84 replies to this topic

[Apple Martini]

As a few of us have noted on here over time, the Targaryens brought three original dragons to Westeros and had 19 total (based on the skulls in the Red Keep) before they died out. Dragons had lasted for thousands of years in Valyria, but the Targs exhausted their stock barely 150 years into their tenure in Westeros.

So what happened?

It's suggested that it was the Dragonpit — the practice of cooping the beasts up in a hole — that resulted in the dragons' stunted growth and eventual extinction. Marwyn also hints to Sam that the maesters had some role to play in the dragons' demise.

It seems to me that for proclaiming themselves to be the "blood of the dragon," the historical Targaryens were astonishingly ignorant when it came to raising them. Apparently it was possible in Valyria to raise them "out and about" without them destroying everything, so why not in Westeros? Wouldn't they have put two and two together and realized, "Hey, this generation of dragons we raised in a big hole in the ground isn't as big as the last one!" Wouldn't they, being the blood of Old Valyria and all, know not to keep their dragons in a pit? Were the maesters that persuasive, saying, "You have to keep them in a pit," knowing full well what that would mean? And why did the Targs not say, "Hey we're the dragon experts here, not you, so screw off"?

Was it a "decline in magic" that caused the dragons to die out, or vice versa? Was it really so simple and dumb as just keeping them in the Dragonpit, or was there something about Westeros itself that "disagreed" with the dragons?

[JKeats]

I don't have much to back his up, so take it for what it's worth - very little.

My guess is there is something curious about Westeros, perhaps related to the Children of the Forest, that gave the Valyrians some hesitation about conquering it as they did most of Essos.  Tyrion wonders about this in early ADwD.  Remember the Targaryens were but one of several Valyrian noble houses.  For all we know, House Targaryen at the time of the Doom may even have been small potatoes in relation to true Valyrian royalty.  So they got to rule over a speck of an island in the boondocks while the highest lords of old Valyria ruled in the heartland.

Anyway, about a century after the Doom, Aegon gets the notion of conquering Westeros.  Either he does not know or does not care why old Valyria didn't conquer Westeros already.

Fast forward a bit.  A faction within the Citadel decides the world is better off without dragons, so it takes advantage of whatever it is about Westeros that the pre-Doom Valyrians feared to slowly kill off the Targaryen dragons.

[Jem]

It is really odd that a family that so strongly identifies itself with dragons appears to be so incredibly ignorant about them. You'd think that because they refer to themselves as "dragons" they would be more empathetic towards dragons, too. They are like people who say they love dogs or horses or whatever, but then when they get those animals they basically just ignore them and then wonder why their animal is so savage or disobedient. The Targs seem to love the cache that comes with being 'dragons' and owning dragons, but they don't want to go to the bother of actually looking after them or even learn anything about them. It seems Dany comes from a long line of dragon-wannabes who actually don't care at all about real dragons. Hey Targs! Dragons are for life, not just for Christmas!

[Sevumar]

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

It's suggested that it was the Dragonpit — the practice of cooping the beasts up in a hole — that resulted in the dragons' stunted growth and eventual extinction. Marwyn also hints to Sam that the maesters had some role to play in the dragons' demise.

We get the idea about the decrease in dragon size due to the pit from a pair of fairly non-scholarly characters, Barristan and Jorah. This suggests that it could just be the commonplace assumption and that there's something else going on here.

The maester theory is intriguing, and put forth by someone potentially more in the know, Marwyn. There seems to be a fair amount of supporting, if circumstantial, evidence for maester interference. If this is the case, the maesters may well have been doing the people of Westeros and the world a service.

Quote

It seems to me that for proclaiming themselves to be the "blood of the dragon," the historical Targaryens were astonishingly ignorant when it came to raising them. Apparently it was possible in Valyria to raise them "out and about" without them destroying everything, so why not in Westeros?

From Jorah, we get this, "[B]ut the dragons the Seven Kingdoms knew best were those of House Targaryen. They were bred for war, and in war they died. It is no easy thing to slay a dragon, but it can be done."

That suggests the Targaryen dragons saw a fair amount of use, at least until the time of Aegon III. Is it possible that with Aegon III's predisposition to hate dragons (his mother was eaten by his uncle's), that the conspiring maesters could've had the sympathetic ear they needed to turn the Targaryen line away from the use of dragons forever? Or at least until the present day.

Another strange thing: we're often told that the Valyrians used blood magic to bind and control their dragons, so where are all the goodies that the Targaryens should've brought to Dragonstone with them to accomplish this at their new home?

Quote

And why did the Targs not say, "Hey we're the dragon experts here, not you, so screw off"?

Good question. It seems like they could've kept the dragons on Dragonstone if they wanted to avoid keeping them in the pit, so close to their new subjects. Taking them out for a flight once in a while would've reminded the vassals that it was in their best interest to stay in line.

The Valyrians and their descendants seem awful prone to forgetting. Maybe that's one reason for the origin of House Targaryen's words? They could be less a boast than a recipe: Fire + Blood + Dragon Egg = dragons.

