"How a brave of the braves died." Topic

The Count of Rochechouart had left a vivid story of the dead of Marshal Ney.
He said that the writen order Nb 4º he recieved said:

"The convict will be extracted from the Luxembourg Palace by an escort of gendarms and grenadiers from La Rochejaquelin. They had inmediatly surround the Marshall. At his side will be two lieutenants of police, on foot if he is on foot, or car next to him if he asks to have one in the latter case, the police personal and the grenadiers would surround his car in the front and the rear wheels.

After the escort company of non commissioned veterans officers, it had to march a squad of National Guard on foot. Then the group had to crosses the garden in this provision, and will exit through the gate of the Observatory, in moving towards this point.
Upon its release, the hundred and thirty policemen on foot, which are required to assemble on the Place de l'Odeon, and then they had to proceed, partly through the streets of the West, partly through the Rue d'Enfer, on the ground they would form a hedge, and walk on the right and the left or both sides of the escort, so, when it stops they would close all the exits from the field indicated.

When they arrived on the ground, police officers will accompany the gendarmes and the grenadiers to the condemned place of execution, and there the troops as in battle had to conform a square. They will kneel, facing the civilians. After the Marshal had been blindfold, the troops had to retire only under the signal of the adjutant at charge.

The body will be exposed for some time, and guarded by pickets of infantry and cavalry. If parents want to see him and are available to certificate their parenthood, it will be allowed.

Before the body would be prepared for consumption that decision had to be signed by the secretary-archivist of the House of Peers. An Acting Clerk had to be present and would sign the document.

If the body had not been claimed, it will be raised at the behest of the civilian police and filed at the Maternity Hospital with the consent of the Director of that place.
Paris, December 7, 1815 … Lieutenant General commanding … "Despinois"

The Count of Rochechouart then said:

"As a result of these orders which I so carefully traced the conduct I had to take I only had to follow them on time, with nothing to add. I was not notified of the execution rather than a half-hour before it was to be done.

I always thought it would take place in the plain of Grenelle, where there was usually this kind of execution. I was even going to send an officer to reconnoitre the ground, when I received a verbal order to arrange everything between the Centre and the gate of the Luxembourg Gardens, an opposite long wall that still exists on the left out the garden.

The police, it seems, was informed that we had to fear some attempted of abduction by a group of veterans.
At least that's what General Despinois say me.

My embarrassment over the choices of the adjutant, who would be responsible to execute the death sentence was extreme …. it was a very unpleasant work. My first idea was to draw lots for all those guys, but then I reflected that this could have serious drawbacks, these officers do not have the same capacity, or the same resolution at that crucial time.

Then I stopped my main and fixed it on the battalion chief of San Bias. This officer was a Piedmontese, and I was glad to avoid that painful task to a French commission. Accordingly, I gave him the order to execute the decision of the Court of Peers, by prescribing what he would do, according to the instructions that were recevide earlier.

A new post of General Despinois, who sent me one every half hour, warned me to give the necessary orders for the execution to took place at 9 o'clock in the morning.

It was early enough to consider that there were not too many spectators, and late enough that the population were at the market. The execution had to be taking place in a location frequented by passing public cars.

As I said earlier, the priest of St. Sulpice had left the Marshall after an hour of private conversation, then let him rest, promising to return later in the last hour.

Once he was gone, the prisoner threw himself on his bed fully clothed. He slept a peaceful sleep until eight o'clock. At 8:30, it became necessary to prevent the prisoner to prepare to go to the fatal spot.

I felt obliged to instruct the pastor of this sad message. As he had just come in, I advised him to go near the prisoner and tell him that the last hour had come and the need for the sentence and his execution had to be done.

This worthy clergyman while he was prepared to his painful mission, was seized by a nervous tremor, he asure that he would not leave him until everything was finished. He made an effort, however, and resigned himself to appear before his penitent. No sooner did he appear on the doorstep, the Marshal, who had just woken up, with only a look said to him
" Ah! Monsieur l'Abbe, I understand you, I'm ready"

He knelt, received absolution with the blessing of his pastor, who then took his hat, he descended the stairs calm and quiet, with a smile on his face.

I took upon myself, without consulting the Marshal to call a cab, which went into the garden and drew up the bottom of the steps that are before the said hall. The hedge, in the palace, was formed by troops of service with the House of Peers.

Before getting into the car, the Marshal saluted us one by one. He was dressed simply. He had a blue coat, white tie, black waistcoat, with short breeches and silk stockings of the same color. He did not wear any decoration on his coat. He said seeing the bad weather that it was dark and cold that day ;
" My friends, here's a nasty day! ".
Then turning to the priest, who stood aside to let it get in the car, he added;
" Ride, Ride, Father, in less than an hour always had been finished and you could return to your house".

The two police officers went up also in the car and stood on the front. The procession followed the order prescribed by the letter of General Despinois.

A few hundred yards from the gate of Luxembourg, in a sort of alley or avenue leading to the Observatory, the procession paused where the execution was to take place.

When we opened the door to lower the Marshal, he seemed surprised, he was expected to go to the plain of Grenelle, where he may have hoped to see any manifestation in his favor, or any other pattern. So, when he left the car he exclaim:
"What?. We are here?"

When he saw how the soldiers made the square, he said.
"Ah!. The last square."

Naturally he refused to kneel and let blindfold. He had too often considered death in the face, for fear that supreme moment.

He asked captain Saint-Bias to indicate him where and how it should be placed and walk there as in a parade. He faced the platoon that kept his guns at the command "Arms!" and he show an attitude that I would never forget in my life. He was so noble, quiet and serious, without any boasting, he took off his hat and taking advantage of the short time that he had to speak before the fusillade he said his last words.
"French, I protest against my judgement, my honor …"

At these last words as he carried his hand on his heart the detonation was heard, and he fell back without making the slightest movement. His death was instantaneous.

A roll of all the drums and shouts of "Long live the king!" Pushed by the troops in square ended this lugubrious ceremony.

This death was beautiful. I was young then (I was not twenty-seven). He made a great impression among the troops,
So I turned to the Rochejaquelin Augustus, who was sat beside me, and as I lamented the end of the bravest of the brave, I told him ;
" That, my dear friend, was a great lesson to learn how to die well."

The eight words of Marshal Ney, facing death, were variously rendered as one can well imagine, either in newspapers or by the so-called spectators. Several people even stopped to have glorified that he did pronounce others, adding that they had ordered …. Fire!-
But all of them were incorrect.

Things went just as I have said, and the rest as this is confirmed by my report to General Despinois, the original should be in the archives of the first military division, and most of the copies in the General Staff Quarters of Paris.

The corpse was not claimed by the family, because they could not known nor the place nor the time of execution, he was carried to the place designated in the order Nb 4.

The rest is more in my portfolio, I retired, but before I go home, I entered a moment in the Duc de Richelieu house to report my loss mission. I gave him all the details and finishes by saying that I saw two amazing things as I remember.

During the fifteen minutes that elapsed between the execution and removal of the body, a man whom the police assured me being English, rushed at a gallop, and made him jump over the corpse Then, after this outrageous strange act he disappeared in a flash, it was impossible either to prevent such brutality, or stop this insolent, as he put celebrity in this unspeakable act.

The second incident, the less likely culprit apparently does not seem to me less inappropriate. I was very surprised to see among the spectators of the sad performance that had just occurred a Russian general in uniform and on horseback.

I recognized to be the Baron Van B. …. Dutch origin, but in the service of Russia for a very long time he had been governor of Mittau at the residence of Louis XVIII, in this capital of Courland. Curiosity pushed to the excess, it seems, because this stranger had first follow the trial of Marshal Ney, with great assiduity and then his execution as I mention.

Now as a result of this indiscreet curiosity. The Duc de Richelieu could not dispense with talking to the Emperor of Russia as a regrettable thing.

This noble king flew into a strong anger, and summoned on the spot our curiosity, he said he would give thanks to God for not being there, otherwise he would have shoot that officer instantly. But in consideration of his being an allied, he simply remove him from his service, and ordered him to leave the Russian uniform, which he had compromised their dignity. He was exiliated and lost all of his dominions in Russia soil…"

Aphologies in advance for the bad translation.
It seems to me that it is a very interesting story to share with the fellow forum members from a french witness in the first line of the event.
If not, aphologies again.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand for the good stuff you post you should not apologize. I've read a few articals on the Michal/Peter Ney consperacy and never made my mind up, but this eye witness would put a nail in the coffin

So happy you had enjoy 14Bore!.

I'm so bad with translation mostly for lack of time, but at least I made the efford.

I think that there are very interesting stuff there.
Who was the English rider?
Why the family was not advice of his dead?.
etc etc.

Really I undestand why people wrote that all was a charade and he was on life and sailing for America.

