Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Baelish Mockingbird

The Iron Bank of Braavos

Recommended Posts

It's fair for the show to pretend that it has been wrapped up neatly in a bow but Westeros is in a very poor state right now and will not be able to afford paying back the Iron Bank.

With the continent being in the state it is in, it's very unlikely that it would be able to repel attacks launched by either different continents or factions within Westeros. What is the Iron Bank decide to fund some of the power hungry Masters who lost almost everything they had in Slaver's Bay. What if Daario and the Second Sons decide that they must avenge their Queen and attack Westeros. What if the Iron Islands actually remember that they wanted independence as well. The Iron Bank wants their money back and will surely fund anyone even half willing to attack Westeros so long as they return the investment. 

It would have been nice to have seen a wrap up with the Iron Banks story. It's not a plot thread which was dropped for being irrelevant. The bank featured in series 7 and funded the Golden Company in series 8, this investment is not going to be forgotten. When Dany was killed, they also defeated the only person who would have given them the edge against the inevitable future sellsword companies wanting to take advantage of the chaos. The Iron Bank wants their money back with interest. The Small council are more interested in using that money to rebuild ships and Kings Landing.

Honestly this is why we needed a longer series. It would have been cool to see Dany sit on the Iron Throne and then make rash decisions such as destroying the Iron Bank after they begin to fund their enemies. The Iron Bank had a role to play in the story and seemingly were just a macguffin for Cersei to have a seemingly stronger defence against Dany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Iron Bank got what it wanted in the end: the threat of an over-powerful dragon-rider on a mission averted, the balance of power and peace restored in Westeros, people who understand about business doing the actual day-to-day ruling ... they wont worry too much about a single particular loan in the short term. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bran's probably due for a trip to the Essos equivalent of Vegas for some gambling to get all the money they need for rebuilding and paying off their debt.

Though to be fair, Cersei's the one who ran up that debt. That would be like expecting her to pay off the money Stannis borrowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zaphodess said:

Maybe the Iron Bank got what it wanted in the end: the threat of an over-powerful dragon-rider on a mission averted, the balance of power and peace restored in Westeros, people who understand about business doing the actual day-to-day ruling ... they wont worry too much about a single particular loan in the short term. ;)

 

It was a pretty large loan though and I honestly do doubt the Iron Bank will forget about it. Having the over powered dragon rider out of the way would be more of a reason for the Iron Bank to press on the Seven Kingdoms to repay the debt. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

Though to be fair, Cersei's the one who ran up that debt. That would be like expecting her to pay off the money Stannis borrowed.

I thought the purpose (correct me if I'm wrong, haven't watched it in a while) to lending Stannis money was that the Iron Bank was backing him to take the Iron Throne back because they thought he would be able to start repaying them once he got it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

It was a pretty large loan though and I honestly do doubt the Iron Bank will forget about it. Having the over powered dragon rider out of the way would be more of a reason for the Iron Bank to press on the Seven Kingdoms to repay the debt. 

Eventually they'll want it back but I doubt they're going to be unreasonable about it.   Their best chance to get it is peace and prosperity in Westeros. And a central government, because they can't claim the Crown's debt from independent Kingdoms and some adventurous foreign invader would be a huge gamble. That's why they backed Cersei in the first place - she was motivated to honour the debt. And so will a government that wants to get back in business.

The current government  of Westeros are actually in a good position to get a deal for a cut of some of the loan or a longer postponement on good terms. They are the ones who keep the remaining Dothraki in check atm. The IB did business with the slavers, but the Bravoosi prefer a slavery free economy. It was Cersei's interpretation that the IB was just a bunch of hypocrites and they probably are to a certain extent. But there's no reason to assume they're not serious about a long-term prospect to abolish slavery everywhere.  All those people who'd suddenly be able to start their own businesses ...  The Dothraki are an obstacle to this goal because their  economy is based on selling their captives as slaves.  They were probably a huge factor in ensuring that slave labour was cheap - cheaper than just paying people for their work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

It was a pretty large loan though and I honestly do doubt the Iron Bank will forget about it. Having the over powered dragon rider out of the way would be more of a reason for the Iron Bank to press on the Seven Kingdoms to repay the debt. 

