This is an archive of past discussions about Napoleon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could there be the IPA instructions for the (orginal French) pronunciation of the name Napoléon Bonaparte? Not all of us are able to pronounce that name "correctly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.75.230 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
i added some in. you can hear a modern person saying it here on youtube. [1]. they would have had more regional accents then and Napoleon himself had an italian accent because Corsica used to belong to Genoa, only transferring the year before he was born, Tom B (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Titles
26 August, 2008 Stephen Smith, Naples, Florida, United States.
I am not able to edit the Napoleon Page because I do not have such privledges, but I do know that Napoleon was also titled "Emperor of Elba" when he was exiled to the island in 1814.
Hi, thanks I did some research and found that the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814) states, in article 2 that "Their Majesties the Emperor Napoleon and the Empress Marie-Louise, will preserve their titles and qualities to enjoy them during their lives" and in article 3 that "The island of Elba, adopted by his Majesty the Emperor Napoleon, for the place of his residence, shall form, during his life, a separate principality, which shall be possessed by him in all sovereignty and property." There does not seem to an indication of him officially being called "Emperor of Elba" though he was still offically allowed to be called Emperor and officially possess Elba so you can see why people think this was an official title. Tom (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've actually done some more research, I've spoken with J.David.Markham about the matter, he is a noted Napoleonic Historian. He informed me of the contrary, though I am unsure about his convictions on the matter. I intend to settle this matter once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.160.175 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
He was entitled "Sovereign of Elba". He retained the title of Emperor for the rest of his life, as this is the established rule when a crowned head of state abdicates, or passes the reins to a successor. A similar case would therefore be the late Queen Elizabeth (HM the Queen Mother) of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada etc. etc.Executeur (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If I read correctly, his empress consort. First Josephine, then Marie Louise.
You are reasoning as if France could have been governed by a single person. That might have been possible during ancien régime with its many remnants of a highly decentralised feudal system. Napoléon had an very low need for sleep and was probably not lazy. Yet I doubt he could have made all governmental decisions. Also, I know that the Napoleonic Code was written by a group of intellectuals of which he was the leader. I think the Bonaparte regime consisted of a small group of people of which Napoléon was the most important. All decision he could not made the others did for him. When he was away on campaigns he probably did what he could to control the French government and what he could not do the other members had his permission to do. However, this is only an educated guess. Anyone who really know?
2007-07-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I have learned that Napoléon was extremely diligent. Yet I don’t think all necessary governmental decisions could have been made by a single person. Anyone who know what other persons the Bonaparte regime consisted of?
2008-01-19 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
From my reading it was ruled by a council of minister whose member had various areas of authority. In the middle years it was dominated by Fouche. It was he, for instance, who authorized the home gaurd to be called up in 1808 to repell the english landing in holland (napolean was off warring in austria that time).Cool10191 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
2008-06-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I think there were between 8-15 at different times in his inner circle. One of them usually acted something like a Prime Minister. The Empress ruled in name while bonapart was gone, but real power lied with the ministers who made the decisions. Talleyrand and Fouche were the dominant figures in the middle years and most of his reign. But there were others. Charles Edward18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
2008-09-28 I know at different times that his brother Jospeh also did some of the work while he was away, which I know for a fact was the case during the 100 days campaign at Waterloo.
2008-11-2 Steve Smith, Jacksonville Florida
" Some of the information that is above my post is wrong. Napoleon was very diligent, and often worked 18 hour days. I actually know that it was his habit to go to bed at like 8 O clock at night and then wake up at like 12 at night and spend the rest of the night working. He also might take cat naps during the course of the day. Napoleon founded the first modern "Think tank" when he created the French State Council. The State council consisted of 50 people, but I am unsure as to how many of them contributed to the actually governing of the nation on a day to day basis. Napoleon was very involved in governing the nation, even while on Campaign. He increased the efficiency of the communication system of France, and specifically the army dramatically. Through a series of fire tower signals I know that a message could make its way from Venice to France in as little as 9 minutes. Later on, while he was in Russia for example, he had a primitive Telegraph that involved tubes, that helped in in governing the grand army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmith35024 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Quote from The Book of Lists (1977, "10 Ghastly Ghosts", p. 272-275):
THE VERMILION PHANTOM: The ghost has appeared at various critical junctures in the history of France. A tall well-built figure, wrapped in a red cape, with a beard also of a red hue, he appeared to Henry IV on May 13, 1610, in the king's bechamber, and predicted, "Tomorrow you will die". Henry sent for his counselors immediately, and discussed with them the manifestation and the message. Within 12 hours the king was assassinated by Francois Ravaillac, a Catholic visionary who believed that Henry's conversion to Catholicism was politically motivated. The vermilion phantom appeared four times to Napoleon Bonaparte. On the third occasion, in January 1814, Count Mole-Nieuval was a witness to the tall red apparition. Dr. Antomarchi [sic] saw the figure at Napoleon's bedside on May 5, 1821 - the fourth visitation - on the day of Napoleon's death.
The author of this section of the book was Philip Cunliffe-Jones. The web produces no corroboration of this story, or maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. Is there any truth to it whatsoever? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
i think he looked skary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a sceptic I feel a need to protest against such assertations. For the event of Napoléon's death whe have at least five eywittness accounts. The five eywittnesses where Francesco Antommarchi, Archibald Arnott, Henri Gratien Bertrand, Louis Joseph Marchand and Charles Tristan de Montholon. Charles' testimony differs radically from those of the others and he is now considered a frequent liar. If an unknown man with a reddish beard had turned up at Napoléon's deathbed at least one of the others would had noticed it. Please note that beards had been unfashionable for about a century and would remain so for about a decade. To me the story seems to be a fiction by someone who don't know much about Napoléon's death.
2008-11-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Napoleon's Death
I have read that twentieth century analysis of Napoleon's hair demonstrated conclusively that Signore Buonaparte died of arsenic poisoning, presumably administered by his British jailers on the South Atlantic island of Saint Helena where he was being held since his second and last surrender. Dick Kimball (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have written a summary of the current state of knowledge on Napoléon’s death. It is written in Swedish but I will post an English translation as soon as I have made one. Right now I only want to assure you that the sentries could not had poisoned him since they did not handle his food and drink. At the very least they did not handle food and drink specifically aimed for him. This was done by his French-spoken followers. As such the murderer must have been one of them.
2008-07-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
This is the whole text, except for a note on who translated a quote from French to Swedish. I have just divided it into three parts. The first one goes through the evidence and debunks counter-arguments. The second one describes chronologically what happened. The third deals with the question of responsibility. It is almost too long but the purpose of the original Swedish text had two purposes. One was to explain what Napoléon died from. The other was to debunk some misconceptions on Napoléon's time on Saint Helena. I have tried to came as close as possible to what I wanted to say without violating the rules for correct English. For safety's sake it has been proof-read by the Swedish sceptic Peter Olausson.
“Napoléon was poisoned to death. There are four evidences for this. The first is his symptoms during the five years he was ill. The least interrupted description comes from Louis Joseph Marchand. As the leading of the three valets he saw Napoléon almost every day. In his diary Louis wrote down what he witnessed on Saint Helena. It was amongst other things how the ex-emperor felt and which symptoms he had. His observations are confirmed by the testimony from Napoléon's good friend Henri Gratien Bertrand. Henri held a formal office but had no real tasks. One could well say that he got paid for keeping Napoléon company. In addition there are case records from the four physicians which examined Napoléon: Barry O'Meara, John Stokoe, Francesco Antommarchi and Archibald Arnott. The person they describe is NOT a cancer patient. Instead they describe a person who repeatedly have been poisoned by certain substances.
The second evidence is the state of the inner organs at the autopsy. Francesco was the most qualified person who was present. He found no tumour much less the metastases which would have been required to kill him. The assertion that he would have done so is based on a mistranslation. On the contrary his description of the inner organs matches exactly the poisoning that will be explained later. However, Francesco did not know this: he thought that Napoléon had died from hepatitis. The necessary knowledge simply did not exist yet.
The third evidence is the fact that the dead Napoléon did not decompose normally. Despite that he had not been intentionally mummified the body had barely decomposed at all in 19 years! It has been pointed out that a carcass can be preserved under certain circumstances. But those circumstances mean constant cold alternatively a very dry climate. No-one of the circumstances reined on the site where Napoléon was buried. The body was never in contact with the earth so chemical interaction with it is eliminated. The innermost coffin was airtight and of metal. If it had been heated up over a bonfire it would had stopped the decomposition. (The tin was invented so they knew that it worked but not how.) However, this could not have happened without people noticing. Furthermore, the dead man would have smelled like baked meat when the coffin was opened.
The forth evidence is the chemical analyses which have been made on hair samples from Napoléon. They have only tested samples which authenticity has been certified by those persons which originally got them from him. (It is thus not enough with hearsay.) On of them even wrote that he had taken the hair himself from the dead Napoléon's body! All the tested hair samples have the same colour and texture. It makes it likely that they came from the same person. Hair samples taken at different occasions have different arsenic contents. But it is always considerably higher than what is normal. It has been suggested that the arsenic is a contamination as a consequence of the hair being treated with arsenic preparations. It is impossible since the content is precisely as high in the in the middle of the hairs. Furthermore, the hairs taken after his death contained two other poisons too. The last 16 millimetres contained antimony and the last millimetre mercury as well. The measurements have been made by several scientists at different laboratories. Several different methods have been used. Please note that hairs do not suck up things faster than they grow. It makes it on the other hand possible to calculate exactly when the poisoning occurred.
Four of the measurements deviate from the pattern. All the four deviating results have been done with the same measurement equipment. Despite that he hair samples had been taken at different occasions they show the same arsenic content. It was in turn two and a half times as high as the highest of the other measurements. This ought to say something about how insensitive the measurement equipment is. People which claim that those measurements are reliable also assert that it was normal at the time. It is true that it is possible to get used to arsenic. But that it should hold for a whole population of 26 million is patently absurd. Some claim that people used to utilise arsenic to wash wine barrels and wine bottles. Why would they had utilised a well-known poison for that? Furthermore, Napoléon was moderate drinker. There were thus many people which drunk more wine than him. Others assert that Napoléon fell victim to his own arsenic abuse. Arsenic can really be abused. However, no contemporary testimonies suggest that he had such an addiction. The only thing he was addicted to was snuff. On the other hand it was the only unhealthy habit that we know he had.
That Napoléon died from cancer was first suggested by Charles Tristan de Montholon. It has turned out that he often lied. On Saint Helena he lied so much that he got the nickname ‘il bugiardo’ (‘the liar’ in Italian). Several times he asserted things that are against modern medical knowledge. Sometimes he even contradicted himself! It has been claimed that metastases from Napoléon are preserved at Royal College of Surgeons' museum. On the can with alcohol is a label saying that it is a gift from Barry O'Meara. Unfortunately the tissues in the can are lymphatic glands not metastases. There is not even any sensible reason to think that they come from Napoléon. Barry was not present at the autopsy since he had left the island three years earlier. If he had ever operated Napoléon we would have known it. That Napoléon's pants shrunk steadily in size has been taken as evidence that he had died from cancer. On that toxicologist Pascal Kintz – who did some of the chemical analyses – answered:
‘You don't decide that someone is suffering from cancer by measuring the size of his trousers.’
Napoléon did really lost much in weight before he died. But this was due to severe lack of appetite not due to cancer. Please note that stomach cancer is not hereditary. It was just supposed to be hereditary by people which had pre-scientific ideas of heredity. Many other diseases have been suggested as causes of Napoléon's death. In most cases they are based on certain symptoms not all or even most! Some are even based on symptoms which Charles has made up!
High arsenic contents have also been found in hair that was taken from Napoléon before 1816. Some claim that this must mean that he was not poisoned to death. They have not understood that it was a matter of sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. ‘Sub-lethal’ means potentially lethal but not necessary so. The poisoned may thus survive and recover eventually. It was what happened to Napoléon in 1805, 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815. When he arrived to Saint Helena he had completely recovered from the last of them. People which recover from sub-lethal poisoning shows symptoms of chronic arsenic poisoning. Persons which missed the sub-lethal attacks have suggested alternative arsenic sources. Amongst other things one has suspected the wallpaper in Napoléon's bedroom and living-room. The wallpapers where coloured with Scheele's green. The walls where so damp that they grew mouldy and emitted vapour forms of arsenic. The problem is that the suspicious wallpapers where put up three years AFTER Napoléon fell ill. Furthermore, statistics points against a source in the environment. All in all twelve people where poisoned: six adult men, four adult women, a teenage boy and a little girl. Environmental poisoning affects children at first hand. There where at least three more children in the same house but they did not fell ill. On the other hand two of the affected women did not even live on the same address! Not counting Napoléon three persons died. It was his best friend Franceschi Cipriani, one of the women, ant the little girl. However, in Napoléon's case arsenic was not the ultimate poison as we will see.”
“When Napoléon delivered himself up to the Britons a few friends and servants voluntary followed him. Furthermore an old enemy turned up unexpected. It was Charles who offered to follow him anywhere. We don’t know why Napoléon accepted him. It may have been because he was so eager to follow him. It may also have been the prospect of having sex with his rather lose wife Albine Hélène. Yes, he did have sex with her! In June 1816 she had a daughter who was christenedHélène de Montholon. We still don’t know who her dad was.
Napoléon's employees and friends treated him as a ruling monarch as long as he lived. Britons which meet him personally spooked to him as a foreign monarch unless he had said that they did not need to. Officially he was called general Bonaparte at the beginning even lieutenant-general Bonaparte! For a start the party was kept on board a ship that was anchored outside England's coast. For security reasons Napoléon was not allowed to get ashore. During the time the British government discussed what they would do with him. General Arthur Wellesley (more famous as the duke of Wellington) recommended Saint Helen. It was easy to guard and had a pleasant climate. Arthur had visited the island himself when he was on the way home from India. That was the way it of cause got too. The party was transferred to an other ship with destination Saint Helena. 69 days later they where there. It was in October 1815. The Britons tried to make it as comfortable for Napoléon as possible. As long as it did not prevent them from guarding him, of cause. They tried to protect him at least as much as preventing attempted escape. The island was easily made escape-proof. The coasts consist of high, steep rocks. The British government kept track of everyone who went ashore or left the harbour. It was only one more place where it was considered possible to get down to the shore. Every ship who approached the place would be stopped by the British navy.
Napoléon would got to live in a mansion named Longwood House. But it had to be renovated and extended first. It took about two months. During the time Napoléon lived in a pavilion that was situated in the garden of a rich family's house. There he lived with five male followers. He liked to ride and work in Longwood House' garden. When his legs become too weak to allow riding he instead used to ride in his carriage. Indoors he could read, dictate, play billiards, chess and card games with Henri. Napoléon preferred outdoor activities. Had he decided to keep indoors he easily become bored.
The first quarter of 1816 Napoléon felt ill for a couple of days in the middle of each month. The followers noticed a general degeneration of his health even if he did not say anything. About the turn of the month April/May he fell ill again. He had been stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. Before he had recovered completely he was stricken one more time. So it continued year after year. No contemporary physician could tell what Napoléon suffered from. Therefore the repeated sub-lethal poisonings could continue for years. It took until the 1950ies until someone found out what Napoléon had suffered from. It become possible through the publication of Louis' diaries.
A little more than six weeks before Napoléon died the arsenic was partly replaced with antimony. Two days later Charles offered to nurse him during the nights. It was normally Jean Abram Noverraz' job. But he had suddenly fallen ill. The antimony resulted in violent vomiting. Eventually his stomach was so overworked that he stopped to vomit. Francesco and Archibald begun to worry about if he would survive. Charles wrongfully asserted that a certain mercury salt (calomel) once had saved Napoléon's life. Archibald agreed to give it a chance but not Francesco. Two other physicians where called in so that they could discuss the issue. All except Francesco let themselves to be subdued. Napoléon was given an enormous dose of the mercury salt. Earlier the same day he had been fooled to swallow a drink that was seasoned with bitter almonds. Potassium cyanide from the bitter almonds reacted with the acidity of the stomach and with the mercury salt. The result was other mercury salts, mercuric cyanide and free mercury. As a consequence of the poisoning Napoléon now laid helpless in his bed. Within 36 hours after he had swallowed the medicine he had lost his consciousness. After a little more than 48 hours he was dead. It was in the evening the 5th of May 1821. The following day an autopsy was performed on the dead man. Francesco had company of seven British physicians but it was he who held the scalpel. After the autopsy hair and beard-stubble was shaved off. A cast was made of the front half of the head together with parts of the neck and some of the chest. The dead man was washed and dressed. Eventually the body was laid in a coffin out of tin. The tin coffin was soldered close and placed in one of wood. It was placed in its turn in one of lead which was also soldered close. The lead coffin was placed in one more of wood. Napoléon was buried there on Saint Helena in a place that is called Sane Valley. There the Britons had built a gave vault out of stone. When Napoléon was dead and buried the followers could return to Europe.
In 1840 king Louis Philippe decided that Napoléon's coffin should be brought to France. A French ship was sent to Saint Helena. Several people which had known Napoléon where present when the grave was opened. When the innermost coffin was cut open they got the surprise of their lives. The dead man was almost intact! Everyone who remembered how Napoléon had looked recognised the dead man. The body's high arsenic content – combined with the two airtight coffins – had stopped almost all decomposition. The three innermost coffins where kept. They where placed in an additional one out of lead then in two more out of wood. (All wooden coffins where made of different woods.) Finally it was laid in a sarcophagus out of red porphyry in the Invalides in Paris. There he lies buried to this day.”
“There where two persons which could had poisoned Napoléon. One was Charles who was in charge of the wine cellar. The other was the valet Étienne Saint-Dennis. He was nicknamed Ali. No-one of the two had any good alibi. There are no real evidence against any of them but the indications against Charles are considerably more. Several times he said to people that a new attack was to be expected. Then he was usually right. Furthermore, he knew several months in advance which symptoms Napoléon would get. He wrote it in letters to his wife which he sent after she had left the island. In present tense he described things that had yet not occurred! 25 years later he wrote a book about his experiences on Saint Helena. His description differs radically from the other persons'. Certain parts are so artificial that they only add to the suspicions against him. Nothing suggests that Ali knew in advance what would happen to Napoléon. He did not come with any obviously exorbitant assertions either. Something Charles did several times in his book. Ali is also less likely for an other reason. Imagine that someone has poisoned an other man to death 19 years ago. He gets an invitation to be present when the victim's grave is opened. The victim will be shown to him an several others. Would he then accept? Ali was present on Saint Helena when Napoléon's grave was opened. Charles was the only invited one who was not present despite he would have been able.
Many others have been suspected for poisoning Napoléon. Here is a list of them:
§ Hudson Lowe was governor of Saint Helena. He had nothing to do with what Napoléon ate and drunk. He has been unfairly blamed for something that he could neither had done nor prevented.
§ Henri and his family where the only followers which did not live in Longwood House. (They lived in a house nearby.) It was only the last six weeks that he at all handled Napoléon's food and drink. He then helped to nurse Napoléon who had become so weak that he needed help 24 hours a day. It was always in daytime except for the last but one night. Until then Napoléon was worst in the nights when Charles nursed him.
§ Louis seem to have been the person who most nursed Napoléon. The problem with him is that he was one of the six adult men which had been stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. An assassin who poisons himself is too clumsy to avoid detection!
§ Abram has an excellent alibi. To the day six weeks before Napoléon died he was stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. He barely recovered in time to bid farewell to his dying ruler. By then Napoléon already laid unconscious.
§ Jean Baptiste Pierron was Longwood House' cook. He did not know which portion would be served to who. Consequentially he could not poison Napoléon without poisoning everyone who ate with him. People which ate with Napoléon rarely fell ill. On the contrary everyone had their own whine bottle which makes the one who was in charge of the wine cellar more suspicious. Sure, Jean served the desserts. But several times Napoléon become worse without eating any dessert.
§ The four physicians mentioned in the first paragraph have been accused for causing Napoléon's death. The problem is that Napoléon was ill even when no-one of them where there. Furthermore, he was sceptic to physicians. It was easy to count the times he swallowed any medicine at all.
