What if the Targaryens still had dragons during Robert's Rebellion?

[Darth Sidious]

King Aerys II would have simply sent dragons to the Vale to apprehend and execute Ned and Robert.  And that would have been end of it.  Whatever evil plot the Starks and the Baratheons were plotting would end quickly.  Then, of course, you could argue that the mere thought of defying the Targaryens would not have gone far if they had had dragons.  

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:18 AM, Lord Varys said:

Not that I recall, but you would have to keep in mind that if there were still plenty of dragons around Rhaelle Targaryen still marries Ormund Baratheon, then both Steffon and his sons might be either given dragon eggs or would be encouraged to claim riderless dragons. Let's say Rhaelle and Steffon both were dragonriders, then their deaths by the time the Rebellion starts would have given both Robert and Stannis the opportunity to claim the dragons of their grandmother and father.

[snip'd for space]

Again, I'm not trying to refute the possibility that anybody could become dragonriders. I'm just pointing out there are other barriers, like reluctance to try mounting a dragon because of the potential dangers, even for Targs.

I find it unlikely the Targs were giving out dragons to extended family, let alone encouraging them to become dragonriders. Their children? Sure, but it would be giving away too much power to be allowing any further generations access to dragons unless they married back into the Targ family.

But as I said, I'm sure Robert would have been reckless enough to take a dragon for himself during war (maybe even before that). Stannis, I'm so sure about.

[James West]

On 10/24/2019 at 9:10 AM, FitzChivalry Fartseer said:

Well, Robert would have lost

True.  The rebellion would have been over before news got out of the Eyrie. 

[James West]

On 10/24/2019 at 2:18 PM, The Young Maester said:

Do you reckon that Aerys and Rhaella are capable to ride dragons in their state. 

Queen Rhaella must have been a remarkable woman.  I don't see why not.  No to Aerys.  The dragon would have sensed his emotional fragility and refused to submit.

[James West]

On 10/28/2019 at 7:53 PM, The Way of the Dragon said:

King Aerys II would have simply sent dragons to the Vale to apprehend and execute Ned and Robert.  And that would have been end of it.  Whatever evil plot the Starks and the Baratheons were plotting would end quickly.  Then, of course, you could argue that the mere thought of defying the Targaryens would not have gone far if they had had dragons.  

Now that is an interesting proposition.  The king sent for the heads of Ned and Robert.  But why not Stannis and Renly?  He also spared the life of mad Brandon's squire.  I'm thinking Varys tortured the hell out of Brandon and broke the man like bread at the dinner table.  Brandon talked and revealed the names of the traitors.  The executions of Brandon and Rickard were understandable if they were traitors.  It was also understandable why Robert and Ned would have to die.  They were young men but they had a responsibility to turn in their relatives to the king.  Ned was part of the conspiracy if he knew and kept it secret from Aerys.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Again, I'm not trying to refute the possibility that anybody could become dragonriders. I'm just pointing out there are other barriers, like reluctance to try mounting a dragon because of the potential dangers, even for Targs.

There seems to be no such danger. No Targaryen was ever killed or even rejected by a dragon. Aerea may have had difficulties directing Balerion, but he neither hurt nor rejected her - instead he apparently saved her from whatever nearly killed both of them in Valyria.

And I actually think Barth and Gyldayn are jumping to conclusions there. There are subtle clues that Aerea simply didn't know where to go and definitely had no place in Westeros where she wanted to go, so chances are pretty high that Aerea deliberately told/allowed Balerion to take her wherever he wanted to go if she got away from her mother, her aunt and uncle, and Westeros.

If Balerion sort of rejected her, then it is very odd that she accompanied him to Valyria and they stayed together for as long as they did.

8 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I find it unlikely the Targs were giving out dragons to extended family, let alone encouraging them to become dragonriders. Their children? Sure, but it would be giving away too much power to be allowing any further generations access to dragons unless they married back into the Targ family.

But they actually did that. Or rather: They had no other choice once a dragonriding cadet branch had established itself - as was the case with the Velaryons and younger Targaryens. Rhaenyra's sons seem to see Vhagar as a Velaryon dragon after Laenor's death - and Aemond's attempt to mount her as attempted theft. If Rhaelle and Steffon had kept dragons at Storm's End, then access to those dragons would have been controlled by House Baratheon, not the Iron Throne.

