Daily Facts of Ice and Fire

[Free Northman Reborn]

Moondancer

See my edit, where I added my speculation about the timeline involved in the various ownership changes of Bear Island.

[Jaak]

Are we ever told Woodfeet were Stark vassals?

A surprise in the World of Ice and Fire was that last Red King, I think Rodrik Bolton the Huntsman, bent knee to Starks as early as before Andal arrival 6000 years ago. Well, the Rape of Sisters was only 2000 years ago - the Starks, despite having founded White Harbour millennia ago, left the Sisters alone for millennia.

So, specifically when did Starks subdue Bear Isle? Did they conquer Woodfeet before the Ironmen, or were Woodfeet independent till conquered by Ironmen, and Roderik Stark was the first Stark to rule Bear Isle?

[Free Northman Reborn]

The wiki lists them as vassals of House Stark.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Also on this topic, the Wiki chronology of Stark Kings is riddled with errors. I have raised it on the Wiki error thread before, but without apparent effect.

For example, they list Brandon the Shipwright as living very close to Brandon the Builder's time, when in fact he and his son lived within the last 1000 years, and is listed in the order of statues far more recently than Kings like Jon Stark who founded the Wolf's Den or Theon Stark the Hungry Wolf, or Edrick Snowbeard, whose great grandson Brandon drove the slavers from the Wolf's Den many centuries after it was founded, but many centuries before the Manderlys arrived 1000 years ago.

[Lord Knightmare]

Also on this topic, the Wiki chronology of Stark Kings is riddled with errors. I have raised it on the Wiki error thread before, but without apparent effect.

For example, they list Brandon the Shipwright as living very close to Brandon the Builder's time, when in fact he and his son lived within the last 1000 years, and is listed in the order of statues far more recently than Kings like Jon Stark who founded the Wolf's Den or Theon Stark the Hungry Wolf, or Edrick Snowbeard, whose great grandson Brandon drove the slavers from the Wolf's Den many centuries after it was founded, but many centuries before the Manderlys arrived 1000 years ago.

You do know that you can edit the Wiki yourself, see an error fix it :)

[Free Northman Reborn]

I did not know that. I'll try to log in and do so.

[DMC]

Please, that comparison of dragons to nukes should really be stopped. If dragons are the equivalent to anything in our real world, than it's fighter aircraft. They share a lot more advantages and disadvantages with each other than dragons and nukes.

K, didn't know the correlation between dragons and nukes was such a sensitive subject (also had no idea it is apparently so prevalent, but I guess I shoulda known better there). In actuality, I was not directly equating the two - I used nukes as an example of something that's been against international norms, along with biological and chemical weapons. And frankly, I agree that the comparison is faulty in some ways, although not in the way in which you do. My problem has more to do with that fact that while dragons are clearly a finite resource in the history of Planetos that we know of, nuclear weapons really aren't.

The Dance really helps in demonstrating that conflict between powers with dragons results more in the destruction of the weapon as opposed to the people, as Dragons soon became extinct while the Westerosi people, comparatively, came out all right. Whereas aggressive nuclear warfare would undoubtedly result in a near extinction of the human race, but probably not the weapon itself. This is due to the arms race and subsequent proliferation among powers (Russia's bomb begot China's, China's begot India's, India's begot Pakistan's...) This is despite the now nearly 40-year effort at disarmament. This is why your following post mentioning the fact that having nukes doesn't mean victory is hilariously ironic - that was my point!

Due to the appropriately insane rationale of MAD, the Cold War and now other nuclear powers have established a norm of not using such weapons in any conflict, just as they did after WWI in regards to chemical and biological weapons. While this is certainly derived from realpolitik, that self-interest is in and of itself based on the asymmetric damage such weapons can inflict on a citizenry compared to conventional weapons. This is how nukes equate to weaponized dragons - the asymmetrical destruction capabilities. As I said, there's is no valid comparison to such a weapon in the middle-ages, again unless you wanna stretch it to heavy artillery. Thus, the only applicable real-world comparison we have renders Aegon as clearly violating international norms and acting as an indefensible warlord. (And yes, if you're following my line of reasoning, I do consider Harry Truman to be a war criminal). The type of destruction inflicted at the Field of Fire historically would be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan or perhaps Hannibal at Carthage (which Martin provides an equivalence of with Valyria's treatment of Old Ghis).