Napoléon may have called Charles ‘the most faithful of the faithful’. However, he just become fooled by an unusually ingratiating hypocrite. It was how Charles got Napoléon's trust: though his constant ingratiation. Furthermore, Napoléon lived in the illusion that loyalty could be bought. It is hard to think that Charles could had nursed Napoléon – helped him with things he in fact needed help with – without feeling some kind of sympathy. He might had thought something like ‘I have to kill him but I can't let him suffer more than necessary’.
It is entirely possible that Charles acted on his own. In that case he was solely responsible for Napoléon's death. There is no evidence for any conspiracy. If Napoléon fell victim to any such there where two possible assignors. One was Charles' close friend and France' crown princeCharles Philippe de Capet. The crown prince was a well-known intriguer who advocated political assassinations. The other was Charles' adoptive dad Charles Louis de Sémonville. We know that Charles visited him shortly before he joined Napoléon. It is also possible that both where involved. The adoptive dad would then had conveyed a commission which he had got from the crown prince. Was there an assignor Charles would not have had any choice. Had he refused he would have been killed so that he could not reveal anything. Someone else had followed Napoléon with secret commission to poison him.”
I am not an expert, just an ordinary sceptic fascinated by Napoléon. But I DO have written sources to all my claims. Questioners will be answered to the best of my ability.
This is generally good, although a copyedit is always useful. No GA-blocker issues though.
1.2 Manual of Style
I've made a few tweaks here and there:
Check that all French words are spelt correctly (mainly those with accents eg Vendemiaire → Vendémiaire)
Dashes that break up a sentence should normally be an unspaced emdash (see WP:MOSDASH), although spaced endashes are also ok. I've changed the hyphens to the former, so if you prefer the latter feel free to alter them ;)
Although mid-sentence inline citations are not forbidden, personally I think they break up the flow of a sentence unnecessarily. Many of these could be moved to the end of the sentence (the order of the cites then reflects the order of the assertions being cited in the sentence). However, this is a stylistic issue and not a GA-blocker, so it's your call.
The article is overlinked in places (only link a word if it adds to the understanding of the topic, and then only only the first instance). I took out duplicate wikilinks where I noticed them, but I'm sure I missed loads so it could do with checking through.
Since the article largely followed British English spelling, I've changed those Am-E spellings I noticed to match. I have no preference, but spelling style should be consistent.
I've tagged one or two sentences that need explicit citations.
"In the latter half of the twentieth century, several people claimed other causes for his death..." To justify 'several', I think this needs further citation.
The quotation given in the paragraph that begins "Critics of Napoleon argue his true legacy..." (in Autocracy) is a little confusing. I've tweaked the quote marks to what I think is correct, but if it's all quoted from one source it might be best as a blockqote, and I think for such a long quotation we ought to be told in the article who is being quoted.
I thoroughly disagree with the above comment. Napoleon is presented in this article as "personally anti-semitic", in flagrant contradiction with the content of the article on him, and the article "Napoleon and the Jews", in which we learn that he was centuries ahead of his time in treating Jews as first class citizens throughout Europe (and incurring the hostility of just about every major power for doing so). His(supposed) anti-semitism, as referred to in the article, is ridiculous: when you read about his liberating and assimilating the Jews and follow the link to the article on anti-semitism (with an obvious section on the Nazi regime and the Night of Cristal), it's difficult to see what basis (and I should add that no reference is cited to justify the claim that he was "personally antisemitic") there is for saying that he wasn't a philosemite. For the sake of encyclopedic neutrality, it would be normal to cite an author who made such a claim, but there are many more (including Jewish authors and statesmen) who consider Napoleon as their liberator. I therefore propose that the phrase "Napoleon was personally anti-semitic" be removed, or modified to reflect the fact that it is an opinion, and not an established fact. Executeur (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a reference cited to justify the claim (Mclynn 436), why can't you see it? Please don't delete sources. Do you have reliable source to back-up your argument? He did a lot of good for the jews but we need to have a balanced article not a totally pro or negative one, Tom B (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said there are many sources who would take exception to the allegation that he was anti-semitic. Ben Weider quotes a statement he made in reply to anti-semitic opponents of his policy of assimilation within France "This is not the way to solve the Jewish question. I will never accept any proposaIs that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France, because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country. It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them." You can find it on the link to his article on the subject.
McLynn's argument is based on the premise that forbidding usury was an attack against the Jews, rather than against usurers (not all of whom were Jewish), which misses the point that Napoleon's policy was an assimilationist one: the Jews were to be equal citizens and preserve their religion, but they were accordingly ruled by the same laws as other citizens and their religion was organised by the Sanhedrin. If you compare the article "Napoléon et les Juifs" with "Napoleon and the Jews", you'll find that there's a different slant depending on whether it's the French article ("assimilation = good") or the English one "assimilation = ambiguous". It's a cultural impass. In the article "Napoleon and the Jews", the allegation of antisemitism is left in, but balanced against Napoleon's own quoted opinions on the subject. And as I said above, in his day anti-semitism was socially acceptable, so I think we can consider that he was going against accepted opinion, given that he was seen as so favourable to the Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church labelled him the "Anti Christ and Enemy of God"(Vincent Cronin, Napoleon, HarperCollins 1994, p315)... titles normally reserved for the Devil!Executeur (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Goya 2nd May image duplicate of version on commons; replace. Others look good (note layout in places)
thanks, have now requested speedy deletion of image and changed link in article straight to a cleaned version of the picture on commons which does not have a duplicate. Have also removed one of the villa pictures as image heavy in that area, Tom (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"Napoleon seated on the Imperial throne" - this could do with a more informative caption (painted by... etc). Same for some of the other images.
I have placed the article on hold to allow the above concerns to be addressed. This will last for approximately one week, although can be extended if constructive editing is still taking place. I'll check back here regularly, and please get in touch if you have any questions. Regards, EyeSerenetalk09:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks, particularly for being so specific and doing those changes. i've made all the major changes. On english spelling, I had already thought I'd put everything into British but it looks like 'maneouvre' got through. On foreign spelling, I think everything is spelt right, it's just about diacritics. There is a discussion at wp:mos which on the face of it seems neutral, though as the title is Napoleon rather than Napoléon I thought the most simple and consistent way forward was to simply remove all diacritics. Tom (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - looking good so far. Re the diacritics, I don't intend to get hung up on it ;) However, with previous articles I've worked on, the convention has always been to include them (eg Battle of Verrières Ridge). IIRC the MoS recommends using the most common English term for the article title though, so there's some inconsistency in the system. EyeSerenetalk07:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. On diacritics, there was probably consensus established regarding the title Battle of Verrières Ridge. There was a discussion regarding the article title Talk:Napoleon_I_of_France/Archive_1#His_name and I've implemented consistency from that. I also saw scope for inconsistency in the wp:Mos but in this case there is probably at least one type of consistency: Battle of Verrières Ridge may normally be known by English speakers with the diacritic whilst Napoleon is nearly always spelt by English speakers without the diacritic. Tom (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
GA pass
Thank you for the improvements you have made to this article. I now have no hesitation in passing it as a Good article, and have listed it as such as WP:GA. For further improvement in the future, the "Notes and references" section could be divided into separate Footnotes and References, and a parenthetical referencing system might be useful in trimming the list a bit.
Napoleon had four physicians during the span of his last years. The first two were mad men, eventually kicked out his so called "Emperor's palace". The next 2 gave him poison, that at the time were things that healed you. But really they made him even sicker and dipose of his guts thru his intestinal track. Some recall him slithering and moping on the ground as if he were a snake.He locked himself inside his bedroom and refused to eat or drink for 2 days when news spread Josephine had died. His last words were "France, the army, my son, Josephine". And then,..the immortal never forgotten emperor .....died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.49.134 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You are mixing up a great deal here. First, I see no reason to think that Barry O'Meara or John Stokoe where mad. Secondly, Napoléon rarely swallowed any medicine at all. Third, Josephine died in 1814: a year befor Napoléon artrived to Saint Helena. Forth, the famous last words where made up by Charles Tristan de Montholon who has turn out to be a frequent liar. I will post a longer description of his exile, illness and death under the subtile ”Napoleon's Death” as soon as it has been proof-reed by my fellow Swedish sceptic Peter Olausson.
2008-10-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I should express myself more clearly. How many factual errors can you fit into just seven sentences? These are the errors I can find:
1. I see no reason to think that Barry Edward O'Meara was mad. The same is true for John Stokoe.
2. Barry Edward O'Meara was sent away because the governor thought he was the poisoner. If that had been true Napoléon would have recovered compleatly after Barry left. This never occurred. Instead he remained more or less ill until he died. John Stokoe was sent away because he had taken a bribe from Napoléon to send a special letter to his wife Marie-Louise.
3. Longwood House is not a palace, it is a jerry-built mason.
4. Francesco Antommarchi did not make Napoléon worse. In fact, Napoléon was less ill in mid-1820 than a year before when he had no physician. If had been Archibald Arnott who had made him worse his disease would have changed character after they first met. Napoléon’s disease did change character but this happened a week before Archibald examined him for the first time. Anyway, Napoléon was sceptic to physicians and rarely swallowed any medicine at all.
5. The formulation “dipose of his guts thru his intestinal track” is meaningless to me. Please look up the words “gut” and “intestinal tract”.
6. Joséphine de Beauharnais died in May 1814. Napoléon was told about her death when he ruled on Elba. I can well understand that he become severely depressed. However, claiming that he neither ate nor drunk for two days seams like an exaggeration to me.
7. Your claimed last words are a corruption of the famous last words made up by Charles Tristan de Montholon. I am not sure about his real last words but they might well have been “Give me my chamber-pot”. (This was probably just a standard phase since what he really needed was help to relieve himself.) I know he said so several times – and barely anything else – the day before he died. By the evening he was no longer able to speak. By four a clock the next morning he had lost his consciousness. 14 hours later he was dead.
If you have not already done so please read my inlays under the subtitle ”Napoleon's Death”. I know it is much but it would be very enlightening for you.
Tpbradbury: Do you mean that accents, cédille & others are forbidden in en:Wikipedia? It hurts my eyes terribly to see Champs Elysees and Republique francaise. In my opinion as a professional book editor working with six languages, even in a text in English, these are mistakes because one should either anglicise the word or, if kept in its language of origin, respect the original spelling.
In N's article: 3rd line of *Origins & education*, one can read "though he later adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte". Well, if *he*, that is N, adopted the more French-sounding Napoleon Bonaparte, it stands to reason that *he* also adopted the accent on Napoléon.
Furthermore, does it make any sense to give a quote in French & remove all the accents? This is note n° 6 of N's article, which I had corrected, but that was immediately reverted:
Letter published in (1870) in Henri Plon: Correspondance Napoleon. Dumaine, p.420. ASIN B0013Z9HGO.
^ Article 1.- Le Peuple français nomme, et le Senat proclame Napoleon Bonaparte Premier consul à vie. Translation: The French people name, and the Senate proclaims Napoleon Bonaparte First Consul for life
Together with the French words without accents, whoever first wrote the article did not give the correct title for Henri Plon's publication of N's letters in 1870. The title is not "Correspondance Napoleon" but "Correspondance de Napoléon Ier".
Omitting an accent in French can change the meaning of the sentence as the accent on a verb indicates past participle tense. For instance: "Le chasseur tue pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter kills during the hunt) vs "Le chasseur tué pendant la chasse..." (= The hunter killed during the hunt). If the accent is omitted when the sentence is inserted in a text in English, then the reader will not know whether the hunter killed or was killed.
All this being said, and as your corrections came while I was in the middle of my own, I am stopping doing any editing on this article. It irks me to see the numerous historical inexactitudes with which en:wikipedia is filled, and have some silly rules keep serious editors from participating in the real *meat of the subject*, while vandals are allowed to flourish. Frania W. (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, why is there such a choice in the insert box listing "latin" if we can not use such symbols as Á á É é Ê ê ë ú Œ œ ? Ridiculous!
Bonsoir Frania,
The title of the article is Napoleon I of France (no accent). If you read above, when taken through the GA review it was pointed-out by the reviewer that the article was inconsistent in its use of diacritics so in order to make it consistent I took the diacritics out to be consistent with the title and the reviewer agreed. It seems difficult to justify not putting diacritics in the title and then suddenly putting them in the article. I think Napoleon is unsual because it's a name English speakers anglicise by not putting the accent in but they keep accents for other words such as in Coup d'état hence why many articles have diacritics. I think it might be possible to include some of the diacritics you inputted without being inconsistent. Thanks for pointing out some errors and please note any historical inexactitudes. I see you've written this on the talk page? it makes more sense just to write notes to me on my talk page. Tom B (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that when we are anglicizing, as in the title of the article, it is entirely proper to remove diacritics. However, when directly quoting French text (including names), it makes more sense to present it as it would be presented in the original language, including diacritics. That is not "inconsistent," it is just a little more sophisticated than "diacritics are good" vs. "bad". --Russ(talk)20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Good evening, Tom & Russ:
(1) I have come to terms with Napoléon losing his accent in English, that's the way the Ameranglos write it, and I accept it. But it should not mean that there was a consensus between the English & the Americans to remove all diacritics from all French words in all Anglo texts.
(2) Please note that when I edited the article, except for the one "Napoléon Bonaparte" saying how Bonaparte himself chose to spell his name in French (which was my reason to put an accent on that Napoléon), I had not touched the other Napoleon of the text, thus respecting the Anglo-American entente cordiale on this point!
(3) In my opinion, the argument of inconsistency is being carried too far. If no accents are to be used, then let us not use foreign words & let's have every word anglicised. Instead of talking about Napoleon's *Grande Armée* camouflaged as Grande Armee, then let's write Napoleon's Great Army but please no Grande Armee. In other words, either French or English, but no amputated French terms.
(4) Should we want to carry this no diacritics policy throughout en:wikipedia, are we going to redirect articles such as those on André Le Nôtre, Madame de Sévigné, Marie-Thérèse de France, Champs Élysées to Andre Le Notre, Madame de Sevigne, Marie-Therese de France, Champs Elysees?
(5) As for not respecting French orthography in a quote in French, it makes no sense in an encyclopedic article. A letter is a letter. e is not é or è or ë or ê. And if you have ou (=or) and où (=where) what imbroglio would be created in skipping the accent on ù! The same with à (= at, to) and a (= has). And I shall not tell you what one would be writing if skipping the cedilla under the c of leçon!
Here's a vote (entirely) for your case, Frania! Just because the title uses a common American version of a name does not mean that the article itself should be ridiculously void of diacritics. Indeed, somewhere in the article, it should be mentioned that American usage drops the accent off Napoleon (we should all have such a hard time typing anything about him in our usual way) but an encyclopedia article should be properly written - it's supposed to be teaching people proper things, not making things "consistent." Consistency is...well, you all know the phrase. I understand the eager desire of one editor to make things "consistent," but it is not necessary and the diacritics should be there.Levalley (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC) LeValley
Napoleon's Wallpaper
Hello. I just wanted to point out the fact that Napoleon's wallpaper may have been his murderer. According to [[2]], if Napoleon's wallpaper was green during his time imprisoned in Saint Helena, the green dye on the wall might have been Scheele Green, a colouring pigment which was cheap and easy to make. When damp and moldy, Scheele Green would let off arsenic in vapour form, and considering the large amounts of time spent inside his room, Napoelon may very well have died from inhaled arsenic poisoning. A woman named Shirley Bradley had come forward with a piece of Napoleon's wallpaper which she had found in an old scrapbook, and when it was tested for arsenic, small quantities were found. It was, however, impossible to find out whether this really was Napoleon's wallpaper until the painting "Death of Napoleon" by Charles de Steuben was studied closely, and guess what? The wallpaper on the room is the same pattern as was seen on Shirley Bradley's little piece.
Just some food for thought...maybe this should be mentioned in the article?
- Hmm...just read over the article again and realize that there is a note which mentions it briefly...in my opinion it should be added into the "Cause of Death" section, since it is a theory on his death.
You are wrong about the painting. I have seen a copy of it in higher resolution and I can tell that the colour – but not pattern – is the same. The painting shows a geometric pattern while the preserved pice of wallpaper has flowers on it. The paitning was made a few years later by a man who was not there. He had access to the furniture and had the opportunity to meet those people on the painting which was still alive. The depiction of the dying man really resemblence his so the artist probably used his death mask as the model for him. About the wallpapers he may only had been told what colour they where. However, the preserved pice really was on the wall when Napoléon died. I belived the wallpaper hypotesis myself untill Ben Weider told me that they where put up three years after Napoléon fell ill. As such the mouldy wallpapers could not had made him ill in the first place. Please read my inlays under the subtitle ”Napoleon's Death”. If you want to continue the discussion I prefer to do it there.
2008-10-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Thanks very much for clearing that up, Lena. If you have a high-resolution copy of The Death of Napoleon, do you think you could send it to me at dj-its@hotmail.com? I've never been able to get my hands on one...
Harry54321987 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have searched a lot myself but the best I have found on the Web is this:
A sharper version in greyscale can be found in “Assassination at St. Helena” by Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider. If you really want I can scan it within a week and send it to you together with a list of who is who in the image. The list is currently written in Swedish. However, it should not be too hard to translate it into English. I personally prefer the older sketch since I consider it more realistic. It can be found on Wikimedia Commons:
The dying man lies strait down but with his head on high pillow(s). Henri Gratien Bertrand must have been very tiered since he had been kept awake for a day and a night, then slept for a day, then had kept awake for an other night and a day. He is sitting in a relaxed pose resulting from trying to subside compleatly into the chair while still wearing his bullet-proof west. In general, people behave the much way I would expect them to do. Louis Joseph Marchand (he with the large, dark sideburns) seem shocked and four other persons burst into cry. One of them is Jean Abram Noverraz (he who sits on the floor in the lower right corner). In the final painting he just bows his head, keeps his eyes closed and looks sad. I consider that a less likely reaction.
2008-12-30 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
At a second thought I remember that a high resolution colour version was printed in “Illustrerad Vetenskap” (Scandinavia’s largest popular scientific magazine) in 2001. I don’t have the issue myself and I don’t remember which issue it was. What I do have is a greyscale copy of the article in question. The picture of this painting is missing since it was intentionally covered when the article was copied. I then thought that it was much less realistic than really is the case. Those are the reasons I can remember:
¤ I thought the climate of Saint Helena was hotter than it is. The island is tropical but not so very hot. The surrounding seas are colder than you would expect from the latitude. In fact, without the global warming experienced since the 1980ies there would not be any tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic. Altitude also plays a roll as Saint Helena has a quite upland character and is highly hilly. So European summer clothes should not have been any problem.
¤ I thought Napoléon’s existence on Saint Helena was as poor as it could be without being in need. This impression was based on a drawing showing him in a manual worker’s clothes. Now I think he only dressed like that when he worked in the garden which he enjoyed. In reality he did what he could to preserve his old imperial habits. This included proper cloths for his followers. He got maintenance from the British government equivalent of the governor’s salary. He also had a great deal of ready money with him from start (think gold and silver coins with his own image). The Britons knew this as they had counted all his possessions when he delivered himself up to them.
¤ I though that the dying man in the painting did not look ill at all. Now I admit that he looks a little pale but not nearly as bad as I imagine (lean with a swollen belly, very pale and yellowish skin, sparse hair grown to almost twice its normal length, sparse facial hair not shaven for at least a week). Since he was unconscious for at least 14 hours before he died he would have looked compleatly relaxed including a slightly open mouth. In general, people look much better than they could credibly have done – like Hollywood stars in fact! For example, Charles Tristan de Montholon (the man holding a large envelope) is portrayed as handsome as Mel Gibson could look with the right make-up. I took Mel as an example because he happens to have the same shape of face as Charles. What I mean is that the exact distances between the features of the face are the same.
Anyway, it is from this printed version I got my ideas of how the wallpapers where depicted. If you want to know more about how and from what Napoléon died please read my inlays under the “Napoleon’s Death”.
