Bernie Mac Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Just now, Wall Flower said: Backing out of a wedding is the same as a brutal massacre Similar. Robb made an agreement and the Frey's fulfilled their part with around 1,500 Frey men, including Walder's heir, dying for an agreement Robb decided he did not want to honour because he quite fancied one of his hostages at the Crag. Just now, Wall Flower said: Robb went to the Twins in good faith to make amends and he was the one who ended up being stabbed in the back. Every battle Robb won was with Frey support, those men fought and died in good faith that Robb was going to hold up his end of the bargain. Robb betrayed the Freys. Just now, Wall Flower said: Walder was always going to betray Robb once things turned against him, not quite, GRRM points out that should Robb be losing Walder would not go down with the ship. The same is true of the majority of Houses. Just now, Wall Flower said: while still being outraged at Robb's breaking of the betrothal. In Walder's narcissistic little mind, loyalty only goes one way. nope, they made an agreement, the Freys fulfilled their side of the agreement (and then some) and then Robb decided he wanted to back out. The Red Wedding was clearly overboard, but they were right to want Robb dead, he fucked them over and only came crawling back to make amends when he realized he had no hope without the Freys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gogh Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said: Similar. Robb made an agreement and the Frey's fulfilled their part with around 1,500 Frey men, including Walder's heir, dying for an agreement Robb decided he did not want to honour because he quite fancied one of his hostages at the Crag. Every battle Robb won was with Frey support, those men fought and died in good faith that Robb was going to hold up his end of the bargain. Robb betrayed the Freys. not quite, GRRM points out that should Robb be losing Walder would not go down with the ship. The same is true of the majority of Houses. nope, they made an agreement, the Freys fulfilled their side of the agreement (and then some) and then Robb decided he wanted to back out. The Red Wedding was clearly overboard, but they were right to want Robb dead, he fucked them over and only came crawling back to make amends when he realized he had no hope without the Freys. I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: This is probably hilarious on Naboo. What say let us look at this differently. Starting with book one. Cat made a decision based on incorrect information and decided to take Tyrion hostage. Lannister got angry. Lannister sent out marauders to reek havoc on the Riverlands. Edumre had called his banner men. Yet, Frey didn't join the call to arms. As he didn't during Robert's Rebellion. A Game of Thrones - Catelyn IX The Blackfish had taken a hundred picked men and a hundred swift horses and raced ahead to screen their movements and scout the way. The reports Ser Brynden's riders brought back did little to reassure her. Lord Tywin's host was still many days to the south … but Walder Frey, Lord of the Crossing, had assembled a force of near four thousand men at his castles on the Green Fork. "Late again," Catelyn murmured when she heard. It was the Trident all over, damn the man. Her brother Edmure had called the banners; by rights, Lord Frey should have gone to join the Tully host at Riverrun, yet here he sat./ In order to get to the Riverlands and Lannister quickly the northern host needed to pass over Frey's bridge. The price to pass was marriage of not one but two Starks. Blackmail. Granted the Starks and the northmen could have declined and took the long way round. Then there is a question about which Frey's are fighting for whom as referenced below. A Clash of Kings - Catelyn I Ser Cleos was visibly relieved. "Then I should be most glad to bring His Grace's message to the queen." "Understand," Robb said, "I am not giving you your freedom. Your grandfather Lord Walder pledged me his support and that of House Frey. Many of your cousins and uncles rode with us in the Whispering Wood, but you chose to fight beneath the lion banner. That makes you a Lannister, not a Frey. I want your pledge, on your honor as a knight, that after you deliver my message you'll return with the queen's reply, and resume your captivity."/ What were Robb's demands? It happen early in book two CoK. A Clash of Kings - Catelyn I "First, the queen must release my sisters and provide them with transport by sea from King's Landing to White Harbor. It is to be understood that Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey Baratheon is at an end. When I receive word from my castellan that my sisters have returned unharmed to Winterfell, I will release the queen's cousins, the squire Willem Lannister and your brother Tion Frey, and give them safe escort to Casterly Rock or wheresoever she desires them delivered." <snip> "Secondly, my lord father's bones will be returned to us, so he may rest beside his brother and sister in the crypts beneath Winterfell, as he would have wished. The remains of the men of his household guard who died in his service at King's Landing must also be returned." <snip> "Third, my father's greatsword Ice will be delivered to my hand, here at Riverrun." <snip> "Fourth, the queen will command her father Lord Tywin to release those knights and lords bannermen of mine that he took captive in the battle on the Green Fork of the Trident. Once he does so, I shall release my own captives taken in the Whispering Wood and the Battle of the Camps, save Jaime Lannister alone, who will remain my hostage for his father's good behavior."