"Who were the traitors in 1815?" Topic

We have had an interesting discussion on where Marmont was a traitor in 1814. But I have another question, who were the traitors of 1815?

Was it Perignon and St. Cyr had attempted to organize resistance to Napoleon, Lefebvre, Kellerman, and Marmont who stayed loyal to the Borbons and who may have followed them into exile.?

Alternatively was it Soult, Ney, Brune, Davout and those who chose to change sides again?

What would be your reasons?

Was it traitorous to oppose Napoleon in the Spring but then to attempt to organize resistance to Allied invasion of France in with the remaining forces in July?

Internal consistence in arguments would be appreciated. Answers showing cognitive dissonance will, naturally be treated with derision by others, but not by me.

You got me on this one!

General Bourmont?

Attempted to take his division over to the Allies prior to Waterloo, but got nothing but rasberries, so simply took the French plans to the Prussians…

To Bluchers' credit, 'Old Forwards' refused to recieve him…

Other than that you have confused me with the psycho babble…I will simply say that personally, I have no problem with any body else's actions during those politically unstable times. Even Napoleon's actions can be mitigated by the refusal of the Bourbons to adhere to their undertakings to support him properly on Elba…

Had I been in the French service at the time I suspect I might have experienced an acute bout of gout….

Davout cannot be considered in this category at all as he never took an oath to serve the Bourbons in the first place.

Fouche and Talleyrand were up to their old tricks again, so they can be once again put in the traitor category.

Bourmont was a rat who deserted his post during a war and went over to the enemy. Davout had warned Napoleon that he didn't trust Bourmont, but other officers, including Gerard, had vouched for his fidelity, to their later chagrin.

I believe that it would be very difficult to label few if any of the French senior officers, or any officer for that matter, as a traitor to the Bourbons as Louis XVIII had ordered the disbanding of the French army while he was on his way to Brussels. Further, he and the Royalists had fled, leaving France without either a head of state or a government, allowing Napoleon to regain the imperial dignity.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Ney is definately in the traitor category.

He swore an oath to the king. Promised to capture Boney and went over to the enemy. While the king was still on the throne so the he is certainly the biggest traitor of 1815.

Anyone who stayed loyal to the king is not a traitor likewise those who refused to serve the king and went back to Bonerparte betrayed no one. Those who served the king then joined him after the King abdicated are also not traitors. Anyone who left the king before he officially abdicated are traitors. Not sure which ones fit into those groups.

Fouche and Tallyrand had been traitors throughout the reign of the Emperor.
Davout never sided with the king and didn't align himself with the Emperor during the 100 Days so cannot be seen as traitorous.

My opinion is that after 1814, all bets were off.
Napoleon had abdicated & military oaths taken prior held no sway.

So for those who stayed loyal to Louis the Fat (poor choice IMO),so be it.

The issue is reversed to the Marmont one, then, in that those who'd pledged loyalty to the new Ancien regime & gone over to Napoleon in 1815 were traitors.

This puts Ney in a ticklish position as he HAD sworn loyalty to the Bourbons. Clearly, he paid for going over to Napoleon.

I think some sort of clemency for services to France should have been exercised at the "kangaroo court" that tried him. But the Bourbons were inclined towards being vindictive.

A successful revolutionary is a patriot an unsuccessful one is a traitor.

Someone once said something like that but I can't find out who. The same rational is applicable to 1815. There was obviously enough support for Napoleon to enable him first to land then overthrow the Bourbon government and establish his own regime. This makes him at least a revolutionary.

Those who chose to support him knew what they were doing as well as those who did not. The final result of who was right or wrong was first a personal choice but ultimately depended on who won in the end. Napoleon lost so his supporters were traitors. If it had gone the other way…??

Look back into History Cromwell, Washington, , Bolivar, etc won but they could also have been hanged as traitors if they had lost.

Breakout the Popcorn,…

Have we ever stopped to think about the nature of these Oaths?

For example, in canon law, the marital 'oath' is invalid if one or both of the person(s) were under duress. Could it be the those who swore an oath to the Bourbons in 1814 were fearful? If they were fearful of life and/or property, or lacked intent to commit, then their Oath is considered invalid.

Furthermore, when the Burbons took power they started the white scare and started decimating the officers corps. To me, this would put people in a state of duress, due to fear of possible loss of life at the hands of the
Burbons. Also we would have to establish intent to follow through with said oath. The intent only must last through the end of the oath. In other words, if at the time of the oath the person must have intent to carry through, but if 2yrs later they do not want to, they are then bound by oath.

Therefore, their Oath is invalid and cannot be held against them.

