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

@Bernie Mac @Shouldve Taken The Black

Watch me fail to mediate this debate:

You both could claim sophistry since you both think the other is mistsken but anyways...

The original alliance was a marriage pact. Robb broke it.

The second alliance was another marriage pact where Walder would re-new his fealty after Edmure marries and Robb apologizes in person. Up till the point both those conditions were met, they were not technically allies anymore. 

However, Robb did apologize, Edmure did marry. At this point Robb has lived up to his end. Edmure, too.

Walder did not live up to his end, therefore did not swear fealty, therefore was not Robb's ally.

Frey did go back on his word, and break guest right. The Frey soldiers did not. They got mad at Robb and stayed mad until they attacked, but pretended to forgive. 

It was very dishonest, but not quite betrayal. It broke taboos some thought unbreakable. Robb and his men were just deceived.

Wrong and war are impossible to seperate.

I sincerely hope that helps :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dmfn said:

@Bernie Mac @Shouldve Taken The Black

Watch me fail to mediate this debate:

You both could claim sophistry since you both think the other is mistsken but anyways...

 

I actually would not accuse him of that, I don't believe he is being disingenuous with his arguments related to the topic, I consider him being sincere but the fact is this is literature and as is often the case in art it is open to interpretation. 

What I do find to be trite is some in the fandom resorting to label people who disagree with them as contrarians or, now. sophists.  It is just lazy. 

On 8/14/2018 at 4:47 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Was it the guy who felt he might be in danger or was it the guy who felt his honor was slighted?

Come on, it was more than just his honour being slighted, around 1,500 Frey men lost their lives, including his heir, because Robb fucked them over. 

On 8/13/2018 at 1:20 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

My position has been more than clear. You argue like Cathy Newman. 

Robb was well aware the Freys were potentially hostile, no one claims that their army will protect them from true allies.

 

On 8/13/2018 at 1:20 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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

Who claimed it did? 

The 3.500 Northmen who attacked Robb's army was the bigger threat to him. Robb correctly knew that the Freys were a potential threat, sadly he wrongly thought that his men would protect him from that danger. Robb was screwed over by the North far more than the Freys who he expected trouble from. 

On 8/13/2018 at 1:20 PM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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

 

cute.

 

Share this post


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

What I do find to be trite is some in the fandom resorting to label people who disagree with them as contrarians or, now. sophists.  It is just lazy. 

I'll retract the accusation for the sake of peace and unity in the forum.

8 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb was well aware the Freys were potentially hostile, no one claims that their army will protect them from true allies.

That's not the point though. Someone being wary of betrayal doesn't mean that the betrayal is somehow justified.

11 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The 3.500 Northmen who attacked Robb's army was the bigger threat to him. Robb correctly knew that the Freys were a potential threat, sadly he wrongly thought that his men would protect him from that danger. Robb was screwed over by the North far more than the Freys who he expected trouble from. 

There's certainly a case for that, but I still think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Surely, the argument is whether the attack by the Freys was justifiable? I don't see how their betrayal being less bad than the Boltons' absolves them in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dmfn said:

The second alliance was another marriage pact where Walder would re-new his fealty after Edmure marries and Robb apologizes in person. Up till the point both those conditions were met, they were not technically allies anymore. 

However, Robb did apologize, Edmure did marry. At this point Robb has lived up to his end. Edmure, too.

Walder did not live up to his end, therefore did not swear fealty, therefore was not Robb's ally.

I don't know about that. I think once Walder agreed to the conditions of the alliance (marriage and apology), and Robb and Edmure held up their end, Walder had essentially entered into an alliance, that he then broke. One side fulfilled its side of the bargain, the other then reneged on it.

57 minutes ago, dmfn said:

Wrong and war are impossible to seperate.

True, to a point. But there are rules in war. Both in this world and in Westros. They may be inconsistently and hypocritically followed and enforced, but they do exist.  

Share this post


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

 

That's not the point though. Someone being wary of betrayal doesn't mean that the betrayal is somehow justified.

Robb broke his promise, why should Walder not do the same? That is all the justification the man seeking vengeance needs.

"I am Brienne of Tarth, daughter to Lord Selwyn the Evenstar, and sworn to House Stark even as you are."
Ser Aenys spit at her feet. "That's for your oaths. We trusted the word of Robb Stark, and he repaid our faith with betrayal."

Betrayal happens frequently in Westeros, but it is easy for them to justify breaking their oaths.

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

There's certainly a case for that, but I still think it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Personally it is a huge point, Robb didn't trust the Freys, for good reason they had shown their anger, but he did not worry about them because he trusted in his own men, the same men who would turn against him in the battle outside the twins.

