Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frey Kings

If People still hate the Freys, they need to reconsider their life priorities

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The red wedding is a very bad act of treachery.  I think Walder even knows that.  He was in a bad position and just didn't have any good alternative.  

I want to compare Walder Frey to Jaime Lannister. 

You make some really intriguing points. I think the reader is influenced greatly by Old Walder's loathesome personality: his record of taking a rapid sequence of young wives and breeding them until they die, while siring bastards on yet more young women; his record for treachery; his all-the-market-will-bear fees to cross his bridge; his generally nasty and slimy portrayal.

But it falls flat for me where you are comparing the few that Jaime "protects" with the many that old Walder "protects". Jaime has tried to kill, but ends up just maiming, one curious boy who was in the wrong place at the right time. Walder oversaw the happy slaughter of some 10,000. Put it as a ratio: Jaime saves 5 by offing 1 ("save ration" of 5), v Walder successfully offing 10,000 to save - let's be generous and call it 100 - a "save ratio" of 0.01. Tywin Lannister has the indecency to say Walder "killed one man at dinner", but we know what a cunt Tywin is. So Walder comes out as 500 times as awful as Jaime.

No need to add in Jaime killing the pyromancer and Aerys to save the population of King's Landing. That's something we should all get behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zandru said:

You make some really intriguing points. I think the reader is influenced greatly by Old Walder's loathesome personality: his record of taking a rapid sequence of young wives and breeding them until they die, while siring bastards on yet more young women; his record for treachery; his all-the-market-will-bear fees to cross his bridge; his generally nasty and slimy portrayal.

But it falls flat for me where you are comparing the few that Jaime "protects" with the many that old Walder "protects". Jaime has tried to kill, but ends up just maiming, one curious boy who was in the wrong place at the right time. Walder oversaw the happy slaughter of some 10,000. Put it as a ratio: Jaime saves 5 by offing 1 ("save ration" of 5), v Walder successfully offing 10,000 to save - let's be generous and call it 100 - a "save ratio" of 0.01. Tywin Lannister has the indecency to say Walder "killed one man at dinner", but we know what a cunt Tywin is. So Walder comes out as 500 times as awful as Jaime.

No need to add in Jaime killing the pyromancer and Aerys to save the population of King's Landing. That's something we should all get behind.

Everyone that Walder killed, excepting Catelyn, are soldiers.  Fighting men.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, zandru said:

Walder oversaw the happy slaughter of some 10,000.

This seems like deja vu as I'm pretty sure I have corrected you on this number only a few weeks ago, but it was 3,500, the vast majority of which were not guests of the Freys but soldiers outside. 

The actual guests killed at the wedding was probably less than a hundred with many being taken prisoner instead. The Freys still pissed off the gods, if they actually exist or actually care, bit the casualties are not as high as you are suggesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

They took a massive risk in taking sides with rebels, Walder Frey put the lives of all his children on the line to do so. He's south of Moat Cailin: he's in a much worse position than most of the rest of Stark's rebel houses if the war goes against them. The price for his allegiance was a marriage to the Rebel King, and that pact was broken. Ergo, Frey was no longer bound to any oath to the Starks.

Largely true. It's not the changing of sides that's really the issue though, it's the manner.

9 hours ago, Damon_Tor said:

His King ordered him to break a taboo, frankly a stupid superstition, and he did it. It was not only the correct move given the political situation, it could be argued that it was the right move, both legally and morally.

We obviously have vastly different ideas of morality.

The point is it's not a superstition, it's a code. It's a code of ethics which everyone takes seriously. Abandon it and you set yourself outside the accepted rules of war. The equivalent in our day and age would be to break the Geneva Convention.

7 hours ago, Kandrax said:

think that Hoster would has less low opinion about Walder, if he just stayed neutral instead playing comedy "The Late arrival".

That's a very good point. Again, it's not just that he stayed neutral, it's the manner in which he did it. It just reveals poor character.

5 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

He was in a bad position and just didn't have any good alternative.  

Nonsense. He could have simply marched over to the Lannisters. Or he could have just stayed out of it all together, sulking (it's not like either side would have picked a fight with him). Neither would have gained him as much as the Red Wedding though, or been as catastrophic for the Starks. That's why he did it.

5 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Walder Frey was an innocent bystander when Gregor Clegane attacked his small folk because of what Catelyn did.

