"Who were the traitors in 1815?" Topic

Napolιon had a very good chance to make peace after his murderous disaster of the 1812 campaign.
It is just rediculous how he re-acted when Bubna and Metternich tried to get him at least to negotiation table.
He clearly had lost any touch to reality.
Statements as his army needed only 10 days of reast to be displined again, that his Guard did not even fight in Russia and other crass statements proove this.
Anyway, I agree with ghost 02 – you won't convince anybody to change his mind and therefore this discussion as well as that as Marmont or the culprits of 1815 are just another bricole.

Kevin,

Ah, so now you are redefining your statement to mean that the whole of the US armed forces have to change sides/rebel/whatever before any accusation of disloyalty can be raised against them.

So you choose to ignore both Arnold and all of the Southern officers and men who were already in the US armed forces but fought against the US in the civil war when claiming that the US armed forces have always been loyal. I think there is a name for such reasoning.

Colin,

I said the US Armed Forces-that is the organization as a whole, not individuals who might or might not break their oath.

You have a terrible tendency to either exaggerate or misinterpret postings with which you disagree. You also have a propensity for accusing people of things that are incorrect.

You really should read more carefully and if you don't understand something ask-instead of going off half-cocked merely to make your own point, which more often than not is wrong.

I changed or redefined nothing, and your stating that I did does not make it so.

Sincerely,
K

Whirlwind

Yes, your view is a bit simple. Of course the Allies fought wars against Napoleon before 1815. Why on earth do you think I have to admit to the obvious. I am well aware of the history of the Napoleonic period, as I assume you are. But some of the Allies during the Napoleonic period fought with him and others fought against him – should that be considered as well?.

But we are not talking here about what happen previously, we are talking about what happened in 1815 when Napoleon returned and resumed the throne, ever so easily.

The point was that the Allies did not give him a chance and in so doing they did not try to avert further bloodshed. In fact, they instigated it by marching on France. Their fear ruled their heads, which is the main point. They acted on fear of what might happen, not on what did happen. So people would die because of their fears, not because Napoleon regained his throne. Perhaps it is you who does not want to admit that?

And surely, they could have taken a risk because they could have gathered enough forces together again, should Napoleon have become a threat to them and their probable land and profit making?

Anyway, you are free to retain, what I think is a simple view that Napoleon was the cause of the further deaths in 1815, while I will retain the view that they were caused by the Allies.

Kevin,

The US armed forces consist of the people who serve in them. If, as in the case of the Civil War, a large number of the officers (and men?) serving in those armed forces join the army of a secessionist group of states that are engaged in an armed rebellion against the government of the US, then calling the US armed forces "loyal" is stretching a point so thinly that it is almost non-existent.

The armed forces that were left after they defected may have been loyal, but that was only after the defectors had left; in the lead up to and at the time of the defection, the armed forces were, by definition, not loyal.

I will not comment on what you have a terrible tendency to do but it does involve a distortion of history.

The point was that the Allies did not give him a chance and in so doing they did not try to avert further bloodshed.

There is not a single reason they should have, but hundreds of thousands of reasons they should not have.

The point is that Napoleon should have stuck to his agreement with the Allies to vacate the throne of France. He didn't. It is simple, your clumsy insults notwithstanding.

But naturally you are free to retain your simple view of Napoleon, the Bonapartist myth.

'The US armed forces consist of the people who serve in them. If, as in the case of the Civil War, a large number of the officers (and men?) serving in those armed forces join the army of a secessionist group of states that are engaged in an armed rebellion against the government of the US, then calling the US armed forces "loyal" is stretching a point so thinly that it is almost non-existent.'

You have little or no understanding of the American Civil War. The United States Army remained loyal to the country and the Consitution. Those southern officers that 'went south' resigned their commissions and then left, sometimes honored by their friends and comrades before they departed. Very few enlisted men left, and no units. You might wish to get a good book on the subject (definitely not Keegan).

'The armed forces that were left after they defected may have been loyal, but that was only after the defectors had left; in the lead up to and at the time of the defection, the armed forces were, by definition, not loyal.'

