"The Trial of Marshal Ney: Actions of former comrades" Topic

…in arms

"After his statements about bringing Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage and then subsequently joining Napoleon, Marshal Ney became the most prominent target of royalist vengeance after the Hundred Days of 1815. Once Ney was arrested, Marshal Gouvion St. Cyr, the new Minister of War, formed a council of war to try Ney, hoping to staff it with individuals who would be sympathetic to Ney. Initially he selected Marshal Moncey to head the council, but Moncey refused on principle. Moncey was threatened by the king but he held firm and was imprisoned for three months. A new council of war was formed with Marshal Jourdan presiding. The seven judges were:…"

Main page

link

Armand

Very interesting .
Gracias Armand

Indeed. Very interesting. Ney got a poor deal and was ill-served not only by past comrades but also 'honourable enemies'. The Bourbons were determined for some heads 'pour encourager les autres' and Ney was a very notable head indeed. In the end, it is surprising that not much more blood was 'officially' spilt but Les Ultras had to be appeased. However, this would have been little comfort to the families of Ney, De La Bedoyere and the tragic Marshal Brune.

Ney took oaths, made promises and then broke them. If he had walked up to Napoleon and pumped a round into him it would have saved thousands of lives. I understand what happened and why, but I can't see how a court could rule other than treason.

Glad you enjoyed it….

Armand

The unit guarding Ney were royalists – the Ney family was billed for their uniforms as well as the cost of his execution. Those on the firing squad would later brag about it.

Bourmont's papers have been donated to the French state but are still in possession of the family. Every few months my team writes to gain access… but they are still being catalogued.

Hopefully in our lifetime we'll have a chance to review.

We did gain access to a large collection of documents in the hands of a descendant of Gérard – this included Bourmont's last letter to Gérard signed as a Lt. General on June 14. He carefully explains how he had sent everyone available to repair the Charleroi road, per Gérard's earlier orders. Those that have wondered if he would have had an opportunity to send his personal staff and baggage across the border on the 14th – this provides a definitive answer.

It also proves w/o a doubt that he was not acting passively waiting to be replaced – Bourmont was betraying France.

Bourmont was betraying Boney but not France. As for Ney, a sad story to see how such a brave soldier and officer had to end due to very political interests, such a d'Enghien.

Bourmont deserting to the Prussians betrayed France, his own troops, and Napoleon. No one forced him to take the oath of service. If he had his doubts he never should have taken the positin in the first place. Blucher's comments to him were completely deserved and quite accurate.

And there is no comparison between Ney and d'Enghien. D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government in time of war. That is treason any way you look at it.

Ney's execution was judicial murder and was unwarranted and unjust. The Bourbons had no honor or character and this group had degenerated way below their predecessors.

Ney's execution was judicial murder and was unwarranted and unjust. The Bourbons had no honor or character and this group had degenerated way below their predecessors.

That trial of Ney was a sham as was the treatment of Napoleon after his abdication.

Probably the inspiration for this tshirt.

link

Ney's 'trial' and summary execution were just the tip of the iceberg. The White Terror, the hunting down and executing those who followed Napoleon in 1815 was 'the anger of sheep.'

It also caused quite a few veterans to go into exile, usually in the German states. Labedoyere was arrested and executed as were others. Others were 'merely' imprisoned unjustly.

It was a national disgrace.

Unfortunately, the facts in the case are not particularly flattering to Ney. He swore an oath of loyalty to the King, and then broke a promise (presumably given and accepted in good faith) to capture and imprison Napoleon – not merely by failing, but by joining him.

Those facts are hard to argue away. A case can be made for clemency, etc, but that case starts from an acknowledgment that he did what he was accused of.

There is also the fact that Louis the Unavoidable ran from Paris, de facto abdicating his kingship.

And the overwhelming attitude of the army was pro-Napoleon, especially after so many of them, especially those discharged with unpaid pensions, were mistreated by the royalists.

Louis fled after receiving the news of Ney's actions, which is an exacerbating condition, not a mitigating one.

The attitude of the army is irrelevant to the question of Ney's guilt or innocence. Ney was not forced to take an oath to Louis XVIII- he chose to. Having done so, Ney's obligation to support him – at the very minimum – extended to not taking up arms on behalf of his enemy.

Remind me again – which wall was Soult put up against and shot?

