Jump to content

Archived

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

Elessar

Casually smashing a theory to pieces....

Recommended Posts

Well, if everyone could potentially have a drop of dragon's blood, how would we ever know one way or another if dragon riders don't need it?

You didn't answer the question. A number of non-Targaryens managed to ride dragons in the DOD stories, the explanation (true or not) being they were likely dragon seed. What makes you single out Nettles? She isn't any less likely to be dragon seed than the others.

Not everyone has Targ ancestry, it is that particular island or location that had dragon seed.

And we already know that having Targ ancestry alone doesn't automatically draw a dragon to you. Quentyn and the other Hull kid failed. One definitely had Targ ancestry, and the Hull kids are implied to be descended from Laenor or his father, who had Targ ancestry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer the question. A number of non-Targaryens managed to ride dragons in the DOD stories, the explanation (true or not) being they were likely dragon seed. What makes you single out Nettles? She isn't any less likely to be dragon seed than the others.

Not everyone has Targ ancestry, it is that particular island or location that had dragon seed.

And we already know that having Targ ancestry alone doesn't automatically draw a dragon to you. Quentyn and the other Hull kid failed. One definitely had Targ ancestry, and the Hull kids are implied to be descended from Laenor or his father, who had Targ ancestry.

I singled out Nettle for two reasons.

1. She's black. While that doesn't in itself mean she doesn't have dragon blood, I would say that it would serve to make her less likely in than say....Ulf or Hugh to have it. It's also implied that Ulf and Hugh have Targ blood while it's never implied that Nettle does.

2. She tamed Sheepstealer by feeding him sheep, bribing him with food. The others didn't have to do that. Yes, I understand Sheepstealer was wild, but this could mean that while having dragon blood makes you more likely to be able to ride dragons, it's not necessary, especially if you have a large supply of sheep. Essentially, her connection with her dragon came from conditioning, not heredity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I thought, because she is brown. That doesn't have any impact on whether she had Targ ancestry. Brown Ben has Targ ancestry. I don't recall any implication that Hugh and Ulf had Targ ancestry and she didn't. They all came from the same call for dragonseeds. That Nettles brought food in her efforts also says nothing about whether she does or does not have Targ ancestry. There is no good reason to assume she out of all who came out for the dragonseed call was not. We have no way of knowing who was and wasn't (except perhaps the Hulls, one of whom succeeded and one of whom failed but lived).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just as I thought"? Be nice, homie, i wasn't trying to offend you or be rude at all. we're talking about a make believe book.



i thought i gave a couple of good reasons. She doesn't have notable Targaryen features whatsoever, and the dragon doesn't simply take to her without being trained to, and it takes a long time. I don't recall that as having been the case with anyone else.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that brown or black people are less likely to have dragon blood is actually refuted by the books themselves.



One of the mistresses of Aegon the Unworthy, Bellegere Otherys, the famous Black Pearl of Braavos, was black, and her descendants are still alive and kicking in Braavos, and they seem to be black as well.



All the dragonseeds during the Dance are from Dragonstone (Nettles, Hugh, Ulf) or from Driftmark (Addam of Hull, who, as a Velaryon, has dragon blood).



It makes little sense to claim that Nettles is less likely to have Targaryen ancestors than Ulf or Hugh. In fact, no one ever said you have to be a pure-blooded Targaryen to become a dragonrider. Neither Rhaenyra's first three sons, nor Alicent's children were pure-blooded Targaryens. If they can ride dragons, there is no reason to doubt that somebody whose Valyrian dragonlord descendants are as far removed as Quentyn Martell's should not be able to pull of the trick.



Although it may become less likely that all your children will have the ability to become a dragonrider if you don't keep the blood pure - which could be the very reason why Valyrian dragonlord incest began in the first place. But less likely does not mean outright impossible.



The problem with Sheepstealer clearly was the fact that this dragon was not accustomed to the presence of humans before Nettles began her feeding exercise. But the idea that pretty much anyone can claim a dragon just by feeding it is ridiculous.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that brown or black people are less likely to have dragon blood is actually refuted by the books themselves.

One of the mistresses of Aegon the Unworthy, Bellegere Otherys, the famous Black Pearl of Braavos, was black, and her descendants are still alive and kicking in Braavos, and they seem to be black as well.

All the dragonseeds during the Dance are from Dragonstone (Nettles, Hugh, Ulf) or from Driftmark (Addam of Hull, who, as a Velaryon, has dragon blood).

It makes little sense to claim that Nettles is less likely to have Targaryen ancestors than Ulf or Hugh. In fact, no one ever said you have to be a pure-blooded Targaryen to become a dragonrider. Neither Rhaenyra's first three sons, nor Alicent's children were pure-blooded Targaryens. If they can ride dragons, there is no reason to doubt that somebody whose Valyrian dragonlord descendants are as far removed as Quentyn Martell's should not be able to pull of the trick.

