There has been a recent and rather heated discussion on whether the Poles were all enthusiasts of French rule as they felt they were better off than being under the Russians.
I felt that such a generalization needed some nuance. It is true that when you read accounts by generals and dashing cavalry officers, you tend to get the impression that all Poles loved Napoleon and hated the Russians with a vengeance. But the true picture is more complicated, especially in 1812.
First thing to note is that many Poles were unwillingly involved in that war, as conscripts or bystanders. No enthusiasm there for a war with Russia. Then, and importantly, the French armies did much to curb any Polish enthusiasm for French rule by behaving really badly. Not only in the Grand Duchy but in the regions they liberated as they advanced (some of which had belonged to Poland before the partitions). I copy below a passage on the conduct of the French troops as they advanced through those territories in the summer of 1812. These passages are by a Polish interpreter attached to IHQ, a Monsieur Krasicki.
"Monsieur Gzospky heard that the French would be coming by his estate in a few days’ time. He did everything he could to make sure they would be well-received, baking cakes, making pâtés, roasting meat and collecting ham and drinks in abundance. The long-expected day arrived and he was overcome with joy. He ran before the French offering them bread and salt (an old tradition in Poland and Russia, a greeting the serfs confer on a new master when he arrives in the village, the equivalent of the Greek’s earth and water). He invited them to come and dine and they accepted with pleasure. The officers found a banquet laid out in the house whilst the soldiers were well-received in the barns and the courtyard. He was an excellent host. They ate, they drank, they laughed. Then, suddenly, one of the officers remarked that he liked Monsieur Gzospky’s boots. He had him take them off. Another took his trousers and a third his coat and soon, despite begging them to stop, he was stripped so he was as naked as the back of his hand. The officers were in hysterics and retired whilst a great number of soldiers remained and began to pillage and sack the house. Fortunately, Madame Monsieur Gzospka escaped their clutches and made off into the neighbouring forest whilst her humiliated husband threw himself under the sofa and his whilst the pillaging continued. When the brigands left he set out to find his wife. Everything had been carried off. He was not left a shirt or a pair of breeches. He had a neighbour who was also an enthusiast of the French and had welcomed them the same way; he was treated in the same manner. He had also been stripped. How is it possible they asked themselves, anger in their hearts and tears in their eyes, that these are our friends?"
He cites other examples, including gang rape, some Bavarians throwing a baby into a fire, robberies and murders. He rails against the French and what they were doing to the people of Poland.
And he was a Pole in French service.
I only write this to show that not every Pole was an ardent enthusiast of French rule. This should be remembered when writing generalizations about Poles and their "traditional enmities".
What is the source of this? It sounds like something from the fables in imitation of Ignacy Krasicki (who died in 1801).
Hi Tom. The letters of Jan Krasicki to his wife Maria. Published by the Belgian Napoleonic Association. He was an interpreter in the suite of the Duke of Bassano but went to Moscow and came back in the company of Monsieur Noinville on the staff. An authentic document, nothing in common with fables.
I can send it to you if you wish. It reads as a very matter-of-fact account and honest account. He was nearly crushed to death by a coach near Smolensk and was taken prisoner at Vilnius in December. He was not badly treated by the evil Russkies. :-)
In case it isn't in Polish but in French I would be interested in that account as well.
Send your email to jpnorth[at]hotmail.com and I will send you the rest.
You can always rely on nationalists to paint things rather differently from how they were. Thousands of Poles fought in Austrian regiments during the period - Rzieb being an example of one. Maybe it was fear of the alternative, but I was reading recently that the Milanese rather liked Austrian rule and were not keen on Garibaldi and his chums. Then you get the modern folk with their agendas -according to Bowden in his 1805 book, Austrian battalions lined up four companies one behind the other to stop the Poles running away. The regiment he chose to remark on this was IR7, a Moravian regiment with just two companies out of 18 even drawn from Poland!
Could you please point out in the previous thread where anyone stated 'the Poles were all enthusiasts of French rule'?
And perhaps you could also show/demonstrate that the Poles were better off being ruled by the Russians and not having the right or opportunity to rule themselves?
I would also say take a look at the life of Adam Czartoryski. A Pole whose pet project was, during the Napoleonic Wars, the development of the Polish people in Polish lands under Russia. Only after Alexander died did the prince turn to the struggle for actual independence.
Nowadays he is generally remembered for his role in the 1830 uprising, but, in 1815, the situation was quite different.
