The fire-breathing weapons of mass destruction in House of the Dragon and Game of Thrones are obvious metaphors for nuclear weapons, according to explicit statements by series creator George R.R. Martin and showrunner Ryan Condal. Scholars (including one of us) have debated in these very pages about whether this metaphor is accurate and how it illustrates the limitations of military power.
What about the other connections between House of the Dragon and international relations? We’ve found a number of startling parallels.
The show exemplifies dynamics related to gender and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), in world politics. In particular, it depicts how female leaders face pressure to adopt more aggressive policies – to combat gender stereotypes that they are weak. Additionally, House of the Dragon reflects how AI can offer strategic advantages yet also create considerable risks, due to the autonomous and unpredictable nature of AI technologies.
Women are less violent than men
Public polling in the real world has consistently shown that women are less likely than men to support the use of force abroad. Some argue this is due to biology and evolutionary pressures. Others contend this is a result of socialization, and the different ways girls and boys are raised, starting in childhood.
Yes, these same dynamics are also on full display in Westeros. Queen Rhaenyra (of Team Black) and Queen Alicent (of Team Green) are much less supportive of violence than their male counterparts and repeatedly seek ways to deescalate the brewing Targaryen civil war. As one of Rhaenyra’s top (and now sadly deceased) advisors notes, “It is not [Alicent] but the men around her who seek bloodshed.” The characters themselves also acknowledge that socialization drives their views and skills, at least in part. In her (somewhat implausible) discussion with Alicent in the Grand Sept, Rhaenyra says, “We knew, even [when we were children], that men trained up for battle are eager to fight, to seek blood and glory.” Rhaenyra also tells her (very close) advisor Mysaria that her father “did not prepare me to fight” and laments, “if [only] I had been a son, a sword thrust into my hand the moment I could walk.”
And men perceive women leaders as less competent in matters of war
The downside of this dynamic is the Westeros stereotype that women are weaker than men. For example, then Hand of the King (and the series’ true villain) Otto Hightower refers to women as the realm’s “most gentle souls,” and Rhaenyra’s (traitorous) advisor Ser Alfred Broome derisively labels women as “the gentler sex.”
Leading male characters, in particular, amplify this stereotype to declare their female superiors unsuited for the role of commander-in-chief. Prince (or is it king?) Daemon says, “The people who support [Rhaenyra] will not be led by her. They look to a man for strength.” Alfred Broome, in an attempt to spark a coup against Rhaenyra, says, “there are battles to be fought…[and] what we need, in this moment, is a king.” Similarly, when Alicent nominates herself for a second stint as Queen Regent after Aegon’s “accident” at the Battle of Rook’s Rest, Master of Laws Jasper Wylde dismisses her claim: “You played your part admirably in a time of peace, Your Grace.”
Unfortunately, similar dynamics hold in the real world as well. Polling shows that Americans – along with global publics – trust men more than women on issues of national security. Donald Trump even specifically suggested that because Kamala Harris is a woman, America’s enemies would “walk all over her.”
Women leaders have incentives to be “iron ladies” rather than “gentle souls”
To combat these stereotypes of weakness and ineffectiveness in matters of security, research shows that women leaders have political incentives to adopt relatively aggressive foreign policies and avoid pursuing peace. Just consider the many iron ladies throughout history, from Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir to Jeane Kirkpatrick and Hillary Clinton.
Although Rhaenyra and Alicent bravely resist this pressure, they are not totally immune from it. As Rhaenyra tells her son, “I bring to mind too much their mothers or their daughters. They must see in me a ruler. And the symbols of authority are not jewels and gowns, but the shield and sword.” This strikingly echoes Mark Penn, a top Hillary Clinton campaign advisor, who argued in a memo to his boss that voters “see presidents as the ‘father’ of the country” and “do not want someone who would be the first mama, especially in this kind of [dangerous] world.”
Giving in to the pressure also provides no silver bullet to female leaders. Instead, it may cause them to be labeled as overly aggressive and unlikable. For example, after the killing of the baby Prince Jaehaerys Targaryen, his corpse is paraded through the streets and a Team Green spokesman shouts, “Behold the works of Rhaenyra, the cruel!” King Aegon and Criston Cole also refer to Rhaenyra as the “bitch queen.” This may reflect the double bind female leaders face. They can be damned if they are too passive or damned if they are too aggressive.
In real life or on the screen, the main risk is that sex discrimination can can coerce female leaders into adopting unwise policies against their (sometimes better) instincts.
While a leader’s sex is one factor influencing the likelihood and efficacy of using force, the weapons at a leader’s disposal are another critical factor. In House of the Dragon, two of the most effective weapons are dragons – duh – and magic. These fictional weapons have connections to real-world technologies like AI.
Dragons, like AI, affect the balance of power
In 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin boldly predicted, “The one who becomes the leader in [AI] will become the ruler of the world.” In House of the Dragon, dragons similarly provide the Targaryens unmatched military and political leverage. As Rhaenyra astutely observes, “Everyone says Targaryens are closer to gods than to men. But they say that because of our dragons. Without them, we’re just like everyone else.”
However, it remains to be seen whether Putin’s speculation about AI will come to fruition, as the technology (at least in its current state) has critical limitations. So do dragons. For example, other dragons kill them, as can giant crossbows and White Walkers. And the downsides of AI and dragons do not stop there.
Dragons and AI are unpredictable and dangerous
Movies like Dr. Strangelove, WarGames, and The Terminator warn us that taking humans out of the loop and empowering autonomous technology might lead to unpredictable and disastrous results. For example, in the 2010 “flash crash,” automated stock market trading systems caused the market to lose around $1 trillion in value within a matter of minutes.
Dragons, of course, can be equally unpredictable – and provoke chaos and calamity. A striking example: Vhagar – the largest and oldest dragon in the series – kills Rhaenyra’s 14-year-old son (Lucerys Velaryon) despite his rider’s desperate pleas: “No, no, no, no, no! No, Vhagar! No!” As King Viserys said in Season 1, “The idea that we control the dragons is an illusion.” Spoiler: Don’t expect to control AI, either.
Deepfakes pose another AI-driven risk
Deepfakes – artificially created videos that superimpose one person’s likeness onto another – pose a growing risk in global politics . This technology is a modern extension of traditional propaganda methods meant to manipulate public opinion. For example, Russian hackers circulated a fabricated video of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy purportedly surrendering to Russian forces in March 2022 – in a failed effort to demoralize Ukrainians and change the course of its current war in Ukraine.
House of the Dragon also illustrates the profound potential of deepfakes for political advantage. For example, Daemon Targaryen is repeatedly shown false visions (along with a potentially truthful vision related to future events) that manipulate him into supporting his niece (and wife!) Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne. While the source of these visions is not fully clear (with the prime suspects being Alys Rivers, Brynden “Bloodraven” Rivers, or the Old Gods themselves), these scenes demonstrate how powerful and convincing deepfake-like tools or other forms of deceit can be.
In sum, House of the Dragon has a lot of substance to offer beyond its dragon-fueled entertainment value.
Nadiya Kostyuk is an assistant professor at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology.
Joshua A. Schwartz is an assistant professor of international relations at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology.
Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.
