"any marshals with no action?" Topic

juno?

Nope, not Junot. He was in command of the French forces at the battle of Vimeiro (August 1808). He also commanded 8th Corps in the Peninsula in 1810 where he was badly wounded. he commanded 8th Corps in 1812 at Borodino.

They were are all combat commanders at some point in their careers.

Jim

Junot was not a marshal.

Given the Emperor's criteria for selection, none of the marshals was going to be 'unblooded'. All these worthies had seen action at some stage or another even if some of the older ones did not see action as a marshal per se.

I think Kellerman's career was behind him when he became a Marshal and maybe some of the other older ones as well – this must all be Googleable.

Neither Brune, Perignon nor Moncey saw much action under Napoleon, although they'd been active during the Revolution.

I am interested. Why do you ask this question?

could find it so some logic?

Those chosen for marshal in the initial creation were chosen not only for their military skills but to reconcile the different armies to Napoleon's rule.

Four of them were 'senatorial' marshals (Kellermann, Lefebvre, Perignon, and Serurier). The were chosen as an honor 'for distinguished soldiers grown too old for campaigning but capable of serving as members of the Senate.'

The other fourteen were 'active' marshals.

Interestingly, Lefebvre and Kellermann were employed extensively on active duty and were more 'useful' than Jourdan and Moncey. Moncey, however, caught in a similar situation to Dupont in Spain in 1808 skillfully got his command out of a potential trap while Dupont surrendered his command and saved himself.

Victor deservedly was awarded his baton in 1807 and Macdonald, Marmont, and Oudinot received theirs in 1809 after the death of Lannes. The army commented that those three were nothing more than 'Lannes small change.'

As for the three named in the above posting, Brune was capable of handling a small force competently, was a political radical, served under Napoleon in Italy where he demonstrated 'courage, drive, and tactical skill.' He served well in Holland in 1799, but he was not clean-handed and plundered in Switzerland in 1798 and northern Germany in 1807 while defeating the Swedes. Napoleon put him on inactive status after he refused to explain his actions. He was recalled in 1815 and was murdered by a royalist mob and his mutilated body was throne in the local river.

Perignon mostly served on the Spanish frontier during the Wars of the Revolution. In 1799 he was wounded and captured at Novi and that was his last active service.

Moncey commanded the Army of the Western Pyranees and Napoleon made him Inspector-General of the National Gendarmerie. He commanded the Paris National Guard in 1814 and was arrested by the Bourbons for refusing to preside at Ney's 'trial.' He won the respect of Davout and Macdonald and after his refusal to participate in Ney's 'trial' a Prussian army band played a concert outside his house every night.

Re Moncey,

'He won the respect of Davout and Macdonald and after his refusal to participate in Ney's 'trial…'

I did not know that.

I am glad that SOMEONE still held a torch for the old Warhorse!

Probably the closest to a non-fighting Marshal was Bernadotte

@4th Cuirassier

I don't think it counts if it was for the other side!

I am glad that SOMEONE still held a torch for the old Warhorse!

Marshal St Cyr tried to gain leniency for Ney at the council of war failed. He also didn't participate in the trial. General Louis-Jean-Baptiste Gouvion participated in the trial and voted for deportation. The two are often confused.

Multiple sources seem to indicate that both General Gouvion and Marshal Gouvion St. Cyr were Peers of France and voted at the trial for deportation. However, only one Gouvion is included in Welschinger's record of the votes. Unfortunately the names are recorded by title, not full name, i.e. it is listed as "the Count of Gouvion". In comparison to the other marshals that voted, they are listed specifically as marshals, such as "the Marshal Count Sérurier" or "the Marshal Duke of Valmy". Additionally, Gouvion St. Cyr originally set up the military trial of Ney hoping for leniency, but that plan backfired when the council of war declared itself incompetent. When Welschinger refers to Gouvion St. Cyr's role there, he refers to him as "the Marshal Saint-Cyr". Therefore the Gouvion who voted for deportation at the Chamber of Peers was General Gouvion, and Marshal Gouvion Saint Cyr probably avoided the trial at the Chamber of Peers after his attempt to gain leniency for Ney at the council of war failed. Source Welschinger, Henri. "Le Maréchal Ney: 1815." Paris: Librairie Plon, 1893.