/ Flap your trap about how Robb reneged on his blackmail wedding deal. Poor bloke married a girl who nursed him back to health. That does not excuse the treatment the Frey and Bolton gave when they massacred unarmed party goers inside and outside the walls of the Twins. Now I come to the part that surely you will say is an unreliable narrator in which Merrit during the epilogue of book three SoS says: A Storm of Swords - Epilogue You can't prove anything against me. The Red Wedding was my father's work, and Ryman's and Lord Bolton's. Lothar rigged the tents to collapse and put the crossbowmen in the gallery with the musicians, Bastard Walder led the attack on the camps . . . they're the ones you want, not me, I only drank some wine . . . you have no witness." "As it happens, you're wrong there." The singer turned to the hooded woman. "Milady?" Ole Merrret gives a rather informative epilogue. Jar Jar Binks signing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus Snow Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said: Poor bloke married a girl who nursed him back to health. A girl who was herself descended from a mother who was descended from Maggi the Frog, expert in the use of love potions and known to have connived with Tywin Lannister in this very affair. Oh, betrayal upon betrayal, treason upon treason. Can anyone pass over this scene without thinking 'Elizabeth Woodville'????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: Flap your trap about how Robb reneged on his blackmail wedding deal. But he did, he made an agreement with the Freys, they complied suffering huge casualties in doing so only for the horny teenager to decide that he did not have to carry out his part of the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: But he did, he made an agreement with the Freys, they complied suffering huge casualties in doing so only for the horny teenager to decide that he did not have to carry out his part of the agreement. I do not dispute that Robb reneged on the deal to marry a Frey. I dispute that Robb marrying was reason for murdering individuals inside and outside the walls of the Twins while the individuals were celebrating a marriage. Now I come to the part that surely you will say is an unreliable narrator in which Merrit during the epilogue of book three SoS says: A Storm of Swords - Epilogue You can't prove anything against me. The Red Wedding was my father's work, and Ryman's and Lord Bolton's. Lothar rigged the tents to collapse and put the crossbowmen in the gallery with the musicians, Bastard Walder led the attack on the camps . . . they're the ones you want, not me, I only drank some wine . . . you have no witness." "As it happens, you're wrong there." The singer turned to the hooded woman. "Milady?" Ole Merrret gives a rather informative epilogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sidious Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 39 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said: I do not dispute that Robb reneged on the deal to marry a Frey. I dispute that Robb marrying was reason for murdering individuals inside and outside the walls of the Twins while the individuals were celebrating a marriage. Now I come to the part that surely you will say is an unreliable narrator in which Merrit during the epilogue of book three SoS says: A Storm of Swords - Epilogue You can't prove anything against me. The Red Wedding was my father's work, and Ryman's and Lord Bolton's. Lothar rigged the tents to collapse and put the crossbowmen in the gallery with the musicians, Bastard Walder led the attack on the camps . . . they're the ones you want, not me, I only drank some wine . . . you have no witness." "As it happens, you're wrong there." The singer turned to the hooded woman. "Milady?" Ole Merrret gives a rather informative epilogue. The killing of the northmen are incidental. The objective for Team Lannister, Frey, and Bolton was to end the rebellion. You can't do that without killing the northmen. On 8/26/2018 at 7:26 PM, Clegane'sPup said: Cat made a decision based on incorrect information and decided to take Tyrion hostage. Lannister got angry. Lannister sent out marauders to reek havoc on the Riverlands. Edumre had called his banner men. Yet, Frey didn't join the call to arms. As he didn't during Robert's Rebellion. Catelyn's mistake was to blame the wrong Lannister. I am no longer sure how big of a difference that would have made because if she had known it was Jaime and tried to arrest him, the results would be the same. More severe actually. Tywin is not going to let the Starks arrest Jaime even if he was guilty. Right or wrong doesn't factor into Tywin Lannister's thinking. The lions protect members of their pride, right or wrong. And that is the biggest problem in the story. It is hard to blame Walder Frey. This is another case of Hoster's kids bringing trouble down on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: I do not dispute that Robb reneged on the deal to marry a Frey. It kind of sounded like you were when you were giving the sob story of pool 'ol Robb falling in love with his prisoner. 