"Most/Least Loyal of Napoleon's Marshals?" Topic

I imagine the list might look something like this:

Most Loyal: Poniatowski, Lannes, Soult

Least Loyal: Bernadotte, Marmont, Ney, Augereau

However, having posed this question, I freely admit that I think it is totally unfair. I really believe that Napoleon was one of history's great nutjobs, and when the various Marshals jumped ship reflected on their intelligence more than on their loyalty.

Bernadotte was a case in point. He is often castigated for failing to use the Swedes to support the Russian invasion, but what would have happened if he had? A lot of dead Swedes, and probably his new kingdom invaded, all so Napoleon could see exactly how much ground he could claim to be Emperor of at any one time.

It's not disloyalty to jump ship if the captain's a nut.

Guess it depends if you are pro-French or not.
I don't think Napoleon was a 'nutjob', but do think Bernadotte should have been shot for his incompitance in 1806 and 1809.
Marmont probably did the right thing for the situation in 1814.

Cliff

most loyal, Davout by far…

Davout and Lannes for most loyal.

Bernadotte is the easy call for least, Marmont and Mortier were not exactly stunning. Character is what you demonstrate in defeat far more so than in victory, no one leaves their friends when the going is easy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Poniatowski was loyal but not so much to napoleon but his cause. Plus he was only mashall for a day.

Davout most
Bernadotte least

Mephistopheles!

I'm on your side mate. "Nutjob" is the most apt description I have ever encountered regarding that bloke.

Anyway, I reckon Nutoleon's Marshall-mates knew where their bread was buttered. They were all great men. They served what became their countries empire, from a revolutionary republic, then many went on to serve or be recognized by their country, under the return of the Bourbons, and beyond.

Davoust, most loyal, under this thread.
Bernadotte, (and the thread that disproves this category would go for ever) – most disloyal, but ultimately, the most successful category.

Battes

@ Bandit.
"Mortier were not exactly stunning"
Why do you write this? I thought Mortier was rock solid.

So Napoleon was a nutjob, huh? Yeah, right. As for the marshals being all 'great men', that's a palpable nonsense, I'm afraid, particularly in light of calling their commander a 'nutjob'.

Davout was loyal, as was Suchet. Moncey rates pretty well, too.

Bernadotte and Marmont were not. Kellermann does not come out of 1815 too well either. Perignon was also struck from the list of marshals. How one can put Ney down into the camp of the more disloyal is a mystery as well – and please, nobody dig out the "iron cage" quote as a serious piece of evidence.

Bernadotte's conduct in October 1806 was beyond incompetent.

Marmont committed treason in 1814, was not always known to be honest, had an immense ego which contributed to his treason in 1814. He also fiddled with the War Ministry records to 'improve' his 1813 performance in the field.

Davout refused to take an oath to the Bourbons in 1814. He was also scrupulously honest and was known as 'The Just' by his troops.

I would also submit that the most important marshal, as stated by Napoleon himself, was Berthier.

Mortier was noted for loyalty in 1814.

I would also submit that Bernadotte was only the 'most successful' because he was dishonorable. He chose to go out on his knees, becoming nothing but a client to Alexander, and not on his feet. How you conduct yourself is also important, not how you finally end up personally. Bernadotte, as well as Marmont, were skunks of the first order.

Sincerely,
Kevin

You can tell a lot by looking at those who condemned Ney and those who did their best to save him. Obviously that doesn't apply to those who had already died… ;)

"nutjob"?
Like him, loathe him or have an objective opinion about Napoleon are all fine but "nutjob"?
Loyalty is a test of character. It may have been a pragmatic decision for Marmont to abandon Napoleon. Even a sensible decision.
But not one wed admire him for taking.

I think Bernadotte has always gotten a bad rap. Sweden makes him thier king and from that point one, most of his decisions are made based on what is best fro the Swedes. Seems to me that's the way teh king should act. Claiming he was disloyal for that is like saying a person is disloyal, if, after changing companies, he refuses to give preferential treatment to his old employer. I've always admired Bernadotte for his capable leadership and brave decisions made on the behalf of his adopted country.

But Bernadotte didn't start out as the Swedish King. He tried to stab Napoleon in the back a number of times as well as his fellow marshals. He may have made a wonderful king, but he was disloyal in the extreme in French service

Bernadotte's case is not a simple one of loyal/disloyal. Bernadotte considered Honour to be more important. One wonders how much Desiree Clery and Josephine affected his relations with Napoleon. Bernadotte knew Napoleon's very private side and Bernadotte, unlike so many others, always regardad Napoleon as someone no better than himself.

