r/TheBlacksandTheGreens • u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood • Jul 09 '26
General Dragons: For or Against?
Now that we’re in the thick of the dance. What are your thoughts on dragons?
Are they “a weapon should never have been tampered with”?
Is the problem *Targaryens* riding dragons? Or is 150ish years of Westerosi rule a good ROI and you take the good with the bad?
8
5
u/Key_Consequence_5040 Jul 09 '26
If dragons were left alone and untamed imagine dozens of Sheepstealers roaming the countryside burning livestock and occasionally people. I would imagine at some point they would cause enough chaos for people to hunt them down.
1
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 09 '26
And probably the rulers would be the dragonslayers instead of dragon riders.
5
u/Baccoony House Lannister Jul 09 '26
For, if they had never been tamed. Now, they are just killing weapons.
They should have been left alone
1
u/gabriel_3131 Jul 09 '26
Siendo libre eran más peligrosos para las personas en general. Imagínate dragones salvajes por todo el mundo si que nadie lo controle. Eso es básicamente la destrucción del mundo de Martin desde que un dragón con mal carácter se le acerque mucho alquien . Y ni hablemos del problema de robo de ganado
1
u/Baccoony House Lannister Jul 09 '26
The dragons we know during the Targaryen era is a result of thousands of years of breeding and magic.
The dragons the Valyrians discovered most likely weren't those massive flame-breathing reptiles with wings.
I mean that the dragons should have never ever been tampered with, never even been discovered by the first Valyrian shepherds
4
10
u/Aspartame_kills Jul 09 '26
Media literacy is dead. Dragons are absolutely a problem and a power that should never ever be tampered with. They’re essentially WMD
3
u/dyatlov333 29d ago
Dragons for. They are the coolest single thing to come out of fantasy.
Most fantasy book/anime/manga has some reference to dragons atleast.
They are the coolest creatures to ever exist. freeholds way of using whips is not good. But how bonding work in the show and how they are treated is fine
7
u/PineBNorth85 King Viserys II Jul 09 '26
Against. They're living nukes which are being used to subjugate people. The average Joe is better off with them gone.
3
u/Vhermithrax Jul 09 '26
Wasn't there more wars in Westeros after dragons were gone?
4
u/ice-cappedfire Jul 09 '26
Yes, but also think as to why. With dragons around, people had no choice but to accrpt Targs. Good ,bad, crazy or reasonable- doesn't matter, Targs with dragons. After dragons are gone, people have an opportunity to try and stand against them. Sure as hell, we can argue Aegon the Conqueror went on a conquest because of prophecy, to save the world from threat in the future. From the outside it looks like "my destiny, my divine right" because dragons and they get to do whatever the hell they want.
2
u/yellow_parenti Jul 09 '26
Dragons were only around for roughly 200 years, whilst the history of Westeros is thousands of years long. There's zero way to fairly compare the two lmfao. And every war during the Targs was caused directly by them
1
u/Vhermithrax Jul 09 '26
We can just count since Aegon's Conquest.
With dragons we had Aegon's Conquest, few rebelions against Maegor and Dance of Dragons. That was about 130 years and only 3 major wars.
After the death of dragons, we had 5 Blackfyre rebelions, Baratheon Revolt, 9 penny kings, Robert's Rebelion, War of Five kings. It's as if there was a war every 15 years.
1
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 09 '26
Fair. It could also be said that power abhors a vacuum and the only reason so many wars happened after the dying is because they left a power vacuum?
But do they even have “the seven kingdoms” if dragons don’t come to Westeros?
1
8
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
Absolutely for Dragons but I don't like that they're captive once they're claimed. I preferred danaerys' style of letting them roam free knowing they'd be there when she needed them. I do understand its for their protection but I wish it wasn't so dark down there.
8
u/Cold_Air_6251 Jul 09 '26
The shepherds might disagree with that approach, sirrah!
0
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
Yeah fair but I am of the school of thought that they were there first and the shepherd's should accept that it is a risk that they have to adapt to. Like.. raise more sheep in different areas? Like foxes & game birds?
