"Plot to kill Napoleon linked to British cabinet minister " Topic

Tsar Paul was murdered by his own people with the knowledge, if not the permission of his son.

Question: Were there plots to kill the King of Prussia, of England, of Spain or the Tzar of Russia by Napoleon? … if they had existed … would it have been good because those states were at war with France? … And if they had been successful … Napoleon would have been considered a defender of his homeland or a murderer … on the other hand … if people opposed to the crown of one of those countries had plotted to kill some of those monarchs on French soil … without the support or knowledge of Napoleon … and would have been successful … history would not have condemned him equally? … who would have believed that this plot was developed on French soil and none of Napoleon government official would never have found out?

As far as I know, there were no plots by Napoleon to kill any of those monarchs. However:

1 – Killing any of those heads of state would have done him absolutely no good. After all, the Russian Tsar and the British Prime Minister were murdered during this period and that wasn't a fundamental game-changer. All that would have happened would have been for those states to crown/elect a new leader. Everyone recognized that Napoleon was different and that the Napoleonic Empire was not likely to continue without him.

2 – Following on from 1, of course it shows that it was perfectly feasible to plot political murder without the knowledge of those governments; and particularly since the aims of the Royalist French were well known and the host governments would not have cared.

3 – "He must have known" is never a strong argument. Why "must" anyone? If there had been strong emigre communities within France opposing their own governments we could compare, but, of course, there weren't. In fact we can assume that Napoleon probably wouldn't have tolerated these kind of independent political factions.

Dear Whrildwin…first of all … thank you very much for your response.

In this respect I allow myself to say:

1. "… All that would have happened would have been for those states to crown / elect a new leader." "Napoleon was different and that the Napoleonic Empire was not likely to continue without him."

The same resolution in the case of Napoleon's death … someone else would have taken his place at the head of the French State …. I do not think the Empire would have dissolved so easily … besides, not at the time of the attack … but a few years later Napoleon had a son who could have continued with his legacy … or maybe one of his nephews … or the same Eugene … who knows? … the issue is the attack … if history had condemned him in the same way on one side or the other.

2. I find it very difficult that in any of the States of that time there was no police surveillance or spies to inform their respective governments what people spoke or decided in the meetings held by exiles in their territory.

3. I want to suppose that for example there were Irish emigrants in France who willingly plotted against the British Crown … if by any coincidence any of them could have attacked the King of England … I do not believe that history would have discarded any responsibility against Napoleon … we would be safely reading about Napoleon's bloody machination for remove the British King…

Imho … considering the level of rejection that the English government had against Napoleon and the enormous sums of money that they invested for years to overthrow him … that NO ONE would have known the intentions of the French emigrants on English soil with the same objetive….

History teaches us that it is evident that any enemy government of Napoleon would have supported, pushed or encouraged any action at any price in order to remove the Corsican Ogre … ESPECIALLY England ….

Saying that… would this be so bad?

Imho no! … war is war … even if it is not the most chivalrous way to eliminate an opponent of that caliber.

What I do not understand is why the defense at all costs of the almost puerile "innocence" of the English government of that time on this issue … when we all know that they would have given anything to eliminate Napoleon

Amicalement
Armand

Hello Tango,

1 – Here we disagree. As you allude to yourself, there was no clear-cut successor and no figure who would have been an obvious regent upon the death of Napoleon.

2 – Sure there were spies. But states did not have the modern police forces and bureaucratic strength to do such things in the way we think of them now. Napoleon's France was the only state which possessed the beginnings of such instruments. In any event, if there were that type of surveillance, then there will be the bureaucratic evidence to support it (similar to Napoleon & Fouche's correspondence, for a start).

3 – This is circular.

4 – Not really. The vast sums spent supporting Allies were largely spent after the incidents you are referring to. The overthrow of Napoleon was not a British objective until much much later in the wars and given the military situation, it is difficult to see how it could be.