A successful revolutionary is a patriot an unsuccessful one is a traitor.

Is this it:

'Treason is a matter of Dates'
Talleyrand.

Not that I recommend quoting that if being 'interviewed' by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police….

@ghost02

You apply a different point of view to Marmont in 1814 regardind oaths, it seems a oath to Napoleon is valid forever, those to the Bourbons only temporarily – did ney have to fear his life in 1815 by the Bourbons – before he joined Napoleon again?

The Royalists at court insulted Ney's wife, she leaving in tears. That would tend to infuriate a soldier of Ney's caliber, or any husband worth a flip.

'Davout never sided with the king and didn't align himself with the Emperor during the 100 Days so cannot be seen as traitorous.'

Davout was among the first to show up to work for Napoleon after the return from Elba. He was made Minister of War by Napoleon and it was Davout who got the army ready for the campaign in Belgium-he created the Armee du Nord. So, he did 'align himself withe the Emperor during the 100 Days.'

Sincerely,
K

I don't see Ney as a traitor, and the trial by the Bourbons after Waterloo and the second abdication was grossly unfair (Marmont voted for the death penalty, so that's two strikes against his character).

The White Terror after Waterloo also displayed the lack of character of the Bourbons and Royalists-that hadn't happened to them when Napoleon had returned from Elba.

Sincerely,
K

To nobody in particular.

See Karl Popper on inductive reasoning before proceeding.

Even success mightn't save you from a traitor's fate: Cromwell:

"Following the death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September 1658, he was given a public funeral at Westminster Abbey, equal to those of monarchs before him. After defeating and executing King Charles I after the English Civil War, Cromwell had become Lord Protector and ruler of the English Commonwealth. His legacy passed to his son Richard, who was overthrown by the army in 1659, after which monarchy was re-established and King Charles II, who was living in exile, was recalled. Charles' new parliament ordered the disinterment of Cromwell's body from Westminster Abbey and the disinterment of other regicides John Bradshaw and Henry Ireton, for a posthumous execution at Tyburn. After hanging "from morning till four in the afternoon",[1] the bodies were cut down and the heads placed on a 20-foot (6.1 m) spike above Westminster Hall. In 1685 a storm broke the pole upon which it stood,[2] throwing the head to the ground, after which it belonged to private collectors and museum owners until 25 March 1960, when it was buried at Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge."

I'd agree that it might have been fairer to wait till *after* Ney's death from old age to line him up & shoot him.

Someone (forgotton who) once said:

Treason can never succeed, it stands to reason,
because if it does, then it is no longer treason.

Rod

ochoin deach

No matter what your politics are, it was disgusting what the royalists did, which was basically in spite and in revenege for losing the English Civil War. But they didn't have the skill or courage to harm Cromwell when he was alive so they waited until he was dead and buried. Such brave royalists!

Hold on. Marmont is a traitor as he surrendered to his enemies, men he was supposed to fight. But Ney isn't a traitor despite going off to fight his enemy, and not even surrendering but actually joining those he said he would fight turning around and marching on his new boss.

I can see why some would condemn Marmont, but Neys actions are even more treacherous, so saying he ISN'T a traitor when he bare faced stuck his leader in the back and joined his enemy. If THAT'S not a traitor then I think some people are confused about exactly what a traitor is.

Letting Ney off is fine if you're kind of blasé about betrayal, but then I would assume Marmont would be let off too, his betrayal was less severe after all.

Gazzola.

Second that. Petty spite. Couldn't best him while he was alive.

Edwulf

Perhaps both Ney and Marmont should have been exiled from France, rather than one executed and other rewarded?

Who knows, had Napoleon exiled Ney, he might have had better luck at Waterloo, as long as he didn't place Murat in charge of the cavalry.

And just how were Ney's actions 'even more treacherous'?

Sincerely,
K

As said before. If negotiating a surrender to your enemy thus undermining your leader is treachery. Then marching off to fight your enemy, but then abandoning your leader and joining the enemy is worse. The former just weakened the defeated parties negotiating position. The latter is actively joining your enemy to fight. Much worse. Benedict Arnold is still quite reviled for the same thing I reckon in the states.

Kevin, I always enjoy your input at a military man, so much better to get the smell of powder than the lamp oil as Elting would have said.

Hypothetical question: There is a president of the US who is deeply unpopular with a great swath of the population. Questions as to his fitness and legitimacy to rule exist with a chunk of the population. A populist leader arrives heading a rebellion. Your marine unit is ordered to stop them as they march on Washington DC. You draw up you unit and then your troops refuse to fire on the rebels, indeed they start to go over to the enemy. Let's also assume that members of the president's staff have previously insulted your unjustifiable. What is the honorable course that you should take?

