Jump to content

How does "magic blood" work?


falcotron

Recommended Posts

Mel wanted to use Edric Storm's blood to wake the stone dragon.  Clearly being crowned is unnecessary for magicing king's blood.

I think the Queens men heard about that and figured that anyone who calls themselves king would work.  Mel does not tell them different because she may be able to use that belief.  If any real use would have come from burning Mance she would have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

As for the dragonseeds - the Targaryens participated in the practice of First Night, or whatever they called their equivalent, on Dragonstone for hundreds of years. There'd've been a fair number of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards, and, more to the point, quite of lot of descendants of unacknowledged Targaryen bastards, mixed into the population of smallfolk on Dragonstone.

Why are you so sure that Nettles has Valyrian blood when the Maesters in-world aren't sure?

Why do you think GRRM included that story, and wrote it the way he did, if he didn't want us to even question that possibility?

7 minutes ago, Kytheros said:

As far as controlling dragons ... Daenerys almost certainly wouldn't know that many details about how the Valyrians truly controlled their dragons. It's quite possible that the Valyrians knew how to impose or create a bond with a dragon artificially or strengthen a natural bond, through their sorcery and magic horns. It's also possible that sorcery and magic horns were used to help a bonded dragonlord train their dragon, especially young dragons.

Sure, Dany wouldn't know all the details. But who in-story do you think knows better, and has told us otherwise?

I don't know whether sorcery and magic horns were necessary, a nice labor saver, only helpful in problem cases, etc., or what part of the process they were there for.

All I'm saying is that assuming that sorcery and magic horns are 100% useless superstition but Valyrian blood is 100% necessary—as Ghost+Nymeria4Eva seems to be doing, and many other fans do as well—is unwarranted by what we see in the story. It's not absolutely impossible, but we have no reason to believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Peaceable Warmonger said:

Mel wanted to use Edric Storm's blood to wake the stone dragon.  Clearly being crowned is unnecessary for magicing king's blood.

If Robert has king's blood because he was crowned, or if he was "topped up" from 1/16th to 100% by being crowned, then Edric—who was sired by King Robert—has 50% king's blood. That isn't evidence against the crowning idea.

Of course it's also possible that the Queen's Men were right and Robert calling himself king is what mattered. Or the Father's judgment that Robert was rightful king. Or the oaths of fealty as a ritual. Or the mass beliefs of millions of people. And it's also possible that it really was just being Edric 1/zillionth descended from someone who literally bred with a dragon. Or that Mel was completely wrong about Edric. Or that Mel was lying. But your point isn't evidence for or against any of those ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

How does magic distinguish between a king and a pretender? If the magic works via oaths being a ritual—or via a crowning ceremony being a ritual, or via mass belief, or many other possibilities—then it wouldn't. But why is that surprising? The only difference between a pretender and a king is that a pretender hasn't won yet. (If you're misusing the word "pretender" to mean "impostor" as many fans do, that's a different question—but with basically the same answer.)

Well, the point there just is that this makes it completely arbitrary who a king is because pretty much anyone could get 'king's blood' in that way. And pretty much anyone has king's blood in that sense, anyway.

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

And as for why vows to a lord might be different from vows to a king—that's what makes ritual magic not scientific. Repeating the same ritual might have the same effects, just as repeating a chemical process does. But a similar chemical process usually produces similar results—and when you get something qualitatively different, there's a reason that can be worked out rationally—so scientists, engineers, and craftsmen can improve our knowledge by experimenting. A similar ritual produces no results at all, so there's no way to do science on rituals. (Unless you're in a fantasy world created by Campbell, or Gygax—in those worlds, magic really is just a branch of science, as GRRM has said.)

Well, even if there were magical/metaphysical differences between the oaths sworn to lords than those to kings those should still make lords magically special in a similar - if not identical - way than kings. Surely a lord then just be the next best thing for some magical ritual if there is no king or dude with king's blood around.

In addition, we do know that essentially all noble families of Westeros have king's blood - and veritable armies of peasants and other smallfolk through noble and royal bastards. Once there were many petty kings in Westeros and many of those petty king families survive till this day - they and all their legitimate and illegitimate descendants all should have 'king's blood' of their own assuming that this doesn't disappear in the tenth or so generation. 

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Yes, if I were arguing that this is definitely the answer, I would have to prove it. But all I've done is suggest that this is one of multiple possible answers to the question. Your argument is that all of the answers but having literal dragon blood are ridiculous. To show that they're no more ridiculous than literal dragon blood doesn't require me to guess which one is actually right and prove it, it just requires showing that one or more of them are no more ridiculous than literal dragon blood.

The point I'm making is that the only magical bloodline we actually know exist is the Targaryen bloodline. We know that people believe there is power in 'king's blood' but we have no evidence that this is true - aside from the fact that there is really magic in the Targaryen bloodline which also happens to be the royal bloodline of Westeros. Baratheon blood is Targaryen blood, too.

Whether a Greyjoy or Stark blood sacrifice - done because the person doing it believes in the power of 'king's blood' - would work as well as Targaryen blood is completely unclear. But as of yet nobody has ever tried to do that, nor has anybody ever tried to have a non-Targaryen blooded king or royal relative do anything magical in relation to the dragons.

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Meanwhile, the only reason we're talking about politics at all is that you brought up GRRM's egalitarianism as an argument for why he'd never write anything that endorses pre-enlightenment, anti-egalitarian views. The fact that his world doesn't have anyone with enlightenment ideas in it is an argument against your own prior argument, not against anything anyone else has said.

The original point there was to point out that George himself does not believe kings are special in any sense. But this doesn't mean that his characters don't believe that they are - they do - nor that he didn't give the Targaryen bloodline a certain real magical quality.

The question is whether this 'magical specialness' makes them 'better' than others or whether it justifies that they rule over other people? Within the framework of the story most people would answer both those questions with 'yes' because that's how they view the Targaryens, but George himself doesn't share that opinion.

