Jump to content
•Brandon Ice Eyes

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Recommended Posts

On 9/4/2019 at 1:24 PM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

his death was necessary to ensure that no else died and peace could return. Ultimately, it didn’t restore peace...

You make out like Lord Tywin was really hopped up for restoring peace in the land. No he wanted to smash his enemies. 

You can’t justify it because of the violation of guest right. The RW was like saying “no one is safe anywhere” to the population at large. It sews chaos and fear. that’s why it’s so morally egregious. it rips at the very heart of their society. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

It was the tactic that limited the Frey exposure to danger.  Walder maximized his chances of success while minimizing the risk of his people getting killed by the Starks.   The Freys do not deserve to lose their bridge to support the Starks.  The Starks are not worth it and Robb does not deserve the loyalty of the Freys.  The Lannisters could have demanded the Freys give up the bridge as compensation for joining Robb's Rebellion.  That was unjustified risk.  Bloodraven took away 90% of Butterwell's assets.  Tywin is meaner than Bloodraven.  He might take the bridge and give it to an ally instead.  

There’s basically no textual support for the the Freys losing anything much less a bridge. People who bent the knee before and after the RW were barely punished (see Brackens)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

The one clever bit of the RW was the way that Tywin managed to shift the entire focus of Northern hostility away from House Lannister and squarely onto The Freys.  

Even then, anyone with a pulse, a brain and a lick of political aptitude knows that Tywin Lannister was the mastermind behind it all.

I mean, it's obvious.

3 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

So true.  I don't like most of the Starks.  Bran is fine but I don't like Arya, Jon, and Sansa.  

Roose's sneaky undermining would become known sooner or later.  He was in mortal danger as long as the Starks remain his lords.  He had greater need to remove them from power than Walder did.  

This. It was only a matter of time because it became clear that Ramsay Snow was not dead, that Roose Bolton knew about it and that House Bolton was the one behind the sacking of Winterfell.

And then that's not even considering the fact that Robb was only one conversation away from putting two and two together and figuring out that Roose Bolton was intentionally putting every which Northmen but his own in danger. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd how can we forget Roose Bolton's time in Winterfell...if Arya could figure out Roose was up to no good, Catelyn and Robb could have diced it out once the dust settled a bit.

Plus, the fact that Arya Stark turns up out of nowhere (it's clear to anyone who has spent any protracted time in King's Landing that only Sansa Stark is there) and is betrothed to Ramsay Snow is another massive red flag.

The Ironborn that Theon had in didn't have the technology, the manpower or the aptitude to cause that much devastation in that big of a castle in that kind of time window.

2 hours ago, trazayn said:

You make out like Lord Tywin was really hopped up for restoring peace in the land. No he wanted to smash his enemies. 

You can’t justify it because of the violation of guest right. The RW was like saying “no one is safe anywhere at anytime” to the population at large. It sews chaos and fear. that’s why it’s so morally egregious. it rips at the very heart of their society. 

Thank you for saying this.

If Tywin wanted peace, he wouldn't have ordered the Mountain to terrorize the Riverlands WHILE Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon were both still alive.

If Tywin wanted peace, he would've made a counteroffer to Robb's terms.

No, he wanted to completely obliterate any anti-Lannister, pro-northern, pro-Stark sentiment by any means necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

The one clever bit of the RW was the way that Tywin managed to shift the entire focus of Northern hostility away from House Lannister and squarely onto The Freys.  

Even then, anyone with a pulse, a brain and a lick of political aptitude knows that Tywin Lannister was the mastermind behind it all.

I mean, it's obvious.

3 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

So true.  I don't like most of the Starks.  Bran is fine but I don't like Arya, Jon, and Sansa.  

Roose's sneaky undermining would become known sooner or later.  He was in mortal danger as long as the Starks remain his lords.  He had greater need to remove them from power than Walder did.  

This. It was only a matter of time because it became clear that Ramsay Snow was not dead, that Roose Bolton knew about it and that House Bolton was the one behind the sacking of Winterfell.

And then that's not even considering the fact that Robb was only one conversation away from putting two and two together and figuring out that Roose Bolton was intentionally putting every which Northmen but his own in danger. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd how can we forget Roose Bolton's time in Winterfell...if Arya could figure out Roose was up to no good, Catelyn and Robb could have diced it out once the dust settled a bit.

