"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

Bailly de Monthion should also have been made a marshal

I've alsways held that de Monthion should have been made a Marshal and put in as Chief of Staff following Berthier's death. (Did he fall or was he pushed?)

One question, should Murat have been employed in 1815, true he'd p/o'ed Napoleon with his Italian campaign, but he was still a good cavalry c/o. I'm still underdecided on that one.

I believe that Berthier fell-suicide was not in his character, especially as he had a family to take care of.

Murat had actually fought against Eugene in Italy in 1814 in order to keep his kingdom. When he was thrown out, he appealed to Napoleon for help, and Napoleon told him to be patient and wait. Murat being Murat, he didn't and was captured and executed trying to regain his kingdom.

Bessierres was a better Cavalry Reserve commander than Murat in 1809. Murat had little regimental service, so he never learned how to take care of men or horses and that became quite evident in Russia. He also deserted the Grande Armee after being named commander when Napoleon went to Paris. Eugene took over, thanks to Berthier, and saved and reorganized the wreck of the Grande Armee in early 1813 building up an effective army that held the eastern marches until Napoleon showed back up with a new army in April.

Grouchy was a much better cavalryman than Murat and had he remained as the commander of the Cavalry Reserve at Waterloo the wasted cavalry charges probably would not have taken place as they did. Grouchy had proved himself as a cavalry division commander at Eylau and Friedland and as a cavalry corps commander in Russia and again in 1814. I also believe Kellermann and Pajol were better, as was Montbrun, who was probably the best of them all.

I do wonder sometimes if Napoleon would have forgiven Marmont in 1815 if Marmont had stayed in France when the Bourbons ran to Belgium. Napoleon's usual practice was to forgive those who had failed him, as he did Victor in 1814, but it probably wasn't in Marmont's character to do so.

Sincerely,
Kevin

@138SquadronRAF

Regarding Berthier, he fell – was alone in the room, the real dispute is
was it
suicide
or
accident.

Remember those days Von Winterfeldt?

TMP link

Amicalement
Armand

Great men go down in history with its legend in tow.

The persepción of their actions are not lost among the people they belong to.

I don't know about many men who where a "great hero" of global character but hated or rejected by their own people.

Except for the great traitors.

Nobody in France has the slightest doubt that Marmont was a traitor to his own people.

Ragusade is a common term up today.
There is much unity of opinion on that premise.

That those powers that have been benefited by his bad and selfish attitude defend him didn't took surprise me.
But, PLEASE! Tried to not exalt a military (although I do not consider him as a coward)who has been condemned by his own people.

Yust my thougts.

Amicalement
Armand

I disagree, Marmont fought bravley to the end, what really happened is diffcult to asses.
the Senat declared the oath to Napoleon for void, Napoleon wanted to abidcate, all before the VI corps was handed over to the allies.
I just cannot see this as a black and white issue, there is a grey zone.
In case all French see Marmont only as traitor what a pity.
Marmont as others, Bernadotte, Grouchy, Dupont, Moreau etc., where victims of clever Napoleonic propaganda – and they still are.
In case of condemning them one should first make a real hard study on sources – but it so easy to bash certain persons, much more easier than to find out what really happened.

Napoleon wanted to abdicate before the VI Corps went to captivity and Marmont began to talked with the Allied to surrended it?.
I think that's not correct Von Winterfeldt.

In consecuence of Marmont move finally Napoleon abdicate but things happended between those two actions.
When Napoleon was a couple of hours near Paris (while Marmont began his treason move) he had not in his mind to abdicate.
Not at all!

And you considered that what a fool people are the whole french population because they fall so easy under Napoleonic propaganda?.
If you know the french (as I asume) you know many of them not even like Napoleon.
I had relatives there and know they don't study Napoleon at their schools as a great heroe (sadly, as they didn't with Vercingétorix).
But they all hate Marmont.

All the propagandas fall against reality.

Amicalement
Armand

If Marmont had 'fought to the end' he would not have arranged with Talleyrand to turn his corps over to the allies.

Marmont was a skunk of the first order.