My best regards and thanks for your support.
Armand

Yes thanks Armand. A lesson to us all on how to meet death with dignity…

Well Mr. Sparker, I had no less than admiration to those man who shows so big courage in front of dead.
We, who were to be soldiers at war knows that it is not easy at all!.

Thanks for your comments.

Amicalement
Armand

I agree with 14Bore Armand, You have no need to apologize. Your posts are always vert insighful and interesting and lack the 7th grade locker room drool sometimes wittnessed here. It would seem the internet makes a few believe that they are 6'8 and 275? They correct people and say things they would never dream of saying to someones face. In the past I have had an occassion to meet several who were quite harsh,brave,and unreasonable on the web, however when standing face to face and I revealed to them that I had become aware of their web identity they seemed to just drift off very quickly into the crowd.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Thanks again Armand for your very interesting posting (as usual).

Merci Armand.
As a French kid growing up in the late sixties early seventies, I remember being mesmerized by the picture of his execution on our little history book. I absolutely admired him, thank you for this post.
Cyrille

Well done Armand, fist time I read that.

I don't understand what the Russian general did to evoke such censure. He witnessed the Englishman jumping over the body?

Murvhill, I understand why he was censured. If you have faced an honorable opponent on the battlefield, you do not witness his execution. Instead, you remember him as the honorable opponent he was. What transpires between that man and the people he served is just that, not something for an enemy combatant to witness.

I should have lived in that era. My sense of honor is overdeveloped for this day and age.

Dear fellows, many thanks for your kidness and support.
You are really nice people and who really keep this site on life with good manners and education.
As it had to be from the first day.

About the "crime" of the Dutch-Russian officer, there were a non-writting law between great officers on Napoleon Era of not to participate in person or in uniform when one of them had the misfortune to be shot.

Specially in the case of Ney, who was recognized as the "brave of the braves" for friends and enemies.
Going each day to the "Farse Court" to see how this heroe had to be condemned without real support and only for political reasons with the uniform of one of their enemies, had to be condemned by the Tzar who was very fair and a good knight.

I admit that when I read the document in french, I had no idea about the English, the Dutch-Russian and the "last square".

It's a fine story and I'm happy you had enjoy it.

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks for sharing Armand! Great story, although I always hoped that he did escape to teach school in North Carolina!

From: Memoirs of the Count de Rochechouart in France

link

being an English translation of

Souvenirs sur la révolution: l'empire et la restauration

link

I conclude this year, 1815, with the narrative of a great and terrible event — the trial, sentence, and condemnation of Marechal Ney. It was my duty, as Commandant of the fortress of Paris, to superintend the carrying out of the sentence. Many versions of the last moments and tragic end of Marechal Ney have appeared; all are different, or incorrect, for not one of these authors was present, and, moreover, they have all deemed it necessary to add, or suppress, certain details, at the expense of the truth, in the interest of the political party to which they belonged.

I have spoken of the report presented by Fouche, Minister of Police, on July 26th, 1815, asking the King to order the trial by court-martial of eighteen persons, who had played an active part during the Hundred Days. … In accordance with this report, Marechal Ney was brought before a court-martial, presided over by Marechal Moncey; the latter, however, excused himself on the ground that he and Marechal Ney had formerly been on bad terms, and, therefore, as a man of honour, he ought to decline to be his judge.(1) By order of the King a new court-martial was constituted, composed of the Marshals Jourdan (President), Massena, Augereau, Mortier, Lieutenants-Generals the Comte de Gazan, the Comte Clarparede and the Comte Villate, the Chief Commissary Baron Joinville, Commissary of the King, Major-General the Comte Grundler, Judge-Advocate, and M. Boudin, Clerk (of the Court). The court-martial was held on November 9th, and declared itself incompetent. Ney's advocates, MM. Dupin aine and Berryer pere, had pleaded that the title of Marechal was not a rank, but a dignity, and that the Chamber of Peers alone had the power to try one bearing the title. This legal opinion cost the life of Ney. The four Marshals of France, and two of the Generals who formed the court martial, had all more or less taken part against the King, and were, therefore, little less guilty than Ney. General Clarparede said to me: "I can affirm that the majority of the court is in favour of acquittal, the Marechal's advocates are mad or foolish to raise the question of incompetence that had not occurred to anyone." In the result, five out of the seven judges hastened to declare themselves incompetent, glad to escape the snare that had been laid for them, nominally by the King, but really by the infernal cleverness of Fouche, joined to the astuteness of Talleyrand. . . .

The Chamber of Peers delivered the sentence on December 6th [1815]. … On December 7th, an aide-de-camp of General Despinois, who commanded the First Military Division, and was my immediate superior, awakened me at three o 'clock in the morning, and delivered to me a sealed letter. . . .*

I mounted my horse, and, attended by my aide-de-camp, I went to the Palais du Luxembourg; in accordance with General Despinois's instructions I went first to M. de Semonville, 2 who told me he was awaiting me with great impatience, being in haste to rid himself of responsibility for his prisoner. He delivered up the prisoner at once, conducting me to the room occupied by the Marechal; two cavalry grenadiers of the Royal Guard were with him. The delivery took place without the Marechal taking any notice; he remained in conversation with M. de Canchy, the Secretary Archivist of the Chamber of Peers. . . . I then took up my quarters in a large room on the ground floor, in order to be at hand to receive and carry out any fresh instructions.

A few moments later General Despinois sent me word that the King had allowed the Marechal to receive three persons only —his wife, his lawyer, and his confessor. I went up to the prisoner's room and Colonel de Montigny having read the Royal Authorisation in my presence, the Marechal said to me: "I will first see my lawyer; he is probably in the Palais waiting for permission to see me; then I will see my wife and children; as for my confessor, let them leave me alone, I do not want any priests." At these last words one of the old grenadiers rose and said: "You are wrong, Marechal," and showing him the stripes on his uniform, he went on: "I am not as distinguished as you, but I am as old. Well then! I never went so bravely under fire as when I had first commended my soul to God." These few words, spoken with much feeling and solemnity by this colossus, seemed to make a strong impression on the Marechal. He went up to the grenadier, and, laying his hand on his shoulder, said gently: "Perhaps you are right, my brave man; it is good advice you are giving me." Then, turning to Colonel de Montigny: "What priest can I send for?" "The Abbe de Pierre, Cure de Saint-Sulpice, he is a distinguished priest in every way." "Ask him to come, I will see him after I have seen my wife." The advice of the old soldier had prevailed.

The notary was brought in, with the usual precautions; he did not remain long, having probably received his instructions beforehand. The Marechale Ney then came in, with her three children; the Comte de Tamnay, my aide-de-camp, carried the youngest in his arms, up the stairs to the prisoner's room, which was at the top of the Palais. The poor child did not understand what was going on, and wondering at the sight of so many soldiers, began to play with Tamnay's moustache.

The distressing interview lasted about an hour; the Marechal being unable any longer to struggle against his emotion, put an end to it himself. He could only prevail upon his wife to leave him by promising to see her in the morning, which he well knew would be impossible. They parted with many tears. Soon afterwards the Cure of Saint-Sulpice was brought in, and remained with the Marechal a full hour, during which time I ordered the two grenadiers to remain outside the room; the good priest promised to return at the fatal hour.

During this time I received in succession [three further orders](2) . . . These clear and precise orders provided for everything. I, therefore, followed them exactly. I did not know the place appointed for the execution, but supposed it to be in the Plaine de Grenelle, the usual scene of military executions; I was about to send an officer to reconnoitre the ground, when, only half an hour before the sentence was carried out, I received a verbal order to make the arrangements between the Observatory and the gate of the garden of the Luxembourg, facing a wall, which is still standing, at the left as you go out of the garden. The police had learned that there would be an attempt at a rescue near Grenelle.

I was much perplexed as to the choice of an Adjutant to carry out the sentence. … I finally selected the Comte de Saint-Bias, an excellent officer, a Piedmontese by birth. (3)I was delighted to spare a Frenchman this painful duty. . . .

A new message from General Despinois — I received them every quarter of an hour — informed me that the execution should be at nine o'clock in the morning, early enough to prevent there being too many spectators, but late enough to ensure a certain number.

After the Abbe de Pierre had left, the Marechal threw himself, fully dressed, upon his bed and slept quietly till a quarter past eight. Five minutes later the Cure returned. I begged him to tell the prisoner that his last hour had come. The good priest, though prepared for his sad duty, was seized with a nervous trembling, which lasted till the execution was over.

As soon as he appeared on the threshold, Marechal Ney said: "Ah! M. le Cure, I understand. I am ready." He knelt down and received absolution, and then went calmly down the stairs.

