On Mentoring: Lessons from Historical Cases Published July 1, 2025 By Lt Col Anthony Wszedybyl, French Air and Space Force May 20, 1778, Pennsylvania. A crimson tide of British soldiers was converging on Barren Hill from every compass point. Around 8,000 men under General Howe’s command were set to seize the vulnerable Americans’ stationary outpost and capture 2,000 patriots in an easy pincer movement. The artillery firepower was overwhelming, and the hill was locked down. Nobody could escape this deadly trap. This was without counting on the genius of a 20-year-old French general commanding this American reconnaissance task force. Using skillfully his light scouting squads led by Iroquois, Lafayette took advantage of the wooded terrain to apply indigenous guerrilla tactics, relentlessly harassing and deceiving enemy positions and ultimately making the redcoats believe they were overpowered and outnumbered. Within a couple of hours, Howe impotently assisted the pathetic spectacle of his forces being wholly disorganized and nearly firing at each other. On the brink of retiring from his military career, the experienced General was humiliated and would return to England without the prize he was convinced to capture. Gilbert de Lafayette eventually succeeded in this near-impossible retreat to Valley Forge without losing a single man, forging a historical exploit.[1] The young Frenchman demonstrated exceptional temperance in unfavorable conditions and otherworldly tactical skills, affirming his leadership capacities within the patriotic forces. Washington had warned against establishing a stationary post on an indefensible high point like Barren Hill. Lafayette had insisted on the decision, thereby learning a lesson in failure that profoundly affected him. Washington forgave him for this misjudgment, which promoted Lafayette’s recovery and contributed to the success of his larger-than-life destiny, following in the light of his merciful and inspiring father figure. February 8, 1807, Russia. For the first time in the history of its fierce campaigns, Napoleon’s Grande Armée was in dire straits. In the freezing cold of the Eylau plains, the French Emperor was trapped in the heart of chaos: pinned down by violent assaults on several fronts, only a miracle could turn the situation in his favor. That miracle had a name: Joachim Murat. He was unmistakable on the battlefield with his white-plumed hat, bright uniform, and larger-than-life presence. As an exceptional leader, he rallied and inspired 11,000 horsemen, preparing them for one of the most audacious cavalry charges in military history. The rumbling wave he spearheaded in a wedge formation pierced the Russian center in a deadly clash, temporarily breaking the infantry's cohesion and allowing Napoleon to maneuver successfully. Though Eylau did not yield a decisive victory, Murat’s charge remains a legendary testament to his courage and flamboyance—a striking example of his battlefield prowess and indomitable spirit. Known as “The Saber of the Emperor,” Murat’s charisma and audacity made him stand out among Napoleon’s marshals, cementing his special gift of inspiring troops and striking fear into enemies. However, when crowned King of Naples and Sicily in 1808, Murat’s battlefield brilliance faltered in governance. His ambition and confidence, once his greatest assets, without the support of a mentor became his most fatal flaws under Napoleon’s authoritarian shadow, ultimately leading to a tragic downfall. How could Napoleon exacerbate Murat’s ethical and moral failures? Conversely, how did Washington nurture Lafayette’s inherent qualities and skills? The answers to these fundamental questions lie in mentoring. This study delves into mentoring’s principles and effects by exploring two outstanding but divergent relationships, intertwining two examples of military and political legends of the 18th and 19th centuries: Napoleon Bonaparte with Joachim Murat and George Washington with Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette. Napoleon and Murat interacted within the march of the French Empire at war, the greatest of those times, whose armed forces numbered around 600,000 soldiers. On the other hand, Washington and Lafayette interacted within a revolutionary insurgent force of 20,000 patriots at its apex, struggling against the British colonial empire. Therefore, the nature of the connections that Washington would forge with Lafayette is not surprisingly different and more exclusive. While campaigning from Egypt to Russia, marching against the entirety of Europe and governing the largest empire of that era, could Napoleon Bonaparte have dedicated as much personal time to Murat as Washington did to his protégé? Probably not. Nonetheless, the lessons learned from the richness of Washington and Lafayette’s relationship are worth identifying to explore the potential strengths of such personal investment in larger organizations like the Napoleonic Army, whose inflexible structure may remind us of contemporary armed forces. Introduction Contemporary armed forces primarily present two models of leadership. In authoritarian countries, strict