Jump to content

Archived

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

Rhaenys_Targaryen

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?

Recommended Posts

Ok, Mr. Paper Waver/AntZ/Mormont's craven, I will take you up on the challenge.

Notice that both of them were burned to death and did not succeed in riding a dragon. But they are in a war and there is a call out for dragonseed. Two brave men believe they have what it take to ride a dragon. The "queen" (if you take her side she was queen) is desperate for dragon riders. The success of the war is at stake, Maybe Rhaenyra knows you need Targ blood but is just completely desperate or maybe she is unaware that Targ blood is needed. Either way is a plausible explanation. When your life could depend on something being true--no matter how unlikely--it is easy to convince oneself that it is true.

Now if they were able to bind to a dragon, you would have your proof (unless there was some suggestion of a Targ ancestor). But as it is, to me, this is proof the other way. Here were two very brave and capable men who were supervised by an expert in dragon riding, and nevertheless, the attempt failed. Why did it fail? Because they had no Targ blood.

A perfect example of circular logic again. Congratulations.

A random guy might have some seed blood but noble people with tractable ancestry cannot take that chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is a lame reasoning. You are making false assumptions where we do not know certain things about the history of dragons. George said that they were once all over the world. When? How did they vanish? Without having good answers for such questions, what you say is similar to "hey look, 13.6 billion years is a long time, all the planets should be teeming with life that is specialized to live according to local conditions."

Actually I think the fact that Dragons were all over the world before they were tamed by Valyrians proves even more that Valyrians are the only ones who were capable of taming/subduing them. Otherwise there would be dragon riders all over the world right? If it is so easy, then why are there not other continents with dragonriders? If anyone can do it, that was there chance, when the dragons were plentiful and habitating everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is a lame reasoning. You are making false assumptions where we do not know certain things about the history of dragons. George said that they were once all over the world. When? How did they vanish? Without having good answers for such questions, what you say is similar to "hey look, 13.6 billion years is a long time, all the planets should be teeming with life that is specialized to live according to local conditions."

In the words of the Republican Patron Saint Ronny, "There you go again." What are you talking about? There are no reports of anyone riding a dragon before the taming by the Valyrians. But absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Whatever happened before "recorded history" on Planetos is basically just speculation. So I admit we cannot be sure, but certainly there are not passed down reports of anyone riding a dragon during those periods.

But we have many years of Valyrians riding dragons prior to the Doom which is part of recorded history. We have reports that the ONLY dragon riders during that entire time were members of the dragonlord families. That is what we have been told in the text (novellas, world book, etc.) on more than one occasion. So while it is possible that someone rode a dragon who was not of that family and somehow it did not become known, given how amazing such a feat would have been, I find it unlikely. Riding a dragon is cool. Valyrians who could not ride a dragon likely were quite jealous of the dragonlord families. At some point, someone would have intentionally or perhaps accidentally become bound to a dragon who was not of a dragonlord family. But we have NO reports of it happening. To the contrary, we are told it did not happen. Why? Because it cannot happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daeron II ascends the throne in 184AC. He begins negotiations with Maron Martell, about a betrothal and marriage to Daenerys. They negotiate for two years, until Maron agrees to marry Daenerys (born in 172AC) when she comes of age. The book mentions that, a year later (so a year after the two-year negotiations have ended), Maron and Daenerys are wed. That would place their wedding in 188AC, as Daenerys, born in 172AC, would turn 16 in that year, and the main series has shown multiple times that a girl is of age by law when she has turned 16.



That can work, if the negotiations that lasted two years started not immediately when Daeron II escended, but a year later, in 185AC, lasting for two years (186AC and 187AC), and a year later, Maron and Daenerys are wed (188AC).



However, the world book stated that one of Daeron's earliest significant acts after ascending the throne was arranging the betrothal, which would suggest that the arrangements started in 184AC, which would place the wedding in 187AC.. Yet that would mean that Daenerys was only 15, not 16 and thus, not yet of an age.



In addition, Baelor Breakspear was 17 years old during Daenerys' marriage. As Baelor was 39 in 209AC, he would have been born in 170AC, and be 17 years old in 187AC..



So either somewhere something is off by a year, or I am making a mistake somewhere (in which case, I'd like to know where).




Also, reposting this, because it got burried in the previous discussion:




Viserys' year of birth is described in the world book as 276AC, yet in A Game of Thrones Dany mentions that Viserys was only 8 when he fled KL, thus in 283AC.


Being 8 in 283AC could mean he was born in 275AC (turned 8 that year) or 274AC (8 turning 9 that year), but not 276AC.



