Inconsistencies, plot holes, and missing details in TSOTD, TRP, and TPATQ

[Jaak]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

By the way: Where is your idea coming from that Viserys I ever sat so much as a foot in the North? The implication of the story about Alysanne and Jaehaerys I is that they were pretty young back then. There is no indication that they had any grandchildren by that time.

We are directly told that Jaehaerys and Alysanne parked a grand total of 6 dragons in Winterfell, and Alysanne got bored.

Who could have been the 6 dragons?

Could not have been right in Jaehaerys and Alysanne´s youth, after accession, because then the dragonriders were 3 (Jaeharys, Alysanne, Rhaena).

This suggests that it was late in the reign, when the grandchildren were not only born but dragonriders, in order to account for the 6 dragons.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Jaak said:

We are directly told that Jaehaerys and Alysanne parked a grand total of 6 dragons in Winterfell, and Alysanne got bored.

Who could have been the 6 dragons?

Could not have been right in Jaehaerys and Alysanne´s youth, after accession, because then the dragonriders were 3 (Jaeharys, Alysanne, Rhaena).

This suggests that it was late in the reign, when the grandchildren were not only born but dragonriders, in order to account for the 6 dragons.

Nay, the six dragons could have been Jaehaerys I, Alysanne, and some of their children. Possibly even their sister and their nieces. We don't know how many of the children had dragons of their own.

The idea that an Alysanne her her fifties or so would have been 'bored' enough to jump her dragon and explore the North isn't very convincing. 

And six dragons aren't that much, anyway. Jaehaerys I and Alysanne make two, Rhaena another, their eldest Alyssa would also have been a dragonrider, and Aemon and Baelon most definitely. And some of the younger daughters could have had dragons, too - Daella and Viserra, for instance.

[Jaak]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nay, the six dragons could have been Jaehaerys I, Alysanne, and some of their children. Possibly even their sister and their nieces. We don't know how many of the children had dragons of their own.

The idea that an Alysanne her her fifties or so would have been 'bored' enough to jump her dragon and explore the North isn't very convincing. 

And six dragons aren't that much, anyway. Jaehaerys I and Alysanne make two, Rhaena another, their eldest Alyssa would also have been a dragonrider, and Aemon and Baelon most definitely. And some of the younger daughters could have had dragons, too - Daella and Viserra, for instance.

Um. Then name these dragons.

There were 6 old dragons around during Dance.

1. Vermithor
2. Silverwing
3. Vhagar
4. Dreamfyre
5. Meleys
6. Caraxes

And Balerion died in 94, so he was 7th.

I agree that Aemon and Baelon would have been dragonriders. I expect that they rode Vhagar and Dreamfyre after Rhaena.

Who else is attested as possibly pre-owned dragon?

Alyssa might have been a dragonrider... she is not around later in the story. If she died when Daemon was little then she might have ridden Balerion before Viserys.

[direpupy]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It doesn't make more sense in any meaningful sense because we cannot really assess the probability one way or another. You can prefer Tyrion's version because you like it better - or you want to believe him - but we don't really have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter.

I do not like it better i think it makes more sense in the light of the current information.

We are obviously not going to agree on this, except that without more information we can not be sure which one is (Munkun or Tyrion) is correct.

Having said that i would like to respond to the points you raise.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nothing indicates that Munkun would have been one of those gossipers you refer to. In addition, ancient historians considered to be 'professionals' but used invented speeches and dialogues simply wrote historical fiction.

Nothing indicates that he is not, so they option that this is a possible explanation for a mistake on Munkun's part remains true.

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have no evidence that Munkun becoming Grand Maester means he wasn't a dedicated historians. There is evidence to the contrary in Maester Gormon, a present candidate for Grand Maester who steps in for an archmaester, indicating that he must be an expert in the particular field of Archmaester Walgrave.

 Again there is also no evidence that he was a dedicated historian. So to assume that he was is a fallacy. Also that a Grand Maester is or can be an expert in a subject i do not dispute, what i dispute is the assumption that Munkun his expertise is history, because there is no evidence for it save one single publication. To little to assume any level of expertise.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, the very notion that the Citadel's degree of specialization is even remotely in the same degree as modern academics is ridiculous. You have to study a lot of disciplines to become a maester, and there is no indication that you are limited to one discipline even if you become an archmaester.

In that sense, every maester is a generalist, and there are most definitely no 'dedicated historians' of you narrow definition. 

On this i agree, but for me this only reinforces that someone like Munkun who would have to have knowledge of many subjects as a Grand Maester may not have had the expertise to make a fully reliable treatis on a historical subject.

