If the Grand Citadel Conspiracy theory is true, how could the Maesters have killed the last dragons ?

[FictionIsntReal]

The stuff Marwyn says about the Citadel doesn't really make sense. He claims that Aemon was sent to the NW rather than becoming an archmaester because the Citadel could not trust him, but we know the actual reason: opposition to Aegon V at the Great Council meant some people wanted Aemon to break his maester's oaths and take the throne, and joining the NW was his way of definitively removing that option. Marwyn says that just like Aemon, he himself cannot be trusted by the Citadel... but Marwyn WAS made an archmaester, and willingly travels all over rather than being sent off anywhere else by the Citadel. Marwyn warns Sam about being poisoned and says the same thing might have happened to Aemon, but Aemon himself didn't give any such warnings or indications there was any such danger. Granted, he's been at Castle Black rather than Oldtown for a long time, but per Marwyn the Citadel's hostility to magic/Targaryens is supposed to predate his posting there.

[Mithras]

There are no grand conspiracies in this series.

[Mourning Star]

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

And why do they talk about dragons? Because of the obsidian. Sam's adventures beyond the  wall. That is the point.
 

what are you talking about?

What point? You aren’t making any sense.

Maybe if you actually quoted the text the comments you are making would be more intelligible?

Because honestly it seems like you are completely ignoring the text itself in favor of your head cannon.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Not the Targaryen blood of somebody's. I am beginning to suspect that you misunderstand me on purpose. But of course you hold on to my rhetoric (which may be flawed or not), because you cannot disprove the main point.

what point?

Marwyn is talking about Aemon’s blood, explicitly. But, we know from Aemon himself that he wasn’t sent to the Wall by the citadel, rather he chose to go when his brother took the throne.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

But you may be right and I am wrong here.

I’m not even sure what you are saying anymore… but ya.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

For me the story is not reduced to "hidden parentage" and "conspiracy" and other pulp fiction elements like that.

Shakespeare made dick jokes, let’s not pretend like there is such a difference between “cheap” entertainment and good literature.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

There is much more depth here, and that is the reason I love it btw.

The story has lots of conspiracies, hidden identities and other soap opera style elements, it just does, and that’s ok, nothing about that means it can’t have a deeper meaning also.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

And one aspect of the story is the conflict between magic (or magical thinking) and reason (or rationality), where the maesters of the Citadel play a certain part and which mirrors actual historical developments.

No. This is where you go off the rails. There is no historical comparison to magic. And magic in ASoIaF is real. There is nothing rational or scientific about ignoring reality.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

Well - magic is ruining that world. And it used to be declining before the events of the books. Even in this narrow understanding of rationality, it is not irrational to "deny magic".

Yes it is. Rationality and the scientific method aren’t some equal and opposite side of a scale from magic.

They are a way of understanding the world by drawing conclusions from systems of cause and effect. The minute you start denying reality (even if that reality was that magic exists) you aren’t being rational.

20 hours ago, Shagwell the mad jester said:

But it's fine. We don't need to argue about that. My point was simply, that there is not such thing as a "conspiracy theory" here. There is a statement of a character in the book supporting this (therefore it is not a "theory") and it is a conspiracy only in a very broad sense (it's not about a group of people plotting something like a bankrobbery).

What? I’m not sure you understand the words you are using…

Marwyn is suggesting that the Maesters conspired to kill the dragons the last time around, right? That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Especially since the one piece of evidence that he provides to Sam, that Aemon wasn’t made a Grand Maester because of some bias against his blood is refuted by Aemon himself who says he chose the Wall.

We don’t know which of them was telling the truth, but we absolutely have reason to doubt what Marwyn said, especially when it isn’t even clear what Marwyn meant.

[Shagwell the mad jester]

You have your own way of reading the text. That's fine, I don't need to convince you, since you repeatedly pointed out, that you don't understand what I am saying. What I didn't say is, that I am against these "soap opera elements". I enjoy them too. But there's is more to it (even though I am not sure if we can compare GRRM to Shakespeare - Shakespeare wrote much more and finished his works). You don't like that, fine. We can finish the discussion here. And yes, I don't have any reason to doubt, what Marwyn said. Which, in my reading, is something else than you believe he said.