Jump to content
Mario Seddy

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/25/2019 at 6:36 AM, Lord Varys said:

Not necessarily - Robert and Stannis could have become dragonriders, too. They are Targaryen descendants, too. In fact, if there had been as many or more dragons around in that era as there were during the reign of Viserys I then chances are very high that they would have given dragons to their Baratheon cousins or encouraged them to claim some riderless dragons. After all, for most of Aerys II's reign it were only he, Rhaella, and Rhaegar.

Were there ever any dragonriders who were more than a generation away from a Targ (other than the Dragonseeds, who claimed to be bastards of Targs, anyway)? I'm not saying it would be impossible for extended family members to claim dragons, but it seems they would have been less inclined to try because of the risks involved.

It's plausible Robert would have impulsively jumped onto a dragon during war though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Were there ever any dragonriders who were more than a generation away from a Targ (other than the Dragonseeds, who claimed to be bastards of Targs, anyway)? I'm not saying it would be impossible for extended family members to claim dragons, but it seems they would have been less inclined to try because of the risks involved.

It's plausible Robert would have impulsively jumped onto a dragon during war though.

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.

Basically, this would be same scenario as Princess Rhaenys' children Laena and Laenor getting dragons - which they did. And their children would have gotten dragons, too, one assumes, starting another family of dragonlords. The same way how Queen Rhaena would have started a family a of dragonlords on Fair Isle had she remained there and had Androw given her children - after all, Dreamfyre was producing eggs, and if they hatched her children could have had dragons of their own.

How far down the ancestry the dragonlord blood link can be we see with Addam of Hull whose - if Corlys rather than Laenor is his father and assuming that Marilda isn't descended from any dragonseeds or has Velaryon bastards among her own ancestry - last Targaryen ancestor would have been the the mother of the first Daemon Velaryon - assuming he was a brother of Valaena Velaryon who was the mother of the Conqueror and wife of Lord Aerion Targaryen (and that isn't confirmed). That woman would be Lord Corlys' great-great-great-grandmother, making her Addam's great-great-great-great-grandmother.

And in the main series we see a similar link - Brown Ben Plumm is a Targaryen descendant with a pretty strong affinity to Dany's dragons, and yet his last Targaryen ancestor(s) seem to have been Princess Elaena and, possibly, Aegon IV. So that clearly works.

In fact, if you look at FaB - Rogar Baratheon and Alyssa Velaryon were both pretty stupid that they not decided to acquire some dragons of their own when it came up that Jaehaerys and Alysanne and Rhaena had some while they had none. Alyssa could have definitely become a dragonrider, and Rogar, too, if Orys Baratheon truly was Aerion Targaryen's son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, if you look at FaB - Rogar Baratheon and Alyssa Velaryon were both pretty stupid that they not decided to acquire some dragons of their own when it came up that Jaehaerys and Alysanne and Rhaena had some while they had none. Alyssa could have definitely become a dragonrider, and Rogar, too, if Orys Baratheon truly was Aerion Targaryen's son.

Actually Orys not being dragonrider makes it less likely that he is Aerion's son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn said:

Actually Orys not being dragonrider makes it less likely that he is Aerion's son.

Ah, not really, considering that the Targaryens didn't really give dragons to their bastards back in the day. That only changed with the Dance. Daemon gave an egg to Mysaria for their unborn child, yet Viserys I commanded to return it and that he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 8:12 AM, Dreadscythe95 said:

There would be no open rebelion if Targaryens had Dragons. Aerys would probably get assasinated but that's it. 

No, there would be no rebellion.  Robert and Ned would be holding their tiny members while waiting to have their heads removed.  I hate the Starks.  I would like nothing better than to see Winterfell and the Starks roasted down to charcoal nuggets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King of Heroes said:

No, there would be no rebellion.  Robert and Ned would be holding their tiny members while waiting to have their heads removed.  I hate the Starks.  I would like nothing better than to see Winterfell and the Starks roasted down to charcoal nuggets.  

