the trees have eyes Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: He has at least 100 more heirs. BTW his heir died for Robb, another thing that the Freys had to pay and Robb betrayed them. I don't feel that I believe that. If there was any other family and not the Starks the Freys would had won. There are hundrends of people with Frey blood who can be heirs one or even ten of them isn't a big deal. You seemed very sure about the fact and not an opinion that all the Freys were involved in Red Wedding which is something that isn't true. Have you got a proof that what you say is true? No. So you feel all the Freys being hanged and baked into pies is something that should just be shrugged off as insignificant, because, you know, there are plenty more of them. Seriously, come on. The insult done to his House by Robb breaking a marriage pact was Walder's spur to commit mass murder. Do you not see how having his blood slaughtered left, right and centre is far worse. Outlaws consider it justice to hang Freys and you seem to think Walder has improved his House's position. Far from it. As to the bolded: if you read the chapters around the Red Wedding it is clear how many of the Freys are involved in planning and executing the Red Wedding and even the likes of Alyx Frey and the other young women present know what is going to happen, they are there to preserve the image of normality before the trap is sprung. This is precisely what I mean by Walder tainting his House, something that Westeros is all too clear on even if you are not. Are you really being so pedantic as to argue that because every last single Frey was not involved (Perwyn, Olyvar and Alesander the singer being absent) the infamy attaches to Walder only and not to House Frey? If so why are they being butchered everywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: And how exactly he would had proved his loyalty to the crown if he hadn't done anything against the Starks? Not helping them after allowing them to be safe at home is not a way to prove that he is with the Crown's side. Read the rest of what I wrote - military service in pacifying the Riverlands. It worked for Jonos Bracken who beseiged the Blackwoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Do you consider the Freys to be in a good position right now? Right now? Yes, of course they are. War has stopped, they control the Twins, Darry and Riverrun. They are the most powerful House in the Riverlands. The Freys are currently in the best position that have been in all series. Had they done nothing they may well be facing a similar fate to the Tullys and Tywin makes examples of the key players who fought against him. In fact Walder and Stevrons children (and a few others) may well have been executed sent to the Wall while Emmon and Genna were given the Twins. 11 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Walder fucked up big time and his heirs are being put to the sword in the North and the Riverlands. Robb was expecting them to fight against the Ironborn in the North. Tywin had an army of 80k. The Freys were going to lose more members regardless of what happened. They are hardly fucked, certainly in no worse of a position had they stuck with Robb. Land wise they are doing far, far better. That is undeniable. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 1. When Catelyn urged Robb to return to Winterfell after it's sack Robb pointed out that the Riverlands would be left to fend for themselves. And so they would be. Yup, Robb was going to let the other Riverlords stay while expecting the Freys to support him retaking the North. It is right there in the quote I supplied. I will supply it again Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousand men. Robb needed their military support. "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. And later on "Lothar seemed amiable, that's a hopeful sign. We need the Freys." The marriage offer of Edmure was not to make up for him fucking over the Freys, it was because he still needed them and expected them, and not the other Riverlords, to abandon their lands and help him retake his. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: As Catelyn said the River Lords would have to defend their own lands and despite your reference Frey is a Tully Bannerman and River Lord. His place is in the Riverlands not marching to WF with the Northmen. If Robb really wanted to mend relations with Walder he could hardly force the man to send his troops north while no other Riverlanders were required to stir a foot and were allowed to protect their own lands. And yet that is what Robb was expecting. He makes it clear. "I know the Freys, Mother. I know how much I wronged them, and how much I need them. I shall be as sweet as a septon." Robb is making plans of the Frey soldiers as if it was a given they would be joining him. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 2. His service to the Crown would be to turn his cloak once Robb was in the North, ensure The Twins were closed and the Green Fork impassable to any forces coming from the North, and assist the Crown in pacifying the Riverlands. The Crown does not need the Freys for that. You are forgetting that when Robb's army was paying the West back in kind for what they did in the Riverlands (though not the Frey lands) the Freys had more men than any other House. Remember Tywin holding a grudge when Stafford Lannister was held captive by Ellyn Reyne/Tarbeck? Well Stafford died in the West, brutally according to some reports. Tywin is going to hold a grudge for not only that but Walder making this war happen. Cleos, Tion and Martyn would likely be alive were it not Walder, Jaime would still have a hand. It is going to take more than a simply apology for Walder to make the peace. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: You only need look at the Bracken - Blackwood incident in ADWD to see the Crown was willing to accept one House back into the King's peace in return for its military service. lol the Brackens were attacked by the Westerlands, they did not attack the Westerlands like the Freys did and they were one of the first Houses to surrender keeping the Blackwoods under siege. No House, not even the Tullys, fucked over Tywin like the Freys did in the series. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Now imagine Stannis, Euron and Robb are all still in rebellion and the Dornish unreliable and Walder Frey has much more of a bargaining position that Jonos Bracken, particularly given his superior military forces, wealth and the strategic position of his castle. It's a strong hand. It is not that strong. Tywin has his own Freys he can put in charge there is needs be. Getting rid of Walder, Stevrons children and grandchildren and other Freys who may have displeased him would be the intelligent move to make. Happens all the time in a feudal society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: The insult done to his House by Robb breaking a marriage pact was Walder's spur to commit mass murder. It wasn't insult it was betrayal. 6 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Do you not see how having his blood slaughtered left, right and centre is far worse. As I have said he exaggerated. He should had killed Robb and Cat and then left the others outsid Twins for Tywin. 7 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Outlaws consider it justice to hang Freys and you seem to think Walder has improved his House's position. Far from it. You mean about the outlaws that have Cat as their leader and also fight for Robert's realm? 8 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: if you read the chapters around the Red Wedding it is clear how many of the Freys are involved in planning and executing the Red Wedding I have and it proves nothing. There are hundrends Freys and as many people with Frey blood. Thirty of even fourty of them isn't enough. 11 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: This is precisely what I mean by Walder tainting his House, something that Westeros is all too clear on even if you are not. Are you really being so pedantic as to argue that because every last single Frey was not involved (Perwyn, Olyvar and Alesander the singer being absent) the infamy attaches to Walder only and not to House Frey? If we have to condemn all the Freys because what some of them did then we have do the same for all the other houses too. Elia's children, Dany and Viserys were a fair game since their ancestors were monsters. Bran, Arya and Rickon were fair game since Robb was monster who attacked innocent people and their ancestors practised blood magic. 14 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: If so why are they being butchered everywhere? Not everywhere. In something that involves Cat and a father whose son was killed. Just now, the trees have eyes said: Read the rest of what I wrote - military service in pacifying the Riverlands. It worked for Jonos Bracken who beseiged the Blackwoods. Bracken hadn't Walder's power and wasn't an essential tool for Robb's safety. Walder had the only way to the North, Bracken had nothing important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamWesterosiWallace Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 On 10/08/2016 at 10:50 AM, SeanF said: Cersei, because I enjoy her chapters. Well, then, Ramsay, because I enjoyed reading Theon's ADWD chapters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 On 2016. 08. 09. at 0:39 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I agree that what Roose did was immoral, classically speaking; but, to be frank, these rules were set down by people thousands of years ago. Roose is in a position where he can choose whether or not to follow such rules, and I don't truly think he's under any obligation to do so simply because that's how it's been done forever. Roose is not a social reformer though. He is perfectly happy to uphold all the laws of feudalism that suit him. As long as he acts and lives as a feudal lord, he should accept the resulting duties as well. If he doesn't want to honour the old obligations any more, then he should not expect his own vassals or smallfolk to serve him either because they must also be free to choose for themselves. On 2016. 08. 