Jump to content

The Citadel's Grand Conspiracy


Fire Eater

Recommended Posts

I guess we can somewhat be sure that the Citadel subtly took care of the dragons after most of the Targaryen family dragons died during the Dance of Dragons. I assume Aegon's III Grand Maester would have been the man executing this plan. I doubt that Aegon himself did anything to kill the dragons, but being afraid of the creatures he would have given management of the Dragonpit and the dragons (and their eggs) on Dragonstone over to somebody else. On the contrary, I'm sure that the Targaryens from Aegon I to Rhaenyra and Aegon II took mostly direct charge of their dragons. They were the only people who had no reason to fear them, after all.

But the conspiracy to rid the Realm entirely of the Targaryens seems to be rather speculative. They might have had that choice after the Dance, when there were only three known Targaryen children left (Aegon III, his first wife, Viserys II). And another chance might have been the Great Council where was named King in the end. The maesters are all about the law and the rightful line of succession. The Targaryens are the ruling dynasty of Westeros, and thus acting/counseling against that would have been rather irritating for any lord who was supposed to involved in such a conspiracy.

I strongly assume that Maester Walys was aiming at a southron marriage for Brandon Stark was due to the fact that he himself was not only in the south to forge a chain, but of southron birth himself. If Walys was still around when Rhaegar captured Lyanna, he obviously did not counsel Rickard to go to war with Aerys over this whole affair. Not even after Brandon was arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a theory of mine I thought of right now, but maybe Citadel might be one of the results of the peace that was reached between the COTF and the First Men, having been established to make sure that certain knowledge was not forgotten (Others). Similar to the Night's Watch, the Citadel may have forgotten it's true purpose to a large extent. I'm not sure how crackpot the theory is because I can't quite recall the timing between when this peace was reached and whenever the Long Winter happened when AA defeated the Others.

I think you are on to something here. There is definitely a connection between the Children and the Maesters, or at least the First Men. In ADwD, Bloodraven tells Bran:

"It was the singers who taught the First Men to send messages by raven...but in those days, the birds would speak the words. The trees remember, but men forget, and so now they write the messages on parchment and tie them round the feet of birds who have never shared their skin."

Also, there are a couple of intriguing descriptions of maesters in the Dunk & Egg stories. The maesters are described as slight men, with big, "beak-like" noses. Not much to go on, but to me it hints of a CotF-Maester-Raven connection, at least at the Citadel's inception.

I also agree with you that the Maesters Order has perhaps forgotten its true purpose, mirroring the gradual dissolution over time of both the Night's Watch and the Kingsguard. What's not clear (yet) is what the Citadel's original purpose was. "Citadel" means fortress; if the Maesters are purely scholars, why not "Academy" or "Lyceum"? And if the Maesters are anti-dragon, why the two Valyrian sphinxes flanking the Citadel's main entrance? That said, Maegor the Cruel is said to have executed three Grand Maesters. Wonder what that was all about?

So many questions, so much time... :bawl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that it's not on the same level. I do think that it could cause death. We haven't seen this in the story I guess because they were being ridden but say if someone warged the mammoths or the elephants they could kill/trample a lot of people that way for example. I don't think warging is good or bad. It depends on how the warg plans to use that power. The Stark kids haven't used it to do anything bad save what Bran does to Hodor but I don't think I could say the same for Varamyr.

The way I think about the power of warging is similar to the power of a lord (albeit wargs are more limited generally). Just think about Tywin unleashing the Mountain and his men and the bloody mummers. That is a force of massive destruction and terror and it is nothing magical about it. A mammoth can trample people but not cause more destruction than weapons in general. An elephant can be used to kill in in war too, without warging.

I think what Varamyr did could be sufficient enough in many circumstances. Gaining complete possession of another seems difficult, I agree, but making someone go completely bonkers in a critical situation might suffice...

Warging animals is only part of what the magic associated with the old gods offers.

Nuclear disarmament has to do with official agreements between several involved parties, not to use the technology to build bombs. What I meant was that the Citadel seems to be trying to remove magic, making it impossible to even wield it.

The use of warging can be very bad indeed, I am not saying anything different. I think the worst case would be as you say, to mess with other peoples minds. It is a bit similar to poison in that way.

About the similarities with nuclear weapons, is it worse to try to destroy nuclear weapons than agree not to use them?

