"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

Ralph,

The source for the infamous quote is Metternich. It's in his memoirs. That tends to be an iffy proposition historically, but allied and English propaganda was intent on painting Napoleon as an ambitious and ego-driven monster, which careful study will negate.

Grabowski's memoirs are on google and can be downloaded.

Another book that would be helpful is Vincent Cronin's Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography. He covers the Dresden meeting with Metternich quite well. Cronin covers Napoleon the man and head of state more than Napoleon the general. The book is both interesting and valuable, and Cronin uncovered some new material for his book which sheds light on Napoleon's character and clearly demonstrates that (1) he was not a tyrant, and (2) that France was not a totalitarian state. Those who don't like Napoleon don't like this book.

Metternich was described as being 'too clever' but also as the most effective diplomat of his day. He was not an Austrian, but a Rhineland German, who hated the French Revolution and what it wrought, probably because his family estates, and the attendant serfs, were taken by the French during the occupation of the Rhineland.

He had no intention of being a mediator at Dresden in the summer of 1813. He had already, with Francis' concurrence, told the allies that Austria would come into the war on their side. He gave Napoleon an ultimatum for Austria's services that he knew Napoleon would not accept. he wanted continued warfare and Napoleon's downfall.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Michael,

I'd be glad to help. My home email is Boulart198@yahoo.com

Sincerely,
Kevin

Honor, treason, oaths, etc, are all very interesting concepts to debate, but wars are fought by human beings, usually against their will, and at great personal cost and tragedy.

If I was a 17-year-old Marie Louise, conscripted from my farm town in rural France, and serving in Marmont's corps in April 1814… I suspect that my family and I would be mighty happy that Marmont did what he did, rather than send me to my probable annihilation in a hopeless battle.

I find it hard to believe that the teenaged French soldier and his parents care about which dynasty rules France, as long as taxes go down and conscription stops. I doubt that any loyalty to any regime would be as important to them as seeing their son come home alive.

For that matter, if I was a 20-year old Prussian, Austrian, or Russian conscript, I'd be equally happy to be going home sooner, rather than later, with one less battle in which to risk my life.

The only person who can seriously argue that prolonging a lost war is a good thing, is somebody who is so personally partisan and invested in the success of one side, that he refuses to come to grips with the human cost of the war in the first place.

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

And good generals strive to achieve their mission and prevent their men dying unnecessarily.

An officer's duty in combat, be he a Second Lieutenant or a general, is to accomplish his mission. Sometimes that will require getting men killed-sometimes a lot of men killed. Getting them killed to no purpose is criminal. Giving up while you still have the means to resist is also criminal. The mission always comes first.

Sincerely,
K

Honor, treason, oaths, etc, are all very interesting concepts to debate, but wars are fought by human beings, usually against their will, and at great personal cost and tragedy.

If I was a 17-year-old Marie Louise, conscripted from my farm town in rural France, and serving in Marmont's corps in April 1814… I suspect that my family and I would be mighty happy that Marmont did what he did, rather than send me to my probable annihilation in a hopeless battle.

I find it hard to believe that the teenaged French soldier and his parents care about which dynasty rules France, as long as taxes go down and conscription stops. I doubt that any loyalty to any regime would be as important to them as seeing their son come home alive.

For that matter, if I was a 20-year old Prussian, Austrian, or Russian conscript, I'd be equally happy to be going home sooner, rather than later, with one less battle in which to risk my life.

The only person who can seriously argue that prolonging a lost war is a good thing, is somebody who is so personally partisan and invested in the success of one side, that he refuses to come to grips with the human cost of the war in the first place.

I totally agree

An officer's duty in combat, be he a Second Lieutenant or a general, is to accomplish his mission. Sometimes that will require getting men killed-sometimes a lot of men killed.

That wasn't true in 1800s. And neither it is nowadays, as the doctrine established by the International Court in Nuremberg determined.

Getting them killed to no purpose is criminal.

Indeed, but that is what Marmont's critics are defending in this thread, don't they?

Giving up while you still have the means to resist is also criminal.

And facing odds of 5 to 1 is reason enough to argue that you haven't the means to continue resistance.