Indeed, the odious aspect is to ask, why Ney and not all the other oath brakers? As to d'Enghien, a brave officer and highly esteemed by his comrades in armes, it was much worse, kidnapping and then executing, Boney was by no means better, in fact worse, than the Capets.

It goes without saying, I would think, that guilt or innocence in one case does not affect the question of guilt or innocence in another.

The Bourbons wanted to catch and shoot Soult, but he evaded their manhunt and got away, which many veteran officers also did.

Unfortunately, the facts in the case are not particularly flattering to Ney.

The facts in the case aren't necessarily in dispute, but it's the pre-arranmgment, tone, corruption and morals of the case that are kangaroo-esque.

He swore an oath of loyalty to the King, and then broke a promise (presumably given and accepted in good faith) to capture and imprison Napoleon – not merely by failing, but by joining him.

When you break a promise, you should die? Napoleon was still emperor of the French, didn't Ney have a preexisting oath of loyalty to him? Or are oaths only for royal families you approve of as legitimate?

The Bourbons were jack hammered back into France by the allies and almost immediately most of France disliked their return. In that environment it's hard to see why or how Ney could avoid an oath.

In any case, the Bourbons were tyrants and I find it incredibly duplicitous that someone thinks shooting Enghein was the crime of the ages but shooting Ney wasn't.

Incidentally, Napoleon didn't make a habit of reprisals against rivals which you cant say about the royal families of the other major powers who considered it their feudal prerogative.

It goes without saying, I would think, that guilt or innocence in one case does not affect the question of guilt or innocence in another.

Can't be guilty in a trial where the facts are irrelevant because the result is predetermined, the crime artificial and the punishment itself is immoral. The French had a revolution to rid itself of kings and they were reinstated artificially by very selfish, outside interests.

Those facts are hard to argue away. A case can be made for clemency, etc, but that case starts from an acknowledgment that he did what he was accused of.

Sounds like a canon law approach; you only left out the word "heretic".

Indeed, the odious aspect is to ask, why Ney and not all the other oath brakers? As to d'Enghien, a brave officer and highly esteemed by his comrades in armes, it was much worse, kidnapping and then executing, Boney was by no means better, in fact worse, than the Capets.

This is an irresponsible statement which can only emit from a personal opinion; odd for someone with no dog in this fight.

Napoleon treated adversaries a lot better than the reverse and I shouldn't have to remind people that the British made a veritable habit out of breaking oaths/promises.

The facts always matter in a judicial sense, but in a case like this, they are particularly important because an unbiased court in possession of the totality of the facts would not be likely to arrive at a different conclusion than a court that had been picked to convict. This is probably one of multiple reasons it was so hard to find people who were willing to sit on the court. He did what he was accused of: whether the sentence was extreme or unwarranted is a different issue, but it's beyond question that he betrayed a monarch to whom he had sworn an oath.

The abdication had released him- and all of Napoleon's former officers who did not take service with him – from the oath they had sworn to him; whether they took service under another monarch was up to them, but if they chose to do so, legally speaking, they would be bound to give that monarch the same allegiance they gave to Napoleon.

That's a pretty bald statement of facts. It's telling that you feel the need to abuse me for it.

The facts always matter in a judicial sense, but in a case like this, they are particularly important because an unbiased court in possession of the totality of the facts would not be likely to arrive at a different conclusion than a court that had been picked to convict.

Sentence structure aside, there are a lot of issues with this statement.

You ignore whether the reinstatement by foreign powers of an unpopular monarch is legitimate. Can we deduce that you approve of this tactic?

France banned kings, foreign powers put one back. Do you think that's legitimate? And if so, please explain what sorts of governments are and are not legitimate and why.

We don't know what the facts are. What's the oath he swore? How did he violate it? What degree of divergence to an oath can someone have before they violate it? Contrary to your assertion, there are indeed many questions that can color the facts.

The court refused to try him and it was sent to the chamber of peers where he was secretly condemned to death. Thus, I dont even know why you think it is a fact that he broke his oath or whether that would've mattered or protected him in the chamber of peers. A chamber, which seemed to do the singular will of the king.

He did what he was accused of: whether the sentence was extreme or unwarranted is a different issue, but it's beyond question that he betrayed a monarch to whom he had sworn an oath.