I have a question to this October 2008 exchange: If the word genius is banned as a peacock word in Wikipedia, what word replaces it when one needs to describe a real genius? Because I can understand banning it in a sentence describing a three-year old getting a chair to reach the door of a cabinet in order to steal cookies (My 3-year old is a genius!), but I know of no other word to describe Galileo, the child Mozart, the great scientist Einstein, to name a few. Frania W. (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Errors in this article
This is, overall, a good short article on Napoleon I. I noticed two errors. First, in the overview, the author speaks of the Grande Armee as being "decimated" in Russia. In fact, it was almost annihilated - decimation, of course, means literally the loss of a tenth.
Second error: The Battle of Borodino did not result in the deaths of 44,000 Russians and 35,000 French. The total casualties on each side were approximately the numbers above (exact figures are unknown and unknowable), including the wounded and missing. Deaths would have totaled somewhere between one third and one half of the total casualties.
Speaking more generally, the author of the article relies far too much on McGlynn and Schom as references. McGlynn is a fine writer, but a professional biographer -- by no means an expert on Napoleon. Schom's book presents his own interpretation of the Corsican, not necessarily a dispassionate one. A broader use of source material would benefit this article.
Hi Jon, thanks for comments. A peer reviewer changed 'wrecked' to decimated, though to be honest I did note there might be a bit of confusion given the genesis of the word, I'll change back to 'wrecked'.
On Borodino, you're right they're obviously not exact figures, so i'll put 'approximately' and 'wounded and captured' in article and recheck with sources as well. I think the figures are 'knowable' in an epistemological sense but we can leave that to Rumsfeld!
On authorship, there normally isn't one 'author' to an article; it is true to say I've currently done more edits than anyone else. In terms of improving the article, I think the best way forward at the moment is to continue to identify major gaps or errors as you've done. Grateful if you can highlight major gaps in accurately representing the relevant body of published knowledge, Tom B (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it is a possible error or a misunderstood but i have read his teacher at Brionne, Jean-Louis Lombard said about Napoleon "This boy will go far" or in french "ce garçon ira loin" instead of "This boy would make an excellent sailor". In french, this expression "to go far" means he would have a good military career and not that he would travel as a sailor usually does.
Could someone make it clear ?
My references are:
- Defranceschi, Jean - La Jeunesse de Napoléon : les dessous de l’histoire, collection Lettrage, Paris, 2001.
- Garros, Louis & Tulard, Jean - Itinéraire de Napoléon au jour le jour (1769-1821), collection Bibliothèque napoléonienne, Paris, 2002.
According to pg 21 of McLynn's 'Napoleon' book from 1998, "In 1783 the Inspector-General M. de Keralio [wrote]...This boy would make an excellent sailor." I can add a ref if necessary. It may very well also be true that Lombard said he would go far. Tom B (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes in french to "go far" in this context has nothing to do with distance but rather with achievment. Hence it means: he will have a good career. My source? er... I'm a native french speaker. 8-)
There is mention of the use of the Napoleonic Code in many places, however, there is no mention of its use in Quebec, Canada. Could this be looked into by someone with the authority to edit such a page, and included in the Napoleon article if deemed appropriate? Dan O'Keefe (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"Quebec was originally Napoleonic but in functional terms is almost wholly Anglo American common law." [3]. I'll generalise the reference to it in the article as might be too much detail to list all the different places. You may also want to put in in the Napoleonic code article. Tom B (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"of the French" vs. "of France"
Shoudn't the article be titled "Napoleon I of the French", since that is how he titled himself? I realised he titled himself "of the French" rather than "of France" as a cheap populistic move, but since that was the official title, shouldn't we have it located there... - Victory's Spear (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible reason why Napoleon had his hand in his coat- Not original research
On the subject of Napoleon, I remember reading somewhere that Napoleon put his hand in his coat in that portrait because of a nasty skin condition inflicting him. It had something to do with an insecet parisite called "Scabies". I had my doubts, but I looked up the article, and it resembled exactly what I read. I can't recall exactly what I read however, but I know Napoleon did this because of a nasty skin disease. Unfortunately, I am unable to cite it, and thus it can not be included. Does anyone else know of this? I honestly recall reading it... it was just a long time ago.
By the way, I actually read that the entire short Napoleon stereotype is false: a book said Napoleon was actually an inch or so taller than an average French-man.
He didn't help start it and the article doesn't say that. He consolidated the german and italian states helping to facilitate their later nationalist movements. Also, a by-product of most of Napoleon's work was an attempt to further the power of his nation state, France. Tom B (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
In the article it says that Napoleon's fair treatment of the Jews made him unpopular amongst the orthodox Russians :
he was seen as so favourable to the Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church labelled him the "Anti Christ and Enemy of God"
Maybe this was part of the reason the orthodox church resented Napoleon, but I think it was more to do with the atheism of the French Revolution from which Napoleon made his name. Didn't he kill a few Bishops who disagreed with his decisions? I'm not sure, it just seems a bit unfair to suggest the Russians only distrusted him because he didn't persecute Jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.247.72 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, p256 of Bell's the first total war [4] says, "the Russian Orthodox Church formally condemned Napoleon as a false messiah who had conspired with Jews against the Christian faith". Tom B (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am saying that is one of the reasons, but it was not the only one, the Atheism of New France was one of the Orthodox Church's main concerns, saying it was just the anti-semitism is A) being too simplistic and B) portraying the Russians as 2 dimensional villains.
p121 of Geoffrey Hosking's Russia People and Empire it says of Paul the first:
'He Accepted the office of Grand Master of the Knights of Malta after the Knights's home island had fallen to Napoleon, and used the image to cultivate his image as a doughty defender of Christianity against the aggresive atheism of the French Revolution.'--81.157.247.72 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi 81, your source doesn't contradict the point. it doesn't portray the russians as 2 dimensional villains, it quotes a source to describe what the russian orthodox church actually said. do you know which bishops he killed? Tom B (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of the "atheism of the French Revolution," let's note that this was really only the policy of the First Republic during the Terror; afterward, the government began to permit religious worship again (though under some limitations) before Napoleon restored ties with the Church in 1801. Funnyhat (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Creation of a Hospital on Mount Carmel?
Why is there no mention of Napoleon creating a hospital on the site of the Carmelite monastery at Mount Carmel?
From Mount Carmel entry:
"in 1799 the building was finally converted into a hospital, by Napoleon,"
It's an interesting point to addend to this:
"In early 1799, he (Napoleon) moved the army into the Ottoman province of Damascus (Syria and Galilee)."
--Anarchoost (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The passage linking napolean with the term "bogeyman" is uncited and contradicts the bogeyman page that it links to. The statement in its current form is unsubtantiated and unlikely. I suggest removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmtlewy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the earlier discussion wasn't complete enough, as my edit was undone when I started changing the names; however, it also seems clear that the current way the article uses both Bonaparte and Napoleon throughout the text without discretion is unacceptable: eg. one sentence refers to him as Napoleon, and then the next uses Bonaparte. This may initially have been done as a way to make sure both terms were used, but it reads poorly and appears scattered and without reason.
The idea suggested above was to use Bonaparte in the article up until his election to First Consul, and Napoleon after that point, in similarity with contemporary French usage. IMO this is best. What do you all think? The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
i commented back in name in section but it doesn't matter. the historical turning point is actually when he was named first consul for life, as when he was named first consul he was referred to by his surname along with the other consuls. as i said above it doesn't matter to me that it switches, his biographers do this and I prefer variety to total systematisation! :-) i think it would be odd to refer to a child with siblings by their surname. i hadn't reread Fran's point about intellectual challenge before making my last entry above. one way would be to refer to him as napoleon up until early career and then refer to him as Bonaparte until he was appointed first consul for life. i have to go pack up for the day imminently. Tom B (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Leprechaun & Tom: Napoléon being his first name, it has to be used within family circle to differentiate him from his brothers Jérôme, Louis & Lucien. Outside of family circle and up to his coronation - coup d'état du 18 Brumaire & Consulat included - he is Bonaparte. Only when he becomes emperor in December 1804 does Bonaparte turn into Napoléon.
I have begun re-reading the article hoping to change a few B vs N instances... it's a long article!
Tom, what are you packing up for? Washington D.C.?
You're right about using Napoléon when speaking of his family; I overlooked that. (I wish we could use that accent aïgu too, but let's not open that can of worms yet...) Tom's idea of using Napoleon up to "early career" is interesting, but I think it could backfire: we already use Napoleon in the introduction, and extending that through his early life could make a switch to Bonaparte confusing to some... but it's well worth considering.
When to switch to Napoleon: Tom says the term was changed after he became Consul, and Fran says only after he crowned himself Emperor. This needs to be sourced. Fran's seems more likely to me, because formal first-name reference is usually limited to royalty. A period French newspaper would come in handy (good luck finding one). Sadly my knowledge of Napoleon is pretty blank on this, so all I can say is get a source!
Leprechaun & Tom: Just went thru a edit conflict with Tom but put in my own changes a few minutes later. Hope I did not destroy Tom's work. If you could let me work on this another couple of hours, maybe you could check what I did afterwards. In the meantime, we would not edit conflict.
Also, to answer Leprechaun's request for *a period French newspaper*, here is one found in the article itself, and written, guess by whom??? Bonaparte himself:
During the campaign, Bonaparte became increasingly influential in French politics. He published two newspapers, ostensibly for the troops in his army, but widely circulated in France as well. In May 1797, he founded a third newspaper, published in Paris, Le Journal de Bonaparte et des hommes vertueux.<ref>Hanley 2005, Chapter 3: For Morale or Propaganda? The Newspapers of Bonaparte</ref>
Two hours later:
Stopped revision at War of the Third Coalition. Waiting for your verdict. Several references in article itself show the use of the surname Bonaparte instead of first name Napoleon. In France, it is common to refer to a man by his last name, so there is nothing strange having Napoléon Bonaparte referred to as Bonaparte. Napoléon was used only when he became emperor. I believe it is much the same in English. For instance, when you talk about a general, you call him general + (first name) + surname as in General (George) Patton, General (George) Washington, not General George or George by itself. General (Charles) de Gaulle, or de Gaulle, but not Charles. I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Napoleon became first consul in 1799 and first consul for life in 1802 and was crowned emperor in 1804. The newspaper referred to is from 1797. there was a note in the article about how people changed the way they referred to him after he was named first consul for life, Fran deleted this; i think mclynn refers to the change on about page 290 of his book. i stopped editing at about 1am UTC so it wouldn't have been me conflicting. the issue of the name is a bit more complicated here than for most other biogs. I very much prefer to see him referred to simply as Napoleon, particularly as using surname feels depersonalising, to me bonaparte looks worse earlier in his life and seems more reasonable as he gets older. it may not be clear who Bonaparte refers to in the early section: "His father Nobile Carlo Buonaparte, an attorney, was named Corsica's representative to the court of Louis XVI in 1777. The dominant influence of Bonaparte's childhood...", bonaparte is meant to refer to Napoleon but these instances may not be clear. also lower case emperor looks odd. Fran, you made quite a lot of changes that weren't to do with the name, i agree with some of them but disagree with others, why did you delete the edwards ref? both the robespierre's were executed, this is important as he was connected to Augustin. Tom B (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom: First, let me apologise for & explain the reason of *deleting* your revision: as I clicked on Save page an edit conflict came up & I could not save. I did not want to lose my work, waited a while then tried again, which I could not do. In the meantime, your correction had been published. So I picked up my work in order to do a copy & paste then got off the correction page. When I came back, no one else was editing & I was able to paste my revision. Of course, by doing so, I *destroyed* yours and I left the following for you to understand what was happening: tpbradbury was bringing changes as I clicked to save mine. Showing my own changes (fm beginning to Italian campaign) hoping they are not going against Tom's Tom, I hope you understand what happened & accept my apologies.
Today, I read thru Tom's changes and, needing more time to prepare my case, I will not touch the text (on the name issue) until this is resolved between us. However, I noted this in his response above: to me bonaparte looks worse earlier in his life and seems more reasonable as he gets older. Tom, in France, no one knew of *Napoléon* earlier in his life as he was referred to only by the surname of *Bonaparte*. There is nothing *depersonalising* about it. When you read French book in French or look at the caption under a portrait, the name is always *Bonaparte* before his coronation. For instance, the crossing at Arcole which the Anglos title Napoleon crossing at the Bridge of the Arcole is in French Bonaparte au Pont d'Arcole with text: Le 17 novembre 1796 le général Bonaparte, drapeau en main, s’élançait seul sous la mitraille autrichienne sur le pont dont la possession devait décider du sort de la bataille d’Arcole. Cette étude est plus belle que l’œuvre achevée qui se trouve à Versailles. Gros, dont la famille était suspecte de royalisme, obtint, grâce à son maître David, un passeport pour l’Italie qui le mettait à l’abri en lui permettant de travailler. C’est là qu’à Milan, par l’entremise de Joséphine, il commença, au début de 1797, le portrait de Bonaparte. Bousculé par le modèle, qui n’avait pas le temps de poser dans le moment où il concluait cette géniale compagne d’Italie qui lui ouvrirait la voie du pouvoir...
Furthermore, as I read the references & bibliography used in this en:wiki article, I am made to realise that not one French author is listed. Very interesting! Recently, I read something, which I must recuperate, by a well-known French historian who wrote of the differences in the same man who was known by two names *Bonaparte* & *Napoléon*, giving the impression that he was two different men.
Today being an exceptional day, I may not be able to return to this, but am looking forward to Tom's response and *pardon*!
Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
no worries. we should use english sources as this is English wikipedia wp:verifiability. sources do refer to him as Napoleon throughout his life. i think his Mum probably referred to him as Napoleone. have you got any reliable sources that say he wasn't referred to as napoleon after he was named first consul for life in 1802? Tom B (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Having learned French history in France, it is difficult for me to switch to Anglo-based treatment of Napoléon Bonaparte! And I often get shocked reading other articles in en:wikipedia, particularly those dealing with French royalty.
You must be correct with his mother calling him *Napoleone* (unless she had a nickname for him!). When Bonaparte (mais oui!) became Premier Consul, he was referred to as *Bonaparte*, *Napoléon Bonaparte*, never *Napoléon* alone, and mostly as *Premier Consul*. Remember, listed by their last name only, the three consuls were Bonaparte, Sieyès & Ducos. I personally cannot revise French history because Anglos prefer to be on a first-name basis.
Because of my profession, I do not always live with my personal library & must wait until I return to France to have access to my books. However, knowing who several French authors are on the subject of our dear *Nappy*, I shall try to find documents in the Internet, possibly with translation in English.
thanks. and when he became first consul for life not just first consul? mclynn says after he was made first consul for life this was the point when he was generally known as Napoleon. Tom B (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom: I would tend to agree with this as when he became Premier Consul à vie Napoléon Bonaparte was only one step away from becoming Emperor.
Will return to you when I have more arguments on my side, hoping we come to an agreement.
In the meantime, you will have to excuse me because I must attend another coronation! (on TV).
For all it's worth, here is a site I just found. Unfortunately, it is only in French, the English version being under construction. But it will show you how the French refer to Napoléon Bonaparte at various times of his life. (I did not see anywhere the name of the author). I believe the article proves my point. For better proof, I will try to find historical documents.
plus what I posted earlier above, a newspaper founded in 1797 by Bonaparte himself & published in Paris, Le Journal de Bonaparte et des hommes vertueux.
I realise that all these are in French & cannot be used as proof/verifiability by non-French speaking en:wiki readers, but then, why work on a foreign subject if the use of foreign sources is not allowed because they are not written in English?
If you cannot read this 25 page text written in French, please look at caption by the illustrations & you will see the use of the surname *Bonaparte* all the way to his coronation. In general terms, Weider makes use of the name Napoléon, but within certain periods of Napoléon Bonaparte's life (pro Empire/Empire period), he uses surname or first name, as they were used at the time. *Bonaparte* is used by itself, then *Général Bonaparte* after he was named general, then *Premier Consul Bonaparte*. Only after his coronation does *Napoléon* gets used by itself.
Use of *Bonaparte*:
p. 5, 17 November 1796, Arcole, 17 novembre 1796 - Sous la mitraille autrichienne, Bonaparte saisit...;
p. 6, 14 January 1797, Rivoli, 14 janvier 1797 - Les victoires extraordinaires de Bonaparte en Italie...;
p. 7, C'est alors que Bonaparte fut nommé Général en chef de l'Armée d'Italie... 15 mai 1796 - Bonaparte entre à Milan;
p. 7, in 2e Coalition: William Pitt sachant Bonaparte en Egypte...;
p. 7, Mais Bonaparte n'était plus là.;
p. 8, Et ce fut le retour de Bonaparte, rentré d'Egypte.;
p. 8, caption by picture: Marengo 14 juin 1800 - Le Premier Consul Bonaparte s'arrache au travail...;
p. 9, En 1803, ... les attentats contre la vie de Bonaparte...;
p. 9, Bonaparte rassemble une armée à Boulogne...;
Use of *Napoléon*:
p. 9, Mais les Autrichiens avancent en Bavière et Napoléon, il est Empereur des Français depuis le 18 mai 1804...;
p. 9, Le 14 octobre 1806, ... Iéna, où commande l'Empereur en personne...;
p. 9, Napoléon entre triomphalement à Berlin. [...] Napoléon quitte Berlin et s'installe à Varsovie. [...] Napoléon écrase les Russes à Friedland.;
p. 10, caption by picture: Austerlitz, 2 décembre 1805 - Napoléon donne ses derniers ordres...
thanks Fran and for digging it all out. basically everyone's agreed he was publicly referred to mainly as just General Bonaparte or just Bonaparte til he was first consul for life and that he was referred to as Napoleon after being crowned emperor. there's a discussion as to what he was referred to between 1802 and 1805. on page 253 of McLynn it says about 1802 plebiscite: "The question was:'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' This new nomenclature - hitherto he had always been 'General Bonaparte' or 'citizen Bonaparte' - was significant, and it has been pointed that thereafter he was generally [my italics] known as Napoleon rather than Bonaparte." this hasn't been contradicted by anything i've seen. i've thought a bit more. Having said all of the above, the question is not what is he referred to at various times between 1769 and 1821 but what should we refer to him as now, 2009. Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English [not my bold] if none of the rules [described in policy article]...cover a specific problem". One solution would be to refer to him as Napoleon throughout the article and put a note explaining how he was referred to at the time. Tom B (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Fran, you did a lot! Great work both of you with all the edits - the article looks much better. I was away from my computer all yesterday due to Obama's inauguration and various tasks I've been putting off, so I couldn't join you in editing - but maybe that was best if you were having edit wars;) I looked over the article changes and I couldn't spot anything that annoyed me - I just made one little edit changing "Mameluks" to "Mamluks" in the Egyptian campaign section.
Regarding the temporal usage of Bonaparte/Napoleon, which is the real question now, I lean towards switching to "Napoleon" once he assumes the throne. If only for the simple reason that we do not, in English or French, refer to leaders by their first names or prénoms unless they bear a crown. So George Washington is Washington, and Oliver Cromwell is Cromwell, and Napoléon Bonaparte is Bonaparte. This changes when they become royalty, in which case we would have King George, King Oliver, and (King) Emperor Napoléon - only the last, of course, came to pass, though the other two weren't very far from it.
I see no reason to switch from this pattern now in 2009. Napoleon is only known more often as Napoleon now because he became Emperor, and because lazy minds neglected to make the difference between when he was imperial and when he wasn't. I tend to dislike that rule over at WP:NC because, although in the vast majority of cases it is perfectly applicable, in many cases it is used to promote the usage of semi-correct or misapplied terminology simply because it is common. In my view the mission of Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia worth its stuff, must be to destroy ignorance. So if we neglect to tell the actual facts, because people do not already know them that way, we accomplish little, certainly less than we could if we were straightforward and accurate. Our presence on the Internet gives us great freedom, and thereby we have the liberty and the space to propagate fully correct versions of the information in our articles. We do not have the constraints of paper encyclopedias, and do not therefore need to cut down on the information we may present. Certainly there should be no dumbing down of the information in an article. People come to an encyclopedia to learn what they do not yet know. So it is conceivable that someone might read our article and think, "Ah! Napoleon was known as Bonaparte before he became Emperor!" And how much more effective the transmission of that knowledge (which is quite important) is if we actively demonstrate that usage ourselves, rather than merely adding in a second-thought note somewhere in the text!