Should one be loyal to one's friends when they make mistakes or gross errors in judgement or does perhaps true loyalty demand that you prevent them from making those mistakes.

Bernadotte, I believe, never equated Napoleon with France or the Revolution. He could honourably remain loyal to France and the Revolution while defying Napoleon.

@ Everyone who asked, because I wrote it really late at night after playing pool at a bar (infers heavy drinking) with some pals and somehow managed to cross Mortier with Massena. So to clarify:

Massena's loyalty was not stellar, no comment made about Mortier.

Cheers & Apologies,

The Bandit

Most: MacDonald

Least: Bernadotte

Bernadotte's performance both in 1806 and 1809 are anything but honorable. Leaving Davout out to dry was a failure to support a colleague and was a deliberate disobedience of orders. Further, he kept his corps out of action completely on 14 October, another act that was dishonorable. Bernadotte was for Bernadotte, and nothing else.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Never liked Beenadotte. started when I read Chandlers Campaigns and the more I read the less I like.

for some reason we have a huge statue of him out side of our castle at the head of our main steet.

never did seem right as he was the one that did bring norway under sweden with force after we had gained freedom from Denmark.

I not saying would should tear down the statue sadam style, but mabye move it to some park, and get a norwegian king up there instead

"but what would have happened if he had? A lot of dead Swedes"

If Bernadotte was such a great Commander then perhaps he could have committed those Swedes and had a number of victory's with little loss.

1806 and 1809 show Bernadotte for what he was the most disloyal and undependable commander of his time.

If I had been Nap I would have had him tried for his lack of action on Oct 14 and shot in front of the Brandenburg Gate.

But that's just me.

Most Loyal: Lannes.

Least loyal has to be Marmont, Duc de Raguse.

There is a reason why the French verb raguser translates into English as "to betray".

"Bernadotte's case is not a simple one of loyal/disloyal. Bernadotte considered Honour to be more important. One wonders how much Desiree Clery and Josephine affected his relations with Napoleon. Bernadotte knew Napoleon's very private side and Bernadotte, unlike so many others, always regarded Napoleon as someone no better than himself."

The reason Bernadotte thought he was as good as Napoleon was because he was stupefyingly arrogant and conceited. His disloyalty stemmed from a bad dose of envy and he turned on his country the second he could.

As for Rich Bliss trying to equate loyalty to one's country with loyalty to a company, that just shows either a poor grip of reality or a particularly inappropriate analogy.

blucher "Poniatowski was loyal but not so much to napoleon but his cause. Plus he was only mashall for a day."

It's something of a technical call. I almost extended things to include his senior generals. Prince Eugene was a Marshal in all but name, and he was certainly extremely loyal. Poniatowski, as you point out, didn't have the baton too long.

Old Bear "So Napoleon was a nutjob, huh?"

Yep.

"Kellermann does not come out of 1815 too well either."

I've always thought that was unfair. I think there does come a point when you are just legitimately too damn old to go adventuring.

Kevin Kiley "I would also submit that Bernadotte was only the 'most successful' because he was dishonorable. He chose to go out on his knees, becoming nothing but a client to Alexander"

how, precisley, was the King of Sweden going to accomplish anything else? Maybe invade Russia while the Czar wasn't looking?

11th ACR "If Bernadotte was such a great Commander then perhaps he could have committed those Swedes and had a number of victory's with little loss."

This isn't about his abilities in the field, but about loyalty.

***

Also, having re-read this thread, and my initial post, I think you guys are right in that my leaving Davout out is a hole in my list.

However, I'm surprised no one (including me) mentioned Murat. Signor Franconi, while brave, was not one of Napoleon's most loyal.

As to you who have mentioned Napoleon's 1815 prison break and his acts of burglary, murder and vandalism that followed, that is just crap. The Hundred Days was adventuring pure and simple. He had absolutely no chance even if he had won at Waterloo. All that was going to be accomplished was what was, more dead people.

IMO, anybody who followed him at Waterloo was either disloyal to France, or just not thinking straight.

Most : Ney (the bravest of the bravest stayed untill the end)
Least : Bernadotte and Murat

"As to you who have mentioned Napoleon's 1815 prison break and his acts of burglary, murder and vandalism that followed, that is just crap. The Hundred Days was adventuring pure and simple. He had absolutely no chance even if he had won at Waterloo. All that was going to be accomplished was what was, more dead people.

IMO, anybody who followed him at Waterloo was either disloyal to France, or just not thinking straight."

