After exploring intelligence operatives who survived through betrayal, served with honor, or cultivated relationships with allies, we turn to Anne-Jean-Marie-René Savary - an officer whose defining characteristic was absolute loyalty to Napoleon. When Napoleon dismissed Fouché as Minister of Police in 1810, he chose Savary precisely because he wanted someone who would obey without question, someone who would not maintain independent power bases or secret contacts with enemies. What Savary would demonstrate is that unquestioning loyalty in intelligence work can be as dangerous as betrayal - that intelligence chiefs need judgment and independence, not just obedience.
The defining moment of the career of Savary came in 1804, when he led the operation to kidnap the Duc d’Enghien from neutral German territory, transport him to France, subject him to a hasty military trial, and execute him by firing squad - all in violation of international law and basic standards of justice. Savary carried out these orders with absolute efficiency and no apparent moral hesitation, insisting throughout his life that he had simply followed orders and that responsibility lay with Napoleon rather than with the officers who executed his commands. This defense would haunt him forever and raise fundamental questions about when military and intelligence officers have a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders.
The affair of the Duc d’Enghien shocked European courts and demonstrated the dark side of intelligence work conducted without moral restraint. It revealed Savary as completely willing to execute orders without questioning their legality or morality, efficient and professional in operations that violated international law, and apparently feeling no personal responsibility for consequences of actions taken under orders. These characteristics made Savary valuable to Napoleon but also made him dangerous - an intelligence chief who never questions orders may execute operations that should not be executed, and an officer who feels no moral responsibility may commit abuses that damage the very government he serves.
