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

[Dragonfish]

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.

The way I read the scene, the dark-eyed boy was in the same vision as Dunk. But after re-reading it, I could see how one might think that he actually appears in a different vision.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

Yeah, I interpreted that part as if the visions came spinning faster and faster, going further and further back in time. Maybe the next D&E story will give us the answer?

[Glyn Tarvoke]

From Wikipedia, "

Claim to the English throne

Upon the death of the childless Edward the Confessor, the English throne was fiercely disputed by three claimants—William; Harold Godwinson, the powerful Earl of Wessex; and the Viking KingHarald III of Norway, known as Harald Hardraada. William had a tenuous blood claim through his great aunt Emma (wife of Ethelred and mother of Edward). William also contended that Edward, who had spent much of his life in exile in Normandy during the Danish occupation of England, had promised him the throne when he visited Edward in London in 1051. Further, William claimed that Harold had pledged allegiance to him in 1064: William had rescued the shipwrecked Harold from the count of Ponthieu, and together they had defeated Conan II, Duke of Brittany. On that occasion, William had knighted Harold; he had also, however, deceived Harold by having him swear loyalty to William himself over the concealed bones of a saint.^[11]

In January 1066, however, in accordance with Edward's last will and by vote of the Witenagemot, Harold Godwinson was crowned King by Archbishop Aldred."

Wiki also says William himself was not legitimate but named heir. I read somewhere no one really knew why. I don't claim expertise about this and so would defer to those who know better.

I'll defer to those who have read the better source books.

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

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.

OK. Assuming this is true - and I'm not saying it isn't.... One question: What benefit would the ancient Targaryens (or the ancient Valyrians in general, if the Targs simply brought ancient skulls with them to Dragonstone) have in limiting the size of their dragons to be smaller than Balerion got to be? Because, supposedly, the ancient Targs/Valyrians had even better (mystical/magical) and more absolute control over their dragons than the post-Aegon I Targs did, so wouldn't they want them to be as fiercesome and awe-inspiring as possible? From what little we know of the ancient Valyrians, they were conquerers, slavers and capable of great sorcery and great industry/construction.

[Dragonfish]

OK. Assuming this is true - and I'm not saying it isn't.... One question: What benefit would the ancient Targaryens (or the ancient Valyrians in general, if the Targs simply brought ancient skulls with them to Dragonstone) have in limiting the size of their dragons to be smaller than Balerion got to be? Because, supposedly, the ancient Targs/Valyrians had even better (mystical/magical) and more absolute control over their dragons than the post-Aegon I Targs did, so wouldn't they want them to be as fiercesome and awe-inspiring as possible? From what little we know of the ancient Valyrians, they were conquerers, slavers and capable of great sorcery and great industry/construction.

I'm not arguing anymore that the 3,000-year-old dragon was just forced to be smaller. Instead, I'm agreeing with what tze said: Tyrion is referring to how old the skulls are, and thus how long ago the dragons died. He's not referring to how old the dragons were when they died. So the 3,000-year-old dragon skull is just the skull of a dragon that died 3,000 years ago, and not the skull of Balerion.

[Sevumar]

Because, supposedly, the ancient Targs/Valyrians had even better (mystical/magical) and more absolute control over their dragons than the post-Aegon I Targs did, so wouldn't they want them to be as fiercesome and awe-inspiring as possible? From what little we know of the ancient Valyrians, they were conquerers, slavers and capable of great sorcery and great industry/construction.

We don't know what tools the Targaryens had on Dragonstone to help them control the dragons. No horns or magical implements were ever mentioned being found there after the keep was taken from the Targaryens.

Marwyn's quotes about possible Maester interference may have played a role in the decline of the Targaryen dragons. It seems a bit farfetched that the size of the building the dragons are kept in limits their growth. What if it turns out not to be true?