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

And you already seem to have abandoned that argument anyway by insisting that GRRM does in fact endorse the view that royal bloodlines are a real thing, as long as there's ancient cross-species genetic engineering involved.

The Targaryen bloodline - as well as the dragonlord bloodlines of Old Valyria - is special. But whether that justifies them ruling over others is open to debate - within and without the framework of the story. In-universe people will never deny that their betters are, by and far, their betters because they are better bred, have noble and royal blood. In most cases they would be dead wrong because there are no real differences between the average Northman or Westermen commoner and a highborn Lannister or Stark. But the blood of the dragon is empirically different.

Just as the Windsors would be if they had the abilities to bond with fire-breathing dragons.

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

Who cares about that? If GRRM himself called attention to Dany having only 10% Aegon blood and suggested that therefore maybe her dragon hatching isn't about being a Targaryen, it sounds like GRRM cares about it, so it would be pretty silly for us to insist that he's wrong about his own world.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Daenerys Targaryen has dreams where her royal Targaryen ancestors cheer her own to fulfill her destiny and hatch the dragon eggs. It is her blood what allows her to do all that, nothing else. She is special by virtue of birth and pedigree, and that enables her to do what she does.

Aegon the Conqueror might have had slightly less diluted Valyrian blood but that doesn't mean anything since Aegon the Conqueror is nothing in comparison to Daenerys Targaryen. He may have conquered Westeros but he never woke dragons from stone, or did he? He and his sister-wives - and all the other Targaryens - just claimed dragons who were already alive or who hatched from dragon eggs all by themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, even if there were magical/metaphysical differences between the oaths sworn to lords than those to kings those should still make lords magically special in a similar - if not identical - way than kings. Surely a lord then just be the next best thing for some magical ritual if there is no king or dude with king's blood around.

No, not at all. That's how science works, not how magic works. If you use slightly different forging spells, you don't get something similar to Valyrian steel, you just get plain old metal. If Beric says slightly different prayers when putting his blood on his sword, he doesn't get a similar but slightly different fire. If Thoros says the words and then kisses your nose instead of your mouth, you don't do something similar to coming back from the dead.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, we do know that essentially all noble families of Westeros have king's blood - and veritable armies of peasants and other smallfolk through noble and royal bastards. Once there were many petty kings in Westeros and many of those petty king families survive till this day - they and all their legitimate and illegitimate descendants all should have 'king's blood' of their own assuming that this doesn't disappear in the tenth or so generation. 

You're assuming away the entire point. Most people have only a tiny amount of king's blood. Someone's who's the son of a king has a lot more. Which would explain why Mel is looking for sons of kings, rather than great-great-great-grandsons.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The question is whether this 'magical specialness' makes them 'better' than others or whether it justifies that they rule over other people?

No, nobody is interested in that question but you. I don't know why you keep bringing it up so you can start talking about your political beliefs. It's not at all relevant to anything anyone else is talking about here.

But let's ignore all the irrelevant stuff you keep bringing up and try to get back to the point:

You believe Targaryens are magical because of some ancient inheritance from thousands of years ago. Nobody else is magical. Fine, let's grant that. Now we still have to answer the question at the start of this thread. How does that work?

As you say above, lots of non-Targaryens have tiny amounts of that same ancient blood. The Targaryens' amount is also tiny. So, what makes the Targaryens different from everyone else? It can't be direct paternal line if Velaryons can be dragonriders and Baratheons can have magic blood. Any other suggestions? I don't want to talk about whether, or why, the Targaryens should rule, or anything like that, unless you think the answer has something to do with why Targaryen blood is actually magical.

And, whatever your answer, how is it not contradicted by your own point about Aegon and his successors being nothing compared to Dany? If Dany is special because of her dragon blood, why are they not at least as special, when they had the exact same dragon blood, and more of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

No, not at all. That's how science works, not how magic works. If you use slightly different forging spells, you don't get something similar to Valyrian steel, you just get plain old metal. If Beric says slightly different prayers when putting his blood on his sword, he doesn't get a similar but slightly different fire. If Thoros says the words and then kisses your nose instead of your mouth, you don't do something similar to coming back from the dead.

How do you know that? Do you know what (or if) Beric says (always) anything when he puts blood on his blade? Do you know how exactly Valyrian steel is made? Do you know why the kiss of life works and whether it is a spell or whether our good R'hllor doesn't actually bestir himself each time to resurrect his faithful servant?

No, you don't know any of that.

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

You're assuming away the entire point. Most people have only a tiny amount of king's blood. Someone's who's the son of a king has a lot more. Which would explain why Mel is looking for sons of kings, rather than great-great-great-grandsons.

Is there any sign that Melisandre or anyone in this series was ever concerned with the amount of 'king's blood' anyone has or has given any indication whether it matters whether you have a lot of it or not? No, nobody cares about that. Why do you use your preconceptions about the dosage of 'king's blood' in the veins of some character when nobody in the series cares about that?

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

No, nobody is interested in that question but you. I don't know why you keep bringing it up so you can start talking about your political beliefs. It's not at all relevant to anything anyone else is talking about here.

It is a relevant question when you ask what makes a king a king, no?

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

You believe Targaryens are magical because of some ancient inheritance from thousands of years ago. Nobody else is magical. Fine, let's grant that. Now we still have to answer the question at the start of this thread. How does that work?

I never said no one else is 'magical'. I said the only confirmed (and relevant) magical bloodline in this series is the Targaryen bloodline. That they are special on a magical level is clear. It is not clear in the same way for any other family. No other family runs around telling everyone about the magic in their blood nor do any other characters care about the magic in the Stark, Lannister, Tully, or any other line.

And of course there are other people in this series that are 'magical' and sorcerers even, but in their cases it has not (necessarily) anything to do with the magic in their blood.

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

As you say above, lots of non-Targaryens have tiny amounts of that same ancient blood. The Targaryens' amount is also tiny. So, what makes the Targaryens different from everyone else? It can't be direct paternal line if Velaryons can be dragonriders and Baratheons can have magic blood. Any other suggestions? I don't want to talk about whether, or why, the Targaryens should rule, or anything like that, unless you think the answer has something to do with why Targaryen blood is actually magical.