 

I thought the purpose (correct me if I'm wrong, haven't watched it in a while) to lending Stannis money was that the Iron Bank was backing him to take the Iron Throne back because they thought he would be able to start repaying them once he got it back.

You answered your question yourself here. The iron bank took a gamble with Stannis, as it did with Cersei. They surely don't expect the new King to pay the debt of the dethroned one, since it was by force, and not succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sheiraseastar23 said:

You answered your question yourself here. The iron bank took a gamble with Stannis, as it did with Cersei. They surely don't expect the new King to pay the debt of the dethroned one, since it was by force, and not succession.

That's not my point. My point is that they can always take a gamble with any new invading force which would like to try their hands at Westeros should they ever crop up.

1 hour ago, Zaphodess said:

The IB did business with the slavers, but the Bravoosi prefer a slavery free economy. It was Cersei's interpretation that the IB was just a bunch of hypocrites and they probably are to a certain extent. But there's no reason to assume they're not serious about a long-term prospect to abolish slavery everywhere.  All those people who'd suddenly be able to start their own businesses ...  The Dothraki are an obstacle to this goal because their  economy is based on selling their captives as slaves.  They were probably a huge factor in ensuring that slave labour was cheap - cheaper than just paying people for their work. 

The Dothraki point, sure but I thought I saw them getting back on ships. Probably to go back to Essos and start pillaging all over again. Also is slavery over in Braavos? Sure Dany burned down all of the Masters and decided to change the name of Slaver's Bay to Dragon's Bay but does that really mean slavery is just going to die out in Essos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Baelish Mockingbird said:

The Dothraki point, sure but I thought I saw them getting back on ships. Probably to go back to Essos and start pillaging all over again. Also is slavery over in Braavos? Sure Dany burned down all of the Masters and decided to change the name of Slaver's Bay to Dragon's Bay but does that really mean slavery is just going to die out in Essos?

Braavos is not in Slavers Bay.  The city was founded by escaped slaves from Valyria and is historically a staunch supporter of abolition (they wrote it as a condition in a peace deal with Pentos iirc  )   und they have huge misgivings about dragons - to put it mildly. Officially the city holds up strict anti-slavery laws which forbid the IB to invest in slavery. That's why it was a big deal when Cersei  claimed in S0704 that the IB is invested in slave-related operations and the guy from the bank sort of acknowledged it. It was a wtf moment. I put it down to big business and hypocrisy are natural allies back then but in hind-sight there's more to it imo.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Zaphodess said:

Eventually they'll want it back but I doubt they're going to be unreasonable about it.   ...

This is not the way of bankers, or of anyone else deeply into finances... :)

 

 is an amusing treatment of the IB topic from the book board...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Westeros is under no obligation to pay off the iron bank. to think that is ludicrous. Did the Allies have to pay off Germany's debt after world war 2? The iron bank gambled on a side and lost. Nature of the business. and it's not like there are any GC soldiers left to pay, so how big is that loss anyways? Are we to assume the GC was paid in advance? Or that Cersei had the money In KL, and not just an agreement with the Iron Bank to fund the GC? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the show the Iron Bank basically describes itself as investors. I think it's going to be very hard to justify making a government led by Bran and Tyrion pay back the debts of a woman who they were actively fighting against (or in Bran's case were part of a region that remained independent). 

As far as Slavers Bay, well they described that as a money pit for them since Dany disrupted the slave trade. So they are probably thrilled the Dragon Queen is gone and it can go back to normal once the Second Sons fail to hold onto it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Error-504 said:

Westeros is under no obligation to pay off the iron bank. to think that is ludicrous. Did the Allies have to pay off Germany's debt after world war 2? 

