"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

Whirlwind

Napoleon was the commander in chief, Marmont was just one of Napoleon's officers. It was not his descision to make. But evidenly, Marmont saw himself above his commander in chief, probably because he was prone to being vastly overconfident and full of himself, as he was at Salamanca.

Gazzola,

Napoleon was the commander in chief, Marmont was just one of Napoleon's officers. It was not his descision to make.

I agree, like I wrote, Marmont definitely stitched him. I'm just saying that I think it is a bit flimsy to argue that this substantially changed anything given the circumstances at the time.

Regards

Marmont saw himself above his commander in chief, probably because he was prone to being vastly overconfident and full of himself, as he was at Salamanca.

Although I think this is just a slur.

Hi
The quote below:

"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".

I used it to make a point. The point being it is the soldiers who you command who are you harshest and probably your most accurate critic. I could not care less who actually said / wrote it. As a soldier of 30 years experience I can assure you it's a pretty darn accurate appraisal of exactly what soldiers do think and say.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that Marmont didn't fool his own troops and lead them into captivity?
Oh, and to compare MACK with MARMONT! Seriously??? One guy blunders into a trap, and the other willingly schemes with the enemy to lead his troops into captivity,…
Marmont conspired with the enemy and lead his command into captivity without the troops even understanding what was afoot. By any measure of Military Justice / Law that is treason. Like I said before, I'll let the academics / moral police decide if it was JUSTIFIED.
To suggest his act wasn't treason however is simply beyond me,…

@JT,

Thanks for that. I wonder which one witnessed what Delderfield wrote about.

I'm not sure about his value as a useful secondary source but I agree that Delderfield was a wonderful writer. His novels about early 20th England are very evocative.

@trailape,

Your logic is poor if your argument goes like this.

‘Marmont's troops didn't like what he did therefore it was wrong and/or he was a traitor.'

The premise does not support the conclusion because whether they liked it or not does not make it right or wrong.

No cigar. Sorry.

trailape

Brigada just does not get it. Marmont betrayed his men. Most soldiers would have lynched their commander for doing that.

Marmont disobeyed his orders from his commander in chief – what else can you call it?

colinjallen

Differing views on Marmont are probably based on the same material.

I go with Chandler who writes that Marmont 'deserted to the enemy'. He deserted. His men didn't – he did. He made the secret agreement. He was looking after number one.

Perhaps you have some evidence that he did it for France?

I just re – read Marmont's memoir, he wasn't shouted down, but acclaimed.
It is interesting what he wrote and then the refutation, difficult to form an opinion.

@von W,

Hmmm. I am bound to say "he would say that wouldn't he".

The disappointing thing about this thread that it is very heavy on opinion and light on argument.

Gazzola,

The difference between our arguments is that I have not argued that he did it for France, but that his actions were good for France.

You made a direct statement about Marmont and his motives; I have asked you for proof that those were his motives. If you cannot provide it just say so:).

'I have to say that anyone who tries to use Delderfield as a source or authority for anything really is hopelessly adrift!'

Colin,

That is a very interesting opinion and judgment seeing that you have admitted to using Bourrienne et al that have been shown at least from the early 1970s by Vincent Cronin as not only unreliable but inaccurate and some of them being ghost-written.

You also have the unsettling habit of getting somewhat nasty when someone disagrees with you as well as referring to people who are actively on the forum in the 3d person. Further, just because someone admires Napoleon as a soldier and a man, as well as the Grande Armee, that doesn't make him a Bonapartist.

I would suggest that you, as well as the rest of us, keep the comments on topic and not make ad hominem attacks on anyone.

Sincerely,
K

Regarding the French army in 1814, I don't recall that they surrendered at all. There was no surrender ceremony, no one handed his sword over. Napoleon abdicated and the war was essentially over.

In addition to that, the undefeated garrisons that came in after the first abdication didn't surrender either, if I recall.