Sincerely,
K

@Tango 01

"Napoleon wanted to abdicate before the VI Corps went to captivity and Marmont began to talked with the Allied to surrended it?.
I think that's not correct Von Winterfeldt."

Read the
Dictionnaire de Napoleon , edited by Tulard
also
the Souvenirs by MacDonald

Of course Napoléon had a mind to abdicate at the 4th of April, see my posting above by that.
It is not my fault – not that of Marmont, if people ignore sources – otherwise they might have the trouble to change their mind.

By the way – at least some parts in France didn't like Napoléon at all, and to his journey to Elba, he was so afraid about his life that he did wear for some time an Austrian generals uniform to disguise his person.

von Winterfeldt

Sources, or your selected sources?

When did he wear the Austrian uniform?

And as for Napoleon being afraid for his life, well, considering there had been some failed assassination attempts, and there were obviously Frenchmen who were royalists, then he should be on the alert, should he not?

Also, on his triumphant return march to becoming the Emperor again, he chose to stay away from known royalist areas – not to have done so would have risked blood being spilt and the death of Frenchmen. He should be praised for that.

But I think his return can be summed up in the joke message left for the king – 'From Napoleon to Louis XVIII: My dear brother, it is not necessary to send me more troops, I aleady have enough of them.' Says it all!

I don't think he was trying to avoid killing Frenchmen. He'd been happy to do that before and was not shy about ketting them thrown away in other ventures. I suspect it was more fear of being slowed down with small clashes and even the possibility of a pitched fight far to early. It was important to reach Paris quickly. Also it would damage his image if he had been seen to be opposed by Frenchmen.

When was Napoleon ever happy about killing Frenchmen?

Sincerely,
K

Whiff of grapeshot?
Perfectly willing to turn his guns on French men when needed.

And in all his battles. Maybe happy is to light a word but he clearly had no qualms about causing or losing men.

When was Napoleon ever happy about killing Frenchmen?

The Vendee?

Napoleon essentially refused service in the Vendee early in his career.

For the Vendee in 1815, Napoleon carefully chose who was to command there to suppress the uprising. As it was quelled rather quickly, it wasn't the same problem, accompanied by the same level of brutality, as it was during the Revolution.

And I don't see Napoleon being 'happy' to have to do it.

Sincerely,
K

also général Vendemiaire – Saint Roche

Edwulf

This silly claim about Napoleon not caring about killing Frenchmen has been said before. But it is clear to anyone with the slightest bit of military knowledge that a Commander's job is to win battles and wars, and to do that men often have to die. Sad, but that's reality. And that sad fact goes for all commanders, not just Napoleon. If you are still silly enough to claim that Napoleon did not care about killing Frenchmen, then you will have to agree that Wellington did not care about killing British, Spanish and Portuguese soldiers, Francis and Archduke Charles did not care about killing Austrian soldiers, Blucher did not care about killing Prussian soldiers and Alexander did not care about killing Russian soldiers.

Marmont was divorced in 1817. I don't know why but it would ironic if she had deserted him.

And when the turn round finished in… who began the wars, Napoleon or the other European Powers?
No doubt about Spain and Russia, but about the rest?

Amicalement
Armand

'…and Alexander did not care about killing Russian soldiers.'

I would suggest that you might be able to make a case on this one.

Sincerely,
K

'Whiff of grapeshot? Perfectly willing to turn his guns on French men when needed.'

'Willing' does not translate to 'happy.'

And in this case there was a revolt against the government and Napoleon was 'enlisted' by that government to put down the rebellion, which was done quickly and efficiently.

Unfortunately, when there is a rebellion, and your own citizens are involved, they get shot too, and many times, as in this case, rightfully so.

Sincerely,
K

'And in all his battles. Maybe happy is to light a word but he clearly had no qualms about causing or losing men.'

I would suggest taking a look at Napoleon's correspondence to see how Napoleon actually felt about losing troops in combat. His correspondence after Eylau is especially illuminating.

And if he 'had no qualms' he wouldn't have been so concerned about the care of the wounded after the fighting was over.

You are clearly incorrect on this subject which with all the material available today on the period is somewhat surprising.

It looks like you've returned to the 'Corsican Ogre' theory of Napoleonic study.

