The first renunciation of Napoleon

24
After the unsuccessful military campaign for Napoleon 1813, the troops of the coalition opposing him crossed the Rhine and in January 1814 invaded France. The country's forces were already exhausted, the army, which it could send to meet the armies of the opponents, was five times smaller than them. But for a short time it seemed to everyone that Napoleon’s military genius was able to even balance such inequality.


Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814., Illustration from the book “The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte” by William Milligan Sloan




The list of victories of the French emperor is able to impress any imagination. He starts his campaign on January 26. On this day, his troops beat out the Prussian army from Saint-Dizier. And on January 29, he breaks up the Russian corps of Osten-Sacken and his Prussian detachment under Brienne. February 1 30-thousandth Napoleon's army which did not have time to rest met the main forces of the Austrian army of Schwarzenberg, which consisted of 120 000 soldiers. The battle of La Rothiere lasted all day, Napoleon was forced to retreat, but the Austrians did not even try to pursue him.

February 10 Napoleon smashes the Russian corps of Olsufyev: around 3000, the men led by the commander are captured.

February 11 was marked by Napoleon’s new victory over the Russians and Prussians at Montmiray, and on February 12 he won the battle of Chateau-Thierry.

February 14 Napoleon destroys the vanguard of Blucher at Voshan, February February 18 - wins at Montreux.


Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher


In early March, Napoleon could not win the clashes with Vorontsov’s corps and Blucher’s army, but the battle of Reims took place on March 13, in which Napoleon defeated the Russian-Prussian detachment of General Saint-Prix. Viscount de Saint-Prix was seriously wounded in battle, he died from the effects of this injury at the age of 37.


Viscount de Saint-Prix, French emigrant, Lieutenant General of the Russian service


March 20 The Napoleon’s 30 thousandth army. 2 of the day battled Schwarzenberg’s 90 Austrian army at Ars-sur-Aube. Napoleon won again, but there was no power to pursue the enemy.


Carl Philipp Schwarzenberg


In this situation, the emperor decides to lead the enemies away from France, going to the rear and cutting them off from the Rhine. Napoleon was confident that the opponents would not dare to leave him unattended, and would follow him on his heels. So, most likely, and happened, if not for two circumstances. The first of these was the interception of a courier with a letter, which set out a plan for the future campaign. The second is the betrayal of Talleyrand, who urged the Allies to Paris.


Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, they said about him that all his life he sold those who bought it, and Napoleon once called it "mud in silk stockings."


Only 28 in March, Napoleon found out that, taking advantage of his absence, the two enemy armies united at Paris, and rushed to the capital. But it was too late. On March 25, the Marshals Mortier and Marmont defending Paris were defeated in the battle of Fer-Champenoise, and on March 29. The 150-thousandth Allied army approached the suburbs of Paris Panten and Romainville.

The first renunciation of Napoleon

Marshal Mortier


On this day, Marshal Marmont received permission from Joseph Bonaparte to negotiate with the enemy, the purpose of which was to save Paris from being plundered.


Joseph Bonaparte



Marmont August Frederic Louis de Villez


However, the protection of the capital lasted another day. It was only on the night of 30 on 31 in March that Marmon made a truce with the allies and withdrew the remnants of troops south of the capital.


Friedrich Kamp, "Allies 29 March 1814 of the year near Paris"



"The entry of the Allied forces in Paris 31 March 1814 g.", An engraving of an unknown artist


He did not know that 30 March Napoleon arrived in Fontainebleau. The position of the emperor was more than threatening. The power escaped from his hands, like water from the palms. 29 March, the brother of the emperor Joseph Bonaparte and the minister of war of the empire Clark fled from Paris. Marshal Monsey, who commanded the National Guard, did not send a single battalion to help the enemy Mortier and Marmont who fought against superior forces. Marshal MacDonald, who was covering the rearguard of the Napoleonic army, refused to attack Vitry, saying: "Let your guard do it first, sire!" The army commander in the south of the country, Augereau, abandoned all the artillery in Valance and surrendered Lyon. Murat, who dreamed of retaining power in Naples, joined the anti-Napoleonic coalition and now, together with the Austrians, attacked positions defended by Eugene de Beauharnais.


