Jump to content

Archived

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

UnmaskedLurker

A+J=T v.6

Recommended Posts

BlackFyre > BlackFire,

 

the Syrax episode with Joffrey Velaryon exemplifies a concept that was first introduced by Dany in ADwD, namely that no dragonrider had ever ridden two dragons at a time. I interpreted the wording back then that you can only ride one dragon during your lifetime, and you cannot choose a new dragon after it died while a dragon can be ridden by multiple consecutive riders. But after the publication of TPatQ there were hints that this wasn't the case - Rhaenyra saying that she had to return to Dragonstone since she needed more dragons (which, at that point, could then only be ridden by herself and Aegon the Younger, whose dragons had both died at that point). And when I asked George on his NAB where the hell the dragon of Viserys I was during the Dance - assuming that the king would have had a dragon if all his children and grandchildren had dragons - he revealed that he had ridden Balerion in his youth but chose no new dragon after the death of the Black Dread, effectively confirming that this would have been possible.

 

What we know about Aenys' children could also suggest that Princess Rhaena and Prince Aegon may have had multiple dragons. Dreamfyre, the dragon of Rhaena, Aenys' eldest child, seems to be younger than Vermithor, the dragon of Jaehaerys I (who was Aenys' fourth child and much younger than Rhaena), and we also know that Prince Aegon became the rider of Quicksilver, his father's dragon, after King Aenys' death, but it is rather weird to assume that (at least) Rhaena, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne had been given dragons but Aenys' heir, Prince Aegon, had none up until his father's death. My guess is that Rhaena and Aegon's dragons were killed by the Faith Militant while they were on their progress in the West and ended up being besieged in Crakehall Castle (on dragonback they certainly could have gotten away, right?). Somehow Prince Aegon claimed Quicksilver later on, and Rhaena may only have gotten Dreamfyre much later when she forced to marry Maegor - Maegor would have been in need of another dragonrider to replace Visenya after her death, but he wisely didn't give her Vhagar who would have been powerful enough to challenge Balerion and/or make her a powerful force of her own.

 

Why Joffrey Velaryon didn't know the danger he was in isn't clear. Rhaenyra supposedly said something like 'He doesn't know, he doesn't know!'

 

dmc515,

 

not sure in what way Nettles is more ambiguous that Hugh or Ulf. We know that Hugh was a blacksmith's bastard, but we have know idea who Nettles and Ulf's parents were. People spinning tales about cutting the throats of Sheepstealers food and the fact that she sort of tamed him isn't really a hint. All Targaryen dragons are tamed since they accept the presence of humans around them who aren't their riders, and even allow their riders to take other passengers on their backs. The wild dragons weren't tamed in that sense yet. But apparently nobody without Targaryen blood could ever claim riderless Targaryen dragons, right?

 

Nobody says that dragonlord blood is absolutely necessary to claim a dragon. But it is quite obviously the underlying magical concept behind the Targaryen dragonriders. 'The blood of the dragon' is indeed magical, and sets the Targaryens apart from 'common men'. But this doesn't mean a skinchanger or somebody with no dragonblood using Dragonbinder (if that's how the horn works which we don't know yet) could become a dragonrider. But it is really confirmed by now that the old claims of people dismissing the whole 'blood of the dragon' thing as a Targaryen legend or Targaryen propaganda is false.

 

I think we all do not expect that some guy who clearly doesn't have any dragonlord blood nor any other magical talent/tool to casually claim a dragon the Targaryen way (i.e. by jumping on its back and/or using a whip).

 

Rhaenys,

 

dragonlord incest might have had something to with restricting access to dragons, too, but considering the amount of dragons the Lords Freeholder controlled at the height of their power (at least several hundred) I'm not so sure that the average dragonlord family felt it had too many (potential) dragonriders. Gyldayn's quote from 'The Sons of the Dragons' which is completely reproduced in TWoIaF is that the saying 'the blood of the dragon must remain pure' goes back to Valyrian. One assumes that the (great-)great-grandchildren of the first dragonlords realized that there fewer dragonlords among them than among their parents and grandparents, but those who had married cousins had better success. Considering the lifespan of dragons multiple dragonlord generations would inevitably ride the same dragon, and since we know that older dragons can be rather fierce one wonders whether those dragonlord descendants in ancient Valyria which had more diluted dragon blood did indeed fail to claim an old dragon and died in the process. The incest may very well have been designed as a means to minimize that risk. After all, you don't want to see your own children devoured by your own dragons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... as at some point a non-dragonlord would get a hold of a dragon somehow. 

 

 

We hear of no examples -- not one -- in which a non-dragonlord blooded person bonded with a dragon. 

