How do you conquer a continent with just 3 Dragons?

[Spring Bass]

I remember someone in the past month or two did an awesome post making the point about how the Targaryens deliberately kept themselves above the Great Houses that they ruled (even after the dragons were gone), and once they were gone, so was the respect. The Baratheons were just another Great House (cadet branch or not), and none of the Great Houses really respected their dominance. But I haven't been able to find it.

Assuming that Marwyn was talking out of his ass (and I increasingly think that may have been the case), I think the dragons got sicker and weaker over generations because they weren't being raised in a really hot, fiery place (like Dragonstone, where Aegon and sister-wives kept Balerion and his ilk). Dragons probably like the heat, seeing as how the Valyrians bred them near volcanic places as well (the Fourteen Fires).

[Baleraxar]

(snip)

I don't buy it.

Then you know very little about history.

Nationalism is an extremely modern concept. It's very literally an idea that did not exist in Medieval Europe. "French" and "English" were not meaningful identities for people. Your loyalty was to your family, not an abstract ideal of a country.

Feudalism is an absolutely terrible system for creating national identity. The very reason things like the Wars of the Roses (on which ASoIaF was, of course, based) was because vassals felt more loyalty to the Lords they knew and shared blood ties with than to the King. Nationalism didn't come about until governments started to centralize their power.

Trying to ascribe nationalistic ideas to pre-modern societies is extremely unrealistic and anachronistic. I'm glad Martin doesn't fall into that trap.

[Insanity X]

Your reply is basically that 3 dragons can conquer a continent because the story says so.

Yep. That's the way fiction usually works.

This does not tie in with the fact that according to Martin, most dragons died in battle. So that means that armies with medieval level technology CAN kill a dragon. In fact, MOST dragons were killed this way.

Aegon's dragons were bigger and thus harder to kill, the Westerosi had no idea what they were up against so had no idea how to kill them, maybe the dragons wore armor... There's an assload of plausible excuses that would work here. Pick one.

Therefore, if you have to conquer a continent the size of South America, with upwards of 200 000 armed warriors, you'd think that this would expose the dragons to a fair amount of the situation which has historically killed most of them - namely battle.

Yes, but the dragons never fought 200,000 warriors at one time did they? They faced a maximum of what 55,000 at once and it was a flaming massacre. And then there are the kingdoms that surrendered without fighting.

Hence I'm saying that you'd need more than 3.

The evidence is clearly against you here. Aegon had three dragons and conquered most of Westeros, and the only time he ever used all three, the results were so devastating that nobody dared face him in open battle again. That's pretty definitive.

[iamthedave]

I'm not sure were you got this image from. We don't all dress up like braveheart and attack English people when they cross the border. Most of the friction i've ever experienced against England is from Rugby.

I'm sure there's a metaphor to be wrangled out of touchdowns and the various rules of rugby here...

That said, if the Scottish rugby team did go onto the field dressed like Braveheart I would immediately award them ten million points, the match, and whatever cup they desired.

I've long since come to the conclusion that sports in general need to be more AWESOME. And this would be awesome.

As for the dragons making it boring... well... yes.

There's a reason Martin's telling us the story of the FALL of House Targaryen (well, the Fall and Rise of House Targ assuming Dany does eventually sit the throne) rather than its original rise to power. The rise simply isn't very interesting because it was a one-sided massacre.

[George Snow]

Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes were apparently the biggest dragons that the Targaryen dynasty ever had, and thus presumably the toughest and most able to take hits and keep fighting. It could be that while those three were indeed nearly unbeatable, the military efficiency of the Targaryen dragons progressively decreased along with their size, thus incurring more losses among the dragons.

I very much doubt that Dany's dragons will be capable of winning major battles all by themselves the way Aegon's dragons did. IMO their greatest value will continue to be what it has already been: a means for Dany to attract new followers/supporters to her cause.

I think Dany's dragons will be used mostly against Others, which will cause a lot of support to go to her.

GH

[zmflavius]

Yeah, and that's why the bastards in the Westerlands are named Hill. How do the archers get a shot at Aegon? Well, by not standing directly below the dragon.

And by working up enough nerve to get within two hundred feet of a giant, fire-breathing lizard that can swallow knight's on horseback whole and probably has some armour over it as well that's torching everything next to it. What's so hard about that, the spineless cowards?

[Aganerral]

This all relies on a dragon, supposedly smart creatures not noticing someone walking on its face.

