Jump to content

Is it within the realm of possibility that Cannibal is still alive?


Lady Stonehearts Simp

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Sheepstealer was hatched when King Jaehaerys was young.  See text.  The Cannibal is older (and larger) than Sheepstealer.  See text.  There is no dispute about this.  

The Cannibal can be older than Sheepstealer and still have hatched while Jaehaerys was still young.

8 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

The latter question (dragons on Dragonstone before Aenar) is never explicitly addressed one way or another.  But Valyrians had been there since about 306 BC.  And it seems already to have been called "Dragonstone" when Aenar moved there.

There certainly were dragonlords on Dragonstone before the Targaryens - they built the citadel there with their magics, etc. But we hear in TWoIaF that after the Valyrians had taken possession of Dragonstone flying dragonlords became a rarer and rarer sight in Blackwater Bay until the Targaryens came - so no confirmation that dragons actually nested and lived on Dragonstone prior to the arrival of the Targaryens.

How the island got its name we don't know - chances are it received that name when the dragonlords took the island for themselves and built their citadel which looked like a bunch of dragons. The name alone doesn't prove or indicate that any wild dragons lived on Dragonstone.

And to be sure - the origins of the Cannibal could easily enough be in the reign of the Conqueror or Aenys if he wasn't one of Rhaena's dragons who left the confines of the citadel of Dragonstone. During the later reign of Aegon I alone a dozen dragons hatched on Dragonstone (a very interesting detail since George actually changed that from half a dozen to a full dozen between the publication of 'The Sons of the Dragon' and FaB - indicating that he wanted to increase the number of young dragons for some reason) and then we also have two dragons hatching early during the reign of King Aenys.

The only named dragons from the later reign of the Conqueror and the short reign of Aenys would be Dreamfyre, Vermithor, and Silverwing - leaving at least eleven dragons unaccounted for that short period alone (Quicksilver hatched during the early reign of the Conqueror, so she cannot be numbered among those). Add to that the many dragons who hatched during Rhaena's time on Dragonstone - the three eggs produced by Dreamfyre on Fair Isle all hatched after she brought them to Dragonstone, and we hear about Aerea being surrounded by many hatchlings and young drakes.

The implication there certainly would be that many of those young dragons were eventually devoured by the Cannibal ... but if the guy had already been a threat by the time of Aegon I and Aenys and Rhaena then it should have been mentioned.

Also, of course, it is hard to take all the dragonlore stuff George put in FaB and TWoIaF as sacrosanct gospel. It is often contradictory. We have a sentence claiming that Vermithor was both the oldest and largest dragon after the death of Vhagar - but the former is factually wrong since everything we know about Dreamfyre implies she was older than Vermithor. Rhaena first bonded with Dreamfyre in 32 AC, two years before Jaehaerys' birth, and she mounted her a year after his birth. Since the origin story of Vermithor and Silverwing claims they sprung from eggs placed into the cradles of Jaehaerys and Alysanne, respectively, by their elder sister Rhaena, it is simply not possible that Vermithor is older than the dragon Vermithor.

Then we have the egg in Prince Aemon's disappearing without a trace, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Cannibal can be older than Sheepstealer and still have hatched while Jaehaerys was still young.

Then your "argument from silence" depends on the Cannibal not being mentioned during Jaehaerys' youth, which I imagine would be his 1st 30 years at most.  But the Cannibal also is not mentioned for another 60 years after that.

The fact is, none of the wild dragons are mentioned until the call goes out to find riders for them during the Dance.  Only then do they become relevant, even though at least 2 of them have already been around for at least 6 decades if not more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Then your "argument from silence" depends on the Cannibal not being mentioned during Jaehaerys' youth, which I imagine would be his 1st 30 years at most.  But the Cannibal also is not mentioned for another 60 years after that.

The fact is, none of the wild dragons are mentioned until the call goes out to find riders for them during the Dance.  Only then do they become relevant, even though at least 2 of them have already been around for at least 6 decades if not more.

Not sure why you think the argument from silence does make sense when discussing literature. It is artificially crafted, not the assessment of actual historical sources. There you cannot expect something to have been preserved and handed down to you ... but in fiction you cannot use that approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure why you think the argument from silence does make sense when discussing literature.

