House Frey should be respected

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

 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?

The fandom go crazy over Tywin's hiring of the Brave Companions yet don't say shit when the North hires them, or the other sellswords Robb hired after beating Jaime. In fact from Arya's point of view as a member of the Riverland smallfolk, Harrenhal was in safer hands under Westerland rule than it was Northern. 

It is also ignored all the raping and pillaging the Northmen did to their own allies in the Riverlands, you can only imagine what kind of shit they got up to in the Westerlands and yet the fandom have this rosy picture of the war being some kind of battle of good vs evil when really it is was privileged asshole fighting against another privileged asshole. 

Clearly GRRM tried to address this thought process in the fandom in AFFC were Septon Meribald, who outlines just how much of a shitshow wars are regardless for which House you fight for, and how it turns everyone into monsters. 

 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Not murder, as you insisted it was.

And Robb attacking and killing a neutral House is somehow not murder? Because he is a Stark?

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

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.

It is precisely taking a side. They would be offering safe passage to an enemy of the Crown and once inside the much larger Stark army could easily take control of Twins. 

The neutral option is to do what they were doing, nothing. Not open their gates to rebels of the Crown. 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

That's ridiculous, he did not want it to happen, what he wanted was to pass without issue.

Is that really the excuse you want to be using? Do you think many people who commit atrocities wanted to do them?

Robb had other options, shit the only reason he left Moat Cailin, in his own words, was because the lands could not feed his army. The Twins was convenient for him, he wanted to destroy an entire House and the denizens that resided in there because he was impatient. Sorry dude, that is not a good enough reason. Like Walder Frey wanting to kill people out of revenge and self preservation, it is a poor excuse. 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

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.

It is not just Robb, all his generals are disapointed when they see it. Did you not actually read the quotes I supplied you? 

"That will not be easily done," her uncle cautioned. "Lord Frey has pulled his whole strength back inside his castles, and his gates are closed and barred."

"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!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One glance was sufficient to tell Catelyn that the castle would not be taken by storm. The battlements bristled with spears and swords and scorpions, there was an archer at every crenel and arrow slit, the drawbridge was up, the portcullis down, the gates closed and barred.
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."

 

These are not the reactions of men who had no intention of attacking the Twins if it was a weaker castle or had a smaller garrison. Their disappointment speaks for itself, as does Cat's threat when inside the Twins

"Oh, do you? That's blunt. Why should I let you?"

For a moment her anger flared. "If you were strong enough to climb your own battlements, Lord Frey, you would see that my son has twenty thousand men outside your walls."

 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Why should Rob honor an agreement he was coerced into? 

Well Frey men had died for that agreement. Not one of Robb's battles was not won without Frey support on the battlefield and they supplied more men than any of his vassals gave him. Robb's war would have been over, all his glory came down to the agreement his mother made with the Freys, an agreement that was made in good faith. 

 

And if you really think like that then why should the Freys honour an agreement of guest rights when Robb has already betrayed them?

Robb betrayed the Freys first. 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

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

I'm not. Where have I cried foul? I'm pointing out the hypocrisy talking about honour in wartime. 

29 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

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.

Nope, Robb knew exactly were he stood with Walder. He was forced to beg for help as there was no other way to take back the North without the Freys help.

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

What Robb did not know is that half of his remaining army wanted to see him dead. It is not the Freys betrayal that took by surprise, it was his fellow Northmen. 

But in general it was just poor from him, allowing his soldiers to get drunk while the Crown had around 70k troops not too far away. Robb's best victories came when the enemy had no idea how close he was, frankly it is sloppy on Robb's part. Someone who uses surprise to such devastating effect against his enemies should have known better. My only head canon explanation I can think of is that the 5 or so months since Oxcross had made him complacent in fighting a real enemy. 

[Bowen 747]

27 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

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.

The incident at Whitewalls has nothing to do with the current Walder Frey.  That was his father.  And if you think about it, how different is it than what Hoster Tully did with Lysa?  Not different at all.  Both fathers were willing to betray their kings to unload a devalued daughter.  And it is not even clear that old Lord Frey knew what Butterwell was up to.  Bloodraven let him go because there was no evidence against him and this is from the man with a thousand eyes and one.  Such benefit of the doubt cannot be extended to Hoster Tully, who knew very well what he was being asked to do. 

