Jump to content
Mario Seddy

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

Recommended Posts

I was wondering what if the targaryen still had dragons during Robert's Rebellion and how it would change the outcome of the rebellion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FitzChivalry Fartseer said:

Well, Robert would have lost

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.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

meaning chances are not that good that Jon would have risked Aerys II or Rhaella or Rhaegar visiting him and his castle on dragonback.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

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

Rhaella definitely ... and I expect there to have been no Duskendale if Aerys II had been a dragonrider, so, yeah.

In fact, there are some clues that being with a dragonrider makes the Targaryens less erratic. Aenys started to grow stronger after he bonded with a dragon, and most of the actual Targaryen craziness (Aerion and Aerys II) revolved around getting a dragon back, becoming a dragon yourself, etc. - all nonsense that had to do with them not having dragons in the first place.

Share this post


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

and I expect there to have been no Duskendale if Aerys II had been a dragonrider, so, yeah.

Which basically means no Roberts rebellion.

Share this post


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

In fact, there are some clues that being with a dragonrider makes the Targaryens less erratic. Aenys started to grow stronger after he bonded with a dragon, and most of the actual Targaryen craziness (Aerion and Aerys II) revolved around getting a dragon back, becoming a dragon yourself, etc. - all nonsense that had to do with them not having dragons in the first place.

 They weren't crazy for wanting a dragon back.  They were crazy for what they did to achieve it.

No one would call you crazy for wanting a million dollars.  People would call you crazy if you said you'd drink five gallons napalm to get it.  

And if there are dragons, there is no Robert's Rebellion, full stop.  Robert only has Targaryen blood because Aegon V needs to shore up marital alliances to enact his social reforms.  If he had dragons, he doesn't need that kind of marital support, he has his win buttons handy.

Most of the problems the "modern" Targaryens face is because Aegon I built a polity on the assumptions that his dynasty would have exclusive access to dragons.  And none of his followers bothered to do much in the way of centralizing power in the hands of the monarch while they could.  Which is why the Targaryens, alone of the Great Houses, have little in the way of direct military support they can levy. It seems likely that Houses like the Redwynes and Hightowers can raise more troops than the Crownlands can.

But to answer the original question more directly - if the Targaryens have fully grown dragons at the time of Robert's Rebellion, the rebels lose.  We see that the dragons are pretty much a win button when it comes to combat in an open field.  You won't see rebel armies gathering or marching, because they'll be burned alive on the march. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

 They weren't crazy for wanting a dragon back.  They were crazy for what they did to achieve it.

That is not accurate. The lack of the dragons affected their dreams and desires. The attempts to get dragons were as such, not particularly mad.

3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

No one would call you crazy for wanting a million dollars.  People would call you crazy if you said you'd drink five gallons napalm to get it.

That is just Aerion - and it seems he would have never done that had his desire to have a dragon not helped to drive him insane.

3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And if there are dragons, there is no Robert's Rebellion, full stop.  Robert only has Targaryen blood because Aegon V needs to shore up marital alliances to enact his social reforms.  If he had dragons, he doesn't need that kind of marital support, he has his win buttons handy.

The Baratheons do have dragon blood independent of Rhaelle marrying Ormund.

3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Most of the problems the "modern" Targaryens face is because Aegon I built a polity on the assumptions that his dynasty would have exclusive access to dragons.  And none of his followers bothered to do much in the way of centralizing power in the hands of the monarch while they could.  Which is why the Targaryens, alone of the Great Houses, have little in the way of direct military support they can levy. It seems likely that Houses like the Redwynes and Hightowers can raise more troops than the Crownlands can.

The latter seems to be wrong if you consider the size of KL and the fact that they could easily raise 10,000 or more troops just from there.

The idea that other great houses have a better standing is ridiculous in light of the fact that they are dependent on lesser houses for their troops - houses they have even less of a hold over than the king has over his subjects.

51 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Which basically means no Roberts rebellion.

It depends - if we imagine the scenario we have in the books with the only difference that there are still dragons then there certainly could be a rebellion. Because Robert would run amok after the Lyanna thing no matter whether Rhaegar had a dragon or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

I was wondering what if the targaryen still had dragons during Robert's Rebellion and how it would change the outcome of the rebellion 

Jon Arryn would have handed over Robert and Ned to King Aerys.  Which he should have done. 

We could assume events would not have led to this.  Rickard Stark, Brandon Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Jon Arryn, the criminals who plotted to oppose the Targaryens never would have had the balls to conspire against their rulers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

Rickard Stark, Brandon Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Jon Arryn, the criminals who plotted to oppose the Targaryens never would have had the balls to conspire against their rulers

We really don’t know what they were plotting. And I doubt Brandon or Robert we’re involved since they both seemed to be the crackheads of their families. 

Edited by The Young Maester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sire de Maletroit said:

Jon Arryn would have handed over Robert and Ned to King Aerys.  Which he should have done. 

We could assume events would not have led to this.  Rickard Stark, Brandon Stark, Robert Baratheon, and Jon Arryn, the criminals who plotted to oppose the Targaryens never would have had the balls to conspire against their rulers.

 

????????????????????????? Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

I was wondering what if the targaryen still had dragons during Robert's Rebellion and how it would change the outcome of the rebellion 

The problem with this scenario is that changes a lot of what happened after the Targaryens stopped having dragons.  Just think how different the Blackfyre rebellions would have been if the contenders had dragons then. If the Targaryens had dragons Summerhall wouldn't have happened and then no bottleneck in the family tree.

