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

There was no due process in Enghien's "trial". There was no prospect of any different outcome to it because the case against him was a syllogism that depended on an a priori assumption:

Napoleon's regime is legitimate;
You plotted against the regime;
Therefore you committed treason.

Enghien of course disputed the first point and regarded Napoleon as the traitor and the entire proceedings as bogus and a farce. Napoleon wasn't correct in law. He just had Enghien in custody, rather than the reverse.

Hence Enghien was simply judicially murdered.

Litvinenko was likewise murdered. For all we know, there was an in-camera trial at which Litvinenko was convicted in absentia. The real decision in both cases was not what occurred in any supposed process. It was when Napoleon / Putin (or his lieutenants) decided that an opponent of the regime needed to be killed. That was when each man's fate was settled. A farcical show trial doesn't dignify the process nor does it make it a due one.

I suggest that Napoleon was in fact very close to Putin in the way he operated and was perceived. Napoleon, unlike Putin, had enormous positive personal traits, notably being a card-carrying polymath and the greatest soldier since Alexander the Great if not of all time. These virtues shouldn't blind us to the fact that, like Putin, he was basically running a thugocracy designed to accrue power and money to himself, his family and – so far as necessary – a clique of close associates.

The comparisons of Napoleon to Hitler one occasionally sees are grossly misplaced, offensive to Napoleon and farcically flattering to Hitler. The only points of similarity I can think of were that they initiated wars against a number of the same countries and paid cash bonuses to generals to secure loyalty. If, however, one thinks of Napoleon as the Putin of 200 years ago, his lustre is then notably but not unfairly qualified, I suggest.

Incidentally Kevin, thanks for disagreeing with me without descending to insult or personal abuse. It's always a pleasure to argue with you and point out your errors, because you're always such a gentleman about it :-)

D'Enghien was tried and convicted under the Article 2 of the Law of 6 October 1791: Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and armning the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government, to the amount of 4,200 guineas per year 'in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth made him hostile.'

Further, he stated at the trial that 'I asked England if I might serve in her armies, but she replied that was impossible: I must wait on the Rhine, where I would have a part to play immediately, and I was in fact waiting.'

D'Enghien admitted to the treason, was found guilty and executed according to the above-mentioned law. That isn't judicial murder.

Your comments on the murder of Litvinenko are supposition and not founded on fact, but speculation.

Please explain how 'Napoleon was…vert close to Putin in the way he operated and was perceived.'

Napoleon did not run a 'thugocracy' but was a lawmaker and reformer who governed by the rule of law. And his social, governmental, financial, manufacturing, and overall reforms remade France and many of his reforms are still seen and felt to this day. No other head of state of the period accomplished as much for their people.

And Napoleon's wars were mostly defensive in nature. He inherited an ongoing war when he became head of state. England was just as guilty, if not more so, for the collapse of Amiens. England and Austria were behind the Austrian invasion of Bavaria in 1805. Russia joined Austria in the field without provocation. Prussia began t he war in 1806 and Russia joined in again, never having made peace after the defeats of 1805. That was lasted until Tilsit. Austria attacked Bavaria again in 1809 while Napoleon was involved in Spain.

Spain, supposedly an ally of France, had been found to be plotting against Napoleon during the 1806 campaign and told the Prussians they would join the war against France if Prussia won.

Russia planned war against France again as early as 1810. Napoleon found out about it and the invasion was in the nature of a preemptive strike. The wars of 1813 and 1814 were a continuation of the Russian invasion. And Great Britain subsidized the allies/coalitions throughout the period and it is noteworthy that without those subsidies neither Russia, Prussia, nor Austria could have taken the field in 1813.

Where is the evidence that Napoleon paid 'cash bonuses' to secure the loyalty of the generals? That is absolute nonsense and I have never seen anything credible to back that erroneous claim.

Comparing Napoleon with Putin favorably is just like the onerous Hitler comparison: a great compliment to Putin and a great insult to Napoleon.

As an addendum, the term 'thugocracy' is not found in Webster's Dictionary, but is found in 'slang dictionaries.' So that says to me that it is madeup and not an actual term.

Did Enghien admit to treason or to the acts for which he was found guilty of treason? There is a difference.

It's also worth bearing in mind that we have no neutral account of those proceedings but reports of Enghien's conduct do suggest he did not believe his life was in imminent danger.

He was residing in a foreign state and kidnapped by the forces of a government he did not recognise, as your quotation well illustrates, and carried onto French soil to in order to bring him within the jurisdiction of the government to which "his birth made him hostile.' He was not a citizen of the French Republic. In his own eyes he was a subject of the rightful King of France.

