Jump to content

Valyria and Gender


TheWitch

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

There undoubtedly would be times when someone ended up with an only child (others fell off their dragons in mid-flight or something) and had no choice but to marry that child to another dragonlord family. But I think since we have magic involved in blood-bonding and other things potentially, the unique looks could also be a side effect of messing around with fire and blood. Silver-gold is a rather pale color, the Valyrians are known to have fair skin as well. Perhaps adding their own blood to the dragons pulled the melanin out of them? Not sure about the purple eyes unless that was a cosmetic blood-bonding thing. "Want striking purple eyes? Come see Dr. Aekyn for a dragonblood treatment today!" The dragons do tend to have eye colors that don't show up in humans, so it's a possibility.

Still, it is odd that all Valyrians had those characteristic features that became known as Valyrian. I don't find it very likely that there were many of those magical rituals which first bound the dragons to the Valyrians. There might have been a group of legendary founders who became the first dragonlords but I very much doubt all the dragonlord lines still in existence at the time of the Doom existed back then. It is quite likely that occasionally some outsider married into a dragonlord daughter or cousin and thus founded a new dragonlord line.

And we know that a Yi Tish Emperor married a dragonlord from Valyria, allowing his wife to even bring her dragon to his court. Most of the dragonlord marriages would have been incestuous, but clearly not all of them.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

We're talking several generations of non-dragonblood in the mix though. Yes BBP's Targ ancestry is more recent, and most likely more concentrated, than Quentyn's but it's still not as recent or as concentrated as Dany's. Yet the dragons still sense it. And since you brought up Quentyn, I think he would have succeeded if he hadn't chosen the easy dragon. I think Rhaegal was jealous that Quent was trying to claim Viserion.

I don't think dragons actually like being claimed. They are animals who like their independence when they are wild. And Viserion and Rhaegal are pretty wild already, and Drogon definitely were when Dany claimed him in Daznak's Pit. He could have killed her.

But I agree that Quentyn had a pretty good chance to claim Viserion.

Dany's own dragon blood is nearly as diluted as that of Brown Ben, though. Mariah Martell and Betha Blackwood most likely had no Targaryen blood, and if Dyanna Dayne had some it wouldn't have been that much. Viserys Plumm should have as impeccable a Targaryen ancestry as Daemon Blackfyre - and he may have just as well looked like him.

Jaehaerys II (and his sister-wife Shaera, too, if she had Valyrian features) may have been some strange atavism. Through some sort of historical coincidence/accident their children and grandchildren all came out Valyrian despite the fact that they have Martell, Dayne, and Blackwood ancestors as well as Valyrians.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

You'd think so, but she's several generations down from Valyria and who knows what they remembered to tell the younger generations. It's interesting that the generations from Aenar to our Three don't have many children. Maybe Targs in general are just not that fertile.

That is not true, actually. We only know the names of the Lords of Dragonstone, not how many children they had. Aenar could have had a dozen children from those wives he had, not just Gaemon and Daenys, and those could have had children of their own, etc. We also know that Aenar brought siblings, cousins, and kin with him to Dragonstone, suggesting that this was very much a clan not exactly a small family of a handful of people.

And there is no reason to believe the Targaryens lost any dragonlore knowledge prior to the Dance. When Rhaenyra and Daemon died as early as they did, with their surviving sons still being children we can assume that some insider knowledge that was mainly passed down orally might have been lost, but prior to that there is no reason for any of that.

Besides, both Rhaenys and Visenya got pregnant and gave birth in the middle of a war when they would have been riding their dragons rather often. They destroyed all the Dornish castles repeatedly with dragonfire during the First Dornish War.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

They were a ways from old age, and having dragons might have given them a touch of invincibility complex. Hard to say.

The Targaryens have a tendency to grow not all that old. They were in their mid-twenties when they began their conquest, and their mid-thirties when they had their first child. They could have all died before they grew forty. The idea that they did not care about an heir simply makes no sense.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes, but Rhaella is recent history. The further back we go in any aspect of Westerosi history, the less information we get. GRRM does that deliberately to mirror actual history where there are things we don't know and will probably never find out. The mysteries are built-in partly for realism.

No, it is pretty obvious that Gyldayn and Yandel - who are both writing the history of a royal dynasty - keep track of royal births. We know that Alyssa Velaryon gave birth to a daughter named Vaella in 39 AC who quickly died in the cradle, making it clear that there are detailed accounts of the royal children.

If Aegon had had any children who died in childhood we would know about them, just as we would know if Visenya or Rhaenys had had the same problems as Rhaella. We might not have the complete picture but a miscarriage or stillbirth would have been a huge deal at court.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Nor does it prove them right.

Sure, but this kind of thing is exactly the kind of humor and irony George really likes. What is more fun than the Targaryens not actually descending from this legendary Conqueror guy? What is if that man was cuckolded just as Robert was, only that here nobody dared to intervene - either because in the end nobody believed it anymore, or because Aegon himself had concluded that he could not produce an heir (after all, he had two wives to try) and thus had Rhaenys to look for outside help. There was no Stannis, Jon Arryn, or Eddard Stark around to make a fuzz about that. A king needs an heir, and if a king is impotent or sterile he has to get around that, and Aegon the Conqueror was under more pressure than any other king because he was the founder of his dynasty. If an aging Visenya had taken the throne after Aegon died, only to be followed by some (dragonless) Velaryon cousin the Iron Throne would not have stood for long. The Realm would have fractured again and the Targaryen Conquest would have become a footnote in Westerosi history.

The Iron Throne needed an heir and it does not really matter who fathered that guy as long as the mother was a Targaryen herself - which she was.

I don't think we'll ever get a conclusive answer to that mystery but I really don't think we have to. The idea that all the Targaryens were faithful spouses is not very convincing in light of the scandals we see during the series.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

I can think of one good reason. She herself had finally conceived and wanted to let Maegor know that she was carrying his heir and that this time it would work. This of course would mean that Maegor killed not only her but also his child, but we all know how bad Maegor's temper was and he might not have believed that she was truly pregnant anyway.

Tyanna was not just Maegor's wife but also his Mistress of Whisperers. She was the King's Raven and a powerful sorceress who was apparently feared as much as Maegor himself. I'd be very surprised if she was mainly motivated by such mundane matters as giving the king a son. She was the one who found Aerea and Rhalla on Fair Isle, leading to Maegor's marriage to Rhaena. If she had been jealous she most likely would have tried to dissuade Maegor from taking other wives.

And no, Maegor doesn't seem to have had a bad temper. He wasn't a hothead but a man who was rather methodical and thorough in his cruelty. Look how he lured all those workers into his trap. Or how he tortured and killed Prince Viserys to use him as bait. Or how did not execute all the Warrior's Sons in Oldtown when he took the city.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Put yourself in her position. She lives in a medieval world, with a man who has multiple wives all at once. It's like a harem. And in a harem the wife who produces the heir is elevated above the other wives, as her child is above any other children. The heir is usually the firstborn son. We can't discount the possibility that Tyanna was desperately in love with Maegor and thought that giving him a child would make him love her back at the same level. People sometimes do really stupid things for love...that's kind of a thing in the series.

In Tyanna's case this seems to be far too much cliché for me. The woman effectively brought Maegor back from the dead. And he married her thereafter despite the fact that she was bastard and a foreigner of ill repute. She had a special place in his heart in any case, irregardless whether she gave him an heir or not.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Alive and kicking doesn't mean he wasn't a monstrosity. We know of no particular magic worked on Rhaenyra yet her Visenya was a monstrosity. 

The way Mirri describes Rhaego suggests he was a monstrosity because he was long dead. That doesn't fit all that well together with him being twisted while he was still alive. However, I'd agree that his Targaryen blood had something to do with how he turned out. One would think that Mirri's magic in combination with his dragon blood caused this. In Rhaenyra's case her hot anger might have had something to do with how Visenya turned out.