I thought there was a Gouvion-St.Cyr and a Carra St.Cyr?

The odium and malice held against Dupont was no more reasoned, nor reasonable than the horror that 'Mack' did to Auersperg (sp?). At any other time a 'beneficial' surrender was hailed a success.

After Macks failures, any complaint against that General should have been sidelined pretty quick.

~ Yes there were two.

On Bernadotte, all you can say is he only fought for himself. Wasn't so much working for N. as being kept on the leash and under surveillance.
YMMV… d

It was Dupont's actions before and during the surrender, as well as the abandoning of his troops to a Spanish incarceration, that earned Napoleon's ire. And as far as I can see, Dupont was the author of his own misfortune.

Probably the closest to a non-fighting Marshal was Bernadotte

I don't think so, even considering his disgraceful conduct on 14 October 1806.

He was engaged at Austerlitz in December 1805 and was in action at Wagram in 1809, where his after-action conduct got him relieved for cause.

Neither Brune, Perignon nor Moncey saw much action under Napoleon, although they'd been active during the Revolution.

Brune was I believe in command along the English channel in 1805 during Austerlitz. In 1806-1807 he campaigned in Pomerania. I believe he was also the commander in Provence in 1815. Moncey commanded a corps in Spain and fought in Paris in 1814. Brune and Moncey may not have served with Napoleon in his great battles, but they did see combat with active commands during the Empire.

bertier?

Berthier was Napoleon's chief of staff from 1796-1814 and was certainly under fire more than once. He was also the nominal commander of the Armee de la Reserve in 1800 and got that army organized and across the Alps and into northern Italy before Napoleon arrived.

He also set up the second assault crossing of the Danube in 1809 before the Battle of Wagram.

He was also responsible from planning the movement of the Grande Armee from the Channel and into Germany in 1805 and it was Berthier who organized and oversaw the immense concentration for the invasion of Russia in 1812.

And after Napoleon's departure for Paris after the Berezina had been crossed and after Murat, who was left in command, deserted his post, it was Berthier who secured Eugene in command of what would become the Army of the Elbe.

He also concurrently served as the Minister of War from 1800-1807.

Ferdinand von Funck, the Saxon liaison officer at Imperial Headquarters, said of Berthier:

'All the problems connected with the needs of the army and their transport…were thrown on him…The armies were scattered from Bayonne to the Bug, from Calabria to the Helder, and as far as Stralsund; they were shifting their positions incessantly, had to be supplied and directed, and the whole of it passed through [Berthier's} hands…He always was the clearing house through which all business was transacted…the infallible day book to which Napoleon was referring every minute of the day to make sure how his balance stood. For this reason he had to be in attendance on him on every battlefield, on reconnaissance, at every review…without fail on every study of terrain.'

Berthier was without doubt the one indispensable marshal.

>>Dupont was the author of his own misfortune.

Well I'm not 100% au fait with the actions as I've not had interest in the state of Spain for some time. However, he was a consummate stalwart and active divisional in the 1805 campaign.

And someone sent him and his corps to the remoteness of Southern Spain on some fanciful mission without adequate support, to occupy Cadiz as if it was a Sunday afternoon promenade!
regards d

He was sent with one of the occupying forces and Moncey had another and this was before the Spanish revolt.

Once the revolt hit, Dupont did not act in a manner to get himself out of his situation. Moncey, faced in a similar manner, did.

Dupont, who was an outstanding division commander, was definitely out of his depth with an independent command. He did not command aggressively and spent too much time sitting on his hands allowing the Spanish to organize and move against him..

'Dupont's operations during 19 June-23 July 1808 are an outstanding 'horrible' example for any commander faced by a popular insurrection.'-Esposito/Elting Atlas, Map 85.

'A general in the power of the enemy has no orders to give: Whoever obeys him is a criminal.'-Napoleon