Again, they didn't defect, they resigned and went home. You have a strange understanding of loyalty as you present it. You stand up for Marmont, who was definitely guilty of treason, and you make erroneous comments that are not correct about the loyalty of the US Army in the Civil War. At the very least that is intellectually dishonest.

'I will not comment on what you have a terrible tendency to do but it does involve a distortion of history.'

You've already commented, which you spend most of your time doing. Your lack of historical understanding is appalling, your accusations towards me and what I have written are wrong and insulting, and overall you display a level of ad hominem attacks and intellectual dishonesty that I find appalling.

I've distorted nothing. On the hand you have misrepresented what I have posted or said comments about me personally that a wise person would know better than to utter. In short, it would be better for everyone and the forum as a whole if you would stick to the subjects and not verbally attack and insult people with whom you disagree. You also don't seem to realize that historical error, which all of us are guilty of from time to time is neither a distortion nor a lie-it's a mistake-and you've made more than your fair share.

So, bottom line, stick to the topic and don't accuse people of things that aren't accurate. If you cannot stick to the topic, then I suggest you have a problem.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

I think that is known as projection.

"Those southern officers that 'went south' resigned their commissions and then left…"

Just to make sure I understand this fascinating new definition of (dis)loyalty…

If I'm a serving officer in the US Army, and I resign my commission and go to fight for, say, Japan in 1942, then I'm not "disloyal," because I gave everybody a heads-up first, that I was resigning?

Hm.

I seem to recall years and years of furious Kiley rants about the disloyalty ("treason," actually, was the word he preferred) of all Americans who expressed sympathy for the North Vietnamese.

Ergo: somebody like A.P.Hill is not disloyal, even though he swore to defend the US Constitution but changed his mind and fought against the US, resulting in the deaths of US servicemen.

…but some 19-year-old college kid who marches in an anti-war protest in 1968 is a traitor to America?

(We won't even get into the subject of what Kevin said about those Americans who questioned the wisdom of the two most recent wars, since that would put us in Dawgieland. But it would be sort of interesting to see Kevin of all people approving of a Muslim American officer resigning his commission politely and taking his leave, to then appear in the ranks of the Taliban. Hey! That's not disloyalty, right? After all, here's the email of his resignation…)

I never thought I'd end up standing up for Kevin, but I do thing there is a difference between 1861 and 1942. 'Merkins before the Civil War thought of themselves as belonging to their state first and the Federal organisation second. So the reactions were understandable in the context of the time. Today we live in a much more manichaen world. One thing that struck me about the cemetery at Gettysburg was the way that even the Union dead are arranged by states.

I'll let Kevin justy the rights of 19 year old college students. I do seem to recall some murders at Kent State – but those were National Guard and not Marines who would have given us something closer to Amritsar had their officers ordered it following Kevins previous post.

"'Merkins before the Civil War thought of themselves as belonging to their state first and the Federal organisation second."

That's fine, but it doesn't change the question of disloyalty to that same Federal organization (to which they swore an oath.)

The question of where a man personally felt his loyalties to lie, doesn't matter to the people/entity/state whose cause he abandons and then turns against.

After all, a great many Northerners were intent upon draconian punishments for southern officers and politicians, and Lincoln was hard-pressed to persuade them otherwise. It's clear that a lot of Americans in the 1860s did indeed feel that loyalty to the Federal union was paramount. (Otherwise, obviously, thousands of Yankees wouldn't have been willing to die to force the southerners to stay in!)

Treason trials don't hinge upon "Why did you do it?" "Oh? Well, Okay, that's a good reason, then. Understandable, considering you felt that way…"

Just as an aside, I had an ancestor who was, by any definition, a traitor and another who may well have been regarded as a traitor by some.

The definite traitor was one who fought for the Boers during that unpleasantness in South Africa, while the possible traitor was an officer in the 3e Regiment Etranger serving under Napoleon; he was awarded the Legion d'honneur.

Curiously, the one who fought for the Boers returned to England and ended up as an officer in the British army in WWI.

Another relative fought for the Confederacy but was not a traitor:).

'I think that is known as projection.'

And now you're dabbling in psychobabble? Incredible.

Sincerely,
K

And to the idea of the White Terror being justified, no it was not.