09. at 0:39 PM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Regardless, the Boltons (and every other House, Stark and Tully and Frey) were also sworn to the Crown; it seems a lot of people can understand why the Starks would betray the Crown, as the King did something that the Starks found offensive (killing Ned). Robb Stark did something that Roose found offensive, but for some reason he should stay loyal? I feel like there's some kind of double standard here. How exactly did Robb offend Roose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damsel in Distress Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 On 8/11/2016 at 7:50 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said: The Freys are currently in the best position that have been in all series. Had they done nothing they may well be facing a similar fate to the Tullys and Tywin makes examples of the key players who fought against him. In fact Walder and Stevrons children (and a few others) may well have been executed sent to the Wall while Emmon and Genna were given the Twins. Walder had little choice if he wants to ensure his family's continued prosperity. Robb made too many dumb decisions and could no longer be relied upon as an ally. I forgave Walder Frey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Julia H. said: Roose is not a social reformer though. He is perfectly happy to uphold all the laws of feudalism that suit him. As long as he acts and lives as a feudal lord, he should accept the resulting duties as well. If he doesn't want to honour the old obligations any more, then he should not expect his own vassals or smallfolk to serve him either because they must also be free to choose for themselves. Duty is an interesting thing. It's all well and good to expect that people will be dutiful, but people never will be unless they're given a reason to. That reason can be many things, from money to morality. But Roose was attentive to his duties because he was being threatened (usually a silent threat, though Robb outwardly threatened to have the Greatjon killed unless he obeyed); when the Starks no longer had power enough to be threatening to him (by which I mean 'when Roose saw a way to take away the Starks power'), there was no longer anything forcing him to obey his duties. But, Roose still has power, and thus his own vassals and smallfolk must still obey. That's feudalism. It's naive to think that people will follow their duties simply because they should. 4 hours ago, Julia H. said: How exactly did Robb offend Roose? He was forcing him into a war that seemed doomed to fail, which would have cost Roose the lives of some of his men, possibly his own life, his status, his power. Robb Stark had already shown a disregard for the people serving him; Stevron Frey, Walder's firstborn son and heir, died serving the Starks, and in return Robb broke the contract which bound him to serve in the first place. Roose Bolton was not interested in Robb Stark's petty vengeance, especially not if it costs him everything. So, maybe offend wasn't quite right. Perhaps I should've said that Robb did something that Roose found disagreeable. The point is that it's comparable to what the Crown did to make Robb break his oaths to serve, even if only in broad strokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pain killer Jane Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Probably Walder Frey. Greedy, useful and I could always just give them a royal pardon but then later if there are any problems the High Septon could always resend that pardon. Roose is greedy, useful and SMART. Can't forgive that. Ramsay is an uncontrollable beast. Rabid dogs get put down. Gregor is another uncontrollable beast and now an undead and extremely hard to kill monster. Cersei is rabid.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Duty is an interesting thing. It's all well and good to expect that people will be dutiful, but people never will be unless they're given a reason to. That reason can be many things, from money to morality. But Roose was attentive to his duties because he was being threatened (usually a silent threat, though Robb outwardly threatened to have the Greatjon killed unless he obeyed); when the Starks no longer had power enough to be threatening to him (by which I mean 'when Roose saw a way to take away the Starks power'), there was no longer anything forcing him to obey his duties. But, Roose still has power, and thus his own vassals and smallfolk must still obey. That's feudalism. It's naive to think that people will follow their duties simply because they should. The reason for a feudal lord to be dutiful is that the same system of duties ensures his own power over his own vassals. The liege lord - vassal relationship is the key element of the social system they live in, and Roose benefits from the system a great deal. When feudal duties are neglected, sovereigns will decide not to give away any more lands (and maybe take back what their ancestors gave away if they are strong enough) and rely instead on a standing army of sellswords. Robb had every right to warn a vassal of the consequences if he neglects the duty he owes to the liege lord. Roose's (and the Greatjon's) situation can be compared to that of a professional soldier in our time, who joins the army in peace time, gets training, a good salary and certain privileges that ensure a comfortable life for him -- but when war breaks out he is expected to go and fight. It is his duty and he can't say he has just changed his mind and doesn't want to be a soldier any more given that it has suddenly become a lot more uncomfortable job. When he joined, he knew what to expect, and now he is expected to live up to his side of the contract. Now, you can say that the difference is that this soldier joined up voluntarily, while Roose's contract was made thousands of years ago. It is true. Feudal rights and duties are hereditary. However, Roose accepted the contract when he accepted his lordship. Had he decided to get out of it, he could have done it by choosing to become a maester or a septon (yes, I know, he would have had to convert to another religion for the latter) or even a swellsword, who makes individual contracts every time, thus is in a position to choose not to serve a certain lord. Or he could have chosen to reform the whole system, starting with freeing his own smallfolk instead of practising the very feudal right of the first night, which is not even legal any more. All in all, when it comes to his own feudal rights, Roose is very far from being socially progressive. So refusing to do his feudal duties is simply due to cowardice and / or greed on his part. As for what makes people dutiful, do you realize if all the vassals decide not to go to war for their lord, it is the end of the lord's power? Yet, most lords will march for the Starks, and many of them are willing to fight not only when Robb is still there to threaten them, but even later, "to save the Ned's little girl". That is how far their duty and loyalty go, because it is part of the values they have been brought up with and of the core values their society is based on. Roose, on the other hand, has just shown it to his vassals that it is fine to break your contract as soon as the other side "pays more". 7 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: He was forcing him into a war that seemed doomed to fail, which would have cost Roose the lives of some of his men, possibly his own life, his status, his power. Robb Stark had already shown a disregard for the people serving him; Stevron Frey, Walder's firstborn son and heir, died serving the Starks, and in return Robb broke the contract which bound him to serve in the first place. Roose Bolton was not interested in Robb Stark's petty vengeance, especially not if it costs him everything. So, maybe offend wasn't quite right. Perhaps I should've said that Robb did something that Roose found disagreeable. The point is that it's comparable to what the Crown did to make Robb break his oaths to serve, even if only in broad strokes. Not "petty vengeance". Robb went to war to help his grandfather against outside attacks - which he was expected to do, as kinship means an alliance he had to honour (hence the importance of marriages among noble families) - and to free his father, which was also his duty to do. Once war has started, it takes two sides to stop it. But it doesn't really matter from Roose's viewpoint. The decision to go to war or not to go to war for a given reason is the liege lord's responsibility just as the modern soldier in the example above cannot decide when to go to war. I agree that "offend" wasn't the right word. "It was disagreeable" is a nice way of saying that Rooose benefited more from betrayal than duty (in the short run at least). I agree. It was a totally dishonourable decision still. The fact that he had a reason to betray Robb doesn't mean he did it for the right reason. Very few people do anything without a reason, most crimes are committed for some personal gain,which, however, doesn't make them right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Julia H. said: All in all, when it comes to his own feudal rights, Roose is very far from being socially progressive. So refusing to do his feudal duties is simply due to cowardice and / or greed on his part. Oh, you're certainly correct, Roose has no intention of causing some kind of social change. He doesn't care enough. He's just trying to do what puts him into the best possible position; I approve of this. It may be that the only reason that Roose betrayed Robb was cowardice or greed. But I see other reasons that would make someone like him want to take such actions as he did. I'm not saying whether or not they're immoral actions, though; they're perfectly understandable, however. I'd have likely done something similar, to be honest. Besides, it's better to be a coward than to be dead. Leaving that war was absolutely in Roose's best interests. 