Marengo
Page 40
21. Victor places this action in the ‘open ground’ between Villanova and Li Poggi. The ground directly between these two places was mostly covered by vineyards in 1800. The actual location is about 2km west of this position, towards the ‘Sale road’ (now the Str. Cascinagrossa), a short distance to the north of the Cascina Gilendu farm. It is said the firefight with Gottesheim took place across the Cavo Fontanone stream.
22. Stuttheim account, Hüffer, pp.82‑83.
23. Cugnac, de, Campagne de l’Armée de Réserve en 1800, Vol.2, p.173.
24. Valhubert was overlooked in the distribution of arms of honour after the battle. The officers of the 28th Line petitioned the First Consul, and this resulted in the award of a sword of honour. He was made a general of brigade on 11 December 1803, and admitted into the Legion of Honour the following year. He was stuck by a shell fragment at Austerlitz in 1805 and died five days later.
25. Titeux, Le Général Dupont, Vol.1, p.102.
Chapter 13: This New Thermopylae
1. Grandin, Souvenirs historiques du capitaine Krettly, pp.151‑53
2. Grandin, Souvenirs historiques du capitaine Krettly, pp.154‑55. Daumesnil had a certain way with words. Rising to the rank of brigadier general, he lost a leg at Wagram in 1809. In 1814, he was the governor of the Chateau de Vincennes. When called upon to surrender, he said: ‘I shall surrender Vincennes when I get my leg back.’
3. Lemaréchal, Historique du 8e dragons, p.185.
4. Corda, Le Régiment de la Fère et le 1er Régiment d’Artillerie, pp.152‑53. Renaud was a brave man, but his luck ran out in 1805 when he was killed trying to rescue a comrade from a burning house.
5. Cugnac, de, Campagne de l’Armée de Réserve en 1800, Vol.2, p.427 (Berthier’s second report).
6. This conversation was overheard by Dupont’s ADC, Léopold. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, p.313.
7. Letter dated Torre di Garofolo, 16 June 1800. Albert Le Roy’s Georges Sand et ses amis, p.7.
8. Beauharnais, Mémoires, p.84.
9. Rauch, Erinneningen, p.372.
10. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, p.298.
11. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.83.
12. Cavour incorrectly rendered Volkmann as Icklmann in his notes. Cavour in Bouvier, Une relation inédite de la bataille de marengo, p.61.
13. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.86; Neipperg’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, pp.109‑11.
14. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, pp.296‑97.
15. The events told here have been reconstructed from the 1801 manuscript history of the 12th Chasseurs (SHD/GR1 M856); the regimental history of the 12th Chasseurs (Signorel, J., Historique, 1792‑1801); and the memoirs of Galy Montaglas, p.79.
16. Bourqueney, Historique du 12e régiment de hussards, p.61.
17. Procházka, Geschichte des k. k. Infanterie-Regimentes Nr. 24, p.336.
Chapter 14: Vengeance!
1. Bell, Memoirs of Baron Lejeune, Vol.1, p.21.
2. In this report, Dalton says he had one 12-pdr; in his post-battle report, he says they have two 12-pdrs. Most sources indicate Boudet had eight guns in total.
3. Guénand described the revolutionary zealots as ‘horrible cannibals’.
4. Fleuriot de Langle, Général Bertrand, Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, p.436.
5. Historique du 1er régiment de hussards, p.113.
6. See Quiot, in Perrin’s Extraits des memoires inédits de feu, pp.426‑27.
7. This figure comes from a remark made by Bonaparte that Desaix was later at the head of 200 ‘scouts’ from the 9th Light. See Gourgaud, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France sous Napoléon, Vol.1, p.292.
8. Letter attributed to Lauriston by de Cugnac, Campagne de l’Armée de Réserve en 1800, Vol.2, pp.412‑14.
9. Costa de Beauregard, Mon Oncle le general.
10. Marmont, Mémoires, Vol.2, p.132.
11. Titeux, Le Général Dupont, Vol.1, p.103.
12. SHD/GR1 M466, Boudet’s journal.
13. Rauch, Erinneningen, pp.374‑75.
14. Montaglas, Historique du 12e chasseurs, p.84.
15. SHD/GR1 M466, Boudet’s journal.
16. SHD/GR1 M857, Historique du 2e cavalerie.
17. Kellermann, Réfutation de M. le duc de Rovigo, pp.10‑11.
18. Cugnac, de, Campagne de l’Armée de Réserve en 1800, Vol.2, pp.404‑07.
19. A platoon was a tactical subdivision of a company, or half squadron. As the force was an amalgamation of so many regiments, it is unclear how they organized themselves.