The mission always comes first.

International criminal law does not recognize that axiom. Actually, quite the opposite. And probably an officer whose soldiers would think that he disregarded their lives and health so much as to put the mission before their wellbeing, wouldn't last too long in combat. He would be a case of blue-on-blue waiting to happen.

And therein lies the dichotomy ….
So just to make sure I have this right.

Getting men killed to no purpose is criminal.
Stopping the killing early is apparently also criminal.
Presumably getting too many killed is also criminal.

So you have to make sure you butcher the right number of your soldiers in the right way to be a success!

If you get it right you are a bona fide military genius, if you get it wrong you are either a traitor, incompetent or both!

'That wasn't true in 1800s. And neither it is nowadays, as the doctrine established by the International Court in Nuremberg determined.'

Yes it was, and yes it is. I'm not referring to war crimes nor am I referring to illegal orders.

What do you think an officer's job in combat is? Winning is the issue and to do that you have to accomplish your assigned mission.

And the International Criminal Court in Nuremberg has nothing to do with that, nor does international criminal law.

You might want to take a look at the Law of Land Warfare and also take a look at what officers are taught regarding combat, leadership, and generalship. You're way off base here.

I hate to say this, Bas, but on this subject unless you've actually commanded or led in combat, or have worn a uniform in a position of actually commanding troops, you don't know what you're talking about here.

Sincerely,
K

'So you have to make sure you butcher the right number of your soldiers in the right way to be a success!'

You're missing the point, and no one said anything about 'butchering' anyone.

Unfortunately, and what is generally left out of wargaming, reenacting, and too many military history 'studies' is the basic marching and killing that goes on.

War is a very nasty business and a very serious step to take.

However, the bottom line of combat is that people are going to be killed, wounded, maimed, and taken prisoner.

What you do is make sure its the enemy and not your own. But when you lose people, it isn't time to lay down and weep-you have a job to do and it is mission first-always.

Sincerely,
K

'And probably an officer whose soldiers would think that he disregarded their lives and health so much as to put the mission before their wellbeing, wouldn't last too long in combat. He would be a case of blue-on-blue waiting to happen.'

The US Marine Corps always teaches 'mission first.' That's one of the reasons the Marine Corps is excellent in combat.

Sincerely,
M

'And facing odds of 5 to 1 is reason enough to argue that you haven't the means to continue resistance.'

No, it isn't.

That was close to the odds on the first day of the battle of Essling. Do you think there was a discussion on who was going to do what? I don't see Massena having a discussion with Napoleon there.

The odds against the 84th Ligne at Graz was ten to one. I haven't read of a 'discussion' about whether the regiment should surrender or not.

The two-battalion Old Guard assault at Plancenoit went in at odds of seven to one and won-they drove the Prussians out of the village.

Again, you're way off base here and it seems to me you don't understand the military concept of duty.

Sincerely,
K

Goodness. We are getting intense. "Butcher…"

For some reason that reminds me of when I got off a troop plane in San Francisco and was called a "Baby Killer" by my own countrymen.

War Story time from the early 1970s:

When I was stationed in New York City, I was walking in uniform through a mall, going to my bank. There was a group of flower children there on my way and a little flower gal stepped in front of me. I apologized and she stepped in front of me again. I asked her, "May I help you?" She replied, "How many women and children have you killed today?" I told her. "Well none today. Would you like to be the first?"

I mellowed since those Army days.

God bless,
John

John,

I remember those days very well also, though my time in uniform began in the mid-1970s, that attitude was still prevalent in places in the US.

And I have no doubt there are still people like that in the US. It is clearly a case of not understanding and having no idea what they're talking about.

It's too bad that a historical discussion has to degenerate to the level of someone using the epithet 'butcher.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

Well Kevin, Vietnam was not a very popular war. And, there was justification for wanting the U.S. to get out. Folks got very emotional and opinionated which caused a lot of strife…much like the Napoleonic Discussion Board. ;-)

God bless,
John

Marmont definitely betrayed Napoleon and there can be no justification in terms of his duty to his soldiers (immediate surrender or destruction of his command not being his only options), the only question being whether one considers Napoleon in 1814 worth being loyal to.

