Bandit | 08 May 2014 3:58 p.m. PST |
Adam name not long enough, You made me laugh with that one, I always enjoy when you post. Cheers, The Bandit |
Sparker | 08 May 2014 4:33 p.m. PST |
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 The King of Saxony stuck by Napoleon when the tide was going against him, and all the other Monarchs Napoleon had set up and had sensed this and defected to the allies. He was the only Rheinbund Monarch to be detained by the Allies after the war, and his Kingdom came close to being dismembered because of his loyalty to Napoleon. As it was 57% of Saxon territory and 42% of the Saxon population was turned over to Prussia. Hardly 'sticking with it when things are good'! |
Sparker | 08 May 2014 4:43 p.m. PST |
(those of us who hate him rabidly and unthinkingly) – me, von Winter's Field, arthur1815, Sparker
. Very good! However, for what its worth, I wouldn't describe myself as a Napoleon hater. Hate is something I reserve for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and in our time, the insane theocrats who wage war on schoolgirls because they dare to go to school, and on Polio vaccinators because – well God only knows! Napoleon actually left a constructive legacy behind to France, and indeed Europe, not something the other dictators did to their peoples. And in many ways he was a humanist – he was blind to colour or other religious prejudice, and, whilst favouring his own clan, did in the generality favour meritocracy, if not democracy! And of course his campaigns and leadership continue to fascinate! |
Brechtel198 | 08 May 2014 4:44 p.m. PST |
The King of Wurttemberg stayed loyal until after Leipzig when he was being threatened by the allies. The Wurttemberg contingent turned for home around Fulda during the retreat across Germany, and the French hailed them as 'good comrades' when they turned for home. The King of Wurttemberg disbanded the two cavalry regiments of his that refused to charge at Leipzig and cashiered their commander, Normann. B |
Bandit | 08 May 2014 4:47 p.m. PST |
Sparker, Either you misunderstood me or I was unclear, maybe both. You said that the King of Saxony got screwed for sticking it out and (I thought) you were critical of that decision. So in response I was saying that had it not been crappy for the King of Saxony it would not of demonstrated much in the way of loyalty. I'd concur that in the event the King of Saxony did all he could in pursuit of loyalty. Cheers, The Bandit |
Sparker | 08 May 2014 4:50 p.m. PST |
Yes, thanks, I see – my post was ambiguous. So, to be clear, I thought the King's loyalty, in sticking by N, in the interests of his people and out of gratitude, was laudable, and his post war treatment by the Allies was regrettable. |
John Miller | 08 May 2014 5:37 p.m. PST |
Brecthl198: Although I have had the book by Cronin for sometime I have never got around to reading it. Following your interesting comments above I will begin to correct this oversight at the very first opportunity. Thanks, John Miller |
The Traveling Turk | 08 May 2014 5:44 p.m. PST |
" I thought the King's loyalty, in sticking by N, in the interests of his people and out of gratitude
" What choice did he have? Napoleon had half a million soldiers in his country. And it was definitely not in the interests of his people to suffer through half a year of war. Saxony was totally devastated. |
Bandit | 08 May 2014 5:59 p.m. PST |
What choice did he have? Napoleon had half a million soldiers in his country. Just because a motivation exists that does not dictate it is the motivation at play. And it was definitely not in the interests of his people to suffer through half a year of war. Saxony was totally devastated. I believe that involves hindsight judgment. Cheers, The Bandit |
Sparker | 08 May 2014 11:41 p.m. PST |
And it was definitely not in the interests of his people to suffer through half a year of war. Saxony was totally devastated. No
perhaps I have over simplified a complex situation
But I agree with Bandit that the decision over further war was out of his hands, his realm was going to be the faultline anyhow since Napoleon was determined to maintain a presence in Germany. The question for him was whether to stick by his existing ally, a known, if greedy, quantity, who had set him as King in the first place, or defect to the Prussians and Cossacks
Don't know if the latter are worse as friends or enemies
And the former had designs on all of his territory
|
xxxxxxx | 09 May 2014 2:07 a.m. PST |
"The King of Wurttemberg disbanded the two cavalry regiments of his that refused to charge at Leipzig and cashiered their commander, Normann." Oh, dear
. That little snippet is rather simplistic, totally one-sided, and not too accurate. And the story of the Württemberger at Leipzig does not, when investigated at all closely, show any great devotion or allegiance by the Württemberg king. Indeed, the king had quite prudently already given orders to his generals to take their troops home if the French were defeated. And no, Kevin, the regiments were not disbanded, just re-named, albeit with lower seniority. The regiment commanders had supported the decision to go home. One of the commanders, a 19 year-old colonel from a prominent family, was sent on to a nice civilian career. The other was a von Mylius, and I have not yet traced his later fate. No other regimental officers were disciplined. The person most blamed by the king was the brigade commander, Generalmajor Graf von