Plus, the fact that Arya Stark turns up out of nowhere (it's clear to anyone who has spent any protracted time in King's Landing that only Sansa Stark is there) and is betrothed to Ramsay Snow is another massive red flag.

The Ironborn that Theon had in didn't have the technology, the manpower or the aptitude to cause that much devastation in that big of a castle in that kind of time window.

Share this post


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

Unless they are sleeping? Like Robb often did, attack sleeping enemies. The green lads at Oxcross were reportedly untrained and unarmed when Robb slaughtered them. It's war, victory is more important than honour.

Quote

Battle tactics and using deception and treason to kill an enemy are two very differents, glory in battle doesn't entail just pitched battles.

And everyone can see that, that's why no one really liked the death of Aegon II and it won the war, no one saw it as a battle strategy.

 

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. Correct. The only people who can respect or condone this strategy are the people who respect or condone this strategy.

 Brilliant insight!

Well given the fact that not even the Lannisters condone it entirely and Cersei is ready to let the Freys suffers whoever's wrath as soon as Walder dies...

 

 

Tywin saying that why is better kill 10k in a battle than a dozen in a wedding is directly stupid, Tywin should've known than no one would care and many would cheered had he just smashed Robb in battle or even set up a betrayal during in other moment but a wedding, shit happens in war, and since when the man cared that much about cassualties in war??

What i think is that Tywin feared Robb could make it to the North, repel the IB and recover the North where with Winter at the door it'd be impossible to take him out, that and the fact that in the North and with Winter at the door, he could pull a Cregan and levie a small army of hungries with the threat of Lysa finally aiding her family and reigniting the war always hanging, the Red Wedding was the best hope for him.

But the man would've gladly thrown the Freys and the Boltons to the bus if that got the North into accepting Tyrion whichi think that was his plan after the Red Wedding anyways.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember ever coming across an opinion that the red wedding was a nice thing to do.  Most of what happens in war is never nice.  War makes even regular people do horrible things in order to survive.  I will quote a post from one of our members posted last year.  And do forgive me if I forget the writer of the quote.  It is easier for me to remember what was said rather than who said it.  So there, think of it what you will.

Quote

With regards to the Freys, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Walder Frey got dragged into this game.  He made the best choices (his opinion) to save his family from ruin.  He did a bad thing.  But perhaps we can and should try to understand some of the reasons why he did it.  I would also like to ask his haters to remember, Walder didn't start this.   Jaime and Catelyn started this.  Walder's family and his small folk are suffering because of actions taken by Jaime and Catelyn.  Walder only wanted to protect his family and his small folk.  Too bad for him, the Starks and their armies showed up on his doorstep and forced him to make an uneasy decision.  Rebel against their king to support the Starks or obey the king's laws and get attacked by the combined forces of the Starks and the Tullys.  Walder commits, loses his son for Robb, fights bravely for the Starks, and then gets Stark crap thrown in his face by this man whom his family sacrificed for.  Now along comes Roose with an offer from Tywin offering safety in exchange for help.  It's not like they asked him to do something to hurt the kingdom.  They asked him to put an end to a deadly rebellion.  The red wedding is not nice.  It's not ethical.  But the alternative is more war and more Frey casualties.  And for what?  To fight for a man who crapped and will continue to crap on the Freys.  Yeah, I wish Walder could have done it without breaking guest rights but I see no other way to do it with the least amount of cost (casualties) for his family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trazayn said:

You make out like Lord Tywin was really hopped up for restoring peace in the land. No he wanted to smash his enemies. 

The two are not mutually exclusive, he can want both. Peace was his goal as peace is easier to manage and less expensive than war.

7 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

There’s basically no textual support for the the Freys losing anything much less a bridge. People who bent the knee before and after the RW were barely punished (see Brackens)

There is textual evidence for the Freys to be fearful of the consequences of a wrathful Tywin. Whether he would have been is another matter, but being fearful of the the potential repercussions is a valid concern even if it never materialized.

 

5 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

Even then, anyone with a pulse, a brain and a lick of political aptitude knows that Tywin Lannister was the mastermind behind it all.

I mean, it's obvious.

