Talk:Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War

Is this notable?
On 14 November 2011, User:Night of the Big Wind (below, NBW) added Notability and Copy edit warning flags to this article, with the edit summary:  Added and  tags to article (TW) .

On 14 January 2012, User:OKelly asked NBW about this. I noticed the question, as I happened to be awaiting an answer from NBW about a similar issue concerning a poor article on the eminent (if war-unrelated) linguist Hans Marchand. Here is the resulting discussion. (Note my questions toward the end.)

NBW's response to the questions was to delete them. (As was NBW's right, of course.) I judged that notability (even in Wikipedia's strange use of the word) was blazingly obvious and therefore removed the notability warning, saying why. NBW replaced it, with the edit summary Undid revision 471291914 by Hoary (talk). User:Ykraps removed it, with the edit summary Please explain why the financial costs, the burden of which directly contributed to the revolutions in France and America, aren't notable.

Like Ykraps, I should be most interested to learn, whether from NBW or anybody else, how the financial costs are not notable. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * *sigh*, its American, so it always notable. Have it your way, guys! But I still think this could better me merged in American Revolutionary War instead of being a stand alone article. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But the costs were not all American. (And as for the instant Wikipedia-style ersatz "notability" of all things American, no, this is instead all things on American prime-time TV or video games.) In general, if you think that one article should be merged with another, you use merge-related templates -- but anyway, do please say how/why a merge would be better. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be merged into the American Revolutionary War article. I agree it is not notable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Precisely how does it fail to meet GNG? -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on your comment, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, please say why you think it isn't notable. Also please see my comment on British colonisation of Tasmania. OKelly (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An article is deemed notable if it has, "....received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I would suggest this satisfies that criterion. If the suggestion is to merge the article then initiate a merge discussion, don't tag it as not notable.--Ykraps (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709095712/http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Constitution/RoadtotheConstitution/ExhibitObjects/NotWorthAContinental.aspx to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Constitution/RoadtotheConstitution/ExhibitObjects/NotWorthAContinental.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Exchange rates?
Can someone add a table of exchange rates and GDP for the different players in this drama? For example, how does 1.3 billion French livres compare with 250 million British pounds? "Livre" is the French word for "pound" (in this context; in other contexts, it is the French word for "book").

Also, what's 1.3 billion livres as a percent of French Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the time?

Louis XVI complained shortly before he went to the guillotine that the American Revolution bankrupted him. I'd be interested to know how that might have been different if he had been willing to tax his friends. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * a good point that struck me while reading the article. I also wondered how it compares to current values. Going by the measuringworth.com website the British war debt of £2.5 million pounds in 1770s is equivalent to anything from £300 million to £33000 million depending if you use costs of goods in first instance or as relative amount of gdp. I would assume latter to be closer. But that would also be fraught with complex issues so knowing expenditure as % of then economic output or government spend would be best. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in this.
 * I agree that national debt figures should be expressed as a percent of GDP, and the best source I know for that for the UK, the US, Spain and Australia is Measuringworth.com. Their GDP numbers for the UK start in 1270, which is 500 years before the American Revolution!
 * Angus Maddison published numbers he claimed represented GDP numbers back 2000 years. His numbers for 1820 claim that the GDP then was 98% of that of the UK.  Maddison's numbers are controversial, but they are the best I know and probably better than nothing.
 * However, I do not have time to pursue this further at the moment. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on French livre gives the official rate of convertability (exchange rate) of the French livre in terms of gold and silver at the time of the American Revolution. With this and Maddison's numbers, we could convert the French expenses into percent of GDP.
 * The Wikipedia article on the pound sterling is not perfectly clear, by what I've read of it. However, if I understand correctly, after 1697, a pound sterling was valued at that of a pound of silver at 95.83% purity.  If this is accurate, we should be able to convert pounds sterling to French livre at that period.
 * More study would be needed, I think, to establish an exchange rate of the Spanish real.
 * With a little time, I think one could create a table with rates of conversion to silver and GDP, then the cost as a percent of GDP.
 * I suggest someone create such and send an email to MeasuringWorth.com asking for a review -- and perhaps to other scholars mentioned in this and related articles.
 * On the separate question of the extent to which the American revolution bankrupted France, the recent article on "What Economic Issues Troubled France in the Late 1700s?" by Nick Robinson (updated June 25, 2018) might be interesting. Sadly it cites no sources.  However, it looks plausible to me.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What are reales?
As of 2019-01-31 the lede ended, "Spain increased its military spending from 454 million reales in 1778 to over 700 million reales in 1779." Without comment User:69.115.106.29 deleted "to over 700 million".

I'm reverting that deletion, because it seems relevant.

[A source is provided in the body of the article.] DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"fortune" vs. "colossal sum"
May I ask about your changing "fortune" to "colossal sum" in "When the war ended, France had accumulated a debt of 3,315.1 million livres, a fortune at the time"?

In particular it would be good to have this figure as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GPD) of France at that time. More generally it would be good to compare the numbers given with the GDPs for all the countries involved. I'm not prepared to take the time to search for such now, but if I were to look, I might start with the Maddison Project. ??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Add 'Financial debts' section
I propose to move the American Revolutionary War section information that is not otherwise duplicated here, ‘Financial Debts’ to Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War. The ARW article focus is on military events, so I was hoping that any NEW information could find a home here.


 * Financial debts

Congress had immense difficulties financing its war effort. As the circulation of hard currency declined, the Americans had to rely on loans from France, Spain, and the Netherlands, saddling the young nation and its states with crippling debts. Congress attempted to remedy this by printing vast amounts of paper money and bills of credit to raise revenue, but the effect was disastrous: inflation skyrocketed and the paper money became virtually worthless. The inflation spawned a popular phrase that anything of little value was "not worth a continental".

At the start of the war, the economy was flourishing in the colonies in spite of the British blockade. By 1779, however, the economy had almost collapsed. By 1791, the United States had accumulated a national debt of approximately $75.5 million. The French spent approximately 1.3 billion livres aiding the Americans, equivalent to 100 million pounds sterling (13.33 livres to the pound).

Britain spent around £80 million and ended with a national debt of £250 million (£ in today's money), generating a yearly interest of £9.5 million annually. The debts piled upon that which Britain had already accumulated from the Seven Years' War. -

-

-

-
 * posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How did the Americans handle the situation
Idk 67.86.220.154 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)