"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

I agree with trailape's logic. It is quite sound. Marmont was had an ability to maneuver his troops, therefore surrender is not acceptable.

At Stalingrad, an example noted often in this thread, the Germans were locked with no escape, therefore surrender is acceptable and honorable.

Applying universalist moral philosophy, if every General surrendered when he was unable to maneuver his troops at all, then that surrender is acceptable. If said General has the potential to move, but decides against that, for any reason, then that surrender is unacceptable.

As I think of examples of such in Napoleonic times and prior, I believe that this theory applies itself well.

To compare Mack with Marmont shows very poor understanding of military history – Mack manoeuvred himself into this position, disregarding any intelligence, a complete different story to Marmont.

At Stalingrad Paulus should have attempted to brake out earlier than blindly obeying orders – or capitulating earlier (and by thus maybe gaining better conditions for the treatment of his men) he starved his army to death instead of being responsible to his men.
Almost all of those who surrendered died as POWs – due to the fact that the surrender was too late.

VW, hindisight is coming into play. Paulus was following orders, he could not possibly have forearm what would happen. For all he knew,the Russians might have started pulling back! Also, he could not have known how his POWs would be treated.

von Wintefeldt

No, sorry, you can't just dismiss Mack and Marmont's surrender with such a feeble excuse. Mack became surrounded due to the genuis of his enemy, in this case Napoleon. Mack could blame the fortunes of war and a better enemy. But Marmont's actions were far worse because he made a secret agreement and basically knew what was going to happen because he planned and agreed to it. Mack did not plan or agree to get surrounded or to surrender and I was suprised by the harsh treatment he received by his Austrian superiors.

Marmont was a traitor to Napoleon but far more of a traitor to his men – simple as. Mack was put in prison for his actions and Marmont should have got the same. You can't support Marmont just because he disobeyed Napoleon. To do so would certainly suggest a poor understanding of military history and a strong element of bias.

As for Paulus, your views are based on hindsight. Ask any soldier and they will tell you that a soldier's duty is to obey orders-whether they like it or not. He obeyed his orders, and we know the sad result of that. But he acted with honour in doing so. He did his duty. It is far too easy in hindsight to say he should have broke out, but you were not in his situation, or experienced his background. As ghost02 says, unlike you, he did not know what would happen next.

And basically, if all soldiers questioned their orders and if all commanders thought about their men first, then there probably would be no battles or wars. A nice thought but totally unrealistic. It seems more likely that Marmont either felt he was above obeying orders, which meant he was a bad soldier (Salamanca springs to mind) or, more than likely, was thinking about himself.

ghost02
that is not what I read about it – a lot of other high ranking German officers had other opinions, alas there was nobody with the backbone of Marmont amongst them.

von Winterfeldt

Backbone of Marmont – Spineless more like. But if he disobeyed Napoleon's orders, then I can see why you support his actions. Bias covers many a sin.

Interesting note-

Marmont disobeys Napoleon's orders and is considered as having a backbone and doing the right thing.

Mack is trapped and surrenders his men and is considered as doing the wrong thing. He is treated badly by his own side, and is even thrown into prison for two years.

Marmont is considered as failing to do his duty for the Royalists in the 1830 revolt and was even accused of betraying them. He is evetually exiled with the king from France.

But Marmont is later welcomed by Austria, which meant that the Austrians welcomed Marmont who surrendered his men because he disobeyed Napoleon, but put Mack in prison for surrendering his men, because he surrendered them to Napoleon. The connection – Napoleon.

John,

Isn't that the connection with some people anywhere when discussing the period? If Napoleon is disliked, then Marmont did the right thing; if Napoleon is admired, then Marmont did the wrong thing.

Napoleon shouldn't even be part of the discussion-Marmont should be judged on his own merits and on this occasion, he was wrong and committed treason, betraying his country, breaking his oath, and bottom line betraying his soldiers.