2 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 

Surely, the argument is whether the attack by the Freys was justifiable?

Inside less so, outside it was war. There is no rule in war that you have to give written notice before you attack them. Robb did not inform the Crown that he was rebelling against them till he actually fought them in battle, yet they were officially allies.

Inside the castle was a heinous act, that is a fair point to attack the Freys. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 7:37 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.

What the Freys do is loathsome and had given their House a terrible reputation throughout Westeros as well as the enmity of almost every House in the North and the Riverlands.  This is objective fact not subjective opinion. 

The reader is of course more emotionally involved and outraged by the betrayal and murder because the likes of Robb, Catelyn, the SmallJon, Dacey Mormont and Wendyl Manderly are characters we have come to know and like.

But please for the love of God, don't pretend the crime is actually ok and people are just unreasonably sympathetic to the victims..... :stillsick:

On 8/9/2018 at 10:43 AM, Frey Kings said:

I agree, they need to reexamine the Freys did nothing wrong and was caught between a rock and a hard spot. People should not have the same hatred towards them like all other houses have.

This is a fairly brainless contention given the breaking of guestright and the slaughter of wedding guests, all of whom were allies, is universally regarded as a monstrous crime in Westeros.

On 8/9/2018 at 8:49 PM, zandru said:

Well said! At this point, there's little else but recriminations on the choice of topic and who dares to respond.  ;-)

Yes, this forum used to be full of insightful discussion about the series not about cheering on the villains and being contrarian for the sake of passing time.

On 8/9/2018 at 11:40 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Being a Frey fan myself, I see them getting an undue amount of hate for the red wedding.  I say put most families in their shoes and they would do the same thing.  Why risk losing their bridge for some boy who already proved he doesn't respect them.

It's to be expected, it was a monstrous crime.  The whole point of this being such an infamous crime is that it breaks a sacred taboo and is a devastating betrayal: most families would not do this, it's why it's so unexpected.

On 8/10/2018 at 12:29 AM, 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.  He wished, rightly, to return to the fealty of the Iron Throne and asked what he had to do to make things right: he was given his answer. 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 object to it selfishly and emotionally: because we "know" the Starks, we live in their heads. Any honest attempt to see the situation from Walder's point of view results in a very different reaction.

How did Tyrion see it?  How do the other Houses sworn to the IT see it?  We should object to it whoever the victims were because it is obviously and monstrously wrong.

Tywin is smart enough that the wrongdoing is on Bolton and Frey, he made sure there is no blood on his hands from this.  If you can't see why establishing basic trust and rules of conduct is necessary rather than a "stupid superstition" then you must consider the rule of law equally stupid as it limits your freedom of action.

What Frey should have done if he wanted to return to the IT is take Robb and his lords prisoner.  It's still dishonorable to break guestright but with the Lords held captive the soldiers outside would be leaderless and effectively neutralised until their Lords bent the knee.  It would be a bloodless coup that avoided the infamy that Frey now has to deal with and left the IT to bear the consequences of any execution of prisoners.

Bolton may not have been on board with this as he needed the Starks and most of the Northern nobility out of the way to achieve his power grab in the North but once in the impregnable castle Frey calls the shots and he was motivated by a petty desire for vengeance out of all proportion to the slight done to his House.

On 8/10/2018 at 4:15 AM, Only 89 selfies today said:

 My opinion, Walder is more justified for the red wedding than Jaime's attempted murder of Bran Stark.  

We're comparing some pretty terrible things here.  I outlined above how Frey could have ended the Stark cause without murdering his guests.  You can argue, as Cersei did, that she could have frightened Bran into silence but I think we have to accept that Jaime did what he did reluctantly to save Cersei (and himself) from Robert's vengeance.  He didn't enjoy it, I hope you'll agree.  There is no such reluctance about Walder Frey who watches his wedding guests being slaughtered with obvious enjoyment.  Remember only Robb broke his betrothal, the other Northern and River Lords are completely innocent of any wrongdoing but he still enjoys watching them die because he feels over the years his House has been slighted by theirs (the River Lords at least, he can hardly have been slighted by the Northern Houses).

On 8/10/2018 at 5:27 AM, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

This is a pretty vile argument and I think you need to reconsider it.  The Feast tents and victuals for the troops were all provided by the Freys who were of course welcoming these troops to the wedding celebrations.  It's a wedding held at their castle between their Lord's daughter and his Lord, Edmure, and the provision of food and drink by them to the soldiers is exactly the same as the formalised bread and salt requested by Catelyn to secure protection for Robb within the castle.  

