"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

Colin,

During the period, and that includes the French Revolution, the term 'empire' was synonymous with 'nation.'

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

An interesting interpretation, but one for which I have never seen any evidence. Could you post some supporting evidence for it?

Colin

Colin,

See Swords Around A Throne, page 342, fourth paragraph-'The Grande Armee had inherited all the Revolutionary marches: As Ca Ira, la Carmaganole, the Marseillaise, the Chant du Depart, and Veillons au Salut de l'Empire (let us Watch o'er the Safety of the Empire). The lyrics of the last-named, though often taken for one of Napoleon's substitutes for revolutionary songs, actually dated from 1791, 'empire' being used in its comnmonly accepted meaning of 'nation.'

Sincerely,
K

colinjallen,

At Salamanca he lost because he over extended his army in an attempt to defeat Wellesley when he had already won the campaign, thus he brought on a battle which should never have occurred. That great general, Wellesly, was entirely outmaneuvered by the mediocre Marmont, to the point of discontinuing the campaign and returning to Portugal, till given the opportunity to fight a battle he could not possibly lose.

At Leipzig his orders were to defend the Northern flank against superior forces. In the process of doing so he decided to attack superior forces and caused a disaster.

I agree he commanded the Bourbon army in 1830 but his options were limited because he had to know if the Bourbons were ousted so too would he be ousted not only for supporting the Bourbons but betraying Napoleon. Indeed his support of the Bourbons was yet another betrayal of France. Oh! I forgot Britain, Prussian, Austria and Russia supported the return of the Bourbons. Go figure.

As for betraying the French people and Nation were I you I shouldn't make too much of it given the betrayal of the peoples of Europe by Francis, Alexander, Frederick William and the Parliment (remember Ireland and remember the English returning the Bourbons to Spain then supporting France's invasion to return Carl to the throne and lets not forget Poland or Italy).

Comparatively Napoleon was a breath of fresh air but then he didn't comport with the geopolitical aims of Britain.

Bob Coggins

The person who convinced Marmont's to act against the French army and Napoleon was Talleyrand. That in itself should start the historical warning bells going off.

Marmont's actions were not in the best interests of France as it brought the Bourbons back to power-people who were both corrupt and incompetent and who mistreated French officers who had fought for France. Marmont's actions were certainly not in agreement with the army.

Marmont did not perform well during the initial operations during the invasion of France. He did not, in short, do his duty. Both he and Victor, though both were up to the task, did not, along with Ney, did not delay the allied advance as best they could-only Mortier did his duty in eastern France fighting an expert 18-day delaying action from Langres to Bar-sur-Aube. Victor ended up getting relieved by Berthier, on Napoleon's order, for his below standard performance.

Marmont's problems were probably due to an oversized ego, which was fed by Talleyrand who encouraged him to defect and bring his corps with him. When the VI Corps was actually turned over to the allies, Marmont was not actually with it-the act was done by his subordinate commanders who were in on the defection. That happened as Napoleon was abdicating in favor of his son, which the marshals had wanted and had an initial agreement to have it done with Alexander.

Marmont's defection killed that idea as it gave the allies the idea that the army did not support Napoleon, which wasn't true. Ney was furious with Marmont, as were the other marshals-none of them wanted the Bourbons back. Marmont's actions did not bring about the end of the war, that was already happening and did without Marmont's betrayal. That made what he did even worse.

Marmont was considered by the army in 1809 when he was given his baton to be part of ‘Lannes small change' along with two others promoted, Oudinot and Macdonald. Marmont also fiddled with the records in the Ministry of War after Napoleon's first abdication about his conduct in 1813 in Germany.

Marmont's actions were treason and a violation of his military oath (‘I swear obedience to the Constitution of the Empire and fidelity to the Emperor'). There is no other word, term, or modern invention that can change that, especially early 21st century moralizing. Interestingly, Napoleon released the French army from its oath before he left for Elba and encouraged all to serve France under the Bourbons.

From page 140 of Swords Around A Throne by John Elting:

‘…he fought through 1813 and 1814 in Germany and France, often with success-until in a fit of discouragement, he listened to Tallyrand's wheedling and went over to the allies…His vanity rendered him ungrateful to superiors and subordinates alike, but he was not meanly selfish: In 1815 he risked the Bourbons' anger in an attempt to save Antoine Lavalette from execution.'

‘After Waterloo, cherished by the Bourbons, he lived extravagantly, losing large sums in attempts at scientific farming. He also diddled with the War Ministry's files to improve the history of his 1813 operations. In streets and barracks, his Napoleonic title Duke of Ragusa inspired the new verb raguser-to cheat, sneak, betray. In 1830, when France fose against its Bourbon King, he failed to quell the Paris mob and so fled into exile. He had little money left and, wherever he passed, children whispered that there went the man who betrayed Napoleon.'

