House Frey should be respected

[Sigella]

Just now, Bernie Mac said:

Fundamentalist mormon cult? Can you expand on that? House Frey is the books is ruled like any other Noble House. 

Shit, had Robert lived to Walder's age he would have had more children. Is it such a crime that Walder is healthy? That he would rather have legitimate children and provide for them rather than fuck a lot of random peasants and have nothing to do with the children?

No other House is as over-populated.

Over-populating is dangerous, having too many heirs is just as bad as too few (legal children are treated better than bastards and have claims but they also weigh their Houses down financially and socially if overly-numerous.)

Given the mentality Frey's on page demonstrate (wishing each other dead, everybody wanting to be lord of the crossing) its a surprise they haven't self-destructed on their own, though. If the BwB hadn't hanged that drunk guy who was forced to eat shit I could easily see him going postal on them.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Robert a good deal too. But it seems rather obvious that its morally worse for an old creep to marry young girls and breed on them until they die, than sleeping around with table wenches who are up for it. Do you really think Walders kids by his 7th dead wife live better lives than Gendry or Mya Stone? Walder started out saying it was hard to find marriages for his offspring. I imagine its no better now.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Come on, how can you say not at all when you are claiming the people in this thread you don't agree with our speaking nonsense just because you don't understand their argument. 

Sure it was. He was able to justify his actions to House Frey. He, like Robb, was righteous in his desire for revenge, as well as self preservation, so easily was able to justify his actions to both himself and his vassals. Coming up with reasons to justify his actions is easy. As is coming up with reasons why it was wrong, but I am going to assume everyone on both sides of this discussion is already familiar with the cons on this one.

What seems to be overlooked is that it was not just a case of just Walder being angry, they all were as we saw from their reactions with Robb in the Westerlands and the Freys at Riverrun

Something else was wrong as well. On the day her brother returned, a few hours after their argument, she had heard angry voices from the yard below. When she climbed to the roof to see, there were knots of men gathered across the castle beside the main gate. Horses were being led from the stables, saddled and bridled, and there was shouting, though Catelyn was too far away to make out the words. One of Robb's white banners lay on the ground, and one of the knights turned his horse and trampled over the direwolf as he spurred toward the gate. Several others did the same. Those are men who fought with Edmure on the fords, she thought. What could have made them so angry? Has my brother slighted them somehow, given them some insult? She thought she recognized Ser Perwyn Frey, who had traveled with her to Bitterbridge and Storm's End and back, and his bastard half brother Martyn Rivers as well, but from this vantage it was hard to be certain.

It should be noted that Perwyn was one of the Freys who abstained from the Red Wedding and even his reaction was outrage. The Freys were justifiably pissed off. 

Yeah, this is pretty common with nobles in Westeros. Both protagonists and antagonists alike in the noble world share this characteristic. Even Robb allows his vengeance to guide him over common sense. 

Thanks to Robb's lies Walder would have been down around 1,000 men and been stuck in the middle Robb's two kingdoms. It would have been idiotic to declare war on Robb in that situation as he would not be able to do anything about it. 

Though were do you draw the line? Surely attacking sleeping green boys is also cowardice of sorts, right? Why can't Robb attack an enemy that is awake?

All the while, their cousin Ser Stafford would be training and arming the new host he'd raised at Casterly Rock.

Robb is not using cowardice here, he is attacking an enemy before they are trained and armed, and doing so at night because he wants as many advantages as possible. Depending on your definition of honour in war Robb's actions could also be described as cheating and cowardice. Walder just followed the same, bending the rules even more so to get as many advantages as he could. War is about winning with as few casualties as possible. 

How is it moot? Please don't condescend people telling them points they made are moot. 

My point had nothing to do with it having happened, if you came to that conclusion reading my responses then I am sorry, but the fault lies in your reading comprehension. not with the point I made. 

Robb and his generals were more than prepared to do it, to do it to an neutral faction all for being in their way. Talking about what is fair and what is not fair it is always best to look at what these commanders on both sides are willing to do before spouting off how one side is 'bad'. 

Rather than admit that what Robb was prepared to do was wrong, you instead want to silence the converstion. Funny how all the people you claim lack sense can call Walder's actions as bad, but you can't seem to do the same for Robb. 

Is anyone here arguing that Walder is good a person?

Of course you can. When Bronn told Tyrion he would kill a child for the right price did you not judge him?  Do you judge Tarly for threatening to kill Sam?

Of course you can evaluate someone on what they were more than willing to do, especially if the only thing stopping was outside forces rather than their own conscious. 

