The Red Wedding was ultimately good for the realm

[David Selig]

After reading about the destruction the war of the five kings caused, especially in the Riverlands, I have arrived at the conclusion that the war was ultimately a pointless war fought over some nobles honor and lives, at the cost of thousand or hundred of thousands of innocent lives.

Was that not painfully obvious from the start?

This leads me to question if the Red Wedding was so bad after all, as even though the Red Wedding was a brutal massacre, it also saved thousand or maybe hundred of thousands of innocents from being killed by ending the war. By committing the Red Wedding the Freys stopped the war between the Crown and the North, a pointless war over the honor of some nobles. For the common man in Westeros, the war just meant that their fields were destroyed, the people were raped and killed, all over some nobles self interests. Because of this, any way to end the war would be good for the common man.

Thing is the RW didn't end the war, it just created a short lull in it and it's likely to be even bloodier when it flares up again in the RW and finding a diplomatic solution much more unlikely.

[Robb_Warged]

No it wasn't OP!

[Mladen]

Robb could never win the war, so having that part of the war end brings peace at least between the North and the South, and the Northern civil war does not really affect the South. That Freys are dropping like flies does not really affect the common man.

The Riverlands got better afer the Red Wedding, simply by the fact that there would never be any peace in the Riverlands as long as Robb is King. If Robb does not attend the Red Wedding, and move North as planned, the Lannisters would ravage the Riverlands, trying to make the lives of the Tullys and the common people just bad enough for Robb to decide to come south again.

And Lannisters could have, without a support of single major House? Let we not forget, that until Tyrells came into picture, Lannisters and Starks were rather equal. And civil war on the North does affect common people, just as the civil war on the South affects common men.

The Riverlands didn't get better after RW and the books are rather clear about it. GRRM made it quite clear in AFFC that situation got even worse after RW, and that numerous gangs are ravaging Riverlands. So, I am not sure what your arguments are, but Brienne's journeys actually make us see what hell Riverlands became. And she went there after RW.

[Prince Davos Martell]

And Lannisters could have, without a support of single major House? Let we not forget, that until Tyrells came into picture, Lannisters and Starks were rather equal. And civil war on the North does affect common people, just as the civil war on the South affects common men.

The Riverlands didn't get better after RW and the books are rather clear about it. GRRM made it quite clear in AFFC that situation got even worse after RW, and that numerous gangs are ravaging Riverlands. So, I am not sure what your arguments are, but Brienne's journeys actually make us see what hell Riverlands became. And she went there after RW.

Any civil war is bad yes, I agree with that. But, the civil war will be pretty one sided with Boltons vs the other lords, making it far less bloody than the war in the Riverlands.

Yes, the Riverlands is really bad after the RW. but this is not because of the Red Wedding. The war fought between the Starks and Lannisters caused this destruction of the Riverlands, so continuing the war would just make the problems even bigger. By having the Tullys and other Riverland lords bend the knee after the RW, the Lannisers can finally start restoring some semblance of stability in the Riverlands, which was just what Jaime was doing in ADWD.

Without the RW, the war just goes on... leading to even more gangs and destruction.

To sum up my points:

The war of Northern Independence was a pointless war that could not be won by the Starks, so ending it as soon as possible would be a good thing. Neither the Starks or Lannister wanted to sue for peace, so peace was not a choice. The only hope the Starks held, was for Stannis to win, and then sue for peace with him. Needless to say, Stannis would never accept this. So basically, the war would last until someone lost. But, yes. the Red Wedding was a incredibly brutal way to end the war, and it caused needless fallout, but it also stopped the war, which in itself was a good thing.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The Riverlands didn't get better after RW and the books are rather clear about it. GRRM made it quite clear in AFFC that situation got even worse after RW, and that numerous gangs are ravaging Riverlands. So, I am not sure what your arguments are, but Brienne's journeys actually make us see what hell Riverlands became. And she went there after RW.

She saw Tarly helping rebuild Maidenpool as well as beginning to hunt down the criminals. Jaime sees that the people of Darry has begun working the lands again as well as the bandits hunted down by Harywn Plumm.

The Riverlands finally has a chance at peace. The Riverland soldiers can go back to their families and start rebuilding.

[Chaircat Meow]

You can only know that many years after the event. Does the RW help or hinder the fight against the Others for example? No RW and Stannis doesn't go to the wall etc. There are too many butterflies. I take it the real question is was the RW a good idea from the perspective of Lannister HQ.

The Lannisters weren't acting primarily out of concern for the common good, but most people would agree ending the war serves the general good. So, we could consider whether the RW could reasonably be supposed to end the war and bring about peace. And the answer is yes, if handled properly in the aftermath. However, Lord Tywin got shot and the Lannister position went to hell thereafter so ultimately it will have been a failure.