2 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

The "official" history is something GRRM has already said may contain false info because the character who wrote it doesn't have all the info, is subject to his own bias, and is under pressure not to upset the Baratheons or the Lannisters. When we get the story from George instead of a maester or a septon, then it will truly be official, but I still don't expect him to clear up mysteries this far back or state whether the rumors were true or not. There are plenty of examples of rumors throughout history that are included in history books but it's unlikely that all of those rumors are true.

The official history is the one we get in the appendix of AGoT and in Dany's belief she is descended from the Conqueror through Aenys I and Jaehaerys I. But that doesn't mean the Conqueror really fathered Aenys I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, it is odd that all Valyrians had those characteristic features that became known as Valyrian. I don't find it very likely that there were many of those magical rituals which first bound the dragons to the Valyrians. There might have been a group of legendary founders who became the first dragonlords but I very much doubt all the dragonlord lines still in existence at the time of the Doom existed back then. It is quite likely that occasionally some outsider married into a dragonlord daughter or cousin and thus founded a new dragonlord line.

And we know that a Yi Tish Emperor married a dragonlord from Valyria, allowing his wife to even bring her dragon to his court. Most of the dragonlord marriages would have been incestuous, but clearly not all of them.

I don't think dragons actually like being claimed. They are animals who like their independence when they are wild. And Viserion and Rhaegal are pretty wild already, and Drogon definitely were when Dany claimed him in Daznak's Pit. He could have killed her.

<snip

That is not true, actually. We only know the names of the Lords of Dragonstone, not how many children they had. Aenar could have had a dozen children from those wives he had, not just Gaemon and Daenys, and those could have had children of their own, etc. We also know that Aenar brought siblings, cousins, and kin with him to Dragonstone, suggesting that this was very much a clan not exactly a small family of a handful of people.

And there is no reason to believe the Targaryens lost any dragonlore knowledge prior to the Dance. When Rhaenyra and Daemon died as early as they did, with their surviving sons still being children we can assume that some insider knowledge that was mainly passed down orally might have been lost, but prior to that there is no reason for any of that.

Besides, both Rhaenys and Visenya got pregnant and gave birth in the middle of a war when they would have been riding their dragons rather often. They destroyed all the Dornish castles repeatedly with dragonfire during the First Dornish War.

The Targaryens have a tendency to grow not all that old. They were in their mid-twenties when they began their conquest, and their mid-thirties when they had their first child. They could have all died before they grew forty. The idea that they did not care about an heir simply makes no sense.

No, it is pretty obvious that Gyldayn and Yandel - who are both writing the history of a royal dynasty - keep track of royal births. We know that Alyssa Velaryon gave birth to a daughter named Vaella in 39 AC who quickly died in the cradle, making it clear that there are detailed accounts of the royal children.

If Aegon had had any children who died in childhood we would know about them, just as we would know if Visenya or Rhaenys had had the same problems as Rhaella. We might not have the complete picture but a miscarriage or stillbirth would have been a huge deal at court.

Sure, but this kind of thing is exactly the kind of humor and irony George really likes. What is more fun than the Targaryens not actually descending from this legendary Conqueror guy? 

I don't think we'll ever get a conclusive answer to that mystery but I really don't think we have to. The idea that all the Targaryens were faithful spouses is not very convincing in light of the scandals we see during the series.

Tyanna was not just Maegor's wife but also his Mistress of Whisperers. She was the King's Raven and a powerful sorceress who was apparently feared as much as Maegor himself. I'd be very surprised if she was mainly motivated by such mundane matters as giving the king a son. She was the one who found Aerea and Rhalla on Fair Isle, leading to Maegor's marriage to Rhaena. If she had been jealous she most likely would have tried to dissuade Maegor from taking other wives.

And no, Maegor doesn't seem to have had a bad temper. He wasn't a hothead but a man who was rather methodical and thorough in his cruelty. Look how he lured all those workers into his trap. Or how he tortured and killed Prince Viserys to use him as bait. Or how did not execute all the Warrior's Sons in Oldtown when he took the city.

In Tyanna's case this seems to be far too much cliché for me. The woman effectively brought Maegor back from the dead. And he married her thereafter despite the fact that she was bastard and a foreigner of ill repute. She had a special place in his heart in any case, irregardless whether she gave him an heir or not.

The way Mirri describes Rhaego suggests he was a monstrosity because he was long dead. That doesn't fit all that well together with him being twisted while he was still alive. However, I'd agree that his Targaryen blood had something to do with how he turned out. One would think that Mirri's magic in combination with his dragon blood caused this. In Rhaenyra's case her hot anger might have had something to do with how Visenya turned out.

The official history is the one we get in the appendix of AGoT and in Dany's belief she is descended from the Conqueror through Aenys I and Jaehaerys I. But that doesn't mean the Conqueror really fathered Aenys I.

Not when you factor in the magic aspect.

They are animals yes but that doesn't mean they would not like being claimed, besides which I think the dragons are the ones claiming the humans and the humans just don't know it. Hissing and spitting fire at a human could be how they claim their riders. If the human is killed, then obviously it doesn't work, but if they aren't killed then they are deemed worthy by the dragon to be his/her rider. I think Rhaegal was trying to claim Quentyn.

Huh. I wonder why we know about Aelyx Targaryen then. Unlike his younger brothers he is not listed as having served as Lord of Dragonstone.

The clan sure, but not necessarily Aenar's line.

You'd think the Starks would retain their knowledge about the Others and wights and such for a long time too, but within a pretty short time one of them supposedly married an Other and made her his queen at the Nightfort. Most of the practical dragon knowledge certainly would have been passed down, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that some details were left out. It's impossible for a parent to remember what all they've told their children and what they haven't. 

There is nothing to suggest that both Rhaenys and Visenya were in the field on the dragons the entire time. Rhaenys is known to have been involved in 4 AC, but she and Aegon both returned to King's Landing. It is not known whether she was involved in the war, on her dragon, between then and Aenys' birth in 7 AC. That's the year Aegon had to ransom Orys and his men, suggesting that Aegon himself might not have been in the field--perhaps he was awaiting the birth of his heir in KL. We do know Rhaenys is back in the action by 10 AC because that's when Meraxes was killed under her. The war lasted nine years, and Rhaenys taking nine months off from war to produce the heir would not have been an issue. The initial assault after they received word of Meraxes' death of course required both Aegon and Viseyna but it did not require both of them for a full two years. Maegor was born in 12 AC, and the next year the war ended. It's not impossible that Visenya took some time off as her pregnancy advanced (remember we're agreed she probably used magic anyway). If you've ever been pregnant you should know that riding anything in the third trimester is bound to be tricky if not impossible. No way even Visenya was assaulting Dorne weeks away from giving birth.

The Targ lifespans we know of are all from Aegon I down. We don't know how long previous Targs lived.

I never suggested they didn't care about an heir. That's you reading what I didn't write again. My point was that they may have thought they had plenty of time.

Births yes, but they wouldn't necessarily know about every miscarriage. Especially any the queens themselves were unaware of.

Again, I never said that. You are pulling things out of thin air here.

I agree, but while liking it he'd also be sure to not overuse it, lest it lose its savor. It's like salt. You definitely want some, but you don't want too much.

Yes but we're not talking about all Targaryens.

Being afraid of him might make a difference in things like that. No matter how high her own position Maegor was still king. He rode the biggest dragon alive. What was Tyanna supposed to do, not find Rhaena and her daughters? Tell him who he could or couldn't marry?

Just because he was often cruel without being angry doesn't mean he didn't have a temper. The torture of his nephew Viserys was in response to Alyssa sneaking off with one of the Targ swords and the rest of her children--something which angered Maegor. His response to Tyanna's confession of her wrongs would also likely have been anger that made his response a bit worse than it would have been if he'd just been in his standard, calm, psychopath mood.