Sincerely,
K

'I just cannot see this as a black and white issue, there is a grey zone.'

That statement is nothing but rationalization and is undoubtedly based on your not caring for Napoleon in order to bolster your case of 'scapegoating' which is absolute nonsense.

Treason is treason, no matter how you attempt to paint it otherwise.

'In case all French see Marmont only as traitor what a pity.'

Why?-that's what he is and was. Marmont is responsible for his own actions and the results have to be accepted.

'Marmont as others, Bernadotte, Grouchy, Dupont, Moreau etc., where victims of clever Napoleonic propaganda – and they still are.'

To what 'clever Napoleonic propaganda' do you refer?

Marmont's treason is quite clear.

Dupont was court-martialed for abandoning his own men, and I don't believe you'll find support for him historically from any of the survivors of their imprisonment on Cabrera Island-of course there weren't too many, only one in ten, that survived Spanish neglect and cruelty.

Moreau, who was dominated by his wife, was dumb enough to get caught up in a conspiracy to depose or murder Napoleon. He showed his true colors when he betrayed his own former soldiers by siding with the allies in 1813. The French troops considered his death at Dresden to be divine justice and what he deserved.

The final verdict to my mind on Grouchy was stated by Napoleon at St. Helena. He commented that no one, including himself, did their duty in the campaign in Belgium.

'In case of condemning them one should first make a real hard study on sources – but it so easy to bash certain persons, much more easier than to find out what really happened.'

So, what 'really' happened? You ought to provide sourcing to substantiate what you believe or instead of making the same claims on the same subjects because you are anti-Napoleon, actually providing some source material so that you do not appear to be nothing more than a naysayer. You've provided nothing but negative opinion and that isn't enough.

Sincerely,
K

Gazzola & Kevin,

That logic would only apply when he was General Bonaparte rather than Emperor Napoleon. An Emperor-General can be held responsible for decisions to prosecute wars and/or refuse peace terms as well as the manner in which they are prosecuted.

Not saying I'm personally criticizing Napoleon as bloodthirsty and callous, just saying that the arguments need to be different when comparing with, say, Blucher.

Regards

Dupont was court-martialed for abandoning his own men, and I don't believe you'll find support for him historically from any of the survivors of their imprisonment on Cabrera Island-of course there weren't too many, only one in ten, that survived Spanish neglect and cruelty.

Hmm. Hardly a fair charge since he negotiated the return of all his men only for the Spanish to renege. Presumably Napoleon himself was guilty himself of 'abandonment' in Egypt. One suspects that Dupont's crime was similar to Mack's at Ulm – making a total mess of things and leading his troops to disaster.

Regards

Treason is treason, no matter how you attempt to paint it otherwise.

Definitely. Marmont betrayed Napoleon. Ney betrayed his King (as lots of French officers betrayed their king at the beginning of the revolution). Probably neither event really changed the course of events. The Allies would still have dictated peace terms in 1814. Napoleon would still have successfully carried out his coup in 1815.

Napoleon's 'situation' in Egypt was quite different from Dupont's in Spain.

First, Napoleon wasn't surrendering his army after a defeat. Second, he had told the Directory that if the situation in Europe deteriorated he would return from Egypt, and third, though unbeknownst to Napoleon, the Directory had issued two recall orders for Napoleon.

Sincerely,
K

Napoleon's 'situation' in Egypt was quite different from Dupont's in Spain.

First, Napoleon wasn't surrendering his army after a defeat. Second, he had told the Directory that if the situation in Europe deteriorated he would return from Egypt, and third, though unbeknownst to Napoleon, the Directory had issued two recall orders for Napoleon.

Sure, the parallels aren't exact (and as I said, I don't reckon that was really the nub of Napoleon's ire with Dupont). But the charge of 'abandoning his own men' seems to resonate a bit. Wiki described it thus:

He only shared the secret of his return with a small number of friends whose discretion and loyalty were well-known. He left Cairo in August 1799 on the pretext of a voyage in the Nile Delta without arousing suspicion, accompanied by the scholars Monge and Berthollet, the painter Denon, and generals Berthier, Murat, Lannes and Marmont. On 23 August 1799 a proclamation informed the army that Bonaparte had transferred his powers as commander in chief to general Kléber. This news was taken badly, with the soldiers angry with Bonaparte and the French government for leaving them behind, but this indignation soon ended, since the troops were confident in Kléber, who convinced them that Bonaparte had not left permanently but would soon be back with reinforcements from France.