Do you need a whetstone for that edge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, King of Heroes said:

No, there would be no rebellion.  Robert and Ned would be holding their tiny members while waiting to have their heads removed.  I hate the Starks.  I would like nothing better than to see Winterfell and the Starks roasted down to charcoal nuggets. 

Then you are reading the wrong story, xD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, King of Heroes said:

Robert and Ned would be holding their tiny members while waiting to have their heads removed.

Correction. Robert would be holding his massive member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, Lord Varys said:

Not necessarily - Robert and Stannis could have become dragonriders, too. They are Targaryen descendants, too. In fact, if there had been as many or more dragons around in that era as there were during the reign of Viserys I then chances are very high that they would have given dragons to their Baratheon cousins or encouraged them to claim some riderless dragons. After all, for most of Aerys II's reign it were only he, Rhaella, and Rhaegar.

If Robert or Stannis had ridden dragons the size of Caraxes or Vermithor or even Vhagar the war could have been rather quickly over. But then - it would have come down to a dragon fight since we can be very sure that the Lyanna thing would have resulted in Robert searching out and eventually finding Rhaegar on dragonback. And Rhaegar had prevailed then there wouldn't have been a war.

A scenario like Jon Arryn coming forth to protect Ned and Robert would also not have been very likely - the Eyrie was oh so vulnerable to a dragon attack, meaning chances are not that good that Jon would have risked Aerys II or Rhaella or Rhaegar visiting him and his castle on dragonback.

Was going to dismiss this topic out of hand, but after reading this, you are right I think, assuming an alternative timeline where the targs still have dragons in 285 AC,  its highly likely Bobby and Stan,s Targ Grandmom, has a dragon, which than one of them can claim assuming Stefon still dies when they are young.

Obviously this is all basically fan fiction but I think you are thinking the right way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that dragons can exist only as long as there are enough stuff what makes magic possible available. Or if there are dragons spells of alchemists, witches, warlocks, greensee'ers and wargs would be much stronger. That would make Westeros totally different and possible wars would be fought as often between hired magic users as men at arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by lunasmeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

. 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.

The most simple assumption is that Targs do not give dragons to bastards, the one time they did it, the Baratheons were fighting the oposite side, since Rhaenys had zero problems becoming a dragonrider while she was part Baratheon and  had Baratheon traits i'm not sure anyway.

 

 

11 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

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.

Totally depends, there were only 3 adult Targs by then, Rhaegar who was awol, Rhaella who would certainly not able to ride and  Aerys himself, if say Robert's dragon  is big enough, he can give both Rhaegar and  Aerys a run for their money.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, frenin said:

The most simple assumption is that Targs do not give dragons to bastards, the one time they did it, the Baratheons were fighting the oposite side, since Rhaenys had zero problems becoming a dragonrider while she was part Baratheon and  had Baratheon traits i'm not sure anyway.

Not true - this is the entire reason I pointed out how few "dragonseeds" there were during the Dance. This is a time when there were more than enough dragons, yet not enough riders, and Targs were desperate enough to let anyone who could ride, get a dragon. Targs fucked a lot and their blood was very much spread around even if you just counted the legitimate family marriages. The Celtigars, the Velaryons... Notice how despite those families having Targ blood and being loyal, you didn't see many of them step up?

Sure, Targs didn't generally give dragons to bastards, but that's not the point here, and in fact doesn't matter here - because both things are true at the same time from what evidence we have. Yes, Targs didn't give dragons to bastards, but they also didn't always pass down the trait. History during the dance proves that, at least as much as we can prove anything.

20 minutes ago, frenin said:

Totally depends, there were only 3 adult Targs by then, Rhaegar who was awol, Rhaella who would certainly not able to ride and  Aerys himself, if say Robert's dragon  is big enough, he can give both Rhaegar and  Aerys a run for their money.

