"Was Marmont a traitor or a realist?" Topic

@Whirlwind,

Cronin is a third hand writer who repeats Napoleonic orthodoxy. He discounts or ignores sources that are negative about his subject and incompatible with his portrait of the idealistic, honourable and heroic figure, and selects those which agree with his view. The result is subjective and unbalanced.

Cronin, and writers like him, were described recently as ‘perpetrating a confidence trick on a gullible public'. They rely principally on published material and do little, if any, unique research, and because they repeat the analysis of others are largely unimaginative with little original historical insight.

colinjallen

I think that part of the problem is that some people cannot tolerate the slightest positive view of Napoleon and have put themselves into a position where they will only believe those that paint him a negative light, those that are praiseworthy or positive are rejected.

Gazzola fails again. He is Clegg to Kevin's Cameron.

I think that part of the problem is that some people cannot tolerate the slightest positive view of Napoleon and have put themselves into a position where they will only believe those that paint him a negative light, those that are praiseworthy or positive are rejected.

That's correct, Gazzola. And I think the other part of the problem is that some people cannot tolerate the slightest negative view of Napoleon and have put themselves into a position where they will only believe those that paint him a positive light, those that are unpraiseworthy or negative are rejected.

When you don't have a dog in this fight, the similarities between the two factions stand out like the dog's balls!

(says the man who has Napoleon as his avatar!)

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

Have you read Cronin's assessment of period memoirs?

Sincerely,
K

'Cronin is a third hand writer who repeats Napoleonic orthodoxy. He discounts or ignores sources that are negative about his subject and incompatible with his portrait of the idealistic, honourable and heroic figure, and selects those which agree with his view. The result is subjective and unbalanced. Cronin, and writers like him, were described recently as ‘perpetrating a confidence trick on a gullible public'. They rely principally on published material and do little, if any, unique research, and because they repeat the analysis of others are largely unimaginative with little original historical insight.'

If you actually read Cronin's book you will find that he did quite a bit of original research and his study into period memoirs entailed a lot of research.

In short, you are wrong.

Sincerely,
K

XV Brigada

Thanks for proving my post to colinjallen. Much appreciated.

Kevin

Cronin was an award winning author and I believe he also wrote positive books on French kings – but as far as XV Brigada mindset goes, he wrote someting positive about Napoleon, so he can't be good. Makes you laugh, doesn't it!

Arteis

Thank you for pointing that out – that is exactly what I was suggesting to colinjallen when I 'rewrote' his statement, but he obviously did not get the point. Perhaps you can enlighten him.

Personally, I always like to look at both sides of an argument and the differing viewpoints, before making up my own mind. The problem is, if you express your own opinion here you get accused of so many absurd things. eg: If you say you admire Napoleon for example, you obviously see and worship him as a god. The mind boggles but . Like I said to Kevin, you just have to .

"Personally, I always like to look at both sides of an argument and the differing viewpoints, before making up my own mind. The problem is, if you express your own opinion here you get accused of so many absurd things. eg: If you say you admire Napoleon for example, you obviously see and worship him as a god. The mind boggles but . Like I said to Kevin, you just have to ."

Gazzola, "worship him as a god"? Really? Where did you get that nonsense from?

XV, you are wrong because Kevin says you are;). Kevin says that Cronin did "quite a bit of original research and his study into period memoirs entailed a lot of research", so you must be wrong;).

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

Have you read Cronin's assessment of period memoirs?

No, is he any good? I remembered him being called a 'Napoleon hero-worshipper' when there was a discussion of biographies of Napoleon last year some time.

To be frank, I regard Napoleon A neither a hero nor an ogre. He was a deeply flawed human being who had a military talent that served him well as long as he was up against opponents who did not know how to deal with him; once they had worked him out, he had no second string to his bow. In some ways, he was a reformer who changed France for the better, while in others he was a repressive autocrat. Unfortunately for himself, France and Europe as a whole, he lost track of reality and came to believe that events would happen merely because he wanted them to.

@CJA,

He would wouldn't he.

I have the resident double-act on permanent stifle but it is unsurprising.