Joachim Murat



Eugen de Beauharnais


Davout's corps was blocked in Hamburg. Marshal Suchet was in Spain, and Soult was near Toulouse, where his army would soon be defeated by Wellington's troops. The Senate has already issued a decree removing the emperor from power. But Napoleon was not going to capitulate. 1 April, under his command was 36 000 people, 3 April, he already had sixty thousandth army. In the near future some other units that were nearby could have approached it. He relied on Marmont, but he, not wanting to participate in the storming of Paris, which, in his opinion, was to be held on April 5, sent a letter to Schwarzenberg on the night of 3 on April 4, informing him of his readiness to leave Napoleon’s army. At the same time, he demanded the provision of written guarantees for the preservation of the parts headed by him. weapons and ammunition, as well as the preservation of life and freedom of Napoleon. And on April 4, Marshals Ney, Oudinot, Lefevre, MacDonald and Moncay arrived at Napoleon in Fontainebleau. There were already Bertier and Kolenkur. On behalf of all those present, Nei and Oudinot demanded Napoleon’s abdication.


Illustration from the book "The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte" by W. Sloan, 1896: Napoleon signs the act of abdication. Next to him: Marmont, Ney, Kolenkurr, Oudinot, MacDonald



Horace Vernet, "Napoleon's Farewell to his Guard at Fontainebleau 20 on April 1814."



Fontainebleau, White Horse yard: Napoleon's farewell with his veterans


The emperor had no exit. Having signed the act of abdication in favor of his three-year-old son under the regency of Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon sent for negotiations with the allies of Ney, Kolenkur and Macdonald, to whom Marmon, who was absent in Fontainebleau, had the right to join. What happened in the future? Here the opinions of contemporaries diverge. Marmon himself in his memoirs argues that, having learned about the renunciation of Napoleon, he stopped negotiations with Schwarzenberg and, ordering his generals Suam, Kompan and Bordyusuly to keep the army in their positions, went to negotiations in Paris. Kolenkur also testifies that Marmon sent this order to his generals only after meeting with other delegates and in their presence. On April 4, the French delegation met with Alexander I, who postponed the decision on the options for Napoleon’s abdication, citing the need for negotiations with the allies. However, on the night of April 5, an event occurred that radically changed the situation: at a new meeting, Alexander I announced that Marmon's corps had surrendered to the enemy without any conditions. Now the allies demanded that Napoleon unconditional renunciation. What happened in the absence of marmon? According to the most popular version among historians, Marmon had already made his choice at that time, and negotiations were a mere formality: the order to surrender the army to the allies was already given to them. According to another version, the nerves could not stand the generals of his army. The conscience of generals Marmont was restless. They understood perfectly well that by entering into negotiations with the enemy, which were unauthorized by the emperor, they committed an act that could be interpreted as treason. Therefore, when, in the absence of the commander, Napoleon’s adjutant arrived at his headquarters with orders to arrive at Marmont’s headquarters or his deputy, they decided that everything was known to the emperor and fell into a state of panic. As it turned out, Napoleon, in anticipation of hearing from the delegation sent to Paris, decided to simply have dinner with one of his marshals or generals. But to the frightened conspirators, the imagination drew pictures of the court-martial and the immediate execution. In addition, the remaining General Suam, formerly senior, served under the command of famous opponents of Napoleon - Generals Moreau and Pichegru, and spent several months in prison for communicating with the latter. Therefore, Suam did not even hope for the indulgence of Napoleon. Raising the soldiers who decided that they were going to attack the Austrians, the generals moved the corps to Versailles. Only when they were between the two lines of the Austrians, the soldiers understood everything and refused to obey the officers.


General Suam


The generals fled, and the remaining unmanaged corps moved to Rambouillet. Hastily arrived Marmon managed to restore order and send his troops to Mantes, where they remained until the completion of the negotiations. On Saint Helena, Napoleon said to Dr. O'Mir: "If it were not for the betrayal of Marmont, I would drive the allies out of France." About Marmon himself said that he: “Must be the object of disgust on the part of descendants. As long as France exists, the name of Marmonus will not be mentioned without a shudder. ” So, in general, it happened: Marmon received from the new king the title of peer and the title of captain of the royal bodyguards (this division in the people was called “the company of Judah”). Apparently, without counting on forgiveness, during Napoleon's 100 Days, Marmont, one of the few Republican generals and marshals, remained loyal to Louis XVIII and accompanied him to Ghent. He voted for the execution of Ney, which finally destroyed his reputation in the army. In 1817, he put down a rebellion in Lyon. During the revolution, 1830 was appointed governor of Paris for a long time, hesitated before giving the order to use weapons, did not succeed, and was removed from his post. After the fall of the monarchy, Marmont left France forever. In Vienna, on the instructions of the Court, for 3 months he tried to set Napoleon’s son and Maria Louise, Duke of Reichstadt, against his father, trying to convince him that his father was an “immoral, evil and bloodthirsty person.”