 

Yeah, he did. He sent two thousand six hundred Frey infantry to fight at the battle of the Green Ford,, around 1/5th of them died, he would have had Frey casualties with him in every single one of his victories. Walder lost his heir Stevron and great grandson was murdered while Robb held him prisoner. 

House Frey had sacrificed a lot for Robb's broken promise. He not only drove the car, but fucked it up and in Walder's eyes possibly beyond repair

His father was querulous and stubborn, with an iron will and a wasp's tongue, but he did believe in taking care of his own. All of his own, even the ones who had displeased and disappointed him. Even the ones whose names he can't remember. Once he was gone, though . . .

When Ser Stevron had been heir, that was one thing. The old man had been grooming Stevron for sixty years, and had pounded it into his head that blood was blood. But Stevron had died whilst campaigning with the Young Wolf in the west

Robb is angry over the death of his father and wants revenge and is willing to risk everything to get it

He is playing the boy now, not the king. "The Lannisters do not need the north. They will require homage and hostages, no more . . . and the Imp will keep Sansa no matter what we do, so they have their hostage. The ironmen will prove a more implacable enemy, I promise you. To have any hope of holding the north, the Greyjoys must leave no single sprig of House Stark alive to dispute their right. Theon's murdered Bran and Rickon, so now all they need do is kill you . . . and Jeyne, yes. Do you think Lord Balon can afford to let her live to bear you heirs?"

Robb's face was cold. "Is that why you freed the Kingslayer? To make a peace with the Lannisters?"

"I freed Jaime for Sansa's sake . . . and Arya's, if she still lives. You know that. But if I nurtured some hope of buying peace as well, was that so ill?"

"Yes," he said. "The Lannisters killed my father."

 

Is it such a shock when others will make similar risks to get revenge as well? Or is it only Starks who are allowed to feel they have been wronged in this series?

But the soldiers who died for that promise remain dead. 

There is no making whole again. 

Why not? Why would Walder not want Robb to die in compensation for the Freys who lost their lives because he agreed to side with Robb?

It is clear from Robb's greeting at the Twins that Walder was not happy with just an apology

She fell off her horse and cracked her head. What would Your Grace do if Petyr had broken his neck, heh? Give me another apology in place of a grandson? No, no, no.

I suspect from Walder and the Freys reaction that an apology was never going to cut it, Robb should have gauged that from Walder Rivers negotiations at Riverrun. 

Yeah, it does. But as I said before, I am happy for you list all of Walder's options and we can go over the pros, cons and feasibility of each one. 

Sure. Same can be said of Robb, right? His treachery to the Freys and the prisoners show that Robb too was treacherous. 

They did not slaughter a whole wedding party, many inside the castle were taken prisoner while the soldiers outside were not part of the wedding party, they were never offered guest rights. 

But yeah, even the 50 or so people that were killed is wrong, but then I kind of think that about many of the actions in this series. The whole time period was a time of overkill. 

How do you figure that? Who do they go and ask what a fair punishment is for Robb's crime?

In this thread? Who?

Robb had already took payment for the first marriage. Robb had betrayed first, why would Walder care about betraying someone who had already fucked him over?

You are acting like Walder's losses were far less than they were. 

Well that is pretty dumb. They are the post powerful House in the neighbouring Kingdom of the North, they are the most Northernmost Riverland House and seem to control a lot of trade going North and South. It would be idiotic for the Lord of the North to not want to make an ally of Lord of the Twins, same goes for the Lord of the Riverlands deliberately making jest of his most powerful vassal. 

I, frankly, find it bizarre how any Lord of the North could be so shortsighted about such a matter.

Is that really an argument? Up until his betrayal the Freys were fighting and dying for him. 

Because most of your posts are stating how Robb did nothing wrong. Maybe reread your own content to understand why people are saying what they are to you. 

What are you going on about? What punishment fits the crime? There is not some lawbook with the specific action Robb has done and with a specific punishment to go along with it. 

 

lol that is how religions are started in the first place. By coincidences being credited to the Gods. 

Many people in Westeros get a shit hand in life and suffer and it has nothing do with the Gods, similarly some people get what they deserve (and I agree, the Freys do deserve some kind of retribution) but if that happens that is not evidence the gods in Westeros exist. 

Hell look at how the BC died in in AFoC, besides Hoat they're exit wasn't particulary bad. Stabbed quickly,and died quickly or relatively soon after, hung ect. They have done things far worse than breaking some guest right and I'm pretty sure that too. Hell noseless had been raping and literally eating silent sisters and robbing temples for months but for his great disrespect toward the gods....he was stabbed in through the head. 

