Dragon taming: Blood of the dragon or sorcery?

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

Upon reading Fire and Blood, one key line supposedly quoted from Rhaenyra during the dance caught my attention instantly. There is an ongoing debate over how dragon taming works, and this line I think is useful to us for a number of reasons. This is Rhaenyra talking about Nettles upon learning that her and Daemon are sleeping together after the betrayal of Hugh and Ulf. 

’You need only look at her to know that she has no drop of dragon’s blood in her. It was with spells that she bound a dragon to her, and she has done the same with my lord husband.’ (F&B)

Unless I’ve missed something, this crucial line has been overlooked by others seeking to figure out dragon taming in Asoiaf. Yet it tells us three crucial things:

1. As far as Rhaenyra (A dragon rider herself and key member of the DragonLord family) is concerned, having ‘dragon’s blood’ is enough to tame a dragon (order of the greenhand seem to have got this idea right in their video on the topic).

2. Having Dragon’s blood and taming dragons with spells and sorcery are considered two separate methods. Rhaenyra’s whole point here is that she and all the other dragon riders at this time tamed their dragons by having dragon’s blood, while Nettles doesn’t and therefore needed spells. This draws a clear divide between the Targaryen dragon taming method and taming dragons with spells and sorcery.

3. Rhaenyra at least believes that it is actually possible to tame dragons using spells and sorcery, and thus achieve the same bond as having blood of the dragon does. 

Regarding the debate around whether or not Targaryen blood is needed to tame dragons, this quote seems to be a groundbreaking addition by George. We can now say with some level of certainty that, if Rhaenyra did indeed say this, and more importantly she is correct in her dragonlore (this is more reliable as this was at a time when almost all Targaryens rode dragons), then this means:

1. Targaryens don’t use spells or horns to tame dragons, they only need their blood, hence incestuous marriage. (Already known, but we now know they almost certainly never used these methods other dragonlords of old Valyria were known to use).

2. Jaehaerys’ fears over the stolen eggs giving rise to a new family of dragonlords in Essos were well founded; either another bloodline able to tame dragons without spells exists or sorcerers who knows the necessary spells to tame dragons do.

Regarding Nettles, I personally believe she is a dragonseed, and tamed Sheepstealer due to having dragon’s blood. But who knows, maybe she was a witch who knew the right spells? She possibly became a fire witch in the Vale after the dance after all.

I haven’t read all the main Asoiaf books, I’m reading ACoK, but I know the general story and this would suggest Dany actually only needs ‘a word and a whip’ as she puts it to control Drogon as that’s all the Targaryens appear to have used. 

Is this a useful revelation with implications for the main series, or am I trusting an untrustworthy source? Was Rhaenyra just speaking out of anger and suspicion?
 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Completely serious, not sarcastic question, aren't the two the same thing? Like isn't it strongly hinted at that the Valyrians did a lot of freaky shit with their own blood to make themselves more compatible with dragons, and the need to keep that magic is the cause of the incest?

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

I agree that Targaryen blood probably contains a spell or sorcery to achieve such an easy way to ride dragons, but the quote suggests that Targaryen blood magic, and spells and sorcery, are two separate methods. This lends credence to the order of the greenhands theory that Targaryens were a special family of dragon lords because they didn’t need to use spells or horns to ride dragons, unlike their peers.

However, this quote suggests that Targaryens were well aware of other magic that could be used to tame dragons, and it was apparently enough of a threat that Jaehaerys feared another dragonlord appearing if any eggs were stolen, and Rhaenyra saw it perfectly plausible to assume Nettles had used such methods to tame Sheepstealer and pretend to be a dragonseed.

[Nathan Stark]

Nettles secretly having the right genes and being able to tame a dragon because of that takes away the power of her taming a dragon through her own wits. In general, the idea that having the right genes to do something like this is getting uncomfortably close to early 20th century ideas about genetics. I do not think that this is an either/or situation. Dragons can be tamed through magical means, they could have been bred by Targaryens to bond with Targaryens, and they can still be tamed using non-magical methods. This is what Nettles proves about dragons. They can be tamed by wit as well as magic, and having the right bloodline actually has nothing to do with it.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

 

