When Savary became Minister of Police in 1810, he inherited the sophisticated intelligence apparatus that Fouché had built over more than a decade - networks of agents throughout Europe, elaborate filing systems, analytical capabilities, and professional intelligence officers skilled in assessment and investigation. However, Savary lacked the expertise to manage this complex system and approached the role fundamentally differently than Fouché had. Where Fouché had seen the position as a power base to cultivate and had encouraged independent analysis, Savary saw it simply as another assignment to execute with obedience and efficiency. The result was an intelligence service that became more obedient but less effective, more loyal but less analytical.
The consequences of this approach became tragically evident during the Russian campaign of 1812. Napoleon desperately needed accurate intelligence about Russian military capabilities, the determination of Russian leadership to resist, and the logistical challenges of invading such vast territory. Some intelligence sources were providing warnings, but Savary did not bring these warnings to Napoleon with the force and independence they required. His reports emphasized intelligence that supported the invasion plan and minimized intelligence suggesting problems. This failure to provide independent assessment contributed to the catastrophic defeat - an intelligence failure that was not about collection but about analysis and the courage to tell leaders what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.
As the Napoleonic Empire collapsed during 1813-1814, Savary continued serving with absolute loyalty but without the intelligence capabilities necessary to support effective resistance. Unlike Fouché, who had maintained contacts with all factions and could position himself as valuable to any regime, Savary had burned all bridges except his relationship with Napoleon. When the Bourbon monarchy was restored, his role in the execution of the Duc d’Enghien marked him as a criminal. His career ended in exile and obscurity, a cautionary tale about intelligence chiefs who confuse loyalty with servility, who believe their only duty is to execute orders rather than to provide independent assessment, and who serve their masters so absolutely that they fail to serve their nations at all.