Anne Boleyn had a special place in Henry VIII's heart too. Men like that do not necessarily love for long.  Have you never been so in love you would do something that makes no sense to anyone else? No need to answer. Just take it into consideration.

No, she describes the monstrosity first and then says he'd been dead for years in a separate sentence. I wouldn't bet she was being exact, literal, and entirely truthful here. A child that's been in production fewer than nine months can't have been "dead for years."

I find that to be a stretch. We have no evidence of anger causing deformity in Targaryens or anyone else. If that were the case, Aerion and Aerys probably would have been able to turn themselves into dragons.

Oh, like Jon being Ned's son. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownership of land and slaves is a social convention. Ownership of dragons is not.

Meaning that a runaway dragonlord on a stolen dragon is an asset - the voluntary cooperation of the dragonlord matters, and cannot be taken from the dragonlord, because killing the dragonlord or capturing/separating her from the dragon leaves the dragon out of control.

Essos has no dragons, since Doom. Nor any ravens. Nor do glass candles work.

Braving a hail of arrows to get within fire range of foes carries some risk. But carrying messages at a speed no slower than ravens, staying above bowshot over hostile areas, is something that is not much risk, and which even a woman or indeed a child could do. And aerial reconnaissance cannot be done by ravens because they do not talk. (Wargs could do that, but are not common in Westeros or Essos).

How much do you think could a runaway dragonrider earn in Essos? Like Saera, Gael, Rhaenyra, Nettles... Could Rhaenyra, just by the messenger and reconnaissance services, earn more than ser Criston risking his life by fighting on land (which many other men could)? Could Rhaenyra, Gael or Saera have earnt enough with her dragon to support a bunch of bastards and a toyboy at some comfort?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys I'm not sure that we disagree that much tbh. But I do think you are reaching when you say that the Targaryen men essentially owned their little sisters. We have absolutely no proof of that at all.  Just as I think you view my stance as being more one which leans towards a stronger equality than you think is possible. I suspect I am reading your stance as one which leans to far more inequality than I feel is probable. 

Many people reading these books get the sense that the Targaryen women in the earlier part of the dynasty had a more respected posistion in their family than the avarage Westerosi noble woman.  I think the dragon riding goes a long way to explaining this. Your examples of situations where a man can prevent his spouse from having a dragon in order to abuse her are a stretch. We don't ever hear any examples of a man not allowing his sister/wife/daughter to ride a dragon.  There is no hint at all in any of the books that this has ever been the case. I do agree that sexism is a deeply ingrained condition which would indeed prevent many women from using their dragons against a spouse or father but the fact is that many more women would. And discounting  that possibility is foolish. Hense why they seem to have a slightly more equal footing in their family than most women do.

I gave the example that a young woman may bond with a much larger firecer dragon than her future spouce. Lets look at laena Valeryon for example. She was all of 12 when she claimed Vhagar. Imagine if she had been wedded to a man that abused her, ore treated her badly at all.  When I was about 10 I decided that I was going to kill my father. I thought it through and planned that I could likely beat his head in with my mums cast iron frying pan. And as a minor I'd probably be let off quite lightly - once i explained his abuse to the nice police man of course.  But I concluded he might over power me before I got him good and dead so I didn't. Now, my utter neivity of the british justice system aside. Had I been in posession of an emotionally bonded enormous fire breathing flying beast.  He'd likely have been toast.

The only way to prevent some abused women and girls from fighting back would be to assert a level of control and restriction that we simply have no evidence for at all.  Instead we see a culture where women can ride dragons, travel unchaperoned across half the world, co-rule and be treated with respect. I'm not trying to argue for some utopia just that it seems likely that having dragons afforded them a better footing in life. 

Because like it or not a man can be toasted by a dragon if he treats their owner too badly. Whether that be his wife, daughter, or own mother. The only way to ensure this can't happen would be to compltely control womens accsess to dragons. Which they didn't do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2017 at 6:17 PM, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason for such theories since textual evidence suggests the contrary. We only have historical accounts about the hatching of dragons, most of which are from 'The Sons of the Dragons'. Six dragons hatched on Dragonstone during the reign of Conqueror, with Aenys' Quicksilver (which is a hatchling given to him, not a dragon hatched from an egg given to him) among those.

Two other dragons hatched in 37 AC shortly after Aenys I had named Maegor his Hand. This was seen as a divine sign that the sons of the Dragon would now rule together in unity and the Realm would prosper (which it apparently did until Maegor botched everything when he took a second wife in 39 AC after Alyssa Velaryon had given birth to her daughter Vaella).

During the later reign of Jaehaerys I and the reign of Viserys I quite a few dragons seem to have hatched - Seasmoke, Syrax, Sunfyre, Vermax, Arrax, Tyraxes, Tessarion, Moondancer, Stormcloud, Morghul, and Shrykos.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that magical rituals or blood sacrifices brought forth those dragons. If Rhaenyra had to kill four people to hatch the dragon eggs of four of her five sons then we have every reason to know about that. And it would raise the question why the hell nobody conducted a blood sacrifice/ritual to hatch the eggs of Prince Viserys, Prince Maelor, and Lady Rhaena.

During the Dance Rhaena's dragon Morning eventually hatched, and we also have no reason to believe she did anything magical to accomplish that. What we do know is that she often prayed over her egg (and the others given to her later when she is sent to the Vale) just Baelor I later prayed over his dragon eggs (to on avail, though).

In that sense I'd say that everything we know indicates that the hatching of a dragon egg may have been a mysterious event in the sense that it 'just happened' some time after such a fresh egg was given to a Targaryen child and that the people didn't really know what exactly caused it, but it was no magical event that was caused by a sacrifice or a magical ritual.

Independent of this 'dragon egg in the cradle' thing there also were hatchlings who hatched in those hatcheries on Dragonstone where Balerion and Vhagar (and possibly Meraxes as well, while she yet lived) mated, after which the she-dragons would produce clutches of eggs to sit on those thereafter to hatch them naturally. That would have been Quicksilver and the other seven dragons who hatched up until 37 AC.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I see it now, if blood sacrifices were required, we would have heard at least some rumors. We don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LionoftheWest My point being that we only get abusive Targaryen husbands post the loss of their dragons. Had Naerys been a dragon rider, she might have roasted Aegon IV and flown off the other end of the world with Aemon. Had they been less indoctrinated into the faith too mind. 

And Aerys's treatment of Rhaella would be a lot harder to achieve if she had a dragon all she need do is take little baby Rhaegar to go visit the dragon pit one day and they'd be in Pentos by tea time.  He could have followed her on his own dragon sure. but he can't compel her to return in the same way that he can lock her down tight in the red keep as he did later in their marriage. He can do this because he has all the power in their relationship.  Dragons reduces the power he has over her. 

Just look at Jaehaerys & Allysanne. She left him twice during their marriage, and he did not and realistically could not compel her to return to him.  She had a dragon. Them loving one another aside. if he had tried to force her and she didn't feel loving towards him, if say he'd been a shit of a husband and treated her badly her whole life, she'd be capable of defending herself and resisting his attempts to force her to return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jaak said:

Ownership of land and slaves is a social convention. Ownership of dragons is not.

Meaning that a runaway dragonlord on a stolen dragon is an asset - the voluntary cooperation of the dragonlord matters, and cannot be taken from the dragonlord, because killing the dragonlord or capturing/separating her from the dragon leaves the dragon out of control.

Essos has no dragons, since Doom. Nor any ravens. Nor do glass candles work.

Braving a hail of arrows to get within fire range of foes carries some risk. But carrying messages at a speed no slower than ravens, staying above bowshot over hostile areas, is something that is not much risk, and which even a woman or indeed a child could do. And aerial reconnaissance cannot be done by ravens because they do not talk. (Wargs could do that, but are not common in Westeros or Essos).

