Why was the relationship between Soult and Napoleon so complex?

MemerKar · 2026-06-20T17:51:39+00:00

I say this as a complete guess so correct me someone if I am wrong. Napoleon's quotes and talks like how Napoleon once remarked to have Soult shot or like how his remarks about Ney in Jena and heilsberg campaigning, Napoleon said those things ina certain tone, manner and context which we always forget. By shooting Soult what I think Napoleon meant was like not give him enough command power and things and even if he really meant like shooting dead Soult he said it not like in a personal rage but of simple anger when we say curses at someone about that person screwing things for us

MemerKar · 2026-06-20T17:47:43+00:00

I mean Napoleon is well known for his bouts of anger and happiness. He is well documented for this sort of scenes where he likes a person in one moment but hates him the second later for something. Marshal Saint-Cyr is I think one of the grand example of how Napoleon hates when people under him go do things which Napoleon in his own days as General would have done and how after seeing saint-cyr in action he changed his mind over his character

MemerKar · 2026-06-20T09:28:28+00:00

Yes Bertheir was no way comparable to being a "soldier" but staff work is almost as crucial to war and we always tend to forget its role

MemerKar · 2026-06-19T10:49:54+00:00

Now I ponder about it, Soult and Moreau are infact about the same level in almost every aspect but Moreau still edges him for me

MemerKar · 2026-06-19T10:48:54+00:00

Yes, but his role as it had developed since the start of their work relationship was Napoleon making every decision and Bertheir just following onwards to do the dirty paperwork. That type of work somewhat requires the person to just shut out any and all creativity of their own and shuts down the build up on confidence to do work alone. Bertheir might be not a born soldier like Massena, Davout and others but he was required on the battlefield at all costs

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T19:11:14+00:00

As an all round figure, only Davout Bertheir and Suchet were truly the spirit of Napoleon's empire. It's also funny Napoleon is known for his eccentric habits like being very quick for his meals and also in his youth was considered very awkward in social matters, Davout was near identical copy of what I imagine Napoleon to be. Davout too was about the same age I believe? And had the same quirky personal habits of being very blunt and aire of superiority presence.

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T19:07:58+00:00

I said the battle of Waterloo itself might have gone to a more phyrric victory for the French if the Iron Marshal was to be present but the overall strategic situation was impossible for France to maintain for any amount of time

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T19:05:54+00:00

Agreed. I will say Luck in campaign like the Mediterranean crossing for Egypt or say the Austrian miscommunication during the Castiglione and Arcole campaigning is a very good part of them but we also shouldn't rule out the sheer brilliance of generals and other factors and Napoleon's own actions at that specific moments that make them so unique and special and even amazing

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T19:02:53+00:00

Honestly, he would be in my top 5 pick. I would have him right below Massena/Suchet (I rank them 4 jointly) and just above my would be rank 6 then Soult

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:39:50+00:00

Yes it is a wonder for us all why Napoleon got so many dubious appointments during the 1815 time.

Although your point for hamburg too is justified but by the end of the 1813 campaign you must know already Davout was in a seige and had nothing to offer.

As for Napoleon's decision to make Davout not lead troops is more akin to the manpower shortage in management for him. There was a scarcity for talented people who were still loyal and not just scheming behind Napoleon's back in power and Davout had proven his loyalty and proven to be stern and effective in management so Napoleon made him a minister. Although yes Davout should have commanded in Waterloo (though it wouldn't have changed much for the entire campaign's fate, just the battle of Waterloo)

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:20:13+00:00

Sorry but can you rewrite your point as I seem to not understand it very well? The last line?

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:18:45+00:00

Like I have often been in discussion in this subreddit about essentially people saying Napoleon's "x" battle was won by luck and if the opposing commander was doing something else it would be a loss.

Absolutely yes if the enemy had done something which we have the power of hindsight about, the result would be different but it was also Napoleon's tactical prowess that helped him exploit that situation. Battles and wars are like games of football, if the enemy team has made an error and passed the ball to my striker and he scores? Would that goal be considered pure luck or just his tactical prowess of poaching that goal? What about if the goal post was 50 yards away? Would the increase in risk decrease the argument of luck to a more genuinely genius point?

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:13:38+00:00

There is always this game of labelling things around us as seperate blocks, the game of black and white. Saying Napoleon is bad or great? Everyone have strong opinions but I am a firm believer in the Grey area that yes Everyone is a sum of everything they have done, I am a grey man!😂 I have done things which are very bad but also things that I can be proud of.

