Jump to content
Frey Kings

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, zandru said:

There's two main ways of seeing this: inviting allies in to celebrate and then ambushing and killing them is a good move. Or it's an atrocity. It seems lots of people can't see the difference between a battle between known and declared foes and slaughter of apparent friends at a party. Fine. This literally is a religious difference!

This is where the conversation gets tricky. It depends on where one is standing. That is why I frequently say that in this story one has to pick a side.

Intellectually I understand why in this story Lannister/Baratheon, Frey and Bolton did what they did ---- it's about keeping power, property and prestige.

Personally, taking my social, educational and spiritual leanings into consideration my judgement is that they committed a deceitful act by luring the Starks and northmen into a premeditated slaughter.

Besides most of these BS Frey and Bolton and Slynt threads are people yapping trying to keep the forum alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 8:22 AM, Buell Rider said:

House frey was caught between the wolves and the lions.  The wolves betrayed him and now want to make a deal again for his services.  The lions are saying he needs to solve a problem for them before they will let him back into the good graces of King Joffrey.  They're not letting him get away with fighting for the rebels and then wiping the slate clean.  He has to prove his loyalty by taking down the rebellion for them.  But Walder doesn't have the number of fighting men that Robb has.  Walder and Roose together do not command enough men to fight the combined forces of the Starks and the Tullys.  Fighting Robb head on is suicide.  Deception is the only way to get it done.  

If the Freys had just closed the Twins to the northmen, Robb's army would have been utterly screwed. Robb can't take the castle and he'd have to march down to the Ruby Ford and north up the KR to get back to MC. That leaves him in between Tarly's men at Maidenpool, the mountain's men, and the Lannister/Tyrell army in KL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 9:22 AM, Buell Rider said:

House frey was caught between the wolves and the lions.  The wolves betrayed him and now want to make a deal again for his services.  The lions are saying he needs to solve a problem for them before they will let him back into the good graces of King Joffrey.  They're not letting him get away with fighting for the rebels and then wiping the slate clean.  He has to prove his loyalty by taking down the rebellion for them.  But Walder doesn't have the number of fighting men that Robb has.  Walder and Roose together do not command enough men to fight the combined forces of the Starks and the Tullys.  Fighting Robb head on is suicide.  Deception is the only way to get it done.  

 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

If the Freys had just closed the Twins to the northmen, Robb's army would have been utterly screwed. Robb can't take the castle and he'd have to march down to the Ruby Ford and north up the KR to get back to MC. That leaves him in between Tarly's men at Maidenpool, the mountain's men, and the Lannister/Tyrell army in KL.

Too risky for House Frey.  What if the unthinkable happened and Robb defeats the Lannisters.  The Tullys are not going to be so forgiving.  The Freys could lose a lot.  Including their lives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Too risky for House Frey.  What if the unthinkable happened and Robb defeats the Lannisters.  The Tullys are not going to be so forgiving.  The Freys could lose a lot.  Including their lives.  

Robb broke their pre-arranged marriage contract that bound them as allies. How can House Tully realistically punish their strongest bannermen for not adhering to a contract they broke? And to be clear, I mean the Freys don't actively oppose Robb just don't offer him passage or support. Basically every example we have of a house who does something similar shows them being leniently. Even if Robb wins, he lacks the means to take the Twins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:05 AM, Bernie Mac said:

What Robb did was just as bad. 

That's a value judgement, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. (It’s unlikely to ever happen, but remind me never to cheat on your sister. I can expect a massive overreaction ;-) )

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:05 AM, Bernie Mac said:

The point the two of you were making was that it was not a battle,  now one character in the book calling it a battle was not good enough for you but two people doing so has made you backtrack. 

I'd humbly suggest that you are maybe concentrating on the wording rather than the content? Let’s not get bogged down in semantics though.

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:05 AM, Bernie Mac said:

and attacking a sleeping army of untrained green boys is?

Yes. Because of the point I keep repeating over and over. One is a surprise attack against a declared enemy. One is a massacre of a declared ally. You wilfully ignoring this point is why we keep having to repeat ourselves.

 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:05 AM, Bernie Mac said:

once again it the constant double standards the fandom has in excusing one side's poor behavior over the others. 

It’s not double standards if the acts are fundamentally different.

Share this post


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

That's a value judgement, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. (It’s unlikely to ever happen, but remind me never to cheat on your sister. I can expect a massive overreaction ;-) )

Except it is not just about the 'cheating' but the thousands of Frey men who lost their lives, including Walder's oldest. This is often what is conveniently ignored in these discussions. 

 

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I'd humbly suggest that you are maybe concentrating on the wording rather than the content? Let’s not get bogged down in semantics though.

Two characters call it a battle, it was certainly one sided, like Robb at Oxcross, but a battle nonetheless between two armies with casualties sustained on both sides.

