"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

"Irony indeed. Marmont was sensible enough not to change sides again when Napoleon returned, which shows that he probably had far better judgement than Ney."

Your point is well taken Colin. But Marmont, Military Governor of Paris, eventually fled Paris in a carriage during the 1830 revolution, never allowed to returned again to his beloved France, and in 1852, Marmont was the last of the marshals to die…in Venice…in disgrace and, "unmourned by his fellow countrymen (David Chandler, Napoleon's Marshals, page 264)."

So very sad.

God bless,
John

John,

Rather interestingly, given this topic, in July 1830 Marmont carried out his orders, which were to repress the revolution, until further resistance was futile despite being opposed to the King's policies.

Rather bizarrely, he ended up as tutor to the Duke of Reichstadt (Napoleon's son) for a while.

Glengary4

Napoleon was right.

Soldiers are trained to kill or be killed. That's their job!

And a nation at war will have soldiers who have experienced combat and been under fire and will probably be far better than an opponent's soldiers who have not.

And Napoleon certainly knew the worth of soldiers when he said 'Soldiers usually win the battle but the generals get the credit fo them'
But

Gazzola,

Napoleon did not say that soldiers are trained to kill or be killed; he said "Soldiers are made on purpose to be killed." That is a somewhat different and infinitely more cynical comment.

Remember also his comment to Metternich: "A man like me does not give a damn for the lives of a million men".

Not the sort of commander that one would want to serve under.

John Tyson

Good post. I think others need to realise that deciding on who is or isn't a traitor is not as easy as some seem to believe.

Marmont could be considered a traitor who used the excuse of saving lives and less blood split, rather than doing, as you say, the honourable thing by handing over control to another officer who may have wanted to continue the fight.

Ney, on the other hand, would only be considered a traitor by Royalists because he failed to capture Napoleon and changed sides. To them Marmont changing sides was okay, because he changed to their side, but Ney was bad because he changed to Napoleon's side.

Marmont voting for Ney's execution could be considered as another example a lack of honour, in this case a soldier's honour. But he probably wanted to win some brownie points with the new rulers.

People keep saying that it was right for Marmont to surrender his command based on the fact that it would "end the suffering sooner". Wouldn't that same logic apply to essentially any nations commanders opposing Napoleon? Would it be morally "right" to say that Kutuzov should have surrendered his command long before borodino since not doing so only prolonged the suffering felt by the grande armee, the Russian army, and all the Russian people's in the path of that French wrecking ball?

To those that would respond with something along the lines of "yeah, but Boney Naps was just a crazy imperialist super devil bent on world domination, he wouldn't stop until everything was his! He needed to be stopped!", well, what of the other equally imperialist players in these wars? I realize for many, the British imperialism that followed was the "good" kind (in that only natives were genocided, or if you prefer the non-race based answer, because it was "our" glorious imperial nation), but would not the same sort of suffering be ended if Napoleon had utterly crushed the British somehow? Would that not make Wellingtons/Nelson's immediate surrender the most "morally admirable"? Top all that off with the fact that peace on Europe only lasted a few decades, and you'll find that it never really mattered who won.

What I'm trying to get at here is that no matter who wins, who surrenders, what the casus belli may have been, there are very few wars that are "just". All nations in the napoleonic wars had done morally reprehensible things in the past, during the wars, and continued in the years that followed. Marmont should not be congratulated on his willingness to surrender any more than say Kutuzov should be condemned as a traitor to humanity for never deciding he should "quickly end the suffering of war of his countrymen". These men are all simply players in their respective plays, and their actions shouldn't be colored by the victors of history making one of the sides the "bad guys".

PS you may notice I never stated whether I think he was a traitor or a realist. Well, he was a traitor to his leader Napoleon, but a loyal follower of the later king. Does that make him a traitor to France? I'd say it makes him neither a traitor or hero, since none of these leaders really had the best interests of France in mind, only personal glory. So I believe Marmont was simply making the best decision for him.

colinjallen

Oh behave! If you were a commander your concerns are on winning the battle or war, not on how many men you might lose. I wish all commanders in history and present day were concerned, we might end up with no more wars then. But that wouldn't be realistic.

Damn, gazzola swooping in and saying what I wanted mere seconds before me! Damn my iPhone!

We live in a fallen world, and logic is something to be striven for, not assumed.

