I think you are a bit confused with the Napoleonic wars as the Louisiana purchase happened in 1803 and the Russian campaign occurred in 1812. As such it is ridulous to say that the second led to the first. Napoleon sold Louisiana because he needed money for his campaigns and avoid conflict with the United States of America over the region and a consequent alliance (even if I think that was unlikely) of the US with Great Britain.
Does anyone still play EUIII? Maybe even prefers it over EUIV?
- Thread starter Kaede11
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think you are a bit confused with the Napoleonic wars as the Louisiana purchase happened in 1803 and the Russian campaign occurred in 1812. As such it is ridulous to say that the second led to the first. Napoleon sold Louisiana because he needed money for his campaigns and avoid conflict with the United States of America over the region and a consequent alliance (even if I think that was unlikely) of the US with Great Britain.
I didn't say the Russian campaign led to the Louisiana purchase. I said overextension lead to the Louisiana purchase, he was overextended far before the Russian campaign.
It should also be noted that he sold the province for a pittance and he was directly in control of some of the richest land in the world - money was not a factor.
The US/British Alliance came MUCH later.
The War of 1812(1812-1815) was fought between Britain and US over Britain disregarding our sovereignty by impressing US Citizens as sailors in the Royal Navy.
and during the American Civil War, Great Britain definitely thought about either entering the conflict on the South's side or unilaterally over the Trent Affair.
The US/UK Alliance of present had its beginnings in World War I and came to fruition in World War II.
I also agree with Cacra......Napoleon was over extended......He sold Lousiana to US because he realized he could never defend it......and he just lost Haiti to a slave rebellion. Might as well get something for it. Reason it was so cheap was the Great Plains were considered at the time the "Great American Desert" thus severely undervaluing the bread basket of the world.
The War of 1812(1812-1815) was fought between Britain and US over Britain disregarding our sovereignty by impressing US Citizens as sailors in the Royal Navy.
and during the American Civil War, Great Britain definitely thought about either entering the conflict on the South's side or unilaterally over the Trent Affair.
The US/UK Alliance of present had its beginnings in World War I and came to fruition in World War II.
I also agree with Cacra......Napoleon was over extended......He sold Lousiana to US because he realized he could never defend it......and he just lost Haiti to a slave rebellion. Might as well get something for it. Reason it was so cheap was the Great Plains were considered at the time the "Great American Desert" thus severely undervaluing the bread basket of the world.
Overextension might have been a factor of the Louisiana purchase (this is a complete aside from the central question but Napoleon wasn't properly an expert regarding overextension) but there were economical and political factors as well) you wrote this: "Napoleon got to Moscow and realised he was ridiculously overextended, [...]". This gives a strong idea to the reader that Napoleon realized any overextension he might have incurring in after he had started his Russian campaign. It's true that the First Consul sold Louisiana for less than tree cents per acre but the riches of those lands weren't completely known and pratically unexploited (I'm making here a small addition to Hootielecce's ideas).
Last edited:
Hootielecce, what I was trying to say was that Napoleon didn't want the United States of America making an "opportunistic" alliance with Great Britain to take Louisiana or at least New Orleans as there was public pressure to enter at war with Spain and France over the trade of New Orleans but that alliance would always be unlikely as I said before given the climate of almost continuous tension in the late 18th and in the early to mid 19th centuries that you described and temporary.
Actually between 1794 and 1805 tensons were a bit lower and what I was saying was an opportunistic alliance just for that moment with the British which would benefit both for a while before returning to business as usual and not an alliance like the one the Americans and the British have today as that was impossible in the 19th century.