YOU-LON m 1: vmotmmzs
TWO IMPORTANT mars m m mm
yummy mm OF woman MART:

Thai: For flu mom on! M. A.
WEAR STATE UNIVmiTY
Edward V. lav-W
1955

 

I
TCULCH AHD 13 VEHDSKIAIRE: TWO ITPORTAHT
EVZKTS IN THE EARLY F LITARY CAREER

OF NAPO’?ON BCHAPARTE

by

Edward V. Zavell

An abstract submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Easter of Arts in Kichigan
State University

E. Lansing, Uichigan

1955

Approved ;’ '4ch t 111%. I
E De

partment of History

kinetics

 

’:
'.

Edward V . Zavell

The french Revolution, besides bringing about an enormous change
in the lives of the peeple of France, produced a new elite in both
the army and the national political arena. Of all the individuals
emerging from the new system, beyond question the most spectacular
was Napoleon Bonaparte. Rising from the ranks of the Irench army.
Napoleon, a Corsican, seized the reins of the government and proceeded
to rule France from 1799 to 1815. During this brief span of tine he
transformed France from a country ridden by internal and external
strife into the most formidable Empire the modern world had witnessed
to that time. This thesis concerns itself with the beginnings of
Napoleon's meteoric rise, namely the siege of Toulon in 1793 and 13
Vende‘niaire (October 5, 1795).

Napoleon's true role at these episodes still remains an enigma.
Just as important, for the historian, is the fact that his activity
has been the subject of disagreement and controversy. In an attempt
to discover the facts and more clearly define these occurrences, all
available source materials have been examined. Primary sources such
as the Archives Parliamentaires and the ett Nat e u e
W have been utilized whenever possible.

In the study of Toulon and 13 Vende’miaire, it is found that there
are marked differences of Opinion as to mat really happened and of
what importance Napoleon was to these victories. J'or instance, Napoleon's
versions. as reported by his faithful followers Las Gases, Bertrand,
Gougaud, and Mentholon are so divergent from General Paul Barrae'
descriptions that it hardly seems Napoleon and Barres are referring to

the same events. Barres, a politician of considerable importance during

Edward V. Zavell

this time, recognized the potentialities of Napoleon and favored the
young Corsican. Yet his Mgpgirs reflect a bitter hatred and desire
to calumniste him.

The siege of Toulon in 1793 was the first event to bring Napoleon
recognition in France. A.Royalist reaction at Toulon had enabled the
enemies of revolutionary France to occupy that city. Napoleon, although
of minor rank, took charge of the artillery of the besieging Republican
army and caused the allies great distress. Moreover, the major portion
of the successful plan for the conquest of Toulon was conceived by
Bonaparte.

The revolt of 13 Vendlmiaire had been precipitated by a prOposal
which allowed two-thirds of the members of the terminating Convention
to be retained under the New Constitution without the requirement of
re-election. When this uprising reached serious proportions, General
Barres was given the task:of suppressing it. Barres sought the aid of
able officers, one of whom was Bonaparte. In the‘ensuing encounter,
the Convention forces, although outnumbered approximately five to one,
crushed the insurrectionists with incredible ease. Napoleon, as second
in command, obtained artillery for the defense of the Convention, set
up the defense, and at one particular location directed the Convention
forces with conspicuous ability. Exploiting his perfOrmance on 13 Yenddniaire
to the fullest, Napoleon subsequently vaulted to great heights in.the

trench military organisation.

I
TOULON AND 13 VEHDEKIAIRE: THO IKPORTANT

EVENTS IN TEE EARLY EILITARY CARELR

OF NAPCLEON BOKAPARTE

by
Edward V. Zavell

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Easter of Arts in Michigan
State University

B. lensing, Michigan

1955

   

Approved

Department of History

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my sincere appreciation
to Professor John 3. Harrison for his
assistance, encouragement, and constructive
criticism in the study and writing of this
thesis.

. ,da(e_:\-‘,e'-?'IK.‘
.. 1‘???” }('k

‘A\.

EARL] 0! CONTENTS

ter
I. Introduction .............................. ........... .
II. Toulon.- first Act for’Napoleon ......................
III. Interlude .............................................
IV. 13 Venddiiaire - Prelude to Napoleon's Rise ...........
V. The Consequences of 13 Vendéniaire to Napoleon ........
VI. Summary and Conclusions .s.............................

Bibliomm .0.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....0.0.0.0....

11
#1

79
89

Chapter I . Introduction

Perhaps the phrase, active but uncertain, can best describe the

early military career of Napoleon Bonaparte. The young Corsican certainly

experienced periods when he was on the brink of rising to prominence

only to have his efforts frustrated by strokes of ill fortune. This

thesis will lay stress on the details of the battles of Ioulon end of
13 Vende’miaire showing primarily what roles Napoleon Bonaparte had in

each. After one of these encounters, fortune finally miled on

Bonaparte. Before beginning the study of these two events, however,

a brief outline of the life of Napoleon up to Toulon should aid the

reader to become acquainted with the setting. Napoleon was born in

AJaccio, Corsica, on August 15, 1769, the second son of Carlo and

Letisia IBuonapar‘te.1 In his childhood, the fiery Napoleon possessed

an agreesive and quarrelsome spirit which was controlled only by the
In order to improve his manners, Napoleon
Although the

influence of his mother.
had to attend a girl's school in the city of AJaccio.2

many fascinating stories of Napoleon's passion for soldiering during

 

1 I'he .‘l'rench form of Bonaparte was not used generally until 1796.

2 l'rederick lax Kircheisen, nggleon, trans. Henry St. Lawrence
(New York, 1932), p. 8. Hereafter referred to as Iircheisen.

 

 

 

his boyhood appear to be inventive afterthougxts, it is fairly certain
that his father, Carlo, correctly surmised that little Napoleon had
talents which aarked hie as a potential soldier.3

However, for a feaily of nodest leans, such as the Bonapartes,

higher education appeared as an ilpossibility. It did not take Carlo

long to deter-ins his course of action. Since France had annexed
Corsica in 1768, it became possible to obtain education for the sons

of noble-en at the King's expense. Since the Bonapartes were of obscure
Italian nobility, the offspring of Carlo could qualify. In preparation
of this opportunity, Carlo took his two oldest sons, Joseph and
Napoleon, to Autun to have then learn the trench language, a necessary
prelininary of entrance to the french schools. After much petitioning
and waiting, the happy day for the Bonapartes arrived: young Napoleon

was admitted to the Hilitary Acadeay of Brienne.“
it Brianne, he was not liked particularly by his fellow students

and renained anti-social and aloof for several years. The students
teased hill, often referring to his foreign birth. Infuriated by these

taunts, Napoleon was led lore than once to say that he would do the

 

3 August J'ournier, e rats A B , trans. flargaret
Bacon Oorwin and Arthur Dart Bissell, ed. ldward Gaylord Bourne
(New York, 1903), p.5. Hereafter referred to as Nournier.

4 John Holland. Bose, W (New Iork,l92’+), 1,10.
Hereafter referred to as Nose, WW. Napoleon

entered Brienne in 1779.

French all the mischief he could.5 After his education at Brienne was

finished in 1781*, Napoleon wished to enter the Royal Navy, but instead

he was recommended and appointed to the Ncole Nilitaire in Paris. 1'he

following year Napoleon, at the age of sixteen, was promoted to lieu—-

tenant and assigned to an artillery reginent known as La Is‘re stationed

6
in Valence. In August 1786, Lyons was harassed by disturbances among

silk-workers. Napoleon was sent to this city with his battalion for a

brief occupation.7 Iron late 1786 to early 1788 Bonaparte spent numerous

leaves visiting Corsica, and little in the way of military occurrences

are recorded for hin during this period.
The military service of the little Corsican resumed when he reported

to his new station at Auronne in May of 1788. Here his talents were

recognised by General Duteil, couander of the artillery school. who

tsmght hi. nuch in the basic principles of nilitary science.8 In March,

1789 a series of riots rocked the city of Seurre and Napoleon was given

command of a company ordered to restore peace in that locality. By his

skillful choice of wards, Napoleon succeeded in dispersing the tumltous

5 Louis .‘l'auvelet De Bourrienne, M Na t ed. H. N.
Phipps (New York, n.d.). I, 7. Hereafter referred to as Bourrienne.

This nan was a class-ate of Napoleon's at Brienne.

Louis Hadelin, G
W (Paris, 1937), I, “9-51. Hereafter referred to as Madelin.

7 Kircheison, p. 21.

8 «T. 601111. WWW (Paris. 1901). p. 129.

 

nobs without resorting to the use of cannon»?
lhile the nation of hence was in the throes of the great

revolutiea Bonaparte again sought and obtained leave for Corsica.

During this visit he first not the hero of boyhood, Paoli, who had

always appeared to be the syabol of liberty for all Corsicans. How-

ever, for various reasons, Napoleon's fiery ardor for the old warrior
waned considerably.1° loreover, he began to conceive of wresting
mthority fro: the reigning govern-eat by organizing a National Guard
group for the purpose of ejecting the trench garrison fro: the fort-

ress of AJaccio. But this early schene of Napoleon's cans to an

ignoainieus end when the french forces were reinforced and his
National Guard outfit was ordered disbanded.11 the following year,

Napoleon again concentrated his efforts on an active revolution in

Corsica through the organisation of the Jacobin Club. His goal, as

before, was the seisure of the stronghold held by the lunch in AJaccie.

 

9 Nircheisen, p. 25. Bonaparte, before giving the order to fire,
exclaiaed to the crowd that his orders were to fire on the rabble.

None of the nob was willing to be classified as such, end they
dilpfirIOd.
I, 27.28. Paoli had favored Bastia

as the city to be the official capital of Corsica. Ihis annoyed
the AJaccio aspirants which included the Bonapartes. Paoli also

began showing signs of a dictatorial mture. Moreover, Paoli's
disposition of the Corsican troops in their attenpt to gain freedoa
free France irked Napoleon who declared that such arrange-ants

would spell defeat for Corsica.

mien,

11
J'ournier, p. 26

But his proposal to ley regular siege of the fortress was rejected
by the Jacobin club.12 lo this rebuff Bapoleon reacted by writing
a scathing letter attacking the Oonte de Butaf‘ucco, the deputy for
the nobles of Corsica to the lational Assenbly of France, as a

traitor to Corsica. As a leader, Paoli was berated for his failure

to understand anything but passionate fanaticisn as the criteria

for liberty and independence}:3 Leaving Corsica in disgust, Bonaparte

returned to his artillery regiaent at Leanne in rebroary, 1791.
In June. 1791, lapoleon received his proaction to the grade of

first lieutenant and was transferred to the fourth Artillery Regiment

of Grenoble, at that ties stationed in Valence. 1“ 'hen the French

national isseably decided to create battalions of paid volunteers,
of which Corsica was to have several, the young first lieutenant
again obtained leave to return to Oorsica in hopes of receiving a
battalion eon-and.15 In part, lapoleon succeeded since he was
chosen second in command of the battalion froa his native city of
Music. But his glances repeatedly directed themselves to that
fornidable and desirable fortress which housed the bench troops.

During laster week of 1792, lapoleon contrived the seizure of AJaccio.

 

12l'ournier, p. 26.

132..., W I. 28.
14
Kaolin, I, 119-120.

lstiroheissn, p. 33

however, the influential Pauli refused to support hie. .‘l‘urtheraore,
the restless Corsican was ordered to leave AJaccio. Upon his return,
to France, lapoleon proceeded to Paris.16 During his stay, napoleon
witnessed the historic event of June 20, 1792, when the mobs storaed
the Tuilleries and insulted the king and queen. His revulsion at .
such an exhibition pronpted his: to exclaim the need for sweeping off
four or five hundred of the rabble with cannon in order to disperse
the rest of them.” More than three years later, Napoleon was to
prove the accuracy of his declaration by using artillery on the
sectionaries during the fray of 13 Vsnd‘aiaire. He also was a
spectator to the scenes of August 10, 1792, in which the aroused
Parisians dealt the coup de grace to the Bourbon monarch, Louis XVI,
by forcing him to flee and seek protection in the National Assembly
where his nonarchial rule was suspended.18

Pronoted to captain in August, 1792, Bapoleon still did not
show any particular interest in lranoe. Instead of proceeding to

his regiaent, which was stationed at the eastern frontier of Trance,

lapolson ignored this order and debarked 1hr Gorsica.l9 It was

16
Fournier, pp. 30-32.

17 Bourrienne, I, 1?.

18 Th: 1.11; g: lgpglggn I, I, 33.
19
Kircheisen, pp. 35-36.

during this tile that a plan, forlulated in 1791 by the now defunct
Legislative dssenbly, was ordered to be prelulgated. Sardinia was
to be invaded and conquered on lebruary 19, 1793. The aain concen-
tration of forces was hurled against the Sardinian capital of
Cagliare while a silultaneous attack from the north by way of the
island of Haddelena was to be aade. Bonaparte, with a rank of
lieutenant colonel, was anong the 600 regular troops and Corsican
volunteers who took part in the Maddalena expedition. The invading
party toek possession of a little island south of Maddalena called
San Stefano.lbut when it attupted to seize Maddalena it not
unexpectedly strong resistance. Bonaparte took charge of one
battalion and ordered artillery to be showered on the harbor
defenses. he intended assault for the following morning was
ruined by the fearful Corsican troops who nutineed in the belief
that the defense had an everwhelning superiority in numbers.
Lieutenant Colonel Qusnsa, the oouander of the other battalion,
and Napoleon tried to persuade the soldiers to advance, but to no
avail. The troops ingloriously fled, abandoning all artillery pieces
and infantry positions.2°

Upon his return to Corsica free the Sardinian catastrophe, new
violent verbal contests ensued between Napoleon and Paoli. lapoleen

O
Kircheisen, pp. 36-37. the rank of lieutenant colonel was in the
Corsican am rather than a bench connission.

resumed the conand of the volunteer forces of AJaccio as if nothing
had occurred in his absence. Furthermore, Paoli, being a french
general, was ordered to the J‘rench Aray of the South. He refused to
conply. Consequently, the Convention issued an order for his arrest
on April 2, 1793.21 Ihsn this occurred, lapoleon broke completely
with Paoli and espoused the cause of trance. levertheless, the
Corsican people were still in favor of Paoli. Napoleon was declared
an outlaw and the rest of his kin were labelled as subversive. In a
final desperate effort to win Corsica, the young captain assayed to
threw his battalion against the alluring fortress in Music. Ihis
venture likewise failed.22 Ihe furious Corsicans now sougit revenge
on lapeleon. Being unable to catch his, they satisfied their anger
by wrecking the Bonaparte estate while the mtire Bonaparte clan was
fleeing en nasse to the J'rench port city of Toulon, arriving there
in June, 11’2'93.23 After getting the family well settled in La Valette,
located several silos northeast of Toulon, Napoleon traveled to lice
where a portion of his regieent was stationed?“b A certain General

Dugear, connander of the Aray of Italy, requested the services of

 

211eurnier, p. 30.

22Why it was unsuccessful is an interesting point. Kircheisen asserts
that the garrison in the fort did not side with lapoleon althoudi
he had predicted they would. See Kircheisen, p. 1+0.

231030. Wheels-la; 1. 37.

wrircheisen, p. 1+1.

napoleon for an undeternined nunber of weeks. When Marseilles revolted,
General Dugear sent Napoleon to convince the revolters that conveys
for the Any of Italy should be allowed to pass through that city or
else Marseilles would create resentment from asmbers of the Army of
Italy. According to lapoleon, this assigneent was successful.25 It
was during this tine, July, 1793. that foulon revolted against the
lunch government. Bonaparte apparently remained with General Dugear
until early September. While traveling to lies in early September,
Napoleon not a fellow Corsican by the name of Salicetti. What happened
during and after that nesting will be explained in the next chapter.
Napoleon's next military day occurred aleost two years after the
siege of Toulon. The third chapter will deal with this two year
period in euro detail, however a few cursory remarks at this tine
would aid the reader to understand the problems related to 13 Vende’niaire.
During this interval, lapoleon's star seemed to fade quite aarkedly.
fhe radical faction of Jacobins was overthrown in 1791+ and all suspected
adherents to that party suffered either death or banith or
discrilination. Because Iapoleon was identified with then, he also
felt the sting of reprisal. He was arrested but later released and
ordered to Join the Al'ly of the Vest. This Bonaparte refused to do

since he considered the transfer to the infantry, which the order

somerset De Chair, W915; (Iondon, 1999). p. 11.
Hereafter referred to as De Chair.

“+—

10

included, as an insult.26 Instead, he drifted to Paris to plead his
case for the artillery position with the Amy of Italy. Destitute,
on half-pay, and relatively unknown, Bonaparte‘s future looked dis.
But, as so often happened in his life, Napoleon showed up at the
east strategic aonent. And when the insurrection broke out in Paris,
he was in a position to receive his second big Opportunity, which

was 13 Vend‘niaire.

napoleon was a great adherent of artillery and considered the
infantry as a branch of secondary importance at this tine.

11

Chapter II. Ioulon - first Act for Napoleon

the battle of Toulon in 1793. besides being an interesting
episode in the period of the French Revolution, heralded the opening
chapter of lapoleon Bonaparte's aeteoric career. Before Coulee the
revolution had pursued a rather precarious and uneven course. At
first, the peasants in the various provinces had championed the
cause of the revolution, since the great landed estates had been
divided along then. But this initial enthusiase dininished steadily
as the successive legislative bodies became garrulous gatherings
which appeared to acconplish nothing acre than pave the way for a
Parisian dictatorship. lloreover, the devout peasants vociferously
opposed the religious innovations of the government. As confusion
and foreign wars beseiged the Republic of francs. the pendulus of
provincial opinion began swinging back in favor of the eonarchy.
However, King Louis XVI was deposed by the radical faction in the
rational Convuition. In January, 1793. the extreaists perpetrated
the crowning blow to nonarchisn by executing the King as disloyal to
francs. Immediately, the cry of rebellion against the revolutionary
governnent was raised in sixty of the eighty provinces in francs.
l'hs opposition of the people found its vent in the support of Royalisn.
The Vend‘ean, Breton, and Angevin peasantry, who had opposed the
Civil Constitution of the clerg, became willing advocates of sonarchy

through the persuasive exhortations of the Royalists. In Toulon,

12

Irance' s chief lediterranean naval base, the revolt initially had
appeared as a reaction against the radical Mountain faction only,
but on Augist 21+, 1793, the Toulonese leaders proclaimed Louis XVII
as King of francs.1

This was considered an opportune ties for Great Britain to
deal the deathblow to the revolution by invading trance free the
port cities of the aediterranean with the sin of restoring the
nonarchy. The naJority of the french people appeared willing to
collaborate with such a plan. Boyalist leaders fro. Marseilles
had sent feelers to the British fleet indicating the possible
occupation of that city.2 However, such proposals cane too late.
Ihe hordes of the Branch regular aray, under the direction of
General Carteaux who connanded the Arny of the South, crushed the
rebellion in that city before the British could intervene. not so
in Toulon. The allies, consisting of British, Spanish, Piedmontese,
and leapoliten troOps, were cordially received by the Boyalist
synpathisers. But even at this favorable noaent for the allies,
there were indications that strong opposition would be encountered
fron the ll'rench Republicans. One sign was the rapid advance of the

victorious trench aray free Marseilles.

