"The Memoirs of Baron de Marbot." Topic

As historians we should always aim to go after original sources. Having spent many happy hours in the National Records Office in Kew delving into the surviving records of the British Special Operations executive; there is a particular pleasure in reading the original reports. Something, as my wife pointed out it can be an emotional rollercoaster – since you know in advance that the story does not have a happy ending. By the same token, when it comes to the memories of the members of the SOE I can determine on which I can put more weight and which I can dismiss out of hand.

Granted the British support for the French Resistance movement has been my main interest for many years I have returned to the Napoleonic period because of my secondary interest in wargaming.

This leads me to a question. I have just finished reading "The Memoirs of Baron de Marbot." It reminded me of my youth, too many years ago now, when I was reading Conan Doyle's "The Exploits of Brigadier Gerard"; so much so that I am half convinced that it was inspiration for Conan Doyle's eponymous hero.

But this leads me to question; why especially so much weight should be given to this work, when other are rejected out of hand?

It is claimed that Jomini's work are unreliable. Yet Jomini is readable – and his "Art of War" infinitely more so than von Causewitz in either translation or the original. As far as I can see main sin that Jomini committed was that he, as a Swiss, changed sides.

Similarly, Fouche and Marmont , could both have the verb "raguser" applied to them,but are they any more selfserving than Marboit.

It has been commented on that memoirs of Bourrienne, are mendacious and quite worthless. But why not dismiss Marbot in similar terms?

Marbot's memoirs were the inspiration for Doyle's Brigadier Gerard!

And I know of no historian that doesn't take Marbot with a bit of a wink and a snort. He was a colorful character, and like all such people of braggadacio and bravado, should be enjoyed for his style, and very much doubted for his facts-which, even when true, are well tailored to fit the story.

Historians take him with a liberal dose of salt.

Some wargamers have taken him as gospel and designed rules around his claims – like the Austrian cuirassiers not having back plates at Alt Eggolfshiem (sp?) in 1809. That might be why they lost – but it might be because they were heavily outnumbered, something Marbot doesn't mention.

I recall an early rules set that gave Austrian cuirassiers -1 for no back plates.

Marbot is valuable because of his insight into regimental life when he was a 'new' hussar as well as being a commander of two light cavalry regiments.

Did he 'remember big?' Sure-but he also painted valuable character sketches for personalities such as Davout.

I would highly recommend the abridged Adventures of Baron Marbot by Thomason which is an outstanding volume.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Regarding the advantages of a full vice a half-cuirass, I believe the issue is, unless I've missed it, that in a melee the full cuirass was an advantage over a half cuirass.

On a related subject, I believe it is relevant that after the 1809 campaign the two French carabiner regiments were put into full cuirass and helmet because of heavy losses.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

Do you think that Marbot exaggerated the actions of St. Cyr after Poltosk? Marbot claimed "The Owl" spent a month alone in a monastery after the battle not caring for the welfare of his troops. This story seems at odds with an officer who went out of his way to ensure that his troops were adequately supplied. I asked because you do seem to accept this version as fact in your book "Once There Where Titans".

Elliott

Elliott,

I don't think Marbot liked St. Cyr, but that to my mind is a cock and bull tale. There wasn't time in Russia to sit in a monastery for a month and I can't see St. Cyr doing that.

While St. Cyr didn't take the time to win his troops' affection, as that wasn't his way, he did not neglect their welfare as he is sometimes accused of doing.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Marbot is one source of many, the problem is, in my view, that Parquin apart, those are the most read and most quoted memoires in English, and for that their claims are mostly seem to be regarded as fact value.

His downfall about Alt Egloffsheim is already noted, the Austrain cuirassiers could have been in full armour there and would have lost due to the odds they faced.

About St. Cyr, one would have to cross check with other memoires about his behaviour at Poltosk.

Again, it is not that the Austrian cuirassiers lost, it is the loss they suffered in the melee because of not having full cuirasses. It is the ratio between the losses the French suffered in the melee and what the Austrians did.

Pelet makes the same remark and apparently both he and Marbot were on the field.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Interestingly enough the Austrians had been only wearing the half cuirasse in western Europe during the wars of the mid 18thC – according to Duffy they only were issued the full armour when fighting the Turks.

I'd rather like to read St Cyr's own account of the campaign but I've not traced down a copy yet.

That's true-and the Prussians also wore half cuirasses. The issue comes up when cavalry with full cuirasses are in a melee with those that don't.

Sincerely,
K