Also, your comparison of dragons to 'fighter aircraft' is patently spurious, or at least too vague (and inaccurate) of a definition. While IR isn't my field, I can speak with some authority on the subject. What I think you're referring to is bombers as fighters connotes air-to-air combat, which would not be the context of Aegon's conquering. Anyway, bombers are comparatively ubiquitous, as are the anti-aircraft weaponry used to defend against them. While underdeveloped nations or groups usually cannot acquire anti-aircraft capabilities independently, there are examples of competing powers providing them due to this ubiquity. In the 80s, the US equipped the Mujahideen to ward off the Soviets in Afghanistan. Very recently, Russia likely did the same for Ukranian separatists in the conflict in Crimea. In fact, this is a large part of the rationale for the use of drones. Clearly, bombers have little value when comparing to a belligerent with dragons against a defending party without dragons.

Honestly, if I were to suggest an apt comparison in the real world, it'd be ICBM's. The recent conflict in Libya demonstrated that while publicly Obama and the US 'led from behind,' it was apparent the US were the only ones with an adequate arsenal of ICBM's to clear the way for ground forces. This sounds like the capacity and advantage of the Targaryen three-headed dragon during AC.

[Moondancer]

Moondancer

See my edit, where I added my speculation about the timeline involved in the various ownership changes of Bear Island.

Noted! :)

[DMC]

Because any disgruntled Southron lords can use his bastards as a rallying point to rise up against his rule.

There are always heirs. If House Baratheon is exterminated, then Storm's End goes to the house that has strongest claim through Durrandon/Baratheon blood.

As for the the whole Aegon debate, I do agree that he did have sufficient reason to declare war on the Stormlands, but declaring war against an enitre continent? Clearly Aegon had no plans of making an alliance with any of the Kings. He sent him the insulting offer on purpose.

I don't buy it. If a legitimized bastard would invite conflict among the Storm Lords, so too would naming a Lord Paramount from another house amongst all the other houses. We have seen this in ASOIF in regards to the shaky rule of the Tullys and Tyrells over their vassals. If there are no heirs with Baratheon as a last name, at least the bastards directly have Robert's blood. Stannis wants to legitimize Jon, he doesn't send a raven to the illusive Royce that apparently is a distant relative according to Catelyn.

[Lord Varys]

Considering the fact that dragons have to have rider, the nuke comparison makes little sense. With a dragon like Balerion you certainly could annihilate a city like KL or Oldtown, but you would not only throw the nuke, you would have to fly around the city again and again to incinerate all the houses.

The 'dragon pilot' really is in danger during the action. He can be killed rather easily, the dragon is safer.

Thus the air fighter comparison makes much more sense. Scorpions would also not be exactly anti-aircraft missiles, since it seems that a dragon of the size of Balerion can only be brought down by a lucky shot in the eye, not with a hit against the belly or the side.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Lord Varys

That makes me wonder if the power of a weirwood arrow is maybe not to kill a dragon magically, but to magically steer the arrow to its intended target - the eye of the dragon.

[DMC]

The 'dragon pilot' is an interesting variable. The fighter comparison makes perfect sense in the Dance. Still doesn't during Aegon's conquering, especially considering the other side(s) had little to no intelligence on how to defend against a dragon - or at least that's my understanding. Regardless, fighter jets are designed to fight against other fighter jets, hence how many times I just had to write fight. Bombers can be defended by anti-aircaft which does not have a correlation to Westeros both in effectiveness and availability. I still don't see it, although again the dragon pilot aspect makes any comparison faulty.

Edit: Also, have you seen Dr. Stranglove? That nuke had a 'pilot,' and it was freakin Slim Pickens! :P

[Stannis's Lawyer]

The wiki lists them as vassals of House Stark.

The wiki lists them as a Northern House, not a Stark vassal. I believe it was conquered early on by the IB before the Starks ever had power over Bear Island.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The wiki lists them as a Northern House, not a Stark vassal. I believe it was conquered early on by the IB before the Starks ever had power over Bear Island.

Two things.

The wiki lists their overlords as being the Starks.

And secondly, the "Daily fact" that started us down this route stated that Rodrik Stark won Bear Island "back" in a wrestling match.

That signifies that his family had ruled in in the past.

Thirdly, your "belief" is not based on anything of substance. Unless you care to provide the quote or contextual evidence you are basing it on.

[Mithras]

Dragonfire should be applied from close range. That makes it easier to hit a dragon with heavy equipment like catapults, scorpions, not to mention arrows/bolts.

[Lord Varys]

If I remember things correctly, then younger dragons' scales are not as hard as the scales of older ones. Older dragons are slower, though, which puts them at a disadvantage in a fight dragon vs. dragon (Syrax and Caraxes should have been able to make short work of Vhagar, I assume).