The fighting stopped, but the French army did not surrender.

Sincerely,
K

Does anyone actually believe that Marmont in his memoirs would write that he wasn't praised? Give us all a break, please.

Sincerely,
K

XV Brigada
So my logic is poor. How
I suggest .
My point is nothing to do with Marmont doing the 'popular thing'. It is simply a matter of military law, which clearly you have absolutely no grasp of. What part of conspiring with enemy don't you understand? Marmont's options were not limited to surrendering his command to the enemy. He could have marched his Corp away, rather into the arms of the enemy.
So let me be clear.
He could have continued to fight, he could have withdrawn, he could have resigned his commission and retired, he could have attempted to link up with Napoleon. Hell, he could have even run off in the dead of night and surrendered himself and left his command under the first ambitious sergeant to notice his horse was missing. But no, he marched an entire Corp into the waiting arms of the enemy after CONSPIRING with the enemy.
That my friend is treason. Grab a military law manual and check for yourself,…

Kevin,

How else should someone refer to an individual that one is not addressing other than in the third person?

colinjallen

You seem to be expecting me to produce a statement in which Marmont states that he did what he did for himself. Obviously, that isn't going to happen.

If Marmont had marched to fight the enemy and then, like Mack found himself trapped and surrounded, one could forgive him for feeling that he had no choice.

To use a naval angle, Marmont was like a captain of a ship who makes a secret agreement, then sails the ship and surrenders it with all its crew to the enemy. He is then rewarded by the enemy for his actions. That is the act of a traitor.

Just as well he wasn't the commander at the Alamo or Rorkes Drift. And as an ex-soldier I see his action as a deserter and a traitor.

And, in 1815 he voted for Ney's execution. Do you believe he did that for France or that it was good for France? He did it to gain brownie points with his new masters, who he also failed to impress.

I don't see any way in which Marmont did anything for his country. His actions speak for themselves.

Anyway, if you want to go on believing he did what he did for the good of France, that's your choice. I don't buy it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

XV Brigada

Most writers, including those that write fiction, often undertake a considerable amount of time and research, possibly in some cases more than some historians, because they know if they make mistakes, they might be pulled up about it. So the work of writer who is not an historian or does not have a military background, cannot be so easily disnissed.

trailape

Excellent post!

How else should someone refer to an individual that one is not addressing other than in the third person?'

By name? I would think that would be an excellent start.

Sincerely,
K

trailape,

I agree with John-excellent posting. And the reference to military law is an outstanding example of what one should do in certain historical cases.

Offenses in military law are offenses because they are against good order and discipline. And Marmont's actions in 1814 were certainly against good order and discipline and I haven't seen any proof that it was for France's benefit.

Sincerely,
K

@trailape,

Oh dear. What can I say. Your logic is poor. I can't really help that.

Try an argument, you know, one of those things with a premise or two leading to a valid conclusion.

Now I am being pompous.

I have found a source that says General of Division Lucotte suspected Marmont was surrendering VI Corps to the enemy and he refused to march.

Has anyone else heard this?

God bless,
John

The only historical writing that should be 'dismissed' (to use that term from XV Brigada) is that which is badly researched, inaccurate, or whatever. Excellent historians come from many backgrounds, and the books should be read and questioned (if necessary) before a judgment is pronounced whether or not the book is any good or reliable.

Again, Vincent Cronin did an excellent job of this very thing when he researched, evaluated, and wrote on the memoirs of of Clare de Remusat, Bourrienne, Barras, Talleyrand, Marmont, the Suchesse d'Abrantes, Chaptal, Thiebault (all unfavorable with inaccurate memoirs); Melito, Hortense Beauharnais, Joseph Bonaparte, Meneval, Fain, Bausset, Thiard, Girardin, Lavalette, Arnault, Desaix, Roederer, and Caulaincourt (favorable and accurate).