Quote

Was it a "decline in magic" that caused the dragons to die out, or vice versa? Was it really so simple and dumb as just keeping them in the Dragonpit, or was there something about Westeros itself that "disagreed" with the dragons?

I don't think we have enough information to know which is the cause in this scenario. I think it makes more sense for the dragons to be the symptom of a general rising tide in magic, rather than the cause. If the dragons are the cause, the mechanics seem pretty wacky.

Edited by Sevumar, 08 February 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[Apple Martini]

^ That could be. There's a theory that I sort of find interesting that the reason Targs/Valyrians waited so long before attempting to conquer Westeros was the fear of skinchangers.

[Catastrophe]

I don't think the extinction of dragons could've been avoided. It was just a part of the natural cycle, magic comes and goes with time.

[Sevumar]

Catastrophe, on 08 February 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

I don't think the extinction of dragons could've been avoided. It was just a part of the natural cycle, magic comes and goes with time.

The Targs rose the dragon bubble to prominence and then when it burst, they couldn't weather the dragon-recession for more than a century and a half?

[Apple Martini]

Catastrophe, on 08 February 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

I don't think the extinction of dragons could've been avoided. It was just a part of the natural cycle, magic comes and goes with time.

I'd be more inclined to go with this, except that there's no good evidence that the dragons were that much in decline when the Targs got there. Balerion, for one, was gigantic. 150 years is a really, really short time for a species like that to just collapse.

[Catastrophe]

Sevumar, on 08 February 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

The Targs rose the dragon bubble to prominence and then when it burst, they couldn't weather the dragon-recession for more than a century and a half?

It's not like they knew what was going to happen or had any way to prepare for it. It could be that the Targaryens came to Westeros at the tail end of a 5000 year cycle, without having any real idea of what was going on metaphysically. Since their claim to power was based entirely around having dragons, it makes sense that their House would fall apart once they no longer had their pet fire-breathers backing them up. (Especially since, as far as I know, the Targaryens had no real military forces of their own.) So yeah, it was basically just a case of extremely bad timing for them, made significantly worse by the fact that they basically put all their eggs in one basket.

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

I'd be more inclined to go with this, except that there's no good evidence that the dragons were that much in decline when the Targs got there. Balerion, for one, was gigantic. 150 years is a really, really short time for a species like that to just collapse.

I recall hearing that dragons were much more populous during the time of the Valyrian Empire; by the time of Aegon's conquest, they'd already dwindled from a thriving species to an endangered one, judging by the fact that there were only a few dozen of them left in the whole world.

Also, the Fall of Valyria itself seemed to signal the end of an era.

Edited by Catastrophe, 08 February 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[corbon]

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

I'd be more inclined to go with this, except that there's no good evidence that the dragons were that much in decline when the Targs got there. Balerion, for one, was gigantic. 150 years is a really, really short time for a species like that to just collapse.

Not when their natural breeding grounds and the majority of their population have been cataclysmically destroyed and only a small remnant remain, most of which die in internal fighting.

[Apple Martini]

Sevumar, on 08 February 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

From Jorah, we get this, "[B]ut the dragons the Seven Kingdoms knew best were those of House Targaryen. They were bred for war, and in war they died. It is no easy thing to slay a dragon, but it can be done."

This sort of thing makes me curious, too. I take Septon Barth's writing with a grain of salt, namely because he had a personal/political stake in fluffing the Targ dragon reputation and lying about or downplaying the way to kill them.

I also agree that it's curious that, say, the Targs don't have dragon horns or other such taming paraphernalia sitting around.

[Alkion]

Sevumar, on 08 February 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

We get the idea about the decrease in dragon size due to the pit from a pair of fairly non-scholarly characters, Barristan and Jorah. This suggests that it could just be the commonplace assumption and that there's something else going on here.

The maester theory is intriguing, and put forth by someone potentially more in the know, Marwyn. There seems to be a fair amount of supporting, if circumstantial, evidence for maester interference. If this is the case, the maesters may well have been doing the people of Westeros and the world a service.

It's always seemed to me that they're both probably accurate. The Dragonpit, and growing up in captivity probably severely stunted the growth of dragons over time and may have led in some ways to their extinction. At some point in time the Maesters probably went to the reigning Targs and said "Hey, people really don't like your dragons being all over the place. I have an idea, how about a giant pit?"

I've always assumed the Targs themselves and their confinement of the dragons was the major factor towards their extinction, with the Maesters working to accelerate this, and probably doing whatever they could do to stop the eggs from hatching.

[Apple Martini]

corbon, on 08 February 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Not when their natural breeding grounds and the majority of their population have been cataclysmically destroyed and only a small remnant remain, most of which die in internal fighting.

True enough, I suppose. But that really only makes the Targs that much stupider for wasting the remnants of a dying species on inter-family squabbles and handicapping the newborns right out of the gate by raising them in a pit.

[Lykos]

Do we know wich dragons hatched in Westeros.

[Catastrophe]

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

True enough, I suppose. But that really only makes the Targs that much stupider for wasting the remnants of a dying species on inter-family squabbles and handicapping the newborns right out of the gate by raising them in a pit.