obedience governs the hierarchical structure, significantly reducing individual initiative. In Western countries, however, the tradition of inspirational leadership and subsidiarity mitigates the fear of hierarchy and fosters personal initiative. At the very center of these differing conceptions of hierarchical relationships lies mentoring. Mentoring is a structured developmental relationship in which seasoned leaders support others through personalized, character-centric interactions. It encompasses psychosocial and transformational methods that bolster individual resilience, ethical decision-making, and flexible performance in intricate, high-stakes situations. By sharing experiences and providing guidance, mentors actively cultivate protégés' psychological capacities, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills, fostering effective leadership behaviors that positively impact organizational environments and mission success[2][3]. Mentoring is, therefore, an altruistic act of sharing and teaching that reflects a devoted faith in one’s subordinates and a means of shaping future leaders through the legacy of one’s lessons learned. Absence of genuine mentoring or, even worse, complete abstraction of it, leaves protégés with their raw qualities and weaknesses when facing extreme situations, creating space for extreme reactions such as doubt, fear, desire for control, pride, and hubris. How can mentoring, or lack thereof, influence the strength and resiliency of a military organization? Beyond the military, how can it shape societies? By fostering a level of trust and loyalty that allows for the exchange of reciprocal feelings and knowledge, mentoring transcends individuals and catalyzes their potential into improved versions of themselves for the benefit of the unit and society. This study first examines interpersonal dynamics, aiming to uncover why Napoleon could not guide Murat, while Washington successfully mentored Lafayette. The second part explores the implications of these mentoring failures and successes on the paths taken by Murat and Lafayette. Two Relationships, Four Legends The Sabre of the Emperor Joachim Murat was a leader whose charisma and flamboyance inspired loyalty and success but also introduced the risks of a permanent in extremis context. His larger-than-life audacity created flaws requiring harnessing through mentoring, which Napoleon failed to provide. As Napoleon utilized him steadily in sensitive maneuvers where mass, brutality, and determination were critical, Murat was forced to build extraordinary leadership skills under extreme conditions so that his troops could follow him where their lives were consistently endangered.[4] However, his native attraction for flamboyance and glory pushed him to make impulsive decisions not grounded in collective insight, forgetting to consider long-term consequences. This other side reveals significant weaknesses in Murat’s daring leadership. According to Newcomer and Connelly[5], high responsiveness under stress increases the probability of being reactive rather than strategic in decision-making. Rothenberg delves into this weakness when analyzing the failure of the Battle of Leipzig in 1813: “Murat’s failure to adapt to the changing dynamics of battle exemplified his inability to think beyond the immediate spectacle of cavalry charges, contributing to the overall collapse of the French position.”[6] Murat’s behavior perfectly illustrates the dangers of his impulsive style and inclination for direct action without sufficient risk assessment and study of consequences within the Emperor’s grand strategy. The marshal’s impetuosity and stubbornness were steadily repressed by Napoleon, who wrote in November 1805: “I cannot approve your way of proceeding; you act thoughtlessly and do not carefully consider the orders I have given you. [...] I search in vain for reasons to explain your conduct. [...] I fear that [Marshal Mortier] may be greatly exposed, which would not have occurred had you executed my orders. [...] But you have cost me two days and thought only of the vanity of entering Vienna. Glory exists only where there is danger; there is none in entering a defenseless capital. [...]”[7] Whether due to his often-decisive skills, Napoleon never formally punished his reckless marshal for his bold temperament. However, the Emperor frequently adjusted his plans because of his cavalry commander’s impulsive maneuvers, potentially creating resentments that arose and affected their relationship. A tailored mentoring would have helped Murat decrease his flaws and curb his dangerous hubris. Instead, a devastating jealousy arose between Napoleon and Murat. The Emperor established the conditions for a strained relationship in which authority, fundamental to this military structure, was deliberately enforced and preferred over mentoring. Early signs of defiance from Napoleon appeared, provoking Murat’s rancor: “Bonaparte [...] seems eager to keep his cumbersome brother-in-law at a distance, fearing to see him rise to the same level as himself, jealous of a physical courage that commands the soldiers' admiration. Finally, Murat is appointed as commander of a grenadier division stationed at the gates of Paris. Yet, this still isn't enough for him. [...] Murat cannot accept a subordinate position: he must either be general-in-chief or placed directly under the orders of [Napoleon].”