Jump to content

Did Drogon really kill Hazzea?


Recommended Posts

This isn't so much a theory as a question. In ADWD a petitioner shows up to present the body of his daughter to Dany. He tells the story, essentially, of Drogon coming out of the sky and descending on them and killing his daughter Hazzea. I remember at the time thinking that this was a very convenient story. At the time I expected that Dany would somehow discover that this hadn't happened, that Hizdar or someone else had fabricated the story to convince Dany that her dragon's were dangerous. At some point I guess I just decided that GRRM needed the dragon's on the shelf and this was a way to do so that fit with Dany's characters.

 

After reading so many theories and posts on here though, I've gotten new respect for how thoughtful a writer GRRM is, which brought me back to this scene.

 

So, just curious...does anyone else think that maybe Drogon didn't murder some little kid and that instead it was all a ruse to get Dany to lock up/kill the dragon's and thus make her easier to manipulate? After all, had this scene not happened, most of the trouble's that plague Dany's rule of Meereen become much easier to deal with through judicious use of dragon fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's questionable whether Drogon actually killed Hazzea and we will probably never know for sure. If he did kill her, it was probably unintentional since he didn't show a penchant for hunting humans for food. He did eat that woman in the fighting pits but I think that was an unusual circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't so much a theory as a question. In ADWD a petitioner shows up to present the body of his daughter to Dany. He tells the story, essentially, of Drogon coming out of the sky and descending on them and killing his daughter Hazzea. I remember at the time thinking that this was a very convenient story. At the time I expected that Dany would somehow discover that this hadn't happened, that Hizdar or someone else had fabricated the story to convince Dany that her dragon's were dangerous. At some point I guess I just decided that GRRM needed the dragon's on the shelf and this was a way to do so that fit with Dany's characters.

 

After reading so many theories and posts on here though, I've gotten new respect for how thoughtful a writer GRRM is, which brought me back to this scene.

 

So, just curious...does anyone else think that maybe Drogon didn't murder some little kid and that instead it was all a ruse to get Dany to lock up/kill the dragon's and thus make her easier to manipulate? After all, had this scene not happened, most of the trouble's that plague Dany's rule of Meereen become much easier to deal with through judicious use of dragon fire.

 

I think it was a lot simpler than that.  The farmer found out that the new government is paying farmers for their livestock that Drogon killed and not asking for much of a proof.  The truth is most likely that the farmer found an easy mark and decided to cash in.  There are no shortages of dead children or even burned bones in Slaver's Bay.  The farmer either found some burned bones or found a dead body and burned it. 

 

I don't think we will ever know the truth.  We can only look at the clues and Drogon's historical behavior.  Drogon has never really gone out of his way to kill people.  He actually seems like he goes out of his way not to hurt people when he picks up his lunch of mutton chops and roasted lamb.  Drogon shows his keen intelligence later on in the story and I do not get the impression that this dragon impulsively just killed that little girl. 

 

At the same time, I don't think it's some great conspiracy to get Dany to lock up the dragons.  There was no way to predict how Dany would take the news.  I think it is more likely just a smart, albeit less than honest, sheepherder who decided to cash in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it was a lot simpler than that.  The farmer found out that the new government is paying farmers for their livestock that Drogon killed and not asking for much of a proof.  The truth is most likely that the farmer found an easy mark and decided to cash in.  There are no shortages of dead children or even burned bones in Slaver's Bay.  The farmer either found some burned bones or found a dead body and burned it. 

 

I don't think we will ever know the truth.  We can only look at the clues and Drogon's historical behavior.  Drogon has never really gone out of his way to kill people.  He actually seems like he goes out of his way not to hurt people when he picks up his lunch of mutton chops and roasted lamb.  Drogon shows his keen intelligence later on in the story and I do not get the impression that this dragon impulsively just killed that little girl. 

 

At the same time, I don't think it's some great conspiracy to get Dany to lock up the dragons.  There was no way to predict how Dany would take the news.  I think it is more likely just a smart, albeit less than honest, sheepherder who decided to cash in.

hadn't really thought about that option, but I can see that being likely.