Normann-Ehrenfels. In his defense, von Normann-Ehrenfels had been given orders by the king to take his brigade home if the French were driven back. After writing to the king and his military superiors several letters describing the inevitable defeat of the French and requesting to be allowed to execute his "go home" orders, and after receving no reply, he judged that the time had come and went home on his own initiaitve. Since not cashiering him would have revealed the king's planned abandonment of the French, poor von Normann-Ehrenfels ended up living a largely unhappy and itenerant life until he managed to get wounded and die in the Greek revolution in 1822. Sorry Kevin. Once again we see that there is much more to the story than some little snippet that you copied out of a modern English-language source, and that there were two sides to the story. Sources : Generalmajor Karl Friedrich Lebrecht, Graf von Normann-Ehrenfels (Stuttgart 1784 – Missolonghi, Greece 1822) biographic notes : link events at Leipzig : link Filiation of the Württemberg cavalry regiments
. link link link PDF link May 1811 : Chevaulegers Regiment N°1 (vacant) September1812 : Chevaulegers-Regiment N°1 Prinz Adam November 1813 : Leib-Kavallerie-Regiment N°1 May 1811 : Leib-Chevaulegers-Regiment N°2 November 1813 : "dissolution", actually renamed Jäger-Regiment zu Pferd Nr. 4 Prinz Adam Kommandeur : Oberst Friedrich Kraft Heinrich, Prinz von Öttingen-Wallerstein (Wallerstein 1793 – Wallerstein 1842) Not yet 20 years old at the time of Leipzig, the prince von Öttingen-Wallerstein was taken into the Austrian Imperial administration as a Kämmerer, until taking over the governing of his lands as Fürst zu Öttingen-Öttingen und Öttingen-Wallerstein in 1823. link May 1811 : Jäger-Regiment zu Pferd Nr. 3 Herzog Louis November 1813 : Jäger-Regiment zu Pferd Nr. 2 Herzog Louis May 1811 : Jäger-Regiment zu Pferd Nr. 4 König November 1813 : "dissolution", actually renamed Jäger-Regiment zu Pferd Nr. 5 von Dillen Kommandeur : Oberst Karl von Mylius or Oberstleutnant Max von Mylius ?? May 1811 : Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 5 Kronprinz Wilheim November 1813 : Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 3 Kronprinz Wilheim ================ Sparker, Actually, Cossacks make great friends. :-) - Sasha |
Brechtel198 | 09 May 2014 3:52 a.m. PST |
Actually, if I recall correctly, as it has been a few years, I was told what happened to the two regiments concerned in a short discussion with Jack Gill as I had specifically asked him who the commander of the two regiments was. The information was useful for what I was doing at the time. I don't know of anyone who knows and understands more on the armies of the Confederation of the Rhine than Jack Gill. Now, if you have questions regarding the information you could always talk to Jack Gill if you like. He's a good man and always ready to be helpful. He's also a gentleman. After your misguided use of Bourrienne, which has long been known by credible historians to be unreliable and full of false information, as well as being largely ghost-written, I would hesitate to follow any of your information posted on any forum or anywhere else. It appears to me that you will believe anything derogatory on Napoleon or the French whether or not it is accurate. And even attempting to have a normal discussion with you when you continually resort to smarmy condescension and mocking is akin to attempting to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. In short, it is useless and tends to negate anything useful that you might recommend. B |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 09 May 2014 5:53 a.m. PST |
Bandit: "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." ==>Last time I checked, Napoleon was never made a nation. Feel free to correct me, but your terminology indicates you believe him to be more than a person – which is a tad bit bizarre. Betrayal and treason, although resulting in similar acts, are different. It is because they are different that my stance is what it is. You're so concerned with Napoleon's interest instead of that of France and the people. "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" ==>Well that is a clear cut strawman argument, so feigning confusion is not a shock to me. You intentionally avoid Portugal, Spain and Russia and go to something absurd to a nation (Austria) that repeatedly declared war on France instead of nations France attacked for no other reason than just exertions of power. It is generally accepted that Portugal and Russia were attacked because of their violations of the Continental System. Spain became a target when Minister Godoy was talked/bribed (By the Brits) into organizing a force to invade southern France should Napoleon's 1806 Prussian war go badly. The former two countries were of no real threat to France and were acts of aggression. The overthrow of Spain was just a mean spirited act of betrayal on multiple levels. But, back to the topic. I would like to see you address why Marmont should risk not only his own skin, but those of his men to fight or die for Napoleon after he rejected peace? I've not heard anyone ever put up even a plausible argument for why this would be acceptable. |
xxxxxxx | 09 May 2014 6:22 a.m. PST |
"I would hesitate to follow any of your information posted on any forum or anywhere else." Suit yourself. But unlike you, who post "your information", and then claim as a source "if I recall correctly