Of course, a possibility to avoid this is that dragons actually hatched at Summerhall. Then it would depend much more who is raiding the dragons. Aerys? Rhaella? Rhaegar? Aerys would have had a harder time abusing of Rhaella if she was a dragonrider.  How many dragons are out there? How many are riderless?

Even Rhaegar pursue of the third head of the dragon would have been heavily affected by having dragons alive. If his parents and himself are dragonriders, the answer would be clear in his mind and thus the events leading to the rebellion would not happen.

This is a scenario that changes too many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Targaryens were mad even before they lost the dragons. Look at Maegor the Cruel, Helaena Targaryen, I think one of Jaehaerys’ kids was mad too, and probably a couple of other Targaryens that could arguably be called borderline crazy given the stuff they did during the Dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James Steller said:

Targaryens were mad even before they lost the dragons. Look at Maegor the Cruel, Helaena Targaryen, I think one of Jaehaerys’ kids was mad too, and probably a couple of other Targaryens that could arguably be called borderline crazy given the stuff they did during the Dance.

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.

3 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

The problem with this scenario is that changes a lot of what happened after the Targaryens stopped having dragons.  Just think how different the Blackfyre rebellions would have been if the contenders had dragons then. If the Targaryens had dragons Summerhall wouldn't have happened and then no bottleneck in the family tree.

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.

3 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Of course, a possibility to avoid this is that dragons actually hatched at Summerhall. Then it would depend much more who is raiding the dragons. Aerys? Rhaella? Rhaegar? Aerys would have had a harder time abusing of Rhaella if she was a dragonrider.  How many dragons are out there? How many are riderless?

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.

1 hour ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

I think Robert's Rebellion would've been suppressed had the Targaryens had dragons, especially Rhaegar. A dragon in the possession of the Mad King could have been catastrophic however

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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.

Very good point about Aerys, I meant to say that only after his madness became manifest that having with a dragon would be catastrophic, but if Duskendale could've been avoided and if his paranoia had no room to grow, maybe he would've been a capable dragon rider. I certainly think the Rebellion would've been crushed if House Targaryen had dragons, imagine Rhaegar leading the royal army atop his dragon, with possibly his father taking to the sky as well? Hard to imagine the Rebellion being successful if that was the case imho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

Very good point about Aerys, I meant to say that only after his madness became manifest that having with a dragon would be catastrophic, but if Duskendale could've been avoided and if his paranoia had no room to grow, maybe he would've been a capable dragon rider. I certainly think the Rebellion would've been crushed if House Targaryen had dragons, imagine Rhaegar leading the royal army atop his dragon, with possibly his father taking to the sky as well? Hard to imagine the Rebellion being successful if that was the case imho. 

It would make Rhaegar look even worse than he already does. The crown prince “abducts” the daughter of the Warden of the North, who is engaged to his kinsman, the Lord of the Stormlands. I don’t care whether or not he thought he was fulfilling  an important prophecy, it looks really bad in the eyes of Westerosi people. Frankly, it’s weird that people don’t give him more flak in the books for provoking the destruction of his own royal house.
 

Though to be fair, if we’re assuming that Aerys was less mad if he’d been a dragon rider, maybe Robert’s rebellion never happens, since it was only done when the paranoid Aerys had Brandon and Richard Stark murdered unjustly and then demanded the heads of two innocent young men.  

Edited by James Steller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

Very good point about Aerys, I meant to say that only after his madness became manifest that having with a dragon would be catastrophic, but if Duskendale could've been avoided and if his paranoia had no room to grow, maybe he would've been a capable dragon rider. I certainly think the Rebellion would've been crushed if House Targaryen had dragons, imagine Rhaegar leading the royal army atop his dragon, with possibly his father taking to the sky as well? Hard to imagine the Rebellion being successful if that was the case imho. 

Well, it would all depend on how they use the dragons, of course. If Aerys II would fret and prevaricate like Aenys his dragon advantage would quickly evaporate. And as if the Baratheons claim themselves some dragons in the meantime ... I mean, one could imagine Robert's Rebellion with Robert's great feats skipping the Stoney Sept thing and instead sneaking into KL or to Dragonstone and mounting a dragon there like Aegon the Uncrowned.

47 minutes ago, James Steller said:

It would make Rhaegar look even worse than he already does. The crown prince “abducts” the daughter of the Warden of the North, who is engaged to his kinsman, the Lord of the Stormlands. I don’t care whether or not he thought he was fulfilling  an important prophecy, it looks really bad in the eyes of Westerosi people. Frankly, it’s weird that people don’t give him more flak in the books for provoking the destruction of his own royal house.

Rhaegar actually does get blamed. Yandel blames him for lighting the fire that consumed his house. The positive image of Rhaegar we have goes back to the fact that most people talking about him are or were Rhaegar fan boys at some point. Not to mention the fact that the author avoids to have anyone touching on Rhaegar-related topics he does not want to discuss yet.

We are pretty much on the safe side if we say Robert's Rebellion started with the abduction, in spirit if not in fact. Robert would have never let that thing go. If Aerys II hadn't demand his and Ned's head the Stormlands may have risen alone, but they would have risen as soon as Robert had had a chance to return back home.

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

×