[Bernie Mac]

32 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

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.

They were hardly part of the scheming, Lord Butterwell offered to marry Frey's disgraced daughter and the Freys accepted, they had not agreed to join the Blackfyre pretender and as it is noted that all the other guests fought for the Blackfyres in the first war, but it is not mentioned about the Freys it can be assumed that Lord Frey was their on fair terms, to see his daughter married to a Lord. 

They are hoping to win over the Freys as winning the Freys will, in their eyes, will influence other Houses to join. 

"Just do your part as promised, and let me concern myself with that. Once we have Butterwell's gold and the swords of House Frey, Harrenhal will follow, then the Brackens. Otho knows he cannot hope to stand…"

Lord Frey exits as soon as it is revealed who Jon the Fiddler is, and unlike Butterwell, is not punished for being there. I'm guessing that Lord Frey snr is one of Bloodravens agents

Egg stood before him, freshly bathed and garbed in princely raiment, as would befit a nephew of the king. Nearby, Lord Frey was seated in a camp chair with a cup of wine to hand and his hideous little heir squirming in his lap. Lord Butterwell was there as well… on his knees, pale-faced and shaking.

"Treason is no less vile because the traitor proves a craven," Lord Rivers was saying. "I have heard your bleatings, Lord Ambrose, and I believe one word in ten. On that account I will allow you to retain a tenth part of your fortune. You may keep your wife as well. I wish you joy of her."

"The Hand is kind." Butterwell stumbled off, so blind with grief that he did not even seem to recognize Dunk as he passed.

"You have my leave to go as well, Lord Frey," Rivers commanded. "We will speak again later."

"As my lord commands." Frey led his son from the pavilion.

 

And of course what little we know of Forrest Frey, he seems to be a noble and respected Lord (with a kick ass wife). So it is not like they have been set up as some 'villain' House. Like every House they have individuals who rule them, one Lord may well be totally different to another, or a Lord may be perceived as being good for some of his life and bad for the rest it. Too many in the fandom want to oversimplify human nature; the people in these Houses are bad guys because of their last names the people in these Houses are good because of theirs. 

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

The incident at Whitewalls has nothing to do with the current Walder Frey.  That was his father. 

The quote I gave you and highlighted is also talking about the current Lord Frey, as I said. And that wasn't the only time in the story that the author chose to highlight what a little shit the young future Lord Frey is going to be.

3 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

And if you think about it, how different is it than what Hoster Tully did with Lysa?  Not different at all. 

What the heck does this discussion have to do with Hoster Tully, besides your intense dislike of anything to do with anyone other than a Targaryen of your choosing? The author set the Freys up to be a house loyal to only themselves. They change course at will. No outside loyalty there. Hell, they don't even trust other Frey family members unless they are born into the same household.

3 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

Both fathers were willing to betray their kings to unload a devalued daughter.  And it is not even clear that old Lord Frey knew what Butterwell was up to. 

What??? Absolute rubbish. Butterwell and the elder Frey were both opportunistic jerks that were frequently off conspiring with each other, in addition to trying to align themselves with who they supposed to be a "winning" side. This is clearly explained in the story.

3 minutes ago, Bowen 747 said:

 

Bloodraven let him go because there was no evidence against him and this is from the man with a thousand eyes and one.  Such benefit of the doubt cannot be extended to Hoster Tully, who knew very well what he was being asked to do. 

Brynden Rivers makes a point to tell Frey that he will deal with him later (after he has Whitewalls torn down and the land salted).

[Bowen 747]

12 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The quote I gave you and highlighted is also talking about the current Lord Frey, as I said. And that wasn't the only time in the story that the author chose to highlight what a little shit the young future Lord Frey is going to be.

What the heck does this discussion have to do with Hoster Tully, besides your intense dislike of anything to do with anyone other than a Targaryen of your choosing? The author set the Freys up to be a house loyal to only themselves. They change course at will. No outside loyalty there. Hell, they don't even trust other Frey family members unless they are born into the same household.