And he did it after Napoleon had abdicated and the fighting had generally stopped, which is being overlooked here. What he did was to bring back the Bourbons, which is what Talleyrand wanted. Marmont not only committed treason, but he was nothing but a pawn in the hands of Talleyrand.

Sincerely,
K

If Napoleon is disliked, then Marmont did the right thing; if Napoleon is admired, then Marmont did the wrong thing.

And what about those of us that neither like or dislike Napoleon?

I judge Marmont on his actions, period. I have no real bias in regards to Napoleon one way or the other. Purely from a soldier's perspective I consider Marmont a traitor, and failing in his duty to his higher command and betraying his soldiers. Not all soldiers crave the option of surrender over fighting. I suspect many if not most of his soldiers would have preferred to fight than rather meekly surrender. Many of his troops would have felt very aggrieved and dishonoured by his betrayal I suspect. Consider how many of these troops rallied to the colours in 1815, keen for a fight.

"I suspect many if not most of his soldiers would have preferred to fight than rather meekly surrender. Many of his troops would have felt very aggrieved and dishonoured by his betrayal I suspect (trailape)."

I'm not near my books so I can't quote exactly. It is from R.F. Delderfield's "Napoleon's Marshal's" and Delderfield said that only Marmont's division commanders knew that the Corps was surrendering. Marmont had mislead his division commanders telling them that Napoleon was abdicating. When the NCOs and rankers marched into Versailles they thought they were about to attack but when they saw that the Prussians and Russians weren't going to do battle, the NCOs and rankers then realized what was happening and became furious, shouting that Marmont is a traitor and calling for his lynching. When Marmont tried to harangue his soldiers, they shouted him down in rage!

I'll provide the exact quote later.

God bless,
John

'feeling' is an emotion that should not be used at all-it taints or clouds the issue.

Quite.

I simply used the word "butcher" because it is an accurate description of Napoleonic warfare.

*shrugs*

So Marmont was a traitor and also sensible. Just needed to time his choices better and get a better pr agent.

Gustav,

You're correct. We've all heard battle casualties called "the butcher's bill."

God bless,
John

@basileus66,

Yes. I said as much earlier in the thread.

That Marmont entered into a unilateral arrangement with the Allies is not disputed, as far as I know, by anybody. If you believe that there were no mitigating factors, or that they were irrelevant, and that Marmont's oath of fidelity to Napoleon took precedence over everything, then that, is that.

That, in my view, is too simplistic.

The situation in which Marmont found himself was that the campaign was lost. Napoleon was, apparently, either unaware of the situation or blind to it. I would say the latter because it was certainly evident to the Marshalate. As Ney is supposed to have told Napoleon, "Sire, the army will obey its leaders", or, in other words, ‘it will not obey you any more'.

Oaths of loyalty to individuals are reciprocal, based on mutual trust and respect, and the context and circumstances in which it was given. Napoleon no longer ruled "in the sole view of the interest, the welfare and the glory of the French people."

He refused to accept reality and was no longer rational, continuing on a mixture of stubbornness and wishful thinking verging on the delusional. Any oath of loyalty to a man like that is void. Marmont's duty was now to his country and not to Napoleon.

Was any or all of that it Marmont's mind. I don't know and this is the problem with trying to construct any argument to justify Marmont's action – we don't really know what his motives were and these make all the difference when deciding whether he was a villain or not.

If Napoleon is disliked, then Marmont did the right thing; if Napoleon is admired, then Marmont did the wrong thing.

And what about those of us that neither like or dislike Napoleon?

Thats easy. We're undecided. :o)

I dislike Napoleon and believe Marmont did the wrong thing.

I must be an anomaly.

God bless,
John

"Consider how many of these troops rallied to the colours in 1815, keen for a fight."

The soldiers at least had no choice, you were in the army, the officers commanded – you obey.
today for Napoleon, the day after for the Burbons – the day after for Napoleon again, who cares to take in the feelings of the rank and file?
The common grunt had no choice, his only hope were good officers who did not treat them as cannon fodder.

@XV Brigada,

Good post.

