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

Doing daft things which reflect badly on those above you does not by any means immediately intimate disloyalty. More likely, it implies incompetence.

Immorality is a concious decision and therefore disloyal. Incompetence is unconcious and though is incompetent, is not disloyal. You have likely not chosen to be incompetent.

Napoleon released the general officers from their oath when he abadicated, so they were free to serve Louis and continue to serve their country.

It should also be remembered that Louis and his entourage ran to Belgium because the troops were going over to Napoleon as he marched to Paris. So much so that Napoleon sent Louis a not that he (Louis) didn't have to send Napoleon any more troops, he had enough.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stavka,

It's also an accurate one.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Interesting how Kevin blames "English gold" for the war of 1805-12.

I'd say that was narrow too – the 1809 campaign could be seen as a reaction to Napoleon's intervention in Spain – the Austrians broke a treaty with the French because they fearer the Napoleon would do to them what he was doing in Spain – removing the current monarchy and replacing it through nepotism with a stooge.

The 1812 campaign results from another unequal treaty leaving one side seriously economically disadvantaged. The Continental System was just as much, if not more, to blame.

Elliott

I don't agree about 1809 Elliott. From what I read, being detrone by Napoleon was not a fear of the Habsburg (rightly so, as the marriage of Napopleon with Marie-Louise proved that). It was good ol' revenge, combined with what he saw as a great opportunity, that motivated the Emperor (against the sound advice of his brother Charles).

Now, 1812 and the Continental System, that's all Napoleon. Probably his two biggest mistakes.

The Continental System has me scratching my head. Did not the British have the exact same system of trade restrictions on France that they enforced on their allies? Was not the Continental System France's response to British trade practises and blockades?

Old Bear "We are dealing with very probably the greatest individual the planet has ever seen."

Oh, I dunno. Jesus, Mohammed, Einstein, Mozart, Abraham Lincoln, Galileo, Gregory the Great, Mother Theresa and Father Damien constitute my top ten. For me, Napoleon is pretty far down the list. He was a genius, I'd agree, but so what? His genius served no purpose other than to aggrandize himself and get a a lot of people killed. When he finally died in St. Helena, Europe had pretty well snapped back to what it was before.

As to my top ten list? Some of them were geniuses, some were not even all that bright. All of them built things that survived.

But to answer your question directly, yes, I think that there comes a point when your ego so overpowers all else and leads you to such ridiculous straits that the word "nutjob" covers you quite nicely, whatever your native abilities and achievements might have been.

"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."

So Davout was the dumb marshal?

Really??? I never would have figured that out based on … history.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Vendome hit it on the head on the last page, where he sought a clearer definition of "loyal".

We also should make allowances for how a very different society operated and very different sets of motivations on the part of the participants. We can't see their actions through an early 21st century filter. How might they be judged under their OWN lights?

That said, Davout was certainly a die-hard Bonapartist and any list defined in that way has got to include him among the top.

And admirable as I find Lannes in the course of his life, it is perhaps unfair to judge him among the others since his premature death forestalled any possible defections he may have come to contemplate by 1814-1815.

Bandit "So Davout was the dumb marshal? Really??? I never would have figured that out based on … history."

Well, Bernadotte ended up a king. Davout (who eventually reconciled with the Bourbons, btw) ended up a mayor. Do the math.

So as long as you do well by yourself, no matter how you do it, that's OK and admirable. Interesting, odd and without apparent standards, but interesting.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Elliott,

The term 'English gold' was used by the French when something went wrong. It was similar to 'a la Brune' as a term meaning 'all fouled up.' I should have explained that better.

However, it is an accurate assessment regarding British subsidies that the coalitions could not have taken the field as often as they did without British subsidies. Have you seen the book Guineas and Gunpowder?

Sincerely,
Kevin

It seems funny that the discussion is about a 'Nutjob' and his Marshals loyalties, especially when you see that he abandoned his army (on more than one occasion) when the going got tough.
His loyalty was to himself no-one else. So I choose Lannes(who I named my son after) at least he died a hero & didn't have to see his brave soldiers frittered away on constant campaigns following said ‘nutjob'.

Paul

Bandit "So Davout was the dumb marshal? Really??? I never would have figured that out based on … history."

The guy who likes to call himself Mephistopeles "Well, Bernadotte ended up a king. Davout (who eventually reconciled with the Bourbons, btw) ended up a mayor. Do the math"

Dibble "It seems funny that the discussion is about a 'Nutjob' and his Marshals loyalties, especially when you see that he abandoned his army (on more than one occasion) when the going got tough."