M

1 A. mate, The J‘r c ti : APo tica Hi to trans.
Bernard Niall (London, 1910;, II, 309.

2 John Holland non. MW (Ga-brim.
1922), p. 19. Hereafter referred to as Bose, 13W

13

During one of the early skirmishes between the allies and the

Republican forces, the french artillery officer, Donnartin, was

incapacitated by injuries. A search for a replacement was conducted

by the representatives of the Revolutionary Convention and the

military alike. It was during this period that Salicetti, a

representative of the people, encountered Napoleon at lice. Before

arriving at Rice, Napoleon had been at Marseilles obtaining sees

artillery wagons for the french Aray of Italy. After a few exchanges

of friendly words, Salicetti proposed the position of artillery director
at Tendon, which Napoleon readily accepted.3 Th1“. 3943010011 301131381“
entered the scene of Toulon around the middle of Septenber, 1793.“

Here his budding nilitary genius was given its first great test.
lapoleon had shown talent before this tine, also, in the political
field by composing a little pamphlet in July, 1793 which was entitled

3 Kircheisen, p. M. How Napoleon happened to be sent to reulon is

a topic which is described in aany ways. Kircheisen's presentation
for divergent views, see Memoirs at

seems to be the nest logical.
sggt Helepg to the 69;;ng Who Smed His Captivity and Publishgg
Hamiscri ts Correctedw dict. General

a t Or inal
Gourgaud (London, 18235, I, 11-12. Hereafter referred to as Gourgaud,
In Rose, 3; Life 01 ngglggg I, I, 42-43,

I, or Hontholon, III.
another interesting, but unlikely, view is given.

4
his would seen a logical tine sequence, since Donaartin was injured
in an engagement with the allies on September 9, 1793. A version

which met be read with caution is that of George Duruy, 1n the

introduction of Paul Barres, Mire of Barres: Member 9_f t3;

Directorate, trans. 0. l. Roche, ed. George Darcy (New York, 1895). I,
Hereafter referred to as Barres. Hr. Durny attempts to place

lniv.
Napoleon at Toulon when Donnartin was injured and receiving the
command shortly thereafter.

11+

W. In effect, this pamphlet was a propaganda

effort directed toward the liarseillaise, striving to persuade the:
that their rebellious course would only lead to the destruction of
their city and woe to theaselves.5 Ehis palphlet had a teeporarily
beneficial effect on Hapoleon's career by placing hie in the ranks
of those who supported the present regime, however it later caused
his disaissal fro: the any when the Jacobin rule in Paris collapsed.
Nevertheless, at this tine Napoleon was considered a good patriot
and upon his appointment by Salicetti he Journeyed to Toulon.

On his arrival to the republican canp near Ollioules, Bonaparte
reported to General Oarteau: in order to receive his authorisation
as cellander of the artillery.6 Hapeleon described Oarteaux as a
haughty and incompetent am who asserted strenuously that he needed
no assistance in retaking the city, but that Hapoleon could share in
the glory of burning Ionlon once it was recaptured.7 However, this
overconfident air was speedily deflated when Oarteaux was faced with

the cold realisation that rouion was not going to fall before the

 

5 Hapoleon Bonaparte. W (Purim n-M. PP- 20-30-

6 Ollioules is situated approxiaately 35 ailes northwest of Toules.
Bee Nap, p. 1%.

7 Count De Las Gases, wig; De Saints Helene: Jgggg. g; the Privgtg

e O versati s t ererll ceo at 8a tH
London, 1823 , I, pt. 1, 190-141. Hereafter referred to as Las

Cases.

ravioli

114 L733

 

 

-LL

4&1

1 \

OULE

9 W H é/////////
Q M PlMtew ///-'./’..'r \<:"
s 'M I!
k [E I :01 {It‘s ’luzul'tglfius' .' Ltv L

 

 

 

MILES

A LL'ES

FR‘NCH '...'....I.....

HARD-R

fawn! vvs

to
U

VBALA‘ooIR

.5 es La HA5 ens

/ ‘

I“ W 1" fr PNAh"

  
 
  

 

OUTER
HARBOR

CEPET

erncu BA-r'rsmss:
I. CeuVENT'loN
:1. Fame like

3.PouORléRE

5‘. Race

5- Mourns/~16

é. Sens CeuLs-r'rss
7. aunvft Monume-
9.6Acaalns

7. Hanna's Sans PEI/R
IO'CHASE Cocucus
”-GRANDE RADE
12.543L5-rrcs

13. FAUBRE’cns

 

 

 

 

 

MAP TAKEN FROM JW. FcRTESuve,

A Herrekr of THE BEN-5H ARI-1y; NAILS—
(Lenses, HIS),IE', PT: I,

15

onslaught of sheer numbers. More than likely, he becane less ads-ant

in his declarations of refusing aid fron others and became no great

barrier to the young artillery officer's activity.

On Septenber 17, 1793, Napoleon erected his first battery. The
next day he ordered this battery to be fired on the ships of the allies
in the inner harbor near the port of i'eulon.8 The allies retaliated
by concentrating gun fire on this battery and destroying it my tines.
Nevertheless, Bonaparte nerely ordered it to be reconstructed tine and
$111.9 His tenacity no further demonstrated by his order to have

another battery erected on the 20th of Septenber.:"0 With these
batteries firing continually on the British fleet three significant

events were brought about. First, the British had to raise anchor

and take their ships to the outer harbor.ll Second, Lord Hood had to
withdraw his floating battery since it had received extensive damage

by Napoleon's battery fire.12 Hood perceived that the Republican

artillery was getting the better of the fight because it could hit

tangible targets, whereas the British floating batteries had to

8 Charles James rox, Iapglcon Bonapgte g rho siege 9; £03,193
(Washington, D. 6., 1902 , p. 19. Hereafter referred to as Box.

9 Mingires Du Duc De Lame De 1.222 ; l8}; (Paris, 1857), I, 40.
Hereafter referred to as Haguse. Haguse did not arrive until
December, thus it must be assumed this portion of his memoirs

was gained by accounts of other officers or from Bonaparte himself.

 

1010:, p. 19.

1J’Hslguse, I, 1+0.
1210:, p. 20.

16

contend with partially hidden land objectives. Moreover, the shots
which did not hit the land structures ended up harmlessly on the
sandy ground nullifying any possibility of dmage by ricochet.
third, Hood declared that if the Trench took possession of the
high ground dominating the roadstead between the inner and outer
harbors, the fleet would be driven from the harbor of Toulon.
Hence, Admiral Lord Hood ordered Lord Hulgrave to take a sortie of
500 men to the heights of La Grease and construct a fort there.
his fort, reasonably dubbed l'ort Mulgrave, commanded the top of
the promontory which overlooked the narrow strait between the inner
and outer harbors of Toulon.13

To the northeast of Toulon, the hills and the mountain position
also forced the allies to establish and maintain a string of forts
and defense posts. the British high command had correctly apprehended
that the new could easily devastate i‘oulon if such positions were
seized and converted into artillery posts. By the end of September
the Irench on the eastern front had struck on a plan of seizing one
of these heigts. General Lapoype, commander of the eastern sector,
conferred the execution of this schene on Victor, an able officer who
later becane one of lapoleon's aarshals during the period of the
hpire. The plan was to ascend the cliffs near the Pas de La Masqu‘

and overwhelm a small British piquet located in that area. The

 

13 J. I. J‘ortescue, A History of fie EULM (10350119 1915).
1', pt. 1, 163. Hereafter referred to as lortescue.

17

original 800 men were then to be reinforced by a contingent of 1000

trusted soldiers.“

Because of the excellent coordination of this
plan, the allies were taken completely unawares and were driven
from the critical positions of lount heron, Pas de La Masque and
0roix de Pharon. Ihe allies, in a high state of consternation,
becmse of the loss of these critical spots, quickly retool: the
overrun areas within the same day. Lord llulgrave led the allies
in this determined and successful counter-attack.” Hapoleon has
been mentioned by one historian as being present and participating

16 However, such an assertion has no

in the attack by Victor.
support either by contemporary witnesses or official reports. Rather,
it appears that lapoleon concentrated his efforts on the western
sector only. He may have visited the eastern front on many occasions,
but this is only conjecture.

Irom the beginning lapoleon had discerned, as Hood did, the
importance of the land heights of La Grasse as the point where the

land dominated the sea on the western front. Bonaparte asserts that

 

“fortune, IV , 16+

      

15Edwin Sidney,
12:93.! (London, 1M5 e P. 16. Here

16'111183 James, :3; Han; Higtggz 21 Grgt Brigg, Ira g.
D c arati of War b l‘r co in to e Accessi n f
31 (London, 1886), I, 79. Hereafter referred to as James. the
use of the Dictiongire gistgrim, IV, 131, by Jases is of
questionable advisability since this work appears to be the
official trench version of history.

after referred to as H111.

 

after reconnoitering the area for a month, he proposed the plan of
attack which would reduce the city of Toulon. The engineer officers
had been advocating a realar siege, but he declared that this was
unnecessary. All that had to be done was to occupy a position where
mortars, artillery, and red hot cannon balls could be used to shell

the enemy ships. If such a plan was effected, then the entire

garrison would be blockaded. he points which he felt most favorable

for such a design were Baleguier and Eguillette which were on the tip

of the promontory called La Graces. Napoleon added that the British

had become sensitive to the importance of these spots, prompting them
to risk a landing there and constructing rort Mulgrave. His plan was
to attack Bert Mulgrave by forming batteries mounted with 24 pounders
and mortars which would destroy the wood epsnlements, break down the
palisades, and shower the fort with shells by continuous fire. After
two days, he predicted, i'oulon would be won after pounding it and the
vessels in the harbors incessantly. lven if this last proJect could
not be accomplished, the plan could be considered constructive since

the engineers had accepted it as the necessary preliminary to a

regular siege by a strict blockade. Such a restrictive measure could

only be done by acquiring control of the promontory."

*

17 Gourgand, I, 13-15. For supporting accounts of Bonaparte's memoirs
dictated to others at St. Helena see Barry I. O'Keara, m

gage: Or a Voice {ppm St, Helena (How York, 1853), I, 127, hereafter
In the latter book

referred to as O'Meara, and De Chair, pp. 16—17.
the memoirs are a conglomeration of the dictation by Hapoleon to

Gourgaud and to Hontholon placed in sequence.

19

One contemporary strove to show that Napoleon, although a good

officer, had little to do with the actual planning of the scheme to

retake Ioulon from the allies. This man, General Paul Barres, asserts

in his memoirs that he needed an intelligent officer for the Job of
reconnoitering and also for the task of erecting battery placements.
He intrusted those responsible missions to Bonaparte who fulfilled
them punctually and promptly. Because of this exemplary conduct,
Barres promoted Napoleon to the rank of Captain.18 It is clear that
Barras, by intimation, attempted to place credit upon himself by
showing that he was active in the artillery branch of the army.
Furthermore, Napoleon's role at foulon is pictured as that of a
subordinate officer who executed orders in an approbatory manner.
{these are Barras' words concerning Bonaparte at Toulon:

i‘he taking. prisoner of General O'Hara, attributed to Bonaparte, the
British ship he is alleged to have sunk, the plan of campaign in
which he is said to have participated, are so many mendacious
assertions drawn from the imagination of the man who later was to
fabricate still other statements, to be repeated by his flatterers
when the day dawned that he had money wherewith to buy them.
Bonaparte gave proofs of his military talent, then beginning to 19
develop itself, but he only played a secondary part on this occasion.

is will be shown later, Napoleon's version is, by far, the more

supportable.

 

1'8 Barrae, I, 129. According to Iircheisen, p. 35, napoleon had been
promoted to captain in August, 1792.

19 Barres, I, 148. General O'Hara will be discussed later. his
supposed sinking of the British ship is not mentioned by any

source other than Barres.

20

In the meantime, General Garteaux was becoming anxious and
worried because of his inability to retake foulon in a swift manner.
He was receiving additional troops from various Republican araies.
l‘or instance, after the fall of Lyons on October 9, 1793, approximately
3000 troops were dispatched to Ionian.20 Ihe Army of Italy withdrew
many corps from its ranks in order to bolster the forces at feulon.21
Yet, a successful attack was wanting from the French connender.
According to Napoleon, Gasparin, a representative from the lational
Convent ion, decided that Garteau: should devise a general plan of
attack which would reduce the city of Ionian. Garteanx devised a
scheme in which the artillery was to batter Toulon for three days,
and at the end of this period Cartoon: would then attack and carry

the city. he engineer committee in Paris was not persuaded by this

scheme, considering it more humorous than wisa.22

1'he allies also were having their trials and tribulations.
Despite Lord Hood's rosy outlook, the strategic position of Toulen
became increasingly less tenable. Although the allies were successful
in repelling the french during the month of October, reinforcements of

any substantial quantity were not being sent to Toulon by any of the

 

:' .‘At. t (mil,

    

. s
. I. 113-
2 Les cases, I, pt. 1, 142-110.

 

2

allied nations. Hood, an able sea captain but a fledgling in military
lend tactics, was deceived by the initial failures of the Republican
forces, and. sent misleading reports to the home officer in England.

on October 28, Nader General O'Hara arrived from Gibraltar to assuue
the positions of Governor of Toulon and con-aneu- of the combined
ground forces of the Allies.23 O'Hara readily perceived the pre-
cariousness of the Toulon garrison and the overly Optimistic views

of Admiral Reed. In a letter to flood, dated November 11, 1793. he
pointed out the weaknesses of the Ioulon defense. some posts, he
epined, had been fortified inJudiciously and means to improve them
were quite inadequate. Jurthernore, stations such as Balaguier and
Gaps Cepet could be communicated with by water only and insurmountable
difficulties would occur in trying to maintain these posts airing the
winter. The men at these outposts numbered 7000 which O'Hara felt was
not substantial. In O'Hara's opinion, the only way to keep Ioulon
secure was to have an army in the field which would cover a considerable

section of the surrounding countrysidefiu In strength, the Branch

2
3 Rose, Degensg g; T231“, pp. 59-60. Hood retained his position as
supreme conander of the allies.

2“ Bose, W pp. 11+9-l50. This letter is in Appendix
I entitled Lord Hood's correspondence.

outnumbered the allies by an almost two to one margin. By lovenber l,

1793, the allies totaled 16,912 misreas the Republican forces stood at

33. 000 .“e 25
With this great advantage in numbers, Garteaux still was unable

finally, orders came from Paris which transferred

to make any headway.
General

General Garteaux to the Amy of the ilps on lovember 3, 1793.

Dugouier was named general in chief of the Army of Italy and charged

specially with the responsibility of the siege of Toulon. for some

inexplicable reason, General Doppet had been named by several prominent
historians as Garteanx's successor who was in turn replaced by Dugommier.

Yet, in the same order naming Dugonnier as the one in charge of the
siege of Toulon, Doppet's position is clearly stated as general in chief

of the Arm of the Pyrend'es-Orisntales.” It is without doubt then
that Doppet was merely a temporary commander at Toulon, holding this

 

25 James, I, 81-82

26 WW (Pane. 1913). mm, 223.
Hereafter referred to as Archives Parliamentggs. The W

Parliamentaires are a compilation of the debates, discussions, and
decrees made by the national legislature from 178? to 1860.

27 AW mvm. 223.

 

23

position until the new general in chief arrived at foulon.28

Along with Dugommier came General Jean Phillipe Duteil who

2
replaced Bonaparte as the commander of the artillery. 9 Just how

much Duteil contributed to the events on the western front is quite
hazy. It is conceivable that, as one contemporary said, Duteil came
to improve the artillery on the western sector, but seeing Napoleon
exercising such sound decisions in that area, he left him there and
betook himself to another portion of the front where his services

would be more critically needed.” General Duteil had met Napoleon

before. while commander of the Artillery School at Annonne in 1788,
Duteil had recognised readily the extraordinary talents of Napoleon

as an artillery officer and had favored him over senior officers.31

 

28 In Kircheisen, p. 1&5, Doppet is described as an ineffective
commander who finally had to be replaced by Gmeral Dugommier
on November 16, 1793. That Napoleon's fury toward the bungling
Doppet was responsible for Doppet's transfer is the theory put
forward by Rose, fhg Life of Napolggn I, I, 62. See also De
Chair, p. 19, and Barras, I, 130. In these memoirs Napoleon
and Barres both attempt to show that the Committee of Public
Safety had Doppet replaced, Barres claiming that the committee
did so on his and Salicetti's recommendations. Dappet admits
that he was only a temporary commander and cites a letter from
the ministry which in effect said as soon as Dugommier arrived
to relieve him, he was to convey himself to the Am of the

Pyren‘es-Orientales. This is in M ir P it s at Hi i

93 Gang-g, 95mg; (Paris, 1821+), p. 206.

Doppet .

29 The able Jean Phillipe Duteil is not to be confused with his
younger and less gifted brother Jean, also a general who spent

some time at the siege of Ioulon.

30 name. I. 39.
31 Iircheisen, pp. 23-24.

Hereafter referred to as

has, five years later, Dateil encountered again one of his favorite
prote'g‘s. Umheeitatingly, Deteil delegated the hidily responsible
task of artillery head on the western sector to the capable Corsican.
Napoleon was free to continue his favorite project of seising
J'ort Hulgrave. Re constructed batteries against this location and
continued the secret building of la Poudridre near l‘ort Nelhousquet.32
l'he latter battery was to be unveiled at the proper time in an effort

to deceive the enemy into believing that a general attack was to be

made on J'ort Halbeasquet. Napoleon also had a large battery established

near l'ort llalbousquet called the Battery of the Convention.

a counter-battery which Baguse described as one constructed for

diversion while other batteries were established in various positions

Ihis was

close to the redoubt of Nguillette which was to be the true point of
attack.33 It can be assumed that Napoleon's scheme was as follows:
the allies seeing the construction of the counter-battery Convention

would be diverted in their attention from l'ort Helgrave and the

critical points of lguillette and Balagaier. When the secret battery,

la Poudriere, opened fire, the allies would suspect a general attack

on rort llalbousquet and rash troops to that vicinity. Then the true

attack would be made, that on rort Malarave. When this post was

overrun, the points on the promontory. lguillette and Baleguier would

32 Iort Nalbousquet was located about 1 mile west of foulon.

33 nguse, 1, Au.