Thanks. Just checking. :)
I don't recall any "universal" Polish pro-French/anti-Russian sentiment in play before or even after 1812. I also don't see any particular historical reason that the Poles should fear and dislike the Russians any more than Austria and Prussia, who also took part in the partitions from 1772 until 1795. In the last, rather delusional years of Alexander I's reign and definitely under Nicholas I's immediate and draconian policies toward Poland, the Poles had reason to resent Russia, and quite a few left--some for France but more for the US.
I'm simply not convinced of the theory that Poles as a [dismembered] nation loved the French in general and Napoleon in particular.
Then the question would be: why did the Poles fight so hard and long for Napoleon and the French?
Maggie, I would agree. Many of the resentments went into print after the 1830s.
Some Poles fought with the French for several reasons: perhaps a group believed Napoleon and the French were the only real hope for resurrecting Poland from the Duchy of Warsaw to a pre-1772 kingdom; perhaps another group were actually attracted to Napoleonic ideals on a general sense and contrasted Napoleon as a head of state and a commander favorably to what was on offer in other European states; and perhaps some were younger sons of Polish nobles with time on their hands and a desire to go off on a crusade of sorts.
Whatever the reasons--and there were certainly plenty of them--the Polish attraction to and loyalty toward Napoleon and the French Empire was far from monolithic.
In a speech of the 29th of October, according to Skrzynecki :
Les Polonais n'ont pas montré assez de patriotisme. Les Russes en ont montré beaucoup plus. J'entendais sous la Pospolite la levée en masse de la noblesse. La noblesse ne s'est pas levée.
p. 392
Mosbach, Dr. August : Zur französisch - deutschen Kriegsgeschichte 1800 - 1813. Aus Denkschriften polnischer Offiziere, Breslau 1883
A few of the Westphalian memoirs from 1812 feature German soldiers feeling guilt at the way their comrades and the French/imperial forces in general treated the local Poles, who responded by doing everything they could to hide their food, supplies, and young women from the Grande Armée. There are multiple stories of wanton destruction as hungry soldiers, inadequately provisioned, ransacked local farms and storehouses.
One suspects that the locals had no love for ANY army occupying or moving through their land. Were they happy that serfdom had been abolished? I suppose they might have been, if it had meant that they were better able to feed and protect their families, but that's likely not how it turned out for most of them. 21st century people often forget that serfdom included benefits and not just duties. Your kids worked for two weeks in the lord's manor, but in return you got to hunt rabbits on his land, or whatever. Abolishing these arrangements left many people in economic limbo.
As for the Duchy of Warsaw being a case of Poles governing themselves, that is rather contradicted by their status as being under Saxon sovereignty (Articles 6-10) and under French command. Article 11 of their constitution made every Polish state minister and Articles 25-28 made their Senate all answerable to the King of Saxony, not to any Polish authority.
Napoleon placed the Duchy under the Suzerainty of the King of Saxony, which was a traditional relationship. Napoleon was also aware of the 'tradition' of terrible self-government of Poland, one that had led to their dissolution as an independent state with the partitions of the 1790s by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.
If I recall correctly Napoleon tried to form a second Vistula Legion after Wagram from Polish soldiers in Austrian service and only got enough men to form one regiment. I believe he tried to do something similar from Polish prisoners captured at the Battle of Dresden with mixed results.
This was for the infantry regiments of the Legion only. Napoleon could not find enough volunteers for the planned 2d Legion, and the newly recruited regiment formed the 4th Regiment of the Legion. Each of the infantry regiments contained two nine-company battalions.
There were two types of Polish units-those of the army of the Duchy of Warsaw and those that formed Polish units in the French army. The cavalry, at first one regiment of lancers, later in 1811 a second was formed, served separately from the infantry. They were later renumbered the 7th and 8th lancer regiments after the French lancer regiments were formed.
After the death of Poniatowski (the only foreign marshal of the Empire), the Poles began to lost heart. Their new commander, General Jan Sulkowski, had definitely lost heart and asked Napoleon to send the Poles home.
Napoleon 'summoned all available Polish officers, to talk to them, the only Frenchmen being present besided the Emperor were Berthier and Caulaincourt. Napoleon told them if they wanted to they could go home, but as individuals and not as formed units because that could have a demoralizing effect on the Polish troops in the garrisons of Danzig, Modlin, and Zamosc. Further, they could be forcibly incorporated into the allied armies. The Polish officers overwhelmingly chose to stay with the Grande Armee and Sulkowski rode home nearly alone.