Also rated as inaccurate and/or untrustworthy are Las Cases, Antommarchi, in opposition to the accurate memoirs of Montholon, Gourgaud, and Bertrand.

Of particular interest to this thread are Cronin's comments on Marmont:

'Another who betrayed Napoleon is Marshal Marmont. in writing his Memoirs, which were published in 1856, four years after his death, Marmont tried to justify his treachery in the only way open to him: by presenting Napoleon as a despot, who at all costs had to be overthrown. He gives us few details, only generalized abuse. For example, under the year 1812 he depicts Napoleon as 'blase, indifferent to everything, believing in facts only when they agree with his passions, interests and whims, satanically proud and utterly scorning of men.' His view of Napoleon has always been treated with suspicion, for by the time he came to write his Memoirs, Marmont's name had passed into the French language as a synonum for 'traitor', much like Quisling's in World War II.'

Further for 1812, Marmont couldn't have been with Napoleon for Marmont was in Spain since the previous year and Napoleon was in central Europe and in Russia for most of the year. That tends to negate what Marmont said for Napoleon in 1812 and is only trumped up opinion.

Sincerely,
K

@XV Brigada

Of course Marmont would have said that, and of course Napoleon would have said that he was a traitor.
Napoleon did say immense lies and still most believe what he said uncritically.
Only because Napoleon did say Marmont is a traiter doesn't automatically disqualify anything that Marmont had to say.

In case Marmont's troops were so anti – Marmont, why didn't they fire at him, or disobey his orders.
He seemingly rallied them and prevented them go on with the war.

How could all this be possible if according to a lot of statements he couldn't do because his own troops shouted him down?

Did anybody – other than myself read his memoires about this incident and especially what he had to say about his relation to Napoleon?

By the way, they are available on google and cost only download time and time to read.

@John Tyson

If all refused, how on earth could all this happen??

@von W,

Simply suggesting the possibility that Marmont on Marmont might be a biased witness.

But it really doesn't matter whether his men approved or disapproved of what he did. What they thought doesn't make it wrong or right.

I am as undecided as I was at the outset. I still tend to give Mamront the benefit of the doubt and look in vain for a persuasive argument from the 'advertising swashbucklers':-)

Marmont was not with his corps when his division commanders turned it over to the allies.

I have also read that some of the senior officers disagreed and wouldn't do it.

Sincerely,
K

A traitor to who? is the question that needs to be asked to avoid 6 pages of froth.

To Napoleon & the existing French government definitely.
To his own interests certainly not.

To anyone else – depends on your bias & self opinionated belief.

If only everything in military history was this simple.

von Winterfeldt,

"If all refused, how on earth could all this happen??"

I'm not sure I understand the question. But here is the source I was referring to for your evaluation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

History of the Consulate and the Empire of France under Napoleon, Volume 10, page 199
By Adolphe Thiers – 1894

These precautions being taken, the sixth corps, conducted by its generals, crossed the Essonne at four o'clock on the morning of the 5th of April, whilst the marshals were in conference in the Rue St. Florentin. The troops advanced in silence towards the outposts of the enemy. The soldiers obeyed, ignorant of the crime they were unconsciously committing; some supposing the movement was consequence of the abdication, of which they had heard the evening before, whilst others thought it was a concerted movement to surprise the enemy. However, when they perceived that the allied troops remained peaceably on the roadside, and allowed them to pass without firing, they began to conceive some suspicions, which were soon changed into murmurs. Some officers, accomplices in the treason, tried to pacify them by various pretexts, and induce them to continue their march. But the murmurs increased at every step, and everything seemed to announce an outbreak when they should arrive at Versailles. Thus the sixth corps passed over to the enemy, with the exception of the division commanded by General Lucotte, who suspected that something was wrong, and refused to obey the order to march. The line of the Essonne was thus left unprotected, and the sixth corps, so necessary for the execution of his projects, was totally lost to Napoleon.

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

I had not heard before that part of VI Corps didn't go over to the Allies.