Persecuting and murdering soldiers who had served France for years was as unjust as it was callous and cruel.

Sincerely,
K

Persecuting and murdering soldiers who had served France for years was as unjust as it was callous and cruel.

Who then swore an oath to their King and betrayed it to fight for Napoleon. And in some cases had done so twice.

Treason is treason.

Again, as the king had dissolved the French army on his journey to Belgium, I would submit that the oath was null and void.

Sincerely,
K

10th Marines,

You get the timing wrong. The army had begun to desert en masse to Napoleon well before the king fled. The king dissolving the French Army neither absolves those guilty of treason before that date nor sanctions the recreation of a new French Army loyal to an usurper.

You pretend, in direct opposition to the facts, that the Bourbons vacated the throne and left it to Napoleon, when actually they fled when it became clear that the army would no longer support them. The army was disbanded for its disloyalty – its treason – not to give it carte blanche to support Napoleon.

Kevin,

Psychobabble? No, just an observation on your behaviour.

Kevin

If you agree with some people posting here you are wonderful and clever, but if you disagree there is something wrong with you. Thinking for yourself and disagreeing, that will never do.

Best thing is to laugh at such silly posts or ignore them. They will never change their minds or views and they prefer to see anyone who admires Napoleon as a worshipper of the great man, rather than just an admirer.

As I say, just laugh at them or ignore them.

Whirlwind

Not a single reason they should have – really? How about the thousands who died furing the Hundred Days campaign? Don't they count?

Not a single reason they should have – really? How about the thousands who died furing the Hundred Days campaign? Don't they count?

I was referring to the millions of people who had already died in Napoleon's imperial projects.

I honestly don't know why you can't admit that the previous Napoleonic invasions of the Allied countries would make Napoleon unacceptable to those whose countries had been attacked. It shouldn't be a difficult or contentious point.

As a comparison:

Let us pretend that the invasion of Iraq did not end with Saddam Hussein being executed but that he was exiled to one of the Islands in the Persian Gulf. A year later, the Allies having withdrawn, Saddam returns to Iraq, the army (which has not been disbanded) rallies to him and he takes back power in a bloodless coup (ok, I realise that the idea of Saddam doing anything in a bloodless way is ridiculous but…); he sets about reinforcing his army and rearming it with new weapons, while telling the world that he is a new, reformed Saddam, one who now believes in love, peace and little spring lambs and has no intention of ever invading anyone ever again.

Would the rest of the region and the Allies be expected to say: "Ok, yeah, despite all of your history and everything it cost to get rid of you, we will give you another chance. Be a good lad."

Kevin, you wrote:

"As for Arnold, the United States had been recognized by the French two years (1778) before Arnold's treason (1780). And the American flag had been saluted by both the Dutch and the French before the official recognition by the French with the Alliance. Further, the name of the new country, the United States, came into being in 1776."

With respect, what really mattered was when Great Britain accepted the independence of its one-time colonies. The French simply sided with the rebels to strike at their enemy, Britain, – perhaps in revenge for losing Canada?

Had Britain succeeded in defeating the rebel armies, capturing and hanging Washington et al. and restoring rule by the Crown, there would have been no USA, de facto or de jure, whatever the French might opine.

Suppose Britain and other European countries had recognised the CSA, but that the Civil War still ended as it did in 1865 with surrender to the US – would that the Confederacy then existed and that no one who had taken up arms for the south had committed treason?

I don't think you have it both ways…

What really mattered is that the British were defeated and had to recognize the independence of the United States. The only holdings the British had in the thirteen states were three seaports: New York, Charleston, and Savannah. The British had lost two armies by surrender-at Saratoga and Yorktown. And Saratoga was accomplished without French troops on the ground.

As an interesting footnote, the British representatives at the peace signing refused to sit for the usual portrait, which was interesting.

And the British regiments in North America and elsewhere throughout that war, and that had performed so well, were never recognized with battle honors by their own government. That to me is disgusting.

Sincrely,
K

That's exactly my point: it was the military defeat of Britain (whether these defeats were secured with/without French assistance is surely irrelevant – I simply commented that French recognition of the USA would have no significance without GB being defeated) and signing of the peace treaty that ensured that the USA would be recognized as an independent country.

