"How a brave of the braves died." Topic

Mericanach

I don't particularly care if you are a lawyer, but you certainly sound like one. Lawyers are usually cold in most matters and winning the case seems to be the most important factor, even if it meant criminals remained unpunished. Not that I'm saying you are like that, of course.
But please, get real! The Allies declared war on Napoleon, not the other way around, so if you want to blame the death of thousands of men on someone, them get your facts right and those to blame correct.
As for Louis – didn't Tallyrand describe him a 'selfish. insensitive, Epicurean, ungrateful', while the Czar Alexander said the king 'seems to think he is Louis XIV'.
And Louis needed Ney far more than Ney needed Louis in 1814 because the king knew the allied troops who protected him would have to leave and he would have to rely on Frenchmen to protect him, hence he needed Ney on his side badly, in order to gain the support of the Army. But Ney was losing faith with the new regime long before Napoleon came back anyway, for several reasons. The attitude of the emigres and Ultras and the king himself, who wanted to take things back to as they were before the Revolution, starting with the Imperial Guard. All officers had to be nobly born, so it was goodbye to merit and hello to name and title.
And wasn't there an amnesty agreed in the peace treaty, which should have protected Ney but a new government decree prevented it from being used in Ney's case. In other words, the new government broke their word, never mind Ney breaking his. He was set up – it was a showtrial and the royalists wanted blood. All his sacrifices for France, his humanity, his bravery, the fact he remained, ignored.
In short, I think Ney was too honest, too upfront and relied too much on their still being honour among his peers and among those who now ruled. He certainly got that wrong. He should have run away when he had the chance but I suppose, sadly, to run away was against his character and he was to suffer for it.

I don't particularly care if you are a lawyer, but you certainly sound like one. Lawyers are usually cold in most matters and winning the case seems to be the most important factor, even if it meant criminals remained unpunished.

Noted.

Not that I'm saying you are like that, of course.

Then why bother to mention it in the first place?

But please, get real! The Allies declared war on Napoleon, not the other way around, so if you want to blame the death of thousands of men on someone, them get your facts right and those to blame correct.

Certainly. They did indeed declare war. Why was that, I wonder? The French army hadn't trebled in size in the blink of an eye because Bonaparte fancied a spot of duck shooting, right?

But Ney was losing faith with the new regime long before Napoleon came back anyway, for several reasons. The attitude of the emigres and Ultras and the king himself, who wanted to take things back to as they were before the Revolution, starting with the Imperial Guard. All officers had to be nobly born, so it was goodbye to merit and hello to name and title.

The point has already been made that Ney was acting out of a certain measure of self-interest. Your point above would indicate that you give considerably more weight and merit to that argument than I had. In other words, you have introduced the element of Ney's motive in defecting. Interesting. Obliged to you.

And wasn't there an amnesty agreed in the peace treaty, which should have protected Ney but a new government decree prevented it from being used in Ney's case. In other words, the new government broke their word, never mind Ney breaking his. He was set up – it was a showtrial and the royalists wanted blood. All his sacrifices for France, his humanity, his bravery, the fact he remained, ignored.

Asked and answered. See post 50 of this thread. You're already well aware by now that I do not consider the trial to have been a set-up.

In short, I think Ney was too honest, too upfront and relied too much on their still being honour among his peers and among those who now ruled. He certainly got that wrong.

You mean he was less than politically astute? Certainly.

He should have run away when he had the chance but I suppose, sadly, to run away was against his character and he was to suffer for it.

It was also obviously against his character to keep his oath to Louis XVIII and to carry out his orders. He suffered for that too, did he not?

It was also obviously against his character to keep his oath to Louis XVIII and to carry out his orders. He suffered for that too, did he not?

Have you never faced a decision in your life where neither option was absolutely straightforward? One of those that you maybe lost sleep over before having to decide? Maybe one where you even changed your mind more than once before deciding? I know I have. Not all of life is a straight broad. As a lawyer I'm sure you know that.

Certainly. They did indeed declare war. Why was that, I wonder? The French army hadn't trebled in size in the blink of an eye because Bonaparte fancied a spot of duck shooting, right?

You berate Ney for not being politically astute, yet berate Napoleon for being such. Knowing the nature of his fellow monarchs, rfamping up the army was as necessary as his march to Paris. In short, it was a political necessity. However, based on your argument how many countries should we declare war upon this very morning based on an increase in military build-up?

The point has already been made that Ney was acting out of a certain measure of self-interest. Your point above would indicate that you give considerably more weight and merit to that argument than I had. In other words, you have introduced the element of Ney's motive in defecting. Interesting. Obliged to you.

Yes, you're a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer (why the phrase 'you are a lawyer' sounds like it's something naughty?), but a historian. What happened to Ney was the common fate of those military that rebelled against their lawful monarch, in France or anywhere else. Even today, what would happened to an US general that would support a (failed) coup of state against the President? He would be put on trial in a federal court and most probably condemned to the death penalty.

Back in early XIXth Century, that was the common penalty that faced whoever rebelled against the head of the state. Only political expediency or a almost angelical patience in the part of the monarch could result in more lenient sentence. Look at the fates of the Decembrists in Russia (in 1825), or at the Spanish generals that rebel against Ferdinand VII. Or the fate of Enghien, who was shot by Napoleon's orders after being illegally arrested (kidnapped), in a foreign country, being prosecuted without any legal guarantees (as granted by France's laws at the time). And all of that by an alleged participation of him in a conspiracy against a government he never recognised as legitimate or to which he swore alliegence.

The fate of Ney wasn't either unusual or specially cruel. Actually, he was granted a soldier's death (being shot), instead a degrading execution which would have been perfectly in the rights of Louis XVIII, as king of France, to order. Mericanach has explained very well. If Mericanach posts deserve any criticism would be that he has been too 'modern' in his legal arguments. In the times, the only ones that saw Ney's death as wrong were the hardcore Bonapartists.

Best regards

Let us examine the decision and "moral quandary" that Ney faced.

At Ney's trial, testimony was received from Général Bourmont that Ney had actually been in correspondence with Bonaparte for three months prior to his return.

