Napoleon ?

[sullafelix]

I just had a thought today ( I know dangerous ) about the emperor. As personally charming as he could be and even though he raised many men from nothing to princess. He never really had anyone who stood beside him when things were bad. He had some lower level people follow him to Elba and St. Helena but that was it. True the average French soldier worshipped him, but the higher ranks in the military and political spheres seem to have had no real attachment. He for whatever reason, kept people in power ( Talleyrand, Fouche ) when he knew they were even working against him.

He never had loyal generals or a cult of personality. Even Hiler and Stalin had diehard believers that they were gods or at least superior men and had all the answers and were never wrong. The many marshals seem to have believed they fought for France and their own glory not because they were following a titan among men so to speak. So many other great generals or leaders had people who were always behing them thick or thin. It seems almost as if to them he was a flash in the pan. Hitler until the very end ( and even after ) had generals who were extremely loyal. Napoleon seems to have had none. They did their duty and raised the Freanch flag over most of Europe but none of them had blind obediance and most of them had doubts and misgivings that they were not afraid to air. This is probably a plus for Napoleon, because in other eras they kept their mouths closed do to fear.

It just strikes me that you can't find anyone around Napoleon like a himmler or Model. Only later after years had passed did it seem fashionable for the higher people around Napoleon to look back with rose colored glasses. Up until then it seems they tried to hide from the limelight of their ascendance under him. Do you agree with this assesment or am I totally off base.

[DuckofTindalos]

He raised men to princesses?

[mllange]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He raised men to princesses?

This is France we are talking about, right? How could that happen? [;)]

[sullafelix]

Sorry for the typo, I'll flog my secretary.
 
To add to my post, that hopefully explains more of what I was getting at. Alexander had some people who believed in his one world vision. Temujin had people believe who believed in his one Khan world. Napoleon doesn't seem to have anyone that believed in his vision or even understood what his vision ( if even he did ) was.

[jkBluesman]

You should not forget Berthier and to a lesser degree Davout. Davout held out in Hamburg even after Napoleon was on his way to Elba.
On the other hand Napoleon did not like to share glory and mistreated his friends. Marmont was not made one of the first Marshals although he had been Napoleon's oldest friend, introduced him to his family when nobody knew anything about Bonaparte.

[Ironclad]

Davout was easily his loyalist senior commander - even Berthier gave up towards the end. Whilst Napoleon valued Davout's services he was sometimes stinting in praise - perhaps Davout was just too self sufficient and able for Napoleon as autocrat. It seems incredible that the Emperor left him at Hamburg (despite its importance) when desperately in need of capable army commanders able to operate independently during the critical campaign of 1813.

Its certainly true that by 1814 most of the Marshals were either war weary or were switching their allegiance. Even fewer returned for the Hundred Days. Of course unlike the situation in Germany in 1945 most of them had a good prospect of achieving office and/or keeping their wealth (and freedom) under the new regime if they demonstrated their new loyalties.

[sullafelix]

Berthier is one example of loyalty possibly, but we really will never know what he was going to do when he died or was murdered. With Davout I see a marshal that was extremely loyal to France, not neccessarily to Napoleon. When the allies were advancing on Paris after Waterloo Davout threatened them with all the troops at his disposal, from marching into Paris again. He didn't try to shore up Napoleon's regime or make any political statement. He just didn't want the allied army running amok through France.
 
 With Marmont he really didn't do anything to rate being a marshal in 1804, although neither did some that were made marshals then. Marmont is perfect for my argument. Here is someone who is raised from nothing to a dukedom by Napoleon, for really not much more than being a childhood friend. Yet the name Ragusa becomes synonymous with treachery as Quisling did in the 20th century.
 
No one, not the marshals or anyone else stood up in 1814 to place Napoleon's son on the throne. It just strikes me as odd that there wasn't some cabal of important people who stood behind Napoleon and his son. Napoleon's return to France is just as striking. There is no secret meetings with the marshals beforehand, no troops waiting for him at his landing. No one puts up napoleonic flags and rushes to his support like Pompey did when Sulla landed in Italy. The hundred days is hatched on a very low level and with really no thought of what would happen after Napoleon landed. All the other kings or dictators that I've read about that go back to their country to try to take back the reigns of power have had some adherents ready to proclaim for them on their return.

[marcusm]

Could it be that he dind't represent any kind of ideology?
Stalin had fans because he was a figurehead to Ccommunism and Hitler to National Socialism.

Napoleon actually believed in The Republic. Not exactly sexy among the young radicals .

[marcusm]

Genghis Khan on the other hand has a lagre following even today, not to mention
many relatives.

[SkyElf]

The one Napoleonic Marshals Lannes was called Napoleon favorite in some sources, and when he died in battle Napoleon was hit hard by this event. I believed you would have found him to be a die hard for Napoleon cause!