How much do you think could a runaway dragonrider earn in Essos? Like Saera, Gael, Rhaenyra, Nettles... Could Rhaenyra, just by the messenger and reconnaissance services, earn more than ser Criston risking his life by fighting on land (which many other men could)? Could Rhaenyra, Gael or Saera have earnt enough with her dragon to support a bunch of bastards and a toyboy at some comfort?

 

 

You make an excellent point here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No, she describes the monstrosity first and then says he'd been dead for years in a separate sentence. I wouldn't bet she was being exact, literal, and entirely truthful here. A child that's been in production fewer than nine months can't have been "dead for years."

 

I completely agree here. Mirri talks some utter bollocks in that tent. And Rhaego having been dead for years is absolutely for certain a lie. As you point out, he'd only been in production (hahaha at that I like it.) for a 9 months. 

I am firmly of the belief that Rhaego was alive and kicking and already deformed before his birth. I also think, and you might disagree here; I don't know. That Mirri did nothing which directly caused his death.  We have several accounts of deformed Targaryen babies, and to my knowledge non of them survived for more than an hour after childbirth. 

Laena's child lived an hour.

Rhaenyra's was stillborn.  Anyone else find it interesting that Daemon fathered two deformed babies? & all Maegor's were monstrocities.hmmmm. Something to muse on.

Danaerys's son Rhaego was stillborn

Elinor Costayne, birthed an eyeless child with small wings. Also stillborn

Jeyne Westerling, another stillborn monster.

Alys Harroway, monster, and I think miscarried.  

Are there any others? I can't recal. Anyway I think it is evident that these deformed dragon babies don't tend to live, and I doubt Mirri caused Rhaego's death herself, I think he'd have died regardless of if she had been there. 

I have my doubts about Mirri, I think half of what she says and does is smoke & Mirrors. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

@LionoftheWest My point being that we only get abusive Targaryen husbands post the loss of their dragons. Had Naerys been a dragon rider, she might have roasted Aegon IV and flown off the other end of the world with Aemon. Had they been less indoctrinated into the faith too mind. 

And Aerys's treatment of Rhaella would be a lot harder to achieve if she had a dragon all she need do is take little baby Rhaegar to go visit the dragon pit one day and they'd be in Pentos by tea time.  He could have followed her on his own dragon sure. but he can't compel her to return in the same way that he can lock her down tight in the red keep as he did later in their marriage. He can do this because he has all the power in their relationship.  Dragons reduces the power he has over her. 

Just look at Jaehaerys & Allysanne. She left him twice during their marriage, and he did not and realistically could not compel her to return to him.  She had a dragon. Them loving one another aside. if he had tried to force her and she didn't feel loving towards him, if say he'd been a shit of a husband and treated her badly her whole life, she'd be capable of defending herself and resisting his attempts to force her to return

I agree that a directly abusive relationship would have been very hard to accomplish for anyone towards a dragon rider, so in that I agree. But like you yourself, thousand of years of sexism is ingrained into the culture and thus while having dragons might mitigate some parts of it, I don't see how dragons would wipe the board clean or close to it as much would be internalized by the women in question. Its unlikely that they would mount up on dragons as little girls to burn their nannies to crisps for being given dolls to play with or told that they are pretty.

To this I don't see the point of singling out the Faith as it hardly has a monopoly on sexism and less pious people have in my mind not shown some greater enlightenment than pious people in the series when it comes to gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree that a directly abusive relationship would have been very hard to accomplish for anyone towards a dragon rider, so in that I agree. But like you yourself, thousand of years of sexism is ingrained into the culture and thus while having dragons might mitigate some parts of it, I don't see how dragons would wipe the board clean or close to it as much would be internalized by the women in question. Its unlikely that they would mount up on dragons as little girls to burn their nannies to crisps for being given dolls to play with or told that they are pretty.

To this I don't see the point of singling out the Faith as it hardly has a monopoly on sexism and less pious people have in my mind not shown some greater enlightenment than pious people in the series when it comes to gender.

4

 

But I am not remotely arguing that??? I don't see why you would think I am. Have you read my posts? 

I don't understand what you mean by your last paragraph re: the faith? would you mind clarifying please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 

But I am not remotely arguing that??? I don't see why you would think I am. Have you read my posts? 

I don't understand what you mean by your last paragraph re: the faith? would you mind clarifying please. 

I read your post twice, but you are right now when I read it the third time, that you didn't argue that. I jumped ahead in the reasoning and so came out wrong in what you argued.

The last thing was that the Faith was singled out, and so it gav me the impression that you meant the Faith was more important as a source of sexism than other, unmentioned parts, like the male-only Citadel, the aristocratic ideals and lifestyle, the Westerosi concept of motherhood etc.Maybe I jumped ahead in this as well and came out with a wrong conclusion?

I hope I am somewhat more understandable now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

They are animals yes but that doesn't mean they would not like being claimed, besides which I think the dragons are the ones claiming the humans and the humans just don't know it. Hissing and spitting fire at a human could be how they claim their riders. If the human is killed, then obviously it doesn't work, but if they aren't killed then they are deemed worthy by the dragon to be his/her rider. I think Rhaegal was trying to claim Quentyn.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is clear that the dragon can sort of reject a rider by killing him or her but it is forced to submit if you have the right drop of dragonlord blood. Prince Aemon just jumped on Vhagar's back and that was it. He did not have to convince her to accept him, she just did. And that seems to be the general rule there.

A dragon does not run around looking for a rider. People look for a dragon.

Quote

Huh. I wonder why we know about Aelyx Targaryen then. Unlike his younger brothers he is not listed as having served as Lord of Dragonstone.

What are you talking about?

Quote

Gaemon Targaryen, brother and husband to Daenys the Dreamer, followed Aenar the Exile as Lord of Dragonstone, and became known as Gaemon the Glorious. Gaemon’s son Aegon and his daughter Elaena ruled together after his death. After them the lordship passed to their son Maegon, his brother Aerys, and Aerys’s sons, Aelyx, Baelon, and Daemion. The last of the three brothers was Daemion, whose son Aerion then succeeded to Dragonstone.

This is a list of the Targaryen Lords of Dragonstone, not a list of all the Targaryens on Dragonstone. Each of those Lords of Dragonstone could have had a bunch of children that are simply not mentioned here.

Quote

The clan sure, but not necessarily Aenar's line.

See above.

Quote

You'd think the Starks would retain their knowledge about the Others and wights and such for a long time too, but within a pretty short time one of them supposedly married an Other and made her his queen at the Nightfort. Most of the practical dragon knowledge certainly would have been passed down, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that some details were left out. It's impossible for a parent to remember what all they've told their children and what they haven't. 

This isn't the same. The Long Night happened thousands of years ago in a culture where people had no books (and the people subsequently lost all their greenseers), the Targaryens came to Dragonstone only a few centuries ago and always had had dragons and thus reason to pass down certain information about these.

Quote

There is nothing to suggest that both Rhaenys and Visenya were in the field on the dragons the entire time. Rhaenys is known to have been involved in 4 AC, but she and Aegon both returned to King's Landing. It is not known whether she was involved in the war, on her dragon, between then and Aenys' birth in 7 AC. That's the year Aegon had to ransom Orys and his men, suggesting that Aegon himself might not have been in the field--perhaps he was awaiting the birth of his heir in KL. We do know Rhaenys is back in the action by 10 AC because that's when Meraxes was killed under her. The war lasted nine years, and Rhaenys taking nine months off from war to produce the heir would not have been an issue. The initial assault after they received word of Meraxes' death of course required both Aegon and Viseyna but it did not require both of them for a full two years. Maegor was born in 12 AC, and the next year the war ended. It's not impossible that Visenya took some time off as her pregnancy advanced (remember we're agreed she probably used magic anyway). If you've ever been pregnant you should know that riding anything in the third trimester is bound to be tricky if not impossible. No way even Visenya was assaulting Dorne weeks away from giving birth.