" C'est une chose absolument finie," dit le Maréchal. Je ne l'avais pas compris. Lo Général Lecourbe entra; "je lui disais que tout cet fini," dit-il au Général Lecourbo; celui-ci parut étonné. " Oui," ajouta le Maréchal, "c'est une affaire arrangée, il y a trois mois que nous sommes tous d'accord; si vous aviez été à Paris, vous l'auriez su comme moi. Los troupes sont divisées par deux bataillons et trois escadrons, les troupes d'Alsace de même, les troupes de la Lorraine de même ; le Roi doit avoir quitté Paris, ou il sera enlevé, mais on ne lui fera pas de mal ; malheur à qui ferait du mal au Roi ; on n'avait l'intention que de le détrôner, de l'embarquer sur un vaisseau et de le faire conduire en Angleterre. Nous n'avons plus maintenant qu' à rejoindre l'Empereur." Je dis au Maréchal qu'il était très extraordinaire qu'il proposât d'aller rejoindre celui contre lequel il dovoit combattre. 11 me répondit qu'il m'engageait à le faire, " mais vous êtes libre." Le Général Lecourbo lui répondit—Je suis ici pour servir le Roi, et non pour servir Buenaparte. Jamais il ne m'a fait que du mal, et le Roi ne m'a fait que du bien. Je veux servir le Roi, j'ai de l'honneur." "Et moi aussi," répondit le Maréchal, "parceque je ne veux pas être humilié. Je ne veux pas que ma femme retourne chez moi les larmes aux veux des humiliations qu'elle a reçues dans la journée. Le Roi ne veut pas de nous, c'est évident; ce n'est qu' avec Buonaparte que nous pouvons avoir do la consideration; ce n'est qu' avec un homme de l'armée que pourra en obtenir l'armée." Une demi-heure après, il prit un papier sur la table—" Voila ce que je veux lire aux troupes." Et il lut la Proclamation. . . . Le Maréchal était si bien déterminé d'avance à prendre son parti qu'une demi-heure après il portait la décoration de la Légion d'Honneur avec l'Aigle, et à son grand cordon la décoration à l'Effigie de Buonaparte.— Déposition du Général Bourmont —Moniteur, 6 Dec. 1815.

I have translated the above as follows:

"The thing is done,"said the Marechal. I did not understand. "I told him that all this done, "he told the General Lecourbo; who seemed surprised. "Yes," added the Marshal, "the matter is settled, it was three months ago that we all agreed, if you were in Paris, you would know this just as I do. The troops are divided into two battalions and three squadrons, troops in Alsace as well, the troops of Lorraine also, the King will have to leave Paris, where he will be removed, but he will not be harmed; woe to him who would harm the King, we only intend to dethrone him, to put him aboard a ship for England. We now have nothing further to do except to join the Emperor."

I told the Marshal that it was very extraordinary that he proposed to join the man against whom he was supposed to fight. He told me he advised me to do, "but you're free."

General Lecourbo replied "I am here to serve the King, not to serve Bonaparte. He has done nothing but evil, and the King nothing but good. I wish to serve the King, I am an honorable man."

"As am I," replied the Marechal, "because I do not want to be humiliated. I do not want my wife back home with tears of humiliation like she received that day. Obviously, the King does not want us, it is only from Bonaparte that we will receive fair treatment, it is only with a military man that you can hold [get] an army"

Half an hour later he took a paper from the table "This is what I want to read to the troops." And he read the Proclamation. . . . The Marshal was so determined to take up his new position that not an hour afterwards, he wore the Légion d'Honneur avec l'Aigle and his décoration à l'Effigie de Buonaparte

From "Déposition du Général Bourmont — Moniteur, 6 Dec. 1815"

Is a minium of three months advance planning "a spur of the moment/lose-your-head" decision, or something else? Where is the tortured wrestling with conscience? Ney set this in motion long before Bonaparte ever set foot on French soil again. This was in motion when he left Louis' presence, vowing to take Bonaparte prisoner. Not only did he break his oath, he lied to the man's face.

Ney himself admitted in his judicial declaration that he had used the words "Cage de Fer."* He admitted that, in a transport of Royalist enthusiasm, he had said, "If I see the least hesitation in the troops, I will seize the first grenadier's musket, make use of it, and give an example to others." He admitted having signed the fatal proclamation of the 14th March, in which the cause of Napoleon was openly espoused, and which was immediately followed by the defection of the whole army. He said in his declaration that it was written by Napoleon, and sent to him by means of his brother Joseph, who was at Prangin. Yet so strong had been his protestations of fidelity, that down to the very last moment the royal family had more confidence in him than in any man in France.

Mericanach

I assume from your reply that you are a lawyer and this suggests that you might be too connected and possibly make all your decisions based on cold facts, rather than daring to let a bit of humanity enter the fray. Again, I could be wrong, in fact, I certainly hope I am wrong and apologies if I am wrong in that area. But you seem to be making your decisions based on hindsight. We know what people did and and we know what happened. But they didn't know at the time. It is far too easy to brush off the period and say this should have happened to Ney because he did this or did not do that. Ney should have stayed loyal while everyone else didn't. It is absurd to do so. You have no idea of how you might have thought, concerning Ney or anyone else, had you been living in France during that period. The same goes for me, of course, which is why I tried not to base decisions and views based on hindsight. Sadly, many do make their decisions on hindsight. But, judging by your postings, it does not matter what I say, you have your opinion on matters and will stick to it. I get the impression that you feel Ney should have been executed and it wasn't a show trial with other people doing the king's dirty work. I think Ney shouldn't have been executed and it was a show trial and the king was as guilty as anyone else. But I accept your views, that is your choice, and I just hope you can accept my views. I feel we must agree to disagree on all matters. But I have certainly enjoyed the debate. It is just a shame it concerned such a sad occasion.

The fate of Ney wasn't either unusual or specially cruel. Actually, he was granted a soldier's death (being shot), instead a degrading execution which would have been perfectly in the rights of Louis XVIII, as king of France, to order. Mericanach has explained very well. If Mericanach posts deserve any criticism would be that he has been too 'modern' in his legal arguments. In the times, the only ones that saw Ney's death as wrong were the hardcore Bonapartists.

Bas,

I for one don't have any issue with Ney's death penalty. As has been pointed out, he knew the risks. Mericanah however seems to have little knowledge of human nature as what he's trying to throw in is a quick character assassination of Ney, presumably thinking this will add weight to his argument when he has no need to.

Ney's death was not wrong, merely tragic.

Ney himself admitted in his judicial declaration that he had used the words "Cage de Fer."* He admitted that, in a transport of Royalist enthusiasm, he had said, "If I see the least hesitation in the troops, I will seize the first grenadier's musket, make use of it, and give an example to others."

Ever had an adrenaline rush and promised things you couldn't realistically deliver? I have and I'm not ashamed to admit it. You seem to be inclined to avoid any accounting for human nature in all of this. Ney was rash and over-excitable; he was not the sort of despicable turncoat you are trying to paint him.

I assume from your reply that you are a lawyer and this suggests that you might be too connected and possibly make all your decisions based on cold facts, rather than daring to let a bit of humanity enter the fray.

Again with this.

But you seem to be making your decisions based on hindsight.

No, I am making my decisions on the reported facts of the matter.

Fact 1 – Ney was at the forefront of the movement to force Napoleon I to abdicate in 1814.

Fact 2 – Ney swore allegiance to Louis XVIII, and was rewarded with position and peerage.