I had taken upon myself to order a carriage without consulting the prisoner. The Marechal saluted us. I was greatly relieved to see him in a blue coat, white cravat, short black breeches and black stockings, no decorations. I had feared that he might be in uniform, and it would have been my duty to cause him to be degraded, and his orders, epaulets and buttons taken off. Noticing, the bad weather, he said with a smile: "What a wretched day!" Then turning to the Cure, who had stepped aside to allow him to get into the carriage, he said: "Go first, M. le Cure, presently I shall go first." The two officers of the Gendarmerie also got into the carriage, taking their seats in front.

A few hundred yards from the iron gate of the Luxembourg, in the Avenue de 1'Observatoire, the procession stopped. As the carriage door was opened, the Marechal, who expected to go to Grenelle, and probably was aware that a demonstratation would have been made there in his favour, said: "What! There already!" He, of course, refused to kneel down and be blind-folded; he merely asked the Commandant Saint-Bias to show him where he should stand. He stood facing the platoon, who held their weapons at the ready (4). Then, in an attitude that I shall never forget, it was so noble, calm and dignified, without bravado, he took off his hat, and availing himself of the moment when the Adjutant stepped aside and gave the signal to fire, he said these words which I distinctly heard: "Frenchmen, I protest against my sentence; my honour …" As he said these words he placed his hand on his heart; the volley was fired, and he fell. A rolling of drums, and the shout of "Vive le Roi" from the surrounding troops closed the mournful ceremony.

Such a death made a deep impression on me, and turning to Auguste de La Rochejaquelein, Colonel of the Grenadiers, who was beside me, and who, like me, deplored the death of the bravest of the brave, I said: "There, my dear friend, is a lesson how to die."

The words spoken by the Marechal in face of death have been incorrectly reported, both by journalists and by so-called spectators; it was even said that the Marechal had given the order to "fire." The events happened as I have stated. I have no interest in disguising the truth. I distinctly heard the Marechal, who was not far from me, and whom I was watching most attentively. Having been ordered to give a report of the execution to General Despinois, I was on horseback and overlooking the crowd; I heard and saw better than anyone. The body not having been claimed, for it had not been possible to let the family know, was taken to the place named in Order 4.(5) Having carried out the orders given to me, the rest being out of my province, I withdrew; but before returning home I went to the Due de Richelieu to give him an account of my sad mission, and to tell him of two untoward incidents that I had not been able to prevent. During the quarter of an hour that the body lay on the ground, before it was removed,an Englishman suddenly put his horse to the gallop, made him leap over the body, and after this revolting act, was gone like the wind, so that it was impossible to stop him.

In the second place, I had been greatly surprised to see a Russian General, in full uniform, among the spectators, and I recognised Baron van B… of Dutch descent, who had been for a
long time in the service of Russia. He had been Governor of Mitau. Impelled by curiosity, he had diligently followed the trial, and not wishing to miss the sight of the execution, he had remained all night in the vicinity of the Luxembourg. His uniform and numerous decorations had enabled him not merely to move about freely but to secure a good position to see everything. After hearing my report the Due de Richelieu thought it his duty to mention the fact to the Emperor Alexander.

The noble Sovereign was very indignant, sent for the inquisitive officer, and said: "Give thanks to God that you are not a Russian! But for that I would have made you a private soldier on the spot. You are a foreigner. I dismiss you from my service. Take off at once the Russian uniform you have dishonoured, and never set foot in Russia again."

I learned these details from the aide-de-camp on duty.

(1) – The Council of Ministers, on the recommendation of Fouchfi, condemned the Marechal Moncey to six months' imprisonment in a fortress, with the loss of his pay and suspension of his rank.

(2) – These letters are given in full in the French edition linked above.

(3) – 'His mother was Maid of Honour to the late Queen of Sardinia.' from a letter of de Rochechouart to General Despinois.

(4) – Note that the French text gives the position of the platoon's weapons as "D'apprêtez armes", while the original English translation says "Ready to fire". I think it would be more correct to say "at the ready", as "D'apprêtez armes" would be analogous to the English command "Make – Ready", and have adjusted the translation above accordingly.

(5) – 'L'Hopital de la Maternitfi." — Despinois' Order 4.

That was excellent.
Thank you Armand and Mericanach.
I too have read a couple of the Peter Ney accounts and have always preferred to believe that that was his true end. It is sad to think that such a brave and honest soldier would come to an end like this.
Peter Ney looks so much like a balding Michel Ney. It is uncanny. I would always hold out private hope that the story is true, afterall, who is to say that the Count was not himself a Mason and in on the conspiracy.
It is not much, but it is something to cling to.

Thanks you Mr. IronMarshal.
When I saw what our friend Mericanach had found, I began to cut my veins because it's took to me a lot of work to translate such text from french when it was much more complete the english vertion whose existence I was ignorant (smile).

Happy you enjoy it.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand, no hacerse daño. La versión francesa tiene una visión más completa. Las órdenes y cartas de Despinois no se dan en la traducción en Inglés.

Voy a traducir cuando tengo tiempo.

Muchas gracias Mericanach.
Tan solo un chiste.

Un abrazo
Armand

Always wondered, why Bonerpate was spared and feited, but Ney was the one executed.

I mean, he got treated fairly the first time, exiled to a small island ect ect but then he comes back, screws everything and gets thousands killed but is only sent to another (more remote) island but NEY is shot, DESPITE being one of several others who rejoined their old leader. Never could fathom the logic.

Always wondered, why Bonerpate was spared and feited, but Ney was the one executed.

Ney was executed by the French because he betrayed Louis XVIII, "I shall bring Napoleon to Paris in a cage" indeed. Louis faced enough internal troubles after his restoration than to allow Ney to live.

Napoleon had the good sense to surrender to the Allies, who had no desire to create a martyr. I dare say the Prussians would have hanged him if they could though.

I believe Wellington appealled to Louis for clemency on Ney's behalf. He was ignored.

"I believe Wellington appealled to Louis for clemency on Ney's behalf. He was ignored."

Many years after the event Wellington denied that he had made any attempt to intercede on Ney's behalf. In a letter dated Sept. 1st, 1849, he writes: "I did not interfere in any way! I did not consider it my duty to interfere! There was clearly no claim on me as the General Officer who had signed the treaty or convention of St. Cloud: which did not affect Louis 18 in any way whatever!" (quoted from 'The Trial of Marshal Ney' by Harold Kurtz)

The question for me is why Soult had not been shot too?

He made the same move as Ney does.

Amicalement
Armand

First of all, thanks to Armand, and to Mericanach, for the documentation; true scholarship as well as courtesy. Secondly, a few minor observations. It seems to have been quite widely known (and, by some, deprecated) that Wellington did not attempt any intercession; Byron, in his "Don Juan", makes an ironic pun on the English word "Nay" (archaic "No") and the Marshal's name (and makes his purpose explicit in a footnote -0 he clearly disliked Wellington). I don't have the book to hand, but if anyone wants precision I will check the location. The question of Soult is indeed an interesting one, and, being a conspiracy theorist by nature and long-standing, I tend to link the fact that Soult's staff-work during the 1815 Campaign was inadequate to the favour shown him by the Bourbon regime (didn't he become, among other posts, Minister of War?). With regard to the horseman leaping the body, an event I've never read of before, perhaps he was some "gentleman" doing this for a wager? With regard to the firing-party, I've read in some source that at least one soldier deliberately, and obviously, aimed to miss the target (he had "the good taste to strike the top of the wall" behind Ney) Finally, I too wish that Ney did indeed escape to America. There's a film/movie in that story, surely?

I'd rather see a film about what Ney actually did rather than see one about something that he definitely did not do.

Another great mistery is … who was the englishman on horse who jump over the body of Ney???
How they know that it was an englishman?
Because of his cloths?
If he yell in english, anybody could made that.

Ney became interesting even before his dead.

Happy you had enjoy the bad trasnlation Monsieur Robert le Diable!.

Amicalement
Armand

I don't think Ney was the only one the sour royalists executed after Waterloo. But it obviously a showpiece assassination of a great man. The Royalists were either running scared that it might happen again and wanted to get rid of anyone that might still support Napoleon if he came back once more, or it was an act of pure hatred and desire for revenge. They wanted to kill all Bonapartists, which was something they didn't have the courage or skill to do in battle. And didn't the fat king suddenly come up with a new ruling which stopped Ney from being protected by the Convention of Paris or something? With Napoleon's exile and Ney (and others) unnecessary deaths, it could sadly be considered that all sense of honour associated with the period, ended. And imagine what people would have thought, had the Archduke Charles been executed for his failure at Wagram?

Thanks to Armand and Mericanach. Fascinating scholarship to keep all of us well fed who enjoy our hobby.