Regards

What Esposito / Elting have to say about Napoleon :

"The emperor possessed the common human habit of embelleshing his best exploits and blaming others for his reverses. He carried this behavior to extremes, even to the destruction of factual original documents. In such fashion, he developed the account of his mediocre Marengo campaign into a first-class epic romance. Napoleon's close followers (as can be still seen in this thread vW), because of hero worhsip or personal considerations, also suppressed and invented."
(Preface)
And what did Larrey say, a very honest man when Napoleon crowned himself as emperoer :

C'est avec une affliction prfonde, dis-je à mon épouse, que j'ai vu cet illustre guerrier porter le sceptre des rois. Tout me prédit que cet instrument de la tyrannie causera incessamment sa perte et la ruine de la France, tandis que s'il avait su conserver son titre modeste de premier Consul de la République, il aurait été vénére du monde entier et il serait resté l'idole de peuple francaise"
La Revue Napoléon, numéro 20, novembre 2004
Bey, Frédéric : Les Sceptiques Du Sacre, page 55

And Kléber after dumped in the merde after Bonaparte left him in Egypt :
"une ambition démesurée et nullement en proportion avec ses connaisances et ses talents."
Aprés le 18 brumaire, la France :
n'aurait pu´être subjuguée par un plus misérable charlatan."
page 99
Laurens, Henry, Kléber en Egypte, tome 1, Paris 1988

It seems to be so easy to bash Marmont, Bernadotte, Dupont, Ney or Murat – but when just being critical about Napoleon – who was not better than those – a lot of people get very touchy.

Napoléon and Marmont, despite Marmont's sterling service it must have been insulting to Marmont not to be amongst the first marshalls.
Despite being not a chose one – a great humiliation – he got a corps – and indipendent command – where he prooved to be one of the most outstanding army leaders of Napoleon.
In case it is true what John Tyson wrote what Napoleon did say to Marmont – when he finally promoted hims to a marshal, it displays clearly that Napoleon had nothing else in mind than to humiliate a prooven officer.
Was Marmont a realist – yes – did Napoleon loose grips with reality – most likley yes as well.

So the mission is all that counts?

I'm fairly sure failing in your mission but suffering no losses is considered better than completing your mission with horrific ones.

And Sun Tzu himself said the supreme art in war is to achieve your aim with no losses to you or your enemy.

I've never served. But if I was in a company I would hope my officer was going to put me and my mates before suicidal orders.

I thought it every officer has always had the right to ignore orders that were suicidal or morally reprehensible. In free countries anyway.

Was it Paulus who surrendered to the Soviets despite specific orders to fight to the last man?
Rommel a traitor? Refused to implement The Commando Order.
King and Wainright in Bataan? Labelled a traitor and exiled from the USA he should have been instead of the Heros they were?

Conversely I suppose Thouvenot wasn't an idiot that wasted the lives of several hundred men but some kind of "honourable hero" ?
That those Japanese soldiers that after they had lost battles blew themselves up while surrendering or suicide charged machine guns WEREN'T dangerously crazy but actually just being loyal?

Nope. I'm sorry I just don't buy it.
The war is lost. Four nations are baring down on you from the east. Another army from the south (being welcomed by your countrymen). Your Navy is shut up tight. Untenanable position. So surrender now save lots of lives or get alot of people killed and surrender later anyway.

I suspect that no matter what happened Boneparte would have found someone else to blame. Marmont was the most convenient one this time.

A corps commander is not an independent commander unless he is on his own.

An army commander is an independent commander, as Eugene was in 1809, 1813, and 1814.

People are not 'critical' of Napoleon; they are damning and not objective based on his actions, but how they personally 'feel' about the man. When judging, discussing, and writing history, 'feeling' is an emotion that should not be used at all-it taints or clouds the issue. Objectivity needs to be used and too many times here there is too much 'feeling' for good or ill.

Sincerely,
K

Edwulf,

Marmont was not a scapegoat, but the author of his own misfortune. His act, from a soldier's viewpoint, is despicable. He could have quit and gone home, but to betray his soldiers to the enemy, his soldiers who still wanted to fight, was dishonorable.