This is why I agree with Stannis that only really men can exact justice. 

I think they are, but then I think not attacking sleeping enemies is also important, I think honouring your promises is important. You misunderstood me thinking that Guest Rights and Guest Rights alone is important because some imaginary fellows in the sky said it was so. 

I think you have definitely oversimplified every argument made on this page with that paragraph. you can admit that right?

 

The situation is obviously far more complicated than that and that is why people are defending Walder's position and actions in a world that sees slightly worse acions sanctioned by the gods be accepted  by the fandom.  

 

 

[RhaegoTheUnborn]

5 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There's a reason why Guest Right is important, and it goes way beyond just religious reasons. There needs to be some level of trust in alliances, or the entire political system falls apart. Obviously, if a house recently slaughtered all their guests at a wedding, then people are unlikely to rush into marriage contracts or alliances with them in the future. No-one is now going to trust the Freys, and they have made themselves the most reviled house in Westros.

  Exactly, shame with all of Georges writing and the world building he accomplished in these novels, more people don't realize how important things like Guest Right is in this setting.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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. 

Doesn't change the fact they were killed during the Red Wedding by who they thought were their allies under a banner of peace.

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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.

Gregor and his goons are the ones who started the invasion of the Riverlands. Robb and Edmure were doing their best to stop them. Should they have just let Gregor and his men continue pillaging the Riverlands? 

Catelyn took a high born noble hostage and Tywin sent Gregor to pillage nobles and smallfolk alike. He's the one who brought the smallfolk into it. So if your championing the smallfolk Tywin and Gregor should be the first to blame as they were the ones who brought them into the war first. Robb and his men were reacting to their actions.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

They were armed soldiers

They were feasting and drinking with who they thought were allies, not running combats drills. Big difference.

13 hours 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. 

So you know for a fact that every smallfolk soldier who fought for Robb was forced to join his army under duress? That none of them wanted to fight for the Starks because they thought they were good lords? Or because they thought they could gain wealth and fame fighting in the South? You'd think he'd have more deserters. 

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

By their fellow Northmen.  

 Walder Rivers, Garse Goodbrook and  Tytos Frey all participated in ambushing the soldier's camps. So it was not just "their fellow Northmen" It also happened on Frey land with their consent.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is just poor leadership on Robb's part, in the middle of the war he allowed his men to be caught off guard.

Again, they were celebrating a wedding feast between two allied Houses. When Ned and Jon Arryn married the Tullys do you think all their men were on guard with weapons in hand staring at the Tully soldiers waiting for them to make a move? No, because that in itself could be seen as a act of aggression. They were ambushed as planned by the Freys. The Red Wedding is not considering a military victory by the Freys/Boltons.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Same goes for Jaime and Stafford with their respective forces that were caught off guard.

These were counted as military loses for Jaime(Battle of the Whispering Woods) and Stafford (Battle of Oxcross). They have the word "batttle" in their title. The Red Wedding has the word "wedding" in it, pretty big difference. Unless you believe the Freys when they said Robb and his men turned into a wolves and started eating people.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

This is a huge misconception you have here. Robb did not rescue the smallfolk, he rescued the nobles. 

By rescuing the Riverlords Robb in turn rescued the smallfolk. For instance Robb rescued Edmure who in turn took in smallfolk at Riverrun.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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

Tell that to all the smallfolk that were living in Riverrun. Had Robb not come down and rescued Edmure from Jaime's armies he never would have been in the position to care for them in Riverrun. Again, the Westerlands invaded the Riverlands and showed no signs of leaving. Should Robb have just stayed North while Riverrun was taken by Jaime? The people of the Riverlands were suffering long before Robb came South, just ask the smallfolk of Sherrer.

12 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

He was arrested for treason and he committed treason. When he falsified the Kings last Will and Testament he committed treason.

You mean the Last Will that Cersei ripped up seconds after Barristan handed it to her? Cersei and everybody else had no idea Ned falsified the Will. They arrested him for claiming Joff and his siblings are not true heirs to the Throne. It has nothing to do with the paper shield that Cersei ripped to pieces. 

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The books set out very clearly that to break guest right is an offense not to be taken lightly.

Yes. The author goes to great lengths for us to realize this. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

44 minutes ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Doesn't change the fact they were killed during the Red Wedding by who they thought were their allies under a banner of peace.

