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

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.

Can't be any worse than having an unpopular, despotic (well, quasi-despotic) monarch thrust upon people by foreign powers.

I'm not making a case yet, I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. Are you interested in that?

But if Louis XVIII's laws were valid, aren't Napoleon's too? Or is legitimacy a one way street?

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).

Then you believe that when Louis XVIII fled it severed Louis XVIII's monarchy along with rules, laws, obligations etc?

Please clarify this.

I'm not that interested in Bernadotte. I am not interested in Napoleon for this topic except how he factors into the chain of events for the legitimacy of laws, teaties and such.

If you ant to get at the legitimacy, truth and righteousness of this matter, we need to start with the nature of the oath, how and whether it was broken and whether Ney received a fair, objective trial and sentence.

What is breaking an oath, what degree of bending can take place before it is broken. Does the monarch get to decide unilaterally? Is anything that displeases him a case of oath breaking?

Those are the real questions to investigate not all this whataboutism.

However, Lilian and Brechtel are correct and the British tortured a lot of prisoners during the Napoleonic wars without regards to following any laws or rules.

Au Pas de Charge

Ney reneged on his vow and orders as a senior commander, leading to the fall of the government through a coup. That's the order it happened in, not the other way around, as you seem to suggest.

Please clarify if that wasn't your intention.

If you believe that Ney's oath and promise to bring Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage was somehow phrased such that his actions were not actually treasonous, please produce them. After all Brechtel is happy to defend Napoleon's prisoners being executed for breaking their parole and I see many parallels.

I await your evidence to excuse his actions.

Finally, as for external forces installing rulers, it appears you give Napoleon a pass on installing friends and family as monarchs, but how dare the Allies restore the Bourbons?

Please clarify this.

It was not only Ney's actions that prompted the Bourbons to 'leave' France in a hurry. The overwhelming number of French units and senior commanders believed and acted the same way he did.

That was due in large part to how the Bourbons had treated the French army after Napoleon's abdication.

As for Napoleon 'installing friends and family as monarchs' that was a common European occurrence (take a look at the Hapsburgs doing literally the same thing-and the British were not far from it). The rulers of the states of the Confederation of the Rhine were left as is with the exception of the states that were used to 'construct' Westphalia.

To 'blame' Napoleon for a common European practice just isn't an accurate assessment.

Further, the allies grabbing all the loot from Napoleon's empire after peace was established is another problem that is usually overlooked.

The Bourbon restoration, something that the French did not want, is one of the causes (along with their atrocious behavior in 1814) of Napoleon returning in 1815.

Au Pas de Charge

Ney reneged on his vow and orders as a senior commander, leading to the fall of the government through a coup. That's the order it happened in, not the other way around, as you seem to suggest.

Ney single-handedly toppled the government? I think not.

I've been looking for an oath that people swore to Louis XVIII. A written document or formal recitation under some sort of sacred symbol. Something I haven't found.

If you believe that Ney's oath and promise to bring Napoleon to Paris in an iron cage was somehow phrased such that his actions were not actually treasonous, please produce them. After all Brechtel is happy to defend Napoleon's prisoners being executed for breaking their parole and I see many parallels.

Do we mean Ney's promise to bring back Napoleon? That's not good enough to be an oath; more like a unilateral promise.

Even if it does constitute and oath, there are mitigating factors that were ignored. Could Ney have carried out the promise? Seems like he might have gotten shot on the spot. Are there no excuses for duress? Sounds like this concept of oath is very tyrannical and despotic; something the French Revolution sought to erase and something that all real devotees of democracy find to be inherently offensive.

How do we know that Ney didnt ultimately perform on his promise and deliver Napoleon in a cage later on at the end of the 100 Days? Didnt he submarine Napoleon's plans, first at Quatre bras and then at Waterloo? Perhaps Louis XVIII didnt appreciate Ney's subtlety?

In any case, Napoleon abolished Louis XVIII's regime, much like the allies abolished Napoleon's. I dont see why this isn't a two way street. Ney couldnt break and oath or a promise that no longer existed.

Ney didnt attack Louis XVIII or any french persons, that I know of. Thus, I dont know where the treason lies.

What could be more patriotic than this?:

On 6 December 1815, Ney was condemned, and on 7 December 1815 he was executed by firing squad in Paris near the Luxembourg Gardens. He refused to wear a blindfold and was allowed the right to give the order to fire, reportedly saying:

Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart. Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not one against her … Soldiers, fire

link

Finally, as for external forces installing rulers, it appears you give Napoleon a pass on installing friends and family as monarchs, but how dare the Allies restore the Bourbons?

Giving Napoleon a pass? Napoleon is only involved with this to the extent that he might have severed any Oaths (Or unilateral promises) taken by Ney. Now, to be able to discuss law and justice about this subject, we need to be in agreement about both regime's being legitimate, not just the one you want to be legitimate.

In any case, I am not interested in the whataboutisms which basically distract from Nine Pound Round's initial, absurd judgment without any examination, foundation or reasoning. I thought it tragically comic that he could not support his claims and stomped off in a defensive huff.

I await your evidence to excuse his actions.

My evidence? What appalling nerve. All evidence points to Louis XVIII personally singling Ney out for his impotent rage and making sure the fix was in to both convict and execute him. I would imagine that any and all fair minded persons with powers to examine and evaluate the record would want to reason this out. My evidence, indeed.

To be clear, it also isn't "my" argument, it's the right thing to do. All people who believe in fairness and and individual rights should be interested in walking through this and examining it for justice.

The idea that I have to prove that Ney didn't break an oath is exactly the sort of megalomaniacal reasoning which caused the USA to break with the UK, kings, as well as other naughty persons, and a tactic which is deeply offensive to freedom loving, democratic people everywhere.