Regards

Did anybody of those accusing Dupont read the volumes of Titeux about this general?
Most likley – no.
I agree it is dangerous to dig into research – one might encounter unpleasant facts.
How can Marmont be a traitor when Napoleon was abidcated at the 2nd April by the Senat and Napoléon himself wanted to give up at the 4th?
So Napoléon did not desert his soldiers in Egypt – in a clandestine escape – because he had a reason to return to France. Obviously here the reason works, the same for Marmont, he caused a point of no return for peace negotiations.

It seems that Kevin works to a double standard; it is ok for Napoleon to do absolutely anything because he is Napoleon, but if anybody else does anything similar that negatively affects Napoleon, they are wrong.

Hmm…objectivity..where did that go?

Colin,

Knock off the nonsense. I never said nor intimated that Napoleon could do anything and it was all right. You're creating a strawman argument and you have already admitted that the sources you use for Napoleon are substandard and inaccurate.

The situations described are quite different-both in fact and in substance. If you don't agree then offer something of substance yourself instead of being both accusatory and inaccurate yourself. I see nothing in your posting but nonsense and the act of trying to pick a fight.

Sincerely,
K

There is no similarity between Napoleon's decision to leave Egypt and Marmont's betraying his corps to the allies.

If there is any historical or logical evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Sincerely,
K

'Did anybody of those accusing Dupont read the volumes of Titeux about this general?'

As the court-martial took place before Titeux wrote his books, I sincerely doubt it. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

That is about the reply that I would expect from you; when you are caught, you bluster and attack others with false statements.

I still remain unconvinced.

1. Marmont treachery really only affected Bonerparte. It hastened the inevitable and saved lives. Even if only for a year and regardless of his personal motivation. The only thing it stopped is Napoleon wasn't able to place his son on the throne.

2. Ney turned on Bonerparte pushed him to abdicate and promptly joined the Bourbons. He was I believe made a peer, rewarded with a promotion and publicly lauded for this by the monarchy. When Bonerparte returns he doesn't resign. He instead promises to fight and marches off to fight. He then recieves a secret letter from the enemy and renegades on his oath. Changes sides whilst his king is still on the throne.

I still can't see how an unbiased historian can look at both, you'd either forgive them both for going with instinct and doing what they thought best regardless of oaths OR condemn them both for failing to do their duty to their leaders.

You see the same with Bernadotte, who is condemned as a traitor too despite objectively Being freed of all obligations to his former boss and acting in the interests of his subjects.

Really what it really boils down to is rabid Bonerpartists are quite willing to forgive treachery (like Ney) when it's done by Mr Bonerparte or his men. But woe to those whose treachery (perceived or real) is widely condemned.

There is no similarity between Napoleon's decision to leave Egypt and Marmont's betraying his corps to the allies.

Agreed, I mentioned it as an aside about the description of the charges against Dupont, nothing particularly to do with Marmont.

Regards

Edwulf

On your reasoning for Marmont. that would suggest Ney was not a traitor to the royalists, since his actions 'hastened the inevitable and saved lives', albeit until the Allies fear of Napoleon got the better of them.

Marmont treachery really only affected Bonerparte. It hastened the inevitable and saved lives. Even if only for a year and regardless of his personal motivation. The only thing it stopped is Napoleon wasn't able to place his son on the throne.

It is extremely doubtful to my mind that the last would have happened anyway. Whatever Alexander's reasoning it is clear that he was able to do whatever he pleased, regardless of whether Marmont surrendered early or not.

This is why, IMHO, Marmont's act was so petty. His surrender achieved nothing but winding up Napoleon and his supporters and betraying his men into surrender (by this I mean his men were going to be saved anyway). They weren't in danger. Napoleon was going to be forced off his throne and the Allies dictate terms anyway. This is why Marmont's act was such a selfish stitch-up. The only object it could serve was to increase his prestige in the eyes of the Bourbons (which worked).

