House Frey should be respected

[Blackwater Revenant]

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again Readers hindsight. The things you listed after the RW. There's good reason for any opposing house particularly those who cost him the most would suffer the most based on what they know of how Tywin treats rebellion prior to the red wedding. 

Well if the Freys knew how Twyin treats rebellion, and weren't willing to face the consequences, they shouldn't have decided to rebel.

You do know that Rob not marrying Walder's daughter isn't what lost him the war. I don't get why people keeping insisting that Freys gave their lives for Rob's war, and get nothing in return. If the war was lost, it wouldn't matter whether Rob kept his pledge or not, either way they would be getting nothing. This is just a case of the Freys jumping to the winning side as they're want to do, Rob keeping his pledge wouldn't have changed that. It's just an excuse to try and justify Walder's despicable choice to murder his own allies.

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Which was done for the promise Robb made.

So what? He made a choice to take advantage of the situation in order to coerce Robb into this promise. So which is it? Was he a neutral bystander who was a poor victim to Robb's willingness to destroy him, or did he actively involve himself in Robb's affairs to manipulate gains for himself, and did he or didn't he make the choice to rebel in order to collect on this promise?

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Love how you just ignore you being caught out.

What are you even talking about?

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

By all means quote these strawman arguments you believe I have made and I will be happy to go over them with you. 

I already have. Perhaps you missed my first reply to you from the other day, as you haven't responded to it.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

How is that singling Robb out? Robb never claimed that the smallfolk believed in him, the person I replied to did.  Maybe you should take it up with him, rather than me. 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol this is delusional to nth degree. Were have I blamed him for their society? 

Perhaps "blaming him for the state of their society" was a poor choice of words on my part. 

The point being, is that you are taking the actions of Robb, which are a societal norm in the Seven Kingdoms, and applying your real world and modern morals to them. Yes, Robb's war effort is a horrible injustice to many, but in his society, he is not commiting what is considered to be a vile and despicable act. What Walder did at the Red Wedding is.

To compare the two as equally appalling is ignoring their actions in the context of the society they live in. When judging either of their morality you must take this into consideration. Robb was doing what he believed - whether that belief is correct or not - was right and just, with honorable intentions. Walder is well aware that what he did is an unacceptable and vile sin that was motivated by greed, selfishness, and a disregard for any morality at all.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

How is it BS? Is this all you have, false outrage. No discussion to be made? No counter points? Of course not

No, this is not the thread for it, and as I've stated, I've seen your argument for this in the past, and honestly I don't feel that engaging in a debate with you on it is worth my time.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Y

ou do know that Rob not marrying Walder's daughter isn't what lost him the war

I didn't imply it did.

 

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I don't get why people keeping insisting that Freys gave their lives for Rob's war, and get nothing in return.

Robb said he wouldn't give them the payment for their services to join his little rebellion. The price was high because the actual risks Robb was asking them to take was equally high. He made sure all the Frey lives lost for his rebellion to get a boy with their blood as the next king was in vain whether the rebellion was successful or not.

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

f the war was lost, it wouldn't matter whether Rob kept his pledge or not, either way they would be getting nothing.

No they wouldn't. And? 

 But whataboutery gets us nowhere. There is a very simple reason the Freys are seen as beyond the pale by most lords and smallfolk, and that's the illegal and immoral act of the Red Wedding. 

 

 We'll  probably never know. Up to Robb's betrayl they were the most dedicated house to his cause, and Old Walder really did want his grandson to be king.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

There is a reason that Tywin never publicly took any sort of credit for the Red Wedding. It's not something he wants tied to his legacy or the legacy of his family. It was by no means a military win or anything of the sort. Walder Frey will not go down in history as a brilliant battle general for his involvement in the Red Wedding.  

The Freys didn't even bother to call it a Battle, even though they claim Robb and his men all turned into wolves and attacked them. Why would they even make something like that up if they felt that they were 100% justified in killing who they killed? IF Robb did turn into a wolf and attacked them first wouldn't they claim Robb broke Guest Right? Or perhaps they realize how stupid that story sounds, yet they still tell it to the Manderlys.