Not necessarily. Remember, dragons don't have to wait for their riders to grow up. Dragons often outlive their riders, and get claimed by their children. Aegon and Rhaenys may have been mere babies - but if dragons didn't die out, they'd be babies with dragons from their older family that died. Big ass dragons that would protect their little child "riders" at all costs. Which means... well, let's just say King's Landing wouldn't have been taken by Tywin, and they'd not have been killed on his orders. Furthermore, with a ton of dragons available, other Targs wouldn't have just died and vanished to history. And there'd still be dragons in the loyal Velaryon and Celtigar families too. They're Valyrian, and have Targ blood. Unlike Baratheon, whose blood might make him not a rider... their blood wouldn't invalidate the Targ trait. And as loyal fellow Valyrians... there'd be more than just "three dragons" even not counting the ones that baby Aegon and Rhaenys would have had protecting them.

Furthermore, you're talking about Robert's dragon being "big enough". Well, just no. No way would the Targs let the bigger, older dragons go to outsiders. They'd keep the big ones, and make the outsiders get the younger, smaller ones. That's just common sense!

So ignore the babies (those dragons I'd assume would be stuck in King's Landing and therefore useless for anything but defense) add Aenys, Rhaella, Rhaegar, and the Celtigars and Velaryons. That's more than three - particularly if you consider just how many adults the Celtigar and Valaryon families had at that time. Robert and his brothers would be outnumbered.

This is with your assumption that Robert and his brothers even got a dragon at all! Which is a huge assumption, going by history. Targs intermarried with Baratheons multiple times, yet the Baratheons never once got a dragon. Which points to them being "unable" rather than Targ preferences. Espeically since Targs gave other married families (Velaryon) dragons, but not the Baratheon one, which shows that they had no problems giving their close relatives dragons - because they figured that being family, they'd have their backs, so it was more dragons on the "loyal" side. They never expected the Baratheons to betray them, yet they never gave a Baratheon a dragon. The closest Baratheons ever got was marrying a Dragonlord.

Edited by lunasmeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

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.

It was rare. In Western Europe the practice of prima nocta was barely used. We haven’t got evidence whether nobles would practice the first night. Some societies like tribal leaders would practice it every once and a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

Not true - this is the entire reason I pointed out how few "dragonseeds" there were during the Dance. This is a time when there were more than enough dragons, yet not enough riders, and Targs were desperate enough to let anyone who could ride, get a dragon. Targs fucked a lot and their blood was very much spread around even if you just counted the legitimate family marriages. The Celtigars, the Velaryons... Notice how despite those families having Targ blood and being loyal, you didn't see many of them step up?

Sure, Targs didn't generally give dragons to bastards, but that's not the point here, and in fact doesn't matter here - because both things are true at the same time from what evidence we have. Yes, Targs didn't give dragons to bastards, but they also didn't always pass down the trait. History during the dance proves that, at least as much as we can prove anything.

When a Celtigar triedto have a dragon, Rhaenrya laughed in his face, you're assuming that because one family didn't have dragons, said family couldn't have dragons, the Velaryons intermarried the Targs many times around history but they only got to become dragonriders through to Rhaenys in a time where Jaeharys let become dragonriders to practically all his descendants but before that we see Rhaena leaving Casterly Rock because the Lannisters wanted to become dragonriders themselves.

If Rhaenys Targ, being half Baratheon could become a dragonrider and all her children could become dragonriders, i don't really see why Rhaelle's offspring, so the fact that the Celtigars didn't step up don't mean a Baratheon couldn't.

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

Not necessarily. Remember, dragons don't have to wait for their riders to grow up. Dragons often outlive their riders, and get claimed by their children. Aegon and Rhaenys may have been mere babies - but if dragons didn't die out, they'd be babies with dragons from their older family that died. Big ass dragons that would protect their little child "riders" at all costs. Which means... well, let's just say King's Landing wouldn't have been taken by Tywin, and they'd not have been killed on his orders. Furthermore, with a ton of dragons available, other Targs wouldn't have just died and vanished to history. And there'd still be dragons in the loyal Velaryon and Celtigar families too. They're Valyrian, and have Targ blood. Unlike Baratheon, whose blood might make him not a rider... their blood wouldn't invalidate the Targ trait. And as loyal fellow Valyrians... there'd be more than just "three dragons" even not counting the ones that baby Aegon and Rhaenys would have had protecting them.