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yes. Because of the point I keep repeating over and over. One is a surprise attack

They were both surprise attacks

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

against a declared enemy. One is a massacre of a declared ally.

No, they were not declared allies at that point, they were hostile. Robb, in his own words, had his army there to protect him. Cat herself only felt safe once she had some food. These are not how 'allies' act around each other. 

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

You wilfully ignoring this point is why we keep having to repeat ourselves.

ditto

4 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

It’s not double standards if the acts are fundamentally different.

Sure it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, Buell Rider said:

House frey was caught between the wolves and the lions.  The wolves betrayed him and now want to make a deal again for his services.  The lions are saying he needs to solve a problem for them before they will let him back into the good graces of King Joffrey.  They're not letting him get away with fighting for the rebels and then wiping the slate clean.  He has to prove his loyalty by taking down the rebellion for them.  But Walder doesn't have the number of fighting men that Robb has.  Walder and Roose together do not command enough men to fight the combined forces of the Starks and the Tullys.  Fighting Robb head on is suicide.  Deception is the only way to get it done. 

One of the points about having honour is that you don't break the code, irrespective of whether it's the best/only way to go. You can consider that attitude folly, but it's still the entire point. People often bemoan Ned's behaviour for, say, warning Cersei, or refusing Renly's plan. Were these actions the best ones to achieve victory? No. But they were the most honourable.

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:31 PM, Angel Eyes said:

I’d say that the in-universe hate for the Frey’s has mainly begun with Lord Walder, since his ancestor Forrest Frey was a loyal and brave (by all accounts) supporter of the Blacks during the Dance of the Dragons, and unlike Criston Cole supported her despite being rejected as a husband. And much of the family has inherited Walder’s unpleasantness.

I'd largely agree, though from what we learn in the Mystery Knight, Walder may have learned the art of playing both sides on his father's knee.

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, MostlyMoody said:

I don't think anyone is arguing pragmatism. Red Wedding was strategically the best option for the Lannisters and Freys. That does not make it moral and to bring it back to the OP, that is why readers and many characters in the books hate Freys.

^^^ This

Though I'm not certain that strategically it was the best option. It probably will backfire on them massively in the long term. Freys are being hanged left, right and centre. Their reputation is shot to bits.

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Hugorfonics said:
On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:21 PM, Clegane'sPup said:

I have to question who started the communication that instigated the plan?

I belive it was Walder, but I cant think of the scene where Tywin alludes to this

In ASOS, when Tywin is discussing it with Tyrion, Tywin suggests Walder offered his allegiance in exchange for "assurances"

 

Share this post


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

No, they were not declared allies at that point, they were hostile.

They had literally just entered into a new alliance when the act was done. The betrothal was agreed. The wedding and bedding had taken place. You're being purposefully obtuse.

 

14 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb, in his own words, had his army there to protect him. Cat herself only felt safe once she had some food. These are not how 'allies' act around each other. 

It is if one ally is deceitful and untrustworthy.

 

 

Share this post


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

They had literally just entered into a new alliance when the act was done. The betrothal was agreed. The wedding and bedding had taken place. You're being purposefully obtuse.

They had previously entered into an alliance when Robb broke his word, Walder did the same.  

11 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

It is if one ally is deceitful and untrustworthy.

both were in this case. Robb had proven that his word meant shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robb failed. He didn't save his father. He didn't save his sisters. He liberated Riverrun and lost half the North.

The Freys did what they had to do to get back on the winning team. They joined Robb, making them traitors to the crown from the very start. 

Their conduct has been shady from the start. What's the debate at this point?

They had their reasons...

Share this post


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

They had previously entered into an alliance when Robb broke his word, Walder did the same.  

So he was in an alliance and broke his word then. You agree? Please settle on a position.

 

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

both were in this case. Robb had proven that his word meant shit

Irrelevant to the morality of the act. Robb broke an alliance. Renegotiated one, then he and his men were massacred.

I'm starting to think it's pointless arguing any further, this is descending into sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

So he was in an alliance and broke his word then. You agree? Please settle on a position.

eh? I claimed Robb and Cat did not trust the Freys, that Robb was mistakenly under the impression that his much larger army would protect him. There was clear hostility between the two, the books are more than clear about that and that has been my position.

1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Irrelevant to the morality of the act.

it is war, there is little moral about it. Attacking sleeping untrained boys is also not moral. 

1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

Robb broke an alliance. Renegotiated one,

and then the Freys broke an alliance. 

1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

then he and his men were massacred.

no, half of his men were not, half were against Robb. The massacre only happens because many Northmen were against him.

1 minute ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I'm starting to think it's pointless arguing any further, this is descending into sophistry.

jesus, some one does not share your opinion so you resort to an ad hominem accusation. Just how sensitive are you that you can't comprehend someone honestly not agreeing with you?