Many years ago I read a piece of fiction titled "The Macedonian" by Jon Williams. Set in 1815, it had pirates, naval battles, New Orleans and Andy Jackson with his American Army. And the British army and navy. Most intriguing was a subplot that had a large number of foreign men, big and imposing, who it turned out were part of the Guard and were involved in a conspiracy to free Napoleon. There was even a climatic land battle with the Macedonians crew (with plenty of cannon handy) taking on the foreigners. The novel was a lot of fun and the battle scenes were well done. This thread made me recall the novel because one of the foreigners was a tall man with red hair.

Charles Angélique François Huchet, Comte de la Bédoyère, General of Brigade and ADC of Napoleon was shoot too.
He was only 29 years old.

Amicalement
Armand

Ney was executed by the French because he betrayed Louis XVIII, "I shall bring Napoleon to Paris in a cage" indeed. Louis faced enough internal troubles after his restoration than to allow Ney to live.

Yep, that's pretty much it. No matter what you might think of Ney personally, the fact is that he broke fealty with the King, defected to Bonaparte and the Hundred Days was the result. Ney was arguably a dead man the minute the last shot was fired at Waterloo.

Ney could theoretically have escaped a death sentence, but as I have posted above:

Ney's advocates, MM. Dupin aine and Berryer pere, had pleaded that the title of Marechal was not a rank, but a dignity, and that the Chamber of Peers alone had the power to try one bearing the title. This legal opinion cost the life of Ney. The four Marshals of France, and two of the Generals who formed the court martial, had all more or less taken part against the King, and were, therefore, little less guilty than Ney. General Clarparede said to me: "I can affirm that the majority of the court is in favour of acquittal, the Marechal's advocates are mad or foolish to raise the question of incompetence that had not occurred to anyone." In the result, five out of the seven judges hastened to declare themselves incompetent, glad to escape the snare that had been laid for them, nominally by the King, but really by the infernal cleverness of Fouche, joined to the astuteness of Talleyrand. . . .

To use a rugby term, the original court-martial "kicked to touch" and declared themselves incompetant. Had they acquitted Ney, they in turn could have been exposed to charges. Instead, they left it up to the Peers, who delivered the verdict the King and his supporters wanted.

As to Peter Ney and the possibility of Ney not being executed, I'm afraid that I simply do not believe that. Ney was far too popular and visible a figure in France, and therefore far too dangerous to have alive in the political climate of the time. Bonaparte had already been exiled once, and returned. There was always a possibility that he might try it again. (After all, who had really thought that that he'd be back after his first exile?) Ney had already broken faith with the King, joined up with Bonaparte and pulled the ground out from under his King – again, there was every chance that there could be a repeat performance. Louis simply had too much to lose by allowing Ney to live, and needed to put down a marker and to make an example pour encourager les autres. The new regime wanted him dead, and they were not going to take any chances.

I haven't had time to do a detailed translation of the orders and letters in Souvenirs sur la révolution: l'empire et la restauration, but there are some telling little details in them which go some way towards explaining some of the varying accounts published about Ney's execution.

The French version of de Rochechouart's memoirs note that General Despinois wrote to him on 9 December – the day after the execution. Despinois' letter criticizes the actions of de Saint-Bias (the officer selected by de Rochechouart to command the firing squad), specifically in that de Saint-Bias verbally gave the order to fire, as opposed to making a signal to do so. The verbal command was in direct contravention of Desponois' orders as to the manner in which the execution was to be carried out. Despinois goes on to say that he feels de Saint-Bias lost his head, and is something of an incompetant.

Despinois also notes in that letter that he feels that the newspaper accounts of Ney's execution should be allowed to stand, as any attempt at a correction would require a careful redrafting of everything that had happened in the Palace de Luxembourg from the time sentence was pronouned to the time of the execution.

De Rochechouart states in his memoirs that he replied to Despinois immediately to exonerate de Saint-Bias, and to restore the man to Desponois' good graces. He praises de Saint-Bias, gives a number of reasons for selecting him to command the execution detail but most importantly notes that the man was Piedmontese and could not speak French properly. He says that de Saint-Bias tried to comply with the orders and attempted to give a signal to fire, but that this signal was not understood by the firing party. Simultaneously, according to de Rochechouart, Ney has placed his hand on his heart and is beginning to speak, and has uttered a number of words when de Saint-Bias shouts "Fire!".

The convergence of the words is important here. De Rochechouart says that Ney began to say "Frenchmen, I protest against my sentence; my honour …" just as the signal was given to fire. No shot was fired (the signal was not understood) so de Saint-Bias shouts "Fire!" The volley is fired, and Ney falls in mid-speech.

Remember that this would all have happened very, very quickly, so it is no surprise to see that the newspapers began to report that Ney gave the order to fire himself. An example is given in de Rochechouart's Memoirs:

Monitor December 8, 1815, page 135g, gave an account of the execution:

"Marechal Ney's sentence was carried out at nine o'clock in the morning; he asked the comfort of religion, he was accompanied to the place of execution, [under the walls of Place de l'Observatoire] by the vicar of Saint-Sulpice. He gave the signal to fire and fell instantly as though struck by lightning."

Despinois' orders were also quite specific about allowing Ney's body to remain in situ for a specified period of time (guarded by cavalry and infantry pickets) before removing it to a specified location – L'Hopital de la Maternitfi. Everything was regulated precisely in these orders, and very little was left to chance. The orders also provided for additional security, as well as another detachment of men to stand behind the firing squad – I presume they were a security detail, but no doubt could have served as an auxiliary firing squad should the need have arisen.

Now, as to Peter Ney and America, I like a good story, intrigue and a happy ending as much as the next man, but I firmly believe that Michel Ney met his end in front of a French firing squad, commanded by a Piedmontese officer in Paris on 8 December 1815. Anything else is – in my opinion – romantic and wishful thinking.

Mericanach

You may well be right about Peter Ney and the USA. I wonder if a DNA test could be carried out or is that far too late now?

I'm glad to see you agree about a show trial. The Royalists wanted to make an example, in the hope it would scare off a repeat, and I don't believe they cared who they used as the victim. The higher up the ranks the better. But it certainly proved that the royalists were still running scared, and they ended all sense of honour in allowing such a disgraceful act to have taken place. They could have just exiled him and the other brave men they had killed. But I suppose fear makes people act that way.

You may well be right about Peter Ney and the USA. I wonder if a DNA test could be carried out or is that far too late now?

I suppose one could be carried out, but it would be enormously expensive. Outside of the actual test itself, the relevant exhumation orders would have to be sourced for both Peter and Michael Ney, and you'd have to find a proven modern descendant of Michael Ney who'd consent to giving a sample.

To be perfectly honest, outside of a family member or direct descendant of either Peter or Michael Ney who wishes to know the truth of the matter, I do not believe that anybody has a moral or legal basis to disturb the resting places of the two men in question.

I'm glad to see you agree about a show trial.

I don't, actually. Well, perhaps not to the extent that you think I do.

The Royalists wanted to make an example, in the hope it would scare off a repeat, and I don't believe they cared who they used as the victim. The higher up the ranks the better.

Correct, to a point. There was certainly a need to make an example of somebody. I believe the Royalists would really have liked to get hold of Bonaparte, but had to settle for Ney instead.

Consider the court-martial. Look at the men who composed it, and look how they passed the buck and kicked the matter to the Chamber of Peers. They – men who had served alongside Ney – had a chance to find him not guilty. His own colleagues hung him out to dry.

But it certainly proved that the royalists were still running scared, and they ended all sense of honour in allowing such a disgraceful act to have taken place. They could have just exiled him and the other brave men they had killed. But I suppose fear makes people act that way.

I believe there was considerably less "fear" than you might think. Instead, it was more of a case of "fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice…". Once Ney's own peers had failed to save him – or at least had failed to give the appearance of even trying to save him – the Royalists were pretty much free to do what they wanted with him.

Consider the Royalist position in terms of post-Hundred Days realpolitik.

1 – You have pretty much every army in Europe parked on your doorstep, ready to level the place if you so much as twitch.

2 – You are a less than popular monarch (arguably seen as nothing more than a puppet of and lackey to foreign interests), now in the business of returning to a kingdom which has a demonstrably excellent track record in deposing and executing members of your family and faction, and kicking you out the minute a charismatic individual shows up and starts shouting about "la Patrie", "glory" and "injustice".

3 – The kingdom is full of men who are still smarting from a defeat in a battle that they feel they should have won (a "we was robbed, and we'd take you on again tomorrow if you think you're man enough" mentality).

4 – One of the household names in France, a genuine "we'd follow him to Hell and back" combat commander who has betrayed you once already despite his oath to serve you faithfully is alive. You don't know what he'll do if you set him at liberty, and sending people like him into exile hasn't worked out all that well for you recently. Do you really want somebody like Ney at large if you want to keep your throne and your head? Ney had already shown where his loyalties lay – he'd pick Bonaparte and his policies over the Bourbons any day.