Regards

‘That is about the reply that I would expect from you; when you are caught, you bluster and attack others with false statements.'

Would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘false statements'?

And your comment about ‘attack others' is interesting coming from someone who has described his own ad hominem attacks on others as ‘robust debate.'

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

You stated: "you have already admitted that the sources you use for Napoleon are substandard and inaccurate."

1. I have admitted no such thing, so your statement is untrue.

2. You do not know the full range of sources that I "use for Napoleon", so your statement is one of inaccurate presumption and, therefore, not a true statement.

That is why I stated that you attack others with false statements; it is because you do.

Here's some of the sources you listed. Those in the first paragraph of your response have been found to be unreliable and inaccurate from at least 1971 in English-language works.

‘To counter what you are arguing, I will quote some of the sources that Elting decries: Bourrienne, the Duchess of Abrantes, Remusat, and Marmont. Elting dismissing them does not make them "worthless"; that is merely the opinion of one historian who had a particular pro-Napoleon point of view. In addition, I would refer you to the following among many others:'
‘Hanson, Victor David. "The Claremont Institute: The Little Tyrant, A review of Napoleon: A Penguin Life". The Claremont Institute. 2003'
‘McLynn, Frank. Napoleon. Pimlico. ISBN 0712662472. 1998'

I have also commented upon them and quoted comments of Marmont's work in this thread.

The last two I also commented on in this thread.

So your accusation that I made a 'false statement' is not an accurate assessment. You rely or use unreliable source material by your own admission and your opinions as stated in this thread reflect what you have read.

You have also stated the following in this thread, which I find quite astonishing based on your opinions on Napoleon as stated on this thread. Again, you attack those who do not agree with you and then make quite amazing statements 'historically' which are usually either not accurate or merely opinion.

‘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.'

Sincerely,
K

You rely or use unreliable source material by your own admission and your opinions as stated in this thread reflect what you have read.

He has not admitted that he 'uses unreliable source material'. He is using source material which you deem unreliable, but you use source material which he considers 'unreliable source material'.

Shall we write 10th Marines relies upon and uses unreliable source material by his own admission? Or shall we say that 10th Marines just prefers different sources (which, I can scarcely credit, are pro-Napoleon)?

No, he uses 'source' material that has been determined by Napoleonic scholars to be unreliable as has been dutifully done by Vincent Cronin, among others. If you would like to see for yourself, see Cronin's biography of Napoleon and check the Appendix. As I said before, I quoted what he had to say about Marmont's memoirs.

Sincerely,
K

No, he uses 'source' material that has been determined by Napoleonic scholars to be unreliable as has been dutifully done by Vincent Cronin, among others. If you would like to see for yourself, see Cronin's biography of Napoleon and check the Appendix. As I said before, I quoted what he had to say about Marmont's memoirs.

Is quoting two pro-Bonaparte authors more reliable than one?

apparently …

and even more double plus good vs quoting anti-Napoleon authors.

Kevin.

The problem with your statement is firstly, that I have not admitted anything and secondly, that you do not know what other sources I have used; therefore, you cannot accurately state that my sources are substandard and inaccurate.

Therefore, your statement is inaccurate on two counts.

Understand now?

Why not reed the memoires of Marmont and make up your own opinion about it – well – too much asked for, also they are in French – a language allien to 10 M – substandard sources, it is not about substandard sources but to understand how to work with sources.

too true.
The reality is most historical sources are sub standard.
Axes to grind etc.

The first rule of reading any text, primary or otherwise, is to ask yourself the following questions:

1. Why did they write this?
2. What were their biases?
3. What did they want the reader to believe?

I think that part of the problem is that some people cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of Napoleon and have put themselves in a position where they will only believe sources that paint him in a positive light; anything that is critcial or negative is rejected.

Another part of the problem is that they see this from a perspective where there can only be polar opposites: one must be either for Napoleon or against him. Their mindset does not allow that one can be critical of him in some areas and positive in others, or that one can be ambivalent about him.