Because of this thread I've boned up on the Marmont surrender. From what I've learned Ney, under Napoleon's directions, was negotiating with the Czar to have Napoleon's son become ruler of France. When Ney found out Marmont had surrendered his Corps, Ney was furious because it compromised his negotiations and allowed the Bourbon's to take rule.

God bless,
John

'To compare Mack with Marmont shows very poor understanding of military history – Mack manoeuvred himself into this position, disregarding any intelligence, a complete different story to Marmont.'

Marmont 'maneuvered' himself into his position also. No one held a gun to his head. He clearly demonstrated a lack of character and firmness.

Sincerely,
K

Colin,

You are quite right with your disgust of Adams' anti-Semitism. I was unaware of that, unfortunately.

However, he is still the author of excellent works on US history.

Too many people throughout history have been anti-Semites, Martin Luther being one of the most notorious, though he was greatly surpassed by the Nazis. And what we have today, disgustingly, are the 'Holocaust deniers' who are just as bad if not worse.

That being the case, I would think you would admire Napoleon as he was the first ruler in European history to give the Jewish people in his country full citizenship.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin

Good posts, but, as usual. it will fall of deaf ears. The problem is that you are not agreeing with them or saying what they want to hear. The truth hurts.

John Tyson

You are not an anomaly, you are being honest and stating your viewpoint, which should be respected. It is a shame others seem unable to do the same.

I admire Napoleon and think Marmont did wrong, so we do agree on something.

But I think, as with most threads, everyone will have to end up agreeing to disagree. I can't see many viewpoints being changed, can you?

It is a shame others seem unable to do the same.

The question still stands: what happen with those of us that do neither admire nor loath Napoleon?

I do not hate him, nor worship him either. Actually, I find amazing that anybody can hate or admire a person that never interacted with him or his family. Certain personality traits? May be… but a person as such? And especially somebody whose real self is wrapped up in so many layers of propaganda and counter-propaganda? No way! Perhaps it is that I am not interested in heroes or villains, but in real persons.

>The question still stands: what happen with those of us that do neither admire nor loath Napoleon?<

Napoleon is really not the issue at all. It is about Marmont.

Nobody can tell you what to do. You look at the arguments for and against and make your mind up one way or the other, or remain undecided.

"The soldiers at least had no choice, you were in the army, the officers commanded – you obey, today for Napoleon, the day after for the Burbons – the day after for Napoleon again, who cares to take in the feelings of the rank and file?
The common grunt had no choice, his only hope were good officers who did not treat them as cannon fodder."

My friend Von Winterfeldt, allow me to disagree with your quote.
When the french soldiers were under the Bourbon colors, they clearly decided NOT to support their King and Napoleon, simple walking, arrived to Paris from the Coast without shooting a single bullet.
On those days no doubt that the core of the French Army was with Napoleon and not with the Bourbons.
His march does not have many precedents in the reports of that Era and many Eras too.
A whole Army against their ruler… THAT's really treason! (smile).

Also, I'm not sure that the poor young farmers were happy to quit Napoleon and joint the Buorbons. The last return with that plague of Aristocrats who claim their lands again.
Many of those lands were in those days in the hands of those poor farmers as owners.

Agree with Kevin and the rest of my fellow forum members that Marmont never think in the benefit of his troops, he think in his own benefit (as Ney and other Marshalls did too but late because Marmont Hand earned them).

Amicalement
Armand

Tango01

Very good post

Armand,

Agree-good posting.

Napoleon had released the army from its oath before he left for Elba.

What turned the army against the Bourbons was the Bourbons' poor treatment of the army, and making Dupont, who was still under sentence by an imperial court-martial, Minister of War didn't help.

The Bourbons discharged too many of Napoleon's officers and replaced them with either Royalist 'carpet knights' or officers who had served against France.

The half-pay too many officers were supposed to get they didn't, and eventually the Bourbons refused to honor the Treaty of Fontainebleu and would not pay Napoleon his pension. They did raise, however, militarily worthless household troops on which they spent large sums of money that could have been used for better purposes.

