"Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner."

[Mladen]

who was it that argued that the bread/salt thing was important again?

Who was that argued that meat/mead is important? It isn't important whether the guest eat meat or fish, drink mead or wine, it is the procedure that evokes the guest right. And bread and salt are part of that procedure.

[harry_dresden]

A while back, I ran a thread to gauge forum views of this. 2/3 favoured punishing only the guilty, 1/3 favoured a complete extermination. Which, to my mind, is horrific. If a custom must be upheld by the murder of innocent children, it isn't worth upholding.

Which is hilarious because those said "Stark fans" who believe in LORD EDDARDS HONOR CODE have no problems with babies and children dying to fulfill their revenge.

[Mark Antony]

European Rulers broke marriage contracts and betrothals ALL THE TIME, and no one ever tried to slaughter them at a wedding.

Loll people are crazy man

[harry_dresden]

Who was that argued that meat/mead is important? It isn't important whether the guest eat meat or fish, drink mead or wine, it is the procedure that evokes the guest right. And bread and salt are part of that procedure.

"Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof.”

Yeah, the eaten part is important. Right now you were wrong and don't want to admit it so you keep ignoring all points that prove you wrong.

Just admit it, you were wrong on more than one level.

[Lord Joker Of FunLand]

Who was that argued that meat/mead is important? It isn't important whether the guest eat meat or fish, drink mead or wine, it is the procedure that evokes the guest right. And bread and salt are part of that procedure.

I think what he meant, was that any food/drink can be used for it, it doesn't have to be salt and bread necessarily, which has been proven by other cases of guest right where no salt/bread was mentionned.

Then again, maybe i missed his/her point entirely. lol

[Mladen]

"Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof.”

Yeah, the eaten part is important. Right now you were wrong and don't want to admit it so you keep ignoring all points that prove you wrong.

Just admit it, you were wrong on more than one level.

Again, you are missing the point. The guests don't have to eat for the guest right to be invoked. Just look at Lucerys' situation in TPATQ. He hasn't eaten but he was protected as envoy under the roof of Lord Baratheon. The procedural thing is important, which shows us Robb/Tyrion case when guest right is denied, and Catelyn's pre-RW when she specifically asked for bread and salt.

Also, I understand that you have the need for me admitting I am wrong which unfortunately would bring you the joy of some sort, but alas I am not.

I think what he meant, was that any food/drink can be used for it, it doesn't have to be salt and bread necessarily, which has been proven by other cases of guest right where no salt/bread was mentionned.

Then again, maybe i missed his/her point entirely. lol

The food itself is not important. Not what's eaten, not even how much. The bread/salt thing doesn't have to be mentioned every time for them to be present. We have already heard from GRRM that sometimes he doesn't have to name everything and everybody in some situations for some general rules to apply (it was discussion about whether Bran was at Winterfell feast at the beginning of AGoT). The procedure when the guest right is invoked is what matters. Sometimes bread and salt are necessary, sometimes the host himself declares the guest right, like Mance did, and sometimes nothing is mentioned and guest right is applied. Not every word has to be written in stone...

[harry_dresden]

Again, you are missing the point. The guests don't have to eat for the guest right to be invoked. Just look at Lucerys' situation in TPATQ. He hasn't eaten but he was protected as envoy under the roof of Lord Baratheon. The procedural thing is important, which shows us Robb/Tyrion case when guest right is denied, and Catelyn's pre-RW when she specifically asked for bread and salt.

Also, I understand that you have the need for me admitting I am wrong which unfortunately would bring you the joy of some sort, but alas I am not.

The same way those envoys were protected as guests in Riverrun?

They had freedom of the castle, meat and mead.

Now why isn't it guest right broken when they attacked by that logic?

Regardless, he came as an envoy, but nothing was noted about guest right in that entire scene(Lucerys)

Try again.

So chances are neither were guest right violations or both were. For some reason, I am looking more toward the former.

[The Frosted King]

Which is hilarious because those said "Stark fans" who believe in LORD EDDARDS HONOR CODE have no problems with babies and children dying to fulfill their revenge.

That's an immature conceit.

Eddard Stark's code of honor works when it works, and fails when it doesn't. There is no catch all way of life that meets all needs.