So say you. That chamber of peers did what they did in secret, without the need for evidence, proof or reasoning. A pure "Star Chamber" form of justice. Anyone in accord with their decision calls into question what their viewpoint of justice is.

What they did is a form a narrowly crafted strict liability crime. Apart from minor infractions and a few heinous crimes, strict liability crimes are considered anathema to human rights. However, you seem to think that this sort of charge is right and just. To believe that a law is necessarily just because, and only because, it is a law is a very narrow minded, conformist approach to law and justice.

Actually it is worse because the chamber of peers doesn't even need to meet the standard of strict liability or follow the law to sentence a man to death.

This strict liability approach is dangerous too in examples where the law is unilaterally set down. For example, what if a slave escapes and upon recapture the only question separating him from a conviction and hanging is whether he tried to escape or not? Would you pound the table declaring that the slave violated the law or his obligation as property?

Even if we accept your and Louis XVIII's view that breaking an oath to the crown is a strict liability crime, we are still left with the decision about what exact actions Ney took which violated that oath.

You say the conviction was necessarily a fait accompli but the death sentence may not have been warranted. However, you convey an adamant stance over Ney's guilt and, ironically, not a single, solitary thought about whether he deserved a death sentence or not. Do you think the important part of this trial was the oath part and the execution was a mere afterthought?

Further, are we to deduce that you do not like Ney or Napoleon, approve of monarchs, believe oaths to monarchs are sacrosanct or that when you disapprove of someone it's alright for them to be killed?

There are many odd circumstances surrounding Ney's trial. To repeat, the civil court refused to try Ney because he was claimed he was a peer and immune from civil arrest and trial and they instead tried him in the chamber of peers. However, was Ney still truly a peer?

Even if he broke his oath, didn't the King himself suspend the charter of 1814? At a minimum, during this suspension, wouldn't that absolve Ney of responsibility to the crown for most of his behavior during the 100 Days?

The abdication had released him- and all of Napoleon's former officers who did not take service with him – from the oath they had sworn to him; whether they took service under another monarch was up to them, but if they chose to do so, legally speaking, they would be bound to give that monarch the same allegiance they gave to Napoleon.

Do we know that they were truly released from their oaths to Napoleon? All I know is that a defeated France accepted a puppet placed by allied monarchs. At least Napoleon was elected. Do you think the reinstated king was more legitimate than Napoleon? If so, what exactly would that be based on?

That's a pretty bald statement of facts. It's telling that you feel the need to abuse me for it.

It's worrisome that you are not quite sure or specific about what sort of abuse you're undergoing and yet, even though personally hypersensitive, you are quite cavalier about approving of a man's death sentence.

I am unaware that LXVIII abdicated, quite a few officers in high ranks, among them Berthier, stayed loyal to him, this is different to the French Revolution.

I'd be interested in whether people who defend Ney, or argue that he somehow merited clemency, are equally outraged on behalf of the Duc of Enghien.

D'Enghien was in the pay of the British government in time of war. That is treason by anyone's definition.

He was quoted as saying after being taken into custody that 'he had sworn implacable hatred against Bonaparte as well as against the French; he would take ever occasion to make war on them.'

And this was after Napoleon had granted amnesty to the emigres/royalists and 40,000 were readmitted to France under those terms.

D'Enghien was judged by a military court which he was subject to being charged with conspiracy in time of war.

D'Enghien was being paid 4,200 guineas a year by the British government.

D'Enghien was charged and found guilty under Article 2 of 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.'

Regarding the White Terror pursued by the Bourbons after Waterloo, besides Ney and Labedoyere, the following general officers were executed:

-Caesar Faucher
-Constantin Faucher
-Francois Mouton-Duvernet
-Jean-Hyacinthe Chartrand
-Marshal Brune (and his body was thrown into the Rhone).

The following were imprisoned:

-Ameil
-Travot
-Donnadieu

The following officers went into hiding or over the border into Germany in exile:

-Marshal Soult
-Carnot
-Drouet d'Erlon
-Exelmans fled to Belgium

The following officers went to the United States in exile:

-Vandamme
-Grouchy
-Lefebvre-Desnoettes

The following had various fates:

-Bonnaire was publicly degraded and sent into exile penniless.
-Drouot refused to leave France and turned himself into a court-martial and was acquitted.
Lavalette, the imperial postmaster general, was imprisoned and condemned to death, but was rescued by his wife and Sir Robert Wilson and two British officers. Lavalette was smuggled into Bavaria.