Clearly, with hindsight, the July Plotters were on the side of the angels, but, as an ex serviceman, I also admire the loyalty of the Army captain who refused to be cowed by a bevy of Generals and so foiled the plot. Adherence to orders and the military oath should be instinctive, else chaos ensues and more die in the end…

These views are both contradictory and tenable…

Marmont, the Duc de Raguse, gave the french language the verb 'raguser' – to betray, because of his actions. Yet we cannot sit in judgement over the man, we can only study them, hopefully with some sympathy for the political instablities of the time that his generation had experienced.

Clearly his actions saved the lives of some of the soldiers under his command – but in preventing France from experiencing total and utter defeat in 1814, did this make popular support for a second go in 1815 more likely?

President George Bush very decently did not make a point of crowing and wallowing in the triumph of the West when the Soviet Union collapsed…But did this very moderation influence the resurgent nationalism of Russian today…

Will future historians, after a terrible Thirld World War caused by a militaristic Russia seeking European hegemony, blame President Bush for not making it clear that the Soviet Empire failed because it overreached itself?

Sokrateez

Good post. Someone's bad guy is always someone else's good guy and vice versa.

I agree with you over Marmont, I think he put himself first above country and honour. But he probably wasn't the only one during the Napoleonic Wars or any other war.

Sparker

Good post. And none of us know how we may have thought or acted, had we been in the same situation. Most of those who may shout yes I do, are making their assumptions based on hindsight. And anyone can know the right thing to do based on that.

"I agree with you over Marmont, I think he put himself first above country and honour. But he probably wasn't the only one during the Napoleonic Wars or any other war."

As did his boss.

Sparker,

One can well admire loyalty, but I am unable to do so when that loyalty is towards something like the Nazi regime.

Colly

Gazzola,

I agree that commanders need to focus on winning; however, most manage to do that with a far less cynical attitude towards human life than Napoleon exhibited.

Marmont was worse than a traitor, he was a self promoting ingrate who had zero loyality to anyone or anything save himself, thus, "raguser."

This is especially so given Napoleon's friendship which led to his promotion to marshal and the Emperor's toleration of his poor performance at Salamanca and Leipzig.

He had neither the authority nor knowledge of the result when he surrendered Paris. One could argue the betrayal which forced Napoleon to percipitiously abdicate led to the disquiet amongst the majority of Frenchmen which resulted in Napoleon's return and the Hundred Days.

He was a despicable person who could only be liked by a Bourbon.

Bob Coggins

Bob Coggins

I do not think for one moment that Marmont was disinterested. He may have done what he did for purely personal reasons but it was still the right thing to do.

@ colinjallen

I am amazed that you can admit that you believe Marmont was a cynical self-server yet you maintain that his actions somehow enoble him.

Don't you think that virtually everyone in post-Napoleonic France, Bonapartist & Royalist alike, found him anathema is some how telling?

Next you'll be telling me Bernadotte was a patriot.
If you are looking for a hero amongst the French, take Carnot.

A die-hard Republican & opponent of Napoleon, Lazare Carnot, who served in 1814 by defending Antwerp against great odds. When he was needed, he put himself in danger: not least as a regicide if captured by the Bourbons.

Karpathian,

Wow! You managed to read so much into my post that was never there, and you make assumptions about my views on Bernadotte!

Remarkable!

Bernadotte:

Now there is an even better example. My argument would be that when he became king of Sweden, his first loyalty was to the Swedes, and any oath to Napoleon would be secondary at beat, if even worthy of consideration.

May I congratulate the respectful manner (in spite of the "wow!") that everyone in this thread has managed to maintain despite strong views?

Most stimulating a topic.

@ Colinjallen

The"Bernadotte" reference was an argumentative ploy. I have no idea of your views on this particular traitor. 87)

Start another thread on him.

@ Green Askari:

"WHEN he became King of Sweden or when he was proclaimed Crown Prince? He became king in 1818 when loyalty to Napoleon was a little moot.

Sigh. When he became crown prince. Or would it be just dandy if, say, the Duke of Windsor deserted to the Nazis?