25

accordingly be seised. Artillery would be rushed up to these points
and Napoleon would direct fire upon the allies fleeing from the shore
of the promontory. Later, mortar and artillery fire would be pointed
at vessels in the outer and inner harbors and upon ioulon itself.

A different interpretation of Napoleon‘s activity is put forth
by Baron Joseph Duteil who wrote on a portion of the life of General
Duteil. It is asserted that the new General of the Artillery, Duteil.
recognised the exemplary direction of the siege operations made by
Napoleon and consequently kept him close by as his second in command?“
Duteil's biographer attempted to place much credit on the old general.
ror instance, he was described as quite active by beginning again the
completion of the battery of la convention, and had laid out
simultaneously a second redoubt which he called the battery of la
Poudribre.” Whether Duteil was as active as this on the western
sector is dubious. No report of an official nature mentions him as
the initiator of la Poudribre. Napoleon was described by one
historian as the officer who had set up two new batteries, la Iarinibre

36

and la Poudri‘ere. Ivan Barres intimates that Napoleon constructed

 

3“

I

Joseph Du foil, N e' It s ' '2
(Paris, 1897), p. 168. Hereafter referred to as Detail.

35 Duteil, pp. 171-172.
36 Ron. W pp- 66-67

26

some batteries, although it is, as usual, in a derogatory manner.
Napoleon, says Barras, was temporarily in command of the artillery.
but Dugommier had to change the artillery placements which had been
poorly placed, leaving the French at a disadvantage.37 Another
contemporary, General Doppet, appears to corroborate the idea that
Napoleon had constructed many batteries by stating that he saw Duteil
applauding all the measures the young artillery officer had fashioned.
and that Napoleon united with his many talents a rare intrepedity and
indefatigable activity. Puppet further asserts that he had always
found Napoleon at his post, and when the Oorsican needed rest he
placed himself on the ground and slept near his batteries.38
Besides constructing many batteries Napoleon also recommended a
plan for the capture of foulon which was amalgamated with one sent
by Dugenier. Salicetti, dispatched by the committee of Public
Safety to urge the speedy recapture of foulon by the Republican
forces, placed before the Committee of Public Safety the two plans.
Carnot, the director of military operations. examined them closely,
studied the advantages of each and then decided that both plans should
.be combined and authorised as the method of taking |io'alon. 'fhe

committee also felt that it was proper to delegate the conand of

 

37 Barras. I. JAG-1&2. Barres does not specify these batteries.

38 Puppet, pp. 206-207.

27

that portion of the attack which Napoleon had suggested. Furthermore,
since he was only a captain, it was necessary to promote his immediately
to under so that he would have a rank which warranted the command of
so important an Operation.” Jrom the memoir cited, two significant
items can be discerned. First, hapoleon was merely a captain when he
arrived at Toulon. Second, it can be deduced that the portion of the
plan which Napoleon had recommended was the seizure of the Fort Hulgrave
and consequently the points Eguillette and Balaguier. His purpose was
to bring up artillery and shell the enemy from these strategic
locations. Apparently Dugomier's portion of the plan concerned the
seisure of the Mount Pharon area, an expedition which was to be
silultaneous with the taking of Fort Mulgrave. However. as commander
of the army, Dugonnier more than likely delegated his scheme to one of
the subordinate officers located on the eastern front and continued to
direct operations from his headquarters on the western sector.

Much to Napoleon's dismay, his plan was foiled temporarily.
Some of the representatives fron Paris had inspected the front and,
upon discovering the hidden battery la Convention, summarily ordered

the artillerymen to open fire.“0 The firing from a hitherto unknown

39 “Elfin" 9f 3.1.th Bag-8:9, trons. De V. Payen-Payne (London. 1396).

11. 112-113. Hereafter referred to as Bardre. Bardre was a masher
of the Committee of Public Safety. He claimed he sea the inner
workings of the Committee of fortifications which was studying the
plans submitted for the conquest of Ioulon.

M) Gourgaud. I. 16.

battery caused the allies to determine a sortie in order to destroy
the battery. Major General O'Hara organised this sortie and placed
Major General Dundee as the commanding officer of the 2300 men who
set out at 4 Lil. on the morning of November 29. this attack
completely surprised the 6000 defenders who could do no more than
save their lives by fleeing from the artillery smplacements of la
Poudriire and probably la rum)”. Soon the redoubts were securely
in the hands of the allies. Some Trench pieces were spihsd and all
seemed to work like clockwork efficiency to the well prepared plan
of O'Hara. then disaster hit the allies. llated by their sudden
success and flushed with the desire for more, the troops from most
of the columns spontaneously broke ranks and charged the fleeing
henchmen. Ihe pnrsuers. said Hood, looked like so many foahounds.’41
General O'Hara arrived at the redoubt greatly displeased with the
behavior of the troops in abandoning the hill. He tried to reform
them and sent one of his lieutenants back to bring up artillerymen
to spike the guns and destroy them as completely as possible.“2

In the meantime General Dugommier began formulating his plans
for a counter-attack. hen the disorganised allies exhausted them-

selves in the senseless pursuit of the l'rench, Dugommier gave the

 

“1 no». W. p. 156.

#2 Hill, pp. 17-18. his is taken from a passage quoted from Lord
3111' s private papers.

29

order for the advance. the allies had no other alternative but to
retreat. In the process many were left behind. The British casualties
alone amounted to 200 soldiers, and altogether the allies lost over
700 of the original 2300 men who had debauched from Fort lialbousq‘cilat.h':3
Among those captured was General O'Hara. Why he was captured and who
accomplished this feet are points of controversy. For instance;
J'ortescue indicates that O'Hara may have gate up to the captured
batteries in the hope of meeting his death.“ Another version is

that O'Hara intentionally allowed himself to be captured in order to
negotiate with the Trench since the allies saw the inability to hold
foulonfw Still, a third view is that O'Hara was tslcen prisoner by
his own despondency and inactivityflé None of these opinions is
correct, however. O'Hara had remained at the end of the sortie even
though he had promised Lord Hood he would not 3 outside of Fort
llalbousquet. When the disaster became apparent by the disorganized
pursuit of the allies, O'Hara could not stand by in a passive manner

and hurried up to the redoubt in an effort to reorganise the allies}?

“'3 Iortescue, 17, pt. 1. 169, and Rose, Dgfensg of Tgulgn, p. 68.

M l'ortescue, 17, pt. 1, 170.

“5 M. Z. Pans, Mfiirgg Pm Sgrvir A L'gigtgirg D; L; 7.1.112 D:
W Paris, 1825), pp. 136-137.

“6 2g! JM 9; Elisabeth lag: glad, ed. Earl of Ilchester

(London, new York, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1908), I, 113.

“7 km. W p. 155 and p. 67.

30

During this effort the counter-attacking Republicans overran the
redoubt. At this tine O'Hara was wounded in the are and loss of
bleed forced hie to lie down.

Who captured hin is another fascinating question. Napoleon
tried to show that he was responsible for the capture of O'Hara.
One of his accounts goes in this manner. After he had led a battery
of grenadiers through a bayou hidden by braables, causing the eneq
to be unaware of its presence, he ordered the troops to fire upon
the lritish. hagining this fire to be originated by aistaken
friendly troops, O'Hara hurried over to inform the: of their error,
but he was wounded instead, a lusketball hitting hie in the hand. A
sergeant then seized hill and dragged hia into the bayou as prisoner.“8
But this version of Napoleon's aenoirs is contradicted in part by
another accent. In this description, lapoleon goes further and
asserts that he actually captured the English-an. The same plot is
used as in the version above. but when O'Hara advanced toward the
troops, he was wounded in the arm by the fire of a sergeant. Napoleon
then seized him}'9 But no sources support such a claia. hrtheraore,

it is acre likely that Napoleon was the prise never of the artillery

 

’48 Gourgaud, I, 17-18

“9 O'lleara, I, 126-127

31

instead of taking part in any infantry attack.50 It is the Opinion
of the writer that O'Hara was captured by french soldiers after the
skirmish had ended.

L aagazine article, which is the hacheysd version of the Napoleonic
legend, makes a gross error in asserting that the battery Homes Sans
Pour caused the English to attack, and that the battle was centered
around this particular locality.51 The battery Holmes Sans Pour did
not figure in the battle of Novenber 29 at all. Furthermore, this
battery was several miles south from the real point of attack centered
around the batteries of la PoudriEre. la Iarini3re, and la Convention.
Kore than likely Bonaparte's activity ran in this vein. when the
encounter began, he hurried to the artillery redoubts nearest those
being attached which would have been la Bade or the Batterie de
Bragallion consisting of the two saplaceaente called Sans Gulottes
and 1a Montague. All of these were located between a ails and a ails

5° Balicetti, in a report to the Committee of Public Safety, stated
that Mouret, Garnier, and Bonaparte had conducted themselves in a
distinguist manner: Agghives Parligentaires, 1.1111, 33. Dugenier
reported that O'Hara was wounded in the right arm and taken prisoner.
Ihose who aided hin the nest to rally and advance were the citisens
Bonaparte, commandant of the artillery, Arena and Oervoni, adJutants-
general; mhives Pagianentgizgs, L m1, 33-34. It will be noticed
that Dagoamier does not credit anyone in particular for the capture
of O'Hara, aereover lapoleon is aentioned in relation to artillery.

51 Geraain Bapet, 'Oaptain lapoleon Bonaparte at foulon', my;
MW. Lmvn (January. 1891;). 210-211.

32

and a half from the overrun batteries. Here, probably he ordered,
without hesitation, artillery and mortar fire on the sites conquered
by the allies. When word was received that the allies were being
pushed back beyond la l‘arini‘ere and la Poudribre, he proceeded, in
all likelihood, to these spots and directed, upon the retreating
enemy, all of the fire he could muster from the unspiked.pieces.

‘After the disaster of November 29, 1793, the allies smarted
under the steadily decreasing fortune for them at Toulon. The
Toulonese were becoming alienated toward the allies and began view-
ing them as strangers meddling in domestic feuds. Also a latent
spirit of national sentiment surged in the ranks of the citizens.
Early in December, Hood decided to disarm the town tr00ps as a
precaution against possible treachery. This in itself caused more
suspicion and estrangement between the french citizens and the allies.
Ihe Republican troops, on the other hand, were bolstered by the
emergence of this sudden zeal of national sentiment. Furthermore,
Dugommier was incited to more strenuous measures when the Committee
of Public Safety sent a suggestive message signifying that he should
capture Toulon or merit the regrets of the (lemmit’cee.52 .Between the
first and fifteenth of December, few clashes between the allies and
the Republicans occurred. The allies clinged to a false hope that

reinforcements would soon be following when, on December 16, a captain

 

52 Rose, Dgzgpsg o; raglan, p. 71.

33

and 50 artillerymen arrived with news that two regiments were being

rushed to Toulon. In reality, the regiments were delayed by fortuitous

circumstances and did not approach Toulon until a fortnight after the

evacuation of the allies.5 The Republicans now had.h0,000 soldiers.

leon menaced Toulon with a threatened direct
The redoubts of Jacobins,

Napo attack by his

batteries of la Poudri'ére and 1a Iariniere.

Hommes Sans Pour and Ghasse-coquins Opened fire on Iort Mulgrave. Little

Gibraltor, or Fort Mulgrave, had a poor defense set-up and the con-

struction of its defense was still in the process when the Republicans

began a steady bombardment of it on December 15-16.54

The French forces were new prepared for the final push against the

allies. Napoleon's portion of the master plan was effected in the

early hours of December 17, 1793. A.force of 7000 men was ordered to

begin the attack against Fort Mulgrave. The garrison of allies, con-

put up a determined and effective resistance

sieting of only 700 men.
55

which made the Republican plan appear precarious for the moment.

Three columns were formed. Victor commanded the first one which had

the task of proceeding along the coast of the promontory and attacking

the fort from the right in order to cut off any help from either

Balaguier or Eguillette. The second column under the leadership of

__

53 Rose, Defense of Toulou, P- 70-
5“ 3°". W. p. 72.
55 Gourgaud, 1, 2h.

34

Brule was to march against the front of the redoubt.56 Darkness caused

this column to become disorganized and forced Dugommier to se
The bringing up

ad for his

third column held in reserve by Bonaparte and Muiron.

of this third force turned the tide. However disinclined, the allies

Finally, the Republicans pursued the allies
nts Eguillette and Balaguier.

were impelled to retreat.57
58

into the sea after forcing them from the poi

At the same time, the attack from the eastern sector succeeded. The

l'rench seized the mountain of Pharon by a prodigious bit of fortune in

which a group crossed over an escarpement which had appeared inaccessible.

l‘ort Malbousquet was also in an inferior
there if it was seized like Eguillette

The allies, fearing that

position and not desiring to be

and Baleguier, evacuated the fort. The french occupied that post

immediately after its evacuation.” There, Napoleon ordered field

pieces to shell the town with howitzers and later with mortar fire.

promontory on which Iort Mulgrave stood, Iapoleon
trusted subordinate Deguse.

Before leaving the

gave the command of the artillery to his

his officer shelled the inner harbor, setting three ships ablaze and

opening ten embrasures. At 3 PJL , the allied ships were forced to

move out of range of the shells which enabled the French to attain an

56 1'01, p. “'9.

57 so... 13,1ng 91 53mg. p. 73.
58 10:, p. 50.

59 Baguse, I, 43.

6° Gourgmud, I, 23-29.

35

effective blockade on Talon.“

Lord Rood held a council of war on the afternoon of the 17th of

December. It was decided that the outer forts and posts were to be

evacuated. All ships not used in the retreat were to be burned along

with stores in the dockyard. Sir Sidney Smith was in command of the

destruction party in Toulon. However, such an operation was hindered

the panic which arose in the allied camp.62 Because of
extent, and

greatly by
the lack of wind, the damage was minimized to a great

eight of the thirteen ships which escaped destruction at this time

were later to become the bulwark of Bonaparte's eastern expedition to

the lile in 1798.63 In the throes of the continuous shelling emd fire,

reulon became ablaze. An occasional explosion was heard and then the

sight of debris flying in all directions was viewed by the beseigers.

When the doors were flung open, the population seemed to have dis-

appeared from the port city.“ It was inevitable that some Toulonese

 

would be, convicted,” traitors to the nation of Irsnce. The most
‘1 legume, I, us-ua.
62 John Darrow, L O rres o S I
Siting Smith G.C.3. London, 1% , I, 155.
of S r J , ed.

63 Rose, D se T p. 81. In
London, 1901+), I, #243, Sir John Moore relates that

both Generals Dundee and O'Hara had felt that Toulon should have

been abandoned long before. Dundee asserts that Hood chose to follow
his own opinion which resulted in the failure to destroy the fleet

and arsenal completely.

.1. Il'. Maurice

6“ Baguse, 1, Mt.

36

reasonable estimate of the number executed is approximately two hundred.“

kactly what was lapoleon's position at Toulonr the young artillery

officer would have us believe that he alone took Toulon. ror instance,

has Gases says:

It will be seen that it was he, and he alone, who took the fortress...
the emperor never looks back to this period without pleasure, and always
mentions it as the happiest portion of his life. !he taking of foulon
was his first successful achievement and it naturally excites the fondest

recollect ions .
Bonaparte even claims that he might have become general in chief before

the seige was over since Dugommier was delaying too long. 1'he repre-
sentatives of the people sought Napoleon, but he refused to accept the
command. Rather, so lapoleon claims, he went to his beloved general and
persuaded him to attack Little Gibralter. But Dugommier was too
fatigued, consequently Napoleon took possession of the town and then
counselled Dugonier to rest himself.67 However, Barres states that
Napoleon only played a secondary role at Ionlon and that Dugommier was
the actual captor of the tew'.u.68 It is quite certain that Dugommier

 

65 Iircheisen, p. #7. In James, I, 89, the Dictionnaire Histogiggg is
again cited to back the assertion that thousands of Toulonese, ro-
gardless of age, sex, or political insignificance, were slaughtered
by the order of the committee of Public Safety. It is inconceivable

why James used this source as authority.

66 Las Gases, 1, pt. 1, 139.

67 Les Gases, I, pt. 1, 1158-159.

68 Barres, I, 11-98.

 

37

was not in such a state of fatigue as Napoleon depicted, and that he

was able to direct the Operations against Toulon. But Napoleon played

more than a secondary role. Bertrand Bardre, a member of the Convention,

brings out the significant points that Dugommier directed the operations

and Bonaparte headed his gunners in a brave manner. Moreover, from

the sources studied, it is also patent that Napoleon did participate

quite significantly in the actual Operations even to the point of

heading a reserve infantry column against Iort Mulgrave. However,

Napoleon's activity as the director of artillery overshadowed any

contributions made by him in the infantry branch.

Concerning the plan for the conquest of Toulon, Bonaparte was a

highly significant figure. Some historians disagree with this contention.

lbr instance, Paul Cottin says that Napoleon was not the only one to

calculate the proper method of attack. He cites a certain.Brunet as

having declared that Balaguier and Eguillette must be carried.
Paris, dated October 22, 1793. Also on September
urning the fleet, and that

This

letter was sent to

b, 1793, Gasparin wrote a letter Speaking of b

on September 10, 1793. GaSparin, Salicetti, and Albitte declared to the

Committee of Public Safety that measures had been taken for firing the

English fleet or forcing it to retreat. Moreover, the true role of Napoleon

was in obtaining the artillery for the army.70 Another historian, fox, asserts

69 Barere, II, 113.

70 Paul Cottin, nglon gt Les Anglais en 1223 D'Apres Des Documents

Igedits (Paris, 1898). pp. 208-209.

38

that Napoleon is not entitled to any great credit for having discovered

the vulnerable point of Toulon since any well schooled officer would

have done the same. Furthermore, his great merit
ry which played such an

lay in the fact that

he alone organized and commanded the artille

important role at Toulon.71 At least both of these writers are in

agreement that Napoleon was invaluable in the field of artillery. As

for the declaration made by the representatives on September 10, 1793,

it must be kept in mind that there is quite a difference between the

words, measures, and plan, a point which Cottin overlooks too easily.

Brunet's letter, dated October 22, 1793, was sent more than a month

after Napoleon had been at Toulon. In Napoleon's own words; after

reconnoitering the area for about a month, he preposed the plan of

2
attack which would reduce the city of Elfoulon.7 Thus, his plan

preceded any letter, (if such a letter was sent) of Brunet's, which,

in itself, may have been an adaptation of Napoleon's verbal recommendations

to the superior officers of the Army of the South. 10:, in claiming

that any well schooled officer would have discerned the weakness in

the Toulon defense, assumes a truth which is obviously relative and

also unprovable.