How should I know how that works? A huge part of it seems to be the Targaryen incest which clearly saves enough of the dragonriding magic in their blood to allow them to continue to claim dragons. Did I ever say that Targaryen bastards throughout the ages (and their descendants) lack the ability that comes with the magical 'blood of the dragon'?

No, I did not say that. I'm very aware of the fact that legitimate birth is irrelevant to become a dragonrider. I'm inclined to believe that continuous intermarriage with people who don't have the blood of the dragon over dozens of generations is likely to reduce the chances that any such offspring could become a dragonrider but I doubt the potential is ever going to be bred completely out of such bloodlines.

However, due to the nature of this story and the rareness of dragons the average peasant who is descended from Aegon the Unworthy is not likely ever going to show off his potential as a dragonrider. Brown Ben Plumm might, though.

Also, take Dany and her siblings and parents and grandparents. They all look like prototypical Targaryens despite the fact that Daeron II, Maekar I, and Aegon V did not marry any siblings or first cousins or people of strong Valyrian ancestry. But it is still conceivable and actually not all that unlikely that an accident of history caused Jaehaerys II and his sister-wife Shaera to inherit a very pure-blooded strain of the blood of the dragon from their father King Aegon V, resulting in these two and their children and grandchildren inheriting purer or more magical dragonlord blood than many of their forebears. 

8 hours ago, falcotron said:

And, whatever your answer, how is it not contradicted by your own point about Aegon and his successors being nothing compared to Dany? If Dany is special because of her dragon blood, why are they not at least as special, when they had the exact same dragon blood, and more of it?

Because the way to measure 'magical specialness' is to actually measure what they accomplish in that field? And there Aegon and his sisters didn't do anything that even remotely resembles Dany's dragonhatching thing. Could be that they could have done it, too, but they did not do it - and thus we don't know whether they could have done it or not, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

No, they really don't. Our world's history is full of elective monarchies, from ancient Macedonia to 16th century Sweden—and nobody ever says their kings aren't kings. And the same is true in Westeros

You are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. 

 

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

No, that isn't true. When Dany is back in the Dothraki Sea in ADwD, she laments that her ancestors controlled their mounts with "binding spells and sorcerous horns", but she has to make do with words and whips.

But the Targs don't use whips or spells or horns to control dragons. 

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

And why would Valyrians create dragonhorns in the first place if they didn't need them? As you say, that would be a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of an enemy—so you wouldn't make them unless there were a reason good enough to make that risk worth it.

Maybe it's not the dragons these horns control. We know there's a horn of winter, these dragonhorns could be the "fire" counterpart to that. Are there mentions of any dragon being controlled by a horn? As far as I remember, old Valyrians didn't sound horns when they rode into battle. 

13 hours ago, falcotron said:

And why would GRRM have given us stories like Quentyn and the dragonseeds of the Dance if he just wanted us to accept the idea without question?

Mainly Quentyn's story shows that having just some blood of the dragon/old Valyria isn't enough to control dragons. The side story with Nettles indicates that people with blood of the dragon always don't have silver hair and purple eyes. The blood is important, but connecting with the dragon is too I guess. But people without this trait would just get burnt if they tried to woo dragons with mutton.  But this is speculation at this point. Dany dreams of Drogon even before he is hatched. So there's a connection between them that is more than Dany being nice to Drogon. Some people have also pointed out to the Targ motto "Fire and Blood." We think that it means going to war on dragonback and winning. But it could be about fire magic and bloody sacrifice that allows Targs to control dragons. 

I'm not convinced that this story of Nettles is indication that non-Valyrians can control dragons. It's more likely than not that she is a Targ baseborn. She also sounds a lot like Arya, running off to tame a "wild" dragon. 

Where did you hear the story of 40 families ruling for 5,000 years? Those must have been massive families. 

Why would enemies of the Valyrians believe in their propaganda? Valyrians conquered old, established empires and states. The rulers of these governments wouldn't be gullible to valyrian propaganda like the smallfolk. Just telling a group of people they cannot ride a dragon because they are not Valyrians wouldn't work just like that. Unless this is a major mistake on GRRM's part. He wrote about Valyrians but forgot to explain why no one else tried to get these dragons? Dragons act like nukes in westeros world. The U.S. had the first (functioning) nukes, and then did the darnedest to stop other nations from getting nukes. But powerful enemies like the USSR got nukes anyway. And now, less powerful but still formidable enemies like Iran and North Korea also has near workable nukes. Likewise, it's unlikely that enemies of Valyrians just saw dragons and thought "oh, they are the only ones who can have that." Everyone would have wanted dragons once they saw what a powerful weapon they could be. But no one else, except valyrians, managed to tame dragons. So why is that? In a WOIAF, GRRM hints valyrians might have gotten dragons from some other civilization that existed before them. But that group doesn't manage to actually tame dragons either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. 

 

But the Targs don't use whips or spells or horns to control dragons. 

Maybe it's not the dragons these horns control. We know there's a horn of winter, these dragonhorns could be the "fire" counterpart to that. Are there mentions of any dragon being controlled by a horn? As far as I remember, old Valyrians didn't sound horns when they rode into battle. 

Mainly Quentyn's story shows that having just some blood of the dragon/old Valyria isn't enough to control dragons. The side story with Nettles indicates that people with blood of the dragon always don't have silver hair and purple eyes. The blood is important, but connecting with the dragon is too I guess. But people without this trait would just get burnt if they tried to woo dragons with mutton.  But this is speculation at this point. Dany dreams of Drogon even before he is hatched. So there's a connection between them that is more than Dany being nice to Drogon. Some people have also pointed out to the Targ motto "Fire and Blood." We think that it means going to war on dragonback and winning. But it could be about fire magic and bloody sacrifice that allows Targs to control dragons. 

I'm not convinced that this story of Nettles is indication that non-Valyrians can control dragons. It's more likely than not that she is a Targ baseborn. She also sounds a lot like Arya, running off to tame a "wild" dragon. 