So, Arnold's actions in fighting for the rebels, could have been treated as treason by GB at the time, because the colonies had not yet secured their independence; GB chose not to prosecute him when he returned to the Crown. One cannot be a traitor to a country that does not yet exist, though one can, of course, betray one's comrades in arms, which Arnold certainly did.

I once overheard an American tourist at the Queenston Heights Park in Canada opine that Roger Sheaffe, who succeeded Brock as CO British forces in that battle, was 'a traitor to the USA' because he had been born in the Colonies! ignoring the fact that Sheaffe had been born a British citizen before the AWI and that his family chose to relocate to GB rather than become citizens of the USA (indeed, they may even have left before the USA was recognised by Britain) so he never owed any allegiance to the USA. Any other view would make all Loyalists into traitors to the new country – but perhaps that is a view American citizens are encouraged in?

Kevin,
The British establishment have to keep up appearances – have their pride you know. As it was just a civil war :p

btw would be interested to know if any of the loyalist regiments transferred on peace to the US establishment ? especially volunteers and so forth – or where they too much like traitors? but if so did they get their battle honours ?

Obviously I know of the 60th staying with the British army but I am not aware of what happened to any others.

Whirlwind

If the Allies really wanted peace and really did not want further bloodshed being spilt, they should have given him a chance. This is a man who marched back to the thone without bloodshed. He did not have to fight his way out and he did not execute the opposition. You have to ask yourself who did they really go to war with Napoleon for and cause further bloodshed in 1815 – themselves or for France?

colinjallen

No, they would have said 'You've got weapons of mass destruction and we'll prove it by destroying your regime'

Silly comparison really. Perhaps you should stick to the period. You might have better luck then?

Battle honours were not awarded because it was deemed to be a war against rebellious British citizens rather than a war against a foreign power. As the forces of a foreign power were only involved in one significant land action and that was a catastrophic, and largely self-inflicted, British defeat, no battle honours were awarded for that, either.

Gazzola,
I can always rely on you to miss the point:).

You have to ask yourself who did they really go to war with Napoleon for and cause further bloodshed in 1815 – themselves or for France?

Themselves, obviously. The thing made plain from the end of the 1814 campaign was that Napoleon was totally unacceptable to the Allies as ruler of France as a result of his empire-buiding and he personally was identified as the individual enemy of the peace.

The Allies wanted peace and they had been consistent that it was Napoleon himself who was the obstacle to that peace.

I am puzzled where you are going with this?

colinjallen

I can say the same about you – but what the heck, life goes on, eh!

Whirlwind

I wasn't going anywhere with it, I was just disagreeing with your view that the Allies could not have let him rule. I believe they could and should have let him rule and not caused further deaths and misery because of their fear of what might have happened.

And so glad you agree they were doing it for themselves and not for France.

And so glad you agree they were doing it for themselves and not for France

Yep, I don't think this is contentious at all.

I was just disagreeing with your view that the Allies could not have let him rule. I believe they could and should have let him rule and not caused further deaths and misery because of their fear of what might have happened.

Let us look at the text of Napoleon's 1814 abdication:

"The Allied powers having proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and for his heirs,the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, not even of life itself, that he is unwilling to make in the interest of France."

Can you not see how after the Allies made him abdicate on these terms in April 1814, the idea of giving Napoleon 'a chance' in 1815 is laughable? Note when Napoleon wrote this – when he had been trounced by the Allies and at his least dangerous – 'fear' at this stage was not the motive, it was his previous behaviour.

The Allies would never, could never and should never have allowed Napoleon the chance to be a man of peace. He'd just spent the last 20 years proving the exact opposite. He had been in a position many times to enforce a just and equitable peace, but showed no interest in doing anything which meant giving up his conquests.

It would be nice if you could just admit that it would have been better for Napoleon, France and Europe if he could have stayed in comfortable retirement and written his memoirs rather than plunging Europe into yet more bloodshed.

and not caused further deaths and misery because of their fear of what might have happened.

Sigh. No. Not what 'might have happened', what the man had actually done . Ignore the prior 20 years if you want, anything to try and blame anyone else but Napoleon.