In 1815, in addition to the squadron of Polish Lancers of the Guard which became the 1st Squadron of the Guard Lancer Regiment, Napoleon planned a new 3d Etrangere of Poles along with a reactivated 7th Lancer regiment. The remaining Poles and Lithuanians still in France had dragged their feet about leaving, being reluctant to serve Austria, Russia, or Prussia. The 7th Lancers had not received their horses in time for the campaign in Belgium, but did take part in the defense of Paris, 'holding the Sevres Bridge, and St Cloud against the Prussians' fighting on foot.
This talk, one of the typical lies of Boney the Poles had to withdraw into France, there they wouldn't be involved in fighting and they would be fed and clothed as well as Boney himself.
Those who knew the true story - like Chlapowski - left in disgust.
Really? How many?
A good reference for the Polish troops in Napoleon's service is Guy Dempsey's Napoleon's Mercenaries.
Read Chlapowski, your suggest reading source is invalid for this topic, otherwise check Moosbach - it is also not how many but did they know how shabbily Boney was treating their loyalty in reality, maybe they would have shot him on the spot.
Out of interest, what makes it invalid?
That's the kind of comment that sparked my initial response. A kind of black and white generalization that does not make for good history. We don't live in the time of the Wars of Religion when believers smite heretics.
There is no way in 1815 that you can say the Poles were living on their knees. The Russians had had their land devastated by the French and their Polish allies, hundreds of thousands of their people were killed, thousands of their villages burnt. Their treasure looted, their women raped. By Poles, by the French. How did the Russians behave towards the Poles? By establishing a semi-autonomous kingdom and employing Polish soldiers in the new army. That really was the situation in 1815. Lesser leaders would have burnt Poland to the ground after looting it. The Russians did not.
Your idea that Russians and Poles are traditional enemies is a trope. In addition your comment that Russia is still an enemy of Poles is beneath that of the scholar you aspire to be.
Indeed the "Poles" suffered losses when fighting under Boney, who clearly abused their loyalty in trying to see them off at the first opportunity to save his skin.
You already pointed out that quite few Polish officer made a career in the semi autonomous Kingdom of Poland, they did not chose to fight on their knees.
Please explain how Napoleon 'abused the loyalty' of the Poles and then tried to 'see them off at the first opportunity to save his skin.' I have studied the Poles who fought for the Duchy and that were in the French army, and nothing I have seen demonstrates what you have posted.
How do you 'fight on your knees'?
Further, what would you expect those Poles who returned to Poland after Napoleon's first abdication to make a living?
Also read what Boney is telling Caulaincourt before invading Russia about the Poles.
Instead, in case there is such a hate against the Russians, they could join other armies, like von Brandt who joined the Prussian Army and made a career as well, or join the Austrian Army, or join the French foreign regiment, there are endless alternatives.
A lot of French Royalist joined other armies - like the Russian Army as well.
How do you fight on your knees?
Kneeling shooting.
I don't understand what you like to express by such a statement? Jonathan North certainly did study it in detail, as his publications show.
Also I recommend to read Moosbach.
You might not be aware of that for example von Brandt made a career in the Prussian army, and instead of reading the apparently abridged translations of his recollections, I would strongly suggest to read his original two volumes published in German - over 600 pages long to find out more.
Even by the Jonathan North edition you will find critical voices about Boney - like on page 178 - like instead of directing your bare bottom against Spain you should better show it to the face of the French emperor.
Thanks to all contributors to a fascinating debate, which has broadened my understanding immensely. The nuances of Poles and their service in foreign armies has only reinforced the impression that those who accompanied Napoleon to Elba were indeed caught up in a personality cult, rather than being anti-Russian.
I think we could extend the umbrella. Imperial Guard personnel, whatever their nationality, were more likely to carry the torch for Napoleon beyond the first abdication. They had greater motivation to do so.
It is an interesting point, but I sense that in 1814 and 1815, persecution of Bonapartists was more likely in France than in Poland. White Terror, massacre of Mamelukes, etc.
That has not been demonstrated at all. There is a difference between a 'personality cult' and loyalty.
It has been well demonstrated - in case you create a personality cult, those who believe in it, will be fanatically loyal - and it won't end with the death of that person.
It should be remembered that the study of history is not a democracy. Majority opinions do not necessarily prove anything in history.
Some years back it was thought that the Flanquers-Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard were organized and formed in late 1811 and that the Flanquers-Chasseurs were formed in 1813. That was a majority opinion-one which Lachouque believed and Col Elting initially did. However, more research was done and it was found that the opposite was true. And Col Elting later stated that 'new' fact.