5 – History teaches no such thing. This was not the objective of any party until 1813 at the earliest.

6 – I think people are only defending the "innocence" of the British government because of the inadequacy of the evidence to the contrary…That said, I have Kevin and Gazzola on stifle, so maybe they have come up with something and I just haven't seen it.

Assassination of foreign heads of state (as opposed to internal enemies) was a vanishingly rare course of action in this period.

Armand

I'm not sure any heads of state would knowingly support assassination attempts on other heads of state because of the fear factor, in that they could face the chop in the same way in acts of revenge.

However, should any attempt be made by another state or attempts made by exiled people from the same country as the target, then they may well support them. They would, of course, take every measure to make sure they were not indicated or associated with such activities.

And I'm not sure that the people of France would simply roll over had Napoleon been assassinated. The French reluctantly had to accept Napoleon being defeated in battle but they may have become more hostile had he been assassinated and no doubt other heads of state would have been very nervous about revenge attacks.

But, as I mentioned earlier, let's hope the forthcoming title This Dark Business by Tim Clayton throws some light on this.

I've ordered Tim Clayton's new book, so we'll see what it has.

Good talk!…

Thanks for your comments….

I still have my doubts… but maybe we never know… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Returning to the Guardian article in the OP, reporting Andrew Roberts' claims to have found "archival material that he believes directly implicates cabinet minister Lord Castlereagh in the unsuccessful 1804 Cadoudal French royalist plot to assassinate Napoleon" – as stated in the article, this is dealt with in Roberts' ouevre 'Napoleon the Great.'

Clearly, the revelation relating to "Mr Walter Spencer' and his financial claim on the government 'relative to a political intrigue planned by Lord Castlereagh to abduct Bonaparte in 1803' – Roberts' alleged 'smoking gun'- would be more persuasive if we were told something about the archive where the author had discovered the correspondence.

As explained in the previous thread on this subject, the source that Roberts cites in the relevant passage on pp. 333-334 of his book is Note 38, which refers the reader to a letter, No. 6233, on p.664 of Napoleon's Correspondence Generale dated 2 April 1801.

The reference does not exist, or is garbled. Letter 6233 is a letter to Berthier from August 1802 discussing muskets. Attempting to unravel the reference, none of the possibilities have any bearing on the subject. In any case, it is hard to see how a letter from April 2 1801, or August 6 1802 for that matter, would have any bearing on a correspondence purported to have taken place in Britain during the summer of 1803.

Is it unreasonable to think Mr Roberts might have taken more care with the reference for this ground-breaking discovery? More care than he showed in the handful of other references relating to the Royalist and Chouan conspiracies. (SEE THREAD CITED ABOVE)

He appears to have made no effort to identify 'Mr Walter Spencer', content to rest with his conclusion that he couldn't have been 'a crank.' (nor, indeed, "bogus, a fraud or a conman").

We know a little more about Michelle de Bonneuil, who by that time was back on the continent, and about to leave Paris hurriedly, suspected by both the police and the Royalist plotters who feared she had been 'turned.'

Lord Castlereagh's response to Mr Spencer's 'invoice' and discreet reminder of his 'intrigue to abduct Bonaparte'- might best be gauged by the fact that not long after Spencer had tried to touch his Lordship for £1,150.00 GBP, Castlereagh was denying Mme Bonneuil's request for a passport to re-enter England under the name of 'Smith' – yes, indeed- and telling the British ambassador in Hamburg he was not inclined to put any faith in the 'false Mrs Smith' and to have nothing to do with her.

I think we can assume that she didn't get her £1,100.00 GBP

As for Mr Roberts' statement in the article that the plotters planned "throwing a bomb" into Bonaparte's coach, indicating their intention to kill him rather than abduct him- ("'abduction' being their code word for 'assassination'"), I stand to be corrected, but I think he might just have made that up.