And? You asked what I thought of the soldiers that were small folk with the clear implication of trying to trying to frame Robb's rebellion of something that was being fought for the little guy. It really wasn't, the rebellion wouldn't have done really anything to better the lives of anyone who was not of nobility in the north, the serfs who toil their lord's land won't have been given more ability fo move up from their station in life by virtue of their lord paying to a stark king rather than a Laninster.

Gregor and his goons are the ones who started the invasion of the Riverlands. Robb and Edmure were doing their best to stop them. Should they have just let Gregor and his men continue pillaging the Riverlands? 

Yes, I'm sure the smallfolk being tortured and brutalizied, and robbed and raped by Robb's there are so much happier now that a northern highborn prick is doing rather than a southern highborn prick.

Catelyn took a high born noble hostage and Tywin sent Gregor to pillage nobles and smallfolk alike. He's the one who brought the smallfolk into it. So if your championing the smallfolk Tywin and Gregor should be the first to blame as they were the ones who brought them into the war first. Robb and his men were reacting to their actions.

No side is championing the smallfolk! They're both acting egregiously to the small folk, and neither side cares about really doing anything other than upping the other. Robb acted no more better to them than Tywin did. 

 

[Rosetta Stone]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No side is championing the smallfolk! They're both acting egregiously to the small folk, and neither side cares about really doing anything other than upping the other. Robb acted no more better to them than Tywin did. 

The lesser houses and the smallfolk suffer the most when the great lords start their wars.  It's better to get rid of the great houses and just have the lords answer directly to the crown's small council.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, Rosetta Stone said:

The lesser houses and the smallfolk suffer the most when the great lords start their wars.  It's better to get rid of the great houses and just have the lords answer directly to the crown's small council.

And for what do they suffer for? So Robb could play the dutiful son and avenge ned and have a ugly crown placed on his head? So the major houses in the north can have their egos boosted having beaten the south? What actual good can this war have accomplished in the first place?

[Rosetta Stone]

5 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

There is a reason the present Freys have been reviled for their entire existence. Because their conduct deserved it. Even if the Freys were mere pawns in a plan cooked up by Tywin and Roose, they went it anyways because they lack any principles whatsoever. And both Tywin and Roose knew they would. I'm not sure there's anything worthy of respect here.

Most of the houses haven't actually done anything worthy of respect.  Let's use the Starks for example.  Robb breaks his vows.  Sansa lies.  Sansa is guilty of poisoning the only person in the world who loves her.  Arya is a cold blooded murderer.  Jon is an oathbreaker.  Bran mind rapes his best buddy.  How about the Lannisters.  Cersei and Jaime cuckolded their king.  Jaime crippled an innocent boy.  Jaime murdered the person he was supposed to guard.  Cersei murdered her childhood friend.  Tyrion killed his father in the toilet.  The Baratheons.  Robert is a wife beater.  Robert beggared the country.  Stannis sent a shadow assassin to murder his brother.  The Freys look good when you look closely and make an honest comparison.  I'm not claiming House Frey are all good people.  I'm saying the other houses are no better.

[Rosetta Stone]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And for what do they suffer for? So Robb could play the dutiful son and avenge ned and have a ugly crown placed on his head? So the major houses in the north can have their egos boosted having beaten the south? What actual good can this war have accomplished in the first place?

None.  Ned Stark admitted to treason and unless there is evidence to prove that he didn't Robb rode south to defend a guilty man in the eyes of many.   Ned's guilt wouldn't matter to the Starks, in my opinion.  They would have started a war even if Ned was guilty of treason.  No good could have come from this war. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Rosetta Stone said:

Most of the houses haven't actually done anything worthy of respect.  Let's use the Starks for example.  Robb breaks his vows.  Sansa lies.  Sansa is guilty of poisoning the only person in the world who loves her.  Arya is a cold blooded murderer.  Jon is an oathbreaker.  Bran mind rapes his best buddy.  How about the Lannisters.  Cersei and Jaime cuckolded their king.  Jaime crippled an innocent boy.  Jaime murdered the person he was supposed to guard.  Cersei murdered her childhood friend.  Tyrion killed his father in the toilet.  The Baratheons.  Robert is a wife beater.  Robert beggared the country.  Stannis sent a shadow assassin to murder his brother.  The Freys look good when you look closely and make an honest comparison.  I'm not claiming House Frey are all good people.  I'm saying the other houses are no better.