2 hours ago, Julia H. said: Roose, on the other hand, has just shown it to his vassals that it is fine to break your contract as soon as the other side "pays more". Robb showed something similar to his vassals. If the people you serve kill your father, no matter his crimes (treason, in Ned's case), it's okay to betray them. It's rather hypocritical to assume loyalty from the Karstarks after Robb killed Rickard, likewise to expect any loyalty from Walder Frey, after Robb ordered his first son to his death. Evidently, there's a breaking point at which loyalty is no longer required to be given. Who is to say just where, exactly, that point is? For Robb Stark, it was the imprisonment and death of his father. Roose's wasn't quite so high; he stopped giving his loyalty before Robb could order him to his death, or brought about the destruction of his House in his foolish war. 2 hours ago, Julia H. said: Not "petty vengeance". Robb went to war to help his grandfather against outside attacks - which he was expected to do, as kinship means an alliance he had to honour (hence the importance of marriages among noble families) - and to free his father, which was also his duty to do. Once war has started, it takes two sides to stop it. Robb Stark gathered his bannermen and headed south after he received news of Ned's imprisonment. The Riverlands had nothing to do with his decision to go to war with the Crown. It was also not his duty to do anything with the Riverlands. The Lannister's were attacking Tully lands; it was for the Crown to step in, not Robb Stark, acting Lord of Winterfell. It was not his duty to attempt to free his father. His father had been arrested for treason. Robb had no way of knowing that it wasn't true (it also was true; he did doctor Robert's Will); It was his duty to remain in the North; to rule, as he was now the Warden of the North. All people only do their duty when it suits them. 2 hours ago, Julia H. said: But it doesn't really matter from Roose's viewpoint. The decision to go to war or not to go to war for a given reason is the liege lord's responsibility just as the modern soldier in the example above cannot decide when to go to war. Of course it matters. Roose has duties not only to the Starks, but to the Crown as well. If Roose in your example is the modern soldier, Robb Stark is his commanding officer. When your commanding officer orders you to join him in taking over the government, or seceding and making his own government within lands owned by the other government, it is absolutely okay to not obey. But! Robb Stark has already given his threats. "Join me or else." Now that he can no longer safely disobey, he must then obey. But now he's gone to war against the Crown. That is, of course, a very, very serious crime. He was forced to commit this crime, and so the only option left to him is to continue the war and hope to win. He can hardly just go home to stay and not expect repercussions. He took the only way out that wouldn't result in severe punishment; from the Crown if Robb lost his war, or from Robb if he won. Siding with the Crown the way he did made peace with one enemy and killed off another. It really was the only pragmatic option left to him. 2 hours ago, Julia H. said: I agree that "offend" wasn't the right word. "It was disagreeable" is a nice way of saying that Rooose benefited more from betrayal than duty (in the short run at least). I agree. It was a totally dishonourable decision still. The fact that he had a reason to betray Robb doesn't mean he did it for the right reason. Very few people do anything without a reason, most crimes are committed for some personal gain,which, however, doesn't make them right. It doesn't inherently make them wrong, either. For what it's worth, I agree with you; if you have a classical sense of morality, Roose's actions are immoral. Beyond a doubt. However, I (obviously) do not subscribe to such moral beliefs. In my mind, Roose made the right call. In yours, he obviously didn't. Neither of us are right, neither of us are wrong. But, the idea of the topic is whether or not we can forgive what Roose and the other four did; my morality dictates that yes, I can forgive Roose (for this, at least), and I suppose yours dictates otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 6 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Oh, you're certainly correct, Roose has no intention of causing some kind of social change. He doesn't care enough. He's just trying to do what puts him into the best possible position; I approve of this. It may be that the only reason that Roose betrayed Robb was cowardice or greed. But I see other reasons that would make someone like him want to take such actions as he did. I'm not saying whether or not they're immoral actions, though; they're perfectly understandable, however. I'd have likely done something similar, to be honest. I see. Quote Besides, it's better to be a coward than to be dead. Leaving that war was absolutely in Roose's best interests. Roose didn't "leave the war". He conspired to get his liege lord killed in the war, betrayed him to his enemies, physically killed him and took his castle. Let's call a spade a spade. Quote Robb showed something similar to his vassals. If the people you serve kill your father, no matter his crimes (treason, in Ned's case), it's okay to betray them. It's rather hypocritical to assume loyalty from the Karstarks after Robb killed Rickard, likewise to expect any loyalty from Walder Frey, after Robb ordered his first son to his death. The problem with the treason accusation is that everyone who knew Ned knew how much he loved Robert and how honourable he was. The treason charge just doesn't make sense in this context. It also seemed clear that something was up with the Lannisters after Lysa's letter. All that together made the accusation of treason very suspicious. Quote Evidently, there's a breaking point at which loyalty is no longer required to be given. Who is to say just where, exactly, that point is? For Robb Stark, it was the imprisonment and death of his father. Roose's wasn't quite so high; he stopped giving his loyalty before Robb could order him to his death, or brought about the destruction of his House in his foolish war. Why would Robb order Roose to his death? Robb gave Roose command of one of his armies, a position of honour. There was zero reason for Roose to believe that Robb would order him to his death while he was loyal. The people of Westeros seem to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Ser Barristan became Robert's Kingsguard after the total defeat and death of his previous king and after he was captured by Robert and treated with respect - and people continued to regard him as a very honourable person. Ser Jaime killed the king he was supposed to protect and this action cost him his honour. Roose's behaviour is much more similar to Jaime's than Barristan's. Quote Robb Stark gathered his bannermen and headed south after he received news of Ned's imprisonment. The Riverlands had nothing to do with his decision to go to war with the Crown. It was also not his duty to do anything with the Riverlands. The Lannister's were attacking Tully lands; it was for the Crown to step in, not Robb Stark, acting Lord of Winterfell. Except that the Crown didn't do anything to stop the attack on the Riverlands, and yes, Robb gave help to besieged Riverrun and freed his uncle. Their families had been allies since the marriage between Cat and Ned - to help each other in such situations was the point of the alliance. That is why the question of marriage between noble houses is so important. These alliances replace the social security network. Quote It was not his duty to attempt to free his father. His father had been arrested for treason. Robb had no way of knowing that it wasn't true (it also was true; he did doctor Robert's Will); It was his duty to remain in the North; to rule, as he was now the Warden of the North. As I said above: "The problem with the treason accusation is that everyone who knew Ned knew how much he loved Robert and how honourable he was. The treason charge just doesn't make sense in this context. It also seemed clear that something was up with the Lannisters after Lysa's letter. All that together made the accusation of treason very suspicious, so actually, Robb had a way of knowing that something was amiss with the charges." Family is extremely important in this society, and yes, when your king starts killing your family members and fails to return your sisters (who certainly cannot be accused of anything), you will feel threatened, and the contract between you has expired. Quote All people only do their duty when it suits them. This means everyone can be bribed and bought. I don't agree. Quote Of course it matters. Roose has duties not only to the Starks, but to the Crown as well. If Roose in your example is the modern soldier, Robb Stark is his commanding officer. When your commanding officer orders you to join him in taking over the government, or seceding and making his own government within lands owned by the other government, it is absolutely okay to not obey. True, in the case of the modern soldier. In a feudal society, however, your first loyalty is to your own liege lord, who is much more than just your "commander". While the king has the loyalty of his own vassals, he can count on his vassals' loyal vassals and on their loyal vassals as well, but it doesn't make the king's vassals' vassals the king's vassals. Quote But! Robb Stark has already given his threats. "Join me or else." Now that he can no longer safely disobey, he must then obey. But now he's gone to war against the Crown. That is, of course, a very, very serious crime. He was forced to commit this crime, and so the only option left to him is to continue the war and hope to win. He can hardly just go home to stay and not expect repercussions. He took the only way out that wouldn't result in severe punishment; from the Crown if Robb lost his war, or from Robb if he won. Siding with the Crown the way he did made peace with one enemy and killed off another. It really was the only pragmatic option left to him. Robb wasn't Roose's enemy. What Roose did was betrayal, no matter how we look at it. If he had just left (like the Karstarks) saying that he didn't want to fight against the King of the realm, it would have been more honourable. Of course, it would have meant giving up all the rights he owed to his status as a Stark bannerman (ending the contract between their families) - though he could still hope to win back the same rights from the king. But he didn't do that, he simply assassinated his liege lord. That's totally different from stepping down citing reasons of conscience. Quote It doesn't inherently make them wrong, either. Not in general, but what Roose did was betrayal. If you think it's betrayal that Ned Stark modified the king's will because he knew the king based the will on a false premise, how much more of a betrayal is Roose's action? Quote For what it's worth, I agree with you; if you have a classical sense of morality, Roose's actions are immoral. Beyond a doubt. However, I (obviously) do not subscribe to such moral beliefs. I can see that now. In the beginning, I thought your original post might be an intellectual exercise in rhetoric and argumentation, and it was interesting to regard it as a challenge. I understand now that it was your genuine opinion. Quote In my mind, Roose made the right call. In yours, he obviously didn't. Neither of us are right, neither of us are wrong. But, the idea of the topic is whether or not we can forgive what Roose and the other four did; my morality dictates that yes, I can forgive Roose (for this, at least), and I suppose yours dictates otherwise. To this, I would only like to add that in my opinion forgiving is one thing, justifying and condoning a crime is quite another. An immoral action can be forgiven for various reasons while still considered to be immoral. In fact, if you don't think what the person did was morally wrong, there is no point in talking about forgiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 On 12/08/2016 at 0:50 AM, thelittledragonthatcould said: Right now? Yes, of course they are. War has stopped, they control the Twins, Darry and Riverrun. They are the most powerful House in the Riverlands. 