 

It is really frustrating to argue with someone committed to circular logic but Nettles is the answer to both of these cases. She took a Targaryen dragon to her own and the only reason people assumed her to be a dragonseed is because she succeeded in claiming a dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rhaenys, I thought of an answer to a point you made a while back.  I had said that it was incredible and prophetic for Tyrion to dream of Bittersteel the day after he met Illyrio for the first time (not knowing of course, that Illyrio is most likely the remainder of the Blackfyres).  And i think it is nothing short of prophetic for TYrion to have a dream about Bittersteel with dragons in the day after meeting him.

 

And you replied that Tyrion had just learned all about Illyrio's plans with the golden company, so it is no coincidence he was dreaming of Bittersteel.

 

Well Illyrio never once mentioned the GC prior to Tyrion's dream.  All the GC stuff does not come up until much later.  The first dinner Tyrion and Illryio had they did discuss Dany and dragons, but no mention of Blackfyres, GC or fAegon as of yet. So how else do you explain Tyrion dreaming of bittersteel and dragons the day after meeting the last Blackfyre?

This is the dream we're talking about, right?

 

That night Tyrion Lannister dreamed of a battle that turned the hills of Westeros as red as blood. He was in the midst of it, dealing death with an axe as big as he was, fighting side by side with Barristan the Bold and Bittersteel as dragons wheeled across the sky above them. In the dream he had two heads, both noseless. His father led the enemy, so he slew him once again. Then he killed his brother, Jaime, hacking at his face until it was a red ruin, laughing every time he struck a blow. Only when the fight was finished did he realize that his second head was weeping
 
The talk about the Golden Company comes before, not after..
 
Tyrion even wonders, a while before his dream
 
He wondered what Barristan Selmy would think of riding into battle with the Golden Company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Tyrion still be a bastard of Aerys without riding a dragon or claiming a dragon by the horn or some skinchanging kicking in?

 

Can Tyrion still be a bastard of Aerys without three dragonriders being three heads of the dragon?

 

Once again, the answers to these questions lead to the backbone of this AJT theory as I pointed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Yeah sorry, I erased my post cause I was wrong, they did talk about it right before the dream happened. Not Bittersteel specifically but the GC and Barristan.

 

However it is still an example of Tyrion having dreams with dragons in them, which is something only Targaryens do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing you "have to" admit if you are an AJT believer is that the dragon eggs of Dany didnot come from Asshai as Illyrio claimed, but rather they were Targaryen eggs stolen by Varys, hence Dany was able to hatch and bond with them.

 

Whether it is true or false, this is yet another consequence of this theory. AJT is never only AJT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV, 

 

I also think the incest thing in Old Valyria was important because If you have a daughter she has your blood, so your dragon is cool with her. But then she marries some guy from a different bloodline, then her children would have two bloodlines in them, so the dragon would then become accustomed to the new bloodline as well, meaning now, that anyone from the new family would be able to approach the dragon much more easily. So yeah it could result in dragon snatching over generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mithras,

 

you are making no sense here. We don't know whether a dragonlord descendant can bond to any dragon line or not. That you are restricted to some dragon line is just a theory. Perhaps every dragonlord descendant can bond with any dragon? But it is quite clear since TWoIaF that Dany's eggs were those Aerys found on Dragonstone. Those eggs weren't destroyed. and for some strange reason Robert/Joffrey/Tommen don't have those eggs, and neither Stannis nor Loras have found dragon eggs on Dragonstone.

 

Not to mention that you aren't qualified or entitled to tell anyone what they have to believe in any scenario. I believe Tyrion could just be Aerys' bastard and Dany's half-brother without ever becoming a dragonrider or a dragon head. Hell, you can even subscribe to your weirdo 'Jon Snow is the three-headed dragon nobody ever talked about in this series' stuff while believing that Tyrion Aerys' bastard. That is not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mithras,

 

you are making no sense here. We don't know whether a dragonlord descendant can bond to any dragon line or not. That you are restricted to some dragon line is just a theory. Perhaps every dragonlord descendant can bond with any dragon? But it is quite clear since TWoIaF that Dany's eggs were those Aerys found on Dragonstone. Those eggs weren't destroyed. and for some strange reason Robert/Joffrey/Tommen don't have those eggs, and neither Stannis nor Loras have found dragon eggs on Dragonstone.

 

Not to mention that you aren't qualified or entitled to tell anyone what they have to believe in any scenario. I believe Tyrion could just be Aerys' bastard and Dany's half-brother without ever becoming a dragonrider or a dragon head. Hell, you can even subscribe to your weirdo 'Jon Snow is the three-headed dragon nobody ever talked about in this series' stuff while believing that Tyrion Aerys' bastard. That is not mutually exclusive.