"How do we know that Ney didnt ultimately perform on his promise and deliver Napoleon in a cage later on at the end of the 100 Days?"
Now your arguments are passing into the ridiculous.

"Personally singling out…..for his impotent rage."

Entertaining choice of words there.

LOL

"I thought it tragically comic that he could not support his claims and stomped off in a defensive huff."

and:

"My evidence? What appalling nerve."

There's some inconsistency here…

Well lucky Boney – in case what would have happened if let's say the Prussian would have kidnapped him and shot him in a ditch after a trial?

I doubt Blucher would have bothered with a trial. He would have had him shot out of hand.

When captured by the Prussians during the Waterloo aftermath, Larrey, who resembled Napoleon in appearance, was going to be shot by the Prussians until saved by some conscientious Prussian medical officers who knew him.

Napoleon considered Larrey the most virtuous man he had ever known.

"How do we know that Ney didnt ultimately perform on his promise and deliver Napoleon in a cage later on at the end of the 100 Days?"

Now your arguments are passing into the ridiculous.

I rather like my idea. I take it you are unfamiliar with the concept of brainstorming.

"Personally singling out…..for his impotent rage."

Entertaining choice of words there.

Yes, Louis XVIII had to flee France like a rat trying to escape rising water in a sewer. He was humiliated because most of the country hated him and he wanted to dump his incompetent fury on Ney.

"I thought it tragically comic that he could not support his claims and stomped off in a defensive huff."

and:

"My evidence? What appalling nerve."

There's some inconsistency here…

It very well could be because you've cut and pasted my comments completely out of context.

Apparently no one here who seems to dislike Ney really wants to take a look at any of the evidence, fairness or events past what they personally approve of. All that constitutes is personal opinion based on an approved of result. Basically, you just like it. Further, it exhibits a reckless approval for authoritarianism. Again, your choice. However, no one has to have any respect for that sort of taste driven, capricious approach.

I am quite glad that they did not do it, otherwise all those Boney propaganda and hero worship wouldn't came into being and would deprive the interested to cut through all those webs of lies and myths.

Regarding the treatment of the French prisoners on Cabrera previously mentioned I think some context is necessary. I'm not defending that treatment but I think it's necessary to understand the profound anger in Andalucía at the time over the sack of the city of Córdoba.

To quote the memoirs of Captain Pierre Baste of the Marins de la Garde who was present in Córdoba on the 13th June 1808. (Translation by Tim Mahon)

'But it became impossible to restrain the greed of the soldiers who, running through the streets with bayonets fixed, forced passage for themselves everywhere and spread throughout the houses in order to pillage. An early column, still marching in closed ranks, arrived in one part of town to be met by musketry from the windows of several streets; this fact led us inevitably to the persuasion that the inhabitants had taken up arms and were defending themselves. So a form of street-to-street combat broke out and served as a pretext for our soldiers to sack Cordoba and deliver it up to all the horrors of a town taken by assault.

The soldiers scattered by platoons or singly, fully armed and unmoved by any representation made to them. Murder and pillage were soon joined by the rape of women, virgins and nuns, the theft of sacred vessels from the churches – sacrilege accompanied by the most atrocious circumstances. Some officers – even some generals – demeaned themselves by indulging in such dishonour, even when grief-stricken parents sought to solicit the protection of the first officers they encountered.'

Baste who was present during similar atrocities in Jaén later states:

'In our conversations with several Spaniards, I detected a pronounced belief that seemed to spread throughout Andalusia, and indeed throughout Spain, that the French had begun to pillage Cordoba and the whole of this part of Andalusia without provocation and with no discernible motivation. This nation-wide belief was so deep-rooted that everything we could say to bring the truth out was useless.

From this situation stemmed the terrible reprisals to which we were exposed. From this perspective, the more I reflected on the consequences of the sack of Cordoba, the more I wished we had used other means to punish resistance in Spanish towns. In fact, if one examines every aspect of such an event, one must remain convinced that such a terrible abuse of power has worse consequences for the army that perpetrates it than for the very inhabitants who are its victims.'

Strange pillaging to large extend existed also prior to that. Titeux offered his opinion that those memoires were not written by Baste but by another person. Cordoba – a difficult story, as far as I could gather, they did not open the gates and they had to be opened by force, and by that the soldiers had to right to plunder it for 3 days, like Badajoz, those worse consequences had the origin that the French invaded a country without any reason other than install puppet King Joseph, attrocities from both sides started at the beginning of the invasion.

Napoleon invaded Spain because he found evidence that Spain under Godoy was prepared to turn on her ally, France, if the Prussians won in 1806.

The installation of Joseph as King was not the sole reason for the invasion of Spain.

Spain was only a secondary theatre, though, so French atrocities there don't count.

Atrocities always count. The Spanish were cruel in their application, and Spanish peasants would turn on the guerillas in certain circumstances when the guerillas would abuse the peasants.

And don't forget British atrocities in Spain. Moore's troops committed them during the retreat to Corunna, for example. And those atrocities were committed against Spanish civilians.

Regarding Cordoba and Dupont's misadventures in southern Spain, Dupont commanded slackly and did little or nothing to stop his troops pillaging the Spanish civilian population. There was a significant 'convoy' of vehicles full of pillaged material that Dupont kept with his command during the campaign. Dupont proved himself, in more ways than one, to be an incompetent independent commander.

The amount of oblique denial on here!

Rather than discuss Louis XVIII's system of justice or the nature of oaths and when and how they are broken we're talking about everything else.

Louis XVIII's arbitrary government is the reason why autocracies and police states are per se corrupt.

I couldn't agree more. Well said.