Sincerely,
K

Using select quotations greatly out of context in order to ‘demonstrate' how ‘bad' Napoleon supposedly was is not only historically inaccurate, but ridiculous.

I would suggest that any historical figure could be demonized by the same ‘method.' What is especially egregious is the ‘million man' remark, supposedly said to Metternich in 1813. The source for the alleged quotation is Metternich, and he certainly is not an unbiased witness.
Research done by Vincent Cronin in the early 1970s tends to nullify the remark, the source being J. Grabowski's Memoires Militaires, 95-96.

Checking Fain's works on 1813, 1814, and his memoir on Napoleon personally, Napoleon: How He Did It, tends to nullify the negative comments on Napoleon in this thread, all of which are both highly biased and inaccurate.

On another forum a few years ago, one poster took a selection of Napoleon's Correspondence regarding Hamburg in 1813 as an example of Napoleon's cruelty and ruthlessness, as in that correspondence Napoleon ordered Davout to be vengeful against those citizens and leaders of Hamburg who had welcomed the allies briefly in early 1813. Napoleon's instructions to Davout were harsh, and that is the reason that the poster came to the conclusion he did. What he didn't do, as he was advised to do, was to read Davout's return correspondence to Napoleon urging caution and leniency, with which Napoleon eventually agreed.

That is another example of using quotes out of context. Napoleon's initial reaction was harsh, and later mollified by a loyal subordinate after Napoleon's temper had subsided and his normal good sense had returned.

If anyone really wants to do some research on who kept the wars going from 1803-1815, check on England's motivation and actions. For one thing, they were the paymasters/financiers of the allies and without subsidies from England Austria, Prussia, and Russia could not have maintained their armies in the field.

Some of England's motivation for the wars is set out quite handily in Cronin's biography of Napoleon.

France was attacked in 1805 by an Austria financed by England in order to get the Grande Armee off the Channel. Prussia declared war in 1806, and Russia happily joined in for both campaigns, and despite defeats in both wars didn't sign a treaty with France until Tilsit after Alexander had his ears beaten down to his socks.

Austria attacked Bavaria without a declaration of war in 1809 because Francis thought Napoleon was too involved in the Iberian Peninsula.

Napoleon went into Spain in order to find a way to defeat England and also because he found correspondence from Godoy to the King of Prussia that Spain would join Prussia if she defeated the French (see both Esdaile and Dominic Lieven for that information).

Russia was a preemptive strike because the Tsar was trying to take over the Duchy of Warsaw. Alexander probably decided on war at least by 1810 and had been a feckless French ally in 1809 by not supporting the Poles against the Austrians and interfering in Polish military operations (not supporting the Poles seems to be a Russian pastime-they would do it again in 1944 with the Warsaw Rising).

So, to be accurate, the only wars Napoleon can be actually accused of being the ‘aggressor' is Spain in 1808 and Russia in 1812 (the campaigns of 1813 and 1814 were a continuation of that war).

There is enough blame for the wars to go around and laying all of it on Napoleon is inaccurate. There is, though, one point that can be said for that idea, however.

Without Napoleon on the French throne the wars probably would have petered out throught exhaustion or eventual lack of interest. The hereditary monarchs could not allow Napoleon to stay, as their own crowns were becoming somewhat shaky on their own heads because of Napoleon and the French. They were singularly and collectively scared of him and what he might do. You cannot blame them for that fear, anymore than you can blame Napoleon for the wars in general.

Sincerely,
K

The old specter of World War II Germany, the Nazis, the German Army of War II, and by inference if not by direct mention, Hitler, has arisen again here to ‘justify' why Napoleon was wrong/evil and that Marmont was ‘right' to betray him, his troops, and his country.

All this does, besides being historically incorrect with the ‘analogy' is lower the level of discussion to the gutter. It is also a fall back position to those who can't or won't give Napoleon his due and it isn't the topic of the thread anyways.

The German officer corps forfeited its honor with the infamous ‘Hitler oath' of 2 August 1934: "I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

There is no comparison between that and the oath taken by the Grande Armee when Napoleon became Emperor in December 1804: ‘I swear obedience to the Constitution of the Empire and fidelity to the Emperor.'

As a matter of fact, this bears more resemblance to the military oath taken by members of the US armed forces, in that the oath is taken to the Constitution of the country (by US personnel and primarily by French soldiers in 1804).

The German officer corps dug its own moral grave with the Hitler oath, the French officer corps did no such thing.
Comparisons between the Wehrmacht and the Grande Armee are not only ludicrous but inaccurate.

