The latest episode of HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, “The Red Dragon and the Gold,” truly delivered the dragon action many fans craved. The Battle of Rook’s Rest showcased a spectacular clash of dragons in the sky, prompting the question: has there ever been a dragon battle to rival it? While REIGN OF FIRE might boast a larger scale with sheer numbers of dragons, the intensity and impact of the HOUSE OF THE DRAGON battle are undeniable. It felt like a true challenge, and the dragons of Westeros rose to meet it.
Dragons, of course, are creatures of myth. In our real world, they remain firmly in the realm of legend. Yet, dragon-like figures appear in stories across cultures globally. Some speculate these tales originated from the discovery of dinosaur bones, unearthed by farmers, sparking imaginations of giant beasts. Regardless of their true inspiration, dragons have become a cornerstone of fantasy literature and lore for centuries, captivating imaginations across generations. Personally, dragons have held a special fascination for me for as long as I can remember.
Interestingly, I was even named after a dragonslayer, St. George. The enduring saint status of St. George, even after other saints faced removal, seems to imply a certain papal acceptance of dragons, or at least the concept of battling them. Long before A GAME OF THRONES and the intricate world of a song of ice and fire a took shape, I was already crafting my own dragon stories. “The Ice Dragon” and “The Way of Cross and Dragon” stand out as early examples of my fascination with these magnificent creatures.
Every culture around the globe seems to have its own interpretation of dragons. Chinese dragons, for instance, are depicted without wings and are not associated with fire-breathing. Instead, they are symbols of good fortune and prosperity. Western dragons, in traditional tales, are often harbingers of fire and destruction. However, modern fantasy has significantly broadened the dragon archetype. Consider the dragons in ERAGON or HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON. These dragons diverge significantly from the more traditional, fearsome image. Toothless, from HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, is even portrayed as endearing and almost pet-like.
Toothless the Dragon from How to Train Your Dragon, a friendly and cute dragon, showcasing a modern, softer interpretation of dragons in fantasy.
Tolkien’s Dragons: Evil Servants of Darkness
J.R.R. Tolkien, in his legendary works, presented dragons as forces of evil. Serving Morgoth and Sauron, Tolkien’s dragons were akin to his orcs and trolls – inherently malevolent. Friendly dragons were simply not part of Tolkien’s Middle-earth. However, Tolkien’s dragons possessed significant intelligence. Smaug, perhaps the most famous example, is not only intelligent but also capable of speech. He embodies another classic dragon trait: a vast hoard of gold which he jealously guards, sleeping upon his treasure for decades.
Smaug from The Hobbit, a classic Tolkien dragon, intelligent and greedy, embodying the traditional western dragon archetype of hoarding treasure and being a fearsome beast.
Vermithrax Pejorative: A Benchmark for Cinematic Dragons
Before Peter Jackson’s depiction of Smaug, many considered Vermithrax Pejorative from DRAGONSLAYER to be the pinnacle of cinematic dragon design. Vermithrax is a classic Western dragon: two legs, two wings, fire-breathing, a formidable flyer, and importantly, non-talking and not a gold-hoarder. This dragon served as a significant inspiration for many dragon enthusiasts.
Vermithrax Pejorative from Dragonslayer, a realistic and fearsome dragon, considered a benchmark for dragon design in film, emphasizing danger and primal power.
Dragonheart: A Departure from the Ferocious Dragon
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we find the dragon from DRAGONHEART, voiced by Sean Connery. This dragon is portrayed as benevolent, four-legged, talking, and forming a friendship with the hero. While a lighter take on dragons, many consider it a less compelling dragon in a less impressive film.
Dragons in “A Song of Ice & Fire”: Grounded Fantasy
When crafting A SONG OF ICE & FIRE, my aim was to fuse the wonder of epic fantasy with the gritty realism found in the best historical fiction. Magic exists in this world, but it is deliberately less prevalent than in many other fantasy settings. Drawing inspiration from Tolkien’s Middle-earth, which also maintained a relatively lower level of magic, I wanted Westeros to feel tangible and historically resonant. I sought to evoke the atmosphere of the Crusades, the Hundred Years’ War, and the Wars of the Roses, grounding the fantastical elements in a sense of historical reality.
Dragons were always intended to be part of this world, partly due to the influence of my dear friend, the late Phyllis Eisenstein, a brilliant fantasy and science fiction writer. However, my vision was for dragons that felt as real and believable as fantastical creatures could be. I meticulously designed my dragons, focusing on biological plausibility within the fantasy context. They breathe fire and fly, essential dragon traits, but their anatomy is crucial. My dragons have two legs and two wings, large wings at that. Many fantasy dragons are depicted with wings that appear far too small to support their body weight in flight. Critically, the wings are the forelegs. Four-legged dragons, in my view, belong solely to heraldry, as no known terrestrial animal has ever possessed six limbs. Birds, bats, pteranodons, and other flying creatures all adhere to the two legs and two wings structure.
The Heraldic Confusion: Dragons vs. Wyverns
Much of the confusion surrounding the number of legs on dragons stems from medieval heraldry. Initially, both two-legged and four-legged dragon depictions appeared on shields and banners. Over time, heraldry became more standardized, and a distinction emerged: four-legged creatures became known as dragons, while their two-legged counterparts were designated wyverns. Of course, neither creature existed in reality, making this distinction somewhat arbitrary. Medieval heralds were not exactly known for their zoological accuracy, even when depicting real animals. A glance at their representations of seahorses illustrates this point.