42flanker

If you 'think' Andrew Roberts has made something up, have you considered contacting him and putting your 'thoughts' to him?

I am always amazed on any forum when people are accused of 'making things up' when they are disagreed with. Incredible.

Another interesting point would be if Napoleon had hired out an attempt to murder another head of state or head of government. The roar of the outraged on this forum would be deafening.

Edging back towards the sunny uplands of historical enquiry and ascertainable fact:-

If Roberts's case against Lord Castlereagh, made in 'Napoleon the Great,' and previewed in the OP, rests on the source he cites, it must remain unproven.

However, should anyone be able to cite evidence that throwing a bomb into Bonaparte's carriage formed part of Cadoudal's conspiracy in 1803-04, I should be interested to know.

42flanker

Like I said, it you think an author is making something up, why not put your money where you mouth is or in this case, where your post is, and write to the author and tell him what you think?

I can imagine if Tim Clayton in his forthcoming title This Dark Business (due out on the 16th Aug) mentions anything negative about the British concerning supporting assassination attempts, during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period, he too will be 'accused' of making things up! LOL

Also curious is this passage in the OP article: "The plot was foiled by Napoleon's police minister, Joseph Fouché, who warned him that "the air is full of daggers".."

Leaving to one side that Fouché was not police minister at the time- journalists, what can ya do?- this statement is evidently taken from Roberts' throw-away line in 'Napoleon the Great' when, during the run up to Cadoudal's arrest and the kidnap of Enghien at the beginning of March 1804, he states in an aside that Fouché "told Napoleon 'The air is full of daggers'-"

Some might find it curious that this is phrase comes from de Bourienne's 'Memoirs', quoting from a note that Fouché, allegedly, read to him before sending it to Bonaparte, and which de Bourienne, inconveniently, describes taking place two months prior to the events being narrated, in January 1804 rather than March.

Some might find it more curious still that Roberts should be quoting at all from de Bourrienne's 'Memoirs,' which we all know is 'a ghost-written, error-ridden book full of nonsense, made-up venom meant to hurt Napoleon's reputation and curry favor with the Bourbons.'

Roberts himself described the 'Memoirs' as 'highly dubious' but, it turns out, allowed himself the liberty of using de Bourienne 'sceptically…to illustrate my accounts of occasions when he was known to have been personally present.'

Curiouser and curiouser, some might think, that Roberts should then be quoting from an alleged private interview, taking place two months before the events being described, when only the 'highly dubious' de Bourienne and Fouché were present and Bonaparte nowhere in sight.

At what point does this colourful offering become reliable material? Perhaps we too might allow ourselves a degree of scepticism about Roberts' use of sources.

I would suggest, as has already been done, that you contact the author himself and ask him about the subject.

It might prove to be both useful and interesting.

Fouche was French Minister of Police from 1799-1802 and 1804-1810 when he was replaced by Savary.

@42flanker,

this thread is pretty much a sea of grey for me – could you please tell me if anyone has found anything that either substantiates Roberts' claims (since last time the trail led to a dead end) or has produced new evidence supporting any of this stuff? I would be very interested in either case.

Whirlwind, the short answer would have to be 'no.'

However, a new book on the subject comes out later this month, 'This Dark Business,' by Tim Clayton. I look forward to reliable new information on the subject, well-researched and clearly referenced, not to mention objectively presented.

Andrew Roberts reviewed it enthusiastically.

Many thanks 42flanker

Je vous en prie

Tim Clayton is a very readable author. But the sourcing of Dark Business will need to be rather stronger than that which was quoted by Roberts' work on this subject. Lets see what he comes up with.

Here is the publishers' puff for This Dark Business,' plus a link to Andrew Roberts' review {need to register to read for free}:

"Between two attempts in 1800 and 1804 to assassinate Napoleon Bonaparte, the British government launched a campaign of black propaganda of unprecedented scope and intensity to persuade George III's reluctant subjects to fight the Napoleonic War, a war to the death against one man: the Corsican usurper and tyrant.