Where did you hear the story of 40 families ruling for 5,000 years? Those must have been massive families. 

Why would enemies of the Valyrians believe in their propaganda? Valyrians conquered old, established empires and states. The rulers of these governments wouldn't be gullible to valyrian propaganda like the smallfolk. Just telling a group of people they cannot ride a dragon because they are not Valyrians wouldn't work just like that. Unless this is a major mistake on GRRM's part. He wrote about Valyrians but forgot to explain why no one else tried to get these dragons? Dragons act like nukes in westeros world. The U.S. had the first (functioning) nukes, and then did the darnedest to stop other nations from getting nukes. But powerful enemies like the USSR got nukes anyway. And now, less powerful but still formidable enemies like Iran and North Korea also has near workable nukes. Likewise, it's unlikely that enemies of Valyrians just saw dragons and thought "oh, they are the only ones who can have that." Everyone would have wanted dragons once they saw what a powerful weapon they could be. But no one else, except valyrians, managed to tame dragons. So why is that? In a WOIAF, GRRM hints valyrians might have gotten dragons from some other civilization that existed before them. But that group doesn't manage to actually tame dragons either. 

 

Quentyn's death only really tells us that when trying to bond with a dragon, you should not to ignore other dragons behind you :-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Maybe it's not the dragons these horns control. We know there's a horn of winter, these dragonhorns could be the "fire" counterpart to that. Are there mentions of any dragon being controlled by a horn? As far as I remember, old Valyrians didn't sound horns when they rode into battle. 

Sure, maybe the only things we've heard about these horns—from Dany, from Euron, and from WoIaF—are actually wrong, and they do something else entirely. But why do you assume that's likely? You're refusing to even consider the possibility that what we're told about Valyrian blood being necessary for dragon riding might be wrong, but you're assuming that what we're told about dragonhorns and binding spells must be wrong. What's the difference?

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

I'm not convinced that this story of Nettles is indication that non-Valyrians can control dragons.

I'm not convinced that it is, but I'm also not convinced that it isn't.

What I am convinced of is that GRRM wrote this story, along with the other stories, for a reason. And I think that reason is that he wants us to question the link between Valyrian blood and controlling dragons, rather than to just accept it uncritically.

That may not be because it's false. It could be true, but in a surprising way. Or maybe it isn't even about the answer, but about what else comes up when you consider the question. But for some reason, he want us to question it, not to take as absolute truth assumptions that even the in-world Maesters are hesitant to make, just so we can avoid questioning it.

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany dreams of Drogon even before he is hatched. So there's a connection between them that is more than Dany being nice to Drogon

Dany is clearly special. She hatched new dragons, the first person to do that since at least the Doom, maybe even since early Valyria. She walked out of a fire unscathed. And so on. These aren't things any other Targaryens do, so why assume it's because she has Targaryen blood?

Again, it might be, but it's certainly not obviously and undeniably true. Probably because, again, he wants us to think about it.

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Where did you hear the story of 40 families ruling for 5,000 years? Those must have been massive families. 

A quick look at the wiki shows that "Dragonlord was the title for members of the forty noble families that vied to actually rule the Valyrian Freehold."

And why is 40 dragonlord families for Valyria hard to believe, compared to the 48 patrician families of Rome?

If it's the 5000 years you're questioning, that's a little harder to support with real-world analogies, but we're told multiple times that the Ghiscari Wars ended over 5000 years ago, and there aren't even Maester disputes about that as there are with, e.g., dating the Andal invasion.

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Why would enemies of the Valyrians believe in their propaganda? Valyrians conquered old, established empires and states. The rulers of these governments wouldn't be gullible to valyrian propaganda like the smallfolk. Just telling a group of people they cannot ride a dragon because they are not Valyrians wouldn't work just like that. 

It's not just a matter of telling people they can't ride dragons, it's a matter of keeping secret the tricks needed to do so.

If you have no idea how they bond with dragons, and you can see that even within Valyria nobody but their dragonrider families can do it, and they tell you that they can only do it because of their special blood—well, maybe they're lying, but if so, that doesn't actually help you, because every time you try to steal a dragon and tame it, you just end up getting burned to death.

They kept other things secret for thousands of years, like Valyrian steel, which I'm sure all their enemies would also have liked to know how to do, and that was a secret they had to share a lot more widely within their society than dragon riding.

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dragons act like nukes in westeros world. The U.S. had the first (functioning) nukes, and then did the darnedest to stop other nations from getting nukes. But powerful enemies like the USSR got nukes anyway. And now, less powerful but still formidable enemies like Iran and North Korea also has near workable nukes. Likewise, it's unlikely that enemies of Valyrians just saw dragons and thought "oh, they are the only ones who can have that." Everyone would have wanted dragons once they saw what a powerful weapon they could be. But no one else, except valyrians, managed to tame dragons. So why is that?

Because this is exactly the difference between magic and technology.

There's no really deep theory behind A-bomb or H-bombs, but there's a lot of tricky engineering. (Plus, if you're a country like Iran, there's the even trickier part of finding a way to enrich or separate uranium or breed plutonium without anyone knowing you're doing it.) But engineering problems can be solved by engineering. You break the problem into smaller pieces, most of which have known solutions within the relevant range. For the rest, you try something that seems like it should be close, and you can usually tell why they failed and what you need to change to get closer  And so on.

You can't do that to figure out a magic ritual. Unless you live in a Campbellian/Gygaxian fantasy world, but Planetos is almost certainly not one of those, since GRRM criticizes them as not being actually magical, or interesting.

30 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

In a WOIAF, GRRM hints valyrians might have gotten dragons from some other civilization that existed before them. But that group doesn't manage to actually tame dragons either. 

Well, Septon Barth rejected that Asshai'i theory in favor of his breeding wyverns and firewyrms theory. And, more significantly, Maester Yandel rejects it because "if men in the Shadow had tamed dragons first, why did they not conquer as the Valyrians did?"