 

however, I would argue that it would have been possible for Hizdar and other's to guess how Dany would react to that news. Her decision to lock up the dragon's doesn't feel like a shock, it fits in with her characterization to that point. She's a person who reacts strongly to the death of innocents and in particular children. Her decision to crucify Meereenese in response to the murder of 162 (?) children is a perfect foreshadowing of how she would react to news that her "children" killed an innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hadn't really thought about that option, but I can see that being likely.

 

however, I would argue that it would have been possible for Hizdar and other's to guess how Dany would react to that news. Her decision to lock up the dragon's doesn't feel like a shock, it fits in with her characterization to that point. She's a person who reacts strongly to the death of innocents and in particular children. Her decision to crucify Meereenese in response to the murder of 162 (?) children is a perfect foreshadowing of how she would react to news that her "children" killed an innocent.

 

Sure, that is possible.  I am going by the simplest and what I see to be the most likely. 

 

The least likely is that Drogon just went out and roasted a little girl.  The shepherd would never have found those bones.  Drogon would have taken his lunch somewhere near his lair and enjoy it in private.  We know his home in the Dothraki Sea is littered with the bones of his meals.  Dany did not see any human skeletons among the garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter? I mean, Drogon shows up later and the first thing he does, first thing, is to eat a human like it was regular meat. 

 

Let's say that it was faked earlier, and that he did not eat a little girl. Does anyone, anyone at all, honestly believes that the dragons would not have started to attack people at some point? That they would not at any point in the books be used to kill other people? That they are only here to melt Others and fry wights? 

 

Even if he did not eat that girl, it was a matter of time before he would have killed without order on a friggin free range in a populated area, where the ruler's idea of feeding dragons is to pay for damages after because it's a frigging dragon and of course he eats stuff. The ancient art of dragon taming is long gone, Dany is a poor excuse of a dragonrider and nothing in the lore that Tyrion has is above folk-tales. It was only a matter of time. If one of the locals tried to get rid of the dragons before that actually happened, that only makes him out to be someone who likes to prepare in advance, and who is willing to use tricks to get what he wants, nothing more. It does not turn them into worse monsters for killing kids, and it does not make the dragons any less fire-breathing killing machines who are kept by a girl who hasn't got the first clue about properly raising dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter? I mean, Drogon shows up later and the first thing he does, first thing, is to eat a human like it was regular meat. 

 

Let's say that it was faked earlier, and that he did not eat a little girl. Does anyone, anyone at all, honestly believes that the dragons would not have started to attack people at some point? That they would not at any point in the books be used to kill other people? That they are only here to melt Others and fry wights? 

 

Even if he did not eat that girl, it was a matter of time before he would have killed without order on a friggin free range in a populated area, where the ruler's idea of feeding dragons is to pay for damages after because it's a frigging dragon and of course he eats stuff. The ancient art of dragon taming is long gone, Dany is a poor excuse of a dragonrider and nothing in the lore that Tyrion has is above folk-tales. It was only a matter of time. If one of the locals tried to get rid of the dragons before that actually happened, that only makes him out to be someone who likes to prepare in advance, and who is willing to use tricks to get what he wants, nothing more. It does not turn them into worse monsters for killing kids, and it does not make the dragons any less fire-breathing killing machines who are kept by a girl who hasn't got the first clue about properly raising dragons.

 

Point taken.

 

I think it's important only because there are still unresolved issues in Meereen. Who poisoned the locusts? Who is controlling the Harpy's? I guess my idea was that if there was some..."evidence"....pointing to who "framed" Drogon, that could implicate them in the other stuff going on in Meereen. If someone wanted the dragon's out of the way, knowing that by doing so they could pressure Dany to a peaceful solution.

 

In particular I'm considering who among Dany's "allies" may have been responsible. Her closest advisors would be the ones most likely to have suspected how Dany would react to that news.

 

Again, I've seen lots of people on here find clues that I miss to stuff. 

 

It's probably not important. Either he did it or it was a ruse by the father to make some cash. But it's just something that jumped out at me on a reread that I hadn't seen beaten to death already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, that is possible.  I am going by the simplest and what I see to be the most likely. 