What??? Absolute rubbish. Butterwell and the elder Frey were both opportunistic jerks that were frequently off conspiring with each other, in addition to trying to align themselves with who they supposed to be a "winning" side. This is clearly explained in the story.

Brynden Rivers makes a point to tell Frey that he will deal with him later (after he has Whitewalls torn down and the land salted).

How Walder Frey handled Robert's rebellion is not different than how Tywin did it.  Both men played it safe like any person would do because it is a major deal to rebel against the iron throne.  They only picked a side when there was no other choice.  It's no simple matter when you're asked to rebel.  You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  It's survival.  No one talked about Tywin because they were afraid.  Hoster badmouthed Walder constantly because he could get away with it and did get away with it.

And yet Bloodraven didn't punish the Freys.  He had good reason because he lacked evidence. 

[The Fattest Leech]

 

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And of course what little we know of Forrest Frey, he seems to be a noble and respected Lord (with a kick ass wife). So it is not like they have been set up as some 'villain' House. Like every House they have individuals who rule them, one Lord may well be totally different to another, or a Lord may be perceived as being good for some of his life and bad for the rest it. Too many in the fandom want to oversimplify human nature; the people in these Houses are bad guys because of their last names the people in these Houses are good because of theirs. 

I don't know what you are assuming with me, but you are wrong to assert this over-simplistic idea applies to me in anyway. I totally support Ameri Frey, and Fat Walda, and even some of the younger kids. Yes, I do not even want to see Fat Walda and her Bolton baby die. Learn a little before you assume. These younger ones are the future (and probably the change), but as of right now, the current ruling members of that house were absolutely set up as traitors to whoever they are supposed to be loyal to, all in order to get what they want. And you cannot deny that it was made a point over and over in TMK that current Lord Frey was established even as a toddler to be an absolute jerk. Foreshadowing of the heaviest kind.

[divica]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

I don't know what you are assuming with me, but you are wrong to assert this over-simplistic idea applies to me in anyway. I totally support Ameri Frey, and Fat Walda, and even some of the younger kids. Yes, I do not even want to see Fat Walda and her Bolton baby die. Learn a little before you assume. These younger ones are the future (and probably the change), but as of right now, the current ruling members of that house were absolutely set up as traitors to whoever they are supposed to be loyal to, all in order to get what they want. And you cannot deny that it was made a point over and over in TMK that current Lord Frey was established even as a toddler to be an absolute jerk. Foreshadowing of the heaviest kind.

They may be villains, but what were they supposed to do at the time of the red wedding?

Robb lost the war. They helped him with men and he betrayed them. The crown is going to take revenge on them for helping robb. So why would house frey suffer for robb that betrayed them first? And we can assume that with robb going north the riverlands ar lost, so the marriage with edmure is a shitty agreement.

Even if the red wedding is despicable if tywin wanted them to do it how could they refuse? So why not to try and take advantage of a bad situation?

[The Fattest Leech]

And now that I think about it, Roose had already sided with Walder and married Fat Walda before Robb was married to Jeyne Westerling. So, history repeats, as GRRM so often does in his backstory foreshadowing, and GRRM once again has his Frey characters turn their backs on their leader and align themselves with a perceived (true or not) winning cause.

ADDING: And another commonality these two stories have is Bloodraven himself. First we have the Freys as part of a rebellion merged with a wedding and Bloodraven, as a hand, has to step in to crush the "rebels". And now, 90ish years later we have the Freys again about to rebel and merging it with a wedding, where the Freys break an old gods rule/custom, only this time Bloodraven is an "old god hand" and he will once again come to "speak" with the Freys and deliver punishment.

Now, off to more yuleish cheer

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 23, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Bernie Mac said:

The fandom go crazy over Tywin's hiring of the Brave Companions yet don't say shit when the North hires them, or the other sellswords Robb hired after beating Jaime. In fact from Arya's point of view as a member of the Riverland smallfolk, Harrenhal was in safer hands under Westerland rule than it was Northern. 

It is also ignored all the raping and pillaging the Northmen did to their own allies in the Riverlands, you can only imagine what kind of shit they got up to in the Westerlands and yet the fandom have this rosy picture of the war being some kind of battle of good vs evil when really it is was privileged asshole fighting against another privileged asshole. 