Only 3,500 men, hey?  Sheesh.

On 8/10/2018 at 9:40 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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

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.

Indeed, it's really surprising to me that there are people prepared to defend it.

On 8/10/2018 at 9:56 AM, 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. 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. 

Um, enemies they were at war with.  The Lannisters at Oxcross were not there at Robb's invitation for a wedding to re-establish an alliance between them.

On 8/10/2018 at 10:12 AM, 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. 

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

People tend to drink at celebrations, particularly if their hosts provide it for them!!!!!

They rigged the wedding tents to collapse and had archers send fire arrows into the oiled canvas to burn thousands of their guests to death.  These men were right royally fucked over, aka murdered... :rolleyes:

On 8/10/2018 at 10:39 AM, 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.

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

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

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

First up, being burned alive in a tent rigged to collapse is not your fault, whether you have had anything to drink or not....Can you comprehend this? Your argument here is pure victim blaming and it's a vile argument

Second, the army is not too pissed to do it's job and nor does it want him dead :dunno:, it is among friends and allies who have provided food and drink for a celebration and the men are doing what most people do at celebrations.  The thing about betrayal is it usually catches you offguard and it's no different for the men in the feast tents or the Lords in the Castle when the arrows start flying.

On 8/10/2018 at 1:44 PM, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

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

It's not their food is it?  It's provided by Walder Frey.  What are the tents except a roof provided over the soldiers heads by their hosts on their Land?

Outside as well as inside it's still a wedding celebration, it's astonishing you try and pretend otherwise.

When you find someone firing off dozens of posts to excuse Janos Slynt and then do the same for Walder Frey you have to wonder what the two things have in common.  Oh, I see....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Your argument here is pure victim blaming

I have been tempted several times on this thread to use that term, and avoided it. But it is spot on. The idea that once someone gets drunk then whatever happens to them is their fault leads us down a pretty dark path.

32 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Indeed, it's really surprising to me that there are people prepared to defend it.

Quite.

Share this post


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

I have been tempted several times on this thread to use that term, and avoided it. But it is spot on. The idea that once someone gets drunk then whatever happens to them is their fault leads us down a pretty dark path.

It's not even that they shouldn't be blamed for being irresponsible and so deserving anything that happened to them.  If you were stone cold sober and in the middle of one of those tents when it collapsed and started burning you would have no chance.  It's nothing to do with your actions.  The idea that someone traps you in a burning building and it's your fault is just too much for me to let slide by.  It's an appalling argument.  Even for this forum.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

Yes, this forum used to be full of insightful discussion about the series not about cheering on the villains and being contrarian for the sake of passing time.

Well no, there have always been topics like this. I joined in 2011 (link), and was a lurker long before that and there have always been topics exploring the motives of the antagonists of the series. 

It is kind of pathetic for you to accuse others of being contrarian for the sake of it. 

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

This is a pretty vile argument and I think you need to reconsider it. 

Please, save the condescension for someone else. 

How exactly is that a vile argument? Someone claimed it was 10,000 and I corrected them, it was 3,500. Want to explain what is so vile about that?

 

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

It's a wedding held at their castle between their Lord's daughter and his Lord, Edmure, and the provision of food and drink by them to the soldiers is exactly the same as the formalised bread and salt requested by Catelyn to secure protection for Robb within the castle.  

Except if you had bothered to read the thread you would know no salt or bread was given to the soldiers outside.

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. 

They were never protected by guest rights.

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Only 3,500 men, hey?  Sheesh.

lol it is war, do you feel the same outrage over the sleeping green westerland boys massacred at Oxcross.

3,500 was the number, how on earth you can find offense over someone pointing out the correct number is beyond me. 

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Indeed, it's really surprising to me that there are people prepared to defend it.

Some of us like to delve deeper, explore the motivations of characters. Explaining to others why a character chooses the path he/she takes is not always defending the character, though for some reason many assume they are one and the same. 

I have pointed out multiple times the acts inside the castle were heinous and while outside was clearly dishonorable that is war, dishonorable acts happen all the time by all sides.

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

Um, enemies they were at war with.  The Lannisters at Oxcross were not there at Robb's invitation for a wedding to re-establish an alliance between them.

The North was not at war with the Westerlands/Crown when they attacked and defeated Jaime. They were officially allies. 

And Robb's army was not invited to the wedding, Robb brought them along.

47 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

People tend to drink at celebrations, particularly if their hosts provide it for them!!!!!

and?

They are an army, no one made them drink and get wasted. That is on them. Frankly considering that every significant victory Robb had was catching the enemy by surprise he really should have known better. 

