displeased and disappointed him. Even the ones whose names he can't remember. Once he was gone, though . . .
    When Ser Stevron had been heir, that was one thing. The old man had been grooming Stevron for sixty years, and had pounded it into his head that blood was blood
    That is not the description of someone who is a hedonist. Robert, Tytos and even the small details we know about the Lord of Tarth all make them sound more like hedonists than Walder, even unmarried Edmure who spends his time in brothels and friends falls more into this category.
    Walder Frey is a Lord in the middle ages of a population of hundreds of thousands. he does not need to marry to have sex.  He does not need to care for his bastards, he choses to do so.
    The TV show is obviously not book cannon but GRRM clearly was closely involved in the first season and the Frey's looked more like stereotypical Puritans than hedonists. Even in the books we know of their wealth through the appendix, from Cat, from other characters and even from the Dunk and Egg series but in the Twins there is not signs of ostentatious spending, none of the Frey's, like Renly, Mace, or the Tywin and Jaime are clothed in particularly notable clothing (either expensive or cheap) and the only time Walder throws around cash is in dowries for his daughters, to pay the ransoms of his captured sons at Harrenhal and later with the BWB or to bribe the Household of White Harbour.  This is not the spending of a hedonist.
    There are actual more plausible reasons why Walder has had so many wives and children
    1. He's ancient, no other Lord in the series is his age. His age and health is astounding, there are many cases of much younger Lords taking wives, maybe had some lived to Walder's age the likes of Hightower would have as many children as Walder does
    2. He was born in the era of the Great Spring Sickness and the draughts in the South, events that saw large amounts of the population dead. He lived in an era where Aegon the unlikely became King despite being 17th in line at one point. Beron Stark was the Lord of Winterfell while Walder was a child, he died young but still had 8 kids, many of whom also died young. Had Beron and his children were as healthy and long lived as Walder and his offspring were House Stark would be similarly as large.


    I'm sorry, I just don't see how Walder's a hedonist.

    On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:18 PM, Julia H. said:


    One of the results is a huge family, and he pretends that it is something to be proud of, while at the same time, he regards his family members (sons, daughters, grandchildren, wives) as assets that he can use (and sacrifice) as he pleases, without caring about the individual fate or feelings of any of them. 

    Come on, that is wrong. Merret, who has been useless since a teenager since his injury, directly contradicts this. Merret worries about himself because Walder's heirs, Stevron's branch, do not share Walder and Stevron's ideals about family.

    Of the captured nobles from the battle of Green Fork only Walder pays ransoms to release his family, both legitimate and bastard sons. His anger at the Twins about Robb offering an apology for a dead grandson also show how he's pissed at his family losses.

    Yes he's old and blunt, but he clearly does care about his family. It seems an all too lazy stereotype that antagonists don't have any feelings for their family and only seen them as pawns, Merret's POV (himself one of the most useless Freys) contradicts this about Walder.


  25. 7 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    But still if I was the lord/king of said land and half my kingdom revolted i would be very worried.

    But half the kingdom of the North has not revolted. Stannis has a couple of thousand Northmen in his army, less than the Northern army Roose took home with him.

    We are talking a very, very small part of the population of the North revolting, to call it en masse is just wrong. I get that its a bitch to be arguing semantics but the North is not rebelling en masse.


    7 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

    Fastest way to end the war is for them to join their respective lords armies and fight as if they couldn't wait till the next harvest. Plus its basically winter in the North, some of these peasants are bored and are probably lacking a lot on food. So what to do when you are starving and your lord is at war? Pledge your pitchfork to your lord and go fight, instead of sitting around waiting to starve or wait till a winter fever catches. 

    Well I'm only commenting on what we've actually seen in the books as of the sample chapters of TWOW.

    You are speculating on something that may or may not happen, but I can only go on what has actually happened. You are arguing your headcannon of what will happen, I'm arguing the text.