Clearly GRRM tried to address this thought process in the fandom in AFFC were Septon Meribald, who outlines just how much of a shitshow wars are regardless for which House you fight for, and how it turns everyone into monsters. 

Robb Stark was more than happy to sighn on people who were known to have done and will far worse so long as it was convient for him-he wouldn't lose sleep over any of the heinous acts committed by the BC so long they benefited his pursuit of northern independence. But *gasp* the Freys killing guests (none of which are civilians who often get caught up in the crossfire but don't really get attention), was the worst thing anyone had done in the war. The little people who where butchered tortured and rape by those under Robb they get no attention, the nobles in the north care no more for them than the nobles in the south,   Yeah, people paint a rosier picture of the war. People like the Starks  so they pretend as though the north acted complete paragons when really the people waging it on the north's  really don't act much better than those in those in south concerning it. They dislike Walder's annoying ass so it's easy to say he acted the worst when he really did nothing more immoral-just less proper.

I mean the reason why groups such as the tbwb and the faith militant became so popular among the dissanfrancised is because they actually called the highborn nobles who were pushing this damn war on their shit and actually tried protecting the smallfolk. Really the smallfolk get  get basically no attention when discussing the war, it's all about how the highborn assholes acted to each other what dicks they were to each other or how awesome x person was on their side. It's disgusting. I can't help but think of little Mycah when talking about this. Two highborn children got into an argument that resulted in the deaths of a 12 year old peasant boy, and one of the Stark's pets. Yet when discussing the incident people express how sad it was for the pet to die. Literally the life of a peasant boy is worthless compared to a favored dog of a noble family. 

Seriously, this is why I roll my eyes whenever people in story or the readers remark how much a travesty the Rw was and that the gods surely are going to punish the perpetrators of it. When. Out of the list of atrocities committed during the war on either side this doesn't rank on the top ten And the gods won't exact justice men will try because the gods if they exist have shown they don't care. 

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

5 hours ago, divica said:

They may be villains, but what were they supposed to do at the time of the red wedding?

Robb lost the war. They helped him with men and he betrayed them. The crown is going to take revenge on them for helping robb. So why would house frey suffer for robb that betrayed them first?

Google "false dichotomy". "Support them" and "murder them under your own roof" were not the only two options before Lord Walder.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I mean the reason why groups such as the tbwb and the faith militant became so popular among the dissanfrancised is because they actually called the highborn nobles who were pushing this damn war on their shit and actually tried protecting the smallfolk. Really the smallfolk get  get basically no attention when discussing the war, it's all about how the highborn assholes acted to each other what dicks they were to each other or how awesome x person was on their side. It's disgusting. I can't help but think of little Mycah when talking about this. Two highborn children got into an argument that resulted in the deaths of 12 year old peasant boy, and one of the Stark's pets. Yet when discussing the incident people express how sad it was for the pet to die. Literally the life of a peasant boy is worthless compared to a favored dog of a noble family. 

Seriously, this is why I roll my eyes whenever people in story or the readers remark how much a travesty the Rw was and that the gods surely are going to punish the perpetrators of it. When. Out of the list of atrocities committed during the war on either side this doesn't rank on the top ten And the gods won't exact justice men will try because the gods if they exist have shown they don't care. 

What about the smallfolk that were killed during the Red Wedding? The ones in Robb's army who fought for a cause they believed in and were killed while they were feasting outside the Castle?

What do you think the smallfolk who were rescued by Robb and his army when Gregor Clegane was pillaging their lands would think of the Red Wedding? 

[The Sunland Lord]

Anti-Starks trolls popping out like mushrooms after rain. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

What about the smallfolk that were killed during the Red Wedding? The ones in Robb's army who fought for a cause they believed in and were killed while they were feasting outside the Castle?

What do you think the smallfolk who were rescued by Robb and his army when Gregor Clegane was pillaging their lands would think of the Red Wedding? 

In terms of small folk soldiers? I believe more than a few of them were conscripted into fighting, some fought because they wanted to be the next Robbert Baratheon and be a bad ass warrior and some to feed their families. Don't know how many actually  care that much about this idea of "northern sovereignty" considering what they'd consider home is their village not the abstract concept of the north the highborns yammer about. 