[Bernie Mac]

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So what?

I'm not sure your point? I'm merely stating what happened. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

He made a choice to take advantage of the situation in order to coerce Robb into this promise.

They made an agreement, much like Robb's grandfather did during Robert's Rebellion or Robert's ancestor Cregan Stark did during the Dance of the Dragons. Such agreements are not unusual. 

Robb agreed to it and then he fucked the Freys over after they had already lost lives. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

So which is it?

Which is what? I have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Was he a neutral bystander who was a poor victim to Robb's willingness to destroy him,

Can you quote where I claimed any of the above? Is this all you have, pointless strawman baiting?

Clearly Walder was not a bystander. Not sure anyone claimed he was. Cany you quote the relevent people who have otherwise it looks like you are making up bullshit arguments. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

or did he actively involve himself in Robb's affairs to manipulate gains for himself, and did he or didn't he make the choice to rebel in order to collect on this promise?

Of course he did. When did I claim he did not? Shit dude, are you now imagining arguments that I have never made?

 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

What are you even talking about?

Rather than explain why you argument was not a piss poor attempt at a strawman argument you instead decided to deflect and accuse me of doing so but in a vague way generalised way rather than an actual point I had made. Deflection 101

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I already have.

No, you have not. But I am patient, quote the times you think I have used a strawman argument and I would be happy enough to discuss them further with you rather than deflect. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Perhaps you missed my first reply to you from the other day, as you haven't responded to it.

I likely have. Looking at my notifications you  have replied 8 times since I have last been on line.

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Perhaps "blaming him for the state of their society" was a poor choice of words on my part. 

No shit. 

41 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

The point being, is that you are taking the actions of Robb, which are a societal norm in the Seven Kingdoms, and applying your real world and modern morals to them.

No I am not. Robb is no different to the majority of other nobles in Westeros. It was not I who claimed his smallfolk wanted him to be king,

 

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

To compare the two as equally appalling is ignoring their actions in the context of the society they live in

Who said anything about equally appalling? I find both appalling. 

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

When judging either of their morality you must take this into consideration. Robb was doing what he believed - whether that belief is correct or not - was right and just,

Fuck off was he. He wanted revenge against the people who killed his father. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but lets not kid ourselves. Someone who was interested in right and just would have bargained to get his sisters back, would have made peace when it was apparent he had lost and prolonging the war would only kill more Northmen. 

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

with honorable intentions.

Nope. We see as early as his negotiations with Tyrion that he sometimes lacked honourable intentions when he started negotiating despite having zero intention of trying to get peace. 

And to clarify, I don't see these actions as anyway different to how the majority of Westeros would react. I am not trying to paint Robb as different. 

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Walder is well aware that what he did is an unacceptable and vile sin

Is he? We have no idea what his religious stance is. It is only a sin if he believes in the gods. Jaime committed a worse act and he is able to live with it, why would Walder not?

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

that was motivated by greed, selfishness, and a disregard for any morality at all.

According to the author it was motivated by revenge. 

52 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

No, this is not the thread for it, and as I've stated, I've seen your argument for this in the past, and honestly I don't feel that engaging in a debate with you on it is worth my time.

As I said. you can'c back your argument have. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn't imply it did.

 

Robb said he wouldn't give them the payment for their services to join his little rebellion. The price was high because the actual risks Robb was asking them to take was equally high. He made sure all the Frey lives lost for his rebellion to get a boy with their blood as the next king was in vain whether the rebellion was successful or not.

No they wouldn't. And? 

 But whataboutery gets us nowhere. There is a very simple reason the Freys are seen as beyond the pale by most lords and smallfolk, and that's the illegal and immoral act of the Red Wedding. 

 

 We'll  probably never know. Up to Robb's betrayl they were the most dedicated house to his cause, and Old Walder really did want his grandson to be king.

