[tPatQ spoilers] Why Targaryens should be fireproof

[Veltigar]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not implying that Targaryens are in any way fireproof.

This thread is about why the Targaryens are retards when it comes to Dragon to dragon combat.

First four things we learned from the story:

1) A dragon with a rider is a lot more effective. According to the soldiers of the three Sisters (Experts on anti-dragon combat) the best way to survive a dragon attack is to kill the rider. The beast can loose intrest and leave the fleet alone. The Dragons on their own also make some pretty weird decisions about fighting and not fighting (e.g; Syrax decending into the mob instead of reigning fire from above).

2) Dragon vs. Dragon combat is a very letal business. IIRC there is no fight in the entire novella between dragonriders that doesn't end in the death of at least one rider and dragon.

3) Dragons don't use fire when fighting because their scales are resistant to fire.

4) This a no brainer: Dragons are hugely valuable.

These are four established facts from the book. Combine them and you can only conclude that the way Targs fight on dragonback makes no freaking sense at all.

Why risk your dragons in what basically ammounts to an areal pubcrawl (which if you loose means that you're toast to)?

The dragonfire should be used. Not against the dragons themselves (seems pretty useless) but against their riders. Targaryen's aren't fireproof, so a healthy dose of dragonfire should kill them as quickly as other people.

Kill the rider and then the dragon either goes away, makes stupid choices or keeps on fighting as before.

For instance let's take a look at that "totally unexpected" dragon jump by Daemon. I mean what the fuck the guy wasted two perfectly good dragons!

Instead of what he did Daemon should have used another fact about dragoncombat. Older dragons might be bigger and stronger but they are also less nimble and fast.

If Daemon hadn't been such an idiot he would have flown circles around Vhagar and doped Aemond in dragonfire (would have been a nice parallell with cousin Brightflame).

When Aemond dies Vhagar either:

1) fights on as before. Nothing is lost so far.
2) Becomes very easy to kill if one is so inclined
3) Goes away to Dragonstone or KL (perhaps some other places but most seem to return to dragonstone).

If Daemon had killed Aemond than his chances of bagging an easy kill without killing his own dragon would have improved, he might even have avoided a fight altogether and spared a dragon which could come in handy later on.

To summarize: if Targaryens aren't fireproof, than why do they fight in such an ineffective way? It makes no sense at all.

Please tell me their fighting method isn't as ridiculous as it seems to me.

[Mikkel]

I have no answer for you, but you make some good points. The only thing I can come up with is that maybe it's hard to direct dragon flame at a relatively small moving target. That, or nearly all Targaryans are dumbasses. Which doesn't seem to be the case, even if I dislike many of them.

[Julian Rayne]

I won't address any of the other battles, but I thought that Daemon was already suicidal by the time he fought Aemond.

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

I won't address any of the other battles, but I thought that Daemon was already suicidal by the time he fought Aemond.

:agree:

He himself said that he'd lived too much.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not implying that Targaryens are in any way fireproof.

This thread is about why the Targaryens are retards when it comes to Dragon to dragon combat.

First four things we learned from the story:

1) A dragon with a rider is a lot more effective. According to the soldiers of the three Sisters (Experts on anti-dragon combat) the best way to survive a dragon attack is to kill the rider. The beast can loose intrest and leave the fleet alone. The Dragons on their own also make some pretty weird decisions about fighting and not fighting (e.g; Syrax decending into the mob instead of reigning fire from above).

2) Dragon vs. Dragon combat is a very letal business. IIRC there is no fight in the entire novella between dragonriders that doesn't end in the death of at least one rider and dragon.

3) Dragons don't use fire when fighting because their scales are resistant to fire.

4) This a no brainer: Dragons are hugely valuable.

These are four established facts from the book. Combine them and you can only conclude that the way Targs fight on dragonback makes no freaking sense at all.

Why risk your dragons in what basically ammounts to an areal pubcrawl (which if you loose means that you're toast to)?

The dragonfire should be used. Not against the dragons themselves (seems pretty useless) but against their riders. Targaryen's aren't fireproof, so a healthy dose of dragonfire should kill them as quickly as other people.

Kill the rider and then the dragon either goes away, makes stupid choices or keeps on fighting as before.

For instance let's take a look at that "totally unexpected" dragon jump by Daemon. I mean what the fuck the guy wasted two perfectly good dragons!

Instead of what he did Daemon should have used another fact about dragoncombat. Older dragons might be bigger and stronger but they are also less nimble and fast.

If Daemon hadn't been such an idiot he would have flown circles around Vhagar and doped Aemond in dragonfire (would have been a nice parallell with cousin Brightflame).

When Aemond dies Vhagar either:

1) fights on as before. Nothing is lost so far.

2) Becomes very easy to kill if one is so inclined

3) Goes away to Dragonstone or KL (perhaps some other places but most seem to return to dragonstone).