That's a very good question. In fact, one of the few things we definitely know is that there are dragon bones all over the world far older than the Valyrian Freehold. (I don't know how we know that in a world without radioactive dating or even the basic ideas behind sedimentary deposits and the like, but apparently we do know it…) And yet, nobody before the Valyrians used them to conquer half the world. Which implies that whatever the Valyrians managed to do, it must have been something pretty hard to repeat. Which is, of course, exactly what we see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

rofl!!! But I still wonder the point of all that. 

I think GRRM just uses the dragontamer as a red herring while he sets up the Battle of Slaver's Bay. The resut of Quentyn's effort is too ambiguous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

How do you know that? Do you know what (or if) Beric says (always) anything when he puts blood on his blade? Do you know how exactly Valyrian steel is made? Do you know why the kiss of life works and whether it is a spell or whether our good R'hllor doesn't actually bestir himself each time to resurrect his faithful servant?

No, you don't know any of that.

Martin has said there's no recipe for magic. So the idea that any lord is the next best thing doesn't work. It would if this was scientific or if it had a set recipe: you don't have one ingredient so you use the next best one you have in your pantry and voila, you have a similar result. Not the case w/ magic.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Is there any sign that Melisandre or anyone in this series was ever concerned with the amount of 'king's blood' anyone has or has given any indication whether it matters whether you have a lot of it or not? No, nobody cares about that. Why do you use your preconceptions about the dosage of 'king's blood' in the veins of some character when nobody in the series cares about that?

Well, yeah. It's not spelled out, but it's there. And you brought it up... didn't you say that at this point everyone and their dogs have some king's blood running through their veins? You even mentioned the hundreds of petty kingdoms that existed in the past, right? And if we factor in all the bastards that these hundreds of kings had and how all families have intermarried, I tend to agree that king's blood can be found in most people in Westeros. And yet Mel never thinks about burning just any random person, does she? Nope, she doesn't. So it's obvious there's more to it than just having some king's blood. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a relevant question when you ask what makes a king a king, no?

I never said no one else is 'magical'. I said the only confirmed (and relevant) magical bloodline in this series is the Targaryen bloodline. That they are special on a magical level is clear. It is not clear in the same way for any other family. No other family runs around telling everyone about the magic in their blood nor do any other characters care about the magic in the Stark, Lannister, Tully, or any other line.

I don't know how you can be so sure of that. Oh wait, never mind, I do know. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And of course there are other people in this series that are 'magical' and sorcerers even, but in their cases it has not (necessarily) anything to do with the magic in their blood.

How should I know how that works? A huge part of it seems to be the Targaryen incest which clearly saves enough of the dragonriding magic in their blood to allow them to continue to claim dragons. Did I ever say that Targaryen bastards throughout the ages (and their descendants) lack the ability that comes with the magical 'blood of the dragon'?

Yup. And that's going to turn out spectacularly well I'm sure. :D

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, I did not say that. I'm very aware of the fact that legitimate birth is irrelevant to become a dragonrider. I'm inclined to believe that continuous intermarriage with people who don't have the blood of the dragon over dozens of generations is likely to reduce the chances that any such offspring could become a dragonrider but I doubt the potential is ever going to be bred completely out of such bloodlines.

You are aware but still you claim Dany is the most special among all those special inbred super race. Which is it? 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

However, due to the nature of this story and the rareness of dragons the average peasant who is descended from Aegon the Unworthy is not likely ever going to show off his potential as a dragonrider. Brown Ben Plumm might, though.

Also, take Dany and her siblings and parents and grandparents. They all look like prototypical Targaryens despite the fact that Daeron II, Maekar I, and Aegon V did not marry any siblings or first cousins or people of strong Valyrian ancestry. But it is still conceivable and actually not all that unlikely that an accident of history caused Jaehaerys II and his sister-wife Shaera to inherit a very pure-blooded strain of the blood of the dragon from their father King Aegon V, resulting in these two and their children and grandchildren inheriting purer or more magical dragonlord blood than many of their forebears. 

Because the way to measure 'magical specialness' is to actually measure what they accomplish in that field? And there Aegon and his sisters didn't do anything that even remotely resembles Dany's dragonhatching thing. Could be that they could have done it, too, but they did not do it - and thus we don't know whether they could have done it or not, right?

Aegon and his sisters didn't have to, so this proves nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Martin has said there's no recipe for magic. So the idea that any lord is the next best thing doesn't work. It would if this was scientific or if it had a set recipe: you don't have one ingredient so you use the next best one you have in your pantry and voila, you have a similar result. Not the case w/ magic.

If there is no recipe for magic then this whole idea that 'rituals/vows to make kings and give their relations 'king's blood' that way' is utter crap, because that would be 'a recipe for magic', too, right?

But I'd distinguish there between spells and working magic and the potential for magic. The latter clearly shows up in quite a few people - and the Targaryen bloodline - in a similar and repeatable fashion. The Faceless Men and red priests learn their craft, skinchangers and greenseers do, too, and green dreamers and those dragonlord descendants who have prophetic dreams can't stop having them.

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, yeah. It's not spelled out, but it's there. And you brought it up... didn't you say that at this point everyone and their dogs have some king's blood running through their veins? You even mentioned the hundreds of petty kingdoms that existed in the past, right? And if we factor in all the bastards that these hundreds of kings had and how all families have intermarried, I tend to agree that king's blood can be found in most people in Westeros. And yet Mel never thinks about burning just any random person, does she? Nope, she doesn't. So it's obvious there's more to it than just having some king's blood. 

Melisandre's beliefs are just that - her beliefs. And she seems to believe that Targaryen blood is special rather than any king's blood. She doesn't care about Mance's blood or Robb's blood or Greyjoy blood, etc. She chose Stannis because he resided on Dragonstone and because he and his brothers are descended from Rhaelle Targaryen and Aegon V. The blood of the Targaryen-Baratheons is special.

Perhaps there is a chance that some random dude you sacrifice also has a drop of Targaryen blood - but how big is that chance? How many people do you have to burn until the spell works? How long until Stannis loses patience?