Perhaps I'm rambling a bit. I must go now, so I'll leave you all to sort out the meaning of the above. In summary: we should use Bonaparte, and we should use it up until he crowns himself. Thanks very much Fran for gathering all that info together; it verifies for me what I believed the French usage would be. Cheers all! The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
the article is 8800 words readable prose size, guideline is 6,000-10,000 and given the subject, it's not too long Tom B (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)He also liked to cabage
Honestly, if you want to make a speech on Napoléon, you should be able to find time to read a *long* article, because, what kind of a speech can you make if you read only a tiny little summary of the man's life, which was very busy indeed! Napoléon slept only four hours at night because he was a very very busy man... Now take an hour out of your sleep time and read the article in its entirety. Ciao!Frania W. (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Re-establishment of slavery in the colonies
It's currently only a one-sentence reference in the section on the Second Italian Campaign, where I don't really think it belongs. It seems it would fit better in the next section, which deals with the slave revolt and revolution in Haiti. I know the re-establishment occured as part of the implementation of the Napoleonic Code, and I'm wondering about the date - looks like 1801, but I'm unsure and my references don't say anything definite. Anybody know for certain? The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!01:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
another good point. the chronology of the consulate section had concerned me but i'd kept it in its current form in order to minimise the number of section headings with just main article links which had been picked-up in peer review. i'll have a go at restructuring. someone's added date detail today regarding re-establishment. Tom B (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is what Schom says-In May 1802 Napoleon announced his intention to reintroduce slavery in the French colonies that had been aboloished years earlier by the French Revolutionary Government.-Schom p.332 From that I would take it to be May 1802.-Kieran4 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What do we have to do to get this to featured level?
It looks pretty good to me, some areas are thin in sources but that can be fixed. I would be willing to help bump it up to FA, I have two sources on Napoleon, Napoleon Bonaparte by Alan Schom and Napoleon by Vincent Cronin.
Some of the areas thin in sources are the following; the 3rd paragraph in the French Consulate, 0 sources; the 1st and 2nd paragraphs under the War of the Third Coalition has only 1 source each; all the paragraphs under the war of the fourth coaltion have only 1 source; first paragraph under the war of the 5th coalition and remarriage has only 1 source, and so on. there are some more I found which are lacking enough sources, but as I said before, this is not a major problem. Perhaps a good copy-edit along with some additional footnotes and I think this should be okay to nominate.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this as well - it would be nice to get it featured. IMO the article looks quite good and doesn't require much except the additional references Kieran mentioned. I'll gladly help with copyediting, etc. when I can, though I don't know how much I can promise as I'm going to be very busy over the next couple weeks. –The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be inclined to get a peer review now and see what they say, then maybe go ahead and nominate it. There really isn't a whole lot to do other than copy-edit.-Kieran4 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks yes the last one helped quite a lot. still checking the article so should put it up for peer review soon or someone else can feel free to put it up stating our intention is to get it to FA, Tom B (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think that the images in the article are terrible. Huge stretches of the article are pure white space; the images you do have are certainly not the best available (an artists' imaginative representation of the Battle of the Pyramids from 1896 instead of a contemporary painting, I cannot for the life of me figure out why Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz is deemed significant enough to have her portrait on this page, nor can I figure out why you would choose to depict 18 Brumaire solely by a satirical print when there are several great paintings of the scene available); some of the most iconic paintings of Napoleon are missing, e.g.:
And there are no paintings showing Napoleon in battle (except for the one from the Bridge of the Arcole), when he was one of the greatest generals in history renown for leading men in battle.
Such poor use of images is, IMO, totally unacceptable in a Featured Article, particularly when there is a great set of images available on Wikimedia Commons to choose from.
I tried helping out by improving the image quality, but User:Tpbradbury is unilaterally reverting the pictures I've added to the page on the grounds that I haven't achieved "consensus" (the first time I've ever heard someone make the ridiculous claim that an editor should reach consensus before editing a page).
So, I have better things to do with my time than get in an edit war with this jerk, but I will say that if you won't let me improve the article's images, then somebody else should. Adam_sk (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Having never edited the article or talk page i.e. to discuss something, you insert 13 images, remove 3 and then come to the talk page to accuse an editor of reverting said changes of being a jerk. The images in the article are not 'terrible', they are not perfect either. Inserting 13 images into an A-class article without discussing, then leaving the post above is not the best way to go about helping - ask other editors. I and other editors have a lot better things to do with our time than revert unilateral changes and be subject to personal attacks. Tom B (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding old-fashioned... may I refer to wikipedia's does & donts on top of this talk page: Be polite - so calling someone a jerk is not exactly the way to converse with someone & is certain to start an edit war or a personal one.
It could very well be that some of the original images in the article are not the best choice, but they are here and before changing or adding, it would be nice to have the advice/opinion of others. You may be surprised at how much consensus you get by just presenting your ideas & discussing them. This article has been subject to several discussions going from what the correct name or first name to use for Napoléon or Napoleon Bonaparte, the respect of French orthography with accents & cedillas, or whether to use English or American English, the use of a map etc. Some of the discussions could have been heated, but turned into witty sessions with the result of everyone agreeing at the end. It seems to me that some of the pictures put up by Adam could replace others originally in the article. The problem we are encountering here & now is the fact that an extensive change is being made ignoring the work of previous editors. A simple proposition beforehand could result in all 13 pictures to be accepted, or only half of them, but the choice would be based on consensus.
Adam, when you write : *I have better things to do with my time than get in an edit war...*, I can tell you that we are all in the same boat. Wikipedia is not our work place nor our battlefield. So, why not take a break, compare the pictures and give all of us a choice in the matter?
Look: like I said: I think unilaterally reverting a page when someone is obviously trying to make it better is just ridiculously rude. If you think there's too many images: fine, remove some. Or send me a message saying: "Hey, I appreciate you're trying to add some pics, but you're going overboard - let's work something out." But unilateral reverts are a jerk move, I'm sorry. Except for reverting vandalism, I fail to see how unilateral reverts are anything other than a big "F you" to another editor who is trying to improve a page. Again: since when are we supposed to "achieve consensus" before improving an article? If you have a problem with my edits: fine, talk to me about it and we'll work something out. But don't just unilaterally revert my work. Adam_sk (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You unilaterally added 13 images without any discussion, then came to the talk page to call an editor a jerk, and now complain someone else is rude and that reverting a unilateral addition of 13 images is a 'a big "F you"'. You say 'talk to me...and we'll work something out' but didn't talk to anyone. You ask 'When are we supposed to "achieve consensus" before improving an article?' You can read How_to_edit#Major_edits: "Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page". Given you added 13 images, then called someone a jerk and somehow therefore think other people are being rude to you, perhaps you should go and ask other editors if adding 13 images is likely to be regarded as a major edit and whether calling another editor a jerk is them being rude or you being 'ridiculously rude'. Tom B (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Adding pictures to an article is a "major edit" now? Be serious. And at any rate, see Wikipedia:Be bold.
And like I said: people unilaterally reverting other people's work without even dropping them a courtesy note is jerky. See: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I didn't think anyone would object to adding some pics to the page. It surprised me that someone objected, but I have no problem with people disagreeing with my edits. I have a problem with people reverting my work without letting me know about it. Stop behaving like you own this page and other editors have to seek your permission before editing. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
Look, I admit that calling you a "jerk" was maybe a little rude and premature. But I stand by my assessment that reverting another editor's work without telling them and being possessive about a page is jerky. I seriously don't mean that personally, but I think your behavior violated Wikipedia:Etiquette. And like I said: I don't want to get into an edit war: I posted this on the Talk Page to avoid that. My point was: Here is the issue I was trying to correct; if you won't let me correct it, then I think that all you all should reach a consensus amongst yourselves as to how to solve this problem. Adam_sk (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello you rhetorically ask "Adding pictures to an article is a "major edit" now? Be serious." We have a disagreement about whether adding 13 images to an article is major edit or not, again, I'd recommend you ask other editors if adding 13 images is a major edit. You say that "people unilaterally reverting other people's work without even dropping them a courtesy note is jerky," and yet you added 13 images to the article without discussing it or dropping anyone a note. The addition of 13 images to an article that already has a lot of images unsurprisingly overloaded the article, including text squeeze between images, you also switched the consul image to face away from the text contrary to wp:mos and yet you were surprised that someone objected to you adding 13 images without any discussion. The 3 images you selected above did used to be in the article, the first two are 'iconic' and will have been seen by many, like the Bridge over the Arcole, this is mainly as a result of successful imperial propaganda; as the article notes, Napoleon did not cross the Alps on a charger. I don't agree that the images in the article are terrible.
You say you have a problem with people reverting your work without letting you know it; it is not beholden on other editors to come and contact you, particularly if you unilaterally add 13 images to an article and add them in a way that violates mos. You expect other people to contact you but you don't contact them, what do you think this means? You now accuse me of behaving like I own the page and that other editors have to seek permission before editing. It may be a good idea to read other posts on this page and all the work done at peer reviews. I've worked really hard with other editors to get this from B-class to Milhist A-class and through 2 peer reviews. I do not like it when people try to wp:own articles or damage them deliberately or accidentally and have now spent quite a bit of time explaining that adding 13 images is a major edit, adding many images to an article will overload it. I have expended considerable effort and patience here; if you still think that it is I who have violated wp:etiquette we can go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Tom B (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No editor of this article claims to own it. If you check the list, we all have been working pretty smoothly together, each bringing his/her own *specialty*. I must agree with Tom that when a major change is brought, a note should be put at the talk page of said article, and it is rather surprising to me that Tom should be accused of being a jerk because reverting Adam's major unannounced change. Yes, Wikipedia *Be bold* means to be bold enough to bring changes to an article, but it does not say *be bold & destroy*; it means to *be bold & courteous*. In other words, do not start a war. It would have been so much better for Adam to say: Hey, guys, I am adding 13 pictures I believe would add class to the article & if you do not agree, let me know & we'll discuss the matter. Then we would have gone from there instead of having this duel. I am pretty sure that among Adam's 13 pictures, a few would have been chosen with no war & no bitter aftertaste.
I just ran into such a problem at the article on Marie Antoinette. Someone stepped in one day & began changing pictures, the difference being in that instance that the editor left a note on the discussion page Talk:Marie Antoinette (Removing images) & we ended up working together.
What!? You claim "No editor of this article claims to own it" and yet you're criticizing me for not getting your permission BEFORE editing the page? How isn't that claiming to own the page?
And then you characterize my edits by saying "Yes, Wikipedia *Be bold* means to be bold enough to bring changes to an article, but it does not say *be bold & destroy*". You would seriously characterize adding illustrations to an article as "destroying" the article?!? How is that possibly a fair characterization?
Look, the two of you have apparently decided that no one has any right to alter this page without seeking your permission in advance and I just have to say: that makes you a bunch of jerks. Fine, I won't try to improve your page. Sorry for stepping into your personal fiefdom. But if you're going to claim exclusive control over a page: like I said, you should still at least include the iconic images of Napoleon because their absence is conspicuous and makes the page look amateur. Adam_sk (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You say that I "have apparently decided that no one has any right to alter this page without seeking our permission in advance", why would someone say this given the article revision history and talk page? Are you sure calling someone a jerk, then calling two people a bunch of jerks is us being a bunch of jerks? You say "the iconic images", should be included "because their absence is conspicuous and makes the page look amateur", did you read what i said above? "The 3 images you selected above did used to be in the article, the first two are 'iconic' and will have been seen by many, like the Bridge over the Arcole, this is mainly as a result of successful imperial propaganda; as the article notes, Napoleon did not cross the Alps on a charger." Including "the iconic images" without any critical thought would be worse than what we are doing. Tom B (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Adam: Please, do not twist things around. No one is claiming the article as his/her personal fiefdom. You decided on major changes in pictures without giving anybody the opportunity to discuss your choice. Here are a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:Consensus
***You should ask others (like on Simple talk) if you make a big change to an important page and nobody says anything about it.***
***Consensus is built through talking, editing, or both. Consensus can only work among editors who respect each other. ***
Your calling Tom a jerk was a rather odd manner to get acquainted. Yes, you are *bold* & that is good, but you do not have to be a destructive force by throwing your weight around & forcing your will down our throat, while calling someone a jerk. That's what I mean in my *be bold & destroy* remark, followed with *be bold & courteous*, which is exactly what I meant.
Since it seems to be impossible for you to discuss with anyone without insulting them, I would hate to be the only one not being insulted. So I will take as a compliment your putting me in the same category as Tom & calling me a jerk. Thank you! Frania W. (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, your position is: I shouldn't have tried to improve an article without consulting you first. That's not how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, anyone is free to try to improve an article. Tom reverted my attempts at improving an article without even dropping me a courtesy note, and now the two of you are ganging up on me claiming that my adding images to a page was "destroying" it. And now you accuse me of being a "destructive force" and of "forcing my will down your throat"?? How have I done that?!? By pointing out that we should have had a discussion about this instead of your stealthily reverting the page in the hope that you could get rid of my edits without my noticing so that your version of the article could remain unchanged? I've done nothing here except call the two of you out for your claim that people can't edit "YOUR" article without seeking "YOUR" permission first. I don't understand why Wikipedians can't just be civil and try to work with other editors, and instead insist on reverting other people's work without letting them know about it and then forming cliques to defend their personal fiefdoms.
As I've said: I didn't expect anyone would object to my edits, so I saw no reason I would need to seek YOUR permission first. If people objected to my edits: fine, drop me a line about it, and let's discuss. Reverting a page without telling another editor is possessive, and now you've formed a clique against me. Classic Wikipedia jerkiness. Adam_sk (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I disagree strongly with Tom's proposal that we shouldn't include iconic images of Napoleon because they're "imperial propaganda." Should we also remove the iconic images of Henry VIII or Louis XIV because they constitute "royal propaganda"? Of course not. Iconic images are iconic images, regardless of why they're iconic. Adam_sk (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
napolean and islam
i think this is an important topic not covered, how can we go about including it on this page?
"I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness." - Napoleon Bonaparte as Quoted in Christian Cherfils, 'Bonaparte et Islam,' Pedone Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105, 125
there is so much more he said about islam- i think it is important to give an academic perception of napolean and islam backed by authoritative sources of course!
D-truthseeker (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of changing the subject, I am starting a new section here so that anyone who wishes to comment on how to improve this article may do so, without any commentary on the behavior of editors or the history of past revisions. It would be a nice change of pace. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Family: "It could benefit from more information on his family life. For example, forcing Jerome to divorce her wife and marry another. Or his relationship with Joseph, or his other brother. His disappointment and frustration with them over their failure to successfully govern their realms, etc. Josephine and his second wife are covered well, but the rest of his family relationships could be useful to the reader," and
Supposed epilepsy: "Napoleon's supposed epilepsy, or likelihood that he suffered it. And how it worsened with the stress of his position overtime. There are several documented events which are believed to have been epileptic seizures he suffered in public, as well as numerous supposed on to occur in private - some historians link the worsening seizures to his increasing reclusiveness in the latter years of his reign." I had a quick look and McLynn does refer to it but I'm not sure about any reclusiveness in latter years of his reign and if there was any whether this would linked to epilepsy. Tom B (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ensure comprehensiveness and engaging prose/reads well. One of my main intentions was to maintain focus on biography, particularly as wars, campaigns and battles have their own articles.
Check for errors, any extra sourcing needed, image sources, MOS, etc.
'manumise'. This is not the common word in English. I believe the author meant 'manumit' which means to free a person from slavery. It comes from the Latin 'manumittere'. I think this fits in more correctly with the British English used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.134.71 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. And it has less to do with British/American than just plain English, as my American dictionary had the same result. Good observation though. :) Recognizance (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean?
"While Napoleon's mistresses had children by him, Joséphine did not produce an heir, an impossibility due either to the stresses of her imprisonment during the Terror or to an abortion she may have had in her twenties.[142]" It's from the section on Josephine/marriages.
Josephine did not produce an heir, an impossibility due...
How can an "impossibility" be due to anything? Impossible things don't have causes in the first place. Should this say: ...an heir, possibly due either... ?
I suppose it's addressing the fact that Josephine and Napoleon were both known to be separately fertile, that they clearly had sexual relations (seems clear enough) and yet no children were born? I wasn't aware that "stress" in and of itself could cause infertility (improperly performed abortions can - I assume the footnote establishes her having had an abortion - I hope), but there are many, many causes of joint infertility. If no one objects, though, I'll change the wording.Levalley (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
Accusations of propaganda
I removed a line from the 'Egyptian expedition' section which read "Juan Cole sees it as propaganda, which obfuscated imperialism.[42]" for the following reasons: 1) It violates wp:fringe in that (to the best of my knowledge) it is not a widely held or prominent view. 2) It is poor style. A brief glance at this article shows no other section that includes 20th century opinions of Napoleon's actions, making Juan Cole's (and Ahmed Youssef's) opinion stand out as being out of place. Additionally, this article generally avoids judging the morality of Napoleon's actions, but this passage comes across as doing just that, proffering modern opinion of his actions. 3) The subject of this section (invasion of Egypt) has its own article which would be a better place for such a discussion.
Im going to go ahead and remove the section again, as well as the preceding line about Ahmed Youssef's opinion for the reasons listed above, if you re-add it or mean to re-add it, be sure to comment here. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought the second revision, and the explanation above, were quite sound, but I see that another editor (without discussion) has reverted the change again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that in the wider context of the article, modern debate on his actions is perhaps better collected in the 'Admirers and critics' section if indeed it should remain in the article (I've no opinion on the claim that it is a fringe theory, and it could certainly be a reasonable addition to Napoleonic Campaign in Egypt if it is not.) But it seems best to avoid a description of historical events followed by a historiographical analysis of those events, for each section of the article, by moving all such points to the dedicated section that already exists. The Napoleonic Code for example is initially discussed neutrally in its historical context, and then the contemporary debate is addressed at the end of the article. Benea (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixing
small error under french empire. "Claims he seized the crown out of the hands of Pope Pius VII during the ceremony—to avoid his subjugation to the authority of the pontiff—are apocryphal; the coronation procedure had been agreed in advance." it should be Claims that. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.138.9 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Napoleon/Bonaparte
The article refers to Napoléon as both Napoleon and Bonaparte, particularly in the first half—even using both terms in a single paragraph. There isn't any real rhyme or reason to the usages currently, and IMO we should stick to one name throughout for simplicity. (Probably Napoleon as that is how he is most commonly mentioned, though I wouldn't object either way.) The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In France, Napoléon Bonaparte is referred to as Bonaparte (his last name) until he was crowned emperor, at which time he became known as Napoléon (his first name), It is *Général Bonaparte*, not *Général Napoléon*, who was a leading general during the French Revolution. After the 18 Brumaire (9 November 1799) coup, when a governing triumvirate was formed, the three consuls were designated by their last name: Bonaparte, Sieyès & Ducos. At the time of his coronation, Napoléon Bonaparte became *Emperor Napoléon*, not *Emperor Bonaparte*, just as kings are known under their first name (Henri IV, Louis XV, Charles X...). So there is *rhyme and reason* for the use of both names in one article, and it should be kept so (probably needs some sorting out).
Sticking to only one name (Napoléon) may be fine for simplicity, but skipping the other (Bonaparte) would be equal to watering down the intellectual level of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I easily imagine thousands of high school students reading the Napoléon article then hearing about Bonaparte and asking "Who is that guy?" Why not attack ignorance instead of making its bed for the sake of simplicity?
An explanatory sentence somewhere at the beginning of the article or as a foot note should fix the *Napoléon vs Bonaparte* controversy. Frania W. (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me about the "rhyme or reason"—probably my fault as I was none too clear. I was referring to the rather mad way the article switches between them incessantly.
