ShaggyCat Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 the extremely pious to the point of lunacy Targ was towards the start of the reign of the Targaryens - perhaps the loss of the dragons amplified the madness inherent in the constant inbreeding, but I think the targaryens have always been a bit suspect in terms of their mental health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reposado Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 i think it has more to do with the post-dance generations being fleshed out characters because they were the subject of several short stories where the older generations (at least the non-kings) aren't much more than items on the genealogical tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creticus Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 the extremely pious to the point of lunacy Targ was towards the start of the reign of the Targaryens - perhaps the loss of the dragons amplified the madness inherent in the constant inbreeding, but I think the targaryens have always been a bit suspect in terms of their mental health. Baelor was born after the loss of the dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggyCat Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Baelor was born after the loss of the dragons. Was he? Wow. Even after reading a whole chunk of the Targaryen history in TWOIAF last night, I can never get the Targ timelines clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Baelor was born after the Dance, but not after the death of the last dragon. The last dragon died in 153 AC, the year in which Daeron II was born. All of the children of Aegon III and Viserys II were already born when the last dragon died. Elaena was the youngest, and she was born in 150 AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Lord Varys is right. Still, I think the last Targaryen who was mentioned to have bonded with a dragon was Rhaena. It might have been an omission on the maesters' part but it might have also been an indicator that the dragons and the Targaryens were not fit to bond anymore, for some reason. Perhaps the dragons started displaying some problems soon after the Dance. Or perhaps its an omission on my memory's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Anath, I agree that Rhaena was most likely the last Targaryen dragonrider (unless no Targaryen successfully claimed Silverwing during/after the Regency - I could see Baela do something like that), but there may have been quite some (twisted) hatchlings which died early bonded to Viserys' or Aegon's children in the same way Stormcloud was bonded to Aegon the Younger and Shrykos and Morghul were bonded to Jaehaerys and Jaehaera. The Unworthy, the Dragonknight, and Naerys would be the best candidates for that as would be Viserys II himself after his return from Lys. They were born early enough to have a chance to get some hatchling and Viserys was most likely not afraid of dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anath Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Lord Varys, that indeed might be the case - and that fits with the maesters neglecting to mention it version. But it does fit with the other one, too - that something was wrong with the dragons after the end of the Dance. Bonded or not, there was something wrong going on. I definitely get the vibes that the Targaryens after the Dance of the Dragons were not dragonriders well before the death of the last dragon, and not only because they were young. Jaehaera's dragon was mentioned by name, although she never got to ride it. The later Targaryens were never mentioned in connection to particular dragons. That might be part of the "broken" aspect of Aegon's reign which was in many ways successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Ran and Linda mentioned somewhere that George deliberately chose to not tell them what happened to Morning, Rhaena's dragon. Gyldayn's detailed history seems to end with the Regency of Aegon III, and my guess is that the sidebar in TWoW quoting the speech of Aegon III when he ended the Regency and dismissed Lord Torrhen Manderly are, in fact, the last words of Gyldayn Ran and Linda got - or pretty close to those last words. The end of the last Targaryen dragons most likely is going to become a plot point in future novels when George continues to investigate/elaborate on Marwyn's claim that the so-called grey sheep killed the dragons in the past. But TWoIaF actually gave us a pretty big hint who actually poisoned/killed the last Targaryen dragons - Grand Maester Munkun. He was the only regent to serve from 131-136 AC and eventually became effectively the absolute ruler of the Realm serving as only regent, Hand of the King, and Grand Maester after the end of the civil war within in the Red Keep following the downfall of Lord Thaddeus Rowan (by then the only remaining co-regent) until the Great Council in 136 AC which appointed three new regents by lot. Munkun had every opportunity to develop and implement a subtle plan to get rid of the dragons during the Regency - first behind the scenes, and later quite openly with the authority he wielded as only regent and Hand. While I imagine that Aegon III and Viserys began to play a bigger role in the government of the Realm in 135-36 - especially after the Rogare incident which led to the civil war in their own castle - I'm pretty sure Munkun had enough actual power to do pretty much wanted her wanted (at least in those fields