"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

I find all this talk about the Alamo, Stalingrad, Rommel and other stuff that is irrelevant to the OP, a complete load of "horse poo".

XV Brigada.
You ask for an argument and I've been giving you one.
I'd be interested in hearing what your definition of an argument actually is. I thought my points had been made.
I'll really dumb it down.
Was Marmont wearing a French Uniform and purporting to be a FRENCH Officer?
Were the Russians / Prussians the Enemy of France?
DID Marmont COLUDE with the enemy?
If you answer yes to those questions then what conclusion would you come to?
But you know what, I'm just a simple soldier of 30 years experience, what would I know of Military law?
All your talk of Logic has me suspecting you must be a Vulcan Lawyer or Lecturer.
Talking of 'Horse Poo', …
This thread should probably be called "Was Marmont a Traitor AND a realist.

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?

He shouldn't.
The fact he Coluded with the enemy is the killer, and the fact he had other opions available to him OTHER THAN surrender.
It is not the fact his action may or may not have been popular with the troops, (that is irrelevant).
I would not suggest that having a 'Union meeting' with the soldiers prior to making 'The D' to surrender was the way to go.

Colin,

What I should have said was use the name of the person you're referring to.

On the other subject, thanks for proving my point.

Sincerely,
K

trailape,

Marmont didn't surrender-he handed his troops over, betraying them, the army, Napoleon and his country.

Sincerely,
K

Marmont didn't surrender-he handed his troops over, betraying them, the army, Napoleon and his country

Agreed.

Dear Colin, I had to admit that it's inevitable to bring back some strong and sad memories when you had been in a war situation when you had to decided about the life ot the men under your command.
Of course, in my case, very far from the importance and situation (even rank) of Marshal Marmont, but still very difficult when you know that you had few chances.
Even that, I took my option and had to live with that up today.
Not easy.
Even that, all who were there from my side, had not a single respect for our Generals because of their actitude from the first to the last day.
They were all Marmonts or worse because at least he had fought many battles and he show up in front their enemy and was wounded in the battlefield.

Amicalement
Armand

@XV Brigada
It has just occured to me another option available to Marmont was to simple disband his Corp:
"Soldier's of France, your service is no longer required. BTW, I'm changing sides, you're welcome to come join me,.."!
But by marching them into the enemy's hands robbed Napoleon and France of a valuable resource; an entire Corp.
I'm arguing,..
I'm making a case,…
Ooops, sorry I forgot, I'm Logic-challanged.

Friends, I know that we're aren't going to agree whether Marmont was a traitor on not. After all, there are folks that argue Judas Iscariot didn't actually betray Christ and that Judas wasn't a traitor. Although by my estimation, Marmont was clearly a traitor, he didn't rise to the infamy of other traitors in history, so good people will disagree. My biggest beef with Marmont was the betrayal of those soldiers placed in the trust of his command--of his brothers in arms. As I'm sure you all know, soldiers, regardless of pay grade, fight not so much for causes as they fight for each other. To betray that trust is a lose of honor. Oh yes, there is honor and dishonor in war.

If you want to revile me for my opinion, that's okay. Fire away. I'll strap on my Kevlar.

God bless,
John

I don't think the issue is wether or not Marmont was a traitor (as I think it is obvious he was a traitor) but rather were his actions justifiably or able to be mitigated.
On that issue I don't really care to argue; (but I would have had the BA@%&D shot)!
;o)

Rallynow

Yes, that excuse has been employed. But you have to ask how would you react if you knew to refuse an order could lead to your death or even members of your family being killed? In that situation maybe it would be better to die in battle and at least your family would be safe.

And you would have to be a very brave or foolish German soldier/commander, if Hitler ordered you to stay put and you decided to disobey his orders. Somehow, I don't think you would be given much of an opportunity to explain your reasoning. As for Rommel, I think his reputation may have saved him from punishment or even death.

But it is a bit like the commanders thinking of their men first, if they also considered refusing certain orders, then there might be no battles or people being killed. Nice thought but not realistic.

The commander of the British cavalry in the famous charge of the Light Brigade did not refuse to obey his orders or take time out to consider if it was a good idea or not to charge down the valley with all those guns pointing at him. He knew it was a bad idea but he had to obey orders. In hindsight we can say he should have disobeyed them and lives would have been saved. But I have the feeling had he done so, he would have been sent home in disgrace.

colinjallen

That is the whole point of the Alamo. They could have left or done a Marmont. But they didn't, they chose to stay and fight.

