The misunderstood Lord Walder Frey: He should’ve killed Robb

[TheWanderer]

And do not forget that the Lannisters broke the guest rights when Catelyn accused Tyrion of attempting to kill Bran. Yet, people still sit at their table…

Except that a) Tyrion didn't do it and b) he was acquitted. Meaning that the Lannisters have not broken guest right.

And the Freys have the Bolton, Lannister, and Karstark, so they are not completely hopeless.

Bolton has no interest in protecting the Freys and is actively sending them to their deaths in the North. Lannister has no interest in protecting the Freys since their involvement in the Red Wedding in unconfirmed. Karstark isn't even remotely aligned with the Freys since the Freys have imprisoned the Karstark heir.

The Freys have no friends.

I completely disagree because reputation has a lot to do with life. If Walder would’ve allowed Robb to break his oath with impunity he would had been seen as a pushover. Eventually other houses would start to break promises/oaths they have with him too. Soon even his vassals (House Frey does have vassals) would even think his house is a joke.

1) Walder Frey was already seen as a pushover do to his lack of spine in Robert's Rebellion. The Late Lord Frey is already a joke.

2) Houses might have been more willing to break promises with him had he allowed Robb to do so with impunity. But Robb was making amends so that's not really what happened.

3) Houses might have been more willing to break promises with him, now they will simply be unwilling to make those promises in the first place. Instead of being a pushover he's a treacherous bastard... how is that better?

[House Obama]

I know that Tyrion was innocent, but Jaime and Cersei weren’t. Therefore, the Lannister did break the guest rights.

And Roose Bolton married a Frey girl in order to cement their allegiance and to get rich. Also, the Karstarks are ally with the Freys because the Freys support Roose, and Roose supports the Freys.

[TheWanderer]

I know that Tyrion was innocent, but Jaime and Cersei weren’t. Therefore, the Lannister did break the guest rights.

Guest right doesn't say anything about incest.

Roose Bolton married a Frey girl in order to cement their allegiance and to get rich.

Roose Bolton married a Frey for the money, he gives exactly zero sh!ts about the Freys and has sent their men directly into a trap to spare his own.

the Karstarks are ally with the Freys because the Freys support Roose,

Some of the Karstarks serve Bolton but the House itself does not, since it's leader is imprisoned by the Freys and Alys does not support Bolton.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I know that Tyrion was innocent, but Jaime and Cersei werent. Therefore, the Lannister did break the guest rights.

Neither Tyrion, nor Cersei, nor Jaime, broke the guest right against House Stark, as none tried to kill Bran.

[Attitude]

Neither Tyrion, nor Cersei, nor Jaime, broke the guest right against House Stark, as none tried to kill Bran.

But Joffrey did? Even though he didn't try it himself, he did hire someone to do it (as far as we know).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Can't quote for some reason, but so because Joffrey hired a guy to kill Bran, Tyrion broke the guest right?

It doesn't work that way..

[Attitude]

Can't quote for some reason, but so because Joffrey hired a guy to kill Bran, Tyrion broke the guest right?

It doesn't work that way..

Stop right there, I agree on; Tyrion, Jaime nor Cersei did, but my question is, did Joffrey? (I mean, technically he didn't do anything, assuming he hired him).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Stop right there, I agree on; Tyrion, Jaime nor Cersei did, but my question is, did Joffrey? (I mean, technically he didn't do anything, assuming he hired him).

Ah, ok, then I misunderstood your post.

Hmm.. it is a difficult one. Manderly seems to consider it not breaking any 'rules' after your guests have left your home..

Yet the Joffrey/Bran example isn't host hurting guest, but guest hurting host.. do we see this anywhere else in the series?

Catelyn seems to consider it having been breaking of guest right, though.. (despite pointing the finger at the wrong person).

I think, as the deed most likely was arranged while Joff was still at Winterfell, I would say that it does count as breaking guest right.

[imaginepageant]

Agreed. I never quite understood the hate for Walder, considering A. he had every right to turn against the king who had already turned against him, and B. he wasn't even the mastermind behind the Red Wedding.

While I do think the Red Wedding went a little too far (see: sewing Grey Wind's head on Robb's body), I don't know how else Walder could have safely gotten himself out of an alliance with a untrustworthy and failing king, considering the location of the Twins between Robb's forces in the Riverlands and the Ironborn's in the North. Could he have defected and survived, without killing Robb? Probably not. And could he have defected and survived after killing only Robb, and not all those who were with him to protect him? Definitely not.