If Daemon had killed Aemond than his chances of bagging an easy kill without killing his own dragon would have improved, he might even have avoided a fight altogether and spared a dragon which could come in handy later on.

To summarize: if Targaryens aren't fireproof, than why do they fight in such an ineffective way? It makes no sense at all.

Please tell me their fighting method isn't as ridiculous as it seems to me.

The point is using dragons against armies, or attacking dragons when you have more. That's exactly what happened in the death of Rhaenys, she went to fight an army, and then she died to 2 dragons. Going 1x1 is usually a suicidal/desperate move, like Daemon and Baela.

[Veltigar]

The point is using dragons against armies, or attacking dragons when you have more. That's exactly what happened in the death of Rhaenys, she went to fight an army, and then she died to 2 dragons. Going 1x1 is usually a suicidal/desperate move, like Daemon and Baela.

I don't get what you are trying to say. After the first time they fought dragon to dragon (and that happened before the Dance. Valyria must have known some inner conflict and there is a theory that all the older Targ dragons who came with Aenar died in battle as well), they should have realised what a waste it was.

And the point of dragon combat is not using two to one. Rhaenys and her dragon died sure, but of the attacking party Aegon II was horribly wounded and his dragon had become very vunerable. Even if it had been able to survive the last fight with moondancer, it would have never regained it's full capacities... I mean what the actual fuck are these people doing to them?

I won't address any of the other battles, but I thought that Daemon was already suicidal by the time he fought Aemond.

You do know he isn't dead right?

Here is a quote from Ran from the old thread about tPatQ (I bolded the relevant part)

Rhaenyra's second husband is probably the most remarkable, and maybe infuriating as well, Targaryen who ever lived since Aegon and his sisters. I suppose you'd call him an adventurer.

That said, I'm not strictly sure that "The Princess and the Queen" will do him justice. You kind of need to know a bit about him from before and after the point which this novella will cover to really get the full measure of the man.

Rhaenyra's first husband has changed, BTW. He's the son of another rather remarkable person of the era, instead of Strong. Though you'll be hearing plenty about the Strongs, come to think of it.

Source: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/79950-the-princess-and-the-queen-spoilers/page-3#entry4034706

[Veltigar]

I have no answer for you, but you make some good points. The only thing I can come up with is that maybe it's hard to direct dragon flame at a relatively small moving target. That, or nearly all Targaryans are dumbasses. Which doesn't seem to be the case, even if I dislike many of them.

I usually like the Targaryens or I am at least intrigued by them. That's why it baffles me that I'm taking up the hatchet here.

Your first reason could be it. Perhaps it is difficult to aim, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the main series. And even if they aren't accurate there's a lot of fire coming out of a dragon's mouth. The flames should at least be used as a deterent. Plus they get awefully close during dragon combat so before entangling they could take a couple of cracks at each other

[Veltigar]

... I just realized something you guys.... Do we actually see any of the dragons breath fire on command?

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

I don't get what you are trying to say. After the first time they fought dragon to dragon (and that happened before the Dance. Valyria must have known some inner conflict and there is a theory that all the older Targ dragons who came with Aenar died in battle as well), they should have realised what a waste it was.

And the point of dragon combat is not using two to one. Rhaenys and her dragon died sure, but of the attacking party Aegon II was horribly wounded and his dragon had become very vunerable. Even if it had been able to survive the last fight with moondancer, it would have never regained it's full capacities... I mean what the actual fuck are these people doing to them?

The point is that it's not good to fight 1vs1, unless your dragon is really better. Any dragon battle is a waste, but every war is also a waste of people and resources. It's kinda difficult to kill enemies dragons without losing one of your own. Yeah, it's all risky, but it's the way to win the war: be the one with dragons, and, because of that, everyone is going to lose. All the DoD was non-sense, the Targaryens killed each other, lost dragons, but no side wanted to stop the war.

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

... I just realized something you guys.... Do we actually see any of the dragons breath fire on command?

There was dracarys, with Daenerys.

[Veltigar]

Being suicidal doesn't necessarily mean he was successful. He definitely seemed a changed man after Rhaenyra's accusation. No-one ventures into single combat with Vhagar, with the intention of jumping from falling Dragon to falling Dragon and expects to live.

Makes sense. Alright, he might have been suicidal instead of actually planning his fall.

There was dracarys, with Daenerys.

I meant in tPatQ :P

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

I meant in tPatQ :P

Well, Aemond burnt the Riverlands, I think that he controlled Vhagar, instead of just fly and wait for it to fire something, but I don't recall any direct command.

[Veltigar]

The point is that it's not good to fight 1vs1, unless your dragon is really better. Any dragon battle is a waste, but every war is also a waste of people and resources. It's kinda difficult to kill enemies dragons without losing one of your own. Yeah, it's all risky, but it's the way to win the war: be the one with dragons, and, because of that, everyone is going to lose. All the DoD was non-sense, the Targaryens killed each other, lost dragons, but no side wanted to stop the war.