 

LV we have discussed this before and I think we were right then. Dany started a new line of dragons when she hatched those three, they are 100% used to her blood, so all of her closest relatives should have no problem bonding with one of her dragons (i.e., Jon, Tyrion, BBP, even if they are 6 generations separated from Aegon IV he is still one of her closest living relatives).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The language that you bolded sounds like a confirmation to me. GRRM states that incest allowed them to control dragons better. If Targ blood is not needed to control dragons, then why would they need incest to better control dragons? Or are you suggesting that Targ blood helps but is not needed? How does that work?

 

In the context of that quote the only thing it serves to confirm is the Targaryens thought their blood would better help control dragons.  Especially considering he evades the assertion the ability to control dragons is inherited one minute later.

 

dmc515,

 

not sure in what way Nettles is more ambiguous that Hugh or Ulf. We know that Hugh was a blacksmith's bastard, but we have know idea who Nettles and Ulf's parents were. People spinning tales about cutting the throats of Sheepstealers food and the fact that she sort of tamed him isn't really a hint. All Targaryen dragons are tamed since they accept the presence of humans around them who aren't their riders, and even allow their riders to take other passengers on their backs. The wild dragons weren't tamed in that sense yet. But apparently nobody without Targaryen blood could ever claim riderless Targaryen dragons, right?

 

Nobody says that dragonlord blood is absolutely necessary to claim a dragon. But it is quite obviously the underlying magical concept behind the Targaryen dragonriders. 'The blood of the dragon' is indeed magical, and sets the Targaryens apart from 'common men'. But this doesn't mean a skinchanger or somebody with no dragonblood using Dragonbinder (if that's how the horn works which we don't know yet) could become a dragonrider. But it is really confirmed by now that the old claims of people dismissing the whole 'blood of the dragon' thing as a Targaryen legend or Targaryen propaganda is false.

 

I think we all do not expect that some guy who clearly doesn't have any dragonlord blood nor any other magical talent/tool to casually claim a dragon the Targaryen way (i.e. by jumping on its back and/or using a whip).

 

 

With the use of a quote that was taken out of context in that it wasn't even Martin saying those words, I was responding to a set of posts that clearly suggested just that:

 

 

Saying Targ blood is not needed to ride a dragon is laughable, it does not follow the writing and it is just 100% wrong.

 

 

Thank you -- I almost forgot about that interview (but have referenced it in the past). Yes, GRRM has confirmed this fact. How can it still be a matter of debate?

 

On Nettles/Hugh/Ulf and ambiguity:  I use Nettles as short hand because (1) she is the unique case where skill/guile/whatever you want to call it (in Tyrion's case perhaps knowledge) is presented as integral to bonding with a dragon and (2) I'm lazy and don't always remember Hugh and Ulf's names offhand (although something tells me I'll be able to soon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV we have discussed this before and I think we were right then. Dany started a new line of dragons when she hatched those three, they are 100% used to her blood, so all of her closest relatives should have no problem bonding with one of her dragons (i.e., Jon, Tyrion, BBP).

 

Even if that is the case, it should work for Dany's direct descendants. It should not work backwards.

 

And BBP as a close relative of Dany is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you supporters want to claim that this theory is so hard to spot, but IMHO you have obvious "clues" that Tyrion may not be Tywin's son and then an obvious clue to direct you towards Targ heritage. Again, it's the definition of obvious.

 

Well, yeah, I personally think it is a pretty obvious theory, almost as obvious as R+L=J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dont get;  how can people throw away this conversation?  Is it not part of the books as well? GRRM put it in correct? The dragons like BBP specifically correct? I love how so many posters just put blinders on to things that completely disprove what they are saying.

 

"The queen's dragons were fond of you, were they not?" ...and later, "Not only do I know that the queen"s dragons took to you, but I know why." 

"Two drops. That or a cock six feet long."

 

 

Tyrion, who knows more about dragons than anyone, is saying very clearly, the dragons like you cause of your blood, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mithras,

 

you are making no sense here. We don't know whether a dragonlord descendant can bond to any dragon line or not. That you are restricted to some dragon line is just a theory. Perhaps every dragonlord descendant can bond with any dragon? But it is quite clear since TWoIaF that Dany's eggs were those Aerys found on Dragonstone. Those eggs weren't destroyed. and for some strange reason Robert/Joffrey/Tommen don't have those eggs, and neither Stannis nor Loras have found dragon eggs on Dragonstone.

 

Not to mention that you aren't qualified or entitled to tell anyone what they have to believe in any scenario. I believe Tyrion could just be Aerys' bastard and Dany's half-brother without ever becoming a dragonrider or a dragon head. Hell, you can even subscribe to your weirdo 'Jon Snow is the three-headed dragon nobody ever talked about in this series' stuff while believing that Tyrion Aerys' bastard. That is not mutually exclusive.