 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

They rigged the wedding tents to collapse and had archers send fire arrows into the oiled canvas to burn thousands of their guests to death.  These men were right royally fucked over, aka murdered... :rolleyes:

it is war, soldiers get murdered in battle. I really don't think I should be explaining this to anyone. 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

First up, being burned alive in a tent rigged to collapse is not your fault, whether you have had anything to drink or not....Can you comprehend this? Your argument here is pure victim blaming and it's a vile argument

lol victim blaming, what is this medieval SJW studies.

 

1 hour ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

When you find someone firing off dozens of posts to excuse Janos Slynt and then do the same for Walder Frey you have to wonder what the two things have in common.  Oh, I see....

  learn to read. In those threads I have been pretty clear that Slynt is a shitty human being, my argument  had been pretty constant, his crime did not warrant the death penalty, not that he himself did not get what he deserves. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what Robb did to the Freys, or whether he was an ally or not, it is made clear throughout the books that if there is one universal moral value respected by one and all, over and above all others, and the breaking of which has no justification, ever, then that is guest right. That the Frey's not only broke guest right, but cynically used it as a ploy to entrap Robb's wedding party, really does put them (and all those with a hand in planning and staging it) totally beyond the pale. In Westerosi terms it is completely undefendable.

Quote

The World of Ice and Fire - The North

In the North, they tell the tale of the Rat Cook, who served an Andal king—identified by some as King Tywell II of the Rock, and by others as King Oswell I of the Vale and Mountain—the flesh of the king's own son, baked into a pie. For this, he was punished by being turned into a monstrous rat that ate its own young. Yet the punishment was incurred not for killing the king's son, or for feeding him to the king, but for the breaking of guest right.
Quote

Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

Quote

A Storm of Swords - Bran IV

 
When the flames were blazing nicely Meera put the fish on. At least it's not a meat pie. The Rat Cook had cooked the son of the Andal king in a big pie with onions, carrots, mushrooms, lots of pepper and salt, a rasher of bacon, and a dark red Dornish wine. Then he served him to his father, who praised the taste and had a second slice. Afterward the gods transformed the cook into a monstrous white rat who could only eat his own young. He had roamed the Nightfort ever since, devouring his children, but still his hunger was not sated. "It was not for murder that the gods cursed him," Old Nan said, "nor for serving the Andal king his son in a pie. A man has a right to vengeance. But he slew a guest beneath his roof, and that the gods cannot forgive."

Killing a king's son is defendable; baking him into a pie and feeding it to his father is defendable; doing any of this under guest right is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

It doesn't matter what Robb did to the Freys,

Of course it does. The idea that we should ignore the motivations of the antagonists is confusing as hell to me. There is no harm in explaining why Walder did what he did.

Quote

 

or whether he was an ally or not, it is made clear throughout the books that if there is one universal moral value respected by one and all, over and above all others,

well no, not quite

One notable custom that the Northmen hold dearer than any other is guest right, the tradition of hospitality by which a man may offer no harm to a guestbeneath his roof, nor a guest to his host. The Andals held to something like it as well, but it looms less large in southron minds. In his text Justice and Injustice in the North: Judgments of Three Stark Lords, Maester Egbert notes that crimes in the North in which guest right was violated were rare but were invariably treated as harshly as the direst of treasons. Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

In the North it is held in higher regard than the South. But I agree with your point, it was a heinous act by the Freys. This is probably the 4th or 5th time I've said that but I imagine that will be ignored as the next swarm arrives.

Quote

Killing a king's son is defendable; baking him into a pie and feeding it to his father is defendable; doing any of this under guest right is not.

 

come on. Cannibalism is defensible but breaking guest rights is not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bananas!

Are we talking about forgiving the Freys? Are we talking about excusing their actions? Are we talking about justice for the wounded honor of the Freys? 

Or maybe just that they had their reasons. 

All this has been stated already. Who cares if they were allies with whomever? They are not supposed to be painted as the good guys. The whole point was to be able to understand, empathize with the situation.

To just dismiss it all 'as Walder was butthurt' so thousands of other guys went along with a plan that they fully well knew was going to be considered a blasphemy of their heritage is lazy. 

Robb took a poo poo on their house, so Walder took a bigger, stinkier, meaner, unforgivable poo poo on Robb's house. And was still allowed to rejoin the ranks of loyal servants to the crown. 

As I mentioned a week ago regarding Rat cook, it's pretty naive to think that no one else ever violated guest right. They probably just didn't get caught. Frey did what he felt he needed to do, but it turned into a PR nightmare.