It makes less sense.  Because a work of fake history cannot possibly be as extensive as real history.   Also, because in a story or work of literature, characters are introduced when relevant to the story, regardless of how old they may be.   Also, the argument proves too much, as already shown.  The dragons were also not mentioned during the previous 60+ years when we KNOW at least 2 of them existed.  They only got mentioned when the DANCE made them relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

It makes less sense.  Because a work of fake history cannot possibly be as extensive as real history.   Also, the argument proves too much, as already shown.  The dragons were also not mentioned during the previous 60+ years when we KNOW at least 2 of them existed.  They only got mentioned when the DANCE made them relevant.

An argument from silence is a metholodical approach for history - it says that you cannot assume or dismiss something because you don't have any sources commenting on it. But even in history it is just a methodology like, say, Occam's Razor. There are instances where an argument from silence can and does make sense.

Now, in literature, especially carefully constructed literature like ASoIaF (where effectively nothing ends up being mentioned or described that doesn't carry any meaning) you can certainly make a case that no sources speaking about the existence, whereabouts and actions of a huge dragon cannibal (who, if tales are true, would have devoured dozens and scores of young(er) Targaryen dragons and Targaryen dragon eggs both during the first century AC as well as the first century BC) indicates that he either didn't exist in those times or didn't become a problem in those years.

After all, Gyldayn writes a history about the Targaryens and also focuses on their dragons. The dragons were the source of Targaryen power and prestige - therefore, a dragon preying on their young dragons throughout their reign in Westeros and before on Dragonstone would have been a serious issue a historian like Gyldayn wouldn't have glossed over.

If the Cannibal only grew to impressive size and only ended up cannibalizing young drakes and hatchlings and eggs during the later reign of Jaehaerys I (after Balerion and Vhagar and many of the younger drakes like Caraxes and Meleys were housed in the Dragonpit) then it would make sense that George didn't have Gyldayn write anything about that - because the later reign of Jaehaerys I as well as the reign of Viserys I are very cursory overviews.

However, the minority of Jaehaerys I and his early reign are covered in great detail and we spend a lot of time on Dragonstone during the late 40s and throughout the 50s. If the Cannibal was already a thing at that time he should have been mentioned.

Of course, a Cannibal coming to Dragonstone 300 years before the Conquest (or at least some time before the arrival of Aenar and his family) should have either been larger than Balerion in the late first century AC or at least larger than Vhagar and Vermithor, making him the largest dragon after the death of Balerion. Yet this clearly isn't the case. He is merely the largest wild dragon, and thus smaller than Vhagar and Vermithor and possibly even smaller than Dreamfyre and Silverwing.

True enough, Vermithor being larger than the older Dreamfyre, and Vhagar being smaller than Meraxes (or at least her skull being smaller than hers) indicates that some dragons grow faster and larger than others ... but considering that dragons basically grow (effectively ) until they die a dragon who might be over 400 years old by the time of the Dance should be larger than a dragon who is only 181 years old at the time of her death (Vhagar) or only nearly a hundred years (Vermithor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

If he was as old as Balerion, the smallfolk would be correct.  If the maesters are correct, he is younger than Balerion

If GRRM ends up telling me that 500 years is possible, I will believe him.   I don't think we get to talk of "realism" when it comes to fantasy animals like dragons.  Especially when we are trying to extrapolate from a single example.   And the biggest dragon in history is not likely to be a fair guide to the maximum life expectancy of dragons.   Being oversize tends to come with health problems.  That's how it works with other animals anyway.

And who knows how cold weather affects them.  They might not grow as fast, or die as soon.

I'm not saying he is or is not alive.  I guess the odds are against it.  But to say there is "no chance" of his being alive is saying too much.

All good points.  I do still think it's highly unlikely but it's entirelly possible that GRRM could find a way to bring Cannibal back....though I don't see how it could factor into the story.  3 heads of the dragon is a major theme.

 

He's my fave dragon tho, so if it could make sense I'd be for it.  Maybe linking with a rider shortens their life span?  Cannibal never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

All good points.  I do still think it's highly unlikely but it's entirelly possible that GRRM could find a way to bring Cannibal back....though I don't see how it could factor into the story.  3 heads of the dragon is a major theme.

He's my fave dragon tho, so if it could make sense I'd be for it.  Maybe linking with a rider shortens their life span?  Cannibal never did.

There is a chance that the Cannibal might yet feature in the story - in FaB II which cover the years 137-153 AC, the last sixteen years during which dragons still lived in Westeros.