Fact 3 – Ney was unhappy with how he was being treated by Louis XVIII (despite having title, prestige and position), and decided that he'd be better off with Bonaparte.

Fact 4 – While holding an allegiance to Louis XVIII, Ney corresponded and plotted with Bonaparte and others to remove Louis from the throne and reinstate the Emperor.

Fact 5 – Bonaparte's route of march on his return was carefully selected to ensure that no shot was fired against him, because the units that lay along his line of march were commanded by men who were in on the move to re-instate him. Those men included Ney. Bonaparte knew this in advance. This was a coup, not a popular uprising and outpouring of joy and devotion at the Emperor's return.

Fact 6 – Ney took these actions while representatives of the country he was sworn to serve sat at the negotiating table at the Congress of Vienna, fighting for the country's future.

There is no hindsight here. That is what actually happened.

Ney should have stayed loyal while everyone else didn't. It is absurd to do so.

Ney didn't stay loyal. His actions show that he was only loyal to Louis as long as it suited him.

Ney was an opportunist. He forced Napoleon I to abdicate because it suited his needs, swore to Louis XVIII because it suited his needs, plotted to reinstate the Emperor because it suited his needs. He was looking out for his own interests all the time. To say that he should have remained loyal when nobody else did is to mis-state what actually happened. Ney was the first senior figure in France to betray his king, and he had started down that road three months before Bonaparte ever set foot in France again.

Would Bonaparte have returned at all if Ney had not been in on the plan to facilitate his return? Would the Allies have declared war on France if Napoleon had not returned? In other words, had Ney been a man of his word, would Bonaparte ever have returned at all? I submit that he would not, and that without Ney's lengthy and prior involvement in the movement to reinstate the Emperor, Bonaparte would never have returned to France.

Ney knew what he was doing when he forced Napoleon I to abdicate. Louis rewarded Ney after the 1814 abdication. Ney felt his rewards were insufficent. Bonaparte told him that he would reward him and receive him as he did asfter the Mosckowa – he would make him a Prince. In other words, Bonaparte made it explictly clear to Ney that he would reward him more richly than Louis XVIII had, in exchange for his help in a reinstation. Ney went along with this – his actions clearly speak to that. He read a proclimation at the head of his troops, and led them over to Bonaparte. From that point forward, he was in rebellion not merely against his king, but against France. Ligny, Quatre Bras and Waterloo followed – thousands of deaths that would have been avoided had Ney done what he had sworn to do. The result? A rising against Bonaparte in the Vendee. France occupied by a million foreign soldiers. Enormous sums of money levied against the country for indemnities and reparations. And for what? Because Michel Ney was not happy with the deal he made in 1814, and decided that he could do better with the man he had forced from the throne.

Courage, battlefield performance, determination, leadership – yes, all of those can, should and must be attributed to Ney. But so can opportunism. So can avarice. So can raw, naked greed. In 1814, Ney set himself up as a kingmaker and kingbreaker. In 1815, those ambitions unnecessarily cost the lives of thousands. I lay every death, every severed limb, every broken mind, every widow, every child left fatherless, every parent bereaved of a son, every beggar in scarlet, French and Prussian blue and every other uniform you care to name squarely at the feet and on the soul of Michel Ney. By a man's works shall ye know him.

Ever had an adrenaline rush and promised things you couldn't realistically deliver? I have and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I have never (in the heat of passion or otherwise) promised one thing to somebody's face while knowing that I have been working in secret for three months to achieve the exact opposite. I'm not ashamed to say that either.

You seem to be inclined to avoid any accounting for human nature in all of this.

On the contrary, this is all about human nature, specifically Ney's. It is about Ney's lust for power, prestige and position. He forced one man to abdicate when it suited him, and was quite prepared to haul another off the throne when he didn't get what he wanted. Now, did Ney do what I have just described or not?

Ney was rash and over-excitable; he was not the sort of despicable turncoat you are trying to paint him.

I don't think the man was half as rash as you think he was. His actions would seem to indicate otherwise.

Was Ney's death tragic? Perhaps. It's considerably more tragic that so many died when they simply did not have to.

I have never (in the heat of passion or otherwise) promised one thing to somebody's face while knowing that I have been working in secret for three months to achieve the exact opposite. I'm not ashamed to say that either.

That wasn't what I asked you.

I don't think the man was half as rash as you think he was. His actions would seem to indicate otherwise.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that, but simply reading details of his early cavalry career suggests otherwise to me, at least.

Was Ney's death tragic? Perhaps. It's considerably more tragic that so many died when they simply did not have to.

So you'd rather that probably the most famous battle in history had not happened? War is all about killing, or had you missed that bit?

That wasn't what I asked you.

That's the answer you're getting. Promising to deliver something which a moment's pause would tell you is impossible or unrealistic and lying to somebody (and it is a lie if for over three months you have been doing something inimical to the interests of the person to whom you utter the falsehood) and telling them that you are on their side and will keep your promise to them when you have no intention of doing so are two vastly different things. If you cannot accept the magnitude of Ney's betrayal, or can trivialise it to the extent you have illustrated, then I think we seem to be operating within radically different moral frameworks.

Let me put a different – perhaps more appropriate to the matter under discussion – question to you. Have you ever publicly sworn to uphold and defend your Queen and/or country, but while subject to that promise secretly colluded with outsiders to overthrow the Queen and supplant her with somebody who has promised to reward you?

I haven't, and I'm not ashamed to say that.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that, but simply reading details of his early cavalry career suggests otherwise to me, at least.

It wasn't his early cavalry career that landed him in front of a firing squad in 1815.

So you'd rather that probably the most famous battle in history had not happened? War is all about killing, or had you missed that bit?

From the point of view of a person who enjoys wargaming and reading about the great campaigns and battles of history, and painting up the appropriate figures with which to play historically representative games, the Hundred Days are a good thing. That is the nature of a wargamer and Napoleonic history enthusiast.

From the point of view of a person who is intimately familiar with violent death, the baser aspects of human nature and who consequently holds human life in the highest regard, I think it was a terrible and unnecessary waste of life, brought about by the machinations of a small number of men who really ought to have averted it. That is the nature of a person who does not like to see people die unnecessarily.

Mericanach

Your post above is one of the best reasoned posts I've ever read in this forum. However, I would add that you overstate your case a little bit when you put on Ney's feet all the deaths and suffering that happened in the Hundred Days. If Ney wouldn't have play along, Napoleon would have looked to other partners. And he would have had many to chose.

Certainly, Louis XVIII rewarded Ney (and others) for his support in toppling Napoleon in March 1814. But it's also true that thereafter he allowed his Court to bring slight after slight over Ney in the months after. You must understand the times, in order to judge the actions. For people back then, specially for those in the top layers of society, honour was something more than just a word. For then it was as important as wealth or position. For a military man, life without honour was worthless. Remember that Ney came from the petty Gascon nobility. To him, his honour was more important than his life and than his allegiance to a king that had allowed, if not actively promoted, his minions to shovel disdain over Ney and his wife.

