House Frey should be respected

[Varysblackfyre321]

Meh, I think they certianly been shown respect  By Robb, at least.  Breaking his word to them was one thing(not that they'd ever truly forgive that), but he had the audacity to try to offer them Edmure as a half-hearted apology. Hell its even more insulting quite frankly that Robb would make this offer than if he had done literally nothing like "sorry I made fools of you throughout the realm by breaking my promise to you but I'm losing my war now please have my lord uncle as an apology." Yes the riverlands are valuable-but not nearly as great as being now part of the royal family I really can't say they're actions were treacherous in this regard. They made it perfectly clear they would only participate in Robb's rebellion if they were granted his hand in marriage. Robb broke that vow, thus any semblance of loyalty they'd be expected to have should be expected to have been erased.Quite honesty although Walder Frey is a truly despicable man I find it hard to believe any of the northern houses would have stuck by Robb if this had happened to them.

 

[Mon ami]

17 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Maybe at one point they were respected but now they are known to be of questionable loyalty BEFORE the red wedding. The late Walder Frey does not pay allegiance, calling his banner men late & exacting a toll to cross the twins, even from those he is supposedly loyal to. He sees slights even when none are intended. He slew a King he pledged his loyalty to under his own roof during a wedding meant to seal the deal. Honor & respect are earned & Walder Frey deserves none. 

That oathbreaker of a so-called king broke his oath to Walder.  Robb screwed Walder and the Freys and they collected in style.   The RW is one of the best military moves in the books.  Walder and Roose took down the more powerful Starks and limited their own casualties. 

Robb would betray Walder if it served the interest of House Stark.  I have no doubt that Robb would throw the Freys under the bus if it would save his family.  Well, throwing Robb under the bus saved the Freys from the Lannisters.  Robb doesn't deserve loyalty from the Freys after what he did to them. 

 

[Bernie Mac]

11 minutes ago, Mon ami said:

Robb would betray Walder if it served the interest of House Stark.  I have no doubt that Robb would throw the Freys under the bus if it would save his family. 

Robb wanted to destroy the entire House in AGOT just because they were staying neutral and Robb wanted to use their bridge

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

In fact all his Lords were happy to do so until they get closer to the Twins and see just how well fortified it is.

The Greatjon began to curse and swear as soon as he saw what awaited them. Lord Rickard Karstark glowered in silence. "That cannot be assaulted, my lords," Roose Bolton announced.

"Nor can we take it by siege, without an army on the far bank to invest the other castle," Helman Tallhart said gloomily. Across the deep-running green waters, the western twin stood like a reflection of its eastern brother. "Even if we had the time. Which, to be sure, we do not."

 

And even after Robb betrayed them some Northmen were willing to end them for the crime of returning home to the Riverlands

 

"You have done House Frey a grievous insult, Robb."

"I never meant to. Ser Stevron died for me, and Olyvar was as loyal a squire as any king could want. He asked to stay with me, but Ser Ryman took him with the rest. All their strength. The Greatjon urged me to attack them . . ."

"Fighting your own in the midst of your enemies?" she said. "It would have been the end of you."

 

And Cat's reaction is telling, it is not that the Freys did not deserve to be attacked, but that it was the pragmatic choice not to attack the soldiers who had been side by side with them for every battle they faced in Robb's campaign. 

There is no honour in war, acting like the Freys should have been honourable to a faction that had betrayed them and was more than willing to end them when they were neutral is mystifying to me. 

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

^ The difference being, Rob was contemplating declaring war on a house that was impeding his cause. Not slaughtering, unarmed, defenseless drunks at a wedding, while breaking a sacred custom, considered to be as frowned upon a crime as kin slaying and treason, by men and gods alike.

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

^ The difference being, Rob was contemplating declaring war on a house that was impeding his cause. Not slaughtering, unarmed, defenseless drunks at a wedding, while breaking a sacred custom, considered to be as frowned upon a crime as kin slaying and treason, by men and gods alike. So it'd be ok to murder the Freys for not assisting in what could be seen as treason against the iron throne, and when they've done nothing directly against you -but not at wedding were they're drunk and guests? Really, the first isn't that much better than latter morally. Dead is dead. Whether or not the murdered are you're guests or the people who simply did not let you into their house, it makes very little difference to the victims. 