Frankly your opinions are pretty much discredited with the repeated assessment of Napoleon being a 'nutjob'. Look at the title of this group of forums. is it called 'Wellingtonian'? No. 'Bernadottian'? No. 'Kutuzovian'? No.

And as for Kellermann, age has no bearing on loyalty that I am aware of.

As for 'burglary, murder and vandalism'. You missed out 'rape' and you sound like a social worker.

Old Bear "Frankly your opinions are pretty much discredited with the repeated assessment of Napoleon being a 'nutjob'. Look at the title of this group of forums. is it called 'Wellingtonian'? No. 'Bernadottian'? No. 'Kutuzovian'? No."

Uh, dude, you really need to take a deep breath. It's called "Napoleonic" because he kicked up the biggest ruckus, but when the dust cleared, he hadn't accomplished all that much other than getting a lot of people killed. Sounds like a good definition of "nutjob" to me.

Try to look at the period not so much from Napoleon's viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of the average Saxon tailor or Tuscan farmer. There were a lot more of them than there were of French generals, after all, and looking at it from that viewpoint -maybe the third time my farm got foraged, my business burnt to the ground, or my wife and daughters raped, yeah, I might wonder about the sanity of the guy who was making it all happen.

But, more importantly, do you really think that Napoleon's Hundred Days was the act of a responsible statesman? Europe was so terrified of him, and so ready to mobilize against him, and France was so exhausted, do you really think that he could have won?

That is the real test of whether my opinions are discredited, not whether I think Nappy was nuts.

In fact, this needs its own thread.

Grouchy was loyal even tough he got his Marshals Baton during the 100 days. He couldhave sided with the King, he being very high aristocracy, but sided with Bonaparte instead. He also conducted the retreat from waterloo very admirably.

"As for Rich Bliss trying to equate loyalty to one's country with loyalty to a company, that just shows either a poor grip of reality or a particularly inappropriate analogy."

I've got a pretty good grip on reality, thank you. As for the aptness of my analogy. I'll stand by it. You may not agree but, that's fine. Loyalty is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

Actually, Napoleon didn't 'kick up the biggest ruckus' as he inherited the wars upon becoming head of state. It was Great Britain that broke the Treaty of Amiens, not France, and Napoleon was not the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, or 1815. As he was not the aggressor, you can lay the blood of those campaigns on someone else's door, probably 'English gold' would be a good place to start.

As for Napoleon's mental state, I would submit that he was more sane than his fellow heads of state, especially George III, and was a better administrator, reformer, and law giver than any of them. And his record of reform, fiscal policy, and civic improvements are far better than any of his contemporaries.

Sincerely,
Kevin

10th Marines "Actually, Napoleon didn't 'kick up the biggest ruckus' as he inherited the wars upon becoming head of state. It was Great Britain that broke the Treaty of Amiens, not France, and Napoleon was not the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, or 1815."

Amazing how he never started a fight but always ended up ruling other people's countries. Did Spain attack him too?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Murat in this discussion.

Personally, I see Marmont as least and Davout as most.

Davout and Lannes definitely most, imo.

Suchet probably too, though circumstance regulated him to the background.

Soult hung in there too.

If the question applies to the loyalty of MARSHALS across the WHOLE period from start to finish then I'd vote for Davout & Lannes as the most loyal and Marmont & Bernadotte as the least loyal.

(With respect to Bernadotte the question is about his time as a Marhsal of France not his time as King of Sweden)

Most : Ney (the bravest of the bravest stayed untill the end)

So loyal that he accepted a position from Louis XVIII. Then switched back to Napoleon. Then tried to switch back to Louis.

It was Great Britain that broke the Treaty of Amiens, not France, and Napoleon was not the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809, or 1815

A -very- narrow interpretation of events there, Kevin.

'Napoleons a nut job', 'Napoleons a nut job hahaha'. Hey Mephisto cruise over to The Rum Corp Tavern mate. Everyone there knows for a fact Napoleon was a nut job – they Aussies too, plus others, mostly from the mother country…

You like it there, check Battes out – I'm trying to defeat heresy at the highest order, dont change the fact that 'Napoleons a nut job'

Oh Yeah!
Battes

"I've got a pretty good grip on reality, thank you. As for the aptness of my analogy. I'll stand by it. You may not agree but, that's fine. Loyalty is in the eye of the beholder, after all."

The difference, Rich, is that if you I am your boss at a company I will hopefully be giving you a great CV. If I am the boss of your country I'll have you shot for treason. Countries aren't something you casually switch, or rather they didn't used to be, and certainly not in the middle of a a war when you are one of the leading generals.