"Rescued"? You make it sound as though Robb's men treated all those in their custody that much more  humanely-when often times those smallfolk instead of being in a lion's den were put in a wolves den not. 

The smallfok who arrested for possibly being a threat were the biggest victims of Gregor   at the castle Gregor was in control of were treated far worse when the north took it over. 

You think any of the smallfolk were butcher and raped by people who were working for Robb care that much Robb Stark and other highborn pricks got killed at wedding?  You thSeriously, the war crimes Arya recounts at that castle are haunting much more a travesty than having killed some people while they were guests, 

 

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

What about the smallfolk that were killed during the Red Wedding?

They were armed soldiers.

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

The ones in Robb's army who fought for a cause they believed in

No they didnt. They had no choice in the matter, Robb and his noble buddies decided they wanted to go to war and the common soldiers were forced along, to die because Robb felt aggrieved that his father was arrested for a crime he actually did commit. 

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

and were killed while they were feasting outside the Castle?

By their fellow Northmen.  That is just poor leadership on Robb's part, in the middle of the war he allowed his men to be caught off guard. Same goes for Jaime and Stafford with their respective forces that were caught off guard. 

 

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

What do you think the smallfolk who were rescued by Robb and his army when Gregor Clegane was pillaging their lands would think of the Red Wedding? 

This is a huge misconception you have here. Robb did not rescue the smallfolk, he rescued the nobles. After Riverrun Edmure asked Robb to march on Harrenhal, effectively limiting, if not stopping outright the treatment of Small folk in the Riverlands. Robb rejected this and headed West to do to the Westerlands what Tywin did to the Riverlands. 

The smallfolk of the Riverlands often lump the Wolves and Lions together, the Northmen stationed in the Riverlands are raping and pillaging there as well. 

Robb has not saved any Riverland smallfolk, all he has done is prolonged the war and in turn prolonged their suffering. 

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

They were armed soldiers.

No they didnt. They had no choice in the matter, Robb and his noble buddies decided they wanted to go to war and the common soldiers were forced along, to die because Robb felt aggrieved that his father was arrested for a crime he actually did commit. 

By their fellow Northmen.  That is just poor leadership on Robb's part, in the middle of the war he allowed his men to be caught off guard. Same goes for Jaime and Stafford with their respective forces that were caught off guard. 

 

This is a huge misconception you have here. Robb did not rescue the smallfolk, he rescued the nobles. After Riverrun Edmure asked Robb to march on Harrenhal, effectively limiting, if not stopping outright the treatment of Small folk in the Riverlands. Robb rejected this and headed West to do to the Westerlands what Tywin did to the Riverlands. 

The smallfolk of the Riverlands often lump the Wolves and Lions together, the Northmen stationed in the Riverlands are raping and pillaging there as well. 

Robb has not saved any Riverland smallfolk, all he has done is prolonged the war and in turn prolonged their suffering. 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Seriously, people need to stark dick and recognize that the north acted no more nobley than the south, and that the red wedding is far from the worse thing anyone has done  on either side during the war.

To the people who weren't born this war seemed completely useless yet they were the main victims of it. Hell a lot of readers cheer for "northern independence" but I actually wonder do most not realize only less than one % of the north would even be benefit from that? Ans piss on the gods and their quite frankly arbitrary outrage. It's ok to eliminate entire families including its civilian members in what is called conquest just to satisfy one mans ego, but dare kill a guest? Worst thing imaginable! 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

Thank goodness for @The Fattest Leech, @Blackwater Revenant & @Ralphis Baratheon. I was beginning to think no one in this thread had a lick of sense. 

The books set out very clearly that to break guest right is an offense not to be taken lightly. As said before Walder had other choices. He didn't have to either join them or slaughter them under his own roof. 

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And Robb attacking and killing a neutral House is somehow not murder? Because he is a Stark?

Robb never attacked nor killed a neutral house so the point is moot. 

