Would you like a Targ back on the Throne?

[Winter Crow]

I think that at some point in ACoK they say that Aegon the Conqueror landed on Dragon Stone with about a thousand Valyrians. I don't know if any details besides that is given.

Dragons inbreeding... I guess it actually wouldn't take as large a toll on their DNA as it does on human DNA, if they have the same basic DNA as animals that is. If not, then the thought of inbreeding between them would actually be a valid explanation for the weakening of the dragons, although I'm still thinking that it's the Maesters' work.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1611825' date='Dec 7 2008, 16.24']I think that at some point in ACoK they say that Aegon the Conqueror landed on Dragon Stone with about a thousand Valyrians. I don't know if any details besides that is given.[/quote]

That sounds about right.

[quote]Dragons inbreeding... I guess it actually wouldn't take as large a toll on their DNA as it does on human DNA, if they have the same basic DNA as animals that is.[/quote]

Human DNA is basically animal DNA, since we're animals with brains. Why would it have less effect on them?

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1611947' date='Dec 8 2008, 00.03']Human DNA is basically animal DNA, since we're animals with brains. Why would it have less effect on them?[/quote]

Animals have brains too :)

I think animals in general try to avoid inbreeding (at least in our world). Lions come to mind. I think all male lions, when their old enough to breed they go leave their pride to find one of their own, to specifically avoid the inbreeding deal. Not sure bout the females though... I imagine that it would have similar effects on animals as it does humans.

[Kimera757]

[quote name='DomDayne' post='1612026' date='Dec 7 2008, 21.22']Animals have brains too :)

I think animals in general try to avoid inbreeding (at least in our world). Lions come to mind. I think all male lions, when their old enough to breed they go leave their pride to find one of their own, to specifically avoid the inbreeding deal. Not sure bout the females though... I imagine that it would have similar effects on animals as it does humans.[/quote]

I can't think of any animal that deliberately engages in inbreeding. (There's a few that do so regularly, like termites and naked mole rats, but that's only because travel is so dangerous for them.) Plants, on the other hand...

Ground squirrels go to great lengths to avoid inbreeding, for instance. Males who have successfully mated will leave the area, as next year, some of the young females might be their own daughters (and they can't tell). Alas, traveling is dangerous for them. It's actually safer not to breed, but obviously they can't pass their genes on that way.

[Winter Crow]

Wow, I was completely wrong...
I always thought that inbreeding damaged our cellular tissue and our DNA, and that it took an especially large toll on humans becuase we have more kromosones than animals (or something like that, I'm really no biologist).
But I checked the topic a little and in seems that inbreeding also is bad to animals, so I must admit that the dragons' weakening caused by inbreeding theory actually sounds very plausible.

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1612503' date='Dec 8 2008, 15.38']But I checked the topic a little and in seems that inbreeding also is bad to animals, so I must admit that the dragons' weakening caused by inbreeding theory actually sounds very plausible.[/quote]

It is an interesting theory, and could well be true. Seems to fit from the Targ point of veiw as well, there are a lot of dogs and things that take after their owners, Maybe this to... I wonder if there's anything in the books that maybe references it?

[Winter Crow]

The common sideeffects of inbreeding (acording to Wikipedia):
* Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* Increased genetic disorders.
* Fluctuating facial asymmetry.
* Lower birth rate.
* Higher infant mortality.
* Slower growth rate.
* Smaller adult size.
* Loss of immune system function.
Doesn't that fit pretty well on the late dragons? I can't quite remember myself, and I don't have the books on me.

[The Garlic Knight]

crasters daughters must have been the most weak in the dna then yes?

[DomDayne]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1612681' date='Dec 8 2008, 18.21']The common sideeffects of inbreeding (acording to Wikipedia):
* Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* Increased genetic disorders.
* Fluctuating facial asymmetry.
* Lower birth rate.
* Higher infant mortality.
* Slower growth rate.
* Smaller adult size.
* Loss of immune system function.
Doesn't that fit pretty well on the late dragons? I can't quite remember myself, and I don't have the books on me.[/quote]

Not so sure about the fluctuating facial asymmetry in Dragons... don't remember any thing like that. But Loss of immune system, slower growth rate, smaller adult size, all seem pretty consistant with the books IIFC...