So, too, are the circumstances as Germany was falling apart and being overrun by the allies and the situation France found itself in during 1813-1814. They are not alike and neither are the respective heads of state. Napoleon had no concentration and death camps, civil rights in France had not been suppressed upon Napoleon's accession to the imperial dignity, and the bottom line is that Napoleon was a reformer and lawgiver, and based his rule on honor. Hitler and his henchmen on the other hand suspended civil rights, made a mockery of honor, and were mass murderers.
Using these comparisons and analogies to ‘prove' that Marmont did not commit treason are not only way out in left field, but are historically inaccurate and are a great compliment to Hitler and his cronies and a grave insult to Napoleon and those who worked for and supported him.

Sincerely,
K

Scapegoat: ‘One that is made to take the blame of others.'

There is one poster here who always brings up the ‘scapegoat' idea regarding Napoleon and subordinates who failed.

Bernadotte and Dupont have been named as ‘scapegoats' for Napoleon, and now Marmont has. These three general officers got in trouble because of their actions and were treated accordingly.

Nobody forced Marmont to turn traitor, and he wasn't ‘taking the blame of others' for his actions. He has historically been taken to task for his actions, and he deserves the reputation he has received.

Trying to rehabilitate him now by some 21st century revisionist/politically correct formula does not change the nature of his motivations for what he did not his actions. Treason is treason.

As for the other two, Dupont was an independent commander who failed. He wasn't court-martialed for failure, but for his subsequent actions-mainly for abandoning his men to Spanish imprisonment and ill-treatment (only about ten percent survived Cabrera Island).

Bernadotte clearly disobeyed orders in October 1806. If nothing else, he failed to support Davout who could have been overwhelmed. Further, none of Bernadotte's troops got into action on 14 October, and he was lucky not to be court-martialed for his actions.

As for 1809, see Jack Gill's With Eagles to Glory. Bernadotte deserved to be relieved for cause and he did not defeat the coastal incursion of the British in 1809 at Walcheren. Bessieres gets credit for that one. Bernadotte was a marplot, and he was picked by the Swedes for, among other things, the Swedes believing he was both in Napoleon's good graces and was a loyal marshal of the empire. Bernadotte was nothing more, as Crown Prince of Sweden, than the Tsar's puppet.

Sincerely,
K

Taking a cue from the title of the thread, the definition of a realist in this context is:

'One who is inclined to literal truth and pragmatism.'

Then, to define pragmatism:

'A practical, matter of fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.'

Interesting, I think. Also one of Napoleon's 'quotations' is of a leader: 'a dealer in hope.'

Marmont doesn't strike me as either practical or pragmatic, nor as a realist. He was, however, one who was influenced by those who were self-serving and deceptive, and who cared only for their own comfort-namely Talleyrand. In the entire 1814 episode involving Marmont, he clearly demonstrated his lack of character as well as acting only in his won self-interest. His worst betrayal was to his own troops, to whom he should have been loyal. I would wager, and this cannot be proven, if he had appeared before them they would have shot him. It wasn't unknown in the French army of the period.

Lastly, the figure of Napoleon having only 14,000 men in 1814 was brought up in the initial posting. When Napoleon abdicated, he had 60,000 troops massed at Fontainebleu as well as troops in other locations in France and the low countries. The allies had approximately 145,000 troops in Paris.

Napoleon's comment on Marmont's treason was very apt: 'The ingrate. He will be much unhappier than I.'

Sincerely,
K

Marmont at Leipzig

He war ordered to place his troops at the 14.th of october in a defensive position in the line of the villages
Breitenfeld – Lindenthal – Wahren.
His master agreed with that position.
Marmont learned that the whole Silesian Army or great parts were moving towards him, he expected an attack at the 16th.
This he reported to Napoleon.
Napoleon ignored those reports and he still expected that the Silesian Army was operating not on the right bank of the Elster river but on the left.
At the 16th Marmont should join Napoleons main force at the center of Leipzig.
When he observed the enemy approaching, he had a conference with Ney (who got the supreme command of the troops at the northern sector) that the 3rd corps was too weak to oppose those alonge and that the 6th corps also should take a defensive position.
Napoleon (who else) – did not agree with those plans and ordered that the 3rd corps should act as his reserve (against the Austrians).
Ney had no other choice than to send the cavalry division Fournier as well as Defrance and the weak Division Dombrowski to Wiederitzsch, with the task – along with the division Delmas to support Marmont's corps as much as possible.

Marmont took another defensive position – his right wing at Eutritzsch at the Rietschke stream and the left at Möckern along the Elster.
The key position was Möckern.
Marmont had at his disposal about 19 500 men and 85 guns.

