"L'exécution du duc d'Enghien" Topic

Good job here…

From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Poor guy….

It was Christmas Day when you last posted this, same title but in English. I think if you were really enjoying Christmas you maybe do not remember…! (Grin)

TMP link

Worth showing again but, legally, more the Murder of than Execution or Assassination of….and a dreadful error in international diplomacy

Odd subject for a diorama, but extremely well done.

D'Enghien's trial and execution were both legal under French law. He was found guilty under the Law of 6 October 1791: 'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government and France was at war with Britain, which made d'Enghien a traitor to France.

D'Enghien was quoted as saying that he was receiving 4200 guineas per year from the British government 'in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth had made him hostile. I asked England if I might serve in her armies, but she replied that that was impossible: I must wait on the Rhine, where I would have a part to play immediately, and I was in fact waiting.'

And it should be noted that the Bourbons were actively plotting Napoleon's assassination, had acted on that and had been supported by the British government in those plots and actions.

Napoleon commented that 'The House of Bourbon must learn that the attacks it directs against others can come down on itself…If he [d'Enghien] goes unpunished, factions will thrive again and I shall have to persecute, deport and condemn unceasingly.'

D'Enghien played a dangerous game and lost. That's on him. Interestingly, one of the loudest voices of protest over the execution was from Alexander, who had at the very least agreed to the murder of his father. At least d'Enghien got a trial.

link

was wondering if the grand apologist would not show up. No need to wonder. The Duke D'Enghien cannot be a traitor to a state or ruler to which he never gave his oath of fealty. Napoleon had no legal rights on D'Enghien. Let alone the legal right to violate international borders. Show us where D'Engien recognized the authority of the French Republican State or the Empire? If you cannot your words of treason are empty.

Nonsense.

I provided the evidence with a reference.

D'Enghien was a French citizen and because of that he committed treason by being in the pay of a foreign government with which France was at war.

Lastly, your pejorative personal comment is noted-and you shouldn't judge others by your own low standards.

No apology was offered for anything or anyone. I merely provided factual material for the thread. If you can't accept that then I feel very sorry for you.

This is a very tricky legal issue.

It is like the situation of a resistance fighter (or are you a terrorist?).

France announces an Armistice in 1940. Frenchmen who fight on in uniform abroad have some legal status (bit like the good Duc d'Enhien indeed, refuse to accept the status quo in your homeland).

But what about FFI, Maquis etc who refuse to accept the truce announced by their nation's government, fight on as irregulars and then kill a member of the occupying forces? Heroes to us of course, because our lot won in the end.

Then of course there are the other countries whose governments went into exile without a peace treaty, despite their home army's surrender (eg Norway or Netherlands). Can a civilian still take up arms now, to support his elected government which is in exile?

I strongly suspect Napoleon had plenty of good reasons to see this character dead, if only to discourage les autres. The legality of it probably did not bother him one bit; right or wrong does not always count for much in international relations, let alone conflict.

But was it wise? Was it a mistake?

Deadhead points out a situation that is tricky on top of tricky. Resistance may be a crime during an occupation, but afterwards, if the occupiers lose, those who enforced the laws against resistance fighters may themselves face prosecution for war crimes.

Comfy chair, beer and popcorn. OK, go ahead.

Oh Lordy… here we go again. Move over vtsaogames.

While the Bourbons were obviously never going to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Bonaparte regime, I suspect that, for a majority of the French, it was clearly the legitimate regime by 1804. In that context, from the regime's perspective, it was irrelevant as to whether or not D'Enghien pledged allegiance to that regime.

No doubt, from a legal perspective, the French shouldn't have snatched D'Enghien, but I suspect that every significant country that was involved in the Revolutionary or Napoleonic Wars committed numerous breaches of international law (such as it existed at the time).

If D'Enghien hadn't been royal and young(ish), I doubt that we would be discussing his fate in 2016.

The victors write history

Checking the wiki article, it looks like even by the very restricted US standards for treason, D'Enghien would have been in trouble.

Taking pay from an enemy of the nation you are a citizen of, for the benefit of said enemy, (and having 2+ people witness it, to satisfy the US Constitution) is treason.

Were there issues with his capture? Yeah.

At that time – the rest of Europe was outraged about the kidnap and murdering – it did not do any good for Boney

It must have left Napoleon feeling particularly nervous during the 100 Days, when the Alliance's Declaration seemed to suggest anyone could take potshot at him, with impunity.

Even if that was probably a misunderstanding and poor translation…..

Certainly a decade later the death of M le Duc was still being cited as putting Boney beyond the law…when it suited foreign rulers and governments of course. It was an error of judgement more than a crime?

@ Brechtel

'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

On that basis they would have had to shoot themselves!

@ deadhead

FFI, Maquis etc who refuse to accept the truce announced by their nation's government, fight on as irregulars and then kill a member of the occupying forces?