And as previously stated, Marmont danced to Talleyrand's tune and the first abdication was already in motion and in general the fighting had stopped. So losing more troops was not the issue.

What Marmont's actions did was undermine the proposed Regency for Napoleon's son under Marie-Louise, which is what the other marshals wanted. So you are missing the point of the exercise and what was going on at the time.

And yes, the mission always comes first and sometimes what happens is that you lose heavily. Rear guards and detachments left in contact sometimes are overwhelmed and lost with very heavy causalties-that's the nature of the business.

A commander who is too concerned with what he might lose won't win. Cheaper victories are best-but that doesn't happen all the time.

When was Wainwright exiled from the United States? that never happened-where did you come up with that one? And which King are you referring to? General Wainwright was awarded the Medal of Honor for his defense of the Philippines.

Rommel and Paulus served a corrupt and evil regime. Rommel paid for his sins with suicide to protect his family. Paulus had a chance to break out and failed to take it-he was urged repeatedly by Manstein to do so. There is a great difference to obeying a suicidal order and doing your duty. And illegal orders, such as the Commissar order, should never be obeyed.

And not having served puts you at a disadvantage when discussing what soldiers are supposed to do. It's akin to attempting to describe the concept of color to someone blind from birth.

Sincerely,
K

Just another thought about Marmont's surrender.

Marmont was a Corps commander and his boss didn't like him unilaterally surrendering.

How do you suppose Marmont would have reacted if a few days prior one of his Division commanders had unilaterally surrendered his division? Or if one of his Brigade commanders had unilaterally surrendered his brigade? Or a Battalion commander? Or a Company commander… well, you get the idea. There is a reason for sometimes very harsh military discipline. A commander never surrenders his command to the enemy unless his command can no longer resist or he is ordered by his military superior to surrender.

I'll say again there are situations where a commander can honorably surrender. I don't believe Marmont's circumstances warranted a unilateral surrender. I my humble opinion Marmont had two options:
1. Continue in command and resist
2. Resign his command.

I respect the opinions of others who disagree as this is a somewhat subjective call.

Now that I've stated my opinion already too many times, I'll shut up unless I have something new to add.

God bless,
John

"And not having served puts you at a disadvantage when discussing what soldiers are supposed to do. It's akin to attempting to describe the concept of color to someone blind from birth."

I'm pretty sure that's dialogue from the courtroom scene in A Few Good Men. Doesn't it come just before Jack Nicholson launches into his "You can't handle the truth" tirade?

YouTube link

"The emperor possessed the common human habit of embelleshing his best exploits and blaming others for his reverses. He carried this behavior to extremes, even to the destruction of factual original documents. In such fashion, he developed the account of his mediocre Marengo campaign into a first-class epic romance. Napoleon's close followers (as can be still seen in this thread vW), because of hero worhsip or personal considerations, also suppressed and invented."

If you're going to quote authors about what they write and say about a historical personage, I would suggest that you actually use the full quotation, and not 'cherry pick' to get your personal point of view across.

You have misrepresented the material and the viewpoint in the paragraph by not giving the entire passage. And your comment about 'as can still be seen in this thread' is a cheap, inaccurate shot that doesn't belong here.

Your accusation in that phrase to people with whom you disagree, is a shade shy of defamation pure and simple. You need to watch what you say in your personal remarks-or better yet leave the ad hominem nonsense out of your postings.

Here is the complete passage, giving the balanced viewpoint of the authors of the Atlas:

'The Emperor possessed the common human habit of embellishing his best exploits and blaming others for his reverses. He carried this behavior to extremes, even to the destruction of factual original documents. in such fashion, he developed the account of his mediocre Marengo campaign into a first-class epic romance. Napoleon's close followers, because of hero worship or personal considerations, also suppressed and invented. On the other hand, his enemies strove to portray him as a monster, and to present his best victories as lucky accidents. Kutusov's reports on the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino make both appear as Russian victories. National feeling also is reflected in the works of various authors. Read an English, a Prussian, a French, a Dutch, and a Belgian account of the Battle of Waterloo; you may easily be led to believe that you are reading about five different battles. Like all historical periods, the Napoleonic era produced a flood of omore-or-less spurious memoirs of dubious historical value-the so-called memoirs, for example, of Constant, Bourrienne, and Madame Junot. There is a multitude of old-soldier stories, such as Marbot's, which are a dangerous blend of facts and tall tales. Some writers, in unchecked pursuit of the picturesque, have scoured freely through these lower strata of Napoleonic history, and have emerged with plots and characterizations better fitted for the comic opera. Likewise, some widely accepted historical novels-notably, Tolstoy's War and Peace-present a distorted picture of Napoleonic warfare.'

