"Who were Napoleon's friends?" Topic

Both Wargames Foundry and Perry Miniatures have produced a set of figures of Napoleon and his staff but were these individuals actually Napoleon's closest friends, as well as senior military officers?

link

link

This is part of a general interest of mine on who exactly were those closely in attendance of big personality military figures, Kings, and Presidents. Did they have non-military friends in regular contact with them? Were they ever able to 'ground themselves' away from work?

Thanks

I always thought Marshal Lannes was one of his friends.
One of the few allowed to address him informally.
Cried when he died.

Beethoven was quite enamored of Napoleon early on. One of his symphonies (No.3 – "Eroica") was written with him in mind. However, as Napoleon grabbed more power, Beethoven's feelings swung the other way. That being said, I do not recognize him as any of the figures pictured in your links. Later on they both did share a common vocation. After death, they both started de-COMPOSING!

Lannes, Bessières, Caulaincourt I *think*. There were some others. I haven't ever sought out such an answer but as Korvessa notes, in some cases you can judge how close he was to someone based on his response to their death (should they have died).

I think it is hard for someone in a position similar to Napoleon's to have friends, so I suppose those I noted and others are likely "as close as it came" to friendships. I wouldn't limit this at all to Napoleon – I doubt Alexander or Charles had a lot of really close friends either.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Only a dog gives unconditional love. I hear that Napoleon was a cat person.

To some degree, Napoleon's family, mostly his brothers and sisters, filled this role. This did not always work out well.

Grelber

I think he was pretty close to Junot in the early days.

You're all forgetting Marmont, le Duc de Ragusa, the ultimate betrayal in 1814…

Napoleon was Corsican….. He didn't have friends, just clan….. And enemies……

"But is it significant that some of the most feared and ruthless conquerors in history are said to have detested cats? Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Napoléon Bonaparte were all apparently cat-haters, as were Julius Caesar, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and General (later US President) Dwight D. Eisenhower."
[from Purr 'n Fur]

Any cat would have seen through The Corsican Tyrant.

Wellington, on the other hand, was a firm believer in 'the cat'! ;)

Wellington was his best friend, when ever they had the chance both would sneak away from what ever war they were in and get togeather for fine wine and tea.

It was a kind of Hephistion Alaxander kind of relationship

Not sure he had any real friends. I think the closest would be Lannes, Bessieres and Marmont. He was more a user of people.

While not at all about friends, this book gives excellent insight into his administrative abilities and the "inner circle' of men who helped him change France.

link

I hear he was VERY fond of himself!

I'd read he(Napoleon) had a phobia about cats.

Napoleon not only had friends, but, contrary to the period propaganda which has been repeated ad nauseum, since 1815, he valued both friendship and people. Berthier, Rapp, Savary, Mouton, Lannes, Bessieres, Duroc, Junot, Roederer, Lavalette are some of the men that Napoleon counted as friends and returned the friendship.

Others, such as Talleyrand and Marmont, were treated and counted as friends, but would betray Napoleon for their own benefit.

The following two passages by Vincent Cronin in his biography of Napoleon are illustrative of Napoleon's character and his idea of friendship:

'Napoleon created the Empire with the help of friends, and with the help of friends he ruled it, not just a few intimates, but very many friends of every class and many skills. He was able to win these friends and keep their loyalty because he himself was a good friend to them. Loke most second sons, he was unselfconscious, a good mixer and took easily to people. On top of this, he was a soldier. From the age of eight to twenty-seven he had lived in a masculine society which valued friendship above everything.'-271.

'Napoleon was a friend also to soldiers in the ranks. He remembered their names and addressed them with the friendly 'to'. He showed how he field about them by sharing their hardships and dangers. 'You should have seen our Emperor, my dear Maman,' wrote light infantryman Deflambard after the Battle of Jena, 'always in the thick of it, heartening his troops. We saw several colonels and generals fall at his side; we even saw him with a group of riflemen if full view of the enemy. Marshal Bessieres and Prince Murat pointed out that he was exposing himself unduly, whereupon he turned to them calmly: 'What do you take me for-a bishop?'

B

Gouvion St. Cyr?

AKA though, methinks he was on very friendly "Hail Fellow, Well Met!" terms with the following when he was dealing with them:

Bessieres

Salicetti…after the body cavity search, of course.

Duroc

Thanks for that Brechtel I might get a copy of Cronin's book.

Although it is sympathetic towards Napoleon, and for that reason some don't like it, it is the best I have read on Napoleon.

