[tPatQ Spoilers] The Curious Case of Byron Swann

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

First off, I have no good idea what the significance of this would be, unless it's to show that Tyrion is less learned than he thinks he is. I suppose it could also have some foreshadowing where Balon is involved.

The "official" story is that Ser Byron Swann tried to kill Vhagar with a mirror shield and failed, and the dragon killed him. Tyrion says no, it was Syrax. Swann's squire said it was Syrax in a letter, and because House Swann was a vassal of Storm's End, and Storm's End was for Aegon, Byron should have no reason to want to kill Vhagar.

But there are some nitpicks with this.

First off, even though the incident isn't even touched upon in the novella (which is curious in and of itself), we are explicitly and repeatedly told that Rhaenyra does not send Syrax into battle, ever. The dragon stays on Dragonstone and then takes up a specially made residence inside the Red Keep. She isn't even kept in the pit with the other dragons. When and where is Byron supposed to have ETA: attempted to kill her?

Meanwhile Aemond rides Vhagar all the hell over the place and is regularly in contact with soldiers. If it's a matter of access, even if only to fail, then Vhagar makes far and away the most sense.

Then you have Tyrion's conclusion that because Storm's End was for Aegon, Byron Swann had no reason to try to kill Vhagar. But what do we see the Swanns of the present time do? They play both sides. Balon is embedded with Joffrey and Donnel serves Renly, and then Stannis, and yields to Joffrey only when he's taken prisoner. If historical incidents can be used to find parallel characteristics of a house (e.g. the Freys taking part in treachery at a wedding in D&E), then can the present strategy of the Swanns suggest that the Swanns in the DotD era employed the same tactic? Meaning, one or more sons might have been with the blacks, and one or more might have been with the greens. And while Storm's End was technically pro-Aegon, I don't recall seeing the stormlanders named as primary combatants in any major battles (as opposed to Hightowers and Lannisters for the greens), and the Stormlands also had ties to Rhaenys. We also see that not every Reach house, for instance, backs Aegon just because the Hightowers do, so why is Tyrion assuming that the Swanns will stick by Storm's End?

Finally, you have the letter from the squire saying, "Syrax killed Byron." Rhaenyra lost. Because she lost, the Swanns have a reason to retroactively say Byron died fighting her dragon. But if Byron died fighting Vhagar, is that something they'd want to admit or make public since the greens won? What I'm getting at is, if Rhaenyra had won, would the letter say that Byron had died fighting Syrax, or fighting Vhagar?

As for foreshadowing with Balon, if he survives his encounter with Darkstar, he could find himself in the middle of the new blacks and the new greens. I'd be curious to see if something similar happens: Balon is killed fighting against one side but it's retconned to say he fought for the other.

[Wmarshal]

I think this shows Tyrion does not know everthing and that the history of the war has changed over years.

[Dead Wolf]

Rhaenyra may have died, but the blacks won the war. Aegon III wouldnt have become king if they hadn't. Aegon II's restoration endured only half a year. Aemond refused several times to join his power to that of the storm lords, so how could Byron have tried to kill Vhagar if there were no storm lords present when the Kinslayer marched? The Arryk vs. Erryk fight was omitted, but we know it happened when Grand Maester Orwyle went to Dragonstone with Arryk to offer terms to Rhaenyra. The blacks held KL for months before things went to shit, which is plenty of time for Byron to go to KL pretending to repent for his treason and try to kill Syrax.

[Aerys Ahai Reborn]

As for foreshadowing with Balon, if he survives his encounter with Darkstar, he could find himself in the middle of the new blacks and the new greens. I'd be curious to see if something similar happens: Balon is killed fighting against one side but it's retconned to say he fought for the other.

I just want to say that if Balon survives whatever the hell is up with him going after Darkstar, then I think he might end up as a dragonslayer. He came second in the archery at the Hand's Tournament, so I think that detail might be significant later, with him shooting an arrow through a dragon's eye. (Or it might have just been a way for GRRM to make us familiar with his name :dunno: )

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Rhaenyra may have died, but the blacks won the war. Aegon III wouldnt have become king if they hadn't. Aegon II's restoration endured only half a year. Aemond refused several times to join his power to that of the storm lords, so how could Byron have tried to kill Vhagar if there were no storm lords present when the Kinslayer marched? The Arryk vs. Erryk fight was omitted, but we know it happened when Grand Maester Orwyle went to Dragonstone with Arryk to offer terms to Rhaenyra. The blacks held KL for months before things went to shit, which is plenty of time for Byron to go to KL pretending to repent for his treason and try to kill Syrax.

True, but it also depends on when Byron's squire wrote the letter. Could have been after Rhaenyra died but before Aegon III was crowned. It's also funny how the blacks ultimately won but didn't go back to rewrite history to make Rhaenyra a queen. Aegon II said she was to be referred to only as a princess, and it seems to have stuck. But that's another topic.