The Bourbons also snubbed the Old Guard which caused more internal problems.

The only popular thing they did was abolish conscription.

Sincerely,
K

basileus66

By real persons, do you mean only people living now and you have met and know well? Because that is the ONLY way anyone can ever get to know anyone else. But it would also be very limited. It would also suggest the question as to why bother with history and the Napoleonic period at all, since all the characters are dead so you can't really get to know them like living people?

I certainly don't worship Napoleon but I do I admire him and what he has achieved. Others don't, but that is their choice. Hero or villain depends on how you interpret what is said and written about him and what he achieved.

And Napoleon was a real person and there have certainly been enough people, contemporary and modern, writing about him to get a feeling of what the real person may have been like. Of course we can never know for sure because we were not there and people writing about him, for and against, may have had their own agendas.

The same could be said of Marmont, in that people will read about him and believe or want to believe he was really concerned about wasting men's lives. But from what I've read about him during the Napoleonic period and after, including his voting for Ney's execution and the 1830 revolt, I gain a strong impression it was more of self-interest, and his act was that of a traitor.

Kevin,

French Jews were granted full citizenship on September 27th 1791, so I do not think that Napoleon can be credited with that one.

Even if Napoleon had been the one to grant them citizenship, would I admire him because of it? I would certainly respect him for having done so but I am not sure that I would go as far as admiring him.

Contrary to what most people on here may believe, I am not actually anti-Napoleon; I respect some of what he did for France and have a degree of admiration for his more brilliant moments as a commander. However, there are also aspects of his character and behaviour that I find less worthy of respect or admiration; these would include (but are not limited to) his tendency to rewrite history to suit his own legend (Marengo being a case in point), his inability in later years to accept reality when it did not align with his desires, his profligacy with the lives of his men, and his untrustworthiness.

Overall, I am somewhat ambivalent about Napoleon and would probably concur with Chandler's borrowed view of him as being a great bad man.

'feeling' is an emotion that should not be used at all-it taints or clouds the issue.

Sorry Comrade, but I must disagree.
Humans are creatures of emotion. What a person 'feels' is extreamly relavant.
Anyone who has actually led troops would know this, (and no I'm not suggesting one must have 'led troops' to provide worthwhile comment to this thread).
Marmont should have known this. Probably why he kept 'mum' the plan to capitulate.

As promised in an earlier post, here is the direct quote from R.F. Delderfield's book "Napoleon's Marshals" pages 185, 187 & 188.

Offered for your perusal.

"…Marmont, anxious to be among the first to preserve his rank, title, and wealth, had already notified his divisional officers that Napoleon was abdicating and that the army would not march to its death under the walls of its own capital. …"

"The czar received them (Ney & Macdonald) very courteously. Napoleon could not have chosen a better man than Michel Ney for a mission of this sort. Alexander's chivalry responded to a spokesman whose conduct in Russia had rung round the world and he was inclined to support the plea. "Who are these Bourbons?" he had remarked, when it had been suggested that the gouty Louis XVVIII should take Napoleon's place. "I know nothing of them!" During the second interview, however, his attitude changed. A staff officer came in and whispered something to him and at once he turned to Ney and said: "You assured me that the army as a whole is still loyal to the Emperor?" Ney said that this was the case. "Then how is it that Marmont's corps has just marched into our lines?" asked the czar.