Napoleon offered him what Louis XVIII didn't: to recover his honour. In that particular society, in that particular times, that was the most important prize that Napoleon could offer to Ney.

I know it's difficult for us to grasp that concept. For us, honour is based in personal virtues (keep the given word, treat well your family, ecc). But then, honour was understood differently. It was also a measure of how you were seen by your peers. Even if you were the noblest block of the party, if you were treated dishonourably by your king, you were entitled to forfeit your loyalty to that King, because he had done in the first place. This is a concept that had been inherited from the ancient oaths of allegiance that form part of the rituals of fealty in feudal Europe. If the King didn't fullfil his part of the bargain, you were entitled to forfeit your oath; and supporting the honour of his subject was part of such bargain.

In other words, in a sense Ney was pushed into Napoleon's arms by the acts of his king, Louis XVIII, and his cotterie of bored stiff-lip courtiers. If we follow your line of reasoning to its last consequences, we could conclude that the actual culprits of the suffering that the Hundred Days brought to Europe, were Louis XVIII and his minions (specially, his brother Charles, who was at the head of the humiliations that were shoved over Ney's head).

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. ;)

Guys, so happy we could show that on Napoleonic Discussion Board we could argue, agree or desagree each other with this so good lebel and without a single futile agression.!! (big smile).

This is the way we ought to show to the next TMP generation or new visitors how a good historical discussion could be conduct.

Mericanach, I don't agree with you but I applause your posts. You are a very good and interesting contributor to this forum.

BASILEUS 66!!. My friend, what are going on with your mails?
Since a week I'm sending messages to you (Rafa too) and they all return to us. Maybe you had to clean your mail?
If you can, please wrote to me a couple of lines.

Many thanks to all for your SO INTERESTING contributions here and I hope we could continue like these thread as an example of future exchange of views.

Amicalement
Armand

Hey, Raul! Try this: antoniojcarr@gmail.com

I had a dispute with Telefonica and changed operators last month. For the moment I am using Gmail, although I hope Orange will give me an account soon.

Cheers!
Antonio

That's the answer you're getting.

In that case before I ask any more questions could you let me know what they should be to keep you in your comfort zone.

Promising to deliver something which a moment's pause would tell you is impossible or unrealistic and lying to somebody (and it is a lie if for over three months you have been doing something inimical to the interests of the person to whom you utter the falsehood) and telling them that you are on their side and will keep your promise to them when you have no intention of doing so are two vastly different things.

How certain of what was going in in Ney's head are you? You seem to be extremely specific and definitive in what you say. How do you know that Ney didn't simply change his mind after Napoleon wrote to him?

From the point of view of a person who is intimately familiar with violent death, the baser aspects of human nature and who consequently holds human life in the highest regard, I think it was a terrible and unnecessary waste of life, brought about by the machinations of a small number of men who really ought to have averted it. That is the nature of a person who does not like to see people die unnecessarily.

Not really sure how best to reply to this bit. To try and out-trump you on the violence and inhunmanity stakes would appear crass, so that's best avoided. Clearly though it can affect people differently, as with the notable exception of protecting children my opinion of human beings is pretty low.

In that case before I ask any more questions could you let me know what they should be to keep you in your comfort zone.

Ask whatever question you like. I'll reply as I see fit.

How certain of what was going in in Ney's head are you? You seem to be extremely specific and definitive in what you say. How do you know that Ney didn't simply change his mind after Napoleon wrote to him?

Pretty certain, as it happens. The whole matter of Ney bringing Bonaparte back in a cage while secretly working with Bonaparte was dealt with in some detail at his trial, and that can be found easily enough online. I have quoted some of it above, and will repeat the translation here for ease of reference:

Yes," added the Marshal, "the matter is settled, it was three months ago that we all agreed, if you were in Paris, you would know this just as I do. The troops are divided into two battalions and three squadrons, troops in Alsace as well, the troops of Lorraine also, the King will have to leave Paris, where he will be removed, but he will not be harmed; woe to him who would harm the King, we only intend to dethrone him, to put him aboard a ship for England. We now have nothing further to do except to join the Emperor."

If that is not testimony to the fact that Ney had been part of a move to remove Louis for at least three months prior to his departure from the King's presence (ostensibly to take Bonaparte prisoner in furtherance of his lawful duty to do so), then what is it?

This evidence was not contradicted or rebutted by Ney at his trial, and must therefore be considered factual and accurate. It therefore follows that Ney knew that what he was saying to Louis was not true, as he had been planning to do the exact opposite of what the King had ordered. Now, Ney could of course have pulled out of the plan at any point up to the time he received the message from Bonaparte and before he signed the proclamation and read it to the troops. But he did not, because his mind had been made up months beforehand. We know the rest.

I will quote further from Ney's statements during his trial:

J'ai dis au Roi que la démarche de Buonaparte était si insensée qu'il meritait, s'il était pris, d'etre conduit a Paris dans une cage de fer. On a préteudu que j'avais dit que je lo conduirais moi-meme, si je le prenais, dans une cage de fer. Je ne me rappelle pas bien ce que j'ai dit. Je sais que j'ai prononcé ces mots, ' Cage de fer.' Je dis aussi que Buonaparte me paraissait bien coupable d'avoir rompu son ban. J'ai écrie, ' Si je vois de l'hésitation dans la troupe, je prondrai moimeme lo fusil du premier grenadier, pour ni'en servir, et donner l'exemple aux autres.' J'ai entrainé; j'ai eu tort, il n'ya pas lo moindre doute." — Procés du Marfchal Ney— Moniteur, No. 515, 11th Nov. 1815.

which I have translated to

I told the King that the approach of Bonaparte was so mad [insane] that he deserved, if taken, to be driven to Paris in an iron cage. It has been represented that I said that I would drive him myself, if I captured him, in an iron cage. I do not remember what I said. I know I said these words, 'iron cage'. I also say that Bonaparte seemed very guilty for having broken his ban. I cried, 'If I see hesitation among the troops, I will personally sieze the musket of the first grenadier, serve him with it [I believe he means that he'll shoot the first soldier who shirks his duty], and set an example to others.' I entrained [to take Bonaparte]; I was wrong, of that there is not the least doubt."- Trial of Marechal Ney-Monitor, No. 515, 11th Nov. 1815.

The King was under no illusions about Ney's promise, and showed how much he depended on Ney's actions:

Tout dépend des premiers coups de fusil, car enfin il n'y en a pas encore de tires. J'attends tout de Ney, puisque c'est le seul qui combattra cet homme.

translated to

Everything depends on the first shots, because in the end there will be no more shooting. I expect everything from Ney, because he is the only one who will fight this man.