Was Ney's execution a "nice thing"? No. Of course not. Was it "dishonourable"? I'm not sure. Was Ney honourable in breaking his oath to serve Louis? If he was so caught up with honour, why take an oath of loyalty to Louis in the first place if he had no intention of keeping it? If he had kept the promise he made to Louis and stopped Bonaparte as he had promised, would the Hundred Days have happened at all? How many young men might have remained alive and uninjured? Ney made a promise. He broke it, and it cost the lives, limbs and minds of thousands of young men. He knew it was a massive gamble backing Bonaparte, and he paid the price when it didn't work out.

Very interesting and well related Mericanach, but I wonder to know if there were a post mortum detail about were the shots went on Ney. Why?. Because if the soldiers had to fire to his hart and he has his two hands upon there, his hands had to be destroyed.
Nobody comment anything about Ney hands.

In other way, I'm not concurr that Ney had to be shot. He would be exiliated or imprisioned for example 10 years a the If Castle.

And the question nobody answer is: Why others General/Marshals as Soult which made the same move were not shot too or even imprisioned for a long time?.

Amicalement
Armand

but I wonder to know if there were a post mortum detail about were the shots went on Ney. Why?. Because if the soldiers had to fire to his hart and he has his two hands upon there, his hands had to be destroyed.
Nobody comment anything about Ney hands.

From Fifty years' biographical reminiscences, Volume 1 By Lord William Pitt Lennox

link

Ney's trial commenced on the 4th of December, and continued until the 6th, when he was capitally convicted of high treason by 139 out of 160, and was sentenced to the full punishment of death, without appeal. Seventeen peers recorded their opinions in favour of banishment, and four abstained from voting. During the trial, the advocate for the accused having been interdicted from making use of the convention of July in his plea, urged that the Marshal, though French in heart, was no longer a Frenchman, as, by the treaty of the 20th of November, the Government, in tracing a new line round France, had left Sarrebruck, the district from which the Marshal came, out of it.

The brave soldier, despising any quirk or quibble of the law, rose, much affected, and with vehemence exclaimed—" Yes! I am a Frenchman, and I will die a Frenchman! I am accused against the faith of treaties, and they will not allow me to justify myself. I will act like Moreau—I appeal to Europe and posterity."

………..the Marshal was conveyed to a spot near the garden of the Luxembourg. After descending from the carriage, and embracing his confessor, he proceeded with a quick step and firm manner within a few paces of the wall, when, turning round and facing the firing party, he exclaimed, in a calm voice, "Comrades, direct to the heart—fire!"

While delivering these words, he took off his hat with his left hand, placing his right upon his heart. The signal was given, and Ney instantly fell dead, twelve balls having taken effect, three of them in the head.

Conformably to military regulations, the body remained exposed for a quarter of an hour, and was then carried by veterans to the Foundling Hospital.

At half-past six on the following morning, the remains of the great warrior were buried in the cemetery of Pere la Chaise.

In other way, I'm not concurr that Ney had to be shot. He would be exiliated or imprisioned for example 10 years a the If Castle.

Many people did not wish to see him executed, that is true. He could indeed have been exiled or imprisoned, but the Royalists wished to ensure that he was no longer a rallying point for an uprising against them. They made an example of him, and it seems to have worked.

Again – why did his own comrades on the first court-martial not acquit him? Why did they allow him to be sentenced by the Chamber of Peers when they could have saved him? That is a question that needs to be addressed.

There is also a school of thought, reported in Weston's "Historic doubts as to the execution of Marshal Ney" that the Chamber of Peers only delivered a guilty verdict as they assumed that the King would commute the death penalty to exile for life. Weston states that the Chamber immediately petitioned the King after passing the verdict, but Louis refused to commute the sentence.

And the question nobody answer is: Why others General/Marshals as Soult which made the same move were not shot too or even imprisioned for a long time?.

None of them were as dangerous to the King as Ney was. In any case, Louis' point was made with the execution of Ney -"defy me and die".

Mericanach

Interesting points but if they couldn't risk exiling Ney and others, it meant the fear factor was still there and high. It also showed they had no confidence that the people of France wanted the royals back, and certainly not with people like Ney still running around. And why just Ney? Was he the only one who failed to stop Napoleon? Was he the only one to go over to the Emperor? No, of course not. It was a dishonourable act of revenge and anger, and a cruel attempt to scare other Bonapartists. And yes, sadly, those who fought with and on the same side as Ney, passed the vote for his execution. Was their vote one of self-preservation? Did they believe it wouldn't really happen, not to a hero like Ney, who knows. The whole thing was a black event in a wonderful period of history, not counting, of course, the number of poor souls who died on either side during the many conflicts.

Something that's frequently overlooked in the Bourbon Restoration is the fact that the Bonapartists were not nearly as popular across the whole of France as many people like to believe. There is a tendency to forget things like the Second White Terror, and the anti-Bonapartist sentiment prevalent in the south of the country. France was not as pro-Napoleon as many enthusiasts of this period of history might like to believe. There is an over-emphasis on the military aspect, but little or no focus on the internal politics of the country.

Louis was certainly not universally popular in France, but he was not universally despised either. I don't doubt that there was an element of revenge in the execution of Ney, but remember that pretty much everybody who had been a senior Bonapartist had been given a pass in 1814 when Louis first took the throne. Had his thirst for revenge been that severe, he could easily have commenced executions and show trials – but he did not. Do not forget that these Bonapartist marshals were men who were now at the highest levels of a regime that had put members of Louis' own family to death. His motive for revenge was not exactly without merit, yet he gave the likes of Ney, Soult and others a chance (they got off without even a slap on the wrist if you think about it), and they returned to Bonaparte at the first opportunity, costing the lives of thousands of their own countrymen, and for what? Ney made it quite clear by his actions in 1815 that his first loyalty lay with Bonaparte, and not with the soverign to whom he had so recently sworn allegiance. Why on earth would Louis (or any monarch) give him a second chance to cause more trouble?

Ney made the point during his defence that he went along with Bonaparte to avert a civil war. Fair enough – no civil war took place. Instead, Ney's action (or lack of it, if you prefer) precipitated the Hundred Days, and we all know how that worked out for everyone involved.

The only reason the Hundred Days happened at all is because Bonaparte wanted it to happen. Would Ney, Soult or any other French Marechal have summoned the nation's armies and marched in the summer of 1815? I very much doubt it.

Ney was certainly a brave man. He was indeed a great captain and a warrior. He did as he saw fit at the time and knew what he risked when he backed Bonaparte in 1815, and he knew how things would end up if the gamble didn't pay off. I firmly believe that Ney was the only man in France who could have stopped Bonaparte on his return. He alone, beloved of the military and with an outstanding record of being "a soldier's soldier" could have made the French troops think twice about reinstating their former commander in chief. He had sworn an oath to his king, and failed to keep that oath. He paid the price for it.

Mericanach

Of course Napoleon WANTED it happen! Any exiled leader would WANT his position restored. That goes without saying, just as the French king WANTED his position restored. But he needed the Allies to do that for him, while the French people did it for Napoleon. And considering Napoleon did it without any bloodshed, suggests that he was wanted back, albeit not by the royals and their supporters. And even if the support had not been that strong, then that would suggest the royals did not really have anything to fear, so there was no real need for show trials or savage acts of revenge, such as Ney's execution. And Napoleon's commanders were probably offered their positions under the king because, at the time, they were probably the best skilled to take on the roles. And I imagine that quite a few made the oath without really wanting to. It was something they had to do, rather than wanted to do. And perhaps swearing an oath to a king that ran away, while the rest faced the Emperor, shouldn't really be counted anyway? There can be no excuses for the black event. It was unnecessary and cruel. But it is history now and sadly, nothing can be changed.

Ney was still in the service of the King and commanding French troops when he switched sides. The King was still in power at this point. He had not left France, and did not do so until after Ney had gone over to Napoleon. Louis did not run at the first mention of Napoleon's return. It was Ney's defection which precipitated that. What was he supposed to do – stay in Paris until Napoleon came for him with a rope?

Davout had retired from military service and, accordingly, did not betray an oath to the King by joining Napoleon's forces in 1815. The likes of Soult were also released from their oath by the King when went in to exile.

Legally, Ney was guilty of treason. You can dress that up however you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he committed the crime for which he was executed. I'll certainly grant that it was probably more "surrender-to-circumstances" than a calculated, premeditated act of treason (Ney was certainly brave and impulsive, but politically he hadn't a clue). It was enough bad judgement to have him face a trial. Any modern attorney (or indeed, any lawyer from two hundred years ago) will tell you that once you go to trial, all bets are off and anything can happen.