My point being, perhaps not articulated well by myself, is that this excuse that Walder had no choice because he would have suffered Tywin's wrath for no gain is just a concocted excuse made up in hindsight to justify Walder's actions.

Walder knew the risks, and Rob's failure to honor his agreement is irrelevant to Walder being put into a position where he was forced to agree to the Red Wedding; Walder would have betrayed Rob either way. 

-Rob keeps his vow, wins the war = Walder gets what he wants, no need to fear Tywin.  = No Red Wedding.

-Rob breaks his vow, wins war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, no need to fear Tywin. = No need for Red Wedding, but... Red Wedding.

-Rob keeps his vow, loses war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, would suffer Tywin's wrath (knowing this risk when agreeing to rebel) = Red Wedding.

-Rob breaks his vow, lose war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, would suffer Tywin's wrath = Red Wedding.

So three out of the four scenarios, Walder betrays Rob, including one when Robb keeps his promise, and one where Tywin wouldn't be a motivation.

[Blackwater Revenant]

49 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm not sure your point? I'm merely stating what happened. 

They made an agreement, much like Robb's grandfather did during Robert's Rebellion or Robert's ancestor Cregan Stark did during the Dance of the Dragons. Such agreements are not unusual. 

Robb agreed to it and then he fucked the Freys over after they had already lost lives. 

Which is what? I have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

Can you quote where I claimed any of the above? Is this all you have, pointless strawman baiting?

Clearly Walder was not a bystander. Not sure anyone claimed he was. Cany you quote the relevent people who have otherwise it looks like you are making up bullshit arguments. 

Of course he did. When did I claim he did not? Shit dude, are you now imagining arguments that I have never made?

 

Rather than explain why you argument was not a piss poor attempt at a strawman argument you instead decided to deflect and accuse me of doing so but in a vague way generalised way rather than an actual point I had made. Deflection 101

No, you have not. But I am patient, quote the times you think I have used a strawman argument and I would be happy enough to discuss them further with you rather than deflect. 

I likely have. Looking at my notifications you  have replied 8 times since I have last been on line.

No shit. 

No I am not. Robb is no different to the majority of other nobles in Westeros. It was not I who claimed his smallfolk wanted him to be king,

 

Who said anything about equally appalling? I find both appalling. 

Fuck off was he. He wanted revenge against the people who killed his father. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but lets not kid ourselves. Someone who was interested in right and just would have bargained to get his sisters back, would have made peace when it was apparent he had lost and prolonging the war would only kill more Northmen. 

Nope. We see as early as his negotiations with Tyrion that he sometimes lacked honourable intentions when he started negotiating despite having zero intention of trying to get peace. 

And to clarify, I don't see these actions as anyway different to how the majority of Westeros would react. I am not trying to paint Robb as different. 

Is he? We have no idea what his religious stance is. It is only a sin if he believes in the gods. Jaime committed a worse act and he is able to live with it, why would Walder not?

According to the author it was motivated by revenge. 

As I said. you can'c back your argument have. 

Yeah, were done. This is pointless.

ETA: OK, I just had to add this because it made me chuckle.

Quote

No, you have not. But I am patient, quote the times you think I have used a strawman argument and I would be happy enough to discuss them further with you rather than deflect. 

Quote

I likely have. Looking at my notifications you  have replied 8 times since I have last been on line.

You break up one of my comments into two quotes, to deny that I've quoted an example, and then admit that you haven't read the post I told you it was in.

[Bernie Mac]

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

My point being, perhaps not articulated well by myself, is that this excuse that Walder had no choice because he would have suffered Tywin's wrath for no gain is just a concocted excuse made up in hindsight to justify Walder's actions.

Tywin's reputation speaks for itself, does it not? 

While I think revenge was the primary motivator, I really don't think we can rule out self preservation as well as greed in the Freys thinking. Decisions often are made for multiple reasons. 

