Dragons Are Not a Westerosi Paternity Test

[mormont]

nope it doesn't.

Dany's fireproofness was a once in a lifetime miracle. (I think I heard people saying that GRRM said it as well, that Targs can get burn)

Ah, I may have been unclear... I'm not talking about fireproof-ness, Aegon being flamed by Drogon and coming up smiling. It's well-established that this is not a Targaryen trait. I'm talking about how the dragons react to his presence, aggressively or otherwise.

[FittleLinger]

Ah, I may have been unclear... I'm not talking about fireproof-ness, Aegon being flamed by Drogon and coming up smiling. It's well-established that this is not a Targaryen trait. I'm talking about how the dragons react to his presence, aggressively or otherwise.

As someone else had said - they reacted well to Irri and Jhiqui too. They didn't react well to Quentyn who has some "dragon blood". There might be something very minor about blood, but I doubt even that. I think dragons are more animalistic than most people imagine. Animals don't know and don't care who your parents and grandparents are.

[Silverin]

As someone else had said - they reacted well to Irri and Jhiqui too. They didn't react well to Quentyn who has some "dragon blood". There might be something very minor about blood, but I doubt even that. I think dragons are more animalistic than most people imagine. Animals don't know and don't care who your parents and grandparents are.

Yes, what was it that Gerris Drinkwater said to Quentyn? It was something like dragons are beasts they don'T care about history lesson. Or something similar.

[mormont]

As someone else had said - they reacted well to Irri and Jhiqui too. They didn't react well to Quentyn who has some "dragon blood". There might be something very minor about blood, but I doubt even that. I think dragons are more animalistic than most people imagine. Animals don't know and don't care who your parents and grandparents are.

Sure. But I'm saying that a strong positive reaction from a dragon to someone claiming Targaryen ancestry is, in-world, likely to lead people to grant that claim somewhat more credibility than a strong negative reaction. Regardless of what we think, or the truth about dragons, the symbolism alone would work for him.

[jarl the climber]

As someone else had said - they reacted well to Irri and Jhiqui too. They didn't react well to Quentyn who has some "dragon blood". There might be something very minor about blood, but I doubt even that. I think dragons are more animalistic than most people imagine. Animals don't know and don't care who your parents and grandparents are.

You can't say ther reaction to Quentyn was bad. They fried him but they did not eat him. So they showed some respect.

Sure. But I'm saying that a strong positive reaction from a dragon to someone claiming Targaryen ancestry is, in-world, likely to lead people to grant that claim somewhat more credibility than a strong negative reaction. Regardless of what we think, or the truth about dragons, the symbolism alone would work for him.

This seems like a fair statement.

This seems like a fair statement.

[StannisBamfatheon]

I agree with the OP, but i'll even take it a step further. Real, fake, Targaryen, Blackfyre, who cares, these are people who haven't been involved in the affairs of Westeros in 20 years. It's a completely different realm, a damaged realm,a realm they don't understand, a realm Daenerys/Aegon have never set foot upon accept once as a child in Dany's case, and now as an invader in the case of Aegon. Why they should have a claim to anything is beyond me.

[Roza Ahai]

You can't say ther reaction to Quentyn was bad. They fried him but they did not eat him. So they showed some respect.

That might be disrespect. They even disgusted to eat him.

[FittleLinger]

Sure. But I'm saying that a strong positive reaction from a dragon to someone claiming Targaryen ancestry is, in-world, likely to lead people to grant that claim somewhat more credibility than a strong negative reaction. Regardless of what we think, or the truth about dragons, the symbolism alone would work for him.

Oh yeah, I totally agree that in-world that has both magic and supersticious people on a somewhat regular basis, a positive reaction from a dragon will have a decent impact.

[jarl the climber]

That might be disrespect. They even disgusted to eat him.

You might be right. I was just wondering if there was any signifigance to the fact that they did not eat him as well.

[Silverin]

That might be disrespect. They even disgusted to eat him.

1. firstly ouch

2. :lmao:

3. I kinda feel bad for laughing at Quent. But this is hilarious.

[Roza Ahai]

You might be right. I was just wondering if there was any signifigance to the fact that they did not eat him as well.

That might mean that he doesn't taste well. Serously, I think there is no any significance. Dragons are just magical animals, not intellectual beings. They can't perform a blood analysis and say "Hey, this blood lacks of Targaerish elements, but this is good to be just Valeriish"

[Silverin]

You might be right. I was just wondering if there was any signifigance to the fact that they did not eat him as well.

Well it was definietly not the blood.

Drogon did eat a ghiscari, while some targ girl was eaten by dragons before as well.

Maybe Rhaegal and Vis are still not as big to start eating people.

Or they simply weren't hungry, and decided to fry him first, and eat later.

[Wouter]

If by extract you mean threaten, how can a man not accomplish this compared to say a man with a knife?

Don't forget that Illyrio also has men with knives - who are, however, likely to remember urgent business on the first ship out of Pentos should Drogon come calling with less than friendly intentions.

As for the vulnerability of dragons, logic says the unarmoured eye would indeed be a weak point. And as for other vulnerable spots carefully concealed by Targaryen propaganda, Drogon seemed to be able to shrug off hits pretty much all over his body, that fateful day in the fighting pit. He did not get hit in an eye though...

[Roza Ahai]

It has been mentioned in the books how to kill dragons. It looks like we will see one of the dragons to be hit in an eye.