2 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

Nettles secretly having the right genes and being able to tame a dragon because of that takes away the power of her taming a dragon through her own wits. In general, the idea that having the right genes to do something like this is getting uncomfortably close to early 20th century ideas about genetics. I do not think that this is an either/or situation. Dragons can be tamed through magical means, they could have been bred by Targaryens to bond with Targaryens, and they can still be tamed using non-magical methods. This is what Nettles proves about dragons. They can be tamed by wit as well as magic, and having the right bloodline actually has nothing to do with it.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea that Nettles was a sorcerer or witch who used her own talent or powers to tame Sheepstealer. This doesn’t change the fact that Targaryen blood and magic must play a role in taming dragons, otherwise the incestuous marriage and the Targaryens own belief about how they tame dragons makes no sense. Therefore it’s possible Rhaenyra is absolutely right here on both accounts, blood of the dragon can tame dragons and so can spells and sorcery, and Nettles did do this, and Rhaenyra uses this as an insult because she subscribes to the blood purity, divine right genetics ideas which, as you say, existed/exists irl. 

Personally I think dragons can’t be tamed through non magical means, if that was the case I feel like more would-be dragonseeds would have succeeded and Valyria wouldn’t have been so powerful. After all, why not just steal eggs and raise the dragons or just give adult dragons sheep, and build your own empire? Why did Valyrians bother with incest?
 

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

otherwise the incestuous marriage and the Targaryens own belief about how they tame dragons makes no sense

Their beliefs could also be wrong. They don't even know the why magic works or doesn't work. They could be intermarrying thinking blood purity matters, and it doesn't.

1 hour ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Personally I think dragons can’t be tamed through non magical means, if that was the case I feel like more would-be dragonseeds would have succeeded and Valyria wouldn’t have been so powerful. After all, why not just steal eggs and raise the dragons or just give adult dragons sheep, and build your own empire? Why did Valyrians bother with incest?

This is Martin's most recent statement on dragonriding since Fire and Blood came out where he compares it to variations in horse riding.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

10 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Their beliefs could also be wrong. They don't even know the why magic works or doesn't work. They could be intermarrying thinking blood purity matters, and it doesn't.

They could be wrong, but I’d be surprised. Valyrians either invented taming and riding dragons or learned it from an older empire, either way it must have been common knowledge how to do so. The Targaryens who fled Valyria before the doom presumably possessed this knowledge and passed it down. I agree it’s possible, but I find it unlikely.

13 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This is Martin's most recent statement on dragonriding since Fire and Blood came out where he compares it to variations in horse riding.

I thank you for bringing this quote up, I forgot about it. However, I was arguing that, per Rhaenyra’s quote, magic of some form is needed to tame dragons, whether it’s having ‘dragon’s blood’ or using spells and sorcery, and George begins this quote by saying:

’As to when and how various Targaryens have become dragonriders...’

So he’s talking about the different ages and ways in which Targaryens bond with their dragons, whether it’s from birth, or by chance, or a successful, purposeful attempt. This doesn’t contradict my argument that Targaryen blood is needed to easily tame dragons, as he’s specifically talking about Targaryens. 

Targaryen blood: Easier and safer dragon taming, comparable to training horses.

spells and sorcery: Harder, more complicated but appears to achieve same end result.

[Rose of Red Lake]

49 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

They could be wrong, but I’d be surprised. Valyrians either invented taming and riding dragons or learned it from an older empire, either way it must have been common knowledge how to do so. The Targaryens who fled Valyria before the doom presumably possessed this knowledge and passed it down. I agree it’s possible, but I find it unlikely.

The Valyrians bred more "rideable" dragons using blood magic, so Valyrians may have thought their blood mattered, but it was really breeding dragons, their efforts, and their upbringing - not who they were fucking. 

49 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I was arguing that, per Rhaenyra’s quote, magic of some form is needed to tame dragons

The context of that quote is that Rhaenyra is jealous and is wracking her brain trying to figure out how a nobody from the sticks was able to do something Only The Special People Do. So she comes up with sorcery. It's not really a reliable source.

Nettles is an attack at their beliefs about exceptionalism. Which should be undermined... because it's haughty as hell. Not to mention tropey? "He can pull the sword from the stone because of his blood" "She can ride dragons because of her blood"

49 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Targaryen blood: Easier and safer dragon taming, comparable to training horses.

I think you're focusing too much on the phrase "Targaryens" in the answer. That's who the questioner was asking about, specifically. The answer doesn't say anything about blood and emphasizes people's differences based on individuality, not genetics.