As to all Maester's being generalist that is not true, GRRM has stated that a Maester can have multiple links on a subject thus being an expert on a subject. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Dragon_Limbs_and_Gender_Valyrain_Weapons_and_Maesters_Chains/

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Eyewitnesses would have been the sources for all the accounts, not just the one Tyrion referred to. After all, if nobody had seen Ser Byron's deed, nobody would know it happened, right?

And context matters. If Munkun heard Ser Byron supposedly attacked a she-dragon, then he would have gotten some context. And that context would have determined whether it made sense whether it was Vhagar or Syrax. An important part of the context would be the place where this  happened. This is not a 'Once upon a time...' anecdote.

True, but did Munkun hear they eyewitnesses directly or not. This matters because story's change in the telling and thus how reliable they are. I do admit that this also applies to Tyrion since we do not know if he saw the letter or a direct copy, or just read about the letter and its contents.

I agree context matters, unfortunately we do not have this context so that makes it hard to determine what Munkun based his story about Byron attacking Vhagar on.

I also feel it is important to stress once again,i only find they idea that Munkun is in the wrong more likely based on the current information we have, if and when we get more information this may very well change my opinion.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See above. The king also has no say in the matter of the appointment of the Grand Maester. If the Conclave wanted to make some geek Grand Maester who is only competent in a single field they could do that. It isn't very likely, though, that such people exist in the Citadel. They wouldn't get enough links to even become maesters.

The conclave appoints the Grand Maester but as we see with they example of Aegon V wanting a younger Grand Maester the conclave is susceptible to suggestions from the king. Moreover if the king does not like the Grand Maester he can be send away in favor of a new one, the citadel did not protest the removal of Pycelle, they simply started debating his succession. So the king can most certainly influence who becomes Grand Maester.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said that it did. But Munkun was in the ideal position to write a history on the Dance considering the access to real sources the man had. Primary sources in the form of royal documents and officials are to be found in KL, not in Oldtown.

Royal documents and officials yes, eyewitnesses maybe but not assured. I'm sorry but i do not agree that he had access to better sources just because he was in Kings Landing. Royal documents are not necessarily primary sources they may just be transcription of eyewitness accounts complete with the biastnes of the person who wrote it.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I base that on the fact that even a child would realize that Syrax is not Vhagar, and Vhagar wasn't an enemy of Aegon II and the Stormlords.

There were only little more than twenty dragons alive during the Dance, not that many to memorize. And those creatures were dreaded by all, considering the fear and awe they inspired. They would have been more famous than movie stars.

People would rather confuse the princes of the blood than the dragons they rode, especially in light of the fact that those creatures really grew old.

This is a complete assumption on your part not a fact. How many people would have seen the dragons, and the coloring of Vhagar is unknown so Vhagar and Syrax may very well have had the same coloring. People may have know the names of the dragons and perhaps there coloring but that does not mean people could tell all of them apart when they saw them.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I doubt there are many professionally published works of history in which Kennedy is confused with Khrushchew. And I'd put confusing a dragon with another dragon in that category.

I most certainly would not put it in the same category, far from it even for the reasons i gave above.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't have an eyewitness. We have a pretty well-read guy referencing an account which claims to be based on the account of an eyewitness. But we don't have access to that account.

Neither do we know what Munkun based his account of the Dance on, so his sources being more reliable is an assumption on your part not a fact.

To circle back to the top of my post, i do not think we are going to agree on this. And i would like to stress that my current opinion of Munkun being in the wrong is not set in stone, its just my opinion based on the information we currently have.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Jaak said:

Um. Then name these dragons.

Why should I? I never said there were any such dragons. I said it is possible that there were such dragons. That is a difference.

13 hours ago, Jaak said:

There were 6 old dragons around during Dance.

1. Vermithor
2. Silverwing
3. Vhagar
4. Dreamfyre
5. Meleys
6. Caraxes

And Balerion died in 94, so he was 7th.

That doesn't mean there weren't other dragons around in the 50s and 60s. Dragons can die.

13 hours ago, Jaak said:

I agree that Aemon and Baelon would have been dragonriders. I expect that they rode Vhagar and Dreamfyre after Rhaena.

They would have been given dragons that were available in their childhood. Either fresh eggs/hatchlings or riderless dragons. Princess Alyssa as the eldest living royal child would be a prime candidate to claim, say, Balerion - that is, unless Aerea didn't do that when she turned, say, ten or so. It would have been of considerable importance for the Targaryens to find new riders for both Vhagar and Balerion.

And Vhagar could easily have been ridden by Prince Aemon, eventually passing from him to his granddaughter Laena.

