Jump to content

The Red Wedding Was Justified.


Brandon Ice-Eyes

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, The Anti-Stark said:

They had every right to kill him for his betrayal.  The heir to The Twins died fighting for the Starks and then they refused to honor their oath.  The Starks deserved to lose regardless of whether the RW is justified.  

 

Kill yea but murder after swearing oaths no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb was guilty of oathbreaking.  The Starks publicly disrespected and humiliated the Freys.  The Starks deserved to lose the war and all the consequences that comes with losing.  But, I don't think it should have happened the way it did.  I would support Walder Frey for siding with the Lannisters and fighting against the Starks.  If I'm being honest, I would even wish the Freys all the success in the world and would love nothing more than to see the Starks and the Tullys wiped out.  But we have to set aside bias in order to answer the original question being asked by Brandon Ice Eyes.  We should examine two cases of guest rights violation. 

Was Jaime Lannister justified when he tried to kill little Bran?  We know Bran is not guilty of anything.  He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But the consequences were serious for the Lannisters and their children if Bran were to run his mouth. 

Walder Frey was also facing danger.  He rebelled against King Joffrey and fought for the Starks.  Everybody knows what happened to the Reynes and Rhaegar's children.  No one would wish that on his family.  Can you blame Walder for being afraid?  I don't.  His children and grandchildren will be in danger when they lose the war and yes, they will lose.  Don't forget his new son-in-law would get executed by the Starks when his secret is revealed.  Roose was on the Lannister side all along.  What happens to Walda and all that silver?  Are the Starks giving it back after they kill Roose?  I doubt it.  His grandchildren are somewhere in the north, lost.  And Robb broke his sworn oath. 

Bran is not guilty of any such thing.  Jaime and Cersei were fucking under the king's nose.  They were already guilty of death deserving behavior.  Walder was not guilty of anything before the Starks dragged him into their war. 

Was the Red Wedding justified?  It is difficult to say but when you compare it to Jaime's violation of guest rights, I say Walder was more justified than Jaime. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Coonster said:

Was the Red Wedding justified?  It is difficult to say but when you compare it to Jaime's violation of guest rights, I say Walder was more justified than Jaime. 

From my point of view it’s worse to kill a guest in your own home than the guest killing the host. Because as the host you are welcoming the guest and offering them protection under your own roof. 

6 hours ago, The Coonster said:

But we have to set aside bias in order to answer the original question being asked by Brandon Ice Eyes. 

I agree with this. Lots of people in these forums like to openly express their hatred for a character by throwing away common sense and being “bias”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2019 at 11:12 AM, The Young Maester said:

Freys went through the red wedding because they were betrayed and felt a lot of anger towards Robb. I somehow dont see any other house committing to a red wedding. Breaking guest right and murdering a lord on your own halls, will harm a houses honour and reputation in Westeros. Freys went through the red wedding because they were already disliked by many lords in westeros. Walder probably said why not, they already dislike us anyways. Any other Lord with Walder and Roose's numbers would've betrayed Robb when he was making his march north by attacking him on the rear and front when he was least expecting it. Walder had more than enough numbers together with bolton to take out Robb, and fight him directly.

That's fine, our opinions differ on this matter.  I believe the other noble houses would have done the same as the Freys if they had been in the exact same predicament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bowen 747 said:

That's fine, our opinions differ on this matter.  I believe the other noble houses would have done the same as the Freys if they had been in the exact same predicament. 

Course they would. That's made clear by all the other instances we hear of where guest right was broken similarly. /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bowen 747 said:

That's fine, our opinions differ on this matter.  I believe the other noble houses would have done the same as the Freys if they had been in the exact same predicament. 

When you mean same predicament I’m guessing the head of the house being exactly like Walder and being in the exact same position as House Frey. Than yeah maybe I can see that house committing themselves to a Red wedding. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/4/2019 at 6:52 PM, 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.  