The execution could certainly have been avoided, but in order to allow Louis to avoid it and simultaneously save political face, he needed that recommendation from Ney's own peers. He didn't get it. The minute Ney's peers took themselves out of the equation, Louis pretty much had to see that he was executed. The Royalist faction were demanding blood, and Ney's own people were not stepping up to provide Louis with an easy out. The man had no wiggle room. He had no independant legal decision that he could hold up to the Royalists and point to as an alternative option. As a monarch, he could not, in the circumstances, allow a man like Ney to swear allegiance to him and then openly defy him to the extent that he had without imposing a terrible sentence. Unnecessary? Perhaps, but I'm not sure Louis could realistically have allowed Ney to live. There was cruelty, certainly, but I think the cruelty came from the failure of the court-martial to deliver any sort of verdit.

Mericanach

As pointed out by another poster, he was NOT the only one who turned against the king. Most of them did. So why pick on him? And yes, the court-martial was cruel but Louis was the king. And it would have been a gracious act and one of strength to exile Ney, rather that cave in to the other royalist wishes. The failure to do so, only shows that he was a weak king and one that may have been too easily influenced by others, and possibly one of the reasons why so many people preferred Napoleon in the first place. And if he had to run because he had no one left to fight for him, then he should not have even been considered as being the king. A king without supporters is only a king in name. Napoleon without support would have remained an emperor in name only. But the overall blame for the black cloud of the period must go on the king, the blood thirsty loyalists and those who voted for his execution. A shameful act whichever way you look at it and despite the number of excuses and attempts to justify it.

When Bonaparte first abdicated, Louis decided on a policy of national reconciliation. He recognised that a "new broom" approach would heighten the chances of civil war, and adopted a "forgive and forget" approach. Most of the high level personnel of Napoleon's regime, such as the prefects and the military commanders, were kept in place. Ney, along with others, kept his marshal's baton. The army was greatly reduced, and thousands of officers were put on half-pay. Consequently, you had a large number of men who saw their position in society eroded and changed, and naturally they looked for somebody to reinstate their former status. They also felt betrayed by those who had pushed for abdication in 1814.

Bonaparte's return was nothing more than a military coup, fuelled by the lower echelons of the military. This coup was not just against Louis and the Royalists, but also against those who had brought about Bonaparte's abdication – the same senior French military personnel who were still in place. The only reason Ney was given his command in the Armee du Nord was because Bonaparte pulled a political stroke. He needed somebody like Ney to act as a signal to the French middle class that he was prepared to forgive and forget. He needed Ney – Ney did not need him, but went over to him anyway. If Ney had stood up to Bonaparte, what do you think would have happened to him?

Ney took a gamble on Bonaparte's victory during the Hundred Days. He knew that what he was doing was legally wrong. He left his head of state on the throne, broke his word and turned his coat – either to save his own skin because he was afraid of what the Bonapartists would do to him, or simply because his loyalties lay with Napoleon all along.

Actions have consequences. Ney backed the wrong horse at the wrong time. I cast no aspersions on the man's courage on the battlefield, but he brought himself to his own end. Let him be called "the bravest of the brave", by all means, but let him also go down in history as an example of what can – and should – happen to those who break their word and betray an allegiance that they have given. If Waterloo had been a French victory, everybody would agree that he made the right move. As we know, it wasn't, and his death was the result. Ney's own actions put him in front of that firing squad. Mitigation of his lack of foresight in 1815 and damning Louis for executing him is symptomatic of nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who assume that Bonaparte and all belonged to him were somehow "the good guys". France had plunged Europe into war for twenty years, and Europe wasn't prepared to put up with much more of it. Louis knew this, and was sending a message not merely to France, but to Europe as a whole – "we will not have another Hundred Days on my watch". Castigate the man for having Ney executed, by all means, but recognise also that in order for France to survive and not be carved into pieces by the other European powers in the event of another war, Louis had to take steps to ensure that those who might betray him and lead the nation into war once again could not do so. The King was a better statesman than history has given him credit for, and cared a damn sight more about his people's future than many realise, or care to admit.

Not my intention to argue againt your my friend Mericanach, but some points of your very well described argument failed on some discrepancies imho.

Napoleon had march on foot from the coast to Paris without a single shot from his side or the other one.
Louis and his associated had to fled because the french people didn't want to loose what they had gained on the Revolution days. Louis himself has not a popular "figure" also. True that the military was the great sustent from Napoleon on those days, but the "people" didn't move a muscle against him on his so weak march to Paris.
Remember that on France Napoleon had raised on power because of a popular elections. (Firt time in Europe?)too.
Do you think that if King Louis call for free election on France he would win?.

About Ney dead, it seems to me that Fouché, who vote for the execution of the King was much more guilty than Ney, a military whose actions were 90% on the battlefield, not on a desk plotting for more power.
I think that the Allied were the truly rulers of France on those days and as in the first moment they stop any "White terror" which are many proves that the King brother ("Monsieur")want to made in the first restoration, they accepted Ney dead in the second one (as de la Bèdoyére)dropping Louis hand.

About who votes against him, see the list and also who vote in his favour. Not many surprices there.

Anyway, I enjoy so much your arguments.
congratulations.

Amicalement
Armand

Napoleon had march on foot from the coast to Paris without a single shot from his side or the other one.

Bonaparte was a better gambler and politician than those he faced in France on his return.

True that the military was the great sustent from Napoleon on those days, but the "people" didn't move a muscle against him on his so weak march to Paris.

"The people" were waiting to see what the military would do. The military was the supreme power in France, and Bonaparte was popular with them. On his return, he also made sure that he avoided areas where he was not popular, like Provence.

Bonaparte knew what he was doing. He knew that if he could get the Army on his side, he could reclaim power. He manoeuvered Ney into a position where there was a good chance that Ney's own men would turn on him. If he and Ney had fought, what would have happened to Ney afterwards? Would he still have been given a command in the Armee du Nord? Of course not. And if Ney had fought, and been killed or captured, what would the other Marechals have done? Would they have sided with Bonaparte?

Bonaparte landed in France on 1 March. Ney joined him on 14 March. Louis did not flee to Ghent until 19 March 1815. Name one other French marechal who had joined with Bonaparte prior to Ney's defection? Louis knew that once Ney had betrayed him, others would follow. The situation would have been radically different if Ney had kept faith.

Remember that on France Napoleon had raised on power because of a popular elections. (Firt time in Europe?)too.

And how many elections did the Emperor hold after 1804?

About Ney dead, it seems to me that Fouché, who vote for the execution of the King was much more guilty than Ney, a military whose actions were 90% on the battlefield, not on a desk plotting for more power.

Bonaparte, Fouché, Tallyrand and others understood politics – Ney did not, or thought he was a better politician than he actually was.

Look – many of you are looking for the happy ending here. You like Ney (and there is a lot to like and admire, certainly) but it does not change the fact that he broke his word and acted either from self-interest or an instinct for self-preservation before any other senior military figure in France did. He went over to Bonaparte while the head of the state that he had sworn to uphold and defend still sat on the throne, and his actions and reward provided the catalyst for the Hundred Days. That is a fact, gentlemen, and if you cannot see that and admit it to yourselves, I really don't know what more to say to you about it.

Ney's own colleagues were fully aware of this, they had the chance to save him and speak up for him – they didn't. If Louis had really, really wanted him dead straight away, Ney's fate would have gone directly to the Chamber of Peers. He gave Ney's colleagues a chance to do something for him, and they didn't. They didn't make a good decision, or a bad decision – they simply didn't make any decision. They sent a brave man in front of a firing squad without even recommending that the King or Chamber of Peers be merciful in spite of his obvious guilt.

The Marechals and Generals of France – his own brothers – sealed Ney's fate and killed him just as certainly as if they had shot him themselves. If you want to point at a black, cowardly and dishonourable deed, there it is.

Bonaparte was a better gambler and politician than those he faced in France on his return.

That doesn't seem to be much of a defence of your assertions. The notion that Louis suddenly became a good bloke interested in anything but himself is interesting. For me he was as self-serving as Napoleon without any of the positives.

Ney breaking his word to Louis is understandable. Ney loved the battlefield and he loved glory, and when he swore his oath to Louis he thought those were gone for good. Nobody expected Napoleon to return, so when he did difficult decisions had to be made by many.

Clearly Ney's cost him his life, but to suggest he went over to Napoleon from a desire for self-preservation is to not know or understand Ney. 1812 should tell you that self-preservation wasn't on Ney's radar.

It was perfectly understandable that Louis had Ney shot, and I agree that the disgrace (if there is any, which I believe there is) falls squarely on the shoulders of his old comrades who really did care more about self-preservation than honour. Perhaps this just teaches us that when all is said and done there are very few honourable men.