Your comparison is a bit odd, as it's a case in point for the opposite argument. The current German regime is very well responsible for the debts of earlier German regimes, including the Nazis. It's called legal succession ("Rechtsnachfolge"). There's a difference between a foreign winner of a war or an internal opponent winning - in case of revolutions or coups the successful new government is held responsible for the liabilities of their legal predecessors. Whether they honor those debts or not depends on the gamble they are willing to play with international relations and very often on how willing international and business partners are to accomodate the new government to a certain degree. The reason for revolutions are often desperate economical situations or extremely dangerous former governments and it's not unheard of that creditors are willing to  cut a deal - settle for a percentage of the debt instead of losing it all or even give it up as a loss and hope for a recovery of the country. As a long-term investement in more profitable future relations. Or as an investment in peace and stability thorughout the region. If you're looking for examples of every sort of deal ever made in that regard I'd recommend a close study of what happened to the various obligations of the inheriting states of the former communist block in Eastern Europe. There's even a peaceful divorce agreement among it (Czechoslovakia). And of course how German debts from before 1945 were handled and are still being debated occasionally. As a rule of thumb: creditors are hardly ever willing to give up on it completely but they are often very willing to help ensuring that at least something is saved. Not that different from how business failures are usually dealt with actually. Throwing debtors into jail or execute them hardly ever helps getting more out of the mess than an immediate garage sale would provide...

The situation in Westeros is comparable to a revolution, as Cersei was crowned Queen and therefore officially the lawful government - even if her claim on the throne was very debatable, she sat on it and had enough support internally to hold on to it. That makes the debts she incurred legit. The winners could only play the argument that it's not their business if the regions became independent and the a central state was dissolved. But even then it's technically possible for creditors to demand that each part  of the former realm pay their share in the common debt. With not much chance of success - but technically the claim is not completely unreasonable. At least the regions which supported Cersei wouldn't be able to get out of it very easily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Zaphodess said:

Your comparison is a bit odd, as it's a case in point for the opposite argument. The current German regime is very well responsible for the debts of earlier German regimes, including the Nazis. It's called legal succession ("Rechtsnachfolge"). There's a difference between a foreign winner of a war or an internal opponent winning - in case of revolutions or coups the successful new government is held responsible for the liabilities of their legal predecessors. Whether they honor those debts or not depends on the gamble they are willing to play with international relations and very often on how willing international and business partners are to accomodate the new government to a certain degree. The reason for revolutions are often desperate economical situations or extremely dangerous former governments and it's not unheard of that creditors are willing to  cut a deal - settle for a percentage of the debt instead of losing it all or even give it up as a loss and hope for a recovery of the country. As a long-term investement in more profitable future relations. Or as an investment in peace and stability thorughout the region. If you're looking for examples of every sort of deal ever made in that regard I'd recommend a close study of what happened to the various obligations of the inheriting states of the former communist block in Eastern Europe. There's even a peaceful divorce agreement among it (Czechoslovakia). And of course how German debts from before 1945 were handled and are still being debated occasionally. As a rule of thumb: creditors are hardly ever willing to give up on it completely but they are often very willing to help ensuring that at least something is saved. Not that different from how business failures are usually dealt with actually. Throwing debtors into jail or execute them hardly ever helps getting more out of the mess than an immediate garage sale would provide...

The situation in Westeros is comparable to a revolution, as Cersei was crowned Queen and therefore officially the lawful government - even if her claim on the throne was very debatable, she sat on it and had enough support internally to hold on to it. That makes the debts she incurred legit. The winners could only play the argument that it's not their business if the regions became independent and the a central state was dissolved. But even then it's technically possible for creditors to demand that each part  of the former realm pay their share in the common debt. With not much chance of success - but technically the claim is not completely unreasonable. At least the regions which supported Cersei wouldn't be able to get out of it very easily. 