 

The least likely is that Drogon just went out and roasted a little girl.  The shepherd would never have found those bones.  Drogon would have taken his lunch somewhere near his lair and enjoy it in private.  We know his home in the Dothraki Sea is littered with the bones of his meals.  Dany did not see any human skeletons among the garbage.

 

   These are valid points.  Initially, the simplest answer seems to be that the uncontrolled, 'free range' young dragon did not differentiate between human and sheep and killed the little girl.  The description of the shepherd's grief at presenting his daughter's bones at court certainly rang true in gut-wrenching fashion.  So he was either skilled at mummery or convinced that his little girl was killed by the dragon.  But how did he retrieve the bones?

 

     When Drogon arrived at the fighting pits, his first instinct was to go after the boar.  When the dragan began to feed, it was difficult to distinguish boar from Barsena because the fighter had been gutted and partially eaten by the boar.  It was just blood and slaughtered meat in there. 

 

     Of course the boar would have more meat on it so it might be more attractive to Drogon.  Historically we have seen dragons favor a type of meat:  sheep seem to be popular but one dragon preferred seafood.  But that brings us back to the bones in the lair.  We know there are sheep bones there.  Even if Drogon raided a shepherd's flock, it is unlikely (but possible) he would mistake a 4-year-old girl for a sheep.  I would have thought his bond with Dany, a not-so-big girl herself, would have taught him not to eat the little girl.

  

   We have seen dragons attack humans in historical records.  Aegon III witnessed his own mother being devoured by a dragon - but only after the dragonrider ordered the dragon to eat her.  Dragons have also attacked in war or, notably, when unbonded humans are trying to mount them (1st Dance of Dragons). It seems that once humans are dead, dragons see only meat regardless of whether the person died by war, disease, or murder.  And that is no different from wolves, direwolfs, dogs, birds, and not a few humans in these stories. 

 

   For me, there are enough details missing that I think it could go either way: 

 

* Either Drogon attacked out of the blue and ate Hassea and someone brought her bones back to the shepherd or

       it did not happen that way.  If it did not happen that way, either Drogon attacked or

       someone made it look like Drogon attacked.

* If Drogon attacked, possibly he did so when the child tried to mount him or

      he was eating a sheep from her herd and did not differentiate between the sheep and Hazzea...

     That would lead to questions like who tried to get a 4-year-old to mount a dragon?  Or

     like Barsena, was Hazzea already dead when she was eaten? Or was she staked out in his lair?

     Was she used by anti-Dany forces - sacrificed to manipulate Dany into killing or locking up the dragons? 

     Do the bones belong to Hazzea or some other child who was already dead and burned? 

 

Many questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt for a second that Drogon killed Hazzea, she was probably collateral damage rather than a target. A young dragon that is still semi-feral at this point will not be too particular about anyone within the line of fire. Drogon is a pure predator, in the midst of a hunting spree and without being trained to discriminate when roasting prey.

A child on a hill surrounded by running sheep wouldn't stand a chance, I dont find the tale convenient, it sounds more credible to me than that. A chancer looking to make money from found bones wouldn't wait til the end to make his claim, he'd be at the top of the queue shouting loudly because the more people who heard him, the more likely Dany is to pay him off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably did kill and eat her. As I recall she was a shepherd's daughter so if she was out with her lambs and Drogon toasted one and she got in the way, or just as likely she tried to drive him off from the flock and got roasted for the effort, Drogon wouldn't let the meat go to waste. He did eat the Spotted Cat in the fighting pits after roasting the boar. I don't buy into a conspiracy to frame the dragons and fault Dany's inexperience for what happened. She has dragons and they will do pretty much what they want to do. To expect them never to kill a human is like expecting a shark not to either. Given the choice a shark would always choose a juicy seal but if it bites a human by mistake or intent it will finish the kill. Dragons like sharks get the apex predator get out of jail free card on this type of thing imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hazzea is introduced as an example of Daenerys' inability to control the forces she commands, much as the Sons of the Harpy represent the inability of Daenerys to control the city she has conquered. This is part of the larger theme in ADwD whereby Dany's attempts to rule Meereen are thwarted by a combination of her inexperience and the resistance of the Ghiscari to the reforms imposed by an alien queen. To suggest that Hazzea's death is a fraud is in my view buying too much into the idea that it is inherent Ghiscari hostility and an anti-Dany conspiracy which is the entire problem. These are certainly elements in the downfall of Dany's Meereenese regime, but her own mistakes also contribute heavily to the eventual disastrous outcome. Ghiscari culture is not unreformable and the problem of slavery is not intractable, but Dany's heavy-handed 'liberal intervention' and subsequently her lack of power on the ground due to insufficient forces, lack of local knowledge and lack of understanding of Ghiscari culture mean that these societal evils cannot be solved in this manner. And yes, I am suggesting Martin's consciously or unconsciously introducing some real world parallels with certain recent conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He probably did kill and eat her. As I recall she was a shepherd's daughter so if she was out with her lambs and Drogon toasted one and she got in the way, or just as likely she tried to drive him off from the flock and got roasted for the effort, Drogon wouldn't let the meat go to waste. He did eat the Spotted Cat in the fighting pits after roasting the boar. I don't buy into a conspiracy to frame the dragons and fault Dany's inexperience for what happened. She has dragons and they will do pretty much what they want to do. To expect them never to kill a human is like expecting a shark not to either. Given the choice a shark would always choose a juicy seal but if it bites a human by mistake or intent it will finish the kill. Dragons like sharks get the apex predator get out of jail free card on this type of thing imho.