[Rose of Winterfell]

I've wondered if the dragons on Valyria were controlled by an ability something like warging, which for whatever reason the Targaryens can't do, and they therefore had to resort to the magical horns to control their dragons-it seems to me that enslaving or binding a dragon with a horn would limit its power/growth more than the size of their enclosures or whatever.

I mean is there any proof that this is what causes their decline? The maesters say so, and the people who have studied dragons in westeros-but the ONLY dragons they've had access to are the targ ones-its entirely possible that the dragons on valyria were controlled by a different means, maybe the targaryens came to westeros because of some prophetic hint about then being able to join with a warging bloodline and thus have total control over the dragons (why it then took 400 years for this to happen is beyond me--maybe for some reason knowledge of their purpose was lost and Rhaegar was the one who put two and two together, or they began to fear losing control over their dragons to the superwarg Starks)

On a (sort of) related note-is there any mention of a Stark/Targaryen marriage or union prior to Rhaegar and Lyanna?

[Lord Varys]

It's all but confirmed that the important thing to control dragons is blood. That's why the Valyrians - and subsequently the Targaryens as the ruling dynasty of Westeros - practiced incest. They had to make sure that their descendants would be accepted and recognized by their dragons. The beasts would outlive them, after all.

And the fact that Brown Ben Plumm and Quentyn Martell were liked/nearly successful to tame a dragon, strongly indicates that Dany's dragon eggs were in fact Targaryen dragon eggs. This explains why she was able to hatch them in the first place.

I'm still quite convinced that you need 'special blood' to use the horn Dragonbinder Victarion carries with him. If anyone could make and use a magic horn to bind dragons to his will, the Ghiscari and others would have succeeded in acquiring dragons of their own back in the old times when there will still dragons around.

That's where Tyrion's Targaryen blood will come into play, I guess.

As to the Targaryen dragons in Westeros, I strongly assume that they were not controlled with magic horns. Dragonbinder is some weird mystical thing for the Ironborn. I guess the Reader and others would have known theses things if the Targaryens had used for the first 150 years of their rule. Especially as there would still be such items somewhere in Westeros - especially in the Red Keep and on Dragonstone. We knew that there were dragon eggs and dragon skulls, so we would have heard about dragon horns as well, if there had been any.

[LordBloodraven]

You know the "fact" that blood could be important in binding dragons to their rider might be a factor in Aegon the Conqueror's decision. Essos has more people of Valyrian descent and if the Targs had the last dragons, it might be dangeous to turn east. And the dragons were their mainly war assets, so.

I remember reading somewhere that all the dragonriders needed not to be Targ (not to have Targ blood). It's from GRRM but I don't have the link. I'm quite sceptic about Tyrion being a secret Targ or a dragonrider, he'll help Dany in someway but as a dragonrider, no

[Lord Varys]

Tyrion is the ideal dragonrider. He is destined to become one. He is perhaps best suited to become a dragonrider since he might even be the best scholar on dragon lore.

Besides, Moqorro was not wrong when he described him as being at the heart of all those dragons. Tyrion befriended nearly every living Targaryen - false or true - besides Bloodraven.

He befriended Jon Snow back in AGoT. Somehow he also earned Maester Aemon's respect - which is in itself telling, I guess. Varys liked him as well, and he ended up befriending Aegon on the Rhoyne. And now he prepares to help to save Dany's ass in Meereen.

People wonder why Tyrion should end up helping Dany, or why she would ever trust him. I doubt that she would accept a convicted regicide and kinslayer on her council. I guess she would allow him to help with the dragons, but nothing more. And Tyrion still is not yet himself again. Penny helped somewhat, but if he were to learn that he was Aerys's son, Dany's half-brother, that could establish a bond between them. It would be also a way for Tyrion to gain a new family of sorts. Especially if Aegon and/or Jon would turn out to be his nephew.

[The Sleeper]

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....

What Tyrion actually says is that the oldest skull was thousands of years. He doesn't say it was Balerion's. We can assume it was an heirloom they had brought with them.