 

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Well Frey men had died for that agreement. Not one of Robb's battles was not won without Frey support on the battlefield and they supplied more men than any of his vassals gave him. Robb's war would have been over, all his glory came down to the agreement his mother made with the Freys, an agreement that was made in good faith. 

 

And if you really think like that then why should the Freys honour an agreement of guest rights when Robb has already betrayed them?

Robb betrayed the Freys first

Robb made an agreement he broke. Walder had many options that did not include breaking guest right. If Walder was right to slaughter guests under his roof after agreeing to an alliance with them then not only was Robb right to break his marriage pact to begin with but would have been right had he chose to destroy the Frey's in order to pass right? But that isn't how it is. Robb was wrong to break his marriage proposal. He did try to make amends though, amends old Walder agreed to. It doesn't matter "who started it" (I have to tell my children this all the time) both things are wrong. You are not justified in your "wrong" because someone else was wrong too. The RW went further & broke the ancient custom of guest right, angering the Gods. The author makes a very clear point about how important guest right is so whether you think Walder was in the right or not doesn't matter. According to the realm of Westeros & the author he was not. 

 

9 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

How Walder Frey handled Robert's rebellion is not different than how Tywin did it.  Both men played it safe like any person would do because it is a major deal to rebel against the iron throne.  They only picked a side when there was no other choice.  It's no simple matter when you're asked to rebel.  You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  It's survival.  No one talked about Tywin because they were afraid.  Hoster badmouthed Walder constantly because he could get away with it and did get away with it.

This really had nothing to do with Tywin but if you want to say it's unfair that poor Walder got talked about while Tywin didn't fine. I think if you were to compare the doings of Tywin to those of Walder you would understand why but either way it doesn't change the fact that the Frey's are not a house to be respected. 

 

9 hours ago, divica said:

They may be villains, but what were they supposed to do at the time of the red wedding?

Robb lost the war. They helped him with men and he betrayed them. The crown is going to take revenge on them for helping robb. So why would house frey suffer for robb that betrayed them first? And we can assume that with robb going north the riverlands ar lost, so the marriage with edmure is a shitty agreement.

Even if the red wedding is despicable if tywin wanted them to do it how could they refuse? So why not to try and take advantage of a bad situation?

Walder made a choice with the RW & will have to suffer the consequences. He could have done any number of things though. He could have pulled his army from Robb's & joined forces with Tywin, or he could have pulled his army & stayed out of it. Tywin would not turn away the allegiance of the Frey's during wartime simply because they refused to the RW. 

If the marriage to Edmure is a shitty agreement then Walder shouldn't have agreed to it. Robb needed his army. He could have asked for anything he wanted & refused anything offered if he wanted. He chose to feel spurned & slaughter guests under his own roof. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

They were armed soldiers

Except they weren't armed remember? None of them even had a weapon to defend themselves with. 

 

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No they didnt. They had no choice in the matter, Robb and his noble buddies decided they wanted to go to war and the common soldiers were forced along, to die because Robb felt aggrieved that his father was arrested for a crime he actually did commit. 

Show me where in the book it says the small folk didn't believe in Robb's cause & were forced into it. 

His father was arrested & charged with being a traitor. Since we all know what he was saying was legit & true he did not commit this crime. He was arrested, accused, & executed falsely. 

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Thank goodness for @The Fattest Leech, @Blackwater Revenant & @Ralphis Baratheon. I was beginning to think no one in this thread had a lick of sense. 

lol ok. People who only agree with you have sense, the others don't. Why even engage in this conversation if you automatically think the people who disagree with you are stupid? Pretty condescending attitude to have in life. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The books set out very clearly that to break guest right is an offense not to be taken lightly. As said before Walder had other choices. He didn't have to either join them or slaughter them under his own roof. 

His choices were limited. And he wanted revenge for the death of his heir, for the death of all the Frey men who died for Robb's lie. And he wanted to be able to do it while he was still alive and Walder is not long for this world.

Walder, like Robb, was desperate for revenge. He did not have many options to see Robb dead. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Robb never attacked nor killed a neutral house so the point is moot. 

eh? How is the point moot when the point I made (and it was I who made the point, so give me the good grace to know what point I was actually making) was that Robb and his generals were more than prepared to destroy the Twins for merely being in their way of the most convenient route. 