Sincerely,
K

'I'm pretty sure that's dialogue from the courtroom scene in A Few Good Men. Doesn't it come just before Jack Nicholson launches into his "You can't handle the truth" tirade?'

Nope. And as all those involved in the movie in the court-martial were military personnel, your point is moot.

Sincerely,
K

I served – I still say Marmont was a realist.
But those s demanding to fight to the last cartridge in the front trench and then wait and see how long they last.

Then it appears that you didn't learn very much from your service, now did you?

Sincerely,
K

Wainwright and King were the two Generals left in charge of the Phillepenes. They weren't exiled they were treated like heros. My point being that, being that they are by your view traitors their positive reception was unjust. As they disobeyed a no surrender order from McArthur.

Of course losses are to be expected in campaigns. And rearguards and holding actions are good examples. There is a difference though in suffering casualties for a greater purpose such as a rearguard action (presumably allowing a larger number to escape) in which many die so more will live to fight on) such as at Imjin or Dunkirk than to get men killed for little or no reason or for little gain.
If your mission is to eliminate a sniper, and you lose 2 men from your platoon people will say well done. Lose 5 or 6 they might say hard luck but at least you did it. Lose 25 and theyd probably say you should have stopped after losing what 6 men. As the losses, your platoon, outweigh the gains, one sniper. Now lose those 25 men plugging a gap in the line that saves the day though would be perfectly reasonable.
Ties

No amount of fighting was going to save the day. I imagine quitting his post would just have meant he would be named a coward instead of a traitor, maybe he thought it would be better to be a traitor to Boney than called a coward.

I might also say Marmont was serving an evil empire like Paulus so there is some parallel. Both knew they were doomed.
So your position is that the fighting had stopped but Marmonts men wanted to fight, and the reason Marmont is a traitor is because by surrendering his army When his leader his abdicating he stopped Bonerpartes son from inheriting a throne Bonerparte had no right to and was contrary to the whole spirit of the revolution. Maybe he thought he hadn't been fighting 20 odd years just to secure a throne for a chubby posh lad but for France.

"Then it appears that you didn't learn very much from your service, now did you?"

Kevin,

Even military men can have differences of opinion on military subjects. Was that post called for?

God bless,
John

"Nope. And as all those involved in the movie in the court-martial were military personnel, your point is moot."

No, my point isn't moot; but it has been missed. In drawing a parallel to the speech made by the Jack Nicholson character in the movie I was mocking your apparent belief that you can win an argument about morality by playing the 'I've served, you haven't' card.

Just as sincerely,

SJD

It wasn't an argument about morality; it was a point being made that perhaps in this day and age when many don't serve, they tend to pass judgment on military subjects and issues with which they have no experience.

Is that better?

Sincerely,
K

John,

Probably not, but personally I'm a little tired of silly posts that do nothing to enhance the discussion. My apologies.

Sincerely,
K

I'm sorry Edwulf, but comparisons between Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France are not only highly inaccurate, but do nothing but bring the discussion level down to the lowest common denominator.

Napoleon was not Hitley, not by a longshot, and his empire and rule cannot be compared to the Nazi mess; in short it was not an evil empire.

Sincerely,
K

Then, following the line of thought of some fellows members here, General Lee Was a criminal for not surrender his troops… let's said, one year before, or eight month?

Every governor or militar governor of a fortress in Europe who knows that he had not a chance to win but fought at the last with his troops were all criminals?

Marmont was not a heroe for doing that and I agree that he could resigned as CC of his Corp and his history had been another one.

Amicalement
Armand

"Then it appears that you didn't learn very much from your service, now did you?"

