I'm a fraud 
Random Media v.4 (Comedy Optional, Interesting Optional)
- Thread starter Vraelomon
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Roundies are the type of N's to need a cuck like this to circlejerk for 40 minutes about how they're correct
Didn't said bridge-castle eventually emerge, in part, because that was pretty much the only point on that river where constructing a bridge was actually feasible?
there are other crossings, it's just that they're either ferries or ****ty fords, and further southeast. the twins is the only viable crossing for an army that wouldn't have required a massive detour, since robb's plan was to head into the westerlands.
ie. it's less that it's the literal only crossing, and more of a strategic issue.
ie. it's less that it's the literal only crossing, and more of a strategic issue.
pentagathus
Baron
Just typed a big old post and then my internet ****ed up it is gone. Alas.
Yeah basically it was a strategically crucial crossing point - Starks wanted to cross their cavalry quickly and quietly to take Jaime unawares and smash the siege of riverrun whilst their foot marched South on the eastern side of the river to engage Tywin to complete the ruse. Which would have been impossible without rafts/ferries already built because supplies and all that steel stuff they need for killing lannisters/ preventing lannisters killing them would have had to be left behind if they forded/swam across. Also would have been super dangerous to leave a well -guarded army of uncertain between the two stark armies after splitting up.
Also the stone bridge took three generations to build (I've literally just 're read this part) and would have been mad expensive. It also originally had wooden castles guarding it so building the stone fortifications that we get in GoT would have cost a ton so the Freys have obviously been profiting from their bridge. I don't know why no one had built a bridge before the Freys, but it's possible that they were replacing or competing with a wooden one which was subsequently destroyed. And I very much doubt they would have allowed anyone else to build another bridge nearby if they could have stopped it - feudal lords were not exactly free market fanatics.
As to the morality of the Freys - they are considered scummy because they lack honour (in westerosi terms) and loyalty and are obviously self serving but yes you could definitely argue the Starks are the real villains since they basically start a war the ****s at least half the kingdom - but that's brought up explicitly and less plicitly in the books. Also the Red Wedding is pretty ****y (you could argue it's preferable to prolonging the war but it definitely marks the Freys as disloyal at the very least and considering that any society relies on some degree of trust in order to even exist the abhorrence of the RW makes sense.)
Yeah basically it was a strategically crucial crossing point - Starks wanted to cross their cavalry quickly and quietly to take Jaime unawares and smash the siege of riverrun whilst their foot marched South on the eastern side of the river to engage Tywin to complete the ruse. Which would have been impossible without rafts/ferries already built because supplies and all that steel stuff they need for killing lannisters/ preventing lannisters killing them would have had to be left behind if they forded/swam across. Also would have been super dangerous to leave a well -guarded army of uncertain between the two stark armies after splitting up.
Also the stone bridge took three generations to build (I've literally just 're read this part) and would have been mad expensive. It also originally had wooden castles guarding it so building the stone fortifications that we get in GoT would have cost a ton so the Freys have obviously been profiting from their bridge. I don't know why no one had built a bridge before the Freys, but it's possible that they were replacing or competing with a wooden one which was subsequently destroyed. And I very much doubt they would have allowed anyone else to build another bridge nearby if they could have stopped it - feudal lords were not exactly free market fanatics.
As to the morality of the Freys - they are considered scummy because they lack honour (in westerosi terms) and loyalty and are obviously self serving but yes you could definitely argue the Starks are the real villains since they basically start a war the ****s at least half the kingdom - but that's brought up explicitly and less plicitly in the books. Also the Red Wedding is pretty ****y (you could argue it's preferable to prolonging the war but it definitely marks the Freys as disloyal at the very least and considering that any society relies on some degree of trust in order to even exist the abhorrence of the RW makes sense.)
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said:
This is how my brain parsed it for a good 30 seconds
that's literally what I said, so duhBIGGER Kentucky James XXL said:
Bromden said:
It's Starks, they're generally kinda bad with the whole "Others will not show the same reverence for rules and traditions as we do," thing.
That seems oddly appropriate.
"Like Vladimir Putin, you always keep your cool, even under circumstances that would cause others to break out a sweat. Normally you keep a low profile, but when an opportunity arises, you decisively spring into action, catching others off-guard and making the most of the opening presented to you. Take care to reign in the smartassery, though, or risk antagonizing others to the point of provoking massive retaliation."