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Walder knew the risks,

He actually did not. Robb was not rebelling and starting a new kingdom when the agreement was made, he was simply trying to have hos father released. 

I doubt either Robb or Walder had any clue of what was going to happen next. Credit to the Freys, they went along with it as they had made the agreement. 

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

and Rob's failure to honor his agreement is irrelevant to Walder being put into a position where he was forced to agree to the Red Wedding;

No, it is not. Why should Walder honour his agreement of guest rights to someone who did not honour his agreement to him?

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

Walder would have betrayed Rob either way. 

But there would have been no Red Wedding. 

The Freys, after the Blackwater, would have tried to make Robb see sense. That the war was not winnable

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

-Rob keeps his vow, wins the war = Walder gets what he wants, no need to fear Tywin.  = No Red Wedding.

The Red Wedding was down to revenge, nothing else. 

 

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

 

So three out of the four scenarios, Walder betrays Rob, including one when Robb keeps his promise, and one where Tywin wouldn't be a motivation.

The Red Wedding only happens in one of those scenarios. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

My point being, perhaps not articulated well by myself, is that this excuse that Walder had no choice because he would have suffered Tywin's wrath for no gain is just a concocted excuse made up in hindsight to justify Walder's actions.

Walder knew the risks, and Rob's failure to honor his agreement is irrelevant to Walder being put into a position where he was forced to agree to the Red Wedding; Walder would have betrayed Rob either way. 

-Rob keeps his vow, wins the war = Walder gets what he wants, no need to fear Tywin.  = No Red Wedding.

-Rob breaks his vow, wins war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, no need to fear Tywin. = No need for Red Wedding, but... Red Wedding.

-Rob keeps his vow, loses war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, would suffer Tywin's wrath = Red Wedding.

-Rob breaks his vow, lose war = Walder doesn't get what he wants, would suffer Tywin's wrath = Red Wedding.

So three out of the four scenarios, Walder betrays Rob, including one when Robb keeps his promise, and one where Tywin wouldn't be a motivation.

Again we can't actually know. Walder was truly fixated with the idea of propelling his family's status and having the pride of having been the one to be responsible for a Frey being king.

He knew the risks when he sighned up true. He knew he may have to face Tywin's wrath. But the reward Robb promised was as great as the great risk. But now since the reward doesn't equal the risks of not siding with the IT he would be hard pressed to refuse any offer they give him or try to pony up any offer that could get their support.

[The Fattest Leech]

@Varysblackfyre321

Quote

It's not just this thread. The fandom is virtually silent on the horrific things the armies of the north did, what their leaders wanted to do, or hired monsters to do. The RW: oh the Freys are so awful how could they do such a thing? Robb hiring the brave companions to rape and pillage his enemies: crickets. And do hear repeated instances of how both the south's and northern little war is screwing everyone else and they are each beating up on the common folk for gain.

I'm sorry, it is rather later here and I have been steadily making a gaggle of geese, so I am tired. But to the bold, could you perhaps point me to a book quote or two that shows Robb Stark hiring the Brave Companions to rape and pillage his enemies? Maybe I forgot?

 

[Blackwater Revenant]

10 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

I'm sorry, it is rather later here and I have been steadily making a gaggle of geese, so I am tired. But to the bold, could you perhaps point me to a book quote or two that shows Robb Stark hiring the Brave Companions to rape and pillage his enemies? Maybe I forgot?

 

Har!! You kill me.

[Bernie Mac]

20 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

@Varysblackfyre321

I'm sorry, it is rather later here and I have been steadily making a gaggle of geese, so I am tired. But to the bold, could you perhaps point me to a book quote or two that shows Robb Stark hiring the Brave Companions to rape and pillage his enemies? Maybe I forgot?

 

Robb's the overall leader, his subordinates hiring men for him counts just as it does for Tywin. Do you think it would make any difference if it was Tywin Lannister or one of his subordinates? 

Robb was more than happy to take on the Tyroshi sellswords, what makes you think he did not want (or even sign off) the Brave Companions?