And there is the other aspect to the whole blood sacrifice thing - the fact that it has to be a sacrifice. Killing some random guy isn't really a sacrifice at all. You sacrifice things you love. Anything else isn't a sacrifice but murder. We see that again and again in the story. Even Victarion understands this basic magical principle when he sacrifices the most beautiful youths he captured in ADwD.

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yup. And that's going to turn out spectacularly well I'm sure. :D

Well, last I looked it worked pretty fine for about 6,000 years.

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

You are aware but still you claim Dany is the most special among all those special inbred super race. Which is it? 

It is not I who made Dany wake dragons from stone. That is the most miraculous event in recorded history since, well, the Breaking perhaps. And we can argue whether that's recorded history or not. Nobody else pulled off something like that, and certainly none of those other Targaryens of known history.

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Aegon and his sisters didn't have to, so this proves nothing. 

Sure it does. If we ask who in a given group of people performed the greatest magical tricks then Daenerys Targaryen beats all other known Targaryens. If the others never entered the race we don't know how well they could have performed. But we actually do know that quite a few entered the race - Aegon III and Viserys II with the Nine Mages, Baelor the Blessed with his prayers, Daemon the Younger, Aerion Brightflame, Aegon V at Summerhall, and even Aerys II after Duskendale.

None of these people could wake dragons from stone. They all sucked. Dany did not suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, falcotron said:

Sure, maybe the only things we've heard about these horns—from Dany, from Euron, and from WoIaF—are actually wrong, and they do something else entirely. But why do you assume that's likely? You're refusing to even consider the possibility that what we're told about Valyrian blood being necessary for dragon riding might be wrong, but you're assuming that what we're told about dragonhorns and binding spells must be wrong. What's the difference?

I wouldn't say that I refuse to consider the possibility that Valyrian blood is not needed to ride dragons. It's just that there's nothing GRRM says that supports that theory. At least not so far. I think Valyrian ancestry on some level is at least a prerequisite for riding dragons because in thousands and thousands of years only they have been known to tame and ride dragons.

Valyrians themselves claim to be kin to dragons, hinting at a blood connection. And the other people mentioned in that old tale don't even have a name. Dragons were once spread all over the world but still there are no other people GRRM writes as having ridden dragons. Now is like then, non-Valyrians can't ride dragons from what we have read. Dragons do have a strong connection to Valyria itself, considering that all but the Targ dragons disappear with the Doom. If dragons roamed all over Essos once, there should be wild colonies but none as we know exist. And we really don't know what exists and doesn't in the Shadow, the ultimate mystery realm. 

I didn't say that what we are told about the dragon binding horn is wrong either. I just don't think the dragon horn will allow a non-Valyrian person--Euron--to control dragons as he imagines it will. If you manage to blow one without killing yourself, then voila, you are a dragon tamer? I don't think so. I tried to find any mention of dragonhorns being used in AWOIAF and there isn't a single instance of the word even being mentioned. Targs didn't use them and they did quite fine. Aegon I didn't need a dragonhorn to control Balerion and he managed to conquer a continent. There's no mention of old Valyrians using them or anything related to dragonhorns and their enemies either. I didn't remember Dany's dragonhorn theory until you mentioned it.

This dragon binder horn, or hellhorn, is probably not some common war horn Valyrians used to tame dragons and ride into battle with. I re-read that part on DwD and Victarion and the priest reads the inscription "No mortal man shall sound me and live." So it's something clearly very special. Moquorro the priest thinks that blood sacrifice or magic is needed to "claim" the horn and become a dragon master. There's a released chapter from TWoW where a Greyjoy brother notes Victarion making human sacrifices, like killing pregnant women (shudder), probably in an attempt to re-do the fire and blood rituals Valyrians supposedly did to control dragons. 

If the dragon binder is what Euron thinks it is, then Dany could  probably blow it. She has old Valyrian blood and she is also not a "mortal man". As to what the dragonbinder actually does, I don't know. What is binding a dragon? If Valyrians could already ride dragons without horns, why did they need one to "bind" dragons? Why didn't the Targ ancestor take one of these when he fled to Dragonstone with his family? It's not like they left in a hurry. 

2 hours ago, falcotron said:

 "if men in the Shadow had tamed dragons first, why did they not conquer as the Valyrians did?"

Actually I was wrong. The shadow people do manage to tame dragons and teach Valyrians about it, according to the story. I just noticed it. They just didn't conquer the world. The reason behind is probably because they didn't want to or had no need to. The Chinese had bigger ships that could sail as far as to Africa long before the western Europeans did. But the Ming Dynasty doesn't end up becoming a global colonial empire. It's simple as the Ming emperor not wanting to go on an international conquering spree. The Ming also had different values and ideas of diplomacy. 

 

3 hours ago, falcotron said:

If you have no idea how they bond with dragons, and you can see that even within Valyria nobody but their dragonrider families can do it, and they tell you that they can only do it because of their special blood—well, maybe they're lying, but if so, that doesn't actually help you, because every time you try to steal a dragon and tame it, you just end up getting burned to death

If all the attempted dragon thefts end up with the thief getting burned to death, then maybe what the dragon riders are telling you isn't wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

None of these people could wake dragons from stone. They all sucked. Dany did not suck.

This makes me smile. I wish Dany in DwD was more like her in GoT. Trying to tame Drogon with a whip? Like seriously! It made me so mad when I first read it. But the show Dany is much better so I like her again. I think GRRM seriously slipped with her storyline. It's lagging for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

This makes me smile. I wish Dany in DwD was more like her in GoT. Trying to tame Drogon with a whip? Like seriously! It made me so mad when I first read it. But the show Dany is much better so I like her again. I think GRRM seriously slipped with her storyline. It's lagging for sure. 