I would like to see a disarmament agreement concerning magic in the world of aSoIaF, but that world is even less close to that than our I think. It would be nice though, but thinking that the risk of someone breaking the deal could mean the return of the Others or a destruction like Valyria's doom makes me doubt the adequacy of such a deal. Just like in our world, it would be better if there were no nuclear weapons left at all (not a realistic scenario since the technology is known, but ideally).

So if there is a chance to rid the world of magic completely, without the risk of it coming back to be used by one group or the other, I think it is a good thing. If there is a possibility to reach consensus on not using it, sure why not? The latter is less likely to me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are missing my point too. I did not say anything about whether the maesters should study the field of magic or not. My opinion is that they should (and they do). They should not practice magic. I responded to the opinion that it is not bad to use magic. I don't think it is any difference in maesters practicing magic than any other elitist group.

What do we know of the particulars of the subjects of the maesters' studies? Nothing, all we know is that they are the most knowledgeable of all people in Westeros and that they study all things possible (we know what some of the links represent). We know that "magic" is a subject they study. Marwyn is the senior of that field in the Citadel.

...

I don't think I'm missing your point at all. One of my assertions is that you did not respond to Jape adequately.

Jape opens his post with the statement, "Being the scholars that they are, I find it hard to accept that they consider some fields of research as crap." I'd say that he captures the attitude of virtually all of the maesters quite well. You say, "I did not say anything about whether the maesters should study the field of magic or not." Sorry, but you should have. That was Jape's lead-in, the central part of his thesis. You continue by saying, "My opinion is that they should (and they do)...I responded to the opinion that it is not bad to use magic." Taking the last part first, I'd say you mischaracterize Jape's stated opinion. It was clearly given as a conditional: "Yes, it's hard to control, but if they manage to do that, they could do wonders." (The emphasis is mine.) This statement is not the same as saying that it isn't bad to use magic. It is quite possible to study theory without putting that theory into practice. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that scholars could not do controlled experiments in magic. "Hard" is not a synonym for "impossible."

Taking the second part of your statement, it is over-generous to claim that the maesters study magic. Saying that "...they study all things possible (we know what some of the links represent). We know that 'magic' is a subject they study. Marwyn is the senior of that field in the Citadel" is asserting far too much. (Again, the emphasis is mine.) We cannot know that they study all things possible. More to the point, "they" is plural. "Marwyn" is singular. To put it very, very mildly, his studies are not encouraged. His parting words to Sam are revealing: "Tell them how wise and good they are. Tell them that Aemon commanded you to put yourself into their hands...But say nothing of prophecies or dragons, unless you fancy poison in your porridge." That is about as clear as anything could be. The man does not say, "don't practice magic." He says that Sam should keep his mouth firmly shut on the matter if he wants to stay alive. Obviously, the supposed senior researcher does not believe that magic is any sort of "field" of study in the Citadel.

I have yet to find any evidence at all in the text that the maesters have made any worthwhile attempt at all to study the Others. Quite the contrary, denying the existence of these creatures will inhibit such study. Oldtown is not the world. Even the seven kingdoms do not constitute the entire world. If the maesters could somehow get rid of magic on their continent (probably an impossible task), this would not eliminate Asshai or the Shadow. It would not make all shapeshifters and firemages impotent or prevent the worship of the Red God in Esos. The whole business about nuclear proliferation is a very bad analogy. If, during the Cold War, senior faculty members in the US had killed any student using the phrase "nuclear fission" or even "atomic theory," that would have done nothing to prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction in the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parwan, Really?

I feel like you are just trying to make lot of fuss about nothing.

Jape said, as a conclusion of the post, that they could do wonders with magic. The conclusion is usually the statement that one wants to emphasize. I was saying that they can not use it for good.

If you think that magic can be used in a positive way, fine, I don't. Ends does not justify means to me generally, there are always exceptions but I don't think the magic they have access to is one of those acceptable exceptions.

The Children of the Forest have magic of some sort, but as far as I know it does not include blood magic or human sacrifice and it is not acquired magic, it is magic inherent in them. The maesters seem less offended by this kind of magic, they use ravens just like the Children and the First men did, they have a weirwood that the ravens occupy in the Citadel, they can not warg them but use them for messaging, they learnt that a long time ago from people who believed in the Old Gods. That the ravens can find their destination is a bit of a wonder, it's not like using homing pigeons exactly. My point is that they are not opposed to all sorts of supernatural stuff, it seems to be the bloody kind they don't like.