Cronin doesn't resort to the psychobabble that McLynn does, it is thoroughly researched and sourced, and has an excellent appendix on memoir writers and Napoleon.

Cronin stays away from the campaigns and concentrates on Napoleon as a man and head of state, and the political aspects of his rule.

B

"You're all forgetting Marmont, le Duc de Ragusa, the ultimate betrayal in 1814…"

Well in civilized society, we would say he (Marmont) came to his senses. Napoleon refused any peace terms and so got what he deserved. I'm no fan of the warmongering British either, but it takes two to tango.

But on the subject as a whole, friends would be too strong a word for most of the people named here. Those who served with the Napoleon of 1798 were only partially loyal the man after 1812. The lack of concern for the massive loss of life, almost all of it unnecessarily, certainly had to take its toll.

All the marshals and Napoleon's family became wealthy and semi powerful in their own way. They wanted to preserve and enjoy what they had earned one way or another. One might say Davout, Massena and Soult, as they never really appeared to be upset with Napoleon. But friends or just colleagues?

Well in civilized society, we would say he (Marmont) came to his senses. Napoleon refused any peace terms and so got what he deserved. I'm no fan of the warmongering British either, but it takes two to tango.

You say "civilized society" but your comment reads more along the lines of "if you believe Napoleon was in the wrong then Marmont's actions don't seem bad."

Which I will grant is logically true.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Thanks again B.

If you take a look at what Marmont did and who he 'negotiated' with, the actions that Marmont undertook can only be considered as treasonous. He betrayed his corps to the allies while a state of war existed.

Attempting to excuse treason is amazing to my mind, especially as Marmont was only treated very well by Napoleon. That also goes on today and recently, which is also amazing.

The war was for all intents and purposes over. Marmont's actions mistakenly demonstrated to the allies that the army was not supportive of Napoleon. Marmont's troops had no idea what was going on between their corps and division commanders, Talleyrand (who had already committed treason), and the allies.

What Marmont's actions actually accomplished was ruin any chance of a regency for Napoleon II and Marie Louise which the marshals and senior generals wanted, and brought back the Bourbons which the army did not want.

All the Bourbons did was misrule which would bring Napoleon back in 1815.

B

You're welcome, OB.

"Attempting to excuse treason is amazing to my mind, especially as Marmont was only treated very well by Napoleon. That also goes on today and recently, which is also amazing."

Well as you said, the war was for intents and purposes over. Why shed more blood for a leader who doesn't really want peace? Napoleon had opportunities but rejected them. Is Marmont supposed to get his men and possibily himself killed so some kid might get to rule when he grows up? It's laughable. What the generals wanted doesn't matter, the Allies were the ones going to dictate terms at the end of the day.

The Bourbons were corrupt and poor rulers, no disagreement there. Calling it all treason though is borderline abuse of the actual term. Marmont and his men would be no more than a speedbump in the overall scheme of things. The people were tired of the war and the amount of deserters/defectors validates that. The Bourbons weren't loved, but they were seen as a way to gain peace and bring open borders again.

The great victory Napoleon hoped for wasn't a reality as the numbers were completely against him.

And has anybody read the book by Alan Schom Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life? One of the worse biographies

the Old Guard?

Was Marmont a traitor…

To Napoleon? Yes.
To France? Debatable.

Marmont did betray Napoleon, you can say you think it was a good decision but you can't deny it was a betrayal.

Cheers,

The Bandit

The Cronin "biography", wherein he parses on and on about what a great pal Napoléon could be to everyone, can be described as laying somewhere between "unrelentingly positive" and "hagiographic".
An example of Cronin's views on Napoléon:
"Napoleon's guiding purpose in the Empire was to export liberty, equality, justice and sovereignty of the people".
Too bad, I suppose, that Britain, Holland, Spain, much of Italy, Portugal, the German-speaking states, Austria and Russia didn't see the much of any of these from the French Empire.

A review of Cronin's book is here : link
Most damaging to the credibility of this work, in my opinion, is that "[t}he use of the primary sources is very selective", as the reviewer linked above describes.