 

71 J'ox, p. 102.

Of course Napoleon cannot be trusted either.

But his claim of formulating the plan is at least supported by
Bartre. On the other hand, the enigmatic figure of Brunet is not
mentioned by anyone except Cottin in relation to the plan of

attack on 'Ioulon.

72 Gourgand, I, 13-15.

39

Joseph Duteil brings out with considerable acumen that Bonaparte's

plan was nodified by the ninisters who d
whereas Napoleon had advocated

ecided to have two sinultaneous

attacks on Ilalbousquet and higrave,

successive attacks.73 this indicates that Napoleon's idea was based

on deception. Apparently he desired an attack on
would becoae convinced that the Bopublicans

Halbousquet as a

feint. When the allies

were planning to conquer Ioulon by a land attack and would in turn

rush troops to this area, then the plan of Napoleon was to begin the

advance on the true point of attack, n-ely Little Gibralter. More

insight is brought out by Duteil when he states that huge-ier asserted
(1

taking of foulon was by an attack on the English redoubt an

that the
74

at the sane tine on Haunt Pharon. In other words, a general attack.
thus, it can be seen that Dugolaier's portion of the analgesated plan
ne of an all out effort including an advance on the

On the other hand,

was essentially o

eastern sector principally around Mount Pharon.

lapoleon had advocated, only, the need of seising rort Mulgrave which

would enable then to gain possession of the pronontory on which the

points lguillette and leaguier were located.
and i'oulon would be bombarded, and eventually the allies would

Iron these spots, the

harbors

73 Duteil, p. 170.

7“ Duteil, p. 171. rm. is quoted fros Dugenier's nenoirs found in
Gaston, II, 247. General Duteil was quite impressed by lapoleon's
activity at loulon and in a letter, found in the Archives de la Guerre,

he stated that he lacked the expressions to portray the nerit ef
gifts which the ninister

Bonaparte, an extraordinary officer with any
of war should devote for the glory of the Republic. 3ee Duteil, p. 186.

be forced to withdraw. rm Barere speaks of the anelgamation of
the plans of Bonnier and Bonaparte, it beoones certain that
napoleon not only organised and dirooted the artillery, but he

also was one of the under contributors to the downfall of Toulon
by'his astute plan to capture the promontory on which.rort Mnlgrave

rested.

#1
chapter 111 . Interlude

Ior the valuable services rendered at ten Jon, napoleon was
elevated to the rank of general of brigade. his was affirned by
a provisional decree fro: the Oomissioners of the Convention dated
Decenber 22, 1793, and was later confined by the committee of
Public Safety:L llapoleon was then charged with the arning and
defense of the coasts of the lediterranean.2 to this appointed
task, lspoleon applied his characteristic enthusiasn and efficiency.
lle fortified the coasts of Provence and the Isle of Hyeres which
had been recently evacuated by the lnglieh. In every town, he had
A to encounter public officials who attempted to persuade his that
it was essential, for the defense of Trance. that a battery site be
established near their city.3 Sons cities, lapoleon regarded, were
or the highest llportance to the defense of the Mediterranean coast.
Toulon, for instance, was one such city. Another was Marseilles.
it the latter nunioipality, Napoleon aroused the ire of the citizens
by his conscientious efforts to secure than from lnglish attack. Iith
General Lspoype, another officer who had participated in the Toulon
siege, lapoleon began the rebuilding of a fort which had been ruined

by the people in imitation of the destruction of the Bastille on

I

Journier, pp. “3-“.

Rogue 1, 1+7.
3 De Ohaierp. 26-27

NH

 

t2

July 14}, 1789. he two generals were denounced by the public, and
a written petition was carried to the Lssenbly by the residents of
Marseilles. Bonaparte and Lapoype were both seasoned to Paris to
explain their behavior. However, I-apoypo was the only one to arrive
and present the reasons for the rebuilding of the fort. fie emlained
that Napoleon alone was chargeable for the repairing of the fort,
but that his only thoudit was to couplets the defense of the town
against the lnglish. Garnet then initiated an order free the
oonnittee specifying lapoleon to establish batteries along the coast
fron Marseilles to Oette as protective neasures. fhis enabled the
connittee to continue the utilisation of Napoleon's services and also
took his free Marseilles. The connittee of Public Safety suspended
the rebuilding of the llarseilles stronghold. The Assembly did not
pursue the issue any further since it appeared useless to do so.“
France, at this tine was embroiled in conflicts with the major
powers in lurope. lhe defeat of the allies at loulon was an oninous
sign of things to come. Iverywhere the surprising strength of
Republican hence had contained its foes. his day of Italy, to
which Iapoleon was assigned in larch, 179*. after he had concluded
the fortification of the lediterranean coast, was engaged with the
allied forces of Austria and Sardinia. However, the tray of Italy
appeared to have difficulty dislodging the allies who were enoanped

It Bardre, II, lit-155-

“3

on the heights of the Appenines. Wasting no tine, lapoleen soon
devised a plan designed to drive the Sardinian eneay beyond the Alps.
it a council. at which Ricord and the younger lobespierre attended.
his plan was unaninously approved. On April 8, 1794. part of General
Iassena's any debauched into a portion of Piedaont to effect Napoleon's
schene. The I’iedaontese soldiers. alarmed by this sudden nove and
fearing to be cut off or destroyed, abandoned the city of Saorgio with
its valuable supply depot.5 Another plan of Napoleon's was one which,
if successful, would put the Irench in possession of the upper chain
of the Alps. However, it was necessary to borrow sons of the territory
of the Republic of Genoa which could have aroused political objections.
Yet, it was rationalised that the allies had borrowed Genoese territory
when the Piedncnt garrison had advanced to Qoulon in 1793. On April
6. 1791+, the plan was put into successful operation by having IMOOO
nan set out on the nission.6

he he he Baguse described the first caspaign in this nanner.
Three columns were sent out, Baguse being in a group sent in reconnais-
sance above the town of Oneille. This town was entered April 9, 179%,
without a fight. The sane thing occurred at Loans. Meanwhile, the
division of Massena. winning in its struggle, advanced toward Baorgio.
Ibis operation was conceived by Bonaparte and was ended in less than

15 days. How the any was in a position to enter Piednont in order

 

‘5 De chair, pp. 28-29.

6 De Chair, pp. 30-32.

 

an

to operate against Genoa.7 0f the second scheme, Raguse again states
that the plan was node by Napoleon. The proposal was to enter Piednont
at the point of the Apennines which attached itself to the Alps. The
enemy was met and defeated on September 21, 1791+ near Cairo. The
representative ilbitte, however, became alarmed and feared for his
personal safety. is a result of his unfounded apprehensions, the
any was obliged to retreat to Savonne and Yado.8

In the meantime Napoleon had been sent on a mission to Genoa by
the representatives of the people in order to confer with the Genoese
government. his mission took place around July 13, 17910.9 The
ostensible purpose of this visit was to gain satisfaction fron the
govern-eat of Genoa on such matters as provisions, but in reality it
was made to study and learn the positions and obstacles which had to
_be overcome if a seizure of the city was considered necessary.
lapoleon traveled with several officers, the Due De Baguse being one
of then. After remaining in Genoa for 5 days, during which time all
the information they had come for was collected, the party of henchmen
returned to lice.1° Shortly thereafter, the 9th of Thermidor, July

27, 1794, occurred in which the Jacobin party in Paris collapsed. !he
7
lapse, I, 50.
8 hence. I. 57.
9 Bourrienne, I, 20.

1%..9 Is 519520

“5

The new deputies, Albitte and Salicetti, were given an exaggerated
picture of lapoleen‘s allegiance to Jacobinisn. By consequence,
napoleon was suspended from his rank, arrested on August 9, and
arraigned before the co-ittee.n the Justification for these
actions, besides lapoleon‘s affinity to the fallen Jacobins, was

his trip to Genoa which undoubtedly was depicted as a plot of the
Corsican. Honoleon defended himself in rather strong language and
vindicated hinself by showing that the trip to Genoa had been ordered.
fhe representatives then decreed his conduct above suspicion and he
was given his liberty and rank back within 10 am of the arrest.“
I'he tireless and undeterred Hapoleon mediately flung himself into
new military ventures. Paoli had allowed Corsica to become British
territory. i'he Republicans reacted to this by planning a maritime
expedition against Corsica in which Napoleon participated. However,
the British fleet encountered this eqedition and caused the French

to abandon the seisure of Goreica.13

 

11 Bourrienne, I, 21.

12 hence. I. 55.
13 larch-1m. r. so. 3.. also lose, Warnings}. 1. 55.

and l‘ournier, p. 1+8. the Due De Raguse gives an interesting but
unsupported view asserting that this naritine venture was directed
against Tuscany. This was a scheme formulated by Napoleon. How-
ever, the British ruined this operation by sinking two of the
french vessels in the waters of Genoa; Raguse, I, 58.

1+6

The occupation of Corsica by the British caused many Corsicans
to arrive in the vicinity of the Army of Italy. The government of
house was determined to eliminate this concentration of questionable
patriots. Corsican officers were no exceptions to the rule. Conse-

quently, lapoleon was transferred to the Army of the Vend‘e with the

rank of general of infantry}!+ He rejected this transfer vehemently

on two grounds. First, Napoleon felt that area unworthy of his
talents. Second, he regarded the transfer to the infantry as an
indignity and pleaded officially on this basis.” Realising the
futility of seeking recourse within the Army of Italy, the young
Corsican decided to go to Paris where he could personally plead his
However, Aubrey, the member of the Committee of Public Safety

case.
who had the power of staff appointments, refused to aid Napoleon in

his petition.“ Though a small consolation, Bonaparte succeeded in

obtaining a job as a manber of the topographical board, since he
knew the terrain of Italy well and could supply the Committee of

Public Safety with information on the positions of the army.“ In

a letter to his brother Joseph he mentions this office but appears

to overstate his importance by asserting that he was the director

__

1“ Baguse, I. 59.

15 Bourrienne, I, 26.
16

1?

Kircheisen, p. 52.
De Chair, :9. 35.

“7

of the armies, replacing Carnot in that post.18 De Chair credits
lapoleon with the design of the Berghetto line for the Army of Italy
which saved it from the repeated but fruitless attacks of the enemy.
De Chair asserts that Bonaparte was then appointed by special decree
to a position of brigadier-general of artillery and attached to direct
the military operations of the armies.” this view appears overly
eptinistic of lapoleon's status. l'ournier points out that lapoleon's
fortune decreased at this time. A special decree, dated September
15, 1795, is mentioned to show that Bonaparte was stricken from the

list of bench generals as a result of his refusal to Join the try

of the Vende’e. 20

During this time, Bonaparte had conceived, also, the idea of
being sent to furhey as general of artillery in order to organise
the Grand Seipior's artillery. Sanguinely, he writes to his brother
Joseph that this plan was deferred temporarily since the Committee
decided he could not leave trance. Instead he is to be reappointed
to the artillery and probably will continue to serve the Comnittee.21

 

18

     
 

Cal Ha s lino
- A ‘-

as: I“): ; 7 " I, ." 3 L :.
W In York. 1855 . I. 23 -
Her-after referred to as W-

De Chair, p. 35. Why he received such a lofty position is not
explained. If De Chair's version is correct, it may have been
because of his excellent plan of the Berghetto line.

 

19

2° Ionrnier, p. 53

21 ‘ I
C i t C I, 26. Letter dated September 5,
1795.

But after his dismissal from the list of french officers on active
duty, lapoleon again renewed hopes of the hrkish mission. In
another letter to Joseph, dated September 26, 1795, he labors on
the proposed scheme saying that it was being talked of more and
more . and that it would probably have been approved if there had
not been so many disturbances .22 These disturbances, of course.
were caused primarily by the proposal of the how Constitution which
planned to retain two-thirds of the members of the Convention in
the new governmental arrangement. Although Iapoleon was no longer
on the list of active officers, he was acquainted with several
powerful individuals in Paris. One of those persons was a man he

had met during the siege of Toulon. His name was Paul Barres.

22W I. 31.

 

49
Chapter IV. 13 Vende’miaire - Prelude to llapoleon‘s Rise

Immediately prior to 13 Venddmiaire, the condition of the French
national government was far from satisfactory. After the fall of
Danton and Robespierre in the Summer of 1794, the Convention was
governed by successive factions which succeeded in achieving neither
influence nor an effective and constructive policy.1 Moreover,
there were ramblings of a Boyalist plot in the making. The feeble
Convention was to be succeeded on September 22, 1795 (l Vende’miaire,
Year IV) by the Constitution of the Year 111. Legislative power was
to be invested in two councils namely, the Council of 500 and the
Council of Ancients. Executive authority was entrusted in a Directory
composed of five mm.2 In order to avoid the same error of the
Constitution of 1791, which denied all members of the Constituent
Assembly to become members of the legislature, the Convention drew
up the Constitution so that it could stay in virtual control for two
more years. This Constitution of 1795 was to be moderate in character
so that a return to the radicalism of the past few years would be
avoided. loreover, it was devised to prevent the accession of a
loyalist or malcontent majority in the national legislature. fo
accomplish these goals the Constitution of the Year 111 was applied

to the present Convention. In this way. one-third of the deputies

 

1 lontholon, III, 63.

2 Journier, p. 5“.

50

only were to be re-elected while the rest of the numbers were to
remain in the forthcoming Councils.3 When this maneuver was made
known in Paris, the Sections indignantly refused to recognize the
Constitution, and any efforts to impose order or to dismiss the
unlawful electoral meetings of the Parisians met with failure. The
people were discontented generally because of the existing poor
economic conditions. rurthemore, the restrictions on political
clubs and societies caused some discontent, and the prohibiting of
the Jacobins to reappear at their clubs aroused that faction to
resistance. Whether the revolt in Paris was in any way originated
or aided by the Royalists and E’hnigré's is a topic which will be
discussed more in detail later on. Finally, the Convention passed

a cr t c r at c which ordered the many electoral meetings
dissolved temporarily. But the police were repulsed in their efforts
to enforce the decree. The Section Lepelletier, leader in this revolt,
eventually declared itself in permanent session and ordered the drums
of the various sections to beat the call to arms.“

In the evening of 12 Vend‘miaire, the insurrectionists aimed

several groups of National Guardsmen, to wit, the battalions of

——

3 Ron. W I. 62-

“ s De I! v 3 t dmbass r,
trans. Frances Jackson (London, 1913), I, 58. Hereafter referred
to as Neuville. Heuville was a loyalist who fought on the side
of the sectionaries dnring 13 Vende'miaire.

51

Petite Peres and lilies St. Thomas. General Manon, the commander
in chief of the Army of the Interior, went out to the Section
Lepelletisr, confronted the insurrectionists, and ordered them to
disperse. However, a fiery orator advanced and attempted to persuade
the general to side with the sectionaries. Menou blundered by
hesitating to carry out his mission of dispersing the recalcitrant
revolters and eventually he withdrew. This irresolution had an
encouraging effect on the Sections and left Menou's loyalty in doubt.
The failure of Menou was not the only thing which assured the
Sections of a reasonable opportunity for success in their revolt.
According to one eyewitness, on 12 Vende’miaire the military attempted
to deceive the sectionaries concerning the number of troops loyal
to the Convention by having a garrison march continually out of one
gets and into another. This abortive ruse only emboldened the
sectionary leaders.5 The Convention swiftly dismissed General Menou,
but to replace him with a suitable commander was not an easy decision.
Irence had several brilliant generals, but these were not available
at a moment's notice, they being stationed with the armies on the
frontiers of France. Iran the scant choice of military officers
in Paris, the Convention finally chose General Paul Barres for

the position.6 Being more wise politically than militarily,

E

5 W (London. 189“). p- 95. Hereafter referred

to as Lavelette. This man later became adJutant and private secre-
tary to Napoleon. During the Eupire, Lavelette was made Postmaster-

general .

6
Kircheisen, p. 60.

52

Barres began searching for the aid of talented officers in the hope
that one of them could implement the defense of the Convention
successfully. Barres remembered Napoleon Bonaparte, the young
artillery officer who had served the Republican cause at Toulon

so well. It is reported by one eyewitness that Barres had visited
the Bureau of the Armed .‘l'orces on both 11 Yende’miaire and 12
Yendéiaire, and that Napoleon had likewise been seen there more
than once.7 It is indicated also that Napoleon had attended salons,
with Barres, several weeks before 13 Yende’miaire. At these gather-
ings he probably made the acquaintance of his future wife, Josephine
Beauharnais, who at one time was the mistress of Barres.8 Barres
placed the name of young Napoleon before the Convention and this
request was approved without difficulty.9 Bonaparte claims that he
was at the theatre Feydeau when informed of the crisis. He hastened
to the Assembly where each member was putting forth his favorite
officer to direct the Operation. Some even mentioned his name.
Napoleon refused to be considered because he did not want to direct
10

a defense which would be interfered with by officious representatives.

The refusal by the ambitious Bonaparte sounds inconceivable.

7 He'moires du Vice-Admiral Baron Grivel (Paris, 1911+), p. 30.

Hereafter referred to as Grivel.

8 Iircheisen, pp. 65-72.

9 Bose, 9Q Lg; of Napglgp I, I, 61+.

mks Cases, 1, pt. 2, 168-170

53

A. question arises here whether Barras had anticipated his
elevation to the cannand of the Convention troops, and in this
expectation he had sought the services of Napoleon beforehand.

ll
lircheisen intimates that this was a possibility. In Paul

Irischauer's, W the words essentially

quoted by Iircheisen are also found.” :m. message states that

Bonaparte is invited to be at Chaillot at 10 5.11. on 11 Vsnd‘miaire
to meet Citisen Director Barras on priority business. However,
neither Iircheisen nor Irischauer identify the source for this
message which leaves it open to question. The mention of Barras
as Citisen Director, moreover, is a misnomer since Barras did not
become a Director until after 13 Vend‘miaire. Possibly then, if
the message is authentic, which is doubtful, the date is in error
and Barras may have sent it much later than 11 Vende’miaire.
Exactly what position was obtained for Napoleon has been a
matter of dispute. In his m, Barras pictures Napoleon as
neither more nor less than an aide-de-camp.13 J'r‘ron, a menbsr
of the Convention, spoke of him as the general of artillery whose

strategic placements had such favorable effects on the outcoae of

11 Iircheissn, p. 60.

12 (New York, 1938), p. 11+.
13 Barras, x, 295.

the battle.14 In the only monograph written on 13 Vendémiaire,

the author asserts that Napoleon, although his role was quite
active on that day, was neither an aide-de—camp nor second in
command, but simply reintegrated into the army and placed at the
disposal of Barras.15 But all of these views are quite unsatis-

factory and unsupportable. when Barras wrote his Memoigg, he

conveniently overlooked his official words spoken to the Convention.
In the Moniteur, he is found to have declared that Bonaparte, who
was well known for his military talents and great attachment to
the Republic, was named by his proposal as second in command.16
Also, at the sitting of the Convention of 18 Vendémiaire, Barras
called attention to Bonaparte's prompt and favorable dispositions

and demanded that the nomination of Napoleon as second in command

of the Army of the Interior be confirmed. This demand was promptly

 

1“ gaggttg Rationale, 93 Le Monitggr Untzgrsgl, 22 Vend‘niaire,
l'an a (October 14, 1795). p. 88. Hereafter referred to as
Eggiteur. Why Frdron volunteered this information to the Con-
vention is a debatable point. Since he was interested in
Napoleon's sister Pauline, it is possible he did so in order
to gain favor with the Bonaparte family. There is no definite

proof on this matter however. For interesting accounts of
.rraron's attraction to Pauline see IredJric Masson, Napglggp,

st Sa Famille (Paris, 1904), I, 148-156. Also Joseph Turquan,

%hg Sigtgrs g§ Napolggn, trans. and ed. W..R. H. Trowbridge

15.nenry Zivy, Lg 2:11.; Vgpgifiiairg An IV (Paris, 1898). p. 77.