And come on, with only around 12 men leaving their posts, I suggest that supports what I said, in that 'most' of them stuck to their posts and made the ultimate sacrifice. Had it been 50% or more I can understand why you mentioned it. But I'm now beginning to wonder what you are implying and why you appear to be attempting to degrade the memory of the brave defenders of the Alamo?

trailape

The sad reality is that Marmont got rewarded for his treachery, while poor Ney got shot.

"Your accusation in that phrase to people with whom you disagree, is a shade shy of defamation pure and simple."

No, defamation is: "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:"

In order to qualify as defamation, the person or party in question must have a good reputation in the first place.

And in order to have a good reputation in this context, a person would have to demonstrate that he is willing to acknowledge the correctness of objective facts, even when they contradict his oft-stated beliefs, rather than resorting to tactics such as changing the subject in order to offer non-sequitur rants about other things, or to imply that the person presenting the discomfiting facts is a bigot.

"Him," is an example of a 3rd-person pronoun.

von Winterfeldt,

Were there negotiations between the government and the Allies in March 1814?

Did Marmont surrender his corps and Paris?

Did the Allies, subsequently, break off negotiations with the government of France?

Did the Allies then dictate a peace returning the Bourbons to power?

Did Napoleon, one year later, overthrow the Bourbons with one company of Old Guard?

Did Napoleon's return lead to the thousands of deaths of the Hundred Days?

Were the Bourbons and Marmont forced out in the revolution of 1830?

Did Marmont ever return to France?

Do the French consider Marmont a traitor?

As an American I am not fond of monarchies but if I had to make a choice between Napoleon and the other royals in Europe I'd pick Napoleon.

Finally, I am amazed that even 200 years later many British still presume that others , particularly the French. In the end, Marmont was more loyal to interests of the British and the Allies and to the French that makes him a traitor, which is what they call him.

Bob Coggins

I just read over my last post, and decided I was in the wrong for prolonging my part of a stupid argument. I should have just let it go. I apologize.

Wow! Where did this thread get off track? There are multiple threads within the thread. Only on the Napoleonic boards.

Well I take comfort that I've stayed "On song".
;o)
Even though I am somewhat devoid of Logic.
Which reminds me a a song by that great 70's band, Supertramp and their awesome song 'The Logical Song':
link
I bet XV Birgada would love this song and that's why I've provided the link. That said, anyone is welcome to look at the link, and I'd encourage you all to do so.
It is a really choice song.
If you can afford to purchase the song, if you have the means; I would recommend it.
The lyrics are a condemnation of an education system not focused on knowledge and sensitivity, much like
XV Brigada's lack of sensitivity to my feelings as he points out my lack of Logic, (and knowledge?).
Oh dear,… I've strayed off topic haven't I.
'sigh'

Providing a link to Supertramp and then encouraging the unwary to watch it is just plain crossing the line Trailape!
No one deserves that sort of punishment. Not even Marmont.

@Ratisbon

"Finally, I am amazed that even 200 years later many British still presume that others , particularly the French. "

How many French sources did you read about that topic??

Even the Dictionnaire Napoléon is very vauge about this topic.
As for Royals – I surely wouldn't pick Napoléon at all, Jerome his brother was far more realistic though he had to suffer by the bullying of Napoléon, or the crown prince of Sweden, the King of Bavaria – there are plenty to choices other than Napoléon (who constructed a despotice police state).

The good thing for France was that the war – a lost cause -was over.
I wonder who Napoléon would blame if Marmont did not start conferencing with the Bourons, he couldn't blame the Russian winter for sure.

Gazzola,

The figure of 12 or so men fleeing the Alamo is a wild underestimate according to the latest research; it does now seem that the majority of the defenders attempted to run away rather than stand and fight. The legend of the defenders fighting to their deaths at their posts seems to be merely a legend.

Source?

von Winterfeldt,

You are evidently well read on the subject. I'm just trying to understand your position by asking the following questions:

Were there negotiations between the government and the Allies in March 1814?

Did Marmont surrender his corps and Paris?

Did the Allies, subsequently, break off negotiations with the government of France?