3 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: I dispute that Robb marrying was reason for murdering If all it was was a marriage then you'd have a point, but it wasn't. Over a 1,000 Freys, including Walder's heir, had sacrificed their lives for Robb's promise, him betraying them was a big deal and was worthy of vengeance just like I think Wyman was justified in seeking vengeance against the Freys. 3 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: individuals inside and outside the walls of the Twins while the individuals were celebrating a marriage. They were an army travelling North. The Freys neither invited them, forced them to get drunk or be be so lax in their defences. This same army surprised not one but two sleeping opponents, their lack of discipline was on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldve Taken The Black Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: No, it is the correct one. Lannisters had a Manderly hostage from the beginning of the war, Wyman is happy enough to let Bran know that he has refused them when he is trying to get funds to build a navy. Yes, but after the Red Wedding, and the loss of his other son, circumstances changed. The Lannisters held all the cards, simply executing prisoners wasn't common during the war, as the Starks could just reciprocate. When they were defeated, they could start doing what Black Walder did at Seaguard. On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: No, he held that prisoner since AGOT Actually no. He was captured (I think at the Battle of the Green Fork). Released, then captured again by the Mountain when leading Roose's rearguard at the Ruby Ford. On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: One rule for characters you like (Jaime/Wyman) and another for characters you don't like I don't read the books that way. I find all of them, Walder, Jaime and Wyman, interestingly written and complex. Reading the books and picking "favourites" that you root for like your favourite football team or something ruins the experience. It's a habit that seems to be more common amongst people who became interested in the books as a result of the show, although maybe I just didn't notice it amongst readers as much before. On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: you have to jump through hoops explaining why cannibalism is morally ok Please point to where I say cannibalism is "morally ok". I was just explaining the differences between two morally repugnant acts. You know, trying to encourage a more nuanced approach to the books we clearly both enjoy. Trying to misrepresent others views in order to polarise things and "win" an argument strikes me as intellectually dishonest and shallow. On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: It was not a forced surrender, he made a deal to prevent a war between himself and the Boltons. That's another way of putting it I suppose, it doesn't alter the facts though. He agreed to the terms because otherwise his heir was at risk of death, and the crown, the Freys and the Boltons would attack him. You can spin that any way you like, but I don't see the point really. On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: Sure it can. I'm serious and I'm saying it. Hmm On 8/25/2018 at 11:10 PM, Bernie Mac said: Some, not all. Which Riverlords are enthusiastic Frey allies, rather than being forced to work alongside them as a result of losing the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legitimate_Bastard Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/9/2018 at 2:37 AM, Frey Kings said: When Robb came down and promised to marry one of the Freys, House Frey was committed and gave him one of the strongest armies and their fighters were fierce. Lots of Freys died for Robb's cause even though one of them was married directly into the Lannisters. The Freys were dedicated to the end until Robb came back from the Craig married to another woman. Then the Lannisters started breathing down their neck and then the RW happened. Yeah Robb screwed himself there. It all could have panned out so different - and I think it would have. I don't hate the Freys - they got double crossed so they double double crossed in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 18 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: It kind of sounded like you