The Bourbons planned other executions in Davout's Army of the Loire. Macdonald replaced Davout, got hold of the proscription list, and warned his former comrades allowing many of them to escape and cross the border into Germany where they were welcome.

Augereau and Davout were stripped of their rank and pay.

The whole mess was highly dishonorable to the Bourbons and their followers.

the explanation is simple, all decisions regardless how criminal they are by Boney are good, decisions by other historical persons, even worse in case againt the interest of Boney, are bad.

Lincoln was wise when he told Grant to "let them down easy" and I wonder how much of this French episode Lincoln might have had in mind?

link

Trial and Execution

Initially Ney was to be tried by a military court run by Marshal Jourdan, however his defense team argued that this court could not try him, and instead his case should be tried in the Chamber of Peers. His defense team won in this regard when the court declared itself incompetent, though that may have been due to the military court not wanting to convict him but also not wanting to defy the Bourbons by acquitting him. Next Ney would be tried by a group populated by Royalists and without the same sense of honor as his military colleagues.

During the trial in the Chamber of Peers, Ney's lawyers brought up how the trial was in direct violation of the treaty Davout had negotiated, and secretly in response a new law was then passed forbidding mentioning that treaty in court. With such an act, it became clear to everyone that the trial was a witch hunt. As a last attempt, his lawyers argued that since Ney's hometown of Saarelouis was ceded to Prussia, he could not be tried as a Frenchman, but Ney vehemently denounced this tactic and demanded to be tried as a Frenchman. Some of Ney's supporters appealed to the British for assistance, but they refused, claiming that they could not meddle in France's internal affairs despite spending the past twenty five years trying to change France's government.

On December 6th, Ney was convicted by the Chamber of Peers and the Peers also voted on his sentence, with the majority voting for death by firing squad. The execution was to be carried out the next day. When news of Ney's sentence reached the public, a mob began to form where the execution was to take place, and a new place of execution was quickly arranged at a different location. When faced with the firing squad, Ney gave the order to fire.

Not long thereafter, a French veteran known as Peter Stuart Ney arrived in the United States of America. Many people he came into contact with believed him to be Marshal Ney, suspecting that his death had somehow been faked, but this has never been proven.

That Chamber of Peers sounds like a Kangaroo court on steroids. They must've had "Tie me kangaroo down sport" playing throughout the trial.

A nice cherry on top are the British claiming they dont interfere in other countries.

The flight of Louis XVIII left France ungoverned and anyone who pledged allegiance to Napoleon had some excuse for doing so. Abandoning the cause of a monarch, prior to that abandonment of his realm, a king to whom one had pledged allegiance, did "raise questions". Curiously the title about actions of former comrades seems little discussed here.

Such questions are often settled by victors' justice. France had the same problem in 1944, but that is even more complex. Ney was asking for trouble by not doing the sensible thing and keeping a low profile for a bit….and then coming back to his own "Restoration". But then he was not that sort of chap. I am so glad he did survive and lived out his life in Texas (I have no problem with believing that to be true-ish, well sort of, anyway)

It should also be mentioned that Marshal Moncey was initially named to preside over Ney's trial. He refused. He was immediately thrown into prison and broken from the list of Marshals.

A fine example of Bourbon justice.

It should also be noted that no action was taken against the Bourbons when Napoleon returned from Elba.

Louis XVIII was a typical Bourbon in that he was stupid, deceptive, manipulative and autocratic.

He put his brother and Marie Antoinette in peril with his emigres based rants against the French Revolution and encouragement of foreign military intervention into France.

He scarfed off of other countries for decades and although in exile he promised the French people all sort of liberal safeguards and reforms, once back in France, he dissolved the senate and trended towards reinstating an absolute monarchy.

Even the allied powers were a bit taken back at his approach and insisted he create a constitutional monarchy; which should give one a read about just how despotically reactionary this man was.

He had no discernible talents and a host of flaws and appetites. Just an all around ego-maniacal, incompetent creep which is undoubtedly why so many in France were ecstatic when Napoleon returned.

He was an accomplished gourmet… ;-)

As a West Countryman who lived in a village that hosted Judge Jefferys and "Bloody Assize – the White Terror was remarkably lenient.

