Do we know why Aegon the Conqueror decided to invade Westeros?

[Dragonfish]

My impression was that the Targs escaped the doom with some retainers/servants right before the doom. Maybe it was the doom event that hatched the three dragons they eventually conquered Westeros with and escaped with them as hatchlings. Aegon and his ancestors apparently planned conquering Westeros for a while before he actually pulled it off.

There's no evidence that Aegon's ancestors planned on conquering Westeros, at least not that I'm aware of. That seems to have been his idea.

[Ser Lepus]

No, Balerion was two hundred years old when he died during the reign of Jaehaerys I. Barristan says so in one of Dany's chapters in ASoS.

Since Jaeharys I was crowned the year 48 after Aegon´s conquest and died the year 108, that means Balerion was something in between 100 - 150 years during said conquest, and that he was 50 years at most when the Doom happened...

It wouldn´t make much sense to wait another 100 years to conquer something if they already had three 50-years-old dragons just after the Doom, so either Aegon´s ancestors were very peaceful people, or at least the other two dragons were hatched sometime in between the Doom and the Conquest...

[tze]

Balerion the Black Dread died at about 200 during the rule of Jaehaerys I. We don't know how he died, but since Jaehaerys's reign was all peace and plenty, I assume he was killed at the very beginning of his rule when the Faith Militant was not yet fully put down. Not sure if a dragon can die of old age - if he can, this might be an option as well.

The quote confirming this can be found in ASoS, by the way. Ser Barristan tells Dany about him.

Aegon sided with the Braavosi, the Tyroshi, and the Westerosi Storm King against the Volantenes. This confirms that he fought Volantis side by side with Argilac the Arrogant before he ended up conquering the Stormlands and the other kingdoms of Westeros.

I imagined the Targaryens as a lesser valyrian noble house as well. But since ADwD confirmed that

- all the valyrian dragons were in Valyria proper when they Doom descended on Valyria, and

- that the Volantenes never had dragons of their own

it makes no sense to assume that the Targaryens were a lesser valyrian family. The dragons were the most powerful weapons of the Freehold of Valyria. Whoever owned dragons and rode them would have been among the most noble families, I guess. I imagine that the Freehold of Volantis mirrors the old Freehold of Valyria, so I guess the Valyrians had triarchs as well, but I'd be really surprised if there were any non-dragonriding dragons back in the days of the old Freehold. Of course, non dragon-riding land holders would have been allowed to vote, but I very much doubt that any no-dragon noblemen got elected triarch.

That is, if the dragonriders were that important as I imagine they were. There were powerful sorcerers in Valyria as well, but I always imagined (and still do) that they were identical with the dragonriders.

The only hint against that is the fact that amongst the Targaryen kings we know were no sorcerers at all. If magic and dragons are related, Targaryens with dragon blood should have had the potential to become great sorcerers. Of course, there is Bloodraven, Shiera Seastar, and Septon Barth during the reign of Jaehaerys I, but Aegon, his sisters and their children seemed to have had nothing to do with that stuff. Aegon was a warrior, not a sorcerer, and that fact alone does indicate that he had broken with valyrian tradition. And his forebears made the first steps. They converted to the Faith of the Andals, possibly after the Doom, possibly even when they arrived on the island, since the statues of the Seven on Dragonstone were made from the wood of the ships which carried the first Targaryens to Dragonstone. The latter might indicate that the Targaryens were indeed banished from Valyria, as valyrian patriots would most likely stick to valyrian gods.

According to the wiki, Jaehaerys I ruled from about 48 AL to 103 AL. The Doom occurred 100 years before Aegon's landing. If the Black Dread was about 200 when he died, sometime during Jaehaerys's reign, then it's very possible that Balerion was born at the time of the Doom. The same might have been said for Vhaegar and Meraxes---we don't know how old they were when they died, just that they did eventually die. If the Targaryens had dragon eggs during their time at Dragonstone, but those eggs only hatched at the time of the Doom, when all the other dragons died, then it would explain how the Targs ended up with dragons yet were stuck at the crap end of the Freehold, how they had dragons but weren't known for other sorcerous abilities, and how they managed to get dragons yet somehow allowed their dragons to eventually get sick and die off.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

No, Balerion was two hundred years old when he died during the reign of Jaehaerys I. Barristan says so in one of Dany's chapters in ASoS.

That's odd. Because in AGOT, Tyrion says that Balerion was three thousand years old. I guess it's just more of GRRM's "unreliable narrator" style....

