Did the maesters poison the dragons?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

"Kill him (Aemon)? Sam asked, shocked. "Why?"

"If I tell you, they may need to kill you too." Marwyn smiled a ghastly smile, the juice of the sourleaf running red between his teeth. "Who do you think killed all the dragons the last time around? Gallant dragonslayers armed with swords?"

...

"Tell them how good they are ... but say nothing of prophecies or dragons, unless you fancy poison in your porridge."

Marwyn seems to indirectly confirm that it was the maesters who killed the last Targaryen dragons, and that it was through poisoning. He laughs off the idea that it was done with traditional weapons. There's also the possibility that having them kept in the dragonpit had some effect, but it seems like this would really only inhibit their growth. I don't think it would make them deformed, like the last dragon apparently was. There's also the relative speed at which the dragons died. Animals that survived for thousands of years in Valyria couldn't hack a century and a half in Westeros. And I remember seeing some theory on here that suggested it was poison that killed Balerion, although I can't remember exactly where or what evidence was brought up.

Another possible implication of this is that it shoots a bigass hole in Septon Barth's (aka Jaehaerys I's Hand of the King) book. "Death comes out of a dragon's mouth, but death does not go in that way." Well, um, if the dragons were poisoned, and poison is almost always meant to be ingested, then yeah death can go in through a dragon's mouth. Barth's proposed method of killing a dragon — stabbing it through the eye — is sort of the means that Marwyn laughs off ("gallant dragonslayers with swords"). I've said this before, but I really think that Barth's book is propaganda and that the "Death of Dragons" book in the Citadel is the "real" story. Which means that anyone taking Barth's book as fact — like, maybe, Tyrion — is getting (likely) inaccurate information.

[Independent George]

It wouldn't surprise me. Wild animals raised in captivity tend to fare poorly, and dragons don't seem to be truly domesticated. (If they were domesticated, the Valyrians wouldn't have needed all that magic to bind them).

When Aemon noted that dragons change gender, was he quoting from Septon Barth's book? Would that have implications for Dany's role in the prophecy?

[Dragonfish]

Wasn't Aemon basing his info about the PWWP possibly being a woman on something Septon Barth wrote? This might be a piece of evidence that Aemon is relying on innacurate info, and is therefore mistaken about Dany's savior-hood (which I know would make you happy).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

When Aemon noted that dragons change gender, was he quoting from Septon Barth's book? Would that have implications for Dany's role in the prophecy?

Wasn't Aemon basing his info about the PWWP possibly being a woman on something Septon Barth wrote? This might be a piece of evidence that Aemon is relying on innacurate info, and is therefore mistaken about Dany's savior-hood (which I know would make you happy).

Yes. Yes he was. :bowdown:

ETA: The last dragon was referred to as "she," and she laid five eggs before kicking the bucket. Was she only referred to as a female because she laid eggs — like, if Rhaegal laid an egg, he would become a she — or was there an actual gender difference going on?

[LuisDantas]

I'm still unconvinced that the Maesters had anything to do with the end of the Dragons. Marwyn's insistence is pretty much the only evidence that we have that it is so.

For one thing, I just don't see how they could possibly prevent so many dragon eggs from hatching.

Maybe it is not a coincidence that when the dragons finally returned it was in continental Essos, and not in Westeros? Maybe there is some environmental factor is Westeros that is harmful to them?

Also, I have seen speculation that the Valyrians used magic to control them, but do we have evidence? It makes perfect sense, mind you, but do we know that it is so?

[LuisDantas]

From the wiki:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Dragons#Characteristics

They have no gender differentiation, but lay large, scaled eggs to reproduce.^[5]

The reference is to AFFC, Chapter 35 (Samwell).

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/A_Feast_for_Crows-Chapter_35

And the exact words come from Maester Aemon, who would probably know.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm still unconvinced that the Maesters had anything to do with the end of the Dragons. Marwyn's insistence is pretty much the only evidence that we have that it is so.

What's interesting about this passage is that Marwyn never says flat out, "The maesters killed the dragons." He suggests it with a hypothetical ("Who do you think killed them? Dragonslayers?"). But there's still a difference, however subtle, between that and actually, explicitly implicating them.

For one thing, I just don't see how they could possibly prevent so many dragon eggs from hatching.

If they poisoned the dragons, that poison in theory would spread to the eggs they laid, which could easily explain why the later dragons were so deformed.

Maybe it is not a coincidence that when the dragons finally returned it was in continental Essos, and not in Westeros? Maybe there is some environmental factor is Westeros that is harmful to them?

This is perfectly possible too. And it doesn't bode well for Dany's trio. ETA: Except Winter's Knight is right about Martin saying they were "all over" once. So it looks like Westeros by itself wouldn't be responsible.

Also, I have seen speculation that the Valyrians used magic to control them, but do we have evidence? It makes perfect sense, mind you, but do we know that it is so?