This Dark Business tells the story of the British government's determination to destroy Napoleon Bonaparte by any means possible. We have been taught to think of Napoleon as the aggressor – a man with an unquenchable thirst for war and glory – but what if this story masked the real truth: that the British refusal to make peace either with revolutionary France or with the man who claimed to personify the revolution was the reason this Great War continued for more than twenty years? At this pivotal moment when it consolidated its place as number one world power Britain was uncompromising. To secure the continuing rule of Church and King, the British invented an evil enemy, the perpetrator of any number of dark deeds; and having blackened Napoleon's name, with the help of networks of French royalist spies and hitmen, they also tried to assassinate him.

This Dark Business plunges the reader into the hidden underworld of Georgian politics in which, faced with the terrifying prospect of revolution, bribery and coercion are the normal means to secure compliance, a ruthless world of spies, plots and lies."

From Sunday TImes July 29,2018

link

A few interesting errors there- doubtless deliberate, to keep us on our toes.

Despite someone putting a downer on a forthcoming book, I think it is best to buy it, read it and see what it offers before making any decisions either way.

It may well offer evidence and sources concerning if the British government were or were not involved in any assassination attempts.

And even if it shows they were involved, I doubt the Napoleonic Brit lovers will change their views on the Brits during the Napoleonic period. I think we should all give the book and author a chance before shooting him down. It might surprise us all.

It's a shame that the blurb and Andrew Roberts' review are so sensationalist – I have just bought the book and it certainly has an impressive bibliography, including extensive references to British and French archives. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'm sure it will prove interesting.

Paul

This might seem a silly question but which book are you referring to – Andrew Robert's Napoleon the Great or Tim Clayton's This Dark Business?

sorry for lack of clarity – Clayton's 'This Dark Business'

Paul

No problem. At the moment it seems that it is not available from Amazon UK until the 16th. There is also the problem that while many titles offer availability dates, some of them don't actually become available until much later.

I will wait and see what happens but it does look a very interesting book and it is on my list to buy. Hopefully, it will be an enjoyable and informative read.

Gazzola

I bought it at Waterstones last week – not sure when Amazon will have it

Paul

Leaving aside the question of whether the British government did try to have Napoleon assassinated, it's quite clear that it would have been beneficial to have done so. We know this because on the two occasions Napoleon was removed from the throne, the war stopped more or less immediately.

The same would not have been true in reverse in any sense. The death or incapacitation of any European sovereign would have resulted in the accession of the legitimate heir or in a regency.

There is thus no reason to assume that Napoleon was too squeamish to bump off the head of state of Britain, or of Austria, Russia or Prussia. He didn't fail to do so because in this respect but no other he was somehow reluctant or too principled to have people killed. He failed to do so because it wouldn't have worked.

With that said I've seen no evidence that Britain connived at this. To say they did is like saying the USA tried to assassinate the British PM in 1984 because they allowed IRA fundraising in the USA.

Napoleon considered such actions as dishonorable, just as he did when it was recommended in 1813 that he copy what the British and Portuguese did to the Portuguese peasantry on the retreat to Lisbon. Napoleon refused because Saxony was an ally and it would have been dishonorable.

'Let them lead all Europe against me in arms, and I'll defend myself. An attack like that is legitimate. Instead they try to get me by blowing up part of Paris and killing or injuring a hundred people; and now they've sent forty brigands to assassinate me. For that I'll make them shed tears of blood. I'll teach them to legalize murder.'-Napoleon on the Bourbon assassination attempts and plots.

Which is astounding hypocrisy really. Bumping off the Duc d'Enghien is fine, assaulting other countries is fine, but god forbid anyone should take a crack at the bloke who thought all that was fine!

Reputedly in WW2 there was never a serious Allied move to bump off Hitler because he was such an Allied asset. There was a military assassination of Yamamoto, however.