Mericanach

No one is looking for goody-goody endings. You seem to be getting the wrong idea from the posts. You also seem very keen on defending king Louis, despite the fact he could have exiled Ney, had he really wanted to. He was the king, after all, wasn't he? I'm sure he would have had the final say. And perhaps he wanted the vote made by Ney's peers, because that way he could look ever so innocent. Ney was a soldier who followed a soldier instinct, as did all the other commanders and soldiers who went over to Napoleon. And they certainly did not need much if any persuading to do so. And many would have still gone over to the Emperor even if Ney had remained loyal to the king. But very few were, so why should Ney? And yes, Napoleon was a gambler, all the great commanders were, so what's wrong with that? In fact, every tactic employed by any military commander is, to a certain degree, a gamble. Most of Napoleon's gambles worked, some didn't. The hundred days almost worked. But that's way it goes. History is full of winning and failed gambles. You don't seem to like the king being indicated as part of the showcase-revenge trial? Tough. He was as guilty as Ney's peers, more so because he, as king, had the final say.

That doesn't seem to be much of a defence of your assertions.

Bonaparte was very, very careful in choosing his line of march on his return. There were shorter and more direct routes which he could have taken to Paris, but he made damn sure that he avoided areas which were not completely sympathetic to his interests.

The man was a legend, and he played that to the hilt. That was his ace when confronting nominally Royalist forces. With every French soldier that came over to him, he gained the appearance of more universal and popular support. His main aim was to gain support within the military as quickly as possible. Once he had that, his aura of invincibility begain to coalesce once more.

Bonaparte knew that if he had enough of his aura back by the time a senior figure like Ney caught up to him, the odds were pretty good that any confrontation would go in his favour. He reached out to Ney – "I shall receive you as after the Battle of the Moskowa" – that was a clear signal that he was prepared to put Ney's insistence on and role in his abdication to one side. He knew that with Ney on side, France could be his.

If you think about it, it's politically the very same as his trademark central position. Drive a wedge between Louis and the Marechals by 'defeating' Ney, which in turn signals to Louis and his followers that he cannot hold the throne without the support of the military, and that France is now his.

The notion that Louis suddenly became a good bloke interested in anything but himself is interesting. For me he was as self-serving as Napoleon without any of the positives.

I don't think that I have ever asserted that Louis became a nice guy and was acting with the purest of motives, but if you stand back and look at how he handled things in 1814, he acted far more wisely (and dare I say fairly) in the circumstances than history has generally noted. He was prepared to uphold much of the civil rights that Bonaparte had guaranteed, and he did not set about seeking revenge as many might have expected. Yes, history has made him out to be a gross, self-serving and less than admirable individual, but if you can get past the fact that many people (and posterity) were always going to consider him as a poor successor when contrasted with the heady days of the charismatic Bonaparte, he actually seemes to be a fairly even-handed and even reformist individual for all his flaws.

Ney breaking his word to Louis is understandable. Ney loved the battlefield and he loved glory, and when he swore his oath to Louis he thought those were gone for good. Nobody expected Napoleon to return, so when he did difficult decisions had to be made by many.

Understandable? Perhaps, yes. The appropriate question is whether it was excusable. I submit that it was not. Ney led with his defection, and others followed.

Clearly Ney's cost him his life, but to suggest he went over to Napoleon from a desire for self-preservation is to not know or understand Ney. 1812 should tell you that self-preservation wasn't on Ney's radar.

1812 tells me that self-preservation was not on Ney's radar in 1812. His political actions (and those of others like him) in 1814 and 1815 suggest otherwise.

Again, I cast no aspersions on the man's physical courage. By 1814, he and the other Marechals knew thay were beaten, and tried to make the best deal they could. No blame to them.

It was perfectly understandable that Louis had Ney shot, and I agree that the disgrace (if there is any, which I believe there is) falls squarely on the shoulders of his old comrades who really did care more about self-preservation than honour. Perhaps this just teaches us that when all is said and done there are very few honourable men.

I believe that there are many honourable men in this world, it's just that we don't hear about them terribly often. The nature of the honourable person is generally such that they tend to go about their business without engineering situations which may force them to dishonour themselves.

No one is looking for goody-goody endings. You seem to be getting the wrong idea from the posts.

I don't think so. I see an awful lot of posts wishing and sighing that Ney had not died a traitor's death, and wistfully hoping that the Peter Ney story is true.

You also seem very keen on defending king Louis, despite the fact he could have exiled Ney, had he really wanted to. He was the king, after all, wasn't he? I'm sure he would have had the final say.

No. I am interested in providing an alternative viewpoint for discussion, founded on a factual analysis of the real difficulties facing France's new ruler after Bonaparte's second exile. A "warts and all" analysis of both Ney and his King, if you will.

And perhaps he wanted the vote made by Ney's peers, because that way he could look ever so innocent.

True. And if they had voted for exile, he would have had something to point to and act upon. Instead, Ney's "brothers" hung him out to dry, and left the King without wiggle room. Why?

Ney was a soldier who followed a soldier instinct, as did all the other commanders and soldiers who went over to Napoleon.

True. He was also a man who broke his word. Do you deny this?

And they certainly did not need much if any persuading to do so. And many would have still gone over to the Emperor even if Ney had remained loyal to the king. But very few were, so why should Ney?

Because he had given his word not to. Do I take your position as being that a man's freely given word of allegiance to his country should mean nothing?

And yes, Napoleon was a gambler, all the great commanders were, so what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all wrong with it, as long as you win your bet and are able to pay up or suffer the consequences if you lose.

The consequence of Ney's actions was that he was tried and executed for treason.

In fact, every tactic employed by any military commander is, to a certain degree, a gamble. Most of Napoleon's gambles worked, some didn't. The hundred days almost worked. But that's way it goes. History is full of winning and failed gambles.

I commend Michel Ney to you as an excellent example with which to illustrate your point.

You don't seem to like the king being indicated as part of the showcase-revenge trial? Tough. He was as guilty as Ney's peers, more so because he, as king, had the final say.

And the logical and factual corollary to that position is that Ney's peers are equally as guilty of dishonourable and despicable conduct as the King, so why should he be be villified more than they?

I have no problem with the King's actions, no. I have no difficulty with the fact that he gave an order to have Ney executed, because that was what the situation demanded. I believe in mercy and clemency where it is merited. In this case, if Ney's own friends refused to lift a finger to save him or at least mitigate his guilt, why should the King have been merciful?

And you might also consider whether exiling a man like Ney would really have been an act of mercy.

Mericanach

You sound more and more like a lawyer. Yes, Ney broke his word. Anyone with a sense of honour would have done the same. We can't keep fingering him , like you do, for breaking his word, when virtually everyone else did the same. Is it your opinion then that everyone who turned against the king should also be found guilty and shot? You must try and remember that we have not lived through that period. We have not fought and then rebelled against Napoleon. We have not had the situation in which your soldier's instinct to follow the Emperor clashes with the instinct of keeping his word to a king who had not gone through the same experiences that Ney and the Emperor had done, together. You are ignoring the human aspect as lawyers often do, just to get a result. And if the king had stepped in when Ney's peers found him guilty, surely it would have shown a real king, a man of strength and power. A man who could make his own decisions, and not one who let others do his dirty work! It was morally wrong. The king was responsible, like it or not, as of course, were Ney's peers. And if Napoleon chose a path that avoided areas were he may not have been so well supported, do you not think that should be applauded? It meant less chance of anyone getting hurt. Or would you have preferred him to charge through, not caring and killing any Frenchman that opposed him?

The man was a legend, and he played that to the hilt. That was his ace when confronting nominally Royalist forces. With every French soldier that came over to him, he gained the appearance of more universal and popular support. His main aim was to gain support within the military as quickly as possible. Once he had that, his aura of invincibility begain to coalesce once more.

I agree that Napoleon was, to quite a degree by 1815, a legend, but as a rule that tends to only magnify popularity, rather than detract from it.

I believe that there are many honourable men in this world, it's just that we don't hear about them terribly often. The nature of the honourable person is generally such that they tend to go about their business without engineering situations which may force them to dishonour themselves.

I'm afraid my experiences have differed from yours in that case.

Because he had given his word not to. Do I take your position as being that a man's freely given word of allegiance to his country should mean nothing?

i think you are being a trifle naive in this respect. People have more on their plates than simply whether they gave their word or not. It's all jolly noble to be a man of one's word, but I doubt there's anybody who hasn't had to break their word to somebody at some point.

Bonaparte was very, very careful in choosing his line of march on his return. There were shorter and more direct routes which he could have taken to Paris, but he made damn sure that he avoided areas which were not completely sympathetic to his interests.

It sounds like you are being critical of Napoleon for failing to be stupid.

You sound more and more like a lawyer.

Does that pose some sort of difficulty for you?

Yes, Ney broke his word. Anyone with a sense of honour would have done the same.

Interesting position to take. I can't say I agree with it. I was raised to believe that a man's word was his honour, and that a man who breaks his word is a pretty contemptible creature.