1) The Freys are currently in the best position that have been in all series. Had they done nothing they may well be facing a similar fate to the Tullys and Tywin makes examples of the key players who fought against him. In fact Walder and Stevrons children (and a few others) may well have been executed sent to the Wall while Emmon and Genna were given the Twins. 2) Robb was expecting them to fight against the Ironborn in the North. Tywin had an army of 80k. The Freys were going to lose more members regardless of what happened. 3) They are hardly fucked, certainly in no worse of a position had they stuck with Robb. Land wise they are doing far, far better. That is undeniable. 2) Yup, Robb was going to let the other Riverlords stay while expecting the Freys to support him retaking the North. It is right there in the quote I supplied. I will supply it again Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousand men. Robb needed their military support. "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. And later on "Lothar seemed amiable, that's a hopeful sign. We need the Freys." 4) The marriage offer of Edmure was not to make up for him fucking over the Freys, it was because he still needed them and expected them, and not the other Riverlords, to abandon their lands and help him retake his. And yet that is what Robb was expecting. He makes it clear. "I know the Freys, Mother. I know how much I wronged them, and how much I need them. I shall be as sweet as a septon." 4) Robb is making plans of the Frey soldiers as if it was a given they would be joining him. 5) The Crown does not need the Freys for that. You are forgetting that when Robb's army was paying the West back in kind for what they did in the Riverlands (though not the Frey lands) the Freys had more men than any other House. Remember Tywin holding a grudge when Stafford Lannister was held captive by Ellyn Reyne/Tarbeck? Well Stafford died in the West, brutally according to some reports. 6) Tywin is going to hold a grudge for not only that but Walder making this war happen. Cleos, Tion and Martyn would likely be alive were it not Walder, Jaime would still have a hand. It is going to take more than a simply apology for Walder to make the peace. 5) lol the Brackens were attacked by the Westerlands, they did not attack the Westerlands like the Freys did and they were one of the first Houses to surrender keeping the Blackwoods under siege. No House, not even the Tullys, fucked over Tywin like the Freys did in the series. It is not that strong. Tywin has his own Freys he can put in charge there is needs be. Getting rid of Walder, Stevrons children and grandchildren and other Freys who may have displeased him would be the intelligent move to make. Happens all the time in a feudal society. 1) I cannot agree with this and it strikes me as a deliberate act of myopia. Freys are being killed butchered in the North and hanged in the Riverlands and all of Westeros despises them for the acts of betrayal and murder that are most easily compressed into the term the Red Wedding. On paper they may have control of Riverrun and the Twins but if you truly expect them to keep them we will have to agree to disagree. I expect them to lose everything and to be effectively extinguished whether or not a number of Walder's numerous family survive as married into other Houses. 2) I don't agree and I don't feel you have any compelling evidence that Robb intended to make Walder alone of all the River Lords send his soldiers North. It seems a particularly bad way of trying to "make amends" to let the rest of the River Lords retain their men to defend their lands and then force the one you wronged to leave his lands defenceless. This looks much more like a punishment and a declaration of mistrust rather than an act of reconcoiliiation and restoring relations so I find it illogical and counter-productive and don't buy it. 3) Right now, they are. But take off the blinkers and tell me genuinely think Waader Frey will have gained those lands for his House permanently and that there will not be huge consequences for the Freys for the Red Wedding. What we have seen is the start of their downfall. 4) Your argument that the primary reason Robb forced Edmure to marry into the Freys in order to gain military support from the Freys and the Freys alone of the River Lords to retake the North is nothing more than conjecture. He did not expect them to "abandon their lands". That's wrong. He wanted to ensure that a powerful Riverlands House that secured a strategic route between the North and the Riverlands was on his side, which is basically the exact same reason he entered into the marriage alliance Catelyn brokered in AGOT in the first place. 5) Yes it does. The North, the Iron Islands and Stannis are in insurrection, Dorne is of dubious loyalty and the Vale is sitting on the sidelines. This is the precise reason that a House that fought agasint King Joffrey - the Brackens - are welcomed back into the King's peace in return for their military service. You can't gloss over the Brackens, though you try to ignore the reasons they were accepted back into the fold so readily, without stopping to think how much more the Freys have to offer. It's a strong hand and much stronger than the Brackens so much easier to play. 6) Please be serious dude. This is bullcrap. Cleos and Tion both have the surname Frey in case you forgot. The men who murdered Tion Frey and Martyn Lannister were Karstarks so you may as well have Tywin blame Jaime for that. Cleos Frey was killed and Jaime maimed by sellswords who Tywin brought over into Westeros so Tywin may as well blame himself for that little episode. It's worth pointing out that in choosing to "forgive" Cersei I stated that I find all five of the poll candidates unforgivable but if I had to choose one for argument's sake it would be Cersei. I'm not really interested in debating with Walder Frey apologists because whether you choose Walder because the topic forces you down that route as it did me with Cersei or because you genuinely think Walder was playing the game well / made the best choices he could / some other BS reason it's not really the point of the thread. I only find myself replying to you because you are critiquing my posts and debating with me rather than just expressing your own opinion. By all means express your opinion but you are reminding me that you are the guy who stood solidly behind a lot of Bowen Marsh's reasoning and I find uncomfortable echoes of that in your rationalisation / approval of Walder Frey's actions. I have no desire for an equally futile and sterile debate about Walder Frey derailing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 On 12/08/2016 at 0:58 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said: 1) It wasn't insult it was betrayal. As I have said he exaggerated. He should had killed Robb and Cat and then left the others outsid Twins for Tywin. 2) You mean about the outlaws that have Cat as their leader and also fight for Robert's realm? 3) I have and it proves nothing. There are hundrends Freys and as many people with Frey blood. Thirty of even fourty of them isn't enough. If we have to condemn all the Freys because what some of them did then we have do the same for all the other houses too. Elia's children, Dany and Viserys were a fair game since their ancestors were monsters. Bran, Arya and Rickon were fair game since Robb was monster who attacked innocent people and their ancestors practised blood magic. 4) Not everywhere. In something that involves Cat and a father whose son was killed. 5) Bracken hadn't Walder's power and wasn't an essential tool for Robb's safety. Walder had the only way to the North, Bracken had nothing important. 1) No, it was an insult. Murdering your wedding guests under your roof and slaughtering your allies in order to gain political and territorial advantage, now, that's betrayal. 2) Yes, I mean that BWB who hanged Petyr Pimple and Merritt Frey after the RW in the ASOS Epilogue (and Catelyn does not lead them at this point). The same BWB who hanged Ryman Frey, heir to the Twins, fairly close to the Twins in AFFC. I'm not sure I understand your objections: the BWB / common outlaws / protectors of the realm or whatever you want to call them are after Frey blood because of what was done at the RW. And they have been very successful. 