But I still would like the possibility more that Alyssa Velaryon claimed Vhagar in the wake of Visenya's death - that way we could explain not only how they and their dragons could escape Dragonstone (the impossibility of transporting dragons unseen on ships) as well as how Jaehaerys I could actually hope to defeat Maegor in a dragon battle. With the help of Vhagar, Vermithor, Dreamfyre, and Silverwing might be able to rip Balerion to pieces without risking almost certain death/severe injuries.

13 hours ago, Jaak said:

Who else is attested as possibly pre-owned dragon?

We don't need any such dragons. Again, they could have died. Hell, Prince Aemon's dragon could have died with him on Tarth.

13 hours ago, Jaak said:

Alyssa might have been a dragonrider... she is not around later in the story. If she died when Daemon was little then she might have ridden Balerion before Viserys.

Yes, that's a possibility. Alyssa could have died in childbirth, giving birth to her mysterious son, Aegon.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

Nothing indicates that he is not, so they option that this is a possible explanation for a mistake on Munkun's part remains true.

While there is possibility for error, the examples of maester-written histories we know indicate that said texts are not, in fact, uncritically repeating gossip. Neither Yandel nor Gyldayn seem to write histories the way Mushroom dictates them, say.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

Again there is also no evidence that he was a dedicated historian. So to assume that he was is a fallacy.

Your entire argument here was fallacious, since you have no evidence or reason to assume there is a dichotomy between 'dedicated historians' and 'gossip collectors' among the maesters writing historical works.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

Also that a Grand Maester is or can be an expert in a subject i do not dispute, what i dispute is the assumption that Munkun his expertise is history, because there is no evidence for it save one single publication. To little to assume any level of expertise.

Munkun writing a historical treatise on the Dance - based on the accounts provided by other contemporaries like Grand Maester Orwyle - is a strong indication that the man is a trained historian by the Citadel's standards. We also have only one publication for Yandel and Gyldayn, and both seem to be seen as historians by the standards of Westeros.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

On this i agree, but for me this only reinforces that someone like Munkun who would have to have knowledge of many subjects as a Grand Maester may not have had the expertise to make a fully reliable treatis on a historical subject.

You don't have to be a trained historian to not confuse Vhagar with Syrax or vice versa. You just have to be no moron.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

As to all Maester's being generalist that is not true, GRRM has stated that a Maester can have multiple links on a subject thus being an expert on a subject. http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Dragon_Limbs_and_Gender_Valyrain_Weapons_and_Maesters_Chains/

That doesn't mean you can forge an entire chain out of links from a single subject. Only if you did that would you not be a generalist. If you have at least a bunch of links from other subjects you know a lot of things about other stuff.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

True, but did Munkun hear they eyewitnesses directly or not. This matters because story's change in the telling and thus how reliable they are. I do admit that this also applies to Tyrion since we do not know if he saw the letter or a direct copy, or just read about the letter and its contents.

Munkun would have been able to separate fact from fiction the same way Tyrion did. Never mind what eyewitnesses or gossipers told him, Storm's End stood with Aegon II, which means Ser Byron Swann simply had no reason to try to slay Vhagar as per Tyrion's reasoning. Munkun would have been able to reach the same conclusion.

Even if his sources told him the Vhagar story he should have been able to see through it at once.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

I agree context matters, unfortunately we do not have this context so that makes it hard to determine what Munkun based his story about Byron attacking Vhagar on.

We know it included the manner of the attack which implies it was a rather detailed account. Not an account that consists of only 1-2 sentences.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

I also feel it is important to stress once again,i only find they idea that Munkun is in the wrong more likely based on the current information we have, if and when we get more information this may very well change my opinion.

And I'm of the opinion that we don't have enough information to make a decision right now.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

The conclave appoints the Grand Maester but as we see with they example of Aegon V wanting a younger Grand Maester the conclave is susceptible to suggestions from the king. Moreover if the king does not like the Grand Maester he can be send away in favor of a new one, the citadel did not protest the removal of Pycelle, they simply started debating his succession. So the king can most certainly influence who becomes Grand Maester.

There doesn't seem to be many precedents aside from executions that can cause the Conclave to name a new Grand Maester. And it is pretty clear that the Iron Throne can neither name a Grand Maester nor take the title from a Grand Maester. They can throw the Grand Maester out of the council and neutralize him as a political power, but they cannot hand the Grand Maester's chain to a person of their choosing.

