As terrifying of an idea this is, Rhaegar being the heir, means he gets a Dragon as well so even if Aerys does use his dragons to burn Rickard and Bandon Stark. Rhaegar could’ve have felt more confident to depose his father if he had a dragon. It also be funny if somehow Bobby B has a dragon as well since his grandmother was a Targaryen.
This does not really take the changes into account. People *knew* what dragons were capable of, from the Field of Fire to the Dance of Dragons. There would be no rebellion in the first place, unless the Mad King was already threatening to wipe out entire houses no matter what. Then there is the fact that there would be no wildfire (not needed when the King has a dragon at his beck and call), which means no pyromancers, or at least no special influence for them. Also, the King gets out more (handling a dragon is something he cannot delegate, nor would he want to), so at least he is in the open air, which would probably slow down his descent into madness. I also cannot imagine that Duskendale would happen the same way, even in canon, Lord Darklyn was an idiot. Add dragons into the mix, and we have assured destruction, but not mutually.
I half agree. The point here is that with dragons Ned and Rob would fail to gather any allies due to the obvious danger of the dragons. However, Ned and Robert would still want to rebel due to their bravery and intense reasons for rebelling in the first place. They are just starting to plan their rebellion when Rhaegar arrives
As terrifying of an idea this is, Rhaegar being the heir, means he gets a Dragon as well so even if Aerys does use his dragons to burn Rickard and Bandon Stark.
Rhaegar could’ve have felt more confident to depose his father if he had a dragon.
It also be funny if somehow Bobby B has a dragon as well since his grandmother was a Targaryen.
*DEPOSE
Westeros would've been SCREWED
This does not really take the changes into account. People *knew* what dragons were capable of, from the Field of Fire to the Dance of Dragons. There would be no rebellion in the first place, unless the Mad King was already threatening to wipe out entire houses no matter what.
Then there is the fact that there would be no wildfire (not needed when the King has a dragon at his beck and call), which means no pyromancers, or at least no special influence for them. Also, the King gets out more (handling a dragon is something he cannot delegate, nor would he want to), so at least he is in the open air, which would probably slow down his descent into madness. I also cannot imagine that Duskendale would happen the same way, even in canon, Lord Darklyn was an idiot. Add dragons into the mix, and we have assured destruction, but not mutually.
I half agree. The point here is that with dragons Ned and Rob would fail to gather any allies due to the obvious danger of the dragons. However, Ned and Robert would still want to rebel due to their bravery and intense reasons for rebelling in the first place. They are just starting to plan their rebellion when Rhaegar arrives
the question im trying to find out is why didn't he have dragons in the first place?
They all died out before, mainly during the Dance of Dragons (House of the Dragon)
The maesters