On further consideration, I think you are right that a single term would detract intellectually from the article. So both should probably be used—in an orderly fashion. Perhaps paralleling the French usage you cited above with "Bonaparte" before his crowning and "Napoléon" for the period after? The French Wikipedia appears (from my somewhat brief glance) to follow that pattern.
Leprechaun: It sounds as if we agree and, as I wrote above, the use of Bonaparte & Napoléon in the article *probably needs some sorting out*. Frania W. (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added in a note. I had attempted to address this a few days ago by removing references to 'Bonaparte' after he was made first consul for life in 1802. Tom B (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Leprechaun & Tpbradbury: Just checking in for a few minutes with no time to re-read the article, but happy to see that we are working in the same direction. Frania W. (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Revisit discussion. I quite like the variety in changing the name but several reviewers have brought up question of consistency. i think the 'first consul for life' rather than just first consul, point in his life is a relevant consideration. personally it seems a bit odd to see a kid being referred to as bonaparte when he was referred to as napoleon to distinguish him from his siblings and biographers do do this. i think the time he was most referred to as bonaparte was as a general and officer. Also the brits used to refer to him as bonaparte, partly for propaganda, 'illegitimate'-pointing reasons. one route might be to simply always refer to him as Napoleon, this would be a very simple solution and would be consistent with title of the article - leaving the note regarding name change at first consul for life and that he had been referred to as general bonaparte before, Tom B (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted, I think, that Napoleon refered to himself as Bonaparte in all letters, even after his coronation as emperor. Although he was officially refered to as Emperor Napoleon, i think that it is atleast necessary to refer to him as Bonaprate before the corination, since that was his name of choice.
--Sverez (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Map
For some reasno or another, User:Tpbradbury has reverted my edits to put a new map in to replace the old one. The new one comes directly from Napoleon Bonaparte:A Life by Alan Schom. Tpbradbury has revert my edits and put the old map in which is inaccurate and lacks a source. I propose to add in the new one which shows Napoleon's Empire at it's greatest extent according to Schom, rather than the one which is up now, that comes from Camillus, a wikipedia user.
I said in my edit summary [5] that I reverted because you had inserted with no legend. why say some reason or another and not explain the reason, when the reason i gave is clear? The image description page says, "Europe in 1789; before Napoleon and in 1814, before his defeat at Waterloo" which is confusing: how can it show Europe in 1789 and 1814? It also says 'map prior to the start of the book', i'm assuming it should say map at the start of the book. The image description page does not say, Napoleon's Empire at it's greatest extent. Tom B (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a legend on the page, but if you wanted it on the article itself that could have been fixed rather easily. The map is on a page where there is no page number so I did not know exactly what to put. If you want me to change the description to "greatest extent", which it is, that can also be easily done.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The legend needs to be on the article so people can understand what the different blues mean. It could indeed have been fixed easily. Does Schom give a date or any further description? Tom
Tom & Kieran: Why not use another map? The two you are presenting being the work of wikipedians should be classified, I believe, as personal research.
Here is something I found that might solve the problem:
One is based on Schom, though the description needs clarification. Fran, even the english versions of the web pages you linked have the maps in French! Tom B (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you changed the map and added a legend. I'm glad this worked out. Yes, the map by Schom is Napoleon's empire at its greatest extent.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom: The maps in French: oh! la! la!!! Anyway, the two of you seem to be resolving the issue, so I'll bow out! Good work! Frania W. (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't really venture an opinion as to which map is better, considering that the previous one wholly lacked a legend, but did have a year attached to it, whereas the opposite is true for the new one. Whichever map we chose ought to have both. I would also reiterate Fran's point about no original research - images like these are of high prominence in the article and should be fully sourced.
I was trying to figure out myself what year the new map represented, but was unable to get beyond a vague guess that it might be 1808 - how that is "the height of the Empire" I'm not sure. I could be wrong in my guess; I'll leave it up to the more informed to decide :) Cheers, The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Schom does not give what year the map is of, I would guess maybe 1810 or so but that is just a guess. All I know is that it is Europe at the Height of Napoleon's Empire. The old map, which is from 1811, has no source and therefore I do not believe that it should be used.-Kieran4 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hum, I concur about the sourcing and would stick with the new map for that reason. The lack of a date is a drawback; if we can find an accurate, sourced date for the map then we should update it, or maybe another map can be made from another source with a date. For now, at least, I think we should keep Schom's map. (By the way, do we have/need fair use criteria for that? It appears that you copied it from Schom's work, and I'm wondering...) The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
good point i'd thought about that. i'm sure it's okay as it's not a direct copy i.e. photocopy of the image and we've also given credit, Tom B (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never known making a map after a map in a book to be an issue. I have seen people do it many times before. A note on the date is that it shows Holland as part of the French Empire so it must be between 1810-1812.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Kieran, Tom & Leprechaun: The fact that Kieran has *never known making a map after a map in a book to be an issue. I have seen people do it many times before.* does not mean that it is OK to do it. I personally have seen people doing many things that were not right/legal in the publishing world. Not so sure about using a map out of a book without knowing who drew it & when, and without the authorisation of the author or publishing house. There could be a copyright issue here.
On first page of books you can read: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. which leads me to believe that, since you are unable to tell much about it, use of this map from a photocopy out of a book may not be legal... and may be an *issue*.
Well, if it is an issue, then how can we make a map? The maps are all going to look similar because Napoleon's Empire isn't a different size from book to book, history can't change. Also, it isn't exactly the same as in the book. The map in the book is in black and white and Schom uses stripes to mark the differences between each conquered country.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Kieran: Nobody can stop you from making your own map. Europe is Europe & its borders are nobody's copyright property. However, if you choose to make one, use different colors than the ones you are tracing it from, and add the names of the countries, then sign it as your own. Frania W. (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
<resetting indentation> How about this? It's fully-sourced and public domain (published in 1911). It does have to be a bit bigger to be legible, though. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to go with the map currently in use. Now that Frania has clairified what they meant, I realize there is no copyright violation. The map is different from that of Schom's, he uses stripes to mark the differences while I used shades of blue.-Kieran4 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks Russ and i think you passed rfa recently so well done on that. i think the map is quite good, clearer regarding names. i couldn't find it on the source link to the good long list of maps; "Central Europe in 1812" is something else. it's 90 years old which some may see as outdated, Tom B (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Kieran & les autres! : Keep experiencing edit conflicts with you! Following is what I have been trying to post for the past fifteen minutes:
2007 Camilius map does not give clear explanation of the color code, having same color for Portugal, the Austrian & Russian Empires & Scandinavian countries.
2009 Kieran map shows Sardinia, Sicily, Portugal, British Isles, Iceland, Scandinavia & Russian Empire with same color code.
1912 Shepherd map showing Europe in 1812 at the height of the French Empire before Napoléon's invasion of Russia is exact (in my opinion).
Since your map is great (I love the blues!), in order to have it perfect, you have to put Danemark, Norway & Sweden with the correct color code - Finland left out as it would be on Russian side, I believe, (has to be checked).
I checked the Schom map again and he does not have Sweden shaded as an allied state, and Norway is no visable on the map. But I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that Denmark and Norway were the same country back then. If that can be confirmed Norway should be changed to the same color as Austria, Prussia and Denmark.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Denmark and Norway were united until 1814, when Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden, causing the Norwegians to revolt and declare independence. (The article Denmark-Norway summarizes it nicely) So Norway should be colored on the map as well. About Sweden: I'm pretty sure they were a British ally in the Napoleonic Wars, so it should not be colored. The Fiddly Leprechaun·Catch Me!23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am no expert with paint and unfortunetly I forgot to save the color I used for the conquered allies. Does anyone know how I can retrieve it?-Kieran4 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I dont think the distinction between allied and rebellious is very meaningfull. Furthermore the Illyrian Province should be a part of the Empire proper.
Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Death Section
I see, that despite the excellent work and citations above, no one has seen fit to remove the erroneous (urban legend) material from the Death section. That's too bad. Levalley (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
What do you consider an urban legend? I am not an expert but if there is really any factoid about his death I would be glad to debunk it.
2009-05-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I have now read the texts under the subtitles “Death” and “Cause of death”. The first error I found was Napoléon’s famous last words which were made up by Charles Tristan de Montholon. At the time Charles claimed those last words to have been uttered no-one else could hear any words or even recognisable language sounds! They did hear a sound but it was more like a music instrument than a human voice. Nowadays it is considered to have been due to gasses from an over-pressured stomach escaping through his throat. As such there was no intention behind it. I am not sure which his real last words where but they may well have been “Give me my chamber-pot”. This was most likely only a standard phrase since what he really needed was help to use it. I know he said so several times – and barely anything else – the day before he died. By the evening he was no longer able to speak. By four o’clock in the morning he had lost his consciousness. 14 hours later he was dead. Please note that I don’t claim his last words to have been uttered in English since Napoléon did not speak this language. They must have been in French since all the men which nursed him towards the end where French-spoken. It would be nice if someone could tell how they might have sounded in French. But watch out for Anglicisms! Please don’t translate the sentence word-by-word unless the result is in accordance with French usage.
The second error is the name of the place on Saint Helena where Napoléon was buried. In “Assassination at St. Helena” by Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider it is called “Geranium Valley”. This name is completely understandable to me since I know that relatives of the commonly cultivated geranium are native to Saint Helena. But this book is from 1978 so the name may have changed since then. The article on Saint Helena calls it “Sane Valley”. I don’t know why it would be called so but I really like it because there is no “sane” reason to think that he was not buried there. However, this should not be interpreted as saying that people claiming something else are “insane”. People can have just any crazy ideas about things outside their direct experience without necessarily being mad. This article calls the place “Valley of the Willows”. I don’t know why it would be called so but this is the only passage where I have found it.
The third error is Francesco Antommarchi’s conclusion on the cause of death. In reality he thought that Napoléon had died from hepatitis. The claim that Francesco found any tumour at all is based on a mistranslation. I find it compleatly plausible that Carlo Buonaparte died from stomach cancer but that is not a valid argument since this disease is not hereditary. It was just assumed to be hereditary by people having pre-scientific ideas of heredity. I also accept that Napoléon’s siblings Lucien and Elisa died from stomach cancer but this has nothing to do with the genes they had in common. If you want to know the real cause of Napoléon’s death please read my inlays under the subtitle “Napoleon’s Death”. Although details may change to better fit the evidence the description of the main course of events are based on so much evidence that they are highly unlikely to be disproved.
The forth error is not so much an error of the author as an error made by the scientists refered to. The Italians tried to measure the arsenic content of four hair samples from Napoléon: one taken when he was only one year old, one taken in 1814 when he was on Elba, and two taken after his death. They claimed that they all had an arsenic content a hundred times what is considered normal today! Personally, I think their measuring equipment was too insensitive for measuring any arsenic content lower than this. If so it may explain why the hair samples from his “relatives” – in fact his first wife Joséphine and his son Franz – was measured to have the same unbelievably high arsenic content. If the measurements had been correct the arsenic content of the hair sample taken from the one-year-old Napoleone would have been normal or even lower. The adult Napoléon suffered a sub-lethal arsenic poisoning shortly before abdicating for the first time. (“Sub-lethal” means potentially lethal but not necessarily.) So if the hair sample taken on Elba grew then or during the following weeks it would had contained an abnormal amount of arsenic. Yet it would have been nowhere near as the content of the hair samples taken after his death. The highest content of arsenic in any hair sample from Napoléon measured by anyone else was about 40 times the normal. This was in hairs shaved from his head the day after he died.
The hair sample from Joséphine was also taken from her after she had died. She is strongly suspected to have died from sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. If so she would have died two to four days after swallowing the poison. In this time human hair only grows 0.72 – 1.44 millimetres. So unless the hair was shaved from her head it would not contain more arsenic than normal. This would also be the case if she did die from influenza which is the other possible cause of death. What I know for sure is that Franz died from a combination of arsenic and antimony poisoning after being more or less ill for about a year. So if the hair sample from him grew during the last year of his life it would contain significantly more arsenic than normal but not nearly as high as those taken from his father after his death. Please note that every time I write “normal” I mean what is considered “normal” today. If ever given the opportunity I would not hesitate to donate my own hair for testing with the same measuring equipment as the Italians used and at least one of the sets of measuring equipment used by others. I would do it in pursuit of the objective truth as well as for the chance to give these people something to think about. However, it would be best to not tell the scientists that the hair samples come from a present day healthy woman: otherwise the reporting about the finds might be biased.
I intended to put double square brackets around the name “Louis Marchand” and link it to Louis Joseph Marchand. But I could not find anywhere to click in order to change the content of the article. Have those links been removed from the article in order to prevent sabotage? Please note that although I may sound like an expert I have never given myself out as one. I am just a sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. Also, I really enjoy debunking both writing and reading. I will answer questions posted here to the best of my ability.
"He ordered a young cavalry officer, Joachim Murat to seize large cannon and used them to repel the attackers on 5 October 1795—13 Vendémiaire An IV in the French Republican Calendar. 1,400 royalists died and the rest fled..."
Unfortunately I don't have editing priviledges. Could someone please fix it to read "seize large cannons" or something of the sort?
Just yesterday, scattered pages of a novella written by Napoleon were finally put into a complete book form and the book Clisson et Eugenie will be published in autumn. Which part of the page should this be put in?
Please respect the memory of the dead. My ancestor was executed by Michel Ney's 6th Corps on April 20th 1809, in Monforte de Lemos. He had 6 small children, all younger than 10 years old, one to be born less than 3 weeks later. He was assassinated in the most cruel and grotesque manner, in front of his entire family. His wife pleaded he could be administered the Catholic Ritual of extreme unction, but the French prevented it and killed him like an animal. She gave birth prematurely his posthumous son less than 3 weeks later. We know all this because the priest who buried him wrote it down in the book of defuncts of the parish. I have enclosed a transcript here. That very same day, 1,100 innocent civilians of the same village were assassinated in a similar manner. Napoleon murdered millions of innocent civilians all over Europe, and France should be ashamed of this as much as Germany is of the Jewish Holocaust. I do not ask anything from France or the descendants of Napoleon, or those building monuments and celebrating the memory of that genocide. Just respect for the dead and historical truth. (167.206.29.162 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC))
This sad tale has also been posted on the talk page of the Napoleonic Wars. This war was the most brutal the world had ever seen and killed more people than any war previously, and would hold that infamous record for another 100 years (until the First World War). This is just one of perphaps millions of innocent deaths caused by French soldiers. It should be remembered though that Napoleon took advantage of the French revolution that killed hundreds of thousands of French people. Not just the guillotine in Paris killing nobles but French Republican soldiers formed 'Flying Columns' that went through a region slaughtering anyone suspected of being a royalist. In the 'Vendee' region for example it is estimated they slaughtered 250,000 people (even well known Republicans like Mayors) because the area contained an effective resistance against the revolution (Info from 'The First Total War' by David A. Bell) There is also no doubt that France as a whole was, at least at first, in favour of Napoleon's expansion plans. However, unlike Hitler, Napoleon was never elected by the people, though he did take advantage of a wave of popular support (this only happened because of a bloody revolution however). Therefore its a difficult one, it is not quite so easy to pin the blame on the French population at the time, but their is no doubt in my mind that they new it was happening.Willski72 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Very true sorry! I was just trying to tell everyone that the original comment seems to going around and i was merely trying to put it into context (the person is understandably upset). I'll try not to veer off again!Willski72 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Benea and Willski72. I'm another descendant of a family tortured and killed by the French during their criminal invasion of Spain. I cannot express how painful is for me to read articles that glorify the figure of Napoleon. Please understand 167.206.29.162, the jews have received historical justice, and in many countries it is illegal to glorify nazism or the evil figure of Adolf Hitler. Why do we have to stand quiet when we read everywhere that Napoleon was second only to God?? (Niaps (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
I am English, we English had bad relations with the French for over 700 years, i understand your position and what you are trying to achieve and i perfectly agree that those killed should be mentioned. Creating articles is good (as i believe has done been done for Count Partida Defuncion Manuel Joseph Lopez de Prado) but mentioning them on talk pages meant only for improving the article itself is not how to do it. The comment about the Counts vile murder is on the Peninsular War talk page, the First French Empire talk page and the Napoleonic Wars talk page as well as this one. Start an article about the crimes committed by the French Army if you like, you are not alone after all, the French Army marched across all Europe not just Spain. But you must make sure that you have sources and that you must not be biased, no matter what other people say this is an encyclopedia!Willski72 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Willski72, I apologize for the inconvenience of having to repeat myself on several discussion pages. The reason is, all of these pages are showing a bised view of Napoleon, citing his many military glories, ignoring the 6.5 million victims of his tyrannic rule. I would have preferred the articles were more neutral, but that's not the case. Sorry again, and I hope you understand (Niaps (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)).
As much as I can feel for the victims of acts done by some of Napoléon's officers, and for the descendants of these victims, I cannot agree with the word *genocide* being used. As was done to Native Americans by the Spaniards at time of the discovery of America, whose population went from millions to a few hundreds within decades, had genocide been done by Napoléon’s French troops, then the whole of Spain's population would have been wiped out -
- *atrocities*, *war crimes*, *massacres*, yes, but *genocide* no - the word is being misused.
Willski72, I understand and respect your point. Please understand my view, which I think it is equally valid. To write an article about Napoleon without mentioning his record of millions of civilians killed is as deceiptful as writing an article about Hitler hiding his part in the Holocaust. This is a well documented historical fact, and ignoring it is apology of genocide. I'm bringing neutrality to the article.
In that article, the term genocide is used to refer to the killing of a few thousand slaves in Haiti, not the killings in Europe. Genocide is the purposeful attempt to exterminate total populations. The mass killing of civilians in Napoleons rule were not entirely intentional and in large part just the typical effects of large wars caused by the famines from the total war practices. There were of course numerous atrocities that occurred killing tens of thousands, but it was not in a coordinated attempt to exterminate a population, just an attempt to kill anyone in opposition to Napoleon's rule. I think Genocide is an incorrect term in this context. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the newly added paragraph on genocide etc:
Undue weight (WP:DUE) is given to a minority view (seemingly Claude Ribbe's, full stop) regarding comparisons with Hitler and genocide in WWII, even more so to the paragraph on descendants of "victims" requesting a memorial, which is also original research on a primary source (and a blog at that).
Reliable sources are needed. While the Daily Mail article is not the worst they have published, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, and not just in format, besides the reference does not actually support the sentence (article does not mention descendants of victims at all). The second reference is a random web page, I can't read much spanish, but it also appears to be anecdotal, and used as a primary source. As noted above, the memorial request is out of a blog.
Phrasing was not neutral, "genocide" has a very definite meaning inappropiate for the whole section, "murdered" is not an appropriate term for civilian casualties of war.
More generally, I have to point out atrocities are commited in time of war, by all sides. Napoleon was no saint at all, but neither were the ennemies of the empire, and besides, the historical context was not that of the 20th century. We shouldn't be moralising history in the first place, we certainly shouldn't do so selectively, which is what the IP was requesting.
Finally, and as some kind of side note, while some atrocities commited during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars might be noteworthy, they would unlikely belong to overview articles such as this.
Equendil, there is plenty of research on crimes committed by Napoleon's armies. Your argument that "atrocities are commited by all sides in a war" was repelled in the Nuremberg trials. Your affirmation that it is not possible to "murder civilians" at war is absurd (why then the Hague Tribunal?). The article, as it stands, is apologetic to Napoleon's figure, superficial and chauvinist. Napoleon's crimes must be mentioned in Napoleon's article. Please DO NOT delete a complete section written by other contributor. Make the changes and suggestions you consider appropriate. Thanks. (69.120.8.27 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).