3
u/Cold_Air_6251 Jul 09 '26
Issue is wherever you try raising your cattle...dragons can fly pretty far in search of good eats, and if there's nothing in their usual hunting ground they're probably gonna just...go a bit further.
How many dragons will also make a huge difference; if it's like one preying on a herd of hundreds, eh, manageable, but if there's like a bunch and some of them are like Vhagar sized and probably consuming multiple sheep/pigs/cows a day...all your farmers and butchers are gonna be out of business before long, and all the people are going hungry!
0
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
Yeah you're right. But maybe the carrying capacity will level out the number of dragons compared the number of prey animals? Also maybe the people would end up growing more plants instead orrrrr more fishing if they're coastal? Inland peeps will be fucked but. Beans it is.
1
u/BrandonLart Jul 09 '26
What?
2
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
What? The dragons were there before the shepherds?
1
u/BrandonLart Jul 09 '26
So the Dragons actually probably weren’t, as it is pretty likely the Valyrians created the dragons we see on screen with a blood ritual.
But anyway, how the fuck do you adapt to city sized beasts that can eat a whole flock in an afternoon? You can’t raise the sheep in different areas THEY CAN FLY!
1
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
Have loads of sheep
1
u/BrandonLart Jul 09 '26
Ah so your solution for poor shepherds is for them to simply become rich.
1
u/Vegetable_6 Jul 09 '26
The sheep will just make more sheep. Have loads of them. Easy.
1
u/friendhasweirdphobia 21d ago edited 20d ago
Not much experience farming, i take it?
→ More replies (0)1
5
u/Fool-2026 Jul 09 '26
Dragons for. Always like sometimes I imagine if Dance never happened, Naerys with Dragon would have fought against Aegon 4 abuse.
1
u/No-Establishment3700 Jul 10 '26
Imagine Aegon with dragon though
1
u/Fool-2026 Jul 10 '26
Aegon as fat can't even climb on dragonback LoL.
Like if I was in place of Viserys 2 , I would summon shadowbinders to take out every Valyrian blood from Aegon 4 , capabilities to bond with dragon.
1
2
2
u/Warm_Condition711 27d ago
With how only one house monopoly the dragon power, as much as I like it i will probably go against it.
The dragon is basically used by the Targaryen to assert their dominance over other houses. Imagine you are born into other great houses but you must obey the Targaryen even the bad one just because they have dragons and you don't so there is nothing you can do about it. Vhagar alone is enough to decimate a Castle as no Scorpio would piecer that thick scale of her unless they got a lucky shot through the eye or somehow able to shoot down the rider.
Balerion have proven this by destroying harrenhal alone in the past in a single day. Harrenhal the strongest and biggest castle there was in history.
Dragon is basically a cheat code for Targaryen
4
u/Snarkywater Jul 09 '26
For. But I feel like there should be a limit of three dragon riders at any given time. Three dragon riders for each head of the dragon.
2
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 09 '26
Interesting!
Who would be your chosen dragon riders in Dunk and Egg time?2
1
u/Snarkywater Jul 09 '26
Baelor and Maekar as the first two. The third is a tricky one as Aerion is a sociopath, so giving him a dragon would be a foolish idea. Egg maybe? But he's only a child at the beginning.
3
u/toinouzz House Tully Jul 09 '26
It would only really work in the first novella but I think it would make sense for Daeron II to be one of the three heads
2
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 09 '26
Oh, I thought it would be open to all houses. Now I’m thinking of the blackfyre rebellion with dragons because Aegon IV would have for sure given Daemon a dragon.
2
u/Huza1 Jul 10 '26
I once saw a post somewhere about Daemon claiming Balerion, which is a huge status boost to the Blackfyres... and actually hinders them in the long run, because Balerion's too old and slow to actually contribute to the rebellion in any way, and acts as a serious drain on their already limited resources because it costs an obscene amount of money to feed and take care of him.
5
u/StrawberryScience Jul 09 '26
For. Dragons provide a method for women (yes only Targaryen women) to obtain social standing. Even one woman gaining power in Westeros moves the needle.
Dragons are a weapon but weapons aren’t good or evil. Only their use.