The king asking the Citadel for something doesn't prove anything in this regard. The king can ask anyone anything, but this doesn't mean the people he ask are legally forced to obey. I'm not saying kings cannot dominate a Conclave - I'm just saying the way things are set up kings really do not choose or a appoint Grand Maesters. They have to go through the Citadel.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

Royal documents and officials yes, eyewitnesses maybe but not assured. I'm sorry but i do not agree that he had access to better sources just because he was in Kings Landing. Royal documents are not necessarily primary sources they may just be transcription of eyewitness accounts complete with the biastnes of the person who wrote it.

If you want to write a history on the Dance of the Dragons being at KL is the best place to start your work. That's where the war began, and that's where the key players of the conflicts lived (and died). If Syrax was the dragon Ser Byron tried to kill then King Aegon III himself might have been an eyewitness - or as good as an eyewitness could possibly be, learning from his royal mother and other members of court that Byron Swann had tried to kill the queen's dragon.

Trying to kill the queen's dragon isn't something the queen and court would be uninterested in.

Vice versa, Septon Eustace might be another as-good-as-eyewitness source if Swann tried to slay Vhagar at KL.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

This is a complete assumption on your part not a fact. How many people would have seen the dragons, and the coloring of Vhagar is unknown so Vhagar and Syrax may very well have had the same coloring. People may have know the names of the dragons and perhaps there coloring but that does not mean people could tell all of them apart when they saw them.

Sorry, eyewitnesses are irrelevant in this context. Munkun knew the names of the dragons and who rode them during the Dance. He would have seen through a wrong claim at once, never mind how the dragons looked. Even if a principal eyewitness had confused Syrax and Vhagar, Munkun would have realized the truth. Because he would have known stuff about Rhaenyra, Aemond, and Byron Swann.

Hell, we see it in TPatQ that you don't have to be able to read or be particular smart to not confuse Sunfyre with the Cannibal on the basis of reports involving a dragon fight. You have to be extraordinarily stupid/disinterested to do that.

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

I most certainly would not put it in the same category, far from it even for the reasons i gave above.

It is somewhat like hyperbole. Say, compare it to a learned government official confusing crucial ministers in the administration he is working for. Or a state historian making crucial mistakes when writing about key assets of his government - that is not likely to happen.

Any historian writing about the Targaryens while being a contemporary of the Targaryen dragons wouldn't confuse them. That's pretty much in the same category as trained theologians making mistakes when listing the canonical gospel writers or the letters of Paul. 

10 hours ago, direpupy said:

Neither do we know what Munkun based his account of the Dance on, so his sources being more reliable is an assumption on your part not a fact.

We do know they are based, in part, on the writings Grand Maester Orwyle produced in his cell.

[Jaak]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should I? I never said there were any such dragons. I said it is possible that there were such dragons. That is a difference.

That doesn't mean there weren't other dragons around in the 50s and 60s. Dragons can die.

We don't need any such dragons. Again, they could have died.

Dragons might die. But they are normally long-lived. Death of a dragon is a rare event and normally big deal when it happens.

I regard the plausibility on the side on dragonless princesses, rather than otherwise unattested dragons who died otherwise unattested deaths.

[direpupy]

Like i said we are not going to agree on the subject of Munkun versus Tyrion, but i must say i am enjoying this discussion it is one of the best i have had on this forum in a long time. Most of the discussions tend to decent into name calling real fast these days so thank you for your serious answers and willingness to actually discuss.

I do agree with you on the dragon thing you are discussing with Jaak.

 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

While there is possibility for error, the examples of maester-written histories we know indicate that said texts are not, in fact, uncritically repeating gossip. Neither Yandel nor Gyldayn seem to write histories the way Mushroom dictates them, say.

The problem with this is that we basically know that Yandel is wrong in some of the things he says, we are explicitly warned by GRRM about the unreliable narrator so to just assume that a history is correct is not something you can do.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your entire argument here was fallacious, since you have no evidence or reason to assume there is a dichotomy between 'dedicated historians' and 'gossip collectors' among the maesters writing historical works.

I did not assume anything i said we did not know if he was one or they other, thus both options are open.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Munkun writing a historical treatise on the Dance - based on the accounts provided by other contemporaries like Grand Maester Orwyle - is a strong indication that the man is a trained historian by the Citadel's standards. We also have only one publication for Yandel and Gyldayn, and both seem to be seen as historians by the standards of Westeros.

He could be but, it is not certain and that uncertainty has to be taken into account.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't have to be a trained historian to not confuse Vhagar with Syrax or vice versa. You just have to be no moron.

Really if they have the same coloring and you look at a dragon from a distance how are you going to tell the one from they other? Especially since most people would never have seen the dragon in question before and only know there description from story's. Now the squire knows which dragon his master was going to kill. Did other potential witnesses know? The sources Munkun bases his story could be wrong and again you have to take that into account.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't mean you can forge an entire chain out of links from a single subject. Only if you did that would you not be a generalist. If you have at least a bunch of links from other subjects you know a lot of things about other stuff.