Well, the problem there is George, not Dany. The idea that Aegon, his sister, twelve-year-old Laena and ten-year-old Aemond directed dragons the size of Balerion and Vhagar with whips, too, makes me laugh. Those beasts supposedly could eat bulls and horses in one pieces. Their heads would have been enormous. A whip or scourge wouldn't be much more than a minor annoyance to them, assuming they notice it at all. And one really wonders where exactly the saddle would have been on Balerion and Vhagar. Not on the back unless that whip was thirty or forty meters long, depending on the length of the dragon's neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

I wouldn't say that I refuse to consider the possibility that Valyrian blood is not needed to ride dragons. It's just that there's nothing GRRM says that supports that theory.

Except for the example of Nettles and the other dragonseeds, and the Maesters thinking it's not clear whether they had any dragon blood or not, and Dany thinking that her ancestors used spells and horns to tame their dragons, and Dany's magic being stuff that's unique to her rather than the same as previous Targaryens, and GRRM pointing out that Dany has only a tenth the dragon blood of Aegon so maybe there's something else going on…

The only reason none of this supports the theory is that you're assuming that the theory is false, and therefore Nettles must have had some dragon blood, and therefore the Maesters must be wrong or lying, and Dany probably doesn't know what she's talking about and just came up with that idea on her own or something, and so on.

7 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

This dragon binder horn, or hellhorn, is probably not some common war horn Valyrians used to tame dragons and ride into battle with. I re-read that part on DwD and Victarion and the priest reads the inscription "No mortal man shall sound me and live." So it's something clearly very special. Moquorro the priest thinks that blood sacrifice or magic is needed to "claim" the horn and become a dragon master. There's a released chapter from TWoW where a Greyjoy brother notes Victarion making human sacrifices, like killing pregnant women (shudder), probably in an attempt to re-do the fire and blood rituals Valyrians supposedly did to control dragons. 

Consider this possibility:

The Valyrian dragonlords used dragonhorns to bind their new dragons. The whole "breeding with dragons" thing that some legends include and some do not is not true, it's just that they had the only horns, and the only knowledge of the spells, and so on. This binding is based on blood, meaning the son of the person who bound the dragon is probably good enough, but each new generation has less of the bound blood. The horns were all lost in the Doom (until Euron found one), and that's why the Targaryens resorted to incest, and still only managed to hold onto their dragons for a couple centuries. Maybe Nettles really did have about as much dragonblood as the Hulls, and that's right on the edge of being good enough, which is why one of the Hulls succeeded and the other failed. Dany's knowledge is incomplete, but basically true. And of course she only gets away with controlling Drogon without horns and spells because of the unique circumstances of her rebirthing the dragons (which will be lost within a few generations).

I'm not saying that's definitely true, just that it makes at least as much sense as the theory you're assuming, where any one-in-a-googol drop of Valyrian blood is the binary switch between able to bond with dragons or not, and the horns were actually for something other than what we're told they were for, and Dany's story is based on nothing, and so on. The only reason to believe your version is that it's basically the first thing we hear.

7 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

If all the attempted dragon thefts end up with the thief getting burned to death, then maybe what the dragon riders are telling you isn't wrong. 

Sure, maybe it is true, and you can see why people might figure that that. And maybe it isn't true, and you can see why people might assume it anyway if they didn't know what secrets they were missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Except for the example of Nettles and the other dragonseeds...

The dragonseeds were believed to be Targ or Velaron bastards in some point. The Maesters only say that "many on Dragonstone who could rightly claim—or at least suspect—that some Targaryen blood ran in their veins." They don't proclaim any doubt. Nettles is only described as a base born girl. She's probably from Dragonstone, hence going to tame wild dragons, so the reason GRRM included that description is to say that that the three people who tamed the wild dragons had some Targ blood. 

Nettles also has certain qualities that GRRM seems to use throughout his stories. If she's not Valyrian descendant, she could be the one who is special (the one exception to the rule). Considering she disappears with her dragon, she might appear in the books. 

Quote

Dany thinking that her ancestors used spells and horns...

Dany's direct ancestors (her Targ forefathers) didn't use horns or spells to control dragons. She just doesn't know how to get Drogon to do what she wants because Drogon isn't a trained horse like her Silver. So she thinks spells and horns may be needed. But known history about dragons clearly has no mention of these things. 

Quote

Dany's magic being stuff that's unique...

This only matters to the dragon hatching event, not her controlling dragons. 

Quote

GRRM pointing out that Dany has only a tenth the dragon blood of Aegon...

Where does GRRM say that? Also, the important traits of the Targ family have certainly passed down: dragon affinity and prophetic dreams. Targs before Dany have had these abilities since the original Targs fled to Dragonstone from Valyria. 

Quote

 

The only reason none of this supports the theory is that you're assuming that the theory is false,


 

There is no evidence at all to show that just anyone in Westeros or Essos can somehow ride dragons, like horses. GRRM has always been specific in showing that only Valyrians and their descendants (Targs) can do so. The reason for this might be explained as we learn more about the fire and ice conflict. 

11 hours ago, falcotron said:

The Valyrian dragonlords used dragonhorns to bind their new dragons. The whole "breeding with dragons" thing that some legends include and some do not is not true, it's just that they had the only horns, and the only knowledge of the spells, and so on. This binding is based on blood, meaning the son of the person who bound the dragon is probably good enough, but each new generation has less of the bound blood. The horns were all lost in the Doom (until Euron found one), and that's why the Targaryens resorted to incest, and still only managed to hold onto their dragons for a couple centuries. Maybe Nettles really did have about as much dragonblood as the Hulls, and that's right on the edge of being good enough, which is why one of the Hulls succeeded and the other failed. Dany's knowledge is incomplete, but basically true. And of course she only gets away with controlling Drogon without horns and spells because of the unique circumstances of her rebirthing the dragons (which will be lost within a few generations).

No one says Valyrians "bred" with dragons. They just call dragons "kin." Why this is, no one knows. 

Pretty much everything Valyrian was lost to the Doom. Euron says he somehow found this horn in the ruins. There are other Valyrian stuff being traded around in Essos, so he could have gotten this from that trading port in Asshai or wherever too. The point is, the reason Targs resort to incest is not because they don't have the horns anymore. They left Valyria some dozen years before the Doom comes. So they had plenty of times to get a horn. If the Targs remembered to pack their dragons, they would have remembered to pack the horns too if those were really necessary. 