While phrasing can be corrected, the entire section was improper for the first and second reason given above. Undue weight, original research and statements not supported by reliable sources are not acceptable. EquendilTalk04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Equendil, you are French and this must be a pill hard to swallow. However, with all respects to your great Nation, 15% of Europe's population perished under Napoleon's rule. Please read the research mentioned at Napoleonic Wars casualties and revert your complete deletion of the section. (Niaps (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
Besides that percentage being largely exagerated, people die in war, always have, always will, soldiers and civilians alike. War is not a happy business, war is ugly, war is about people butchering each others. While you seem to want to blame it all on Napoleon, France, Spain, Austria, England / Great Britain, German states, etc had been at it for centuries without Napoleon, and they didn't stop in 1815. The monarchies of Europe never had any qualm protecting their interests through blood baths and they still didn't in the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon just happened to be the better strategian. Anyway, a lot of people died, that's too bad. None of this is relevant to my objections raised above. That I am French is not relevant either. EquendilTalk06:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Though i am supporting Equendil's overall position i would disagree with him on one point, at the time when the monarchies fought the wars were generally protracted but borders did not change much and so the people affected were lesser in number in Europe (atrocities did still happen though). The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars opened this up so that the atrocities were felt throughout Europe. In Spain there were terribly brutal atrocities on both sides as the Spanish desperately defended their home from the invader who had been told to 'live of the land' (which basically meant stealing food off everyone) and supress rebellion. To get back to Niaps point though i do understand your position. For example on the Peninsular War article it should mention that atrocities were known to have occurred (although i doubt we'll ever have accurrate numbers). On this article it could say that Napoleon's men were known to have committed crimes throughout Europe (sometimes in desperation admittedly). And on the Napoleonic Wars article it could say that protracted rebellions led atrocities being committed in Spain, Southern Italy etc. The problem is i'm not sure if there is proof that Napoleon ordered these things or whether each seperate General took it upon themselves. However it must be remembered that these articles encompass a vast amount of history and so a sentence or two is enough, not hundreds of words. If you wish to do youre families justice all i can suggest you do is set up an unbiased article on atrocities during the Napoleonic wars (which must include those committed on captured French soldiers). It is not 'genocide' but it might of been 'atrocities' or 'brutal quelling of rebellion'.Willski72 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Brutal suppression of the uprising in Spain is actually mentioned in the Peninsula War article, the same goes for the Haitian revolution, massacres in egypt are featured in Napoleonic Campaign in Egypt & Siege of Acre (1799), Siege of Jaffa, I'm not going to list it all, the point is, it's there for those who look. That's not really what Niaps wants. What he does want is to portray Napoleon as the 19th century equivalent of Hitler and the Napoleonic Wars as another Holocaust, with all the emotional baggage that comes with it all, and that based on fringe views, unreliable sources, and through original research. EquendilTalk17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I fear you may be closer to the truth than i think Equendil, if these facts are already there then there is nothing more to do. I will repeat that they should create their own article and make sure their is no bias and each sides points are put across fairly, this is an Encyclopedia after all. If the created article is not unbiased they must accept that it may be got rid of. I fully understand their emotional position on this point but they must understand that an Encyclopedia shows no emotion. There is no evidence, for example, that Napoleon himself ordered these atrocities, even if they did occurr.Willski72 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
número uno: Why are not these simultaneous attacks on all subjects concerning Napoléon on French Wikipedia instead of here?
número dos : RE a memorial to the Spanish victims of the French army during the French occupation of Spain two hundred years ago, there is one already which speaks better than any 21st century memorial erected at the Arc de Triomphe, the Invalides, on top or under the Tour Eiffel: it is the splendid work done by Goya: El dos de mayo, El tres de mayo, and his eighty prints Los desastres de la guerra.
número tres: During the Spanish civil war (1936-1939) 440,000 Spanish citizens, republicanos se fueron a Francia donde se establecieron and their children, grandchildren & great-grandchildren are still there.
número cuatro: It is impossible to count the number of small & large towns in France that are twin-cities (villes jumelées) with towns in Spain. Here are a few:
Agen/Toledo; Avignon/Tortosa y Tarragona; Bayonne/Pampeluna; Biarritz/Zaragosa; Bordeaux/Bilbao: Brest/Cadiz; Castres/Linares; Foix/Lerida; Lille/Valladolid; Paris/Madrid; Pau/Zaragosa; Toulouse/Elche y Zaragosa; Tours/Toledo y Segovia...
To which we must add the "Midi-Pyrénées" Region with a total (as close as I can count) of at least 80 jumelages.
número cinco: All this to say that if you have a problem with Napoléon, you should address your complaint to *all the above*.
número seis: We all are descendants of victims of someone's atrocities or injustice in the past, but we cannot pick at Wikipedia's articles to vent our hatred or unforgiveness. Wikipedia is not the place for Nuremberg type trials or repentance.
Well said Frania W. there is reason to believe that Niaps, Qqtacpn and 167.206.29.162 along with a few others are either the same person or working together. They have created articles which had little if any supportive fact and they are under investigation by the administrators. It seems that these comments are merely the tip of the iceberg.Willski72 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind, as a French citizen who has lived for fifteen years in Spain, that the mourning of Napoleon´s victims is the ground on which modern Spanish nationalism has been invented (They could not, at that time, agree on anything else). And we should be careful, when 167.206.29.162 is talking about "genocide" not to fall into the excesses of nationalist propaganda. Unfortunately, some extremists still capitalize on these remote wars in order to fuel an antiquated jingoism based on resentment and even hatred. Let us not forget, however, that this war was one of the first counter-insurrectional wars in modern history. That a minority of people, irresponsibly exposed civilians to the backlash of occupying troops by hiding among the population. These cowards too are celebrated as heroes. Many of them were actually priests who not only were participating to the insurrection, but who also sought to reestablish the inquisition! Therefore, how should I trust what a priest wrote in the book of the defunct? Instead of trying to "honour the dead", I think we should rather take care of our own lives. Clément, a descendant of the victims of so many wars. 24.90.250.211 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not admire Napoléon but I have to point out that he did not commit genocide. First, I have to make it clear what I mean with “genocide” since this word has been misused many times. My definition includes the following criterion:
1. Type of atrocity. It must consist of the killing, deportation or forced sterilization of humans. Other types of suppression is not counted. 2. Number of victims. The victims have to be at least a hundred thousand people. 3. Type of victims. The victims must be virtually defenceless, that is, always or almost always unarmed. War causalities are not counted since the targets are ether armed or supporting armed people. 4. Type of organization. The atrocities have to be committed by one government or government-like organization. Atrocities committed by several governments or similar organizations are counted as separate crimes. 5. Speed. The minimum number of victims has to be killed, deported or involuntary sterilized within five years.
A true genocide has to meet all criteria listed. However, if the error margin allows for one of the criteria to be met it is counted as meting this criterion. Clear examples of genocide are the Nazi genocide – including the Holocaust – and the SovietGulag system. Other clear but not as infamous examples are the Turkish genocide on Armenians during WWI and the mass slaughter by the Khmer Rogue. On the other hand the Witch Trials where not a genocide since it failed on point 2, 4 and 5. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people where killed during the course of several centuries. Furthermore, they where killed not only by the Roman Catholic Church but mainly by several independent Protestant governments. Several claims of genocide of indigenous peoples fail on the low number of potential victims as the targeted group numbered less than a hundred thousand. Please also note that the Spanish Conquistadors did not reduce Native Americans to just a few hundred Although populations dropped drastically due to epidemics leading to the collapse of whole civilisations Native Americans still numbered in the millions. In the Andes and parts of Central America the natives still consists the majority of the population. If the Conquistadors had reduced the populations of natives to a few hundred they would not have had any peoples to rule. In reality they aimed to conquer and not exterminate. (In fact the word “conquistador” means “conqueror” in Spanish.) Anyone with any significant knowledge of world history should know that the Conquistadors succeeded in this effort.
The wish to commit genocide may be ancient but I don't think any such could have been committed until the later half of the 19th century. The necessary means most likely did not exist until at least the middle of the 19th century an possibly not until about 1900. The means includes administration, manpower and transport. The administration has to be of a relatively modern type meaning that the civil servants has to put the interests of the government before their own personal ones. The manpower consists of a sufficient number of people educated enough to carry out what I consider a crime against humanity. The transport means vehicles that can be used for mass transit such as trains, lorries and buses. During Napoléon's time the required administration may or may not have existed. However, I seriously doubt that the necessary manpower existed at the time. What I know for sure is that neither lorries nor buses where invented and that trains only existed on an experimental stage. The relatively primitive state of the medical profession also meant that forced mass sterilization was unattainable. Furthermore, Napoléon was a highly egoistic man. It may seem paradoxical but a high degree of altruism is required to commit genocide. As far as I know all genocides have been ordered in the severely mistaken belief that the society would benefit from it. There are simply no egoistic motif for ordering the death, deportation or forced sterilization of a hundred thousand people or more. However, my main argument is that Napoléon could not have committed genocide even if he had wanted.
This is not written in an effort to rehabilitate Napoléon's reputation. I consider him the first modern dictator. I think a dictator is frightening enough without having to accuse him of genocide. In this particular case the dictator in question had neither means nor motif to commit genocide. I don't think Charles Napoléon Bonaparte and his family should be proud of him. If anything I want them to dissociate themselves from Napoléon's suppression of free opinion and his incorporation of non-functional parts of democracies in his government. I am not an historian just an ordinary sceptic. But I am ready to answer all questioners except trolls.
2009-08-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Nickname for Napoleon
According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (Ivor Evans, Revised Edition, 1988), Napoleon was given the nickname 'Little Corporal' after the battle of Lodi in 1796, "from his low stature, youthful age and great courage." I'm not sure if this is worth of inclusion, so I'll leave it up to the regular editors to decide whether or not to include it. It's on page 675, under the entry "Little Corporal". --Joth (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks, there is already a note on 'le petit caporal' in the article. (Petit in French doesn't always mean small, it can be used as part of a term of endearment'.) Many histories talk about this nickname being given after Lodi, though others say this was a myth [6]. Tom B (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Legacy:Admirers and Critics
This section mentions "the ideals of the revolution", but what the heck are they? This seems like a central question for nearly the whole article, without which all the mere data about his battles have no context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Average64 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes wasnt one of the "ideals of the revolution" liberty-in other words not press ganging young men into the army in Levee en masse. Werent you suppossed to vote for the people that led you? Rather than just having a good general calling himself "Emperor". Many of the fundamental revolutionary principals were lost when Napoleon became Emperor.--Willski72 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Willski, "Many of the fundamental revolutionary principals were lost when Napoleon became Emperor." To which I answer: "Many of the fundamental revolutionary principals were lost during the Revolution itself." The Revolution lost its soul when it allowed the massacres in September 1792 and opened wide the door of the Reign of Terror. Frania W. (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Very true very true, such is the way with most revolutions as history shows plainly. But Napoleon really hammered the nail in the coffin in that they couldnt even pretend anymore.--Willski72 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I refer to this section:
Reign 18 May 1804 – 6 April 1814
20 March 1815 – 22 June 1815
Coronation 2 December 1804
Predecessor French Consulate
Himself as First Counsel of the French First Republic.
Previous ruling Monarch was Louis XVI as King of the French (1791-1792)
Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.
To back up the above review about point 1., many of the internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>
If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards
napolean bonaparte gave the thought that 'army runs with the support of stomach' with these king and government started providing army with surplus amount of food.Napolean was a great tactician with small no of soldiers he attacked large number of armies successfully.There has been discussion on napoleans sleep time.it has been believed that he just slept of 3 to 4hours of a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahajanpranav14 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Since he is most commonly known as Napoleon Bonaparte, shouldn't that be the article name? WP:NCP suggests using the name that is most generally recognizable and unambiguous. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Napoleon was ruler of France under the name Napoleon I and rulers should appear under their 'official' name. Moreover, just after his death, attempts have been made by the British governor of the island of St. Helena to belittle Napoleon's persona by engraving the words Napoleon Bonaparte on his grave, thus suggesting he had been just another general. Stiff resistance from Grand Marshal Henri Bertrand led to Napoleon's tomb on that island remaining nameless. So, moving the article to 'Napoleon Bonaparte' would not only make Napoleon seem different from other rulers of countries (which he wasn't) but would also be disrespectful to the memory of this great man. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there something in the Wikipedia Manual of Style about using "official" names? All I found was WP:NCP which suggests using the most common name. Perhaps you disagree that this is the most common name he is known by? I also do not think that anyone today would find naming the article "Napoleon Bonaparte" demeaning, he is well-respected as the great leader he was irrespective of title. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sligocki, I don't think there is any formula for what name we should use. Personally, I'm of the opinion that using the Regnal names are the most appropriate, after all it would be a lie
to not awknowledge the fact that he was a monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.229.226 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you point me towards such a discussion? I do not see it on this page and I can't find any archives. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And we "must" blindly obey the awful naming conventions regardless of everything. Don't dare to think about it, and simply ignore the undisputed fact that the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking Encyclopaedias, media, etc use Napoleon Bonaparte. Forget common sense and ignore the major advice: use the most common English form. We are meant to only obey the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) regardless of everything. I can only wonder how Alexander the Great dared to avoid Napoleon's fate. Flamarande (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC) PS: You can always make an official request for a move. It may pass or it may not.
If a user types in Napoleon Bonaparte, he will be redirected to this article, so nothing is lost by not moving it. This is the standard naming convention for royalty articles, the same way Elizabeth Windsor redirects to the queen of England. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The question here is about what is the most common unambiguous name for Napoleon. I believe it is Napoleon Bonaparte (and the fact that that is the way he is referred in this article itself supports that belief). I do not believe that Elizabeth Windsor is the most common name for the queen (and on that page, she is referred to as Elizabeth II). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know about the rest of Europe but in France, height of people is given in meter + centimeters. For instance, (if correct height) Napoléon was 1m,70 = un mètre soixante-dix. Frania W. (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You all think thats bad? I hear people speak of naught point naught five centimetres. The correct English for that is 50 µm. If you do not understand µm, you really are'nt metric. Just to show of, I am able to write µm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This article should be renamed as the official title of Napoleon Bonaparte was "Napoleon I, Emperor of the French". He never was "Emperor of France". That's important because Napoleon wanted to be distinguished from the kings of France and it symbolically meant that Napoleon came from the "nation" and was not a king by divine right like the monarchs of the Ancien Régime. I propose to rename this article "Napoleon I" as there never was an other monarch called "Napoleon I". DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Good luck on that one! The same goes wih the going back & forth of "Louis-Philippe I, King of the French" to "Louis-Philippe I of France" to "Louis-Philippe I, King of the French". --Frania W. (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right, his title was "Emperor of the French", and he was the first to take that title. The change was politically motivated in an attempt to say he governed with the authority of the French people, as opposed to his predecessors who governed with the authority of "France" interpreted as the land itself. It was only a symbolic way to try and show he was not the absolute monarch like his predecessors. That said, while his title was "Of the French", he was in terms of succession "of France". The kingdom was not named "French", it was "France". He would be included a "List of Monarchs of France", not "List of Monarch of French". France works here. I say keep it as it is. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In the context of the "title of the article", "of France" has been adopted with more or less consensus or decided upon by those who want to apply Wikipedia "rules & regulations" whether historically correct or not, i.e. the emperors Napoléon I, II, III and king Louis-Philippe. Putting "of France" runs against what both Napoléon I & Louis-Philippe had decided, that their title should be followed by "of the French", meaning that they were sovereigns in accordance with the will of the French people, not by the "Grace of God", and as "owners" of the country, as was the case with the long line of kings before them, Louis XVIII & Charles X included.
This wanting to treat every sovereign the same as if Wikipedia was a one-way highway from which no one can divert is making for weird titles that, as in the case of Napoléon I, II, III & Louis-Philippe are in total disagreement with historical facts.
Charles Edward, Of course the one-kilometer long title for Elizabeth II is not being proposed as title of her article, but it should be somewhere in the article. Also, Napoléon I, II, III & Louis-Philippe are in the list of "monarchs of France", which should not change the fact that they were not "So & So de France", but "So & So des Français". Please click on the link I gave above & follow the discussion that took place there & which is kind of dying out now. --Frania W. (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Frania. The current title is against all historical facts and could be interpreted as a POV. Napoleon wasn't the first to take the title "of the French", keep in mind that Louis XVI himself was "king of the French" from 1791 to 1792. The difference between "of France" and "of the French" as an important historical, philosophical and political signification as it makes a distinction between the "liberal" monarchs who reffered themselves to the Revolution and the "absolute" monarchs related to the Ancien Régime.
As there's no other monarch called Napoleon I, II, III or Louis-Philippe I, why can't we just name these articles "Napoleon I", "Napoleon II", "Napoleon III" an "Louis-Philippe I" ?
(outdent) WP:NCROY says: "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Roman Empire (not, therefore, to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. This produces, for example, several kings and an emperor, all of whom are most commonly called Henry IV. We therefore call them Henry IV of England, Henry IV of France, and so on. The same holds for most kings; see also James I, Robert I, and so on." The name of the article is not meant to include the title of the monarch. It is name and number - and country when there are monarchs with the same number. As stated here: "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of kings, queens regnant, and many emperors and empresses regnant in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}", omitting the royal or imperial titles. Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France. Holy Roman Emperors and German Emperors are an exception, see point 3. See point 5 for rulers below the rank of king. " Seems to me this discussion should be happening on the policy page. Policy explicitly says to omit their title. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
To Charles Edward: I have participated in several discussions on this type of subject & am not going to spend time on another endless discussion, which is the reason I threw in my "Good luck on that one!" to DITWIN GRIM's comment. Additional thoughts on the subject were just my thoughts, and were not meant to spark another formal discussion. --Frania W. (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
To DITWIN GRIM, As I wrote immediately after your first comment: "Good luck on that one!" on Wikipedia one-way highway that cares more on visual perfection in titles of articles even if this means pushing exactitude on the side of the road. Yet, the same dogmatic Wikipedia insists on keeping Marie Antoinette with nothing to follow, which forces the need of disambiguation so as not to mix her up with Coppola's navet. --Frania W. (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles Edward ! This is exactly what I mean: as the Anglos think of someone, immediately, it has to be dubbed "universal" ! Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the point made above about changing the article's name (the ones about Louis-Philippe, Napoleon II and Napoleon III should follow the same principle respectively) into Napoleon I. This would have 3 advantages:
it would not be in contradiction with the historically-proven fact that he was actually NOT Emperor of France. This was not only a distinction in political doctrine, but also a characteristic of the regime, given the fact that he became Emperor following a senatus-consultus and was later validated as Emperor through plebiscite by the French people);
it would be simple and it would not create any confusion, as there was no other monarch with that name;
it would not link Napoleon to France only - remember that he also held the title of King of Italy and Protector of the Confederacy of the Rhine.
What a surprise to discover a couple of like-minded fellow editors who think that an encyclopedia should respect "historical accuracy"! Alexandru & DITWIN GRIM, you made my day! Aurevoir! --Frania W. (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In regards to historical accuracy, his title and the explanation are included in detail in the article, nothing is being left out. The title of the article is supposed to be a common term used for the person, nothing else. Someone walking around on the street, or in a scholarly work, would not refer to Napoleon and "Napolean, Emperor of the French", constantly. It would be simplify it down simply to Napoleon - just like it is here. The Basic title of the article is "Napoleon", but there are more than one, therefore we add the ordinal number to his name. "Napoleon I". And to disambigate him from any other "Napoleon I" that may be out there, the country he ruled is included, which was France.
In regards to historical accuracy, he was styled "Emperor of the French", but in reality there were many french speaking peoples who he did not rule over, and many french speaking people who did not support his rule. It was merely a political statement to change his title. In practical terms, he ruled France and some of the French speaking peoples. He did not rule "French". French is not nation or state that ever existed. It was just his title and would be confusing the reader without context to have it as the title of the the article. Again, policy as it stands expressly does not permit his title to be used in the name of the article. If you want to change the policy, you should open an RFC, or at minimum start a discussion on the policy page. Article titles have nothing to do with historical accuracy, or anything else, the purpose of the title is to choose the simplest one for the reader to find the article. Exmaple: Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton) Colonel Sanders, (not Harland Sanders), etc. Maybe in France he is more well known as Emporer of the French, but it is not so in the English speaking world. In fact most people know him as "Napoleon Bonaparte".