[Jon Targ]

I've always wondered how the Valyrian empire was setup. Has it ever been mentioned if there was a king that ruled over everything or many different dragonlords? I'm assuming the Targaryens were one of the many families that were dragonlords.

On another note, the Targaryens ventured to Dragonstone 100 years before the doom. Do you think it's possible they had prior knowledge of the doom and went to Dragonstone because of it? It seems pretty convenient that they were on Dragonstone.

[Im no Ser]

It's been talked about elsewhere on the thread, but IMO the tougher question is Tyrion's: why didn't the Valyrians conquer Westeros thousands of years earlier? They got to Dragonstone, at the very edge of the continent, but never bothered to come on the mainland despite knowing it was there. Why? What was/is on Westeros that kept the largest empire of the world completely at bay?

My current answer is the Wall. The heart of the powers of ice is on Westeros, and the Valyrians are an empire of fire. Aegon only goes west after the Doom, which seems to be some fire-related disaster. Not a completely thought out theory I'll admit...

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

It's been talked about elsewhere on the thread, but IMO the tougher question is Tyrion's: why didn't the Valyrians conquer Westeros thousands of years earlier? They got to Dragonstone, at the very edge of the continent, but never bothered to come on the mainland despite knowing it was there. Why? What was/is on Westeros that kept the largest empire of the world completely at bay?

My current answer is the Wall. The heart of the powers of ice is on Westeros, and the Valyrians are an empire of fire. Aegon only goes west after the Doom, which seems to be some fire-related disaster. Not a completely thought out theory I'll admit...

Yeah, I brought this up on the first page of this thread. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that strange...

[Kuther2000]

Was Aegon the Conqueror really the King of the Seven Kingdoms because I thought that it took a while before Dorne bowed to them which would mean that he only had six

[Son of Jon Snarkgaryen]

Was Aegon the Conqueror really the King of the Seven Kingdoms because I thought that it took a while before Dorne bowed to them which would mean that he only had six

true

[Wellspring]

It's been talked about elsewhere on the thread, but IMO the tougher question is Tyrion's: why didn't the Valyrians conquer Westeros thousands of years earlier? They got to Dragonstone, at the very edge of the continent, but never bothered to come on the mainland despite knowing it was there. Why? What was/is on Westeros that kept the largest empire of the world completely at bay?

This is the essential question. Aegon managed the Conquest with three dragons and a tiny army of dubious quality. Imagine what Valyria at its height could have managed.

To me, the story of why the Targaryens went into exile on Dragonstone is no mystery. I'm sure we'll learn more. How they brought their dragons with them IS a mystery because as others have pointed out it appears that dragons were mostly based in Valyria. This actually isn't unlike ancient Rome, where citizenship was limited to Rome itself (and later all of the italian peninsula). So perhaps the Valyrians couldn't vote or wield influence outside of Valyria itself, so they left the provinces to be run by their minions while the nobles couriered back and forth on their dragons. Again, not unlike Rome, where all the wealth and power went to the city itself.

Valyrians didn't seem to conquer to occupy so much as conquer for slaves and loot to haul back to the Freehold. No noble would move there; the Valyrians who emigrated were either lower-ranked fortune-seekers looking to build their name running the conquered lands or their Valyrian servants. Even Volantis (their first colony) seemed more like an outpost than an attempt to expand Valyria's borders. That might explain why Westeros had little attraction. Westeros was a brutually long distance over a stormy sea. Why bother? Essos had plenty of wealth to take from lands already taken, or even by moving further East (Asshai and Qarth, for example). The real question then would be, why take Dragonstone?

I too wonder why there were no surviving dragons outside Valyria (though perhaps they were and they were killed in the political chaos afterward, or followed their riders into far exile and eventually died of old age). Volcanic activity might be another consideration. Dragonstone was volcanic; so was the Freehold. Is vulcanism somehow critical to maintaining dragons? Or the Valyrian magic that controlled them? Perhaps the Targaryen dragons sickened due to extended time away from Dragonstone's vents (and perhaps the same thing happened to any remaining Valyrian dragons that survived the Doom). Targaryens as survivalists: build your seat on a volcano so you can support dragons without Valyria. Targaryens as kings: You need to rule from King's Landing to manage the kingdom, and if you leave the dragons on Dragonstone, then you'll have handed your power to the castellan.