I thought that too. 

Maybe you can swing that they lost the gold they gambled on Stannis?

But the Crown's debt is the Crown's debt.

Makes you consider yet another reason for Jon Arryn to happily tell Bobby B to stfu a la Sansa and marry Cersei like a good boy.

Aerys doesn't strike me as very concerned with finances and Tywin had been gone from KL and management for a while into Robert's Rebellion.

Lannister ftw. Bet you he managed to skim on the accounts. LF was very chummy with the Lannister influence, wasn't he?

 Getting your cake and making the other dude pay for it, Lion style.

 

Edited by It_spelt_Magalhaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 4:17 AM, Zaphodess said:

Your comparison is a bit odd, as it's a case in point for the opposite argument. The current German regime is very well responsible for the debts of earlier German regimes, including the Nazis. It's called legal succession ("Rechtsnachfolge"). There's a difference between a foreign winner of a war or an internal opponent winning - in case of revolutions or coups the successful new government is held responsible for the liabilities of their legal predecessors. Whether they honor those debts or not depends on the gamble they are willing to play with international relations and very often on how willing international and business partners are to accomodate the new government to a certain degree. The reason for revolutions are often desperate economical situations or extremely dangerous former governments and it's not unheard of that creditors are willing to  cut a deal - settle for a percentage of the debt instead of losing it all or even give it up as a loss and hope for a recovery of the country. As a long-term investement in more profitable future relations. Or as an investment in peace and stability thorughout the region. If you're looking for examples of every sort of deal ever made in that regard I'd recommend a close study of what happened to the various obligations of the inheriting states of the former communist block in Eastern Europe. There's even a peaceful divorce agreement among it (Czechoslovakia). And of course how German debts from before 1945 were handled and are still being debated occasionally. As a rule of thumb: creditors are hardly ever willing to give up on it completely but they are often very willing to help ensuring that at least something is saved. Not that different from how business failures are usually dealt with actually. Throwing debtors into jail or execute them hardly ever helps getting more out of the mess than an immediate garage sale would provide...

The situation in Westeros is comparable to a revolution, as Cersei was crowned Queen and therefore officially the lawful government - even if her claim on the throne was very debatable, she sat on it and had enough support internally to hold on to it. That makes the debts she incurred legit. The winners could only play the argument that it's not their business if the regions became independent and the a central state was dissolved. But even then it's technically possible for creditors to demand that each part  of the former realm pay their share in the common debt. With not much chance of success - but technically the claim is not completely unreasonable. At least the regions which supported Cersei wouldn't be able to get out of it very easily. 

You need to pay better attention to the response for your reply to be relevant, or make any sense for that matter. 

I said, and I quote

"Did the Allies have to pay off Germany's debt after world war 2"

Babbling on about Germany, and it's war reparations has exactly what to do with anything? Germany was left pretty much intact, to rule itself, under a negotiated surrender. Reparations were part of that agreement. The Allies did not occupy nor did they take over Germany. 

Why do you think the Iron Bank always wants to bet on the winning side? The meaning, while implied, is certainly clear. The losing side doesn't pay it's debt. After the revolutionary war, the US honored no debt to England, only to it's backers (France and the Netherlands). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Error-504 said:

Why do you think the Iron Bank always wants to bet on the winning side? The meaning, while implied, is certainly clear. The losing side doesn't pay it's debt

They totally should fire the guy who fell for Davos' sob story, then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 3:10 AM, lancerman said:

In the show the Iron Bank basically describes itself as investors. I think it's going to be very hard to justify making a government led by Bran and Tyrion pay back the debts of a woman who they were actively fighting against (or in Bran's case were part of a region that remained independent). 

Yet I'm not talking about Bran paying back the Iron Bank. The Seven Kingdoms are very week and the Iron Bank could just as easily invest in anyone else who may want to take over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×