Although it may become less likely that all your children will have the ability to become a dragonrider if you don't keep the blood pure - which could be the very reason why Valyrian dragonlord incest began in the first place. But less likely does not mean outright impossible.

The problem with Sheepstealer clearly was the fact that this dragon was not accustomed to the presence of humans before Nettles began her feeding exercise. But the idea that pretty much anyone can claim a dragon just by feeding it is ridiculous.

i don't know how it makes little sense to claim that someone who has no Targaryen features is less likely to have Targaryen blood than someone who does. It makes perfect sense.

As far as you last paragraph, i'm not sure what your find ridiculous, I mean, were talking about a fictional creature that flies and breathes fire. I don't know what rule precludes someone from training one with food, that's generally how animals are trained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought i gave a couple of good reasons. She doesn't have notable Targaryen features whatsoever,

Neither do Rhaenyra's own elder sons, whose Targaryen blood is beyond question! Nor the Black Pearls ditto. Nor Brown Ben Plumm or Sarella Sand (nor all Martells and Sand Snakes, really). Although, in the latter cases their descent from Targaryens was wholly or partly patrilineal, so there is no complete certainty that they actually have the blood ;).

and the dragon doesn't simply take to her without being trained to, and it takes a long time. I don't recall that as having been the case with anyone else.

Nettles was the only one, who managed to bond with a wild, never previously ridden dragon. Of course, it was going to be more complicated than with the others.

OTOH, feeding for a few weeks won't allow you to tame even a feral dog iRL.

It would be an actively bad writing and a huge plot-hole if dragons could be tamed much more easily than dogs, yet, somehow, nobody ever succeeded apart from Valyrians.

Coming back to the thread title, the necessity of Targ/Dragonlord blood can never be proven or disproven. All we know is that the only people without known Targaryen pedigree, who succeeded in becoming the dragonriders were natives of Dragonstone, where Targaryens (and Velaryons) would have been sowing their wild oats for centuries. Everybody not born on Dragonstone failed (and mostly died).

As to the whole paternity stuff of various characters, well, we'll only learn if opportunity was there. Only in case of really prominent figures can one be sure that there absolutely wasn't a chance of them secretly traveling and trysting.

I mean, if Cat never met Tyrion on the road, no history would have mentioned her secret trip to KL, most likely.

And, of course, machinations of plotters from the shadows would seldom become publicly enough known to make their way into historical works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra's eldest three sons all had dark hair and eyes. Bittersteel had dark hair. Baelor Breakspear had dark hair. Robert Baratheon had black hair. Rhaenys took after Elia, who like Oberyn was descended from Daenerys. Jon Snow has dark hair and eyes. And again, Brown Ben. Targ ancestry doesn't automatically mean purple eyes or white hair. There are numerous examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra's eldest three sons all had dark hair and eyes. Bittersteel had dark hair. Baelor Breakspear had dark hair. Robert Baratheon had black hair. Rhaenys took after Elia, who like Oberyn was descended from Daenerys. Jon Snow has dark hair and eyes. And again, Brown Ben. Targ ancestry doesn't automatically mean purple eyes or white hair. There are numerous examples.

I'm not saying that you can't be Targaryen without Targ features. Bittersteel had purple eyes, btw. Rhaenyra's oldest sons were suspected to be fathered by Harwin, making them less Valyrian in looks. And it certainly appears that Martell and Baratheon features often trump Targaryen, but the less you look like something, the less likely you are one, is my point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the thread title, the necessity of Targ/Dragonlord blood can never be proven or disproven. All we know is that the only people without known Targaryen pedigree, who succeeded in becoming the dragonriders were natives of Dragonstone, where Targaryens (and Velaryons) would have been sowing their wild oats for centuries. Everybody not born on Dragonstone failed (and mostly died)..

Wasn't Nettles from the Riverlands?

for some reason i thought so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that you can't be Targaryen without Targ features. Bittersteel had purple eyes, btw. Rhaenyra's oldest sons were suspected to be fathered by Harwin, making them less Valyrian in looks. And it certainly appears that Martell and Baratheon features often trump Targaryen, but the less you look like something, the less likely you are one, is my point

The dragonseed come from Targs and non-Targs. That many of those I mentioned are from unions between a Targ and non-Targ is the point. Rhaegar likely had three children, and two of them favored their dark haired mothers. There is no basis to exclude Nettles from the other dragonseeds. Her color and manner of taming the dragon tell us nothing about whether or not she has Targ ancestry. The dragonseed thing could all just be a story, perhaps none of them have any Targ ancestry except the Hulls, because we have good reason to think they belong to Laenor or his father, but we don't know the truth, and we have no reason to say the others were but Nettles wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What confirms that dragons are much harder to tame than dogs are a number of things:



1. We know from TPatQ and ADwD that a dragonrider can only bond with one dragon. He can only choose or ride another dragon if his dragon has died. That's not true for dogs.