 

Frey was a bannerman of House Tully so even before Robb enters the scene Frey had an obligation to lend aid to House Tully as the Riverlands were being invaded.  Once Robb is proclaimed King in the North, Frey owes that allegiance to him as his liege lord had "bent the knee" so to speak.  As for the Starks not respecting the Freys, well two things...1) no one respects the Freys and thats largely due to Walder himself. 2) The violation of something as sacred as guest right likely caused their standing to fall even further among the other houses of Westeros. While the RW may have been "brilliant" tactically for the Lannisters & even the Boltons (as they could at least claim to have simply escaped) it basically ruined the Frey's already suspect reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under no circumstances is the Red Wedding justified - no matter who is the perpetrator or the victim. Guest right is an ancient and sacred tradition in Westeros and by violating it Walder committed a huge war crime. The modern day equivalent of that is someone violating the universal declaration of human rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Elegant Woes said:

Under no circumstances is the Red Wedding justified - no matter who is the perpetrator or the victim. Guest right is an ancient and sacred tradition in Westeros and by violating it Walder committed a huge war crime. The modern day equivalent of that is someone violating the universal declaration of human rights. 

Which economical behemoths and resource wealthy countries do all the time. It's all a matter of power and means to the point of unacountability in the end. 

No way am I on board with the RW. It was the height of betrayal and disgusting 'tactics', but Frey and Bolton felt safe enough in the backing of their powerful allies that consequences would be well worth their while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2019 at 5:29 PM, AvengerofWinterfell said:

Frey was a bannerman of House Tully so even before Robb enters the scene Frey had an obligation to lend aid to House Tully as the Riverlands were being invaded.  Once Robb is proclaimed King in the North, Frey owes that allegiance to him as his liege lord had "bent the knee" so to speak.  As for the Starks not respecting the Freys, well two things...1) no one respects the Freys and thats largely due to Walder himself. 2) The violation of something as sacred as guest right likely caused their standing to fall even further among the other houses of Westeros. While the RW may have been "brilliant" tactically for the Lannisters & even the Boltons (as they could at least claim to have simply escaped) it basically ruined the Frey's already suspect reputation.

House Tully and everybody in Westeros have an obligation to remain loyal to Joffrey.  The fact that the Tullys rebelled meant they were outlaws.  The Freys have no obligation to side with outlaws.  And Robb Stark proclaiming himself king in the north meant nothing because the north is under the rule of King Joffrey until the Starks win their rebellion. They are nothing more than outlaws until they win their rebellion.  They lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 8:32 AM, Elegant Woes said:

Under no circumstances is the Red Wedding justified - no matter who is the perpetrator or the victim. Guest right is an ancient and sacred tradition in Westeros and by violating it Walder committed a huge war crime. The modern day equivalent of that is someone violating the universal declaration of human rights. 

Guest right is not law.  It is custom and tradition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

House Tully and everybody in Westeros have an obligation to remain loyal to Joffrey.  The fact that the Tullys rebelled meant they were outlaws.  The Freys have no obligation to side with outlaws.  And Robb Stark proclaiming himself king in the north meant nothing because the north is under the rule of King Joffrey until the Starks win their rebellion. They are nothing more than outlaws until they win their rebellion.  They lost. 

I’m always baffled by how people always ignore the fact that the Tullys were actually fighting another lord and not rebelling against the king. They rebelled against the king when they declared independence, and by than the Freys had already joined the bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I’m always baffled by how people always ignore the fact that the Tullys were actually fighting another lord and not rebelling against the king. They rebelled against the king when they declared independence, and by than the Freys had already joined the bandwagon.

It's not that simple.  Eddard had already been arrested for plotting against the king.  His son chose to march against the Lannisters instead of obeying the royal summons. Cat dwarf-napped the queen's little brother.  That is rebellion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

It's not that simple.  Eddard had already been arrested for plotting against the king.  His son chose to march against the Lannisters instead of obeying the royal summons. Cat dwarf-napped the queen's little brother.  That is rebellion. 

So because the noble lord and lady of a house were acting rebellious thats reason enough for another noble house that has nothing to do with the entire stark-Lannister standoff, to be named as rebels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...