Marmont wasn't worse than a lot of his colleagues as well. I don't know why so much fuss is made about him. He serves as the usual scape goat for loosing another campaign Napoleon was commanding.
Marmont performed well at Möckern – it was a hard fight he put up.
Other Marshals changed sides later as well, first they join the Bourbons, then deserting them again and then again joining them.
If Marmont was a despicable person – almost the rest of all generals and marshals were as well.
He got bad press and was build up as anti-hero to distract from the failings of Napoleon, he is in good company along with Moreau, Dupont or Bernadotte (who cannot be blamed at all that he stayed loyal to his adopted country when he became crown prince) – or in any other action before that.
Those people are victims of propaganda stories created by Napoleon and his groupies.

Most of the views in this thread have little to do with Marmont and are a much more a reflection of individuals' perceptions of Napoleon.

von Winterfeldt,

All men are in the end self-serving. An individual defection is one thing but Marmont not only surrendered the capital but also betrayed the the trust of Napoleon as well as the men he was charged to lead.

He well deserves his infamy.

Bob Coggins

@Ratisbon

On what do you claim all this, did you read the memoires of Marmont (available on google) or
La Defection de Marmont en 1814, par Rapetti – quite pro Napoleon (available on google).

If Marmont deserves his infamy – Napoleon deserves it 10 fold, defecting his Army in Egypt and again in 1812 – he didn't care a fig about his men but he self – served himself well – he needed a man like Marmont to shift the blame away from him, as also Grouchy in 1815.

So – I don't understand why such a fuss about Marmont is made – while his master did the same thing (certainly betraying the men he was charged to lead).

von Winterfedlt

Only someone who could possibly place Marmont with Dupont and make out that is a good thing. Good company!

Napoleon made history mate, and enjoy the period!

XV Brigada

Spot on. There are always quick to attack Napoleon at the slightest excuse.

But Napoleon made history, so and enjoy the NAPOLEONIC period.

Once again Gazzola attacks posters rather than addressing the topic….sigh!

colinjallen

I guess poor old colinjallen didn't get any easter eggs this year.

Colinjallen, Gazzola has done no wrong. He without sin may cast the first stone.

Marmont was a traitor, simple as that, just as Bernadette was a traitor. Both were in the 'game' for selfish reasons, as exposed by their later actions.

Ney- the greatest traitor. Betrayed his king, then betrays Napoleon, Betrays The King AGAIN.
If not then your all hypocrites.

Murat was up for joining the allies AGAINST Napoleon if he could keep his stolen throne.

Napoleons oath wasn't good for much either.

Bernadotte stayed Loyal to his new people (the Swedes). So calling him a traitor is a little off.

Ghost02,

You frame your opinions as though they were statements of undeniable fact.

Remember that Napoleon broke his oath to his king and later carried out a coup against the French government, which would seem to make him a traitor on two occasions. Would you describe his career as not being driven by "selfish reasons"?

As to Gazzola, he is of no importance; his stifle rate speaks for itself as do his posts in several threads.

Napoleon was a traitor as well. I agree with you Colin, he was not the revolution on horseback. The fact that he, as well as all in the government at that time, were traitors is true. The question is if them being traitors is a bad thing.

They all were selfish. Tallyrand, Napoleon, Marmont, Wellington et all. They all wanted to advance themselves, just as we all do. Were they bad people because of it? I cannot answer. Did they rationalize their actions? Yes, just as we all do.

These men were men just like you and I. They had flaws in character and judgement, as we do. They are human! We cannot judge these men, as they are acting as humans.

Ghost02

You will have to remember that with some people, like colinjallen, that only people who dislike Napoleon or anyone praising those who have betrayed Napoleon, are .

He and a few others, with anyone who admires Napoleon or praises people like Ney who went for honour and sided with him because, rather than do the dirty work of the runaway again fat king, he could march again with a true legend.

But people have their own points of view and I accept them and you just get used to the who just can't do the same. Best thing is to , as some of their posts are .

A happy wargaming to you.

Ghost02

Just seen your other post. I doubt your sane argument will convince people like colinjallen or VW or Brigada. You have dared to tarnish their heroes with the truth!

Apart from Napoleon being a traitor bit, I agree, everyone was out to better themselves, but Napoleon was just better at it for most of the time and the only one to have a period of history named after him. I think that is what really bugs them.

At the risk of stirring up a veritable hornets' nest, I cannot resist pointing out that, until his actions were retrospectively legitimised by the peace treaty at the end of the War of Independence, George Washington certainly qualified as a traitor, having taken up arms against his lawful sovereign George III. But he was a man of honour, who put his life at risk for his principles, and, when victorious, resisted the temptation to make himself a king in all but name, earning the admiration of King George himself thereby.