[Dragonfish]

That's odd. Because in AGOT, Tyrion says that Balerion was three thousand years old. I guess it's just more of GRRM's "unreliable narrator" style....

Can you provide a quote?

[Lord Varys]

The Targaryens were already 100 years on Dragonstone before the Doom took Valyria. The timeline goes like that

- c. 200 years BAL (before Aegon's Landing): The Targaryens go to Dragonstone (for whatever reason). They stay there and do more or less nothing.

- c. 100 years BAL: The Doom takes Valyria. All their dragons die. The Volantenes declare themselves rulers of the world and make war for a century.

- 0: Aegon's Landing.

My assumption that the Targaryens took no dragons with them to Dragonstone rests on the fact that there were only three dragons when they invaded Westeros. If Aegon's ancestors had taken living dragons to Dragonstone when they arrived there, those dragons would have been alive when Aegon ended up invading Westeros. But as we all know, there were no dragons beside those three. And all the other Targaryen dragons are likely descendants of Balerion, Meraxes and Vhagar. One might argue that the other older Targaryen dragons were killed during some war during the two centuries the Targaryens lived on Dragonstone, but there is no proof about either other dragons or such wars. If Balerion could grow and grow undisturbed on Dragonstone, other dragons could have grown that way as well.

The quote we are looking for is most likely a quote referring to the dragon skulls. The oldest Targaryen dragon skulls were indeed 3,000 years old. Tyrion says as much. But this only proves that the Targaryens dragged some ancient dragon skulls from Valyria to Dragonstone. If those skulls belonged to Targaryen family dragons, the Targaryens would be very old indeed.

By the way, my guess is that Balerion, Meraxes and Vhagar were hatched from their eggs on Dragonstone in the Dragonmont. Volcanoes were important in Valyria as well, and we know that the last Targaryen dragons were also hatched on Dragonstone. My guess is that all the dragons died during the Dance, and the last two stunted dragons were hatched on Dragonstone by magical means/through some rituals whereas the other Targaryen dragon eggs were hatched by the dragons themselves in the Dragonpit.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

Can you provide a quote?

Yes. I have AGOT literally open right in front of me... The Tyrion chapter where he and Jon are venturing north to the Wall for Jon to join the NW. Page 102 (American edition).

Quote: "There were nineteen skulls. The oldest was more than three thousand years old; the youngest a mere century and a half.....From there the skulls ranged upward in size to the three great monsters of song and story, the dragons that Aegon Targaryen and his sisters had unleashed on the Seven Kingdoms of old......And the greatest of them, Balerion, the Black Dread, could have swallowed an aurochs whole......"

It says that Aegon unleashed them on Westeros, but it never says that they were his to begin with, or that he hatched them. Tyrion's knowledge comes from scholarly histories -> books. Barristan's knowledge likely comes from Rhaegar or the Mad King Aerys.... So I think maybe Tyrion's source is more reliable..... :dunno:

This is the scene where Tyrion is reminiscing about his knowledge of (learned from his avid scholarly/historical reading), and fascination with, dragons, and his visit to their skulls in King's Landing.

As we know, dragons tend to keep growing larger and larger if fed more and more food, and if allowed to grow unchecked.... So it stands to reason that Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes, being the largest, were also the oldest (the three thousand year old ones Tyrion mentions).

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

.....From there the skulls ranged upward in size to the three great monsters of song and story, the dragons that Aegon Targaryen and his sisters had unleashed on the Seven Kingdoms of old......And the greatest of them, Balerion, the Black Dread, could have swallowed an aurochs whole......"

This proves that the oldest and largest skulls were indeed those belonging to Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes, and not just some ancient skulls the Targs took with the to Dragonstone

[Dragonfish]

This proves that the oldest and largest skulls were indeed those belonging to Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes, and not just some ancient skulls the Targs took with the to Dragonstone

No, it proves that the largest skulls belonged to Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes. The oldest skull could have belonged to a smaller dragon, who had simply not been allowed to grow any larger when he was alive.

[tze]

Yes. I have AGOT literally open right in front of me... The Tyrion chapter where he and Jon are venturing north to the Wall for Jon to join the NW. Page 102 (American edition).

Quote: "There were nineteen skulls. The oldest was more than three thousand years old; the youngest a mere century and a half.....From there the skulls ranged upward in size to the three great monsters of song and story, the dragons that Aegon Targaryen and his sisters had unleashed on the Seven Kingdoms of old......And the greatest of them, Balerion, the Black Dread, could have swallowed an aurochs whole......"