Rhaenys and Aegon wouldn't have big ass dragons, they would 3 and not even 1 by the time of the rebellion no sane person would've given them big ass dragons, they would be given dragon eggs, if not point me a time any Targ toddler was given a big ass dragon and i'll buy it.

With tons of dragons available,  Robert might bethrothed a Tarrg princess, therefore there is no rebellion, Daeron would've never lost Dorne, so everything changes!!! We have to stick with the variables we got or it makes no sense to talk about this,if the Targs still had dragons, Aerys wouldn't ever got to the throne or directly he would never exist, so we have to stay as closer as we can with the events and characters or there is no point on discussing this because we can assume that everything is different therefore, none of the events that led to the Rebellion happened.

 

The Celtigars had never been dragonriders, they have Valyrian blood, but Essos is full of Valyrian blood but less so of dragonlord's blood  and as far as we know, no Celtigar ever married a Targ, so they simply can't become dragonriders, the Velaryons might, true enough, but also.

 

 

54 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

Furthermore, you're talking about Robert's dragon being "big enough". Well, just no. No way would the Targs let the bigger, older dragons go to outsiders. They'd keep the big ones, and make the outsiders get the younger, smaller ones. That's just common sense!

 

Hmmm, Laena Velaryon rode Vhagar.

 

 

55 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

 So ignore the babies (those dragons I'd assume would be stuck in King's Landing and therefore useless for anything but defense) add Aenys, Rhaella, Rhaegar, and the Celtigars and Velaryons. That's more than three - particularly if you consider just how many adults the Celtigar and Valaryon families had at that time. Robert and his brothers would be outnumbered.

 

Rhaella is not riding any dragon, thaanks to hubbie, Rhaegar and Aerys yes, the Velaryons are not getting any dragons due to not being married to Targs since Baela and the Celtigars are not dragonriders.

 

 

57 minutes ago, lunasmeow said:

 This is with your assumption that Robert and his brothers even got a dragon at all! Which is a huge assumption, going by history. Targs intermarried with Baratheons multiple times, yet the Baratheons never once got a dragon. Which points to them being "unable" rather than Targ preferences. Espeically since Targs gave other married families (Velaryon) dragons, but not the Baratheon one, which shows that they had no problems giving their close relatives dragons - because they figured that being family, they'd have their backs, so it was more dragons on the "loyal" side. They never expected the Baratheons to betray them, yet they never gave a Baratheon a dragon. The closest Baratheons ever got was marrying a Dragonlord.

The Baratheon's never got dragons because no Targ Princess married with the Baratheons, the Velaryons married their daughters to Baratheons for a long time, yet they only got dragons when Rhaenys married Corlys, no Baratheon ever married a Targ girl until Rhaelle married Ormund and by then the dragons were long dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

It was rare. In Western Europe the practice of prima nocta was barely used. We haven’t got evidence whether nobles would practice the first night. Some societies like tribal leaders would practice it every once and a while. 

Oh rare for sure - just not as "impossible" as some who like to clean up history try to make it seem. But also, just because it's available doesn't mean it's going to be used... most royalty/nobility didn't need to - just being nobles meant pussy was lining up to bed them, and frankly most people aren't attractive enough for them to want to, when they're not desperate for it.

The point wasn't about how often it was done, but that the practice existed, and that it was able to exist because it wasn't done to other nobles - unlike what was talked about with Aerys and Joanna, where Aerys wished it was still around, because the wives of nobility were typically exempt from that practice, mostly because you don't want to give your nobility reasons to rebel.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

When a Celtigar triedto have a dragon, Rhaenrya laughed in his face, you're assuming that because one family didn't have dragons, said family couldn't have dragons, the Velaryons intermarried the Targs many times around history but they only got to become dragonriders through to Rhaenys in a time where Jaeharys let become dragonriders to practically all his descendants but before that we see Rhaena leaving Casterly Rock because the Lannisters wanted to become dragonriders themselves.