Oddly enough, "honour" is something that a lot of people seem to talk about in Napoleonic history. I think the period contains some of the most monstrously dishonourable characters I've ever read about.

One would also have thought that if Ney's cnduct was so honourable that his own peers would have recommended clemency on that basis. For some reason, they didn't do that.

Is it your opinion then that everyone who turned against the king should also be found guilty and shot?

What would be wrong with that? Does it not speak well of post-Bonaparte France that mercy was shown to many who did not deserve it?

You must try and remember that we have not lived through that period. We have not fought and then rebelled against Napoleon.

When did any of the men who sat in judgement upon Ney fight and rebel against Napoleon?

We have not had the situation in which your soldier's instinct to follow the Emperor clashes with the instinct of keeping his word to a king who had not gone through the same experiences that Ney and the Emperor had done, together.

So, by your lights, Bonaparte and Ney and all the rest of them were right to do what they did, and nothing else matters? Right to engineer a situation where hundreds and thousands of young men would hurl themselves at each other in damp Belgian fields, adding to the six million Europeans already dead and further bankrupting France for the sake of one man's vanity?

Where's the "human aspect" in that?

And if the king had stepped in when Ney's peers found him guilty, surely it would have shown a real king, a man of strength and power. A man who could make his own decisions, and not one who let others do his dirty work!

Ney's peers didn't find him guilty. They hadn't the courage to make any decision either way. Louis did make his own decisions, unpopular though they might have been. He had Ney executed, after all. he was prepared to live with the consequences of making a decision. Ney's colleagues weren't.

It was morally wrong.

Breaking your word is morally wrong. Leading thousands of young men to their deaths when you don't have to is morally wrong.

Executing somebody who has betrayed you and precipitated the deaths of thousands of your people? Not exactly a nice thing, but morally I think you'd be on firmer ground.

The king was responsible, like it or not, as of course, were Ney's peers.

I have never said that the King wasn't. I put it to you that Ney's friends are equally, if not actually even more, culpable.

And if Napoleon chose a path that avoided areas were he may not have been so well supported, do you not think that should be applauded?

No, I think he ought to have stayed where he was in the first place. All he did was come back and get beaten.

It meant less chance of anyone getting hurt. Or would you have preferred him to charge through, not caring and killing any Frenchman that opposed him?

Again, I would have preferred him to stay where he was, and not cause the needless deaths of thousands of his own countrymen and neighbours. The Hundred Days were a terrible waste of human life, and show the fact that Bonaparte really had little concern for his country and her citizens.

Any man who had the chance to avert that and didn't do his utmost to do so deserves to pay a very heavy penalty.

i think you are being a trifle naive in this respect. People have more on their plates than simply whether they gave their word or not. It's all jolly noble to be a man of one's word, but I doubt there's anybody who hasn't had to break their word to somebody at some point.

There's a substantial moral gulf between "breaking your word to somebody" and leading members of the armed forces of the country you have sworn to serve and protect in order to stand beside somebody who wishes to overthrow the lawful government of the country you are supposed to be defending.

There's a substantial moral gulf between "breaking your word to somebody" and leading members of the armed forces of the country you have sworn to serve and protect in order to stand beside somebody who wishes to overthrow the lawful government of the country you are supposed to be defending.

Judging by the results of history I think you may be wrong about that. I suspect morality is telescopic, and that to the bigger 'players' they just are playing at a different level. In any case, did Ney swear to protect and serve France or were his oaths (broken or otherwise) specifically to a monarch?

did Ney swear to protect and serve France or were his oaths (broken or otherwise) specifically to a monarch?

Now there's a fine bit of hair-splitting.

As far as the Bourbon monarchs were concerned they were France. "l'Etat, c'est moi", as Louis XIV probably didn't say.

Such an attitude was, you could say, Revolutionary.

Old Bear raises a fine point – let's address it.

It is my understanding that Ney swore or pledged his allegiance to the restored monarchy in March 1814. This specifically would have taken the form of allegiance to Louis XVIII as king and as hereditary sovereign of France.

Louis also created him a peer of the realm at this time.

Now, if we'd like to split hairs further, Ney had sworn essentially the same oath to Napoleon I as emperor and as hereditary sovereign of France. Napoleon I abdicated, as we know, voiding Ney's (and everybody else's ) oath of allegiance. Now, this is a subtle legal point, but it is worth noting. Napoleon I abdicated unconditionally, as follows:

The Allied Powers having declared that Emperor Napoleon was the sole obstacle to the restoration of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of his life, which he is not ready to do in the interests of France.

Done in the palace of Fontainebleau, 11 April 1814.

—Act of abdication of Napoleon

therefore he was no longer Napoleon I, but simply Napoleon Bonaparte. That he styled himself "Emperor" on his return is all well and good, and some may even make the point that he "reassumed" the right to call himself "Napoleon I" once he had reached Paris, but the chief legal difficulty for Ney stems from the fact that there was no unbroken oath of allegiance to Napoleon I upon which Ney could rely to justify his breaking an oath of allegiance to Louis XVIII. Napoleon I could not legally claim his first allegiance in the face of an oath to Louis XVIII, because Napoleon I did not exist while Louis XVIII sat on the throne of France.

Ney's oath to Louis XVIII was still in place – and Louis XVIII was still on the throne of France and the realm's lawful monarch – when Ney joined forces with Bonaparte, who by the law of the kingdom and the conventions of the time was nothing more than an usurper. A fusiler of any French infantry regiment had just as legal a claim – which is to say "none at all".

Once Louis had vacated the throne and fled to Ghent, the other Marechals could – and did – arguably consider themselves justifiably free of and no longer bound by their their oath to the king. This was something that they would have been able to raise in their defence in the event of being faced with a death sentence, because the corollorary to an oath of allegiance to a monarch is that the monarch will actually be there in order for you to be loyal to him.

This is also the reason that de la Bédoyère was executed – he was the first titled person (he was also a peer) holding an oath of allegiance to Louis XVIII who "crossed over". It was their actions which added fuel and a degree of overt approval to what was basically a military coup. That is why they were executed, and why a derogation from the Treaty of Paris was sought in their particular cases. Everybody else holding senior rank in France could raise the defence that Louis had legged it – Ney and de la Bédoyère could not take that position.

Every other monarch in Europe was well aware of what was happening. None of them lifted a finger to intercede on behalf of Ney during or after his trial, because as monarchs, they too valued and relied upon oaths of allegiance. Urging Louis XVIII to disregard their treachery (for legally, it was no more than that) was simply not something they were prepared to do. They might disapprove, might privately consider Ney to indeed have been a brave man, but they could not and would not contradict another fellow monarch on what was an internal matter concerning his own subjects. They would certainly not have tolerated it from Louis had he begun to interfere inn their affairs. Neither would they have sanctioned any interference in such a matter by their representatives, which is why you don't see Wellington getting involved.

Let us attempt to set aside how we feel about the fairness of Ney's death, and what we might like to have seen happen to him, and consider instead not only the legal difficulty which which Louis XVIII was faced, but what was also expected of him by the other monarchs – his own peers. Their silence was an approval – perhaps through gritted teeth – but they could not, by the conventions of the time, stop him. Louis XVIII himself could not realistically back down either. There was no mass execution of those who had taken a part against him. Some were indeed censured, but then you can't throw over your king, take up with Bonaparte and expect nothing to happen to you. The main difference is that everybody else – apart from Ney and de la Bédoyère – had acted in a manner and at a time which allowed Louis XVIII to fudge the issue to some extent, and not look for executions. The others gave him that wiggle room I mentioned earlier.

Do I find the manner in which Ney died sad? Of course I do. I have great admiration for him. But my admiration of his courage and battlefield ability does not change the fact – no matter how much I might wish it were otherwise – that Ney betrayed the man to whom he had sworn allegiance. I wish he had been more politically astute. I wish he had stood up to Bonaparte, and at the very least provided something which he could later rely on to mitigate his treason, by saying "Well, at least I tried to stop him". I do not believe that the troops he commanded would have harmed him. I am less certain that Bonaparte would have been completely forgiving of his actions in 1814, but I think he would have kept him alive. Once Louis XVIII was off the throne, Ney could arguably have taken up with his Emperor in good conscience, and might well have lived beyond 1815 as a result.

As I have said before, it was Ney's own actions which brought him in front of the firing squad. Had he exercised a bit more judgement, he might not have been condemed as a traitor and met his end as he did. I still think that the Hundred Days was a terrible waste of life, and shows that Bonaparte really did not care as much about France as many might wish to believe. Ney had a chance to avert that, and failed to do so. History must hold him accountable for his part in the subsequent senseless waste of life for the sake of Bonaparte's vanity. It does not mean that Ney was not brave. It does not lessen his earlier achievements, such as in 1812. I hope it gives some of you who are receptive to a more rounded portrait of the man something to think about.