[The Mother of The Others]

Dragons are just magical animals, not intellectual beings. They can't perform a blood analysis and say "Hey, this blood lacks of Targaerish elements"

"Fee Fie Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Targaree-unn......" ? Cats will sniff something and hold their mouths open in that funny expression while they file the smell away for reference. Mosquitoes know to pass over persons without sweet smelling blood to target the sweet blooded. Could be something like that. A magically tinged sniffer. Not the likeliest of things, but it's in the running, and I like extending as much coolness to the dragons as possible so that even if they don't talk like Sean Connery at least they aren't totally dumb either. They should have the ability to outfox us "superior" humans in a variety of ways.

[Roza Ahai]

"Fee Fie Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Targaree-unn......" ?

" O-oo, and this tastes really bad. This is Dornish blood with only one drop of a Targarishshsh. That is a little better, it should be Blackfireshshsh" This reminds me that woman robot from ":Terminator III". Not all animals are dumb, some of them more intellectual than some humans. However, in the Martin's books dragons are shown as magical beasts not smarter than direwolves.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Dragons during the Long Night? Is this a known fact, or fan speculation? Valyrians discovered Dragons way after the Long Night was over. I know it's a common belief that Dragons are absolutely necessary for victory against the Others, but this is untrue - As long as you have fire, any fire, and obsidian you're ready to go.

Long Night is speculation. Millennia before Aegon's Landing is an established fact.

The Targaryen dragon bone collection contained a couple of Westerosi dragon bones attributed to dragons living three- or fourthousand years ago. Correctnes of historical amounts questionable as ever, but the essence is "old as shit".

There are tales of the Age of Heroes about dragonslayers like Serwyn of the Mirror Shield as well.

No link to the Long Night or the Others though.

[Narea]

Dragons during the Long Night? Is this a known fact, or fan speculation? Valyrians discovered Dragons way after the Long Night was over. I know it's a common belief that Dragons are absolutely necessary for victory against the Others, but this is untrue - As long as you have fire, any fire, and obsidian you're ready to go.

Dominance of Valyrian Freehold lasted for several thousand years. This dominance was largely based on their ability to control dragons. The fact that we know Valyrians mastered dragons 5 000 years ago doesn't mean they weren't around before. In fact, the fact that Valyrian society went from peaceful sheepherders to violent conquerors they were at the point of their war with Ghis and onward implies that their society underwent great changes over lengthy period of time- several centuries at least- while learning to control dragons. This means that Valyrians found the dragons approximately 6 000 years ago (2 000 years after the Long Night).

But I don't think the fact that they were found only 6 000 years ago means that they weren't around before that. We don't have any signs of an ongoing evolutionary processes anywhere in ASoIaF world. As far as we know, all sentient races and all breeds of animals that are now present were present before the Long Night and at the beginning of the ASoIaF world.

[Ser_Patreck]

Long Night is speculation. Millennia before Aegon's Landing is an established fact.

The Targaryen dragon bone collection contained a couple of Westerosi dragon bones attributed to dragons living three- or fourthousand years ago. Correctnes of historical amounts questionable as ever, but the essence is "old as shit".

There are tales of the Age of Heroes about dragonslayers like Serwyn of the Mirror Shield as well.

No link to the Long Night or the Others though.

I'm sorry, but I'm still a bit skeptic. I don't recall anything about Westerosi dragon bones. But they could've been not that old. Or belong to a different animal entirely (Some sort of Westerosi dinosaur?), being associated with Dragons because, well, they're the closest thing people were aware of.

Stories like Selwyn's could be attributed to the fact that, even if they didn't enter Westeros, there were Dragons as far as 5,000 years ago. I mean, they're kind of hard to notice, and there was a empire being built over their backs. If you need a terrible monster for you hero to beat... Why anything other than a Dragon?

Dominance of Valyrian Freehold lasted for several thousand years. This dominance was largely based on their ability to control dragons. The fact that we know Valyrians mastered dragons 5 000 years ago doesn't mean they weren't around before. In fact, the fact that Valyrian society went from peaceful sheepherders to violent conquerors they were at the point of their war with Ghis and onward implies that their society underwent great changes over lengthy period of time- several centuries at least- while learning to control dragons. This means that Valyrians found the dragons approximately 6 000 years ago (2 000 years after the Long Night).

But I don't think the fact that they were found only 6 000 years ago means that they weren't around before that. We don't have any signs of an ongoing evolutionary processes anywhere in ASoIaF world. As far as we know, all sentient races and all breeds of animals that are now present were present before the Long Night and at the beginning of the ASoIaF world.

Wiki says Valyrians discovered Dragons about 5,00 years ago, and while it doesn't offer a quote, I'm willing to believe it. In fact, given that they had three wars with Ghis, instead of just curbstomping them like they did the others, seem to indicate that they hadn't full mastery over their dragons yet, and it development during their conflict with the Ghiscari.

I dunno, I simply think that, if Dragons were that important, Old Nan's tales would surely mention them more prominently, instead of not at all. I think they're a huge red herring.

[Narea]

Wiki says Valyrians discovered Dragons about 5,00 years ago, and while it doesn't offer a quote, I'm willing to believe it. In fact, given that they had three wars with Ghis, instead of just curbstomping them like they did the others, seem to indicate that they hadn't full mastery over their dragons yet, and it development during their conflict with the Ghiscari.

I dunno, I simply think that, if Dragons were that important, Old Nan's tales would surely mention them more prominently, instead of not at all. I think they're a huge red herring.

Eh...Ghis was conquered 5000 years ago...there is nothing on when Valyrians found dragons. As I wrote...for peaceful non-magical Valyrians to convert into violent magically bonded dragons wielding power would take several centuries after the dragons were found but before Ghis was conquered.

I don't know about insignificance of dragons...they seem pretty useless for anything other than warfare, but it's mentioned that after they disappeared, summers grew shorter and winters grew harsher and longer...so they apparently were good for something...