If Rhaenys Targ, being half Baratheon could become a dragonrider and all her children could become dragonriders, i don't really see why Rhaelle's offspring, so the fact that the Celtigars didn't step up don't mean a Baratheon couldn't.

You're misunderstanding my point and actually saying some of the opposite of what I said.

I'm not saying all Valyrians can have dragons - I never said that. What I said was that the Baratheon "strong seed" might make it where their children can't necessarily have dragons. Rhaenys, very obviously didn't catch the "strong seed" since she looks nothing like a Baratheon and everything like a Targaryen. Which means she doesn't negate my point at all.

What I also said was that Celtigars with Targ blood would be more likely to be compatible for dragons than Baratheons with Targ blood. This is because of basic genetics. Valyrians, are closer to Targs than non-Valyrians, so if you have a dragonlord trait, and you have a child with someone close to your own abilities, and you have a child with someone not like you at all... you're more likely to get the child with a specific racial trait from a Valyrian than from a Westerosi. Baratheons, are very Westerosi. Possibly due to the blood of the Durrandons, which supposedly has god's blood from ancient Westerosi deities in it.

Furthermore, you seem to be making my point stronger. Celtigars wanted a dragon, and couldn't get one, this despite being part Targ and Valyrian to boot. So you'd think if there was a time to step up and obtain what they wanted, a dragon, the time of the Dragonseeds would be it. The time when anyone who could master a dragon was being accepted. Also, when this refusal happened? There were many more Targs than dragons, so why would they have given Celtigars a dragon at that time? You're only going to give dragons out to what are essentially "branch families" when you are already full up in the "main" family.

I fail to see any reason here that I'm wrong.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Rhaenys and Aegon wouldn't have big ass dragons, they would 3 and not even 1 by the time of the rebellion no sane person would've given them big ass dragons, they would be given dragon eggs, if not point me a time any Targ toddler was given a big ass dragon and i'll buy it.

You're again misunderstanding - this didn't happen in the past for one simple reason... You don't give the dragon to the toddler when you have other riders available who are older. However, as we see from Dany, dragons grow very quickly - so even if you hatch babies? Dragons like all animals, mature faster than humans. Having an egg in a baby's crib, well, it's still going to hatch and grow too fast and be a big ass monster before the kid is 10 years old. So no, age isn't the issue.

However, if you have to choose between giving the biggest of dragons to anyone? Rhaegar, Aenys and Rhaella would have the largest, while Aegon and Rhaenys would have the youngest - this way the adults can use their dragons to keep the younger ones in line when the children have their inevitable temper tantrums. That is why adults took older dragons.

You're still looking at only surface level shit - not paying attention to the rest of the details behind the scenes. If Dany had been a baby when she hatched her eggs, Drogon wouldn't suddenly grow slower just to make her able to control him.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

With tons of dragons available,  Robert might bethrothed a Tarrg princess, therefore there is no rebellion, Daeron would've never lost Dorne, so everything changes!!! We have to stick with the variables we got or it makes no sense to talk about this,if the Targs still had dragons, Aerys wouldn't ever got to the throne or directly he would never exist, so we have to stay as closer as we can with the events and characters or there is no point on discussing this because we can assume that everything is different therefore, none of the events that led to the Rebellion happened.

No, we don't. If you want to stick to bare basics, that's on you. Some of us actually have the mindset to look into further cascading details. No one is forcing you to take part, similarly, you cannot force people to ignore simple domino effects just because you don't like them, or don't want to make the effort, or whatever reason you make up. No. I refuse. Simple as that. You can either deal with it, or you can walk away from the conversation. You cannot however, control me and just make up your own arbitrary bullshit rules.

Now, I'm going to use a domino. Like the one where Aenys doesn't get captured and go insane, and so doesn't mistreat Rhaella, and so she is a dragonrider rather than being locked up all the time.