Duke of Reichstadt (Napoleon II) in childhood



Maria Louise


And not a victim of a single defeat, but 6 left by Napoleon on April 1814 on April signed an act of abdication on terms of the allies.


Paul Delaroche. "Napoleon after the abdication in Fontainebleau"


On April 12, he made an unsuccessful attempt at poisoning, and on April 28 had already left for his first link to the island of Elba. In less than a year, Napoleon will once again set foot on the land of France and 20 in March 1815 will enter Paris. But it is already completely different. story.
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    27 January 2019 07: 17
    On Saint Helena, Napoleon told Dr. O'Meara: "If it weren't for Marmont's betrayal, I would have driven the allies out of France."
    A statement that does not correspond to the real state of affairs: France was completely exhausted and its forces were incompatible with the Allied.
    The subsequent famous 100 days of Napoleon only proved it once again ....
    1. +2
      27 January 2019 10: 37
      “Who has not suffered a single defeat ?!” And with what fear or victory did he resign?
      1. +1
        27 January 2019 11: 41
        Quote: 210ox
        Not suffering a single defeat ?! "And with what fear or victory did he resign?

        Did not understand you request
        1. -2
          27 January 2019 18: 43
          The article says that Napoleon did not suffer a single defeat ... Well, he would have fought to the last. And how did it happen that the "invincible Emperor" was persuaded to leave by the nobility surrounding him. And by the way, the "Battle of the Nations", albeit lost by Napoleon in as a result of betrayal, it is precisely Defeat. I did not refer the comment to you, but to the author of the article.
          1. VLR
            0
            27 January 2019 19: 13
            The "Battle of the Nations" took place in 1813. And the article is about the events of 1814. This is stated in the very first sentence! How could you miss it? As for the "nobility who persuaded Napoleon": Napoleon simply realized that his marshals would hand over their troops to the enemy. How Marmont surrendered his corps. And, the only thing left for him in these conditions was to try to save France, at least for his son.
      2. +1
        28 January 2019 09: 30
        It turns out that if it were not for chance - the interception of the courier (in fact, it was a letter, if sclerosis does not change, the Duke of Rovigo about the situation in Paris, where the situation was painted with the blackest colors), then Bonaparte would have beaten everyone here. In fact, this is just the case when chance is part of a general pattern. Emigrants constantly talked about the situation in the capital to Alexander, he just did not believe them, and here is such evidence. And the interception of the courier with the overwhelming superiority of the allies in the cavalry was just a matter of time.
        1. VLR
          0
          29 January 2019 07: 11
          No, of course, France was doomed in a war of attrition. But perhaps Napoleon would have managed to bargain for more acceptable terms of surrender.
    2. 0
      4 February 2019 21: 56
      Quote: Olgovich
      A statement that does not correspond to the real state of affairs: France was completely exhausted and its forces were incompatible with the Allied.

      A small addition: Such a large number of victorious battles for Napoleon in 1914 was partly due to the strategic plan of his opponents: to attack in several directions, and the offensive was carried out if Napoleon himself was not in front of this detachment. In the event of the appearance of Napoleon, it was prescribed to retreat trying to avoid fighting. But if Napoleon hadn’t been with the French, they entered into fierce battles. In this situation, Napoleon must sooner or later make a mistake. Moreover, the error was not a consequence of the incident, but a consequence of the presence of the Allies natural cavalry, Russian Cossacks. They successfully conducted reconnaissance and neutralized Napoleonic intelligence.
  2. +2
    27 January 2019 09: 04
    The throw to Paris was a mistake - the Allies were waiting for this.
    An outstanding person in his life made only a few mistakes, but cost him a crown and a head
  3. +3
    27 January 2019 09: 23
    The defeat was predetermined by the exhaustion of France, the betrayal of Marmont and Napoleon's mistakes are secondary.
  4. +4
    27 January 2019 10: 04
    А not injuredbut Napoleon, abandoned by all of 6 on April 1814, signed the act of abdication on the terms of the allies.

    How did this phrase about Napoleon's "invincibility" get out? Those. unsuccessful trips to Egypt and Russia, are they victories?
    1. VLR
      +2
      27 January 2019 10: 58
      Not a single defeat in the 1814 year. There were battles this year with an undetermined result, but they cannot be called defeats like Waterloo or Berezina - relative failures that did not entail any serious consequences and did not affect the course of the campaign. On the whole, there are a number of brilliant victories won against all odds in extremely adverse circumstances.
      1. +1
        27 January 2019 11: 44
        Quote: VlR
        . On the whole, there are a number of brilliant victories won against all odds in extremely unfavorable circumstances.

        brilliant victories in battles-led to a loss in the war.
        Opponent resources were incompatible
        1. +1
          27 January 2019 12: 42
          Quote: Olgovich
          brilliant victories in battles-led to a loss in the war.
          Opponent resources were incompatible

          Very true noticed.
          The same goes for Hitler, who was next excited against the Anglo-Saxons.
    2. -6
      27 January 2019 12: 41
      Quote: igordok
      Those. unsuccessful trips to Egypt and Russia, is it a victory?