===================================

We have a somewhat more contemporary description, that of Napoléon's private secretary and personal diplomatic envoy, de Bourrienne. The following quote is from the English translation of his memoirs, recalling a conversation from 1802 (before Napoléon became emperor) :

"One of Bonaparte's greatest misfortunes was that he did not believe in friendship, nor did he feel the necessity of loving, the most gratifying sentiment given to man. How often has he said to me, 'Friendship is but a name; I love no one – no, not even my brothers; Joseph, perhaps, a little; and if I do love him, it is from habit, and because he is my elder. Duroc! ah, yes, I love him too; but why? his character pleases me; he is cold, reserved, and resolute; and I really believe he never shed a tear! As to myself, it is all one to me; I know well that I have not one true friend.'"
See page 113 : link

Biographical notes for de Bourrienne : link and link

- Sasha

The author of the referenced review would not, in my opinion, review any book on Napoleon favorably that is sympathetic to Napoleon, based on conversations with that author and myself on the referenced site. And the review itself is not accurate as far as I'm concerned and is biased in itself. In short, it isn't an accurate representation of the book being reviewed. That being said, I do respect the author in question and she is entitled to her opinions. I just don't happen to agree with her.

Regarding Bourrienne and his memoirs, using Bourrienne either has to be very carefully done as the book itself was ghost-written and Bourrienne himself was canned by Napoleon for embezzlement when he was Napoleon's secretary and for a second time for embezzlement in Hamburg after Napoleon gave him a second chance, as they had gone to school together. The inaccurate statement on friendship by Bourrienne, or Bourrienne's ghost writer, is inaccurate on its face as Napoleon reemployed Bourrienne after being found to be dishonest in his financial dealings because of friendship.

Cronin, whose appendix in his book critiques various memoir writers and Napoleon, says this about Bourrienne's alleged memoirs, on pages 442-443 in his biography of Napoleon:

'Louis-Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne was the same age as Napoleon, with whom he attended Brienne and the Ecole Militaire. Then he left the army to become a diplomat. He studied languages in Germany and married a German girl. In 1797 Napoleon appointed him his secretary. But Bourrienne had what Napoleon called 'a magpie'e eye' and began to embezzle. When Napoleon gave Hortense a Paris house as a wedding present, Bourrienne paid half a million francs for the house but charged it to Napoleon as one million. He passed on hews of Napoleon's doings to an interested party for 25,000 francs a month. Napoleon had to dismiss him in 1802, but sent him in 1804 to Hamburg as charge d'affaires. Here Bourrienne carried on a profitable trade in forged passports and illegal exactions. A special investigating commission found, in 1810, that Bourrienne had embezzled 2 million francs. Napoleon removed Bourrienne from his post and ordered him to pay back half the sum.'

'At the fall of France Bourrienne hurried to Talleyrand, who, on 1 April 1814, had him appointed Minister of Post, while the Provisional Government cancelled the order whereby he must repay a million francs. Later Bourrienne became Minister of State. But he continued to speculate, lost his job, and in order to escape his creditors, fled to Brussels. A publisher named Ladvocat persuaded him to write his Memoirs as a way of paying his debts, brought him to Paris and installed him in a small room. But Bourrienne wrote nothing. All he did was to make notes on which, later, the first two volumes were based. As for the eight other volumes, they were ghosted by Maxine de Villemarest, a failed diplomat turned journalist, an indefatigable 'ghoster' of Memoirs-he even worked up the notes of Mademoiselle Avrillon, Josephine's chambermaid-and an admirer of Talleyrand, whose Life he was also to write. In 1834 Bourrienne died in a lunatic asylum.'

'So the Memoirs which appeared under Bourrienne's name between 1828 and 1830 and for which he was paid 6,000 francs were hardly more than a travesty of Napoleon's life cooked up for Louis XVIII's reading public, the tone of them set by a bitter personal enemy, whose mind was already becoming unhinged. This became quite plain in 1830, when a group of men headed by Comte Boulay de la Meurthe pointed out the main factual mistaks in a book of 720 pages: Bourrienne et ses erreurs. It would never have got past the French censors, and was published in Brussels.'

'The most ironical falsehood in Bourrienne's Memoirs is the statement that Napoleon had no friends and cared nothing for friendship. The truth is that Napoleon went to great pains to hush up the scandal of Bourrienne's embezzlements, and it was precisely out of loyalty to a boyhood friend that he did not publicly disgrace Bourrienne, first in 1802, then in 1810.'

'In Bourrienne's Memoirs it is said that when he first went to Egypt Napoleon had already decided to make himself ruler of France, and was merely biding his time. This of course tallied with the legend already put out by the Bourbons that Napoleon was an upstart driven from first to last by ambition for supreme power. The statement in Bourrienne is belied by all contemporary evidence, but has done more to bedevil interpretation of Napoleon's character than almost any other single error.'

