Tom's Thoughts and Ideas

The new Knight of the Seven Kingdoms show has reinvigorated my love for GRRM’s universe. After over a year of not really touching it, I have been reading a lot more of the mainline series and the Dunk and Egg novellas (many hundreds of pages, which constitute a drop in the bucket). This second wind, and some elements of the show which I will get into in a moment, made me consider the nature of dragons in the world of Planetos. I posit that while clearly dragons act as nuclear weapons for the purpose of warfare, they additionally allow for an almost comical amount of centralized political authority that is detached from the normal political struggles that would plague a dragonless kingdom in the same situation. While this is not a unique take on my part, I think that I have some new ideas to add to the larger discussion.

The nature of the Targaryen kingdom prior to the Dance of the Dragons was one where the kings always had a total monopoly on force, in the form of dragons. The Field of Fire [the battle between Aegon the Conqueror and the Gardeners of Highgarden during the Conquest] is a clear example of the monopoly of force that dragons give to such a state as the Seven Kingdoms. While one can rebel or fight a war, if the plotters are dragonless then the plot is likely to crash and burn. This is doubly true given that there are many dragons, so even if a rebel faction might theoretically kill a single dragon that does not solve the larger dragon problem.

When examining the rebellions and civil wars in Westeros, the only major one after the Conquest and before the Dance is the Faith Militant Uprising which is different than a traditional rebellion like Robert’s in that the Faith Militant are a religious order and not a noble house which can be eradicated with comparable ease. This makes using dragons against the Faith somewhat harder, and given this other tactics were used. This lack of rebellion is indicative of the relative political stability of the realm prior to the Dance, as compared to after, this is despite even the Dornish wars.

The amount of rebellions and uprisings after the Dance is striking. Most notably of course are the Blackfyre rebellions, which are a uniquely post dragon conflict because if Daeron II (or probably Bloodraven somehow) had a dragon then there is no way that the Blackfyre claimants, presumably sans dragons, would have the military strength to try and claim the throne, and no noble house would support them for fear of another Harrenhal. If there was a Blackfyre dragon then the Loyalists would just be burned and lose. Therefore the lack of dragons during the reign of Aegon IV was a critical factor in why the Blackfyre rebellions could take place. This is even moreso the case because within the kingdoms, being a dragonrider is synonymous with legitimacy in many cases. The claim that Daemon Blackfyre had, that being the sword Blackfyre, would not be worth nearly as much to the lords of Westeros if there was a loyalist dragonrider.

While the lack of dragons forcing the Targaryen’s to fight on the ground rather than the sky is obviously a strong force equalizer. This lack of overwhelming force also means that, for the Targaryen family itself, direct diplomacy – rather than dragon diplomacy – becomes a critical part of internal policy and the circular family tree becomes a liability rather than a boon.

Prior to the Dance, the degree of internal marriages, thus not fostering as many outside political alliances with great houses through marriage, could be entirely justified given the familial nuclear weapons and the relative stability of the line. It was also good policy to keep the aforementioned weapons within the family unit so that they do not end up on opposite sides of a conflict, since the level of destruction that a conflict between dragon-wielding groups would be immense.

When the Hightower family married into the royal family during the reign of King Viserys I the internal stability of the Targaryen family was threatened because the birth of Aegon II fundamentally altered the internal dynamics of the family from one of relative unity in purpose to animosity (I mean at large, as the Targaryen family prior to the Dance had its fair share of issues to be sure). While there had been outside marriages prior to this, the degree to which House Hightower was able to exert control over the Targaryen family was something that had never happened before.

The most notable change that allowed the Dance to occur, beyond House Hightower’s intervention, is that there were rival claimants to the throne who both had dragons. This made the ensuing civil war actually one that could be fought in a protracted, and thusly far more violent, manner rather than being decided on single decisive battles. Without the dragons, neither side would have been able to mount a convincing war effort.

The fact that the Dance happened as a result of the Hightower family gaining significant political power in the system shows the clear flaw in a purely dragon based defense policy. Without the internal marriage tradition of Valyria, the Targaryen family would have encountered a situation like the Dance far sooner. If any other political faction or family besides the Targaryen had dragons then the force multiplier would become meaningless. Thusly, once the family did encounter another political unit who wanted to usurp control, the Dance began and the system of monolithic Targaryen rule collapsed.

There is an additional point of interest in the Dance. The Dance sees, while not the first instance, major instances, of direct diplomacy from the Targaryen family. Both the Blacks and the Greens are forced to recruit other noble houses to their cause to actually win the war. The relationship between the Blacks and Starks during the Dance is a good example of this in action. This need for direct diplomacy would eventually cause the undoing of House Targaryen during Robert’s Rebellion where most of the great houses formed a coalition against the crown.

The way that House Targaryen conducted diplomacy in the aftermath of the Dance, wherein direct diplomacy to minor houses, became a key policy and action. The Ashford tourney that is depicted in the first Dunk and Egg novella, and the show, is a great example of this policy in action. This tournament was hosted for a noble girl’s 13th birthday and in attendance was the heir to the Iron Throne (Baelor), his son (Valarr), his brother (Maekar), and three of Maekar’s four sons (Daeron, Aerion, and Egg). This is a significant contingent of the Targaryen family for what would have been a minor occasion during the time of dragons. This huge contingent of Targaryen princes shows the huge importance placed on being visible, and powerful, in front of the small folk and nobility since that type of power projection is all that is stopping a rebellion. (and their army, but everyone has an army so that is less important)

Additionally, all of these aforementioned Targaryens are products of the marriage of Daeron II to a Dornish princess, which brought Dorne into the realm peacefully, which is very far from the single line family tree of the years right after the Conquest. Egg himself is the son of a mother from house Dayne and marries a woman from house Blackwood. This type of marriage politics is a distinctly post Dance experience. While these are not the most powerful houses, Egg’s son is betrothed to a Baratheon which is certainly a marriage of politics (despite the eventual breakdown of the union). There are still myriad instances of sibling marriage in the family, notably Aerys II, the degree of singular political power is lessened, double given the constant Blackfyre claimants. In the aftermath of the Dance, securing these alliences becomes far more important than keeping the ‘Blood of the Dragon’ ‘pure’, and this reality is not lost on the royal family.

This shows the degree to which having dragons allowed the Targaryens to be above the more feudal politics that necessitate the type of political unions which are seen after the dragons are gone. The violence and near extinction of the dragon population of Westeros during the Dance functionally destroyed the advantage that the Targaryen family had politically and forced them to work within the same rules as other kingdoms.

One could argue that the 130 years prior to the Dance is less time than the 150 years of rule after the Dance, thus dragons are not such a key part of Targaryen internal policy and I am totally wrong. I reply with the fact that the time after the Dance was far more violent, unstable, and Targaryen rule was often under attack directly. As previously stated, the succession crises and Blackfyre rebellions that occurred after the Dance are inherently products of the Dance and the lack of dragons in the kingdoms. The only thing that was able to destroy Targaryen rule before the Dance was the Targaryen family themselves, and after the Dance the certainty of stability was a political facade rather than a fact.

All this is to say that I think GRRM did a good job modeling the political consequences of dragons in his world and the depth of intrigue and consequences of politics being so easily understood is what makes this world so awesome. There shall be more posts about ASOIAF forthcoming, but my opinions have changed, which combined with my laziness and work has delayed their writing drastically.