were when you were giving the sob story of pool 'ol Robb falling in love with his prisoner. There is this thing that is sold that cleans wax outta ones ears. 18 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: If all it was was a marriage then you'd have a point, but it wasn't. Over a 1,000 Freys, including Walder's heir, had sacrificed their lives for Robb's promise, him betraying them was a big deal and was worthy of vengeance just like I think Wyman was justified in seeking vengeance against the Freys. These people in this story are warring and killing each other on the battle field. I have said this numerous times and I will say it one more time. In this story a person has to pick a side. You, I assume due to the rhetoric support House Frey, Bolton and Lannister. I do not. Simple as that. 18 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: They were an army travelling North. The Freys neither invited them, forced them to get drunk or be be so lax in their defences. This same army surprised not one but two sleeping opponents, their lack of discipline was on them. When & how pray tell did the new marriage alliance--- Tully to marry Frey--- happen? On one hand I think I get what you are espousing. It is in the best interest of Lannister put the rebellion down. Can you and I agree on that? The variables involved are many. One being me the reader knows that dead King Bob's kiddies aren't his. Ramsey, disguiseing himself influenced weak willed Theon to go along with the idea to kill two innocent children. Then after some wheeling and dealing Ramsey/Reek comes back to WF and attacks Rodrick's men and burns WF. ------------- You and I disagree. It's is okay. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 20 hours ago, Silver Bullet 1985 said: The objective for Team Lannister, Frey, and Bolton was to end the rebellion. You can't do that without killing the northmen. I can agree. BUT as it is exhibited in this story Frey & Bolton and maybe Lannister committed a slaughter under the guise of a marriage celebration. I have given my penny worth and did my due diligence to support my stance in posts prior to this one. Side with who you to because in my opinion in this story Frey & Bolton do not get my sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandrax Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 23 hours ago, Bernie Mac said: 1,000 Freys, Can you give the refference where was said that 1000 of them died, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 10 hours ago, Kandrax said: Can you give the refference where was said that 1000 of them died, please? Sure, at the battle of the Green Fork we are told that around a quarter of Roose's army were destroyed, he starts with around 18k and only has around 10k by the time he takes Harrnenal. You've forgotten Roose Bolton. Lord Tywin defeated him on the Green Fork, but failed to pursue. When Lord Tywin went to Harrenhal, Bolton took the ruby ford and the crossroads. He has ten thousand men. I've sent word to Helman Tallhart to join him with the garrison Robb left at the Twins—" Given the casualties to the Northern and Frey foot we can work out a fairly decent guess of the Frey casualties, which would be over a 1,000. Infact we know how many Freys were at Harrenhal from Arya. " Ser Aenys Frey was saying as Arya filled the washbasin. A grey stooped giant of a man with watery red eyes and huge gnarled hands, Ser Aenys had brought fifteen hundred Frey swords south to Harrenhal." Now the Frey cavalry went with Robb and we can deduce a decent estimate of how many of the Frey cavalry survived given that over the course of the campaign Robb loses around a third of his cavalry (starts at 6k and is 3,500 when he leaves Riverrun to head to the Twins. The Freys will have lost between 1,200-1,400 hundred fighting for Robb's promise. 15 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said: There is this thing that is sold that cleans wax outta ones ears. Another nabooism I'm unfamiliar with. Quote These people in this story are warring and killing each other on the battle field. I have said this numerous times and I will say it one more time. In this story a person has to pick a side. You, I assume due to the rhetoric support House Frey, Bolton and Lannister. No, you really don't. Some of us simply enjoy the story for what it is, as long as it entertains I don't care who wins. I find Tywin's character fascinating but enjoyed his death and glad it happened as it advanced the plot. The freys being turned into pies was an excellent easter egg. I literally could not care which fictional faction wins as they don't really exist and GRRM is never going to write a sequel to the series, I only care about it being entertaining and making sense. Quote You and I disagree. It's is okay. Let it go. lol why do people feel the need to try and get the last word in and then tell the other person to 'let it go'. On 8/28/2018 at 9:19 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Yes, but after the Red Wedding, and the loss of his other son, circumstances