An unforgiveable and unworthy comment. So much for the military concept of "honour"!

As to your claim that only those who have served and led men can understand, that may well be right but it does not mean that they would all agree with you!

By the way, I love the way that you dismiss any source that criticises Napoleon ("The source for the infamous quote is Metternich. It's in his memoirs. That tends to be an iffy proposition historically, but allied and English propaganda was intent on painting Napoleon as an ambitious and ego-driven monster, which careful study will negate.") but allow without comment any sources that support or praise the Emperor. Such an objective approach! It is apparent that your research into Napoleon is driven by your bias rather than being undertaken in the way that it should be, which is to approach the material objectively and seek what can be described as "truth".

@John Tyson

"Even military men can have differences of opinion on military subjects."

I agree and non military as well, this is a board to exchange opinions – only because one served doesn't make one superior to others.

@Tango 01

Lee surrendered when he deemed his military situation to be rather hopeless. He thought better to surrender than to fight to the last bullet.
Marmont did the same, I see no difference.

Colin,

What you do historically, which is usually termed historical inquiry, is assemble facts from which you draw a conclusion. You don't search for 'truth' for if you do what may happen was very well-put by the historian Henry Adams:

‘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,
K

Here is a quote from Tacitus that fits the situation regarding Marmont in 1814:

‘The chief duty of the historian is to judge the actions of men, so that the good may meet with the reward due to virtue, and pernicious citizens may be deterred by the condemnation that awaits evil deeds at the tribunal of posterity.'

Marmont's 'deeds' in 1814 were certainly treacherous and therefore meet Tacitus' definition.

Sincerely,
K

‘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.'

Kevin,

I've read that several times. I've even closed one eye and read it. I must be dumb because I can't make heads or tails out of what Mr. Adams said. Could you put that into layman's terms and interpret?

Thanks.

God bless,
John

Anybody who has ever observed or taken part in thread involving Mr Kiley will be unsurprised at his behaviour.

It is nonesense to claim a civilian is at a "disadvantage when discussing what soldiers are supposed to do."

It is about as sensible as claiming that somebody is at a disadvantage when discussing politics if they aren't member of parliament.

It is a form of personal attack, because what he is doing is telling every person who has not been, or is not, a soldier to ‘shut-up' and that ‘You don't have the necessary qualifications to make a judgement'.

But to return to the issue, the problem with trying to justify or explain Marmont's action is that nobody really knows what his motives were and these make all the difference when deciding whether he was a villain or not.

That he became the ‘Raguser' to Bonapartists is of no relevance at all.

I'm not sure how he could be expected to resign and, presumably, ride off into the sunset, and all this ‘last bullet'/'last man' stuff is as unrealistic in theory as it is in reality.

I prefer ‘Who Dares Wins' to ‘Who Cares Who Wins' but sometimes you have to recognise that you can't win.

Strictly speaking, of course Marmont committed treason. But what difference does it make? He committed treason against a regime that had only a few days more to live, even if Marmont hadn't done what he did.

Treason only matters if the party you betray is still around to punish you for it. Napoleon, of all people, knew that quite well, and most officers of his generation had taken multiple oaths of loyalty to multiple regimes over the years.

The fact that one commander betrayed his boss, was probably far less important to most people at the time, than was the fact that the god-awful war finally came to an end, without dragging down thousands more lives. I don't expect anybody to thank Marmont, but I bet 90% of humanity at the time was pleased or at least relieved by the outcome.

It is obvious that many posters here have not the slightest idea about the Law of Armed Conflict.
How the Nuremburg Trials found their way into this thread is beyond me,…
Facing odds of 5-1 don't constitute a lost cause.
Marmont didn't even need to fight that hard. He could delay and manoeuvre or simply threaten.

Kevin,

You posted;

"What you do historically, which is usually termed historical inquiry, is assemble facts from which you draw a conclusion. You don't search for 'truth' for if you do what may happen was very well-put by the historian Henry Adams:

‘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.'"

Utter balderdash! The first and most important duty of an historian is to attempt to discover the "truth" about the events that he or she is researching. That is the whole purpose of assembling the facts; merely forming an opinion can be done without assembling facts, but one requires the facts to approach the "truth". Of course, to do that one must be objective;).