The King believed that Ney, and Ney alone, had the courage to stand up to Bonaparte. Ney did his utmost to convince the King of that fact, and that is why he was sent to capture him. Ney, the King and Bonaparte all knew that one shot fired against Bonaparte would be enough. Both Ney and Bonaparte knew that they could not allow that to happen, and worked together to see that it did not.

Look, guys, I get what many of you are saying about human nature, but you need to push your admiration for Ney's achievements on the battlefield aside for a bit. I understand that Ney has to date been represented by historians as a brave, rash and impulsive man who was excuted unfairly. Nobody likes to see a nice guy get treated unfairly – that is something I think we can all agree on. But I urge you – look as closely and as dispassionately as you can at the sequence of actions leading to Ney's overt defection, and you will see that this was no spur of the moment decision on his part. It was quite calculated, and quite, quite cold. He knew exactly what he was doing, knew exactly where his actions would ultimately lead France and her people and had known what he was gong to do for some time. He knew that this would be a massive gamble, and that his bridges with the Bourbons would be well and truly burned behind him if he went through with the plan. He took a calculated risk, and it didn't play out as well as he had hoped. He paid the ultimate price for his actions. Unfortunately, so did many, many others.

It would appear that you are relying on de Bourmont's evidence against Ney as the centre of your argument. is that correct? This is thoroughly rejected by Atteridge on page 348 of his biography of Ney. It would be ironic of you falling back on de Bourmont bearing in mind his considerable form for turning coat himself.

Atteridge makes it very clear that Ney was taken by surprise reciving Bertrand's package from Napoleon delivered by the two officers Ney refused to identify at his trial. Prior to that Ney had on a number of occasions clearly declared his intention to bring back Napoleon.

Atteridge refers to the "three months ago…" quote on page 302 and rejects this as fiction spouted by Ney during a period when he was uncertain which way to turn. He had not been in Paris for several months before March 1815 and Atteridge states that Ney knew nothing of the "abortive Orleanist and Bonapartist plots of 1814-15".

It clearly is a matter of choice who one believes. I have no reason to doubt Atteridge's analysis so I'm afraid I won't be buying into Ney as an arhc-conspirator.

Mericanach

I'm glad you agree that the Allies declared war on Napoleon and that he hadn't actually done anything to warrant their actions. Yet, considering you like facts so much and seem to base your decisions on them, it is strange that you don't condemn them for doing so. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? But I suppose it is easier to see things in black and white. It makes life much easier, doesn't it. But life and history has never been black and white, which is why we have so many debates, discussions and disagreements. It is called humanity and humanity has never been black and white, throughout history. And to blame Ney for Napoleon's return, the Hundred days and all the deaths it involved, is far too easy to do and takes it away from the real reason why it happened. Most of the French did not want or like their new royalist masters, who wanted things back they way it was before the revolution. Napoleon came back because the people wanted him back. They, and the army, obviously preferred him to the king, the emigres and the ultras, who were becoming more and more disliked. Had the majority been against his return, there was no way he would have been able to return. And the king was not innocent in the affair. He was, after all, the royalist bossman, so to speak, and if he didn't really want Ney killed, he could have said so. Do you really think the royalists would dared to oppose his decision? Not if they wanted to get things back to the way things were before the revolution. And wasn't Ney instrumental in persuading Napoleon to abdicate the first time around? So you could say he helped save lives, more than you can say he was the cause of them. But again, you have your views, which you are sticking to no matter what anyone says. and you are welcome to them. I have mine and others have theirs. It is what makes us human, what makes us tick – not facts. Life is not a court case.

Atteridge refers to the "three months ago…" quote on page 302 and rejects this as fiction spouted by Ney during a period when he was uncertain which way to turn. He had not been in Paris for several months before March 1815 and Atteridge states that Ney knew nothing of the "abortive Orleanist and Bonapartist plots of 1814-15".

That's a strange sort of fiction to be spouting, isn't it?

It clearly is a matter of choice who one believes. I have no reason to doubt Atteridge's analysis so I'm afraid I won't be buying into Ney as an arhc-conspirator.

You take Atteridge as gospel. I do not. We differ on this point, which is fair enough. There is merit in much of what he puts forward. I simply do not agree that his interpretation of the available evidence and timeline is correct.

I'm glad you agree that the Allies declared war on Napoleon and that he hadn't actually done anything to warrant their actions.

Of course, I am in agreement with the first part of your statement. It is a matter of historical fact, as such a Declaration was actually made. I cannot say that I agree with the second part, as it is a matter of opinion as opposed to fact, and you and I do not share the same opinion in that respect. I find nothing to condemn in the action of the Allies, or at the very least their guilt may be mitigated because a failure to act on their part would not have worked out well for Europe. There is also the fact that they clearly had no intention of attacking France until Bonaparte returned.

Napoleon came back because the people wanted him back.

Bonaparte came back because he wanted to come back.

And the king was not innocent in the affair.

I have never said that he was. What I have said – rather consistently – is that he was no more guilty than those who could have saved Ney, but did not. Ney's own guilty actions aside, I hold those people far more responsible for his death than the King.

Do you really think the royalists would dared to oppose his decision?

Certainly. They came very close to revolting themselves when he proclaimed a general amnesty the day after Ney's execution. Read up on that when you have time – it's very interesting. The level of resistance to what he proposed, and the lengths he went to to successfully quash it are quite surprising.

And wasn't Ney instrumental in persuading Napoleon to abdicate the first time around? So you could say he helped save lives, more than you can say he was the cause of them.

One could certainly say that about him, yes. What were his motives in doing so? As altruistic as you make out, or somewhat less so? He benefited greatly from Bonaparte's abdication. His actions in 1814 are what make me somewhat suspicious of the "bluff, simple soldier" portrait with which history has left us and which – for me, at least – call his actions (and lack of them) in 1815 into question.

As you say, we have different views.

What about if we chance sizes here?
Napoleon, at the head of the state before his march from the coast, decided to shot all those Marshals/Generals which he considerer as traitors to his (France) cause.
For example, he took prisioner Mac Donald (he could be, because he was the ONLY ONE Marshal which really tried to stop him)and before a quick trial he had been shot.
Was this legal?.
What about Augereau who was sitting in his chair waiting what would happened between him and King Louis?
What about Marmont, the Duc de Ragusa who betrayed him on 1814?.
If those two guys (hand by hand with Talleyrand and Fouché) went to the firing squad, we could said that it was not a good thing, but legal and with sufficient background because of their performance and personalities?.
What if you had to defend this cause, my dear colleague?

Amicalement
Armand

PD: I'm writting to you now my friend Antonio!.

