I do think if we're going to talk discipline in any army of the period and what troops do when discipline breaks down, we have to consider all of the reasons and conditions for it. I also wonder how the British army (or any European army of the period) would have developed if they had undergone ten years of Revolution, an immense expansion in personnel, general officers being threatened with execution if they lost for a time during those ten years, and an emigration of many of the senior officers of the army and navy? Have you actually looked at the background of the French general officers of the entire 1792-1815 period? In at least the period 1794-1799 their own government cared little or nothing that the armies they formed and launched on campaign ate or not, or whether or not they were properly clothed and equipped. I would really like to have seen Wellington in that situation and what he would have done then. Those that served Napoleon from 1799-1815 were the survivors of that experience and upbringing and had learned to wage war with little or nothing from the central government.

Further, lumping all French generals into one pot as you apparently have done continually as being basically either yes-men to Napoleon and/or looters is not only incorrect it clearly displays a bias that just isn't helpful (being mindful that all of us who study the period are biased in one aspect or another). There were many French general officers who were honorable men (Davout, Lannes, Berthier, Serurier, Suchet, Moncey among the marshals come to mind quickly and you can go down Six's listing and fine many more). Were there those whose hands were not clean? Sure. There were also those types in all of the armies of the period. But to make sweeping statements as to ethics, morals, etc., on one group alone without looking at more or every group doesn't enlighten, it merely clouds the issue.

Sincerely,
Kevin