We are told in the books who the masterminds behind it was, Roose and Lame Lothar.

Tywin condoned it, rewarded the Houses who did it, but there is nothing in the books that point to him being the mastermind. Unless you have a different understanding of the word 'mastermind' than the English dictionary I'm failing to see how you have came to the conclusion.

 

5 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

 

No, he wanted to completely obliterate any anti-Lannister, pro-northern, pro-Stark sentiment by any means necessary.

If that was the case why didn't he? With an 80k army at his disposal why did he not do just that in the Riverlands instead of accepting the fealty of his enemies.

Same goes for the captured Stormlords, Reachlords and Crownland lords after the battle of Blackwater. He had the means of obliterating them all, he chose not to and allowed the ones who wanted peace to come back under the Crown's rule.

 

 

Share this post


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

Battle tactics and using deception and treason to kill an enemy are two very differents, glory in battle doesn't entail just pitched battles.

No, not very different.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

And everyone can see that,

You speak for yourself, you don't speak for everyone. You do realize that, don't you?

The fact that multiple people disagree with you kind of proves that not everyone sees it that way.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

that's why no one really liked the death of Aegon II and it won the war,

Again, who is 'no one'. Are you unable to speak in anything but absolutes?

Some, maybe even the majority did not like it, but saying 'no one' is not really true.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

no one saw it as a battle strategy.

Of course  not. No army was involved.   

There was multiple armies involved at the Red Wedding, it was battle strategy to remove one of those armies as a threat to Roose and Walder. That is battle strategy. Hugely dishonourable strategy, but strategy nonetheless.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Well given the fact that not even the Lannisters condone it entirely and Cersei is ready to let the Freys suffers whoever's wrath as soon as Walder dies...

I'm sorry, what on earth does that have to do with my reply you have quoted?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Tywin saying that why is better kill 10k in a battle than a dozen in a wedding is directly stupid,

How so?

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

Tywin should've known than no one would care and many would cheered had he just smashed Robb in battle

And? This option allows him to do so without using any of his own forces. It was a completely bloodless victory from Tywin's viewpoint.

And of course some would care. Stop using absolutes for every statement you make. Are you incapable of nuanced thought?

Some in the North would  care that their Northern army was obliterated in the South and would want revenge. Rickard Karstark is an example of such a matter, his two sons were killed fairly in battle and he cared.

 

3 hours ago, frenin said:

or even set up a betrayal during in other moment but a wedding, shit happens in war, and since when the man cared that much about cassualties in war??

Since he was a teenager when he refused to send his own men down Castamere were thousands would die and instead looked for other means to secure victory.

Designed for defense, the mines at Castamere had never been taken.  There were only three ways down into them, all cramped, narrow, twisting, and studded with deadfalls, pits, and murder holes.  Two armored knights, standing side by side, could hold the largest tunnel against a thousand, for attackers had no way around, and if they tried to cut their way past, defenders would be pouring boiling oil and pitch down on them from murder holes above as they fought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither did he intend to send men to die in the dark, fighting their way down.  Instead Tywin Lannister commanded that mines be sealed.

 

Obviously he cares about casualties in war. He's not vainglorious.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

What i think is that Tywin feared Robb could make it to the North, repel the IB and recover the North where with Winter at the door it'd be impossible to take him out, that and the fact that in the North and with Winter at the door, he could pull a Cregan and levie a small army of hungries with the threat of Lysa finally aiding her family and reigniting the war always hanging, the Red Wedding was the best hope for him.

If you think all that then you clearly recognize that neutralizing his army at the Twins, before Robb could do all that, is battle strategy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 4:55 AM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

In the long term The Others are coming south in which case The North will rally to fight them as a common enemy. The South will fight too if proof is provided and if the others do reach the trident, then they definitely will have enough proof, long term, i.e, after the War for the Dawn is over, The Frey's will be fucked, but my point is that the Red Wedding was necessary to bring the north under heel quickly so that if house Bolton has hostages, then the Northern Lords will obey them and when the others come south, they can be dealt with by a stronger North, because lets be honest, will Tywin Lannister ever come North for Robb Stark. 