The magic they could learn involves blood and human sacrifice, can that be used for good?

Mirri Maz Duur knew magic (possibly from Marwyn) and she knew the price. Melisandre knows magic, and we know how she gets it. Qyburn and the red priest know magic too, and the result is very disturbing.

Have we seen any positive uses of this kind of magic?

I think the masters need to study the Others, and the history of magic, I am not disagreeing here. But Marwyns statement is not necessarily the truth just because he said so to Sam. If the maesters where so against the studies of magic so that they would kill Sam for even speaking of it, how is it Marwyn is still alive? His studies of magic were well known, he was given the name Marwyn the Mage, and he is an archmaester. If we are to believe what the characters say without doubt we are going to have to believe Qyburn too, he was expelled for trying to use his knowledge of necromancy, something he studied in the Citadel.

I agree that is seems like most maesters do not care to learn much of magic, but I can't say I know for sure, we don't have their POVs.

The maesters are denying the existance of Others when speaking with uninitiated. We still don't know what they are up to inside the walls of the Citadel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have not really heard many specifics about the Hightowers currently in power, except that the Lord Hightower has supposedly been in his High Tower for years and has not been seen by anyone. Isn't it said somewhere that the Hightowers could field a huge army on their own?

Whoa! There's another reason Faceless may be infiltrating the Cit. Say there's only a few people who see Hightower regularly enough to identify him by mannerisms or by the way he talks. Then let's say the FM kill all those people. Then "Lord Hightower" emerges from seclusion and starts mustering a huge army to do god knows what! Just impersonate the CEO, baby! And you'd have a Faceless field general stealing an entire house's might for the FM agenda.

The Citadel agenda is indeed a fascinating one, 1 - What do they actually bring to the Houses that makes them so welcomed?

Glitz and glamor? The appearance of your house being upper tier wealthy. Peer pressure, like how you're supposed to want a swimming pool because the Jetsons put one in last Spring. The Tarly's have a maester, mommy! Can we have one? Can we?

Or it's a simple question of who would you hire.....

1) Terrance, who's done some construction and can swing a sword.

2) Terrell, his Maester brother who is a trained architect / healer / military tactician / mailman / school teacher / etiquette expert / event planner / negotiator / legal counsel / HR director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the time being, we have only Marwyn's opinion/word that the maesters were poisoning the (last) dragons. He may be an unreliable narrator on this, he may have misread the intentions of the other grand maesters (who might just disbelieve all this magic stuff, but without necessary wanting to kill Aemon or anyone else studying magic). Maybe a maester did poison the dragons, but it was done on political motives (possible even at the orders of Aegon III himself, due to his hatred for dragons), not because of a grand conspiracy by the maesters.

We also aren't 100% sure yet if Marwyn is generally a "good guy", allthough he seems to be.

The motive that the maesters would want to destroy magic because they can't control it seems a bit weak, after all they also can't control or understand, say, gravity, but they aren't trying to destroy gravity are they? As magic exists in their world (though maybe only noticeably so after the recent apparent "surge" in magic effectiveness), they should want to study it just as they would attempt to understand general physics (they wouldn't even know the difference before they studied it - who says gravity isn't the result of some magic, as well?).

If the maesters indeed would want to fight magic in general, I would hope they have a better motive than "we hate what we can't control and understand" (a curious state of mind for the westerosi equivalent of a scientist). The suggested effect on the seasons would be a more believable motive, if that would be the case. Or political motives would also be more believable - being anti-Targaryen, for whatever reason, is more easy to swallow that a general hatred of magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eira, I disagree with your opinion on dragons and magic. Your argument against dragons reminds me of an old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Dragons didn't cause the kind of devastation they did until people used them for war, other than that they are like any other creature, with the exception of breathing fire, when they killed, they did so for defense and for food. There's a word for you opinion that dragons should go extinct : specism. Who are we to decide whether a species of animal should live or die?

The long summer came with the dragons, are we now witnessing the backlash of that? I happen to think so. But again we can only speculate.

My theory is that both dragons and Others must be destroyed to restore balance. Magic will then go back to being a latent force and seasons will be normalized.