Ok last comment today because it's Christmas. Really, most of the nobles in the south and north  aren't that much better than the Freys. All of them think their grievances are the biggest thing ever, they are more than willing to screw people who have nothing to do with they're grudge in their pursuit of vengeance, they don't think about the women who are raped during the war, the peasant boys who they conscript who die cold and pain, or the little people's whose lives are destroyed. They're all a bunch of self-centered, entitled assholes. With the exception of Edmure.  The Freys were loyal they would've continued to be loyal till the last member of their house because Robb was promising them something no one else could give.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And? You asked what I thought of the soldiers that were small folk with the clear implication of trying to trying to frame Robb's rebellion of something that was being fought for the little guy.

No I didn't. Go back and read my original comment. You mentioned how the smallfolk get no attention for the crimes committed against them. Then you went on to say you roll your eyes at people who remark about the Red Wedding being a travesty, and compared to what other atrocities that happened during the war it wouldn't rank in the top ten. Which I figured meant said top ten atrocities included the abuse against smallfolk. Rolling your eyes at the travesty of the Red Wedding is rolling your eyes at the deaths of hundreds of nobles and smallfolk, tricked, ambushed and killed by men who they thought were allies.

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It really wasn't, the rebellion wouldn't have done really anything to better the lives of anyone who was not of nobility in the north, the serfs who toil their lord's land won't have been given more ability fo move up from their station in life by virtue of their lord paying to a stark king rather than a Laninster.

Well the smallfolk in the Riverlands weren't moving up anyhow because Tywin's men had been raping and pillaging the lands they live on since Tywin sent them there before the North was ever even involved in the conflict.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, I'm sure the smallfolk being tortured and brutalizied, and robbed and raped by Robb's there are so much happier now that a northern highborn prick is doing rather than a southern highborn prick.

Tywin sent Gregor and his men into the Riverlands with the orders to raid the Riverlands, that included smallfolk! He wanted them to do it so Ned Stark would ride out and try to captured Gregor.  Edmure sent his forces to defend the Riverlands against Tywin's forces to protect his people, both nobles and the smallfolk who live in their domain that were victims of Clegane's savagery. The Brotherhood without Banners actually run into smallfolk in the Riverlands that talk about how they were victims of the Lannister pillaging.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No side is championing the smallfolk!

I meant you. If you Varysblackfyre are championing the smallfolk in this discussion Tywin should be the first to receive blame as he was the one who sent his men to attack and pillage the smallfolk of the Riverlands. Up until then it was only nobles scheming, fighting and kid napping other nobles.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Robb acted no more better to them than Tywin did.

Robb reacted to Tywin's actions and came to the defense of the Riverlords when they were being crushed by the Lannisters. He was a lord from another Kingdom yet saved Riverlords and their smallfolk from the Lannisters raids. He never ordered his men to rape and kill like Tywin does. Granted Roose's men who hand't turned on Robb might have but that was without his permission or knowledge. 

To say Robb treated the smallfolk of the Riverlands as bad as Tywin did is a false statement. Robb never ordered men to attack smallfolk in the Riverlands. Tywin did.

[The Sunland Lord]

The Faith wants Walder to answer for the Red Wedding and if Tywin was alive I'm sure he would have to throw someone at them as a scapegoat. It was that serious.

Even at Cersei's small council of disciples everyone acted like nothing happened except for Qyburn who thought that people are so vocal about it that it must be shared among the SC members as an issue.

The Freys are unwanted by everyone and I do not doubt that they are toast in next books. 

[Adam Yozza]

12 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The Faith wants Walder to answer for the Red Wedding and if Tywin was alive I'm sure he would have to throw someone at them as a scapegoat. It was that serious.

Even at Cersei's small council of disciples everyone acted like nothing happened except for Qyburn who thought that people are so vocal about it that it must be shared among the SC members as an issue.

The Freys are unwanted by everyone and I do not doubt that they are toast in next books. 

Essentially this. The author goes out of his way to spell out the fact that the Frey's and their actions at the Red Wedding are thought of as despicable not just by the North and the Riverlords but by the rest of the realm as well. Most of the Frey's weren't portrayed very kindly even before the RW never mind after. It honestly baffles me that there are some people who will still defend them and try to justify the Red Wedding when the author makes it so clear that it is an atrocity and that we aren't meant to agree with the Frey's.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

No I didn't. Go back and read my original comment. You mentioned how the smallfolk get no attention for the crimes committed against them. Then you went on to say you roll your eyes at people who remark about the Red Wedding being a travesty( How much a tragedy* People exaggerate is what I what I was saying), and compared to what other atrocities that happened during the war it wouldn't rank in the top ten. Which I figured meant said top ten atrocities included the abuse against smallfolk. Rolling your eyes at the travesty of the Red Wedding is rolling your eyes at the deaths of hundreds of nobles and smallfolk, tricked, ambushed and killed by men who they thought were allies.