Just treat it as sort of science, it isn't a monopoly of self styled experts either.
Today's consensus is tomorrow's controversy, and all that.
I was told once, some time ago, that there are no experts in history as all we or anyone else is doing is skimming the top of any subject as there is so much material to cover.
But the nature of language is that it depends on it’s common use. When the usage changes, so does the definition. When a phrase is defined by the judgement of “excessive” then the common understanding of what constitutes a level of normal loyalty comes into play. For example, one of the diagnostic traits of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder was “excessive” hand washing. If we applied that to most of us today, many of us would have a frequency hitherto seen as excessive.
Kevin, most of the peasants in the army of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw were conscripts. They were not volunteers. You can't say they willingly fought anyone.
And, earlier, there are numerous complaints from French commanders in Italy in the 1790s or in Haiti complaining that the Poles did not fight hard enough. They weren't enthusiastic enough, even. Which undermines the idea that they were very willing warriors.
Before I close, I would ask, kindly, that you do not take to bad-mouthing all Russians writing things like "they are a predatory nation" and then listing those grudges you have with their current government.
If we continue like that we may just as well throw stones as enter into a debate.
'[Conscription] is an ineluctable consequence of political equality. If you demand equality, then accept the consequences.'
The greater majority of the Grande Armee was conscripted also. That certainly did not inhibit their combat capability. The same applies to the Poles both in the army of the Duchy and those Polish units in the Grande Armee. The 'problem' with the Polish units in Haiti is not indicative of the Polish contribution to their and the French war effort under Napoleon and his subordinates. If that were so, then why did the Poles fight so hard for the Duchy and the French war effort?
Regarding the Russians, they are in no way 'the good guys' of the period. And the individual opinions of individual Russians matters not-they were treated badly or with contempt by their own government and existed to support the Tsar's wishes and desires. And Russia was a predatory nation during the period. They had troops engaged in the Balkans, central Europe, and northern Europe long before any invasion of Russia was even contemplated by Napoleon.
And it should be remembered that Napoleon did not break the Treaty of Amiens, the British did, and he was not the aggressor in 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1809. Regarding Spain, Napoleon found evidence that his ally was prepared to turn on him had he lost against Prussia. And since Alexander decided on war with Napoleon in 1810 and was moving aggressively against the Duchy of Warsaw, Napoleon's invasion could be noted as a preemptive strike against an active enemy-one who had interfered with the Poles in their war effort against the Austrians in 1809. The campaigns of 1813 and 1814 were continuations of the 1812 campaign. And it should also be noted that Napoleon was also not the aggressor in 1815.
This casting of Napoleon as a peace loving victim did not ring true the first time I read it, and I’m afraid it still doesn’t. To accept these things as facts requires a hefty suspension of disbelief and the disregarding of several very well supported counter arguments. One cannot on the one hand deny he was an aggressor and on the other use the justification of pre-emptive strike. Or perhaps I got it wrong, and the Allies crossed the Sambre and seized Charleroi on the 15th June 1815? I don’t subscribe to the ogre or predator interpretations of Napoleon either. I also do not apply them to Alexander. There are no good guys and bad guys, no predators or prey. Just dancers in the endless choreography of realpolitik. Most European nations in this period were acquisitive, even yours was happily expanding westwards, displacing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. For good measure, they invaded Canada. Does that make the US a predatory nation? Of course not. France was an empire, Russia was an empire, Austria was an empire, Britain had an empire. The nature of empire is to acquire.
Can you please stay on the topic, in case of urge, open another thread, the most predatory was Boney, outclassing anybody in Europe by his insane greed and to place his relatives on puppet thrones.
1812 a pre emptive strike - you must be joking - the Russian emperor was not an angel of peace, but compared to Boney he was a realist.
It was of course Weider, who wrote that silly book: Napoleon, Man of Peace running the same sort of selective history that Kevin and others try to push. That was the point of my reference to Fawlty Towers, where the argument over who started it actually depended on what “it” was. Depending on your nationality, the Second World War started on several different dates in different areas. These arguments over why wars happen are extremely complex - AJP Taylor put WW1 down to German railway timetables - and do not depend on who actually declared war or other simplistic approaches. Indeed if you play the computer game Civilisation, you will get along fine until you are the biggest state and the others attack you in a Coalition, because they fear your power - enemy of my enemy etc.
Indeed, how can Napoleon be called one of history’s major personalities, if he was driven by events (Zamoyski) pushed by people few could even name now. Surely, the major figures drive the tides of history?