The talk of Valyrian marriage customs is really hitting the nail on the head here, and might explain why Aegon ignored Essos. Without his dragon monopoly, he was nothing. Pure-blooded Valyrians were a threat to that monopoly, so Volantis was more of a threat than an opportunity. Westward, they were used to monarchy. Eastward, there would be an attempt to restore the Freehold; a much less sweet prize. Put those together, and it's clear what Aegon was thinking.

[Sevumar]

It's all but confirmed that the important thing to control dragons is blood. That's why the Valyrians - and subsequently the Targaryens as the ruling dynasty of Westeros - practiced incest. They had to make sure that their descendants would be accepted and recognized by their dragons. The beasts would outlive them, after all.

I don't think we can be nearly that certain about the role of blood. There's a good chance that at least one of the dragon riders will end up being someone without notable Targaryen ancestry. I think we may end up seeing that the blood may either help control dragons without being the primary factor involved, or that it turns out to be a myth born of misunderstanding or a desire to increase the Targaryen/Valyrian mystique.

And the fact that Brown Ben Plumm and Quentyn Martell were liked/nearly successful to tame a dragon, strongly indicates that Dany's dragon eggs were in fact Targaryen dragon eggs. This explains why she was able to hatch them in the first place.

Plumm's Targaryen blood is so miniscule as not to matter. I don't think that's what explains the positive response of the dragons to him. It could just as easily be that they're reading Dany's response to this fatherly-looking man who seems warm and non-threatening, and following her lead. Quentyn is a good illustration that blood might be a factor, but clearly it isn't everything.

That's where Tyrion's Targaryen blood will come into play, I guess.

While there's an outside chance that Tyrion may have some Targ blood, it's still a pretty shaky statement. I wouldn't count on it.

As to the Targaryen dragons in Westeros, I strongly assume that they were not controlled with magic horns. Dragonbinder is some weird mystical thing for the Ironborn.

It would be in the Targaryen family's interest not to reveal if they were using spells or magic horns to control their dragons, as that would diminish their otherworldly quality and reputation.

Besides, Moqorro was not wrong when he described him as being at the heart of all those dragons. Tyrion befriended nearly every living Targaryen - false or true - besides Bloodraven.

Tyrion has knowledge that can make him a pivot on which much will turn, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's at the core of the actual dragons.

[Defengar]

So Aegon heard about William the Conqueror and said "good one Bill, you've inspired me, that is what I will do". I wonder how Aegon heard about William the Conqueror? Maybe there is some inter-reality information service I don't know about.

/sigh

I mean, inspired, as in the creation of the character was inspired by George reading about william the conqueror.

George read a lot about him a long time ago and he has said that William was the inspiration for the tale of Aegon.

[mor2]

It's been talked about elsewhere on the thread, but IMO the tougher question is Tyrion's: why didn't the Valyrians conquer Westeros thousands of years earlier? They got to Dragonstone, at the very edge of the continent, but never bothered to come on the mainland despite knowing it was there. Why? What was/is on Westeros that kept the largest empire of the world completely at bay?

My current answer is the Wall. The heart of the powers of ice is on Westeros, and the Valyrians are an empire of fire. Aegon only goes west after the Doom, which seems to be some fire-related disaster. Not a completely thought out theory I'll admit...

not necessarily, the Valyrian Freehold with all their dragons, was VERY slow to expand, from the time they was strong enough to subjegate Ghis to the time they subjugated Rhoynar, it took about FIVE THOUSAND years!! To put it in perspective essos is about the size of asia. so either they were complete retards, who could have taken a lesson from almost anyone through our history or our records of their political situation are very incomplete.