 

[Bernie Mac]

18 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

^ The difference being, Rob was contemplating declaring war on a house that was impeding his cause. Not slaughtering, unarmed, defenseless drunks at a wedding, while breaking a sacred custom, considered to be as frowned upon a crime as kin slaying and treason, by men and gods alike.

What do you think happens to the women, children, smallfolk inside a castle when an enemy army tries to destroy it? 

Robb had other routes, had other options to get across the river, he was angry that quickest one was not available to him and was ready to destroy them for this. 

Walder did a shitty think, but Robb was equally willing to do a shitty thing. It is war, morals often get thrown out the window. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

. So it'd be ok to murder the Freys for not assisting in what could be seen as treason against the iron throne, and when they've done nothing directly against you -but not at wedding were they're drunk and guests? Really, the first isn't that much better than latter morally.

First off, what the Freys did was murder, what Rob was contemplating is not considered murder.

Secondly, do I approve of war, and the killing of your fellow man for any reason? Absolutely not, but an argument can be made for justifying Rob's hypothetical actions.

And yes, murdering unarmed, defenseless guest of yours is worse than killing a man in battle.

Would I say it's "better" to kill a man in battle, than to murder a defenseless man eating his supper as your guest? No, I wouldn't use that terminology when discussing a matter such as this, but it certainly isn't nearly as treacherous and despicable of an act as the latter.

 

[Bernie Mac]

11 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

First off, what the Freys did was murder, what Rob was contemplating is not considered murder.

Yes it is. He was contemplating destroying the Freys, that is murder. Same as the Freys (and Robb's fellow Northmen) did to him. 

 

Quote

Secondly, do I approve of war, and the killing of your fellow man for any reason? Absolutely not, but an argument can be made for justifying Rob's hypothetical actions.

Same for the Freys. Robb had already show a willingness to destroy them when they were neutral, theres was a preemptive strike against a future enemy whose lands they would have been surrounded by. 

Frey and their vassals had died for Robb's war, and he double crossed them, Walder certainly had a better motive than Robb, who was simply to lazy to find another route, or the Greatjon who had fought side by side with the Freys. 

Quote

And yes, murdering unarmed, defenseless guest of yours is worse than killing a man in battle.

There are women and children in that castle. Robb's entourage were soldiers fighting a war, and the army outside, not protected by guest rights, were armed. 

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes it is. He was contemplating destroying the Freys, that is murder. Same as the Freys (and Robb's fellow Northmen) did to him. 

I see, so this past Remembrance day, when I payed tribute to all the brave men and women who gave their lives for my freedom, I was actually honouring a bunch of murderers.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

Same for the Freys. Robb had already show a willingness to destroy them when they were neutral, theres was a preemptive strike against a future enemy whose lands they would have been surrounded by. 

Rob's cause was just, he was fighting for the freedom and life of his father against a corrupt and oppressive regime. Walder murdered his own alias because of a petty gripe over his honor.

And if they were neutral, they wouldn't have impeded Rob's progress.

And when did he show this willingness to destroy them? In a private conversation with his mother, where he was venting his frustration, and talking smack? Stop condemning Rob for a hypothetical that you imagine might have happened.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Frey and their vassals had died for Robb's war, and he double crossed them, Walder certainly had a better motive than Robb,

Then Walder should have broken the alliance, and declared war on the North instead of feigning to accept the reparations Rob attempted, in order to murder him in cold blood. 

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

who was simply to lazy to find another route, 

Your certainly showing your lack of comprehension of the situation with this comment.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

There are women and children in that castle. Robb's entourage were soldiers fighting a war, and the army outside, not protected by guest rights, were armed. 

 

They weren't armed and prepared for battle. They were guests in an allies camp, getting drunk and partying.