[OldGimletEye]

No, the Red Wedding was not good for the realm. The war started to a great extent because of Tywin's aggression into the River Lands. It may have been good for for Tywin Lannister, at least in the short term, but probably not even in the long term.

And,

And Red wedding, as Bright Blue Eyes noted once, completely destroyed Westerosi diplomacy. How many wars will start in future because sides can't trust to uphold the most sacred law in Westeros?

Yes. I agree with this. I think the Guest Right had a very practical purpose and it's importance was more than just being something that was shrouded in tradition.

[Michael Donahue]

We should also remember that, as a well-known atrocity and act of sacrilege committed by the nobility, the RW further undermined confidence in the morals and values of Westeros and further fuelled the rise of the High Sparrow and the resurgence of the Faith Militant.

[Lykaios Wolfsheart]

Just initially, I'd like to say, I completely agree with you that the war was totally and utterly pointless. But that's the point MArtin is trying to make, that war IS pointless.

At the end of the day, Robb offered terms to end the war. The Lannisters refused the terms and continued the war. Several times the war could have ended diplomatically, but it didn't.

Whatever the long term advantages of the Red Wedding are, nothing justifies what happened at the Twins.

The war carried on anyway, yes, the North has been pretty much subdued for now, but look at the events occurring near Winterfell, the Northern Lords want their true leaders back and are probably geared up to overthrow the Boltons and start ANOTHER WAR.

Killing/capturing thousands to save thousands is a completely lopsided solution. Plus, you state that Robb's armies were killing thousands of innocent, conscripted soldiers, then go on to say that the soldiers at the Twins were legitimate targets of murder?

Is the honor and need for revenge for the Starks worth more than thousands of Riverland, Crownland and Westerland peasants? By continuing the war, this is just what Robb Stark did, he raided land, burned fields,

Lots of wars are fought over seemingly minuscule things in the people's eyes, especially in the time of a feudalistic medieval society. I mean look at our wars for oil/politics/money/power, and then look at the wars of the time. You give certain people power, they are the ones who decide what to fight for. The Stark rebellion was an act of defiance against the tyranny and corrupt rule of the Iron Throne itself, not just Joffrey. Three of their Lords Paramount were killed brutally and unjustly in a row, and then their King also met the same fate on orders of the Throne. Sorry what do you expect them to do? Just sit back and do nothing? The North fought for what they thought was right, and unfortunately, in war, people die. Don't try and pin innocent lives on the Northern armies because the West were giving as good as they got, as were almost every other army. In fact, all wars result in innocent deaths. It's terror-tactics. I'm not saying its right, but it happens.

I mean it's all well and good saying that the Starks prolonged the war for revenge and honour which would kill thousands more, but Tywin started the war for revenge and honour...so what the hell is the argument here? That Robb should have accepted that his chances of victory were slim and just given up? Sorry but most people don't give up if they're fighting to avenge a loved one, especially when they know it'll probably mean their death and/or absolute loss or land/titles and/or respect. And that's most people, Robb was not just a mere lord but a King as well, respect, honour and pride is essential to his survival as a ruler. He would never have been allowed to live it down by his Lords if he had given up his throne, lands and honour when he still actually had a chance at winning (remember, he had won every battle, and his loyal banner-men would have seen a truce as weakness).

I mean to flip it on its head, couldn't Tywin have offered a truce agreement? Of course not, he couldn't suffer the stain on his pride.

[Prince Davos Martell]

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the North, and view the Red Wedding as a crime and would like for the North to get their just revenge. My point is that, nothing is just black and white, and sometimes a just war will bring innocent people harm, and sometime a unjust massacre will help innocent people. I feel its good to reflect about this, and not view the war as just. Starks: Good Freys and Lannisters: Bad. As this often leads to the suffering of the common people being underestimated.

My OP could look like it justified the Red Wedding, but it was more than anything just a way to open some debate about how the war between Starks and Lannisers affected the common people, and that maybe ending it was a good thing, no matter the way it was done.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Any ending to a war has to prevent the next war being fought from being the direct result of that ending and the future wars to be at least not bloodier than the current one due to the ending of this one.

That's where the Red Wedding is a catastrophy. It turned a rather limited and civilized war as they happen all the time into a genocidal circle of revenge.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I would by the argument of OP, which is what Tywin has also said, if there were any truth on it. But it's not.

Look at Renly's death. People is not wanting revenge because his only allies were the Tyrells and other men who are now switched to a more convenient. Tywin's argument is that Robb's one single dead would remove the leader of the Northern campaign, and as Jaime said he told him, killing all of his men would leave no one to ask revenge. But Tywin hasn't annihilated the whole North. Tywin is not aware that the Northmen are really loyal to the Starks and they are only pretending to be defeated and are planning insurrection once more and want those who they killed in the RW avenged.

So, no. The RW was not good for the realm. It has made one powerful faction to regroup to attack again.