So, if selfishness and power attainment is the mark of rational and reasonable men, and Napoleon selfishly abandoned his troops for his own betterment, then truly the nutjob advocates have proven that in fact Napoleon represents the height of rationality in that he demonstrates the height of selfishness.

malcolmmcallum
I do not regard Napoleon a 'NUTJOB'. what I do see is a man who didn't know when to stop killing his own and other nations soldiers, who, when you really look at it, treated his army like a working dog, to be used and abused, & thrown a few scraps (baubles) now and again just to keep up an illusion of caring. A very clever man who even now has his followers
The ultimate crime of any general is to abandon your men at a time of greatest need (Especially for self aggrandisement)
Most of his generals may have idolised him. Did he idolise them?

Paul

"Well, Bernadotte ended up a king. Davout (who eventually reconciled with the Bourbons, btw) ended up a mayor. Do the math."

Wow. Fail.

That is your support for Davout was dumb for being loyal and Bernadotte was smart for leaving early?

If someone ever have a cause worth fighting for, they'd better not invite ya along unless the end includes a high likelihood of riches and notoriety huh?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Dibble "The ultimate crime of any general is to abandon your men at a time of greatest need (Especially for self aggrandisement)"

He never abandoned them. He left them in the hands of subordinates that were capable.

In Russia, it would have been irresponsible to France to remain with the army. He was a head of state. Do not imagine that any other nation's head of state would have shared a fraction of what he did with his soldiers.

Leaving the army like he did in Russia was exactly the correct thing to do, morally and practically.

"Oh, I dunno. Jesus, Mohammed, Einstein, Mozart, Abraham Lincoln, Galileo, Gregory the Great, Mother Theresa and Father Damien constitute my top ten. For me, Napoleon is pretty far down the list. He was a genius, I'd agree, but so what? His genius served no purpose other than to aggrandize himself and get a a lot of people killed. When he finally died in St. Helena, Europe had pretty well snapped back to what it was before."

Of the others, it's fine for you to have an opinion but outside a few right-on types you won't get that much support. Not one of them accomplished a fraction of what Napoleon did.

yes Napoleon was a genius, only in one thing, in propaganda, see also the Dictionnaire Napoléon

- Well, Bernadotte ended up a king. Davout (who eventually reconciled with the Bourbons, btw) ended up a mayor. Do the math –

Since when success alone accounts for the measure of a man? By your logic, I guess Staline was a great man…

ArchiducCharles "Since when success alone accounts for the measure of a man? By your logic, I guess Staline was a great man…"

BOy, a little sarcastic humor is just beyond some of us, isn't it. I did not mean that seriously. I only meant it to say that the comparison is asinine.

Old Bear "Well, [Jesus and Mohamed] are a pair of frauds who have been responsible for the s of many times more in their names than Napoleon ever did.

Okay… You got some issues to work out man. Love ya.

malcolmmcallum
I'm sorry but if "Bounaparte" leaves thousands of dead leading all the way back to Moscow, then he has the moral duty to stay with his men, after all, they loyally stood by him. But I suppose the old habits cliché is apt on this occasion.

So . That makes perfect sense.

Dibble,

And which 'old habits' are they?

Sincerely,
K

Kevin
Sorry
I should have said: But maybe he was Getting into the habit of B*****ing off when the chips were down.

malcolmmcallum
Thanks
I knew you would understand.

Paul

Dibble,

No, actually I don't. When Napoleon left for Egypt he told the Directory that he would come back if the situation in Europe deteriorated. And, even though Napoleon did not receive them, there were two recall orders sent to him in Egypt.

In Russia, Napoleon refused to leave the army until after the crossing of the Berezina. He defeated two Russian armies there, and the third, under Kutusov, would not engage probably because Kutusov always ended up losing when he faced Napoleon. After the Berezina Napoleon's generals urged him to get back to France precisely because he was also head of state and there had been an attempted coup that fall.

So, if you look a little at what actually took place, Napoleon did not 'desert' any of his armies, though that piece of allied propaganda has definitely stayed with us.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@ Von Winterfeildt "yes Napoleon was a genius, only in one thing, in propaganda,"
A comment like that stuns me. Unless you forgot to add the smileys.
You dont have to adore the man to concede he had talent.
If he was not a military genius where does that leave the opponents he regularly smashed? Were Blucher, Kutasov, Charles etc that bad they couldnt beat a mere propagandist?