[The Sunland Lord]

They don't respect each other. Just read Merrett's chapter and the two Walder's talking in Winterfell.

But aren't totally disrespected by others, until the RW at least.

Seems to me that they are well established. You don't get to be the second most powerful House in one of the 7K if no one respects you. 

I think that certain people looked down on Walder because he came late on the Trident, but that's a "shame on him", not his entire House. 

While after the RW, almost everyone has the "shame on them" opinion because large portion of them were invested in a serious violation of one of the Westerosi rules. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I see, so this past Remembrance day, when I payed tribute to all the brave men and women who gave their lives for my freedom, I was actually honouring a bunch of murderers.

Piss on that. This idea you can't find the actions of those who perpetrate a war to have acted immorally without disrespecting the soldiers under them who they used for said acts is ridiculous.

Rob's cause was just, he was fighting for the freedom and life of his father against a corrupt and oppressive regime. Walder murdered his own alias because of a petty gripe over his honor.

So he says. For all Frey knows Ned really did try to usurp his best friend's children  throne. 

And if they were neutral, they wouldn't have impeded Rob's progress.

Neutral means not aiding or attacking  either side in anyway. Letting Robb's Stark's army use the Twins pass is aiding him.

And when did he show this willingness to destroy them? In a private conversation with his mother, where he was venting his frustration, and talking smack? Stop condemning Rob for a hypothetical that you imagine might have happened.

 

Then Walder should have broken the alliance, and declared war on the North instead of feigning to accept the reparations Rob attempted, in order to murder him in cold blood. 

And needlessly have more of his kin's and men'sblood spilt in the battle and have the possibility of his castle being taken from him just because that's the "honorable" thing to do?

Your certainly showing your lack of comprehension of the situation with this comment.

They weren't armed and prepared for battle. They were guests in an allies camp, getting drunk and partying.

And the Freys were in their home wanting nothing but to be left alone. Seriously, I find this whole quibble of "they cheated" to be a childish gripe.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

I can't quote everyone that quoted me because my phone is being stupid but to touch of some of the responses: 

Walder Frey is a treacherous old man only declaring for one side or the other after deciding the likely winner. Thus the nickname 'The Late' Walder Frey. This was meant as an insult & not what I was referring to when I said he sees slights when none were intended. I was speaking more on things like Lord Hoster not attending his last wedding & the fact that Cat is concerned with virtually every move she or Robb make in his presence because he sees slights everywhere. The argument that we only hear this from Cat who hears it from her father is nonsense. We have no reason to believe Hoster &Cat don't have the right of it, & after meeting Walder for our selves have every reason to believe they do have the right of it. Walder is disrespectful to the point of insubordination. 

As far as Walder paying allegiance to his liege - he may pay his taxes & keep his lands safe but he is less than loyal to his liege. He cares not if it's his liege Lord or his sworn enemy crossing his bridge he will have his toll. Is that within his rights? I suppose it may be but with friends like Walder Frey who needs enemies? 

Walder agreed to allow Robb cross & join his cause if Robb married one of his daughters. Robb agreed. When Robb broke that promise Walder had every right to not allow him to cross & declare for someone else or no one at all. He instead chose to accept the terms Robb gave him. He then slaughtered unarmed wedding guests, protected by guest right. It is deceitful, dishonorable, & treacherous. The books make this very clear so there should be no argument here. When Robb agreed to the terms of crossing he did not agree that if said oaths were broken he would be slaughtered along with his men & other wedding guests who took no part in the decision for Robb to marry Jeyne. 

As for Robb thinking about "destroying" the Frey's if they did not let him pass. Thinking something, even out loud, is not a crime. It matters not what he thought but what he did. That being said had Walder not agreed to let him pass Robb would have been well within his rights to declare war on the enemy household hindering his cause. 

I'm sure I've missed something but I've run out of time so I'll post later. 

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I see, so this past Remembrance day, when I payed tribute to all the brave men and women who gave their lives for my freedom, I was actually honouring a bunch of murderers.

What does that have to do with Robb? You have genuinly lost me on this one?

