103 replies to this topic

[Yar]

Aegon was the conqueror, the first Targaryen to show up.  That was different.  Despite a few years of Baratheons, Westeros has been in the hands of Targaryens for centuries.

You've got lots of people claiming to be kings.  If someone shows up claiming to be a Targaryen, then the people will see him/her as just another player in the Game of Thrones, another proud lord claimant, and just hope that they don't face even more fallout and famine because of it.

But if someone claiming to be a Targaryen showed up riding three dragons now, well hell, that IS a claim to the iron throne.  One that ties back to a conquest that already happened centuries ago.  One that obilterates any dispute about which Baratheon is the heir or if there should still be a King in the North.

Kind of like when they talk about what would happen if Rickon or Brandon showed up with a dire wolf at his heels.  He'd be crowned the King in the North on the spot.  And taking it further, recall that Robb was declared King in the North because the Northmen believed that the Starks bent the knee to Aegon and his dragons, not to Joffrey Baratheon, and the dragons were all gone and the Targaryens all dead.  A Targaryen showing up riding a dragon is basically the biggest trump card over pretty much every conflict going on in Westeros.  It brings everything right back to Aegon and the Iron Throne and everyone would know it.

[sagaz]

Revan Baratheon, on 01 March 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

There was a thread in ADWD section a while back that claimed lightbringer was the horn which summoned dragons.This got me thinking that might the dragons be lightbringer themselves?
(Assumption:Dany=AA)So the story of lightbringer is that the guy kills his beloved wife to forge the blade.This implies great personal sacrifice "to create" LB,which Dany has already undergone by drogo and rhaego's death.Also wasnt LB created by blood sacrifice?(AA used his wife's blood to temper the blade)Which dany has also done....
Lastly according to mel,that comet signifies the return of AA,this coment coincides with the return of the true LB(dragons) and dragons can provide heat of their own(which stannis's LB couldnt)Anyway this theory makes more sense(to me) than the entire NW being LB.Thoughts?

I always tought that Jon maybe the only person who can warg into a dragon... your theory kind of go with it.
Maybe AA is split, one creates Lightbringer, the other one possess it....


( I was thinking something like when Buffy split the slayer power to all the potentials)

[Rheagar Prime]

i honestly don't see AA being a single person for some reason like lightbringer i feel it will be a group. If not i see Bran being AA more than Dany i can't see 3 dragons beating the others they can beat the wrights, but not the others who aren't stupid to me to walk into dragon fire. Bran has a more practical and logical means to beat them since he is kinda becoming a god now.

[lady m]

chris999, on 05 March 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

I still think that the dragons are a legitimate tool to unite the forces of Westeros.

Just like Aegon the Conqueror used dragons to unite Westeros, Dany can use her dragons to accomplish the same goal. Get all of the false kings and usurpers to either bend the knee, or kill them f they dont.

But who are the 'false kings & usurpers'?  The North had a king that was true, he bent the knee to Aegon to save his people, but did that make him or his ancestors any less true kings?  Same goes for the other kingdoms.  Perhaps the true usurper WAS Aegon, and Robert's Rebellion just set the Seven/nine Kingdoms on the path to making things right again.  Because Aegon & his sisters didn't 'unite' the kingdoms, there was still a lot of inter kingdom warring, and adding to that all the wars the Targs made the continent engage in because of succession squabbles that wouldn't have happened had they been happy with Dragonstone.  What they did was subjugate the other kings to their will and vision for Westeros through force with three huge flame breathers.  There was nothing willing about is, which the very word 'unite/united' implies.  To unite suggests a common purpose, that was not what was done.  They were forced, through arms, to surrender their rightful thrones, which many of the houses had held for many millennia.  The North was united under the Starks, The Reach under the Gardeners, Dorne under the Martells, etc., etc.  None of them 'united' willingly with Aegon, they did so because of fire & blood, fear & subjugation.  

So, again, who is rightful, who is usurping?  Who is uniting, who is subjugating?  I would argue that what Aegon did upended the natural order of things and began the realm down the road that strengthened The Others, and putting someone back on the Iron Throne in the form of a new Aegon is not the answer for the current problems, and probably never was.