Be correct or be daring

My brother’s farewell speech to his students reminds us of the importance of taking risks.

It’s a speech that invites us to reflect on the difference between doing what is correct and doing what is right. A challenge to many people’s ethics is what I read in these words. At the core of the speech, Ricardo recalls this anecdote about General Grouchy and Napoleon:

When Napoleon managed to escape from the island of Elba, in 1815, he immediately began to receive popular support, which allowed him to assemble a great army that soon frightened the faint-hearted monarch Louis XVIII, who fled Paris, leaving the way clear for Emperor Bonaparte’s army. His army grew and grew and soon became a threat to the various European monarchies. The other countries, gathered at the Congress of Vienna, immediately declared Napoleon’s government illegal and sent armies to stop him. The emperor’s tactic was clear: he had to deal an effective, precise blow to the army of Prussia and then, on the road to Belgium, to the army of England. But he had to do it cleanly and directly, without letting them join up, for their combined forces would outnumber him and he would not be able to defeat them. No sooner said than done: Napoleon attacked the Prussians fiercely and forced them to retreat. Now he had to go against the English, but he needed to make sure the Prussians would not come back and attack him from the rear. Napoleon looked at his generals. Whom would he entrust with the mission of finishing off the Prussians and thus securing his triumph over Europe?

As he looked around, Napoleon’s eyes fell on the figure of Emmanuel de Grouchy, a good man, a correct general. Grouchy is a man of average intelligence, brave and correct; for twenty years he has campaigned in Holland, Russia, Italy, even in glorious battles in Egypt. He has always been a good commander, obedient, respectful; not a great warrior, but a good commander. He was a correct man whom history was now calling to greatness. There was no one else, and only Grouchy would carry out the mission. The orders were clear: pursue the Prussians and prevent them from regrouping.

Grouchy set off, faithful to his task, while Napoleon went to meet the English on the field of Waterloo. As history tells us, the English had dug in on a hill and their forces were evenly matched with those of the French. Neither side would win that battle, which began to last longer than it should have. Napoleon knew this and thought to himself, “my only solution is for Grouchy to disobey me and come back with his reinforcements”.

Grouchy was less than three hours away from the emperor’s army. He was still pursuing the Prussians, but he had lost their trail. The cannons of Waterloo sounded in the distance. His captains came up to him: “Sir, let us return to the emperor, he needs us”. And at that moment, in that decision of Grouchy’s, the fate of Europe hung in the balance.

Grouchy acted like the person he had always chosen to be: a correct man. And he decided to obey the orders he had. He did not go to the aid of his mentor.

And we all know what happened. Napoleon was fighting the English when, in the distance, on his right flank, an army appeared. He believed it was Grouchy. But no, the Prussians had managed to regroup and evade their pursuers and were now charging against his army. The disaster was total, and Napoleon had to flee knowing that the fate of Europe had been in his hands and that in a moment of indecision it had been lost.

I echo my brother when he says:

Friends, I have said it all night and I will say it again in light of this story. There is no merit in being correct and being good when everything is handed to you so that it turns out that way. The point is to be good when your whole life is at stake and when you may lose your peace of mind and your own convenience. It is on those occasions that you discover whether you were born to be in history like Napoleon or born to be forgotten like Grouchy.

How many Grouchys do we have holding important posts in our country? Concerned with doing the correct thing, but not much concerned with innovating or taking risks, and incapable of changing course; proud, none too bright, and deaf to their subordinates when they point out that the wrong decisions are being made.