Tete de l'Armee [1] To understand great men, we should consult their writings and those of their contemporaries rather than rely on secondary sources. Napoleon was a great man, and knew it, and made sure that the rest of the world did. He was first and foremost a soldier. He started as a gunner, and did not become a military all-rounder until the late 1790s -. There is nothing in the military profession that I cannot do for myself. If there is no-one to make gunpowder, I know how to make it; gun carriages, I know how to construct them; if it is founding cannon, I know that, or if the details of tactics must be taught I can teach them. [2] He was no academic but had an elephantine memory for military matters. My memory will not store a single alexandrine verse, but I do not forget one syllable of the regimental returns. I always know where my troops are. [3] He tended to romanticise the past, when in St Helena, writing in 1817 - A singular thing about me is my memory. As a boy I knew the logarithms of thirty or forty numbers. In France I not only knew the names of the officers of all the regiments, but where the corps had been recruited, had distinguished themselves. I even knew their spirit. Here was an egoist [4] with a sense of his destiny, and brimming with self-confidence. For all the faith I have in French valour, I have equal faith in my lucky star, or perhaps in myself, and as a result, I never count positively on victory unless I myself am in command. [5] He knew the value of his presence on the battlefield. The Duke of Wellington agreed with him, saying in a letter to Lord Stanhope in 1831 - I used to say of him [Napoleon] that his presence on the battlefield made the difference of 40,000 men. It would be interesting to speculate on the Duke's reaction to the following propaganda, clearly meant to encourage the French army on their way into Portugal - When I show myself beyond the Pyrenees, the terrorised leopard will seek the ocean in order to avoid shame, defeat and death. The triumph of my armies will be the triumph of the spirit of good over that of evil … He was eager to be appreciated by the people of Spain and wrote - I hope my friendship and protection will render peace and happiness to the people of Spain. What would have been the reaction of General de Herrasti, Governor of Ciudad Rodrigo at the time it fell to the French, and Don Julian Sanchez, the well-known guerilla leader who contributed so much to the Allied cause, to such a statement! And they wouldn't have been overjoyed by him saying - It is no dishonour to be defeated by my army. [6] The Spaniards had to pay a heavy price for this "peace and happiness" in 1810 when they lost Ciudad Rodrigo to the French. The Massena Archives tell the story. A fine of 500,000 francs was levied on the citizens to pay for reconstruction. Only half of this was raised. Wellington made good the damage done by les anglais from the English Exchequer. 30,000 réaux [7] purloined from the town Treasury, and 285 pounds of silver plate looted from the churches. City Bonus As Ciudad Rodrigo was to be used as a stores depot for Massena's army to invade Portugal, the capture of the city was a bonus as they had had many problems in finding food and transport for their vast army. After the Spanish surrender, the following stores were available to the French - 50 tons of wheat 7 tons of grain 11 tons of rice 7 tons of vegetables nearly 6 tons of dried codfish 11 tons of salted meat and 100,000 rations of biscuit The French were able to make good their losses in ammunition. They found in the city - 118 Army pieces 73 tons of powder almost a million cartridges [8] 290 serviceable caissons (carts) and wagons 7,225 small arms 87,008 projectiles of all calibres While Napoleon was romanticising about the great moments of his life, which helped pass the time in Saint Helena, he was very conscious of death and glory in his scheme of things. As far as soldiers were concerned - he wrote to General Gourgand in 1818 that [They] are made on purpose to be killed. But he could hardly say this to their face, so skilful public relations with his troops were needed to promote this concept. He wrote to General Brune, on 12 March 1800 - You know what words can do to soldiers. One of Napoleon's man-management techniques is described by L A F de Bourrienne, a former Private Secretary and confidante. When he reviewed the troops he asked the officers, and often the soldiers, in what battles they had been engaged, and to those who had received serious wounds he gave the Cross. Here, I think, I may appropriately mention a singular piece of charlatanism [9] to which the Emperor had recourse, and which powerfully contributed to augment the enthusiasm of his troops. He would say to one of his aides de camp, 'Ascertain from the colonel of such a regiment whether he has in his corps a man who has served in the campaigns of Italy or the campaigns of Egypt. Ascertain his name, where he was born, the particulars of his family and what he had done. Learn his number in the ranks, and to what company he belongs and furnish me with the information.' On the day of the review Bonaparte, at a single glance, could perceive the man who had been described to him. He would go up to him as if he recognised him, address him by his name, and say, 'Oh! So you are here! You are a brave fellow - I saw you at Aboukir - how is your old father? What! Have you not got the Cross? Stay, I will give it you.' Then the delighted soldiers would say to each other, 'You see the Emperor knows us all; he knows our families; he knows where we have served.' What a stimulus was this to soldiers, whom he succeeded in persuading that they would at all some time or other become Marshals of the Empire! Of Death and Glory Death, as far as Napoleon was concerned was equated with honour. He wrote to Marshal Davout - I regret the brave men you have lost, but they are dead on the field of honour. [10] Given that two members of the Craufurd family died bravely at the hands of the French, I have some sympathy with this concept. The thought that dying was an honourable business, and that there was no alternative was repeated to General Lauriston: Death is nothing; but to live defeated and without glory is to die every day. [11] To motivate your soldiers, he wrote, you need to understand them. A general's principal talent consists in knowing the mentality of the soldier and in winning his confidence. And, in these two respects, the French soldier is more difficult to lead than any other. He is not a machine to be put in motion but a reasonable man to be directed. To motivate soldiers to die with honour needed a spiritual rather than a military approach. He wrote - A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to galvanise the man. Death and glory go hand in hand he told his brother Jerome in August 1802. Die young and I shall accept your death - but not if you have lived without glory, without being useful to your country, without leaving a trace of your existence: for that is not to have lived at all. What was the price of glory? Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory; and that sweet is the savour of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave [12] To the Duke of Wellington, loss of life in a battle was a tragedy, a loss of friends and colleagues, as well as an honourable necessity of military life. Unlike Napoleon, he never romanticised it. The next greatest misfortune to losing a battle is to gain such a victory as this. [13] And when on another occasion a lady said to him - What a glorious thing must be a victory, Sir. He replied simply - The greatest tragedy in the world, Madam, except a defeat. [14] Hardly a Napoleonic sentiment! Like Napoleon, the Duke was a stern taskmaster. On one occasion he asked for a bridge to be constructed. The Engineer, after examining the problem told the Duke that it could not be done. The Duke was displeased, and sent for another officer who did what was required. The following comment on this episode was published anonymously in the "Orders" presumably to the chagrin of the Engineer concerned. He who in War fails to do what he undertakes, may always plead the accidents which invariably attend military affairs; but he who declares a thing to be impossible, which is subsequently accomplished, registers his own incapacity. Napoleon might well have adopted a similar technique. How to Beat the French Marshals The Duke was once asked how it was that he had succeeded in beating Napoleon's Marshals, one after the other. He had a healthy respect for the military professionalism of the French and said - I will tell you. They planned their campaigns just as you might make a splendid set of harness. It looks very well; and answers very well;' until it gets broken, and then you are done for. Now I made my campaigns of ropes. If anything went wrong, I tied a knot; and went on. [15] He was fair in victory. Having spent some time at the military academy at Anger he understood the French psyche. Fraser in "Words on Wellington" writes - The Duke did ample justice to the brilliant courage of the French at Waterloo; and to the skill with which the battle was conducted on their side. He modestly says … that it was impossible to do more than the French did. … To the French people, Success is an essential for Praise; and whether it be their Emperor losing his throne at Sedan, or a poor soldier who bleeds to death in a ditch, scanty praise is given by that race to failure. [16] He did not glory in the victory at Waterloo, but described it modestly as "a damned near run thing". Political Positions What was the difference in the political set-up of the two leaders? Although the Duke, had supreme operational command, he was dependent upon the government at home for many things. He had ten groups of people on his staff, the Treasury representatives for example, who were not answerable to him, but to the Horse Guards. Fraser points out in "Words on Wellington", that the Duke, unlike Napoleon, had little or no control over the political intentions of the Government. He says with regard to Napoleon - How completely different was the position of the Emperor Napoleon. The Autocrat of France; holding the wires, by which the mechanism was worked, in his hands alone; perfect master of his own secrets: well able to extort from the French Nation any number of soldiers; the destiny of those soldiers being entirely dependent upon his will, or caprice, how powers were enormously greater than those the Duke of Wellington ever had. Napoleon was certainly one of the greatest soldiers the world has ever known, and he knew it. Perhaps, he should have adopted the Duke's maxim, that if you want something done well, you should do it yourself. That is to say, had he finished off the Spanish campaign in person, and not ran it by remote control from Paris, the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars might have been very different. How was it that the Duke of Wellington managed to defeat such an extraordinary man. He was prepared to act as his ambitious enemy's efforts unravelled step by step. With Spanish and Portuguese support he eventually drove the French out of Spain, and Europe found peace at last. This was particularly appreciated, by the Spanish royal family. When British troops stopped and searched a French convoy they found to be taking the King of Spain's pictures back to France. The Duke offered them back to the King who told him to keep them as he had earned them. [17] The Duke received numerous titles from the Spanish and Portuguese in gratitude for his efforts. [18] My husband and I once spoke to a Ciudad Rodrigo man-in-the-street about "El Duque de Wellington." On hearing the name he looked blank, but when we spoke of "La guerra Napoleonica" his eyes lit up. After all that the French did to Ciudad Rodrigo, it was clear that Napoleon's name will never be forgotten, even in that city. A small tribute to a remarkable man. Personally, as an English person, I was sad that memories of the Duke's spectacular rescue of this wonderful city from the French seemed to have been of so little account. WHO SAID THIS? "It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." [Answer below Footnotes] Footnotes [1] Napoleon's last words before his death. A suitable title for this article which is about the Duke of Wellington as well. [2] 30th July 1800 [3] 11th February 1809 [4] Between 13 and 14% of this sentence consists of "I", "my", or "mine"! [5] Conversation 1803. [6] This was in fact said to a captured Russian officer in 1805. But presumably any-one whom he defeated - if he liked them - might have had the same riposte! [7] A precursor of the Peseta. [8] From the French balles? Were cartridges used at this time? Quoted by Professor Horward in "Napoleon and Iberia" - page 181 [9] Bourrienne's words not the author's! [10] 16th October 1806, the day after Auerstaädt. [11] This was written approximately 12 years before the St Helena experience! [12] Recorded by the comte de Ségur, one of his ADCs [13] He was supposed to have said this after the Battle of Waterloo. Quoted in Rogers' 'Recollections' 1859. [14] Ibid [15] Quoted in "Words on Wellington" by Fraser, page 37 [16] Ibid, page 189 [17] These pictures can be seen at Apsley House, the Duke's London residence, which was known as No 1 London. [18] Viscount Wellington of Talavera, Marques of Douro, Count of Vimeiro, Marques of Torres Vedras, Duke of Victoria (in Portugal), Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and a Grandee of Spain, 1st Class. Answer Adolph Hitler in 1938. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #37 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com