It says that Aegon unleashed them on Westeros, but it never says that they were his to begin with, or that he hatched them. Tyrion's knowledge comes from scholarly histories -> books. Barristan's knowledge likely comes from Rhaegar or the Mad King Aerys.... So I think maybe Tyrion's source is more reliable..... :dunno:

This is the scene where Tyrion is reminiscing about his knowledge of (learned from his avid scholarly/historical reading), and fascination with, dragons, and his visit to their skulls in King's Landing.

As we know, dragons tend to keep growing larger and larger if fed more and more food, and if allowed to grow unchecked.... So it stands to reason that Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes, being the largest, were also the oldest (the three thousand year old ones Tyrion mentions).

It says that the oldest skull was 3,000 years old, not that the oldest dragon was 3,000 years old when he died. Tyrion never actually says that the skull of Balerion is 3,000 years old, only that the Targs had a dragon skull that old. It's possible that the 3,000 year old skull was from a dragon that only lived a couple of decades or a century, which would explain why it could be smaller than Balerion.

My impression was that the Targs escaped the doom with some retainers/servants right before the doom.

The Targs claim that they came to Dragonstone a century before the Doom, guided by a vision, but I wonder if that's just a cover story. It sounds a lot better to say "My family was blessed with a magical gift that allowed us to foresee and escape this terrible cataclysm" than it does to say "My family was considered minor nobility in the Freehold and we were at Dragonstone because we were poor and not considered worthy enough to live at the center of Valyrian power." I think it's very interesting that the Targs didn't seem to ever talk about life before the Conquest or even what their status in the Freehold really was. If they had a glorious Valyrian past spanning hundreds or thousands of years, with ancestors who achieved great feats, you'd think they'd have mentioned it at some point to the Westerosi.

[Dragonfish]

It says that the oldest skull was 3,000 years old, not that the oldest dragon was 3,000 years old when he died. Tyrion never actually says that the skull of Balerion is 3,000 years old, only that the Targs had a dragon skull that old. It's possible that the 3,000 year old skull was from a dragon that only lived a couple of decades or a century, which would explain why it could be smaller than Balerion.

Hmmm...I actually like this explanation better than the one I gave. If you look at the full quote, Tyrion says that the youngest skull was a hundred and fifty years old, but then goes on to say that the last two dragons didn't last long after being born. So I think the only proper reading of this is the one you gave: Tyrion is referring to how long ago the dragons died and left behind their skulls. Thus, the smallest dragons are the ones that died one hundred and fifty years prior during the reign of Aegon III, and the "three thousand year old" dragon skull is actually a dragon that died three thousand years ago.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

I have to put my kids to sleep guys and gals..... I may be back later for a little while...

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

I think it's very interesting that the Targs didn't seem to ever talk about life before the Conquest or even what their status in the Freehold really was. If they had a glorious Valyrian past spanning hundreds or thousands of years, with ancestors who achieved great feats, you'd think they'd have mentioned it at some point to the Westerosi.

Targs: The Freys of Valyria.

As for the dragon skulls, I agree that the quote does not provide inconclusive proof that Balerion was close to 3000 years old at the time of his death. Also, in combination with Barristan's statement it seems even less likely. Even though Tyrion is probably more knowledgeable than Barristan when it comes to dragons, 2800 years is quite an error.

[Dragonfish]

As for the dragon skulls, I agree that the quote does not provide inconclusive proof that Balerion was close to 3000 years old at the time of his death. Also, in combination with Barristan's statement it seems even less likely. Even though Tyrion is probably more knowledgeable than Barristan when it comes to dragons, 2800 years is quite an error.

I actually think the quote is conclusive proof that Balerion wasn't three thousand years old when he died. A proper reading of this passage shows that Tyrion can only be referring to how long ago the dragons died, and not how old they were when they died.

[Glyn Tarvoke]

As I recall, Aegon and his sisters set sail to conquer Westoros on the day Black Harren completed the monstrous castle Harrenhall. So that might have had something to do with Aegon's timing.

To answer the original question, we don't know why Aegon decided to conquer Westoros (which bears a remarkable resemblance to England\Scotland\with Ireland placed at its bottom); we know that Aegon the Conqueror bears a resemblance to William the Conqueror; and we don't know why William decided to conquer England either so we have another historical match.