"Ney was struck dumb by this intelligence, the gist of the staff officer's whispered conversation. He did not know what to say and neither did Macdonald. They stood there looking at one another and the audience was over. As soon as they were dismissed Ney made furious inquiries and soon established beyond doubt that the czar's information was correct. At that very moment Marmont's men were marching through the invaders' lines to Versailles and only their generals knew where they were going and why. When given the order to march the men thought they were advancing against the enemy, but it was soon clear that the Prussians and Russians were not going to attack. As soon as the column arrived at Versailles the NCO's and rankers realized what had happened. They personally had provided Marmont's insurance and their first reaction was one of impotent rage. So angry were they that there was talk of lynching the marshal and when Marmont appeared to harangue them they called him traitor and shouted him down. The damage, however, was done and gradually their tempers cooled. They were in the heart of the enemy's camp and nothing more could be done to get them out again. Moreover, their very presence there snapped the slender thread by which the Napoleonic dynasty was hanging. There would be no Regency now and no Imperial throne waiting for the King of Rome when he came of age. Marmont had seen to that and made certain of his own titles and estates."

God bless,
John

Thanks for the info John.
Well, I guess if Marmont's own Corp considered him a traitor then it is their opinion at the end of the day that really matters AFAIC.

"The man in the ranks is not a model of wisdom in every respect, but he is a mighty shred judge of his own commanding officer; no lying bulletin can throw dust in his eyes, no advertising swashbuckler can pass as a hero. The court-martial which sits around a bivouac fire may be very informal, but it has an instinct for reality".
Quote: Unknown

I might add, that maybe Marmont's actions actually prolonged the shedding of blood, for if he had not betrayed his command then maybe Napoleon could have held onto his thrown.
Maybe Napoleon would have been satisfied with a France reduced in influence, but at peace.
Maybe there would have been no '100 days'?
Lots of maybes,…
We will never know for sure.

There was no way that Napoleon was going to be allowed to retain his throne by that time; any possibility of that had gone.

The idea of Napoleon being satisfied with an emasculated France to rule over is also somewhat unlikely.

The idea of Napoleon being satisfied with an emasculated France to rule over is also somewhat unlikely

Agreed.
But we'll never know will we.
;o)
We've strayed Waaaaayyyyy off topic however.
We really should be talking about that traitor Marmont!
;o)

Published in the UK as 'The March of the 26th'. Delderfield was a popular novelist, dramatist and playwright, He died in 1972.

What were Delderfield's his sources for this? It still does not alter Marmont's motives one jot or iota. Leadership has never been a popularity contest.

Leadership has never been a popularity contest.

You miss the point.
It's a matter of respect, not popularity.
I've often mentioned to Senior and Junior NCOs, "I don't care if they like you, but they must respect you".
I suspect Marmont's men had very little respect for him.
Why else would he dupe his troops if he didn't think his plan to 'save their needless loss of life' require such deception or else result in some form or 'un-rest'?

"What were Delderfield's his sources for this?"