Did the Allies then dictate a peace returning the Bourbons to power?

Did Napoleon, one year later, overthrow the Bourbons with one company of Old Guard?

Did Napoleon's return lead to the thousands of deaths of the Hundred Days?

Were the Bourbons and Marmont forced out in the revolution of 1830?

Did Marmont ever return to France?

Do the French consider Marmont a traitor?

You're British yet you presume to represent what is good for France. Could it be you actually mean what was good for Britain.

As for the royal of choice, to each his own.

Finally, I live in Baltimore. As well read as you are, you can imagine Jerome is not well thought of here and neither btw is Britain.

Bob Coggins

Dictionnaire Napoleon

Le 3(april, vW) la nouvelle de sa déchéance par le Senat lui parvient. Malgré l'enthusisasme de ses troupes qui contraste avec la lassitude des maréchaux (Lefebvre) Ney, Oudinot, Macdonald, Napoléon se décide, le 4 avril, à abdiquer en faveur de son fils, Marie-Louise assurant la régence. Mais la défection du corps Marmont remet tout en cause, et, le 6 avril, l'Empereur abdique sans conditions.
(P. 812, first volume)

According to Kleßmann : Die Befreiungskrieg in Augenzeugenberichten, Munic 1973, the senat declared the abdication of Napoléon at the 2nd of April.

According to the souvenirs of Macdonald Napoléon decided at the 4th of April to abdicate and he announced Caulaincourt, Ney and Marmont as negotiators to be sent to Paris to negotiate about an armistic.
After a while then suddenly Napoléon change his plans and wanted to go on with the war, but Macdonald declared that for the army and the military leaders the war had an end and he demanded not to loose time so send the negotiators not to endanger the success of the negotiations.

So at the 2nd of April the French senate declares that no officer and soldier any longer has to be loyal to his oath to Napoleon.

All traitors then ???

Already at the forth of April, Napoléon is more or less ready, due to the pressure of the Marshalls, names see above (all traitors then???), to abdicate and wanted to send negotiators, Marmont amongst them to negotiate the armistic with the Allies.

The defection of Marmonts corps followed after that but cause a point of no return to Napoléon who simply couldn't decide finally what to do, surrender or to fight on.

For sure Marmont was a realist.

Jérôme wrote a remarkable letter at the 5.th of December 1811 to his master and brother Napoléon – he did asses the situation in Germany much more realistic than Napoléon himself.

Enfin

@Ratisbon
due to my bad English you should be aware that I am not a Britain.
a pity that also Jérôme has such a bad press in Baltimore.

@ Coggins

You're British yet you presume to represent what is good for France. Could it be you actually mean what was good for Britain.

Is there any real need for this sort of arrogant bullying?

As well read as you are, you can imagine Jerome is not well thought of here and neither btw is Britain.

Then you felt the need to follow it up with a "we don't like your nation over here" comment.
Whats your problem.

Now, children, play nice or daddy might spank and put you in the doghouse.

Seriously, can the personal comments and attacks stop so that we can actually have a conversation/discussion, or do you believe that this is 'robust argument'?

Sincerely,
K

My views are basically the same as Goggins but I object to his attempts to bully and mindless prejudice. Though Von Winterfeldt pointing out he is not British deflated most of his attacks.

Max,

VW is as 'guilty' as Bob or anyone else here for the behavior that you mention. Continuing the nonsense doesn't help. The best thing to do, and it is also the most difficult, is to ignore the postings or parts of postings that offend you. Always try to move forward and ignore the vulgar uproar. I do understand that is not always possible.

It's basically a very good discussion. Let's not ruin it by petty nonsense. Some of the posters will undoubtedly continue with the ad hominem nonsense-that can't be stopped by anyone. But the greater majority of us don't have to participate in it.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Or to put a Scripture verse to the storm and strife of petty nonsense:

Acts 19:32 (NIV) The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there.

;-)

God bless,
John

Good one, John.

