Talk:Marshal of France

Untitled

I plan on taking on the Capetian Marshals of France when I go back to college in October, if no-one has done anything about them before. Supersheep 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• This might be better renamed as a list.--Looper5920 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Why was de Gaulle never made a marshal? Bastie 17:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

According to some he was offered the rank in 1946, but refused it. The reason may be that he considered himself as a statesman and not a soldier at that time, but that is only a personal speculation from my side. Carl Logan 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Jean-Andoche Junot was never a Marshal of France - Chandler, David. Napoleon's Marshals. New York: Macmillan, 1987 528-537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by History1804 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin Check

Not sure if I overlooked some obscure function of the genitive case, but in 'Terror belli, decus pacis', belli and pacis look like ordinary genitives of bellum and pax respectively. I see no reason why this should not be translated to 'Terror of war, ornament of peace', but maybe I am wrong. Rajakhr (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do believe it's more a bad translation from the french translation of latin. in a correct english, it would be "Terror during war, honnor during peace" because the mean is the marshal inspires terror into war time and honnor (or respect) into peace time. Hope it could be helpful. 86.206.111.109 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Condé?

The Great Condé was never a Marshal of France? john k (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As he was too disruptive (Fronde) and he betrayed France to Spain from September 1652 to November 1659 (he fought and lost against France and especially Marshal de Turenne at the battle of the dunes), he would have been a bad example as Marshal of France. But it's true he was skilled. 86.206.111.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought he'd have been made a Marshal before 1652. Turenne, who was of the same generation, was made one in 1643. Considerably less talented and prominent figures - the Comte de Gassion, the Duc de Choiseul, the Duc d'Aumont, etc. - were made Marshals before the end of the Thirty Years War - it's hard to understand why the most famous French commander of the war (other than, possibly, Turenne) would not have been. And after 1659 he was pardoned and served again during the War of Devolution and the Dutch War, in very high commands, and then lived for a decade after that. It seems odd that he was not made a Marshal in either period - especially the earlier one, pre-treason. john k (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it had less to do with skill or loyalty than social status, he was already a prince of the blood, which meant he had a superior social status to almost everyone in France, the only execption being the royal family itself. Carl Logan (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense - there aren't any princes of the blood on the list. john k (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem odd he was not made Marshal to a french point of view. Even he was pardoned, even he was given high commands after (due partly of the lack of other good generals at the death of Turenne especially), he still had betrayed France. It seems you should have a look at this particular era of France history, time of troubles on international stage (thirty years war and more important war with Spain) and on domestic stage with parlimentary and nobility uprising called "Fronde". And Condé was during a time a great figure of the "Fronde". It would have been crazy to grant him Marshal. As I said, too disruptive. For some Marshal there were some social status connection, Concino Concini is a perfect example. But for some others, it was only skill like Guébriant who is quite unknown for non french readers. No princes of the blood only with the notable exception of Condé, could you me give another one which was a good general or a good leader ? 90.9.158.249 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me - I am perfectly well aware of the Fronde and the Thirty Years War and so forth. I might add that Turenne was involved on the wrong side of the Fronde as well, although he returned to loyalty sooner - of course this was irrelevant to whether he became a marshal, since he had already been made one. At any rate, as far as the generalship of princes of the blood go, I'd say the first Prince of Condé was a relatively decent general. But that's irrelevant - a lot of princes of the blood were given important military commands, at least nominally - I'm thinking particularly of Louis XIV's brother and nephew, Philippe I and Philippe II of Orléans, and his grandson the Duke of Burgundy (who was the official French commander at the Battle of Oudenarde) - all of these held very high commands in the French army. If marshal's batons could be given to princes of the blood, one would imagine that they would have received them, in spite of subpar generalship - but none of them did. And, again, Condé's treason in the 1650s hardly explains why he wouldn't have been given a marshal's baton in the 1640s, when Turenne and other contemporaries of Condé received theirs. All the evidence in hand, the idea that princes of the blood would not be considered for a marshal's baton makes a lot more sense than the idea that Condé wouldn't have been given one after Rocroi because he would become a traitor almost ten years later. john k (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Patronize you, where did you get this idea from? And how should I know that you are "perfectly well aware of the Fronde and etc."? I don't like to say that but don't be so susceptible. And especially when I tend to agree with you for your most important point. It does make now this situation quite pitiful, don't you think?