Nowhere I can see an offensive movement of Marmont, indeed he was attacked by the corps of Yorck.

Napoleon completly misread the position of the Silesian Army and expected no superior forces at this time and this part of the battle field.
Nowhere I can see an offensive conducted by Marmont.

As usual – after a bit reading – such accusations crumble into dust and prove nothing else other than on how fertile ground Napoleonic propaganda is still falling.

Napoleon was no fresh breath of air but an old wind in new clothes, and in betraying his own people he was at least as good as all the others as well.

Trying to think of historical similarities, the fall of Singapore comes to mind. Both generals knew how the game would end, though in Singapore's case I think they could have held out longer than France.

It is interesting to see that some have swallowed the Napoleonic legend hook, line and sinker and cannot accept that their hero was anything other than the most perfect individual in human history.

Just to pick up a few points among so many, firstly Kevin stated:

"Marmont's actions were not in the best interests of France as it brought the Bourbons back to power-people who were both corrupt and incompetent and who mistreated French officers who had fought for France."

That is a very narrow definition of what was best for France and makes the rather debatable assumption that the Napoleonic regime was neither corrupt nor incompetent (how much did Napoleon, his family and hangers-on milk from France and the conquered territories and how else can one describe a regime that not only created an unsustainable economy but also ultimately led France to a military defeat of monumental proportions?). It makes no reference to the desires and happiness of the French people who, after so many years of the "blood tax" wanted and needed peace in order to get on with their lives and rebuild the economy.

Secondly, Kevin tends to reject Metternich's version of the "million men" statement on the basis that he was not an unbiased witness, but then falls back on Grabowski, who could also be described as not being an unbiased witness. Double standards perhaps?

Thirdly, Kevin, there was no comparison between Marmont's position and that of the July 1944 conspirators; the latter were used to illustrate the point that there are times when what could narrowly be defined as treason is actually in the best interest of the country and humanity.

Fourthly, this statement from Kevin:

"So, too, are the circumstances as Germany was falling apart and being overrun by the allies and the situation France found itself in during 1813-1814. They are not alike…."

This is interesting as the situations were remarkably alike; in 1814 France was being overrun by the allies and Napoleon's state was falling apart.

Fifthly, Kevin stated:

"Napoleon had no concentration and death camps, civil rights in France had not been suppressed upon Napoleon's accession to the imperial dignity, and the bottom line is that Napoleon was a reformer and lawgiver, and based his rule on honor."

While I agree that Napoleon had no concentration or death camps, to state that civil rights had not been suppressed by Napoleon is absurd as there was press censorship and suppression of opposition to the regime among other issues. Admittedly, these were not imposed when he became emperor as he had put them in place before that happened.

Napoleon certainly carried out some much-needed reforms but he was not in himself a lawgiver, unless one swallows that myth as well. It is also hard to see how his rule was based on honour when so many of his actions seem dishonourable.

As to Bob's post, it is interesting but, in Kevin's words,highly biased and inaccurate; the Anglophobia clearly shows through.

von Winterfeldt,

Thanks for the information. Marmont in the face of a much superior opponent involved his command in an attempt to hold his original line at all costs when his mission was to delay the arrival of Blucher to allow Napoleon to deal with Schwartzenberg.

Was he ordered to delay the arrival of Blucher (to allow Napoleon to attack Schwartzenberg? Yes.

Did he do that? Yes.

To do so was it necessary to lose 25% of his men and 45% of his guns? No.

Like most mediocre generals he got caught up in the strum and drang of the battle and lost his head, causing a disaster which the French army could not afford.

His dozens of fruitless counterattacks (my sources support this)in an attempt to hold a line north of Mockern, rather than a controlled withdraw covered by his artillery, resulted in the unnecessary loss of 25% of his command, while winding up where he should have wound up for a much lower cost in blood and material, holding a line north of Leipzig.

Contrary to his self serving statement, "I have done everything that is humanly possible inorder to bring the battle to another conclusion. However fate chose otherwise," the famous artilleryman inexcuseably lost 53 of 120 cannon and hundreds of caisons.

He was worse than a traitor or an ingrate he was a self serving incompetent at the level of corps or army command.

Bob Coggins

Bob,

Tactical counterattacks to regain positions that need to be held in order to carry out orders do not count as "attacking superior forces"; they are part of fighting a defensive action.

Given the odds against Marmont on the 16th, he did well to delay the enemy for so long, albeit at a terrible cost to his corps. Could he have merely withdrawn, as you suggest? Possibly, but that may well have resulted in the enemy reaching Leipzig far more quickly and making things even more tricky for Napoleon, who had seriously underestimated the threat from the north.

@ratisbon

"Was he ordered to delay the arrival of Blucher (to allow Napoleon to attack Schwartzenberg? Yes."