We simply do not know. We know that Rhaenys' death caused the Wrath of the Dragon during the following years - those are the years where Maegor was conceived and born.

Quote

The Targ lifespans we know of are all from Aegon I down. We don't know how long previous Targs lived.

I never suggested they didn't care about an heir. That's you reading what I didn't write again. My point was that they may have thought they had plenty of time.

But they had no reason to believe they had any time whatsoever. They were living in a medieval world where people die very easily, and they were in the middle of an all-out war.

Quote

Births yes, but they wouldn't necessarily know about every miscarriage. Especially any the queens themselves were unaware of.

Well, considering how much they would have needed heirs they would most certainly have checked on both queens quite extensively. If either Rhaenys or Visenya did not have their moon blood for, say, six weeks people would have believed they were pregnant, and that would have a big event.

Members of the royal family essentially have no private life.

Quote

Being afraid of him might make a difference in things like that. No matter how high her own position Maegor was still king. He rode the biggest dragon alive. What was Tyanna supposed to do, not find Rhaena and her daughters? Tell him who he could or couldn't marry?

She certainly could have refused to tell after she found out, yes.

Quote

No, she describes the monstrosity first and then says he'd been dead for years in a separate sentence. I wouldn't bet she was being exact, literal, and entirely truthful here. A child that's been in production fewer than nine months can't have been "dead for years."

Or the spell drained all the life out of Rhaego, making him look as if he had been dead for years. That is certainly a possibility. Jorah seems to have seen the child, too, and he doesn't contradict Mirri here.

Quote

I find that to be a stretch. We have no evidence of anger causing deformity in Targaryens or anyone else. If that were the case, Aerion and Aerys probably would have been able to turn themselves into dragons.

I actually think that is a possibility, yes. If the Targaryens have the blood of the dragon the right spell might actually transform them into literal dragons or human-dragon hybrids. Whether such creatures would be viable is another question but we cannot rule that out.

Quote

Oh, like Jon being Ned's son. Got it.

Or Cersei's children being Robert's.

16 hours ago, Jaak said:

Meaning that a runaway dragonlord on a stolen dragon is an asset - the voluntary cooperation of the dragonlord matters, and cannot be taken from the dragonlord, because killing the dragonlord or capturing/separating her from the dragon leaves the dragon out of control.

That isn't really the case. Those dragonlords and their dragons in Lys and Tyrosh were put down after the Doom. You can deal with dragons - it is difficult to doable. And you can also just ignore the dragon after you have killed the rider. Perhaps it flies away. Silverwing lost her rider near Tumbleton but she settled down on the island in Red Lake. The Tumbleton townsfolk never had any issues with her thereafter. And back before the Doom no dragonlord would have cared about one rogue dragonlord. Why should they?

16 hours ago, Jaak said:

How much do you think could a runaway dragonrider earn in Essos? Like Saera, Gael, Rhaenyra, Nettles... Could Rhaenyra, just by the messenger and reconnaissance services, earn more than ser Criston risking his life by fighting on land (which many other men could)? Could Rhaenyra, Gael or Saera have earnt enough with her dragon to support a bunch of bastards and a toyboy at some comfort?

They would have been no need for that, actually, since dragons would have been miracles the people would have loved to see. They could have made a living out of that.

 

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

@Lord Varys I'm not sure that we disagree that much tbh. But I do think you are reaching when you say that the Targaryen men essentially owned their little sisters. We have absolutely no proof of that at all.  Just as I think you view my stance as being more one which leans towards a stronger equality than you think is possible. I suspect I am reading your stance as one which leans to far more inequality than I feel is probable. 

I'd cite the examples of Daenerys (who was the property of Viserys III until he sold her to Khal Drogo), Queen Rhaella, and Queen Naerys. Baelor I's three sisters also spring to mind. 

In addition we can also think about Aemma Arryn (who was married to Prince Viserys at the age of 11!), and even the sister-wives of Aegon the Conqueror. They both had to compete for the love and affection of their brother-husband, and Visenya, the elder of both, had to suffer that the man custom decreed she should marry show more affection to her little sister.

Another example would be the treatment of Princess Rhaena after Tyanna of the Tower found her young daughters. She was forced to marry her uncle - who had earlier killed her brother-husband.

That is not my understanding of a relationship among equals.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Many people reading these books get the sense that the Targaryen women in the earlier part of the dynasty had a more respected posistion in their family than the avarage Westerosi noble woman.

I do agree there. The early Targaryen (and Velaryon) women clearly had more personal power and status than the average Westerosi noblewoman.

But the power and influence women like Visenya, Alyssa Velaryon, or Alysanne had seems to have had little to do with the fact that they were dragonriders (which is not clear in Alyssa's case) or greater gender equality among the Valyrians but rather with personal charisma and strength of will.

Visenya was a no-nonsense person who demanded and took what she wanted. Her life may very well have been a continued fight to get what she thought she deserved. We have no reason to believe that her father Aerion or her brother-husband Aegon wanted to see her on the practice yard wielding a sword.

After the Conquest - which was as much her and Rhaenys' doing as Aegon's - all three Targaryen siblings reaped the rewards. She and Rhaenys had a very privileged position because they had subdued an entire continent. That gives you an awful amount of personal power that greatly extends any formal power you might inherit or be granted by society.

Alyssa Velaryon took over the leadership of King Aenys' faction of the royal family after his sudden death. She essentially filled a power vacuum left by her late husband and fought of the survival of her children.

And while Alysanne certainly was a strong personality, too, her access to power went through her brother-husband. Jaehaerys I was the king, and Alysanne his consort. The fact that they were so close both as siblings as as lovers meant that Alysanne had a lot of influence on politics.

But there are other female dragonriders of this periods who have little to no power. Queen Helaena is a joke as a political entity despite the fact that she was the rider of a very large dragon. Rhaenyra was too weak to crush the rebels standing up against her rule and protect the dragons the power or her dynasty was built on. Princess Rhaenys and Laena Velaryon rode very large dragons indeed but that did not transform into political power at all. Even Laena's betrothal to that wastrel Braavosi was arranged by her lord father.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I think the dragon riding goes a long way to explaining this. Your examples of situations where a man can prevent his spouse from having a dragon in order to abuse her are a stretch. We don't ever hear any examples of a man not allowing his sister/wife/daughter to ride a dragon.  There is no hint at all in any of the books that this has ever been the case. I do agree that sexism is a deeply ingrained condition which would indeed prevent many women from using their dragons against a spouse or father but the fact is that many more women would. And discounting  that possibility is foolish. Hense why they seem to have a slightly more equal footing in their family than most women do.

But those dragonlord women would all be married to dragonlord men, right? And if we can learn anything from the history of the Targaryen dynasty then that the size of the dragon means nothing in the end. Viserys I was the most powerful king in the Targaryen history yet he wasn't even a dragonrider.

Power does not have to reside with whoever has the largest dragon.

But I'm certainly with you that some dragonlords might have treated their sisters with more respect if they really had a very large dragon.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I gave the example that a young woman may bond with a much larger firecer dragon than her future spouce. Lets look at laena Valeryon for example. She was all of 12 when she claimed Vhagar. Imagine if she had been wedded to a man that abused her, ore treated her badly at all.  When I was about 10 I decided that I was going to kill my father. I thought it through and planned that I could likely beat his head in with my mums cast iron frying pan. And as a minor I'd probably be let off quite lightly - once i explained his abuse to the nice police man of course.  But I concluded he might over power me before I got him good and dead so I didn't. Now, my utter neivity of the british justice system aside. Had I been in posession of an emotionally bonded enormous fire breathing flying beast.  He'd likely have been toast.