[Child of the Forest]

[quote name='The Garlic Knight' post='1612706' date='Dec 8 2008, 13.40']crasters daughters must have been the most weak in the dna then yes?[/quote]

It generally takes more than one generation for inbreeding to cause problems. If Craster was marrying his grandaughters and great-grandaughters, there might be a problem.

-Child of the Forest

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Child of the Forest' post='1613114' date='Dec 8 2008, 20.24']It generally takes more than one generation for inbreeding to cause problems.[/quote]

No it doesn't. There were arguments about this a while back, when a real-life German couple found out they were full siblings (they'd been adopted, and somehow managed to overlook the resemblance). They had had four kids, and one was mentally retarded, one had learning disabilities and the other two were normal, which matched the approximately 50% chance of such a union of creating serious problems. (Some problems, like the weaker immune system and assymetric faces, are unavoidable, and [b]will[/b] be suffered. Other issues, like complete sterility, take a lot of damage to manifest.)

[quote]If Craster was marrying his grandaughters and great-grandaughters, there might be a problem.[/quote]

I believe he was marrying his granddaughters!

On another note, assymetric faces aren't very obvious. However, the most beautiful women (and men like Brad Pitt) have very symmetric faces; the effect is mostly unconscious.

I don't know about faces, but fruit flies tend to have varying numbers of bristles on one side of the body compared to the other when they come from highly inbred lines. (You can actually count this, so it's a much more objective measure.)

[Child of the Forest]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1613131' date='Dec 8 2008, 19.37']No it doesn't. There were arguments about this a while back, when a real-life German couple found out they were full siblings. They had had four kids, and one was mentally retarded, one had learning disabilities and the other two were normal, which matched the approximately 50% chance of such a union of creating serious problems. (Some problems, like the weaker immune system and assymetric faces, are unavoidable, and will be suffered.)[/quote]

I'm sure you can find exceptions, where a simple recessive single-gene trait is present, but historically such a single inbreeding cross seem to rarely cause problems. On top of this, it may be that incest goes back further in such families than people realize.

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1613131' date='Dec 8 2008, 19.37']I believe he was marrying his granddaughters![/quote]

But the text never says so. If we knew how long he'd been at it, we might have a better guess.

-Child of the Forest

[Kimera757]

[quote name='Child of the Forest' post='1613137' date='Dec 8 2008, 20.44']I'm sure you can find exceptions, where a simple recessive single-gene trait is present, but historically such a single inbreeding cross seem to rarely cause problems.[/quote]

That's quite wrong, and exactly what made this kind of topic flamey the last time. (Too many people saying "it's not that bad" as if a 50% rate of birth defects is a mild little thing.) I would suggest doing research on this if you're interested. I'm more than a little tired of making the same arguments over and over again.

[quote]On top of this, it may be that incest goes back further in such families than people realize.[/quote]

They weren't raised as an incestuous family. They were orphans who just had horrible luck.

[Chalkobob]

As much as all this talk of incest causing DNA problems applies in reality, GRRM has said genes work differently in his westeros world, and incest doesn't cause these problems, hence why Targs have inbred themselves since they arrived at westeros without any side-effect except possibly insanity in some, which is better than legitimate incestuous defects that occur in real life.

[El-ahrairah]

I am torn between my loyalty to House Stark and my longing for the (relative) stability under the Blood of the Dragon. The ideal situation in my mind would be a Stark as King in the North and a Targaryen as King in the South. However, I also like the idea of a Targaryen as High King and the seven lesser kings (and one prince) reigning underneath, with local autonomy.

[Shea]

You know, that was one thing I always wondered about--how the heck has the Targaryen line survived after 300 years of inbreeding? Shouldn't Daenerys have been born mentally retarded with like, no hair or something?

[Kimera757]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1627072' date='Dec 21 2008, 01.45']I am torn between my loyalty to House Stark and my longing for the (relative) stability under the Blood of the Dragon. The ideal situation in my mind would be a Stark as King in the North and a Targaryen as King in the South. However, I also like the idea of a Targaryen as High King and the seven lesser kings (and one prince) reigning underneath, with local autonomy.[/quote]

I don't know why the Targaryens are seen as a source of stability. They were stable at the beginning, but things went from good to bad to good to bad, etc. There were civil wars, and let's not forget the prime source of power, dragons, slowly weakening and dying out. And then there was the "flip a coin" madness. That situation couldn't last.