. a short discussion with Jack Gill", I provide links to the actual sources for what I post. It is not me speaking, it is the sources. And in almost all cases these are contemporary sources in the original language. In the instant case, I provided 7 sources with careful footnoting, all in German. So, I think I really don't need to "talk to Jack Gill". You posted simplistic, one-sided, and not too accurate information, apprently based on a chat you can barely recall with Jack Gill. I posted the other side of the story with ample high-quality sources. I never once said what I "believed" and did not offer any opinion of my own. If you think that somehow this is "mocking" you, then I apologize. - Sasha |
von Winterfeldt | 09 May 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
It is clearly evident that the King of Württemberg had no friendship to Napoleon, Normann wasn't punished because he switched side, he was punished due to not asking the King, and the King of Württemberg was an absolute monarch in those matters. Also – Normann was severly criticised when still loyal to the French – by the King – serving the French too well and being exploited by them. B – wouldn't know that due to the fact that he cannot read German sources – or he ignores those facts because they do not fit for his arguments |
xxxxxxx | 09 May 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
"B – wouldn't know that due to the fact that he cannot read German sources – or he ignores those facts because they do not fit for his arguments" Yes, this is the only conclusion I can draw from his posts. - Sasha |
Lamberto | 09 May 2014 11:36 a.m. PST |
"Others, such as Talleyrand and Marmont, were treated and counted as friends, but would betray Napoleon for their own benefit". Napoleon described Talleyrand as " in a silk stocking", which doesn't seem that friendly. But wasn't Desaix a friend of Napoleon? – the Desaix who was killed at Marengo. |
von Winterfeldt | 09 May 2014 12:07 p.m. PST |
Was Lannes a friend to Napoleon as often so claimed, I have difficulties to believe this – Lannes himself wrote letters where he judges that Napoleon was his ennemy, he felt betrayed by him, for more read : Titeux : le Général Dupont – Tome Premier De Marengo a Friedland, Puteaux sur Seine 1903 page 581 following which provides a lot of interesting citations. |
Brechtel198 | 09 May 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
Lannes is probably the one who referred to Talleyrand as a 'silk stocking full of fresh manure.' Margaret Chrisawn's biography of Lannes is excellent and highly recommended. Napoleon considered Desaix the 'most balanced of his lieutenants' and was considered Napoleon's friend. After he was killed, Napoleon 'adopted' his two ADCs, Rapp and Savary, which was beneficial to all concerned. Talleyrand certainly deserved the 'accolade' of the silk stocking comment, it was right on the money. He was rapacious, which is what got him fired in the first place. He was also in treasonous correspondence with France's enemies. B |
Duc de Brouilly | 09 May 2014 1:29 p.m. PST |
Titeux : le Général Dupont – Tome Premier De Marengo a Friedland, Puteaux sur Seine 1903 page 581 following which provides a lot of interesting citations. This the Dupont who capitulated to the Spanish at Baylen, right? |
xxxxxxx | 09 May 2014 2:26 p.m. PST |
Some more very nice information about the Württemberg cavalry at Leipzig, from the esteemed Mr. Steven H. Smith: link And an interesting quote provided by Ms. Susan Howard link - Sasha |
von Winterfeldt | 09 May 2014 8:48 p.m. PST |
Exactly this is the Dupont who capitulated at Baylen – Titeux wrote 3 interesting volumes about Dupont – whom he calls a victim of history. Those 3 volumes are available for download and are must reads in my opinion, it is interesting what Titeux writes about the relationsship Lannes / Napoleon – and why Victor and not Dupont was chosen to replace Bernadotte as chef of 1er corps when he was wounded in 1807 |
KTravlos | 10 May 2014 3:46 a.m. PST |
I shall confess! I was a friend of Napoleon! I was his good buddy for a long time enchanted by his fiery passion, unbound ambition and personal story. His glories called me like the fire calls the moth! And then one day a german or austrian old man, I do not remember, came into my house, and whispered to my ears terrible tales about my friend! And he showed me proof for many of those, and my faith in my friend was shattered. And now I am not his friend, repulsed by his greed and venality. Though I cannot hate him! |
serge joe | 13 May 2014 6:22 a.m. PST |
duroc and lannes greetings serge joe |
serge joe | 13 May 2014 6:24 a.m. PST |
and me ofcourse greetings serge joe |
serge joe | 13 May 2014 7:05 a.m. PST |
his quote dogs they donot betray him!! greetings serge joe |
Ben Waterhouse | 14 May 2014 7:36 a.m. PST |
You are not serg joe; you are a very naughty boy! |
serge joe | 14 May 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
love and hate situation! greetings serge joe |
serge joe | 14 May 2014 8:32 a.m. PST |
Sparker, Actually, Cossacks make great friends. what? greetings the same man from the Netherlands serge joe :-) - Sasha |
Tango01  | 14 May 2014 11:08 p.m. PST |
From Napoleon Series History Forum Mr. Tom Holmberg mention this book
link Amicalement Armand |
Ben Waterhouse | 15 May 2014 3:31 a.m. PST |
Good to see the boys are back in town! |
Tango01  | 15 May 2014 11:42 a.m. PST |
Thank you my friend.(smile). Amicalement Armand |