God bless,
John

von Winterfeldt,

What do Napoleon's or Marmont's memoirs have to say that change the facts? Indeed, does anyone seriously challenge the facts?

Fact: Marmont was trusted by Napoleon to command a corps.

Fact: As a corps commander he (and Mortier) was ordered to defend Paris.

Fact: He had no authority to negotiate the surrender of the formation under his command nor did he have knowledge regarding the negotiations between the legitimate government of France and the Allies.

Fact: Nevertheless, he surrendered his corps and Paris to the enemy undermining the opportunity for a negotiated peace.

Fact: This led to an unstable peace and the unpopular return of the Bourbons, dictated by the Allies.

Fact: This led to the Hundred Days and the re-return of the Bourbons.

Fact: This led to the persecution and replacement of the competent Bonapartists with the incompetent Aristos, which resulted in 1830 and the shedding of more blood.

Fact: When his benefactors, the Bourbons, were kicked out Marmont was forced to leave France, never to return.

Why? However the English may have praised him, he was considered by most Frenchmen to be a traitor, which, given the definition of traitor, he was!

The rest is simply white noise.

Bob Coggins

Fact: Nevertheless, he surrendered his corps and Paris to the enemy undermining the opportunity for a negotiated peace.

Fact: This led to an unstable peace and the unpopular return of the Bourbons, dictated by the Allies.

Fact: This led to the Hundred Days and the re-return of the Bourbons.

Fact: This led to the persecution and replacement of the competent Bonapartists with the incompetent Aristos, which resulted in 1830 and the shedding of more blood.

This isn't a sequence of facts, this is a sequence of supposition, based on the idea that everything hinged on Marmont's Corps. With Marmont's Corps unsurrendered – Napoleon's son on the throne; after his defection – Allies return the Bourbons.

Even stating it shows how tenuous this chain is.

There is also clear bias in the use of 'unpopular', 'most Frenchmen' and 'competent/incompetent'.

Regards

Kevin,

I suspect that you are being just a little too . Debate is robust; .

Colin,

I don't agree. I'm probably the last person to be '.' Attacking people personally during a debate or discussion is not robust debate or an indicator of it.

It is, however, an indicator that the person doing the 'attacking' has lost the argument and is going after the person instead of what the person says, because (1) he has nothing else to say, and/or he won't admit that he lost. The last no one has to do here, just don't reply.

You ought to take a look at Fischer's book on historical fallaces-ad hominem attacks is one of them.

Lastly, the arguments that Marmont was not a traitor are weak here. Additionally, the idea of treason to some is abhorrent because of having an early 21st century outlook on things and rationalizing criminal behavior away. That's what I see here for those who believe that Marmont was not a traitor. Seems to me the French thought otherwise, no matter what Marmont did to justify his abhorrent actions.

Sincerely,
K

Bob,

Paris was defended by both Mortier and Marmont and was not merely surrendered to the allies by Marmont. Marshal Moncey also contributed to the defense of the city. The loss was bad, but I don't believe there was treachery involved here, and Mortier was noted for his loyalty in 1814.

Marmont's conspiracy with Talleyrand, his treachery and betrayal came after.

I agree with everything else in your posting.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

This is the second time in this thread alone that you have made similar accusations against someone, the first being:

"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."

You have also done this in other threads where people have challenged your beliefs.

It does seem a bit of a habit with you;).

Oh, and referring to someone by name when they are not the person to whom you are communicating is also referring to them in the third person;).

@Ratisbon

The memoires have to say a lot – they give a personal view about what did happen through the eyes of the protganists.

I agree with your facts 1 – 3 but the rest is speculation in my opinion

fact is by this defectioned he opened peace negotiations

fact is that the marhals told Napoleon that the army listens to them

fact is peace was made

the rest is history

Gazzola,

When you make a definite statement such as:

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

I do expect you to be able to be able to prove that he was acting on self-interest only, which you seemingly cannot.