3) I still don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you think I am calling for every last Frey to be exteminated then I will be clear: I am not. What I am saying is that Walder Frey involved many of his descendants in an act that has led to blood feuds with pretty much every Riverland and Northern House and has earned his House, not just himself, the scorn and loathing of much of Westeros. This will lead to their downfall, i.e. political destruction and forfeit of lands and titles, though individuals will continue to live as best they can. The BWB are not Stark or Tully bannermen but they hanged Merrett and Petyr Pimple because they knew they were guilty of involvement in the Red Wedding and so tried and executed them. It's that simple. When Manderly says of Big Walder's death " Though mayhaps this was a blessing. Had he lived he would have grown up to be a Frey " this is GRRM really driving home how people regard and talk about the Freys: Big Walder had nothing to do with the Red Wedding yet he still earns Manderly's loathing by association. Again to be clear I am not advocating blanket punishment for the Freys or that the Tywin approach to the Reynes / Tarbecks be applied here but I think the consequences of Walder's actions will be the fall of his House and the particular way he involved so many of his relatives in the massacre dooms them to trial and execution or more summary justice (a.k.a. "Frey pie"). 4) Come on. Do you think only Robb Stark and Wendel Manderly died at the Red Wedding. Dacey Mormont, SmallJon Umber, Robin Flint, Lucas Blackwood, Donnel Locke, Owen Norrey and one of the Vances are the named casualties. In ADWD the River Lords make clear that although important hostages like Marq Piper might be kept alive, their close companions in their entourage who were killed were cousins or more distant relatives and the hatred and tension between the River Lords and the Freys is obvious and palpable. I have no idea why you would try and downplay the impact of the Red Wedding or minimise the consequences for the Freys. It's about more than Catelyn Stark and Wyman Manderly's desire for revenge or justice, its about a whole lot more people in the North and Riverlands including the likes of the BWB who simply saw it as their duty to the realm to punish the perpetrators. 5) Quite. Bracken did not have Walder Frey's military power, in fact he had nothing important (your words) yet he was still accepted back into the King's peace in return for his military service against other lords in rebellion. Walder has a lot more of importance to offer in terms of men, money and strategic location so his return to the fold would be more welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 1) I cannot agree with this and it strikes me as a deliberate act of myopia. No, not at all. We can only comment on what has actually taken place, not what we want to happen. Currently the Freys are better off than they have ever been in the series and very likely their 600 year history. There is absolutely no evidence that they would be in a better position had they not got Tywin to forgive them. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Freys are being killed butchered in the North and hanged in the Riverlands What do you think was going to happen to the Freys who Robb was bring North with him to fight the Ironborn? What do you think was going too happen to the Twins and the Freys when Tywin and his 80k Royal army came to the Riverlands? Freys were going to die regardless of what happened. The argument that they are only dying because of the Red Wedding is a little silly. They were up shit creek regardless. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: and all of Westeros despises them for the acts of betrayal and murder that are most easily compressed into the term the Red Wedding. So? Public opinion is against them, that can change and does little actual harm to them. Tywin and his 80k army could have done harm to them. The Freys were forgiven by the Crown and came out of it with more lands. It was a positive. Maybe come the end of the series we can have this discussion again, but currently it is canon that the Freys are in a much better position than they were at the start of the series. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: On paper they may have control of Riverrun and the Twins but if you truly expect them to keep them we will have to agree to disagree. I expect them to lose everything and to be effectively extinguished whether or not a number of Walder's numerous family survive as married into other Houses. Right you expect that. I am talking about events that actually happened. It is pointless arguing about what you want or hope to happen. Maybe in the future you will be correct, after all it is a fantasy series were the good guys traditionally win in the end to make fans, like you, happy. But currently you are wrong. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 2) I don't agree and I don't feel you have any compelling evidence that Robb intended to make Walder alone of all the River Lords send his soldiers North. It seems a particularly bad way of trying to "make amends" to let the rest of the River Lords retain their men to defend their lands and then force the one you wronged to leave his lands defenceless. This looks much more like a punishment and a declaration of mistrust rather than an act of reconcoiliiation and restoring relations so I find it illogical and counter-productive and don't buy it. lol the text does not lie no matter how much you don't want it to be true. Thirty-five hundred they were, thirty-five hundred who had been blooded in the Whispering Wood, who had reddened their swords at the Battle of the Camps, at Oxcross, Ashemark, and the Crag, and all through the gold-rich hills of the Lannister west. Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north. Yet he expected the Freys to join him in retaking the North Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousand men. That is pretty compelling, but of course if you can provide other evidence I'd love to hear it. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 3) Right now, they are. That is what we are talking about, the only thing we can say for sure. What has actually happened. Anything else is purely a theory. Right now the Freys are in a far better position then they were before the Red Wedding. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 4) Your argument that the primary reason Robb forced Edmure to marry into the Freys in order to gain military support from the Freys and the Freys alone of the River Lords to retake the North is nothing more than conjecture. He did not expect them to "abandon their lands". That's wrong. No, not really. His wording is pretty clear. "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" But please, mention all the other Riverland Houses that Robb was taking. Feel free to use a source from the books like I have done rather than your 'gut' feeling. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: He wanted to ensure that a powerful Riverlands House that secured a strategic route between the North and the Riverlands was on his side, which is basically the exact same reason he entered into the marriage alliance Catelyn brokered in AGOT in the first place. Really. Provide the quote that states that. Once again the books don't lie, It is very, very clear. Everything would turn on this marriage. If Edmure and Roslin were happy in one another, if the Late Lord Frey could be appeased and his power once more wedded to Robb's 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 5) Yes it does. The North, the Iron Islands and Stannis are in insurrection, Dorne is of dubious loyalty and the Vale is sitting on the sidelines. This is the precise reason that a House that fought agasint King Joffrey - the Brackens - are welcomed back into the King's peace in return for their military service. You can't gloss over the Brackens, though you try to ignore the reasons they were accepted back into the fold so readily, without stopping to think how much more the Freys have to offer. It's a strong hand and much stronger than the Brackens so much easier to play. lol don't be ridiculous. What did the Brackens do to the Westerlands? What major part role did the Brackens play apart from having their castle burnt down by the Lannisters? The Freys played a far, far bigger role in the war than the Brackens. They had fucked over the Westerlands in ways that the Brackens had not. And unlike the Brackens, Tywin had a ready made replacement for Walder and the sons and grandsons of Stevron; Emmon and Genna could take the Twins as Tywin punished many of the Freys who fought against him. And please, this argument of yours that the Freys are doomed down to a minuscule Northern army while they could dictate terms to an 80k royal army is ridiculous. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: 6) Please be serious dude. This is bullcrap. Cleos and Tion both have the surname Frey in case you forgot. That does not stop them being Genna Lannisters children, does it? 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: The men who murdered Tion Frey and Martyn Lannister were Karstarks so you may as well have Tywin blame Jaime for that. Riverrun and the Karstarks were under Robb's command. Robb is pretty fucking clear whose responsibility it is. He looked at them all. "Will the Lannisters thank me for Lord Rickard's head? Will the Freys?" "No," said Brynden Blackfish, blunt as ever. While the reader can distinguish blame (and excuse their favourites), the other factions would just Robb being responsible. It is the same with had Sansa been murdered while hostage to the crown. It would not matter who carried out the deed, it was the Crowns responsibility to keep her safe. Again, both Robb and the Blackfish are pretty clear on this. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Cleos Frey was killed and Jaime maimed by sellswords who Tywin brought over into Westeros so Tywin may as well blame himself for that little episode. So you are saying Tywin won't hold a grudge against the Freys? Seriously? 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: It's worth pointing out that in choosing to "forgive" Cersei I stated that I find all five of the poll candidates unforgivable but if I had to choose one for argument's sake it would be Cersei. And? 