Well, there's the dragon horn. Dany has (tenuous) influence over them likely because of imprinting, and to some small extent, using the whip on Drogon. But if it was the dragons themselves who hatched the eggs, humans couldn't rely on imprinting, nor do I think that a grown Valyrian-era dragon would tolerate a whip. So something else must have been at work. Why not magic?

And the exact words come from Maester Aemon, who would probably know.

But if Aemon got his intelligence from Barth and Barth isn't reliable, then Aemon isn't either. For the record, I'm mostly talking about Barth's book as it relates to how dragons can be killed. But the gender thing is fair game, too.

[Winter's Knight]

I'm still unconvinced that the Maesters had anything to do with the end of the Dragons. Marwyn's insistence is pretty much the only evidence that we have that it is so.

For one thing, I just don't see how they could possibly prevent so many dragon eggs from hatching.

Maybe it is not a coincidence that when the dragons finally returned it was in continental Essos, and not in Westeros? Maybe there is some environmental factor is Westeros that is harmful to them?

Also, I have seen speculation that the Valyrians used magic to control them, but do we have evidence? It makes perfect sense, mind you, but do we know that it is so?

Martin says that there were dragons all over once:

In 'The Hedge Knight' ancient dragons are mentioned, thousands of years olds. Were there Dragons in Westeros before the Targaryens brought them, or did the Targaryens bring the skeletons of the old Dragons with them?

There were dragons all over, once.

[jarl the climber]

What's interesting about this passage is that Marwyn never says flat out, "The maesters killed the dragons." He suggests it with a hypothetical ("Who do you think killed them? Dragonslayers?"). But there's still a difference, however subtle, between that and actually, explicitly implicating them.

If they poisoned the dragons, that poison in theory would spread to the eggs they laid, which could easily explain why the later dragons were so deformed.

This is perfectly possible too. And it doesn't bode well for Dany's trio.

Well, there's the dragon horn. Dany has (tenuous) influence over them likely because of imprinting, and to some small extent, using the whip on Drogon. But if it was the dragons themselves who hatched the eggs, humans couldn't rely on imprinting, nor do I think that a grown Valyrian-era dragon would tolerate a whip. So something else must have been at work. Why not magic?

My thinking on this is that the book, "Death of Dragons", also deals with the elimination of House Targaryean ecspecially those like Dany and Rhaegar who are "Dragons". They would have at least wanted to kill off the Targs who might be able to hatch the eggs the Targs had left. Summerhall could have been a result of sabotage by a Maester but who knows.

[Dragonfish]

And the exact words come from Maester Aemon, who would probably know.

Aemon's words are based on Barth's writings, as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Here are a couple more quotes regarding Septon Barth from ADWD.

From pp. 185-6:

"Barth had been a blacksmith's son who rose to be King's Hand during the reign of Jaehaerys the Conciliator. His enemies always claimed he was more sorcerer than septon. Baelor the Blessed had ordered all Barth's writings destroyed when he came to the Iron Throne. Ten years ago, Tyrion had read a fragment of Unnatural History that had eluded the Blessed Baelor, but he doubted that any of Barth's work had found its way across the narrow sea. And of course there was even less chance of his coming on the fragmentary, anonymous, blood-soaked tome sometimes called Blood and Fire and sometimes The Death of Dragons, the only surviving copy of which was supposedly hidden away in a locked vault beneath the Citadel."

From p. 186:

"When the Halfmaester appeared on deck, yawning, the dwarf was writing down what he recalled concerning the mating habits of dragons, on which subject Barth, Munkun, and Thomax held markedly divergent views."

The last quote is interesting, as it suggests there was no consensus on Barth's idea of dragons changing sex.

[Dragonfish]

Another possible implication of this is that it shoots a bigass hole in Septon Barth's (aka Jaehaerys I's Hand of the King) book. "Death comes out of a dragon's mouth, but death does not go in that way." Well, um, if the dragons were poisoned, and poison is almost always meant to be ingested, then yeah death can go in through a dragon's mouth.

Regarding this quote, I'm not convinced it means that dragons can't be poisoned. I read it as a hyperbolic way of saying, "Don't try to stab a dragon in the mouth, you stupid idiot." At least, if I recall the context correctly (could you by any chance provide a page numer for it?).

Barth's proposed method of killing a dragon — stabbing it through the eye — is sort of the means that Marwyn laughs off ("gallant dragonslayers with swords").

I think this is taking the quote out of context. Marwyn wasn't saying that one can't kill a dragon with swords, he's just saying that wasn't how the last dragons died.

[Eejit]

Another possible implication of this is that it shoots a bigass hole in Septon Barth's (aka Jaehaerys I's Hand of the King) book. "Death comes out of a dragon's mouth, but death does not go in that way." Well, um, if the dragons were poisoned, and poison is almost always meant to be ingested, then yeah death can go in through a dragon's mouth.

Almost always. It can for example be inhaled, which is more likely than being absorbed through tough scales.

So death not going in that way is not necessarily contradicted.

I'm not sure whether the Maesters are responsible. Another potential candidate is of course the Faceless Men who would equally have motive, access to poisons and can gain the opportunity to deliver them.