20. Marmont, Mémoires, Vol.2, pp.133‑34.
21. SHD/GR1 M842, Dubois, Captain L., Historique du 9e Régiment d’infanterie légère de 1788 à 1839 (La Rochelle: 20 September 1839).
22. It was a day for coincidences. At the same time Desaix fell at Marengo, General Kléber was assassinated in Cairo by a knife-wielding fanatic.
23. SHD/GR1 M857, Historique du 2e cavalerie.
24. SHD/GR1 M857, Historique du 20e cavalerie.
25. Guénand and Kellermann later discussed the battle in Milan. Guénand writes the latter agreed that ‘without the impetuosity and success of my attack he could never have made the cavalry charge’. SHD/GR1 M610: Note to General Dumas, 21 November 1801.
26. Radetzky, Erinnerungen, Vol.1, pp.55‑56.
27. Savary, Memoirs, Vol.4, p.237.
28. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.128. Barrois went on to become colonel of the 96th Line, then a noted general in the First Empire, and lived until 1860.
29. Local tradition places the spot Desaix fell in the grounds of the Vigna Santa farm by a small tree. A memorial was placed there in 2002 by Alessandria-based re-enactors. This is several hundred metres east of where the 9th Light probably fought. Interestingly, the Duchess of Abrantes visited the battlefield in 1818 and was shown the tree where Desaix’s body was taken. Perhaps this is after all the spot where Savary found him? (Abrantes, Mémoires, Vol.3, p.51.)
Chapter 15: Victory
1. These scenes are portrayed in Lejeune’s 1801 La bataille de Marengo. As a serving officer and participant in the battle, viewing the painting is very much like watching a piece of newsreel rather than a single moment of the battle. For artistic reasons, Lejeune painted Kellermann’s charge hitting the right flank of the grenadiers.
2. Gremillet, Historique du 81e de ligne. A fragment of this composition has survived and is recorded in that work.
3. Rauch, Erinneningen, pp.375‑76:
4. Local tradition has it a great number of French troops sheltered in the farmhouse of Villanova during the battle, and many wounded men were left there. There is no way of verifying if these troops were Monnier’s men or guardsmen, but it is an intriguing possibility.
5. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.89.
6. Brémond d’Ars, Historique du 21è chasseurs à cheval, p.8.
7. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, p.301.
8. Two cannonballs were lodged in the front facade of the church at Cascina Grossa. This indicates some fighting took place there.
9. Baich von Lovinac, Geschichte des KK inf. Reg 23, Vol.1. Both Graf and Eichelmann were awarded the silver bravery medal.
10. Beauharnais, Mémoires, p.84.
11. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, p.15.
12. This conversation is related by Cavour in Bouvier, Une relation inédite de la bataille de marengo, p.60.
13. Carnet de la Sabretache, Le Colonel de France et le 12e régiment de chasseurs, p.334.
14. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.124.
15. Cugnac, de, Vol.2, p.415.
16. Bonaparte later learned what had been said when he saw the contents of a letter Kellermann wrote to his friend Lasalle. The letter had been opened by censors. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.126.
17. Constant, Mémoires de Constant, Vol.1, p.62.
18. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.127.
19. Kellermann, Réfutation �
�, p.15.
20. Titeux, Le Général Dupont, Vol.1, p.97.
21. Titeux, Le Général Dupont, Vol.1, p.95.
Chapter 16: The Convention of Alessandria
1. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.89.
2. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.89.
3. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, p.23.
4. Radetzky’s letter of 29 June, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.357.
5. Stutterheim, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.89.
6. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.92.
7. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, pp.25‑26.
8. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.92.
9. Cugnac, de, Vol.2, p.382.
10. Aubry, Souvenirs, p.211.
11. Stutterheim’s account, Hüffer, Vol.2, p.90.
12. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, p.27.
13. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, p.27.
14. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.130.
15. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, p.307.
16. Soult, Mémoires, Part 1, Vol.3, pp.276‑77.
17. Neipperg, Aperçu militaire, pp.30‑31.
18. Crossard, Mémoires militaires, Vol.2, p.311.
19. Guillaume, E., Maison, G., and Moerman, Y., Les trente batailles du sergent Denis Moreau, journal de campagne, 1794‑1809 (Bruxelles: Memogrames éditions, 2011), p.179.
20. An analysis of these remains showed, unsurprisingly, that the bones were of men between 20 and 35 years, with heights ranging from 1.63‑1.75 metres. See Gino Fornaciari’s Bone lesions from the Napoleonic Battle of Marengo, Italy, 14 June 1800 (paleopatogia.it).
21. Wilkin, Fighting for Napoleon, pp.51‑52.
22. Le Roy, Albert, Georges Sand, p.7.
23. Skarstein, Karl Jakob, Under fremmede flagg: nordmenn i utenlandsk krigstjeneste 1800‑1900 (Oslo: Forsvarsmuseet, 2002), trans. Karl Jakob Skarstein.
24. Beauharnais, Mémoires, p.86.
25. Constant, Mémoires de Constant, Vol.1, pp.73‑74.
26. Hüffer, Quellen zur Geschichte, Vol.2, p.320.
27. Bourrienne, Mémoires, Vol.4, p.107.
Orders of Battle
Army of the Reserve at Marengo, 14 June 1800
Commander-In-Chief, Alex. Berthier
Chief of Staff, General of Division Dupont
Summary
Infantry 23,739
Cavalry 3,322
Artillery 690
Total 27,751 men
Order of Battle, Austrian Forces
(The following OB is taken from Geppert’s 1804 study)
Commander: Gdk Melas
General Adjutant: Oberst Graf Radetzky
Chief Of Staff: GM Zach
Director of Artillery: Oberst Reisner, Oberst-Lt Perzel
Commander Pioneer Battalion: Major Graf Hardegg
Commander of Engineers: Major Vincenz Krapf
Advanced Guard:
Main column:
The second, or left column FML Ott
Right Column
Author’s note on the sources
The history of Marengo is an interesting tale in itself. In the memoirs of Madame Junot (later the Duchess of Abrantes), we find the heroes of Marengo telling the story of the battle at the dinner table. One can imagine the exaggerations which flourished over goblets of wine and which later found their way into memoirs and accounts:
‘Frequently, during this same year of the battle of Marengo, which was also that of my marriage, have I been party to a dinner prolonged till nine o’clock, because Bessières, Lannes, Eugène, Duroc, or Berthier, or some others of his companions in arms, or altogether, explained to Junot, who was greedy of the most trifling details, all those of this memorable affair. The table then became the plain of Marengo; a group of decanters at the head stood for the village, the candelabras at the bottom figured as the towns of Tortona and Alessandria, and the pears, the filberts, and bunches of grapes represented, as well as they might, the Austrian and Hungarian regiments, and our brave French troops.’
On the French side, the official report of the battle was written by the commander-in-chief of the Army of the Reserve, General Berthier, and published in 1805. While this account has its merits, it famously fell victim to what one might politely call an over-rationalization of the battle on the part of Napoleon. As this account states, the First Consul was far from expecting a battle, and even when it was fully engaged, he took much convincing of the fact, not leaving his headquarters until 11.00 am. Until the arrival of Boudet’s division at 5.00 pm, the First Consul could do very little but play for time and react to the Austrian attack. Only after 5.00 pm could he fully seize the initiative. The authorized account reduced some of the urgency of the situation, and described how Bonaparte set up and controlled the evening battle. In this account, Monnier’s division held Castelceriolo and the French army redeployed to form an oblique line across the plain to San Giuliano, where Boudet arrived. The 1805 account must therefore be seen in the context of Bonaparte’s coronation and elevation to emperor. It is much the same as viewing David’s painting of Bonaparte dramatically crossing the Great St Bernard mounted upon Alexander’s horse, Bucephalus, when in reality he made the final ascent on a donkey. History and art were an important part of state propaganda. We should not be ignorant or squeamish of this fact.