      An unsuccessful trip to Russia is more from the field of myths. In fact, the campaign was not unsuccessful.
      But he was not successful either. Because Napoleon did not receive the surrender of Russia.
      As for the French losses in Russia, they were ordinary. Not a bit more, and even less Russian losses. War in those days was generally a costly thing.
      No, it's not about the cores and bullets.
      It's about lice and epidemics. Lice multiplied instantly, people fell ill and died in 99,99% of cases.
      Therefore, "military campaign" and "colossal losses" (regardless of the outcome of the battles) were synonymous expressions.
      1. 0
        April 16 2019 13: 45
        "The main result of the Patriotic War of 1812 was the almost complete destruction of Napoleon's Great Army.

        According to the calculations of the military historian Clausewitz, the army of invasion of Russia along with reinforcements during the war totaled 610 thousand soldiers, including 50 thousand soldiers of Austria and Prussia [241]. According to the information of the Prussian official Auerswald, by December 21, 1812, 255 generals, 5111 officers, 26 lower ranks from the Great Army passed through East Prussia, “everything is in a very miserable condition” [950]. To these 242 thousand should be added about 30 thousand soldiers (who returned to the French army) from the corps of General Rainier and Marshal MacDonald, operating on the north and south. Many of those who returned to Koenigsberg, according to the count of Segyur, died of illnesses, reaching a safe territory [6].

        The surviving officers formed the backbone of Napoleon's new army, recruited in 1813.

        Thus, Napoleon lost about 580 thousand soldiers in Russia. "Yes, a good" bad "trip.
  5. 0
    27 January 2019 11: 01
    The golden age of Russia began precisely in Paris.
  6. +2
    27 January 2019 14: 02
    In general, some pathological passivity of the allies is striking: the Austrians, the campaign, did not really have to go to Paris, and Alexander most urgently needed the Austrians to lead the allied forces. As a result, only Blucher led more or less active actions ...
  7. -1
    27 January 2019 19: 15
    And not a victim of a single defeat, but 6 left by Napoleon on April 1814 on April signed an act of abdication on terms of the allies.

    At least 2 major defeats: in 1809 under Esling and 1813 under Leipzig ..... not counting minor failures. Although ... there is still Saint-Jean d'Acre - also a wow fiasco ....
    1. VLR
      0
      27 January 2019 19: 21
      Read the first sentence of the article - it's about the 1814 campaign of the year. The same is explicitly stated in the annotation.
      1. 0
        27 January 2019 22: 04
        I read it - and this is not a reason for the phrase "not a single defeat". Here I am quoting
        The battle of La Rotier lasted all day, Napoleon was forced to retreat, but the Austrians did not even try to pursue him.
        . This is not a defeat ??
  8. +2
    27 January 2019 20: 19
    Europeans were afraid and hated him alive, but love to be proud of him dead.
    Still, he is the only European ruler-general who could take Moscow.
    The first, after Tokhtamysh.
    False Dmitriy with the Poles should not be considered all such - this was an episode of the Civil War, albeit with foreign participation.
    1. +2
      29 January 2019 05: 00
      Quote: faterdom
      Europeans were afraid and hated him alive, but love to be proud of him dead.

      Perhaps the rulers hated and feared him, but for the rest, incl. European elite, he, IMHO, was not an unacceptable figure. In fact, Boni is the creator of the first European Union from culturally, socially and morally close nations. And only they whistled - all together flooded to profit what God will send to the "Eastern barbarians".
      Tellingly, in 129 years the situation will repeat itself almost one-on-one ... "Civilized" did not see a big difference between Boni and Adik.
  9. 0
    27 January 2019 22: 03
    I’m sure the author will forgive me, but the battle of Arcy-sur-Ou can not be called a victory for Napoleon. You can understand the French, when they talk about the victory on the Moscow River, you can tolerate the same assessment of Maloyaroslavets, after which they actually dragged pretty badly, but the battle of Arsi is sorry. Forever beaten Schwarzenberg only her and can itself in the asset seriously write ...