Mericanach

It was fear of what might happen, rather than what did happen, that made the Allies act against Napoleon. Imagine if nations did that nowadays? Far more countries, besides those that have already been invaded, basically due to a fear, would also be invaded. Not good is it? And no one can say for sure what would have happened, had they not made war on Napoleon. After all, they could have waited to see what he did. They had plenty of men that they could have marched against him, had he made any aggressive moves. But he didn't and they did. Had they waited and nothing happened, it may well have saved all those lives lost during the 100 days campaign? They only acted on the fear of what they expected Napoleon to do and caused a costly war in doing so. And of course Napoleon wanted to return. That is a silly statement on your behalf. Why would he want to remain on an island far away when he could return and become an Emperor again. It is not rocket science is it, just plain human nature, something we all suffer from. And the people, or most of them, certainly appeared to show that they supported his return, which wasn't a good advertisement for the royalist regime, was it? I don't know about the king granting an amnesty after Ney's execution, but if he did, then that proves he could have done it before Ney was executed, but chose not to. I am unaware of the royalists nearly revolting, so thank you for pointing that out. I will read up on that when I have time. But you seem so cold towards Ney, towards a man you have never met or known, and simply ignore anything positive said about him. You really do appear to have a black and white vision of the man, he is selfish and everything he does is for his own ends. You obviously don't believe he did anything for France, which I find rather sad. He relied too much on honour and with that lacking in the new regime, he was doomed before the first words of the show trial was uttered. He was a soldier above all and I think he acted as such in a world that no longer respected soldiers or what they had done for their country. His actions have always been those of a soldier and I can see no evidence to support your view of a totally selfish man doing everything for his own ends, including getting Napoleon to abdicate and then supporting his return. Those are the actions of a soldier, no more no less. If you can't accept that, that's a shame. Perhaps you are too suspicious of everyone, past and present, as if everyone must have a negative or selfish motive for what they do or say? But again, we are disagreeing on a sad event. I can't see that changing either, can you?

Chapeaux pour vous monsieur Gazzola.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand

And my compliments to you, sir. Your postings are some of the few that make this site worth attending.

But you seem so cold towards Ney, towards a man you have never met or known, and simply ignore anything positive said about him. You really do appear to have a black and white vision of the man, he is selfish and everything he does is for his own ends.

I have not ignored anything positive said about him. I am well aware of his admirable qualities right through to 1814, and do not seek to look behind them. My difficulty lies with his actions immediately prior to and during the Hundred Days. It stems precisely from what seems to me to be a radical departure from those qualities which made him such a popular individual, not merely back then, but today.

Consider – everybody here praises him to the rooftops, will not hear a word said against him and accuses me of being "cold". Yet nobody has picked up on the fact that I have not criticized or faulted any action or aspect of his personality prior to 1814. I firmly believe that Ney changed – and changed radically – in the time between the march into Russia and the time of Napoleon I's abdication. I believe that it is this change which needs to be examined, evaluated and applied in order to provide a more complete analysis of the man, his motives and his actions from the time of the abdication to his trial.

Ney in 1815 was not the same Ney of 1807, or of 1812 or even 1813. He had seen and endured a great deal – I do not say that it made him less courageous – but I think he began to view the world and his Emperor in quite a different manner after he returned from Russia, and this continued and developed through to 1814.

This is why I feel his actions in 1815 bear a thorough re-examination. His actions from 1814 to 1815 are almost those of a different person compared to the Ney of the heady days of the Empire. I don't think it's "cold" or incorrect of me to say that people change, or that they are the sum of their experiences. That's part of the human nature you keep mentioning, isn't it?

You really do appear to have a black and white vision of the man, he is selfish and everything he does is for his own ends. You obviously don't believe he did anything for France, which I find rather sad.

My view of Ney is not even remotely as black and white as you might think. What I am trying to do here is focus – for the time being on Ney post-Russia, analyse the man and his actions, examine his motives and see whether we are dealing with a radically different person. I think that the Russian campaign changed him in ways that have not been fully explored, and that it is these changes which go some way towards providing an explanation – perhaps even a justification – for his actions in 1814 and 1815.

I think if you can put aside your bias (please understand that I do not use the word in the perjorative sense in this instance) and cast the most critical eye possible over the man and his actions, we might arrive at an interesting, objective and more complete picture of a very complex individual, and perhaps a more comprehensive understanding of the twilight of the Napoleonic era.

As to whether or not he did a lot for France, I will readily say that he certainly did a very great deal for his Emperor and for his cause. I have my own views on Napoleon I and his attitudes to his own people, but this is not the thread to go into them. It would merely detract from what I wish to learn about Ney.

It would appear that you are relying on de Bourmont's evidence against Ney as the centre of your argument. is that correct? This is thoroughly rejected by Atteridge on page 348 of his biography of Ney. It would be ironic of you falling back on de Bourmont bearing in mind his considerable form for turning coat himself.

I did not have time to address this point as completely as I wished at the time of posting. Let me clarify my position, and hopefully you will see that I have not dismissed Atteridge's conclusion lightly or out of hand.

I am completely in agreement with Old Bear that de Bourmont's testimony would not be worth the cost of electrons to reproduce it, especially if he had been the sole witness against Ney. However, he is valuable for two things.

1 – There are things that he outlines and describes which Ney does not contradict or refute – particularly the "three months" matter.

2 – He corroborates Lecourbe, who as we know was dead by the time of the trial. His testimony was given by deposition, and had been taken some time before the trial.

Lecourbe is the witness whose testimony I think poses the chief difficulty for Ney. It is certainly very favourable to Ney in many respects – I am quite certain that the old general very much admired Ney and his achievements as a soldier, but he is also quite specific in the mention of the "three months".

It is that phrase that bothers me. I can accept just about every possible explanation for Ney to utter something like that except the one he actually gave. The This is where Atteridge falls as far as I'm concerned, because he compounds this matter further by saying that "Ney was making a throwaway remark and being a bit rash", and that it would be possible to completely debunk that assertation by proving that he was elsewhere – except that Atteridge doesn't – not satisfactorily. And neither did Ney at his trial. That's the problem I have with Atteridge's analysis.

Testimony is given which is very easily rebuttable if you have an alibi and the facts to prove it. Ney was doing a very good job himself of hammering de Bourmont, and was very ably represented by his counsel. Indeed, if you read the accounts of the trial, the magistrate was quite content to let Ney and anybody who wanted to cut loose at de Bourmont, as indeed they should. Yet the best Ney could come up with to his self-incrimination was basically something to the effect of "I made a throwaway remark, hinting at an extensive personal involvement in a plot to overthrow the King to two men who could easily give testimony against me, but don't give any credence to that because I was just letting off steam". His counsel did nothing to address this. Nothing further is introduced by his representative to show that he wasn't in Paris at the time, and Ney doesn't bring it up either.