There are several holes in your theory. Dragons didn't appear until Dany brought them back at the end of AGoT, towards the end of the long summer, so the dragons had nothing to do with it. In AGoT, Grand Maester Pycelle mentions that during King Maekar I's reign there was a long summer followed by a long winter, and that was when dragons were extinct.

Plus, magic can be used for good as well as evil, glass candles could help see across long distances, and allow people to communicate from anywhere. other than war, dragons can be used as superior modes of transportation as King Jaehaerys I and Queen Alysanne demonstrated. In ADwD, it was mentioned wizards used magic to build stone roads that ran straight as arrows and didn't deteriorate, connecting cities and allowing for swift trade and transportation. Just because magic can be dangerous doesn't mean it should be gotten rid of.

Using that same mode of thinking, shouldn't we get rid of science? Science can be dangerous as well, part of it involves dangerous chemicals and radioactive materials.Scientists test some products on animals, some can end in horrible results for the animals. Ungovernable science has led to pollution of air, water and soil. Finally, every modern weapon owes its creation to science, with all the talk of comparing dragons to nukes using that as a reason to get rid of magic, but science actually created nukes so shouldn't science be gotten rid of? No, science has also offered greater advances in medicine, communication, transportation and being used to improve people's lives in plenty of other ways. Magic, like science, isn't the problem, it's the people who use it without any regard for ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with fireeater22.

I say it's better to compare magic to lightning than comparing them to nukes. Lightning is dangerous and is still dangerous but scientists managed to use it to researched energy, and when they finally understood it, it gave way to the use of electricity.

Or compare it to the research of poisons and vaccines. Poison and magic exists naturally in their world. If no one studied poison, then how are they to counter it.

So the maesters should see it that way too. What are they to do when someone uses magic against them, like Euron's wizards, who some of are close to Oldtown now, after the many raids that the ironborn did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouter, my argument is that the seasons ARE the motive. That magic is uncontrollable is the reason I think that an just studying and trying to use it for good will not be enough.

Fireeater, it sounds as if you think I WANT the dragons extinct, if that is how you read my argument I hope you don't forget to make a difference in what I think of the workings of magic in Westeros and personal opinion. I don't like to be called names thank you.

Don't apply my arguments about the role of magic to modern gun debate if you don't want to do that to yourself too.

It is your argument which fit the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement. Since I am the one arguing that the weapons are the danger, better not have any.

By the way we don't know if magic will be necessary for dragons to be bourn in the future, in that case they need not go extinct. They are still a dangerous weapon though, and a good way of keeping power to the few who has them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouter, my argument is that the seasons ARE the motive. That magic is uncontrollable is the reason I think that an just studying and trying to use it for good will not be enough.

Fireeater, it sounds as if you think I WANT the dragons extinct, if that is how you read my argument I hope you don't forget to make a difference in what I think of the workings of magic in Westeros and personal opinion. I don't like to be called names thank you.

Don't apply my arguments about the role of magic to modern gun debate if you don't want to do that to yourself too.

It is your argument which fit the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement. Since I am the one arguing that the weapons are the danger, better not have any.

By the way we don't know if magic will be necessary for dragons to be bourn in the future, in that case they need not go extinct. They are still a dangerous weapon though, and a good way of keeping power to the few who has them.

Eira, I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, possibly by misreadng your post, from what I saw it kind of appeared that way. Check my post, I never called you any names. Dragons weren't weapons until humans made them just like war horses and elephants. You can't get rid of weapons without getting rid of the mindset. If you throw all weapons into the sea that won't do anything if people's attitudes haven't changed, they'll just make new weapons. Plus we'd still need some weapons for sustenance: hunting game and slaughtering livestock. In regards to"Don't apply my arguments about the role of magic to modern gun debate if you don't want to do that to yourself too," in your next response, before you type please calm down and exercise a little more maturity, no offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for animal rights, but really, it is not like a legitimate argument can't be made that the existence of dragons is dangerous for the continued existence of humans. Calling that specism looks a bit strange to me.