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: I'm not really interested in debating with Walder Frey apologists lol apologists! That is some weak sauce,'someone on the internet does not agree with me so I will call them an apologist'. Good one. 18 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: By all means express your opinion but you are reminding me that you are the guy who stood solidly behind a lot of Bowen Marsh's reasoning Wait what? Can you provide these quotes of what I said about Bowen Marsh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberdirectorfreedom Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Julia H. said: Why would Robb order Roose to his death? Robb gave Roose command of one of his armies, a position of honour. There was zero reason for Roose to believe that Robb would order him to his death while he was loyal. Not a direct order to his death; but he was expected to fight to the bitter end. Even if Roose survived, how do you think the Crown will react to the people who fought against them until the very end? Lands taken, maybe even executions. At the very least, he wouldn't have the power that he went into the war with. At worst, he'd be dead and the Dreadfort would be in the hands of some Southron house. Simply put, and discounting all the specifics, there were two choices; 'lose power' or 'gain power'. There's one very clear choice. 6 hours ago, Julia H. said: Except that the Crown didn't do anything to stop the attack on the Riverlands, and yes, Robb gave help to besieged Riverrun and freed his uncle. Their families had been allies since the marriage between Cat and Ned - to help each other in such situations was the point of the alliance. That is why the question of marriage between noble houses is so important. These alliances replace the social security network. No? Ned, as Hand, ordered Beric and his men to step in (so you could say that even if the Starks should've stepped in, they already had, too). Before any other steps could be taken, Robert died, Ned was arrested, and the Starks were mobilising for war. Of course, in the end, Robb did end up helping the Riverlands, but he needed their help as much as they needed his, and it simply wasn't his reasoning for going to war. I'm curious about something, however, though I don't want to go off topic too much: do you think that the Lannisters making war in the Riverlands was okay, morally speaking? Catelyn Stark had arrested Tyrion on suspicion of attempted murder, but still; it's similar to what Robb did at the beginning; going to war because a family member was arrested. The Lannisters and the Tullys also have a different relationship than Stark and Crown; being allies and equals, rather than subservient. 6 hours ago, Julia H. said: As I said above: "The problem with the treason accusation is that everyone who knew Ned knew how much he loved Robert and how honourable he was. The treason charge just doesn't make sense in this context. It also seemed clear that something was up with the Lannisters after Lysa's letter. All that together made the accusation of treason very suspicious, so actually, Robb had a way of knowing that something was amiss with the charges." Family is extremely important in this society, and yes, when your king starts killing your family members and fails to return your sisters (who certainly cannot be accused of anything), you will feel threatened, and the contract between you has expired. And yet, Ned did commit treason. He deliberately doctored the King's Will, as he didn't want Joffrey on the throne. Sure, he may have had "good reasons", but Robb Stark couldn't have known that. He may have suspected something was amiss, but you can't go to war based on suspicions. About the sisters, I don't think it too absurd to take hostages to ensure continued, if strained, loyalty. Theon Greyjoy is an obvious example. Ned Stark has just been arrested for treason, tensions are going to be high. Higher still by the time he was killed. Giving Robb his sisters back would've just been reckless (even if they had Arya). 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: This means everyone can be bribed and bought. I don't agree. No? Ned Stark was, in some sense. Not for money, or anything so crass as that, but for his daughter. It was his duty to Robert not to let the Iron Throne fall into the hands of a bastard, yet he confessed to treason in an attempt to save Sansa's life. For some people, money is enough. Power. Some people will have to be threatened. But everybody has something that they'll set their honour and duties aside for. 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: True, in the case of the modern soldier. In a feudal society, however, your first loyalty is to your own liege lord, who is much more than just your "commander". While the king has the loyalty of his own vassals, he can count on his vassals' loyal vassals and on their loyal vassals as well, but it doesn't make the king's vassals' vassals the king's vassals. Hmm. Yes, a liege's vassals answer to him, first. But not when they're spouting treason, naming themselves King. The liege is only the liege at the discretion of the Crown, and if they're going to war with the Crown, the entire system is obviously broken. When you change the terms of the relationship between a liege and the Crown, it has wider effects than just between those two. 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: Robb wasn't Roose's enemy. What Roose did was betrayal, no matter how we look at it. If he had just left (like the Karstarks) saying that he didn't want to fight against the King of the realm, it would have been more honourable. Of course, it would have meant giving up all the rights he owed to his status as a Stark bannerman (ending the contract between their families) - though he could still hope to win back the same rights from the king. But he didn't do that, he simply assassinated his liege lord. That's totally different from stepping down citing reasons of conscience. Robb wasn't Roose's enemy yet. Robb had already made clear his stance on not following him to war, when he threatened to have the Greatjon killed if he disobeyed. If he had 'just left', he'd eventually face a situation in which one of two enemies want him dead, Stark or Crown, depending on who wins their war. He chose to make peace with one enemy, and remove one before they could become an enemy (which was a certainty, had the Starks been victorious). It was the safest move he could've made. What is more important? Safety or honour? What good is honour if you're dead and your house is in shambles? 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: Not in general, but what Roose did was betrayal. If you think it's betrayal that Ned Stark modified the king's will because he knew the king based the will on a false premise, how much more of a betrayal is Roose's action? They're both betrayals; I can understand the reasoning behind both of them, though. That's the only point I'm trying to make. 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: I can see that now. In the beginning, I thought your original post might be an intellectual exercise in rhetoric and argumentation, and it was interesting to regard it as a challenge. I understand now that it was your genuine opinion. It was both, actually. Just because the position that I'm taking is one that I personally believe in, that doesn't discount the fact that I wished to see it challenged and discussed, nor that I also wish to challenge and discuss your opinion. If I didn't wish to engage, to have a lively, intellectual conversation about my beliefs, I'd simply have left a comment saying "I don't think what Roose, Cersei or Walder did was wrong," and left it at that. I find it easier and more personally engaging if I take up a stance I actually agree with; the fact that, in this case, it is one of contention is something I'm rather pleased about. We can have such a discussion with neither of us simply making excuses for the actions of the people we're defending, and simply presenting reasoning. It's better this way, in my opinion. 7 hours ago, Julia H. said: To this, I would only like to add that in my opinion forgiving is one thing, justifying and condoning a crime is quite another. An immoral action can be forgiven for various reasons while still considered to be immoral. In fact, if you don't think what the person did was morally wrong, there is no point in talking about forgiveness. Of course; personally, I feel that what Roose did, regarding the Starks, was justified, and not immoral. So no, forgiveness is perhaps not the term that I'd use, but that was the term used in the OP, and that's what we're discussing, really, which is why I said as such. Though I don't know what term would be better; given a list of people with "crimes" associated with them, how would you say that you don't think they're wrong? "Forgiving" them is good enough. Now, I hope I'm wrong, but I've sensed something in the tone of your comment. From the first two words of your comment, you seemed to be judging me personally, and rather harshly, considering the tone. You've worded much of your comment as if you think you're better than me, and not just morally; I won't say you're not, nor will I say you are, but I will say that there's no call for such a tone. Forgive me if I'm wrong to feel such a tone, however. I don't want to take offense where none is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 1) No, it was an insult. Murdering your wedding guests under your roof and slaughtering your allies in order to gain political and territorial advantage, now, that's betrayal. They had a deal and they had fullfield their part of the agreement they not only saved them from Tywin but gave them their support and even die for the. When Robb betrayed them and broke their agreement. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 2) Yes, I mean that BWB who hanged Petyr Pimple and Merritt Frey after the RW in the ASOS Epilogue (and Catelyn does not lead them at this point). The same BWB who hanged Ryman Frey, heir to the Twins, fairly close to the Twins in AFFC. I'm not sure I understand your objections: the BWB / common outlaws / protectors of the realm or whatever you want to call them are after Frey blood because of what was done at the RW. And they have been very successful. Cat appears to be the one who sentence them to die "Lady Catelyn's eyes never left him. She nooded." So she was the one to decide if they will die or not. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 3) I still don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you think I am calling for every last Frey to be exteminated then I will be clear: I am not. What I am saying is that Walder Frey involved many of his descendants in an act that has led to blood feuds with pretty much every Riverland and Northern House and has earned his House, not just himself, the scorn and loathing of much of Westeros. This will lead to their downfall, i.e. political destruction and forfeit of lands and titles, though individuals will continue to live as best they can. We kind of agree on that. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: The BWB are not Stark or Tully bannermen but they hanged Merrett and Petyr Pimple because they knew they were guilty of involvement in the Red Wedding and so tried and executed them. They were not anyone's bannermen but they fought for Robert's Realm and Cat was their leader. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 4) Come on. Do you think only Robb Stark and Wendel Manderly died at the Red Wedding. Never said that. I said that the two instances of people killing Freys BwB and Frey Pies are just revenge. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: I have no idea why you would try and downplay the impact of the Red Wedding or minimise the consequences for the Freys. I don't I have already told that Walder had exaggerated and he only had to kill Robb and leave the rest out of the Twins for Tywin. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: It's about more than Catelyn Stark and Wyman Manderly's desire for revenge or justice, its about a whole lot more people in the North and Riverlands including the likes of the BWB who simply saw it as their duty to the realm to punish the perpetrators. Sure they don't like them but the only people we have seen actually attacking them are two parents who lost their children. 9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said: 5) Quite. Bracken did not have Walder Frey's military power, in fact he had nothing important (your words) yet he was still accepted back into the King's peace in return for his military service against other lords in rebellion. Walder has a lot more of importance to offer in terms of men, money and strategic location so his return to the fold would be more welcome. Walder had at least two Houses, Frey and Darry. Had a much bigger army, was very rich and was the one who was more involved with Robb. Tywin had to test them because it was a way to attack them and take their lands. Or maybe just because that is how deals are made, you have to pay a price. Something that Robb had forgotten and that is why he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the trees have eyes Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 12 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said: No, not at all. We can only comment on what has actually taken place, not what we want to happen. Currently the Freys are better off than they have ever been in the series and very likely their 600 year history. There is absolutely no evidence that they would be in a better position had they not got Tywin to forgive them. What do you think was going to happen to the Freys who Robb was bring North with him to fight the Ironborn? What do you think was going too happen to the Twins and the Freys when Tywin and his 80k Royal army came to the Riverlands? Freys were going to die regardless of what happened. The argument that they are only dying because of the Red Wedding is a little silly. They were up shit creek regardless. So? Public opinion is against them, that can change and does little actual harm to them. Tywin and his 80k army could have done harm to them. The Freys were forgiven by the Crown and came out of it with more lands. It was a positive. Maybe come the end of the series we can have this discussion again, but currently it is canon that the Freys are in a much better position than they were at the start of the series. Right you expect that. I am talking about events that actually happened. It is pointless arguing about what you want or hope to happen. Maybe in the future you will be correct, after all it is a fantasy series were the good guys traditionally win in the end to make fans, like you, happy. But currently you are wrong. lol the text does not lie no matter how much you don't want it to be true. Thirty-five hundred they were, thirty-five hundred who had been blooded in the Whispering Wood, who had reddened their swords at the Battle of the Camps, at Oxcross, Ashemark, and the Crag, and all through the gold-rich hills of the Lannister west. Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north. Yet he expected the Freys to join him in retaking the North Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousand men. That is pretty compelling, but of course if you can provide other evidence I'd love to hear it. That is what we are talking about, the only thing we can say for sure. What has actually happened. Anything else is purely a theory. Right now the Freys are in a far better position then they were before the Red Wedding. No, not really. His wording is pretty clear. "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" But please, mention all the other Riverland Houses that Robb was taking. Feel free to use a source from the books like I have done rather than your 'gut' feeling. Really. Provide the quote that states that. Once again the books don't lie, It is very, very clear. Everything would turn on this marriage. If Edmure and Roslin were happy in one another, if the Late Lord Frey could be appeased and his power once more wedded to Robb's lol don't be ridiculous. What did the Brackens do to the Westerlands? What major part role did the Brackens play apart from having their castle burnt down by the Lannisters? The Freys played a far, far bigger role in the war than the Brackens. They had fucked over the Westerlands in ways that the Brackens had not. And unlike the Brackens, Tywin had a ready made replacement for Walder and the sons and grandsons of Stevron; Emmon and Genna could take the Twins as Tywin punished many of the Freys who fought against him. And please, this argument of yours that the Freys are doomed down to a minuscule Northern army while they could dictate terms to an 80k royal army is ridiculous. That does not stop them being Genna Lannisters children, does it? Riverrun and the Karstarks were under Robb's command. Robb is pretty fucking clear whose responsibility it is. He looked at them all. "Will the Lannisters thank me for Lord Rickard's head? Will the Freys?" "No," said Brynden Blackfish, blunt as ever. While the reader can distinguish blame (and excuse their favourites), the other factions would just Robb being responsible. It is the same with had Sansa been murdered while hostage to the crown. It would not matter who carried out the deed, it was the Crowns responsibility to keep her safe. Again, both Robb and the Blackfish are pretty clear on this. So you are saying Tywin won't hold a grudge against the Freys? Seriously? And? lol apologists! That is some weak sauce,'someone on the internet does not agree with me so I will call them an apologist'. Good one. Wait what? Can you provide these quotes of what I said about Bowen Marsh? Man, you kind of feel the need to argue for argument's sake. I don't agree and I don't appreciate your tone or your unhealthy appetite for back and forth in what is a poll thread. However as you feel the need to argue all day I'll take a pass. You don't remember supporting Bowen Marsh's reasoning in another thread? I guess you get in so many back and forths with folks you can't remember what you say. As I predicted this is a sterile and futile debate I have no interest in. You reason like Bowen and Walder so you're on board with their decisions. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: Man, you kind of feel the need to argue for argument's sake. I don't agree and I don't appreciate your tone or your unhealthy appetite for back and forth in what is a poll thread. However as you feel the need to argue all day I'll take a pass. eh? You have responded to each of my posts like you have JQC's, which is perfectly fine as this is a forum which encourages discussion. No one is forcing you to reply, outside of a handful (if I'm being generous) of people no one even cares about what the three of us are saying. 10 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: You don't remember supporting Bowen Marsh's reasoning in another thread? Bring it up. You are making accusation, back them up. I don't remember ever speaking to you before, sorry. On Bowen I think he was both wrong and right, like many of the characters in this universe. 10 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said: I guess you get in so many back and forths with folks you can't remember what you say. As I predicted this is a sterile and futile debate I have no interest in. You reason like Bowen and Walder so you're on board with their decisions. Good for you. What kind of argument is that? If someone explains why Octavius felt the need to purge the roman nobility and another person explains the reasoning and perhaps even the justification it does not mean they endorse that action of an event that happened in a completely different society. It is such a laughable response that rather than continue a discussion you have to write the other person as immoral because you don't see eye to eye on a topic about a fictional characters in a fictional universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia H. Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Not a direct order to his death; but he was expected to fight to the bitter end. Even if Roose survived, how do you think the Crown will react to the people who fought against them until the very end? Lands taken, maybe even executions. At the very least, he wouldn't have the power that he went into the war with. At worst, he'd be dead and the Dreadfort would be in the hands of some Southron house. Simply put, and discounting all the specifics, there were two choices; 'lose power' or 'gain power'. There's one very clear choice. Being a bannerman has risks. Being a feudal lord has risks. Still, it seems most people in that society would happily take those risks over the risks of being one of the smallfolk, for example. A feudal lord has a right to expect his bannerman to go to war for him. It cannot be compared to what Aerys did when he ordered Brandon and Rickard to their deaths. I think you tend to use expressions that hide the difference between things that - according to the society and culture of Westeros - are very different things, such as calling the banners and ordering some to their death.The possibility of having to go to war for your liege lord is included in your "normal" contract from the moment you inherit your lands (or even before). ordering someone to death is a punitive measure. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: No? Ned, as Hand, ordered Beric and his men to step in (so you could say that even if the Starks should've stepped in, they already had, too). Before any other steps could be taken, Robert died, Ned was arrested, and the Starks were mobilising for war. Of course, in the end, Robb did end up helping the Riverlands, but he needed their help as much as they needed his, and it simply wasn't his reasoning for going to war. Well, the men riding under the royal banner and with a royal command to stop the fights were killed by Lannister soldiers. Isn't that treason? Yes, Robb and the Tullys mutually needed each other. Helping each other was part of the goals, regardless of the reasoning. Anyway, if Robb's reasoning was the need to free Ned, it only shows that this was an acceptable reasoning to make his bannermen understand, which says something about the mentality and the values of their society. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: I'm curious about something, however, though I don't want to go off topic too much: do you think that the Lannisters making war in the Riverlands was okay, morally speaking? Catelyn Stark had arrested Tyrion on suspicion of attempted murder, but still; it's similar to what Robb did at the beginning; going to war because a family member was arrested. The Lannisters and the Tullys also have a different relationship than Stark and Crown; being allies and equals, rather than subservient. The Lannisters attacked the Riverlands not only because Catelyn was a Tully, but because they wanted to provoke a fight with the Starks, who were related to and therefore allied with the Tullys, I think, without actually taking their forces to the North. Eddard took full responsibility for the capture of Tyrion, so the Lannisters had no reason to blame anyone in Riverrun for it, so, no, I don't think it was a morally justifiable attack. I could accept it if their only purpose was to find a hostage that could be traded for Tyrion, but I don't think this was their only purpose. By the way, Robb didn't march against King's Landing, Robb went to help his grandfather, whose land was being attacked by the Lannisters. Technically, the Lannisters weren't the royal family, the Baratheons were the royal family, so the whole fight at that point was among equals. Robb turned against the Crown when he was chosen King-in-the-North and the North was declared independent. From that moment on, Robb was a king and so his equal was Joffrey. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: And yet, Ned did commit treason. He deliberately doctored the King's Will, as he didn't want Joffrey on the throne. Sure, he may have had "good reasons", but Robb Stark couldn't have known that. He may have suspected something was amiss, but you can't go to war based on suspicions. It is not about going to war on suspicions - it is going to war on a well-founded belief that the accusation was unfair and your father was in mortal danger. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: About the sisters, I don't think it too absurd to take hostages to ensure continued, if strained, loyalty. Theon Greyjoy is an obvious example. Ned Stark has just been arrested for treason, tensions are going to be high. Higher still by the time he was killed. Giving Robb his sisters back would've just been reckless (even if they had Arya). Or it would have been a sign of good will. Sure, hostage taking is totally customary between warring factions. Keeping the girls as hostage, even sending thinly veiled threats about them was a clear sign that the crown considered the whole Stark family their enemies. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: No? Ned Stark was, in some sense. Not for money, or anything so crass as that, but for his daughter. It was his duty to Robert not to let the Iron Throne fall into the hands of a bastard, yet he confessed to treason in an attempt to save Sansa's life. For some people, money is enough. Power. Some people will have to be threatened. But everybody has something that they'll set their honour and duties aside for. I was sure you'd mention this point. But I make a distinction between bribe and blackmail. I don't agree that "All people only do their duty when it suits them," which was your original statement. Some people will go quite far doing their duties even if not doing it would suit them more - just because that's their duty. If you say that everybody can be blackmailed - sure, when you have loved ones especially, it can make you very vulnerable to blackmail. But there is a big difference between only doing your duty when it suits you or giving in to a threat against your defenseless child. Some people will do their duties despite it being uncomfortable in many ways - even if they still can be defeated and forced into giving up their duty with a particular threat. It's a far cry form the person who will always choose whatever suits them better, regardless of duty. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Hmm. Yes, a liege's vassals answer to him, first. But not when they're spouting treason, naming themselves King. The liege is only the liege at the discretion of the Crown, and if they're going to war with the Crown, the entire system is obviously broken. When you change the terms of the relationship between a liege and the Crown, it has wider effects than just between those two. That's why it is in everyone's interest to keep the status quo. That is what should keep kings from becoming tyrants and that is what should make a bannerman loyal. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Robb wasn't Roose's enemy yet. Robb had already made clear his stance on not following him to war, when he threatened to have the Greatjon killed if he disobeyed. If he had 'just left', he'd eventually face a situation in which one of two enemies want him dead, Stark or Crown, depending on who wins their war. He chose to make peace with one enemy, and remove one before they could become an enemy (which was a certainty, had the Starks been victorious). Again, a liege has the right to expect a bannerman to go to war for him and consequently, he has the right to punish those who defy him. The Starks were not going to be Bolton's enemy before the Boltons became the Starks' enemy. Roose didn't kill an enemy, he betrayed his commander and had hundreds of his compatriots killed while pretending to be on their side. Those are two different things. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: It was the safest move he could've made. What is more important? Safety or honour? What good is honour if you're dead and your house is in shambles? On the one hand, that's a valid question. But in this case, you at least accept that Roose gave up his honour for safety. (I tend to think it was Winterfell and the Warden of the North position rather than just mere safety, but anyway.) In this world, honour is what keeps the whole system of social contracts together. Not in a strong way, but they don't have anything better. On the other hand though, a bannerman who only went to war because his liege lord wanted him to is usually allowed to bend the knee to the victors when his liege lord is defeated. If the victors understand the system, they will just take them for their new bannermen. It happens in ASOIAF multiple times, and these bannermen can usually keep their lives and honour. On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Of course; personally, I feel that what Roose did, regarding the Starks, was justified, and not immoral. So no, forgiveness is perhaps not the term that I'd use, but that was the term used in the OP, and that's what we're discussing, really, which is why I said as such. Though I don't know what term would be better; given a list of people with "crimes" associated with them, how would you say that you don't think they're wrong? "Forgiving" them is good enough. If I understand the OP, the word forgive is used because these characters are regarded as guilty. You can still forgive one or the other for several reasons, for example, if you think that their crimes are not as bad as the others', or if you think they had a very limited choice, or if you think they can still be redeemed, and so on. Maybe the question was simply whose crime you consider the least serious. But in all of these cases forgiving means they did something wrong. As for me, it is the betrayal (for obvious personal gain!) as a moral choice that I consider to be one of Roose's sins. Raping is another. Letting Ramsay loose on the world without caring about the consequences for his victims is yet another. And the feudal contract is not my main problem with the betrayal. If Roose had told Robb at the beginning that he felt his first duty was to the king of the realm, he would have been a very upright and honourable person in my eyes, and I wouldn't have considered it betrayal from a moral viewpoint. He could have fought openly for his king without stabbing Robb in the back. Yes, it would have involved certain risks, but look at him now... after all that plotting and backstabbing, he doesn't exactly feel safe, does he? On 2016. 08. 14. at 5:51 AM, cyberdirectorfreedom said: Now, I hope I'm wrong, but I've sensed something in the tone of your comment. From the first two words of your comment, you seemed to be judging me personally, and rather harshly, considering the tone. You've worded much of your comment as if you think you're better than me, and not just morally; I won't say you're not, nor will I say you are, but I will say that there's no call for such a tone. Forgive me if I'm wrong to feel such a tone, however. I don't want to take offense where none is intended. I didn't mean to offend you or to be harsh (and I certainly didn't think that the words to this would sound offensive), although I definitely can't understand your view that Roose's actions were actually moral - that is true. Agree to disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.