And of course, making an alliance with Tywin Lannister, who held the power everywhere south of the Riverlands, and Roose Bolton, who would afterwards hold the power in the North, would benefit him greatly.

Who in their right mind would say, "No thanks, I'll just sit here right in the middle of all the people who would destroy me and my House, continuing to support a king who basically has no power and who's already betrayed me after I risked my safety to help him." Oh, Ned Stark probably would. That's exactly the sort of logic he usually applies to deadly situations.

[Attitude]

Agreed. I never quite understood the hate for Walder, considering A. he had every right to turn against the king who had already turned against him, and B. he wasn't even the mastermind behind the Red Wedding.

While I do think the Red Wedding went a little too far (see: sewing Grey Wind's head on Robb's body), I don't know how else Walder could have safely gotten himself out of an alliance with a untrustworthy and failing king, considering the location of the Twins between Robb's forces in the Riverlands and the Ironborn's in the North. Could he have defected and survived, without killing Robb? Probably not. And could he have defected and survived after killing only Robb, and not all those who were with him to protect him? Definitely not.

And of course, making an alliance with Tywin Lannister, who held the power everywhere south of the Riverlands, and Roose Bolton, who would afterwards hold the power in the North, would benefit him greatly.

Who in their right mind would say, "No thanks, I'll just sit here right in the middle of all the people who would destroy me and my House, continuing to support a king who basically has no power and who's already betrayed me after I risked my safety to help him." Oh, Ned Stark probably would. That's exactly the sort of logic he usually applies to deadly situations.

Disagreed on (almost) all except for the bold thing. Yes I understood he did this, but not the way he did it. The moment that Tywin / Roose suggested this, he should've said: I'll delay them (Robb & co), get a decent army a day's march from here. I'll trap them on the bridge and together we'll crush their army. That still would've been 'betrayal', but then again, Robb betrayed him too.

Doing it by breaking the house rules, that will follow his family for centuries to come (if they survive).

[House Obama]

Guest right doesn't say anything about incest.

Roose Bolton married a Frey for the money, he gives exactly zero sh!ts about the Freys and has sent their men directly into a trap to spare his own.

Some of the Karstarks serve Bolton but the House itself does not, since it's leader is imprisoned by the Freys and Alys does not support Bolton.

I never said that incest was a part of Guest Rights. The Lannister broke GR when Jamie tried to kill Bran by pushing him from a window. Also, as I said before, Catelyn arrested the wrong Lannister for the crime.

I don’t agree. Roose knows that he needs all the allies he can get. Does it make sense for him to abandon the Frey’s military power?

And we will see about House Karstark, but after reading DwD I think they did.

Agreed. I never quite understood the hate for Walder, considering A. he had every right to turn against the king who had already turned against him, and B. he wasn't even the mastermind behind the Red Wedding.

While I do think the Red Wedding went a little too far (see: sewing Grey Wind's head on Robb's body), I don't know how else Walder could have safely gotten himself out of an alliance with a untrustworthy and failing king, considering the location of the Twins between Robb's forces in the Riverlands and the Ironborn's in the North. Could he have defected and survived, without killing Robb? Probably not. And could he have defected and survived after killing only Robb, and not all those who were with him to protect him? Definitely not.

And of course, making an alliance with Tywin Lannister, who held the power everywhere south of the Riverlands, and Roose Bolton, who would afterwards hold the power in the North, would benefit him greatly.

Who in their right mind would say, "No thanks, I'll just sit here right in the middle of all the people who would destroy me and my House, continuing to support a king who basically has no power and who's already betrayed me after I risked my safety to help him." Oh, Ned Stark probably would. That's exactly the sort of logic he usually applies to deadly situations.

You are one of few who think logically.

[House Obama]

Disagreed on (almost) all except for the bold thing. Yes I understood he did this, but not the way he did it. The moment that Tywin / Roose suggested this, he should've said: I'll delay them (Robb & co), get a decent army a day's march from here. I'll trap them on the bridge and together we'll crush their army. That still would've been 'betrayal', but then again, Robb betrayed him too.

Doing it by breaking the house rules, that will follow his family for centuries to come (if they survive).

Why should he have risked losing hundreds of his men, if he could annihilate them more easily and efficiently? Answer this question truly, and look at it from Walder’s pov.

[Attitude]

Why should he have risked losing hundreds of his men, if he could annihilate them more easily and efficiently? Answer this question truly, and look at it from Walder’s pov.