.Hereafter referred to as Zivy.
16,!gnigggg, 5 Brumaire, l'an 4 (October 27, 1795), p. 139.

55

passed by the Convention. 17 he interpretation by Zivy hardly seems
credible, and to dismiss the problem by leaving Napoleon in a foggy
suspended status neither solves the point nor Justifies the con-

clusion.
J'r‘ron's statement that Napoleon was general of artillery is

a very fascinating one. for instance, was the position of second

in amend a real military position in the Trench military organisation
or was it merely an unofficial title? If it was only a nominal
position, then it is possible that Napoleon was general of artillery
with an extra official title of second in command. Perhaps the
general of artillery was considered, at that time, as automatically
second in con-land of the army. Unfortunately, these feasible so-

lutions cannot be determined here since no organisational chart of

the bench military staff has been located. .‘l're'ron, incidentally,

was the first person to direct any credit toward the name of Bonaparte

by his statement to the Convention on 18 Vend‘niaire.18 Barras had

reported some of the events to the Convention as early as the evening
of 13 Tendbiaire, but did not mention Napoleon's name at this time.19
Barras' first reference of Napoleon came on the seas day, but after

rrJron had praised Bonaparte for his activity as the general of artillery.
17 m 23 Yende'miaire, l'an 1+ (October 15. 1795). Po 89.
18 m 22 Vende’miaire, l'an 1+ (October 11+, 1795). P. 88.
19 m 17 Vend‘miaire, l'an 4 (October 9, 1795). p. 67.

 

56

i'hese acclamations by films and Barras of Napoleon's activity on

13 Vende’miaire seem to be linked quite closely. is stated before,

l'r‘ron's utterance may have been prompted by his desire for the

hand of Napoleon's sister, Pauline. lore than not, Barras' praise

appears to be the direct result of J‘r‘ron's speech. In the writer's

opinion, the astute Barras realised that he had to confirm or deny

the words of Iréron publicly to the Convention. Since he confirmed

:l'rlron's words, then rre'ron probably spoke the truth. This does not

eliminate, however, the possibility of complicity between Barras and

hires to advance the fortunes of Bonaparte. Barras' reason may have

been his realisation that Napoleon was a valuable officer whose

support might be important in the future.

In the writings of contemporaries, as in the official newspaper
of the Republic, Napoleon is constantly identified as second in
cosmand. Napoleon states that he was appointed second in command.20
However, Bonaparte must be substantiated by others because he, like

Barras, is prone to exaggerate his contributions on that dey.21 Baron

 

20
WW I. 32.

21 In one of his dictations, for instance, Napoleon claims that the

committee made Barras general in chief and gave the active command
Lac Cases, I, pt. 2, 170. In the

of the forces to Napoleon;
ngrgs D1 X, L: Cgmte De Vaublgpg, ed. M. 1'. Barriers (Paris,
1888 , p. 303, this idea is supported, Yaublsnc saying that Barras
was named the general in chief and he immediately gave the command

to Bonaparte. Vaublanc fondlt on the side of the sectionaries,
but later he becne an advocate for Bonaparte.

57

Thie’bault, an officer in the army of the Republic brings out quite
significantly that Napoleon was second in command. On the morning
of the fifth of October, Ihi‘bault had sought General Menou, to his
knowledge the commander of the defense, in order to report that
several groups of sectionaries were moving toward the Tuilleries
He received, in reply to his interrogation, that Barras was

now the commander in chief and Bonaparte was second in command.22

area.

Another pertinent passage in the memoirs of Thi‘bault refers to
Barras' elevation to the high government post of a Director and

Bonaparte's promotion. Thi‘bault says:

As Barras had become a Director he had to be succeeded in his
command by Bonaparte, who from a brigadier—general on half-pay
had, in a moment, become Barras' second in command, and having
been made a division general almost at once, was in three weeks
commangsr-in-chief of the Home Army and of the Paris National

Guard.
Regardless of this apparent uncertainty of designated military
titles, one fact is beyond doubt; the defense of the Convention was weak

in both manpower and cannon. 2)" Little could be done in the way of obtaining

 

22 Wf Bagel: W, trans. Arthur John Butler (New
York, 1896), I, 259. Hereafter referred to as Ihi‘bault. This

man was considered with high regard by Napoleon, but Thi‘bault
did not rise to the peak of military fame because of his frequent
acts of insubordination. As a lucid and accurate writer, however,

Thi‘bault rates very high.

23 Thi‘bault, I, 267.

21* Best estimates indicate that the Convention had only hooo-sooo
men, whereas the Sections had 20,000 - 30,000 troops. See
Iircheisen, p. 60 and Thiébault, I, 263.

\
\slzm malls; nan) on .u<nzen3.s;n

 

 

fixes... 4...; 3M3e.muv om
IIGI)A.2 42.noacmHl

Aze£v£av§0e H.

E2...

 

 

 

nCP 90 “)0
Great... In

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v.24; ZnCm \\

 

 

 

 

91.5

 

 

58

more men loyal to the Convention, but there was still a possibility

of acquiring the mmmh.needed artillery located at the park of Les

Sablons outside of Paris. A.point of issue centers around the

procurement of this artillery. Did Barras or Napoleon order Major

Murat to the Les Sablons to obtain the cannon for the Convention
forces? Barras had entrusted the protection around the Convention
to Napoleon according to one member of the Convention.25 If this
is so, and since Napoleon was primarily an artillery officer, his
most logical first move would be the acquisition of cannon.

Napoleon, in his own words, declared that he dispatched Murat for

the artillery.26 This is corroborated byThi‘bault.27 In the

monograph, Lg Treise Vend‘miaire, Zivy affirms again that Murat

received the order to acquire the artillery pieces at Les Sablons.

Yet, Barras vehemently denies that Napoleon thought of the idea.

Rather, the order was merely a repetition of one he had given to

Napoleon who had in turn transmitted it to Murat.” Barras also

 

25 A. C. Thibaudeau, Mimoirs Sur La anvention Et Le Directoigg

(Paris, 1824), I, 212.

26.De Chair, p. 40. .A very good description of Napoleon's activity

in his own words is also feund inN apoleon gt St, Helena. Memoirs

f Ge eral Bertrand: Grand Mars o The P ace, trans. Frances
Hume, ed. Paul Fleuriot De Langle (London, 1953 , pp. 94-95.

Hereafter referred to as Bertrand.

 
 

27 rmlbnult, I, 262.

28 2117. p. 79.

29 Barras, I, 296-297.

59

takes credit for this in his statement to the Convention in which
he said that, knowing the artillery at Les Sablons was poorly
guarded, he made haste to drag off these pieces.30 Ihe impression
given by these words, is not that he ordered someone else to get
the artillery, but that he personally hurried to the Les Sablons

which is located approximately five miles outside of Paris. How-

ever, it is logical to assume that he did not mean this literally.
Herein lies the key to interpret many of Barras' remarks made in

the loniteur, which later he adopted as factual in his My,

His continual allusions that he accomplished this defensive positien
or uttered that order is to be considered mainly as a convenient
method of reporting, as simply as possible, the important occurrences

of that eventful day. Barras even hints that all the credit for the

success of 13 Vend‘miaire should be attributed to him by using

 

’0 m 5 Dru-airs, l'an 4 (October 27, 1795). p. 139.

60

quotations from the writings of Baron rain and P. F. 2431.31 No
eyewitness backs up Barras' insistent demand that he first thought
of the idea of obtaining the artillery from Les Sablons and trans-
mitted this order to Major Murat through Napoleon.

As second in command, Napoleon was given nearly carte blanche

 

31 See Barras, I, 328. Here he quotes from Baron rain, the secretary
of the future Directorate and later permanent secretary to Napoleon.
Iain stated that Barras was known as the sole commander of the

,Army of the Republic and that all orders were given in his name.

By such an implication then, Barras could technically assert that
Also Barras includes

complete credit should be directed to hhmself.

in his memoirs some excerpts from P. F. 3‘31, Essai sur les Journéeg
dgs le 13 et ;4 Vendémiaire. These passages applaud Barras as the
mastermind in the complete defeat of the insurrectionists; see
Barras, I, 315-326. However, it must be kept in.mind that neither
Baron Fain nor Real, who was later one of Bonaparte's life
councillors, was an eyewitness of the battles. Why two men who

were to become such important officials of Napoleon would attri-
A possibility

buts the success to Barras is not easily explained.
is that these writings were made long before Napoleon was considered

as the future leader of France, whereas Barras' star had risen
greatly as a result of 13 Vendémiaire and he appeared as the

probable strong man needed by France. Bourrienne claims in his
memoirs, Bourrienne, I, 36, that Napoleon always regretted his

part of 13 Vendémiaire and even attempted to shove the responsi-
bility onto Barras. This explanation is not very likely since

in all of his memoirs dictated at St. Helena, Napoleon repeatedly
claimed his contribution to the victory was of the highest importance.
See Bertrand, p. 95. This is essentially the same version as that

In the W

found in both Las Cases and Montholon.
ngggg’gg I, an“; Par 02g; D9 L'mgrgur Naggiégg III (Paris
1858 , 1. 99-100, a report allegedly made by Napoleon on the events
of 13 Vendemiaire credits Barras with the order to acquire the

cannon at the Les Sablons. In fact, Napoleon gives Barras credit
for the entire success of 13 Vendémiaire. This report appears to

be inserted by Napoleon III for the purpose of exonerating Napoleon I
of any guilt in the defeat of the Parisians and thus to strengthen

the idea that Napoleon I was the champion of the peeple.

61

responsibility for the defense of the area around the Gonvention.
He assembled the officers and determined their obedience. Next,

he deployed the cannon acquired from Les Sablons at the crucial
areas in the following manner. Ewe artillery pieces were placed

at the entrance of the he St. licaise; one was set facing the
church of St. Roch at the end of the Rue de Dauphin or Gul de Sac
Dauphin: two pieces were dispatched at the Rue St. Honore’ near the
Place Vendome and finally two cannon were sent to defend the Pont
Royal by being placed on the quai Voltaire. In addition, infantry
reserves supported these locations or were held in readiness in the
Place du Carousel.” Some of the generals pertinent to the battle
of 13 'ende’miaire and their locations were as follows. General
lrune had charge of the he so. licaise and Rue de Rohan; General
Berruyer had co-and of the 01:1 de Sac Dauphin and the passage of
l‘eullans: General Oarteaux guarded the Pont Neuf and the quai du
Louvre; and General Verdier guarded the Pont hoyal and the debouches

of the quai Voltaire)3 Ihe forces of the Convention were now

A

’2 Lavelette, p. 97. Also in John Gideon Minus-n. W
W (Iondon. 18MB . pp. 3““-

3“5. Hereafter referred to as Millingen. This individual is,

to my knowledge, the only Inglish eyewitness and participant to
the events of 13 Vendimiaire. His father was a dedicated advocate

to Republican l'rance, in fact so much so that he moved his entire
family to Paris for residence. lillingem's father was required
to be a member of the military force of the Section he lived in.
However, young llillingen volunteered to substitute for his father.
this Inglishman asserts that Napoleon planted field-pieces and

howitsers at every likely spot of attack.

33 Anthem Jean J'rancois Iain, D ' 1
(Paris, 1828). pp. 353-354. Hereafter referred to as rain.

62

strengthened by artillery and who able command of Napoleon.
Lavelette declared that Napoleon told the sectionaries they were
at liberty to remain where they stood, but if they either fired
one musket or advanced beyond the stipulated boundaries, artillery
would be employed to resist them.31+

Gould any one man have been present at all the crucial
clashes which were to take place on 13 Vendémiaire? This would
be plausible only if the battles had been staggered over a period
of time enabling one officer to move about through the many
passageways as each crisis arrived. But the sources indicate,
in various ways, that the fighting began at most locations
simultaneously. If so, then no one individual, specifically

Napoleon or Barras, can claim full credit for the victories since

to be at more than one spot at a given moment is a physical

3“ Levelette, p. 96.

63

impossibility.35 It would be highly essential then, to determine

where Napoleon and Barras were prior to and imediately after the

the ce-encement of hostilities. The ascertainment of the commander

in chief's headquarters would also be an important point which must

be clarified. It is not illogical to assume that the Place du

Carousel was the likely place for the headquarters because not only

 

35 In De Chair, p. 14-1, Napoleon states that a column led by Lafond
began advancing up the quai Voltaire at about the same time the
artillery was fired at the Oul de Sac Dauphin. Thi‘bault, I,
262-263, indicates that fighting took place at Venua's Passage
and Carousel at the time the clash at St. Roch occurred. In the
m, 5 Brumaire, l'an 1+ (October 27, 1795), p. 1140, Barras
gives the impression of simultaneous activity by describing the
revolutionaries placed in a line at every post defended by the
Convention ranks. In Neuville, I, 59, the author, in the forces
of the insurrectionists, asserts that the attack against the
hilleries was to be made by three columns simultaneously at
different locations. A complementary question arises here:
that is, where was the first shot fired which precipitated the
battle of 13 Vend‘miairer It appears that the righting was
initiated at Venua's Passage, but which side started it is
questionable. ror instance, Thi‘bault, I, 262, points out that
the strife began at Venua's Passage by the impatience of General
Solignac who was also exasperated by the sectionaries who
flaunted his soldiers persistently. But another contwporary
feels that the sectionaries started the clash when they fired
three shots from the premises of Venus on the street St. HonorI;

G. V. Vasselin, Ménoirigl Revolutionnail‘e Dogs; Convention gu
tir desHévout sdel‘rc d s ZSt r
Jusgu'au g6 Octobre 1225 (Paris, 1797i. IV, 313, hereafter re-
ferred to as Vasselin. Contrary views of the beginning of the
battle include Napoleon's who claims that at 1+ P.M., some muskets
were discharged from the Hotel de Noailles which hit on the steps
of the Tuilleries; Hontholon, III, 76. In Barras, I, 301, the
claim is forwarded that the first shots were caused by the enemy
tdlich had advanced toward General Bruno's defense in the Hue St.
Nicaise adjacent to the Place du Carousel. Still, another version
is that the initial shots were fired neither from the Hotel de
loailles nor from the restauranteur Venua's hotel, but from an
Barras

adjoining neighboring house near Venue; see Iain, p. 362.
is contradicted by the editor of his memoirs, George Darby, who

quotes in a footnote from Thibaudeau, W which gives
essentially the same description as rain does, cited above; Barras,

1! 329e

 

was it centrally located, but it also provided ready access to the
palace of the Tuilleries where the Convention was in session.36

Barras states definitely that this was the assigned position of his

headquarters. 37

Since Napoleon was second in command, his duty would be to

assist the commanding officer in the operation of the army. It

appears likely that Napoleon and Barras were both at the headquarters

in the Carousel when word was received that a gathering of sectionaries

was concentrated at the church of St. Roch. It is the Opinion of

the writer that Napoleon was either ordered by Barras or went on

his own accord to the Cul de Sac Dauphin which faced St. Roch on

the opposite side of the Rue St. Honore’. Here Napoleon encountered

an increasingly larger, but poorly organized, nob under the leader-

ship of General Danican. The blustering Danican demanded unsuccess-

fully that the troops of the Convention be removed. it last the

commander of the sectionaries decided it was time to act. However,

his plan was both vague and senseless. The attack was directed

against the Tuilleries by three columns which were to advance on the
Rue St. Honord, the quais [apparently Louvre and Voltaire] and the
rauborg St. Germain}8 One third of the troOps were ordered to

36 Lavelette, p. 96. Lavelette says that infantry reserves were
placed in the Place du Carousel. Reasonably, reserves would be
near the headquarters from which they would be committed, if

needed, during the engagement.
37 Barras, I, 295.
38 Im1110, Is 59-60.

65

attack the Tuilleries by gaining entrance through the Cul de Sac

Danphin opposite the church of St. Roch. The other two thirds were

dispatched down the Rue St. Honore’ and across the Pont Neuf. They
were then to advance up the quai Voltaire and to gain,access to the

Tuilleries by passing over the Pont Royal.39 However, discord and

confusion were rampant in the ranks of the sectionaries. In the

words of one of them, no strong hand was directing the movement and

it was very disorganized. Danican, moreover, was considered incapable

and the Opportunity for success had slipped by because of the pro-

crastination and disorder.“0

Millingen. an adventurer who was a member of the Butte des
Houlins Section, describes the activity around St. Roch quite
pertinently. The generals was played and all the Sections in that
vicinity exhorted the National Guards to oppose the Convention

troops. At the beginning of the battle, Hillingen ran to Join the

National Guardsmen on the steps of the church. However, the ranks

 

39 Charles De Bats, Les anspiratigns gt 1;, Fig d9 Jean, Bamg D3
Bgtg 12221.52; (Paris, 1811), p. 426. This description is quoted
from an unpublished memoir called; De La ngée appelee des
8 ct e de Paris u des 1: Vs definiaire an IV Oct bre ,

supposedly written by Jean De Bats. The number of troops, however,
seems rather high when Bats declares that the two thirds debouching
over the Pont Neuf in order to return to the hillsries by way

of the Pont Royal was 40,000 men.

st 3 u ce r Pas er trans. C. l.
Roche, ed. Audiffret Pasquier (New York, 1893). I, 132-133.