Whirlwind

At his least dangerous? Interesting statement. Are you aware that Wellington was impressed with Napoleon's 1814 campaign and believed he could have saved Paris?

You keep going on about the previous wars, some of which were NOT started by Napoleon. The Austrians invading Bavaria for example. So please change the rhetoric.

And my view is not based on using anything to try and blame anyone else and to think as such is pretty feeble.

However, if Napoleon had had to fight his way back to the throne, with hundreds or thousands of Frenchmen killed, then I would say yes, he should have stayed away. But the reality is that he came back to a country that mostly welcomed and wanted him back.

The people of France did not want further wars but they did want Napoleon as their leader. Did the Allies take any heed of that – no, they never even took into consideration what the people of France wanted for one second.

If you want to continue blaming Napoleon for returning and reclaiming his throne without killing anyone and for the deaths of thousands after the Allies declared war, then that's your choice. But I wonder why you just can't accept that it was the reactions of the Allies that led to further bloodshed? After all, it is not going to change anything, is it?

I guess, rather than keep repeating ourselves, we should just consider agreeing to disagree. You have your views and I have mine.

Well, what had Napoleon actually done…?

Sincerely,
K

For an interesting perspective on Napoleon's return from Elba, especially regarding the Bourbons treatment of the army, see 1815: The Return of Napoleon by Paul Britton Austin.

Sincerely,
K

"Well, what had Napoleon actually done…?"

He'd been a very naughty boy.

It would be a nice if a Bonapartist could for once try not to pretend white is black:

At his least dangerous? Interesting statement. Are you aware that Wellington was impressed with Napoleon's 1814 campaign and believed he could have saved Paris?

I am aware of that. But I'm not on about the general nature of the 1814 campaign. I'm on about the period when Napoleon was defeated and the Allies were dictating terms.

You keep going on about the previous wars, some of which were NOT started by Napoleon. The Austrians invading Bavaria for example. So please change the rhetoric.

As you know very well, the Austrians were trying to recover territory previously taken by the French which Napoleon's claim on was solely by right of conquest – which equally the Austrians were entitled to reverse. However your point is utterly irrelevant to the question we are discussing. The Allies thought he was pretty much to blame for it all, so they weren't going to allow him to remain ruler of France. Simple. The abdication text is totally clear on this point.

And my view is not based on using anything to try and blame anyone else and to think as such is pretty feeble.

Well it clearly is. You want to apportion blame to where it doesn't belong (the Allies) to excuse the man who is to blame (Napoleon).

However, if Napoleon had had to fight his way back to the throne, with hundreds or thousands of Frenchmen killed, then I would say yes, he should have stayed away. But the reality is that he came back to a country that mostly welcomed and wanted him back.

The people of France did not want further wars but they did want Napoleon as their leader. Did the Allies take any heed of that – no, they never even took into consideration what the people of France wanted for one second.

Well, this is reasonably debateable whether the majority of French people wanted Napoleon back (although clearly there wasn't much enthusiasm for the Bourbons, understandly enough), however not really relevant. The key point was that the army and its officers betrayed the Bourbon king and sided with Napoleon in his coup d'etat. However, as I think everyone agrees that the Allies (i.e. the vast majority of the rest of Europe) were doing this for their own benefit, and they certainly wouldn't have considered that the French people had the 'right' to have Napoleon as its leader. Why? Because he had spent the last 20 years fighting them .

I wonder why you just can't accept that it was the reactions of the Allies that led to further bloodshed? After all, it is not going to change anything, is it?

I don't wonder why you can't accept that it was the actions of Napoleon that led to that bloodshed – Bonapartist hero-worship.

I guess, rather than keep repeating ourselves, we should just consider agreeing to disagree. You have your views and I have mine.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree and move on. If you don't respond to this post I'll assume you have done so, and we'll leave it there.

Regards

Do you even know what a Bonapartist is?

There aren't any here on this forum, as I have seen no one trying to reinstate, or advocate the reinstatement, of the Bonaparte dynasty in France.

Bonapartist is also a largely mid-19th century term, and denotes a political identity. That isn't going on here.

