Jump to content

Are Danny's Dragons an Ultimate Winning Card?


Recommended Posts

The birth of Danny's dragons has been a central topic on the series so far. Nobody can deny the power they represent, or how ahead they place Danny on the race to the Iron Throne. Many characters are rallying to her either to pledge alligance or take her Dragons.



Then we also have the events that took place at Slaver's Bay where Danny, just by the mere possession of the still rather young Drogon, managed to submit a whole city and seize arguably the strongest army in Essos.



If we couple that, with the Conquest of Westeros where Aegon and his wife-sisters conquered the whole continent with just three Dragons, we are kinda led to think that Dragons are a bulletproof winning card.



But that impression somewhat changed, at least in me, after reading George's new Novella "The Princess and the Queen".


The facts about Dragons that stuck to me from the accounts of the Targaryen civil war (AKA "The Dance of the Dragons") are the following:



1) Dragons pose a desproportionate advantage over common armies, where one of them can wipe it out completely.



We have seen this or heard from accounts of this happening way too often. How Balerion the black Dread killed entire armies, or how Vhagar alone rampaged through the Riverlands, etc. We have also seen battles at which the odds were terribly grim, but the reinforcement of a single dragonrider would swoop the tide to the other side.


In spite of that, they can be killed by mere soldiers - even if at a terrible price. It had happened before. We have Meraxes dying in Dorne, Vermax was killed by a sailor's grapple at the Gullet. Stormcloud was killed by a scorpion bolt and arrows. And there is also the common knowledge of the eyes being a weakspot (used to kill the agonizing Tessarion). With all these said, dragons are just tremendously tough, but not invulnerable. The Volantene marines of old were even somewhat trainned to fight them.



2) Dragons clashing against Dragons is bound to end in blood.



We could see how during the Dance of the Dragons they fell like flies when pitted against the other. If we analyze the tactics used to wager the civil war it all came down to who had the most (and biggest) dragons, where armies were just pawns marching about. Every time they fought, at least one of them died - in half of which both perished in a matter of instants, or the winner ended up suffering crippling damage from the encounter. The only cases where this did not happen was when the difference in size was substantial, like when Vaghar fought against the smaller Black's Dragons.


Somewhere around 10 dragons killed eachother in no more than 2 years during the dance.




3) Dragons are far from noble or loyal creatures.



The impression I got from the Novella, is that Dragons are vicious creatures, as opposed to the general dogma of the series "Ice = bad, fire = good". Dragons were prone to wrath and would enter a sort of battle frenzy when angered. They seemed to enjoy destruction and havoc, and were happy to kill and devour anything that crosses their path (even their own kind, like Cannibal!). I got the impression that they were as ruthless and inteligent as sharks, and that only bloodlust drorve them (see Rhaenyra's death by Sunfyre). We see a scene during the second battle at Tumbleton where Vermithor and Seasmoke are fighting to the death, and Tessarion (seemingly neutral to the fight) just barges in into the carnage for no other apparent reason than for the sake of it - and winds up near-dead. So IMO, Dragons are very unpredictable creatures, destructive and chaotic.


We also constatly hear Danny's followers warnings about the wildness of Dragons, but Danny trends to dismiss them... Just like she did when warned against Mirri maz duur... (and I do believe Danny's stubborness and naivety to be her fatal flaws) And I truly think she will pay some price for trying to "humanize" her dragons in her mind as if they were her children (which I think is a sort of grief-driven obsession for losing her child and becoming barren).




I know most people would think this analysis is pointless given that all of the three living Dragons are on one side. But is this strictly true?


First of all, Dragons would only brook one rider each. Kinda like a binding process. By the end of aDwD we see Danny riding Drogon (which was a rather safe bet). But that leaves us with two other riderless Dragons rampaging through Mereen. On top of this, they have never been broken before, and they have not been bound to a rider from birth (in the way Targaryen's of old did before their exctinction). So getting them to be ridden is not likely to be easy. Even Danny herself was attacked at first by Drogon and she only survived for being Unburnt by his flame.



Another scene I'd like to mention, is when the Blacks send a host of Dragonseed volunteers to try and mount the wild dragons of Dragonstone. Just how many perished in the attempt? Plus, we didn't see any sort of merit for honor or virtue when Dragons chose their riders. It seemed rather capricious. After all they chose a drunkard and a murderer. And the odds of being rejected are seriously high, especially from unbroken/wild dragons.



So now I look with different eyes all this speculation about "who will be the other two dragonriders? I think it will be {...insert worthy candidate...}" People claim that the riders could be Jon, Aegon, Ser Barristan, Ser Jorah, Tyrion, Bran, Jaime, etc,etc. Solely for their part on the story, or lineage, or virtue to Danny's cause or their role in the fight against the others. But do we have any guarantee that Danny's Dragons would take them instead of roasting them like they did to Quentyn? Has anyone stopped to consider this? Because being accepted by a dragon as its rider does not seem, to me at least, to be a negligible variable.



Besides, Dragons are not bound to a cause, they are bound to a rider. So what guarantee do we have that once they choose a rider it will not be an enemy, or an ally that would end up betraying Danny and fighting against her and Drogon, just like Hugh Hammer and Ulf White did during the Dance?



And what about Warging a Dragon and pitting him against his brothers? I think that Bran "learning to fly" is pretty much self-explanatory (and no, I dont think BR was talking about crows) so he will eventually warg one. But to fight against whom?