Good points.

 

Hazzea is introduced as an example of Daenerys' inability to control the forces she commands, much as the Sons of the Harpy represent the inability of Daenerys to control the city she has conquered. This is part of the larger theme in ADwD whereby Dany's attempts to rule Meereen are thwarted by a combination of her inexperience and the resistance of the Ghiscari to the reforms imposed by an alien queen. To suggest that Hazzea's death is a fraud is in my view buying too much into the idea that it is inherent Ghiscari hostility and an anti-Dany conspiracy which is the entire problem. These are certainly elements in the downfall of Dany's Meereenese regime, but her own mistakes also contribute heavily to the eventual disastrous outcome. Ghiscari culture is not unreformable and the problem of slavery is not intractable, but Dany's heavy-handed 'liberal intervention' and subsequently her lack of power on the ground due to insufficient forces, lack of local knowledge and lack of understanding of Ghiscari culture mean that these societal evils cannot be solved in this manner. And yes, I am suggesting Martin's consciously or unconsciously introducing some real world parallels with certain recent conflicts.

Very well stated.  The parallel between the out-of-control dragons and the Meereenese resistance is particularly acute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Αnother of the "It's all a conspiracy against Dany". . I don't see why we shouldn't believe what Hazel's father told. After all didn't her father waited the court to be empty to tell that to Dany? If ti was a conspiracy why he didn't went there in a way that everyone would know what had happened? I am not sure if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt for a second that Drogon killed Hazzea, she was probably collateral damage rather than a target. A young dragon that is still semi-feral at this point will not be too particular about anyone within the line of fire. Drogon is a pure predator, in the midst of a hunting spree and without being trained to discriminate when roasting prey.

A child on a hill surrounded by running sheep wouldn't stand a chance, I dont find the tale convenient, it sounds more credible to me than that. A chancer looking to make money from found bones wouldn't wait til the end to make his claim, he'd be at the top of the queue shouting loudly because the more people who heard him, the more likely Dany is to pay him off.

 

I agree. All evidence point to the shepherd's story being true.

 

My main problem with the OP, though, is attributing intent to the animal. The dragon is not good or bad, is just a dragon; words like "murder" make no sense at all. The girl is just meat to the dragon and that's only nature.

 

Also I believe that after this incident, Dany had to lock away for pragmatic reasons too: if she can't control her dragons to protect her people, she equaly can not control them to attack her ennemies; sooner or later this would be obvious to anyone, both allies and ennemies. So she wouldn't be able to use their reputation as a deterrent measure, if she let them expose their wild, uncontrollable nature. But locked dragons keep their prestige and allow their oener to project the image of the benevolent ruler who locked them away for the city's safety (I am not questioning Dany's intentions here - as it happens they coincide with the pragmatic necessity).

Barristan is right to doubt which side the freed dragons are going to take in the imminent battle; they are going to feed indiscriminately, most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...