The Targs resort to incest to protect the "blood of the dragon" as they are the last family left. There are others with Valyrian blood in Free Cities, but these are all baseborn people. Some Targs do go to Essos for Valyrian blooded brides or grooms, like Aerys tries at first for Rhaegar. 

There could have been other reasons for incest as well. The inheritance and property laws and customs in Westeros for example. If they had married outside the family, some dragons would have left with the daughters to the families of their outsider husbands. The resulting half-Targ children, who will now have other surnames, may have been able to ride the dragons in the name of other houses.That would result in Targs losing their most valuable property, and they obviously didn't want that. 

The reason dragons disappear from the world is not known. The Dance killed many dragons. And the magic going out of the world may have been a cause as well. The blood dilution probably wasn't a reason because Targs don't have trouble controlling dragons. The dragons stop being born healthy and as big as they used to for some reason as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the problem there is George, not Dany. The idea that Aegon, his sister, twelve-year-old Laena and ten-year-old Aemond directed dragons the size of Balerion and Vhagar with whips, too, makes me laugh. Those beasts supposedly could eat bulls and horses in one pieces. Their heads would have been enormous. A whip or scourge wouldn't be much more than a minor annoyance to them, assuming they notice it at all. And one really wonders where exactly the saddle would have been on Balerion and Vhagar. Not on the back unless that whip was thirty or forty meters long, depending on the length of the dragon's neck.

Dany also notices that Drogon's hide/scales gets too thick for the whip to hurt. And he's only like 2 years old! Maybe these whipping descriptions come from an earlier draft. How would you saddle an enormous dragon anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The dragonseeds were believed to be Targ or Velaron bastards in some point. The Maesters only say that "many on Dragonstone who could rightly claim—or at least suspect—that some Targaryen blood ran in their veins." They don't proclaim any doubt. Nettles is only described as a base born girl. She's probably from Dragonstone, hence going to tame wild dragons, so the reason GRRM included that description is to say that that the three people who tamed the wild dragons had some Targ blood. 

Nettles also has certain qualities that GRRM seems to use throughout his stories. If she's not Valyrian descendant, she could be the one who is special (the one exception to the rule). Considering she disappears with her dragon, she might appear in the books. 

Dany's direct ancestors (her Targ forefathers) didn't use horns or spells to control dragons. She just doesn't know how to get Drogon to do what she wants because Drogon isn't a trained horse like her Silver. So she thinks spells and horns may be needed. But known history about dragons clearly has no mention of these things. 

This only matters to the dragon hatching event, not her controlling dragons. 

Where does GRRM say that? Also, the important traits of the Targ family have certainly passed down: dragon affinity and prophetic dreams. Targs before Dany have had these abilities since the original Targs fled to Dragonstone from Valyria. 

There is no evidence at all to show that just anyone in Westeros or Essos can somehow ride dragons, like horses. GRRM has always been specific in showing that only Valyrians and their descendants (Targs) can do so. The reason for this might be explained as we learn more about the fire and ice conflict. 

No one says Valyrians "bred" with dragons. They just call dragons "kin." Why this is, no one knows. 

Pretty much everything Valyrian was lost to the Doom. Euron says he somehow found this horn in the ruins. There are other Valyrian stuff being traded around in Essos, so he could have gotten this from that trading port in Asshai or wherever too. The point is, the reason Targs resort to incest is not because they don't have the horns anymore. They left Valyria some dozen years before the Doom comes. So they had plenty of times to get a horn. If the Targs remembered to pack their dragons, they would have remembered to pack the horns too if those were really necessary. 

The Targs resort to incest to protect the "blood of the dragon" as they are the last family left. There are others with Valyrian blood in Free Cities, but these are all baseborn people. Some Targs do go to Essos for Valyrian blooded brides or grooms, like Aerys tries at first for Rhaegar. 

There could have been other reasons for incest as well. The inheritance and property laws and customs in Westeros for example. If they had married outside the family, some dragons would have left with the daughters to the families of their outsider husbands. The resulting half-Targ children, who will now have other surnames, may have been able to ride the dragons in the name of other houses.That would result in Targs losing their most valuable property, and they obviously didn't want that. 

The reason dragons disappear from the world is not known. The Dance killed many dragons. And the magic going out of the world may have been a cause as well. The blood dilution probably wasn't a reason because Targs don't have trouble controlling dragons. The dragons stop being born healthy and as big as they used to for some reason as well. 

GRRM mentions it during an interview. I recall it too. I dont remember though if it was a video or not though. He talks about the blood being diluted and that Dany is far less Targaryen by blood than Aegon the Conqueror was. Due to the fact of marrying out side the family so many times. Hinting to fans that there is something more going on with Dany hatching dragon eggs than her just being a Targaryen. 

Which is why some people believe Rhaegar and or Bloodraven was searching for the roots to the Targaryen bloodline and or, just breeding with houses that had the needed genetics. This is where House Dayne and House Stark come into the theory. The houses being ice and fire that came together the first time and produced the Valyrian people to begin with. Or something along those lines to varying degrees. Some think it's actually Blackwood genes they need. The idea is that the Targaryens lost the Warging/Skingchanging genes that once allowed them to control and hatch dragons. Which leads to problems in and of it self though, no matter how you wanna play the parent/genetic game.

I think there is a parentage thing at play and that it will matter to the story, but not in the way we've been thinking. I think it has nothing to do with Dany hatching Dragons though. Unless she actually was the child of Ned and Ashara, but then she wouldn't be a Targaryen and hunted. So there's problems there. If she's just a Dayne/Targareyn mix as i suspect, then it still doesnt answer how she hatched dragons. Being a Stark/Targaryen baby might as we've never seen one in the past, but Jon appears to be our Targ/Stark baby. So this is why i believe parentage and blood isn't what's going on entirely with the hatching of the dragons. 

It also wouldn't explain how the original people hatched and controlled dragons. To which you mention a good point, never used horns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...