I was sort of curious of the place name "Sea Dragon Point." I wondered if there had been some dragons in Westoros, but killed off. I guessed the place name derived because once a sea fishing dragon lived there. Or maybe there's just a rock which looks something like a dragon.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

I actually think the quote is conclusive proof that Balerion wasn't three thousand years old when he died. A proper reading of this passage shows that Tyrion can only be referring to how long ago the dragons died, and not how old they were when they died.

Yes. I have a tendency to be rather vague at times... :blush:

[tze]

Targs: The Freys of Valyria.

Hey, maybe GRRM was trying to hint at something by having "Valyrian" names be rather rare in Westerosi noble houses, yet Walder Frey has descendants named Aenys, Aegon, and Rhaegar. :)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe that the Targs weren't really anything special in Valyria at all. Nobody in Essos seems to know them as anything but the rulers of Westeros. If they had storied ancestors in the Freehold, none of the Freehold's descendants seem to know it, and you'd think the Targs would have wanted the Volantenes and the rest to know such things.

As I recall, Aegon and his sisters set sail to conquer Westoros on the day Black Harren completed the monstrous castle Harrenhall. So that might have had something to do with Aegon's timing.

Timing-wise, there's also the vision Bran has of the dark-eyed boy cutting three branches from the Winterfell heart tree. That boy might have been Torrhen Stark, King in the North, and the three branches were meant as arrows for the three dragons. If the King in the North was a kid, it would explain why Aegon struck when he did---a child king is a weak king, and the North hadn't been conquered since the First Men came, so Aegon's best shot at getting the Northmen to bend the knee was if their king was weak.

I was sort of curious of the place name "Sea Dragon Point." I wondered if there had been some dragons in Westoros, but killed off. I guessed the place name derived because once a sea fishing dragon lived there. Or maybe there's just a rock which looks something like a dragon.

According to AFFC, the place where the Kingsmoot is held, Nagga's Hill, is named for Nagga. "Nagga had been the first sea dragon, the mightiest ever to rise from the waves. She fed on krakens and leviathans and drowned whole islands in her wrath, yet the Grey King had slain her and the Drowned God had changed her bones to stone so that men might never cease to wonder at the courage of the first of kings." We don't know exactly what a sea dragon is, but they did apparently exist sometime during the Age of Heroes.

[Dragonfish]

Timing-wise, there's also the vision Bran has of the dark-eyed boy cutting three branches from the Winterfell heart tree. That boy might have been Torrhen Stark, King in the North, and the three branches were meant as arrows for the three dragons. If the King in the North was a kid, it would explain why Aegon struck when he did---a child king is a weak king, and the North hadn't been conquered since the First Men came, so Aegon's best shot at getting the Northmen to bend the knee was if their king was weak.

I'm pretty sure the consensus is that Bran was looking at Dunk in that vision, so whoever the dark-eyed boy was, he couldn't have been Torrhen Stark (though he may have been Egg).

According to AFFC, the place where the Kingsmoot is held, Nagga's Hill, is named for Nagga. "Nagga had been the first sea dragon, the mightiest ever to rise from the waves. She fed on krakens and leviathans and drowned whole islands in her wrath, yet the Grey King had slain her and the Drowned God had changed her bones to stone so that men might never cease to wonder at the courage of the first of kings." We don't know exactly what a sea dragon is, but they did apparently exist sometime during the Age of Heroes.

I've often wondered if "Nagga's Bones" really were just a stone hall built to resemble a dragon, and the stories about Nagga the Sea Dragon were just legends that grew up around it.

Regardless, we can be pretty sure that there were once dragons in Westeros, given George's statement that "there were dragons all over, once."

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

I'm pretty sure the consensus is that Bran was looking at Dunk in that vision, so whoever the dark-eyed boy was, he couldn't have been Torrhen Stark (though he may have been Egg).

Dunk is the tall man kissing a girl. The dark-eyed boy comes later, so chronologically before Dunk, I assume. Still, as far as I recall we have never heard mention of Torrhen being boy king, which speaks against the idea in my mind. Still possible, though.

[mediocre cheese]

To answer the original question, we don't know why Aegon decided to conquer Westoros (which bears a remarkable resemblance to England\Scotland\with Ireland placed at its bottom); we know that Aegon the Conqueror bears a resemblance to William the Conqueror; and we don't know why William decided to conquer England either so we have another historical match.

William the conqueror decided to conquer england because he believed he was the rightful king of england. Edward the confessor was his cousin, whereas harold godwinson wasn't related to edward at all. Under norman dynastic laws William was the lawful king of england (under saxon law he wasn't, but obviously william, as a norman followed norman laws). His invasion was backed by the pope.