I do agree with Alexandru.demia about removing the "of France' from the title. I am not aware of any other Napolean I's. That title would be simpler. I would support that change. If you look back in the history of talk archives, there are lengthy debates about why the article is named the way it is. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles Edward, you must be aware of the fact that I do understand exactly what you are saying but, because of the very fact that both "Napoléon I" & "Louis-Philippe" did not want to be titled "de France", it shocks me when, in an English language article, I see "of France" stuck after the three Napoléon & Louis-Philippe. As simple as that for my logical mind.
If, as is done for some (Charlemagne, Marie Antoinette), only the names were left, then I would go for it, for the simple fact that Napoléon is as well known as they are. In fact, the title of the original article was Napoléon as you can see from the redirect to present title; which means that a discussion on title of article must have taken place already.
As said earlier, there is a discussion going on here[7], so I do not think it is necessary to open one somewhere else.
I've read over that, and it appears there is no consensus to change the policy, and near the end it is suggested to take the discussion to an RFC. There are merits to you opinions, and I don't really disagree with them in spirit. But community consensus is what it is. There is a route that somewhat sweeping changes like this should take. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So, we seem to have some early consensus about the fact that the most adapted article name would be 'Napoleon I'. Several reasons have been brought up for this, most important of which seems to be the fact that there was only one noteworthy figure with that name. Let's see what some of the other editors think.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
outdent. hey guys, had been reading the discussion and wasn't going to say anything but Charles asked if i had a view. i don't mind too much about the article title though personally i think i'd prefer "Napoleon Bonaparte", - "Napoleon" might get confused with Napoleon III or dynamite! - as massively more recognisable for English speakers. but it seems there are some rather strict rules on article titles. hope all is well, Tom B (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My problem with this is it would make us (perhaps unwitting) mouthpieces for 19th century British propaganda and accomplices to the old British project of de-legitimizing Napoleon's reign. "Napoleon Bonaparte" immediately evokes images of the Frenchman-of-convenience; the soldier-of-fortune; the parvenu, usurper, and tyrant who cynically clothed a capricious and dictatorial rule with the trappings of republican/popular and imperial legitimacy. To me this would be similar to renaming George I of Great BritainGeorg Ludwig or George, Elector of Hanover (disregarding the obvious fact that these are not common English-language names but also the less-obvious fact that Napoleon's rule was, by any conceivable criterion, far more legitimate than George's). Albrecht (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A remark to Charles Edward who wrote: "But community consensus is what it is." One of the most respected dictionaries (in fact two: one for common words, one for persons, countries, historical events etc.) in France was written (first edition in 1988) by one gentleman together with a team of experts, and, I can assure you, "community consensus" was not one of his concerns. His only goal was exactitude, not consensus arrived at by Google hits. --Frania W. (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Albrecht, brilliant post! Napoleon Bonaparte was the name Sir Hudson Lowe wanted to inscribe on Napoleon's St. Helena tomb -- meaning that he was a general, a private figure, an usurper who stole the crown from its rightful owners, a man unworthy of any other title than the one of general of division and, maybe, head of the French Government. For most 19th century British propaganda, Whigs aside, 'Boney was a warrior, Jean-Francois' and that's all that there is to it. Fortunately, Grand Marshal Henri Bertrand was adamant in opposing such a sacrilege and the tomb in St. Helena remained unmarked. Whatever one's opinion about Napoleon I. nobody can deny that he was legitimate ruler of France and he enjoyed wide national support, through the senatus-consultus of 1804 and the ensuing plebiscite, which made him more legitimate than any other contemporary chief of state. Going back to today's topic, I would support the initiative of renaming the article 'Napoleon I', which would have the advantage of being historically-accurate and compatible with wikipedia conventions. Cheers,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
We should probably seek out a kindly admin to change the name for us, since no one seems opposed to dropping the "of France". I think that addresses all the concerns about historical accuracy (by omitting the offending "of France") while still complying with policy on the naming of European royalty. The article is currently protected from earlier vandalism. I also note from the log [8][9], that this article was once named Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, and the move to the current name was done because of the existing policy. I will see if I can find an admin who can do that. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
name of the piece
I think we should add the name of the piece Napoleon wrote which caught Robespierre brothers' attention. I am looking for the name of that story and couldn't find it on wiki. It's suppose to be dinner at Salon or something. Can anyone add it? I am considering buying one copy maybe off ebay, so I been looking into the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TehElCid (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
it's already in the article: "he published a pro-republican pamphlet, Le Souper de Beaucaire (Supper at Beaucaire), which gained him the admiration and support of Augustin Robespierre" Tom B (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Early Career section, it refers to him being relocated to Constantinople, following with the info that it was renamed in 1930. But the 1930 "renaming" was more of a formality than anything else, as the Turks had been calling it Istanbul for much longer than that... Surely, Istanbul is the more proper name? Ringhloth (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Warfare section error
"Wellington was never defeated in any battle, Napoleon was...". This isn't so. Wellington suffered several defeats, the most clear cut being the Siege of Burgos. These defeats were minor compared to Napoleon’s, but then Napoleon often faced far more difficult situations and more numerous foes (like at Leipzig and Waterloo). But then the Peninsular Campaign was never on the same scale as Napoleon's campaigns.
In terms of failures, the Iron Duke suffered setbacks at Redinha, El Boden and Villa Muriel. He also failed in the siege of Burgos and the 1st siege of San Sebastian. He was also strategically beaten at Quatre Bras by Ney, thus failing to aid Blucher at Ligny. He was almost defeated at Fuentes d'Onoro, probably being saved by the jealousy and lack of cooperation amongst Massena's generals. There is also debate as to whether or not he really won the Battle of Toulouse. Finally, I'm not sure if it was Wellington who manned the 2nd Siege of Badajoz, but this too ended in failure. These events are often overlooked in books on Napoleonic history. Guard Chasseur (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
His status as a Monarch was confirmed in 1804, and then Europe was to know he was a Monarch in all and in name. When did he start to become a Monarch in all but name? I heard he was a "single-ruler" by the end of 1800. (85.164.223.175 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
Accidental two periods.
{{editsemiprotected}}
The following line: "Though Sieyès expected to dominate the new regime, he was outmanoeuvred by Bonaparte, who drafted the Constitution of the Year VIII and secured his own election as First Consul, and he took up residence at the Tuileries.." has an unnecessary extra period. If someone could edit this, that'd be great! 72.211.238.98 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Section "Early Career" says: "gained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and command over a battalion of volunteers" and later on "promote him to captain". This is obscure, as lieutenant colonel is higher than captain. Also, in the French version N. is "second in command in a battalion". Maybe the above sentence should be corrected to:
"gained the rank of lieutenant colonel in the National Guard and command in a battalion of volunteers"? 132.66.40.82 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Lieutenant Colonel is higher than captain in the current Ranks in the French Army as you say. However the mentions of rank in the article should have derived from the McLynn source listed, though the ranks may have been changed in the article by an editor a few months ago, i'll have to check. If you've got any good sources about Napoleon's rank or anything else please bring them here. Tom B (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no sources, except the French version in the Wikipedia. But perhaps you misunderstood my comment: the text is probably correct, but imprecise and hence misleading. To make it more clear one should distinguish between ranks in the French Army and ranks in the National Guard - and then everything is OK. My above proposed correction takes this into account. 132.66.40.82 (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
a typo
in the Criticism section : "prophecised" needs changing to "prophesied" from vb. to prophesy (as different from n. "prophecy") thanks 110.32.232.94 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Napoleon's height
Can somebody give more on this issue? According to the human height article, Napoleon was only 4'11 or possibly 5'4 or 5'5 inches, I don't remember which one, but in either case well bellow the 5'7 inches given here, which in any case I rather doubt was average height in France c.1800 (in other places I've heard 5'5 or less). In other "revisionist" accounts I usually hear 5 feet 6 inches not 7, which is in fact the height given in the article sourced!! (which really makes me suspicious that something funny is going, especially since the article is in French and this may be considered a matter of national pride). I'm beginning to wonder if we don't really know much about either Napoleon's height OR average height in France at that time, since I've heard such varying accounts from all sides and even between different supposedly verified sources. In any case considering this is a very commonly referenced issue it deserves far greater detail than one article (in French and inaccurately quoted!!) referenced here and some admission that there may be uncertainty up until modern times. (93.65.186.151 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
Most people in the know, understand that he was not "short" at all, and was average height for the average European man of his generation. The height thing was blown out of proportion by mainly two reasons:
1. The victors write history.
2. It started to widely circulate a few generations later, when people were on the average taller than Napoleon's day, so they saw him as "short" in retrospect while purposely ignoring the context of time placement, since it would go against their aim of portraying him as "small." Jersey John (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Oh and as for actual height I know not, but 4'11 is catagorically untrue, and I seem to recall hearing he was about 5'6. Jersey John (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
does that mean when he was called "Petit Caporal" or "Little Corporal" it wasnt about his height, but the minor size of his army in combat? 110.32.232.94 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Napoléon was not a tall man, but he certainly was not a midget either, and the fact that he was referred to by his troops as "le petit caporal" could be attributed to his size, but also to the fact that he was much liked, as "petit" can also be used as an endearing term. If "petit" was meant for the size of his army (!!!???) it is not Napoléon who would have been referred to as "petit caporal", but his army as "petite armée".
I've never heard anything about any orange selling, if you've got any good sources, grateful if you bring them here. His father represented Corsica at court in Paris and he also had enough suction to get his son into a relatively prestigious military school. They were allowed to use the noble 'di' before the family name 'Buonaparte'. The family wasn't high nobility but it was still nobility. 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
His mother was of daughter of the Captain of Corse Regiments of Chivalry and Infantry in the Army of the Republic of Genoa, but they were to impoverish to educate her. I think you got the orange seller story from what Napoleon's niece, Mathilde Bonaparte, said "If it weren't for him [Napoleon I], I'd be selling oranges in the streets of Ajaccio."--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Corsica
I modified the description of Corsica in the lede, because the article made it sound like Corsica was a part of France when Napoleon was born. However that only happened a year later. The distinction is relevant, since the turbulence in Corsica during Napoleon's youth probably had some effect ton him. Also just as a factual matter, Corsica simply was not part of France in 1769. Gacggt (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit does not reflect the actual state of things. The French had bought Corsica from Genoa, made landfall and started operations against the rebels in 1768 and by the end of May 1769 had defeated them. Some remote parts of the island were not brought under French control until the late 1769 or early 1770, but by mid-1769 the French had taken control of much of the island. Napoleon was thus born in a French-controlled Corsica (again, except some minor parts of the island) and not in an independent state. I see that an edit has already been done to this effect, so I will leave it as it is now. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Alexandru. Many sources describe how Madame Mere (Napoleon's mother) liked to tell the story of how she and her husband hiked through the mountains with Paoli's guerrillas while she was pregnant with the future Emperor. The reason they were in the mountains was because they were fighting against the French occupation! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Petit Robert (1988), p. 455: " [...] Gênes, réduite aux plaines côtières, vendit la Corse à la France en 1768, un an avant la naissance de Napoléon Bonaparte..." Beside, when was Corsica independent?
I must admit that Frania W has a point. Try speaking of (say) the Canary Islands as an independant country. One thing Spain and Morocco will agree on, is that a such notion does not belong any part of history. There is no presidence for such.--85.164.220.173 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The rebuttals interestingly do not comport with Wikipedia's Corsica entry... here is the relevant paragraph from that page: "The Corsican Republic was unable to eject the Genoese from the major coastal cities. Following French losses in the Seven Years War, Corsica was purchased secretly by France from the Republic of Genoa in 1764. After an announcement and brief war in 1768-69 Corsican resistance was largely ended at the Battle of Punto Novo. Despite triggering the Corsican Crisis in Britain, no foreign military support came for the Corsicans. Corsica was incorporated into France in 1770, marking the end of Corsican sovereignty. However, national feelings still run high." It seems like the relevant date is when the actual incorporation into France occurred. Gacggt (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This might be because the official announcement that the island was pacified came in early 1770, so the island was officially incorporated in the Kingdom then. However, this does not mean that in 1769 the island was independent; it was just in revolt against the Crown.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to anoy you all with a legal term, here it is: Sui Generis. It's something like "by actual/normal interpretation/understanding of the law". So when was it a "fait accompli" that Corsica was to be understood as being a mere part of The Kingdom of France. I have the impression that the British Government said of Corsica that the guerillas can live and let die, and no assistance was to be given. It would be strange if Britain made, and therefore knew of the Fait Accompli before even the French.--85.164.220.173 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE ALBANIAN
Napoleon Bonaparte's Albanian origin
On 1903, Adolf Thieres write: ”When Josef Bonaparti, the older brother of Napoleon Bonapartit became King of Naples on 1806, Arberesh/Albanians that went to welcome him, he told them: ”And Bonaparti family is from arberesh origin". Adolf Thieres, x-president of Franc said: Bonapart's older brother admit on 1806 , that his family was an Arberesh origin and had very close relationship to Ali Pasha Tepelena. On Bonaparti's family, profesor Robert d’Angely with origin from Corsica enlight in his book "Enigma of race of origins and languages of Pelasg,Arian,Hellen,Etruscan,Greek and Albanian". It is a book with seven volumes and with a 30 years work from this profesor. In pages 113-117 he wrote that Napoleon Bonaparti was an albanian origin, same as it was Great Alexander and Scanderbeg.It is interesting that the profesor says in his book that the old surname of Napoleon was ”Kalë-miri” ( in Albanian good-hourse) and not Kalimeros as greeks lie.
Irvi Hyka--Irvi Hyka 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hykatalk
Napoleon"ic"?
This will be very short and is not for the improvement of the article, but the title of the article at some point was renamed "Napoleonic" which really is vague and not the topic of the article in the first place. A hereby request renaming the article back to "Napoleon I of France" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.85.243 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Can someone explain the rationale of the man's biographical page being labeled under the adjective form of his name? I can only assume it's Vandalization. CFLeon (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, folks, did either of you actually look at the article? Right up at the top? Where it says "Napoleon I", not "Napoleonic"? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, three times (a fourth just now to see if it had been changed). The article's title reads "NAPOLEONIC" (capitalization added for emphasis), with "redirected from 'Napoleon'". The URL in my computer's address bar is "Napoleon", but the title on the article itself, which is what we're talkiing about, remains as stated. CFLeon (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Must be some glitch somewhere. On my browser it's titled "Napoleon I". But look at the History for some recent fiddling - however, that was quite some time ago, It was never Napoleon'ic (with that weird stray apostrophe). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The 'apostrophe' is meant to be quotation marks (why did you think there were TWO of them if it was an apostrophe?). probably should have been double quotes (and I've changed it to be so). By the way, this page remains "Talk:Napoleon 1", no problem there. CFLeon (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Try clearing your browser's cache and refreshing. The page was moved to Napoleonic last night to merge an old edit, and then promptly (within less than 120 seconds) moved right back to its former title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bokononist, as Dwyer says, some people say he was imprisoned but there does not appear to be any evidence for this. Tom B (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
He was imprisoned at the Fort Carré in Antibes from 12 to 23 August 1794 - included it in article with source: Souvenirs et mémoires: recueil mensuel de documents autobiographiques - Souvenirs - Mémoires - Correspondance, Directeur Paul Bonnefon, Bibliothécaire à l'Arsenal, Tome V, 15 juillet, 15 décembre 1900, Lucien Gougy Libraire, Paris, 1900, p. 36, footnote 1[10]:
"... Le Fort Carré, où fut incarcéré et détenu son fils après Thermidor, du 12 au 23 août 1794."
That source is from 1900. Recent scholarship (2008) from Dwyer explicitly states that there does not appear to be any evidence he was imprisoned. Tom B (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should invite Messieurs Dwyer & Tulard[11], a French historian & specialist on Napoléon Bonaparte & the French Revolution, to discuss the point. Regretfully, I do not have any of Jean Tulard's books with me to counter your reversal, and the only arguments available to me right now are
[12], a short piece by Jean Tulard, who is the author of the Dictionnaire Napoléon, Fayard, 1987.
and this article on Napoléon's correspondence [13], by Jean Tulard in Journal des savants, 1966, Volume I, where on page 52 you can read:
Au terme d'une brève détention, Bonaparte confie son amertune dans une épître officielle en date du 27 thermidor an II [...]"
which does not mention the Fort Carré at Antibes, but the brève détention.
Hi Frania, Dwyer 2008 says "...Comte Laurenti...vouched for him so that he was simply placed under house arrest (at the Laurenti's). Tradition has it that Buonaparte was incarcerated in the Fort Carré in Antibes, but there is no basis for this in the sources." Dwyer then adds a reference: 'Jean Tulard and Louis Garros, Itinéraire de Napoléon au jour le jour, 1769-1821, (Paris 1992), p. 61.' How does it make sense to use much earlier sources to argue something, when a 2008 scholarly source, the most modern source, has been explicitly quoted noting what previous sources have claimed, and that they have no basis? I emailed Dwyer a few months ago and he is busy writing the second volume of his Napoleon biography. Tom B (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Tom, we may be having no reason to argue on this - and this is my doing in bringing out Bonnefon, as I now realise the incarceration at Fort Carré may be a "fantaisie historique". My reason for bringing out Tulard, however, is not on an incarceration at Fort Carré, but on Bonaparte's arrest & short detention - wherever the place may have been - right after 9 Thermidor.
I have written a summary of the current state of knowledge on Napoléon’s death. This is at translation of the whole Swedish original except for a note on who translated a quote from French to Swedish. I have just divided it into three parts. The first one goes through the evidence and debunks counter-arguments. The second one describes chronologically what happened. The third deals with the question of responsibility. It is almost too long but the purpose of the original Swedish text had two purposes. One was to explain what Napoléon died from. The other was to debunk some misconceptions on Napoléon's time on Saint Helena. I have tried to came as close as possible to what I wanted to say without violating the rules for correct English. For safety's sake it has been proof-read by the Swedish sceptic Peter Olausson.
“Napoléon was poisoned to death. There are four evidences for this. The first is his symptoms during the five years he was ill. The least interrupted description comes from Louis Joseph Marchand. As the leading of the three valets he saw Napoléon almost every day. In his diary Louis wrote down what he witnessed on Saint Helena. It was amongst other things how the ex-emperor felt and which symptoms he had. His observations are confirmed by the testimony from Napoléon's good friend Henri Gratien Bertrand. Henri held a formal office but had no real tasks. One could well say that he got paid for keeping Napoléon company. In addition there are case records from the four physicians which examined Napoléon: Barry O'Meara, John Stokoe, Francesco Antommarchi and Archibald Arnott. The person they describe is NOT a cancer patient. Instead they describe a person who repeatedly have been poisoned by certain substances.
The second evidence is the state of the inner organs at the autopsy. Francesco was the most qualified person who was present. He found no tumour much less the metastases which would have been required to kill him. The assertion that he would have done so is based on a mistranslation. On the contrary his description of the inner organs matches exactly the poisoning that will be explained later. However, Francesco did not know this: he thought that Napoléon had died from hepatitis. The necessary knowledge simply did not exist yet.
The third evidence is the fact that the dead Napoléon did not decompose normally. Despite that he had not been intentionally mummified the body had barely decomposed at all in 19 years! It has been pointed out that a carcass can be preserved under certain circumstances. But those circumstances mean constant cold alternatively a very dry climate. No-one of the circumstances reined on the site where Napoléon was buried. The body was never in contact with the earth so chemical interaction with it is eliminated. The innermost coffin was airtight and of metal. If it had been heated up over a bonfire it would had stopped the decomposition. (The tin was invented so they knew that it worked but not how.) However, this could not have happened without people noticing. Furthermore, the dead man would have smelled like baked meat when the coffin was opened.