I must have missed that. He hanged a few Lannisters on his lands, but they were far from ravaged. And I don't recall Gregor being involved.

5 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

Remember what the Tullys did to House Goodbrooke for staying neutral. 

The Goodbrooks sided with Aerys, they weren't neutral.

5 hours ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

The Freys did nothing wrong.  They were innocents that got dragged into the war.

My heart bleeds!

Seriously? They didn't get dragged into war, they extorted maximum gain for themselves before picking a side. No-one forced them to do anything, they weren't coerced, they were bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 No-one forced them to do anything, they weren't coerced, they were bought.

Very true

 

15 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Unarmed and at dinner.

No one forced Robb's army outside of the Twins (who were not invited to the dinner) to switch off a few hundred miles from their enemies. The reason why Robb won the battle of the Whispering Woods and Oxcross was because he was able to surprise sleeping enemies who had no idea that he was about to attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No one forced Robb's army outside of the Twins (who were not invited to the dinner) to switch off a few hundred miles from their enemies.

No, they were just encouraged to get hammered. You say "a few hundred miles" as if that's a short stroll away. They had no reason to believe they were in any danger, they thought they were on safe ground, with the Lannisters cut off by the swollen river.

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The reason why Robb won the battle of the Whispering Woods and Oxcross was because he was able to surprise sleeping enemies who had no idea that he was about to attack. 

True. But he didn’t invite Jaime over for a feast then kill him. There’s a difference between a surprise attack against a declared enemy and the massacre of supposed allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

No, they were just encouraged to get hammered.

no one forced them to get hammered, they weren't coerced they were not made to drink those soldiers and their captains made the choice to get hammered. 

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

You say "a few hundred miles" as if that's a short stroll away. They had no reason to believe they were in any danger,

Same is true of the sleeping untrained boys with Stafford, they had no reason to believe that Robb, thought to be hundreds of miles away at Riverrrun, was in the Westerlands. 

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

they thought they were on safe ground, with the Lannisters cut off by the swollen river.

as did Stafford given the west, secret pathways apart, were well defended.

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

True. But he didn’t invite Jaime over for a feast then kill him. There’s a difference between a surprise attack against a declared enemy and the massacre of supposed allies.

yup, he fucked over the wedding guests inside the Twins, not the army outside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that GRRM has set us up to like the Starks and dislike the Freys. In addition to the Red Wedding, there are multiple character descriptions that refer to a 'weasely' appearance, weak chins, and generally unattractive look to the Frey family. 

Big and Little Walder reflect what many readers identify as the stereotypical Frey scheming and opportunistic approach to politics in Westeros.

Even TWOIAF book doesn't give us much to appreciate in the way of heroes to admire. 

And the attitude towards the Freys isn't just a reader reaction. Davos, Jaime, Cat, Manderly and others have repeatedly talked shit about the Frey family.

The only Frey POV chapter did build empathy for their plight, but most readers aren't going to be swayed by this point, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 1:37 AM, Frey Kings said:

First and foremost, I guarantee you if the ASOIAF didn't start out with the Starks, the average fan wouldn't loathe the Freys as much.

 

Freys started out from the bottom and become one of the top 10 richest houses. And Yet, no other 'historical' house have showed them any respect. They followed Aegon against the Hoares and then pledged to the Tullys as their liege lord. But yet, The Tullys always looked down upon them.  Regarding the rebellion, maybe half of the Riverlords sided with Rhaegar? It was smart for them to stay neutral instead of running off to die because some guy was butt hurt for losing his woman to another man. 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. 

 

Its a very grey house. There are much worse characters in the lore both past & present. That can inflict more harm than the Freys ever could. 

 

 

So please, unless you're holier than thou. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

 

Really Walder.

How the hell did you get access to the internet in Westeros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

no one forced them to get hammered, they weren't coerced they were not made to drink those soldiers and their captains made the choice to get hammered. 

True. I don't really know what that proves though. If you invite me to do tequila slammers then sucker punch me, don’t expect me to accept 50% of the blame.  

10 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Same is true of the sleeping untrained boys with Stafford, they had no reason to believe that Robb, thought to be hundreds of miles away at Riverrrun, was in the Westerlands. 

But it's not the same because it's not what happened. They weren't attacked by enemies who snuck up on them but by allies. And there were outriders and guards the Hound and Arya meet them. It’s just that the Freys and Boltons inserted themselves into those roles.