XV Brigada, here is what Delderfield wrote on page 235.

~~~~~~~~~~~

THE SOURCES OF THIS BOOK

EVERY fact in this book has been taken from some other book. An avalanche of memoirs followed the cessation of the Napoleonic wars. Almost everyone who held an important position with the Imperial Court wrote down his impressions and many of the old soldiers wrote books on the military aspects of the period. Some of these memoirs are absorbing, some accurate but dull, some lively but unreliable. Authors tried to justify their own behavior and almost every one of them had an axe to grind. I have been reading Napoleonic memoirs for over thirty years and it would be impossible to set down a comprehensive list of all the books and pamphlets I have used as a basis for this book. Such lists give the impression that the author is a scholarly fellow but they are of little interest to the general reader and mine would be incomplete. The best I can do, therefore, is to recommend a few of the sources to anyone who would like to know more of these remarkable men. Junot's wife, the Duchess d' Abrantes, wrote a witty and extremely interesting two-volume account of her life, and Bourienne, for a long time Napoleon's secretary, wrote a much longer account of the period as he saw it. Oudinot's wife wrote a faithful account and Marmont compiled his own justification. Among the first-class military material available the memoirs of Baron de Marbot is preeminent. Marbot was a staff officer of seven marshals and served in every campaign from 1800 to Waterloo. His book is an honest, exciting, and fascinating record of the wars. Equally enjoyable (although it covers only the Russian campaign) is that of Bourgoyne, a Sergeant of the Imperial Guard, and Segur also wrote brilliantly of the Great Retreat. These books, and others, can be read in English. For the rest, there are literally hundreds of more modern books, many of them excellent reading, dealing with the period between 1789 and 1815. I have read a vast number of them and learned something from each. There is still, however, as much again to be learned and when he has been reading all his life the most diligent student will realize that he has only scratched the surface of the period 1789-1815.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will add that R.F. Delderfield's book "Napoleon's Marshals" is a marvelously readable book.

God bless,
John

"French Jews were granted full citizenship on September 27th 1791, so I do not think that Napoleon can be credited with that one."

Kevin has been reminded of that at least a dozen times.

He has likewise been reminded, with copious citation of French law, that Napoleon actually rescinded the rights of Jews that had been granted under the Republic. By 1808 Napoleon had reinstated the special ancien-regime "Jew taxes," had denied Jews the right to appeal directly to their mayors (they had to report to a special Jewish bureau instead, supervised by the Interior ministry and paid-for by special fees charged to the Jewish communities), he forbade Jews to purchase substitutes for conscription (no other religious group faced this rule), and introduced new laws forbidding Jews from moving to, or working in, several departments of France (mostly in the East.) In other words: nearly all of the Old Regime's discriminatory laws against Jews were restored by 1808.

He then nullified all rates of interest over 5% charged by Jewish lenders, which coincidentally saved the French state a great deal of money because those same lenders had been leaned-on to buy French government debt in the previous two years, at the going rates of 7-8%.

Even a rudimentary reading of the French laws after 1807 makes this abundantly clear.

How his admirers have maintained that Napoleon was in fact the liberator of the Jews is mind-boggling.

In the interest of "facts" it would be nice to see a simple acknowledgement of these facts, rather than the usual angry subject-change to how bad the allied monarchs were, or that the Germans did nasty things and started two world wars, or the inevitable snarky intimations that whoever is arguing with him on this subject must harbour Nazi sympathies, etc, etc.) One lives to hope.

The Benedict Arnold of the French.

I watched a program on West Point the other day. Arnold was ready to fork over West Point to His Majesty's forces for 20,000 pounds stirling. Now THAT is a lot of money.

My first reading of the incident was Delderfields account as quoted above. Its funny how that first time will influence us. To my subconscious that's how it happened and anything I've read in the years since have been supplementary. And then someone on TMP says "what were his sources?" and you think "good point"

Given all of the above I am reminded of a quote from James Clavell's Shogun.

To paraphrase to the best of my recollection.
Toranaga (Tokugawa) asks the Englishman Pilot Blackthorne
"What excuse is there for rebelling against a liege lord"
"None – apart from if you win".

The only excuse!

"Napoleon and the jews"

TMP link

My friend colinjallen, you wrote:

"his tendency to rewrite history to suit his own legend…"
Agree, which great man did not try that? Think in Caesar for example.

John, many thanks for the quote.
I had read that book too.

Amicalement
Armand

By real persons, do you mean only people living now and you have met and know well?

Nope.By "real persons" I meant that: a person, not a mythical creature of unending goodness or infinite evilness, like the Napoleon that pops out occasionally in the Napoleonic forum in TMP. The only interest that the myths about leaders of the past have for me is what it reveals of the psychological and social needs of those who create them in the first place. Otherwise, I do not care about them.