I agree that to be a Maester you need links from many different subjects, but being able to get more then one link on a subject does mean there are people who can and will focus more on one area then an other and that was the point.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Munkun would have been able to separate fact from fiction the same way Tyrion did. Never mind what eyewitnesses or gossipers told him, Storm's End stood with Aegon II, which means Ser Byron Swann simply had no reason to try to slay Vhagar as per Tyrion's reasoning. Munkun would have been able to reach the same conclusion.

Even if his sources told him the Vhagar story he should have been able to see through it at once.

I agree this is a weak point that speaks against Tyrion, but on the whole taking everything into account i do still believe that Munkun is more likely to be wrong.

You also have to take into account that the Byron thing is a side note in the histories, that does not influence they outcome of the war. So how much work would Munkun have put into researching this incident for his history? He could have taken some official document in Kings Landing about they incident at face value, because it was just a side note not world shocking news.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know it included the manner of the attack which implies it was a rather detailed account. Not an account that consists of only 1-2 sentences.

Since the manner of the attack emulated a famous story it would be the part that makes it into all they accounts, detailed or not.

 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And I'm of the opinion that we don't have enough information to make a decision right now.

I'm not making a decision i am stating my personal opinion, and i agree with you that no final conclusion can be reached with the current information available.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There doesn't seem to be many precedents aside from executions that can cause the Conclave to name a new Grand Maester. And it is pretty clear that the Iron Throne can neither name a Grand Maester nor take the title from a Grand Maester. They can throw the Grand Maester out of the council and neutralize him as a political power, but they cannot hand the Grand Maester's chain to a person of their choosing.

The king asking the Citadel for something doesn't prove anything in this regard. The king can ask anyone anything, but this doesn't mean the people he ask are legally forced to obey. I'm not saying kings cannot dominate a Conclave - I'm just saying the way things are set up kings really do not choose or a appoint Grand Maesters. They have to go through the Citadel.

That the citadel chooses the Grand Maester and that others can not do so i do not dispute, but that the King can not influence the decision or refuse to admit the person chosen to the court as Grand Maester i do dispute. You yourself have stated in other treads that the Targaryens where in effect absolute monarchs, even if you have a right to refuse, it is not smart to do so.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you want to write a history on the Dance of the Dragons being at KL is the best place to start your work. That's where the war began, and that's where the key players of the conflicts lived (and died). If Syrax was the dragon Ser Byron tried to kill then King Aegon III himself might have been an eyewitness - or as good as an eyewitness could possibly be, learning from his royal mother and other members of court that Byron Swann had tried to kill the queen's dragon.

Trying to kill the queen's dragon isn't something the queen and court would be uninterested in.

Vice versa, Septon Eustace might be another as-good-as-eyewitness source if Swann tried to slay Vhagar at KL.

Its a good place to start for sure, but that does not guarantee the sources are reliable. Having said that, this is a pretty good argument in favor of Munkun one i have not yet taken into account and certainly makes me rethink things. Thank you again for taking this discussion serious like i said at the beginning of my post not everybody does anymore on the forum and for me discussing is about gaining new insites like they one you gave me here.

One last note on this, i may be wrong but i do get the feeling from this you think Byron made his attempt in Kings Landing? Again i may be getting the wrong impression, but if i am not then i do feel obliged to point out that we do not know where they attempt took place.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, eyewitnesses are irrelevant in this context. Munkun knew the names of the dragons and who rode them during the Dance. He would have seen through a wrong claim at once, never mind how the dragons looked. Even if a principal eyewitness had confused Syrax and Vhagar, Munkun would have realized the truth. Because he would have known stuff about Rhaenyra, Aemond, and Byron Swann.

I do not agree on eyewitnesses being irrelevant, and would like to point out again that Munkun may not have given the matter much attention since it is a side note in they overall history of the Dance.

But i must say you are swaying me more towards Munkun with this, and they argument about the court above this one.

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Hell, we see it in TPatQ that you don't have to be able to read or be particular smart to not confuse Sunfyre with the Cannibal on the basis of reports involving a dragon fight. You have to be extraordinarily stupid/disinterested to do that.

Hmm i have to disagree with this, Ser Robert Quince the castelan of Dragonstone does name the Cannibal as the culprit even do he hears the story. Others do not, but in my opinion that just proves that confusing dragons is quit easy since different people come to different conclusions based on the same story. 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is somewhat like hyperbole. Say, compare it to a learned government official confusing crucial ministers in the administration he is working for. Or a state historian making crucial mistakes when writing about key assets of his government - that is not likely to happen.