Easier and safer? I'm not so sure...Drogon burned Dany pretty badly, and almost bit her head off. He also doesn't come to her willingly for a long while, and may not still. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

Is this a useful revelation with implications for the main series, or am I trusting an untrustworthy source? Was Rhaenyra just speaking out of anger and suspicion?

Rhaenyra is just mean there. She isn't commenting on dragonlore in that quote, but rather on filthy, unworthy, baseborn bastard girls seducing royal princes and fornicating with them.

Nettles is both unworthy of a dragon and of Daemon's love in Rhaenyra's eyes, hence she cannot have used 'honest means' to gain both. She cannot have bonded with Sheepstealer the proper Targaryen way, just as she couldn't have won Daemon's friendship and affection by being just nice to him.

She had to cheat with magic in both cases.

Magic isn't a way to bond with dragons - having the right blood is.

Granted, historically, the dragonlords of Valyria likely also used magic to make themselves and the dragons compatible, but that was a long time ago and no Targaryen from Aegon I to Aegon III needed magic to bond with his or her dragon. They just did it.

And that's why Rhaenyra - and pretty much all Westerosi people - use the ability to bond with a dragon as the gold standard for true royalty, e.g. the rumors about Aenys Targaryen's illegitimate birth dying down after he bonded with Quicksilver, the rumors about Rhaenyra's sons losing traction after her sons claimed their dragons, etc.

Hence Rhaenyra's need to discredit the way Nettles acquired her dragon. She cannot have done it by means of her royal blood - which she as the child of Driftmarkian/Dragonstonian sucessfully bonding with a dragon most likely had on both sides of her parents even if Daemon wasn't her father - so Rhaenyra has to come up with another explanation why Nettles could become a dragonrider.

This isn't some well-informed remark on alternative means to bond with dragons but just a vile slander of a young girl.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

2. Jaehaerys’ fears over the stolen eggs giving rise to a new family of dragonlords in Essos were well founded; either another bloodline able to tame dragons without spells exists or sorcerers who knows the necessary spells to tame dragons do.

There is no need to think about different bloodlines there. The Old Blood of Volantis as well as many noble houses (and slaves and commoners) in Lys do have as much dragonlord blood as the Targaryens of Westeros, possibly even more.

They lack dragons in the Free Cities, but not dragonlord blood. Any Targaryen dragon in the possession of an Essosi of sufficient dragonlord blood could hence bond with a dragon the same way the Targaryens did. There is no need for spells or anything extraordinary.

And, in fact, Queen Rhaena even thinks even people without any dragonlord blood could become dragonriders. She thinks Androw Farman could claim a dragon and she thinks the Lannisters could have bonded with any hatchlings Dreamfyre may have produced at Casterly Rock.

Even the Targaryens do not necessarily think you need magics or Targaryen blood to mount a dragon. But they are likely wrong in this.

This, of course, doesn't mean you cannot also control dragons with spells. Most likely you can, since magic can make a lot of stuff possible. But there is no indication anyone in the books so far did that ... although one certainly could see this having happened in the ancient days, before the rise of Valyria. After all, it seems the Valyrians really perfected the art of controlling the dragons with their magical breeding programs and stuff. Whereas prior to Valyrian advances in this field of magic certain powerful people may have been able to control or dominate dragons with spells, just as the first Valyrian dragonlords likely did something similar. They first had to acquire 'the blood of the dragon', after all. They did not just suddenly have that.

If you think about the symbolism behind then the Targaryens sort of marry their dragons. It is an exclusive, 'monogamous bond' lasting as long as either dragon or dragonrider lives whereas the skinchangers are pretty promiscuous, being able to bind many animals to their will.

Chances are pretty good that the dragonlords having literal 'dragon blood' in their veins is what allows them to form the kind of relationships they have with dragons ... while in the old days even powerful sorcerers - who lacked the dragon blood - hadn't the same success. Back in those days riding a dragon may have been pretty much a suicide mission.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

I agree that Targaryen blood probably contains a spell or sorcery to achieve such an easy way to ride dragons, but the quote suggests that Targaryen blood magic, and spells and sorcery, are two separate methods. This lends credence to the order of the greenhands theory that Targaryens were a special family of dragon lords because they didn’t need to use spells or horns to ride dragons, unlike their peers.