[Lykaios Wolfsheart]

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the North, and view the Red Wedding as a crime and would like for the North to get their just revenge. My point is that, nothing is just black and white, and sometimes a just war will bring innocent people harm, and sometime a unjust massacre will help innocent people. I feel its good to reflect about this, and not view the war as just. Starks: Good Freys and Lannisters: Bad. As this often leads to the suffering of the common people being underestimated.

My OP could look like it justified the Red Wedding, but it was more than anything just a way to open some debate about how the war between Starks and Lannisers affected the common people, and that maybe ending it was a good thing, no matter the way it was done.

No I completely agree, nothing is black and white (as my signature shows). Sorry I do sometimes go a little overboard with this argument, but I do strongly feel that something like the RW is never good fro the realm.

I mean you have other points coming in on top of the fact that morally it was just wrong; the guest right will never be respected again, lords will never truly trust one and other, and the North will never forget what happened. And Freys, Boltons, Lannisters and most especially, the Iron Throne will have a constant stain on their honour.

[Prince Davos Martell]

No I completely agree, nothing is black and white (as my signature shows). Sorry I do sometimes go a little overboard with this argument, but I do strongly feel that something like the RW is never good fro the realm.

I mean you have other points coming in on top of the fact that morally it was just wrong; the guest right will never be respected again, lords will never truly trust one and other, and the North will never forget what happened. And Freys, Boltons, Lannisters and most especially, the Iron Throne will have a constant stain on their honour.

You make some good points, but I still feel that the ending of the war in Riverlands is worth something. The destruction was just so bad, so it's hard to imagine how much worse it could be had the war continued. Does this mean that the RW should have happened, I would say No, as even though it was beneficial for the Riverlands, it was both morally objectionable and caused more wars at a later point. But considering it did happen, you have to consider some positive effects it caused.

[Not a kneeler]

The damage was already done from a material standpoint because the massive fighting stopped just as winter came. Fields burned, crops destroyed, men dead. The seeds of resentment still are sown in the Northmen, Meanwhile, on another front, the strength of Robb is lost to the north with winter coming and no one in Mays Landing aware that winter does not just mean cold weather and snow.

Facing Winter is in the Stark make -up. Robb learned the myths as a child as did many of the men who were slaughtered with him. They would have been better prepared to deal with what is coming than the southerners.

[Lykaios Wolfsheart]

You make some good points, but I still feel that the ending of the war in Riverlands is worth something. The destruction was just so bad, so it's hard to imagine how much worse it could be had the war continued. Does this mean that the RW should have happened, I would say No, as even though it was beneficial for the Riverlands, it was both morally objectionable and caused more wars at a later point. But considering it did happen, you have to consider some positive effects it caused.

I agree that it's generally a good thing that the destruction of the Riverlands stopped, but the Lannister's started that anyway so it feels a like a bit of an empty positive as they could have either a) Never started. Or b) Stopped much earlier on. However, the war still continued, and the people of the Riverlands were still suffering from the effects of war, sieges and constant raids from outlaws.

I think as a short term solution, it definitely seemed like an attractive end to the war fro the Lannister's, but in the long term its ripples will be felt for hundreds of years after all these characters have died.

[melx]

The war started to a great extent because of Tywin's aggression into the River Lands.

where did he get idea to "attack" Riverlands ....?

Just woke up one morning and "being so evil and without any honor" decided to perform some "acts of aggression" on RL

Lannisters and Starks were rather equal.

Lannisters and starks are not equal,only military genius of Blackfish saved armies of north & RL from total destruction

RW being good thing?.....it was great thing for winners and people of war affected areas,but death of Tywin undone everything.

If Tywin lived, Boltons & Freys would have time to establish themselves & crash any resistance,after all going against Lord Tywin would mean certain death ........

Since "ifs" are pointless and it's known that "when the cat's away(dead ), the rats will play" we see all these "brave" fractions of defeated armies come to life and ready for more war...

[OldGimletEye]

where did he get idea to "attack" Riverlands ....?

Just woke up one morning and "being so evil and without any honor" decided to perform some "acts of aggression" on RL

Uh, so he didn't send his forces into the RL? Is that what you are saying? Because, if you are, then it's a bunch of horseshit.

[Chaircat Meow]

Any ending to a war has to prevent the next war being fought from being the direct result of that ending and the future wars to be at least not bloodier than the current one due to the ending of this one.

That's where the Red Wedding is a catastrophy. It turned a rather limited and civilized war as they happen all the time into a genocidal circle of revenge.

Oh, you've read books 6-8 have you? Tell me what happens to Tyrion while you're at it.

[Drekinn]

I agree with OP. The Red Wedding is judged most of the time from an emotional perspective because of Robb and Cat. It's not pretty but that's war. Had Robb lived even more chaos would follow. Now, as for the Boltons coming on top that's another thing entirely.