But, success is always its own justification: so Napoleon is not regarded as a traitor for breaking his oath of allegiance to Louis XVI because the Revolution succeeded in abloishing the monarchy and he succeeded in becoming First Consul and later Emperor.

ratisbon "Marmont was worse than a traitor, he was a self promoting ingrate who had zero loyality to anyone or anything save himself."

All, that could equally well be said of Nappy.

@Green Askari

Yes indeed, this is also my point – why the fuss about Marmont who was a small fish compared to Napoleon.

It is so easy to blame some selected few, who got bad press and got victimized.

In case one likes to do a bit reading, one will find out that there is no reason to call Bernadotte a traitor, in fact he was one of the best marshals – read just Foucart about the 1806 campaign and follow the sequence of orders – Bernadotte will emerge spotless, he just did what he was ordered to do – strange that such a man is attacked as well.

La critique est aisée, mais l'art est difficile..

Yet again Gazzola engages in abuse against another poster; I do not expect for one minute that he would .

However John, if I am wrong about you being merely , and you are coming to Salute, I will be selling books on the Bring and Buy, so feel free to come and call me to my face.

@von Winterfeldt

As I think you pointed out earlier, Napoleon always needed someone else to blame. Bernadotte actually beat the British in the Walcheren campaign, where the French had been outnumbered 2 to 1. That campaign gets downplayed, but it cost the British eight million pounds, the French fleet was saved, and Bernadotte won almost without firing a shot.

Marmont, Grouchy and Murat also had their shining moments.

IMHO, there have been few major figures in history who were more ready to throw their friends and soldiers under the bus than was Napoleon.

Was he a great commander? Yes, possibly the greatest who ever lived, but he had his faults, and disloyalty was one of them.

Napoleon's treatment of Bernadotte was fairly disgusting; he blamed him for his failure to support Davout in 1806 when, in fact, Bernadotte was obeying his orders. At Wagram, Bernadotte was effectively disgraced by Napoleon because of the rout of his Saxon corps, which was more due to lack of men and support, being given an impossible mission, and being shot at by their own side than anything that was Bernadotte's fault. Then, when Bernadotte defeated the British later in 1809 he received no credit for it.

Little wonder that Bernadotte accepted the offer of the future Swedish crown when it was offered; he then served his new country well and loyally.

Napoleon certainly was a great commander; however, his "greatness" was over by 1808 and it was all very much downhill from there with subordinates being blamed for his failures.

von Winterfeldt,

Marmont is the topic, that's why I wrote what I thought about him.

No, I did not read those books. But why would I have to when the facts cannot be refuted.

Was he the cause of the disaster at Salamanca? Yes. Did his decisions lead to the disaster on the northern flank at Leipzig? Yes. Did he surrender his command? Yes Did he betray his country and the men he was trusted and sworn to lead? Yes. After 1830 could he return to France? No. Why? Because the French hated him.

My Heavens! One might think you are British.

Bob Coggins

ratisbon,

The books that VW mentioned are well worth reading, especially the Rapetti work; it paints the series of events around the defection in an interesting light. An enquiring mind should always be open to new insights and viewpoints.

Was Marmont responsible for the disaster at Salamanca? Possibly, but there were other factors involved as well, including the misfortune of losing both the CinC and his deputy in close succession and the fact that the French were up against a great commander.

Did his decisions lead to the disaster on the northern flank at Leipzig? Possibly, but again there were other factors involved including the quality of his troops, the determination of his enemies, being outnumbered, Napoleon's focus on the souther flank etc.

Did he surrender his command? Yes.

Did he betray his country and the men he was trusted and sworn to lead? Possibly, but this is arguable as his actions were beneficial to, and in the interests of, both France and his men and it is fairly easy to argue that his action was a betrayal of neither; if he betrayed anyone or anything, it was Napoleon and betraying him at that point may not have been the wrong thing to do as continuing to support him would have resulted in an even greater disaster for France and the soldiers. To blame him for 1815 is speculative in the extreme; why not blame Dr Yvan for not ensuring that the poison that Napoleon took in 1814 did not have a longer shelf life; if it had, there would not have been a Hundred Days.