Doing this is also shit behaviour, no one claimed it was worse or even equal to the red wedding, just pointed out that Robb and the Northmen were more than willing to do something shitty to a House full of women and children all for the crime of being neutral. 

It appears many of you Stark fans are more than happy to abandon the outrage when it is the Northern side acting the aggressor.;

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Robb made an agreement he broke.

After spending the price. If I make an agreement to buy a car, take car, smash said car and then say "oops, I don't feel like paying for it now" then off course the car owner is going to want revenge. 

You, and others, seem to downplay just what Robb did. Men died for Robb's broken promise. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Walder had many options that did not include breaking guest right.

He had some options. He did not have many. The Twins and the Freys are stuck in the middle of Robb's adjoining kingdoms, and Robb had shown a willingness to destroy the Twins in the past. Walder also had to get Tywin on side, as look what happened to the Tullys, and the Freys had done more damage to the Westerlands than any other Riverland House. 

And he wanted Robb dead. His options were not that great, they were sorely limited. Like Robb when he married Jeyne, Walde was prepared to sacrifice his honour for what he wanted. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

If Walder was right to slaughter guests under his roof after agreeing to an alliance with them

Has anyone claimed he was right? I certainly have not, I don't think any of these nobles have the right to do the shitty things they do. I can explain why they do it, but I've been pretty clear, they are all as bad as each other. As fun as the feudal times is to read about (both real and imaginary) it is not a society I think is 'right'. 

 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

then not only was Robb right to break his marriage pact to begin with but would have been right had he chose to destroy the Frey's in order to pass right?

This is a strawman argument. This is often what happens in these conversations. Peope stop reading and responding to what is being said and revert to what they understand in their heads and what the echo chamber is telling them is right. 

I'm not saying Walder was right to kill people, he was not. But I do think that he did not have to honour any future agreement he made with Robb as Robb had already proven to not be a man of his word. Robb has shown that he had little trouble breaking his word even after having acccepted and spent the payment the Freys gave him in good faith. 

 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But that isn't how it is. Robb was wrong to break his marriage proposal. He did try to make amends though,

Sure. Not out of respect, out of desperation. 

"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."

Robb is entirely dependent on the Freys, that and only that, is the reason he is willing to deal with them from weakness. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

amends old Walder agreed to. It doesn't matter "who started it" (I have to tell my children this all the time) both things are wrong.

That does not seem to be the case here as you have not said shit about the men that died fighting for Robb lie to Walder? All you seem upset about is the men who died over Walder's lie. 

I'm sorry, but maybe you would not need to explain this all the time if you did not assume one was automatically right, as you seem to be doing here. 

Both Walder and Robb broke a promise to each other, both are bad and yet you only seem to be commenting on the Walder's lie. It is called an agenda. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

You are not justified in your "wrong" because someone else was wrong too. The RW went further & broke the ancient custom of guest right, angering the Gods.

Sure it did. Jaime is not being punished because he chose to cuckold the king, was outsmarted by Robb and was captured, it is because he angered the gods with his Kingslaying 20 years ago. 

Tyrion commited Kinslaying, the gods seem to have rewarded him with his life, poor old Connington seems to have done nothing wrong and now he has been cursed with Greyscale.

The gods are fickle lazy bitches, many who commit crimes against these gods go unpunished.

 

I'm sorry but if your reasoning is that imaginary gods in an imaginary universe dictate which side is right or wrong then naturally I am not going to take agree with it. That is just me, I don't really take heed from the imaginary gods in our own world, I'm certainly not going to take one from a fictional one any more seriously.

 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

The author makes a very clear point about how important guest right is so whether you think Walder was in the right or not doesn't matter. According to the realm of Westeros & the author he was not. 

Has anyone claimed that guest rights are not important? 

 

 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I think if you were to compare the doings of Tywin to those of Walder you would understand why but either way it doesn't change the fact that the Frey's are not a house to be respected. 

Of course they are. They have risen to be the most powerful vassal House of the Riverlands through hard work. They started out as nothing and risen and risen. 

For me they are like an analogy of early America, disrespected by the European superpowers (Riverand Houses) for their lack of history while growing stronger and more influential from generation to generation. 