So, the conclusion can be made that Bourrienne's alleged memoirs are grossly inaccurate and cannot be used for reference or research.

B

Kevin,

I know you like the Cronin "biography", and would disagree with a negative review of it.

A big focus for Cronin – a modern secondary source – is countering de Bourrienne's contemporary and (in places) negative assessment of Napoléon's personality. He is not the first, as such a frank assessment of Napoléon as was de Bourrienne's has caused a vocal and indeed strident reaction from Napoléon's apologists from the day it was published. If Cronin thought to footnote the passage that you have quoted above, it would be to the works of those who opposed de Bourrienne's account as tarniching the glory of their (fallen) emperor.

I just thought that the readers here might appreciate a look at both sides of the question, since your cheer-leading post here, and Cronin's "biography", included only one side.

- Sasha

The bottom line is that Bourrienne is not a credible source, pure and simple. And his 'assessment' of Napoleon's personality is incorrect and based on personal spite, and not fact.

I'm amazed that you cannot realize that.

Bourrienne is one of the worst sources of the period and should not be used for reference and research.

In short, they are mendacious and worthless.

B

"Bourrienne himself was canned by Napoleon for embezzlement when he was Napoleon's secretary and for a second time for embezzlement in Hamburg after Napoleon gave him a second chance"

Not quite.

Bourrienne's job was eliminated because Napoleon annexed the Hanse cities and amalgamated them into new French departements. As Bourrienne was not a Prefect, there was no longer any need for his role, as governor of an occupied city. Thus Napoleon could dismiss him without the embarrassment of actually "firing" him.

Second, Napoleon supposedly ordered Bourrienne to "give back half" (how nice) of all the plunder he'd made while in charge in Hamburg, but there is no evidence that he ever did.

I spent weeks in the state archive of Hamburg in the late 1990s, researching this exact period, including this specific topic.

I found dozens of first-hand accounts of Bourrienne's mischief, such as arresting people and then ransoming them back to their families, trumped-up charges of smuggling in order to seize ships and confiscate their goods, faked customs reports available for bribes, and all sorts of other corruptions.

I never found one shred of evidence that any of that was ever repaid. Not one mention of repayment in any memoir or document. Not one lawsuit that was settled. So if you think he ever gave any of it back, then please cite me the primary source.

(Indeed it was the Bourbons, not Napoleon, who eventually ordered Bourienne to account for his misbegotten fortunes by threatening him with arrest, but I still don't see any evidence that he paid up, and by the 1820s it was all dropped.)

--

And of course, Bourrienne's "disgrace" never got him any prison time, nor even a trial. So if we're talking about a regime that practiced the rule of law, somebody needs to explain how kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, and embezzlement are not criminal actions.

And it goes without saying that Bourrienne couldn't have done any of it without the cooperation of dozens, perhaps hundreds of other French officers, from common douanes to police officials and higher. To my knowledge, none of them were ever charged, either.

As you say, Napoleon was "good" to his friends.

My, this debate is getting a bit heated: calm down gentlemen! My understanding was that that Bourienne is generally regarded as a highly unreliable source by historians today, not only by the biographer mentioned above.

"Bourrienne is one of the worst sources of the period and should not be used for reference and research."

Sure Kevin, you go ahead and tell us all what we "should not" read or consider. If we look to you to act as the great censor, maybe we will avoid any unflattering views of Napoléon or his Empire.

It is easier to preserve Napoléon's glory untarniched if we only read things that you endorse, right ?

- Sasha

It is easier to preserve Napoléon's glory untarniched if we only read things that you endorse, right ?

Hey now, Kevin doesn't get final say on what material 'we' allow to be considered regarding Napoleon's history – we follow parliamentary procedure… ironically.

;-)

Cheers,

The Bandit

I think the King of Saxony; Frederick August the First, was a true friend to Napoleon. Unfortunately he and his country suffered for his loyalty.

Not an outcome of the victory to take pride in, is my view.

I think the King of Saxony; Frederick August the First, was a true friend to Napoleon. Unfortunately he and his country suffered for his loyalty.

Not an outcome of the victory to take pride in, is my view.