Share this post


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

Cannibalism is defensible but breaking guest rights is not. 

We're not applying our own sense of morality here, but Westerosi - clearly if the gods punished the Rat Cook for guest right abuse and not for Prince Pie, then what other conclusion can we reach? It's there in the text. I only read it; I didn't write it...

My point is that the thread title "If People still hate the Freys, they need to reconsider their life priorities" is hyperbolic nonsense. Having animosity towards a family who so blatantly put themselves beyond the pale is perfectly reasonable within the bounds of enjoying immersive fiction.

Share this post


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

We're not applying our own sense of morality here, but Westerosi - clearly if the gods punished the Rat Cook for guest right abuse and not for Prince Pie, then what other conclusion can we reach? It's there in the text. I only read it; I didn't write it...

My point is that the thread title "If People still hate the Freys, they need to reconsider their life priorities" is hyperbolic nonsense. Having animosity towards a family who so blatantly put themselves beyond the pale is perfectly reasonable within the bounds of enjoying immersive fiction.

The Rat Cook is a Northern bedtime story, not the ten commandments carved in stone.

Share this post


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

The Rat Cook is a Northern bedtime story

One person's 'bedtime story' is another's 'indigenous oral tradition'. Either way, it expresses values people still hold sacred....

Share this post


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

One person's 'bedtime story' is another's 'indigenous oral tradition'. Either way, it expresses values people still hold sacred....

*some people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dmfn said:

*some people

Bad time to anger the Old Gods. Magic was rising and Winter has finally arrived.

Stoneheart and Nymeria haunt the Riverlands; Arya is finishing her training; the Starks have a greenseer and soon a King of Winter. "weasel soup" will soon take a new meaning. As Nymeria hints: Freys are prey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dmfn said:

The Rat Cook is a Northern bedtime story, not the ten commandments carved in stone.

It's a parable.

We know the laws of hospitality are taken seriously in Westros, and particularly in the North.

1 hour ago, dmfn said:

As I mentioned a week ago regarding Rat cook, it's pretty naive to think that no one else ever violated guest right. They probably just didn't get caught. Frey did what he felt he needed to do, but it turned into a PR nightmare.

Of course, I'm sure it's violated all the time. People will consider it a major violation if it ever occurs though.

Share this post


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

Inside less so, outside it was war. There is no rule in war that you have to give written notice before you attack them. Robb did not inform the Crown that he was rebelling against them till he actually fought them in battle, yet they were officially allies.

Inside the castle was a heinous act, that is a fair point to attack the Freys. 

I think this is the crux of your argument so I will address it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

First off, as in love, there are no rules in war. :P
Second, there is a great deal of difference in rising up in rebellion and between attacking an army under pretence of alliance and safe haven.
Inside the walls, the actual slaughter of Robb and his loyalists was a breach of guests right and therefore you think it is worse than the killing of his soldiers outside. And you are right, but just because one is a demonstrably worse action doesn't mean the other action is good.

Inside is a breach of guest's right, outside is a breach of an alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dmfn said:

@Bernie Mac @Shouldve Taken The Black

Watch me fail to mediate this debate:

You both could claim sophistry since you both think the other is mistsken but anyways...

The original alliance was a marriage pact. Robb broke it.

The second alliance was another marriage pact where Walder would re-new his fealty after Edmure marries and Robb apologizes in person. Up till the point both those conditions were met, they were not technically allies anymore. 

However, Robb did apologize, Edmure did marry. At this point Robb has lived up to his end. Edmure, too.

Walder did not live up to his end, therefore did not swear fealty, therefore was not Robb's ally.

Frey did go back on his word, and break guest right. The Frey soldiers did not. They got mad at Robb and stayed mad until they attacked, but pretended to forgive. 

It was very dishonest, but not quite betrayal. It broke taboos some thought unbreakable. Robb and his men were just deceived.

Wrong and war are impossible to seperate.

I sincerely hope that helps :)

 

That is one way to look at it.  There is also a logical angle to the red wedding;

  1. RW was less risky for the Freys.  They stand to lose their bridge and their lives, depending on how Tywin chose to punish the rebels.  Why put it on the line for the Starks who never have shown the Freys any respect.  Robb didn't value Stevron's life enough to keep his oath.  No reason for Walder to stay loyal to Robb.
  2. RW was the most efficient way to end the Stark rebellion.  Letting the rebellion continue longer will cause more damage.  This way, only the north and the riverlands take the big hit.  And who really cares about the north.  
  3. Possible profit for the Freys.  And they got rid of the Tullys.

It is hard to blame Walder Frey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×