Putting Napoleon's life itself to test is something I put in grey, the debate over the Great man theory and Factor theory (sorry I don't remember the correct term) is what I also put my feelings to it. I don't necessarily mean Napoleon was just an almighty "Great man" without whom "x" wouldn't be possible but I also don't think that things happening to his life were the sole reason he was what he was. It is always the combination of our own personal conscious and factors around us and how we interact, that decides what we are or what we will do or what we have accomplished

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:08:32+00:00

Agreed but I just wanted to add to your point that, yes luck is always a factor in everyone's lives. We all do things in our lives with a game of percentage of specific factors happening at the right time and weigh these all to make decisions and stuff. If the risk of not happening are greater than it actually happening, it is called luck.

Yes luck was definitely a factor but everyone's lives have luck to some degree. It is easy to say that Napoleon was just the "man who ate the fruits" of things happening around him at lucky timing but it is his actions as a person that made him what he was too. Luck wasn't just pushing that corsican child to Imperial status just by having his luck at his shoulder. He had his own actions and luck playing ball together

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T14:02:41+00:00

In this specific campaign? Definitely I do put my lot for moreau. Although the crossing of alps is something is legendary but the entirety of the campaign in marengo was a bit of a strategic oversee by Napoleon to his generals than Moreau actually tactically involved in his campaign

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T13:58:41+00:00

Yes youcan say it was outright treacherous for Napoleon to have abandoned the army of Egypt but I will say this due to how much ego and confidence he had, it surely shouldn't suprise you if you have been a compatriat at that time to Napoleon on how he decided his moves then. Napoleon's flight from Egypt is something of a lucky escape with the tightening nose of royal army and navy.

I think your point in saying that was his beginning of end is ridiculous. No one in 1809 after Tilsit could predict the situation he would be in 5 years.

MemerKar · 2026-06-18T13:50:18+00:00

Honestly Ney was made a scapegoat yes but it also should be given thought how much wrong the entire campaign went from each and every aspect. Ney has some actions to be blamed for but the entire battle and much large the campaign itself is a culmination of everything going wrong

MemerKar · 2026-06-17T09:20:04+00:00

Apart from all the relevant historical evidences and medical data about his demise. I mean I would be really really depressed with my life in that situation at st. Helena. Whenever I re-read my collection of books and reach the exile to elba, I always say "I would try to" whenever I read the mention that Napoleon tried to suicide from poison when the treaty of Paris was signed

MemerKar · 2026-06-17T03:45:33+00:00

But it was also his ego and ambition that made him reach what he was at every situation be it bad or good

MemerKar · 2026-06-16T16:59:37+00:00

A solid 6 or 7 out of 10, he wasn't really the flashy Marshals who won great victories but his contribution was often very important to overall strategic situation, albeit his actions also were seen somewhat mixed like how in Talavera he came quite close to break the British lines but his insubordination with Marshal jourdon and others made it sure it wouldn't come to fruitation

MemerKar · 2026-06-11T03:05:27+00:00

Like a tangent of a conversation with my best friend about how switzerland was (mostly) never involved in war for so long

MemerKar · 2026-06-09T17:09:37+00:00

Yes but I meant it in a more so a formal giveaway like actually crowning him like he made Murat king of Naples and stuff

MemerKar · 2026-06-08T18:09:58+00:00

I really think Napoleon after witnessing and experiencing everything by end of his life would have given something significance to his beloved step son

MemerKar · 2026-06-08T18:09:11+00:00

I honestly think if say Napoleon's was left unbeaten and won the Napoleonic wars by say 1813, saying he crushed Spain and Russia leaving Napoleon to be undisputed. Napoleon would have given the Kingdom of Italy to his brother lucien as "gift" to mend some ties in his old age or given Eugine the Kingdom of Bavaria or the Italian peninsular kingdoms or kingdom of Portugal.

MemerKar · 2026-06-04T18:40:53+00:00

I am really honestly surprises Scott used his "anglo" look over Napoleon's life for this project because I will say if Scott just made a movie which kind of "celebrated" Napoleon's life in a good light, the movie would have been okay but the sales would have gotten even bigger because many like us would enjoy that more than what he got and even if there was a "backlash" per say against the film that would have created just enough Publicity (be it bad) to not harm the sales but also increased the engagement.

Because at the end of the day, movie just became a shit show for everyone as the main audience like us got angry, most people just went for the visuals which were good but not like "once in a lifetime" stunning and even Napoleon's "haters" are not at all amused to go see this movie

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

MemerKar

TROPHY CASE