My point is, Tyrion's rationale isn't rock solid by any means. "Storm's End was for Aegon" is weak sauce when the Tarlys and Costaynes are fighting for Rhaenyra even though the Hightowers and Tyrells appear to have sided together for Aegon.

[nekrohsis]

Or you could argue that the writer of TPATQ (Maester whomever) left out the information about Syrax going to Dorne, as he had a vested interest in portraying Rhaenyra as an unfit queen who was too paranoid to fight. It's clear the story is biased against her--look at how the Iron Throne was said to cut her. Tyrion has information from a primary source, but TPATQ is secondary and written much later than the letter Tyrion read. I'd say Tyrion's information is more likely to be accurate than TPATQ.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Or you could argue that the writer of TPATQ (Maester whomever) left out the information about Syrax going to Dorne, as he had a vested interest in portraying Rhaenyra as an unfit queen who was too paranoid to fight. It's clear the story is biased against her--look at how the Iron Throne was said to cut her. Tyrion has information from a primary source, but TPATQ is secondary and written much later than the letter Tyrion read. I'd say Tyrion's information is more likely to be accurate than TPATQ.

While I agree that the narrative is biased against Rhaenyra (which is also interesting seeing as the blacks ultimately "won"), if something as major as Syrax's participation in the fighting has been completely fabricated, then the entire novella is open to question.

Tyrion has information, yes, but is it accurate? Tyrion reads and reads and reads, but the information he takes in is only as valuable as its accuracy.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

True, but it also depends on when Byron's squire wrote the letter. Could have been after Rhaenyra died but before Aegon III was crowned. It's also funny how the blacks ultimately won but didn't go back to rewrite history to make Rhaenyra a queen. Aegon II said she was to be referred to only as a princess, and it seems to have stuck. But that's another topic.

My point is, Tyrion's rationale isn't rock solid by any means. "Storm's End was for Aegon" is weak sauce when the Tarlys and Costaynes are fighting for Rhaenyra even though the Hightowers and Tyrells appear to have sided together for Aegon.

I think Tyrion made an assumption, which proved itself wrong with the TPATQ as a source. He probably made a mistake.

About Rhaenyra, I think after the Dance, there was a movement that tried to stop a possible future war by setting to stone the succession laws and therefore, had they returned to make Rhaenyra Queen, the succession would return to it's usual uncertain ways. They simply never rewrote it to avoid a Second Dance, in my humble opinion. And Rhaenyra's whole description reminds me of similar descriptions given to Matilda when she took London. A biased account to "prove" that women weren't capable of ruling.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And Rhaenyra's whole description reminds me of similar descriptions given to Matilda when she took London. A biased account to "prove" that women weren't capable of ruling.

Yep. And the DotD is basically a rehash of Matilda and Stephen's civil war, except they were cousins and not siblings. Even has the same outcome: male claimant wins but the female claimant's son ultimately inherits.

[BaleTheGuard]

Excellent post, OP. House Swann potentially playing both sides in the DotD, with two brothers supporting different sides to ensure the survival of the house during a civil war, very much reminds me of the brothers William and Thomas Stanley during the War of the Roses. They definitely employed a similar tactic throughout the civil war that GRRM has often admitted to drawing inspiration from, including being one of the decisive factors in determining the Battle of Bosworth Field, which opened the door for Henry VII's reign.

Anyway, that's enough of a history lesson. Let's get back to the material in the post.

Throughout reading TPatQ, I was often struck by the feeling that the entirety of the realm was quite reluctantly dragged into the Targaryen civil war. The open fighting only really started after Aemond killed Lucerys. Even after that, the numbers of men reported to be fighting on the battlefield are much, much lower than those reported during the WoT5K, which takes place less than 200 years later. I wonder if there's any reason for this, beyond the simple explanation that there are less people in Westeros in 111 AL than in 298 or even 282 (Robert's Rebellion)?

[Fire Eater]

First off, even though the incident isn't even touched upon in the novella (which is curious in and of itself), we are explicitly and repeatedly told that Rhaenyra does not send Syrax into battle, ever. The dragon stays on Dragonstone and then takes up a specially made residence inside the Red Keep. She isn't even kept in the pit with the other dragons. When and where is Byron supposed to have killed her?

Byron Swann isn't described as having slain Syrax.

It is possible as you said that the Swanns employed a tactic used by many noble houses in having a son fight on either side of the conflict so the family survives no matter who wins.