What it usually is used as on the forums, especially this one, is as a pejorative term to attempt to ridicule people with whom some forum members disagree.

Your move.

Sincerely,
K

Do you even know what a Bonapartist is?

Yes. I like the condescending and arrogant 'even' though.

What it usually is used as on the forums, especially this one, is as a pejorative term to attempt to ridicule people with whom some forum members disagree.

Read back what you have written – you will find this is literally totally inaccurate. A hint: you will need to use the word 'Napoleon' [or Bonaparte/Buonaparte etc.]in there somewhere to make it work.

You are right though:'Bonapartist' doesn't strictly mean 'person who idolizes Napoleon and spends their time on toy soldier/military miniature forums using tendentious arguments and the most blatant double standards to try and protect the spotless image they have of their hero', but I thought 'Bonapartist' was close enough. And since everyone knows exactly who I am on about, it was probably a fair enough shout. But I'm open to suggestions for a different word?

Do you even know what tendentious means?

Here, let me help you: link

Your move

Grow up

Whirlwind

I admire Napoleon and what he achieved. If you feel that makes me a Bonapartist in your eyes, so be it. That's your choice and I imagine, judging by your posts, it might make you feel better thinking that and save you questioning your own viewpoint.

But really, Bonapartist hero-worship? That is just plain silly and you know it. It makes me wonder if I have hit a nerve? That, and your dismissal of my viewpoint, because it doesn't fit in with your biased viewpoint is also very revealing, if not a little pathetic.

And it is also interesting that you feel the French people had no right as to who should rule them – that it was up to the Allies who should rule or not rule their own country – very revealing indeed.

But as Kevin says, it is all a matter of viewpoints and agreeing and disagreeing on matters here, nothing else – that's why it is called a discussion forum. Surely you don't expect everyone to agree with you, do you?

You blame Napoleon I blame the Allies – live with it! Don't beat yourself up about it. I can assure you I'm certainly not bothered by anything you say.

Finally, to pinch one of your lines, if you do not reply to this post I will assume you have decided to move on. No problem if that is the case.

Poor Gazzola, he so desperately needs to have the last word and really does not understand himself at all:)).

Oh I see you couldn't agree to disagree. Too bad.

But really, Bonapartist hero-worship? That is just plain silly and you know it.

No, it about sums it up.

It makes me wonder if I have hit a nerve?

LOL. You would have to write something interesting and cogent to do that.

That, and your dismissal of my viewpoint, because it doesn't fit in with your biased viewpoint is also very revealing, if not a little pathetic.

I think that your insults of 'biased' and 'pathetic' show exactly whose nerves have been hit. I don't agree with your viewpoint because it doesn't take into account the facts. You haven't engaged with the arguments once.

And it is also interesting that you feel the French people had no right as to who should rule them – that it was up to the Allies who should rule or not rule their own country – very revealing indeed.

Read what I wrote again. You'll notice that I haven't said that or anything like that. On re-reading you'll notice that what I said was that the Allies didn't take the feelings of the French people into account and weren't going to. I look forward to your apology for this.

But as Kevin says, it is all a matter of viewpoints and agreeing and disagreeing on matters here, nothing else – that's why it is called a discussion forum. Surely you don't expect everyone to agree with you, do you?.

No. But it would be a better forum if people would at least engage with the arguments and the debate, instead of reprising the tired old lines ad infinitum and gave any sense that they were listening to other opinions, new evidence and so on.

You blame Napoleon I blame the Allies – live with it! Don't beat yourself up about it. I can assure you I'm certainly not bothered by anything you say.

Haha. Only one person with their knickers in a twist round here – you. But since you aren't bothered, I look forward to you not responding to this post.

Finally, to pinch one of your lines, if you do not reply to this post I will assume you have decided to move on. No problem if that is the case.

Ah, this wasn't in your original post. No, no, my dear fellow, I must insist: you don't care and aren't bothered and have moved on – I look forward greatly to your non-reply so I can rest assured your nerves haven't been hit.

No. But it would be a better forum if people would at least engage with the arguments and the debate, instead of reprising the tired old lines ad infinitum and gave any sense that they were listening to other opinions, new evidence and so on.

Well said!