Id also like to add that he may or may not have deserved it but many thousands of ordinary men and not a few extraordinary ones saw something in Napoleon to give their total loyalty.
I dont think Id enjoy having a burger n fries with him at Makkas but he was no ordinary man.

And finally from me, I dont think this thread is worth getting dawghoused over. The score is two already. So if anyone wants to disagree with me, fine. I respect your right to do so.
I have no problem with living with a range of opinions but I think some of us need to let go of the emotional side.

Kevin
You believe the pro Napoleon propaganda , and ill believe the anti.

Paul

raducci "And finally from me, I dont think this thread is worth getting dawghoused over."

My sentiments exactly. I really didn't think this would get so acrimonious, and as I said on the other thread, I'm gone. I think enough has been said, and urge others to let this drop as well.

Dibble

Well, it is more a matter of selectively choosing from Boney's own words what you want, like Marx or The Bible, to reinforce your own predjudices. Take the Marshals, who did Boney think was the best? Berthier, Suchet, Massena..? He nominated the best so often it seemed to depend on the direction of the wind. Our choices may differ radically from his: Davout being a case in point.

Certainly he was as inconsistent in this as he was in other things, but remember this is a politician/soldier talking with his eye for what is a very insecure throne and a desire for legitimacy.

In terms of loyalty the first question that has to be asked is loyalty to what? France, Napoleon or the principles of the Revolution? One `can be very critical of Marmont, for example, particularly as his close friendship with Napoleon before he became Marshal sort of doubles his alleged disloyalty. But clearly the motive of loyalty to France rather than Boney is the most honourable interpretation (self-interest is the least), but his performance was more consistent than both Ney and Murat.

Then take Victor, a man very suspicious of Napoleon as he was more inclined towards the political attractions of the DSirectory and Revolution rather than Napoleon's dictatorship.

Loyalty to Bonaparte and loyalty to France are not synonymous, certainly not in a period of competing political views.

K

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.

Actually, notions DID used to be casually switched. Nationalism is a fairly recent invention -- especially in the military field.

Prior to 1800 it was very common practice for military men to serve in other nations.

Very true, Mark. Look at Saxe, Eugene of Savoy, Wurmser. All served against their 'countries of birth' but this was in no way considered somehow treasonous. Even Blucher started out with the Swedish army.

K

Picking up on a point that a couple of others have already made, I believe that it is important to ascertain what one means by loyalty. If one is to make some sort of moral judgement on the Marshalls for their conduct in terms of loyalty, the key issue for me is loyalty to the state rather than loyalty to Napoleon as the individual.

It is one thing for the marshalls to have their own views (esp by 1813/1814) as to whether having Napoleon as head of state was in the best interests of France; it is, however, an entirely different matter for these Marshalls to betray Napoleon whilst he is still the serving head of state. For example, it is pretty well documented that Ney had real issues with Napoleon post-Dennewitz and was one of the most vociferous when it came to pushing for his abdication in 1814. Nevertheless, he fought like a lion until Napoleon abdicated. The position is similar with Davout in the sense that he had genuine concerns about Napoleon but did not surrender Hamburg until he was convinced that he received orders to do so from the acting government of France. To my mind these two individuals conducted themselves in precislety the manner that a profesional soldier should and the fact that their government subsequently changed should not prevent professional soldiers from continuing to serve their country and new political masters.

For teh above reason, I regard the actions of Ney and Davout more honourable than, say Marmont, who adopted a far more pragmatic approach when deciding to surrender to the allies. As to what was in the best interets of France, on the other hand, this is a far broader and more comlex debate.

The above, of course, also raises interesting issues as regards the conduct of individual Marshalls during the 100 days. I suspect that the main reason for Ney's execution post Waterloo is not that he played such an active role during the 100 days campaign, but that he was instrumental in betraying the existing Bourbon government of France (which he had accepted as legitimate by serving them) to Napoleon. At that point, his personal affinities with Napoleon and all that Napoleon represented interfered with the discharge of his duties to the state. From the Bourbon perspective, Ney had played an active role in what was a military coup. Had he been retired from service at the time of Napolen's return or, had he played a passive role in his return and then started serving, that would have probably been tolerated. In that sense, Ney's conduct during the 100 days is far less 'honorable' than his conduct in 1814.