[8] Roberts emphasized that “Napoleon never quite trusted Murat to command independently, frequently overruling his decisions and making him feel like a subordinate rather than a sovereign ally.”[9] This devastated Murat’s personal feelings: “I ask you to give me an answer through my courier. I am the only general about whom silence is maintained and upon whom you count the least—you proved this to me by refusing me the rank of commander-in-chief. This thought will torment me for a long time.”[10] The absence of comprehensive communication between Napoleon and Murat in the early stages of their relationship certainly sowed the seeds of their future misjudgments and rancor. From the burning dunes of Egypt to the freezing steppes of Eastern Europe, the relationship between Napoleon and Murat was primarily forged on military utility. In contrast, mentoring builds a bridge of mutual understanding that reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each party. The authoritarian Emperor, blinded by his thirst for conquest and anchored in a strict vertical conception of hierarchy that stifled personal feelings with subordinates, failed to understand and guide his reckless marshal, who needed nurturing with purpose to temper his flamboyant nature. Like Father and Son Unlike Napoleon, George Washington was a humble father figure who created the conditions for Lafayette’s successful mentoring journey, taking advantage of their proximity on the battlefield. The lessons Lafayette absorbed from Washington profoundly shaped his later political and military choices, reinforcing his commitment to principles of liberty, humility, and republican governance. As an officer of the British colonial Empire before leading the patriotic rebellion, Washington understood the shortcomings inherent in excessively centralized command structures. His experiences, particularly General Braddock’s catastrophic defeat at Monongahela when he was a 23-year-old, taught him the importance of humility, openness to counsel, and flexible leadership: commanders didn't always possess the finest ideas.[11] In June 1775, George Washington accepted his appointment as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army with remarkable humility, expressing his concerns about his capability for such a prestigious role: “But lest some unlucky event should happen, unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered... that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with.”[12] Lafayette internalized these principles, directly applying them throughout his later career in America and Europe. As many patriots sought heroes beyond British history, they looked to ancient Rome's republican phase for uplifting examples and its decline for cautionary tales. Washington identified deeply with the values of honor and duty exemplified by Cato the Younger, who chose death over submission to tyranny. He often quoted Cato, reflecting his steadfast character: “Thy steady temper…can look on guilt, rebellion, [and] fraud…in the calm lights of mild philosophy.”[13] Thus, Washington's leadership was shaped by his humility and reverence for ancient wisdom, contrasting significantly with Napoleon’s narcissism, which was more likely to refer to the Roman emperors than to humble figures like Cato. Efficient mentoring is made possible when the parties are willing to engage in a relationship that allows for intimacy and open feelings: this is how the mentor builds trust with a protégé, ensuring that the flow of experience sharing is horizontal rather than only vertical. George Washington understood it clearly, putting himself at the same level of Lafayette with incredible humility: “My dear marquis, if you will give me your company in Virginia, we will laugh at our past difficulties and the folly of others; where I will endeavor, by every civility in my power, to shew you how much and how sincerely, I am, your affectionate and obedient servant.”[14] This respect and warmth resonated deeply in Lafayette’s demeanor: “Dear general, to speak to you about my own business with all the confidence of a son, of a friend, as you favored me with those two so precious titles. My respect, my affection for you, answer to my own heart that I deserve them on that side as well as possible.”