To at least have a chance of being considered honorable in the eyes of any other (great) house of westeros. He (and his family) can't be trusted anymore. Even when you have had bread and salt in their house they can still kill you without hestitation. Would you do a meeting with only two of your personal bodyguards in a room with walder frey and all his guard? I wouldn't. Don't forget, trust comes by foot and leaves by horse. It will take years, maybe centuries for people to trust the Frey's from now on. (I bet Tywin didn't even trust them, he just hoped that they would do it. Either way would've been fine for him, this one was just a lot better)

[imaginepageant]

The moment that Tywin / Roose suggested this, he should've said: I'll delay them (Robb & co), get a decent army a day's march from here. I'll trap them on the bridge and together we'll crush their army.

And how would he have trapped Robb on his bridge, between his two castles, without Robb being considered a guest? After a long march to the Twins, it's highly unlikely that he wouldn't stop at the first castle for rest and nourishment before crossing the bridge. In fact, Catelyn insisted that they partake of the Freys' bread and salt as soon as they reached the Twins to secure guest right prior to the Red Wedding; it stands to reason that she would have done the same whether they were there for a wedding or simply to cross the bridge. So, Robb would've been a guest one way or another, and Walder still would have been breaking guest right regardless of the manner of the slaughter.

And even if Walder somehow managed to get Robb on the bridge without first making him a guest, how many men could he have trapped there? Surely not the entirety of Robb's army, or whatever portion of it he brought with him. There would likely be men positioned on both sides of the river while Robb crossed—those who crossed first to secure the other side, and those who would cross after Robb. This would make it nigh impossible to trap Robb himself on the bridge. The Frey/Bolton/Lannister army would've had to split into four to make it work: one contingent on each side of the river to attack Robb's men on the banks, and one contingent in each of the Twins to attack Robb and his men on the bridge. They'd need a lot of men to keep the numbers high enough to guarantee a victory over Robb's army.

To quote Tyrion, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner."

Even when you have had bread and salt in their house they can still kill you without hestitation. Would you do a meeting with only two of your personal bodyguards in a room with walder frey and all his guard? I wouldn't.

You're forgetting one thing: Robb betrayed Walder first. This was not an unprovoked attack. As far as we know, Walder has never attacked any other host crossing his bridge. So there is no precedent for him "killing you without hesitation" unless you've already screwed him over. If you have, then no, it wouldn't be wise to go alone to a meeting with him and his entire guard. But that could be said of anyone you've stabbed in the back (save perhaps the "honorable" Starks).

It will take years, maybe centuries for people to trust the Frey's from now on.

And how do you propose armies will cross the Trident without them? That is precisely why Robb made the marriage pact in the first place: because he couldn't cross without Walder Frey's help. House Frey has gotten to where it is today because they hold the Crossing, and because that's where they usually stay (see: The Late Lord Frey). People will trust the Freys because they will have no other choice.

[Attitude]

And how would he have trapped Robb on his bridge, between his two castles, without Robb being considered a guest? After a long march to the Twins, it's highly unlikely that he wouldn't stop at the first castle for rest and nourishment before crossing the bridge. In fact, Catelyn insisted that they partake of the Freys' bread and salt as soon as they reached the Twins to secure guest right prior to the Red Wedding; it stands to reason that she would have done the same whether they were there for a wedding or simply to cross the bridge. So, Robb would've been a guest one way or another, and Walder still would have been breaking guest right regardless of the manner of the slaughter.

And even if Walder somehow managed to get Robb on the bridge without first making him a guest, how many men could he have trapped there? Surely not the entirety of Robb's army, or whatever portion of it he brought with him. There would likely be men positioned on both sides of the river while Robb crossed—those who crossed first to secure the other side, and those who would cross after Robb. This would make it nigh impossible to trap Robb himself on the bridge. The Frey/Bolton/Lannister army would've had to split into four to make it work: one contingent on each side of the river to attack Robb's men on the banks, and one contingent in each of the Twins to attack Robb and his men on the bridge. They'd need a lot of men to keep the numbers high enough to guarantee a victory over Robb's army.

To quote Tyrion, "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill 10,000 men in battle than a dozen at dinner."

You're forgetting one thing: Robb betrayed Walder first. This was not an unprovoked attack. As far as we know, Walder has never attacked any other host crossing his bridge. So there is no precedent for him "killing you without hesitation" unless you've already screwed him over. If you have, then no, it wouldn't be wise to go alone to a meeting with him and his entire guard. But that could be said of anyone you've stabbed in the back (save perhaps the "honorable" Starks).