Well, but you would have to ask yourself, too, whether the justice system you were living would then see how flogged through the streets or skinned alive. We don't know how the dragonlords women who killed their fathers and brothers. I'd not be surprised if there were very hard punishments there for such people in place to prevent things like you suggest there. Valyria was a patriarchal society, after all.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

The only way to prevent some abused women and girls from fighting back would be to assert a level of control and restriction that we simply have no evidence for at all.  Instead we see a culture where women can ride dragons, travel unchaperoned across half the world, co-rule and be treated with respect. I'm not trying to argue for some utopia just that it seems likely that having dragons afforded them a better footing in life. 

Queen Rhaella and Queen Naerys were also treated with respect - by everybody but their husbands. A woman can have privileges and still be a slave.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Because like it or not a man can be toasted by a dragon if he treats their owner too badly. Whether that be his wife, daughter, or own mother. The only way to ensure this can't happen would be to compltely control womens accsess to dragons. Which they didn't do.

You should also keep in mind that the dragons of those male dragonlords would come to defense of their riders.

If you ask me then the cultures in Martinworld west of the Bones can be categorized in this way in regards to gender equality:

1. Rhoynar (real gender equality on all levels, which explains why the Rhoynar could influence Dornish culture to the degree they did)

2. Valyrians (no real gender equality but due the advancement of their civilization much better than everything in Westeros)

3. Andals (pretty bad, especially for common women, but allows for women to rule on the lordly - and in the Reach - on the royal level under special circumstances)

4. First Men in the North (worst since it is confirmed there was no Queen Regnant in the North nor a Ruling Lady of Winterfell, ever)

5. Dothraki (for obvious reasons; although women might have had a more prominent role in the earlier days)

With the First Men we most likely have to differentiate between the First Men of the united North under Stark rule and the ways things were back before, during, and after the Long Night. There are hints that there were once priestesses/wise women/whatever among the First Men who sacrificed people to the weirwoods.

While this indicates that women could play important political (or religious roles) there it might have had nothing to do with gender equality. In a more equal society both men and women could have ruled as kings and lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LionoftheWest said:

Ok. Then I misunderstood you but thank you for clarification. Its really not unusual for me to missunderstand people on points like this. If you want more information send me a PM and we'll post away from open forums.

Regarding the Faith it looked to me like you mentioned the Faith, which wasn't mentioned anytime before, for no reason I could see. Thus I got the feeling that you single it out as somehow more important in regards to sexism than other unmentioned sources of it.

I hope I've clarified somewhat.

 

Ah, well no I was saying that had Aemon & Naerys been less indoctrinated in the faith they may have just buggered off together into the sunset on a dragon. Because the Faith seems rather keen on Spousal fidelity. Well at least in principle; certainly for women.

So I was suggesting that had Dragons been a factor, Aegon could not so easily abuse her, and she and Aemon could easily have eloped had they not been so religiously inclined. as their faith in the faith likely was at least in part what kept them apart. As well as Aegon being king and what not. 

Essentially you can't make a person with a dragon do as they are told quite so easily. And whilst that is the case, social constraints also factor in meaning you won't get absolute equality either. You see Maegor compelling Rhaena to be his bride, despite her dragon for instance. Because it seems he has possession of her daughters and she won't risk them. But as soon she hears Jaehaerys has made a claim she flies off with Blackfyre. So one assumes she was able to secure her children, and thus take advantage of her Dragon to escape Maegor.  

Whereas Alysa Valeryon was not a Dragon rider but non the less decided to essentially sacrifice Viserys in order to secure her own and Jaehaerys & Alysanne's safety.  So she clearly felt emboldened enough to not be some meek compliant subjugated woman, despite not having a dragon herself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Ah, well no I was saying that had Aemon & Naerys been less indoctrinated in the faith they may have just buggered off together into the sunset on a dragon. Because the Faith seems rather keen on Spousal fidelity. Well at least in principle; certainly for women.

So I was suggesting that had Dragons been a factor, Aegon could not so easily abuse her, and she and Aemon could easily have eloped had they not been so religiously inclined. as their faith in the faith likely was at least in part what kept them apart. As well as Aegon being king and what not. 

Essentially you can't make a person with a dragon do as they are told quite so easily. And whilst that is the case, social constraints also factor in meaning you won't get absolute equality either. You see Maegor compelling Rhaena to be his bride, despite her dragon for instance. Because it seems he has possession of her daughters and she won't risk them. But as soon she hears Jaehaerys has made a claim she flies off with Blackfyre. So one assumes she was able to secure her children, and thus take advantage of her Dragon to escape Maegor.  

Whereas Alysa Valeryon was not a Dragon rider but non the less decided to essentially sacrifice Viserys in order to secure her own and Jaehaerys & Alysanne's safety.  So she clearly felt emboldened enough to not be some meek compliant subjugated woman, despite not having a dragon herself.  

Ok. I don't think that I have anything more to add to this discussion so I'll withdraw myself. I could take up the issue of the Faith but given the topic of the thread that's a discussion for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You keep spectacularly misinterpreting my position. 

I am not arguing that they were equal and had an absolutely equal society.  But that there is a strong sense that early Targ women had a stronger influence, and enjoyed more respect and power in general and that it is impossible to discount dragons as a factor. Both their own ownership of them and the general effect that that ownership would have in Targ/valeryon households. As it relates to their general treatment of women. 

But that whilst this is the case they also undoubtedly did live within a world where patriarchy ruled. And women are not a monolith there is no female hive mind. Rhaena didn't feel as able as Alysa to defy Maegor whilst he had control of her girls, whereas Alysa felt the protection of two children and the fight against Maegor worth the risk to Viserys. Both women eventually did escape him, and both not only took their children (one has to assume.) but also had the same sense of importance regarding taking the swords.  

There is no doubt in my mind that the overall effect of being dragonriders would alter the patriarchy in Valyrian culture. It simply can't not!  I don't think by any means that there was no patriarchy in Valyria. It is evident that that is unlikely.  There are not two opposites and nothing in between. Our own culture is much less sexist than it once was, but it absolutely is still deeply sexist. 

 

As with the situation north of the wall, Many women enjoy higher status and greater freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact it's still largely patriarchal. Some women wield great power and can be leaders, and others are no better off than slaves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is clear that the dragon can sort of reject a rider by killing him or her but it is forced to submit if you have the right drop of dragonlord blood. Prince Aemon just jumped on Vhagar's back and that was it. He did not have to convince her to accept him, she just did. And that seems to be the general rule there.

A dragon does not run around looking for a rider. People look for a dragon.

<snip

This is a list of the Targaryen Lords of Dragonstone, not a list of all the Targaryens on Dragonstone. Each of those Lords of Dragonstone could have had a bunch of children that are simply not mentioned here.

<snip

This isn't the same. The Long Night happened thousands of years ago in a culture where people had no books (and the people subsequently lost all their greenseers), the Targaryens came to Dragonstone only a few centuries ago and always had had dragons and thus reason to pass down certain information about these.

We simply do not know. We know that Rhaenys' death caused the Wrath of the Dragon during the following years - those are the years where Maegor was conceived and born.

But they had no reason to believe they had any time whatsoever. They were living in a medieval world where people die very easily, and they were in the middle of an all-out war.

Well, considering how much they would have needed heirs they would most certainly have checked on both queens quite extensively. If either Rhaenys or Visenya did not have their moon blood for, say, six weeks people would have believed they were pregnant, and that would have a big event.

<snip

Or the spell drained all the life out of Rhaego, making him look as if he had been dead for years. That is certainly a possibility. Jorah seems to have seen the child, too, and he doesn't contradict Mirri here.

I actually think that is a possibility, yes. If the Targaryens have the blood of the dragon the right spell might actually transform them into literal dragons or human-dragon hybrids. Whether such creatures would be viable is another question but we cannot rule that out.

Or Cersei's children being Robert's.