But at first i have some remarks. Turenne was serving in the french army for 10 years and had already success. It's almost the same for Gramont, L'Hôpital and Guébriant. At the opposite, Condé started his military career at Rocroi. Oudenarde is a bad example because a part of the defeat is the quarrel between the both french commanders, Bourgogne and Vendôme. Louis XIV would have hardly grant his grand-son marshal or something else as he was partly responsible of such a mess. He never had another command after.

Where we can tend to agree is the fact of being prince of the blood. Just after Louis XIV and his brother, Philippe d'Orléans, Condé was at a time next in the line of succession to the throne. And it could explain why he never received a marshal's baton as he was the first prince of the blood. We should remember of the previous treason of the brother of Louis XIII, Gaston d'Orléans the heir apparent to the throne until future Louis XIV was born.

But during centuries the most important french military office was the constable and 4 princes of the blood had this title. When this office was abolished (1627) marshal of France became the highest one. The only difference (apart of the title) I found with Condé, Bourgogne and the both Orléans is they were distant cousins of the king.

90.9.158.249 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Connétable: http://july.fixedreference.org/fr/20040727/wikipedia/Conn%C3%A9table

Maréchal: http://july.fixedreference.org/fr/20040727/wikipedia/Mar%C3%A9chal

Maréchal de France: http://july.fixedreference.org/fr/20040727/wikipedia/Mar%C3%A9chal_de_France

Maréchal de France est un terme formé à partir de celui de maréchal. La fonction de maréchal de France fut créée par Philippe Auguste, vers 1190, pour Albéric Clément. Au siècle suivant, cette fonction devient une des grands offices de la Couronne, désignant un commandant militaire, subordonné au connétable. Après l'abolition de l'office de connétable par Richelieu en 1624, les maréchaux deviennent les chefs suprêmes de l'armée. Parfois le roi crée une charge de maréchal général des camps et armées du roi, qu'il confie aux plus prestigieux maréchaux.

XVI siècle

   * Jean-Jacques Trivulce - 1500 (d'origine italienne)
   * Anne de Montmorency (1492-1567) - 1522
   * Théodore Trivulce - 1526 (d'origine italienne)
   * Jean Caraccioli - 1544 (d'origine italienne)
   * Pierre Strozzi - 1554 (d'origine italienne)
   * Henri Ier de Montmorency (1534-1614) - 1567
   * Charles de Gontaut-Biron (1562-1602) - 1594 (mort décapité) 

XVII siècle

   * Lesdiguières (1543-1626) - 1609
   * Concino Concini (1575-1617) - 1614 (d'origine italienne)
   * Louis de Marillac (1573-1632) - 1629 (mort décapité)
   * Henri II, duc de Montmorency (1595-1632) - 1630 (mort décapité)
   * John Hepburn (c. 1598-1636) - 1636, Écossais
   * Josias de Rantzau - 1645 (d'origine allemande-danoise)
   * Turenne (1611-1675) - 1660
   * Le maréchal de Luxembourg (1628-1695) - 1675
   * Frédéric de Schomberg - 1675 (d'origine allemande) 

XVIII siècle

   * Conrad de Rosen (1628-1715) - 1703 (d'origine estonienne)
   * James Fitzjames, duc de Berwick - 1706 (d'origine anglaise)
   * Maurice de Saxe - 1744 (d'origine allemande)
   * Ulrich Frédéric Waldemar de Löwendal (1700-1755) - 1749 (d'origine allemande-danoise)
   * Ladislas Bercheny - 1758 (d'origine hongroise, fondateur des Hussards de Bercheny)
   * Philippe de Noailles (1715-1794) (mort guillotiné)
   * Nicolas Luckner (1722-1794) - 1791 (d'origine allemande, mort guillotiné)
   * Rochambeau (1725-1807) - 1791

Service historique de la défense: Les grades de l'armée française

:http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/04histoire/dossierdushd/grade/grade3.htm

NOTE: Not a single member of the royal family, prince of the blood or other.