Don't pick a fight with Napoleon then. The Austrians attacked in 1805 and 1809; the Prussians and Russians in 1806, and the Russians in 1805-and they were financed by the British, more money being given to them as the years went on.

Yamamoto was undoubtedly a payback for Pearl Harbor. Admirals and generals do get killed from time to time.

Hypocrisy? You've got to be kidding. D'Enghien deserved what he got and he was executed for treason and found guilty of that by a competent military court. Justice during that period, especially military justice, was many times a 24-hour and you're guilty process.

And Napoleon as head of state put himself on the line on the battlefield and had 19 horses shot out from under him and was wounded twice-once at Toulon and once before Ratisbon. What other head of state of the period could show that record?

It is rather funny that people think it would be beneficial for a head of state to be assassinated. It suggests that those funding/supporting and those who would actually be doing the assassination, must have been quite convinced Napoleon could not be beaten in battle.

And the first time Napoleon abdicated, the allies were at each others throats making deals and treaties to aid each other in case they were attacked by their er, fellow allies. Had Napoleon not returned to the throne in 1815, there was every likelihood that war could have occurred but they would not have been able to blame Napoleon.

Talking of war, it reminds me of a recent WW1 documentary, advised by British historians, in which they stated that in WW1 it was the first time British troops had been killed since the Battle of Waterloo. They obviously had not heard of the Crimean War. LOL

The Duc d'Enghien was a traitor like George Washington was a traitor.

Was George Washington in the pay of the British government during the War of the Revolution?

I don't think so.

D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government when France and Great Britain were at war.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Washington was in the pay of an illegitimate regime. So was Napoleon; in fact, he embodied the illegitimate regime that Enghien sought to overthrow so as to restore the rightful rule of the Bourbons.

If your side wins, you may get to retrospectively declare your regime legitimate, but you have to stay won.

Obviously usurpers tend not to admit that they're usurpers.

The French people overthrew the Bourbons and Napoleon governed by the will of the French people. That makes Napoleon's government legitimate. France approved of Napoleon.

Washington wasn't paid as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. All he applied for at the end of the war was reimbursement by the government for his expenses during the war.

Why was the Bourbon rule 'rightful' or legitimate? Didn't the first Bourbon king, Henry IV, come to the throne through a civil war during the French wars of religion? They claimed to rule through divine right and that idea was becoming illegitimate because of the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment.

Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre was the legitimate heir of Henri III of France. Others challenged his succession, partly because of his being Protestant. As Henri IV he converted to Catholicism. His enemies were defeated. The Bourbon line was entirely legitimate.

Enghien, an Royalist officer of the Ancien Regime, in remaining loyal to his sovereign was acting honourably and, arguably, committing no treason, since he did not recognise the Republican regime. He made the mistake of being on the wrong side of a civil war, fighting for a cause which, although he did not accept the fact, was already lost- at least for the time being.

By kidnapping Enghien and removing him to French soil, he was of course brought within the remit of the law he could not have acknowledged, which nonetheless secured his fate,

In the event that a member of the former royal family had landed in 1804 as planned and been captured, it is interesting to consider what his fate might have been.

By comparison, one might argue that Moreau and Pichegru, as former officers of the Republic, had unequivocally committed treason. While Pichegru's death in gaol leaves a question mark over his possible fate, Moreau got off extremely lightly- even though he did not survive to see the Emperor Napoleon's downfall or enjoy the fruits of peace.

Leaving aside the fact that Enghien's association with the Cadoudal conspiracy was a case of mistaken identity, which Bonaparte and his advisers did not know at the time, what was there to be lost in trying Enghien with the other alleged conspirators? With the main players in gaol, the threat of an attempted coup was already past. Either the Duke had a case to answer or he didn't. What was to be gained by the summary execution?

It is not surprising that Bonaparte's notorious 'blunder' was seen to be as much motivated by vindictiveness as by the cause of public safety.