So... are you saying that the RW was perpetrated by Tywin and Co. in order to have peace and to bring Westeros together to fight the Others? I can promise that Tywin isn’t interested in peace... he is interested in his own power. And he knows nothing of the Others as far as I know. Your theory makes Tywin out to be a hero and savior to all of Westeros, and all of Westeros is not his motivation... House Lannister is his only motivation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aedam Targaryen said:

So... are you saying that the RW was perpetrated by Tywin and Co. in order to have peace and to bring Westeros together to fight the Others? I can promise that Tywin isn’t interested in peace... he is interested in his own power. And he knows nothing of the Others as far as I know. Your theory makes Tywin out to be a hero and savior to all of Westeros, and all of Westeros is not his motivation... House Lannister is his only motivation. 

Tywin knew nothing of the others, but the Red wedding, had it worked out as expected, to bring peace to The Riverlands and for House Bolton to bring peace to the north, which he Roose is perfectly capable of doing imo, then, when the others do breach the wall, House Bolton could put up more of a fight and if the others made it all the way to the Riverlands, Tywin is more likely to aid the Bolton’s than Robb Stark. So it was justified as it was a ruthless way to bring peace and that peace would have lead to a better defence of the realm. Ultimately, Joffrey was poisoned which lead to Tywins death but that would have happened irrespective of The Red Wedding as Joffrey and Maegary were to marry either way to forge the Alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Wedding was justified?  That would depend upon who you are asking.  It was for the best because it stopped one of the rebels.  The red wedding broke the north and they are now back in the fold.  Stannis and Manderly are only creating more problems.  They are better off accepting the Boltons so they can get ready for winter.  The RW was the best for the majority of people in Westeros because it ended a damaging Stark rebellion.  It harmed the Starks and I am ok with that.  The people who died were all soldiers.  Killing them saved the lives of thousands of common people, including old people and women.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Bernie Mac

 

Quote

You speak for yourself, you don't speak for everyone. You do realize that, don't you?

The fact that multiple people disagree with you kind of proves that not everyone sees it that way.

I see pretty much everyone in the books giving Robb military praise i see many fans arguing whether Robb deserves that praise or not, but even when i've seen, the red wedding was justified i had never seen up until this point, someone who try to equate Oxcross and the Red Wedding,  the Red Wedding was succesful but it was purely backstabbing, i don't see how can be comparable, nor do i see people saying that Walder Frey diserves military praise for that. 

Quote

Of course  not. No army was involved.   

There was multiple armies involved at the Red Wedding, it was battle strategy to remove one of those armies as a threat to Roose and Walder. That is battle strategy. Hugely dishonourable strategy, but strategy nonetheless.

It's deceptive murder, pure and simply, trying to hype it up won't change it, there are a lot of succesful exemples of it, but I've never seen the Black Dinner being revered as an exemple of Battlefield tactic or battlefield tactic at all but I do see people praising the Night Attack of Targoviste .

Quote

I'm sorry, what on earth does that have to do with my reply you have quoted?

Nothing, i thought it wrong.

 

 

Quote

How so?

I meant a lie, i was thinking in other thing, I don't think Tywin was thinking of just killing a few in a dinner because he wanted to spare his soldiers of more war.

 

 

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And? This option allows him to do so without using any of his own forces. It was a completely bloodless victory from Tywin's viewpoint.

And of course some would care. Stop using absolutes for every statement you make. Are you incapable of nuanced thought?

Some in the North would  care that their Northern army was obliterated in the South and would want revenge. Rickard Karstark is an example of such a matter, his two sons were killed fairly in battle and he cared.

When people use an absolute, rarely is an absolute but a general opinion, when i say no one would care, i mean the majority of the North wouldn't care, neither they'd have a reason to object against a fair and absolute defeat, but even if they do, it isn't the same being betrayed in a fair fight and being offered a pardon and being brutally betrayed.

And at the cost of undermining his House, so much that even the HS was furious about it.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Since he was a teenager when he refused to send his own men down Castamere were thousands would die and instead looked for other means to secure victory.

Designed for defense, the mines at Castamere had never been taken.  There were only three ways down into them, all cramped, narrow, twisting, and studded with deadfalls, pits, and murder holes.  Two armored knights, standing side by side, could hold the largest tunnel against a thousand, for attackers had no way around, and if they tried to cut their way past, defenders would be pouring boiling oil and pitch down on them from murder holes above as they fought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither did he intend to send men to die in the dark, fighting their way down.  Instead Tywin Lannister commanded that mines be sealed.