In the late 1990s, I began researching the Battle of Marengo with a view to writing a regimental history of the French 9th Light Infantry. This regiment played a celebrated role in the battle and was awarded the title ‘Incomparable’ for its heroic actions. My research led to several collaborations, and these resulted in two publications marking the bicentennial of Marengo in 2000. The first book was an Italian work by Marco Gioannini and Giulio Massobrio called Marengo: La battaglia che creò il mito di Napoleone. The second was Osprey Publishing’s ‘Campaign Series’ book by David Hollins, Marengo: Napoleon’s Day of Fate. The collaboration leading up to these publications (Hollins concentrating on the Austrian archive sources, myself on the French, and Gioannini and Massobrio on the local Italian perspective) uncovered a wealth of material which had not appeared in previous accounts of the battle. With hindsight, it might have been better to have awaited publication of a full English-language work first because the ‘Campaign Series’ format did not permit extensive footnotes or space to elaborate on the claims made by Austrian participants. With Hollins, I had prepared a first draft of a much larger work entitled Marengo: Napoleon, Melas and the Spy. However, it was impossible to deliver this project in time for the bicentennial, although it was equally impossible to ignore the new material uncovered in our research for it. When, in 2000, Hollins’ Marengo arrived in the English-speaking market, like Napoleon’s army appearing over the Alps, it came as something of a thunderbolt. Without the full account and the footnotes to support it, the Austrian version of the action involving the French Foot Guards was interpreted as deliberately provocative in some quarters. A lively debate was waged on-line about the merits of this work, with partisans on both sides of the debate quoting accounts with little understanding of the full context of the new research. Since these works were published, I have concentrated on other projects and have played something of a waiting game on Marengo to see what new significant material might come to light over the bicentennial celebrations of the Napoleonic Wars. The pause has been worth it, with more sources coming to light, and the availability of digital collections aiding research in a way no generation has previously enjoyed. Given full access to the fruits of Hollins’ Vienna research, in 2015 I returned to ‘Marengo’ and began preparing this account.
Authors should declare any bias. Before I am labelled as a Habsburg partisan, or a perfidious Albionite, for the record I have dedicated a large part of my adult life to the serious study of the French Army of the Napoleonic Wars. I consider myself a Francophile, as much as an Englishman can be. Bonaparte, in my opinion, was a genius; his capacity for intellectual exercise was vast; whether planning military campaigns or in h
is civil and legal capacities. Between 1800 and 1805, he was at the height of his powers and energy. That said, he was capable of tyranny and was unmatched in the art of self-propaganda. One of the most intriguing parts of this research project has been getting to know the personalities in the Austrian camp. One of my objectives has been to properly introduce readers to the likes of Melas, Zach and Radetzky.
In terms of the sources now available, there are two key authors to introduce. On the French side we have Captain Gaspar Jean Marie René de Cugnac, who in 1900 published a two-volume compilation of primary source material found in the French Archives de la guerre. The following year, a two-volume compilation of Austrian documents was produced by the German historian Herman Hüffer. Combined, these four volumes form the backbone of any study into the subject.
Between myself and Hollins, we collected a great many of the official histories of regiments which fought in the battle. The majority of these date from the second half of the nineteenth century. In many cases they are simple rehashes of standard accounts, but in some cases the authors have done an excellent job of searching through the regimental archives to find specific details of the regiment’s feats of arms. These are invaluable as sources. One discovery of particular importance was a set of French regimental histories which were compiled by the serving officers of infantry and cavalry in 1801 following an order by the Minister of War. These histories provide significant details, particular in relation to Kellermann’s famous cavalry charge in the battle.
For the best part of 200 years, the main Austrian source on the battle was the 1822 account by Captain Karl von Mras, published in the Austrian military journal ‘Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift’ (OMZ), a publication for Austrian officers to study past campaigns and other military subjects. Written two decades on from the event by an author who did not witness the affair, the Mras account clearly must have limitations. However, as a staff history written for fellow officers (not a self-aggrandizing memoir), the account clearly has merit. It has more merit still when one sees the provenance of it; that it was based on several earlier staff reports written by men who were veterans of the 1800 campaign.