At the end of FaB the Cannibal is yet riderless on Dragonstone ... but there are yet Targaryens out there with the desire and the courage to mount a dragon, Lady Baela Targaryen foremost among them. She lost her Moondancer and she yearns to have another dragon. Then you have Prince Viserys and his children (although the latter clearly are too young right now to try to mount a large dragons).

On the other side we do have Alys Rivers and her half-Targaryen son at Harrenhal - meaning the lad could eventually mount a dragon if doesn't already have one as Alys claims in FaB. If Alys' son - who, if seen as Aemond's trueborn son would be the rightful king - has a dragon, Aegon III regime would likely have to use a dragonrider of their own to defeat him or risk losing the throne in a rebellion.

Aegon III will never actually try to mount another dragon, and Rhaena is a woman and no warrior. It is certainly possible that she is the last Targaryen dragonrider, of course ... but with two big dragons yet out there, Silverwing and the Cannibal, there is a chance that we see at least one additional dragonrider.

I mean, it is kind of weird that George introduces a cool cannibalistic dragon only to have him do literally nothing in the story aside from kill some fools who try to mount him. That's like seeing Viserion, say, fly out of the story after whatever he is yet to during the Battle of Meereen. Or have Rickon return to the story but not Shaggydog.

I find it more likely to see the Cannibal feature again in FaB II than have him return during ASoIaF proper - mainly due to the dangling plotline of Alys Rivers' son, something we only learned about in FaB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are instances where an argument from silence can and does make sense.

This is not one of them.  We are talking about a handful of paragraphs.  All sorts of things are not mentioned during the period you are arguing.  No sheep.  No smallfolk.  No servants.  No fishermen.  No villages or villagers.  No dragon statues.   No port.  No tavern.  No inn.  No whorehouse.  No hot vents or volcanic smoke.  No mountain caverns.   A septon is not mentioned until Jaehaerys needs one.   Dragonmont is, I think, only mentioned once or twice.  Individual dragons are mentioned only when Targs or dragonseeds manage to bond with them or die trying.  Dragon eggs and hatchlings are mentioned without identifying the parent dragon.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, in literature, especially carefully constructed literature like ASoIaF (where effectively nothing ends up being mentioned or described that doesn't carry any meaning) you can certainly make a case that no sources speaking about the existence, whereabouts and actions of a huge dragon cannibal (who, if tales are true, would have devoured dozens and scores of young(er) Targaryen dragons and Targaryen dragon eggs both during the first century AC as well as the first century BC) indicates that he either didn't exist in those times or didn't become a problem in those years.

Cannibal was never particularly aggressive toward humans.  He left them alone, if they left him alone. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

After all, Gyldayn writes a history about the Targaryens and also focuses on their dragons.

Cannibal was not one of their dragons.  He was wild. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The dragons were the source of Targaryen power and prestige -

Not this one.  He was uncontrolled.  Deadly if not left alone.  So he was left alone.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

therefore, a dragon preying on their young dragons throughout their reign in Westeros and before on Dragonstone would have been a serious issue a historian like Gyldayn wouldn't have glossed over.

He does gloss over it.   Sorry.  The Cannibal was alive for AT LEAST 60 or 70 years before, but Gyldayne does not mention him until the Dance, when wild dragons become an issue.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the Cannibal only grew to impressive size and only ended up cannibalizing young drakes and hatchlings and eggs during the later reign of Jaehaerys I (after Balerion and Vhagar and many of the younger drakes like Caraxes and Meleys were housed in the Dragonpit) then it would make sense that George didn't have Gyldayn write anything about that - because the later reign of Jaehaerys I as well as the reign of Viserys I are very cursory overviews.

However, the minority of Jaehaerys I and his early reign are covered in great detail and we spend a lot of time on Dragonstone during the late 40s and throughout the 50s.

No.  We don't see "great detail".  Handful of paragraphs.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the Cannibal was already a thing at that time he should have been mentioned.

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

At the end of FaB the Cannibal is yet riderless on Dragonstone ... but there are yet Targaryens out there with the desire and the courage to mount a dragon, Lady Baela Targaryen foremost among them. She lost her Moondancer and she yearns to have another dragon.

No rider ever conrtolled a second dragon.  For whatever reason, the magic bond does not permit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

No rider ever conrtolled a second dragon.  For whatever reason, the magic bond does not permit it.

