Most painful territorial losses

Aug 2009
5,357
Londinium
Did anyone mention the loss to Britain of the American colonies? There cannot have been a much more grievous loss of territory given how things turned out.
IIRC, this spurned the settlement of Australia and NZ so in terms of geographical territory it far from a net-loss, even if we compare the whole USA rather than 13 colonies. While "loosing" modern day America would've been a disaster, the value of the continent had yet to be truly understood so it wasn't deemed worthwhile pursuing, given the expenditure of the 7 years war previously I suspect it was enough for Canada to be secured both for access to trade commodities/routes (furs plus a possible NW passage) but also a refuge for Loyalists.

Certainly could have been considered an indirect loss to the French Royalists later down the line!
 
Likes: Futurist
This reminds me of the Louisiana purchase by the USA from Napoleon. Wasn't that also a bad loss to the French ?
No. Napoleon maybe could've sold it for more money, but that's really the only ''loss'' to it. The territory was unmaintainable and with it being an ocean away from France, thus being effectively cut off by the British blockade and far away from the action, it was not a very useful territory for Napoleon. He wanted money and he got it, I've also read a claim that he looked at it in a sense that a larger USA would present itself as more of a competitor to Britain and thus stretch Britain further. However I don't know how true this is.

Bottom line is: It wasn't that much of a ''loss'', let alone a crippling one. The territory was next to useless in wartime and not much came of it in peacetime. The actual valuable colony Napoleon lost was Haiti due to the economic losses and military casualties suffered from the attempts to retake it.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
No. Napoleon maybe could've sold it for more money, but that's really the only ''loss'' to it. The territory was unmaintainable and with it being an ocean away from France, thus being effectively cut off by the British blockade and far away from the action, it was not a very useful territory for Napoleon. He wanted money and he got it, I've also read a claim that he looked at it in a sense that a larger USA would present itself as more of a competitor to Britain and thus stretch Britain further. However I don't know how true this is.

Bottom line is: It wasn't that much of a ''loss'', let alone a crippling one. The territory was next to useless in wartime and not much came of it in peacetime. The actual valuable colony Napoleon lost was Haiti due to the economic losses and military casualties suffered from the attempts to retake it.
It's actually pretty cool that a bunch of former slaves managed to defeat the French in Haiti. How'd they do it?

Also, Yes, Napoleon's main focus was on Haiti and on Europe--not on Louisiana.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,344
Spain
Lousiana not even was under French Control when was sold!!!

LA passed from Spain to US... and so to compare the "loss" of LA for France with the loss of Cuba for Spain.... it is a evidence History is not a science but a Cartoon...
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,808
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Lousiana not even was under French Control when was sold!!!

LA passed from Spain to US... and so to compare the "loss" of LA for France with the loss of Cuba for Spain.... it is a evidence History is not a science but a Cartoon...
Technically control was officially passed from Spain to France on one day and then officially passed from France to the USA another day, at New Orleans and at St.Louis. And I have read that due to shortages of officials at least one person had to act as a representative of two different countries on two different days during the official change over ceremonies..
 
Likes: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,344
Spain
Technically control was officially passed from Spain to France on one day and then officially passed from France to the USA another day, at New Orleans and at St.Louis. And I have read that due to shortages of officials at least one person had to act as a representative of two different countries on two different days during the official change over ceremonies..
Exactly.. I agree with you. It was the same day or three flags day... Another reason to understand that Louisiana meant nothing to France and to try to compare LA and France with Cuba and Spain ... is a joke.

I lived in France (both in Europe as in Seaborne)... LA meant nothing and not... LA is not a "French" Cuba... the "French" Cuba is Algeria.
 

Similar History Discussions