#0

were thinned by fire from musketry, a four-pounder artillery piece
and a howitzer doing the damage from the Cul de Sac Dauphin. The
revolutionaries continued to fire on the Convention soldiers while
General Danican, to little avail, exhorted then to go forward. rho
skirmishers, rather, generally moved backward. Hillingen even
suggested a plan to General Danican. He had noticed that at the
corner of the Cul de Sac Datqahin there were several shops which
had windows facing the Convention soldiers. If these could be
occupied, the sectionaries would be able to fire better and more
effectively from a broadside angle on Napoleon's troOps. But
Danican hesitated and became alarmed by heavy fire coming from the
direction of the Place Vendome and the Rue de l'Hchelle. So, the
uneven battle continued, the musket-fire of the Sections accomplishing
little damage conpared to the grape-shot of the Convention forces.
After that time, Danican was seen no more by Millingen.“ Vhere the
commander disappeared is a point which will be answered very shortly.
Napoleon has asserted in his memoirs that he commanded and won

the victory at St. Bosh.“2 His role, however, has been disclaimed by

 

“1 llillingen, pp. 343-3147. Millingen adds that the next time he saw
Danican was in London where Danican was relating the drama of 13
Vend‘miaire in such a divergent manner that if Killingen hadn't
possessed the hat he wore which contained a musket ball hole in
it from the activity of that day, he would have doubted himself
and considered his presence at Paris on 13 Vendehiaire as a vision.

“'2 All of the memoirs dictated by Napoleon at St. Helena agree in
substance with the version found in De Chair, p. #1. See Las
Cases, I, pt. 2, 175. and Mentholon, III, 7?.

67

Barras and Zivy. In his formal report to the Convention, Barras
makes no mention of Napoleon at St. Roch. Instead, Barras declared
that he himself married to St. Roch and ordered General Berrayer

to repel force with force.“3 Barras avows that the only mission
Bonaparte had on that day was to go to the Pont Royal and report

to him the occurrences in that vicinity: moreover, he had no
authority to give any order on his own and had been at no point of
attack except the Carousel.“ hrthermore, Barras claims that
while at the St. Roch area, he ordered a gun to destroy a little
penthouse on the church of St. Hoch since it was sheltering a group
of sectionariesfs But i'hi‘bault describes the action at St. Roch
and attributes the victory, as does Millingen, to the young Bonaparte.
fhis counters quite significantly the claim by Barras that the only
point of attack at which Napoleon had been was the Carousel. Zivy
makes the incredible statement that the battle at St. Roch was a

legend of unknown origin, and also that Napoleon was a stranger to
that area.” Clearly, Zivy either failed to discover or he glossed

__-

“3 M, 5 Hrnmaire, l'an it (October 27, 1795), p. 1110.

M Barras, I, 332.

“5 Barras, I, 302. his is the extent to which Barras mentions 8t.
Roch as relative to 13 Vendemiaire. fhis leaves the reader with
the impression that little really happened at St. Roch which of
course would greatly reduce the significance of Napoleon.

as
#7

i'hie’bault, I, 263.

Zivy, p. 90.

68

over such accounts relative to 13 Vende’aiaire as those of Thi‘banlt,

Levelette, Dsuville, and Killingen. All of these versions preceded
48

Zivy's book Lg Treisg nge’miaire, yet no mention is made of then.

In further controverting Zivy, the following words are taken from

a contemporary who said that the Convention tresps had constant

success at St. Roch. Gannon was directed from the Gul de Sac Dauphin

onto the church making more noise than injury, while the sectionaries
entrenched themselves in the church allowing the bullets and grape-
shot to pass in the middle of them.“9 An eyewitness and sectionary

also declared that a few shots had sufficed to stop the column

advancing by the Gul de Sac Dauphin and, where thousands of section-

aries failed, a few Yendlean peasants would have overwhelmed

Bonaparte and his handful of men in the little street. The sectionaries,

however, confined themselves at the St. Roch church, in the Rue St.

HonorsI and two corners of the Oul de Sac Dauphin. There they charged

their muskets behind shelters and only exposed themselves while firingso

—___

48 Ihi‘bault's memoirs had been translated into English in 1896, and
Lavelette's were translated in 1894. Thus, these accounts were

certainly available to Zivy whose book was not published until
In I-avelette, p. 97, the author declares that the enemy

1898.
was not frightened by Napoleon's warnings and felt he dared not
fire on them. The front ranks were pushed by the rear ranks and

a musket started the attack. Grape-shot from three field-pieces
were set off and caused terror in the ranks of the revolutionists
H D

Who rapidly fled. In the K ir s t S uve r u B
Neuville (Paris, 1888), I, 132, hereafter referred to as M

W Neuville affine that Napoleon riddled the sectionaries
on the steps of St. Roch. Hillingen's accounts were published in

1848, fifty years before 21w attempted to analyse 13 Vendlmiare.

“9 Vasselin. xv, 315.

5° 1.. L. Gosselin, A 1st I Rev t ' s: The
De at; 1222:1221 trans. Hrs. Bedolph Stowell (London and New York,
1910). pp. 26ll-265. Hereafter referred to as Gosselin. 1'he portions

used are quotations from Data's personal letters.

69

In the meantime General Danican slowly but surely deduced that

his master plan of entering the Tuilleries by way of the Cul de Sac

Dauphin was doomed. More than likely, he decided to Join his larger

force on the other side of the river Seine in the hepe to succeed

via the Pont Royal. Because of the confusion, his departure probably

was not realized by the greater portion of the sectionaries who
continued to harass the artillery and Convention trooPs under
Napoleon. With some of his tr00ps, plus his staff, Danican pro-
ceeded down the his St. Honor! toward the Pont Neuf. The Convention

forces in the Rue St. Nicaise, Rue de l'Dchelle, and the he Rehan,
apparently upon seeing this formidable mass of insurrectionists,

wavered since it was reported that some troops retreated into the

Carousel.51 Some of the sectionaries undoubtedly pursued the fleeing

Conventionals down the Rue St. Nicaise, however, as will be shown

very shortly, they were confronted by the cannon of General Brune

adjacent to the Place du Carousel. At this point, General Barras

enters into the active drama of 13 Venddmiaire.
In the Opinion of the writer, it is not inconceivable that prior

to the battle, Barras had moved from one point of the defense to the
other, checking to insure that everyone was at the right pests. But
seeing these positions were secure he returned to his headquarters.

After the conflict had begun, Barras continued to stay at the Place

 

51 Vasselin. Iv, ark.

70

du Carousel directing, as best he could, the defense from the desk
and dispatching his reserves wherever they were needed. When the
sectionaries confronted General Bruno, however, he hurried to this
spot and ordered Drune to disperse them. Barras asserts that he

ce-anded General Drune to have the artillery fired over the heads

of the aggressors which frightened and scattered them.52 This

version appears correct except for the claim that Barras ordered

the artillery to be fired over their heads. fo substantiate this

conviction, the following sources are employed. Baron Thi‘bault
stated that, after the sectionaries had been defeated at St. Roch.
he had crossed through the Place du Carousel on his way to the quai
Voltaire and observed that the insurrectionists had been dispersed
fun the Carousel.” 1'his lends credence not only to Barras'
declaration that a confrontation had taken place near the Place

In Carousel-Rae St. licaise vicinity, but also that Brune must have
fired into the revolutionists and that some physical evidence such

as rifles, injured combatants, and corpses had been observed by

Thie’bault. How else could Thi‘bault have deduced that the sectionaries
had been scattered from the Carousel? In further evidence that a

clash did take place and that the artillery was fired into, not over,
the heads of the sectionaries, Baron Grivel is cited. This man had

__

52 Ian-as, I, 301
53 Thi‘bault, I, 263.

71

sided with the Convention. He stated that on it» Vend‘miaire he
remembers seeing, in the Rue de l'Dchelle and in the court of the
Carousel, rows of bodies which were left there during the evening
by the order of the general.5u Prom this it can be deduced that
the bodies in the Rue de 1'lchelle were the casualties caused by
the famous fight at St. Roch, and the corpses in the Carousel were
the result of the encounter between the sectionaries and Convention
troops which had taken place in the Rue St. Hicaise close to the
Carousel.

After this brief skirmish, Barras returned to his headquarters
but in a state of apprehension and agitation. Should he stay at
his headquarters or would it be more advisable to move about to
determine the progress of the various skirmishes? He did not
contemplate long. With a great roar the sectionaries, led by one
of their leaders, Lafond, were debouching by way of the quai Voltaire.
Barras hesitated no longer and made haste toward this new point of
attack. He describes his actions to the Convention in this manner:
first he went to St. Roch, then he moved to the Rue de 1'Dchelle

which was located approximately a block from St. Roch; next he

Grivel, p. 30. The general who ordered the bodies to be left
overnight is not specifically stated, but since Barras was
commander in chief, it is likely that this is who Grivel was
referring to. Apparently the bodies were left in these areas
as reminders of what happens to those who revolt against the

government.

72

advanced to the vicinity of the Place du Carousel and Bus St.
Dicaise, and finally he proceeded to the quai du Louvre.” The
only interpolation needed in this description is to suggest that
his visits to St. Pooh and be de l'Echelle were made prior to
the beginning of warfare. from the quai du Louvre, Barras
unquestionably crossed over the Pont Royal in order to reach the
artillery and infantry defenses located at the quai Voltaire.
I'he sectionaries, composed principally of the two thirds which
Danican had originally dispatched, were attempting to advance up
the quai Voltaire under the direction of Lafond. However, these
troops were likewise doing more shouting than fighting and were
beaten back in this initial charge.56 Some of Danican's troOps,
on the way to the Pont Neuf, had noticed the forces of General
Carteaux and stated their desire to rush them. However, Danican

opposed this move and commanded his band over the bridge.57

 

55 Moniteur, p. 1&0. In his Memgirg, Barras depicts his movements
in a divergent manner. He declared that he had ordered Bruno
to disperse the insurgents at the Place du Carousel, then he
went to the St. Roch area and ordered artillery fired at a.
sentry box located on the church, and lastly he went to the
quai Voltaire where he participated in the defeat of the rebels;
Barras, I, 301-301». Ehis description shows either the complete
lack of knowledge Barras had of the incidents at St. Roch or his
intentional design to dismiss the affair as inconsequential.
However, his depiction of the quai Voltaire attack shows that
he probably did‘take part in that battle.

56 Deuville, p. 60.

57 Vasselin. IV, 314.

73

General Cartoon: had been stationed at the Pont Neuf with a battalion
of infantry in order to interrupt communication between the two
banks of the Seine. Lavelette declares that he was sent to Cartoon:
with the order to hold his post, but that Carteaux had already
retreated to the garden of Infants.58 When this retreat occurred

is not hard to discern. Baron Jean De Bats mentions that Danican
sent “0,000 sectionaries, by the original plan, over the Pont Neuf
with the order to return by the Pont Royal into the Tu.illeries.59
Indubitably, it was at this time that Cartoon: wisely considered the
use of discretion in place of valor by ordering his battalion of
infantry to retreat. This gave the insurrectionists access to both
sides of the Seine.

‘ Upon crossing the Seine over the Pont Neuf, Danican, more than
likely, collected his troops together including the group which had
been under the command of Lafond and had been repulsed by the
Convention cannon.6° But this uninspiring Danican again wasted time

and seemed confused. No better plan than Lafond's i.e., of advancing

58 Lavelette, p. 97.

59 Bats, p. #26. This figure of uo,ooo is prohibitively high It
is more likely that the amount of the group was about 20,000.

60 leuville I, 60. Neuville says that they, the insurrectionists,

dispersed once, but reformed for another attack up the quai
Voltaire.

74

straight up the quai Voltaire in the face of the artillery, was
formulated. lhen the order to charge was given, the sectionaries
once more energed into the quai Voltaire. However, in front of
the Pent Royal, a single piece of cannon and 200 non sufficed to
disperse the hngh.disorganised uses of revolutionaries. the
cannon was shot into the group which appeared more anxious to avoid
the fire by fleeing into the sidestreets than taking time to aha
their weapons at the Conwentienals. This ilpetent showing was
caused by a general panic rather than by the destruction of the
gun which was termed as insignificant.61

One sectionary attributes the defeat at the quai Voltaire to
Danican's indecision coupled with Napoleon's activity; Bonaparte
is described as taking ready advantage of the peer organization of
the insurrectionists and directing artillery which dispersed the
sectionaries at Pent Royal.62 But Napoleon himself describes the

fight at the quai Voltaire in a cursory manner and does not specifically

 

Bats, p. 428, and Gesselin, pp. 262-263. Why the sectionaries
did not adyance en the cannon by rear er flank appears to be

the result of beth.1ack of leadership and the disorganization

of the rebels. General Danican was in charge of the sectionaries,
but he was no inspiration; see Millingen, pp. 343-347. Lafond
seemed to possess the bravery necessary to lead, however his
strategy lacked imagination and resulted in disaster.

62 Heuville, I, 60, and Mifigires du.leuvi;;g, I, 132-133.

75

state that he was the router of the insurrectionists at that lecai'.ion.63
Only by inference could his words conceivably attribute this particu-
lar success to his nane. Baron Ihiébault states that after the action
at the St. Roch area, he had rejoined Bonaparte at the southern end

of the Pont Royal Just as the insurrectionists were receiving battery
fire fren several posts of the defending any.“ Thi‘bault does not
verbally credit lapoleea with this victory unless it is, again, to be
ilplied. Lavelette clains that after he had reached General Oartem.
who was adjacent to the quai du Louvre, he noticed that the general

who cenaanded the feet of the bridge Pent Royal ordered the sectionaries
not to advance any further. But the rebels took no heed of this
warning and consequently received the discharge of the cannons which
resulted in their dispersion.“ If the gmeral who was at the feet

of the bridge was Bonaparte, the Citisen Lavelette would surely have
recognised hin either by his appearance or voice and would have
nentioned that fact. This does not eliainate the possibility that
Lavelette could not distinguish who the general was. In such a case

it would have been either Verdier, who was posted at that spot, or it

 

6

3 Les Cases, 1, pt. 2, 175-176. Bonaparte only aentions the attack
ads by Lafend: nothing is said of a second attack which he
probably would have nentiened if he had been present at that

location any length of tine.

‘9 rhi‘baalt, I, 263.

65 Lavelette, p. 97.

76

any have been Barras. If it had been Bonaparte, and Lavelette still
did not recognize hie, it is. possible that this fact would have been
learned by hi- threugh normal military conversations with his fellow
officers.

Barras states that Lafend and Danican advanced their nen and
that some of the insurgents fired. At this time Barras ordered the
troops to fire the grape while supported by Verdier, and by Garteaux
fro: the wicket-gate of the Louvre across the river Seine.66 Suffice
to say that, from the evidence studied, the conclusion that Napoleon
was the big victor at St. Roch while Barras night have been partially
instrumental in the success at the Pent Royal-quai Voltaire area is
quite defensible. At least Barras may have given the order to fire
the cannon during the second charge; General Verdier night have
commanded the defense at the Pont Royal during the first attack if
Barras did not arrive at that location in tine. Such a conclusion,
then, lays the foundation for the belief that no man was completely

responsible for the victory of 13 Vendefiiaire. Nevertheless, Napoleon

and Barras were key men in the success.

Barras, I, 301-303. In the Moniteur, 5 Brumaire, l'an 1+ (October
27, 1795). p. 140, Barras described hiaself as running to the
quai, in all probability Louvre, and seeing an enemy column
advance toward the quai Voltaire. Artillery placed at the Pont
Royal, supported by Garteaux, Verdier, and Lestranges at the
galerie du louvre, aade quid: Justice of the sectionaries.

77

Meanwhile, an attempt was made to rally the insurrectionists
who had been figiting in the St. Roch locality. This was fruitless,
however, since the sectionaries only exposed themselves while firing
at the Convention troeps and then quickly hid behind shelters.
Furthermore, when news arrived of the disastrous outcome of the
endeavors to enter the Tuilleries by way of the quais, the sectionaries
became discouraged and abandoned their feeble struggle by dispersing
and disappearing in the streets.67 At 6 P.M., the sectionaries
deemed it advisable to return to their homes.68 Napoleon followed
up his victory by having cannon dragged in pursuit of the retreating
groups.69 Millingen gives a pertinent description of this operation
by Napoleon:
The rumbling of gun-carriages announced the advance of the Conventional
force, and in a few minutes they were in possession of the post we
had occupied: when Bonaparte, wheeling his guns to the right and to
the left, poured a shower of grape up and down the Rue St. Honore' -
I should think with little effect, as most of thaofugitives, very
wisely, nade off by the adjoining later streets.
Baron Jean De Bats corroborates this by his stateaent that Napoleon
prolonged the intimidation of the sectionaries by having artillery

dragged about the streets of Paris charged only with powder and that

67 Gosselin, pp. 2614-265.

68 Millingen, pp. BMW-31w.

69 In Montholon, III, 7?, Napoleon says that the Rue St. Honere’, Rue
St. Ilerentin and adjoining areas were swept by gun fire.

70 Millingen, pp. 347-318.

the streets soon became empty.” The most determined of the
sectionaries gathered for another attack and took possession of

the Palais Royal. However, these unconvinced few finally dis-
persed when the leaders went home on the following morning.72

he casualties were relatively light for such a concentration of

troops in the area of the battle.73

 

71
72

Gesselin, p. 265.

Lavelet te , p. 97 .

73 Lowest estimates show that only 15 to 20 rebels were killed and
50 to 60 wounded while the Conventionals' losses were trifling:
Millingen, p. 3%. In Lavelette, p. 98, it is asserted that the
insurrectionists lest 1+0 killed and 200 wounded compared to the
Convention total of only 1+ or 5 troops. Napoleon, in his
dictation to Monthelon, III, 77, claims that each side lost a
total of 200 in killed and wounded. Most reasonable appraisal
is found in O'Meara, I, 271. The Convention forces are reported
to have lost 30 killed and 250 wounded while the insurrectionists
suffered 70 to 80 killed and 300 to 400 wounded. This estimate
seems to be the most reasonable since the Convention forces were
more ably led and also had the valuable support of artillery,
whereas the revolutionaries had only nuskets and were on the
offense. Moreover, these rebels had no sensible plan of attack
and exposed themselves to the devastating cannon in a foolhardy
manner.

79
Chapter V. The Consequences of 13 Vend‘aiaire to Napoleon

Such was the drama of 13 Vend‘miaire. Out of this day's action
two additional pertinent questions arise. I'irst, was the battle of
13 Vend‘niaire s. result of a loyalist plot? Second, what tract did
13 Vend‘aiaire have on the military and private fortune of Napoleon?
In answer to the first inquiry, it would appear that although the
uprising by the Sections was not priaarily instigated by the Royalists,
it was supported by that group since any revolt against the present
government contained a possibility of a Bourbon restoration. some
writings indicate that the insurrection was strictly a loyalist

notion. In fact, in the unpublished memoir of Jean De Bats called

I): Lg Jm‘g my,“ des Sgtions dg Parig 93 deg 12 et 13
Vend‘liaire, g It, Octobre 1,225, it is asserted by Bats that he

was instrumental in getting the Sections to establish a Central
Conittee, opposing the Convention. This was part of his plan to
make Boyalism ascendant again by causing an insurrection.l this
nemeir, however, if actually in existence, appears to be of dubious
reliability in some portions. Moreover, the books written on Baron
Jean De Bats appear to overrate his influence. Millingen also was
of the opinion that the insurrection was a loyalist reaction.2 Ho
1 Gosselin, pp. 25h-255.