Dragons live near active volcanoes, where humans seldom go,and for good reason. Using that mode of thinking you're using, shouldn't all tigers, crocodiles, lions and other animals die off because they pose a danger to humans. Going further with that, shouldn't all humans be killed since as stated in ADwD, they're posing a threat to the existence of giants, mammoths, unicorns, direwolves and the children of the forest and caused the lions of the Westerlands to go extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragons live near active volcanoes, where humans seldom go,and for good reason. Using that mode of thinking you're using, shouldn't all tigers, crocodiles, lions and other animals die off because they pose a danger to humans. Going further with that, shouldn't all humans be killed since as stated in ADwD, they're posing a threat to the existence of giants, mammoths, unicorns, direwolves and the children of the forest and caused the lions of the Westerlands to go extinct.

Yeah fuck those people who live near dangerous animals. As long as a tiger gets to be in its natural habitat I couldn't care less if it ate a baby. We should also leave mosquitos alone because we are trying to get rid of them and that's wrong. I mean don't they have the right to live a life of liberty and have the freedom to suck blood from whoever they want and transfer malaria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that it is as legitimate for humans to try to ensure their continued existence as it is for lions or rabbits.

Of course, I failed to state the parameters that make it so that extinction of dragons is acceptable.

On second thought, I don't know much at all about the ecology of dragons. Do they grow indefinitely until dying of violence or starvation, or do they die of old age and natural disease like other animals? How often do they produce eggs? How long may they last while still being viable (apparently quite a while)? How often do they actually hatch living specimens (apparently not often at all)? Are they sentient (and therefore worth of actual diplomatic relations and probably their own territory)? Do they become sentient over time? Is it possible to tame them, and if so, how effectively? Are they normal carnivores that must eat to survive (apparently so, but I don't think we know for sure)? If dragons grow indefinitely and draw their nurture from what they hunt, then Balerion, Vharax and Meraxes back in Aegon the Conqueror's days must have been constant threats to livestock and smallfolk. Worse still, they would only become more dangerous with time until their unavoidable slaying.

The core question is: without human intervention, are they likely to become extinct by their own due to lack of reproduction? Or instead, to grow and reproduce to the point of having to starve after eating everything that could nurture them on the planet? Are they even capable of avoiding those two extremes on their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they will not grow more dangerous the bigger they grow. At some point, their size and weight will actually become a threat against them, keeping them from flying and hunting efficiently. They would become earthbound and probably die of starvation.

The points about their unchecked growth and reproduction being a threat to the planet applies so much more to humans. And we seem inacapable of avoiding the extreme of destroying our world. Because we managed to kill off every predator who might pose danger to our continued growth and survival. Except for other humans, obviously. We are our own worst enemy.

In Westeros, dragons are dangerous for humans. It seems that humans were dangerous for dragons, too. Westeros is more balanced than our world is, as both dragons and humans still exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eira, I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, possibly by misreadng your post, from what I saw it kind of appeared that way. Check my post, I never called you any names. Dragons weren't weapons until humans made them just like war horses and elephants. You can't get rid of weapons without getting rid of the mindset. If you throw all weapons into the sea that won't do anything if people's attitudes haven't changed, they'll just make new weapons. Plus we'd still need some weapons for sustenance: hunting game and slaughtering livestock. In regards to"Don't apply my arguments about the role of magic to modern gun debate if you don't want to do that to yourself too," in your next response, before you type please calm down and exercise a little more maturity, no offense.

I was offended by being called a defender of "Specism", that sounds really bad in my ears. Considering that what I think is the reason the aSoIaF world's magic must end is that it is the cause of the extreme seasons and the Others attacking, and in extension the whole of at least Westeros being covered by 40ft of snow, I think you are being unfair.

I don't believe the Others can be defeated without the dragons getting the same treatment. That is the balance I think needs to be restored. These dragons were forced into existance by blood magic, woken to life from stone, they are not part of Westeros fauna anymore so I don't think it compairs well to our modern way of thinking of biological diversity.

And I got upset with the gun reference, because firstly it was totally incorrect to pin that to my argument as I said in my previous post, and secondly because I think it is low to use that infected debate to weaken my arguments. It really felt like you wanted to make me look like a G&A advocate, and that is not OK to me.

I will try to not be so upset if you try to use fair play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Balerion's size and tactical value are any indication, I have a hard time believing that dragons in the world of Song are subject to many real world constraints. Do we have so much as a hint that Balerion had trouble sustaining his own frame, or any indication that he was always on the verge of starvation and sought food at every waking moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If dragons are magical creatures and magic users like Melisandre don't need food to survive, the dragons might never be in danger of starvation. They might just require food in order to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...