Share this post


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

eh? I claimed Robb and Cat did not trust the Freys, that Robb was mistakenly under the impression that his much larger army would protect him. There was clear hostility between the two, the books are more than clear about that and that has been my position.

Actually no, you have two contradictory positions:

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, they were not declared allies at that point, they were hostile.

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:
1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

They had literally just entered into a new alliance when the act was done. The betrothal was agreed. The wedding and bedding had taken place. You're being purposefully obtuse.

They had previously entered into an alliance when Robb broke his word, Walder did the same.  

So either Walder was doing what Robb did, which is break an alliance. Or they were not in one. Which is it?

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

it is war, there is little moral about it. Attacking sleeping untrained boys is also not moral. 

Again - one's an act by a declared enemy. One's an act by a supposed ally. I won't address this point further, as we're both just repeating ourselves.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

and then the Freys broke an alliance. 

So it was an alliance? I thought you said they were hostile? Choose a position.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

no, half of his men were not, half were against Robb. The massacre only happens because many Northmen were against him.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

jesus, some one does not share your opinion so you resort to an ad hominem accusation. Just how sensitive are you that you can't comprehend someone honestly not agreeing with you?

Google sophistry. To suggest someone is engaging in it is hardly an accusation. In fact, it's been a pretty standard thing to say in a civilised debate for the last 2,500 years. And once you have found out what it means, you may actually agree that it's a pretty accurate description of what you're doing.

Edited by Shouldve Taken The Black

Share this post


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

Actually no, you have two contradictory positions:

no, I don't.  They were hostile towards each other, Robb certainly thought so as he claimed his army was there to protect him. 

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

So either Walder was doing what Robb did, which is break an alliance. Or they were not in one. Which is it?

eh? lol you are getting increasingly desperate now.  I have been more than clear, Robb did not see them as allies, we don't need armies to protect us from our allies, do we? 

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Again - one's an act by a declared enemy. One's an act by a supposed ally. I won't address this point further,

sure you will. 

 

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Irrelevant to this discussion.

no, it really is not. The 3,500 northmen who attacked their fellow Northmen is what makes that victory possible.

must be nice to just ignore information you don't like. 

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Google sophistry.

lol come on, don't be that guy. 

3 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

To suggest someone is engaging in it is hardly an accusation. And once you have found out what it means, you may actually agree that it's a pretty accurate description of what you're doing.

yeah because you can't possibly wrong about fictional characters in a fictional universe that the author often leaves motives and actions vague on purpose. 

I can accept that I may be wrong on this, only GRRM can really clarify what he meant, but I'm just clarifying how I see it. 

Share this post


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

Robb did not see them as allies, we don't need armies to protect us from our allies, do we? 

We do against untrustworthy allies. Was there a marriage pact or not? Were they in an alliance or not? I just posted two contradictory statements from you. Choose a position.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

no, it really is not. The 3,500 northmen who attacked their fellow Northmen is what makes that victory possible.

must be nice to just ignore information you don't like. 

So Roose plotting with Walder somehow exonerates Walder's actions? How does that work?

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

yeah because you can't possibly wrong about fictional characters in a fictional universe that the author often leaves motives and actions vague on purpose. 

I can accept that I may be wrong on this, only GRRM can really clarify what he meant, but I'm just clarifying how I see it. 

That's actually sophistry. Honestly, please Google it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Freys literally offered alliance, or a renewing of the current alliance, as an excuse to massacre Robb and his army. 

Quote

"My lord father bids me tell Your Grace that he will agree to this new marriage alliance between our houses and renew his fealty to the King in the North, upon the condition that the King's Grace apologize for the insult done to House Frey, in his royal person, face to face."

Quote

 "That is why he insists that the marriage take place now, ser. Men die in war, even men who are young and strong. What would become of our alliance should Lord Edmure fall before he took Roslin to bride?"

The Freys declared themselves allies to the Starks and Tullys. 

The Lannisters and Starks were declared enemies. 

Oxcross was nothing like the massacre at the Twins. 

Edited by Unacosamedarisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

no, I don't.  They were hostile towards each other, Robb certainly thought so as he claimed his army was there to protect him. 

eh? lol you are getting increasingly desperate now.  I have been more than clear, Robb did not see them as allies, we don't need armies to protect us from our allies, do we? 

Yet Walder did too? thinking_man_emoji.gif

And who was it who used their army to massacre their ally under false pretenses? Was it the guy who felt he might be in danger or was it the guy who felt his honor was slighted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sun Aug 12 2018 at 2:19 PM, Kandrax said:

Why children?

'All Freys must die' as in Valar Morgulis. House Frey should be no more if Starks ever wants to be seen as a force to be reckoned with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Samsaptakas said:

'All Freys must die' as in Valar Morgulis. House Frey should be no more if Starks ever wants to be seen as a force to be reckoned with.

You don't need to kill kids. They can be reduced to peasants or take mothers's surnames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×