Any historian writing about the Targaryens while being a contemporary of the Targaryen dragons wouldn't confuse them. That's pretty much in the same category as trained theologians making mistakes when listing the canonical gospel writers or the letters of Paul. 

I respect your opinion on this, but i firmly disagree that confusing dragons falls into the same category as your examples. Knowing which dragons there are and telling them apart are to separate things.

Anyway you did give me a few things to think about, which i am going to do. With me being away for a few days for work i might not be able to respond to any post you make on this until the weekend or maybe even next Monday, but i am looking forward to your response.

[HexMachina]

@direpupy another thing to consider regarding confusing which dragon is which; might be possible to do that given no context, but harder to do so when you know their riders. Hard to confuse Vhagar and Syrax when they are on opposing sides of the war imo, because they should have no reason to be in the same locale as one another (unless they were doing battle with one another). So that should be a heavy indicator, and something someone like Munkun would know

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Dragons might die. But they are normally long-lived. Death of a dragon is a rare event and normally big deal when it happens.

I regard the plausibility on the side on dragonless princesses, rather than otherwise unattested dragons who died otherwise unattested deaths.

That would make sense if we had a detailed and thorough account of the reign of Jaehaerys I. Do we have such an account? No, we don't. Besides, in the end Jaehaerys I and Alysanne could also have dragged riderless dragons to Winterfell, just as Prince Daemon dragged a Vhagar across the Narrow Sea while Laena and the girls took a ship.

In addition, the death of a dragon doesn't have to be a big event if a young dragon dies.

As to the Syrax-Vhagar thing, if we discuss it on the basis of the things we do know, then the options look somewhat like that:

If Syrax was the dragon Swann tried to kill it seems the attempt must have happened either on Dragonstone or in KL. If Vhagar was the dragon in question then it seems it must have happened either at Storm's End, in KL, or in the Riverlands.

If we are talking Syrax then Dragonstone is a less likely place for a Swann trying to slay Rhaenyra's dragon simply because Rhaenyra would have surrounded her with people she could trust. Dragonstone is an island. Even if Swann happened to be on the island - or got there - after Viserys I died, it would be a huge risk to try to slay a dragon there and then think you could escape alive.

The idea that Swann happened to be at KL when Rhaenyra took the capital is thus much more likely. And then he would have pretended to join her and tried to slay Syrax while she was chained in the yard of the Red Keep. The movements of a chained dragon are restricted, and it is presumably more easy to get close to such a creature.

If it happened there then it would have at a time when only morons would confuse Syrax with Vhagar because pretty much any eyewitnesses/people learning about the attempt after the fact (Swann would likely not have made the attempt while the entire court was watching) would have known the dragon in question was Syrax, the dragon of the queen.

Chances that Vhagar would have attacked by a Swann while with Aemond and Alys in the Riverlands are astronomically low. Thus the likelier place would be KL, too. But if Swann tried to kill Vhagar there, before Rhaenyra had taken the city, then any eyewitnesses/people learning about the attempt after the fact would also know that we are talking about Aemond's dragon. Because Rhaenyra's she-dragon was still back on Dragonstone.

The best explanation as to why this whole thing is a mystery/conundrum is that it didn't happen at one of the obvious places - which means not at KL nor on Dragonstone.

That would leave Storm's End for Vhagar, if Swann had indeed tried to slay her.

I've given a possible scenario above. If Byron Swann (or the Swanns in general) were leaning towards Queen Rhaenyra - or if Swann had been at Storm's End and witnessed Aemond's cold-blooded murder of Lucerys Velaryon, being abhorred by the deed - then it would make sense for him to try to sneak up to a Vhagar chained in the yard of Storm's End. It wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that a Swann was at Storm's End at this time whereas it would be somewhat of a stretch with our present knowledge to make a plausible case for him to be on Dragonstone when Viserys I died.

Tyrion really doesn't consider the possibility that Swann may have been in Rhaenyra's camp - but he could have been. And the squire technically could have had reasons to paint his master as a Green loyalist in the letter to daughter - say, if House Swann ended up standing firmly at Aegon II's side or the squire's own loyalty lay with the Greens.

An honest confusion could have happened if Syrax had indeed paid Storm's End a visit around the same time. Rhaenyra supposedly collapsed when the news of Luke reached her, but she and Jace and perhaps even Rhaenys might have still paid Lord Borros a visit afterwards. Garbled reports about a dragon-slaying attempt could thus make sense. But I'm not holding my breath that Rhaenyra actually did something like that.