We don't yet know what those horns did, but you have to keep in mind that the Targaryens are basically half-savage remnants of Valyria that was, down to a couple of dragons who completely lost/never possessed the great magical powers of the truly powerful families in Valyria.

Horns like Dragonbinder may have been used for other things than personally bonding with a single dragon - which the Valyrian dragonlords most likely also did the Targaryen way we know of. Valyria used hundreds of dragons in battle, and those horns may have been used to coordinate such attacks, to control riderless dragons in battle (something they should have been able to do or else they would have always been dependent on having enough dragonlords to use their entire dragon arsenal) or to steal dragons bonded to other dragonlords (which could have come in very handy during those many struggles and civil wars the Valyrians fought amongst themselves).

The kind of control the Targaryens have over their dragons without a horn like Dragonbinder seems to be very thorough. It is difficult to imagine that Balerion or Vhagar would have been a better weapon of terror if Aegon I had had such a horn.

Hence the idea that those horns may have been used for different purposes.

4 hours ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

However, this quote suggests that Targaryens were well aware of other magic that could be used to tame dragons, and it was apparently enough of a threat that Jaehaerys feared another dragonlord appearing if any eggs were stolen, and Rhaenyra saw it perfectly plausible to assume Nettles had used such methods to tame Sheepstealer and pretend to be a dragonseed.

See above, most nobility in the Free Cities are Valyrians. Many would have the potential to become dragonriders if they laid their hands on living dragons.

2 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Nettles secretly having the right genes and being able to tame a dragon because of that takes away the power of her taming a dragon through her own wits. In general, the idea that having the right genes to do something like this is getting uncomfortably close to early 20th century ideas about genetics. I do not think that this is an either/or situation. Dragons can be tamed through magical means, they could have been bred by Targaryens to bond with Targaryens, and they can still be tamed using non-magical methods. This is what Nettles proves about dragons. They can be tamed by wit as well as magic, and having the right bloodline actually has nothing to do with it.

Nettles doesn't prove anything of this sort because she comes from Driftmark/Dragonstone like Hugh and Ulf and Addam of Hull ... if they can become dragonriders - and they did - so can she.

Things would be different if Nettles' story would make it clear that she didn't come from Dragonstone/Driftmark, had no ancestors at all in that region, and where thus very, very, very unlikely to descend from dragonseeds and Targaryens. But this isn't the case.

If she had been a mountain clan girl, say, then this could be a pretty big hint that anybody can become a dragonrider. But she wasn't. And neither is there any indication that she was able to use magic or spells. The girl was just a street-smart humble commoner, basically.

53 minutes ago, TheTargaryenHistorian said:

They could be wrong, but I’d be surprised. Valyrians either invented taming and riding dragons or learned it from an older empire, either way it must have been common knowledge how to do so. The Targaryens who fled Valyria before the doom presumably possessed this knowledge and passed it down. I agree it’s possible, but I find it unlikely.

The incest among the dragonlords and dragonbreeders of Valyria most likely came up because they had good reason to fear to lose their 'special connection' with the dragons if they married outside the family.

George is rather specific in his history of the incest practices. The incest is particularly common among the Valyrians who rode and bred dragons, meaning it is not a religious thing or a general 'power/wealth has to stay in the family' royalty thing (as it was in many real world incestuous dynasties).

And, in fact, if you keep in mind that Valyria is based on the Roman Republic then political marriages to solidify and strengthen alliances and coalitions among the varous factions of the Valyrian elite would be the most rational way to go - not sibling incest.

But the latter really became the ideal in those circles. This only makes sense if they had good reason to believe that bringing in foreign (i.e. non-dragonlord) blood decreased the likelihood that children from such a union could become dragonlords themselves.

One can see how dragonlord families before the incest thing was started to take hold started to lose more and more children to their own dragons when they tried to mount them, leading to the dragonlords to first only marry each other and eventually mostly their siblings. Because that would have had the additional benefit that your dragonlord sister could not take away her dragon and take it to another family, weakening your own position.

17 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The Valyrians bred more "rideable" dragons using blood magic, so Valyrians may have thought their blood mattered, but it was really breeding dragons, their efforts, and their upbringing - not who they were fucking. 

No, that really doesn't fly at all. We have no indication that the dragons the Valyrians bred were tamer, easily rideable, etc. It may be they actually bred themselves so they were more acceptable to their dragons.

