40 Wallenstein
credited an average of 78 gulden per mark, while Bassevi provided over
25 per cent, probably near the beginning and largely scrap, as he was
credited only 46 gulden per mark. Nevertheless it may safely be assumed
that they made a useful profit. The other thirteen members contributed
less than 3 per cent of the silver between them, but Liechtenstein was
credited 569 gulden per mark, somewhere around ten times its likely
cost, and the ten unknowns only a little less, 440 on average, while
Michna received 248.^8 These generous payments obviously related
to the recipients’ political importance rather than to their practical
contribution to the consortium, and they show a clear pecking order.
Irrespective of whether the silver cost them 40, 55 or over 79 gulden
per mark, most of their credits will have been profit, limited only by
the fact that the quantities were relatively modest. Liechtenstein, who
contributed only a small fraction of the silver, must have made around
400,000 gulden.
Wallenstein supplied a great deal more silver than the other non-
financiers, over six times as much as Liechtenstein and more than the
unknown ten put together, but he was credited much less for it, only
123 gulden per mark. This price suggests that he was still relatively
unimportant politically, while one possible explanation for the larger
quantity is that he actually had silver to sell. Silver tableware was very
popular with the well-to-do, both as a portable form of wealth and for
purposes of ostentation, and hence it became an equally popular form
of war booty, so that Wallenstein may have been able to buy it from
other officers in addition to what he had himself acquired. His 5000
marks of silver corresponds to a credit of 615,000 gulden, and after
allowing for the relevant share of minting costs and the exchequer’s fee
this indicates a profit of some 290,000 gulden if he bought his silver at
the presumptive average price of 55 gulden per mark. This is broadly
in line with one of the enquiry’s tables, which indicates that he made
240,000 gulden.^9
It has been suggested that the consortium actually debased the coins
beyond the agreed 79 per mark, but this is highly improbable. That type
of fraud was well known, the analysis of the silver content of a coin is
a simple matter, the responsible officials would have been watching
carefully, and the risk would have been too high for financiers and
impressive names alike. It is nevertheless possible that some low-value
coins were adulterated, but probably as a smaller-scale fraud carried
out at a lower level in the mints. Otherwise it does not appear that the
consortium actually did anything wrong, although it has subsequently
attracted a great deal of odium. The facts are that the principals entered