Jump to content
•Brandon Ice Eyes

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Recommended Posts

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Right, so call me absurd and ridiculous but hear me out. The Red wedding, whilst cruel was justified. The thing is, Robb had lost, and was going back North where he intended to rout the Ironborn from his land and after that, I doubt he’d leave the riverlands on there own in the south. Frankly, it would have been more needless war. 

Yet, if Robb had passed by Moat Cailin, then it would have been impossible to catch him and for that reason his death was necessary no matter how ruthless. 

It is my opinion that people only have a problem with his death because House Stark are well like by ASOIAF fans, including myself (As shown my Username), yet because of this popularity, we refuse to accept that he was one person and his death was necessary to ensure that no else died and peace could return. Ultimately, it didn’t restore peace, HOWEVER, this was not because of the Red wedding but because of Joffery’s poisoning and Tywins subsequent death which meant that the realm slipped into Cersei’s hands, but this had nothing to do with the Red wedding, which in itself was a well thought out plan to dispatch of Robb Stark who had no intentions of restoring peace.

I know I’m going to rattle a lot of people with this, so please leave your thoughts below as to wether you agree with me or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. Killing Robb, while dishonourable, you could maybe justify for the reasons you stated. Not a popular decision for sure, I really like Robb and was rooting for him from the start but objectively you could justify it.

Hell in the-adaptation-which-must-not-be-named Tywin presents it as 'killing a thousand men in battle or a dozen at dinner'. (He might also say this in the book, not sure, my copy is on loan atm)

But killing Robb, his mother, Ser Raynald, several dozen nobles, taking the other nobles captive, slaughtering hundreds if not thousands of men and doing all of this at a wedding while the men being attacked are under guest right and doing it because one guy decided not to marry your daughter? That's not justified. That's petty and vindictive and cruel. That's why the characters in the book; even the ones not involved in the war or with the Starks; are disgusted by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree wholeheartedly, and I find your argument is very flawed. :)

  1. Suggesting that a single murder is justified to prevent a war is already a controversial proposition, but one could agree with you. But the Red Wedding wasn't a neat assassination. It was the bloody massacre of thousands of men.
  2. Robb was the only of the five kings that wasn't on the business of conquering lands. He was content with ruling the North and the Riverlands, whose lords had willingly submitted to him. If the purpose was to avoid deaths and stop the needless war, all that was required was to leave him alone.
  3. Robb had lost the North to the Greyjoys, and the Karstarks had abandoned him. The abominable betrayal that was the Red Wedding wasn't needed to at all. The Freys and the Boltons didn't need to murder him, they only needed to openly desert him and bend the knee to the Iron Throne. Without them, Robb's cause would have no hope.
  4. The cultural taboos exist for a reason, and the Guest Right is one of the greatest taboos in Westeros. It allowed everyone to travel freely, and it gave the necessary trust to eat, parley and negotiate with other lords. If the safety that the Guest Right gave disappears, the whole kingdom will suffer on the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robb was murdered in a dishonourable way, unguarded and unarmed, at a seemingly, and in normal circumstances, peaceful event.

It's an abominable act by all means. The perpetrators, (among whom Tywin is already brutally punished via kinslaying in the privy), are about to suffer gruesome fates.

The Gods and men will punish everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Right, so call me absurd and ridiculous but hear me out. The Red wedding, whilst cruel was justified. The thing is, Robb had lost, and was going back North where he intended to rout the Ironborn from his land and after that, I doubt he’d leave the riverlands on there own in the south. Frankly, it would have been more needless war. 

Yet, if Robb had passed by Moat Cailin, then it would have been impossible to catch him and for that reason his death was necessary no matter how ruthless. 