Where do you have this information (emphasis) from, may I ask? Because I haven't found any indications for this. Daenerys is musing about the fact, yes, but in context it sound more about a rider controlling more than one dragon at the same time - she's musing about what will happen to her other two dragons.

As dragons normally outlive their riders, we have very few cases in which a rider would need another dragon because their first died. We have Viserys I, who - indicated by GRRMs wording - chose to remain dragonless, and we have riders during the Dance without the chance/time to even try another binding. After the dance there is a significant shortage on riderless dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

This is not one of them.  We are talking about a handful of paragraphs.  All sorts of things are not mentioned during the period you are arguing.  No sheep.  No smallfolk.  No servants.  No fishermen.  No villages or villagers.  No dragon statues.   No port.  No tavern.  No inn.  No whorehouse.  No hot vents or volcanic smoke.  No mountain caverns.   A septon is not mentioned until Jaehaerys needs one.   Dragonmont is, I think, only mentioned once or twice.  Individual dragons are mentioned only when Targs or dragonseeds manage to bond with them or die trying.  Dragon eggs and hatchlings are mentioned without identifying the parent dragon.

Not sure you understand my point there. This is (somewhat) carefully constructed fake history, not real history. Meaning the author would invent sources/accounts touching upon subjects he himself and his expected readership would care about. A dragon cannibalizing the eggs and hatchlings and young drakes during the reigns of Aegon I up to Viserys I would warrant notice, especially in the more detailed account of the early reign of Jaehaerys I.

That it was glossed over in the latter reign of Jaehaerys I and the brief overview of the reign of Viserys I is not surprising - a lot of other crucial things are glossed over and ignored there, too.

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Cannibal was never particularly aggressive toward humans.  He left them alone, if they left him alone.

That is the statement of a not-so-competent castellan, not an established fact. However, if the Cannibal attacked the hatcheries and young dragons on Dragonstone - as we know he did - he would also have attacked and harmed and perhaps even killed the men and women caring for and protecting the dragons and their eggs.

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

Cannibal was not one of their dragons.  He was wild.

Stop trying to create an artificial difference there. A wild dragon can yet be a Targaryen dragon and vice versa. Drogon clearly was a wild dragon when Dany mounted him in ADwD, and Viserion and Rhaegal would now also qualify as wild dragons. Yet their origin is still Targaryen.

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

He does gloss over it.   Sorry.  The Cannibal was alive for AT LEAST 60 or 70 years before, but Gyldayne does not mention him until the Dance, when wild dragons become an issue.

And I gave you an explanation as I why think this is the case. If you want to contradict me you can actually address the arguments I gave. If the Cannibal hatched during somewhat before Sheepstealer - meaning either when Jaehaerys I was yet younger (say, during Rhaena's reign of Dragonstone) or if he hatched during the reign of Aenys or the last years of Aegon I ... then this doesn't mean (1) that he left the confines of the citadel of Dragonstone during the first decade or so after his birth (he could have stayed there until the reign of Rhaena, say), nor (2) that he immediately developed his cannibalistic dragon diet. The latter could have been a thing of later days, a time when a dozen or more wild dragons had established themselves on Dragonstone and the scarcity in food and territory caused one or many of them to hunt each other, with the Cannibal ending up the victorious dragon cannibal (Grey Ghost survived because of his screcy and his territory being the sea, whilst Sheepstealer may have already been too large to be easy prey and also because his hunting grounds were apparently also (in part) off Dragonstone).

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

No.  We don't see "great detail".  Handful of paragraphs.

LOL, man, we get great detail on the early reign of Jaehaerys I and both his and Alysanne's stint on Dragonstone as well as Rhaena's later reign there ... compared to the cursory overviews we get for the later reign of Jaehaerys I (effectively 45 years) and for the 26 years of the reign of Viserys I.

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

I disagree.

So you actually do not want there to be more Cannibal action in the books?

12 hours ago, Gilbert Green said:

No rider ever conrtolled a second dragon.  For whatever reason, the magic bond does not permit it.

That is factually wrong, and considering that you want to discuss such esoteric details with considerable fervor you should really check things out before you make such claims.