 

Obviously he cares about casualties in war. He's not vainglorious.

Are you comparing a death trap with a battle when the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor??

 

 

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 If you think all that then you clearly recognize that neutralizing his army at the Twins, before Robb could do all that, is battle strategy.

 

The fact that i can try think about Tywin's reasonings, doesn't mean it's a battle strategy, the Black Dinner isn't a battle strategy even when it largely achieved what its perpetrators wanted.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The Red Wedding was justified?  That would depend upon who you are asking.  It was for the best because it stopped one of the rebels.  The red wedding broke the north and they are now back in the fold.  Stannis and Manderly are only creating more problems.  They are better off accepting the Boltons so they can get ready for winter.  The RW was the best for the majority of people in Westeros because it ended a damaging Stark rebellion.  It harmed the Starks and I am ok with that.  The people who died were all soldiers.  Killing them saved the lives of thousands of common people, including old people and women.  

And now, one can't trust his host or guest which is a very important thing given the world they live in, what a wonderful world to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Walder Frey got sucked into the game.  You can't blame the man for playing the game as well as he did.  He outplayed the Starks.  That's what you do in the game of thrones.  

Edited by Anti-Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Anti-Stark said:

I don't remember ever coming across an opinion that the red wedding was a nice thing to do.  Most of what happens in war is never nice.  War makes even regular people do horrible things in order to survive.  I will quote a post from one of our members posted last year.  And do forgive me if I forget the writer of the quote.  It is easier for me to remember what was said rather than who said it.  So there, think of it what you will.

Walder Frey got dragged into this game.  He made the best choices (his opinion) to save his family from ruin.  He did a bad thing.  But perhaps we can and should try to understand some of the reasons why he did it.  I would also like to ask his haters to remember, Walder didn't start this.   Jaime and Catelyn started this.  Walder's family and his small folk are suffering because of actions taken by Jaime and Catelyn.  Walder only wanted to protect his family and his small folk.  Too bad for him, the Starks and their armies showed up on his doorstep and forced him to make an uneasy decision.  Rebel against their king to support the Starks or obey the king's laws and get attacked by the combined forces of the Starks and the Tullys.  Walder commits, loses his son for Robb, fights bravely for the Starks, and then gets Stark crap thrown in his face by this man whom his family sacrificed for.  Now along comes Roose with an offer from Tywin offering safety in exchange for help.  It's not like they asked him to do something to hurt the kingdom.  They asked him to put an end to a deadly rebellion.  The red wedding is not nice.  It's not ethical.  But the alternative is more war and more Frey casualties.  And for what?  To fight for a man who crapped and will continue to crap on the Freys.  Yeah, I wish Walder could have done it without breaking guest rights but I see no other way to do it with the least amount of cost (casualties) for his family.

I think most people understand his reasons. He was in a hard spot BUT he made a decision. He took sides with Robb & then backstabbed him. The reasons don't matter so much as the doing. It's what sets good, honorable people apart from cowardly, deceitful people - the hard decisions. He most certainly wasn't forced nor did he feel he was. He merely made a decision & backed out on it later. 

As to him having Stark crap thrown in his face - are you talking about Robb breaking his betrothal? That was not a good choice but it was hardly throwing Stark crap in Walder's face. I don't think you can ask people to look at the reasons behind the RW but then ignore the reasons behind Robb breaking his betrothal - an act that did not cost anyone their life & one that Robb tried to make amends for. Amends that were ALSO accepted by Walder but again backed out upon. 

Regardless of his reasons it was not justified legally or morally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anti-Stark said:

Walder Frey got sucked into the game.  You can't blame the man for playing the game as well as he did.  He outplayed the Starks.  That's what you do in the game of thrones.  

This is what you do if you are a person like Walder or Cersei. It was successful for the time being, I'll give you that but that doesn't make it justified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think most people understand his reasons. He was in a hard spot BUT he made a decision. He took sides with Robb & then backstabbed him. The reasons don't matter so much as the doing. It's what sets good, honorable people apart from cowardly, deceitful people - the hard decisions. He most certainly wasn't forced nor did he feel he was. He merely made a decision & backed out on it later. 