[15] This astonishing mutual respect, a reflection of quintessential mentoring, was closely tied to the frequency and intensity of their interactions. Since Lafayette served from 1777 under Washington’s direct command, the frequency of their meetings was significantly high as they were often in the same physical locations or headquarters for extended periods, and the Patriotic Army campaigns were relatively localized. This undoubtedly reinforced the strength of their relationship and the quality of Washington’s mentoring. On the contrary, the Napoleonic campaigns were significantly extended. As the cavalry commander, Murat was never under the Emperor's direct command and was steadily deployed in independent and far-advanced positions. Despite their family bonds, the two men met too infrequently to develop a genuine intimacy. Nonetheless, Murat needed this deep understanding of Napoleon’s mindset to effectively achieve his military objectives and not deviate from them, as he often impetuously did. Mentoring proves most effective when both the mentor and protégé share the same environment, facilitating direct and consistent interaction. Therefore, it is crucial to establish mentoring relationships during calm periods, in the absence of disruptive conflicts, where mentors can effectively nurture and guide their protégés, promoting lively exchanges of ideas, experiences, and constructive feedback that are vital for the protégé's skill enhancement. Challenges multiply considerably when external influences like war create distance, obstructing the mentor's capacity to provide guidance and support. As a result, sustaining the philosophical connection necessary for effective mentoring becomes challenging. This is why mentoring should direct efforts proactively, rather than waiting for a crisis to arise. Antipodal Destinies in the Aftermath of Warfare Tragic Fall for an Underestimated Visionary The lack of mentoring deprived Napoleon and Murat of a trusting relationship, preventing them from receiving critiques and exchanging mutual advice. This absence of guidance, despite Murat's growing awareness of the dangers of Napoleon’s aggressive policy, led to missed opportunities and eventual betrayal. This inability to be understood and heard challenged his loyalty, as he declared to Naples’ armed forces in 1814: “Soldiers! As long as I believed Emperor Napoleon fought for the glory and happiness of France, I fought by his side; but today, no illusion remains: the Emperor desires nothing but war. I would betray the intentions of my former homeland, those of my states, and your own, if I did not immediately separate my arms from his and unite them with those of the allied powers, whose magnanimous intentions are to restore the dignity of thrones and the independence of nations.”[16] Politically isolated, he finally died executed by Naples’ restored Bourbon monarchy after a desperate attempt to reclaim his kingdom in 1815 after Napoleon’s capitulation at Waterloo. The death of Murat echoed Napoleon’s fall as a mirror image of the Emperor’s personality and authoritarianism, highlighting their potential contribution to Murat’s tragic end. As Jean Tulard notes, Murat's fall “was not only a consequence of his betrayal but also of the unbearable solitude of a man who had risen too fast, too high, without the support structures required to sustain such power.”[17] Despite his hubris and failures, Murat was visionary when thinking that the destiny of a prosperous Europe couldn’t be achieved through total war and French conquest. Still, through a united coalition of independent European Nations. Consequently, because of insufficient mentoring, Napoleon failed to recognize or even dismissed Murat’s potential for political influence. Indeed, “On one point, however, Murat prevails. This soldier, who entered as a conqueror into every capital of Europe—Milan, Vienna, Berlin, Warsaw, Madrid, Moscow—understood before Napoleon (who would discover the principle of nationalities only later, at Saint Helena, claiming it somewhat belatedly) that one could not build a Europe based solely on force. [...] Clarity and generosity characterize this vision of Europe, whose watchwords would have been "independence" and "nationalism," words that the young Murat heard for the first time at the Festival of the Federation in Paris on July 14, 1790, and which he knew how to use, better than Napoleon, in his quest for a throne.”[18] Therefore, while not widely recognized, Murat’s influence on the fate of the French Empire and Europe is noticeable. This path distanced him from Napoleon and ultimately provoked his absence during the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, where the fate of the Empire was at play. The Emperor undoubtedly needed his flamboyant skills. But Napoleon chose deliberately to deprive his forces of this significant asset: “I would have brought him to Waterloo, but the French army was so patriotic, so moral, that it is doubtful they would have tolerated the disgust and horror inspired by the one whom they accused of having betrayed and lost France.”