To be honest, I find how this debate is going terribly boring. I expected a discussion about how the surrendering of Marmont reveled the unresolved tension between the Ancien Regime and the nationalist impulses brought up by the Revolution. But not. What I found was the typical squabble between pro and anti Napoleon admirers. As I said: it's more revealing about TMPrs psychology than about the fact itself.

Also, I'm not sure that the poor young farmers were happy to quit Napoleon and joint the Buorbons. The last return with that plague of Aristocrats who claim their lands again.

Not exactly. I mean, there weren't the "poor" farmers who benefited from the confiscation of lands during the Revolution, but the richer farmers and urban burgeoise.

Besides, the presumed popular support to Napoleon in 1815 was less a popular thing and more an elites thing. Look at the continued resistance to conscription, for example. In a moment, there were more than 20,000 refractaires, organized in bands to resist the gendarmerie patrols that tried to arrest them and send them to the depots for recruiting. That fact has more interest, in my opinion, than the memoirs of pro-Napoleon officers with a personal interest in promote a certain idea of the events.

@John Tyson

Esposito & Elting

Like all great historical periods, the Napoleonic era produced a flood of more-or-less spurious memoires of dubious historical value – the so-called memoires, for example of Constant, Bourienne, and Madame Junot. There is a multitude of old-soldiers 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 the lower strata of Napoleonic history, and have emerged with plots and characterizations better fitted for comic opera.

I agree absolutly with the above, Marbot is a farce and far from being honest, and the other 3 are very ambigous.

I wonder why always the old trodden paths of memoires are read?
What is about
Recollections of Colonel de Gonneville?
Girod de l'Ain : dix Ans de Mess Souvenirs Militaires de 1805 a 1815
Trefcon : Carnet de Campagne
Guibert : Souvenirs d'uns Sous-Lieutenant d'Infanterie Lιgθre (1805 – 1815)
Caillous, dit Pouget: souvenir de Guerre (1790 – 1831)
Lemoniere Delafosse, Curely, Faucher, Brandt, Fezensac, Bial, Betrand (and not the general), Francois, Desboeufs, Vivien, Blaze (though elting did a nicely edited translation), Lavaux, Routier, Barres and much much more – seemingly get ignored there they are not mainstream classics.

In case one wants to know more about Marmont, I just wonder why his own memoires are ignored (they will be biased as well as Napoleons, but one has to learn also about his) – as well as the cicritices to Marmonts memoires and the above menitoned work about the defection itself?

Why reading only Elting : Swords….
and not
Morvan : Le Soldat Imperiale , two volumes, available on google??

Out of interest from where did Delderfield get the information that the soldiers and NCOs were talking about lyniching Marmont?? From Marbot ;-))?

Having taken a little time to consider this thread I have decided that if one of my students proposed the original question: "Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" as a potential dissertation question, I would reject it as meaningless as a traitor can also be a realist and vice versa.

I have to say that anyone who tries to use Delderfield as a source or authority for anything really is hopelessly adrift! It is interesting to see his work being adopted as supporting the "Marmont as Satan" argument when Delderfield's acknowledged sources include those that the forum's arch-Bonapartist dismisses as being invalid. A case of trying to have one's brioche and eat it perhaps?

von Winterfeldt

I think any soldier worth his salt would not be too happy with a commander who makes secret agreements behind their backs and lead them into a trap and surrenders them. Marmont is a full blown traitor acting on self-interest only.

"Marmont is a full blown traitor acting on self-interest only."

I assume that having made such a statement, you can prove it, otherwise it is merely an opinion.

I think any soldier worth his salt would not be too happy with a commander who makes secret agreements behind their backs and lead them into a trap and surrenders them. Marmont is a full blown traitor acting on self-interest only.

No, in the circumstances at that time, the only thing that is being disputed is the effective terms of the general French surrender. There is no doubt that Marmont stitched up Napoleon but it seems pretty tenuous to argue that it made a real difference one way or the other, especially to the soldiers. They were going to be surrendered anyway by Napoleon.

Regards

basileus66

I agree with you that some people do give the impression that Napoleon, in your words, is either 'a mythical creature of unending goodness or infinite evilness', while the reality is that he is just a great commander and leader.

I think all threads, including the type you seem to want to appear, will indicate some level of the psychology of the person making the post. But many, as we see, are very anti-Napoleon and will support anyone, including a traitor like Marmont because of that viewpoint. They will also dismiss any titles that either say anything positive about Napoleon or criticize traitors like Marmont.

To me, Napoleon was a great commander but also a mere mortal who made mistakes as well as achieving great things. That's what interests me, along with all the characters and events the Napoleonic period introduced into history.