It isn't? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Warring over resources isn't the same thing the dragons do, because they don't need. We've kind of been using the Ysgramor/Ysmir as examples, but they don't seem to fit the bill. These guys are doing what they're doing with a purpose, and making war was only a part of their character. So what is the purpose of the dragons if they're incarnations of figures of legend? Are they corrupted versions of these people?

I'm less inclined to this idea just because of the barrel of worms it opens up.

Whoah, wait. Dragons don't fight each other over resources? They don't eat things, enjoy being worshiped, seek knowledge, etc?

I don't remember it being said that the dragons we see are these mythic heroes. We know that these mythic heroes were described as being like-dragons or becoming dragons. We know they don't literally gain the soul of a dragon, as seen with Ysgramor in Sovngarde, but they might have physically began resembling dragons if it's true that by their conquest and domination, they're mantling what it is to be a dragon.

It depends on what exactly Phil is implying. My point is that if these people are mantling dragons somehow, why is there none of them left? Are they mantling dragons, or a dragons using this mythopeic power to manifest.

Dragons don't fight each other over resources? They don't eat things, enjoy being worshiped, seek knowledge, etc?

This is still just based on domination. They don't need these things, unlike people going to war to secure their needs/survival.

To clarify, I'm not saying the dragons we see in Skyrim are in fact the ancient Nordic heroes (see my earlier comment for clarification), rather they have become dragons to the point where they always were.

Consider the most obvious example of mantling, the Champion of Cyrodiil's mantling of Sheogorath. We know the CoC wasn't Sheogorath, we even know he kept his own identity after becoming the Mad God.

However, history and legend remembers it differently. Fast forward a few hundred years and the Sheogorath we meet is pretty much the same as the one we see in TES IV. Except for the fact we know it's a different god it is all irrelevant. Sheogorath was and always will be Sheogorath.

Using that same concept, I see no reason why dragons cannot be mantled.

It doesn't matter what they need. We can survive remarkably well with very little, but what we regularly go to war over what we want. Dragons want quite a lot, and they obviously are willingly to go to war to get it.

I really don't know what you're talking about, though, Borommakot. Could you explain in simpler terms your entire line of thinking?

@ Phil, I think I'm understanding you. But see if I have once I clarify for Tom.

@Tom what I'm getting is that dragons (some at least) are mantled spirits. But they only come in one flavor: dominate all that you can. I'm wanting to know why this is so. Does it have to do with the person/people that mantle them?

Otherwise I can only assume that, like Sheogorath, their old identity is no more. At which point that person might as well just be the dead legend people believe they are.

@Boro I think I see what you are getting at. Remember what mantling means though. I'm proposing something similar to the walking way - walk like them until they walk like you. So if I wanted to become you, I wouldn't act like Tom. Over time people would believe I was you, not Tom because I was acting like you.

So it is a very clear cut thing. To mantle a dragon you'd have to embody certain characteristics in order to be remembered as one. Those characteristics wouldn't be peaceful ones otherwise you wouldn't be mantling a dragon in the same way I wouldn't be mantling you if I acted like a dick to people.

I think part of my difficulty in grasping the concept was that I sort of felt like mantling was something that is desirable. Like these people are choosing to mantle these roles. But it really seems more like the previous incarnation replaces the original; so though the dragons aren't "born" per se, they are willing themselves into existence through these mantled legends.

In this case mantling doesn't fit perfectly but is the closest to what I'm trying to get at. For the likes of Ysgramor, being remembered as a dragon would be a compliment. They worship the beasts and elevate them above all others. They're the epitome of the Atmoran view of perfection.

I don't want you to think I'm saying Ysgramor or any of the others who are described as dragons are still flying around somewhere. No, they died when they died. I'm saying that anybody who is remembered as a dragon through the eyes of history was a dragon. They're still dead, but the memory of them changes what they were.

Imagine how we view Dracula in the modern age. A lot of the realism has been lost to the regular guy, replaced by an amalgamation of ideas and concepts. Imagine now if we took that idea of warping something by pop culture, time and belief and TESified it. The thing becomes literal.