From where do you derive this conclusion, seemingly you are completly unaware of the orders of Napoleon.

According to the Prussians the defence at Möckern was superbly and skillfully conducted.

As stated he had 85 guns and not 120 – he never attempted to hold a line north of Möckern, look at some decent maps about the battle.

In case Marmont was such a self serving imcompetent corps or army commander – I wonder why Napoleon promoted such a man or even gave him command again and again and again.

Originally Marmont did hold a line to the north of Mockern but withdrew from it when the enemy approached in force and took up his combat position based on Mockern, not to the north of it. To attempt to fight south of Mockern on the 16th would have endangered the river crossings.

"In case Marmont was such a self serving imcompetent corps or army commander – I wonder why Napoleon promoted such a man or even gave him command again and again and again."

von Winterfeldt,

It is my understanding that Napoleon made Marmont a marshal because of their deep personal friendship, not because of military talent. Another irony of ironies.

God bless,
John

Here's a summary that might be helpful. It's taken from The Superstrategists by John Elting, 139-148:

‘By an odd twist of fate, it is only recently that we have been able to actually ‘know' the living Napoleon. His personal life and character, his political aims and methods, even aspects of his military career and strategy, have been mishandled by most historians-often intentionally, frequently from the difficulty of properly evaluating the available source material, sometimes out of built-in national bias…'

‘Even fair-minded historians found their available sources full of booby traps. While he lived, enemy propaganda presented Napoleon as a monster who relished murder, treachery, theft, incest, blasphemy, and any other possible evil. The counterblasts of his supporters sometimes went to almost equal extremes in lauding him. The most misleading truth twisting, however, came from people who had served him to their profit, but-in hopes of making an equally profitable peace with the Bourbons who supplanted him after Waterloo-turned to defaming him. Prominent among them were former close associates of Napoleon such as Louis Antoine de Bourrienne, the Duchess of Abrantes, Claire de Remusat, and Marshal Auguste Marmont. The memoirs such people wrote, or had ghostwritten, were accepted as indispensable reference works by too many writers, though most of them are worthless and even the better ones contain much untrustworthy material. Only during the last few decades have English-language historians really managed an accurate recreation of Napoleon as an individual human being, as well as a ruler and stateman.'

‘…Usually held under tight control, his temper could explode in annihilating storms of abuse, sometimes accompanied by a blow from the imperial hand or riding whip. His friends…would ignore these displays, knowing they would pass quickly and that his cold good sense would reassert itself. He was generous with friend and foe, humane, and always grateful for favors done him when he was young, poor, and lonely. By contrast, he ran his imperial household and wardrobe on a tight budget, favored a mediocre red wine, and drank it mixed with water…he was a hero to his valets; his second one went willingly to St. Helena with him.'

‘Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systematized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a might heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and canals. He planted trees along his roads; set up a government office to protect France's forests, lakes, and rivers; gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers. Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation…He encouraged vast improvements in French agriculture and built up an enlarged system of public and private education. Just as important was his emphasis on competence and honesty in his officials. All careers were open to men of talent who would serve loyally, regardless of family background or political orientation. Also, he balanced his budgets; even in 1814 France had practically no national debt. And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator.'

There is more information along this line, and a very interesting comparison between Napoleon and Hitler, in JC Herold's The Mind of Napoleon. I have found it very helpful and it is there that you can find the information on the difference in motivations between Napoleon and Hitler, with Napoleon ruling on a basis of honor and as a lawgiver. And in general, Herold is not an admirer of Napoleon.

Reading Fain will also be enlightening for those who don't like Napoleon and have him pictured as someone selfish, bound in his own ambition, and other pejoratives. Fain spent quite some time working with Napoleon in the Tuileries and on campaign, and knew Napoleon both as a ruler and a person. I highly recommend it.

Most, if not all, of the negatives being used to describe Napoleon in this thread and in others, tend to come from what originated in allied and English propaganda of the period and quite literally, can't see the forest for all of the trees obstructing their 'historical' viewpoint.

Sincerely,
K

Ah, Elting as an objective source on Napoleon;).

Colin,

Have you read the book? Further, if you disagree with the material in the posting, then counter it with sources of your own.

Col Elting is still recognized as an authority on the Grande Armee and the period. So, if you don't agree, then counter it with material of your own. I can support all of my arguments, can you?

Sincerely,
M

Colin, I think that you just entered into a cave that none can exit.

Good luck going up against one of the best Napoleonic scholars I know. I mean that sincerely, this discussion will be fascinating.

Kevin,

Supporting your argument with quotes from Elting is akin to not supporting it at all. Elting is noted for his pro-Napoleon bias, which makes him anything but an objective source.