You don't like that particular domino - but it is a domino that makes sense. Just because it's used against your position doesn't make the dominos invalid. That's just bullshit.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

The Celtigars had never been dragonriders, they have Valyrian blood, but Essos is full of Valyrian blood but less so of dragonlord's blood  and as far as we know, no Celtigar ever married a Targ, so they simply can't become dragonriders, the Velaryons might, true enough, but also.

Obviously. This again, would be speaking to Celtigar's with Targ blood. This is why I specifically made mention to their blood being "more acceptable" to special Dragonlord traits than foreign blood. Because while not all Valyrians are dragonlords, all dragonlords are Valyrian as far as we know - even the Dragonseeds claimed to be bastards, and we have no reason to think they weren't.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Hmmm, Laena Velaryon rode Vhagar.

They trust the Velaryons even more than they trust the Baratheons - I'm saying they wouldn't give the Baratheons such a dragon. Though it's my fault this time for being less clear than I should have been - I fully accept that.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Rhaella is not riding any dragon, thaanks to hubbie, Rhaegar and Aerys yes, the Velaryons are not getting any dragons due to not being married to Targs since Baela and the Celtigars are not dragonriders.

Again, at this point we have the domino effect. An effect I know you don't like, but that's, frankly, too damn bad.

There are lots of Targs in the family lineage who just "disappear" which wouldn't be the case if dragons were still prominent. Targs who are born, then we just never hear of them again. Nothing about any kids they had, how they died... nothing. Yet we know they had children, because even the freaking jailor in the crypts had Targ blood, and that shit had to come from somewhere. So, again... if there are dragons still around, and there are only three living named adult Targs? And they're at war? And Robert does somehow have a dragon? Guess what happens?

Just like the last Dance, they start recruiting Dragonseeds. And guess who has all the eggs to give out? Not Robert. All those people with Targ blood, who want to be more than what they are? They're going to say "Me! Me! I'll do it!" And BAM! You have more dragons for the cause. Particularly since the people in the Crownlands loved the Targs, including Aenys. Even Robert to the day he dies is still called Usurper by them, and has no love from the commoners in those lands, by his own words.

You still haven't solved Robert's problems, not one bit.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

The Baratheon's never got dragons because no Targ Princess married with the Baratheons, the Velaryons married their daughters to Baratheons for a long time, yet they only got dragons when Rhaenys married Corlys, no Baratheon ever married a Targ girl until Rhaelle married Ormund and by then the dragons were long dead.

A few things here:

1. If you accept Orys as a bastard half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror? Then yes, they did have opportunity. They didn't get them then.

2. If you don't accept this, they're still limited on dragons. The only riders available would be Rhaelle's kids, and if they follow typical protocol... well, like with the Velaryons, her kids could have gotten a dragon, but not her grandchildren. Likely partially because without a fresh infusion of Targ blood, the grandchildren wouldn't be able to master a dragon, so that makes Robert having a dragon at all moot anyway.

3. If you're saying that the Baratheons wouldn't have a dragon at all, then there's no argument anyway, because if they don't have a dragon, guess what? They lose. So you're making this point for no reason whatsoever. You're so busy trying to disagree with me that you're actually agreeing with my point. Shooting yourself in the foot here.

Edited by lunasmeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lunasmeow said:

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...

Define what you mean by full blooded Targaryens.  Because that didn’t seem to exist in the aftermath of the Dance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

I'm not saying all Valyrians can have dragons - I never said that. What I said was that the Baratheon "strong seed" might make it where their children can't necessarily have dragons. Rhaenys, very obviously didn't catch the "strong seed" since she looks nothing like a Baratheon and everything like a Targaryen. Which means she doesn't negate my point at all.

 

You might want to read about Rhaenys looks again.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

 What I also said was that Celtigars with Targ blood would be more likely to be compatible for dragons than Baratheons with Targ blood. This is because of basic genetics. Valyrians, are closer to Targs than non-Valyrians, so if you have a dragonlord trait, and you have a child with someone close to your own abilities, and you have a child with someone not like you at all... you're more likely to get the child with a specific racial trait from a Valyrian than from a Westerosi. Baratheons, are very Westerosi. Possibly due to the blood of the Durrandons, which supposedly has god's blood from ancient Westerosi deities in it.