Kralj Marko

It is interesting whether you regard the State and the Government of the State as one and the same thing. As you correctly assess a Government can act in a way that seems ininmical to the interests of the State, at least that is often the opinion of those judged to have acted unlawfully or treasonously. It is, in fact, this very conflict that is brought out so well in Clive Ponting's 'The Belgrano Affair' which saw the Thatcher government change the Official Secrets act to make it perfectly clear that the State and its Government were to be legally considered one and the same.

In 1814, therefore, does Marmont make a judgement that Napoleon is acting in a way that is not in the best interests of the State? We can, I think, use that term as Napoleon did not rule by Divine Right and so personal loyalty to him can be divorced from loyalty to France (as opposed to a Hausmacht like Austria). Of course the Bonapartists will judge him unfairly (he did betray their lifelong hero after all) but Bonaparte was a bit more generous on St Helena:"Many others were worse than he, who did not have the sense of shame he felt…"

Of course, he was pretty critical of many Marshals in 1814 and later. Of Berthier he said: "I have been betrayed by Berthier, a true gosling whom I have made into a kind of eagle." He described Mortier as 'feeble', said Ney 'only got what he deserved' being 'too immoral, too stupid to be able to succeed', Soult: 'I should have made a great example and had Soult shot'. In general 'I should not have made either Marmont or Oudinot marshals. We needed to win a war."

In fact Marshals that got away with no negative comments are an interesting collection, Bessieres, Brune, Serurier, Moncey, Lannes (I found him a pygmy but I lost a giant) and Lefebvre for example. He regards his behaviour towards Jourdan interestingly (I treated that man very ill…) and thought Kellerman Snr the 'boldest general who ever lived'. He was also very keen in his praise of Massena. But, on St Helena, he claimed that Suchet, Clausel and Gerard were 'the best French Generals in my opinion'

In other words totally without consistency…

K

Sweden's last military action was taking Norway away from Denmark in 1814, part of dividing up the loot after Napoleon's downfall. To the Norwegians credit, they fought.

Sweden tdo my mind hasn't been worth a flip since the Vasa's ran out in 1718. Bernadotte did nothing but make them a Russian client state and for all the professed neutrality, especially in War II where Sweden actively and materially supported the Germans, there isn't much to admire. They also have one of the highest income tax rates approaching 80%, which doesn't make it a success at all but a welfare state.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Of course they got their own back. Massena did not care much for Napoleon. On being told that a stream running through Malmaison had its source on his Estate he commented: "I pxxs on him when I want to".

Augereau in 1814 issued a proclamation releasing his men from loyalty to Napoleon: "a man who, having sacrificed millions of victims to his cruel ambitions, has not known how to die like a soldier."

Certaily Vandamme, Augereau and Massena resented being scared of him.

K

Kevin

Oh really, you can do better than this. I persolnally much prefer social democracy to the devil-take-the-hindmost attitude. Being a frequent visitor to Scandinavia I do appreciate their lifestyle and system. So, ironically, did the US servicement that were embarked with me during the last Baltops exercise on a Swedish vessel. they openly admitted that they were in the services only for the healthcare benefits and were amazed by what Swedish society had achieved in both social and economic terms.

The WW2 thing is a total farce. They were surrounded with Hitler on one side, Stalin on the other and totally dependent on German coal. At leasty the Swedish king did not scuttle round to the German Embassy to offer his condolences on Hitler's death as Eammon de Valera did in Ireland…

Besides, what is wrong with a welfare state anyway? I think the 20% of American citizens who live on or below the poverty line would certaily appreciate some Swedish tenderness.

K

"Russian client state"?

What constitutes a client state? I've always considered client state as something more than allying with another country for an 18-month war. 19th c the Swedes were much more closely aligned with the Brits I think. or did I miss all the Swedish troops fighting alongside the Russians in the Crimea?