See how a man that has his belief set still takes a young boy to ward/hostage, with the implication of beheading should his father step out of line again?

Its not about revenge for me, and I'm so cold on Stark wronging im frozen.

If it were merely revenge, the complete destruction of the twins, and the execution of participants of either gender is fine, along with the shuttling of the boys to the Watch, and girls to the Silent Sisters would suffice.

Justice means a harsher punishment.

Execution of participants again, and sweet sleep dosings into oblivion for the rest. No pain, just a peaceful end.

Some will say cruel, bloodthirsty, but they're likely the type to espouse nonviolence as a means of civil rebellion.

Your philosophy is only as strong as the contrasting backdrop of tradition.

You make do with the tools given, and westeros gives you the crudest and most primitive of tools.

[harry_dresden]

I think what he meant, was that any food/drink can be used for it, it doesn't have to be salt and bread necessarily, which has been proven by other cases of guest right where no salt/bread was mentionned.

Then again, maybe i missed his/her point entirely. lol

I am not saying any food can work, just that meat/mead and bread and salt both work.

Its too early to tell otherwise I think

[Mladen]

Regardless, he came as an envoy, but nothing was noted about guest right in that entire scene(Lucerys)

Yeah, but IIRC, Lord Borros explicitly says that he doesn't want blood under his roof and he protects Lucerys from Aemond, which makes me believe that he was protected under the guest right and some sort, if there is such thing, "envoy right" which would be also the argument for Cleos Frey's envoys, but not in regard of the guest right.

I am not saying any food can work, just that meat/mead and bread and salt both work.

Its too early to tell otherwise I think

Well, if you think mead and meat work, than all food should work...

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Who was that argued that meat/mead is important? It isn't important whether the guest eat meat or fish, drink mead or wine, it is the procedure that evokes the guest right. And bread and salt are part of that procedure.

Bread and salt aren't that important, either. The rangers visiting Craster's Keep weren't offered any salt, either, yet the guest right was obviously in force. They sat at his table, they ate his food, and thus they were his guests, it's as simple as that. Cat's "bread and salt, and fucking pronto!" was a symbolic meal to invoke the right right away, but it's nowhere said that only a symbolic meal does that, while a real one doesn't. Or is it?

[harry_dresden]

Bread and salt aren't that important, either. The rangers visiting Craster's Keep weren't offered any salt, either, yet the guest right was obviously in force. They sat at his table, they ate his food, and thus they were his guests, it's as simple as that. Cat's "bread and salt, and fucking pronto!" was a symbolic meal to invoke the right right away, but it's nowhere said that only a symbolic meal does that, while a real one doesn't. Or is it?

Again the food eaten is important.

"Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof.”

Argument over.

The debate shouldn't have gone futher than this.

And before someone brings up my meat/mead point, Jon Snow was protected by guest rights and never actually ate bread from Mance IIRC

[Mladen]

Bread and salt aren't that important, either. The rangers visiting Craster's Keep weren't offered any salt, either, yet the guest right was obviously in force. They sat at his table, they ate his food, and thus they were his guests, it's as simple as that. Cat's "bread and salt, and fucking pronto!" was a symbolic meal to invoke the right right away, but it's nowhere said that only a symbolic meal does that, while a real one doesn't. Or is it?

Again the food eaten is important.

"Once you have eaten of his bread and salt, you have the guest right, and the laws of hospitality protect you beneath his roof.”

Argument over.

The debate shouldn't have gone futher than this.

And before someone brings up my meat/mead point, Jon Snow was protected by guest rights and never actually ate bread from Mance IIRC

Harry, your entire argument is based that mead and meat works, not anything else. As for bread and salt, as I said already, they are part of procedure. Sometimes they don't have to be called for, because like Mance or Craster did, the host and guest acknowledge the guest right. The guests don't even have to eat, as shown perhaps by Lucerys' example (until we find out whether the envoys have some special protection, which might be the deal since Rhaenyra insisted that they go as envoys, not knights). At the same time, neither Davos nor Wyman Manderly acknowledged the guest right, and Manderly imprisoned him without breach of guest right. Something must be said and done so the guest right be invoked. Sometimes it's bread and salt, sometimes both parties agree on that... It all depends on situation

And Harry, I agree... This debate lasted for too long and I sincerely have no will to continue with this.