BTW – so glad to see you back Kevin. We mightn't always with each other, but TMP was poorer without you.

Elliott

Thank you very much Elliott-means a lot coming from you.

As someone given the soubriquet Marshal Ney in my first Napoleonic battle at the local club, I have a soft spot for old Michel, obviously suffering from PTSD by 1815, he is an iconic figure of the era. Much kudos is due to him and his moniker was well-deserved; however:

- he pushed for Napoleon's abdication in 1814
- he didn't need to work for the Bourbon's, but chose to
- he made a rash promise to his monarch, then reneged and facilitated a coup
- he went all out in his efforts for Napoleon, when a number of contemporaries could see the writing on the wall and made their excuses.

I only hope that he did die against that wall, after giving the order to fire. So much more in keeping with the man's life than dying in exile under an assumed name.

As for the restoration of the Bourbons, I can't see anything else happening. Napoleon's autocratic and nepotistic reign in place of the Republic meant there was no viable alternative.

As I've stated before, I believe that Britain's constitutional monarchy gave it a head start on other states but France wasn't ready for something similar and the Napoleonic Wars ultimately only hastened its displacement as the land superpower in Europe.

I don't know that I'm a big Ney fan. I know I'm not a Louis XVIII fan.

But irrespective as an amateur historian, I like to examine the evidence to see what the chain events actually were. Additionally as a western democrat, I am suspicious of autocrats, even relatively benign ones. In this case, Louis XVIII was supremely unfit to rule. Like many of the Bourbon line, he had a small brain and an extremely touchy nature. I would imagine revenge for petty reasons was always foremost on his mind. He believed in absolute power. Meanwhile, Napoleon followed the rule of law.

Aside from that, I believe that justice should be universal and not just for or against Ney because someone doesn't like Napoleon.

I would imagine someone deeply concerned with forum rules would be able to apply that to a sense of justice. However, I could be mistaken, there does seem to be a sort obsessed with black letter rules and zero understanding about fair dealing or mitigating circumstances. Its that strict liability thing.

The French didn't want Louis XVIII, the allies insisted on him. Maybe forcing an unpopular ruler on them is what led to mass defections to Napoleon? Just a thought. Do populations who have governments thrust on them by foreigners have an obligation to honor oaths?

Maybe some people don't care about the morality of an established regime and think "The rule is the rule is the rule." Certainly that would give weight that oaths broken against other lawless tyrants gives them the power to shoot people out of hand.

So it's OK to make promises to people you don't like and then break them.
A lie is a reflection on the liar, not the person lied to.

And honestly, the whole hereditary monarchy was the problem, not that this one monarch was an idiot. If it's OK to break trust with Louis then it's also OK to do it with Alexander, Frederick William, George etc.

I too am wary of autocrats. You only have to look at Paris being occupied twice in two years and tens of thousands of lost lives, all because Napoleon would not accept the terms offered by the Allies in 1813/14, to see the consequences of too much decision-making in one person's hands.

And I both can think that Louis was another particularly poor Bourbon absolute monarch, whilst also thinking that Ney could have little cause for complaint, due to his actions. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

No one is forced to sign up this, or any other forum. Ney was not compelled to swear allegiance to the Bourbons (many sacrificed wealth and power by not doing so) and he could have stepped down on the return of Napoleon rather than agree to Louis' orders and then reneging. He gambled and lost, deserving whatever fate that the French government chose.

Contrast this with Bernadotte, who is commonly lambasted as a traitor, yet had refused to swear an oath preventing taking up arms against France, when he became Crown Prince of Sweden and which Napoleon accepted.

The only similarity in Au Pas de Charge's particularly distasteful comparison of forum rules and disastrous real world events is that in both cases, there is no compulsion, which undermines the argument.

And Au Pas de Charge, you too, would do well to consider whether such posts read as group attacks, whilst you 'imagine' what 'a sort obsessed' and who disagrees with you thinks.

Bernadotte gets short shrift from Francophiles, but he was probably the most successful French soldier in that era. Hard to beat private to king in 30 years.

Murat private to king before him, and without having betrayed his country, heading an Army against France and the French right in the middle of the coalised ennemies forces for example like some other counterpart of southwestern France…

He also did a better job of founding a dynasty than did the Corsican ogre. The Bernadottes were involved in rescuing Jews from Germany to Sweden 125 years later.