If the Targaryen dragons were docile enough that pretty much anyone could ride them then we would not have the kind of baseborn dragonriders we get in FaB - basically people who had no previous contact or intimacy with dragons - but rather grooms and servants from the dragon yards and pits of Dragonstone bonding them them. The people who feed and clean and guard the dragons - both in the Dragonpit and on Dragonstone - would be the people most familiar with them, not the princes and princesses ... some of which may have only mounted their dragons once or twice a year.

In fact, we would not only have our first non-Targaryen dragonriders during the Dance when the Targaryens are in dire need of more riders ... but many a riderless dragon would have bonded with his or her more familiar caretaker. This would have happened not just in Westeros but also on Dragonstone before the Conquest and, especially, back in Old Valyria where hundreds or thousands of dragons were around ... and the high and mighty dragonlords would also have had servants to take care of their dragons for them.

With none of this ever happening chances are about zero that everybody can become a dragonrider.

And, by the way, it is also clearly not the looks. Quite a few dragonriders don't look Valyrian at all - Alysanne, Alyssa, Rhaenys, and Rhaenyra's sons. Yet no dragons rejected them.

[TheLastWolf]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Completely serious, not sarcastic question, aren't the two the same thing? Like isn't it strongly hinted at that the Valyrians did a lot of freaky shit with their own blood to make themselves more compatible with dragons, and the need to keep that magic is the cause of the incest?

They are IMHO. 

Blood tampering with sorcery and spells in it plus incest to preserve them 

But dragonbinder like horns are real sorcery. Or probably just Macguffins. 

It doesn't matter to me, part of the world building suspense I'd like to remain a mystery 

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

58 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The Valyrians bred more "rideable" dragons using blood magic, so Valyrians may have thought their blood mattered, but it was really breeding dragons, their efforts, and their upbringing - not who they were fucking. 

This, while certainly plausible, is conjecture. We don’t know for sure how they did it, I freely admit that, and it could have had nothing to do with inbreeding. But it also could have. We don’t yet know either way.

58 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The context of that quote is that Rhaenyra is jealous and is wracking her brain trying to figure out how a nobody from the sticks was able to do something Only The Special People Do. So she comes up with sorcery. It's not really a reliable source.

Nettles is an attack at their beliefs about exceptionalism. Which should be undermined... because it's haughty as hell. Not to mention tropey? "He can pull the sword from the stone because of his blood" "She can ride dragons because of her blood"

You make a valid point. She is an unreliable source and that assuming F&B’s author even quotes her correctly. I’m assuming Rhaenyra, as a dragon rider during the height of the Targaryen’s power, has some clue about the ins and outs of dragon taming. 

The doctrine of exceptionalism is indeed suspect. It uses the dragons to justify disgusting traditions of incest for the Targaryens, and parallels the divine right of kings idea used to justify absolutist monarchy irl. But again, it’s possible we can take Jaehaerys at his word. Maybe he used the doctrine because he knows his family NEED incest to easily tame dragons, so he has to convince the wider public to accept the practice.

However, the fact that most dragonriders in the series are either Targaryens or closely related to Targaryens can’t be ignored. Rhaenyra mounted a dragon aged 7 with seemingly no difficulty. Several supposed dragonseeds got burned or killed trying to mount dragons. I agree it’s tropey, but it’s a trope George uses. Magic and lineage are central to Asoiaf.

58 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think you're focusing too much on the phrase "Targaryens" in the answer. That's who the questioner was asking about, specifically. The answer doesn't say anything about blood and emphasizes people's differences based on individuality, not genetics.

Easier and safer? I'm not so sure...Drogon burned Dany pretty badly, and almost bit her head off. He also doesn't come to her willingly for a long while, and may not still. 

You’re right he doesn’t talk about blood, but he is talking about Targaryens. Yes their personalities play a role, but again, he isn’t saying dragon taming is like taming horses for anyone, he’s referring to Targaryens specifically.