Loyalty is one of those things that if the situation doesn't go lousy, giving it [loyalty] was easy. Random religious peoples who have been persecuted for their beliefs (everyone has been at some point right?) can be said to be loyal to their faith because they stuck with it when things were bad. Sticking with it when things are good is… easy… and therefore is not much of a demonstration of loyalty.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Again the same old boring issues with Marmont – he didn't betray France and that was his top loyality – his patrie.

Otherwise – Napoleon's friends – I would like to ask whose friend was Napoleon?? He didn't seem to be the friend of anyone.

The king of Saxony definitely was mistreated by the allies. Prussia actually wanted the whole of Saxony but had to settle for forty percent of the country and the army (which would later mutiny against the Prussians).

The unfortunate demise of the Confederation of the Rhine opened up the gradual absorption of northern and western Germany by Prussia which got more than a good start in 1814.

It also signaled the beginning of the end of Austrian dominance in western Germany.

Sincerely,
M

Bandit,
"Was Marmont a traitor…

To Napoleon? Yes.
To France? Debatable.

Marmont did betray Napoleon, you can say you think it was a good decision but you can't deny it was a betrayal."

But you don't commit treason against a person, you do it against a country. Betrayed Napoleon? Yes, we'll agree there as that's the correct word.

Von Winterfeldt,

"Otherwise – Napoleon's friends – I would like to ask whose friend was Napoleon?? He didn't seem to be the friend of anyone."

Indeed, whose friend was he? This likely would have been the better question for the post to begin with.

The dead

He made enough of them.

'The dead He made enough of them.'

Napoleon had a lot of help for and during the wars.

B

Note to Napoleon's friends, don't get an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle or go on a hunting trip with N, the results are likely to be the same.

ThePeninsularWarin15mm,

But you don't commit treason against a person, you do it against a country.

Really? You're saying you can't commit treason against a sovereign? So prior to the creation of nation states as an entity it was just impossible to commit treason… interesting position.

I'm always confused by these two positions:

ThePeninsularWarin15mm: I'm no fan of the warmongering British either, but it takes two [Napoleon included] to tango.

OSchmidtL The dead

He made enough of them.

On the one hand, when Austria declared war on France in 1805 and 1809, Napoleon should not have responded? On the other hand he is held responsible for everyone who died?

It just seems… logically inconsistent.

Cheers,

The Bandit

wow……there are some good points here, but really…..

Brechetl, again, you have some good points. Small note. "he used "Tu" (ie: you), not "to". "Tu" is the familiar, as opposed to "Vous" (ie: you), which is the polite…the verb, interestingly enough is "tutoyer" or "vousvoyer")(translation: "to use tu")

The King of Wurttemberg was a strong ally and supporter of Napoleon.

wait, we're NOT talking about this Napoleon?

imdb.com/title/tt0113932

otherwise, he was too cute not to like.

'My, this debate is getting a bit heated: calm down gentlemen!'
Hahahahahaha! imagine if that was all it took!

Oh stop it, my make-ups ruined!

John

in case you tutoyer somebody – doesn't mean automatically he is your friend.

"in case you tutoyer somebody – doesn't mean automatically he is your friend."

Indeed.

In general, one did "tutoyer" all social inferiors, especially in spoken conversation. For an emperor, that would be everybody.
It was patroninzing (rather literally), not a sign of friendship.
This convention did begin to break down a bit after the French revolution. In the time of the First Empire, Napoléon's tutoyer was likely seen rather ambiguously.

By the way, same in Russian : ты / вы ( ty / vy) …. and same breakdown of the convention after the bolshevik revolution. The verb like tutoyer is тыкать / tykat'.
My wife, who is Russian, goes ballistic if someone, to her sensibilities, addresses her with ты "inappropriately". But she is a terrible snob sometimes – and also she equates a too general use of ты with the loss of social standards that was occassioned by the repression of the upper middle class and nobles by the communists.

English had thee / you historically …. but by the early 1600's was beginning to move to using the more respectful "you" for everyone – one supposes from a more egalitarian spirit.
Still, in 1603, Sir Edward Coke, prosecuting for the Crown, sought to insult Raleigh by saying,
"I thou thee, thou traitor!"
(disrespectfully calling him by the familiar, as a traitor unworthy of respect).

- Sasha

We still use thee and thou in some parts….and you have to be careful confusing the familiar with the disrespectful!

I do know the answer to the OP though – Brechtel, Bandit, TW…

And the answer to the reciprical (those of us who hate him rabidly and unthinkingly) – me, von Winter's Field, arthur1815, Sparker….

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you, just because you're rabid doesn't mean you are wrong!