[19] Would Murat have played a decisive role in this battle as he often did? No one can assert that. Based on their correspondence, what can be said with certainty about the relationship between Napoleon and Murat is the Emperor's harshness toward his brother-in-law, a certain contempt, and an undeniable refusal to understand the issues the king faced in Naples. These repeated humiliations must have heavily influenced some decisions that Murat, perhaps reluctantly, made for the survival of his people. Mentoring fosters trust that transcends potential barriers between a commander and his protégé, allowing for mutual, benevolent, and sometimes life-saving critiques. Murat and Napoleon held mutual respect, yet the Emperor often overlooked Murat, given their limited closeness. Consequently, Murat's perceived weaknesses and shortcomings regarding Napoleon’s political goals became inexpressible. The potential difference in the fate of the Empire if Napoleon had listened to the warnings of his Marshal in a reality where mentoring was established between them remains a tantalizing question. The Nightmare of Napoleon The Lafayette-Washington relationship was grounded in mentoring and trust. This relationship kept Lafayette loyal to his principles and values, shielding him from hubris. The influence of this mentoring was profound, making Lafayette substantially influential within French society and allowing him to form a steadfast opposition to Napoleon’s totalitarianism. After fleeing Revolutionary France due to rising radicalism, he was captured by Austrian troops and labeled a dangerous revolutionary. Lafayette was imprisoned in Olmütz from 1794 to 1797, enduring harsh conditions, solitary confinement, and denial of contact with the outside world. Even under these terrible conditions, he never begged for freedom and stayed loyal to his values. “My reverses have not changed my principles, or my sentiments, or my language. I remain here what I always been through my life […] I have won the right, during the remainder of a life that my present régime is greatly shortening, to continue not to flatter either the men that I despise, or the vices that I hate.”[20][21] Washington’s teachings about liberty and integrity, still fresh in 1794, undoubtedly reinforced Lafayette’s robust temperament and dedication to his ethical principles. His imprisonment became a cause célèbre among liberals, but even prominent figures like George Washington could not obtain his liberation. Ironically, Napoleon secured Lafayette’s release from Olmütz in 1797 as part of the Treaty of Campo Formio between France and Austria. Although Lafayette wasn’t named directly, Napoleon released several political prisoners, including Lafayette, as a condition of peace. Consequently, Napoleon triggered and tested Lafayette’s unshakable principles multiple times. Still, the enlightening legacy of Washington’s mentoring always played a role in their interactions, and the “Hero of Two Nations” commitment to his principles was always more substantial than the Emperor’s wishes. In 1802, Napoleon offered him the position of French Minister in America to leverage Lafayette’s reputation in the U.S while avoiding the risks posed by his revolutionary principles in France. Unsurprisingly, as Latzko underscored, Lafayette declined: “But in America of all places it would be impossible for him with loyalty to his principles to represent a government with no parliamentary control, no free press, and no freedom of opinion.”[22] A highly delectable fact is that Thomas Jefferson offered him, during the same period, the governorship of the State of Louisiana, which Napoleon had recently sold to the U.S. —the marquis was an American citizen. Still, Lafayette declined due to his wife’s poor health, a justification he also used to refuse Napoleon, officially concealing his real motivations, which the Emperor perfectly guessed. In 1804, as Napoleon Bonaparte transformed the French Republic into an Empire, he sought to legitimize his regime by co-opting prominent figures of the Revolution , including Lafayette, who was seen as a valuable asset. Napoleon offered him a Senate seat, hoping to gain Republican credibility. Once again, Lafayette declined, viewing the Empire as a betrayal of revolutionary principles, particularly liberty and popular sovereignty. He distrusted Napoleon’s authoritarianism, dissent repression, and erosion of civil liberties. In 1815, after Napoleon’s return from exile during the Hundred Days, Lafayette was again courted by the former Emperor. The political situation was precarious, with France caught between monarchic restoration and renewed imperial rule. After Waterloo’s defeat, Lafayette delivered a powerful and pivotal speech in the Chamber, leading the push for Napoleon’s abdication: “Do you dare to reproach us with failing in our obligations of honor, our duty toward Napoleon? Have you forgotten all that we have done for him? Have you forgotten that the bones of our children and brothers are strewn everywhere in witness to our loyalty –in the desert sands of Africa, on the banks of the Guadalquivir and the Tagus, along the Vistula and in the icy wastes around Moscow? During the past ten years and more, three million Frenchmen have lost their lives in the service of the man who now wants to enter into a struggle against the whole of Europe. We have done enough for him! Our duty now is to save our country.”