It is my opinion that people only have a problem with his death because House Stark are well like by ASOIAF fans, including myself (As shown my Username), yet because of this popularity, we refuse to accept that he was one person and his death was necessary to ensure that no else died and peace could return. Ultimately, it didn’t restore peace, HOWEVER, this was not because of the Red wedding but because of Joffery’s poisoning and Tywins subsequent death which meant that the realm slipped into Cersei’s hands, but this had nothing to do with the Red wedding, which in itself was a well thought out plan to dispatch of Robb Stark who had no intentions of restoring peace.

I know I’m going to rattle a lot of people with this, so please leave your thoughts below as to wether you agree with me or not.

People take issue with the Red Wedding because it was committed in a barbaric fashion in violation of an ancient code of honour laid down since the First Men. A guest beneath your roof is under your protection. Such a code isn’t unique to Westeros. Our own human history is full of cultures who held hospitality to be one of the greatest responsibilities that a man had in life. The Greeks, the Lebanese, so many others all have strict codes on how to treat a guest. The murder of one’s guest is a ghastly violation of trust. The Freys are cursed for that reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points but in my opinion they do not justify killing dozens of nobles and thousands of men-at-arms just because one man chose another woman’s honour over your daughter’s hand in marriage, and killing all those people while they were under your protection as your guests, having eaten your bread and salt. 

A different way to bump off Robb would be to do what Lord Manderly did to Rhaegar, Symond, and Jared Frey (I don’t mean eat them, I mean wait until they have left and then kill them). And if you did that you wouldn’t have the blood of thousands on your hands and be despised by all the realm, instead you would only have killed a few men, buddied up with the throne and the Lannisters, and not have had to endure a costly war for independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Leftwich said:

Ah, another well-reasoned, "I hate the Starks and am going to be subtle about it" thread.

House Stark is my favourite house, it’s Simply my opinion that he had lost and had to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like saying that a mass shooting that results in the deaths of a dozen innocent people is justified because the murderer was being ________ by another individual.

Or that hijacking planes, using them as gigantic flying bombs on 9/11, killing thousands and terrorizing millions, was justified because the United States stepped on the toes of a few Muslims of a certain sect.

No offense but you're lame for this.

The Red Wedding was never ever going to restore peace and end the war. Simply because of the horrific brutality and gross injustice of it all. Especially since everyone knows that the Lannisters were wrong to begin with.

Tywin Lannister should have never had knights disguise themselves as criminals so that they can rape, pillage and murder their way through the Riverlands. Eddard Stark should have never been executed because Joffrey should not have had that much power and presence as a minor. And the Queen should not have passed off her twin brother's bastards as legitimate heirs to the Iron Throne.

Period.

Regardless of if Tywin lived, the northern lords would still plot against the Boltons and their Frey associates. Because there was no way in hell Tyrion would be allowed to sit in Eddard Stark's chair and call himself Lord of Winterfell. Tywin was a idiot for thinking that would ever happen...they'd sooner force Sansa to miscarry and put her out into the streets penniless and unclothed than to let Tywin Lannister's grandson sleep in Eddard Stark's bedroom as the Warden of the North.

And do you think Joffrey's survival would have deterred Lady Stoneheart and the Brotherhood without Banners?

Wyman Manderly played a dangerous game with Cersei Lannister for the sake of his son and won. You think he wouldn't do the same against Tywin Lannister?

 

Edited by Jabar of House Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

House Stark is my favourite house, it’s Simply my opinion that he had lost and had to die.

If Robb Stark had lost, why bother murdering him at a wedding banquet?

No, when your only chance at besting an enemy is to take advantage of their good nature and lure them into a trap, you are the one who has lost. Not only that but you are desperate and outgunned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

1: This is like saying that a mass shooting that results in the deaths of a dozen innocent people is justified because the murderer was being ________ by another individual.

Or that hijacking planes, using them as gigantic flying bombs on 9/11, killing thousands and terrorizing millions, was justified because the United States stepped on the toes of a few Muslims of a certain sect.