I actually tend to side with ze Germans on this, strictly. France was defeated and capitulated, and hence the Vichy government was a legitimately-established one even if it was there only in consequence of defeat. If you refuse to accept the defeat, you can legitimately head abroad and fight on in uniform. If you stay home and shoot at soldiers from the hedgerows in your civvies, then melt back into the population, I'm afraid in this era you are basically a terrorist. You are not in a properly constituted armed force, and as such, you can be shot out of hand as either a criminal or a spy.

Of course, whether it is actually smart to do so is another matter. And this is not to excuse the brutalities perpetrated in pursuit of maquisards, partisans etc.

@ Glenn: I'm not so sure. If the Germans had confined themselves to shooting maquisards caught en flagrant delit, I doubt anyone would have faced war crime charges. The Abwehr boss who cracked the SOE's codes and used the information to round up every single spy dropped into Holland during 1943 – 1944 shot the whole lot, and as far as I know, faced no post-war reprisals. He may have been done for something else, like torturing suspects, but not for that. Liquidating random civilians in reprisal, or burning down villages, however – another matter.

@ AussieAndy: legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Britain never accepted Bonaparte as possessing any title higher than general, and referred to him as merely "the head of the French government". This was doing no more than recognising his de facto status, but not conceding it any legitimacy.

Didn't Napoleon overthrow the Directory, more or less at the point of the bayonet of his grenadiers (sorry, I have the command 'Grenadiers forward! Throw them out!' running in my head) and doesn't that make him equally liable to the death penalty?

Actually I have no dog in the fight. It was a time of revolution and Napoleon had fought his way to the top. He had imposed relative stability on France and if it wasn't what we call 'peace', it was certainly a vast improvement for the average French citizen over the Royals, the Revolution, the Terror and the Directory.

So, on the one hand he had done well by the vast majority of his citizens.

On the other hand, people who didn't recognize him, were still trying to kill him and that can make you just a little annoyed after a while.

Annoyed people make mistakes. And I feel that is what this was, N never really 'got' that the rest of the continent hadn't gone through things like the Terror and were relatively content with the governments they had.

Even Spain preferred it's own utterly corrupt and inept government to anything that was imposed from outside.

d'Engehien couldn't accept that the Bourbons were out, and N had finally had enough of people trying to kill him for what he considered the fantasy of bringing them back.

deadhead

Er, during the '100 days', I believe there were actually quite a lot of people taking pot shots at him, at Quatre Bras and Waterloo. They were called the enemy. LOL

Naw mate…or as in Master and Commander that marvellous line about the lesser of two weevils "There, I have you now".

As I seem to recall, Boney was not at Quatre Bras, at least not while any fighting was going on. He was somewhere called Ligny all day.

Lo how the mighty are humbled……..(grin….. to paraphrase Tango, not often will I catch out Gazzola)

"the rest of the continent hadn't gone through things like the Terror and were relatively content with the governments they had."

Or at least those governments were content with the governments they had; it was the spectre of revolution in their own lands that inspired such determined opposition.

deadhead

So I was technically correct then, if Napoleon travelled through Quatre Bras to get to the Waterloo battlefield. Ya can't trust those Belgians, ya know, changing sides all the time. LOL

But yes, you were quite correct, ya got me! I wrote Quatre Bras instead of Ligny. I blame all these flamin' new Waterloo themed titles Tango01 keeps letting us know about. I'm having headaches over trying to sort out my book budget (commonly known as the diverted bills fund).

This was posted by Trajanus the last time we saw this model.

link

It is highly detailed, if one does want to know more of the background, but is "somewhat partisan" and blames so much on the wicked Savary, not on our hero.

Great fun to see communication with Sir Charles Stuart (much involved in Congress of Vienna as I recall) confused with our executed king from a century and half earlier (and even then a picture of King Chas I is labelled as "Sir Charles II Stuart")

I think Brechtel198 got it right; "D'Enghien played a dangerous game and lost."

@ DHautpol, yep, I agree that most governments are probably sublimely convinced that even if they aren't perfect, they are undoubtedly doing a better job than anyone else possibly could.

That said, my reading of the time, is that initially (stress 'initially') the Revolution garnered some support in other countries and at the very least stimulated the conversation about the various forms of government and what was desirable.

As you point out, when it came, the Terror played into the hands of all the established governments and allowed them to cast the French armies as hordes of ravening blood soaked barbarians more intent on bringing the guillotine than liberty and fraternity.

It was a great propaganda coup for the establishment that was so content with itself, and pretty much squashed the initial burst of interest.

hordes of ravening blood soaked barbarians more intent on bringing the guillotine than liberty and fraternity.

- which wasn't far wrong.

Interesting to contrast this with the fate of the Irish revolutionary, Napper Tandy, who was abducted by German agents in Hamburg, brought to Dublin for trial, found guilty, sentenced to death, and then……sent back to France with some pocket money and advised to be naughty no more.