To counter what you are arguing, I will quote some of the sources that Elting decries: Bourrienne, the Duchess of Abrantes, Remusat, and Marmont. Elting dismissing them does not make them "worthless"; that is merely the opinion of one historian who had a particular pro-Napoleon point of view. In addition, I would refer you to the following among many others:

Hanson, Victor David. "The Claremont Institute: The Little Tyrant, A review of Napoleon: A Penguin Life". The Claremont Institute. 2003

McLynn, Frank. Napoleon. Pimlico. ISBN 0712662472. 1998

I realise that you are such a convinced admirer of Napoleon that you will never be convinced that he was anything other than admirable. I used to have the same opinion of him until I read more widely on the subject and came to realise that he was just another deeply flawed human being with an excessive ego and a cynical view of the value of human life. The legend is far greater than the man.

10 Marine,

No doubt you are a scholar of the Napoleonic Wars and of Napoleon. Other than Jesus Christ, there has never been more written about a single man than Napoleon. So, I suspect that there are sources to support any position or opinion on Napoleon. That does not mean that sources shouldn't be quoted. At least that's what my college History teacher taught who insisted we supported our papers with sources.

God bless,
John

Frank McLynn's biography has been reviewed as biased, which is why I didn't buy it.

I had to read some of Hanson's material in grad school-I wasn't impressed and it was on another subject.

Col Elting hasn't 'dismissed' that suspect material, he has read it and compared it with others. Further, Cronin did extensive research into those alleged 'memoirs' and others, and came up with the same conclusions. Bourrienne, for example, was ghost written and also demonstrated as being nonsense by another French author who wrote a commentary on them. Because of the Bourbons, he had to get his study published in Belgium.

Col Elting did his homework-Swords, for example, is based on 30 years research and he was working on Swords II when he died in 2000. I have a lot of his research material that I was fortunate enough to be allowed both access to and to put it in my own library by his widow.

Again, if you are goind to refute it, you'll have to use better source material than you have listed here-neither Hanson or McLynn are Napoleonic scholars, and the other volumes have long been shown to be highly inaccurate and suspect.

Perhaps you should widen your reading horizons? Have you read Herold, Fain, Marchand, Caulaincourt, Rapp, or Savary? If you would like I'll supply a reading list for you to begin?

Sincerely,
K

"Supporting your argument with quotes from Elting is akin to not supporting it at all. Elting is noted for his pro-Napoleon bias, which makes him anything but an objective source."

Such a crushing and decisive retort! "Heh, your arguments with all your citations are in actually not even cited (says who? Says me!)" How can anyone ever even reply to such stunning debate skills?

Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of writing up an in depth reply and then having it written off by "citations NOT GOOD ENOUGH"? It seems whenever you have an enthusiasm for a particular subject, suddenly your entire body of works become biased or poorly researched.

I see this attitude often enough with Elting, but there are many others who say "sources please?" in a debate, then when sources are provided simply decry "BIAS!", as if that neutralises the entire argument. It strikes me as a very lazy way of simply conceding that you have no counterargument.

I say this in spite of partly agreeing with you, Colin. I recognize Napoleon for the man he was, a spectacular leader and general, revolutionary tactician, but overall deeply flawed and selfish individual. But good lord man, Elting's works are essentially universally held as fact, even his opponents recognize the good in his writings. It must strike even you as contrived to simply go "nope, those sources suck. Anything else?"

John,

I agree with you completely, and thank you very much for the compliment.

On sources, I also believe they need to be evaluated for accuracy. All authors have one bias or another-that's a given I think. What I try to follow in my research is the following from Henry Adams, no mean historian himself:

‘The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

Of course, I don't mean to say that authors don't have their biases. But it just blew me away that Colin wrote off Elting's works, which are nearly universally praised for their accuracy and scope, so simply. I'm just tired of seeing entire arguments well supported by sources and citations completely ignored because of how easy it is to go "yeah, but that authors BIAS. . ."

Kevin, would you be so kind as to compile the reading list? That would help me greatly.

If you wish to do it, you can email me at ghost0128@gmail.com

I had your email address but lost it in an account mixup.

-Michael

Hi Kevin,

I would suggest that any historical figure could be demonized by the same ‘method.' What is especially egregious is the ‘million man' remark, supposedly said to Metternich in 1813. The source for the alleged quotation is Metternich, and he certainly is not an unbiased witness.
Research done by Vincent Cronin in the early 1970s tends to nullify the remark, the source being J. Grabowski's Memoires Militaires, 95-96.