In real life, dynasties very rarely last more than 200 years. (Of course, the Stark dynasty lasted thousands of years; ASOIAF is quite different from real life.) Still, I see no reason why another dynasty couldn't rule with the same kind of stability. At present, the political forces are struggling, as no one has the key to reconquering all of Westeros. This applies to Danaerys as well; she currently only has three partly-grown dragons.

[quote name='Shea' post='1627126' date='Dec 21 2008, 03.57']You know, that was one thing I always wondered about--how the heck has the Targaryen line survived after 300 years of inbreeding? Shouldn't Daenerys have been born mentally retarded with like, no hair or something?[/quote]

Read up on the Ptolemy dynasty of Alexandrian Egypt. They lasted a fairly long time with the same list of problems. They probably survived because they didn't inbreed every generation, but "only" most of the time. Of course, they ended up being really fragile. Cleopatra (the famous one, there were lots of others) and her father were less inbred than the rest of the family (the father was a bastard descendant of the Mithridates family) and both tried to change things. However, both were too late and Alexandria fell to the Romans.

The Targaryens, to the best of my knowledge, sometimes didn't. Then again, I vaguely recall reading that Rhaegar didn't marry his sister only because he didn't have a sister to marry. (Technically he could have married Danaerys, but fortunately he was grown up at the time.)

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Winter Crow' post='1611825' date='Dec 7 2008, 15.24']I think that at some point in ACoK they say that Aegon the Conqueror landed on Dragon Stone with about a thousand Valyrians. I don't know if any details besides that is given.[/quote]
I definitely don't remember any such thing.In fact we've only been given a grand total of [i]three[/i] Valyrian families that were part of the Conquest: Targaryen, Velaryon, and Qoherys.

There may have been something about the Conqueror starting a thousand [i]men[/i], but that's a very different thing from a thousand Valyrians. It's quite probable that the non-Valyrian Narrow Sea houses like Celtigar and Sunglass would have been included, if they fell under Targ sway before the Conquest (it would make sense to start small before going for the really big prize). Not to mention who knows how many slaves or ex-slaves from the mining days at Dragonstone.

From the descriptions of the Kindly Old Man, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Valyrians themselves were a small minority of the population of their own empire, the bulk being captured slaves from other lands.

[Krafus]

[quote name='Kimera757' post='1627282' date='Dec 21 2008, 11.25']I don't know why the Targaryens are seen as a source of stability. They were stable at the beginning, but things went from good to bad to good to bad, etc. There were civil wars, and let's not forget the prime source of power, dragons, slowly weakening and dying out. And then there was the "flip a coin" madness. That situation couldn't last.[/quote]

The Targaryens were indeed a source of stability for the Seven Kingdoms - just look at the huge demographic increase the kingdom has had since the Conquest. At the Field of Fire, the Kings of Reach and Rock [i]combined[/i] only fielded 50k men. Nowadays, the Tyrells can by themselves field 80k, and raise some 10-20k more if necessary.

The key factor here is that Targaryen rule brought an end to the numerous wars, small and great, that the Seven Kingdoms fought with each other. IIRC, there's a mention somewhere that every generation, 3-4 of the Seven Kingdoms were at war.

Granted, there's been three major civil wars fought during the Targaryens' rule (the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion). Still, if we say that the Targaryens ruled about 280 years, that's an average of about one major war every three generations - plenty of time for populations (and commerce) to recover and thrive anew once a particular large-scale war was over.

[Rinso]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1627496' date='Dec 21 2008, 19.44']Granted, there's been three major civil wars fought during the Targaryens' rule (the Dance of the Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, and Robert's Rebellion). Still, if we say that the Targaryens ruled about 280 years, that's an average of about one major war every three generations - plenty of time for populations (and commerce) to recover and thrive anew once a particular large-scale war was over.[/quote]
And let's not forget the Conquest - I'm sure that many people died during it too.
Or the bloody botch that Daeron I made of his conquest of Dorne. It took the lives of around 60 000 people.
And, I admit, on a smaller scale, the troubles that Aenys and Maegor had with the Faith. During these early times of the Targaryen dynasty, Maegor earned his nickname "The Cruel".
Or the War of the Ninepenny Kings. Sure, it wasn't some disaster and it even wasn't fought in Westeros, but still, people died too. And it still was linked with the fact that every time some horrible shit happened to Westeros, the Targaryens were part of it one way or another.