As I have clearly told you, I have not stated that he did what he did for the good of France, merely that his actions were in the best interest of France, regadless of his reasons for them.

You mentioned the Alamo in your post; you do know what actually happened at the Alamo don't you? You are aware that the legend of the gallant band of men fighting to the last in the Alamo is…a legend.

No. Historical precident says most troops like it or lump it. I doubt the troops at Yorktown, Stalingrad, Singapore, Bataan, Kut ect were happy to be marched into captivity. They weren't consulted or had their opinions took into account. Why is Marmont held to some higher standard?

colinjallen

I think you need to reread your own post, especially the 5.10am post, where you said, quote – 'his actions were good for France'

As others have said, he could have marched away or resigned his command, if he did not want to obey his Commander in Chief's orders. But he chose not to – why? The allies would still have liked him if he resigned his command but it would be far more impressive and earn far more brownie points (and rewards) to make a secret arrangement and surrender his troops to the enemy.

For the good of France? Really? His actions led to the royalists becoming rulers again, which was not popular and led to Napoleon returning and becoming Emperor again, without any blood being split. Then, due to the allies still being afraid of him and not wanting to risk him not sticking to the borders of France, and taking back land they had gained, it led to Quatre Bras, Ligny and Waterloo, and a considerable amount of blood and lives lost.

In 1830 his actions or failure to act, resulted in both the king and himself having to flee the country.

His name is associated with betrayal.

So, if he acted in the best interests of France, he failed. In fact, you could say his actions for self-interest also failed.

As for the Alamo, the historical fact is that men, outnumbered and without aid being able to arrive in time to help them, still stood their ground. The battle was lost and most of them died. They could have done a Marmont and surrendered but they chose to die with honour instead. They will always be remembered for that bravery.

I would rather die with the men at the Alamo than be rewarded by my enemies for surrendering like Marmont and having my name associated with treachery and betrayal. Perhaps that is a soldier's opinion, but there it is.

And Marmont, well he ended up being exiled from France, and wandering around europe in shame and with a name that, instead of being associated with honour, indicated the exact opposite.

Other people have made some very interesting posts, but your views suggest that you have dismissed them, so I see no further reason to continue debating the matter with you because I can't see you changing your mind concerning Marmont or the effects of his actions.

Edwulf,

Because he betrayed his troops to the enemy without their knowledge and by conspiring with Talleyrand, who had been fired for rapacity and treason, to do so.

It was dishonorable, he broke his oath, and he committed, by any definition, treason.

Sincerely,
K

I deleted my previous post because I feel this thread has run its ground now.

People will either believe Marmont to be a traitor and his actions were for self-interest and not for the good of France, or they won't see him as a traitor and that he did the right thing.

I know what I think.

Yes Gazzola,

I said: "His actions were good for France" which is conceptually different from claiming that he did it for France.

Getting rid of Napoleon was good for France; it is hardly Marmont's fault that the allies were too daft to realise that Elba was too close.

Most of the men at the Alamo did not "stand their ground"; they were cut down by Mexican cavalry while trying to run away from the Alamo.

"Other people have made some very interesting posts, but your views suggest that you have dismissed them"….. Pot, Kettle, black

While I can see your point I don't see many other generals listening to how there troops feel. I think most of the British, Australian and American troops given up by their officers to the Japanese were not to thrilled about it. But their leaders were not lambasted to the degree Marmont is.

I can fully see that he shafted Napoleon.
But Napoleon was not France. And I don't see him as a traitor to her.
I can see the he maybe let down his men.
Napoleon himself had violated an oath true? He was in the army prior to the revolution, and thus a sworn defender of his King. Why is dishonourable for betraying defeated tyrant but Napoleon not for betraying his king ?

My dear friend Basileus66 (hope you and your family are doing well!), you wrote:

"…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."