It seems we are descending into another discussion of Napoleon's character. That's fine, but as has been suggested, the place for that is a new thread (or the 'hero or villain' one that already exists). Let's keep comments on this one relevant to Jonathan's original points about the Poles.
'It was of course Weider, who wrote that silly book: Napoleon, Man of Peace running the same sort of selective history that Kevin and others try to push.'
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I've never believed Weider to be either accurate or an historian. And I am not 'pushing' any selective history. Please don't include me in any agenda you may have. It is not only incorrect-it is grossly insulting.
I would never like to speak Ill of the deceased, but Weider was a little more dazzled by the brilliance of the Emperor’s star than most.
Napoleon was French as he was born after Corsica became a French possession.
And being complicit in the murder of his father, as well as promoting the head of the conspiracy/murder is reprehensible.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the Polish subject. I don't agree with you on it at all.
The circumstances of the coup were the result of the corruption of the Directory and the idea that Barras, one of the Directors, was in the process of having the Bourbons return. Barras was to be paid 12 million francs. He later tried to bring Napoleon into that conspiracy, but Napoleon refused.
Further, Sieyes, who recruited Napoleon for the coup was one of the Directors. And if Napoleon was not recruited, because the belief that a general was needed, it would have been some other general.
By the way, how did William III come to power in Great Britain?
I think Napoleon's attitude to the Poles is best summed up by what he did to the Polish Legions. Not only did he send them to Haiti, but, in 1797, he was even drawing up plans to send them off to Egypt and India. In both case that was because their presence embarrassed him when he was busy negotiating a peace with Austria.
Napoleon was a formidable soldier, but he was also ruthless when it came to making peace.
Since Napoleon was not head of state in 1797 he had no authority to send any French troops overseas.
There is a new book out on British troops in the West Indies, Death Before Glory by Martin Howard. The British lost thousands of troops to disease in the Caribbean just as the French did.
And like the French they sent both troops from the regular army 'but there was a tendency to send the less trusted foreign corps to more peripheral theaters such as the West Indies. Their use in foreign places was also encouraged by the suspicious politicians at home; as late as 1812, Lord Palmerston, Secretary for War, had to remind the Commons that the 'employment of foreigners' was necessitated by Britains's limited population.'-Howard, 8.
It is interesting to note that no units from the King's German Legion were sent to the West Indies.
The foreign contingents in the British Army included 'Corsicans, Swiss, Belgians, Russians, Albanians, and Poles.' The most common foreigners used in the West Indies were 'French Royalist emigres, Germans, and Dutch.'
The list of the foreign units listed in the book's index includes eighteen units. If anyone who does not have the book wishes the list, I'll gladly post it.
The British apparently solved the problem of Irish dissidents, especially those in prison after the 1798 rebellion, by sending them as replacements to the West Indies.
Interestingly, it is apparent that Toussaint also fought the British and launched a campaign to seize the Spanish half of the island. The idea of Toussaint as a 'freedom fighter' is just a little tarnished.
However, you aren't really engaging with the point that, in the 1790s, Napoleon viewed the Poles as expendable. I can't see any evidence for his views having changed that much later.
Napoleon, of course, did not send the Poles to India. He was just planning to. This is because he was in negotiations with the Austrians at the time and their presence was a bit awkward. Of course, he did choose to send the Poles to Haiti, the larger contingent setting off once the scale of the disaster was already clear.
And the British sent more of their foreign troops to the West Indies than Napoleon ever did.
We'll should agree to disagree on the Poles and their relationship with Napoleon. After all he did establish the Duchy of Warsaw and he footed the bill for much of the Polish war effort, even to the extent of taking some of the Polish units into his pay even though they were Duchy of Warsaw troops.
No, I don't agree to disagree, Boney created to Duchy for political reasons and not of the goodness of his heart, foreign troops were always more expendable to him than his own French - in case Boney thought it was good for him to sacrifice the Duchy of Warsaw and the loyal service of Polish units - he tried to do so, it came back to him.
Those Poles who saw this - gave him the boot. And others - rightfully asked themselves what Polish interests they defended in the West Indies and in Spain.
Agreeing to disagree is a perfectly acceptable compromise. All forums must be built on the premise of respecting someone's right to hold a different opinion, whilst profoundly disagreeing with their interpretation.
Perhaps you could give a dissertation on why the Duchy was created, especially when before there was nothing Polish before the partitions in the 1790s.
The idea that the Grande Armee's foreign troops 'were always more expendable to him than his own French' cannot be supported historically. Napoleon rewarded good service not only by the foreign units in his pay, but those of his allies.