First thousands died. Second Meh I have to take heed from Bernie mack and point out these soldiers. Soldiers who were woefully unprepared sure but still them being caught unawares and slaughtered in a military ambush at time they thought were safe is certainly sad, but this war has plenty of actual civilian casualties a most of which were deliberate I don't consider the red wedding that much bad in comparison. And to be clear even the army doesn't actually get attention. It's the noble guests who were massacred who get the focus, hell even Tyrion (who is a pretty keen  dude most of the time), doesn't point the actual casualties of the incident when Tywin said it was better for a few dozen to die rather than thousands.

 

Well the smallfolk in the Riverlands weren't moving up anyhow because Tywin's men had been raping and pillaging the lands they live on since Tywin sent them there before the North was ever even involved in the conflict.

They were never going to move up in the first place. They'd toil the land like they're anchestores have been doing for thousands of years before them and like they're descendents will long after they're dead.

Tywin sent Gregor and his men into the Riverlands with the orders to raid the Riverlands, that included smallfolk! He wanted them to do it so Ned Stark would ride out and try to captured Gregor.  Edmure sent his forces to defend the Riverlands against Tywin's forces to protect his people, both nobles and the smallfolk who live in their domain that were victims of Clegane's savagery.

The Brotherhood without Banners actually run into smallfolk in the Riverlands that talk about how they were victims of the Lannister pillaging.

And Robb chastized Edmure for not following Robb's orders of holding back and allowing the mountain to continue to rape and pillage the the Riverlands because he needed to do so in order to trap the Laninsters.  Meaning he was very willingness to throw the small folk under the bus for strategic gain.The BWB make very clear it's not just lions who've been praying upon the common people. 

I meant you. If you Varysblackfyre are championing the smallfolk in this discussion Tywin should be the first to receive blame as he was the one who sent his men to attack and pillage the smallfolk of the Riverlands. Up until then it was only nobles scheming, fighting and kid napping other nobles.

How about instead of acting like one side acted like the devil incarnate and focus soley and utterly on them 100% I hold both sides accountble for their actions? Like I have been doing. The problem seems to be however not that I'm ignoring Tywin's immoral behavior during the war(when I've said multiple times both sides acted horrifically to the small folk) , it's that I'm pointing out how  the Northtern's elites acted immorally as well. Look I don't care if Robb's people started beating up the small folk or Tywin's did, they're both dicks for doing it in the first place and one having done so second doesn't make him less to blame for their actions.

Robb reacted to Tywin's actions and came to the defense of the Riverlords when they were being crushed by the Lannisters. He was a lord from another Kingdom yet saved Riverlords and their smallfolk from the Lannisters raids.

He never ordered his men to rape and kill like Tywin does. Granted Roose's men who hand't turned on Robb might have but that was without his permission or knowledge. 

The raids and pillaging that was being done by the BC who had become under the banner of the wolf wasn't some secret. Robb didn't care since they benefited his war effortt. The  Iron born could have taken every woman from the westerlands and burned every one of its villages. Robb would approve of their barbarous methods so long as the end result makes him more likely to win his war. By the time of RW he had basically lost the war but he refused peace, not because he cared about all the little people under him who've been brutalized by the south,but because he still wants vengeance for Ned's excution. 

To say Robb treated the smallfolk of the Riverlands as bad as Tywin did is a false statement. Robb never ordered men to attack smallfolk in the Riverlands. Tywin did.

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Essentially this. The author goes out of his way to spell out the fact that the Frey's and their actions at the Red Wedding are thought of as despicable not just by the North and the Riverlords but by the rest of the realm as well. Most of the Frey's weren't portrayed very kindly even before the RW never mind after. It honestly baffles me that there are some people who will still defend them and try to justify the Red Wedding when the author makes it so clear that it is an atrocity and that we aren't meant to agree with the Frey's.

We're meant to decide for ourselves on who is right or wrong. ASOIAF isn't LOTR where every action is clearly set up as either good or evil, that the bad guys do bad because they do bad things because they're the bad guys and there's never ever a not super heinous reason for whatever seemingly  bad action they do. Like them or not the Freys were being screwed by Robb bigly their men and kin (hell Walder's heir),died for Robb because Robb had promised them his hand, the red wedding is really the only feasible way to get vegence as well as secure their house's status for when Robb finally loses and have to deal with the Lanister's fury. A lot of them can be a despicable lot but their reasons for doing this are more than they're the bad guys. I find it weird how so many people want to turn everything involving the Starks one of black and white where the Starks are the unequivocal good good guys and their opponents the definitive bad guy.  And to be clear we're shown plenty of things being seen socially acceptable in this story that would jibe with many of are modern sensibilities that endorsed by even the most popular characters.