Why? Why was the best defence that Ney and his counsel could come up with nothing more than an admission without a thorough explanation of his whereabouts at the time? Why did Ney's counsel not immediately turn around and ask him to give an account of his whereabouts during the time in question?

One of the fundamental rules of cross-examination in every legal system from the inception of the practice is that you never, ever, ever ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Ney and his counsel knew what the truthful response to that question would have been had they asked it. That they did not ask Ney to identify his whereabouts speaks volumes.

When I first came across Atteridge's book, I was delighted. I really, really hoped that within those pages I would find a thorough explanation for Ney's actions about that remark. I was monstrously disappointed because he even went so far as to hint at the possibility of being able to prove an alibi, saying that it would be easy to deconstruct the thing line-by-line, but he doesn't. When the stakes are this high, "Ah, I was only blowing smoke" just doesn't cut it. Not even remotely. It calls every other explanation Ney had for his behaviour into question, because why on earth would you implicate yourself in something and not have a fantastically good and credible explanation for your self-incrimination ready to explain it? You are after all on trial for treason, you know that people may well wish to see you dead for your actions – why on earth do you you not have a credible answer to this charge which you know is coming, particularly if you can actually prove it and exculpate yourself?

Well?

That is why I have difficulty with Atteridge, and by extension, Ney himself. Impulsive? Sure. Brave? Certainly. Rash? I'll happily give you that too. But this goes beyond all of that. That's either the action of somebody who's not in his right mind, or of somebody who's telling the truth and doesn't really care about the consequences because he's confident that things will work out. I don't believe that Ney was mentally compromised prior to the Hundred Days, so that leaves me believing that he was quite serious and fully aware of what he was doing when he implicated himself.

What about if we chance sizes here?
Napoleon, at the head of the state before his march from the coast, decided to shot all those Marshals/Generals which he considerer as traitors to his (France) cause.
For example, he took prisioner Mac Donald (he could be, because he was the ONLY ONE Marshal which really tried to stop him)and before a quick trial he had been shot.
Was this legal?.
What about Augereau who was sitting in his chair waiting what would happened between him and King Louis?
What about Marmont, the Duc de Ragusa who betrayed him on 1814?.
If those two guys (hand by hand with Talleyrand and Fouché) went to the firing squad, we could said that it was not a good thing, but legal and with sufficient background because of their performance and personalities?.
What if you had to defend this cause, my dear colleague?

Armand, I've read your post a few times now and I'm very sorry, but I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking me to do. If you wish, write it again in either French or Spanish. I might then be better able to understand your request and to provide a satisfactory reply.

Consider – everybody here praises him to the rooftops, will not hear a word said against him and accuses me of being "cold".

That is a little unfair.

Ney in 1815 was not the same Ney of 1807, or of 1812 or even 1813. He had seen and endured a great deal – I do not say that it made him less courageous – but I think he began to view the world and his Emperor in quite a different manner after he returned from Russia, and this continued and developed through to 1814.

I would suggest the Retreat from Moscow is what did for Ney psychologically. The stress he went through appears to have irrevocably affected him, and from that time on some of his behaviour almost suggests that his recklessness had gone too far whilst his ability to rationalise had deteriorated. None of this is surprising, as I have said.

However it also explains his poor judgment and mood swings in 1815. He was already getting increasingly annoyed with the Bourbons as a result of the social mistreatment of his wife by the returned emigres.

I do think Ney's behaviour post 1812, qnd certainly in 1815 was erratic and often irrational, which makes the end result all the sadder for me. He should have retired after the Berezina loaded with honours instead of being thrown into another meatgrinder in 1813. that is Napoleon's fault in blithely assuming that everybody had as strong a character as he himself or more likely simply not caring whether they did or not.

Whilst it is recorded that during the trial Ney frequently interrupted de Bourmont it would be appear that the "three months" bit had actually been said. However I firmly believe that at that point Ney was utterly out of his depth in an escalating situation. He was being asked to make rapid decisions amongst people he did not trust. I think he was fishing when he suggested he had been involved before because he still did not know which way to jump.

People do say things which they come to regret. link shows an English sporting version which had catastrophic repercussions at a personal level for Lawrence Dallaglio, because it ended with his great rival Martin Johnson lifting the rugby world cup instead of him. Yet it was subequently proved in court that Dallaglio had been showing off and talking rubbish just to impress a pretty female journalist, nothing more.

For me the tragedy surrounding Ney was that he was in no position to command following 1812 and by 1815 he was even worse. I sometimes wonder whether the charges at Waterloo were some kind of death wish on a grand scale.

sometimes wonder whether the charges at Waterloo were some kind of death wish on a grand scale.

Not so much a death wish so much as a recognition that if he lost the battle but survived, he was dead anyway.

It's like being one of those Russian penal units ordered to attack through a minefield. If you obey you only might get killed, but if you don't, you definitely will.

Not so much a death wish so much as a recognition that if he lost the battle but survived, he was dead anyway.

I'm not sure that Ney was expecting to necessarily lose the battle during the period of the cavalry charges, but it's certainly another possibility.

In my gut, despite the logic and reason and legality of it all which is exceedingly well argued here. I still think they shot the wrong guy.

To me If they had shot Bonerparte along with Ney and La Beyorde then I would get it. But letting Bonerparte go, after he'd already been let off easy before? and then shooting Ney? A much loved hero?

Ill never get it.

I suspect it's something to do with him having been a head of state, even if the rest all notionally hated him. It's one thing revolutionaries lopping off the odd royal bonce but if a head of state sets that precedent? well, where might it all end?

It might probably end With the so-called "Constitutional Monarchy" we're stuck with in Britain, at least for the moment; I allude to Charles I of "Great Britain", and indeed his Grandmother, Mary Stuart. (After such a long and closely reasoned debate, please forgive an aside, which I assure you all I don't intend as "Thread Creep").

It's interesting that, as was written some time back, Napoleon plotted a route through France which was not the most direct, but which brought his growing Army through the most pro-Bonapartist areas. One thing which might be considered more fully was the intense debate at that time about "Sovereignty". That is, whether "True Sovereignty" consisted in the will of the people, or in "Legitimacy", the "patched-up idol of ?outmoded days" (as Byron put it in his "Childe Harold", as far as I can recall). Louis was "Louis the Inevitable", maintained in position by thousands of Allied soldiers; none can argue that he was universally popular, and everyone knows the phrase about the Bourbons having remembered everything and learned nothing. Perhaps one could argue that Ney, single-handed, hoped to see the Revolution of 1789 re-run, and this time done properly. After all, that's what French people tried again and again throughout the nineteenth century.

And, didn't Napoleon say something about Ney having got what he desrved? Just a few random shots from an interested bystander.

"Armand, I've read your post a few times now and I'm very sorry, but I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking me to do. If you wish, write it again in either French or Spanish. I might then be better able to understand your request and to provide a satisfactory reply."