Out of curiosity, do we know much about dragon intelligence in ASOIAF? dragons in fiction have run the range from being large, firebreathing wild animals wild animals to highly intelligent, and I'm not sure I've seen anything that pegs where Martin's dragons fall on that scale (I've only read the core 4 novels, not the short stories or other expanded universe material). They're certainly trainable based on the Targ history, but Dany's dragons haven't shown any significant sign of non-instinctual intelligence that I can recall.

[mcb]

This may have been covered, but how were the dragons fed? Dragons of that size must have required tremendous volumes of meat to keep them nourished (is it mentioned at some point that they kept growing?).

And the dual question: what happened to dragon dung? Did Aegon's soldiers build huge, dragon-compatible latrines? Or did they simply shovel it off? Someone earlier in this thread compared dragons to bombers - now there's a truly unnerving thought.

[zmflavius]

Out of curiosity, do we know much about dragon intelligence in ASOIAF? dragons in fiction have run the range from being large, firebreathing wild animals wild animals to highly intelligent, and I'm not sure I've seen anything that pegs where Martin's dragons fall on that scale (I've only read the core 4 novels, not the short stories or other expanded universe material). They're certainly trainable based on the Targ history, but Dany's dragons haven't shown any significant sign of non-instinctual intelligence that I can recall.

Dragons only eat cooked food, which I think is Martin's way of saying that they might be near human in some respects. They also clearly have good instincts at the least, as Drogon sensed that the Undying wanted to hurt Dany.

[AquariumDrinker]

I don't see how Aegon was able to conquer an entire continent with his 3 Dragons.

I mean, what's the range of Dragonfire? 50 yards? 100 yards? 200 yards? Surely a Dragon can't spew fire for half a mile or something, that's just ludicrous.

And there are longbows that reach 200 yards quite easily. So frankly, every time a Dragon comes in for an attack run you would think that it would fly into a hailstorm of poisoned arrows. I'm talking hundreds of arrows. Thousands.

Did they even have longbows when the dragons came over? 300 years is a long time, technologically speaking.

Not to mention catapults and ballistae that can fire giant arrows half a mile or smash 20 pound rocks through the wings of flying lizards.

Dragons, unlike walls, can move. I would think that the siege equipment of the time period was a bit more primitive, but that is just a guess.

It seems to me a Dragon can turn the tide if a battle is evenly poised. Maybe even twice, if you're lucky and the Dragon isn't injured during the first battle.

But to conquer a continent the size of Westeros you'd probably need scores of Dragons, attacking in squadrons and you'd probably lose a few Dragons in each battle.

If an army came out to meet me in the field, I would fly over/around it and destroy their homes, wives, children and everything else I could until they submitted.

When my troops formed up and the ranks clashed, I would hit the enemies reserves, while the two armies clashed in the field. There is no reason, ever, for the dragons to face the bulk of the enemies army. When a son sees his Lord father melted in the rear, he may decide to submit. If he doesn't, his younger brother might.

Seems to me Martin is insinuating that a Dragon cruises along a mile up in the air, and sprays the battlefield below with a mile long jet of flame until no enemies are left.

That just doesn't sound right to me.

When Aegon showed up, no one he fought had ever faced a dragon. I would imagine that morale was as much of a tide turner in the battles as the actual fire breath.

If you have 3 dragons you dont fighting honorably, you cheat.

[mcb]

Instead, the average Westerosi citizen seems to have not a tenth the sense of belonging to their land that the ancient Germannic or Gallic tribes displayed in their neverending rebellions against the Romans, until the barbarians eventually outlasted the Romans.

Not really. With few rebellions here and there, Roman Empire enjoyed two hundred years of Pax Romana.

And Targaryens' conquest changed preciously little for the conquered nations. Except for the fact that your lord's overlord's overoverlord didn't get to call himself King, but Lord, and had one more guy above him, it was just business as always. No new language, no new religion. Comparison to being conquered by Russia is completely off the mark.

And here's a fun fact: Germany, as a country, exists since late 19th century. Before that it was not just seven, but forty sovereign kingdoms and princedoms. And Wilhelm I Hohenzollern, the first German Emperor, didn't even have ONE dragon. Not a single one! Now that's unrealistic.