However, in the world of Westeros and a song of ice and fire a, dragons do exist (and wyverns exist in Sothoryos). Therefore, Westerosi heralds don’t have the same excuse for anatomical inaccuracies. In my books, the Targaryen sigil correctly depicts a two-legged dragon, as it should be. Why would anyone in Westeros depict a four-legged dragon when they could observe the real creatures and count their limbs? My wyverns also have two legs, differing from dragons primarily in size, coloration, and their inability to breathe fire. It’s important to note that while the Targaryen sigil has the correct number of legs, it is not entirely anatomically precise. The wings are proportionally too small, and of course, no dragon has three heads. That tri-cephalic element is purely symbolic, representing Aegon the Conqueror and his two sisters.
Interestingly, the GAME OF THRONES show initially got the sigil correct, using the two-legged version for the first four seasons and most of the fifth. However, inconsistencies arose later, with four-legged dragons appearing on Dany’s fleet sails. This suggests a possible lapse in attention to detail or perhaps a misguided attempt to adhere to some misinterpreted heraldic “standard.” A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing. Later, HOUSE OF THE DRAGON opted for consistency with the later GAME OF THRONES sigil, unfortunately choosing the inaccurate four-legged version. This prompted much internal (and perhaps external) screaming from my end. These extra, anatomically incorrect legs have even crept onto book covers, much to my dismay.
Correct Targaryen Sigil:
Correct two-legged Targaryen sigil, accurately representing the dragon anatomy in "A Song of Ice and Fire".
Incorrect Targaryen Sigil:
Incorrect four-legged Targaryen sigil, a heraldic misrepresentation of dragons in "A Song of Ice and Fire".
Valyrian Dragons: Unique and Powerful Beasts
Valyrian dragons, central to a song of ice and fire a, differ in other key ways from dragons like Smaug, Toothless, and Vermithrax. My dragons do not possess the power of speech. They are intelligent, certainly, but they remain fundamentally beasts.
They form bonds with humans, specifically certain individuals. The intricacies of this bonding process and its origins will be explored in greater detail in THE WINDS OF WINTER, A DREAM OF SPRING, and to some extent in BLOOD & FIRE. Septon Barth, a character within my world, has accurately understood much of this dragon lore. Like wolves, bears, and lions, dragons can be trained to a degree, but they are never truly domesticated. They retain a wildness and inherent danger. Individual dragons possess distinct personalities, often mirroring the personalities of their riders due to the profound bond they share. Unlike some fantasy dragons, they are indifferent to gold and gems, just as a tiger would be. Unless, perhaps, their rider harbored an obsession with such treasures, and even then, the dragon’s interest would likely be secondary.
Dragons have biological needs. They require sustenance, preferring their meat well-done, and water, though they lack gills and cannot breathe underwater. While Smaug is depicted as slumbering for decades, Valyrian dragons cannot enter such extended states of dormancy. As creatures of fire, they require oxygen to survive. A dragon might swoop into the ocean to catch a fish, but they must quickly return to the air. Prolonged submersion would lead to drowning, just like any other land-dwelling animal.
Valyrian dragons are apex predators, carnivores by nature. They can and do hunt their own prey. They are also territorial creatures, establishing lairs. Preferring high places, they favor mountaintops, particularly volcanic mountains, as lairs. These are beings of fire, and the cold, damp caverns often depicted as dragon homes in other fantasies are unsuitable for them. Man-made structures, such as the Dragonstables of Dragonstone, the towers of Valyria, and the Dragonpit of King’s Landing, are acceptable alternatives, often providing the convenience of humans bringing them food. Young dragons, lacking established lairs, will find their own and defend them fiercely.
Dragons are creatures of the sky. They are capable of flight across vast distances, traversing mountains and plains. However, they are not inherently nomadic. During the height of Valyrian civilization, forty dragon-riding families controlled hundreds of dragons. Yet, aside from the Targaryens, these families remained close to the Valyrian Freehold and the Lands of the Long Summer. Dragonriders might occasionally visit or even settle in Valyrian colonies like Volantis for periods, but never permanently abandoning their core territory. Consider the implications of nomadic dragons: they would have overrun much of Essos, and the Doom of Valyria would have only eliminated a fraction of their population. Similarly, the dragons of Westeros rarely stray far from Dragonstone. Otherwise, after three centuries, dragons would be ubiquitous across the Seven Kingdoms, with every noble house possessing their own. The three wild dragons mentioned in Fire & Blood all lair on Dragonstone. The remaining dragons reside in the Dragonpit of King’s Landing or in caverns beneath the Dragonmont. While Luke and Jace fly Arrax and Vermax to Storm’s End and Winterfell respectively, these dragons would not have undertaken such journeys independently, except under extraordinary circumstances. You will not find dragons freely roaming the riverlands, the Reach, the Vale, the North, or the mountains of Dorne.
Fantasy, even with its fantastical elements, needs to be grounded by internal consistency. It is not a license for arbitrary world-building. Smaug and Toothless, while both dragons, are distinct and should never be conflated. Ignoring established canon undermines the believability of a created world, causing it to unravel like tissue paper.
Current Mood: Thoughtful
Tags: a song of ice and fire, canon, dragons, fire & blood