And with Dany, yes it’s true Drogon was not easily tamed, but don’t forget that unlike her ancestors Dany isn’t raised by a family of dragonriders. Nobody is telling her how to raise them properly and the best way to approach them to try and ride them. She’s making it up as she goes along but still succeeds with Drogon. Im saying her blood allows her to mount him and bond with him in the end, just as sorcery and dragonbinder would. It’s interesting she has such trouble whilst the bonding seems to be pretty instantaneous for other Targaryens. Take Aemond and Vhagar, he mounts her and then takes flight and that appears to be that. Same with Aerea and Balerion (she was injured because of where she went, not from bonding with the oldest and biggest dragon alive). Maybe Drogon is just unusually aggressive. I amend my earlier statements:

dragon’s blood: successful riding, accepted by dragon, may be difficult like breaking a horse.

sorcery and spells: successful riding, accepted by dragon, presumably more complicated and risky process.

[TheTargaryenHistorian]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra is just mean there. She isn't commenting on dragonlore in that quote, but rather on filthy, unworthy, baseborn bastard girls seducing royal princes and fornicating with them.

Nettles is both unworthy of a dragon and of Daemon's love in Rhaenyra's eyes, hence she cannot have used 'honest means' to gain both. She cannot have bonded with Sheepstealer the proper Targaryen way, just as she couldn't have won Daemon's friendship and affection by being just nice to him.

She had to cheat with magic in both cases.

Magic isn't a way to bond with dragons - having the right blood is.

Granted, historically, the dragonlords of Valyria likely also used magic to make themselves and the dragons compatible, but that was a long time ago and no Targaryen from Aegon I to Aegon III needed magic to bond with his or her dragon. They just did it.

And that's why Rhaenyra - and pretty much all Westerosi people - use the ability to bond with a dragon as the gold standard for true royalty, e.g. the rumors about Aenys Targaryen's illegitimate birth dying down after he bonded with Quicksilver, the rumors about Rhaenyra's sons losing traction after her sons claimed their dragons, etc.

Hence Rhaenyra's need to discredit the way Nettles acquired her dragon. She cannot have done it by means of her royal blood - which she as the child of Driftmarkian/Dragonstonian sucessfully bonding with a dragon most likely had on both sides of her parents even if Daemon wasn't her father - so Rhaenyra has to come up with another explanation why Nettles could become a dragonrider.

This isn't some well-informed remark on alternative means to bond with dragons but just a vile slander of a young girl.

Firstly, I’m a fan of yours on these forums and I’m honoured you’ve contributed to my first post. Your knowledge of all things Targaryen and dragon in Asoiaf is amazing.

secondly, you seem to believe Nettles is definitely a dragonseed as you argue magic can’t tame dragons. You later contradict yourself and say magic could possibly tame dragons but we’ve not seen it done. I believe it’s probable she was a dragonseed, but could she not be our first case of a witch capable of taming dragons? If it’s possible to use magic to tame dragons, could it be argued Rhaenyra knew this due to passed down knowledge and therefore her accusation carried weight and was convincing to her council members and close family? She could be lying or distancing Nettles from herself and her family and ‘true’ dragonriders, but could she also incidentally be right?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no need to think about different bloodlines there. The Old Blood of Volantis as well as many noble houses (and slaves and commoners) in Lys do have as much dragonlord blood as the Targaryens of Westeros, possibly even more.

They lack dragons in the Free Cities, but not dragonlord blood. Any Targaryen dragon in the possession of an Essosi of sufficient dragonlord blood could hence bond with a dragon the same way the Targaryens did. There is no need for spells or anything extraordinary.

And, in fact, Queen Rhaena even thinks even people without any dragonlord blood could become dragonriders. She thinks Androw Farman could claim a dragon and she thinks the Lannisters could have bonded with any hatchlings Dreamfyre may have produced at Casterly Rock.

Even the Targaryens do not necessarily think you need magics or Targaryen blood to mount a dragon. But they are likely wrong in this.

This, of course, doesn't mean you cannot also control dragons with spells. Most likely you can, since magic can make a lot of stuff possible. But there is no indication anyone in the books so far did that ... although one certainly could see this having happened in the ancient days, before the rise of Valyria. After all, it seems the Valyrians really perfected the art of controlling the dragons with their magical breeding programs and stuff. Whereas prior to Valyrian advances in this field of magic certain powerful people may have been able to control or dominate dragons with spells, just as the first Valyrian dragonlords likely did something similar. They first had to acquire 'the blood of the dragon', after all. They did not just suddenly have that.

If you think about the symbolism behind then the Targaryens sort of marry their dragons. It is an exclusive, 'monogamous bond' lasting as long as either dragon or dragonrider lives whereas the skinchangers are pretty promiscuous, being able to bind many animals to their will.