Can yes, but the dragon has a choice to do so or not. Once the bond is set, that's all there is to it. 

If it were that simple ANY Targ could ride ANY dragon, and none would ever be bucked off or rejected.

Yes, Aemon did that...with a dragon that had been ridden previously. And the Targ dragons who hatched as eggs that were given to Targaryen children would be extremely likely to allow said children to ride them. But dragons who have not been ridden and were not placed in cradles with the Targ children, have a greater likelihood of choosing their rider. The wild dragons would be a better example than the semi-domesticated ones raised by House Targaryen.

Dragons don't have to go around looking for a rider because people are looking for them to ride. Supply and demand. 

Oops! I misread that one.

There were not thousands of years between the war with the Others and the rise of Night's King. NK came to power right after the Wall was finished and GRRM said it took hundreds of years to complete, which is likely on par with the hundreds of years between the Targs leaving Valyria and their conquest of Westeros. And while the First Men didn't have books they did have oral tradition and runes which the people at that time would still have been able to read. The First Men did not begin to lose their culture until the Andals showed up...a couple thousand years after the Long Night.

My point exactly. And it would make no sense whatsoever for Aegon to expect or allow a pregnant wife to fly into battle. 

A war which they expected to win because they had dragons. Until Meraxes was taken down they had little reason to fear their own lives would be cut short by warring. The biggest threat would have been enemy dragons, but Dorne didn't have any. People are often misled by the average life expectancy in medieval Europe, which was affected largely by things like high infant mortality rates, and wars that lacked dragons--many people lived long lives during the medieval period.

Yes, but it doesn't take six weeks to lose a pregnancy. They could have lost multiple children without having their moonblood be more than a couple of weeks late if that, and we don't know that their cycles were regular to begin with. More than one woman has miscarried without knowing she was pregnant, and without modern medical tests there is no way medieval women would have known about those kinds of miscarriages.

MMD did not say he looked as if he had been dead for years. She says he had been dead for years. And Jorah Mormont is hardly an expert on these things.

So you think Rhaenyra being angry was equivalent to a spell? I could see Tyanna working spells on Maegor's children, but only if she wanted to be the mother of his heir, and you've dismissed that as not a good enough motivation. Shame Aerion didn't think of a spell to go with his wildfire cocktail.

Ah, so you agree on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And you can also just ignore the dragon after you have killed the rider. Perhaps it flies away. Silverwing lost her rider near Tumbleton but she settled down on the island in Red Lake. The Tumbleton townsfolk never had any issues with her thereafter. And back before the Doom no dragonlord would have cared about one rogue dragonlord. Why should they?

They would have been no need for that, actually, since dragons would have been miracles the people would have loved to see. They could have made a living out of that.

But the Reach army could not find a rider for Silverwing - and that forced them to retreat in defeat.

In Westeros, a grown nobleman has received years of military training, as Donal Noye pointed out - something that a random commoner boy lacks. A fit and trained noble is an asset even if he has no property - a man like Jon Snow, Robar Royce, Sandor Clegane or Brynden Tully, disinherited and out of favour with his birth family, can find employment not available for a commoner.

In Valyria, a dragonlord dissatisfied with or ejected from his birth family might offer the services of himself and his dragon to some of the other 39 families.

How did Valyrian society handle second-rank dragonlords, ones alienated from their families and available for anyone willing to recruit them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

@Lord Varys

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You keep spectacularly misinterpreting my position.

Well, then let's try again:

Do I think the Targaryen dragonriders - male and female - were essentially worshiped as semi-divine, especially by the smallfolk, and exercising an extreme amount of power over their subjects? Most certainly.

Do I also believe that the very sight of a female Targaryen flying her dragon over a castle or a crowd put awe, wonder, and a deep fear in the mind of the people watching this? Most certainly.

Do I also think that a Targaryen woman - be she a dragonrider or not - was treated with the utmost respect and devotion by all inferior Westerosi women and men alike? Most certainly (remember the law that anybody striking a member of the royal family was to lose that limb which was still in effect during the reign of Daeron II).

But that does this mean that Targaryen women had de iure more rights and were, on average, raised differently than ordinary women?

Well, no.

I'd say it was up to the men of the family to decide whether their sister-wives were allowed to have a say in matters of state, the governance of the Realm. Aegon I and Jaehaerys I decided they should (Aegon clearly even before the Conquest). Even Maegor put Tyanna in a crucial position of power (and that had nothing to do with her being a dragonrider) and Alys and her family also seemed to have a lot of influence over him.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I am not arguing that they were equal and had an absolutely equal society.  But that there is a strong sense that early Targ women had a stronger influence, and enjoyed more respect and power in general and that it is impossible to discount dragons as a factor. Both their own ownership of them and the general effect that that ownership would have in Targ/valeryon households. As it relates to their general treatment of women.

I'd say this is a result of the co-conquest accomplished both by Rhaenys and Visenya. They were conquerors, too, and with that accomplishment came a very real personal power, but not necessarily a power based in Valyrian dragonlord custom on gender equality. Aegon needed his sister-wives as co-rulers of his Realm. He could not afford to sideline them.

If there was a remarkable difference between gender roles in Valyria/on Dragonstone and in Westeros then the Targaryens wouldn't have given that up as quickly as they did. They had the power to do whatever the hell they wanted for 130 years.

Still, the first Targaryen century was a century of female rulers. The most important historical characters there would be Visenya, Alyssa Velaryon, and Alysanne (and Rhaenys also was responsible for some innovations while she was still alive).

Aegon I wasn't that great a guy, apparently, more an effective figurehead and effective leader in wartime than a guy who was occupying himself all that much with the day-to-day rule of the kingdom. That duty fell to his sister-wives, especially Visenya in the years after 10 AC. What we know about his customs says that he usually toured the Realm with Aenys in a progress half a year, showing off the power and splendor of the Targaryen dynasty, and spent the other half of the year on Dragonstone, his favorite place, while his queens held court in KL.

And then we know that Visenya created the Kingsguard, oversaw the work on the Red Keep in Aegon's reign, and so on.

Alyssa Velaryon threw down Maegor, crowned her surviving son, and ruled as his regent for two years - and everything we know suggests that she remained highly influential during her son's later reign - they named her eldest granddaughter after her, and married Jaehaerys I's heir to her daughter by Robar Baratheon.

And Alysanne was the most influential player at Jaehaerys I's court, aside from Septon Barth. We know too little about her but it is pretty obvious she was highly influential. But it is during Jaehaerys I's reign that the power of the royal women declined because he created the Small Council and apparently increased the powers of the office of the Hand, which would all have reduced the direct influence of the Queen Consort, at least over time. Barth most likely still deferred to Queen Alysanne, but I'm pretty sure Ser Otto Hightower did not defer to Aemma Arryn (and certainly not to his own daughter).

We know that Queen Rhaenys sat the Iron Throne in Aegon's absence, not some Hand, and that would indicate that Visenya did so, too. Alyssa Velaryon may have sat the Iron Throne, too, as Queen Regent of the Realm in Jaehaerys I's absence. And the same might go for the Good Queen. But it is quite clear that Alicent Hightower had no right to do anything of that sort. In the days of Viserys I the queens were just consorts, and it was the Hand not the queen consort who would speak with the King's Voice in his absence.

We see this pretty well during the Dance when Alicent Hightower only ends up exercising real and direct power in absence of both the Prince Regent and the Hand, and only because the king himself and the queen consort are incapacitated.

Visenya wielded much more power back in the days of Aenys I and Maegor I.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

But that whilst this is the case they also undoubtedly did live within a world where patriarchy ruled. And women are not a monolith there is no female hive mind. Rhaena didn't feel as able as Alysa to defy Maegor whilst he had control of her girls, whereas Alysa felt the protection of two children and the fight against Maegor worth the risk to Viserys. Both women eventually did escape him, and both not only took their children (one has to assume.) but also had the same sense of importance regarding taking the swords.