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 12/22/2017 at 0:47 PM, Frey Kings said:

They rose from nothing and didn't owe anyone blind allegiance. No legendary or historic roots like some other great houses in Westeros. But they should be proud that a commoner was able to rise to royalty and the the rest of the royalty class didn't accept them and continue to spit on them!!! Sure there are some bad apples but when you are sh_tted on for your entire existence what else would you expect?

 

Here's to House Frey!!! 

The negative criticisms of the Freys came from Hoster Tully and you know that is because Walder arrived late in battle.  We don't know the reason for Walder's lateness.  He could have had a good reason.  What we know is this.  Walder was on time for Robb.  The Freys fought bravely for Robb.  They didn't give any bullshit excuses they just did what they agreed to do. 

On 12/22/2017 at 10:52 PM, 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. 

We have no idea what circumstances led to Walder arriving late after the battle of trident.  The Tullys just assumed he did it on purpose.  And Robb was not a king but only a rebel who was hoping to become king.  Walder is touchy but so are the Starks.  Would you say Tywin is touchy too?  I think so.  Stannis?  Yes.  All of the nobles are touchy about their honor.  All of them are easy to insult.  That's not a trait exclusive to the Freys.

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

16 hours ago, Sigella said:

No other House is as over-populated.

Over-populating is dangerous, having too many heirs is just as bad as too few (legal children are treated better than bastards and have claims but they also weigh their Houses down financially and socially if overly-numerous.)

Given the mentality Frey's on page demonstrate (wishing each other dead, everybody wanting to be lord of the crossing) its a surprise they haven't self-destructed on their own, though. If the BwB hadn't hanged that drunk guy who was forced to eat shit I could easily see him going postal on them.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Robert a good deal too. But it seems rather obvious that its morally worse for an old creep to marry young girls and breed on them until they die, than sleeping around with table wenches who are up for it. Do you really think Walders kids by his 7th dead wife live better lives than Gendry or Mya Stone? Walder started out saying it was hard to find marriages for his offspring. I imagine its no better now.

Only because the patriarch has lived so long.  Robert was on track to beat Walder's record.  A horny lord can exceed Walder's production but since they don't keep up with their bastards we will never know.  Brandon and Robert could surpass Walder but nobody would know because they're not interested in keeping track of their bastards.  Robert practices the pump her, dump her, and swear you don't know her philosophy.  Walder Frey at least supports all his children. 

[Sigella]

2 minutes ago, Casca Longinus said:

Only because the patriarch has lived so long.  Robert was on track to beat Walder's record.  A horny lord can exceed Walder's production but since they don't keep up with their bastards we will never know.  Brandon and Robert could surpass Walder but nobody would know because they're not interested in keeping track of their bastards.  Robert practices the pump her, dump her, and swear you don't know her philosophy.  Walder Frey at least supports all his children. 

No, because Robert only fathered bastards, which might not be the kindest to the children - but 250 heirs certainly isnt good for any House let alone a small on with only one seat.

Walder keeps a constant string of too young wives because he likes shagging them and he could give two phracks what becomes of them or their offspring. He supports them for now but leaves them to fend for themselves in case he or his oldest dies, none of which is "respectable" behaviour. It is dubious that all his wives dies prematurely, not respectable. 

Imagine being a cut off Frey out in the world on their own... They'd wish they were Baratheon bastards with good looks and physical talents.

Do you think Robert would remarry again for the fifth time if he had, say, 12 legal kids? (should be more if his wives weren't all as uncooperative as Cersei) No, even if he wanted to his council would dissuade him. Because its irresponsible.

I read it like you are arguing that there are two characters that you think might have turned as bad as Walder and therefore he is exempt of responsibility? 

Walder is way more like Aegon Unworthy than Robert tbh. House Frey needs some Blackfyre-pretenders and self-regulate.