At the start of the war, in AGOT, Robb was more than willing to destroy the Twins, and its occupants, who had not wrong him at all. Is this something that you would honour?

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Rob's cause was just, he was fighting for the freedom and life of his father against a corrupt and oppressive regime. Walder murdered his own alias because of a petty gripe over his honor.

At that point Walder had not wronged Robb. Robb wanted Walder dead before he wronged him, all because the Crossing was the most convenient route for him. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And if they were neutral, they wouldn't have impeded Rob's progress.

eh? By allowing Robb access they'd be rebelling against the Crown. That bridge was not the only route, it was just the more convenient route. 

And it should be noted that Robb's side were already being antagonistic by shooting down ravens coming and going from the Twins. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

And when did he show this willingness to destroy them?

In the quotes I mentioned

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

In a private conversation with his mother,

Nope, that was not a private conversation, his generals are present and they are in agreement with him. It is only when they get closer to they become disappointed as it simply not feasible. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

where he was venting his frustration, and talking smack? Stop condemning Rob for a hypothetical that you imagine might have happened.

He wanted it to happen, all his generals did until they saw the size and scope of the problem they were facing. These are all in the quotes from the books I supplied, not from the imaginary story were Robb fought in the first word war. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Then Walder should have broken the alliance, and declared war on the North instead of feigning to accept the reparations Rob attempted, in order to murder him in cold blood. 

And been stuck in Robb's kingdom? The only reason the Northmen did not kill the Freys in the Westerlands was because they were in enemy territory, they no longer had that protection. 

And why should the Freys act honorable to the faction that betrayed them?

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Your certainly showing your lack of comprehension of the situation with this comment.

lol ok. 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

They weren't armed and prepared for battle. They were guests in an allies camp, getting drunk and partying.

Of course they were armed, they were an army. Robb even boasts of it

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

Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt.

 

And as for being unprepared, that was Robb's speciality in attack. The Lannister army at Riverrun were mostly sleeping when he attacked, the same with the untrained green boys at Oxcross. Robb built his military career on attacking armies unprepared. Can't go crying foul when someone finally does it to him. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

What does that have to do with Robb? You have genuinly lost me on this one?

At the start of the war, in AGOT, Robb was more than willing to destroy the Twins, and its occupants, who had not wrong him at all. Is this something that you would honour?

At that point Walder had not wronged Robb. Robb wanted Walder dead before he wronged him, all because the Crossing was the most convenient route for him. 

eh? By allowing Robb access they'd be rebelling against the Crown. That bridge was not the only route, it was just the more convenient route. 

And it should be noted that Robb's side were already being antagonistic by shooting down ravens coming and going from the Twins. 

In the quotes I mentioned

Nope, that was not a private conversation, his generals are present and they are in agreement with him. It is only when they get closer to they become disappointed as it simply not feasible. 

He wanted it to happen, all his generals did until they saw the size and scope of the problem they were facing. These are all in the quotes from the books I supplied, not from the imaginary story were Robb fought in the first word war. 

And been stuck in Robb's kingdom? The only reason the Northmen did not kill the Freys in the Westerlands was because they were in enemy territory, they no longer had that protection. 

And why should the Freys act honorable to the faction that betrayed them?

lol ok. 

Of course they were armed, they were an army. Robb even boasts of it

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

Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt.

 

And as for being unprepared, that was Robb's speciality in attack. The Lannister army at Riverrun were mostly sleeping when he attacked, the same with the untrained green boys at Oxcross. Robb built his military career on attacking armies unprepared. Can't go crying foul when someone finally does it to him. But you see that's different I'm sure the Freys would have much preferred it if they were slaughtered by Robb and his army at a battle,e where it's "fair" than at a dinner. Aegean's conquest was a noble thing, it's no big deal he murdered entire families trying to defend their home and who had done nothing to him or his kin but if had done it while a guest suddenly he's a monster. The things that are qualified innapropiate in waging a war is laughable. Like Robb stark tried to employ the ironborn who proudly admit to raping their enemies women to raid the westerlands. But all the innocents who would've been raped and butchered is somehow less egregious than the military forces  who were killed at the RW?