In fact, try being a senior businesssman and pushing off to a rival without consultation and with a bag of trade secrets to sell, and then acting in an openly hostile manner to your old company. That won't go down too well either.

"But, more importantly, do you really think that Napoleon's Hundred Days was the act of a responsible statesman? Europe was so terrified of him, and so ready to mobilize against him, and France was so exhausted, do you really think that he could have won?

That is the real test of whether my opinions are discredited, not whether I think Nappy was nuts.

In fact, this needs its own thread."

I believe napoleon himself was quoted as saying 'Before Grenoble I was an adventurer; after Grenoble, I was a ruling prince,' or words to that effect. Yes, the 100 Days started out like something out of a corny roleplaying adventure, but we aren't dealing with a run-of-the-mill bloke. As for winning, of course it was possible. All told he was outnumbered 2-1, but if he had successfully crushed Wellington and Blucher that would have really put the cat amongst the pidgeons. France was tired, but so was everybody else. Briitain had nobody credible to replace Wellington and we were pretty strapped for manpower too. It could well have brought the government down and a change of government could easily have led to a change of tack. Nobody knows for sure, but it bears thinking about.

We are dealing with very probably the greatest individual the planet has ever seen. Yes, I know that's entirely subjective, but many notable historians would agree, and even if he wasn't outright top he'll make most people's top five.

According to David Chandler written in 1965, over 250,000 books have been written about the man and his achievements. That's clearly rather more than most people get. I don't want to resort to book quotes but while the word 'genius' amongst others appears in histories about the man with fairly regular frequency, neither 'nutjob', nor any serious suggestion of insanity do. Marshal Victor, I believe, once said that while he feared no man, upon meeting Napoeleon the sheer power of the man shook his nerves like nothing before.

I'm not saying Napoleon was perfect. He wasn't, but nobody is, and when one reads of hgis colossal achievements, both civil and military, it is very hard to see where the term 'nutjob' applies. By all means, we can expand out and discuss it (I'm more than happy to start a new thread if you fancy) but I'd be most interested to read a justification for the statement.

"'Napoleons a nut job', 'Napoleons a nut job hahaha'. Hey Mephisto cruise over to The Rum Corp Tavern mate. Everyone there knows for a fact Napoleon was a nut job – they Aussies too, plus others, mostly from the mother country…

You like it there, check Battes out – I'm trying to defeat heresy at the highest order, dont change the fact that 'Napoleons a nut job'

Oh Yeah!
Battes"

Does your mother know you have access to the family computer?

Hey Old Bear,
"I ain't the One" :The Angels

Fantastic, Aussie Band mate, it's all good.
Wear it.

And "Take Me away to Marseille" while you at it.

Battes

Old Bear: grip it mate, it's all good.
B

Battes, I have to respect the fact you're clearly having a good time! :)

Better than good mate….ta

Least Loyal : All those who served under the Bourbons in 1814 after napoleon abdicated, like Berthier etc.

Most loyal : All those who did not serve under the Bourbons in 1814

It is in no way disloyal to serve under the Bourbons after Napoleon's abdication. Their first duty is, certainly, to their nation and Napoleon had, afterall, abdicated. He could not begrudge any of them for continuing to serve their nation. For some, raised in the revolution, it would have been a betrayal of their principles but for pragmatists, working for the restoration should not be equated with working for the enemy.

Having trouble with the idea that any of the marshals serving Napoleon during the hundred days (aside from Davout) can be considered most loyal. To Napoleon, maybe, but in general no. So Suchet, Mortier, Brune, Soult … the guys who swore an oath to Louis and then violated it – disloyal pretty much by definition. Those who chose honor over inclination – MacDonald, Oudinot, St. Cyr, Berthier – certainly have more claim to "loyalty" in the true sense.

But then are we talking about personal loyalty to Napoleon the individual, loyalty to France and her best interests, or loyalty as in honor and upholding their oaths? I'll give you three different lists depending on which we're talking about.

As far as those who died in action like Lannes and Bessieres, no fair. They didn't get to take the final exam!

Macdonald is not a good one to use as an example of an honourable man.

Old Bear,

There is a question of debate between honor and loyalty. Massena was a thief and a betrayer, but I don't think the fact that he was a thief made him a betrayer. Had Massena stayed with Napy there would be an argument that he was dishonorable but loyal.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I don't think Massena was overly disloyal, although he put himself and his looting above everything, especially when he got to Spain.

When your ethics and actions reflect upon the image of your 'master', you are disloyal if, by your base actions, you allow the perception of your master to degrade.