changed. The Lannisters held all the cards, Well clearly that is inaccurate as Wyman is making other deals. He chose to fuck over an alliance he made because he wanted to get revenge, just like the Freys. Quote simply executing prisoners wasn't common during the war, Except for the time the North executed a Lannister and Frey. Quote as the Starks could just reciprocate. When they were defeated, they could start doing what Black Walder did at Seaguard. What an odd argument, Black Walder did not execute anyone at Seagard. No one threatened to kill Wylis if Wyman did not comply, he accepted the deal because he wanted to,much like the Freys with Robb. Quote I don't read the books that way. It seems like you do, I'm not alone in commenting on the double standards you have. Your jumping through hoops to excuse Manderly's betrayal and cannibalism seems pretty clear that you are not judging them all on the same level. Quote Please point to where I say cannibalism is "morally ok". lol read your own posts, your mock outrage over the breaking of guest rights, the moral grandstanding over 'victim blaming' then cheering on the pie eating. All these excuses why Wyman is justified for doing what he did while drawing a firm line with the Freys that they are wrong. Quote I was just explaining the differences between two morally repugnant acts. You know, trying to encourage a more nuanced approach to the books we clearly both enjoy. Trying to misrepresent others views in order to polarise things and "win" an argument strikes me as intellectually dishonest and shallow. oh great, back to the accusations. Took you two whole pages to resort to your favored tactic. Quote That's another way of putting it I suppose, it doesn't alter the facts though. He agreed to the terms because otherwise his heir was at risk of death, and the crown, the Freys and the Boltons would attack him. You can spin that any way you like, but I don't see the point really. The same could be said for Walder with his two grandsons still in the North and him currently surrounded by Robb's allies. There were more Freys in the attack on the Westerlands than any other vassal House, Walder also had good reason to be wary of the crown, Tywin had his own Freys he could replace Walder with while Cat notices Roose threatening the lives of his grandsons Bolton had made a toast to Lord Walder's grandsons when the wedding feast began, pointedly mentioning that Walder and Walder were in the care of his bastard son. From the way the old man had squinted at him, his mouth sucking at the air, Catelyn knew he had heard the unspoken threat. Quote Hmm lol you doubt I'm being serious? Are you really unable to comprehend the idea that not everyone is going to agree with you? Quote Which Riverlords are enthusiastic Frey allies, rather than being forced to work alongside them as a result of losing the war? Lords Vypren and Charlton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldve Taken The Black Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Well clearly that is inaccurate as Wyman is making other deals. He chose to fuck over an alliance he made because he wanted to get revenge, just like the Freys. He was forced into the pretence in order to get his son back. The Freys weren't forced to do anything. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Except for the time the North executed a Lannister and Frey. Funny how selective wording can completely misrepresent events isn't it. "The North" didn't execute a Lannister or a Frey, a Northern lord went rogue and murdered two captives, who were at that point being deliberately kept alive. He was then executed for it by Robb. That whole story, if not wilfully misinterpreted, actually proves my point. Robb was keeping them alive, and when one of his bannermen killed them, they openly discussed the repercussions. Just like with Jaime and Sansa, when both sides are in open war and hold hostages, they avoided killing them, as they knew there would be consequences. After one side wins, those prisoners can be used as leverage to make the other side capitulate. This was done after the Red Wedding with the Pipers, the Mallisters and with the Manderlys. Of course Manderly is acting treacherously, but to say he entered into an "alliance" on equal terms, rather being forced to capitulate, goes against everything Cersei says at the Small Council, and Manderly says to Davos. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: What an odd argument, Black Walder did not execute anyone at Seagard. My point was he threatened to kill Patrek Mallister unless Seaguard surrendered. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: No one threatened to kill Wylis if Wyman did not comply He's told to kill Davos and come back to the king's peace, or he won't get his heir back. I don't know whether someone said "do it or we'll kill him, but it's quite clear from Davos's conversation with Manderly that he's capitulating for fear for his son. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Your jumping through hoops to excuse Manderly's betrayal and cannibalism Where have I excused his cannibalism? What a bizarre thing to accuse someone of. As to his betrayal. Once the Freys broke guest right all gloves are off. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: lol read your own posts, your mock outrage over the breaking of guest rights, the moral grandstanding over 'victim blaming' then cheering on the pie eating. All these excuses why Wyman is justified for doing what he did while drawing a firm line with the Freys that they are wrong. Point it out. I made a joke about it, but I have never "morally justified" cannibalism. Don't be silly. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: The same could be said for Walder with his two grandsons still in the North and him currently surrounded by Robb's allies. That wasn't his motivation. No-one threatened his grandsons, who were in the hands of Bolton by that point anyway. It's perfectly clear what his motivations were - revenge for Robb breaking the marriage contract, and an attempt to disentangle himself from Robb's cause. It's pretty clear that's the case anyway, and it's confirmed by GRRM. Nowhere in any source is it implied that Frey is worried that Robb is going to harm his children, and that's why he did the Red Wedding. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: while Cat notices Roose threatening the lives of his grandsons That was clearly one partner in crime warning another against a double cross. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Are you really unable to comprehend the idea that not everyone is going to agree with you? No, I just don't think any of what you argue on this point displays any level of seriousness. 25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: Lords Vypren and Charlton Charlton are Frey vassals. Vypren were already married into the Freys before the Red Wedding. I don't know what role they played in the Red Wedding, nor how enthusiastic they are about their support for the Freys, but pointing to them as examples of support for the Freys is clutching at straws. As I originally said, they Freys' reputation amongst the Riverlords is completely ruined. Just because their in-laws and their vassals are still working with them is hardly a ringing endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldve Taken The Black Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said: Lords Vypren and Charlton Added to that, weren't the Vyprens in on the Red Wedding? You can't really make a case that the Freys aren't being judged for their crime, because their co-conspirators are fine with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 34 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Added to that, weren't the Vyprens in on the Red Wedding? You can't really make a case that the Freys aren't being judged for their crime, because their co-conspirators are fine with it. You asked who was an enthusiastic ally, why are you now moving the goalposts? 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: He was forced into the pretence in order to get his son back. No, he was not. The same son was captured in book one and Wyman happily refused. He had a choice, he chose to make a deal in bad faith. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: The Freys weren't forced to do anything. I agree, nor was Wyman. But the North, like the Crown, had Frey captives. Once again it was one rule for the characters you like and another for those you don't. Most people can admit that, it is pretty natural to have a bias, what they don't do is argue about morals accuse others of making false arguments. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Funny how selective wording can completely misrepresent events isn't it. "The North" didn't execute a Lannister or a Frey, a Northern lord went rogue and murdered two captives, who were at that point being deliberately kept alive. He was then executed for it by Robb. They were in Robb's care and one of his main generals killed them. Not long after Robb had betrayed the Freys and the Greatjon was suggesting murdering them. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: That whole story, if not wilfully misinterpreted, actually proves my point. lol no, it really does not. You made up a claim that is false. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: My point was he threatened to kill Patrek Mallister unless Seaguard surrendered. but he was not killed was he so your point makes little sense. The crown did not threaten to kill his son. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: He's told to kill Davos and come back to the king's peace, or he won't get his heir back. Yup, he chose to pretend to accept, the crown completed their part of the deal and Wyman reneged choosing to exploit the fact that the crown thought they were in an alliance. It is the same as the Freys. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: I don't know whether someone said "do it or we'll kill him, but it's quite clear from Davos's conversation with Manderly that he's capitulating for fear for his son. Nope, it is because he wants revenge. If it was fear not only would Davos be dead but he would not be making deals with Stannis. There is zero threat on his son's life, and I know you know that is true as you would have quoted it by now. And you accuse me of sophistry. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Where have I excused his cannibalism? What a bizarre thing to accuse someone of. You frequently have done in this thread, even going as far to call it awesome 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: As to his betrayal. Once the Freys broke guest right all gloves are off. Yup, I agree. Same goes for Robb and his betrayal. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Point it out. I made a joke about it, but I have never "morally justified" cannibalism. Don't be silly. you frequently have done, read what you just wrote, 'all gloves are off' yet we are two months into a debate were you can't afford the Frey's the same right to take the gloves off and I'm not even talking about the people inside the Twins but the soldiers outside who were not protected by guest rights. It is these arbitrary double standards you have when it comes to Robb, Wyman, Jaime and presumably, other characters. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: That wasn't his motivation. No-one threatened his grandsons, who were in the hands of Bolton by that point anyway. Cat picks up on a threat. There is far more textual evidence for that then there is for the the threat to Wylis you made up. Yet another double standard on your part. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: It's perfectly clear what his motivations were - revenge for Robb breaking the marriage contract, and an attempt to disentangle himself from Robb's cause. It's pretty clear that's the case anyway, and it's confirmed by GRRM. Nowhere in any source is it implied that Frey is worried that Robb is going to harm his children, and that's why he did the Red Wedding. Ditto Wyman and Wylis but your double standards will happily ignore that. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: That was clearly one partner in crime warning another against a double cross. Another word for a warning is a threat, is it not? 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: No, I just don't think any of what you argue on this point displays any level of seriousness. and yet we, predominantly the two of us, have discussed this now for eight pages. I think you are taking this discussion more seriously than you realize. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Charlton are Frey vassals. and still Lords who are enthusiastic allies. 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: Vypren were already married into the Freys before the Red Wedding. I don't know what role they played in the Red Wedding, nor how enthusiastic they are about their support for the Freys, but pointing to them as examples of support for the Freys is clutching at straws. lol no, you asked a question and I answered it, but I should have known you'd whine about it regardless 1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said: As I originally said, they Freys' reputation amongst the Riverlords is completely ruined. Just because their in-laws and their vassals are still working with them is hardly a ringing endorsement. lol completely. That is a big call. The real life events the Red Wedding was based on did not completely ruin the reputation of the clans involved. Dorne's reputation was not completely ruined for the way they betrayed Dareon, whichever House the Night King was from did not completely ruin their reputation. Walder's reputation is ruined, it is incredibly hyperbolic to predict that the Freys are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Kings Posted August 29, 2018 Author Share Posted August 29, 2018 Robb: Have you not heard of the guest right?" Walder: Frey'd not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 8:13 PM, The First Bloodrider said: Wayman Manderly and those people seeking revenge for losing a war that they took part in are the reasons why it will be difficult to unite Westeros again. Can you blame them? Without commonly understood terms of engagement and other boundaries, war never ends and peace is a pipedream. We see this in the real world as certain groups of people are always fighting. So, with all of the treachery and scheming that culminated in Red Wedding, all bets are off. The Freys, the Lannisters, the Boltons, the Spicers and all of their men not only crossed the line, they erased the line. There's no reason for them to be surprised when other people start "crossing" the line on them. Hello, the line doesn't exist anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 2 hours ago, Frey Kings said: Robb: Have you not heard of the guest right?" Walder: Frey'd not Anyone who finds this funny needs to reconsider their life priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.2f8ac830fe1925cfa7cdb55c61c273c6.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.