A
R
T
I
C
L
E
S |
MARENGO REVISITED
A
BICENTENNIAL REVIEW |
| |
Questions and
Debates
The creation of any detailed account of the Battle of
Marengo is a difficult task. This is due to the battle's pivotal role in
shaping modern day Europe. The narrow victory by French forces at this battle
enabled Napoleon Bonaparte to consolidate his power base as First Consul of
France. This in turn forced the other major powers of Europe into the position
of negotiating with the man who had inherited the Revolution, the same
Revolution which those powers had been trying to crush since 1792. This narrow
victory also forced a youthful Napoleon to take aggressive propaganda measures
in order to stabilize his slippery grip on power. These measures did not
diminish over time, and any official reports about Marengo, while not pure
fiction, must still be read with a cautious awareness of their intent. Austrian
and other "foreign" military reports connected to Marengo were just as prone to
the ravages of uncertainty and political pressure, so these sources must also
be evaluated with great care.
What then is to be done? How does one
describe a battle in which many key participants had an agenda which did not
always coincide with actual events? Where does one draw a full picture of a
battle which, like all battles, is confusion at best, and complete mayhem and
death at worst? The time for an accurate picture of this battle is probably
lost. We can, however, maintain the search for previously unknown documents and
strive to understand this battle and others like it in a neutral light. This
last item is of crucial importance. The length of the French Revolutionary and
Napoleonic Wars rubbed nationalistic feelings raw, and the propaganda machines
of all nations involved had already moved into high-gear long before the
conflicts reached their height. These attitudes and misconceptions resonate
even in today's world, for even at the time of this writing, a casual observer
can note distinct groups or individuals, some of whom have noticeable agendas.
This has been exacerbated by the post-war recovery as nations who suffered
grievous embarrassments during World War II attempt to highlight more glorious
and favorable roles from earlier times. This form of revisionism requires
caution because of the nationalistic fervor which often accompanies it. People
caught up in such movements may consider an author or source to be neutral one
decade, and radical the next, depending on where the pendulum of opinion sways
at the time. When reading any secondary source ¹ , readers are encouraged to watch
for signs of rancor or partisanship which can distort facts.
With all
of the above factors in mind, let's review a few of the better known debates
and questions regarding Marengo. Some of these issues will be covered by
Microhistory articles scheduled to be released here in the Research Articles
section.
The Bormida Bridges: Late on June 13th, the evening
before the battle, Napoleon ordered the elimination of the Austrian bridgehead
on the Bormida River west of Marengo. This would have been a typical precaution
since bridgeheads have long been recognized as unknown and therefore dangerous
quantities in any equation. At the very least, disruption of an enemy
bridgehead can impede an opponent's plans, as indeed happened at Marengo. ² That evening however, the French
officers charged with the destruction of the bridgehead were not able to
achieve their goals. This fact was supposedly transmitted to Napoleon who
persistently claimed that this was not done. The ensuing failure in
communications resulted in French Headquarter's belief for several crucial
hours that the main Austrian attack on the 14th was a diversionary
attack.
Clarification of this situation would help to establish how
much French Headquarters, and especially Napoleon, knew about the status of the
Bormida bridge and hence the possibility of a genuine Austrian threat. Possible
witnesses: Napoleon, Lauriston, Gardanne,
Victor.
Monnier's Performance: The movements of General
Jean Monnier's division at Marengo has been the subject of debate, partially
because of the reputedly disgraceful performance of at least one of the
division's regiments, and also due to Monnier's actions, which brought
criticism from his C-in-C (Napoleon). It appears that post-battle official
accounts "transformed" Monnier's battlefield deployments in an attempt to gloss
over any appearance of impropriety on the part of French troops during the
battle.
Clarification of this situation would help to establish the
level to which French officials "embroidered" battle reports with fictitious
actions. Possible witnesses: Napoleon, Monnier, St.Cyr, Ott,
Elsnitz.
The Consular Guard Attack: Most accounts from
this period indicate that the French Consular Guard infantry conducted a
rearguard action against heavy odds, suffering substantial (but not crippling)
casualties in the process. At least one Austrian secondary source dating from
1823 claims the actual destruction of the Consular Guard infantry at the hands
of Austrian cavalry.
Clarification of this situation would help to
establish what actually happened to the Consular Guard during its famous
rearguard action. Possible witnesses: Napoleon, Lannes, Victor, Murat,
Bessieres, Vogelsang, Retz, Sticker, Frimont.
Desaix's
Return: General Louis Desaix's return to the battlefield is surrounded with
some uncertainty. He has been credited with marching to the sound of the guns,
forcibly being recalled and having halted for further orders. Since he
unfortunately died, the matter devolves to his subordinates and fellow
officers, many of whom wrote lengthy reports and post-war
memoirs.
Clarification of this situation would help to establish what
actions were undertaken by Desaix before his actual return to the battlefield
east of Marengo. It would also hopefully establish what time he returned and
with how much time to spare before the battle resumed. Possible witnesses:
Desaix, Savary, Napoleon, Berthier, Dupont, Lebrune,
Boudet..
Kellermann's Charge: The climax of the final
battle at Marengo occurred when General Francois Kellermann charged his cavalry
brigade into the flank of the Austrian pursuit column which was then tightly
engaged with Boudet's division. There was later much debate as to whether
Kellermann's charge had been a spontaneously conceived act, whether orders were
issued for the move, or whether some other combination of actions lay between
the two main options.
Clarification of this situation would help to
establish whether Kellermann was under general orders to support Boudet's
division, or under specific orders to aid in Desaix's counterattack against the
Austrian pursuit column. It would also help to establish the reliability (or
lack thereof) of several different sets of reports and memoirs. Possible
witnesses: Kellermann, Desaix, Savary, Boudet, Lejeune, Guenand, Napoleon,
Berthier.  |
|