Chances are pretty good that the dragonlords having literal 'dragon blood' in their veins is what allows them to form the kind of relationships they have with dragons ... while in the old days even powerful sorcerers - who lacked the dragon blood - hadn't the same success. Back in those days riding a dragon may have been pretty much a suicide mission.

We don't yet know what those horns did, but you have to keep in mind that the Targaryens are basically half-savage remnants of Valyria that was, down to a couple of dragons who completely lost/never possessed the great magical powers of the truly powerful families in Valyria.

Horns like Dragonbinder may have been used for other things than personally bonding with a single dragon - which the Valyrian dragonlords most likely also did the Targaryen way we know of. Valyria used hundreds of dragons in battle, and those horns may have been used to coordinate such attacks, to control riderless dragons in battle (something they should have been able to do or else they would have always been dependent on having enough dragonlords to use their entire dragon arsenal) or to steal dragons bonded to other dragonlords (which could have come in very handy during those many struggles and civil wars the Valyrians fought amongst themselves).

The kind of control the Targaryens have over their dragons without a horn like Dragonbinder seems to be very thorough. It is difficult to imagine that Balerion or Vhagar would have been a better weapon of terror if Aegon I had had such a horn.

Hence the idea that those horns may have been used for different purposes.

See above, most nobility in the Free Cities are Valyrians. Many would have the potential to become dragonriders if they laid their hands on living dragons.

I totally agree with most of this, barring your contradiction about using magic to tame dragons other than blood.

I apologise, by ‘other bloodlines’ I meant the people in Volantis and the free cities with the blood of dragonlords. So we are agreed on Jaehaerys fears being about them.

I also forgot about Rhaena’s concerns which I thought were odd when I read F&B, a Lannister dragonrider? How? but perhaps you’re right and the Targaryens are more special than they realise/ remember.

the horns and sorcery are, I agree, not well understood, seemingly in universe or by us. We hear mention of them but only in rumours about the past. Who knows what dragonbinder will do in the story. As you say, probably something very different.

the order of the greenhand argued that Targaryens were unique amongst the dragonlord families because they didn’t need horns or spells to tame dragons. I now realise this can’t be true, because there were 39 other ‘dragonlord’ families and George tells us the Targaryens were far from the most powerful or wealthy. If they were truly this unique EVERY other family would want to intermarry with them to gain this ability for themselves, and even if the Targaryens practiced incest to prevent the other families from doing this that still doesn’t explain why they weren’t powerful or rich.

Overall then, Targaryen blood= Dragonlord blood and it is dragonlord blood that is crucial to taming dragons and this explains Jaehaerys fears, as this blood may be alive and well in Volantis and the free cities.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If she had been a mountain clan girl, say, then this could be a pretty big hint that anybody can become a dragonrider. But she wasn't. And neither is there any indication that she was able to use magic or spells. The girl was just a street-smart humble commoner, basically.

With none of this ever happening chances are about zero that everybody can become a dragonrider.

And, by the way, it is also clearly not the looks. Quite a few dragonriders don't look Valyrian at all - Alysanne, Alyssa, Rhaenys, and Rhaenyra's sons. Yet no dragons rejected them.

There actually is evidence Nettles was a witch. We hear of a girl with a dragon leading a clan in the Vale, able to summon fire and burn men in rituals. This could be nettles and leaves open the possibility she was what Rhaenyra accused her of. It could be complete fiction or someone else. We don’t know.

I agree with you. George gave the Targaryens dragon riding as a swap out for his earlier idea of pyrokinesis. It must be an inherent trait for the most part, magic and lineage are central to Asoiaf. Not everyone can ride dragons.

[Mithras]

3. Basic animal husbandry.

[The Sleeper]

It is said that dragons were bound by magic originally or even created it by it. So if the blood of the dragonlords is necessary it would be because they made it so to the best of their ability. Maybe it is possible to tame one without being the descendant of a dragonlord. It must be exceedingly difficult if at all possible or others would have done it. Still the implication exists that if it was done once by magic it can be done again. 

I think the current Targaryens had the reason for the incest backwards. It is not because the purity of the blood matters, but because it doesn't. Case in a point Brown Ben Plum and all the dragonseeds in Dance. If a Valyrian dragonlord married a non dragonlord, a couple generations down the line there could be potentially dozens of his or her descendants who could claim the dragons of the house while having no real affiliation with it. That would raise the question why did they not marry into other dragonlord families. Perhaps they did, but did not get along well enough most of the for that to be the rule rather than the exception. Another reason could be that the dragonlords could only ride the dragons of their own house and not another house's so marrrying another dragonlord would mean that the descendants would have access to the dragons of both houses.