Under the circumstances, one wonders why Enghien wasn't simply 'disappeared.' Perhaps that would not have been honourable.

Brechte198

Do you get the feeling that some people are trying to divert the topic away from the question of the British government's involvement in assassination attempts against the Emperor Napoleon? I wonder why?

Well, the sourcing of that assassination assertion did get pretty brutally demolished in the last round of debate. I'm not saying the assertion isn't true- but it's still very much in the 'erm, maaaybeeee….' category.
So- until Dark Business is tested, perhaps there isn't too much else to say on this OP right now. I look forward to reading it.
Defending Napoleon's behaviour in the Enghien episode doesn't really do the former's historical reputation any favours. Most if not all great people do some bad things that sully their reputation.
I was discussing this episode with a former senior officer in the French military, who has a very 'Bonapartiste' (his phrase) outlook. He just summed it up with phrase that 'Napoleon could act like a bandit when he felt threatened'. The modern French don't do the hero worship thing, or treat him as a demon- they just take him for what he was, both good and bad.

seneffe

All the personalities of the period were both bad and good, although what they did good and what they did bad can obviously and are usually interpreted in different ways by different people. It is just those who think certain personalities or nations are good and pure and others bad and evil that don't appear to want to accept this.

Yes, in terms of British involvement in assassination attempts against Napoleon, more evidence and sources will probably be required for some people to accept they had been involved. Hopefully, This Dark Business offers something towards the debate. But the topic seems to be gaining interest:

link

The one above is not available until January 2019 but more titles and hopefully, evidence supporting they were (or were not) involved, may well be forthcoming. Time will tell, I guess.

I am not sure if this another book or the same one as This Dark Business with another title and publisher but it is by the same author?

link

This is a matter of perspectives; both those held in history and those held by adherents (accolites?) today.

His Majesty's Government regarded Louis as the legtimate ruler of France and heir to a murdered sovereign. This is evidenced by them bank rolling his restoration to the throne. Twice. In 1815 the coalition's declaration was, at the HMG's urging, on Napoleon as an illegal troublemaker.

It seems inconguent to accept Bourbon regicide as enlightened regime change and yet at the same time an attempt at Imperial regicide as somehow reprehensible.

Having leaders conveniently making audio recordings of illegal activity has to wait over one and a half centuries, email servers nearly a full two centuries. At this distance where all that is required is a candle to destroy evidence, conspiracy theories are likely to remain just that. I therefore expect much heat, but limited illumination.

The assassination attempts on Napoleon were done when he was First Consul. He was not yet Emperor, though the assassination attempts might have convinced some that the imperial dignity was imperative.

The execution of Louis XVI was done by the revolutionary government-Napoleon was not involved.

If it was legitimate for Napoleon to have Enghien abducted and killed then logically it was also legitimate for Vladimir Putin to murder Litvinenko with polonium?

Putin is actually more legitimately head of the bis state than Napoleon was.

I'm going to quibble on that, 4th Cuirassier.

Enghien was abducted, yes, but he was tried and convicted (if I'm following the discussion here correctly) before he was executed.

Had Czar Vlad kidnapped Litvinenko back to Russia, then tried and convicted him in court before executing him, I don't think anyone would be complaining. Well, except maybe the kidnapping, but that wouldn't be too loud since the US and UK do the same thing to terrorists.

Instead, Litvinenko was killed in London without a trial. That changes it from a legal execution to a murder (London not being a combat zone).

@ LitS

We can be fairly sure that there was some process whereby Putin decided Litvinenko needed to be killed. That would have been as legitimate a trial as the Duc d'Enghien's, inasmuch as it confirmed the dictator's view of what should be done to his enemies. It might actually have been a trial.

Litvinenko wasn't the only one that Putin had murdered. And there were no trials.

How do you know? What's the difference between one process where the head of state instructs that an enemy be killed, and any other?

Due process?