Another possibility for an honest confusion would be if the attempt happened out in the field/at a small castle, etc. where dragons were not exactly a common sight. The problem with that is that we have pretty much no reason to believe Rhaenyra ever took Syrax to a place that wasn't KL or Dragonstone.

If Syrax and Vhagar looked very similar I certainly can see peasants and other uninformed people confuse them. However, any eyewitness actually seeing Vhagar would describe her as the largest dragon he or she ever saw. People who never saw a dragon before might also describe Syrax that way, but any person who had ever seen Syrax and Vhagar would never confuse these two dragons, never mind whether they looked similar or not.

In that sense - on the basis of the things we know I can see a scenario where Swann as a Black loyalist might try to slay Vhagar at Storm's End just as I could see Swann as a Green loyalist try to slay Syrax at KL.

What I cannot see is a scenario where it makes sense that educated people (and even many eyewitnesses) would confuse Vhagar with Syrax or vice versa. That could only happen, I think, if we assume that the attempt took place 'out in the wild' somewhere where most eyewitnesses (aside from Swann's squire) had no idea what was going on.

But even then - Rhaenyra herself would have been with her dragon. She would have seen Swann's remains. And she would have told others about his attempt, making it very likely that King Aegon III and others would have known the truth about the attempt.

And the same would have gone Vhagar - Aemond, Alys, etc. would have seen the corpse, too.

Thinking about the scenario - since the squire was supposedly an eyewitness of the deed it seems rather likely the thing took place while the dragon was chained in a castle, easily approachable, and not exactly well-guarded by any guards.

That could work both at Storm's End and at the Red Keep. On Dragonstone and at the Dragonpit there would have been guards and servants tending to the needs to the dragons at all time, making it not very likely that a knight could actually sneak up to a dragon unseen.

A scenario where Byron and his squire sort of chanced on the dragon the man then decided to slay - say, if Syrax or Vhagar showed up in the Marches at one point, or they simply showed up wherever Swann was at that point - is less likely because the squire apparently got away. One can see that happening in a crowded place like the Red Keep or Storm's End, not so much in the middle of nowhere.

[Lord Varys]

Thinking about the Gerardys conundrum a little bit - the Grand Maester situation during the Dance is similarly confusing. With Orwyle being the Grand Maester when the war broke out, and Varys telling us that Grand Maester Gerardys was fed to Aegon II's dragon (which means Sunfyre) we have only a very small window where Gerardys was Grand Maester and killed - before the Battle of Rook's Rest, basically.

That means that Orwyle has to fall from grace very quickly, to be replaced by Gerardys, and then to be reinstated later on to be arrested and imprisoned again when Rhaenyra takes the city.

The scenario that Gerardys is only fed to Sunfyre along with Rhaenyra makes little sense in light of the fact that Rhaenyra is not accompanied by a Grand Maester back to Dragonstone. If Aegon II had executed a Grand Maester after his restoration to the throne he couldn't have possibly have fed him to his dragon.

In that sense I'm inclined to believe Munkun might actually have become Grand Maester during the Dance, making the succession of Grand Maesters look somewhat like that:

Orwyle > Gerardys > Orwyle > Munkun

Whether Munkun arrived at KL while Rhaenyra was still ruling there or whether he only showed up after Aegon's restoration is unclear. There could even have been a fourth Grand Maester we don't know anything about at this point.

Man, this Gerardys thing is really driving me mad ;-).

[Free Northman Reborn]

Wow. I just realized how all of us must look to some normal person who stumbled across this site. I say this because I have scanned through the intense debate between Lord Varys and Direpuppy, about an irrelevant side event from a false history, the particular details of which are utterly uninteresting to me.

And I realize that "normal" people would view my interest in military matters, geography and comparative strength of the fictional Houses of Westeros as just as weird.

This is a timely reminder for me to step out of this twilight zone for a bit lest it drags me down the rabbit hole even more. Whether I will heed my own advice is a different matter, however.

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wow. I just realized how all of us must look to some normal person who stumbled across this site. I say this because I have scanned through the intense debate between Lord Varys and Direpuppy, about an irrelevant side event from a false history, the particular details of which are utterly uninteresting to me.

And I realize that "normal" people would view my interest in military matters, geography and comparative strength of the fictional Houses of Westeros as just as weird.

This is a timely reminder for me to step out of this twilight zone for a bit lest it drags me down the rabbit hole even more. Whether I will heed my own advice is a different matter, however.

Considering that you have (still?) not read the Dunk & Egg stories you still do qualify as exceedingly 'normal', you know ;-).