12 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

yup, he fucked over the wedding guests inside the Twins, not the army outside. 

No he fucked them both over. The Piper man that the Hound and Arya meet describes how a Bolton man drank with him all night then knifed him. A violation of guest right? Probably not, but still what my dear departed grandmother would have called a “cunt’s trick”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

True. I don't really know what that proves though. If you invite me to do tequila slammers then sucker punch me, don’t expect me to accept 50% of the blame.  

they didn't invite the army, the army turned with Robb. 

If the soldiers choose to get pissed then that is on them, no one else.

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

But it's not the same because it's not what happened. They weren't attacked by enemies who snuck up on them but by allies.

Except. not quite. Robb was well aware how the Freys felt about him. 

Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt. But if it pleases Lord Walder to serve me stewed crow smothered in maggots, I'll eat it and ask for a second bowl."

The Freys are not the issue here it is the Northern army that were either too pissed or wanted him dead. You can't really blame the Freys for this

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

No he fucked them both over.

no, not the army. they fucked themselves over. In Robb's own words they were there to protect him, not to get pissed.

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

The Piper man that the Hound and Arya meet describes how a Bolton man drank with him all night then knifed him. A violation of guest right? Probably not, but still what my dear departed grandmother would have called a “cunt’s trick”.

how is the actions of a Northern Bolton man the fault of the Frey's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

they didn't invite the army, the army turned with Robb. 

If the soldiers choose to get pissed then that is on them, no one else.

You are genuinely arguing that they gatecrashed? Come off it. The army was of course invited, unless you want to get pointlessly literal.

Getting pissed is on them. Murdering them while they’re pissed is on the murderer.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

how is the actions of a Northern Bolton man the fault of the Frey's?

It was all part of A plan they worked out together. I thought we all knew the Freys and Boltons were collaborating? It’s pretty well-established in the books.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Freys are not the issue here it is the Northern army that were either too pissed or wanted him dead. You can't really blame the Freys for this

So as soon as you get drunk anyone can do what they like to you?

You can argue the Northern army were incompetent. I think it’s a harsh view, but fine, there’s a case for it. But it doesn’t make the Frey’s actions any more defensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

You are genuinely arguing that they gatecrashed? Come off it. The army was of course invited, unless you want to get pointlessly literal.

Robb was invited, there was no plus one army on his invite. 

The army was heading back home, they were not invited to the wedding.

Edwyn cleared his throat. "We have chambers prepared for you in the Water Tower, Your Grace," he told Robb with careful courtesy, "as well as for Lord Tully and Lady Stark. Your lords bannermen are also welcome to shelter under our roof and partake of the wedding feast."

"And my men?" asked Robb.

 "My lord grandfather regrets that he cannot feed nor house so large a host.

it is hardly literal to think an invite to a wedding extends to more than three thousand extra guests.

Quote

Getting pissed is on them. Murdering them while they’re pissed is on the murderer.

yeah, war is full of murderers. how come the same people who are outraged by attacking soldiers who have had a touch of alcohol don't show the same outrage over Robb's men murdering sleeping soldiers at Riverrun and Oxcross 

 

Quote

It was all part of A plan they worked out together. I thought we all knew the Freys and Boltons were collaborating? It’s pretty well-established in the books.

this thread is about the Freys, not sure how they can be blamed for half the northern army at the Twins being against Robb

Quote

So as soon as you get drunk anyone can do what they like to you?

they are at war, them acting irresponsibly is on them, no one else.  Stafford and Jaime were absolute fools with their scouting, their defeats were on their leadership, the same is true at the Twins. Robb is well aware that the Freys hold a grudge, arrogantly tells his mother his army will protect him then allows them to get drunk. 

Quote

You can argue the Northern army were incompetent. I think it’s a harsh view, but fine, there’s a case for it. But it doesn’t make the Frey’s actions any more defensible.

inside the Twins their actions are wrong, deservedly criticized, outside it was an army in a warzone killed by a faction that they knew were hostile as well as being betrayed by their fellow northman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

it is hardly literal to think an invite to a wedding extends to more than three thousand extra guests.

I honestly don't know what the point of debating this is. Are you saying the army wasn't technically protected by guest right? I suppose there's a case for that, but I don't think it really lessens the crime much.