I have thought of Balon in the second Dance of Dragons as well. He is sworn to Tommen, but Cersei likely already isolated him by sending on a mission to have a child killed, and when Tommen dies while he is still in Dorne or the Stormlands, Swann swore no vow to Myrcella, He may see Aegon as a breath of fresh air after Cersei. I think he will pledge fealty to Aegon, and fight alongside him in the DoD 2.0. He may try something similar and get roasted for his efforts.

[sertravisredbeard]

We know some dragons have more than one rider. One of the blacks might have gotten ahold of Syrax after Rhaenyra died and employed her in continuing the war. That kind of raises more questions though, since if Aegon II controlled most of of Rhaenyra's companions, how did Syrax get away? Throughout the story we're kind of shown how the dragons do whatever they want. Syrax probably wandered off like Sunfyre(?) did, then another rider found her and bonded with her. Hell, Syrax could have ended up killing Aegon II for killing Rhaenyra in the first case of emotionally charged dragon rage. We don't know how Aegon II died yet.

Not knowing the exact fates of Aegon II and Criston Cole, as well as the details of the Arryk/Erryk fight were almost the only things I didn't like about TPATQ.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Byron Swann isn't described as having slain Syrax.

It is possible as you said that the Swanns employed a tactic used by many noble houses in having a son fight on either side of the conflict so the family survives no matter who wins.

I have thought of Balon in the second Dance of Dragons as well. He is sworn to Tommen, but Cersei likely already isolated him by sending on a mission to have a child killed, and when Tommen dies while he is still in Dorne or the Stormlands, Swann swore no vow to Myrcella, He may see Aegon as a breath of fresh air after Cersei. I think he will pledge fealty to Aegon, and fight alongside him in the DoD 2.0. He may try something similar and get roasted for his efforts.

Yes, that's my mistake and what I get for typing too fast. You know what I mean though.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

We know some dragons have more than one rider. One of the blacks might have gotten ahold of Syrax after she died and employed her in continuing the war. That kind of raises more questions though, since if Aegon II controlled most of of Rhaenyra's companions, how did Syrax get away? Throughout the story we're kind of shown how the dragons do whatever they want. Syrax probably wandered off like Sunfyre(?) did, then another rider found her and bonded with her. Hell, Syrax could have ended up killing Aegon II for killing Rhaenyra in the first case of emotionally charged dragon rage. We don't know how Aegon II died yet.

Not knowing the exact fates of Aegon II and Criston Cole, as well as the details of the Arryk/Erryk fight were almost the only things I didn't like about TPATQ.

Syrax died the night the dragonpit was stormed. And Cole died fighting in the ambush around the Gods Eye.

[Fire Eater]

Yes, that's my mistake and what I get for typing too fast. You know what I mean though.

I do.

I think Tyrion saying Byron Swann was roasted by Rhaenyra's dragon, Syrax, could foreshadow Dany roasting Balon with Drogon, or if you go the route of Vhagar, the likely white dragon. who was ridden by the Kinslayer, then it could be Tyrion's mount, Viserion.

[House Pintur]

I can easily see a younger Swann brother/cousin going off on his own looking for his own glory in the war. Like you said Apple from what we know the Stormlands didn't really mobilize their troops anywhere. A young knight eager to go into battle might of got tired of waiting and went off to join a side on their own.

[sertravisredbeard]

Oops my bad I forgot about that part. I remembered Cole getting killed, but I figured they'd talk about who exactly got him since he was the Lord Commander and the "Kingmaker."

I'll go with the Swanns not being completely loyal then like you said in the OP. Byron Swann could have died trying to kill either one of them, and it's an example of how history is muddled, even concerning major events.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'll go with the Swanns not being completely loyal then like you said in the OP. Byron Swann could have died trying to kill either one of them, and it's an example of how history is muddled, even concerning major events.

I think it could go either way, and maybe that's the point. I guess my overall argument is that "because Tyrion says so" doesn't make something fact. :P

[sertravisredbeard]

On the note of past family members foreshadowing their relatively current day members' actions, do you think the Dustin-Hightower fight in PATQ foreshadows Dustin being at the Tower of Joy? In both fights members of both families died. I'm hoping some of Howland Reed's revelations will be that Willam Dustin died killing the White Bull Gerold Hightower, like Roddy the Ruin went down taking out Lord Ormond Hightower.

I brought it up on a foreshadowing thread but no one else has mentioned it since I posted.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

On the note of past family members foreshadowing their relatively current day members' actions, do you think the Dustin-Hightower fight in PATQ foreshadows Dustin being at the Tower of Joy? In both fights members of both families died. I'm hoping some of Howland Reed's revelations will be that Willam Dustin died killing the White Bull Gerold Hightower, like Roddy the Ruin went down taking out Lord Ormond Hightower.

I brought it up on a foreshadowing thread but no one else has mentioned it since I posted.

That would be interesting, and I could see it. I feel like a lot of this stuff really is cyclic.