[Adam Yozza]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We're meant to decide for ourselves on who is right or wrong. ASOIAF isn't LOTR where every action is clearly set up as either good or evil, that the bad guys do bad because they do bad things because they're the bad guys and there's never ever a not super heinous reason for whatever seemingly  bad action they do. Like them or not the Freys were being screwed by Robb bigly their men and kin (hell Walder's heir),died for Robb because Robb had promised them his hand, the red wedding is really the only feasible way to get vegence as well as secure their house's status for when Robb finally loses and have to deal with the Lanister's fury. A lot of them can be a despicable lot but their reasons for doing this are more than they're the bad guys. I find it weird how so many people want to turn everything involving the Starks one of black and white where the Starks are the unequivocal good good guys and their opponents the definitive bad guy.  And to be clear we're shown plenty of things being seen socially acceptable in this story that would jibe with many of are modern sensibilities that endorsed by even the most popular characters.

Yeah, for the most part we're meant to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong. However you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that this is the case in all circumstances. Are you going to defend Ramsay next? Claim his actions were his only option? How about Euron or Lorch or Hoat or Gregor? There are clearly some characters we are absolutely meant to view as the 'bad guys'. Some of them have depth. Some of them can even be empathized with. But that doesn't mean we should defend their actions.

The Red Wedding was not Walder's only option. He could have denied Robb when he tried to make amends. He could have just barred his gates and trapped Robb on the wrong side of the Green Fork for Roose and Tarly and Clegane to deal with. That alone would have been enough and wouldn't have relied on treachery.

They wouldn't have to deal with Tywin's fury even if they'd remained loyal. We've been shown that. Tywin does nothing to the house's that bend the knee after the Red Wedding beyond a few hostages. The Blackwoods and Tully's are the only ones that have land taken from them.

I'm not making this into a black and white scenario just because the Stark's are on one side. If the Starks had done this to the Baratheons when Robert visited Winterfell I'd be condeming them just as much.

Robb messed up. He made a mistake; a big one; but that's all it was, a mistake. The Frey's had every right to be angry, I'm not denying that. But Robb did try to make amends. They could have refused. That would have trapped him in the south, with the Ironborn raiding his home and the Lannister-Tyrell alliance closing in. Most people would consider that revenge enough.

And you can cite Stevron and the other dead Frey's; there weren't that many; as much as you like but in reality Walder doesn't give a real shit about his kids. If one dies then it's just one less to support.

We could keep going with this, but I don't really see the point. You're obviously not gonna move and this is one issue I know I'm never going to change my mind on. So I'm done with this argument. But I'll leave you with this; with everything that's happening to the Frey's ever since the RW; all the hangins, the deaths, the Frey Pies, the settup for Red Wedding 2.0; the way they are universally despised in universe now and the way they're presented to us; by the author, who has the final word on any matter pertaining to his world; do you really, honestly think they in any way should be respected for their actions from Storm onwards?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yeah, for the most part we're meant to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong. However you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that this is the case in all circumstances. Are you going to defend Ramsay next? Claim his actions were his only option? How about Euron or Lorch or Hoat or Gregor? There are clearly some characters we are absolutely meant to view as the 'bad guys'. Some of them have depth. Some of them can even be empathized with. But that doesn't mean we should defend their actions.

The Red Wedding was not Walder's only option. He could have denied Robb when he tried to make amends. He could have just barred his gates and trapped Robb on the wrong side of the Green Fork for Roose and Tarly and Clegane to deal with. That alone would have been enough and wouldn't have relied on treachery.

They wouldn't have to deal with Tywin's fury even if they'd remained loyal. We've been shown that. Tywin does nothing to the house's that bend the knee after the Red Wedding beyond a few hostages. The Blackwoods and Tully's are the only ones that have land taken from them.

I'm not making this into a black and white scenario just because the Stark's are on one side. If the Starks had done this to the Baratheons when Robert visited Winterfell I'd be condeming them just as much.

Robb messed up. He made a mistake; a big one; but that's all it was, a mistake. The Frey's had every right to be angry, I'm not denying that. But Robb did try to make amends. They could have refused. That would have trapped him in the south, with the Ironborn raiding his home and the Lannister-Tyrell alliance closing in. Most people would consider that revenge enough.

And you can cite Stevron and the other dead Frey's; there weren't that many; as much as you like but in reality Walder doesn't give a real shit about his kids. If one dies then it's just one less to support.

We could keep going with this, but I don't really see the point. You're obviously not gonna move and this is one issue I know I'm never going to change my mind on. So I'm done with this argument. But I'll leave you with this; with everything that's happening to the Frey's ever since the RW; all the hangins, the deaths, the Frey Pies, the settup for Red Wedding 2.0; the way they are universally despised in universe now and the way they're presented to us; by the author, who has the final word on any matter pertaining to his world; do you really, honestly think they in any way should be respected for their actions from Storm onwards?