I agree with Colin. He may have been a talented and hardworking as (insert description of choice, authoritarian ruler, benevolent despot, or the best thing since sliced bread) but he was still a proto-fascist military dictator.

I think that the difficulty with Napoleon and his regime is in the balance of the civil and military sphere. The end result though is in my view he organised France better as a state to facilitate war so as to establish a Pax Bonaparte / Gallica across Europe.

Ironically, this modus operandi in the guise of spreading / defending the "revolution" against the "nasty old monarchies" still seems to suck so many in today. Strangely many other countries and people were not enamored of this Pax Gallica world view.

However, to my mind the average french working class peasant probably got shat on by his regime just as much as before the revolution and just as much as your average working class peasantry everywhere else, apart from possibly Russia.

Thus his was ultimately no better or worse than any of the other authoritarian regimes in Europe. Which means regardless of everything else to say he was a great leader is plain . Which is why I do not worship him and why I cannot understand those that do.

colinjallen

Or should I say Frank? All human beings are flawed. And as I have said myself, on several occasions, he is merely a man and men, all men, make mistakes during their lifetimes.

However, in terms of Napoleon, some of us don't follow the sheep and make out they know how Napoleon thought. Those that do so are . And those that think I worship Napoleon are also .

But I suppose we can happily agree to disagree on our opinions of Napoleon.

Gazza
Well as obviously a person I must apologise, so you will just have to be more generous and magnanimous for those of us that are not as talented as yourself.

This is because despite your protestations to the contrary you actually appear to me to defend every action and policy that Napoleon ever undertook and blame everyone and everything else in Europe for the ills of the period, then to me ipso facto it does appear that you worship him.

Baaa !

Colinjallen

LOL! Is the fat one in the middle you?

That was realy Baaaa'd. :op

Gustav

There really is no need to feel so inferior. And perhaps you should try reading all the posts again. The fact that I disgree with those who find it ever so easy to blame Napoleon for everything, does not mean I think he was always right or did not do anything wrong.

But perhaps it is easier for some people to believe that, especially when someone dares to disagree with them or challenge their viewpoint. They might have to question their own viewpoint and .

No Gazzola, that is ;).

Gazzola said:

Thank you for pointing that out – that is exactly what I was suggesting to colinjallen when I 'rewrote' his statement, but he obviously did not get the point. Perhaps you can enlighten him.

Hmm, I suspect you might have missed the point too. Please re-read my original message very carefully.

I am stating that both of the polarised sides here are guilty of not being able "to tolerate the slightest negative/positive [strike out which one doesn't apply in your case] view of Napoleon and have put themselves into a position where they will only believe those that paint him a positive/negative [whichever applies] light, those that are unpraiseworthy/praiseworthy or negative/positive [whichever applies] are rejected."

colinjallen

? – Wow! You really have lost it, haven't you? Perhaps you should stick to looking at pictures of penguins and sheep – less stress and all that.

Arteis

I know exactly what you are on about – but you are incredibly wrong.

For a start, I can quite easily tolerate those quick enough to throw out negative aspects of Napoleon. After all, they've been doing it for a long time. You get kinda used to them.

I always try to read the negative and the positive because some of the negative aspects may be true and some of the positive aspects may be true. But if you don't look at both of them, then it is impossible to come to a balanced viewpoint.

However, if some people are unable to accept someone else's viewpoint, which seems to be the case, then they should consider not posting on the topic and move on to another one.

? – Wow! You really have lost it, haven't you? Perhaps you should stick to looking at pictures of penguins and sheep – less stress and all that.

You are right Gazzola. That's definitely a female sheep. Schoolboy error on your part Colin.

Sorry SJ:(.

Poor Gazzola, a man with ! You really do not , do you?

SJDonovan

Interesting that you can spot the sheep is a female. That suggests you are either a sheep expert or er, have had lots of contacts with female sheep.

Well, I can tell the difference between a ewe and a ram, so I guess that makes me a sheep expert.

colinjallen

Er, like I say, you just keep looking at pictures of sheep and penguins, keep yourself busy, there's a good boy! And do let us all know when you advance to the level of looking at real sheep.

SJDonovan

Er, Mr. sheep expert, you do realise they are not real sheep, don't you? colinjallen has not been able to advance to that level yet.

