What I don't get about this incident is what's the subtext??? At the Purple Wedding, Tyrion and Oberyn have a similar nerdy discussion about Lives of Four Kings - but the whole thing is dripping with symbolism and subtext. Joffrey chops up the book, showing his victory over the other four kings... but the book is secretly about five kings; Viserys II was kinda skipped over cuz he wasn't on the throne very long. So Joffrey is symbolically unknowingly hacking his own reign apart when he destroys the book. Plus the Tyrion-Oberyn exchange highlights the distinction between history and the perceptions of of history which apply very strongly to Tyrion's story, and it gives crucial characterization to Oberyn. I don't see any of that with the Byron Swann story. It discusses how uncertain and unknowable history is, but any anecdote could've done it. Is it supposed to signal how Tyrion expected to meet one dragon (Daenerys), but instead meets another (Young Griff)? Because that doesn't fit well, or come across as very clever. There's a a bazillion other anecdotes that GRRM could've invented with way better layers of subtext!
If its Vhagar, then I guess Byron Swann was loyal to Rhaenyra, expected the Stormlands to side with her and was very taken aback when Lord Borros Baratheon entertained Aemond's proposal. So he planned to kill Vhagar, got his mirrored shield ready and... did nothing, cuz the dragon was scary. Then Luke shows up and gets turned away, and Byron, seeing that he had one last chance to act before the Stormlands burned that potential-Rhaenyra-alliance bridge, attacked Vhagar and died. This could explain why there's conflicting account - Borros deliberately covered it up, to hide how one of his sworn knights effectively broke guest rights on his behalf. There's a handful of other weird things about that incident - how do we not know which daughter Aemond agreed to marry??? That should be one of the more basic facts about the incident, easily preserved. Then there's Lord Baratheon's daughter Maris... she's supposed to be very clever, but ends up being sent to the Silent Sisters - perhaps because of her role in this incident? Her words allegedly make Aemond pursue Luke - maybe she knew or guessed what Byron was up to, and wanted Aemond to catch him in the act (this is how Byron had time to attack Vhagar - Aemond didn't storm out after Luke; he only left after Maris goaded him)?
Wonder if its none of the above? He attacks Caraxes and/or Sheepstealer when Daemon and Nettles stop for the night during their Vhagar hunt? The mirror shield ploy totally works, but before he can get close enough to stab, the other dragon sneaks up from behind and toasts him. IDK what Ser Byron would be doing at Maidenpool, though...
If its Sunfyre, its gotta be after Rook's Rest, when the dragon is injured in the field? Others fail to kill the dragon, so Ser Byron puts on his Blackadder wig and says "I have a cunning plan" LOL. Poor Ser Byron...
If its Syrax... is it odd, how in King's Landing Syrax is housed at the Red Keep, while the other dragons are at the Dragonpit? Perhaps Ser Byron attacked Syrax in the Dragonpit, which led to Rhaenyra moving her dragon to the Red Keep? (though one would think she'd opt to boost Dragonpit security instead, which doesn't seem to have been the case...)
I can't help but wonder if Byron Swann was supposed to be this weird mixture of Perseus and Don Quixote. He intended to use the same method Perseus used to kill Medusa (that being the mirror) and Don Quixote is the famous knight who sets out with a loyal squire to slay monsters he would absolutely not be able to handle on his own. It'd be so funny if he was this major character that got a whole mythology and theories about him and the reality is he was a bumbling idiot who tried to murder a dragon and failed upwards into being a topic of discussion between two nerds two hundred years later.
I mean to be fair, it's possible this one letter Tyrion mentions didn't become public knowledge for scholars until after Ghyldain had published his text. A big point of Fire and Blood is the uncertainty of History and the fact that sometimes sources, even contemporary ones, contradict each other. Sometimes sources are lost, sometimes a really good source is not found for many years, especially if it's private property, like a letter or a diary. The letter could've very well stayed stored ib this daughter's belongings for as long as decades before a Maester found it. Plenty of history books have been published that have a few (or a lot of) inacurate things that proof of being inacurate wasn't found until later.
I’ve been wondering about this stupid question for years. I just want to know if it’s vhagar or syrax. But I also want to know what has gone wrong in my life because I’m worried about the truth of a fictitious dragon.
tyrion is often pretty wrong in Dance, part of the structure of his story in Dance is trying to figure out who young griff really is and only getting part of the way there even though he’s been given all of the pieces to figure out the blackfyre stuff (as shown by his inability to suss out who septa lemore is)
If the parenthesis say Byron is the second son, isn’t that also a possible motive to kill Vhagar? If he made his way to King’s Landing after Luc’s death and accompanied Cole’s army to retake Harrenhal, he would be in the Riverlands when Aemond started burning villages. With possible disillusionment with his family from the black swann point, and the reward of becoming heir over his brother, he might have gone against his family and tried to kill a green dragon?
11:18 The Squire's daughter or Ser Byron's daughter? The latter seems more likely as Squires are usually young (and unmarried). It would make sense that he would inform his late master's next of kin as well.