2 lillingen, p. 3‘8.

80

autioned, moreover, that the Sections were deterained to fight over
the passage of the new constitution and that youths, Vende'ean
supporters, and fiigr‘s were also among those who nade up the ranks
of the Sections.:3 2117 indicates his belief in a loyalist Inirising.‘t
lapoleon even states in a letter to his brother Joseph that the
loyalists were becoming bolder every day, which intimates the con-
viction of loyalist leadership in the insurrection.5

However, to base the revolt of 13 Vend‘niaire coupletely on
loyalist intrigue would seem unreasonable. In the first place, the
Sections were genuinely angered at the convention for proposing the
Jew Constitution with the proviso that only one third of the meaben
were required to seek re-election while the other two thirds were
autoaatically to become aenbers of the new governaent set-up.
Secondly, the Parisians had an overestimated opinion of their influence
throughout Irance, and it is not unlikely that they felt all Frenchmen
were sympathetic and in agree-eat with than. The writings of con—
temporaries indicate that it was not a loyalist schene. Baron Hyde
De Heuville asserts that the capital was not aroused by the contrivances
of Royalists but rather that a revolt had to be the unanimous opinion

of the people. Surely though, Neuville adds, the Royalists did aid in

 

3 Iii llingen, p. 343.
h
Zivy, p. 90. _
5 WW I. 32.

81

bringing about 13 Vend‘hiaire and probably would have inherited the
mmccess if the Convention forces were overthrown.6 One contemporary
says that when the article of the new Constitution, which left two
thirds of the old Convention still in.power, was made known, it
caused a revolt in all of Irance and that this indignation burst
forth in the capital.7 An eyewitness asserts that he saw no desire
in the people or their leaders to return to a Bourbon monarchy.
Furthermore, he questioned some of the ardent revolutionaries who
replied in the negative when confronted with the proposition that
they fought for a restored monarchy. What the insurrectionists
wanted. rather, was a Republic governed by honest men.8

The second pertinent question arising from 13 Vendéniaire is:
what effect did 13 Vend‘miaire have on the personal and military
career of Napoleon? After 13 Vendéniaire, Napoleon gained several
promotions culminating in the command of the Army of Italy in 1796.
Napoleon shortly after 13 Vendeniaire also not and married Josephine
Beauharnais, widow of General Beauharnais who was a victim of

guillotine several years before. A.popular theory attempts to link

 

Mimoires De Heuville, I, 130.
Vaublanc, p. 302.

Lavelette, p. 99.

82

these two incidents.9 One early publication declares that Napoleon
had entreated Barras, who was now one of the five Directors in the

new Irench government, for a more important command than the post of
commander of the Army of the Interior to which Barras yielded on the
condition that Napoleon marry Josephine Beamharnais who was acknowledged
publicly as Barras' mistress. Josephine, although old and ugly accord-
ing to this publication, appeared young and handsome to Napoleon since
his marriage to her procured for him the generalship of the Army of

Italy.10 Such a view appears more of an effort to vilify Napoleon

 

rournier, p. 69. Here Josephine is depicted as saying that Barras
assured her if she marries Napoleon, the appointment as commander
in chief of the Army of Italy would be obtained for Napoleon. But
the marriage took place on March 9, 1796, whereas Bonaparte was
made chief of the Army of Italy, by a decree of the Directory, on
March 7, 1796; Iournier, pp. 68-69. Thus, the marriage was per-
formed after the promotion indicating that the latter may not have
been a prerequisite to the former. Kircheisen, p. 57. describes
Napoleon as determined to marry someone, and that he sought the
hand of several women before Josephine was wooed and won. In Nose,
Egg Life 2f Napolegn I, I, 69, the important point is made that the
Directory was dissatisfied with General Scherer's performance in
Italy and when Bonaparte's plan for the Italian campaign was
forwarded, Scherer replied that the man who drafted such a scheme
ought to enforce it. The Directory took Scherer at his word and
replaced him with Bonaparte.

10 General Sarrasin, Confessi n B na te t the b
m (London, 1811;, p. 13. Sarrasin, a former officer in the
french Armies of Italy and Germany, deserted to the English in
1810. Ehe book strives to show the worst side of Napoleon through
his purported confessions to the Abbi. he only reason it is
used is for the purpose of showing that the rumor connecting
Josephine to Napoleon's promotion is included in it. Possibly,

this is the earliest book containing such a story.

83

than to ferret the truth. Barras later corroborates such a story
by stating that he grew tired of his mistress. Hadame Beamharnais
then concocted a wild tale that Barras made advances toward her.
Ihen her suitor, Bonaparte, heard of this, he flew into a rage. But
Josephine calmed him by suggesting that Barras could be useful.
Napoleon then replied that he would forgive everything if Barras
obtained for him the command of the Army of Italy. In order to get
rid of Josephine, Barras claims that he obtained for her prospective
husband the command he desired.n Even Baron Ihiébault saw in the
promotion a.possible link to Josephine. He says that the promotion
to the command of the Army of Italy seemed more a desire to oblige
Madame Bonaparte than a genuine interest for the solicitude of the
country}2
Although the two occurrences seem inextricably united, a closer
look will show that Napoleon's intimacy with Josephine may have been
an influence, but it was not a requirement to his promotion to the
Arly'of Italy. Napoleon claims that he merely met Josephine, fell in
love with the Creole beauty, and married her. His promotion to the
Army of Italy was the result of Scherer's unsatisfactory performance.”
Ihis explanation, however, is lacking in totality. It appears that

11 Barras, II, 71-80.
12

1
3 loatholon, III, 82-83.

Ihi‘bault, I, 269.

Napoleon considered the marriage to Josephine as a necessary step
to the higher society of Paris, moreover, it was a link to Trance
since he was Corsican by birth. Several sources bring this point
out. One person states that Napoleon had entered upon the stage of
his destiny and in order to secure his position and also Justify his
quick elevation it was necessary for him to live in society and win
more victories. The former condition was fulfilled by his marriage
to Josephine Beauharnais while the second requirement was satisfied
by his promotion to the post of commander in chief of the Army of

1+ Bourrienne asserts that Napoleon was enthusiastic about

Italy.1
the widow Beanharnais and her family name, moreover, Bonaparte would
probably marry her since such a prospective union seemed to make him
happy. Bourrienne gathered from Napoleon’ s remarks that such a
marriage would also assist him in gaining some of his goals seeing
that, through Josephine, he had already met many influential people.”
By either neglect or design Bourrienne does not specify what objectives
he thoudit Napoleon had in mind. The Duo De Raguse also commented on
the marriage by describing Josephine as Napoleon's first passion and
that somehow she found a way to satisfy him. l‘rankly though, Baguse
was perplexed by Bonaparte's attraction to the old class society
concept and Judged the marriage as the result of the conviction held

by Napoleon that he was making a great step forward in the social order.“

1“ Thi‘bault, I, 268.

15 Bourrisnne, I, #2.
16 has”. I. 93-95.

85

Napoleon narrated to General Bertrand at St. Helena that Josephine
did not make his fortune. Prior to meeting his future wife, he had
already to his credit the siege of Toulon, 13 Vend‘miaire, and the
position of general in command of the Army of the Interior. Bertrand
further quotes Napoleon as claiming he urried Josephine because he
believed her to possess a large fortune. Also, he wished to make
himself appear more mature. All in all, Napoleon felt the marriage
was beneficial since he, a Corsican, became associated with a good
Trench family.”
Concerning strictly the military advance of Bonaparte, an interest-
ing view is set forth by Lavelette who says that Napoleon, as consnder
in chief, humbled the government by his authority and discovered that
he could not obey them. Disliking the unmilitary Paris life, lapoleon
created a plan for the Italian campaign and solicited the government
for the command of the Army of Italy. The Directory, eager to get rid
of. one who awed them by his strange character and whose projects seemed
wild and fanciful, complied with Napoleon's petition.18 It is quite
plausible that some members of the government sensed the overly-
ambitious personality of Napoleon, and ther the machinations of the
Directory, the youthful officer would be sent to the previously un-

successful Army of Italy where his wild schemes would ultiaately destroy

 

17 Bertrand, pp. lain-126.

“Levelette, pp. 103-101}.

86

his military name. Another version of Bonaparte's promotions strives
to show that Ir‘ron and Barras desired to alter the truth of 13
Vend‘miaire in favor of Napoleon by reason of their special interests
in him. Zivy claims that rrtroe aspired for the hand of Napoleon's
sister Pauline, while Barras chiefly favored the ambitions of the
young Oorsican since Bonaparte had served the fortune of the future
Director. In fact, Barras, says Zivy, allowed it to be believed and
attributed to his protegd’the position of second in command on 13

19 Although it is not verified by any source, reasonably,

Yendlmiaire.
Irdron may have had an ulterior motive behind his declaration to the
Convention on October 11+, 1795, in which Napoleon was first mentioned
as the great factor to the victory of 13 Vende’miaire.” Barras then
mentioned, after rr‘ren's praise, Bonaparte as second in command.21
Barras‘ stateaent appears to be one of compulsion. It is not unlikely
that the eyes of the legislators turned to Barras after rréreh.hsd
finished his short speech in order to receive the comander in chief's
affirmation or denial. In agreeing with l‘re’ron, Barras thus changes,
to a degree, his original version of the fray to the Convention in the

evening of 13 Vendiiielre when.he described it in such.a way that the

victory was attributed completely to himself.

 

19 Zivy. p- 7?.

2° W 22 Yende’miaire, l'an ‘1' (October 1“, 1795), p. 88.
21 Mm, 23 Yende’miaire, l'an it (October 15, 1795). p. 89.

87

To attribute the plumotion of Napoleon to the command of the
Army of Italy on Barras' efforts entirely does not appear elmportable.
Rather, it is likely that a new commander for the Army of Italy was
needed.22 Napoleon was a likely candidate because of his efforts on
13 Vend‘miaire which.became revealed in the subsequent senses. fhere
is little doubt that Napoleon probably tried and succeeded in getting
aid from those high in the government. Barras, once the role of
lapoleoa on 13 Venddmiaire was disclosed, more than likely deemed it
advisable to favor him publicly. Another Director, Oamot, who had
been impressed by Bonaparte not only by his activity on Vende’miaire,
but also at Toulon in 1793. probably supported him. Moreover, Napoleon
knew the terrain in Italy perhaps better than any other officer in the
J'rench military organization. The enemies of Bonaparte undoubtedly
felt that his appointment to the continuously impotent Army of Italy
would send him into obscurity and finish his professionally. The
gaining of the Italian post on March 7, 1796, and his subsequent
marriage to Madame Beanharnais on March 9, 1796, may appear, if one
is seeking such appearances, as natural steps to a clandestine arrange—

ment between lapoleon and Barras. It is much more likely, however, that

22 i]. E! 22 ggginkjgifi ggds-

. d Recue Actes D e t t P o
§;;§;g£§;:;§:2:'Iggtzggtigpg, Lgttggs In igteg 3113;! Paris, 1910),
I, 462-465. The Directory forwarded a letter to Scherer, dated
January 22, 1796, which caressed disappointment in him for not
following up his victories and for stopping his operations. the
Directory then enumerated its ideas and ordered Scherer to fulfill

them.

 

lapoleon.sought through.Jesephine the social status and.influence
which.could.be gained by such a union. It is also probable that
Josephine attracted Napoleon for some particular reason which can
be explained only by the enigmatic term of love. This is not to
deny the premise that Josephine exerted some influence in.Napoleon's
appointment. How.much.weight she carried is questionable, but it

is evident that her'marriage to Napoleon.was not the decisive or

sole factor for his promotion to the Italian command.

89

Chapter VI. Summary and Conclusions

In the early military career of Napoleon, a period from 1785
to 1795, his two outstanding performances were at the siege of
ration and at the battle of 13 Vende’miaire. it Toulon, Bonaparte
demonstrated precocious ability as an organizer and leader. Being
primarily an artillery officer, he proceeded vigorously to apply
the knowledge of this field to the campaign against Toulon. Before
his arrival, little use of cannon was made against the allies, how-
ever, upon the advent of Napoleon as artillery chief a sudden display
of activity in that branch occurred. Napoleon concentrated on the
construction of artillery placements which would pave the way for
the conquest of Toulon either by land or sea. His favorite idea
was the occupation of a promontory called Little Gibraltar from
which the allied ships could be bombarded and destroyed. Later he
deve10ped this into a formal plan which was sent to the Committee
of Public Safety in Paris. Such a scheme was amalgamated with a
plan forwarded by General Dugommier and the city of Toulon was re-
taken by carrying through their recommendations. Thus, Bonaparte
must be given generous acknowledgment for his part in the subjugation
of Ioulon. Although possessing only the epaulets of captain when
arriving at the Republican headquarters near Toulon, Bonaparte's
activity and responsibility far outstripped such an insignificant
rank. Actually, he was the chief of the artillery until General

Duteil arrived in the middle of November, 1793. But apparently

 

\

.‘I.

l'\

 

9O

Duteil encouraged lapoleon rather than relegating him to a position
where his talents would be unused. Napoleon consequently, although
having a subordinate rank, contributed immensely not only by his
plan but also by his continued important role as actual leader of
the artillery. Bonaparte took part in at least one infantry advance
during the contest at Ioulon. However, his share in such a movement
is not conspicuous. In fact, it is the opinion of the writer that
his participation in any infantry attack was merely a preliminary
to the acquisition of areas from which artillery could be brought
up and employed.

1'he significance of Toulon on the career of Napoleon is two-
fold. ]‘irst, Napoleon received his baptism of warfare against the
enemies threatening revolutionary francs. Second, his department
throughout the campaign of Toulon favorably impressed several
influential patriots of France among whom was General Paul Barras.
More important, Barras, at a later time, recollected the dynamic
qualities of young Bapoleon and utilized them to save the Convention
on 13 Vende’miaire.

The 13 Yende’miaire episode had a tremendous impact not only on
the fate of trance, but ultimately upon Europe also. Before that
time, Napoleon was Just another officer in the Trench army. is
shown above, he had made a name for himself at Toulon; however as
fortunes often go, this brilliant showing appeared to be forgotten
very quickly. In reality, Napoleon was planning to leave Irsnce as

soon as his petition to head the artillery of the Grand Seignior‘ of

91

Turkey was affirmed. Imdiately prior to 13 Vende’miaire he was on
the inactive list, living in Paris on an austere budget of half-pay
and known by few people in the l'rench capital. Nevertheless, one of
them was Barras who, when made commander in chief of the Army of the
Interior, obtained for Napoleon the rank of second in conmand. Barras
was in need of an able officer who would take the responsibility for
the defense since, it must be remembered, Barras had little experience
in the field of military operations. His profession was primarily
one of political intrigue. On the issues concerning Napoleon and 13
Vend‘miaire, the findings indicate that although he cannot receive
total credit for the victory, Napoleon was highly instrumental in the
success of the Convention forces. Bonaparte was made second in
command of the Army of the Interior by Barrae’ recommendation. He
ordered Major Murat to the Les Sablons for the highly valuable artillery
pieces. Beyond doubt, Napoleon set up the defense around the Convention
which was in session in the Tuilleries. And he played a role which was
second to no one at the St. Roch area. Moreover, he followed up this
victory by pursuing and scattering the insurrectionists througwut the
city. Little credit can be given to him, though, for the defeat of

the revolutionists at the quai Voltaire. Ihis engagement was at the
opposite line of the defense organised by the Army of the lppublic,

and at a place where Barras probably aided in repelling the enemy. l'he
maze of small streets coupled with the many buildings placed in Jumbled
spots throughout the area between St. Koch and quai Voltaire make it

impossible for any person to observe both places at the same time. Io

92

assert that one individual personally directed the defense at St. Roch
and quai Voltaire in an encounter, which by all indications was
simultaneous, would be not only illogical but also paradoxical.

The larger importance of 13 Vende’miaire is that Napoleon's
star rose to a phenomenal height because of his successful encounter
with the army at St. Roch and, of equal importance, his defense plan
which included the wise acquisition of cannon. Not to be overlooked
is Napoleon's ability to exploit his success to its fullest. Napoleon
soon became general in chief of the Army of the Interior. But he was
to rise even higher. When General Scherer became recalcitrant, the
young Corsican happened to be at the right spot at the right time.
Undoubtedly, Napoleon did not hesitate to use his friends and in-
fluence to gain the command of the Army of Italy. There were other
generals with higher fame and name, such as Massena and Roche, who
would have been likely successors to Scherer. Nevertheless, they were
in the various field commands when Napoleon was in Paris. The grateful
Barras and the astute Carnot more than likely supported Napoleon's
nomination. Josephine Beauharnais also may have been an influence,
however, it does not appear that she was the deciding factor or that
Napoleon's promotion and subsequent marriage to her are to be considered
as cause and effect. More than likely, Napoleon desired a relation to
hence by marriage which would secure his position and also enable him
to gain access to the influential circles. Moreover, as he asserts,
he wanted to appear mature. No small wonder that the Doc De Bag-use was

perplexed by Napoleon's sudden attraction to the ideas of nobility and

93

of advancement in the social order. The 13 Venddniaire became the
prelude to 19 Brumaire, November 10. 1799, at which time Napoleon
seized power and set himself up as first consul. From the time of
Napoleon's appointment as commander of the Army of Italy in 1796,

a result of Vend‘hiaire, to his return from.the Egyptian campaign,
the name of Bonaparte was thrust upon.rrance. By 1799. nany'peqple
of that country, hypnotized by the extraordinary exploits of the
little general, were willing to follow him in blind admiration.
Napoleon fulfilled their will. Whether this would have been possible
without a 13 Vendéhiaire is mere speculation. Yet, if such an event
had not occurred, it is not beyond the realm of prognostication

that the name of Napoleon Bonaparte would have been remembered in
history only for his allegiance to Jacobinism and his fine talent

displayed at Toulon in 1793.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:
rho most complete collection of the official words of the lunch

government was found in the wives Parliggentaires lbs 1282 A Q60,
first series (82 vols.), Paris, 1913. These volumes are a compila-
tion of the debates, discussions, and decrees made by the national
legislatures. Unfortunately, in the libraries consulted, there is a
gap between 1794 to 1800 in which no records can be located of the
deliberations of the legislative branch of the French government.
The official government views on 13 Vendfiiaire consequently cannot
be studied. In lieu of this, the mette Natignale, 9n Le Hgniteur
Universel, 1789 to 1868 (184 vols.), Paris, has been used for reference
to 13 Vendéniaire. This publication was the official newspaper of
the govern-out from the beginning of to bench Revolution in 1789.
the reports, however, are excerpts of the more important debates

and speeches of the governing body and are far from complete. The
sittings were not published on the very next day, as would be the
case of present government assemblies, thus, there is a lag of usually

four or five days before the reports were published. Another reference
of source material used was A. Debidour, WW1

 

(8 vols.), Paris, 1910. This work contains the official reports,

decrees, and letters issued by the Directorate between the years 1795

95

to 1799. In the 093,312ch De Napolg’ n I Publie'e Pg; Orders De

' Na ‘ II (32 vols.), Paris, 1858, the most complete
publication of the correspondence of Napoleon I is found. These

volumes should be consulted in any study of Napoleon, but it must be
kept in mind that Napoleon III had those portions of his uncle's
correspondence left out intentionally which would not picture Napoleon
I in a favorable light.