Sincerely,
K

About the fall of Paris and who was responsible

Dictionnaire Napoléon

À 5 heures du atin, Marmont rencontre Barclay, l'attaque et réussit à continuer la lutte sans désanvantage jusqu'à midi. Mais les renforts alliès ne cessant d'arriver. Marmont est sur le point d'être fait prisonnier. Vers 1 h 15, il recoit un billet de Joseph l'autorisant à cesser le combats s'il ne peut plus tenir. Lui-même a quitté la capitale des 1 heure. Marmont décide néanmoins de contineur la lutte, mais décide, vers 2 heures, à envoyer des parlementaires pour faire arrêter le feu.
(…)
La bataille de Paris, acharnée et très meutrière, a causé la mort de 9 000 hommes de part et d'autre.
P. 473, volume 2

Marmont can hardly be blamed, he fought vigerously, what about Joseph? He left quite early, Marmont fought on.

Kevin,

You asked for sources on the Alamo:

1. General Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma's report on the action, written on March 11th 1836.

2. Colonel Juan Nepomuceno Almonte's journal, captured with him at San Jacinto. This includes the passage: "The enemy attempted in vain to flee but they were overtaken and put to the sword".

3. Borroel's "Field Reports of the Mexican Army in the Texan war of 1836".

4. The logbook of the San Luis Battalion.

5. The journal of Sergeant Manuel Loranca.

There are many others but those are the most easily accessed.

Colin,

And you believe that was the majority of the defenders? Further, when and where did it happen, for example, was it during the final assault that took the fort or during the previous days of the siege?

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

As you appear to be unfamiliar with the sources, I recommend that you access them and read them for yourself as I doubt that you will believe anything that I tell you about them.

However, just for your information, the sources indicate that at least half of the defenders fled the Alamo in several groups, with at least one containing some 60 men. This is also supported by the locations of the main cremation sites of the defenders, which were a considerable distance from the Alamo and in the areas indicated by the sources as where the fleeing defenders were killed.

The flight of the defenders took place in the early morning of March 6th 1836 when the Mexicans entered the Alamo while most of the defenders were asleep. On waking, most of the defenders did the sensible thing and ran; unfortunately for them, Mexican cavalry were in the area and cut them down.

It is impossible for anyone who has read the Mexican sources to have any doubt that the myth of the garrison fighting to the end is anything other than a myth, which rather gives the lie to Gazzola's statement:

"That is the whole point of the Alamo. They could have left or done a Marmont. But they didn't, they chose to stay and fight."

I will not be posting any more over the weekend as we are going away and have decided not to access the internet until we go back to work on Monday.

(Deuteronomy 23.1) "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

God bless,

Stephen

LOL!!!

Good'n Steven!

God bless,
John

colinjallen

Firstly I obviously need to rephrase my statement – Most of them chose to stay and die but although most of them died, they didn't all die. How's that?

Secondly, running away, which is what you are implying they did, and fighting your way out on the final day and being killed doing so is completely different, don't you think?

Thirdly, the siege ran for almost two weeks, not one day! The difference here is that if Marmont had been in charge, it may have only lasted as long as it would have taken him to make a secret agreement with the Mexicans in which he would have surrendered his men.

And yes, it seems I was wrong about there only being around 12 surviors, so I'll give you that. But the debate on that matter is still out and I'm surprised you are so confident that the Mexican sources are right? And some of the survivors were civilians and non-combatants and children and some of those forming the garrison that have been mentioned were those who were not present when the final assault took place – messengers etc.

But the point of the Alamo being raised in the first place, which I'm sure you know really, is that if Marmont had been in charge the defenders would have been marched into captivity on the first day and Marmont would have probably been awarded by the Mexicans.

And while I'm on a roll, Psalm 108:9 "Moab is my washpot".

Finally, I live in Baltimore. As well read as you are, you can imagine Jerome is not well thought of here and neither btw is Britain.

Yes we know how they felt about the British in Baltimore. There's many a grieving military or police widow who has cause to rue the arms and cash you gave to Irish Terrorists….

Remember the Alamo:

YouTube link

Finally, I live in Baltimore. As well read as you are, you can imagine Jerome is not well thought of here and neither btw is Britain.

Yes we know how they felt about the British in Baltimore. There's many a grieving military or police widow who has cause to rue the arms and cash supplied to Irish Terrorists from there….

As with all battles and campaigns, sources seem to differ on how many men were at the Alamo, ranging from 182-253.

But it seems that the Mexican Carlos Castaneda who was ordered to write a report of the battle, was told by Santa Anna to say that 600 Texans were killed. But Carlo sets the record straight by stating that 183 were killed.