 

[The Fattest Leech]

15 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb's the overall leader, his subordinates hiring men for him counts just as it does for Tywin. Do you think it would make any difference if it was Tywin Lannister or one of his subordinates? 

Robb was more than happy to take on the Tyroshi sellswords, what makes you think he did not want (or even sign off) the Brave Companions?

 

Wow. You really need to review the timeline of events. The BC happened with Roose when he had already decided to betray Robb and side with Tywin. And then Roose didn’t give two shits about the BC after he was done with them anyway, per his usual method, apparently. 

There is zero connection of Robb to the BC in the books. Head canon to fill in perceived gaps to try and force your point isn’t the actual story. If GRRM wanted that connection, he would have given us one. 

[The Fattest Leech]

How come no one on this thread is griping and complaining about Fool Frey? 

Seriously, use the search site and check “Frey fool” and you will get tons of examples from all over Westeros. 

Is it because historically the Freys are “disrespected” by all, with only a tiny few being the exception, not the rule? 

This is far more than a Robb Stark “issue”. It has been going on against the Frey’s for centuries. But alas, this has turned into another boring Stark hate thread by a few. 

[Bernie Mac]

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wow. You really need to review the timeline of events.

No, I don't. Robb appointed Roose his general of the infantry. Any action that Roose takes is down to Robb. That is how military hierarchy works. Robb and Roose are not independent generals. Roose is Robb's subordinate. 

The Northern military hired the BC and Robb is the leader of the Northern military. 

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

The BC happened with Roose when he had already decided to betray Robb and side with Tywin.

lol that make zero sense. Tywin was in favor to the Brave Companions slaughtering the Lannister garrison at Harrenhal and and jeopardising his positon in the Riverlands with no foothold?

Roose did not join till after the Blackwater. Him taking Harrenhall makes zero sense otherwise, unless both Tywin and Roose can see into the future. 

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And then Roose didn’t give two shits about the BC after he was done with them anyway, per his usual method, apparently. 

Who claimed that he did? And what does this even mean? Do you think Tywin cared about them? 

Bizarre argument to make, 

5 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

There is zero connection of Robb to the BC in the books. Head canon to fill in perceived gaps to try and force your point isn’t the actual story. If GRRM wanted that connection, he would have given us one. 

Robb is the leader of the Northern military, the Brave Companions joined the Northern side. That is an obvious connection, is it not?

[The Fattest Leech]

12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, I don't. Robb appointed Roose his general of the infantry. Any action that Roose takes is down to Robb. That is how military hierarchy works. Robb and Roose are not independent generals. Roose is Robb's subordinate. 

The Northern military hired the BC and Robb is the leader of the Northern military. 

lol that make zero sense. Tywin was in favor to the Brave Companions slaughtering the Lannister garrison at Harrenhal and and jeopardising his positon in the Riverlands with no foothold?

Roose did not join till after the Blackwater. Him taking Harrenhall makes zero sense otherwise, unless both Tywin and Roose can see into the future. 

Who claimed that he did? And what does this even mean? Do you think Tywin cared about them? 

Bizarre argument to make, 

Robb is the leader of the Northern military, the Brave Companions joined the Northern side. That is an obvious connection, is it not?

We know from Roose himself in a Jaime chapter that while Roose was at HH, he had switched sides. This is when the Brave Companions were in the story. 

Tywin does not give any cares for his lesser fighting men. None. He even put his own son at risk. 

And it’s not a bizarre arguement to make because it shows these lower ranking fighters meant nothing to either commander- Roose nor Tywin. So yeah, Tywin doesn’t care what happens to his men the way Roose doesn’t because they both have a larger plan. 

One last thing because if anything is bizarre, it is the idea that the Frey’s deserve more respect. If the northern military hired the Brave Companions without Robb knowing, and this is a legit move, then the major northern houses can chose a king without every petty Lord voting. 