A wealth of material was obtained from the memoirs of contemporaries
and eyewitnesses of the events of Toulon and 13 Vendémiaire. Before
discussing these works, however, it would be well to mention and
describe the memorials and writings of those individuals who accompanied
and wrote the memoirs of Napoleon at St. Helena. Ioremost is that of
the Count De Las Gases who compiled the Mangrial De Saints Helene:

J t Pr t Life 6. Con are t o s the e Na
Men (1} vols.), London, 1823. This is a valuable source of
information of Napoleon's words concerning his participation in and
the making of history during his lifetime. A word of caution must be
stated concerning all of these dictations by Napoleon; they must be
read with a certain amount of skepticism since Napoleon often diIaPMW1

of the truth when it was convenient to do so, or he exaggerated his own

importance. Another primary source for the personal views of Napoleon

 

D taed t e rats nt He toteGenerals Shared e

O t t° d t 0 uscritsco cted

M. dict. Gourmet and lontholon (7 vain). London, 1823. Ihese

 

 

96

volumes bring out essentially the same material found in Les Gases,
nevertheless some material is found in them which is not mentioned in
Les Gases, asking it a necessary collaborative study of Bonaparte'e
dictations. In Barry I. O'Keara, [Queen In kile gr A Ygice M
W (2 vols.). New You, 1853, some pertinent, but also

' contradictory, information to the versions of Las Gases and Gourgsud-
Iontholon is found. his book was first published in 1822 and the
author, O'Keara, declared in his last will and testament that it was
a truthful text in which the accounts of the treatment inflicted on

Napoleon by his British captors are recorded. finally, there is a

much called ngglggg At St, £21223 5291" g; Gepgggl Bgrtmpd;

WM, trans. Frances Hume, ed. Paul l‘leuriot
De Lengle, London, 1953. Ibis book has some very significant data,

however, General Bertrand made his notes in a sort of quasi-shorthand
style which De Langle endeavored to decipher. Whether this translation
into longhsnd is entirely correct is a difficult question to determine.
Nevertheless, since there is some doubt, the importance of the text is
lessened to some extent. A systematic and chronological arrangement of
the writings of Gourgaud-Kontholon, O'Neara, and Bertrand is found in
Somerset De Chair, W11, London, 1918. De Ohsir refuses
to use any of Les Oasee' words which he considered only a day to day
collection of the conversations between Napoleon and Les cases. Although
this is hardly a good reason, since the other books are on the same order,

De Chair does an admirable Job of putting Napoleon in proper sequence.

 

97

lg; Ogggidggtigl Correspondence of Napolegn Bonapartg Vitglfiis Brother

Jgsgph, Sggetime Iigg g: Spgig (2 vols.), New York, 1855, is a
collection of letters between Napoleon and his oldest brother Joseph.

the letters appear to be fairly accurate, and although at times
Napoleon gets overly optimistic, there is no indication that he
intentionally exaggerated his status or importance to his brother.
0f the personal memoirs of contemporaries and eyewitnesses to
the events of Toulon and Vendo’miairo, it is the writer's opinion that
In; Maggirs g; Baggg Thi‘bault, trans. Arthur John Butler (2 vols.),
New York, 1896, is the best one for interest, accuracy and brevity.
Thiébault, although an officer of much promise, failed to reach the
peak of military fame perhaps because of his acts of insubordination
and also his dislike of Napoleon's arbitrary methods. His description
of 13 Yend‘miaire is no longer than several pages, yet it displays
Ihiebault's extraordinary ability to recall minute details of that
famous day. Ihe map included in the first volume of Thiébault’s
Memoirs is the best one discovered of the area concerned with 13

Vende’miaire. It is a map taken from the Plan de la V1119 et l'aumlggg
de Pagig, Paris, Deharme, 1763. A book of great controversy is that

of Paul Barras, Memoirs of Barras: Hggber of thngirectorgtg, trans.
G. l. Roche, ed. George Duruy, (# vols.), New York, 1895. Although

 

the volumes are riddled with many half-truths and lies, their importance
lies in the fact that sometimes Barras speaks the truth which can be

confirmed by others or by the fact that it would not profit Barras to

, ‘ _ ,

u
.
- s
,.
a
I
a

 

 

 

98

utter a falsehood. Mr. George Duruy warns in the preface that Barras'
50—32131 are an attempt to vindicate his behavior in public life and
contain many false understatements of Napoleon's ability. Another
interesting text is that of Louis Antoine Fauvelet De Bourienne,
Mgoirs g; Napolgon Bonapggtg, ed. R. N. Phipps (2 vols.), New York
and Boston, n.d. Bourienne was a school chum of Bonaparte's at
Brienne, and his subsequent contact with Napoleon enabled him to give
one of the few first hand accounts of some of Napoleon's activity
prior to l'oulon. However, his words must be read cautiously since
they are unreliable. This is probably the result of his loss of
favor with Bonaparte by his dishonest dealings as french charge d'affaires
at Hamburg during the period of the Empire. The Mgmgirg 9f Bertrand
Begin, trans. De 7, Payen-Payne (1+ vols.), London, 1896, is a
pertinent text showing the inner workings of the Committee of Public
Safety of which Barere was a member. It is invaluable in pointing out
Napoleon's contribution to the plan for the conquest of Toulon and also
throws light on some of the activity of Napoleon shortly after Toulon.
0n the whole, Barbre's reports appear to be reliable. The Me’moires et
Sguvenirs (13 Bang Hm; I): Null“; (3 vols.), Paris, 1888, is a
significant work by a Hoyalist who was a sectionary during the action
of 13 Vondéniairo. l‘his book has been translated into English as an;
Memoirs g1 Ban gm; 3 Ngville: Outlaw, Exile, Ambassador, trans.
Frances Jackson (2 vols.), London, 1913. However, the translation

leaves something to be desired in parts, and if the french version is

 

 

99

available it is recommended ever the translated one. Neuville,
incidentally, is not totally reliable as can be seen by his insistence
that Napoleon directed the artillery at the quai Voltaire. One of
the nest valuable sources is John Gideon Millingen, W
W London. 18%. This account
is the only one found of an lnglishaan who actually participated in
the drain of 13 Vend‘miaire. Hillingen's account shows quite strongly
that there was a battle at St. Roch and that this fray was not of
short duration. furthermore, during this time, it was Napoleon who
directed grape shot into the sectionaries in that area. Another
nsloir of consequence is the 21.29, ins d1; Duc De we 1); 112g A 153;
(9 vols.), Paris, 1857. Baguse was with Napoleon for most of the time
from foulon almost to 13 Vende’miaire. rho pertrayal of Napoleon in
the Army of Italy during this period, his arrest after the rhenidorian
reaction, and his reaction to the transfer to the Army of the Fend‘e
are ilportent descriptions and for the nest part appear trustworthy.
Another devoted follower of Napoleon was Lavelette who describes
Bonaparte's activity on 13 toad-tau. in the book W
M. London, 1894. Some of his words, however, leave one in
doubt as to his total reliability since he claim that Napoleon was

at the Convention on 12 Vendéiaire, an assertion which does not have
support fro: anyone except lqmleon. hrthersore, his estimate of the
nuaber of Convention troops killed and wounded on 13 Yende'aisire is

unbelievably small. .1 book of ilport is s. v. Vasselin. M

100

  
   

            

ut -. 11t1 - B‘v de -

e o s t r ' Octob (u vols.), Paris,
1797. This is the earliest publication discovered which reports the

7 1 ~ u = stoire des

     

events of 13 Vende’niaire. Whether Vasselin was an eyewitness to 13
Vende'miaire or nerely a compiler of information is a question which
cannot be answered. Nevertheless, what he reports in his book is
valuable in piecing l3 Vende’niaire together. In the Me'moires
Pgntimg et Militairgs d3 anega; kppgt, Paris, 1821+, little is
used except to show Dappet's description of how Duteil conmended the
actions taken by Bonaparte at Toulon. A book of some interest is that
of Agathon Jean Irancois rain, crit De L' Trois

Paris, 1828, which describes 13 Vend‘niaire from what can be considered
the official view. Barras is depicted as the real victor of that day.
It nust be recalled, however, that Barras became a Director after 13
Yende’niaire and probably influenced Iain who was then the secretary
to the nilitary conittee of the National Convention. Another memoir
of a sectionary during 13 Vende‘siaire is Ke’mgirgs D: M, L: antg D!
Vanblgc, ed. 11. I. Barriers, Paris, 1883. Unfortunately, Vaublanc
does not go into any detail concerning the events of 13 Yenddniaire.
the Me’ngireg Militairgs du L. ieutgant Genera; Cgmte East (4 vols.)
Paris, 1862, is used cursorily to show that troops from the Army of
Italy were transferred to the Army of the South during the Toulon
siege. lhis book would have some value for those desiring to study

the campaigns of the Any of Italy from a period of 1792 to 1800. A.

101

significant text is the 142’ oirgs du Victfliral Bay; Grivel, Paris,
1911+. Baron Grivel was at the bureau of the amed forces then the

insurrection on Vendlmiaire broke out and he later went to the
Convention. He personally saw some of the results of the battle of

13 Vende’miaire. A book by a loyalist which was used briefly to show
the futile efforts of the insurrectionists on 13 Vend‘miaire is A
History of & Li_f_e: Memoirs g; Chancellor Pasqgier, trans. C. E. Roche,
ed. Audiffret-Pasquier (6 vols.), New York, 1893. His memoirs run into
many volumes and may be of interest to those seeking information on
Royalist views during and after the Napoleonic era. The D1931 of 3;;
John Moore, ed. J. l'. Maurice (2 vols.), London, 1904. is a revealing
and careful record of an eye-witness of a portion of the french
Revolution as seen through the eyes of a British general. However,

Sir John Moore did not witness either 13 Vende’niaire or the siege of
Toulon. ' rho Jam; of Elizabeth Lg; Hoiigng. ed. Earl of Ilclnster
(2 vols.), London, 1908, is useful to those interested in the writings
of an lnglishwoman who was traveling on the continent during part of

the period of the Trench Revolution. One of Napoleon's early pamphlets,
Le Souper De Bgagcaire, ed. Albert Horance, Paris, n.d., is an effort

by Napoleon to convince the people of Marseilles to cease their struggle
against the Republic. Although an obvious propaganda work, it displays
quite well the literary style of Napoleon which, in credit to the young

Corsican, is commendable.

102

Secondary Sources:

The best monOgraph on Toulon is that of J'. Holland Rose, £931
Hggd gd Egg. Defense 91 Tpglon, Cambridge, 1922. Mr. Rose, in showing
the plight of the allies at Toulon, does a real service to this event
of history. Although Napoleon is not his primary concern, his
wonderful knowledge of the Corsican enables Boss to point out quite
accurately the role which Napoleon played for the victorious Il'rench
forces. l'or anyone studying either the siege of Toulon or Napoleon's
life, this book is a must. Another monograph is that of Charles James
on, Napglggn Bgnaparte And The Siege of Toglgg, Washington D. C.,
1902. Nox upholds Napoleon's importance at Toulon, but he considers
his plan for the conquest of Toulon one which any tactician would
have proposed. Ihe execution of the plan was Napoleon's, according to
J‘ox. His book is one of the scholarly research, yet it is disappointing
not only because .‘l‘ox fails to credit Napoleon fully, but also because
there is an extremely large number of French passages in the text
which detract from its effectiveness. The only monograph concerning
13 Vend‘miaire is that of Henry Zivy, Le Treizg vm’ iaire in It,
Paris, 1898. Considering the access to primary sources which Zivy
had available in Paris, many of which he did not use, his book is
highly unsatisfactory. Some of the conclusions he reaches are rather
strange and indicate a strong anti-Napoleon sentiment. Ewe books
which depict the adventures of the Hoyalist Baron De Bats are: Baron
CharlesDeBats, sC ti t alind J nDeBat

103

W, Paris, 1911, and L. L. J. Gosselin, s st
WW tram Mrs. Rodolph

Stowell, London and New York, 1910. !he portions of mess books

used in the thesis are tron Bats's personal papers, letters and an

unpublished neaoir entitled D. L; ngnég appeals: d9 Sectigng de

Bari; 93 Q 12 et 13 “Elna“, g IV, Octgbre 1225. Bats was en
avowed loyalist who repeatedly plotted against the leaders of the

revolution. However, his influence appears to be greatly overstated
by both Gosselin and Baron Charles De Bats. Another book in which
only the quoted words were rephrased is Edwin Sidney, W
Lord H111, 6.6.3, gate Md” 9! the James, London, 1816. This
work is valuable in showing the activity of laden-General Charles

O'Hara in the skinish on lovuber 29, 1793 in which he was captured.

Another book. that or John Barrow. WW

8 r w s 3 (2 vols.), London, mus, gives
a good description of the evacuation and destruction of Toulon by

Sir Sidney Snith. Yet, this publication mist be read with scrutiny
because it includes a letter purporting to the barbaric behavior of
Napoleon at loulon in lowing down the foulonese with artillery fire.
the letter is supposedly sent to saith by an unnamed friend and is
not substantiated. Several books which deal more with either the

allies at roulon or the city itselt rather than napoleon are LZ. Pens,

bite-s P93; Bag; A ygistoirg De La Ville De 2mg: 5 1,223, Paris,

1825, and Paul Cottin, 1mg; It age Mus a 1223 D'Aprgs Dgs
W Paris, 1898. A work of interest is l‘r‘de'ric lesson,

101+
lgmigon It §§ J'amiiig (13 vols.), Paris, 190“. lesson concentrates
on the intinate details'of Iapoleon's family and includes the many
trials and tribulations caused Napoleon by his blood relations. In
the field of general histories, a commendable one is J. U. J'ortescue,
A Bisiqu g; 3m British LE! (13 vols.), London, 1915. J'ortescue's
version shows the participation of the English at Tonlon and is a

scholarly and accurate effort. One of questionable accuracy, however,

is Yilliam James, I N a H s G B F

Dgclaration 9; fig by Irene; in 1223 to the Accession g; Gargg IV
(6 vols.), London, 1886. James uses the Dictignnairg Historiggg

which apparently is the official French court history and is not
commendable for use as an authority. ll'or instance, it depicts
Napoleon erroneously as a hero of a skirmish he did not participate
in, and also it grossly exaggerates the number of executions of
Ioulonese by the conquering Army of the South. James should not be
relied on whenever he uses the Dictionnaire gistoriqqe.

Of the biographies of lapoleon, the best single volume is that
of Irederick Max Kircheisen, 192191293: trans. Henry St. Lawrence, New
York, 1932. This book is a digest of a nine volume work which
Iirchsisen has written on the life of Napoleon. It is a monumental
one which cannot be overlooked by any student in the study of Bonaparte.
Close behind Iircheisen are the volumes by John Holland Rose, W
W (2 vols.), lew York, 1920:. llr. Rose is a recognised
authority of the french Revolution and lapoleonic era, and his book
displays his outstanding faailiarity with Napoleon. Another one of
the better biographies of Iapoleon is by Angust l‘curnier, W

11m: A BM. trans. Margaret Bacon Corwin and Arthur Dart Bissell,

105

ed. ldward Gaylord Bourne, lew York, 1903. However, J'ournier inserts
unconplisentary speculative views of Napoleon's behavior which detract
fro! his undoubtedly thorough knowledge of the life of Bonaparte.
Iournier's bibliography is the best one found and is a good beginning
point for any phase of Napoleon's career. Another book concerning
Napoleon is that of Louis Hadelin, gistgirs g; Cgispiat It D; L‘gpire
(13 vols.), Paris, 1937. Madolin does not deal exclusively with
napoleon but attempts to weave a history of Trance from the beginning
of the Trench Revolution to its termination at the fall of the hpirs.
Madelin shows an informative grasp of the events of Youlcn and 13
Vendésiaire; and his footnotes concerning them are extensive and
interesting. 1 word of caution must be given about relying too heavily
on lladelin since he is notoriously pro-Bonaparte. A. Aulard. m
Izench mutign: A rontigg Eistgg, trans. Bernard mm (a vols.),
London, 1910, is used briefly but is worthy of note to those who have

a flair for the political ramifications involved in the french Revolution.
Aulard's work is a sober and consistent account which attempts to show
the evolution of France from a nonarchial state to one in which there
is a constant growth of republican ideas. It is necessary to mention
the book by General Barrasin, MW
grim, London, 1811, which is composed of the so-called confession
of lapoleon of his wrongs to humanity. In essence, it is a book
containing all the gossip possible concerning Napoleon g) to the year
1810. It would be interesting to trace how nany of these stories have

been adopted as truth by the writers of the anti-lapoleon school.

106

A lagaline article by Germain Bapst, “Captain Napoleon Bonaparte
at Tdnlon'. WWW Lmvn (January. 1894).
presents the usual popular version of Napoleon at Toulon with no
significant contributions being made. Such articles, slated for
general and average reading audiences, lust be read with scrutiny
since they must have a hero or a villian even if errors are to be
included. This article is no exception to the rule. On Barras'
529.121- Henry llorse Stephens comments in “Recent lie-airs of the
French Revolution“, 33 Aggrican Histgricgi Hevig, I (April, 1896),
473-489, that General Barras had an overwhelming desire to blacken
the character of Napoleon and that his attempt to calmiats hi- is
displayed by reckless and disgraceful sud-throwing. There has been
a question of whether the W of Barras are, in actuality,
authentic. It is the opinion of the writer that at least the
portion of the first volune concerning l3 Vende’miaire is authentic
since Barras relates the event in a manner that only an eyewitness

could be capable of doing.

MICHIGAN STATE

I n llllfl

31293 03

NIVERSITY LIBRARIES

1

||||||l|1|ii

69 6838