[23] Ironically, this famous soliloquy notably echoes Murat's dramatic speech one year earlier, in 1814, demonstrating the King of Naples’ foresight. By nurturing them with knowledge and through testing, mentoring provides invaluable confidence to protégés, enabling them to enhance their critical thinking skills and decision-making, especially in isolated situations. Because they were guided early in their journey, they are equipped to handle challenging conditions. Lafayette, though, stayed a free thinker until the rest of his life, remaining thoroughly prominent in the French political life, and taking an active role in the writing of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in 1789, primarily influenced by the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 that he was involved in. The absence of a mentoring relationship between Napoleon and Murat underscores how even the most loyal battlefield alliances can collapse without sustained, purposeful guidance. Their bond, forged through epic shared campaigns from Egypt to Russia, was rooted in utility rather than mutual growth. Proper mentoring requires proximity, trust, and open dialogue — elements nearly impossible to sustain amid war’s chaos and a rigid, top-down command structure. As a result, Murat's brilliance remained unchecked and his flaws unaddressed. At the same time, Napoleon, blind to the personal development of his subordinates, missed critical opportunities for correction and support, as well as crucial critiques about his belligerent path. In contrast, Lafayette, molded by Washington’s early philosophical mentoring, was rooted in shared ideals and open discourse and embodied the autonomy and critical thinking essential for navigating political and military complexity. Mentoring is more than leadership training; it is an investment in resilience, initiative, and survivability. It transmits hard-earned lessons, enabling future leaders to act decisively in extreme circumstances where centralized systems often fail. While the scale of Washington’s insurgency efforts and Napoleon’s imperial command differed vastly, the consequences of neglecting mentoring in hierarchical military systems remain the same: mistrust, misjudgment, and missed opportunities. Despite the time and energy it requires, mentoring is the most essential, life-preserving duty a military leader can fulfill—for it establishes the human foundation upon which enduring strength and adaptability rest, both within the military environment and beyond, as the soldier returns to embrace civilian life and influences his society. Mentoring fosters mutual understanding between the mentor and the protégé, allowing for a deep comprehension of the commander’s intent. It builds trust, enabling the necessary subsidiarity for a protégé to choose the best way to achieve this intent and to make autonomous decisions depending on the environment, all while keeping the initial intent in mind. Even more importantly, mentoring builds confidence and ethics—the confidence to speak the truth to higher echelons, and the ethics to respond when the intent lacks clarity, becomes illegal, or, worse, is an irrelevant risk. As high-intensity warfare readiness is the primary focus of most of our Western armed forces, mentoring appears to be a safeguard that must not be sacrificed on the altar of technology and artificial intelligence. Synthetic learning and technology-driven decision-making will never replace the qualities of a superior mentoring relationship whose strength relies on personal investment, philosophical enrichment, and mutual feelings. Notes I wish to thank Dr. Daniel Connelly, Dr. Lewis Ware and Lt Col. Georges Abihanna for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. All errors found therein are my own. [1] Harlow Giles Unger, Lafayette (Hoboken (N. J.): John Wiley & Sons, 2002), 76. [2] Chaveso Cook, Christopher Webb, and Jamie Vansickle, “Developing and Mentoring ‘In Extremis’ Leaders: Lessons Learned from Special Operations,” Air and Space Power Journal, Summer 2020. [3] John J. Sosik et al., “Character into Action: How Officers Demonstrate Strengths with Transformational Leadership,” Air and Space Power Journal, Fall 2018. [4] Angela Karrash, Alison Levine, and Thomas Kolditz, “Leadership When It Matters Most: Lessons on Influence from In Extremis Contexts” (US Army Research, 2011), 228. [5] Jason M. Newcomer and Daniel A. Connelly, “Personality and Leadership The Potential Impact to Future Strategic Thinking,” Air & Space Power Journal, Summer 2020, 39. [6] Gunther Erich Rothenberg, Napoleon’s Great Adversary: Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army, 1792-1814 (New York: Sarpedon, 1995), 216. [7] Jean Tulard, Murat, Nouv. éd. corr. et augm (Paris: le Grand livre du mois, 1999). [8] Tulard. [9] Andrew Roberts, Napoleon: A Life (New York, New York: Viking, 2014), 420. [10] Tulard, Murat. [11] David A. Clary, Adopted Son: Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship That Saved the Revolution (New York: Bantam Books, 2007), 48. [12] Clary, 58. [13] Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life (New York: The Penguin Press, 2010), 331. [14] Clary, Adopted Son, 145. [15] Clary, 123. [16] Tulard, Murat. [17] Jean Tulard, Le grand Empire: 1804 - 1815, L’évolution de l’humanité (Paris: Michel, 1982). [18] Tulard, Murat. [19] Tulard. [20] Andreas Latzko, Lafayette A Life, The Literary Guild (New York, N.Y, 1936), 231. [21] Latzko, 242. [22] Latzko, 306. [23] Latzko, 331.