2. As far as we know, only the Valyrians came up with the dragon-bonding and dragon-taming thing. If it is so easy, why the hell did no other civilization in Martinworld tame dragons to use them as weapons in war?



3. Why the hell did other common people not bond with riderless Targaryen dragons (i.e. the three wild dragons and Vermithor, Silverwing, and Seasmoke) prior to the Dance? Why did some Dragonpit guardsman feeding the dragons never try and claim a riderless dragon for himself? Surely this would have happened (and worked) if it had been that easy...



4. Ran himself confirmed more or less explicit that according to his knowledge all known dragonriders had at least a drop of dragonlord blood. It must be the right drop, though, meaning not every person with dragonlord blood can necessarily become a dragonrider, but as far as we know a person without dragonlord has pretty much no chance at all.



But we don't really know yet if this has anything to do with a lasting blood spell the original Valyrians cast (i.e. whether the Valyrians truly have actual 'dragon blood') or if there is some more mundane explanation for this. My personal take on this is that it is very difficult to imagine that magic has nothing to do with the whole dragon-bonding process...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What confirms that dragons are much harder to tame than dogs are a number of things:

1. We know from TPatQ and ADwD that a dragonrider can only bond with one dragon. He can only choose or ride another dragon as long as his dragon is still alive. That's not true for dogs.

2. As far as we know, only the Valyrians came up with the dragon-bonding and dragon-taming thing. If it is so easy, why the hell did no other civilization in Martinworld tame dragons to use them as weapons in war?

3. Why the hell did not other common people bond with riderless Targaryen dragons (i.e. the three wild dragons and Vermithor, Silverwing, and Seasmoke) prior to the Dance? Why did never some Dragonpit guardsman feeding the dragons try and claim a riderless dragon for himself? Surely this would have happened if it had been that easy...

4. Ran himself confirmed more or less explicit that according to his knowledge all known dragonriders had at least a drop of dragonlord blood. It must be the right drop, though, meaning not every person with dragonlord blood can necessarily become a dragonrider, but as far as we know a person without dragonlord has pretty much no chance at all.

But we don't really know yet if this has anything to do with a lasting blood spell the original Valyrians cast (i.e. whether the Valyrians truly have actual 'dragon blood') or if there is some more mundane explanation for this. My personal take on this is that it is very difficult to imagine that magic has nothing to do with the whole dragon-bonding process...

Here is the post where Ran discusses the "right drop" of Valyrian blood needed to ride a dragon: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/112179-why-targaryens-have-actual-dragon-blood/?p=5914080

As for the OP's question, perhaps we'll learn more about the different characters heritage. Namely, that there might have been Stark/Targ marriages in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paper Weaver,



there are way too many clues in that direction, I'm afraid. ADwD pretty much spelled that out for use, with the whole discussion of Brown Ben being liked by Dany's dragons.



However, the whole point of introducing Dragonbinder into the story could be to change the established dragon-bonding rules. Although I'd not expect a complete change of the rules, since it seems to be the case that the Valyrians of old also used magic horns to tame their dragons, so all Dragonbinder might do is to enable another blood line - most likely the Greyjoys - to become dragonriders.



But since we don't know what the whole blood magic think connected to Dragonbinder will do, this is really difficult to say at this point. One of my theories is that Valyrian/dragonlord blood may be needed to use a horn like Dragonbinder properly. The idea that the Valyrians created their magical tools in a way that anyone could use them to steal their dragons does not sound right to me (especially since the fact that Euron took the horn from the Qartheen warlocks strongly suggests that the Qartheen should have been able to acquire dragons from Valyria after they took the horn from them in the distant past - the fact that Qarth apparently never had any dragons - as far as we know - could be a hint that using the horn will be very tricky indeed).



The other thing is that we don't really know yet what Moqorro and the dusky woman - if she is one of Euron's agents - have in store for the future. Even if Dragonbinder could work with Victarion's blood, it is very likely that someone is going to try to sabotage his plans.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be extremely disappointed if that "right drop" thing turns out to be true.

I will be extremely disappointed if it doesn't ;). There has to be an explanation for Valyrian dragonlords having a monopoly on taming dragons and practicing the otherwise harmful incest, that doesn't involve everybody and their dog carrying an idiot ball.

Also, "everybody can achieve anything, if they just try hard enough" is patently false iRL and has no place in the cynical world of ASOIAF, where certain abilities have been already confirmed to be inborn. Like skinchanging and greenseeing. Why should bonding with dragons be different? Just because certain readers hate Targaryens and want to see them as complete idiots and frauds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R+L=J is the logical theory to be disproven, because GRRM has said Jon will find out his parentage in TWOW, revealing R+L=J as false would open up a debate which is currently monopolised by one theory. It could be disproved if Rhaegar is shown to be away from ToJ, for example in KL, for the period 6-12 months before Jon's birth.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×