the king and his brother and heir weren't all that interested). We have no reason to assume that Morning was crippled, twisted, or sickly - else the book would most likely described it as such - which I assume that the dragon was healthy and well-shaped and eventually ridden by Lady Rhaena. I'd expect that Munkun ended up poisoning Rhaena with a very subtle poison, causing the dragon to produce only inviable/sickly offspring. Considering that the last two dragons did not live very long - but left another clutch of eggs - I wouldn't be surprised if quite some dragons hatched in from 131-150 AC many of which were sickly and misshapen and lived not very long. There have to be quite a lot of dragons dying during the reign of the Dragonbane for him to earn that nickname. If there had only been Morning dying at court followed by the two last she-dragons who hatched on Dragonstone (one of which was seen by a very young Ser Arlan of Pennyrtree in the Dragonpit one year before her death) I doubt the rumors had developed that the melancholic king had decided to poison his own dragons. For that people would have to believe that something fishy had indeed happened to the dragons - and it is fishier still that Maester Yandel does not repeat those rumors about the last dragons having been poisoned despite the fact that this is a well-known theory/rumor in Westeros to this very day. The deaths of Silverwing, Sheepstealer, and the Cannibal (if the latter is actually dead - all we know is that he disappeared) do not seem to be connected directly to anything Aegon III or Munkun/the Citadel may have done. Munkun/the other regents or Aegon III after the end of the Regency may have encouraged/motivated would-be dragonslayers to slay Silverwing, and this may have led to her death. Sheepstealer seems to have died in the Mountains of the Moon without anyone at court or the Citadel interfering with it - he could easily have been killed during some conflict between the Burned Men and another clan or during a skirmish between the knights of the Vale and the clansmen. In that sense I think we should assume that a number of dragons hatched and died during the reign of Aegon III for him to earn himself the ominous name of Dragonbane. Considering that Yandel has told us it was Viserys II who convinced Aegon III to bring over the Nine Mages to try to hatch a clutch of dragon eggs I'd not be surprised if Viserys II or his children took/were given some hatchlings. Not to mention that Viserys' children would have been given dragon eggs in their cradles according to the Targaryen tradition making it no unlikely that some/all of the dragons hatching during the reign of Aegon III came from dragon eggs given to the children of Viserys II and Aegon III. If every prince and princess had a hatchling we would have eight hatchlings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 ^^Do you know why Munkun gave erroneous accounts in his telling of the DoD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Sheepstealer seems to have died in the Mountains of the Moon without anyone at court or the Citadel interfering with it - he could easily have been killed during some conflict between the Burned Men and another clan or during a skirmish between the knights of the Vale and the clansmen. Lol, what does this say about the possible fate of Dany's dragons in the upcoming wars? Or even Drogon against Jhaqo's riders if it comes to fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanna Stormborn Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 ^^That he could die? The same way any character could die, based on the fact that humans die as well. LV has no idea how Sheepstealer died, none of us do, but you use his guess as foreshadowing of Drogon's death? Just want to reach for anything that could potentially be negative for Dany or the Targs or the dragons right? No matter how inane. smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 That was indeed just a guess. Sheepstealer could have died of old age, too - he was over a hundred years old by that time - or of some injury/sickness. We only know that he was (supposedly) dead in 153 AC when the last dragon died. Not sure if Munkun gave an erroneous account on the Dance. I usually only lie when I want to obscure something. We don't if Munkun was involved in the Dance, and if this was the case, he may have actually tried to be an honest historian there - although he most likely omitted things that could make the Citadel look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addam Velaryon Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A little off topic but I have always thought that Aerys II went mad because something was "stirring" in the Targaryen blood (or DNA) perhaps due to what happened at Summerhall, or due to the fact that Aerys & Rhaella were the first Targaryens born of a brother-sister union in several generations. The event at Summerhall even caused Rhaella to miraculously go into labor with Rhaegar. Aerys became sexually aroused by fire, & it is likely Daenerys was conceived whilst Aerys raped Rhaella & lusted for flames. I find it very interesting that the most out-bred generations of Targaryens - those who were descended from King Daeron II & Myriah Martell - were the most prone to madness. Their son Maekar & his queen Dyanna Dayne famously had the son Aerion the Monstrous, who was among the most out-bred Targaryens to have ever lived! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.