 

  1.  There simply no exist Celtigars with Targ blood.
  2.  You're assuming genetics is the same in Planetos than in real life.
  3. Baratheons are very westerosi?? I don't understand what the aplles had to do with the speed, Jacaerys, Lucerys and Joffrey Velaryon looked nothing like Valyrians and they all were dragonlords.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

No, we don't. If you want to stick to bare basics, that's on you. Some of us actually have the mindset to look into further cascading details. No one is forcing you to take part, similarly, you cannot force people to ignore simple domino effects just because you don't like them, or don't want to make the effort, or whatever reason you make up. No. I refuse. Simple as that. You can either deal with it, or you can walk away from the conversation. You cannot however, control me and just make up your own arbitrary bullshit rules.

Now, I'm going to use a domino. Like the one where Aenys doesn't get captured and go insane, and so doesn't mistreat Rhaella, and so she is a dragonrider rather than being locked up all the time.

You don't like that particular domino - but it is a domino that makes sense. Just because it's used against your position doesn't make the dominos invalid. That's just bullshit.

This is getting ludicrous, if absolutely everything is different then the characters wouldn't even exist in the first place and let alone be in power positions, especially in the Targs case who descend by so many minor branches from the ruling branch to count, if the Targs never stopped having dragons, then this discussion is pointless, if the Targs hatched at some point from Aegon IV and Maekarr I, then this discussion is also pointless because everything is different and Egg's line never make it to the Throne, if the Targs started having dragons after Summerhall, then we have the exact same situation. That's just common sense.

Pick an scenerario and stick with it and let's discuss it, what you can't do however is start mixing scenarios and realities as if you were trying to replicate the Powerpuff Girls formula.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

Obviously. This again, would be speaking to Celtigar's with Targ blood. This is why I specifically made mention to their blood being "more acceptable" to special Dragonlord traits than foreign blood. Because while not all Valyrians are dragonlords, all dragonlords are Valyrian as far as we know - even the Dragonseeds claimed to be bastards, and we have no reason to think they weren't.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

There have never been Celtigars with Targ blood, as simple as that and there will never be Celtigars with Targ blood, Celtigars were too down on the line to marry Targs.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

They trust the Velaryons even more than they trust the Baratheons - I'm saying they wouldn't give the Baratheons such a dragon. Though it's my fault this time for being less clear than I should have been - I fully accept that.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Not true.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

There are lots of Targs in the family lineage who just "disappear" which wouldn't be the case if dragons were still prominent. Targs who are born, then we just never hear of them again. Nothing about any kids they had, how they died... nothing. Yet we know they had children, because even the freaking jailor in the crypts had Targ blood, and that shit had to come from somewhere. So, again... if there are dragons still around, and there are only three living named adult Targs? And they're at war? And Robert does somehow have a dragon? Guess what happens?

 

This again,without those lots of Targs in the Family line who just dissapear, Aerion's son ejem ejem, Aerys' line wouldn't be ruling Westeros and you still assume for whatever reason  that those Targs would just back up the ruling line, which they could or they couldn't.

The jailor has Targ blood?? What??

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

 Just like the last Dance, they start recruiting Dragonseeds. And guess who has all the eggs to give out? Not Robert. All those people with Targ blood, who want to be more than what they are? They're going to say "Me! Me! I'll do it!" And BAM! You have more dragons for the cause.

I already answered the loyalties of those dragonseeds because just like the Dance, alligiances can change.

 

 

Quote

Particularly since the people in the Crownlands loved the Targs, including Aenys. Even Robert to the day he dies is still called Usurper by them, and has no love from the commoners in those lands, by his own words.