What I think Armand wanted to say is if you would defend the legality of Napoleon's decission to shot Tayllerand (quite difficult, he wasn't in France when Napoleon dethroned the Borbons), Fouche and McDonald, in the case that he would have decided to do it, as those three betrayed him in 1814.

Best regards

It might probably end With the so-called "Constitutional Monarchy" we're stuck with in Britain, at least for the moment; I allude to Charles I of "Great Britain", and indeed his Grandmother, Mary Stuart.

Good point.

And, didn't Napoleon say something about Ney having got what he desrved?

I suspect that was Napoleon still hurting from 1814. The humiliation for a man like Napoleon of being forced to abdicate by lesser men (i.e. just about anybody from his way of thinking) must never have gone away. Indeed, had Napoleon by one means or another secured his position I wonder how many of those who forced the abdication would have had much more in the way of a career.

Well, he'd have kicked Marmont's butt good and proper. Further to Old Bear's observation, I read an account (sorry, my memory for anecdotes is better than for precise sources) years ago of one senior officer – I think it was Fournier-Sarloveze – celebrating noisily on receiving the news of the 1814 Abdication. He was described as "almost dancing", and saying those who did not do likewise were fools. At least Ney had a conscience to be troubled.

Mericanach

I think you should not jump to conclusions as to how people come to their conclusions on this matter or any other matter, that you feel they may not have looked at events in the same way as you have. I have come to my decision on Napoleon's return and the killing of Ney based basically on the same evidence that you have. But you must realise that, even so, people will not come to the same conclusion as yourself. That is life, I suppose, human life. And that is probably why we disagree. That's not a problem, as far I'm concerned. I hope it is not a problem for you because I have really enjoyed the debates in which you have acted like a true gentleman. I just wish others attending this website would follow suit.
My regards to you.

Yes, I think this thread has distinguished itself in terms of civility and been all the more enjoyable for it.

Mi querido amigo Mericanach, sorry if I had wrote in a hurry and bad.
Please, let's tried to explain my point in english because in spanish or french would be more easy and I never like the easy tasks.
As you show so well knowledge and writting here, I'm sure that with a little efford you would understand me.

My point is very simple.
If you said that Marshal Ney had to be shot because, to simplify things, he broke the law with his actions against the King Louis who rules France at that moment, what is your opinion if Napoleon Bonaparte, when he assume as the head of the state after his march from the sea, had the fortune to had at hand Monsieurs Talleyrand, Marmont or Fouché and he decided to make an example with them as traitors and applying the law to them and the court decided that he or them had to be shot by a firing squad.
Could you defend that legal situation same as you had done with Ney execution?
Do you think that Napoleon action on these purpose should had the benefit of legal basis or not?

Hope that in this instances you could understand my point.

Amicalement
Armand

PS. Many thanks my friend Antonio for your explanation of my poor english.

…estimate that 25% of Americans are currently out of work attributed to the sudden devastating collapse of US stock market prices last year. John D. Rockefeller in an announcement today said that "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will…

Interestingly Delphic response there, Mericanach!

Ah, crap! My response was there last night – I went back and read it again after posting, just to make sure it made sense.

I guess The Bug ate it.

A good french friend of mine, which had read the thread, wrote to me:

"Ney was sought after by the Bourbons after Waterloo for punishment, and that meant death. Moncey was named to head the 'trial' (which in reality was judicial murder) and he refused and for that Louis XVIII broke him from the list of marshals. Moncey pleaded for Ney's life and was promptly put in prison without trial.

De Broglie, who was an emigre general, voted to find Ney not guilty. Louis and his family and entourage had fled France after Napoleon's landing at Antibes, and they were let go without revenge or punishment by Napoleon and those loyal to him. What the Bourbons wrought on those loyal to Napoleon after Waterloo was something else again, and aptly named the 'White Terror.'

Lavalette, the postmaster, was slapped into prison and was going to get the same fate that Ney received (it should also be noted that Ney's wife was insulted by the Bourbon court during Napoleon's sojourn in Elba, not something a man like Ney was likely to forget). Madame Ney pleaded for mercy from Louis, but was ignored-Wellington and the Tsar refused to intervene, which to my mind was dishonorable. General Bedoyere was also executed and his and Ney's wife had to pay the cost of the executions, with an additional 3 francs for each man in the firing squads.

Louis de Rochechouart, who was in charge of Ney's execution, was one of the 'new' Bourbon generals and had served against France for years as a Russian officer.

Many senior officers who were loyal to Napoleon went over the border into Germany to escape the White Terror-Soult and d'Erlon among them. Sir Robert Wilson helped get Lavalette out of jail and over the border into Germany. Grouchy and Lefebvre-Desnoettes got to the US, as did Carnot. Ameil and Exelmans also got into Germany, but Ameil was later caught and imprisoned, as was Colbert. Bonnaire was sent into exile after being publicly degrated, Travot was first sentenced to death, but that was later commuted to twenty years in prison. It was Macdonald who warned those in danger, but Drouot refused to run and was acquitted by a court-martial. Generals Caesar and Constantin Faucher were executed, as were Mouton-Duvernet and Chartrand.

No, none of this was fair and quite dishonorable."

Amicalement
Armand

PS: Mericanach, you are 93 years old?. Sorry, but I don't understand very well your answer.

"PS: Mericanach, you are 93 years old?. Sorry, but I don't understand very well your answer"

Armand, it's The Bug!… it's a problem that has TMP. Sometimes your post is changed for something totally different what you wrote!

Ah!. Many thanks Antonio.
I had suffered it sometime ago too.

Amicalement
Armand

Tango01

Excellent posting. A fascinating thread, as sad as the theme is.

Merci bien mon ami Gazzola!!.

Amicalement
Armand

Very good thread, it's a shame Ney was executed by a kangaroo court but it would seem he dug his own grave.
Subproceso muy buena, es una vergüenza que Ney fue ejecutado por un tribunal popular, pero parece que cavó su propia tumba.

That was an experiment with my computer. I don't know a lick of Spanish, but I found I can translate a passage on the internet from anything to English. Then I have to post it, translate to whatever language and post that. Amazing stuff

14Bore, I had to said that translators are not so good.
For example, about your sentence in spanish, in pure español would be.

"Muy buen thread, es una vergüenza que Ney fuera ejecutado por un tribunal propular pero parece que él cavó su propia tumba."
In long text, things became worst.
But that happened with all translations on line.
That's why I tried to translate by my own.
(not much better results I think)(smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Armand@ Then I congratulate you for your efforts. Your posts are way better even if you make a little mistake. I'm sure anyone will still get the gist of what you're trying to get across. Skip

Thanks my friend for your kindly words and understanding! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Ah!. If you need any translation with french, spanish or italian, please wrote to me as some fellows did from here and it would be my pleasure to help you.

Amicalement
Armand