Napoleon On How To Make Good Soldiers

An excerpt from, “Napoleon On War” Edited By Bruno Colson, Translated By Gregory Elliott, Oxford University Press, 2015, Pg. 133 – 135:

The army must not attract bad or dangerous elements:

There is no need for brigands in Italy or France and putting bad elements in the troops that make up an army is a bad move. That’s the method of Neapolitans and of countries that have no army [ . . . .] I want all the regiments of my army to be good and suitably composed.

You only need a few men per company to corrupt a whole regiment.

Discipline does not do everything. An army is made up of men and they must be treated as such. In discussion with British officers on Saint Helena, Napoleon told them several times that he adjudged British discipline too harsh; that it was necessary to abolish caning, at least after a certain length of service:

that men are what one makes them and that their character is improved in accordance with the way people behave towards them.

[ . . .] to demoralize people is not the way to get the best out of them. What honour can a man possibly have who is flogged before his comrades. He loses all feeling, and would as soon fight against as for his country, if he were better paid by the opposite party. When the Austrians had possession of Italy, they vainly attempted to make soldiers of the Italians. They either deserted as fast as they raised them, or else, when compelled to advance against an enemy, they ran away on the first fire. It was impossible to keep together a single regiment. When I got to Italy, and began to raise soldiers, the Austrians laughed at me, and said that it was in vain, that they had been trying for a long time, and said that it was in vain, that they had been trying for a long time, and that it was not in the nature of the Italians to fight or to make good soldiers. Notwithstanding this, I raised many thousands of Italians, who fought with a bravery equal to the French, and did not desert me even in my adversity. What was the cause? I abolished flogging and the stick, which the Austrians had adopted. I promoted those amongst the soldiers who had talents, and made many of them generals. I substituted honour and emulation for terror and the lash.

No one has known how to speak to soldiers, and appeal to their sense of honour, better than Napoleon. Sometimes it was enough for the soldiers to know that they formed part of an army commanded by him in person:

You know how much words do for soldiers: thus make it known to the various semi-brigades that they form the 2nd and 3rd division of the Army of Reserve.

In 1807, the reserve divisions had to feel part of the Grande Armee:

Take particular care over their food and have them given supplies that are at least as good as those for your troops, because they must not think that they are reject troops in the army corps. Men are what one wants them to be.

The Poles have officers who are willing. The way they will become worth something is to tell them so, to convince them of it. If headquarters is told every day that they are worthless, we shall get nothing from them.

A fine uniform contributes to the soldier’s sense of honour:

Furthermore, the soldier must be concerned with his condition, must invest his inclinations, his honour in it. That is why fine uniforms, etc., do good. A trifle often gets people who would not stay to stand firm under fire.

To stimulate emulation, honours are also required. This standpoint was fervently defended before the Conseil d’Etat in connection with the plan to establish the Legion d’honneur:

I challenge anyone to show me an ancient or modern republic in which there are no honours. People call them trifles. Well, it is with trifles that one leads men. I would not say that to a tribune, but in a council of wise men and statesmen, one must say everything. I do not believe that the French people like liberty and equality; the French have not been changed by ten years of revolution; they are what the Gauls were—-proud and fickle. They have but one sentiment: honour. It must therefore be nourished; they need honours. See how the people prostrate themselves before the honours of foreigners: they have been surprised by them and they do not fail to wear them.

Voltaire called soldiers five sous a day Alexanders. He was right; that is what they are. Do you think that you would make men fight by analysis? Never. That is good only for the scholar in his study. Soldiers need glory, decorations, rewards. The armies of the Republic have done great things because they were composed of the sons of labourers and good farmers, not rabble; because the officers had taken the place of those of the ancien regime, but also out of a sense of honour. On the same principle, the armies of Louis XIV likewise did great things.

Napoleon made honour the primary military quality, thus restoring a ‘noble’ value of the ancien regime to an army hailing from the Revolution. By the number of its occurrences and related passages, the word honour occupies a central place in the Memorial de Sainte-Helene. With 242 occurences, it is one of the primary words of Napoleonic discourse. Napoleon also employs the expression ‘field of honour’, as if to mask the harshness of war. For Didier Le Gall, this involves ‘a premeditated discursive strategy that must ultimately diffuse new values, in order to mould the conduct of men and rally a large number of individuals around the Emperor’s person’.

Honour cannot be bought:

The troops must not become accustomed to receiving money for acts of courage; it is enough to write them letters of commendation.

One does not pay for valour with money.