Help support TMP


"When really did Marmont decided to changing sides?" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Top-Rated Ruleset

Song of Drums and Shakos


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


1,615 hits since 26 Feb 2010
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
En Avant26 Feb 2010 6:07 p.m. PST

Marshal Marmont decide to not continue fighting against the Allied after the Battle of Paris, but… maybe he had decided to change sides some time before?.

When Marmont Army Corp advance from the direction to Rheims to support Napoleon with six hours late, he had not marched the previous day, althought he had received two distinct orders TO DO SO.

In his memories, he make it clear that after the fall of Soissons, he had GIVEN UP HOPE, and his only object was to OBEY HIS ORDERS LITERALLY, but WITHOUT ZEAL.
So, Napoleon would have won the Battle of Craon if Marmont had arrived before Laon at 8am. instead of after 8 o'clock?

Continue with his performance,Marmont had in front of his troops the wole of Kleist's and York's Corps, and on is right were Zeithen numerous squadrons, while further in reserve the Russian troops of Sacken and Langeron.
Instead of that, he decided his troops bivouacked were they had fought with the infantry and the artillery at the front and the Cavalry at the rear.(!).

Arrighi young soldiers, who had just been under fire for the first time, were the most exposed. Even they had behoved so well, they had no experience of protecting themselves in the presence of the enemy. The gunners, mostly sailors, wre fine men and skifull at their own branch of gunnery, but know nothing about service in the field.

Marmont had admited later that HE HAD NOTICED the complete lack of experience of this troops, but the nevertheles took NO STEPS TO SEE THE PROPER MEASURES OF SECURITY were taken.
He also decided to spent the night at the castle of Eppes, three miles at the rear, TRUSTING TO PROVIDENCE TO PROTECT HIS ARMY.

So, we know what had happened that night with his poor recruis and sailors.

My conclution is… was in that moment when he really show his change of sides?.
Yust my thougts, but we had to ask why an experience Marshal like Marmont… made SO many mistakes much days before to his agreement at Paris with the Allied.

Amicalement
Armand

Steven H Smith26 Feb 2010 10:27 p.m. PST

La défection de Marmont en 1814: ouvrage suivi d'un grand nombre de documents inédits ou peu connus, d'un précis des jugements de Napoléon 1er sur le maréchal Marmont, d'une notice bibliographique avec extraits de tous les ouvrages publiés sur le même sujet etc. etc by Louis Nicolas Rapetti. 1858. 475 pages:

link

link


Le prince Eugène, en 1814: documents authentiques en réponse au maréchal Marmont by Eugène de Beauharnais Editor Nicolas Louis Planat de La Faye. 1858. 97 pages:

link

link

Cardinal Hawkwood27 Feb 2010 12:01 a.m. PST

looks all french to me…

Shardik27 Feb 2010 12:59 a.m. PST

En Avant, are you writing a book about the treachery and incompetence of French generals in 1814/5? :-)

JCBJCB27 Feb 2010 2:45 a.m. PST

He's apparently writing a book about every possible subject under the sun.

Wouldn't a simple Google search turn up reams of information on this, so he could decide for himself?

jammy four Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Feb 2010 2:46 a.m. PST

it would be a short book!!

10th Marines01 Mar 2010 2:38 p.m. PST

I believe that Armand asking searching questions will help all of us in a better understanding of the period if the questions are addressed in a logical and thoughtful manner.

For myself, I'm enjoying the questions and discussion and hopefully most, if not all, of the membership is also.

Sincerely,
K

10th Marines01 Mar 2010 2:42 p.m. PST

Marmont had a very large ego, and with that ego came the attendant problems that most large egos have. His performance at the beginning of the 1814 campaign were poor. Further, I submit that he had a very flawed character in that he could be so influenced by Talleyrand to turn traitor and turn his corps over to the allies.

When the marshals who forced Napoleon's abdication found out about it, they were incensed, especially Ney, as it had sabotaged their plans for having a regency for Napoleon's son. They didn't want the Bourbons back and that was the consequence of Marmont's treachery and duplicitness.

In short, it was a mistake to make him a marshal in 1809 and his betrayal of Napoleon and France is a permanent blotch on his record. He was generally a good commander and threw it all away to a bruised ego.

Sincerely,
K

Steven H Smith01 Mar 2010 7:09 p.m. PST

Yes, yes, Kev – but the question is, "When really did Marmont decided to [change] sides." Anything to add to the actual topic? Nice 'rant' though, again one of your favorite 'rant' topics.

Kev, Oh you kid!

<;^}

von Winterfeldt01 Mar 2010 11:25 p.m. PST

well to find out that questions one would at least have to read the memoires of Marmont – the examen critique of then and the other links Steve provided and cite the sources – otherwise all are entitled to their opinions.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.