Why could he not return to France after 1830? Because he was the man who commanded the army against the revolution of that year and who had also become the scapegoat for Napoleon's failures from 1812-14 that resulted in his defeat in the latter year. The Napoleonic propaganda machine was very effective, even when he was on St Helena and after his death.

Just as a side issue, this is a translation of Napoleon's coronation oath:

"I swear to maintain the integrity of the territory of the Republic, to respect and enforce respect for the Concordat and freedom of religion, equality of rights, political and civil liberty, the irrevocability of the sale of national lands; not to raise any tax except in virtue of the law; to maintain the institution of Legion of Honor and to govern in the sole interest, happiness and glory of the French people."

It seems to me that he broke that oath in respect of several sections:

1. To maintain the integrity of the territory of the Republic.

2. To respect and enforce respect for…..political and civil liberty.

3. Not to raise any tax except in virtue of the law.

4. To govern in the sole interest, happiness and glory of the French people.

Given that one could argue that Napoleon had broken his oath to the French people, how did that affect his status and the loyalty owed to him by his officers?

By the way, does anyone have a copy of the oath taken by French Napoleonic officers?

Well, this thread was going well for a while.

Congratulations to all those who have just contributed to its debasing. Well done.

I'm off to play another game.

'I swear obedience to the Constitution of the Empire and fidelity to the Emperor.'

-from Le Marechal Berthier, Prince de Wagram et de Neuchatel, Volume I, 520-521.

Sincerely,
K

Thanks Kevin,

I knew I had seen it somewhere.

Interesting that Napoleon took an oath to the Republic and officers to the Empire.

What Marmont did was in line with the mores of the times: once resistance was hopeless you were allowed to surrender without blame. As France armies faced an odds of 10 to 1, it wasn't dishonourable to surrender. At Zaragoza, for example, the French were angry and escandalized that the Spanish didn't surrender when they were out of hope of being relieved. They should have surrendered; that they didn't was a consequence of their fanaticism and barbarism, inflamed by priests's propaganda.

Marmont was judged as a traitor by the pro-Napoleonic party, after the wars. And they had an invested interest in presenting him in such a light.

"What Marmont did was in line with the mores of the times: once resistance was hopeless you were allowed to surrender without blame."

I would hope it was in line with the mores of ALL times, though, of course, we all know better. Still, there is nothing right and proper about continuing to throw one's countrymen into the meatgrinder when no hope of victory remains.

Yes, those things do occasionally have miraculous results (e.g. Frederick the Great) but mostly they just result in more dead soldiers and civilians both, and more hatred after the fact.

colinjallen

Firstly, I won't be coming to Salute. But if I was I would be very happy to talk to you face to face. It would very interesting to see the faces behind the posts. But I would not call you .

So, just what is the matter with you? Is it because I admire Napoleon and you dont? Is that the reason you seem to ? Yet, at the same time, you think it is fine for you to insult me by saying my posts are worthless and then get upset when you are called .

I apologise if calling you upset you so much but you shouldn't really pull people down and not expect to get some flak back, should you? And I've never felt the need for violence against anyone posting here and find it hard that someone can be as to let postings, of which most are tongue in cheek, get to them. Are you really that angry or just ? Or do you just get angry with everyone who disagrees with you?

This is a discussion site, where people agree and disagree and agree to disagree, and you should not take things so seriously or start making challenges to people because you have been upset by a post or because someone disagrees with your views, which I consider very biased and anti-Napoleon. But what you say does not make me angry. I have respect for other people's views. I suggest you learn to do the same.

Perhaps we could try talking Napoleonic for a change. We'll see. In terms of Marmont and Napoleon, one man's traitor is another man's hero. In my opinion, Marmont was more of a traitor to the men he commanded, than he was to Napoleon. I doubt they knew he had made an agreement to surrender them up to the Allies and I doubt he would have lasted long if they did. And as for Salamanca, even before he was wounded early on, he was losing control of Thomieres Division, which basically led to the French defeat.

And I am so pleased to see you agree that Napoleon was a great commander, but over by 1808 – no way! He won the 1809 campaign. I would suggest the decline started around 1810, and yes, he had a lack of capable commanders, many of whom, like Marmont, seemed to be acting more of a self-interest basis than anything else. But with all the defeats in the Peninsular, Aspern-Essling, and the disaster of 1812, he was still causing the Allies problems right up to 1815. There are very few commanders who could do that, so you are so right in calling him a great commander.

Over to you.