Well, no one ever said the Targaryens were known for their intelligence or foresight.

That said, I think that no matter what had happened, it was only a matter of time before the dragons died out. The Targaryens' stupidity in keeping them confined to a pit and squandering them in battle just hastened the process.

[Sevumar]

Alkion, on 08 February 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

The Dragonpit, and growing up in captivity probably severely stunted the growth of dragons over time and may have led in some ways to their extinction. At some point in time the Maesters probably went to the reigning Targs and said "Hey, people really don't like your dragons being all over the place. I have an idea, how about a giant pit?"

I wonder how prone the early Targs would've been to listen to this advice from the maesters. We don't know anything about how influential they were and how integrated they were into the various courts around the time of the conquest.

Quote

I've always assumed the Targs themselves and their confinement of the dragons was the major factor towards their extinction, with the Maesters working to accelerate this, and probably doing whatever they could do to stop the eggs from hatching.

Look at what happens to any species when it's kept in captivity and bred into specialized roles over the generations, like domesticated animals and farmed fish. Congenital defects tend to show up in relatively sedentary species, especially those whose diet has been altered and when there's a restricted pool of genes for breeding. Everyone in Westeros was impressed with the abilities of the Targaryen dragons, but how do we know they weren't runts or suffering from congenital defects in the absolute sense?

[Apple Martini]

Lykos, on 08 February 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

Do we know wich dragons hatched in Westeros.

I imagine any that were not Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes. Unless they kept a few "stashed" on Dragonstone and brought them over after they conquered everything.

Edited by Apple Martini, 08 February 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[voodooqueen126]

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

I imagine any that were not Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes. Unless they kept a few "stashed" on Dragonstone and brought them over after their conquered everything.

Queen Alysanne's dragon Silverwing presumably.

[David C. Hunter]

It seems to me that the Targaryans relied more heavily on the Dragons then the Valyrians. Targs obviously had nowhere near the technological capabilities of the Valyrians. Valyrians used blood magic to bind their dragons, unlike the Targs. They could actually spy on other territories with their black candles which is another thing the targs forgot. I also believe that the Valyrians actually had a standing army, sited of the Targs who did not have many at all. It is somewhat similar to the Starks. Where the words 'Winter is Coming' could mean something totally different then what it was originally suppose to mean(War cry perhaps). Just so, Fire and Blood could've probably meant what was needed to bind the dragons or 'wake' the dragons. The Targs try to replicate it(Summerhall), but they have no memory about how to actually do it. It's kind of how the Starks seem to have forgotten about their origins as Skin Changers.

The Targs in a sense lost the ability to efficiently control/raise their dragons. Which is why they seem idiotic to what is happening to them. We dont reall know about most of the dragons during the reign of the targs. Perhaps the dragons were becoming unruly towards the end which led to the maesters trying to get rid of them.

Edited by David C. Simmons, 08 February 2012 - 02:24 AM.

[boojam]

Apple Martini, on 08 February 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

As a few of us have noted on here over time, the Targaryens brought three original dragons to Westeros and had 19 total (based on the skulls in the Red Keep) before they died out. Dragons had lasted for thousands of years in Valyria, but the Targs exhausted their stock barely 150 years into their tenure in Westeros.

So what happened?


It seems to me that for proclaiming themselves to be the "blood of the dragon," the historical Targaryens were astonishingly ignorant when it came to raising them. Apparently it was possible in Valyria to raise them "out and about" without them destroying everything, so why not in Westeros? Wouldn't they have put two and two together and realized, "Hey, this generation of dragons we raised in a big hole in the ground isn't as big as the last one!" Wouldn't they, being the blood of Old Valyria and all, know not to keep their dragons in a pit? Were the maesters that persuasive, saying, "You have to keep them in a pit," knowing full well what that would mean? And why did the Targs not say, "Hey we're the dragon experts here, not you, so screw off"?

Was it a "decline in magic" that caused the dragons to die out, or vice versa? Was it really so simple and dumb as just keeping them in the Dragonpit, or was there something about Westeros itself that "disagreed" with the dragons?

I think it's a good point.
According to the Wiki timeline the Valyrians mastered the dragons 5000 years before the Doom.
The Targaryens were pure Valyrians (sometimes seems people round here seem to forget that).
So in the two hundred years before AL and the nearly three hundred after AL the Targaryens ruled Dragonstone.
The Wiki says they had the only three dragons left from Valyria, where did the other later ones come from?
Breeding I guess, so why if they could be kept at Dragonstone for 200 years didn't the Targs breed more?
Or maybe the did?
It's confusing apparently they breed more dragons in Westeros after 1AL.
So for nearly 300 years Dragonstone has no dragons?
Dragonstone was also supposedly the 'fall back' refuge for the Targs, why was it so poorly defended?
Seemingly falling towards the end of Robert's rebellion?

Apparently, there was successful big dragon raising on Westeros, from I guess the three Aeogon invaders, and only after some while did things go wrong.
It's all kind of confusing, I don't think George is too concerned about dragon history.

Edited by boojam, 08 February 2012 - 05:48 AM.