As to him having Stark crap thrown in his face - are you talking about Robb breaking his betrothal? That was not a good choice but it was hardly throwing Stark crap in Walder's face. I don't think you can ask people to look at the reasons behind the RW but then ignore the reasons behind Robb breaking his betrothal - an act that did not cost anyone their life & one that Robb tried to make amends for. Amends that were ALSO accepted by Walder but again backed out upon. 

Regardless of his reasons it was not justified legally or morally. 

We will have to agree to disagree with regards to this question.  Don't forget, Robb backstabbed him first.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anti-Stark said:

We will have to agree to disagree with regards to this question.  Don't forget, Robb backstabbed him first.  

For sure. But if Robb wasn't justified in backing out on what he agreed upon how can Walder be justified in backing out what he agreed upon & then killing him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For sure. But if Robb wasn't justified in backing out on what he agreed upon how can Walder be justified in backing out what he agreed upon & then killing him? 

How was Robb justified in backing out of the wedding after the Freys had paid their portion of the agreement? How had the Freys wronged him at that point?

The Freys went overboard in their need for revenge, but their was cause for it due to Robb's actions. Robb had no such justification, he was just a horny teenager.

Share this post


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

 @Bernie Mac

I see pretty much everyone in the books giving Robb military praise

You are really going to have to stop exaggerating your posts. There are thousands of characters in the books, quote just 10 of them praising Robb's military might.

And what does that have to do with your original point that I disagreed with? At no point did I claim that Robb was not praised, you are moving the goalposts. Maybe reread your orginal comment and then reread what I said to you. My disagreement had zilch to do with how effective Robb was in battle.

 

 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

 

i see many fans arguing whether Robb deserves that praise or not

Sure, but that is a separate discussion to what is being talked about now. There is no need to go off onto a separate tangent when I've not made any negative comment on Robb's ability to lead in my reply to you.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

i had never seen up until this point, someone who try to equate Oxcross and the Red Wedding,  the Red Wedding was succesful but it was purely backstabbing, i don't see how can be comparable, nor do i see people saying that Walder Frey diserves military praise for that

Again, reread what I actually said. You are jumping to conclusions that was not made in what I wrote.

They are not exactly the same, as I already said, they were both battle strategies. Obviously the Red Wedding was far, far more dishonourable than Robb attacking a sleeping, untrained army of green boys. But some of  Robb's victories were not honourable either.

The objective in war by some is victory even if that means sacrificing honour.

 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

 

It's deceptive murder, pure and simply, trying to hype it up won't change it, there are a lot of succesful exemples of it, but I've never seen the Black Dinner being revered as an exemple of Battlefield tactic or battlefield tactic at all but I do see people praising the Night Attack of Targoviste .

I've not revered it. I've just pointed out that it was a successful strategy. I literally call it very dishonourable in the post you have quoted it. How exactly is that being revered?

 Again, you need to stop talking as if everything is an absolute, there is middle ground. It can be both a battle strategy and dishonourable. War is often dishonourable, the Freys actions at the Red Wedding amongst the most dishonourable we have seen in the series.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Nothing, i thought it wrong.

How so?

 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

I meant a lie, i was thinking in other thing, I don't think Tywin was thinking of just killing a few in a dinner because he wanted to spare his soldiers of more war.

How is it stupid? You called his point stupid. How so?

Tywin did not want his own men killed when the option was there for his enemies to kill themselves.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

 

 

When people use an absolute, rarely is an absolute but a general opinion, when i say no one would care, i mean the majority of the North wouldn't care,

Firstly are you under the impression that you are the very first person I have ever spoken to? You are not, most people I communicate with do not speak in absolutes when they don't mean to. Now that is just the average person I communicate with, I understand that your social circle, both online and in real life, may well communicate to each other like that but don't presume your echo chamber is the norm.  Not trying to be rude, just a heads up.

Secondly based on what? Prove it? Come up with actual evidence that the majority of the North would not care about their Lords and the majority of their army being killed in battle?

Have you never studied history? Rarely is the losing side happy with defeat and the death of its people. Scotland, one of the inspirations for the Northern people, were never happy when they were beat by the English in England and vice versa.