And it is actually very striking that Laena Velaryon got to ride Vhagar ... after the Velaryons got humiliated at the Great Council and with Viserys I refusing to mount another dragon. I mean, we don't know when she claimed Vhagar, but the text indicates that she didn't have at the Great Council - there much is made of Laenor having Seasmoke who he has yet to ride, but if Laena had come to Harrenhal on Vhagar's back the deliberations may have gone somewhat differently...

In light of the fact that Jaehaerys I actually started to keep his dragons under guard to prevent unwanted potential riders from trying to claim them (hello there, Saera) it is very odd that Vhagar could pass from Baelon to Laena Velaryon. Meleys going from Alyssa to Rhaenys makes sense since it happens before the rift between the branches of House Targaryen, but Aemon's Caraxes passing to Daemon at some unknown point as well as Dreamfyre not having a rider between Rhaena's death in 73 AC until the point Helaena claimed her sometime before 120 AC is somewhat strange.

6 minutes ago, Steve Womack said:

Queen Rhaella must have been a remarkable woman.  I don't see why not.  No to Aerys.  The dragon would have sensed his emotional fragility and refused to submit.

Aerys II would have been given an egg as an infant or he would have claimed a riderless dragon at some point in his childhood or youth. And once they had a bond they would have had a bond.

[James West]

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Aerys II would have been given an egg as an infant or he would have claimed a riderless dragon at some point in his childhood or youth. And once they had a bond they would have had a bond.

Possibly possible.  Aerys was a brave lad in his youth.  He fought bravely in battles.  Dennis would never dared to kingnap and torment him for months.  No ptsd.  He might never have gone insane.  The dragon bond provides emotional support.  He would have remained sane. 

 

[Back door hodor]

On 10/27/2019 at 5:52 AM, lunasmeow said:

A lot of this is based of flawed assumptions because people fail to look beyond surface level shit. There are several things to remember:

1. People didn't revolt because Aerys and Targaryens in general were mad. First, Targaryen madness was actually not very prominent. It didn't happen often, considering how many Targs there were, more if you consider those with Targ blood but not the name, like Robert himself. They revolted because of tyranny. You can be as tyrannical a ruler as you want to be - so long as you limit it to the common people and exclude your fellow nobles. This is also why "first night" is a thing in history, despite people wanting to say "that couldn't be real, people would revolt!" because no, people wouldn't.

Revolts take money, because money buys swords and armor. There weren't very many (successful) peasant revolutions in history, not until it got easier to gain access to weapons. Because money is king.

 

2. The assumption that Robert would have a dragon, or even be able to ride one if it was offered. Yes, Robert has Targaryen blood - but even full blooded Targaryens stopped being able to hatch dragons... When they used to just put them into the cribs of babies for them to be born. Yes, Dragonseeds exist, but all this means is that it is possible for the "Dragonlord" trait to be passed down, but that also means it is possible for it not to be. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been so few dragonseeds, practically all of Westeros would have been able to tame dragons with how spread out the blood was. We don't know if Robert would be a "dragonseed" or not. And considering Orys and his children never got a dragon, it is very possible that his "strong seed" would overwhelm the delicate Targ genes, making it impossible for Robert to have a dragon of his own.

 

3. If Robert has no dragon, there is no rebellion. Period. Because Robert's rebellion was only successful, because of the support he got from other nobles. Other nobles who would not have helped him if they had a real dragon to face. Robert would need not only a dragon, but enough dragons aligned with him to make the fight not just a one-sided overwhelming battle where he gets piled on by all the loyal Targ dragonriders.

 

I'm sure there's more, but even this simple bit is more than enough. If Targs have dragons, even if Robert and Stannis and Renly all had one and were working together... they'd still lose. Because there'd be too many Targs around with dragons of their own. They'd be outnumbered.

Dorne stood against 3 dragons, had none of their own and remained "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken, 1 to 3 dragons are not an auto win button, 100 to 300 are(for reference, view the section of the world book on Nymeria and the Rhyonar). Also looking at the dance, dragons do not equal victories nessicarily, the side with less dragons won as many battles as the side with more. Dragonriders can still be tricked and outmaneuvered, and neutralized fairly easily, and dragons, to be effective military weapons, require dragonriders.

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There seems to be no such danger. No Targaryen was ever killed or even rejected by a dragon. Aerea may have had difficulties directing Balerion, but he neither hurt nor rejected her - instead he apparently saved her from whatever nearly killed both of them in Valyria. 