FaB makes it crystal clear that both Rhaenyra and Aegon II think they, personally, can mount other dragons after Syrax and Sunfyre are dead. Rhaenyra specifically returns to Dragonstone because she wants to hatch dragon eggs because she thinks she needs another dragon, and Aegon II has the new maester of Dragonstone send seven eggs to the Red Keep for him personally hatch so he can replace his golden Sunfyre. Prior to that, his council even brought up the notion that the king could mount Silverwing at Red Lake - but this is dismissed because Aegon II doesn't want Silverwing and might not be fit enough physically to travel there.

If the magical bond were not to permit it, George sure as hell implied that the people riding those dragons think they could mount multiple dragons in succession - just as dragons can have multiple riders in succession.

In addition, though, George actually has been asked on his NAB why the hell Viserys I was dragonless during his reign (at a time when we did not yet know that he had been the last rider of Balerion before the latter's death) and George then revealed that Viserys I had in fact been the last rider of Balerion, but also revealing that the later king chose to not mount another dragon after Balerion's death.

So George himself actually revealed that insofar as he knows such a thing is not only believed to be possible by the people in-universe but actually is possible.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Where do you have this information (emphasis) from, may I ask? Because I haven't found any indications for this. Daenerys is musing about the fact, yes, but in context it sound more about a rider controlling more than one dragon at the same time - she's musing about what will happen to her other two dragons.

Yes, Daenerys' thoughts only imply that dragonlore traditions holds that a dragon cannot have been ridden by another person while he or she actually has a rider. I originally also thought that this meant that a person might only be able to bond with one dragon in life, but that actually doesn't seem to be case. And it is not what the text implies, but a wrong conclusion drawn from it.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

As dragons normally outlive their riders, we have very few cases in which a rider would need another dragon because their first died. We have Viserys I, who - indicated by GRRMs wording - chose to remain dragonless, and we have riders during the Dance without the chance/time to even try another binding. After the dance there is a significant shortage on riderless dragons.

Viserys I is actually the only Targaryen up to the Dance who outlives his dragon. In any other case the dragon outlives his rider and is eventually claimed by another rider. I think you guys all know that I think it makes little sense that Viserys I would not claim another dragon after Balerion's death - so this certainly is an oddity - but we have to accept that he did this despite having been able to choose another.

After the Dance there is both a shortage of dragons in general as well as of Targaryens of the right age to try to claim a riderless dragon. If Aegon II and Rhaenyra had lived, there is certainly a chance that either would have eventually mounted another dragon. But there is certainly a chance that Baela Targaryen ends up claiming the Cannibal or Silverwing. She is old enough to try, she has ridden a dragon in the past, and she has the courage and determination to try. Not to mention that she is kind of annoyed that Rhaena has a dragon now while she is dragonless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

FaB makes it crystal clear that both Rhaenyra and Aegon II think they, personally, can mount other dragons after Syrax and Sunfyre are dead.

I think what Gilbert Green is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Green), is that no rider ever could ride two dragons at once. No rider would have a 'second dragon' while the other one is alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morte said:

Where do you have this information (emphasis) from, may I ask? Because I haven't found any indications for this. Daenerys is musing about the fact, yes, but in context it sound more about a rider controlling more than one dragon at the same time - she's musing about what will happen to her other two dragons.

"... no rider ever flew two dragons" sounds like a rule without any exceptions.  The immediate context, ("Balerion had other riders after Aegon died, but ...") rules out the idea is that the intent is merely to rule out simultaneous bondings.  She is saying that a dragon can bond with two riders (though not at the same time), but a rider cannot bond with two dragons (at all).  My "for whatever reason" statement is not merely an admission that I don't know the reason and maybe I don't need to know because it is magic. 

Other than that, I would agree with you about the rest of the context.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

As dragons normally outlive their riders, we have very few cases in which a rider would need another dragon because their first died.

All of history is bigger than the examples we have.  Valyria and Targ family lore are larger than the little we know.  And apparently no exceptions are known, and this bit of lore was passed down to Dany by Viserys and by the books she read.

2 hours ago, Morte said:

We have Viserys I, who - indicated by GRRMs wording - chose to remain dragonless, and we have riders during the Dance without the chance/time to even try another binding. After the dance there is a significant shortage on riderless dragons.

We have Maegor, who refused to bond with lesser dragons because he was waiting for Balerion. 

Viserys I "chose" to remain dragonless.  Interesting "choice".  It can't have been for want of courage, or he never would have been a dragonrider to begin with.  Rides at 17, loses dragon at 18, spends the next 35 years dragonless.