[Raksha the Demon]

It's been awhile since I've read the books, but isn't there one problem in the scenario of Dany using her three fiery friends as the strongest weapons in her Westoros conquest - no one can control the dragons, including Dany. If they can't be taught to obey, to execute certain actions with military and instant obedience, then they're just very large and dangerous pests who come home to their human "Mother" for feeding. Of course, they will have a strong intimidation value, especially if most of the noble houses and people of Westeros don't yet know that the dragons are free-ranging semi-wild animals rather than flying Targaryen bombers.

If I'm wrong and Daenerys, or someone among her followers, is successfully domesticating and training the dragons, let me know...

[Ranzadule]

The Game of Thrones RPG, which had a great deal of input from GRRM, though I do not know exactly what he mandated and what he didn't care about, rates dire wolves a 3 intelligence an dragons a 7. 9-11 is human average. It should be noted that the game rates only Danny's hatchlings.

[Hirgon]

The Game of Thrones RPG, which had a great deal of input from GRRM, though I do not know exactly what he mandated and what he didn't care about, rates dire wolves a 3 intelligence an dragons a 7. 9-11 is human average. It should be noted that the game rates only Danny's hatchlings.

So we know that dragons are more intelligent than humans but less intelligent than direwolves. Got it. That fits the characters we've seen thus far in aSoIaF quite well.

[zmflavius]

The Game of Thrones RPG, which had a great deal of input from GRRM, though I do not know exactly what he mandated and what he didn't care about, rates dire wolves a 3 intelligence an dragons a 7. 9-11 is human average. It should be noted that the game rates only Danny's hatchlings.

Direwolves are three intelligence??

That's like barely a step above normal animals!

3 intelligence is what you give the stereotypical orc barbarian in a game.

[TrueMetis]

Direwolves are three intelligence??

That's like barely a step above normal animals!

3 intelligence is what you give the stereotypical orc barbarian in a game.

Well Orcs are able to talk.

[Ahmrogar]

I would like one glass of whatever dragon's drink to get a buzz, please.

Seconded.

Well, the author can obviously make the dragons as powerful as he wants. Anything from a largish lizard that can be slain in one on one combat by a determined hero with a sword, right up to a gigantic flying fortress that can conquer an entire continent without any possibility of resistance.

My point is simply that if you want to go with the upper extreme, as seems to be the case here, then rather than give the Targaryens dragons you might as well just give them the magical ability to simply point at any random person/squad/army/nation and have them instantly keel over dead.

Basically: Targaryen point, random enemy dies.

Very boring. There's no contest in it all. The whole Game of Thrones becomes obsolete. The ingenuity of enemies becomes obsolete. Home ground advantage becomes obsolete. The will of the original inhabitants of whatever area you want to take becomes obsolete.

Aegon point. Aegon kill. The end.

Nice story.

No, because that defeats the purpose of it all.

Dragons are what made Targaryens special, they are what justified their ridiculously arrogant mindset and as another poster pointed out, can be seen as a metaphor for divine rule.

I guess part of the answer is the spineless, unpatriotic nature of the average Westerosi citizen. Martin seems to have created them as people who are happy simply if they have a place to sleep out of the rain, some food to fill their bellies and maybe a woman to warm their beds. In other words, with a rather narrow, self preserving view of life.

Contrast this to the Afghans, for example, who despite living in a semi feudal/tribal society right up to the present day, refused to bow down to the might of the Soviet army. Gunship helicopters and tanks could not overcome them even though they fought on horseback and died by the thousands.

You'd think that if your ancestors have lived in a land for 8000 years you'd have a bit more of a sense of "this belongs to my people" than to just shrug and accept whatever foreign overlord tries to conquer it and just get back to farming sheep.

Martin seems to think people are easily cowed by the basic needs of survival, but many examples around the world show differently.

To this day the Scots resent English rule and are in fact at the point of creating a separate Scottish country, like the Republic of Ireland to regain their independence. Yet Martin would have us believe taht the First Men of the North - after 8000 years of becoming one with their land - just shrugged their shoulders and let a foreign king take over.

If the Westerosi were Afghans, and the Dragons were Russian Hind gunships, the Targaryens would still be fighting for control of the land to this day. In fact, the taxing nature of such a total war would probably have killed off their dragons even earlier than they eventually did die.

And then it would have been all over for them.

Instead, the average Westerosi citizen seems to have not a tenth the sense of belonging to their land that the ancient Germannic or Gallic tribes displayed in their neverending rebellions against the Romans, until the barbarians eventually outlasted the Romans.