Was Dany then simply misremembering a year? Wouldn't it be a bit strange if she was suddenly mistaken in the amount of years she and Viserys differ in age?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken then 'the year later' could also refer to the actual betrothal date of Maron-Daenerys, no. It is said that Maron agreed to a betrothal after the two years of negotiations, but it is not specified when that took place.



And we also don't really know on which day and in which moon Aegon IV died, so two years of negotiations could actually mean 185-187, not 184-186.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, reposting this, because it got burried in the previous discussion:

Not strange at all. I was about 20 when I realized that no, my brother wasn't 5 years younger than me, he was 4 years younger. I took his birth year and my year into account and did the (wrong) math. It never occurred to me to check later because I KNEW there were 5 years between us and not, say, 4 years and 8 months. Which happened to be the case. I simply had no reason to think of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken then 'the year later' could also refer to the actual betrothal date of Maron-Daenerys, no. It is said that Maron agreed to a betrothal after the two years of negotiations, but it is not specified when that took place.

And we also don't really know on which day and in which moon Aegon IV died, so two years of negotiations could actually mean 185-187, not 184-186.

Well, Aegon IV would have died early in the year, as Daemon Blackfyre got married after Aegon's death, and his sons were born before the year was over.

But then, did the marriage take place in 187AC (when Baelor would have been 17, but Daenerys not yet 16)? Or in 188AC (which would fit with Daenerys' age, being 16, but not with Baelors, who would have been 18)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that "of age" meant a different thing for a Targaryen princess than it did for most other ladies. Helaena Targaryen married Aegon when she was barely 13. My guess is that they stretched "of age" according to what they perceived as the needs of the moment.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Aegon IV would have died early in the year, as Daemon Blackfyre got married after Aegon's death, and his sons were born before the year was over.

But then, did the marriage take place in 187AC (when Baelor would have been 17, but Daenerys not yet 16)? Or in 188AC (which would fit with Daenerys' age, being 16, but not with Baelors, who would have been 18)?

If Baelor were born in 170AC, he'd be 17 in both 187AC and 188AC, would he not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the maester simply looked at the year of Baelor's birth and the year of the tourney and didn't think to count the months.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is inconsistency or just artistic license, but the statue of Baelor in Daeron II's chapter looks nothing like I'd expect. Baelor was a man of peace and holiness. I expected something along the lines of a, for lack of a better example, the statue of Jesus in Rio. Instead it looks like a kingsguard knight clad in armor with a sword.



Am I missing something?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the matter with Theon Stark fighting bith the Andals and Harrag Hoare? And whats with House Justman? Were tgey a First Men house (according to tge iron islands section) or an andal house (as said in tge riverlands section)

Im a bit confused right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Elia born in KL?

Because in ASoS, we got the following:

That Joanna and Doran's mother had become friends while serving as ladies-in-waiting to Princess Rhaella

That Oberyn was 40 in year 300

That Elia was a year his senior

In AFFC we learned that:

Doran was 10 years older than Oberyn

And now in AWoIAF we were told that Joanna only came to KL in 259, for Jaehaerys' II coronation, rather than together with Tywin in 252. Given that it should have been Elia's birth year, and that I'd expect that the 2 women should have, realistically, been together for more than a few months to become good friends, it kinda follows that Elia, and even possibly Oberyn should have been born in KL, no?

And isn't it odd that heir to Dorne, who was also a married woman with a child (Doran) would have served as a lady-in-waiting? Was her husband in KL too, and on the Small Council? Or was she not the heir apparent and only became one later?

Some curious stuff and possible inconsistencies there....

And I know that not all pictures are canonical, but given the importance of physical appearance for the Dance of the Dragons, is Viserys I' portrait with dark hair and beard supposed to be in any way representative? Or the hint in the black-and-white picture that his son Daeron had dark hair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mando,



Hrm. I see the line comes from George that suggests he was an Andal king... but right after that he contradicts that by pointing out Benedict the Bold was half-Blackwood, half-Bracken, both First Man houses. What he must have meant was that he was the first king to follow the Seven to unify the riverlands, as the Andal petty kings before him just fought one another over their little petty kingdoms. Will tweak that in future editions.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are having a discussion in a thread in general about the start of the Tully-Lannister war in GoT. In the book the Golden Tooth is well within westerland borders but the Tullys send a small army there after Tyrion is abducted. Ned does not think it constitutes a breach of the peace. That seems a little odd if the pass is in Lefford/Lannister land. Is the map 100% accurate with the borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they really send the army directly to the Golden Tooth, or rather only where the pass from the Golden Tooth crosses into Riverlands territory? I'd go with that possibility...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran--Did you ever clarify whether the Anniversary Tourney of 272 occurred in KL (as indicated on p. 116) or Lannisport (as stated on p. 124)?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×