[Yukle]

This is a way of thinking about it that I haven't read yet, or possibly missed in the thread: violence is NEVER the noble route, be it 10,000 on the battlefield or 12 at a wedding.

As Tywin himself says, some wars are won with quills rather than soldiers. However, some wars need never be fought at all. It is better, by far, to negotiate and use diplomacy, to use harsh words and not weapons of horror. Guest right was a means of ensuring that even the most hated of enemies could ensure that, should the chance arise, they could discuss and reason a means to an end that did not involve violence.

By betraying guest right, and mocking it, Tywin effectively ensured that guest right is no longer respected. In other words, he made it certain that all future wars that could have been avoided with words will instead be settled with bloody spears.

He may argue that his actions save 10,000 in this war. But he has condemned every soldier to die in future wars.

[Bayard]

This topis is useless. Tywin simply lies, did he kill only a dozen men? no. At the RW they killed the entire Stark army, all 3500. The ones that escaped were probably killed later and if not, they will die during winter. So.... even in Tywin's messed up logic, he didn't save anyone, the only difference is that in his way, he broke guest rights. That's it.

[shearstone]

Harry, your entire argument is based that mead and meat works, not anything else. As for bread and salt, as I said already, they are part of procedure. Sometimes they don't have to be called for, because like Mance or Craster did, the host and guest acknowledge the guest right. The guests don't even have to eat, as shown perhaps by Lucerys' example (until we find out whether the envoys have some special protection, which might be the deal since Rhaenyra insisted that they go as envoys, not knights). At the same time, neither Davos nor Wyman Manderly acknowledged the guest right, and Manderly imprisoned him without breach of guest right. Something must be said and done so the guest right be invoked. Sometimes it's bread and salt, sometimes both parties agree on that... It all depends on situation

And Harry, I agree... This debate lasted for too long and I sincerely have no will to continue with this.

On Davos he tries to argue that he is an envoy a status Manderly then rejects allowing him to imprison him without breaching his rights an an Envoy.

An envoy is different than a guest, in principal however they are both the same thing, as they are basically messengers between two parties, they relay the message of one party to the other than remain until a reply is given, then they return. They're protected as they are just envoy's they're not permitted to attack the enemy so the enemy doesn't attack them (Don't shoot the messenger).

I think bread and salt is the traditional (formal) method of confirming guest right but many just take it as any meal especially if they don't feel particularly threatened. Catlyn specifically asks for bread and salt because it's the formal method of guest right and she doesn't trust Walder Frey otherwise. At least that's my opinion.

As for why Tyrion's guards weren't said to have broken guest right I answered that on the previous page.

[Trigger Warning]

Walder Frey owed him those men anyway, because he's sworn to Riverrun. Why is it that so many Frey apologists completely forget that he was bargaining with things already owed by his feudal obligations? Catelyn points it out, the Frey strength should have marched and joined the Tully host long before Robb showed up. But no, he sat on his arse and refused to do his goddamn job unless he got to extort a bribe. Total POS.

He also swore oaths to the crown.

[Cas Stark]

He also swore oaths to the crown.

That's fine, but then he can't have it both ways. If he wants to keep his oath to the crown, then all he had to do was tell them they couldn't pass. He can't extract promises in return for his men and support, which he already owes to House Tully, and then when he betrays them, fall back that he swore oaths to the crown.

[Trigger Warning]

That's fine, but then he can't have it both ways. If he wants to keep his oath to the crown, then all he had to do was tell them they couldn't pass. He can't extract promises in return for his men and support, which he already owes to House Tully, and then when he betrays them, fall back that he swore oaths to the crown.

My point was more along the lines that oaths don't mean much when push comes to shove.

Like Jaime talking about all his contradictory oaths.

[The Frosted King]

He also swore oaths to the crown.

But he had already killed men representing the crown well before Robb and his army showed up.

Remember the hung Lannister soldiers?

Walder was an opportunistic shit, and deserves no slack.

He is self serving.