Have a good evening. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, I don't. Robb appointed Roose his general of the infantry. Any action that Roose takes is down to Robb. That is how military hierarchy works. Robb and Roose are not independent generals. Roose is Robb's subordinate. 

The Northern military hired the BC and Robb is the leader of the Northern military. 

lol that make zero sense. Tywin was in favor to the Brave Companions slaughtering the Lannister garrison at Harrenhal and and jeopardising his positon in the Riverlands with no foothold?

Roose did not join till after the Blackwater. Him taking Harrenhall makes zero sense otherwise, unless both Tywin and Roose can see into the future. 

Who claimed that he did? And what does this even mean? Do you think Tywin cared about them? 

Bizarre argument to make, 

Robb is the leader of the Northern military, the Brave Companions joined the Northern side. That is an obvious connection, is it not?

And to add on Robb tried to broach the ironborn with an alliance and wouldn't have lost sleep over them having raped and pillaged the westerlands. Robb uses monsters to further his agenda just Tywin does.  Sure, if he ever actually met Hoat hell if he personally hired him on, he'd act very snobbish, he'd press a coin in Hoat's hand and to do what Hoat is known to do best(worst?) to Robb's enemies and enemies' land and people. 

[The Fattest Leech]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And to add on Robb tried to broach the ironborn with an alliance and wouldn't have lost sleep over them having raped and pillaged the westerlands. Robb uses monsters to further his agenda just Tywin does.  Sure, if he ever actually met Hoat hell if he personally hired him on, he'd act very snobbish, he'd press a coin in Hoat's hand and to do what Hoat is known to do best(worst?) to Robb's enemies and enemies' land and people. 

But did Robb Stark hire them in the books? Did Robb ok this or acknowledge this in anyway? 

Book quotes, please. 

Your assumptions are not truth. 

[Bernie Mac]

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

We know from Roose himself in a Jaime chapter that while Roose was at HH, he had switched sides. This is when the Brave Companions were in the story. 

You seem to be ignoring the Arya chapter.  The Brave Companions are in the North's service before Jaime arrives, before the battle of Blackwater and logically before Roose switched sides. Arya even notes that Harrenhall is a worse place under Northern occupation that it was under the Crowns. 

"I hate this lot worse. Ser Amory was fighting for his lord, but the Mummers are sellswords and turncloaks. Half of them can't even speak the Common Tongue. Septon Utt likes little boys, Qyburn does black magic, and your friend Biter eats people."

The worst thing was, she couldn't even say he was wrong. The Brave Companions did most of the foraging for Harrenhal, and Roose Bolton had given them the task of rooting out Lannisters.

 

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Tywin does not give any cares for his lesser fighting men. None. He even put his own son at risk. 

Not sure your point? You do realise that everyone who goes to war is at risk, right?

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

And it’s not a bizarre arguement to make because it shows these lower ranking fighters meant nothing to either commander- Roose nor Tywin.

Or Robb. 

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

So yeah, Tywin doesn’t care what happens to his men the way Roose doesn’t because they both have a larger plan. 

eh? What does this have to do with your point?

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

One last thing because if anything is bizarre, it is the idea that the Frey’s deserve more respect. If the northern military hired the Brave Companions without Robb knowing, and this is a legit move,

Where is it claimed that Robb did not ever know about it? We know from Arya that there was communication between Robb and Harrenhal. Robb is hardly going to turn down extra soldiers, is he?

1 minute ago, The Fattest Leech said:

 

then the major northern houses can chose a king without every petty Lord voting. 

The major Northern Houses were also not present. Robb;s coup was done by a minority of Northern Lords backed up by his army. 

 

[Bernie Mac]

7 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

But did Robb Stark hire them in the books? Did Robb ok this or acknowledge this in anyway? 

Book quotes, please. 

Your assumptions are not truth. 

Robb is still responsible, they are all under his command.  

 

Tywin claims that he did not know that the Mountain would rape and kill Elia. It does not make him any less responsible for her death as they are his men.