Lt.General le Marquis Alain de Mylcandonai,
I was somewhat surprised by the tone of the letter from Lt. General
le Comte d'Armagnac. He was a good officer when I commanded the Heavy
Brigade, and has performed well since.
My guess is that like many a good officer, having focussed on martial
issues rather than social, his choice of words leaves a few things to be
desired. For example, I believe his reference that can be read as a sneer
at your worth was probably intended as a sneer at the judgement of the
"powers that be". His comments about his history as a commander may be
taken merely as confirming your good judgement in appointing him, rather
than insulting you for questioning. After all, as the appointing officer,
it was your job to be skeptical of all candidates.
Yours,
Lt. General le Baron Soire de Success
PS: It would be nice if the Lt. General would send a clearer and I hope
more friendly clarification, but we can continue trying to read between his
words.
At 02:25 AM 3/19/01 +0000, Paul Vernon Lydiate wrote:
>Lt.General le Marquis Alain de Mylcandonai, His Majesty's Adjutant General,
>to Lt.General le Baron Soire de Success, OC First Division,
>Greetings!
>
>Mon Cher Soire,
>
>My father told me many years ago that only in the direst adversity is it
>possible to truly differentiate between those having a genuine concern for
>your welfare and mere hangers on who will use you to their own advantage
>when your star is in the ascendant but waste no time in kicking you should
>your star seem to fall.
>
>I recently received a letter from le Comte d'Armagnac which would appear to
>place him in the latter category. Not being on as familiar terms with the
>Comte as you are yourself (you will recall that it was on your
>recommendation that I appointed him to command the Heavy Brigade?) I have
>decided to forward the letter to you (enclosed) to ask your opinion. It may
>well be, after all, that le Comte merely has naturally abrasive style of
>correspondence and does not intend to give offence?
>
>As you know, it has never been my custom to demand favours from those
>gentlemen I am able to help in the course of my duties. I do expect a
>minimum level of civility from such gentlemen, however, and it seems to me
>that le Comte d'Armagnac's letter falls somewhat short of this. His apparent
>taunts regarding my being perceived to be 'unworthy' to command the Cavalry
>Division (when it was I doing the appointing!!!) and lack of recent battle
>experience (when I was fighting with the RNHB only in May) are as
>uncalled-for as they are inaccurate. I must confess that, when I first read
>the letter, I deeply regretted not paying more heed to those advisors who
>advocated that I stand upon my rights regarding command of the Cavalry
>Division and have d'Armagnac demoted back to his brigade.
>
>Given the cloud under which I presently find myself, it is only to be
>expected that there will be those who adopt a lack of civility in their
>dealings with me for fear of attracting the ire of Duc Senior. It is
>somewhat disappointing to learn that d'Armagnac appears to be one of them.
>
>The dismissive fashion in which he treats my request regarding Lt.Colonel de
>Zaster is equally lacking in tact, I find. As it happens, with Colonel le
>Vair resigning the Second Division adjutancy in order to lead his regiment,
>I will be in a position to appoint de Zaster personally. Nevertheless, in
>the apparently unlikely event that I am in a position to attract future
>requests from d'Armagnac I should, perhaps, remember to treat them in an
>equally dismissive fashion? Frankly, I would far rather have honest enemies
>like Grosscanard and, more recently, Duc Senior than false friends like
>Brouilles and, it would appear, d'Armagnac. In preference to both of these,
>of course, I would have staunch friends like yourself.
>
>Anyway, as mentioned above it could well be that I have completely misread
>Comte d'Armagnac's intentions and I would be grateful for your advice on the
>matter. With an impending arrest hanging over my head it all too likely that
>I am merely seeing ill-wishers where there are none to be found.
>
>Amitiés,
>
>Alain
>
> > Sir,
> >
> > Thank you for your kind congratulations on my promotion. Please accept my
> > apologies that for whatever reason, the powers that be did not think you
> > worthy of it.
> > I obviously have you to thank for being in a position to take up the
> > divisional command. You need have had no worries about your confidence in
> > appointing me Heavy Brigadier as I had already filled the postion for a
>year
> > whilst your interests were still focussed on the Dragoons. That was, of
> > course, before my foray into government as Minister for Justice.
> >
> > I have to say, even from my lofty position as Cavalry Division commander,
> > that the thrill of battle and smell of gunpowder vrings a breath of fresh
>air
> > compared to the machinations of Paris intrigue. I would suggest you head
>in
> > this direction but I see you have already made a move in that direction
>and
> > arranged an appointment as Second Division commander.
> >
> > Given that your recent expertise has been primarily focussed on policy and
>HQ
> > strategy, feel free to drop me a line if you need any pointers as to how
>to
> > handle the frontline situation in the current campaign.
> >
> > Re. the divisional adjustant, I am sure the Lt Colonel has impressed upon
>you
> > his merits and what he has to offer but you will appreciate that each
>officer
> > has his own style and approach. I will certainly be looking for an
>adjutant
> > but fear that paper work will just have to work when at the moment my
>every
> > decision means life or death for the soldiers of La Belle France.
> >
> > d'Armagnac
> >