You don't even fight all the time when your dragon is better. Vhagar vs Lucerys that was easy. But Vhagar was also the better dragon against Daemon's beast and I don't think Vhagar would have come off without a scratch against Daemon's dragon or any of the other full grown dragon. Especially since so much emphasis was put on the fact that old = big = slow and young = smaller = swifter.

There is a point when it becomes a folly to use them. Sacrifize them why not, but it seems to come down to a toss-up most of the time. Try and base some strategy on that.

Well, Aemond burnt the Riverlands, I think that he controlled Vhagar, instead of just fly and wait for it to fire something, but I don't recall any direct command.

Oh, right I forgot thanks. I was starting to worry there ;-) could you imagine Dany training the dragons to do something on command that they usually only do out of instinct (like they use fire as a way of hunting prey). Something the Targs of old couldn't do?

That would have been a riot :leer: +the Targs would have come across as bumbling idiots.

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

You don't even fight all the time when your dragon is better. Vhagar vs Lucerys that was easy. But Vhagar was also the better dragon against Daemon's beast and I don't think Vhagar would have come off without a scratch against Daemon's dragon or any of the other full grown dragon. Especially since so much emphasis was put on the fact that old = big = slow and young = smaller = swifter.

There is a point when it becomes a folly to use them. Sacrifize them why not, but it seems to come down to a toss-up most of the time. Try and base some strategy on that.

Vhagat vs Lucerys is when you fight 1vs1. Vhagar vs Caraxes was almost equilibrated. I do agree, losing the dragons is a really bad thing, but what would they do? Try to compare a dragon to a army: When you fight 1 vs 1 you may win, but will have heavy losses, and you try to fight 2 vs 1, or something like that to win without big losses.

[Veltigar]

Vhagat vs Lucerys is when you fight 1vs1. Vhagar vs Caraxes was almost equilibrated. I do agree, losing the dragons is a really bad thing, but what would they do? Try to compare a dragon to a army: When you fight 1 vs 1 you may win, but will have heavy losses, and you try to fight 2 vs 1, or something like that to win without big losses.

The obvious answer to me is you try and kill the rider.

That gives you the option to either kill the dragon or try and claim it for your team.

You don't waste the dragon itself and you limit the chances of them being wounded.

[Brynden Bloodraven Rivers]

The obvious answer to me is you try and kill the rider.

That gives you the option to either kill the dragon or try and claim it for your team.

You don't waste the dragon itself and you limit the chances of them being wounded.

I think it's just very hard to kill the rider. While there was a lot of people using this tactic, I don't think that anyone succeeded.

[Veltigar]

I think it's just very hard to kill the rider. While there was a lot of people using this tactic, I don't think that anyone succeeded.

But none of the dragon riders used that tactic. They should have used dragon fire to burn their opponents out of the saddle.

[Mikkel]

But none of the dragon riders used that tactic. They should have used dragon fire to burn their opponents out of the saddle.

Indeed. It struck me that it might simply be unthinkable, or seen as the height of dishonor, if it wasn't for the fact that there's so many shady things and atrocious deeds during the Dance that it seems far-fetched if they were to draw the line at that particular act.

Still, it could be a sort of cultural taboo, considering the whole of Valyrian culture and power was based on the ability to ride dragons?

[Rara Avis]

Great question, IMO. A blast of strong fire is going to kill a human even if it doesn't directly "hit" them. Incapacitating them with bad burns works too.

Still, it could be a sort of cultural taboo, considering the whole of Valyrian culture and power was based on the ability to ride dragons?

But killing dragons themselves AND their riders with them is A-okay?

[Mikkel]

But killing dragons themselves AND their riders with them is A-okay?

Possibly. I'm not saying it makes sense, which is why I'm labeling it a cultural taboo rather than a perfectly sensible notion. I agree with that in absence of reasons why it's not done, it seems strange, since to me it ought to be a perfectly fine strategy.

I'm thinking it might be a bit like how in tournaments it's considered bad form (and against the rules) to attack your opponent's horse but perfectly fine to go for the man. I realize it's far from a perfect example, since that's in a tournament, not war, and the roles reversed.

[Fire Eater]

The obvious answer to me is you try and kill the rider.

That gives you the option to either kill the dragon or try and claim it for your team.

You don't waste the dragon itself and you limit the chances of them being wounded.

Not to mention Vhagar was the largest and most powerful living dragon, if just Aemond had been killed than the greens would have been deprived of their strongest weapon, and the blacks would have a dragon added to their team when it was needed most with the angry mob killing Syrax and the dragons in the Dragonpit.

I think part of it may have been after Rhaenyra's letter to Mooton to have Nettles killed, Daemon decided he didn't want to go on living, and decided to go down fighting with a sword in hand.