Aegon III, lost his dragon at age 10, spent another 27 years dragonless.  Feel free to call him the "broken king" and say "other reasons", but losing his dragon might be one of the things that broke him.

Baela - rides dragon at 14, loses dragon at 14, never rides again.  No opportunities?  Maybe, but who can tell.  Had she not previously bonded, perhaps she could have hatched an egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think what Gilbert Green is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Green), is that no rider ever could ride two dragons at once. No rider would have a 'second dragon' while the other one is alive.

No.  I read Dany's words as saying:   Some dragons had two riders [though not while the other rider was still alive] but no rider ever flew two dragons [period].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gilbert Green said:

No.  I read Dany's words as saying:   Some dragons had two riders [though not while the other rider was still alive] but no rider ever flew two dragons [period].

Oh, okay. I was under the assumption that some people rode a different dragon when their old one died, but it has been a while since I read the books, so this may be a false assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Oh, okay. I was under the assumption that some people rode a different dragon when their old one died, but it has been a while since I read the books, so this may be a false assumption.

I have not memorized the books either.  But if there are such examples, I'm sure someone will throw it at me soon.  Lord Varys already tried and failed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

"... no rider ever flew two dragons" sounds like a rule without any exceptions.  The immediate context, ("Balerion had other riders after Aegon died, but ...") rules out the idea is that the intent is merely to rule out simultaneous bondings.  She is saying that a dragon can bond with two riders (though not at the same time), but a rider cannot bond with two dragons (at all).  My "for whatever reason" statement is not merely an admission that I don't know the reason and maybe I don't need to know because it is magic. 

Other than that, I would agree with you about the rest of the context.

I disagree on that point. She is thinking about her other two dragons, so the context is - imho - more a "what will happen with my other dragons? How will their riders influence my relationship toward them." The sentence before the one you are quoting is:  "...even Aegon the Conqueror never dared mount Vhagar or Meraxes, nor did his sisters mount Balerion the Black Dread"

So she is talking about flying two dragons at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Viserys I "chose" to remain dragonless.  Interesting "choice".  It can't have been for want of courage, or he never would have been a dragonrider to begin with.  Rides at 17, loses dragon at 18, spends the next 35 years dragonless.

As you say, he dared to approach Balerion, so maybe he really loved the old big boy so much? The information was given by GRRM himself, as @Lord Varys pointed out, so it would be strange, if it was for any other reason but affection(?)

35 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Aegon III, lost his dragon at age 10, spent another 27 years dragonless.  Feel free to call him the "broken king" and say "other reasons", but losing his dragon might be one of the things that broke him.

Imho Aegon III really didn't want another dragon after the loss of his dragon and witnessing his mother being devoured by Sunfyre.

But I agree with you on the part that we don't yet know the full impact the death of a dragon can have on its rider. Maybe this is the difference between Viserys I and Aegon III, who never even tried to get another dragon, and other dragonriders, who wanted another one after their dragon died? Maybe the imprint on the rider can differ? Balerion is a very old and wilful dragon, while Aegon III is really very young then his dragon dies...

40 minutes ago, Gilbert Green said:

Baela - rides dragon at 14, loses dragon at 14, never rides again.  No opportunities?  Maybe, but who can tell.  Had she not previously bonded, perhaps she could have hatched an egg.

Here I hope @Lord Varys is right and we get more informations in FaB II, maybe combined with Cannibal's further whereabouts, as Baela not even trying to get another dragon, imho feels strange for her character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Morte said:

I disagree on that point. She is thinking about her other two dragons, so the context is - imho - more a "what will happen with my other dragons? How will their riders influence my relationship toward them." The sentence before the one you are quoting is:  "...even Aegon the Conqueror never dared mount Vhagar or Meraxes, nor did his sisters mount Balerion the Black Dread"

So she is talking about flying two dragons at the same time.

I agree with you about the context of the paragraph, as I already said.  And I understand you fine.

My problem is, you are ignoring the immediate context, within the sentence itself.

How do you explain the word "but"?  According to you, the marriage of rider and dragon is symmetrical.  A widowed dragon can re-bond AND a widowed rider can re-bond.  There must be some non-symmetry, otherwise the word "but" makes no sense.

It's fair to say that the full sentence is irrelevant to her immediate point.  But the full sentence still says what it says.  And it happens to match what we know of Targ history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...