Is your choice is different from Ney's what has changed?

This may seem a got ya question, it's not intended that way, I'd like to understand the moral dilemma that officers are faced during a populist uprising.

Talleyrand, definitely. That man couldn't be loyal to one cause. Bent like a pretzel!

Marmont was divorced in 1817. It would ironic if she had deserted him?

Edwulf,

Who was Ney's enemy? I suggest it wasn't Napoleon but the Bourbons.

Sincerely,
K

'Hypothetical question: There is a president of the US who is deeply unpopular with a great swath of the population. Questions as to his fitness and legitimacy to rule exist with a chunk of the population. A populist leader arrives heading a rebellion. Your marine unit is ordered to stop them as they march on Washington DC. You draw up you unit and then your troops refuse to fire on the rebels, indeed they start to go over to the enemy. Let's also assume that members of the president's staff have previously insulted your unjustifiable. What is the honorable course that you should take?'

First, the Marines would not refuse a legal order and if firing was called for, they would execute the order. So, that's the first inconsistency in the question.

Actual situation:

In the 1970 anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC which were pretty bad, there was a Marine battalion as a central reserve in the basement of the capital building in case things got really bad. All or most of them were Vietnam veterans.

The Memorial Bridge that is near the Lincoln Memorial and connect DC with Arlington, there were Marine infantry companies from the Marine Barracks in Washington in control of both ends of the bridge. The company commanders were given orders that the bridge was to remain open no matter what. Both company commanders were prepared to use deadly force to enforce that order. I know this from a first-hand account-my brother was in command of one of the companies and one of my battalion commanders had the other company. both of them would not have hesitated to use deadly force if necessary.

The President of the United States, no matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, is the legally elected head of state. No one has the right to revolt against the government, or to riot to demonstrate their displeasure. The oath of allegiance of the US Armed Forces is to the Constitution, not to any one individual or to the president as an office. Any revolt against the legally consituted government of the United States is treason and as the armed forces of the United States have never been involved in a coup and have always been loyal, I submit that the question and scenario are not only unlikely in the United States, but improbable. So, the question is moot.

Sincerely,
K

'To nobody in particular. See Karl Popper on inductive reasoning before proceeding.'

Actually, if logic in historic writing is to be used at all, the best reference is Fischer's Historical Fallacies. It is quite good from an excellent historian.

Sincerely,
K

No matter what your politics are, it was disgusting what the royalists did, which was basically in spite and in revenege for losing the English Civil War. But they didn't have the skill or courage to harm Cromwell when he was alive so they waited until he was dead and buried. Such brave royalists!

Distasteful as this act was, Gazz., I don't think it too useful to get emotionally involved when contemplating history. It's history NOT politics.

@ Kevin. By defintion, Ney was a traitor. I'm not sure how you can overturn this.

I believe his "crime" can be palliated much like someone who murders a pedophile is still a murderer but can still attract some sympathy. Heaven knows the chief motivation for adhering to Louis the Fat was self-interest whilst I do think people like Ney in 1815, operated in what they believed were the interests of France & patriotism.

I found this quote by de Cubieres which I believe is appropriate to the period, especially regarding 1815:

'In troubled times, the difficulty is not to do your duty, but to discern what is your duty.'

Sincerely,
K

Ney was a traitor, but I'd consider him justified in betraying the King.
By contrast;
Marmont was a traitor, but I believe he was unjustified in betraying Napoleon AND France.

By the strict letter of the Law you would have to say Ney betrayed the King, but his troops deserted him.
Marmont by comparison betrayed his Emperor, Nation and the very troops he commanded by deception and conspiring with the Enemy, (a foreign enemy I might add).
Treason is treason. The real question is why does one betray their former masters.
History (and indeed France) has been far kinder to Ney than it has to Marmont.
I think that fact speaks volumes

History (and indeed France) has been far kinder to Ney than it has to Marmont.

Nice point!

So, according to Kevin, Marmont, who had been released from his oath to Napoleon by the Senate on April 2nd, was a traitor because he took his men over to the allies.

However, also according to Kevin, Ney, who had sworn an oath to Louis XVIII and had not been released from it by anybody, was not a traitor despite taking his men and himself over to the enemy of the king to whom he had sworn an oath.

Anybody spot an inconsistency here?

Given that Napoleon was a French citizen and neither renounced that citizenship nor had it stripped from him in 1814, his return to France in 1815 was an act of rebellion against the King of France, thus making Napoleon a traitor.