Bernadotte, along with Marmont, turned on their own people. Bernadotte also subordinated Sweden to the Russians, which was not a good move for the Swedes.

His quest for Norway just made him another of the allies who were out for all the loot they could get after Napoleon's fall.

And then there is his reprehensible conduct at Auerstadt…

Murat was private to king to corpse, not quite the same trajectory.
As far as Bernadotte being a traitor, once Napoleon seated him on the throne Bernadotte was a Swede, not a Frenchman. He did what was best for Sweden.

So it's OK to make promises to people you don't like and then break them.
A lie is a reflection on the liar, not the person lied to.

Do we even know the nature of the promise broken and where the notice of potential conviction and punishment were published? There are a lot of problems with the nature of this oath and the chain of events that led to Ney's execution; yet no one seems to know what it was or how it was violated.

The important part is the that fact that an oath was broken, not the standard of civil rights for the accused? Is death the accepted outcome?

As far as Bernadotte being a traitor, once Napoleon seated him on the throne Bernadotte was a Swede, not a Frenchman. He did what was best for Sweden.

Bernadotte seemed to have always done what was best for Bernadotte.I suppose his behavior was bound to coincide with another interest at some juncture.

Murat was private to king to corpse, not quite the same trajectory.

Nice. Like Ney, he sort of got stitched up too.

Anyone found the oath Ney took to Louis XVII? Anyone care that, during the 100 Days, Napoleon declared Louis XVIII regime and obligations null and void?

I sense a strong feeling that whatever people opposed to Napoleon did was both lawful and not worthy of scrutiny.

"I sense a strong feeling that whatever people opposed to Napoleon did was both lawful and not worthy of scrutiny…"

Wise words…

Armand

I sense a strong feeling that those for who admire Boney unconditionally all his criminal actions to be benign and of best intentions and for the benefit of human mankind, such as advising torture, or killing POWs, for example.

Very far to have the exclusivity given that Russia Great Britain and Spain were great examples of the treatment of French POW's at such point Napoleon threatened to apply the same treatment by reciprocity : while the French POW's were tortured killed burned, in death camps like in Cabrera and british floatting pontoons, these Messieurs the British POW's can do a Tour de France, the Spaniards and Russians can take a job until being spanish teacher in a lycée or working in a farm walking freely in the streets, any Prussian Russian Austrian Spaniard British living right in the middle of inhabitants, in their houses, the French mayors only alarmed even at the moment of the invasion in 1814 that these tourists in particular the British already known for their drunkenness must not frequent the bars and taverns of the city too late and pay before leaving while the French conscipts saw all that being closed behind their barracks by their NCO's…

Glad that for the rest of Europe and the World the former French citizen soldier and marschall Bernadotte was someone positive for Sweden and the Swedish…but I am afraid such point doesn't alter the fact he is seen as a traitor by his own country and compatriots, an other illustration of the very old french saying that only yours own fellows can betray you

I'm not sure that getting absolution from the man whose coup you facilitated is as strong a case as you seem to think, Au Pas de Charge. Ney's actions contributed to the downfall of the ruler and most countries had the death penalty for treason (indeed, it's often one of the last to be removed from the statute list).

On the issue of Bernadotte, I'm sure that if you condone Napoleon repeatedly installing his friends and family as inadequate monarchs of unsuspecting, unwilling or (or even brand new) countries, purely for the aim of supporting France, then you might erroneously assume Sweden should have purely been another provider of blood and treasure.

Fortunately Bernadotte recognised that his loyalty should and would henceforth lie with Sweden and its people.

@Lilian

You make my point while it is vicious of other nations badly treating French and their Allied POWs (and Britian may be among the worst) it seemingly isn't when Boney is doing it, even when they gave up due to the promise that they were spared.

I am only saying that it should be compared the treatment given by the coalised great benefactors of humanity to the French POW's in their countries with the treatment given to the foreign POW's in France by/under the same accused Napoleon and only after that we will see if Napoleon is the grand exterminator of POW's

You are correct. The French treated their POWs honorably while the Spanish, Russians, and British did not. Being confned in a prison hulk, for example, is not exactly being treated well.

Much is made of Napoleon's cruelty because of the prisoners he had shot in Palestine. What is usually forgotten is that they had broken their parole which was a capital offense if they were recaptured.

Funny how the last part is usually overlooked.