[LuisDantas]

Aemon had dragonlord ancestors, so I assume he had more reliable sources than Septon Barth alone on the matter of dragon gender differentiation.

As for dragons being everywhere once, well, things change. I don't think it rules out Westeros having an unhealthy influence over them in the last few centuries.

There may well be some relationship to the Maesters or to the waxing and waning of the power of magic, even a causal one, but I certainly don't think we know that for a fact, or even in which direction it would go. For all we know dragons may actually feed on environmental magic and depleted Westeros of same, with the Maesters none the wiser on the matter. Of course, that wouldn't explain how the power of magic renewed itself in Westeros in the last two years or so, but maybe there is a separate cause.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Regarding this quote, I'm not convinced it means that dragons can't be poisoned. I read it as a hyperbolic way of saying, "Don't try to stab a dragon in the mouth, you stupid idiot." At least, if I recall the context correctly (could you by any chance provide a page numer for it?).

Why couldn't it be both?

I think this is taking the quote out of context. Marwyn wasn't saying that one can't kill a dragon with swords, he's just saying that wasn't how the last dragons died.

Well yes. But if it wasn't swords, it had to be something else.

Aemon had dragonlord ancestors, so I assume he had more reliable sources than Septon Barth alone on the matter of dragon gender differentiation.

Except that when he mentions the gender thing, he specifically name-checks Barth.

[Dragonfish]

Why couldn't it be both?

It could be both, or it could not be both. My point is simply that we can't conclude outright that Barth's writings on the subject of dragons is incorrect. Though by the same token, neither can we conclude outright that his writings are infallible.

Well yes. But if it wasn't swords, it had to be something else.

I'm not disputing that. I just don't think it necessarily has the same significance that you think it has.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It could be both, or it could not be both. My point is simply that we can't conclude outright that Barth's writings on the subject of dragons is incorrect. Though by the same token, neither can we conclude outright that his writings are infallible.

I'm not disputing that. I just don't think it necessarily has the same significance that you think it has.

Perhaps not.

I've just been pretty skeptical of Barth's writings and I think it's interesting that the Citadel keeps one book under lock and key but not the other one. I also think it's a stretch to think that a Targ loyalist would put in writing — writing that could fall into enemy hands — the precise way to kill the family's fire-breathing death machines. But if he says that they're extremely difficult to kill — gotta get 'em through the eye! — and are inherently predisposed to "like" Targs because of super special dragon blood, wouldn't that in theory dissuade people from attempting to kill or hijack them?

Even if he was speaking more about killing them with a sword down the gullet, the broad statement itself — death doesn't go in through the mouth — is still incorrect, if the dragons were in fact poisoned (and yeah it can be inhaled, but when has it been, in the story?). Balerion died in Jaehaerys I's reign, when Barth was probably the Hand. Could it have been Balerion's death — a successful "hit" on a dragon? — that prompted Barth to write this book, saying that in fact dragons are extremely difficult to kill? I wish we knew more about when Balerion died, exactly, and what the official story was there.

[kissdbyfire]

Aemon had dragonlord ancestors, so I assume he had more reliable sources than Septon Barth alone on the matter of dragon gender differentiation.

I don't know... It seems to me that maester Aemon was relying solely on Barth's writings on this. From AFfC, Samwell:

That night he ate every bite Sam put before him. “No one ever looked for a girl,” he said. “It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. Rhaegar, I thought . . . the smoke was from the fire that devoured Summerhall on the day of his birth, the salt from the tears shed for those who died. He shared my belief when he was young, but later he became persuaded that it was his own son who fulfilled the prophecy, for a comet had been seen above King’s Landing on the night Aegon was conceived, and Rhaegar was certain the bleeding star had to be a comet. What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise! The error crept in from the translation. Dragons are neither male nor female, Barth saw the truth of that, but now one and now the other, as changeable as flame. The language misled us all for a thousand years. Daenerys is the one, born amidst salt and smoke. The dragons prove it.” Just talking of her seemed to make him stronger. “I must go to her. I must. Would that I was even ten years younger.”

[Maizel]

Maybe a bit weird to resurrect an old Thread, but i'm convinced the maesters killed the dragons, after reading the chapiter about Sam in Oldtown.

Maesters are building a world of science, magic has no place in it. Judging by the mentioned chapter, the citadel will become a battleground, of sorts, in books to come.

[NorthSouthEastWesteros]

I think the maesters want magic out of the world, and have for a long time. Period.

The alchemists grow stronger with magic around and maesters become of less use. If you view maesters as the scientists of the time (which I do,) I do believe they killed the dragons.

I'm just curious as to how.

[NorthSouthEastWesteros]

Maybe a bit weird to resurrect an old Thread, but i'm convinced the maesters killed the dragons, after reading the chapiter about Sam in Oldtown.

Maesters are building a world of science, magic has no place in it. Judging by the mentioned chapter, the citadel will become a battleground, of sorts, in books to come.

Or this. :blushing: Really should read whole thread first...