How was the return to France an act of rebellion? Louis had refused to pay Napoleon his pension, which without Napoleon could not pay his Guard on Elba leaving him defenseless. That was a breach of the Treaty of Fontainebleu.

Without firing a shot Napoleon regained Paris. The Bourbons ran and could not rally the army to them. Seems to me the entire episode was the fault of the Bourbons.

Sincerely,
K

Napoleon was a French citizen who landed in France with the intention of overthrowing the King of France; how is that not an act of rebellion?

The fact that the Bourbons ran and could not rally the army to them does not alter the fact that it was rebellion.

Once again, you are making excuses for Napoleon and blaming others for his actions.

Do you care to explain how Ney was not a traitor?

It's not an 'excuse' it's fact. The Bourbons reneged on their treaty. Therefore, the agreement was broken. And as Napoleon had retained the title of Emperor and ruled Elba, the case can be made that he wasn't a subject of the French king.

And sometimes rebellion is justified. The Bourbons were immensely unpopular and made a mess of ruling France-they were incompetent.

Ever hear of the 'social contract'?

I don't believe that Ney was a traitor. He went with what he believed was the right course, especially as his troops went over to Napoleon. What happened to Ney was grossly unfair and the White Terror after Waterloo was a terrible period and wrong against men who had fought for France. Perhaps the Royalists should not have insulted Madame Ney at court?

Sincerely,
K

Ah, so Ney was not a traitor because he "went with what he believed was the right course". Could not all traitors claim that? Ney broke his oath to his King; that makes him a traitor, regardless of his motives or justification.

Your notes about the White Terror are, of course, irrelevant to the argument about Ney's treason.

As to Napoleon, his abdication was not dependent on the Treaty of Fontainebleau so his act of landing in France to retake the throne was clearly an act of rebellion in that he was attempting to overthrow the King of France. He may not have been a subject of that King but he was still legally a French citizen.

"Perhaps the Royalists should not have insulted Madame Ney at court?"

Well, they certainly were insulting her if they called her Madame Ney; she was the Princess of Moscow. However, even though Ney is one of my heroes I'm not sure that I would want to argue that his actions were justified because some old ladies at court insulted his wife. It might help to explain what he did but I hardly think it absolves him of the charge of treason.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that the Allies respected the Imperial titles bestowed by Napoleon on his marshals. Does this mean that Czar Alexander referred to Ney as the Prince of Moscow?

colinjallen

You and others are just spouting the obvious -

If you are a Bonapartist, you will more than likley be against Marmont and his actions and might applaud Ney

If you are a royalist, you will more than likely be against Ney and his actions and might applaud Marmont

This is so obvious, so to throw out such claims as if you had caught Kevin out is just a joke

Kevin

colinjallen is just spouting the obvious – I wouldn't waste any further time and effort debating on the matter because no one appears to have offered anything to convince either side to change their opinions on Marmont and probably never will, unless someone discovers his confession. Either you see him as a traitor or you don't – end of.

@CJ,

The mutual appreciation society notwithstanding, I agree that a degree of hypocrisy is evident .

Large parts of this thread are irrelevant to the OP and what Ney's troops did is particularly irrelevant to the question of whether what he did was treason or not.

Seems to me that, ultimately, one is a 'traitor' if one's treasonable action fails and one is tried for treason and found guilty. Until then, at least under English law, one is innocent until proved guilty.

On that basis, Ney was certainly a 'traitor'.

In a later era, of course, opinions may change and the once-condemned 'traitor' becomes regarded as a 'hero', 'patriot', 'freedom fighter' &c. &c.

So many now see Ney as an honourable soldier, whose bravery and loyalty to the man who had elevated him to a Marshal of France excuses his change of allegiance in 1815.

His treatment by the Bourbons, whilst legal, was an error of judgement and a total PR failure.

10th Marines wrote:

'the armed forces of the United States… have always been loyal'

I seem to remember that RE Lee was offered a command by Lincoln, but chose to follow Virginia and fight for the Confederacy, as did some other US Army officers….

SJ,

Ney was not the Prince of Moscow, he was the the Prince de la Moskowa, this being the French name for the battle that we now call Borodino with the name coming from the river.

Wasn't Benedict Arnold a member of the US armed forces? Was he loyal?

XV Brigada

Please point out where I have been hypocritcal?

Benedict Arnold was only a member of the Rebel armed forces before the USA was recognised, so IMHO he engaged in treasonable activity by fighting for the rebels against King George, but then returned to the Crown and so was never brought to trial for it.