There he was tried and sentenced in camera, denied contact with the First Consul, denied the services of a priest, and shot.

The fact that the hole he was buried had already been dug indicates that there was only going to be one outcome.

I think judicial murder is a reasonable description of the process. That is to say, the disposal of a political enemy using a form of legal process in an attempt to give the act respectability. In that regard I think it's fair to say Napoleon and his agents failed.

Do you understand how the justice system worked under the Consulate and Empire?

Military justice, which is what d'Enghien fell under, was very much a 24-hour affair. If you look at the civilian justice system and compare it with the military justice system under the Constulate and Empire you might find it interesting.

Also of note is the comparison of the Napoleonic Penal Code and the comparable British penal acts. The latter were much more draconian than the French equivalent.

It appears to me that you're 'judging' the situation from the viewpoint of the early 21st century and not that of the time (early 19th century).

Military justice, as in shooting enemy prisoners?

Presumably if Charles de Gaulle had fallen into the hands of the Vichy government, he would have been deservedly shot for opposing the legitimate French regime?

Military justice, as in shooting enemy prisoners?

To which incident or incidents are you referring?

Presumably if Charles de Gaulle had fallen into the hands of the Vichy government, he would have been deservedly shot for opposing the legitimate French regime?

While this is neither here nor there, as it is way out of the time period, when has a Nazi puppet regime been considered 'legitimate?' By whom were they recognized with the exception of the Germans?

They rounded up Jews and other Nazi undesirables and sent them to the death camps. That is not a legitimate regime. They aided in mass murder.

No rounding up of undesirables, no mass murder in Republican France?

@ Brechtel

when has a Nazi puppet regime been considered 'legitimate?' By whom were they recognized with the exception of the Germans?

Er, by the Americans, Kevin:

"The legitimacy of the Vichy government was recognized by the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations, which extended diplomatic recognition to Petain's government."
link

and:
"Vichy France was recognized by most Axis and neutral powers, including the USA and the USSR."
link

and:
"Vichy's claim to be the legitimate French government was denied by Free France and by all subsequent French governments after the war. They maintain that Vichy was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état."

Likewise, in our period, Napoleon's claim to head the legitimate French government was denied by monarchists and by all subsequent French governments until 1848. They maintained that Napoleon's was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état.

As a result it is simply beyond argument that de Gaulle and the Free French were traitors identical to the Duc d'Enghien. There's no way that he was a traitor and they weren't.

Putin, meanwhile, is if anything actually more legitimate than Napoleon was. Both fiddled plebiscites to justify their occupation of the throne. Putin is constructively a monarch, not a president, because he does not in fact offer himself for re-election through an honest process. Putin rigged elections much less egregiously than Napoleon, however, who claimed 3.6 million supported his becoming Consul for life with only 8,000 against – an obviously fiddled result that included the "votes" of the army, who had not voted.

If you think Napoleon wasn't in it for personal power and gain secured by thugocracy
link
- well, I have this bridge I can sell you.

Oh, and on Napoleon's bungs.

First, Hitler's cash bonuses to important commanders:
link

Next, Napoleon's cash bonuses to important commanders:

"They were men tired of war and, having achieved the highest positions, enriched by the spoils of war or the generosity of Napoleon, had no other desire than to enjoy their fortune peacefully in the shadow of their laurels."

- chef d'escadron Lemonnier Delafosse quoted by Andrew Field in 'Prelude to Waterloo: Quatre Bras: The French Perspective'

"As acolytes of the emperor, they had received fancy titles and great wealth: in return Napoleon demanded loyalty, obedience and the tireless pursuit of victory."

- Christopher Summerville, 'Napoleon's Polish Gamble: Eylau & Friedland 1807'

"Marshal Davout had property which brought in an income of a million: Masséna, Augereau, and many other marshals and generals were equally wealthy. These men wished to enjoy their possessions, and objected to stake them on the chances of war."

- F T Daniels, 'Autobiography in the Age of Napoleon (1780-1820)'

"To support their new dignities, Napoleon distributed very substantial sums of money amongst the 'military' princes"

- D G Chandler, 'On the Napoleonic wars: collected essays'

"Known for his greed, Soult enjoyed his titles and the accompanying wealth."

– link

"The marshals were promoted from the ranks of the French army by Napoleon himself. He gave them wealth, social status, and key military commands. …They certainly did not get soft and content after being laden down with so many rewards…"

- Claudio Innocenti, 'Souls Not Wanting: The Marshalate's Betrayal of Napoleon' at PDF link

…and on Napoleon's bungs.