And I actually think Barth and Gyldayn are jumping to conclusions there. There are subtle clues that Aerea simply didn't know where to go and definitely had no place in Westeros where she wanted to go, so chances are pretty high that Aerea deliberately told/allowed Balerion to take her wherever he wanted to go if she got away from her mother, her aunt and uncle, and Westeros. 

If Balerion sort of rejected her, then it is very odd that she accompanied him to Valyria and they stayed together for as long as they did.

I'm sure there was another Targ who was rejected by a dragon... though I may be misrepremembering, and I can't be bothered to slog through WOIAF again to check.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The only thing that matters is that people believed it was a dangerous affair, even if it was just propoganda.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they actually did that. Or rather: They had no other choice once a dragonriding cadet branch had established itself - as was the case with the Velaryons and younger Targaryens. Rhaenyra's sons seem to see Vhagar as a Velaryon dragon after Laenor's death - and Aemond's attempt to mount her as attempted theft. If Rhaelle and Steffon had kept dragons at Storm's End, then access to those dragons would have been controlled by House Baratheon, not the Iron Throne.

That's why I asked if there were any dragonriders who were more than a generation away from a Targ. Laena Velaryon was still daughter of a Targ. If dragons stayed within families rather than just with the Targs, then shouldn't there exist a dragonrider who wasn't a child of one?

Maybe this an impossible to answer question though, given the Targs' tendency to marry close relatives. I'm not even sure if there were any legit Targ descendants who were not the children of Targs, during the period dragons still existed.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm sure there was another Targ who was rejected by a dragon... though I may be misrepremembering, and I can't be bothered to slog through WOIAF again to check.

Dragonseeds and would-be-dragonseeds had issues, but none of the Targaryen/Velaryon children born to dragonriders ever had issues.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Anyway, that's beside the point. The only thing that matters is that people believed it was a dangerous affair, even if it was just propoganda.

They say it is risky to approach and mount an old and foul-tempered dragon like Balerion or Vhagar in her later years. Yet the way the children of Rhaelle and Steffon would get their dragons is not necessarily by means of being forced to claim dangerous dragons - rather by inheriting the dragons of their parents or by being given dragon eggs or hatchlings at an early age which all but guarantees a successful bonding.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

That's why I asked if there were any dragonriders who were more than a generation away from a Targ. Laena Velaryon was still daughter of a Targ. If dragons stayed within families rather than just with the Targs, then shouldn't there exist a dragonrider who wasn't a child of one?

This would have happened if such cadet branches had developed. And to be sure, they were about to develop a couple of times. Aegon I had two sons, meaning that both Aenys and Maegor could have founded dragonrider branches of the family, during Jaehaerys I's early reign Rhaena and Aerea were the potential founders of another such branch (not to mention that they were controlling all the dragons on Dragonstone which, at that point, were most dragons in existence), just as Jaehaerys I's two sons Aemon and Baelon founded two such branches as well - and Daemon and Laena started another branch later on, as did Viserys I when he married Alicent Hightower their children then did, too.

9 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Maybe this an impossible to answer question though, given the Targs' tendency to marry close relatives. I'm not even sure if there were any legit Targ descendants who were not the children of Targs, during the period dragons still existed.

The inbreeding certainly absorbed many branches back into the main family, but even after the Dance Daemon's daughters by Laena Velaryon are not married to Rhaenyra's sons by Daemon. If the dragons had lived then there would have been two Targaryen dragonrider branches (founded by Aegon III and Viserys II) a Velaryon branch (continued by Baela and Alyn) and, possibly, a Hightower branch founded by Rhaena Targaryen, the last known dragonrider to this point, and her second husband, Garmund Hightower (and considering that they had six daughters it is possible that they would and did spread the blood of the dragon to many other houses).

[HexMachina]

On 10/30/2019 at 5:52 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm sure there was another Targ who was rejected by a dragon... though I may be misrepremembering, and I can't be bothered to slog through WOIAF again to check.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The only thing that matters is that people believed it was a dangerous affair, even if it was just propoganda.

That's why I asked if there were any dragonriders who were more than a generation away from a Targ. Laena Velaryon was still daughter of a Targ. If dragons stayed within families rather than just with the Targs, then shouldn't there exist a dragonrider who wasn't a child of one?

Maybe this an impossible to answer question though, given the Targs' tendency to marry close relatives. I'm not even sure if there were any legit Targ descendants who were not the children of Targs, during the period dragons still existed.

Perhaps you are thinking of Joffrey being thrown by Syrax? Slightly different though as Syrax was already bound to another