That's not true, nor what Robert said, the only point in the Crownlands we know for a fact Robert is not accepted or loved are the Cracklaw Point and Robert never said he had no love from the commoners in those lands.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

1. If you accept Orys as a bastard half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror? Then yes, they did have opportunity. They didn't get them then.

 

The part that Targs didn't give dragons to bastards just is going to be ignored right??

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

 2. If you don't accept this, they're still limited on dragons. The only riders available would be Rhaelle's kids, and if they follow typical protocol... well, like with the Velaryons, her kids could have gotten a dragon, but not her grandchildren. Likely partially because without a fresh infusion of Targ blood, the grandchildren wouldn't be able to master a dragon, so that makes Robert having a dragon at all moot anyway.

 

You're inventing all these and you know that.

 

 

1 hour ago, lunasmeow said:

 3. If you're saying that the Baratheons wouldn't have a dragon at all, then there's no argument anyway, because if they don't have a dragon, guess what? They lose. So you're making this point for no reason whatsoever. You're so busy trying to disagree with me that you're actually agreeing with my point. Shooting yourself in the foot here.

I'm not saying that, not even hinted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 6:38 AM, Lord Varys said:

None of them were even remotely in the same territory as Aerys II or Aerion or Rhaegel. Maegor was a cruel sadist, not clinically insane. Helaena was suffering from PTSD and grief (she likely simply fell into a depression after Blood and Cheese, and then she became Rhaenyra's prisoner), Jaehaerys I's daughter Saera was a psychopath and Vaegon seems to have been autistic (like Aerys I later on, too) but that's not the madness department.

I'm not sure how Summerhall supposedly produced this bottleneck Yandel claims it caused. Prince Daeron was already dead, and he had no (legitimate) children. Duncan and Jenny may have died at Summerhall and they could have had children (although if they had, the family tree should have mentioned them) - yet even if they did, Duncan had given up his claim to the Iron Throne, so any of his children and grandchildren were not eligible to take the throne, making them dynastic non-entitities.

And the same would go, although to a lesser degree, for any hypothetical children of Maegor's, and Vaella's - who were passed over by the Great Council. Daenora could have more children from a hypothetical second marriage, I guess, and then there are Daella and Rhae and their children (although I think if Daella ended up with Dunk and Selwyn Tarth is their grandchild then the Tarths would, due to Dunk's blood, as eligible to inherit the Iron Throne as Duncan and Jenny's children would be), leaving essentially only Rhae's children - who may have married into a prominent family.

If aside from Duncan and Aegon V himself other Targaryens died at Summerhall it would have been, for the most part, such who didn't have that strong a claim to the throne, anyway.

Not sure about the Rhaella thing - Targaryen women don't suddenly become more powerful if they have dragons, especially if their husbands also have dragons.

But as you say above - Robert's Rebellion with dragons could have just become something along the lines of a Blackfyre Rebellion with dragons. And as I said - if there are riderless dragons around and if the Baratheons do have the same amount of Targaryen blood they have in the real scenario (and perhaps even if they don't) then Robert and Stannis both could either be or become dragonriders during this war. And that could then equal the odds.

I think it could actually have stabilized. Duskendale would never have happened then, and one assumes Aerys II would also not have grown that paranoid nor that obsessed with looking more competent and impressive as Tywin. He would have been a dragonrider, after all.

I’m with you up until Maegor isn’t clinically insane. There are absolutely different types of madness and you don’t need to be bonkers in the sense of paranoia or not being able to put together a coherent thought to be deemed mad.  You could be bloodthirsty, clinically insane and dangerous, etc.  We know that Maegor killed a horse for trying to bite him or something.  
 

Maegor was as sane as Joffrey. Which is to say sure they weren’t insane, and neither was Hitler or serial killers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Aerys had dragons, they would lose their "cool" factor, and more people would realize their favorite House are the villains. Robert's Rebellion was written to be more justified than a typical Blackfyre rebellion, and the king and his son were clearly not acting in the best interest of the realm. When Targaryens don't have dragons, they feel like they can't rule without them, and when they do have dragons, they can't handle that level of power either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×