And how do you propose armies will cross the Trident without them? That is precisely why Robb made the marriage pact in the first place: because he couldn't cross without Walder Frey's help. House Frey has gotten to where it is today because they hold the Crossing, and because that's where they usually stay (see: The Late Lord Frey). People will trust the Freys because they will have no other choice.

(1) I think I didn’t understand very well how the twins looked, I guessed you didn’t have to get through the castle to pass the bridge. I always thought the twins looked upon the bridge (they were next to it and in range of archers), so anyone who would (try) to cross would be seen and possible killed. In that case it isn’t possible to trap them properly on the bridge, but trapping them against a river works well too.

I won’t go into the details about how to attack him. I ain’t a military commander, but an army next to a river or on a bridge is vulnerable.

The Tyrion quote is nice and all, and maybe it isn’t, but if things were that easy, explain to me why there are any wars at all? Why not settle all differences by a man-to-man combat between two lords and be done with it? I can tell; because that’s not how it works.

Ps. Tyrion isn’t always right.

(2) Yes it was an provoked attack. The thing is, the house rule protects you from being screwed over in a RW scenario. I don’t say Walder did something that he shouldn’t do. Just the fact that he did it after he shared bread and salt with Robb is the part that I disapprove. And yes, it was after he screwed him over, but Walder himself at first said he accepted it and he could live with it. After he gave them bread and salt (e.g. the house rule was applicable) and then he kills them. If he would’ve said: You made a huge mistake coming here and now you will die at the very first moment when they met after his betrayel, I would’ve cared a lot less. He wouldn’t have broken a house rule and it would’ve been Robb’s ignorance for showing up after his betrayel that got him killed. Now Robb thought he was failed and Walder Frey breaking a rule got him killed. That’s a big difference IMO.

(3) The Twins isn’t the only option. You can use boats / ferry’s but that’s inefficient. And you could always conquer / destroy the twins. He could cross by trying to conquer the twins or by boat, but that wasn’t efficient at that time. Besides the rivers were flooded which would’ve made it a lot harder. People will not trust the Freys, but they maybe at some point they will have to trust him. Having to trust someone to get something done or actually trusting someone, is a big difference.

In conclusion, in my opinion:

- Walder Frey had all the right to kill Robb

- Walder Frey had no right to kill Robb after he had his bread and salt

- By killing him anyway, he has screwed his entire family over bigtime.

- It is more honerable to settle your differences in a battle then in a slaughter during a wedding.

[House Obama]

To at least have a chance of being considered honorable in the eyes of any other (great) house of westeros. He (and his family) can't be trusted anymore. Even when you have had bread and salt in their house they can still kill you without hestitation. Would you do a meeting with only two of your personal bodyguards in a room with walder frey and all his guard? I wouldn't. Don't forget, trust comes by foot and leaves by horse. It will take years, maybe centuries for people to trust the Frey's from now on. (I bet Tywin didn't even trust them, he just hoped that they would do it. Either way would've been fine for him, this one was just a lot better)

What about the king’s honor? Robb broke a holy oath to Walder, but everyone brushed it under the rug because nobody likes Walder Frey… we all know Walder’s back story, so I won’t wander into it. Also, this may be a blemish on House Frey, but they are currently doing what House Lannister does, which is rule by fear. The RW was truly the only card Walder had at his disposal.

[House Obama]

In conclusion, in my opinion:

- Walder Frey had all the right to kill Robb

- Walder Frey had no right to kill Robb after he had his bread and salt

- By killing him anyway, he has screwed his entire family over bigtime.

- It is more honerable to settle your differences in a battle then in a slaughter during a wedding.

I agree that lords should settle their differences in single combat; for example, a stark wrestled for Bear Island against an Ironborn, and once he won he gave it to the Mormont. However, what if a lord is better at being a commander than a soldier? Ned Stark was an excellent commander, but many readers agree that he was an average fighter, though his sword Ice did make him more formidable. Nevertheless, if Ned and Robert had beef and wanted to settle their differences with single combat, there’s no question that Robert would kill him easily. This is an example why a lord would rather go to war, than fight in single combat… and I think it would be more prideful if a lord died in single-combat, while knowing that he is outmatch. What if Gregor Clegane was the Warden of the West, and he challenged Robb to a battle, Robb would be an idiot if he accepted to end their disagreement in combat lol.

And once again, the RW was the best option. Robb had no right to break his oath; he should have just let the baby be a bastard.