But older dragons' fire burns hotter, and their scales seem to be too thick to be penetrated. You have to have Balerion/Vhagar/Meraxes to try melt stone. And we see in the Dance how vulnerable younger dragons - Stormcloud, Shrykos, Morghul, Vermax - are to bolts and other more common weaponry.

I'd be surprised if the First Men ever used weirwood arrows against dragonriders, by the way (although it could be, if the Valyrian dragonlords made an effort to invade Westeros prior to the arrival of the Andals). They would have had skinchangers back then, and one should believe that they could have just tried to take them from their riders. On the other hand, if this was the case, then back when there were still dragons in Westeros, there should have been a lot of dragons ridden/controlled by skinchangers, and the Children of the Forest would have used dragons to eradicate the First Men when their conflict began.

Thus the idea that skinchangers can take over dragons may not actually be the case. The Westerosi dragons may have been killed by First Men dragonslayers, possibly by using weirwood arrows and spears as weapons, or they may have not survived the Long Night. Another, much more interesting notion is that the weirwood weapons may have been used against wight dragons - or ice dragons - in the service of the Others during the Long Night. A generation-long winter and night should have enabled the Others to take over all of Westeros, and if there had only been few wild dragons in Westeros, they would have not been able to stand against the Others - until the Last Hero became a dragonrider.

Considering that the magic of the Others seems to preserve wights until they are destroyed, it has to be expected that we will either see ice dragons - if such beings exist in Martinworld - or at least wightified dragons - dragon corpses thousands of years old recovered and resurrected by the magic of the Others.

[DMC]

Dragonfire should be applied from close range. That makes it easier to hit a dragon with heavy equipment like catapults, scorpions, not to mention arrows/bolts.

If any of these were even marginally effective, at least against a dragon as old as Balerion, then Harrenhal shouldn't have fallen.

[Mithras]

I think the key thing with the weirwood arrows is poison. Any scratch from the "bog devils" is enough to kill humans with a terrible death. This is something I posted in another thread:

This one intrigues me. This is the poison which affected the Waif who is in charge of the "black pool" in HoB&W. Those who drink enough from that pool die a sweet and painless death. In that way, it is similar to Sweetsleep. Sweetrobin looks like a couple of years younger than he should have been. We know that he is being poisoned with Sweetsleep. Did LF start to poison him much before than we know? I think he might have. The Waif was exposed to that poison too much and the result is that she looks a couple of decades younger than she should be and she is infertile.

The last Targaryen dragons also seem to be stunted and twisted until they completely died out. Their growth was sabotaged (or the last ones died young).

Apart from the HoB&W, the only “black pool” we know is the one before the heart tree of Winterfell and Brandon Snow once tried to make possibly poisoned arrows to slay dragons in front of that heart tree.

And this is where tze proposed that dragons are not vulnerable in the eye as the books tell; rather they are vulnerable to poison and wounds in the neck.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Lord Varys

That is very interesting speculation indeed.

My immediate thoughts are:

If the First Men used weirwood arrows against Dragons, it would have been before the Long Night, which likely killed off all the dragons. Thus, the most ancient of legends may speak of the effectiveness of such weapons against dragons, or maybe even the lore of the Children themselves, which preserves all their memories perfectly in the weirwood trees.

Your point about the Children not using dragons against the First Men is a very interesting one, and asks serious questions about the ability of greenseers to warg into dragons. Note that dragons are not mentioned in the description of the Westerosi Old Races from the Dawn Age, which makes one wonder just how long ago dragons were eradicated from Westeros.

What I wonder is, if dragons are unnatural creatures as I suspect, whether the Children did not make a concerted effort to wipe them out very early on. If, as I suspect, Dragons arrived on the planet around about the time of the Hammer of the Waters, that would mean that their arrival in Westeros kind of coincided with the arrival of the First Men. In fact, the First Men would slightly predate dragons in Westeros.

It may well then also be that greenseers can only partially warg dragons, in the way that Varamyr attempted to warg into Thistle. Thus, it may be a case of a greenseer being able to drive a dragon mad, without being able to fully take control and use him for a constructive purpose.

Which would mean that while greenseers are dangerous to dragons, they cannot use dragons in their service, and thus they were unable to use them against the First Men.

[Mithras]

If any of these were even marginally effective, at least against a dragon as old as Balerion, then Harrenhal shouldn't have fallen.

From what we know, Harren merely hid behind his walls and defied Aegon. None of the Westerosi was familiar with how to fight dragons and the extent of their destruction. Only the Martells were successful.