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Piss on that. This idea you can't find the actions of those who perpetrate a war to have acted immorally without disrespecting the soldiers under them who they used for said acts is ridiculous.

That is ridiculous, I'm glad I didn't make a comment as to that. You can argue the immorality of Rob's imagined decision to attack the Twins all you want, it still wouldn't make it murder.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So he says. For all Frey knows Ned really did try to usurp his best friend's children  throne. 

So? What's your point? I'm not debating this matter with Walder Frey, I'm having a debate with members of a forum who have presumably read the books, and do know the truth.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Neutral means not aiding or attacking  either side in anyway. Letting Robb's Stark's army use the Twins pass is aiding him.

No, denying him passage that normally he'd be granted is aiding Rob's enemies, that's not staying neutral.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And needlessly have more of his kin's and men'sblood spilt in the battle and have the possibility of his castle being taken from him just because that's the "honorable" thing to do?

If you want to argue that the Freys deserve respect, and don't deserve the vitriol that they receive, yes.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And the Freys were in their home wanting nothing but to be left alone. Seriously, I find this whole quibble of "they cheated" to be a childish gripe.

If they would have let Rob pass, and actually stayed neutral, they would have been left alone. Only, Walder saw this as an opportunity to coerce Rob into marrying his daughter to improve the standing of his house. 

And they didn't cheat, they committed a violation of the most sacred customs in the Kingdom, which is looked down upon by men and gods alike as the severest of crimes. That is a fact, not a quibble or a childish gripe.

[divica]

5 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

That is ridiculous, I'm glad I didn't make a comment as to that. You can argue the immorality of Rob's imagined decision to attack the Twins all you want, it still wouldn't make it murder.

So? What's your point? I'm not debating this matter with Walder Frey, I'm having a debate with members of a forum who have presumably read the books, and do know the truth.

No, denying him passage that normally he'd be granted is aiding Rob's enemies, that's not staying neutral.

If you want to argue that the Freys deserve respect, and don't deserve the vitriol that they receive, yes.

If they would have let Rob pass, and actually stayed neutral, they would have been left alone. Only, Walder saw this as an opportunity to coerce Rob into marrying his daughter to improve the standing of his house. 

And they didn't cheat, they committed a violation of the most sacred customs in the Kingdom, which is looked down upon by men and gods alike as the severest of crimes. That is a fact, not a quibble or a childish gripe.

The most interesting question I saw so far was:

Why would the freys suffer punishment from the lannisters for helping robb in the war when he broke his word to them? And if we are honest, marrying edmure to a frey is pretty useless. The tullys are on the losing side of the war. When robb returns north the Lannisters might attack the tullys and kill Edmure. On the other hand robb will be much safer in Winterfell being King... And the freys will be enemies of the crown and gained nothing because robb betrayed them...

So did the freys have any other option besides ploting against robb at that point?

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

What does that have to do with Robb? You have genuinly lost me on this one?

At the start of the war, in AGOT, Robb was more than willing to destroy the Twins, and its occupants, who had not wrong him at all. Is this something that you would honour?

Not murder, as you insisted it was.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? By allowing Robb access they'd be rebelling against the Crown. That bridge was not the only route, it was just the more convenient route. 

Not wanting to put yourself in danger by allowing an army to pass unimpeded is not rebelling against the Crown, it's staying neutral. Impeding the army is taking sides.

Quote

In the quotes I mentioned

Nope, that was not a private conversation, his generals are present and they are in agreement with him. It is only when they get closer to they become disappointed as it simply not feasible. 

He wanted it to happen, all his generals did until they saw the size and scope of the problem they were facing. These are all in the quotes from the books I supplied, not from the imaginary story were Robb fought in the first word war. 

That's ridiculous, he did not want it to happen, what he wanted was to pass without issue. You are just taking tough talk from a boy who is trying to reassure himself of a coarse of action he feels he might be forced into, and making into something it's not.