37 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

yeah, war is full of murderers. how come the same people who are outraged by attacking soldiers who have had a touch of alcohol don't show the same outrage over Robb's men murdering sleeping soldiers at Riverrun and Oxcross 

Yet again - one's a surprise attack against a declared enemy, one's a massacre perpetrated by declared allies. That's the central point. It's the difference between an act of war and an act of betrayal.

39 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

this thread is about the Freys, not sure how they can be blamed for half the northern army at the Twins being against Robb

They were co-conspirators. What Bolton does is Bolton's fault, what Frey does is Frey's fault. What they plan together is both their faults.

 

40 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

they are at war, them acting irresponsibly is on them, no one else.

AGAIN - yes, you can blame them for getting drunk,. What is done to them by the Freys when they are drunk blame the Freys for.

 

41 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

they are at war, them acting irresponsibly is on them, no one else.  Stafford and Jaime were absolute fools with their scouting, their defeats were on their leadership, the same is true at the Twins. Robb is well aware that the Freys hold a grudge, arrogantly tells his mother his army will protect him then allows them to get drunk. 

AGAIN - you can make a case for any level of naiivity or incompetence for the Northmen falling for Frey's tricks and trusting him. That doesn't mean that the Frey's are somehow absolved of blame.

Another analogy if you like - You stupidly leave your window open when you go on holiday. I very cleverly steal your TV set. Am I blameless in that scenario?

We could make all sorts of criticisms of your stupidity in that case, but it doesn't somehow absolve me.

47 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

inside the Twins their actions are wrong, deservedly criticized, outside it was an army in a warzone killed by a faction that they knew were hostile as well as being betrayed by their fellow northman. 

Maybe this is the central point we disagree on. The faction wasn't openly hostile. They hadn't declared for Joffery or openly declared they were no longer answering to Edmure or Robb. They very firmly expressed a grievance and marched home (those under Robb anyway). Then entered into negotiations and agreed a marriage contract. They purposely did this with the intention of getting the Northmen and Riverlanders to let their guard down, so that they could kill them.

Is it a matter of guest-right? It's debatable.

Is it a violent betrayal? Of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That's why he did it.

Personally, i believe he did it, because he was thinking, "Well, Robb broke his oath to me , so i would break the most sacred oath of all"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kandrax said:

Personally, i believe he did it, because he was thinking, "Well, Robb broke his oath to me , so i would break the most sacred oath of all"

That's how he probably justified it, to himself and others. That since Robb dishonoured him, he had carte blanche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I honestly don't know what the point of debating this is. Are you saying the army wasn't technically protected by guest right?

Well no, I was that the Freys did not invite Robb's army. 

Though you are right the army outside was not  protected by guest rights, they were neither under Walder's roof or offered his food, the two factors that count for guest rights. 

Quote

 

I suppose there's a case for that, but I don't think it really lessens the crime much.

The crime is inside the twins, which was heinous, but outside it was war. 

The Northern army (well half of it) was unprepared much like the westerland army at oxcross

Quote

Yet again - one's a surprise attack against a declared enemy, one's a massacre perpetrated by declared allies. That's the central point. It's the difference between an act of war and an act of betrayal.

Robb is more than clear on how he views the Freys, he has brought his army to protect him. 

This is war and the Northmen are no better. 

"You have done House Frey a grievous insult, Robb."
"I never meant to. Ser Stevron died for me, and Olyvar was as loyal a squire as any king could want. He asked to stay with me, but Ser Ryman took him with the rest. All their strength. The Greatjon urged me to attack them . . ."
"Fighting your own in the midst of your enemies?" she said. "It would have been the end of you."
Quote

AGAIN - yes, you can blame them for getting drunk,. What is done to them by the Freys when they are drunk blame the Freys for

lol come on, it was war. The soldiers Robb brought to defend him should have known better

Quote

AGAIN - you can make a case for any level of naiivity or incompetence for the Northmen falling for Frey's tricks

what tricks? he was more than clear that he was did not consider the army his guests. offering alcohol is not  a trick.  soldiers don't have to get pissed. 

Quote

Another analogy if you like - You stupidly leave your window open when you go on holiday. I very cleverly steal your TV set. Am I blameless in that scenario?

no offense, but that's a pretty poor analogy. the army was outside, if I leave my tv outside it is my own fault if it is gone when i come back from holiday

 

Quote

Maybe this is the central point we disagree on. The faction wasn't openly hostile.

they were hostile enough that Robb was counting on his army to protect him, in his own words

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×