I agree with you, but you had to admit that in those days mostly of the European civil population was very tired of war, not only France. When Napoleon land at the french coast and the Allied Armies became again to grow up, there were massive desertions not only on the french side. Even the Saxons, a whole Army had problems with the Prussians and can't be put on the battlefield.
I think that refractaires were mostly of the europeans except maybe of Prussia and England?

About Marmont defection, we have to remember that this action had consequences in the whole French Army because when they march to the Waterloo campaign next year the feeling of the troops was they could be betrayed by their officers in any moment… again.
Even at the Waterloo battle, when the Guard was repulse one of the cry of the soldiers was "Nous avons été trahis!".
Of course that in that case, the treason became from Napoleon himself for lying about that there were Grouchy on his right flank instead of Blücher.

Other interesting line to development in history was if Napoleon arrived in time (for a few hours) and put at the head of the city of Paris. People there were claiming for weapons to defend it and with their Emperor at their head maybe as Wellington quote, a reinforcement of "100 thousand men" could made a stand against the Allied which we had to remember that began to be very afraid about their supply lines and their rearguard because civil population began to harrased them bad in consecuence of the inevitable excesses of the Allied troops at french soil.
So, if they had to stay more time in front of Paris with the core of the French Army still strong in 70.000 men at two days of march imho they had to retreat to the Netherlands or Prussia and the battle of Waterloo or another place near that town could be a year before.
My best wishes to you, my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

Dear Collinjalen, you wrote:

"Most of the men at the Alamo did not "stand their ground"; they were cut down by Mexican cavalry while trying to run away from the Alamo"

By memory (I had wrote the full text in one thread some time ago about the Alamo), the memories of the Mexican officer (lieutenant of Lancers) Garcia Hernandez mention no more that a dozen or mostly ten of men which he atack with his lancers while they tried to scape and then that officer was arrested because he stop the atack and allow half of them to scape because of their heroic resistance.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

Various Mexican memoirs indicate that a lot more than 10 or 12 legged it from the Alamo; unfortunately, the gallant stand seems to be little more than a myth.

By the way Armand, respect to you for what we both went through 30 years ago; I do not know how you are feeling but it is bringing back some strong and sad memories for me.

'While I can see your point I don't see many other generals listening to how there troops feel. I think most of the British, Australian and American troops given up by their officers to the Japanese were not to thrilled about it. But their leaders were not lambasted to the degree Marmont is.'

They didn't commit treason, Marmont did.

Marmont's corps was not in a position where it had to surrender. They were given up by their commander on the 'recommendations' of Talleyrand.

That is completely different from the situations that you are describing.

Sincerely,
K

Gazzola:

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.

Rommel disobeyed Hitlers orders and retreated from El Aleman saving what was left of his army. The excuse "I was just following orders" have been used throughout history to excuse any number of blunders and atrocities. We don't want officers that will blindly follow orders and not consider the on site situation. You follow your orders unless you feel the situation warrants another action.

However you must accept the consciences of your decision. You get court martialed, shot or declared a hero for using your intiative to the changing situation. That is called leadership. The way some of you guys are talking about blindly following orders really concerns me.

Paulus knew exactly what was going to happen any NCO knew what was going to happen. That is why he asked permission to break out. Rommel would have left Stalingrad before he was surrounded and accepted the consequnces because he was a leader, while Paulus was not even close. Just the way Hitler wanted him to be.

Paulus did not act with honour; he followed the pointless orders of a militarily incompetent lunatic which resulted in virtually his entire army being annihilated, with most of the remainder dying in captivity. Paulus, of course, surrendered as soon as his own personal safety was directly threatened. The only "honourable" courses of action open to him would have been:

1. To pull his army back in time and take the consequences.

2. To break out once he was surrounded.

3. If the above were not possible, to die fighting with his men.

Quite frankly though, I find all this talk of honour a complete load of horse poo. There is very little that could be considered "honour" in war.