2: The Red Wedding was never ever going to restore peace and end the war. Simply because of the horrific brutality and gross injustice of it all. Especially since everyone knows that the Lannisters were wrong to begin with.

3: Tywin Lannister should have never had knights disguise themselves as criminals so that they can rape, pillage and murder their way through the Riverlands.

4: And the Queen should not have passed off her twin brother's bastards as legitimate heirs to the Iron Throne.

5: Regardless of if Tywin lived, the northern lords would still plot against the Boltons and their Frey associates. Because there was no way in hell Tyrion would be allowed to sit in Eddard Stark's chair and call himself Lord of Winterfell. Tywin was a idiot for thinking that would ever happen...they'd sooner force Sansa to miscarry and put her out into the streets penniless and unclothed than to let Tywin Lannister's grandson sleep in Eddard Stark's bedroom as the Warden of the North.

6: And do you think Joffrey's survival would have deterred Lady Stoneheart and the Brotherhood without Banners?

7: Wyman Manderly played a dangerous game with Cersei Lannister for the sake of his son and won. You think he wouldn't do the same against Tywin Lannister?

 

 

1: 9/11 or Mass shootings have no relevance to this, not sure what parallel you’re trying to make there.

2: Had Tywin Lannister stayed alive, it would have restored peace in The North and The Riverlands. Daenerys and Euron and (f?)Aegons invasions would have gone ahead regardless of The Red Wedding and Stannis had already begun his war. War in The North was inevitable either way due to The Others coming south.

3: And Catelyn should not have kidnapped Tyrion.

4: I Agree.

5: If The North could be brang under Bolton heel for a few years, which House Bolton are perfectly capable of doing, or well Roose more specifically, then that would be enough time for the others to come south and when they do, The North will unite against a common enemy, The Others, and hopefully the rest of Westeros too. After that, perhaps Roose and Ramsay can conveniently die and pave the way for Rickon or Jon to rule The North.

6: The Brotherhood of Banners were rebelling in the Riverlands prior to The Red Wedding, I did not expect them to stop but bringing all The Riverlords to heel would allow Royal troops to enter the Riverlands and Deal with The BwB. Hostages from the Riverlords would ensure that there would be no co-operation between the BwB and them. 

7: He might have, Wyman Manderly was a smart man and Cersei is Utterly stupid, Tywin would be his equal however and it would be interesting to see who would win between the two.

 

Edited by •Brandon Ice Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Right, so call me absurd and ridiculous but hear me out. The Red wedding, whilst cruel was justified. The thing is, Robb had lost, and was going back North where he intended to rout the Ironborn from his land and after that, I doubt he’d leave the riverlands on there own in the south. Frankly, it would have been more needless war. 

Yet, if Robb had passed by Moat Cailin, then it would have been impossible to catch him and for that reason his death was necessary no matter how ruthless. 

It is my opinion that people only have a problem with his death because House Stark are well like by ASOIAF fans, including myself (As shown my Username), yet because of this popularity, we refuse to accept that he was one person and his death was necessary to ensure that no else died and peace could return. Ultimately, it didn’t restore peace, HOWEVER, this was not because of the Red wedding but because of Joffery’s poisoning and Tywins subsequent death which meant that the realm slipped into Cersei’s hands, but this had nothing to do with the Red wedding, which in itself was a well thought out plan to dispatch of Robb Stark who had no intentions of restoring peace.

I know I’m going to rattle a lot of people with this, so please leave your thoughts below as to wether you agree with me or not.

There are many of us who dislike the Starks.  So please do not make blanket statements that imply they are universally liked.  They are not.  