Hey, watch who you're callin' Weirdo(TM).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Tyrion still be a bastard of Aerys without riding a dragon or claiming a dragon by the horn or some skinchanging kicking in?

 

Can Tyrion still be a bastard of Aerys without three dragonriders being three heads of the dragon?

 

Once again, the answers to these questions lead to the backbone of this AJT theory as I pointed before.

 

Another thing you "have to" admit if you are an AJT believer is that the dragon eggs of Dany didnot come from Asshai as Illyrio claimed, but rather they were Targaryen eggs stolen by Varys, hence Dany was able to hatch and bond with them.

 

Whether it is true or false, this is yet another consequence of this theory. AJT is never only AJT.

I basically agree with the points that LV has made regarding these issues (posts # 201 and 208). I would just add the following. What I meant was that there are no "confirmed" examples of a non-Targ bonding with a dragon. If a non-Targ could bond with a dragon -- then at some point over all the years in which the dragonlord families in Valyria had dragons, someone with no genetic connection to a dragonlord family would have bonded with a dragon. And then the "game would be over" and the monopoly the dragonlords had to the dragons would have ended. But it never ended. No one ever was able to steal a non-bonded dragon who was not a dragonlord. Why? Because it was not possible is the only logical answer.

 

 

 

In the context of that quote the only thing it serves to confirm is the Targaryens thought their blood would better help control dragons.  Especially considering he evades the assertion the ability to control dragons is inherited one minute later.

 

 

 

Yes, of course GRRM does not want to make the point too explicit because he has that horn hanging around and realized he gave away too much in the prior statement. But why would the dragonlords think that their blood was needed to better control dragons? Because dragonlord blood is needed to bond with dragons -- that is the only realistic explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, of course GRRM does not want to make the point too explicit because he has that horn hanging around and realized he gave away too much in the prior statement. But why would the dragonlords think that their blood was needed to better control dragons? Because dragonlord blood is needed to bond with dragons -- that is the only realistic explanation.

 

No it's not.  They could simply be wrong.  Or, the chances of successfully bonding with a dragon increase with the purity of one's dragonlord blood.  That does not mean it's necessarily an absolute requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aGoT - Tyrion III

 

[Ser Allister:] "You have a bold tongue for someone who is less than half a man.

 

aGoT - Tyrion VI

 

[Bronn:] "You have a bold tongue, little man. One day someone is like to cut it out and make you eat it."

 

aSoS - Tyrion VI

 

[Tywin:] "You have a certain cunning, Tyrion, but the plain truth is you talk too much. That loose tongue of yours will be your undoing."

 

aSoS - Tyrion VIII

 

[Tyrion:] My big mouth will be the death of me, I swear it.

 

aSoS - Tyrion IX

 

[Tyrion:] Guard your tongue, you little fool, before it digs your grave.

 

The Hedge Knight

 

"Hold your tongue, you stupid boy [Egg]. Run away. They'll hurt you!"

 

The Sworn Sword

 

That tongue of his [Egg] will get him hurt one day, Dunk thought.

 

The Mystery Knight

 

[Egg] "I can talk if I want."

"No," said Dunk. "You can't." That mouth of yours will get you killed someday.
(...)
Be quiet, Dunk wanted to roar. That loose tongue of yours will get us killed.
 
Just dropping these quotes to highlight how Tyrion shares a trait with a Targaryen (his grandfather?)... The couple of Dunk & Egg often evokes Jorah & Tyrion to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

aGoT - Tyrion III

 

aGoT - Tyrion VI

 

aSoS - Tyrion VI

 

aSoS - Tyrion VIII

 

aSoS - Tyrion IX

 

The Hedge Knight

 

The Sworn Sword

 

The Mystery Knight

 
Just dropping these quotes to highlight how Tyrion shares a trait with a Targaryen (his grandfather?)... The couple of Dunk & Egg often evokes Jorah & Tyrion to me.

 

Nice catch. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing you "have to" admit if you are an AJT believer is that the dragon eggs of Dany didnot come from Asshai as Illyrio claimed, but rather they were Targaryen eggs stolen by Varys, hence Dany was able to hatch and bond with them.
 
Whether it is true or false, this is yet another consequence of this theory. AJT is never only AJT.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

aGoT - Tyrion III

 

aGoT - Tyrion VI

 

aSoS - Tyrion VI

 

aSoS - Tyrion VIII

 

aSoS - Tyrion IX 

 

The Hedge Knight

 

The Sworn Sword

 

The Mystery Knight

 
Just dropping these quotes to highlight how Tyrion shares a trait with a Targaryen (his grandfather?)... The couple of Dunk & Egg often evokes Jorah & Tyrion to me.

 

yes very nice Catch! Tyrion also has a ton of similarities to Dareon in D&E.  they are both plagued by their dreams and alcohol constantly

Share this post


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

×