So to be clear: you do not have any data regarding the amount of wealth extracted from the German states by the French, vis-a-vis by the Allies, in this period?

Without that, one cannot claim that the Allies extracted more than Napoleon did.

I believe that with all that you have posted in reply only applies to Jerome’s new Kingdom of Westphalia and the states which made up that Napoleonic creation prior to becoming part of the new state in 1807. You’ve posted nothing about the other states of the Confederation, namely Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurttemberg, as well as Saxony.

We can discuss those instead, if you prefer: what are the specific numbers for them? And the sources you used to obtain those numbers?

It doesn't make much sense to demand more data from me, when you haven't provided any at all.

Remember that this sub-thread exists because you made a factual assertion: one that you have made many times before, that the Allies looted the German states far more than Napoleon did. I have asked you repeatedly for data to back up your assertion. The only kind of data that would back it up is numbers - money and property - confiscated by both sides.

And the material you posted prior to the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine is nothing more than outliers, since it is outside the parameters of the existence of the Confederation and therefore not applicable to what I posted.

Since you didn't specify dates I didn't know you wanted to be so specific. And indeed, you just now cited Saxony's losses by treaty after the Napoleonic Wars, which was also "outside the parameters of the existence of the Confederation and therefore not applicable," correct?

Both Brunswick and Hesse-Cassel were opponents of the French, active or not, and the Duke of Brunswick fought for Prussia.

Both states declared their neutrality, although the Duke of B. was personally fighting for the Prussians. In any event, I cited you the precise documents that showed that Napoleon himself recognized Hessian neutrality, even while he was preparing forces to conquer them.

Further, you have posted nothing about the treaty between the minor German states and Napoleon that created the Confederation of the Rhine in July 1806.

What about that treaty, specifically, is relevant to determining the value of wealth extracted by the Allies, vis-a-vis by the French?

Both Prussia and Austria had a habit of trying to absorb the minor German states who wished to retain their independence.

That's another subject, suitable for a different thread. And one we've been over many times. I've repeatedly given you the population figures of German-speaking peoples "absorbed" by France, Austria, and Prussia in the period 1789-1815 (The period under discussion). The French annexed far more Germans than Prussia and Austria, combined. But again, that's getting off-topic.

I would suggest that you look up the data which spelled out the German states’ military contribution to the Confederation of the Rhine. And then try and find out the military contribution demanded by the allies in 1813-1814. I suggest that the latter would be larger.

That's yet again a different topic. We could discuss troop contributions if you prefer, but that should probably be a different thread. You brought up "looting," so I was trying to stick to that topic.

But again, on that topic I would just ask you for the specific numbers and their sources, to back up what you're "suggesting" above.

I also find the idea of French bookkeeping being somehow evil to be utterly amazing.

Nobody said "evil." But it does prove that the French had the very deliberate intention of extracting wealth from many places, over the course of years, and went in with the intention of doing so. Since you, until very recently, claimed it was a "myth" that the French took any wealth at all from the Rhine Confederation, I thought it was important to show that the French had an entire bureaucracy dedicated to that purpose.

Lastly, in any study of the type your illustrating, it might be useful, and certainly more informative, to use other sources besides German ones. The other side of the coin, the French experience, might be useful to get a better and more balanced view of the subject.

I wasn't aware that French contemporary documents like the ones I just shared (see links), or Napoleon's correspondence or the correspondence of his ambassadors were "German" sources, but Okay:

What French sources, specifically, contain the information to which you are referring? In what French records do we find the specific numbers for wealth extracted from, say, Saxony?

Since you are recommending that I use these sources, surely you know, specifically, what you are referring to?

Otherwise, if you are not aware of specific French sources that answer the questions under discussion, then it is disingenuous to demand that somebody use them.

As for Westphalia, Jerome’s new kingdom was created from Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, and parts of Hanover. The new kingdom was given a constitution, which was a reform in itself, as well as legislative power over taxation and the Civil Code applied. Feudalism was ended and equality before the law was now an established principle. There was both civil and religious liberty and the Jews were granted full citizenship. Guilds were suppressed and even peasants sat in the Standeversammlung.

We can change the subject yet again and discuss Westphalia's government if you like, but that seems like yet again a different thread. In any event, Westphalia had no "Standeversammlung" [sic]. If you're referring to the national Reichsstände, then no, there were no peasants sitting in it. Its membership was defined by class and profession. (You can see that in the Westphalian constitution, to which you just referred. See Article 29.) I can explain that organ in detail if you like. Klaus Rob found the names of all the men who ever sat in it. (They only convened twice, so it's not a difficult list.) If you're referring to the mayoral or prefectural councils, those are different things, and yes, peasants were involved in those.

But the idea that you keep repeating that Napoleon drained the Confederation states of funding, or robbed, is just not accurate. As Owen Connelly notes, 'The idea persists that the satellite kingdoms were 'robbed' for the benefit of France. One envisions wagons rolling toward Paris with coin for the imperial treasury...As to treasure wagons, few indeed came from the kingdoms to France. The states contributed largely by supporting French troops within their borders; much of the money they supplied was spent locally, either by army buyers or the troops themselves, to the benefit of native merchants and producers...the tax rate in France was always higher than in the kingdoms.'-Owen Connelly, Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms, 341-342.

I want to make sure our positions are clear: I've provided links showing French documents that detail the confiscation of property and wealth. I've cited the archival sources in which the bills are collected, and I can show you local budgets, coupons and receipts collected by mayors, and the work of dozens of historians who have cited from those sources, from the 19th century down to the present.

You are saying they are "just not accurate", based upon a paragraph from an English-language secondary source.

As we have discussed many times, Owen was the first to admit that he wasn't attempting to do a deep archival dive on any of the chapters in that book, and he used only a handful of sources. He warmly welcomed the work of subsequent scholars who looked into the matter in more detail. I was very glad to have known him in his last years and grateful for his enthusiasm and support.