Quote

And why should the Freys act honorable to the faction that betrayed them?

Why should Rob honor an agreement he was coerced into? 

And it's really their choice to act honorable or not, but don't cry foul when they are criticized for not being honorable.

Quote

Of course they were armed, they were an army. Robb even boasts of it

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

Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt.

 

And as for being unprepared, that was Robb's speciality in attack. The Lannister army at Riverrun were mostly sleeping when he attacked, the same with the untrained green boys at Oxcross. Robb built his military career on attacking armies unprepared. Can't go crying foul when someone finally does it to him. 

Uh huh, I'm sure they were all sitting around in full armor, a beer in one hand, a leg of chicken in the other, and a sword across their lap.

Yeah, his strategy in attacking his enemy that he was at war with, not attacking his own allies that were his guests at a wedding he was hosting. It's quite sad that I even need to point out the difference to you.

[The Fattest Leech]

House Frey is literally the bridge over troubled waters, and they have been set up since near forever to be a duplicitous, turncloak house. They were part of the scheming at Whitewalls, in which Brynden Bloodraven Rivers and his merry band had to intervene, because if Bloodraven hadn't, another war would have broken out.

The current Late Lord Frey has literally been a shit since he was four (?), as the author intended. From The Mystery Knight:

... of losing to one in the first round. It does not matter. One foe at a time, that was what the old man always said. Ser Uthor is all that should concern me now. They met beneath the viewing stand where Lord and Lady Butterwell sat on their cushions in the shade of the castle walls. Lord Frey was beside them, dandling his snot-nosed son on one knee [This is the current Lord Frey]. A row of serving girls was fanning them, yet Lord Butterwell's damask tunic was stained beneath the arms, and his lady's hair was limp from perspiration. She looked hot, bored, and uncomfortable, but when she saw Dunk, she pushed out her chest in a way that turned him red beneath his helm. He dipped his lance to her and her lord husband. Ser Uthor did the same. Butterwell wished them both a good tilt. His wife stuck out her tongue.

[Bowen 747]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb wanted to destroy the entire House in AGOT just because they were staying neutral and Robb wanted to use their bridge

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

In fact all his Lords were happy to do so until they get closer to the Twins and see just how well fortified it is.

The Greatjon began to curse and swear as soon as he saw what awaited them. Lord Rickard Karstark glowered in silence. "That cannot be assaulted, my lords," Roose Bolton announced.

"Nor can we take it by siege, without an army on the far bank to invest the other castle," Helman Tallhart said gloomily. Across the deep-running green waters, the western twin stood like a reflection of its eastern brother. "Even if we had the time. Which, to be sure, we do not."

 

And even after Robb betrayed them some Northmen were willing to end them for the crime of returning home to the Riverlands

 

"You have done House Frey a grievous insult, Robb."

"I never meant to. Ser Stevron died for me, and Olyvar was as loyal a squire as any king could want. He asked to stay with me, but Ser Ryman took him with the rest. All their strength. The Greatjon urged me to attack them . . ."

"Fighting your own in the midst of your enemies?" she said. "It would have been the end of you."

 

And Cat's reaction is telling, it is not that the Freys did not deserve to be attacked, but that it was the pragmatic choice not to attack the soldiers who had been side by side with them for every battle they faced in Robb's campaign. 

There is no honour in war, acting like the Freys should have been honourable to a faction that had betrayed them and was more than willing to end them when they were neutral is mystifying to me. 

 

Exactly!  Some readers have this idea in their heads that the Starks should be allowed to get away with anything.  I don't agree with them.  I also don't like the Starks.  I'm not a big fan of the Freys but I like them more than I like the Starks. 

Oaths are legally binding. Robb not only violated honor but he broke something legally binding.  The Freys broke guest rights, which is just a custom.  The king sanctioned the red wedding; therefore, it cannot be illegal.  It was a desperate measure to end the lives of some rebels.

[Bowen 747]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Walder did a shitty think, but Robb was equally willing to do a shitty thing. It is war, morals often get thrown out the window.

They're both shifty people but I like old Walder.