The Red Wedding was the only move for Walder Frey and Roose Bolton to make sure they finish out this war with their heads on their shoulders.  Robb and Catelyn proved to the world that Stark leadership is worth less than sunbaked cowshit.  Walder saw them losing and Robb will hang the Freys to dry.  It became clear that the Starks do not and never have respected the Freys.  Walder owed nothing to the Starks.  Ravens flew back and forth with Tywin.  The Freys have to prove their worth and the way to do that is to destroy the Stark threat and end their rebellion.  But how do the Freys do that?  The Starks and his leige lord (Tullys) are bound by blood.  Walder had to destroy the Starks and the Tullys at the same time to make sure his family is safe from retaliation.  How can David Frey take on the Stark Goliath?  The only way is trickery.  The RW is not justified from a moral point of view.  Neither is the Stark's breaking of an oath.  But from the point of view of battle strategy, RW was brilliant.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eddard Waters said:

I'm half tempted to make a thread titled "Jon Snow is literally worse than Hitler and is the second coming of Satan"

This is my point. Most people like House Stark, Personally, I do myself specifically their history, but every time people try and criticise House Stark, it’s like criticising the Bible to a  devout priest. Some people disagree with me as they believe that the Red wedding was disgusting and against the morals of Westeros which is fair enough and if you read above to the replies I’ve made to some, I’ve made my opinion known.

Share this post


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

There are many of us who dislike the Starks.  So please do not make blanket statements that imply they are universally liked.  They are not.  

The Red Wedding was the only move for Walder Frey and Roose Bolton to make sure they finish out this war with their heads on their shoulders.  Robb and Catelyn proved to the world that Stark leadership is worth less than sunbaked cowshit.  Walder saw them losing and Robb will hang the Freys to dry.  It became clear that the Starks do not and never have respected the Freys.  Walder owed nothing to the Starks.  Ravens flew back and forth with Tywin.  The Freys have to prove their worth and the way to do that is to destroy the Stark threat and end their rebellion.  But how do the Freys do that?  The Starks and his leige lord (Tullys) are bound by blood.  Walder had to destroy the Starks and the Tullys at the same time to make sure his family is safe from retaliation.  How can David Frey take on the Stark Goliath?  The only way is trickery.  The RW is not justified from a moral point of view.  Neither is the Stark's breaking of an oath.  But from the point of view of battle strategy, RW was brilliant.  

 

Exactly my point more or less, The Red Wedding was a necessary evil, I agree with you.

Edited by •Brandon Ice Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

1: 9/11 or Mass shootings have no relevance to this, not sure what parallel you’re trying to make there.

The parallel I'm making is that wanton massacres, acts of terrorism and wholesale genocide can almost never be justified.

Particularly not for petty reasons such as a broken engagement (House Frey), being bullied by a coworker or classmate (pick a mass shooting) or dissatisfaction with your superior (House Bolton).

Catelyn kidnapping -- frankly, it's actually an arrest but I'll humor you -- Tyrion is a direct consequence of Lannister (in this case, his elder siblings) behavior. Had Jaime, I don't know, not pushed the son of his very gracious hosts out of a window, I'm sure Catelyn would have had nothing to worry about and Tyrion would've been able to go in peace.

The fact that you think any notion of peace was possible in the North, much less the Riverlands, if Tywin lived is absolutely absurd and it makes me wonder if you are reading the same book as I have.

Virtually every Northman is closely tied to someone who was killed, injured or adversely impacted in the Red Wedding. You expect them to just be content with Lannister-sponsored Bolton rule? Discontentment without open hostilities is not peace.

Stannis' war has nothing to do with it either. Stannis went north because the Night's Watch was in danger. And he stayed north because he saw an opportunity in the North that he could take advantage of...the opportunity being the beginning of the northerners's second rebellion against the Iron Throne.

The North was basically acting like Dorne was in back in the day when they were at war against the Targaryens and the rest of Westeros.

Case in point: you just contradicted yourself here...

24 minutes ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

5: If The North could be brang under Bolton heel for a few years, which House Bolton are perfectly capable of doing, or well Roose more specifically, then that would be enough time for the others to come south and when they do, The North will unite against a common enemy, The Others, and hopefully the rest of Westeros too. After that, perhaps Roose and Ramsay can conveniently die and pave the way for Rickon or Jon to rule The North.