Gazzola, you really are both :)).

Colin,

Have you read Cronin yet? If you happen to not only might you learn something you would see the original work that he accomplished.

Sincerely,
K

colinjallen

As I said in the other traitor thread and in reply to yet another of your insults, when you stop taking pictures of penguins and toy sheep and insulting people, and make a Napoleonic contribution, I might consider you worthy of further discussion.

Kevin

As much as it would do him good to read Cronin,
colinjallen is probably far too busy seeking out pictures of toy animals to spare time for reading.

John,

The rule is simple-if you have nothing to contribute historically, the easiest thing to do is either mock the person you perceive as your 'opponent' or personally attack them.

What that actually does is clearly demonstrate the bankruptcy of the original argument and is a de facto admission of being wrong.

Sincerely,
K

Gazzola,

You ; as Kevin said:

"The rule is simple-if you have nothing to contribute historically, the easiest thing to do is either mock the person you perceive as your 'opponent' or personally attack them.

What that actually does is clearly demonstrate the bankruptcy of the original argument and is a de facto admission of being wrong."

That about sums up your behaviour.

By the way, you already admitted in a previous post that you would not say a particular thing to me in person that you said on here; does the same apply to your more recent comments as well? I suspect that you are just .

Colin,

Why don't you knock off the nonsense? And I do believe that I've asked that before. My comments were directed at you, as your 'discussion tactics' don't lend themselves to 'robust debate.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin,

Given that you cannot stand up to robust debate and seem to have to dodge, divert and generally dissemble in order to maintain your inaccurate and biased viewpoints, I find your comments unsurprising.

Have a nice day.
Colin

colinjallen

I was stunned that you seemed either so as to want to take things further away from this discussion board. I was unaware that the term would hit a nerve, that's why I said I wouldn't call you one in case it upsets you again. I did not realise you were such a , considering your posts make out you are the exact opposite.

Your posts suggest that you are a , especially if anyone disagrees with you or is not impressed by your silly pictures. But most people can accept someone disagreeing with them, it is . The fact you seem unable to laugh off what is said says . I laugh off the rubbish and constant insults you are fond of throwing out. And your childish pictures, well, that also says .

This ia a discussion board for Heaven's sake. But your response suggests that discussing anything with you, other than concerning penguins or toy sheep is not really worth the bother, in case .

However, if you feel you still want to 'see' me face to face, I won't be at Salute, as you know. But I am hoping to make the Phalanx show in June. Perhaps I'll see you there?

Gazzola,

I truly ; you really are . Of course, I could be wrong and you may well be , in which case .

Have a nice life John.

I wonder how many of the ing and on this thread really care about the ? If they really gave a about the they would not be so ing quick to suggest that the were , or that the and were actually . I think if Gazola and Colin just gave each other a great big the would be a better place. Don't the other on here agree?

Oh, and I have 3000 28mm pro-painted Napoleonic figures free to anyone who emails me at

Pat

!

Gentlemen, I did not read all of this. Way too much for my brain this morning.

This is the way I understand the military oath after 24 years of service.

A soldier MUST follow the orders of the officers put in charge over him UNLESS that order is an illegal, or immoral order. That is the oath that all American soldiers take today. It is because of the Nazi's in WW2 that the illegal, immoral order part is in there. I do not believe they had any reservations during the earlier "Empire building years", about following an oath they had taken. The HAD to follow their oath, no matter what. Honor dictated they do this. The time period we are talking about still had duels to defend honor, so a soldier's honor was an important matter to him, it still is. In my opinion, Marmont betrayed Napoleon. But, in the end, the only thing a soldier can do is what his conscience dictates. I do not agree with Marmont, but understand why he did what he did. He is the man who had to look in the mirror everyday.

But, in the end, the only thing a soldier can do is what his conscience dictates. I do not agree with Marmont, but understand why he did what he did. He is the man who had to look in the mirror everyday.

Makes sense to me, mate!

My my. Truly amazing.

Nous devrions tous avoir du plaisir ici, non?

Sure.

Stands in the trench looking out with his periscope.
blimey you go away for a few days and you miss all the fun !

ANZAC Day today.
Lest we forget.