Maybe this will help (sorry all in French), p. 147:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2_a7NVeY3tcC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=prince+du+sang+sans+grade+de+mar%C3%A9chal&source=bl&ots=JSOk5-sV71&sig=H_QLvWzKjZ0YsmYtCGdYZVHXb5E&hl=en&ei=ePazSbOnCI_HtgfYo8TEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Frania W. (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a military rank

I've tagged the claim that it is not a military rank as dubious. I note it doesn't appear in fr:Maréchal de France. Andrewa (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And it was almost immediately reverted [1] with a minor edit flag but neither edit summary nor discussion despite the invitation in my edit summary. [2] I generally choose to follow the 1RR so for now I'll just wait and see whether they or anyone else wants to follow this up.

One possibility is to reflag with a citation needed. That might be more productive. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a military rank. It is a purely civil dignity granted to generals and admirals of particular merit. See the article Marshal of the Empire, which I've written and which has better sources.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pérignon's street

Discrepancy between this page and the linked, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevards_of_the_Marshals

Pérignon is banned from memory according to this page but has a street named after him according to the latter. Seems this page is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.252.172.196 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

About the "refusal" of the title of Marshal of France by Charles de Gaulle

About the "refusal" of the title of Marshal of France by Charles de Gaulle, I think there isn't a refusal, because the title was NEVER properly offered to De Gaulle.

De Gaulle killed the demarches about the matter before any positive action be taked, as told by Jean Lacouture in "De Gaulle 2 - The Ruler, 1945-1970", pg.128:

"The situation of Charles de Gaulle, mythically a general to all eternity, but legally a retired colonel, was odd enough to be posing the government certain problems, including some of a bureaucratic type. It was Edmond Michelet, the most faithful of all his followers, who was “his minister” in charge of the armed forces. He asked de Gaulle how they were to settle the General’s “situation in the army”, a situation that, according to the minister, “President Gouin naturally wants to be as high as possible”. Marshal of France, a title so closely associated with Pétain, and his inferiors? Four days later, Michelet received one of the most implacable, if stinging, letters ever written by the General.

My dear Minister, (...) Since 18 June 1940 - the date on which I gave up my responsibilities and set out in a rather unusual direction - the events that have taken place have been of such a nature and of such a dimension that it would be impossible to “regularize” a situation absolutely without precedent. Indeed, there has been no need whatever to change anything in that situation during the five years, seven months and three days of a very great trial. Any “administrative solution” that one might try to apply to it today would, therefore, take on a strange, even ridiculous character. The only course that measures up to the situation is to leave things as they are. One day, death will take it upon itself to smooth over the difficulty, if there still is one."

So, de Gaulle never "refused" the title of Marshal of France, only prevented the possibility of that title be given to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.250.198.163 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Pétain and Treason Conviction

This article states that the court did not have the authority to strip Pétain of his distinction as Marshal of France due to it being granted through an Act of Parliament. However, there are no citations given in this section to support this assertion. Beyond that, the article for Philippe Pétain specifically says that the court stripped him of all military honors and ranks, including the distinction of Marshal of France, when he was convicted of treason. So one of these two articles is wrong, and I don't have access to the source cited in Pétain's page to verify its claim. Does anybody have a source that supports the claim in this article about Pétain retaining this title after his treason conviction? Ovenel (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)