Conveniently huh?

As for the Riverlands, the Faith Militant is a direct consequence of Lannister warmongering in the Riverlands. Jaime sees it in the Riverlands. The Red Wedding did nothing but give the Brotherhood without Banners more ammunition and much more nobler cause.

Dorne was on the verge of overthrowing Doran Martell and seceding from the Seven Kingdoms when Tywin was still alive.

13 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

Thanks.  Evil in terms of the morality of it.  Legal because Tywin ordered it done.  

Right because it's more important to follow the law than to do the right thing.

I guess that if we were to be revisited with the Holocaust, I should immediately inform the authorities of any Jewish persons and entities that I know of simply because I was told. In fact, I should help the authorities look for any hidden or fleeing Jewish persons or organizations because hey...it's illegal for them to run and/or hide.

25 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

There are many of us who dislike the Starks.  So please do not make blanket statements that imply they are universally liked.  They are not.  

The Red Wedding was the only move for Walder Frey and Roose Bolton to make sure they finish out this war with their heads on their shoulders.  Robb and Catelyn proved to the world that Stark leadership is worth less than sunbaked cowshit.  Walder saw them losing and Robb will hang the Freys to dry.  It became clear that the Starks do not and never have respected the Freys.  Walder owed nothing to the Starks.  Ravens flew back and forth with Tywin.  The Freys have to prove their worth and the way to do that is to destroy the Stark threat and end their rebellion.  But how do the Freys do that?  The Starks and his leige lord (Tullys) are bound by blood.  Walder had to destroy the Starks and the Tullys at the same time to make sure his family is safe from retaliation.  How can David Frey take on the Stark Goliath?  The only way is trickery.  The RW is not justified from a moral point of view.  Neither is the Stark's breaking of an oath.  But from the point of view of battle strategy, RW was brilliant.  

 

David and Goliath? Well, there was no trickery involved there. David faced Goliath head-on in single combat and defeated him with a slingshot before using Goliath's own sword to cut Goliath's head. So your analogy is invalidated.

Is the Frey family safe from retaliation? Gee, I don't know, let's reread the epilogue of A Storm of Swords.

Robb Stark's oathbreaking would be a big problem if he didn't try to publicly make amends for it. Other oathbreaking, alliance-ending incidences in the past have come to a peaceful, happy conclusion in the past. Why not now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Right, so call me absurd and ridiculous but hear me out. The Red wedding, whilst cruel was justified. The thing is, Robb had lost, and was going back North where he intended to rout the Ironborn from his land and after that, I doubt he’d leave the riverlands on there own in the south. Frankly, it would have been more needless war.

I'm not sure how this justified the RW. Could you elaborate a little further? 

 

7 hours ago, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

opinion that people only have a problem with his death because House Stark are well like by ASOIAF fans, including myself (As shown my Username), yet because of this popularity, we refuse to accept that he was one person and his death was necessary to ensure that no else died and peace could return. Ultimately, it didn’t restore peace, HOWEVER, this was not because of the Red wedding but because of Joffery’s poisoning and Tywins subsequent death which meant that the realm slipped into Cersei’s hands, but this had nothing to do with the Red wedding, which in itself was a well thought out plan to dispatch of Robb Stark who had no intentions of restoring peace

Maybe that's why some people don't like the RW. I would assume many more don't like it because it was an unjustified slaughter. 

So... Just to clarify, you think it's justified because A. Robb was only one person & B. Because it was necessary for peace correct? 

Well, it wasn't only one person that was slaughtered, it wasn't even only Starks AND it didn't bring peace. So yeah I'm gonna give this a big, fat NO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ser Leftwich said:

Ah, another well-reasoned, "I hate the Starks and am going to be subtle about it" thread.

These are my favorite kind! :lol:

Really though, I miss the days when they were at least creative about it. 

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

×