I understand that military men considered the quest for glory as a worthwhile ambition but rational men, even at the time had their doubts. I have posted this extract before but it is worth repeating, note the date.
le Censeur Europeen (bulletin 5-18 april 1815)
"What is glory? A lion which makes all the animals of a country tremble, does he have glory? A wretched people who do not know how to govern themselves and who can only inspire in their neighbours terror or hatred, do they have glory? If it is true that glory is exclusively the share of men who have made themselves celebrated by the good they have done to their kind, to what precisely is the glory of a conquering people reduced? These questions will doubtless be resolved when we are tired of talking without knowing what we are saying.
Bravery considered in itself, subtraction being made of all moral virtue, is it an estimable quality? He who braves death without usefulness to his kind, does he deserve men's esteem? Does he merit esteem who braves travellers to take their money? He who braves the seas to make slaves or who braves armies to put peoples into servitude? We abandon these questions to the meditation of the journalists who do not cease to speak to us of braves and bravery."