Khevenhuller,

I think that there are two seperate points that arise from what you have said:-

1. Are the interests of the present government and the state (or country) one and the same? The anwer to this is must be no. There are plenty of examples where you have bad government which makes decisions that are contrary to the interests of the state. There are also plenty of examples when it is manifestly in the best interests of a state to change its government. Whether Napoleon's government and France in 1814 and fall into this category is a moot point. When judging the loyalty of individual high level public servants such as Napoleon's Marshalls, however, you have to ask yourself whether it is right and proper that each should form his own view as to whether he should continue following orders from what he might perceive as a failing government or whether,as a soldier, he shoudl set aside his personal opinions and perform his professional duty. Part of the problem, of course, is that we are making personal judgements based on fragments of information and, depending on how this is presented, an individual betrayal may also be seen as an act of high moral stature. Equally, as we all know, blindly following orders can result in appalling consequences. To be frank I do not know what Marmont's motives were for surrendering to the allies in 1814 – it could have been a genuine desire to bring a hopeless war to a swifter close, to save lives and to spare his country further destruction. It could also have been a desire to curry favour with those that he saw as the likely winners and a nasty, malicious act of backstabbing against someone whose greater abilities he has always resented? Who knows? Either way, he committed an act which was contrary to his professional ethics as a soldier and in this respect, I find Ney's conduct more attractive – when most Marshalls were either plotting behind Napoleon's back or taking no initaitive to bring about change, he openly confronted Napoleon with the propsect of abdication – yet, at the same time fought every battle for France like a man possessed.

2. I'm not surprised that Napoleon was less than complimentary about his Marshalls whilst on Elba / St Helena. After all, he was brooding about the consequences of ultimate defeat and it can't have been pleasant for him to have been, as he would see it, so badly let down by subordinates. Clearly, he was never going to be objective on the issue of whether disloyalty tio him individually coukld ever be justified by a desire to act in the best interests of the state.

KM

Kralj Marko,

Yes. Well stated.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Kralj

I do not know Marmonts motivations either, and as I suggested earlier he may have been acting from high moral motives or total venality. For him, though, what is clear is that after his 1812 experience in Spain he became increasingly disillusioned with Boney. He spent most of 1813 with his arm in a sling from his 1812 wound which had not healed yet he had not used this as an excuse to dodge his Master's call. Critically, in 1814 he makes a series of mistakes and Napoleon characteristically blows his top at him and, given the circumstances of the war in general I think he tested the loyalty of Marmont to destruction. treated better he may have remained loyal, as he did in 1830 when he went into exile with the fallen Bourbons who he served loyally after the 100 days.

I offered the 1814/Elba quotes as examples of Boney's lack of consistency and, also, to illustrate how actually taking him at face value is a major error, all quotes must be taken in such context. But his comments about some Marshals, which are less than complimentary, were from before that period so it cannot all be written off as brooding betrayal after the fall. What the Bonapartists cannot do is take the quotations selectively, adopting some and not others, when making a rounded assessment: again I repeat that there is no place for hero-worship in history.

K

K,

And who are the 'Bonapartists?' Wasn't that a political movement in the 19th century?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevenhuller
Thanks for your more balanced input.

I can see it now. A mother a daughter a father a son, Walking in Paris & seeing a chubbying Bounaparte flitting past in his Berline on his way to Fontainebleau & Mlle. Georges, (when he should have been with his men who made him great) whilst their dad/son is struggling or dying in the vastness of Russia. Loyalty cuts both ways, but not so in that selfish B******s mind. OH! How the people must have loved him.

Kevin
After the Berezina Napoleon's generals urged him to get back to France precisely because he was also head of state and there had been an attempted coup that fall.

I agree with this. But it's funny how he actually listened to his Generals for once and acted on there advice. What better excuse do you need to 'Sling your hook' back to love & luxury.

Yes
Before the comments come thick and fast. I know that in order to be a military great you have to have a selfish streak. and as for Mlle. Georges, I chose her off the cuff.

Dibble

What a charming scene you paint…Actually Paris`can be pretty nippy in winter too so rather than promenading your mother and child are likely to be huddled in some garret wondering if the breadwinner will ever be seen again. Transpose the seen to Stuttgart, Munich, Karlsruhe, Wurzburg…yeah well.

But do not underestimate the 'pull' of glory and greatness. Some people measure a country by these things (rather than whether it is a place worth living in) so do not be too hasty in your dismissal. After all, if you have nothing but your glory and greatness to differentiate you from others the sacrifices people are willing to make for that purpose can be huge. Or rather among men. Women have `a far more level-headed perpective, usually brought about by having to pay bills, put food on the table and look after the kids. Glory does not feed hungry bellies, even if it can satisfy souls.

K

And the trip back with Napoleon was no picnic either. And the escort had orders that Napoleon was not to be taken alive by the enemy…

10th Marines

Then perhaps that vial he had around his neck would have worked