Could I please ask you to enlarge upon this point. I know this is going way off topic, but this is a key question for me. I have found it difficult to reconcile Napoleon's behaviour in action with what I percieve to be his monmanical egotism, mainly because of this quote. Are you suggesting it was made up by Metternich? I am genuinely interested, as this quote is so central to my view of Napoleon, I would have to do some serious rethinking if this could be demonstrated to be false…

On a far less personally important note, where you discuss British war aims above, these have never been anything but transparent and consistent, that the channel coast and Flanders not be held by a powerful and totalitarian state.

Kind Regards

Ralph

Marmont was a Traitor.
If he felt that to fight on was morally wrong, he should have resigned his command.
Generals (Marshals) are not employed to make decisions about if the fight should continue; they are employed to fight. If they don't have the stomach for the job they should resign and enter politics.

Friends,

Since this thread has morphed from Marmont to Napoleon. I have something about Napoleon to ponder.

I believe that we all have to give account before God. Even if you don't believe in such an accounting, for generosities sake imagine there is; would you want to be standing in Napoleon's shoes when he is judged?

I wouldn't.

God bless,
John

"Marmont was a Traitor.
If he felt that to fight on was morally wrong, he should have resigned his command.
Generals (Marshals) are not employed to make decisions about if the fight should continue; they are employed to fight. If they don't have the stomach for the job they should resign and enter politics."

trailape,

I agree with you except in the case where the command is no longer able to resist (i.e., Paulus at Stalingrad). There are cases of honorable surrender. Marmont's command was still able to resist when Marmont surrendered his command. Marmont was a traitor.

God bless,
John

I think there is a new internet law needed, which goes something like this.

When an online discussion contains implied or inferred criticism of Napoleon, directly or indirectly, sooner or later it will inevitably generate a counter-argument from Mr Kiley using something from Elting as a premise.

I am tempted to name it for myself, but have decided to name it after the great man – Kiley's Law.

"On sources, I also believe they need to be evaluated for accuracy."

10th Marines,

Ah, but there's the sticky wicket. From what perspective is the evaluation for accuracy made? I think the evaluation must be weighed from a number of sources, then personal judgment (the sticky wicket) comes into play. However, I'm nit-picking as I do agree with your premise.

God bless,
John

>Generals (Marshals) are not employed to make decisions about if the fight should continue<

Nonesense. Generals have a duty to make such decisions and have frequently done so down the decades. Fighting 'to the death' is for fanatics or in exceptional circumstances.

XV Brigada,

I believe trailape was stating a basic principle. To basic principles there are always exception as you have pointed out. But the basic principles are not nonsense. As a basic principle, the military man in uniform is to conduct war, not make national policy. Policy is for the national political leaders…as a general principle. "War is an extension of politics by other means." However, even to this well know axiom, there are exceptions.

To Marmont's surrender. In my opinion he violated a basic duty of a military commander. Since the command still had the ability to resist, he should have resigned his command rather than surrendering it.

God bless,
John

Hi John,
your profile says your from Madison County, Alabama.
Is that were they have those old wooden bridges with roofs?
If so, why did they go to all that trouble?
This may be moving slightly off topic. But I'm not going to miss a chance to find out about this!
regards
Max
PS Marmonts actions hastened the end of a bloody war that could eventually only have that one result. So he was a realist. Marmont was a traitor though. He surrendered by subterfuge and marched his men into captivity.

Maxshadow,

No old covered wooden bridges is this Madison County that I know of. I think it's them d@^# Yankee's up north that covered their cute little bridges. ;-)

God bless,
John

Lol ok. There was that horrible Clint movie called "the bridges of Madison county". I'm not from the US but I'm guessing different states could have countys of the same name. Perhaps the men of Alabama much too busy to waste time putting roofs on bridges.
Thanks John!

I agree with you except in the case where the command is no longer able to resist (i.e., Paulus at Stalingrad). There are cases of honorable surrender.

Quite correct.
However, as stated Marmont could have fought on even if simply to delay and withdraw.
So we are in agreement ;o)

>Generals (Marshals) are not employed to make decisions about if the fight should continue<

Nonsense. Generals have a duty to make such decisions and have frequently done so down the decades. Fighting 'to the death' is for fanatics or in exceptional circumstances.

I counter your 'Nonsense' with Balderdash!
:o)
To continue to fight can mean:
To fight a delaying action, a fighting withdrawal or even a simply manoeuvre in a way to keep the enemy guessing. All viable ways of 'waging war' or 'fighting'. I stand by my point. Generals are not employed to surrender their troops because they have become defeatist or are in a moral bind.

Well. This went down hill.

Traitor? To Napoleon yes. But to France and the army no.
Boneparte wasn't even French!