All the screwing around the Targaryens did means that there are hundreds of people with the potential of riding a dragon, which is precisely the situation the dragonlords of Valyria were hoping to avoid with their inbreeding. 

This could be where the horn fits in. As a means of capturing and binding dragons not belonging on a particular house. 

A few thoughts on the horn. It seems unlikely that the dragonlords would create a horn any old Joe could use to control dragons. So I think that the inscriptions "no mortal man shall sound me and live" and "fire for blood" indicate that the people who can use must be sorcerers who can use fire magic like or possibly fire wights and the people on their way to become one. And of course "blood for fire" would mean a person would need to be sacrificed for the binding to work because what doesn't involve human sacrifice in the books. 

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She thinks Androw Farman could claim a dragon

Androw ridding his horse in circles makes me think he was a worg. And a sea grass seed.

Could Valerian’s be like the Ibbenese and Brindle Men? If they breed outside their own low chance of conception and offspring with fertility problems or sterile?

Maybe they weren’t being superior when they claimed Targaryen’s are not men. That they require polygamy or incestuous relations to breed or be reborn. Understandable to not want the masses to know if you were not man. Who would want a monster for a king.

I get confused when the word dragon is used at times. Does it mean dragon with scales and wings? Or a person who claims to be a “dragon”? Or just someone with snakes, ants, or worms inside them?

[The Sleeper]

12 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Nettles secretly having the right genes and being able to tame a dragon because of that takes away the power of her taming a dragon through her own wits. In general, the idea that having the right genes to do something like this is getting uncomfortably close to early 20th century ideas about genetics. I do not think that this is an either/or situation. Dragons can be tamed through magical means, they could have been bred by Targaryens to bond with Targaryens, and they can still be tamed using non-magical methods. This is what Nettles proves about dragons. They can be tamed by wit as well as magic, and having the right bloodline actually has nothing to do with it.

One would have to account why other peoples failed to do so. Even if the task is nearly suicidal, people would have pursued it to counter the threat of the Valyrians.

An answer that would make sense would be that there were isolated cases that were successful. They would have remained isolated because taming a dragon is only the first step. One would have to feed them, breed them and find a way to reliably tame them across generations. The first two are enormous undertakings and the second seems also to require an active volcano. And dragons are not exactly subtle, so anyone who managed to tame a dragon would have been eliminated by the Valyrians long before they became a threat. 

I think there are implications that talent in magic can be made into an inherited trait and perhaps even gifted. Contrast Varamyr with the current generation of Starks and the Targaryens, in general. Perhaps the Valyrians dragonlords bred themselves for it or used actual magic to alter themselves in ways that were transmitted to their descendants. I don't think that Martin wrote it as something positive. Merely families hoarding power to themselves and it likely involves some messed up practices. It also has consequences considering how he makes a point of Targaryens having stillbirths with abnormally developed infants. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Eliscat said:

Could Valerian’s be like the Ibbenese and Brindle Men? If they breed outside their own low chance of conception and offspring with fertility problems or sterile?

Definitely not, given the 3 generations of outbreeding from Daeron the Good which was the time House Targaryen was at it's most fertile since Jaehaerys and Alysanne's baby machine.

[Rose of Red Lake]

6 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

I don't think that Martin wrote it as something positive. Merely families hoarding power to themselves and it likely involves some messed up practices. It also has consequences considering how he makes a point of Targaryens having stillbirths with abnormally developed infants. 

If it wasnt positive why are there so many nuke stans who agree with Targaryen beliefs, that they are the supreme House who deserves to rule, and that the "blood of the dragon" needs to be restored?

[The Sleeper]

31 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

If it wasnt positive why are there so many nuke stans who agree with Targaryen beliefs, that they are the supreme House who deserves to rule, and that the "blood of the dragon" needs to be restored?

That says more about them than the books. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 minute ago, The Sleeper said:

That says more about them than the books. 

I don't know how GRRM deals with it. If I was him I wouldn't want any supremacist eugenists thinking I was endorsing their views. I'd set them straight and tell them to go read someone else.