There is a lot to respect about House Frey. There is also a lot to dislike, but the idea that they are not worthy of respect is ridiculous, you only have to look at how desperate Robb was when lost them or look at the many great marriage alliances Walder Frey and his offspring have made.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Walder made a choice with the RW & will have to suffer the consequences.

I bet you he does not. I imagine he dies in his sleep given his age and that it is now winter. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

He could have done any number of things though.

How many? Name all his possibilities and we will discuss the pros and cons of each one. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

He could have pulled his army from Robb's & joined forces with Tywin,

He would have had to abandon the Twins to do that, surely you can see why that is a pretty dumb idea. Robb still has around 20k soldiers in the Riverlands. They are not just going to let him pass.  

And why would Tywin need him when he has just gained 60k Reach men and the Stormlands has sued for peace. His only bargaining chip with Tywin was to end Robb before he got North. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

or he could have pulled his army & stayed out of it. Tywin would not turn away the allegiance of the Frey's during wartime simply because they refused to the RW. 

No, but they may have still got punished. When Robb went to pay the Westerlands "back in kind" it was with 5,000 Northern soldiers and 1,000 Frey soldiers. After Stark, no other House had more men in the Westerlands causing chaos. If Tywin was not pissed with this, many of his vassals would have been, they would have expected repercussions. 

Plus had Walder not opened his gates Jaime would never have been captured, lost his hand, Stafford, Martyn and Cleos not killed. These are all details that would not be forgotten when the Freys start begging forgiveness for costing the Westerlands thousands of men.

And of course whether Tywin did forgive without punishment is not the question, Walder and the Freys would be naturally worried given Tywin's reputation. They'd want to make sure they pleased him.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If the marriage to Edmure is a shitty agreement then Walder shouldn't have agreed to it.

Why not? Robb had already proven that you can lie about accepting marriage agreements. 

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Robb needed his army. He could have asked for anything he wanted & refused anything offered if he wanted. He chose to feel spurned & slaughter guests under his own roof. 

Well yeah, in a better world the 50 or so guests that died under the Twins would have surrendered, but there was never much chance of that so many died. Shitty, but Walder, like Robb, was motivated by his need for vengeance.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

 

6 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Google "false dichotomy". "Support them" and "murder them under your own roof" were not the only two options before Lord Walder.

Meh, yeah they couldn't have gone to battle and lost a lot more men and resources or bunker down (and probably face a siege from Robb) in the twins having gained nothing for their losses all while it looks more apparent the Lanisters winning the war and who offering them a way to give them everything they want . So yeah murdering them or supporting them were they're only viable options. The latter  guaranteed the Freys the most secure way to have profit while enacting retribution against the house that dishonored. I I won't argue such a thing was a courageous act but can't exactly find the level of outrage a lot of fans have of it considering during the war both sides did far worse, the only difference being it being mainly on the smallfolk.  

[Bernie Mac]

53 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Except they weren't armed remember? None of them even had a weapon to defend themselves with. 

eh? Which small folk are you talking about here?

53 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

Show me where in the book it says the small folk didn't believe in Robb's cause & were forced into it. 

When were they ever consulted? 

Jorah puts it best when he namechecks the book 

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends," Ser Jorah told her. "It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace." He gave a shrug. "They never are."

We even see how this is viewed in the North when the person from the liddle clan is not exactly happy with Robb's abandonment of his people

"It was different when there was a Stark in Winterfell. But the old wolf's dead and young one's gone south to play the game of thrones, and all that's left us is the ghosts."

And of course come the Red Wedding half of the Northern army would rather see Robb dead than alive.

53 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

His father was arrested & charged with being a traitor. Since we all know what he was saying was legit & true he did not commit this crime. He was arrested, accused, & executed falsely. 

He was arrested for treason and he committed treason. When he falsified the Kings last Will and Testament he committed treason. Whether you like it or not, Ned did commit the crime he was arrested for. So Robb going to war because he refused to beleuve his father could commit such a crime is bullshit. 

And yeah, he also bribed the Gold Cloaks to arrest the Royal Family. He did not inform them his reasons, he just tried to bribe them.