Of course, I don't mean to say that authors don't have their biases. But it just blew me away that Colin wrote off Elting's works, which are nearly universally praised for their accuracy and scope, so simply. I'm just tired of seeing entire arguments well supported by sources and citations completely ignored because of how easy it is to go "yeah, but that authors BIASED

They aren't nearly universally praised for their accuracy and scope. Lots of readers and historians have more or less agreed, lots have disagreed with some aspect or other.

Regards

@John Tyson

"It is my understanding that Napoleon made Marmont a marshal because of their deep personal friendship, not because of military talent. Another irony of ironies."

I cannot agree, Marmont was made marshal in 1809 and not in 1804.

There Elting seemed to be regarded in high esteem, and he worte a good book along with Esposito :

This is what they have to say about Marmont :

"Better educated and more intelligent than most of the marhsals. An excellent organizer and administrator, showing immagination and energy, though not always clean handed. Courageous, quick-witted, and cool; a neat tactician; understood stragegy"
Esposito & Elting : A Military History and Atlas about the Napoleonic Wars, biographical scetches.

In Swords …. , you will find similar words.

von Winterfeldt,

You are probably right. I based my comments from "Napoleon's Marshal's" edited by David Chandler. Chapter Fourteen is called, '"Friendship's Choice"--Marmont' by John L. Pimlott. On page 260, Pimlott quotes the Emperor's comment to Marmont at his promotion to the marshalate:
"I am afraid I have incurred the reproach of listening rather to my affection than to your right to this distinction. You have plenty of intelligence, but there are needed…war qualities in which you are still lacking, and which you must work to acquire. Between ourselves, you have not yet done enough to justify entirely my choice."

Friend, I have both the works you referenced so I will look more closely at those fine books. Thanks.

God bless,
John

I never said anything about defeatism or moral binds.

It is evident that France was beaten. There was no prospect, in my view, of reversing the military situation – none at all. Napoleon had to go. That too seems clear enough. Nothing else, I think, would satisfy the Allies.

By fighting on Marmont would have achieved nothing except prolonging the inevitable, for no purpose whatsoever.

Generals also have a duty to the men they lead, which is not to get them killed unnecessarily.

XV Brigada,

That was Marmont's opinion also. This is where folks will differ as to whether Marmont was "a traitor or a realist."

God bless,
John

Supporting your argument with quotes from Elting is akin to not supporting it at all. Elting is noted for his pro-Napoleon bias, which makes him anything but an objective source.'

Colin,

That is a terrible thing to say, especially as it is not an accurate one. Lucky for me, Col Elting and I were good friends for over ten years and I had the opportunity to sit with him in his study and I was the beneficiary of his teaching while with him. He was an excellent historian with a shrewd judgment of source material. His personal library was excellent, and his historical range was quite wide and deep.

Every historian, author, and student has their bias. If you judge authors by their bias, you won't be reading anything with which you disagree, and that isn't good methodology. With Col Elting's advice, I completely rebuilt my personal library, and he contributed materially to the rebuilding, which was very generous of him.

I've read, and have most, of his books and they are an historical treat. If you don't like his work, that's fine-your choice. But making comments like the one referenced here is ridiculous-you have accused me of being a hypocrite-perhaps its time you did a little personal reflection.

Sincerely,
Kevin

That was Marmont's opinion also

Not just Marmont's. Many others thought alike, and also deserted a lost cause. Marmont wasn't the only one to surrender; only the most notorious due his rank and personal story with Napoleon.

That he also had a personal interest in surrender should not make us blind to the fact that when he defected Napoleon, the war was as good as lost for the emperor.

His guilt wasn't bigger than many other's. He didn't conspire with his master's enemies as Fouche or Tayllerand did (those were traitors, even by the standards of the times). He did surrender once it was obvious for all except the most stubborn die-hard that there was not any hope of victory. If he would have surrendered in October 1813, after Leipzig, you would have a case against him. But he did it in April 1814, when the Allied armies were in front of Paris and he had just 20,000 men to face odds up to 5 to 1 against him. His notorious greed made of him a convenient scapegoat for the Napoleonic party in the postwar years.

However, the defection was done after the first abdication, which was disastrous for the French and it meant the Bourbons would return, which was not beneficial at all.

And it must be remembered that Marmont at least was influenced by Talleyrand (whose interests had nothing to do with France) if he did not conspire with him.

Contrast Marmont's treacherous behavior (and those of his main subordinates) with that of Davout in Hamburg, Lemarois in Magdeburg, and Carnot in Antwerp who did hold out until the war was over for France and their Emperor.

Marmont committed treason-handing over your command to the enemy before peace had been established is treason by any account, and I doubt that Marmont had any uplifting reason to do it except being persuaded by Talleyrand, who was also a traitor.

Sincerely,
K