I had heard years ago but never found any evidence to support the claim that the sale of the Louisiana Territory didn’t go far at all in sustaining the Grande Armée. I have not found any information. on the daily costs of maintaining the Grande Armée. Would it have run into the millions of dollars per day?
My understanding is that Louisiana was sold (1803] to finance the building of the Grande Armee (1804), not it’s maintenance. A lot of the food and supply would, by necessity, come from the spoils of conquest.
Thanks for that correction Elmer_J. Fudd. I have. not found any specifics on how precisely he used the proceeds from the sale of the the Louisiana Territory/ La Louisiane.
It’s worth noting that about a quarter of the total amount the U.S. paid to purchase the Louisiana Territory was in the form of U.S. assumption of French debts to American citizens. That portion would have yielded no immediate capitol influx for Napoleon to build/sustain his army.
To be honest, that whole cash transaction makes no sense to me. The US didn’t have $15 million and the cash came from a British bank (at 6% over 15 years). British cash was effectively funding the creation of a force intended to invade Britain.
The Grande Armée mostly fed itself by looting, as was common in the day. La Maraude
This thread is bringing fond memories of Civ 3.
The spending of the 1st Empire was about 550 millions francs yearly in 1801, growing regularly to reach 1000 millions in 1811, so 50 more millions per year each year. So the Louisiana get only 80 millions francs or 1,5 year of increased income. Not much.
When Wellesley became commander of the British Peninsular Army, he insisted on paying the locals for supplies and curbed looting. This won him a lot of support in Portugal and in Spain.
Curbed looting from the civilians. It was considered de rigueur to loot the French.
So this a bit of an anachronistic way of thinking about. The idea of that a nation state at war would expect its entire economy to become part of the conflict (and it was unacceptable for private entities to have advantageous financial dealings with the other side), was not a thing at the start of the Napoleonic wars.
As with so much about modern warfare (and modern life and international relations generally) that concept was borne out of the Napoleonic wars (and the gradual tit-for-tat escalation of economic warfare between France and Britain over the course of the conflicts). But in 1803 it would not have been obviously ridiculous that a British bank would fund the french, even if they were at war, or about to be at war with Britain (one of those tit-for-tat escalations was the failed attempt by the British government to prevent the last payment for the purchase being delivered to the French in 1804)
The fact that part of the American payment came in the form of debt forgiveness and that the French sold the bonds they received at a discount to Barings meant that the French actually received under $10 million in hard cash for the territory.
After purchase by Barings, the bonds were then sold to the investing public in London. Thanks to the discount and fees they obtained from the French, underwriting the deal likely made Barings a more than decent profit. The deal also served Britain’s national interest, which was why the British government allowed it to proceed even after the start of the War of the Third Coalition against France in May 1803. They were pleased to see the Americans, as opposed to the hostile French, bordering their own North American possessions in Canada and the Pacific Northwest. Britain’s Prime Minister thought £1 million a small price to pay for this security (at the exchange rate of 4 shilling and 6 pence per dollar, the entire face value of the bond issue came to a little over £1 million)
What’s your source for this quote?
Indeed. A famous example for this, frequently cited in financial history books, is the Russian government bond floated in London during the Crimean War to fund the Russian military. The idea of financial sanctions as part of a country’s weaponry in a conflict is a pretty recent one.
Thanks!
That whole article is very enlightening.