Is this the meaning(s) you were trying to convey with the use of the term 'bungs'?

Definition of BUNG
1 : the stopper especially in the bunghole of a cask; also : BUNGHOLE
2 : the cecum or anus especially of a slaughtered animal

If you weren't, perhaps you could explain what you meant. As you compared the French general officers to the Germans of the NAZI period, I suggest that you analogy was greatly flawed.

If you think Napoleon wasn't in it for personal power and gain secured by thugocracy
link
- well, I have this bridge I can sell you.

No, I don't. Napoleon saw the incompetence, ineptness, and corruption of the Directory after he returned from Egypt and also had experience with the representatives of the Directory in northern Italy in 1796-1797. He first tried to become a Director but was prohibited because he was too young. Then he discovered that Barras was trying to bring the Bourbons back to rule. Napoleon didn't engineer the coup, he was recruited by Sieyes and others (and Sieyes was a Director). When the coup did succeed, and if Napoleon wasn't chosen to be a part of it, another general would have. Napoleon took over after the coup, reorganized the government and began his reforms after Marengo.

So, perhaps you should use better references for your assertions?

More later, as we are getting over Hurrican Florence and power was out for a couple of days.

Likewise, in our period, Napoleon's claim to head the legitimate French government was denied by monarchists and by all subsequent French governments until 1848. They maintained that Napoleon's was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état.

Source(s)?

So, now you are comparing Napoleon's government with Vichy? That is both illogical and historically inaccurate.

by the Americans, Kevin:
"The legitimacy of the Vichy government was recognized by the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations, which extended diplomatic recognition to Petain's government."
link
and:
"Vichy France was recognized by most Axis and neutral powers, including the USA and the USSR."
link
and:
"Vichy's claim to be the legitimate French government was denied by Free France and by all subsequent French governments after the war. They maintain that Vichy was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état."
Likewise, in our period, Napoleon's claim to head the legitimate French government was denied by monarchists and by all subsequent French governments until 1848. They maintained that Napoleon's was an illegal government run by traitors, having come to power through an unconstitutional coup d'état.
As a result it is simply beyond argument that de Gaulle and the Free French were traitors identical to the Duc d'Enghien. There's no way that he was a traitor and they weren't.

You are correct regarding foreign recognition of Vichy. However, you left out what happened to that recognition after Pearl Harbor as well as Germany's invasion of Russia. And Vichy didn't last too long as an 'independent' German puppet state. Further, Marshal Petain, the Vichy 'head of state' was tried for treason after the war and sentenced to death. That sentence was later commuted to life in prison.

So, it seems that de Gaulle was not the traitor, Petain was.

Here is a listing of the Putin critics who have been murdered, undoubtedly with the knowledge, if not the consent, of Vladimir Putin.

link

Napoleon's cash bonuses to important commanders:
"They were men tired of war and, having achieved the highest positions, enriched by the spoils of war or the generosity of Napoleon, had no other desire than to enjoy their fortune peacefully in the shadow of their laurels."
- chef d'escadron Lemonnier Delafosse quoted by Andrew Field in 'Prelude to Waterloo: Quatre Bras: The French Perspective'
"As acolytes of the emperor, they had received fancy titles and great wealth: in return Napoleon demanded loyalty, obedience and the tireless pursuit of victory."
- Christopher Summerville, 'Napoleon's Polish Gamble: Eylau & Friedland 1807'
"Marshal Davout had property which brought in an income of a million: Masséna, Augereau, and many other marshals and generals were equally wealthy. These men wished to enjoy their possessions, and objected to stake them on the chances of war."
- F T Daniels, 'Autobiography in the Age of Napoleon (1780-1820)'
"To support their new dignities, Napoleon distributed very substantial sums of money amongst the 'military' princes"
- D G Chandler, 'On the Napoleonic wars: collected essays'
"Known for his greed, Soult enjoyed his titles and the accompanying wealth."
– link
"The marshals were promoted from the ranks of the French army by Napoleon himself. He gave them wealth, social status, and key military commands. …They certainly did not get soft and content after being laden down with so many rewards…"
- Claudio Innocenti, 'Souls Not Wanting: The Marshalate's Betrayal of Napoleon' at PDF link

Here is an excellent summary of the 'cash bonuses' that were given to Napoleon's senior officers:

From Swords Around A Throne by John Elting, 178:
‘The Emperor rewarded his officers in many ways besides promotions. In 1806 he began a system of ‘donations et dotations' (gifts and endowments that was much like the old British custom of prize money, pensions, and sinecure appointments. A year later he initiated a new system of hereditary nobility: knights (chevaliers), barons, counts, dukes and princes. These titles were awarded to civilians and soldiers alike; any capable colonel could become a baron, any useful general a count-even Vandamme as Count of Unebourg.' The marshals were dukes, and the most distinguished of them princes. But all awards were based on service or, in the case of Bernadotte, family connections. The titles were backed by estates in France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, or by pensions, which might be based on estates, fisheries, or river or canal tolls. Undoubtedly with his impoverished youth in mind, Napoleon always felt that a little cash in hand would be an appreciated gift. A general could expect a donation of 20,000 francs or more when he became a count; a colonel newly made a baron at least 4,000. All the marshals who served in the 1809 campaign received 1,000,000 francs. There were individual gifts to officers who had done well at some particular ask or had suffered unexpected personal losses in line of duty. Widows and orphans were pensioned. Part of this generosity was policy: Napoleon hoped to keep his generals satisfied, out of politics, loyal to the Empire, and free from any need or excuse for theft or embezzlement. Part was natural generosity: A man who lived simply and saved his money, Napoleon could be imperially munificent. His particular touch was to make his enemies pay for many of his generosities. Sadly, this policy was a complete failure. Most of the marshals and too many of the generals could not stand the combination of personal prosperity and military adversity that confronted them in 1813-1814, ‘their bones were chilled…they feared the remaining ten years of life,' so they forsook their Emperor.'

It's just a little more complicated than the information and opinions that you offered.

Claudio Innocenti's article on 1814 is poor, badly sourced and condemns the entire marshalate of 'betrayal.'

The greatest mistake he makes is stating repeatedly that some of the marshals didn't do too well because Napoleon did not communicate effectively with them. That is inaccurate and I would suggest, if you are interested, to take a look at Baron Fain's memoir of the campaign, the Esposito/Elting Atlas for an excellent overview of the campaign, Henry Houssaye's volume on 1814 and George Nafziger's recent volume on the campaign, The End of Empire: 1814.

It is also noteworthy that Davout, Suchet, Soult, Berthier, and Mortier stayed loyal in 1814 and did their duty. Macdonald, Victor (who was relieved of his command, but given another one by Napoleon) and Marmont did not, Marmont turning traitor after the marshal's mutiny forced the abdication, ruining the chance for a regency for Napoleon's son.

It should also be noted that Brune, Davout, Grouchy, Jourdan, Mortier, Ney, Soult, and Suchet joined the colors in 1815. Four marshals were dead by 1815; Marmont and Victor ran to Belgium with the Bourbons, Murat and Bernadotte had turned traitor and the other marshals were unsuitable for one reason or the other for field service.

Your comment on Davout is incorrect as he did not serve Napoleon or his country for money. And he was not the only one that did so.

I have not read Summerville's account yet, but it is on order and inbound.

And, again, the odious comparison of Napoleon's marshals to the Nazi generals is not only insulting to the marshals, but it is incorrect historically.

The marshals who took part in the mutiny at Fontainebleu in 1814 were Ney, Macdonald, Lefebvre, Moncey, and Oudinot.

The use of Macdonald's memoir is a chancy thing. They 'are unreliable history; he blandly claims credit for actions where he was not present and blames his failures on his subordinates.'-Swords, 139.

Further, 'In 1809 on Clarke's suggestin, Napoleon ordered Macdonald to northern Italy to serve under Eugene, noting that he could be used as a 'wing' (corps) commander if Eugene so desired. (Macdonald's version does not mention Clarke. He pictures himself as sent to be Eugene's military mentor and claims all credit for Eugene's subsequent victories).

Well said Kevin….

Amicalement
Armand

The use of the term 'thugocracy' (which is slang and not a credible use of a made-up term) assumes that Napoleon was a thug along with his government.

That isn't true and if anyone actually believes that nonsense some credible source material to back up that idea would be useful.

"As acolytes of the emperor, they had received fancy titles and great wealth: in return Napoleon demanded loyalty, obedience and the tireless pursuit of victory."
- Christopher Summerville, 'Napoleon's Polish Gamble: Eylau & Friedland 1807'

I have now received this volume, and to say the least it is not impressive. The above is almost a throw-away remark, and the use of the term 'acolyte' seems to be a pejorative. There are much better sources available, though the book has many excellent references listed in the bibliography.