By Killing Robb and slaughtering his army, Walder had proved to the Iron Throne that the Frey wants no trouble. He also possibly saved his family from extinction.

Why should have Walder faced off against Robb’s superior forces and lose in battle? Walder is not a fool, and the books show that he have a high level of cunning.

PS – Tywin was the person who said that quote, not Tyrion… I guess the North shall remember what happen when they march on the South.

[Attitude]

I agree that lords should settle their differences in single combat; for example, a stark wrestled for Bear Island against an Ironborn, and once he won he gave it to the Mormont. However, what if a lord is better at being a commander than a soldier? Ned Stark was an excellent commander, but many readers agree that he was an average fighter, though his sword Ice did make him more formidable. Nevertheless, if Ned and Robert had beef and wanted to settle their differences with single combat, there’s no question that Robert would kill him easily. This is an example why a lord would rather go to war, than fight in single combat… and I think it would be more prideful if a lord died in single-combat, while knowing that he is outmatch. What if Gregor Clegane was the Warden of the West, and he challenged Robb to a battle, Robb would be an idiot if he accepted to end their disagreement in combat lol.

And once again, the RW was the best option. Robb had no right to break his oath; he should have just let the baby be a bastard.

By Killing Robb and slaughtering his army, Walder had proved to the Iron Throne that the Frey wants no trouble. He also possibly saved his family from extinction.

Why should have Walder faced off against Robb’s superior forces and lose in battle? Walder is not a fool, and the books show that he have a high level of cunning.

PS – Tywin was the person who said that quote, not Tyrion… I guess the North shall remember what happen when they march on the South.

I know enough. You would let ruling to people like Gregor Clegane. That's the exact reason why I is NOT settled in single combat. Good soldiers don't always make good leaders, and if we would follow your logic, clegane would win (almost) very difference and would turn out king. Yeah like that's good for westeros.

Nah ill keep it with a good war.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

What about the kings honor? Robb broke a holy oath to Walder, but everyone brushed it under the rug because nobody likes Walder Frey we all know Walders back story, so I wont wander into it. Also, this may be a blemish on House Frey, but they are currently doing what House Lannister does, which is rule by fear. The RW was truly the only card Walder had at his disposal.

Breaking a betrothal does not give you the right to kill someone, imo.

Lyonel Baratheon saw a Targaryen break his betrothal to Lyonels daughter.. Lyonel got angry... I don't think anyone will say that Lyonel (or Walder) did not have the right to be angry..

Lyonel had his honour restored by a trial by battle (where no one died), and a new betrothal...

Lyonel accepted these terms... This person from an ancient house, with (distant) royal blood... Why shouldn't Walder accept terms? He received a new betrothal deal.. he could have asked for more, sure.. but Robb breaking his vow does not justify murdering half an army.

[House Obama]

Breaking a betrothal does not give you the right to kill someone, imo.

Lyonel Baratheon saw a Targaryen break his betrothal to Lyonels daughter.. Lyonel got angry... I don't think anyone will say that Lyonel (or Walder) did not have the right to be angry..

Lyonel had his honour restored by a trial by battle (where no one died), and a new betrothal...

Lyonel accepted these terms... This person from an ancient house, with (distant) royal blood... Why shouldn't Walder accept terms? He received a new betrothal deal.. he could have asked for more, sure.. but Robb breaking his vow does not justify murdering half an army.

Oh yes it does, remember that whenever a king gets overthrown, his supporters and army must be obliterated. Pick up an old history book, or even the Bible, and you will see that I am right. Robb breaking his oath was the icing on the cake that Walder needed in order to justify (himself or his family) that killing the king was necessary. Robb severed Lord Rickard Karstark’s head, thus making the Karstarks leave him. Also, the ironborns were pillaging the North slowly and slowly. Catelyn told Robb to not let Theon return to Pyke and he ignored her prudent advice and did it anyway. The Frey and Karstark made up for approximately 60, 000 together, so Robb losing them basically signal the end of his rebellion.

And Lyonel Baratheon situation is different than Robb because the realm was arguably intact at that time, and Lyonel was not rebellion against the Iron Throne like Robb was. Robb needed Frey, but the Targaryens could’ve easily killed Lyonel if they wanted to… honor had nothing to do with it.

Robb breaking his vow does justify Walder killing him. Walder would’ve look weak if he just allowed Robb to break his oath and marry a house that is currently struggling financially, with a paltry number of soldiers… you need better reasons if you think Walder should have remained loyal and “honorable”. Ned Stark was honorable and looks where that got him J .