 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

 

neither they'd have a reason to object against a fair and absolute defeat, but even if they do, it isn't the same being betrayed in a fair fight and being offered a pardon and being brutally betrayed.

Not once did I claim it was the exact same. I pointed out that you were mistaken in your claims.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

And at the cost of undermining his House, so much that even the HS was furious about it.

Who is HS?

6 hours ago, frenin said:

Are you comparing a death trap with a battle when the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor??

I was very clear in what I said. Tywin, like all successful commanders, cares about unnecessary casualties of war. If there is a option to beat an enemy army without dropping blood from your own men then most commanders will take it, Tywin included. We have seen him do this at least three times in the series

  • Castamere
  • The use of the Mountain Clans in the battle of Green Fork
  • The use of the Freys and Boltons to rid himself of Robb

He's not vainglorious.

You are the one making a claim, I have given you examples disproving it. You need to prove your assertion that "and since when the man cared that much about cassualties in war??"

You made an unsubstantiated claim, prove it.

6 hours ago, frenin said:

 

The fact that i can try think about Tywin's reasonings, doesn't mean it's a battle strategy, the Black Dinner isn't a battle strategy even when it largely achieved what its perpetrators wanted.

Then you clearly don't understand the words you are using.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strategy

The meaning of strategy is very clear, in your own interpretation of Tywin's actions you have described a strategy to rid himself of the Northern threat. That is a strategic move.

 

6 hours ago, frenin said:

And now, one can't trust his host or guest which is a very important thing given the world they live in, what a wonderful world to be.

 

1) Robb did not trust the Freys, he makes this clear. He trusted his army "Robb looked more amused than afraid. "I have an army to protect me, Mother, I don't need to trust in bread and salt."

Now just because Robb was betrayed by his own Northern army does not mean Lords are going to stop using their own vassals when they go to war

2) I imagine that Lords who have fucked over the Freys are not going to trust their 'word' at the Twins. But their allies are not going to have the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 1:24 PM, •Brandon Ice Eyes said:

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.

Very well.  The answer is not simple.  It brought more benefit than harm.  The Starks were defeated with minimal loses for the Frey side.  A lord has the burden of responsibility to make sure he loses as few of his people as possible during war.  Lord Walder proved himself a better leader for his people than Robb was to the north.  Walder was looking out for his people, which is what a lord should be doing.  Robb put his people in danger because he loved the girl he slept with.  There is little doubt here who served the best interest of the  people he led.  

The Freys broke guest rights.  No ifs or buts about that.  They broke a long tradition.  But many of the other families would have done the same thing if they were in Walder's shoes.  Robb was leading his people badly and he just lost the north.  He broke his oath to Walder Frey.  Now this is odd because Walder, the man who supposedly doesn't pay his obligations, carried out everything he agreed to do.  And he lost his heir to help the Starks.  So it doesn't matter what the Robb apologists say in their attempts to downplay Robb's oath breaking.  The circumstances made it a very egregious offense to the Freys.  It was a grave insult to Walder and the gods.  

The question is not whether the Starks deserved to get beaten like that.  It's whether other lords in the same position as Walder would have done the same thing under the same circumstances.  I think they would have.  The Starks had to be removed from power and I agree with a previous commenter's assessment.  Walder cannot do this directly.  The Freys could not fight the Starks directly and hope to win.  Some kind of deception had to take place.  The only non-military people to die were/was Aegon Frey.  Catelyn was a member of Robb's command team.  She was a leader of the rebels.  I would place her in the same category as one of Robb's military advisers.  The r/w contained the damage and kept hundreds of thousands of innocent peasants from having to die.  The r/w was a slaughter but if you think about it you might see that it doesn't matter how it was done.  Killing is killing.  The end results are the same.  The Starks and their supporters are dead.  They are soldiers who also killed people in the opposition.  Walder, if he had had a larger military, could have fought the Starks directly and if he had won and killed thousands.  That would not be different.  Except many on his side would have died too.  Many innocent peasants would have died.  

The answer isn't simple.  The r/w saved your life if you are a Frey soldier.  This was better than meeting Robb out on the battlefield.  Your lord made sure to keep you safe while he dealt with his enemy.  It is justified from where you are coming from.  

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

×