Same with the Afghans, who are also from a feudal culture, yet display tremendous solidarity with their land and their unique culture. It's quite something for the Afghans to say they have NEVER been conquered. Not by Alexander the Great, not by Genghis Khan, not by the Russians and not today.

Now, the North was able to say that for 8000 years. You'd think that would lead to some sense of pride similar to that displayed by the brave but ultimately hopelessly outnumber Scots. But no, the King kneels and Bob's your uncle.

I don't buy it.

You seem to have an agenda to prove that ASoIaF is unrealistic and silly and doesn't make sense and should be nitpicked.

It is a fantasy story, as it is, the examples you choose are invalid. A better point if you want to nitpick is why an entire continent speaks the same tongue.

How do you conquer Westeros with three dragons?

Easily, when you consider the divided nature of the realm, their technological inferiority, the fact that dragons are MASSIVE, fly, breath fire and destroy morale.

In regards to other matters, and as others have also pointed out, nationalism requires a state to be national to, which Westeros has known, there's a sort of proto-nationalism in say, the North, Iron Islands and Dorne, but a feudal system by its very nature has a large degree of substitutability.

Really though, you're missing the point if you take that lean because Aegon didn't change that. Most provinces were left autonomous, most nobility that knelt to him were left in power.

Aegon just put himself on another level as the "King of Kings" so to speak. Most of the lords still paid fealty to the same people they had for thousands of years but now instead of paying fealty to their king they were merely paying fealty to a higher level of nobility who in turn knelt to the King.

Jorah says it perfectly when he says that the smallfolk care nothing for who sits the Iron Throne, they basically just want to be left in peace and have a rich harvest and a quiet life.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Have we considered the pure military intelligence value of dragons and a rider to fly them? It may have been as much an advantage to Aegon to have what was, in essence, an airplane with which he (or his sisters) could very quickly and efficiently scout out enemy movements, order, disposition, and so forth. It would also enable fast and detailed communication even between moving allied armies (unlike ravens, which have been established to not be able to find people on the move). It's quite possible that even leaving out the whole fire-breathing/war-machine element of the dragons, they would give the commander that controlled them a massive and possibly decisive advantage in battlefield intelligence. I've often thought the Field of Fire wasn't just a victory because all three dragons were unleashed, but because all three were intentionally unleashed in a scenario where Aegon knew they were calculated to do the maximum damage to the opposing armies. He knew this because he had scouted them out without them knowing. By contrast, I have always felt the conquest of Dorne (by force) was ultimately unsuccessful because the Dornish scattered to the four winds and never presented a big (or any) target worth sending dragons after, nor could three dragons effectively scout in such a guerrilla scenario.

[iheartseverus]

Have we considered the pure military intelligence value of dragons and a rider to fly them? It may have been as much an advantage to Aegon to have what was, in essence, an airplane with which he (or his sisters) could very quickly and efficiently scout out enemy movements, order, disposition, and so forth. It would also enable fast and detailed communication even between moving allied armies (unlike ravens, which have been established to not be able to find people on the move). It's quite possible that even leaving out the whole fire-breathing/war-machine element of the dragons, they would give the commander that controlled them a massive and possibly decisive advantage in battlefield intelligence. I've often thought the Field of Fire wasn't just a victory because all three dragons were unleashed, but because all three were intentionally unleashed in a scenario where Aegon knew they were calculated to do the maximum damage to the opposing armies. He knew this because he had scouted them out without them knowing. By contrast, I have always felt the conquest of Dorne (by force) was ultimately unsuccessful because the Dornish scattered to the four winds and never presented a big (or any) target worth sending dragons after, nor could three dragons effectively scout in such a guerrilla scenario.

Excellent post. I keep comparing the dragon's 'shock and awe' value to planes during World War I. They weren't precise, they 'died' (crashed) in large numbers but their value was that in the midst of sitting on your horse and hacking away at the guy in front of you--suddenly, here come these flying monsters raining shrieking fire and death down on you from the sky, and then zooming off into the clouds, leaving everybody around you screaming and dying in horrific agony--then they wheel around and come swooping back down on you again, raining more fire, more death. Again and again. Shock and awe, indeed. Three dragons didn't conquer a continent--what conquered a continent is that one side had them, and the other side didn't.

[Raventhal]

When you have a dragon big enough to swallow a mammoth you can only imagine the death and destruction that fell behind it. You can imagine facing a dragon that big many men just bent the knee immediately.