Actually, I'm not sure Alyssa was so much thinking about Viserys when she fled Dragonstone. She was thinking about her own life and the life of her younger children. She had been in Visenya's care, and now Visenya was dead. We don't know who decided not to kill Alyssa and her children when Maegor first arrived on Dragonstone, but I'd not be surprised if Visenya told her son that they would not touch the grandchildren and daughter-in-law of the Conqueror, even after Aegon's failed rebellion.

With Visenya dead Maegor could do whatever the hell he liked, and Alyssa may have had no illusions what that meant for her.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

As with the situation north of the wall, Many women enjoy higher status and greater freedoms, but that doesn't change the fact it's still largely patriarchal. Some women wield great power and can be leaders, and others are no better off than slaves.  

I'd agree that it is easy for strong/powerful/charismatic women to gain power beyond the Wall (and in the Mountains of the Moon) than it is in the Seven Kingdoms outside Dorne. That is because the rules of the society very much prevent women from taking power there. But unfortunately the wildlings don't have all that many rules in effect, making their society both more unjust and more dangerous for people who lack the strength to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Can yes, but the dragon has a choice to do so or not. Once the bond is set, that's all there is to it.

I don't know whether the dragon has a choice to reject a rider. He can decided to breathe fire or bite and claw at a human trying to get near him, but if you survive this what prevents you from trying again? Alyn Velaryon decided not to try to mount Sheepstealer again, he was not magically barred from ever trying again.

If you have the talent all you have to do seems to be to jump on a dragon's back.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

If it were that simple ANY Targ could ride ANY dragon, and none would ever be bucked off or rejected.

No Targaryen was ever rejected by a dragon as far as we know - that is, only riderless dragons, of course. If a dragon is yours anybody else mounting it does so at his or her peril.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes, Aemon did that...with a dragon that had been ridden previously. And the Targ dragons who hatched as eggs that were given to Targaryen children would be extremely likely to allow said children to ride them. But dragons who have not been ridden and were not placed in cradles with the Targ children, have a greater likelihood of choosing their rider. The wild dragons would be a better example than the semi-domesticated ones raised by House Targaryen.

Dany's dragons were pretty domesticated and knew her since birth. Drogon nearly killed Dany, and Rhaegal killed Quentyn. Dragons are no pets, but we still lack any evidence that dragons of the size of Stormcloud, Shrykos, and Morghul were ever any threats to their future riders.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

There were not thousands of years between the war with the Others and the rise of Night's King. NK came to power right after the Wall was finished and GRRM said it took hundreds of years to complete, which is likely on par with the hundreds of years between the Targs leaving Valyria and their conquest of Westeros. And while the First Men didn't have books they did have oral tradition and runes which the people at that time would still have been able to read. The First Men did not begin to lose their culture until the Andals showed up...a couple thousand years after the Long Night.

Honestly, we have no idea what truth there is to the story of the Night's King, nor do we actually know when the Northmen lost all their ancient knowledge. The Andals never conquered that kingdom, remember? What little we know seems to indicate that some of the ancient Starks did not like the Children and skinchangers all that much (remember how they dealt with the Warg King and his greenseers after they defeated him?).

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

My point exactly. And it would make no sense whatsoever for Aegon to expect or allow a pregnant wife to fly into battle. 

Visenya would have done whatever the hell she wanted to do.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

A war which they expected to win because they had dragons. Until Meraxes was taken down they had little reason to fear their own lives would be cut short by warring. The biggest threat would have been enemy dragons, but Dorne didn't have any. People are often misled by the average life expectancy in medieval Europe, which was affected largely by things like high infant mortality rates, and wars that lacked dragons--many people lived long lives during the medieval period.

Reread the history of the First Dornish War. There were assassins, and the Targaryens themselves were attacked multiple times within KL itself. Visenya saving Aegon from some assassins during such an attempt was what led to the creation of the Kingsguard.

They had no reason to believe they were immortal.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Yes, but it doesn't take six weeks to lose a pregnancy. They could have lost multiple children without having their moonblood be more than a couple of weeks late if that, and we don't know that their cycles were regular to begin with. More than one woman has miscarried without knowing she was pregnant, and without modern medical tests there is no way medieval women would have known about those kinds of miscarriages.

Sure, but those are irrelevant. We are talking about miscarriages of women who knew/believed they were pregnant. And Rhaenys and Visenya both would have desperately tried to convince themselves they might be pregnant when they realized that their moon blood was coming late.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

MMD did not say he looked as if he had been dead for years. She says he had been dead for years. And Jorah Mormont is hardly an expert on these things.

Still, he saw the body.

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

So you think Rhaenyra being angry was equivalent to a spell? I could see Tyanna working spells on Maegor's children, but only if she wanted to be the mother of his heir, and you've dismissed that as not a good enough motivation. Shame Aerion didn't think of a spell to go with his wildfire cocktail.

I could see emotions and wishes to have an effect on this whole thing. Remember how Rhaenyra was three days in labor and constantly cursed the child as 'a monster'? But perhaps this is nothing. But I agree that there is also a natural tendency for monstrosities among the Targaryens. Alysanne could have had her share, Rhaella, too, and Laena and Aemma might have been killed by the ones they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 6:38 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I think we define tolerance in different ways in regards to the Valyrians. I am thinking of Antiquity when I say tolerance where having different gods or way of life isn't really a problem. Nor is skin color or language. If you live in a culture that's different than mine, we can still get along without trying to show our own lifestyle down the other's throat. But that won't mean that I won't play hardball with different cultures when we come to blows. In short with tolerance I mean simply being tolerant of other point of views than what we today call "traditional" which isn't really older to my knowledge than the 19th century. As such enslavement of enemies and seeking to destroy one's enemies in order to win a war isn't the kind of intolerance I was speaking about. But I do understand your point. My counter point would be that I think of such things as merciless as they were not made, to my knowledge, to destroy a culture for some sense of superiority or morale outrage but because they were enemies that the Valyrians were at war with. That don't make it less of a genocide of course, but it means that different factors were behind it than Valyrian refusal to accept the Rhoynar way of life to exist.

Also dragons and magic are only so much worth if there's a limited number of people using it, If there are thousands of people with dragons around, then having a dragon isn't very much to brag with your peers. And magic seems to have been very common in Valyria so I don't think the comparisment with guns is off. Furthermore the use of dragons is only ever useful if you are allowed to use the dragon. If there are laws, and the Freehold don't sound like the absolutistic Westeros but a society of laws and order, then the power of a dragon isn't really so large. Just like you can't shot someone in retaliation for grabbing your boobs without going to prison and be registered as a criminal and possibly murderer, so I would think that you couldn't just fry someone with a dragon for them being sexist against you in some form or another, without there being negative consequences for the dragonrider in turn which could well ruin that dragonrider's life. And thus also dragonriders would need to keep their power in check in a way that nobles in Westeros don't have to do.

I agree with the issue of the ratio between slaves and free population in Valyria. I for one think that at most there were about as many slaves as free people in Valyria and thus a fair number of non-dragonriding guards and overseers kept watch on the slaves. But if it true that the ratio between slaves and free were like in Sparta, as I think was mentioned before, then it would make sense for it to be such that Valyria had a need to make everyone work to keep the social order running.

But in the end I don't think that this is a convicing argument. And I think that a more equal relatonship between the sexes were in place well when the Valyrians got hold of the first dragons and then it kind of grew from there.

 

I agree that wiping out the Rhoynar does not seem to have been based on ideological grounds.  The Volantenes wanted to expand upriver, got a bloody nose, and called in their Valyrian overlords to obliterate the Rhoynar, which they did very thoroughly.

WRT dragon riders, they probably numbered hundreds, rather than thousands.  Three hundred went to war with the Rhoynar, which was probably not the entire number, but likely close to it, given the high stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...