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Considering that you have (still?) not read the Dunk & Egg stories you still do qualify as exceedingly 'normal', you know ;-).

Haha.

[The Grey Wolf]

55. TWOIAF lists the Battle of the Burning Mill and the subsequent Capture of Stone Hedge as one event but TPATQ says they were two separate defeats. Which is it, @Ran?

[Ran]

4 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

55. TWOIAF lists the Battle of the Burning Mill and the subsequent Capture of Stone Hedge as one event but TPATQ says they were two separate defeats. Which is it, @Ran?

The wording in TWoIaF will be corrected slightly. The first allowed the latter.

[The Grey Wolf]

13 hours ago, Ran said:

The wording in TWoIaF will be corrected slightly. The first allowed the latter.

Thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind I have another question to ask you @Ran. It says in the Aegon II section of TWOIAF that "Rosby, Stokeworth, and Duskendale fell before him" when describing the lead-up to the Battle of Rook's Rest. Does that mean Ser Criston won victories at Rosby and Stokeworth that were cut from TPATQ?

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind I have another question to ask you @Ran. It says in the Aegon II section of TWOIAF that "Rosby, Stokeworth, and Duskendale fell before him" when describing the lead-up to the Battle of Rook's Rest. Does that mean Ser Criston won victories at Rosby and Stokeworth that were cut from TPATQ?

That actually seems to be the case, considering that the Lords Rosby and Stokeworth were originally Blacks - like all the Crownlanders were - until something made them change their mind. Which, in the end, caused Rhaenyra to execute them when she took the Iron Throne.

Could be that the Lords Rosby and Stokeworth were among the Blacks Ser Otto had imprisoned during the interregnum, with only their sons, brothers, wives defying Aegon II afterwards, but it is also possible they all remained free until they were brought low by the king's army.

Thinking about that, it would be rather interesting to learn who the people were Otto originally imprisoned. With the High Septon himself complaining about the thing there must have been notables among those people. And one wonders whether this kind of preemptive arrest didn't play a huge part in the willingness of half the Realm (or more) to declare for Rhaenyra even after Aegon II had been crowned.

[The Grey Wolf]

56. Where does the surname "Baratheon" come from? Is it Westerosi or Valyrian? Rn I have four ideas:

I. It is the name of an extinct Valyrian (dragonlord?) family that Orys seized for his own usage.
II. It is the surname of Orys's mother.
III. Orys had a wife before Argella and since he didn't have a family name of his own he took her's instead.
IV. Orys literally made it up.
 

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

56. Where does the surname "Baratheon" come from? Is it Westerosi or Valyrian? Rn I have four ideas:

I. It is the name of an extinct Valyrian (dragonlord?) family that Orys seized for his own usage.
II. It is the surname of Orys's mother.
III. Orys had a wife before Argella and since he didn't have a family name of his own he took her's instead.
IV. Orys literally made it up.
 

I don't think we need an answer to that. The best guess would be that it was the name of Orys Baratheon's mother. Or the name of his alleged father, considering that it is just a rumor that he was Aerion Targaryen's son.

The fact that Orys had a family name and not just some bastard's name or recognizable moniker indicates that he inherited said name either from his mother or alleged father. We don't know whether the Targaryens had fallen to the savage Westerosi custom of marking their illegitimate children with bastard names. Orys' mother could thus have been a Baratheon by birth, able to pass her name as if she had been married. Or she may have been married and the whole bastard thing is just a false or wrong rumor.

[Jaak]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Or the name of his alleged father, considering that it is just a rumor that he was Aerion Targaryen's son.

The fact that Orys had a family name and not just some bastard's name or recognizable moniker indicates that he inherited said name either from his mother or alleged father. We don't know whether the Targaryens had fallen to the savage Westerosi custom of marking their illegitimate children with bastard names. Orys' mother could thus have been a Baratheon by birth, able to pass her name as if she had been married. Or she may have been married and the whole bastard thing is just a false or wrong rumor.

Or a well-founded rumour.

After all, we see quite some married household retainers. Winterfell has Vayon Poole with a daughter and Rodrik Cassel also with daughter... though their mothers are not currently around. Podrick Payne´s father was married while squiring for his richer cousins. Etc.

If a lord commits adultery with a wife of his household retainer, it is certainly an abuse, but how much practical recourse does the retainer have? Leave the lord´s service and take his wife along... but he is not assured of getting an equal rank job elsewhere.

So you could have evidence pointing at Orys not being the child of his alleged father... like, different looks (but where is the black hair from? Mother?), or evidence of his alleged father having been away on the lord´s business at the relevant time.