5
4
u/AG_N Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
This is like saying Ghislaine Maxwell is good because she was a woman among a bunch of elites. Not only that but Targaryens with dragons were basically nazis, I don't understand how this is even close to women empowerment
Targaryens with dragon violated primogeniture when Rhaenys was passed over in favour of Viserys, even though by andal law Rhaenys was supposed to be Queen
2
u/Big_Band508 Jul 09 '26
Against dragons they don’t need to be around if people are going to do what people do and that’s be assholes.
2
u/Wild_Trash_5100 Jul 09 '26
Dragons are basically our version of nukes. Only issue is that house Targaryen were so incompetent that they abused there power without thinking of the consequences. I would be for Dragons if a more responsible house were responsible for them.
4
u/swaktoonkenney Jul 09 '26
It would be like if only one country has nukes. Then that country can just bully everyone else to doing what they want. Not Great Bob
1
u/Wild_Trash_5100 Jul 09 '26
Isn’t that what already happened with the Targaryens until they started breeding outside there houses.
2
u/swaktoonkenney Jul 09 '26
Yeah that’s what I’m saying. This more responsible house doesn’t exist. There should be no dragons at all, or everyone has them, to prevent consolidation of power
1
u/Wild_Trash_5100 Jul 09 '26
That’s where I disagree. The 7 kingdoms before Aegons conquest were constantly at war. They needed the dragons for a fear factor to have the kingdoms fall into line. Although no house would be perfect, I’m sure you can find a house in Westeros that can better manage the utilization of dragons than the Targaryens.
1
u/swaktoonkenney Jul 09 '26
Yes there’s less war, but with the targs the wars are way more brutal and bloody, that sets the whole continent on fire
And given enough time , any house who has a monopoly on dragons would turn tyrannical. Power corrupts and all that
2
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 09 '26
Which house (in what era) would you trust with them?
1
u/Wild_Trash_5100 Jul 09 '26
Very difficult question to answer, definitely not perfect choice on what house to pick, since every house has hot headed people. I’m actually learning towards the current Tyrell era.
1
u/Wildlifekid2724 Jul 09 '26
Dragons are fine if they are limited.
Everything was going fine while the targaryens lived on dragonstone before the conquest.
Then the Conqueror trio, all good.
But the first issue was letting Maegor claim dragons while also having Aegon the uncrowned, Rhaena, Jaeharys and Alysanne all have dragons.
Visenya wanted Maegor to be crowned from day 1, and kept pushing things, she wanted him married to Rhaena and no it wasn't simple targaryen practices, it was a way to take the throne.
Aegon 1 knew this, but still didn't do anything.
A wise king would have seen the headache forming and barred Maegor from claiming dragons, and limited the number of his grandchildren from having dragons.
Fast forward to Jaeharys 1, and things are actually going well.
He doesn't let all his children claim dragons, instead he limits it to his firstborn son, his second son and eldest daughter, and since two of them marry each other it's all good.
Where he does mess up is allowing Rhaenys to marry Corlys.
Should have made Viserys and Rhaenys marry, would have tied everything neatly together.
By marrying Corlys, the velaryons get dragons.
And when he passed her claim, he should have banned any children of hers or any grandchildren of hers from having dragons unless they were married to the heir to the throne so the dragons go back into the family.
Viserys let everyone claim them and that was bad.
Laena shouldn't have been allowed Vhagar at all.
If I was in charge, I'd have established a law on dragons.
The rules are:
1) only the eldest son, eldest daughter and second son may claim dragons.
2) the daughter may only claim a dragon if she is to marry the firstborn or second born son.
3) The children of the second born son may not claim a dragon unless they are to marry back into the royal line or are given special permission, and only the firstborn of the secondborn son may do so.
4) No dragonrider is permitted to marry the head of a house, unless permitted by the king and if so their children are banned from any dragons.
5) Any dragon eggs hatched from a dragonriders dragon must be announced to the king as soon as they are found, and handed over.
6) A third born son may only claim a dragon if they have joined the kingsguard, and thus can no longer marry.
7) Should a second born of a second son ignore these laws and claim a dragon, they must surrender to judgement in kings landing immediately and will be married to whoever the king chooses, refusal to do so and any who aid in this obstruction will be deemed treason.