Or what about Euron's Dragon Horn? Victarion is about to reach Mereen with it, and Moqorro is helping him master it and bind it to himself. Valyrian Dragonlords controlled their beast this way, why can't the Ironborn command one of the dragons this way?


And what about Melisandre waking up dragons from stone, or the "flying snake" Summer sees in the ruins of winterfell, or Euron Greyjoy's allegedly lost dragon egg? Or any other dragon eggs just lying about somewhere in Essos/Westeros? After all magic is comming back into the world (see dragonglass candles) and Dragon eggs might just spontaneously start hatching again like they did in the days of old - who knows?



To sum up, i def think that there is possibilty (whether this would happen or not) for dragons to fight each other in the future, - whether its Danny's children or others.



And then there is the unthinkable. If a mob in KL killed FIVE dragons 200 years ago, why can't the commoners of Mereen kill two (smaller, younger and not yet battle-tested) ones in a riot to stop them from further wrecking their city?



I am beginning to doubt all the theories that claim that Danny is Azor Ahai and that her Dragons are Lightbringer. First of all, there are Three, and she can only control One. What will that make the others? Besides, the Dragon is constatly said to have three heads. So the only way I see this theory being fulfilled is if Azor Ahai turns up to be three people instead of one. (which by the way I don't believe, and I firmly believe Jon to be AA/tptwp)



So.. In conclusion, I don't think that Danny's Dragons will turn up to be the Absolute, Impervious, Bulletproof winning card that people trend to make them.


And, as I elaborated, I see many possibilities:



First, they can be killed. Whether it is done among themselves, by other dragons o simply by brave (or many) men.


Second, They can be "stolen" or taken by her enemies and rivals.


Third, Rhaegal and Viserion may never be tamed at all.



i would like to hear people's opinions on this. This does not mean that I think that any of thse things will necesarily happen. This is a kinda "realistic" point of view on all the possibilities regarding her dragons and a more down-to-earth assessment of the truer power and implication of them. Of course there is also their relevance on the plot, and they surely are instruments that have a fixed role to play in the ending in George's head.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

My few questions, and answers?

What would be one of the worst possible things to happen, for the sake of the game of thrones in Westeros?
A dragon on the side of the ironborn, which gets to Westeros before Dany does.

What would be the worst thing to happen, for the battle for the dawn in Westeros?
A dragon on the side of the Others.

Now, remind me what are the words of the Ironborn's Drowned God again?
"What is dead may never die, but rises again harder and stronger"

What, like the dead themselves are rising, and harder to kill than previously?
Exactly. So the first two answers look suspiciously like they could be one and the same.

Now who's out there in Meereen, about to encounter two wild, uncontrolled, untamed dragons, and in possession of a horn that is said to control them?
Victarion, prince of the Ironborn, and brother to the horn's last owner, King Euron of the ironborn.

The same Euron who has a couple of captive warlocks, the Warlocks of the House of the *Undying*?
Precisely. And now you come to think of it, all of this whole "undying" and "may never die" stuff begins to look very suspicious.

Didn't Moqorro recently say to Tyrion that one of the greatest threats that was coming to dany was "A tall and twisted thing with one black eye and ten long arms, sailing on a sea of blood." A one-eyed kraken - Euron is from the kraken house, and one-eyed.
This is beginning to sound VERY worrying, isn't it?

Now remind me just who is the author of this story, and why "the worst thing that could possibly happen" tends to happen?
Erm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JLE excellent insight! I had never thought about the "what it is dead many never die" connection.


It relates perfectly with what Mel says about the "Drowned God" and how he is a demon and a servant of the Great Other.


I too,Def feel that the horn is there for a reason and that something wil happen between the dragons and the ironborn.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dragons will rise from the dead and be able to breathe fire and fly. If the do rise, they would be white walkers/wights and still just don't see it happening.



JLE: Yes the Euron prophecy about the one-eyed Kraken and his ten long arms is interesting and points at the Crow eye, but he stayed in Westeros and Victarion sailed to Meereen. If he does contral a dragon it would be Viserion, just the two names are so similar he would never be able to tame Rhaegal.



If you recall in the ASOS, Dany has a dream when she is riding on the back of Drogon, to the Trident and their she faces the Usurper's army, but instead of it being a normal army they are covered in Ice. This will be the great battle that will decide the fate of Westeros, Stannis is the new Usurper and after dying by the hand of the White Walkers or Ramsey Snow (he will never be a bolton), he will become the Great White Walker and lead the army south.



OP/ Sea Snake: No I agree, dragons are not the end all of war, the dornish were able to survive the Aegon the Conqueror, and after that defeated other Tagaryen kings who tried to make Dorne part of the Kingdom, and only joined when a marriage was brokered.


Upon saying that, remember Tyrion talking with Aegon on the boat during ADWD, he tells him to keep his dragons close, yet in the end not using the dragons is why aegon loses the game of Cyvasse. That is my belief with dragons, they are perfect creatures to have for war, extremely difficult to kill and currently there are only 3, but with that being said, if Drogon and Dany ever have to fight another dragon (rhaegal or viserion) the situation has changed and yes after that the dragons will lose importance. The Princess and the Queen was a great read but the situational difference between then and now, with the long winter creeping closer, you may see all three dragons returning to Westeros only to die in the snow.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...