As for Henry Adams, his massively flawed attempt to utilise the second law of thermodynamics and Maxwell's Demon as the basis of an historical model clearly illustrates his limitations. On a personal basis, I find it hard to take seriously any "historian" who could write:

"I detest them, and everything connected with them, and I live only and solely with the hope of seeing their demise, with all their accursed Judaism. I want to see all the lenders at interest taken out and executed."

and

"The Jew (was) a howling horror and the inevitable end of civilization."

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for that – I will do some reading around Metternich and Grabowski…

Of course if one had been one of Marmont's young conscripts one would be grateful for his act of surrender…but presumably just as grateful if he had retired and kept his Corps 'in being' as a bargaining chip…

Balderdash?! I'll have to write that one down and remember it. I haven't heard that term used for quite some time.

Sincerely,
K

Can those who still believe Napoleon was a Traitor and Marmont wasn't, please explain why the Austrian commander Mack was convicted of COWARDICE, removed from command and all honours he had earned taken from him? After all, according to those who think Marmont did the right thing, Mack did the right thing, didn't he?

Balderdash?! I'll have to write that one down and remember it. I haven't heard that term used for quite some time.

More Balderdash!
See my comments on Page 1 of this thread,..
;o)

Can those who still believe Napoleon was a Traitor and Marmont wasn't, please explain why the Austrian commander Mack was convicted of COWARDICE, removed from command and all honours he had earned taken from him? After all, according to those who think Marmont did the right thing, Mack did the right thing, didn't he?

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

I hate to say this, Bas, but on this subject unless you've actually commanded or led in combat, or have worn a uniform in a position of actually commanding troops, you don't know what you're talking about here.

Sincerely,
K

If the truth is as objective as you say, that would not be the case, would it? God save us from the day when combat officers are the only recognized moral authority.

While this scholarly debate is fascinating -and I'm not being facetious, it truly is – and several of you gents know more about Napoleon than I do by an order of magnitude, it is still possible to spill much ink / electrons in shcolarly debate, but somehow manage to evade the simple truth:

1. Marmont's surrender ultimately stopped the killing.

2. Napoleon was, during the campaign of France, simply trying to buy back his throne with the blood of his soldiers. He was doing neither them nor France any good. While Frenchmen were dying, Napoleon was carrying on negotiations about whether or not France would maintain its ancient boundaries.

3. There comes a point when oaths are not worth a damn. You always have to have some consideration for whether an oath you have taken still has any objective value, and, by this point, the oath to Napoleon taken by the Marshals could easily have been altered to "I swear to spend the lives of my countrymen like sewer water, to see French cities burned, French women raped, and French children left fatherless, all for the purpose of maintaining the throne of my beloved Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, because he gave me these titles and this cool uniform."

Nobody could get me to keep an oath when its plain meaning degenerated to that level, nor, I hope, any honorable man.

I hate to say this, Bas, but on this subject unless you've actually commanded or led in combat, or have worn a uniform in a position of actually commanding troops, you don't know what you're talking about here.

Well by that standard, I qualify.
;o)

"Nobody could get me to keep an oath when its plain meaning degenerated to that level, nor, I hope, any honorable man."

Mr. Askari,

It is my prayer that you or any of us come anywhere close to having to make such an act.

God bless,
John

I think essentially it comes down to this:
Was Marmont's command still in 'fighting shape'?
If the answer is yes, then he is a traitor because he was a Commissioned serving officer under command of Napoleon. Therefore he betrayed Napoleon the legitimate ruler of France and therefore he betrayed France. Oh, and please let's not get into the whole 'legitimate ruler' thing, obviously Marmont was happy that Napoleon was Emperor,…
If Marmont's Army wasn't in shape to fight, (or withdraw or manoeuvre in some other manner), then surrender was acceptable and therefore he was not a traitor.
Now, whether or not his treason was a bad thing to do I'll leave to the 'morality police' to sort out but as it stands now, and based on my own understanding of the situation at the time I would respectfully suggest that Marmont was a traitor.