I believe 183 killed out of 253, would fit into my original statement of most of the defenders being killed.

Anyone interested in the Alamo debate could look at the following:

link

But the point of the Alamo being raised in the first place, which I'm sure you know really, is that if Marmont had been in charge the defenders would have been marched into captivity on the first day and Marmont would have probably been awarded by the Mexicans.

Erm…the analogy works better the other way Gazzola. Statistically Marmont is one of the remaining 70, except he has been fighting the losing fight for 18 months by this point. However, he is being excoriated by the remaining survivors for surrendering 'too soon' because if he hadn't, the rest might have got better terms from the Mexicans…or maybe even fight on…and win…

Errrm,…
Just so I've got this right; were the Mexicans defending or attacking Paris?
Either way I blame Marmont.

Whirlwind

I disagree because Marmont would not have been inside the Alamo. He would have been having tea with Santa Anna well away from the fighting and hearing what rewards he would be getting.

Interestingly, anyone who has SKY can see a Documentary on the Alamo on the Discovery History Channel 522, today at 2pm, which is repeated at 7pm.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. On June 30, a leap second will be added to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

Are you prepared?

God bless,
John

trailape

It is sad that a soldier like Marmont, should have his name dragged through the mud – but he could expect nothing more, especially from his own people and peers, for his actions. At the time, I guess he must have considered that his rewards would outweigh their reactions. But I imagine he might well have been thinking about what might have been when he was later exiled from France and roaming around Europe.

Just so I've got this right; were the Mexicans defending or attacking Paris?

That was right before the Germans attacked Pearl Harbour!

It is sad that a soldier like Marmont, should have his name dragged through the mud – but he could expect nothing more, especially from his own people and peers, for his actions. At the time, I guess he must have considered that his rewards would outweigh their reactions. But I imagine he might well have been thinking about what might have been when he was later exiled from France and roaming around Europe.

Agreed, but it wasn't the Napoleon or the 100 Days that brought down Marmont, it was his failure to follow the brutal Royalist policy in the July Revolution of 1830 when he refused to turn the army loose on the Paris mob that caused his problems. He wasn't the only Marshal who by 1814 was rather fed up, look at the various members of the Marshalate that sat on their hands in 1815, or only became involved when the Allies invaded France when they could, correctly, point out their were defending their country.

Marmont made his own bed in 1814 and had to live with it.

Regarding the marshals in 1815, Victor and Marmont left with the Bourbons for Brussels, Murat had turned traitor in 1814, but appealed for help to Napoleon in 1815 as the allies were seriously thinking of getting rid of him anyway.

Massena was prematurely old and burned out, and Oudinot was unsuitable for various reasons, his poor performance in 1814 being on the list.

Berthier was apparently trying to get back to France but died before he could, unfortunately.

Davout and Soult as well as Suchet showed up for service, as did Mortier and Jourdan. Grouchy was deservedly promoted (which completely browned off Vandamme) and Bailly de Monthion should also have been made a marshal and Major General, even though he was relatively young. He was not inexperienced and had stood in for Berthier when the latter was ill from time to time in 1813-1814. He was certainly more than qualified to replace Berthier.

Lannes, Poniatowski, and Bessieres were dead, and Ney, unfortunately, finally showed up for duty.

Brune showed up for duty; Augereau was unsuitable for the same reasons as Oudinot. Kellermann was loyal to the Bourbons after 1814, though his son was not. Lefebvre had not been given a command in 1814 and was not given one in 1815 either. He had lost his son in Russia and was in a depression. Macdonald was now loyal to the Bourbons. Bernadotte was crown prince in Sweden.

Perignon and St. Cyr had attempted to organize resistance to Napoleon in 1815, but the attempts failed and both were sent home by Napoleon. Moncey wouldn't serve in 1815, but when he refused to preside at Ney's trial, he was punished by the Bourbons and stripped of his rank and titles. Serurier was the Governor of the Invalides.

So, four dead, seven for service in 1815. Two traveled with the Bourbons, one was Governor of the Invalides, leaving twelve unsuitable for active service for a variety of reasons and would not be employed by Napoleon. I don't see any 'sitting on their hands.'

And many of the generals that replaced them in 1815 were better soldiers, such as Lobau, Vandamme, Drouot, Gerard, Rapp, Lamarque, and Clausel.

Sincerely,
K