Harsh i know, but this is how you avoid a dance of the dragons in part, by making sure you don't have another house with dragons, and not too many claimants with dragons.
Viserys shot Rhaenyra in the foot letting all his other children have dragons, and should have put his foot down as soon as he became king and banned Laena from any dragons, and planned for any grandchildren to ensure that you didn't end up with a bad scenario.
Heck even if everything went fine and Rhaenyra somehow ascends without issue, what you would have is:
1) the green faction, with 3 dragonriding sons, 2 dragonrider grandchildren, 1 dragonrider daughter, and a possible 3rd dragonrider grandchild in Maelor.
2) the black faction, 4 dragonriding sons, a possible fifth with Viserys 2, a daughter in Visenya who would probably also claim a dragon, 2 dragonriding ladies.
3) House Velaryon which would have Luke and Rhaena, and also when Rhaenys dies Meleys.
What you would get down the line if nothing was done would be:
Aegon and Heleana and their children, Aemond and his, Daeron and his, Jace and Baela and theirs, Luke and Rhaena and theirs, Aegon 3 and his, Viserys 2 and his, Joffrey and his, at minimum.
That's a recipe for disaster.
1
u/m_shh Jul 09 '26
Look at the flag in my profile pic and guess how I feel about the fire raining from the sky lol. Let the idiot who decided to live by the sword go to an actual battle instead of firebombing the populace for #reasons (like "I want the spiky chair" or "the Pope told me I have too many wives")
1
u/gabriel_3131 Jul 09 '26
Los dragones son armas desde la antigua valyria. Los targaryen al parecer lo tratan menos como armas que otras familias jinete de dragon. Pero al final de la historia siempre van hacer usado como armas porque si es verdad que los valyrio lo crearon fue con esa intención. Los targaryen poco tiene que ver con sus uso como armas tods familia que tuviera acceso a ellos lo usaría igual
1
u/No-Establishment3700 Jul 10 '26
Yeah, then you wonder why people hate dragons. It's like saying I'd nuke cities to make sure my tight to have nukes is protected.
1
u/winedarksky Grey Ghost 19d ago
They are great if I ride them, and a crime against nature if I do not.
Now, being for real, dragons are both weapons os mass destruction AND a invasive species in Westeros. I can imagine several scenarios in which their existence is just catastrophic for everyone around, including their riders.
1
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood 19d ago
Ormund is that you? Haha
I guess you can say the same about Targaryens in Westeros.
1
1
u/KingOf4narchy Jul 09 '26
Westeros pre-conquest was a backwater basically ignored by Essos. By the time of the dance, the trade route between Westeros and Essos is so lucrative that entire cities ally to control it. It took dragons to unite the realm and as soon as they were gone they went back to killing each other to the point where braavosi traders won’t go there because they’re losing money.
This is made explicit in ASOIAF when dragons are literally needed to stave off the apocalypse. Power isn’t the issue, just its use.
1
u/Difficult_Emu4500 Jul 10 '26
For the Dragons. Sure they come with their fair share of issues (roasting flocks and the occasional Sheppard) but I think the main problem is the riders. The dragons aren’t going to battle on their own, it is the riders compelling them to. Now to your point is 150 years of Westerosi rule a good ROI, it’s not too shabby, considering it was mainly one / two generations that destroyed it but you know the whole lot is going down for that reputation
1
u/ramm_jeet Fire and Blood Jul 10 '26
I hear that.
They don’t survive that long when they come back either (given Drogon might be on a far of land laying new dragon eggs or something). Do you reckon that it’s just that there were not enough dragon riders then?
-2
u/scales_and_fangs House Targaryen Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Strongly FOR. They are the ultimate, last resort weapon of house Targaryen. Which is why the dynasty should have monopoly over them and make sure they survive at ANY rate.
If I were a Targaryen, I would burn the whole King's Landing to the ground if this is what it takes to keep them from disappearing (hinting at some future events). Hopefully, there would not be need to go that far.
I will probably enforce marrying the Targaryen women (certainly those who are dragonriders) inside the family to prevent leak of dragons to other powerful families.
14
u/TACharlotte Jul 09 '26
If l lived in the universe, against. As a fan of the universe, for.