The forth evidence is the chemical analyses which have been made on hair samples from Napoléon. They have only tested samples which authenticity has been certified by those persons which originally got them from him. (It is thus not enough with hearsay.) On of them even wrote that he had taken the hair himself from the dead Napoléon's body! All the tested hair samples have the same colour and texture. It makes it likely that they came from the same person. Hair samples taken at different occasions have different arsenic contents. But it is always considerably higher than what is normal. It has been suggested that the arsenic is a contamination as a consequence of the hair being treated with arsenic preparations. It is impossible since the content is precisely as high in the in the middle of the hairs. Furthermore, the hairs taken after his death contained two other poisons too. The last 16 millimetres contained antimony and the last millimetre mercury as well. The measurements have been made by several scientists at different laboratories. Several different methods have been used. Please note that hairs do not suck up things faster than they grow. It makes it on the other hand possible to calculate exactly when the poisoning occurred.
Four of the measurements deviate from the pattern. All the four deviating results have been done with the same measurement equipment. Despite that he hair samples had been taken at different occasions they show the same arsenic content. It was in turn two and a half times as high as the highest of the other measurements. This ought to say something about how insensitive the measurement equipment is. People which claim that those measurements are reliable also assert that it was normal at the time. It is true that it is possible to get used to arsenic. But that it should hold for a whole population of 26 million is patently absurd. Some claim that people used to utilise arsenic to wash wine barrels and wine bottles. Why would they had utilised a well-known poison for that? Furthermore, Napoléon was moderate drinker. There were thus many people which drunk more wine than him. Others assert that Napoléon fell victim to his own arsenic abuse. Arsenic can really be abused. However, no contemporary testimonies suggest that he had such an addiction. The only thing he was addicted to was snuff. On the other hand it was the only unhealthy habit that we know he had.
That Napoléon died from cancer was first suggested by Charles Tristan de Montholon. It has turned out that he often lied. On Saint Helena he lied so much that he got the nickname ‘il bugiardo’ (‘the liar’ in Italian). Several times he asserted things that are against modern medical knowledge. Sometimes he even contradicted himself! It has been claimed that metastases from Napoléon are preserved at Royal College of Surgeons' museum. On the can with alcohol is a label saying that it is a gift from Barry O'Meara. Unfortunately the tissues in the can are lymphatic glands not metastases. There is not even any sensible reason to think that they come from Napoléon. Barry was not present at the autopsy since he had left the island three years earlier. If he had ever operated Napoléon we would have known it. That Napoléon's pants shrunk steadily in size has been taken as evidence that he had died from cancer. On that toxicologist Pascal Kintz – who did some of the chemical analyses – answered:
‘You don't decide that someone is suffering from cancer by measuring the size of his trousers.’
Napoléon did really lost much in weight before he died. But this was due to severe lack of appetite not due to cancer. Please note that stomach cancer is not hereditary. It was just supposed to be hereditary by people which had pre-scientific ideas of heredity. Many other diseases have been suggested as causes of Napoléon's death. In most cases they are based on certain symptoms not all or even most! Some are even based on symptoms which Charles has made up!
High arsenic contents have also been found in hair that was taken from Napoléon before 1816. Some claim that this must mean that he was not poisoned to death. They have not understood that it was a matter of sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. ‘Sub-lethal’ means potentially lethal but not necessary so. The poisoned may thus survive and recover eventually. It was what happened to Napoléon in 1805, 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815. When he arrived to Saint Helena he had completely recovered from the last of them. People which recover from sub-lethal poisoning shows symptoms of chronic arsenic poisoning. Persons which missed the sub-lethal attacks have suggested alternative arsenic sources. Amongst other things one has suspected the wallpaper in Napoléon's bedroom and living-room. The wallpapers where coloured with Scheele's green. The walls where so damp that they grew mouldy and emitted vapour forms of arsenic. The problem is that the suspicious wallpapers where put up three years AFTER Napoléon fell ill. Furthermore, statistics points against a source in the environment. All in all twelve people where poisoned: six adult men, four adult women, a teenage boy and a little girl. Environmental poisoning affects children at first hand. There where at least three more children in the same house but they did not fell ill. On the other hand two of the affected women did not even live on the same address! Not counting Napoléon three persons died. It was his best friend Franceschi Cipriani, one of the women, ant the little girl. However, in Napoléon's case arsenic was not the ultimate poison as we will see.”
“When Napoléon delivered himself up to the Britons a few friends and servants voluntary followed him. Furthermore an old enemy turned up unexpected. It was Charles who offered to follow him anywhere. We don’t know why Napoléon accepted him. It may have been because he was so eager to follow him. It may also have been the prospect of having sex with his rather lose wife Albine Hélène. Yes, he did have sex with her! In June 1816 she had a daughter who was christenedHélène de Montholon. We still don’t know who her dad was.
Napoléon's employees and friends treated him as a ruling monarch as long as he lived. Britons which meet him personally spooked to him as a foreign monarch unless he had said that they did not need to. Officially he was called general Bonaparte at the beginning even lieutenant-general Bonaparte! For a start the party was kept on board a ship that was anchored outside England's coast. For security reasons Napoléon was not allowed to get ashore. During the time the British government discussed what they would do with him. General Arthur Wellesley (more famous as the duke of Wellington) recommended Saint Helen. It was easy to guard and had a pleasant climate. Arthur had visited the island himself when he was on the way home from India. That was the way it of cause got too. The party was transferred to an other ship with destination Saint Helena. 69 days later they where there. It was in October 1815. The Britons tried to make it as comfortable for Napoléon as possible. As long as it did not prevent them from guarding him, of cause. They tried to protect him at least as much as preventing attempted escape. The island was easily made escape-proof. The coasts consist of high, steep rocks. The British government kept track of everyone who went ashore or left the harbour. It was only one more place where it was considered possible to get down to the shore. Every ship who approached the place would be stopped by the British navy.
Napoléon would got to live in a mansion named Longwood House. But it had to be renovated and extended first. It took about two months. During the time Napoléon lived in a pavilion that was situated in the garden of a rich family's house. There he lived with five male followers. He liked to ride and work in Longwood House' garden. When his legs become too weak to allow riding he instead used to ride in his carriage. Indoors he could read, dictate, play billiards, chess and card games with Henri. Napoléon preferred outdoor activities. Had he decided to keep indoors he easily become bored.
The first quarter of 1816 Napoléon felt ill for a couple of days in the middle of each month. The followers noticed a general degeneration of his health even if he did not say anything. About the turn of the month April/May he fell ill again. He had been stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. Before he had recovered completely he was stricken one more time. So it continued year after year. No contemporary physician could tell what Napoléon suffered from. Therefore the repeated sub-lethal poisonings could continue for years. It took until the 1950ies until someone found out what Napoléon had suffered from. It become possible through the publication of Louis' diaries.
A little more than six weeks before Napoléon died the arsenic was partly replaced with antimony. Two days later Charles offered to nurse him during the nights. It was normally Jean Abram Noverraz' job. But he had suddenly fallen ill. The antimony resulted in violent vomiting. Eventually his stomach was so overworked that he stopped to vomit. Francesco and Archibald begun to worry about if he would survive. Charles wrongfully asserted that a certain mercury salt (calomel) once had saved Napoléon's life. Archibald agreed to give it a chance but not Francesco. Two other physicians where called in so that they could discuss the issue. All except Francesco let themselves to be subdued. Napoléon was given an enormous dose of the mercury salt. Earlier the same day he had been fooled to swallow a drink that was seasoned with bitter almonds. Potassium cyanide from the bitter almonds reacted with the acidity of the stomach and with the mercury salt. The result was other mercury salts, mercuric cyanide and free mercury. As a consequence of the poisoning Napoléon now laid helpless in his bed. Within 36 hours after he had swallowed the medicine he had lost his consciousness. After a little more than 48 hours he was dead. It was in the evening the 5th of May 1821. The following day an autopsy was performed on the dead man. Francesco had company of seven British physicians but it was he who held the scalpel. After the autopsy hair and beard-stubble was shaved off. A cast was made of the front half of the head together with parts of the neck and some of the chest. The dead man was washed and dressed. Eventually the body was laid in a coffin out of tin. The tin coffin was soldered close and placed in one of wood. It was placed in its turn in one of lead which was also soldered close. The lead coffin was placed in one more of wood. Napoléon was buried there on Saint Helena in a place that is called Sane Valley. There the Britons had built a gave vault out of stone. When Napoléon was dead and buried the followers could return to Europe.
In 1840 king Louis Philippe decided that Napoléon's coffin should be brought to France. A French ship was sent to Saint Helena. Several people which had known Napoléon where present when the grave was opened. When the innermost coffin was cut open they got the surprise of their lives. The dead man was almost intact! Everyone who remembered how Napoléon had looked recognised the dead man. The body's high arsenic content – combined with the two airtight coffins – had stopped almost all decomposition. The three innermost coffins where kept. They where placed in an additional one out of lead then in two more out of wood. (All wooden coffins where made of different woods.) Finally it was laid in a sarcophagus out of red porphyry in the Invalides in Paris. There he lies buried to this day.”
“There where two persons which could had poisoned Napoléon. One was Charles who was in charge of the wine cellar. The other was the valet Étienne Saint-Dennis. He was nicknamed Ali. No-one of the two had any good alibi. There are no real evidence against any of them but the indications against Charles are considerably more. Several times he said to people that a new attack was to be expected. Then he was usually right. Furthermore, he knew several months in advance which symptoms Napoléon would get. He wrote it in letters to his wife which he sent after she had left the island. In present tense he described things that had yet not occurred! 25 years later he wrote a book about his experiences on Saint Helena. His description differs radically from the other persons'. Certain parts are so artificial that they only add to the suspicions against him. Nothing suggests that Ali knew in advance what would happen to Napoléon. He did not come with any obviously exorbitant assertions either. Something Charles did several times in his book. Ali is also less likely for an other reason. Imagine that someone has poisoned an other man to death 19 years ago. He gets an invitation to be present when the victim's grave is opened. The victim will be shown to him an several others. Would he then accept? Ali was present on Saint Helena when Napoléon's grave was opened. Charles was the only invited one who was not present despite he would have been able.
Many others have been suspected for poisoning Napoléon. Here is a list of them:
§ Hudson Lowe was governor of Saint Helena. He had nothing to do with what Napoléon ate and drunk. He has been unfairly blamed for something that he could neither had done nor prevented.
§ Henri and his family where the only followers which did not live in Longwood House. (They lived in a house nearby.) It was only the last six weeks that he at all handled Napoléon's food and drink. He then helped to nurse Napoléon who had become so weak that he needed help 24 hours a day. It was always in daytime except for the last but one night. Until then Napoléon was worst in the nights when Charles nursed him.
§ Louis seem to have been the person who most nursed Napoléon. The problem with him is that he was one of the six adult men which had been stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. An assassin who poisons himself is too clumsy to avoid detection!
§ Abram has an excellent alibi. To the day six weeks before Napoléon died he was stricken by sub-lethal arsenic poisoning. He barely recovered in time to bid farewell to his dying ruler. By then Napoléon already laid unconscious.
§ Jean Baptiste Pierron was Longwood House' cook. He did not know which portion would be served to who. Consequentially he could not poison Napoléon without poisoning everyone who ate with him. People which ate with Napoléon rarely fell ill. On the contrary everyone had their own whine bottle which makes the one who was in charge of the wine cellar more suspicious. Sure, Jean served the desserts. But several times Napoléon become worse without eating any dessert.
§ The four physicians mentioned in the first paragraph have been accused for causing Napoléon's death. The problem is that Napoléon was ill even when no-one of them where there. Furthermore, he was sceptic to physicians. It was easy to count the times he swallowed any medicine at all.
Napoléon may have called Charles ‘the most faithful of the faithful’. However, he just become fooled by an unusually ingratiating hypocrite. It was how Charles got Napoléon's trust: though his constant ingratiation. Furthermore, Napoléon lived in the illusion that loyalty could be bought. It is hard to think that Charles could had nursed Napoléon – helped him with things he in fact needed help with – without feeling some kind of sympathy. He might had thought something like ‘I have to kill him but I can't let him suffer more than necessary’.
It is entirely possible that Charles acted on his own. In that case he was solely responsible for Napoléon's death. There is no evidence for any conspiracy. If Napoléon fell victim to any such there where two possible assignors. One was Charles' close friend and France' crown princeCharles Philippe de Capet. The crown prince was a well-known intriguer who advocated political assassinations. The other was Charles' adoptive dad Charles Louis de Sémonville. We know that Charles visited him shortly before he joined Napoléon. It is also possible that both where involved. The adoptive dad would then had conveyed a commission which he had got from the crown prince. Was there an assignor Charles would not have had any choice. Had he refused he would have been killed so that he could not reveal anything. Someone else had followed Napoléon with secret commission to poison him.”
I am not an expert, just an ordinary sceptic fascinated by Napoléon. But I DO have written sources to all my claims. Questioners will be answered to the best of my physical ability.
Thank you Tom B. I wrote this text a few months ago. The original Swedish text have changed somewhat since I wrote it. I now intend to make a translation of the latest version to English and e-mail it to a Peter Olausson asking him to proof-read it. As soon as I get time and an account on a web hosting service I will upload a PDF version to the web which I can link to from then on.
2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
I have now e-mailed Peter Olausson who said that he did not intend to proof-read my text. I have corrected one more factual error. As soon as I get time and energy I will do my best to check for linguistic errors. This summer I will register an account on a web hosting service and upload a PDF-version as previously stated.
2010-05-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
It is strange how you can read about arsenic, [Sb], [Hg], and the entertaining types of poisining. The only reason we know of these things, was the sceptisism a Swedish dentist had towards French Authorities. The French had spent 150 years advocating the Emporor was a cancer case. Why the effort to conceal the actual cause death of the Emporor.--85.164.220.173 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You have not realized that there is a large amount of evidence supporting the poisoning theory. The text I originally translated to English contains some smaller factual errors but the broad outlines are supported by so much evidence that they are unlikely to change fundamentally. There are two main arguments why Napoléon did not die from cancer. First, the professional pathologist who held the scalpel at the autopsy (Francesco Antommarchi) did not find a single tumour. Second, his symptoms as described by several contemporary eyewitnesses does not match cancer. Sten Forshufvud was not only a dentist but also a toxicologist. I was told this by Ben Weider who knew him personally. Ben was one of the world’s leading experts on Napoléon. More than 50 years ago he already doubted on the traditional explanation for Napoléon’s death. Knowing his habits and having basic knowledge of healthcare Ben suspected that Napoléon should have remained healthy well into middle age. Sten’s hypothesis that Napoléon was poisoned to death did not arise from any vague distrust of French authorities. Instead his suspicions started when he read the diaries of Louis Joseph Marchand which was published in 1955. Louis was not only Napoléon’s personal servant but also his good friend. During the last seven years of Napoléon’s life Louis met him almost every day. Louis kept diaries intended to be read by his family during his whole time on Saint Helena. All events seem equally important when they have just happened. Combined with Louis’ high degree of honesty these made his diaries the most comprehensive description of Napoléon’s symptoms during his five years of continuous illness. Louis’ description is confirmed by the sketchier eyewitness account of Henri Gratien Bertrand as well as those of the four physicians which examined Napoléon. Gaspard Gourgaud has also contributed with his written testimony. Please note that the descriptions by all these people roughly mach. The differences are no more than can be explained by human error and errors of communication. Francesco Antommarchi’s description of the dead Napoléon’s internal organs is also important. All these contemporary eyewitness accounts have to be interpreted in the light of modern medical knowledge. Although we will never know everything medical science during the years 1955 – 1985 was far more advanced than during the first three decades of the 19th century. A retrodiagnosis made during the last 55 years would be much more accurate than a diagnosis made by Napoléon’s contemporaries. Sten did not have formal qualifications as a historian but he was supported by Ben as well as David Geoffrey Chandler. As experts on Napoléon these where also aware that when his grave on Saint Helena was opened in 1840 the dead man was intact enough to be recognisable. The most sensible explanation for this is the body’s high arsenic content combined with the two airtight metal coffins.
During the last 50 year there have also been forensic evidence in the form of chemical analyses of hair samples from Napoléon. There have been at least 16 such analyses out of which 12 support the poisoning theory. The remaining four where all made by the same team of scientists which does not seem to be familiar with testing of hair samples several generations old. If so the incredibly high arsenic measurements they reported may be due to an outside contamination which they did not know that they had to remove. Their claim of such a high arsenic content being normal at the time is patently absurd considering just how toxic this element is. Furthermore, none else have measured any content mote than 40 percent as high. My point is that the statement of Napoléon being poisoned to death is not a crackpot idea but a scientific theory. This is what I have tried to explain all the time.
2010-08-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
The latest version of my summary can now be found here. A few factual errors have been corrected and two more paragraphs added. The first of these describe Napoléon's financial situation on Saint Helena. He had to hold on to his money but could still live a comfortable life. The second one outlines the progression of his illness and when the different physicians were with him. The language of the translation has also been improved. There are still some aberrations from English linguistic usage. But at least the expressions should be understandable. I wanted to do this five months ago. However, there was a lot which I had to write before this. These texts took much longer to write than I imagined. Creating a website and uploading 23.9 MB of files was also much more laborious and troublesome than I imagined. (The PDF I just linked to is 94 kB.) But now I eventually got it done. From now on I can refer tom this text – or a later version of it – every time the cause of Napoléon’s death is wrongfully stated. I am absolutely not an expert but I understand enough of how real experts think to explain to others why it is in a certain way and not the other way around. Something I find very entertaining.
2010-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Last words
Napoléon's last words are claimed to have been "France, armée, tête d'armée, Joséphine" ("France, army, head of the army, Joséphine."). Those famous last words where made up by Charles Tristan de Montholon. At the time he claimed them to have been uttered no-one else could hear any words or even recognisable languages sounds! They did hear a sound but it was more like a music instrument than a human voice. Today it is considered to have been due to gases from an over-pressurised stomach escaping trough his throat. As such there where no intention behind it. I am not sure which his real last words where but they may well have been “give me my chamber-pot”. I know that he said so several times – and barley anything else – the day before he died. By the evening he was no longer able to speak. By four a clock in the morning he had lost his consciousness. 14 hours later he was dead.
Does anyone have an idea about how the probable last words may have sounded in French? If so, feel free to tell me. But beware of Anglicisms! Please don't translate word-by-word unless it fits French linguistic usage. However, I do not claim that Napoléon spoke perfect French. This was certainly not the case due to his combination of dyslexia and having a minority language as his mother tongue. If there where any foreign influence on his last words it would have been from the Italian dialect which later defined itself as Corsican. Yes, this is the consequence of my definition of “language”.
2010-06-14 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
Considering the fact that at the age of ten, in 1779, Napoléon Bonaparte was sent to France for his education in a very good college, and that he pursued his education in the best of military schools, I doubt that, even if he was not a good speller (few were at the time), and had a Corsican accent (most French people spoke with an accent from the province they came from), his French turned out to be heavily mixed with Italian and/or an Italian dialect (=Corsican). His last words are supposed to have been: « France, armée, Joséphine », the translation of which should not lend itself to problematic Anglicisms.
At the age of ten it is usually too late to change mother tongue. It is also a well known fact to experts in the field that Napoléon did not speak with any intonation which would have suggested having French as his mother tongue. For example, Ben Weider once wrote that he had “the accent of a Corsican”. Dyslexia is an inborn flaw in the language ability. It can be retroactively diagnosed by finding out what kind of spelling errors the person did. However, this must be quite hard in Napoléon’s case since his handwriting was very hard to read. I think this was due to a combination of defiance in fine motor ability (common among dyslectics) and impatience. Although dyslexia makes it harder to learn a foreign language a dyslectic may well speak a foreign language fluently. The Swedish crown princess Victoria is live evidence of this. She is diagnosed as dyslectic yet speaks English fluently. Please note that influences between languages don’t have to consist of vocabulary. The French Napoléon spoke may well have had its linguistic usage more or less influenced by the Corsican dialect of Italian. His pronunciation may also have resembled the sound system of his mother tongue more than the one used by the majority of native speakers of French. But as long as people understood him this would not have been any problem.
Napoléon’s last two days in life is described in chapter 44 of Mitchell Press Limited’s 1978 edition of “Assassination at St Helena” by Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider. This is where I got my assert that Napoléon’s famous last where made up by Charles Tristan de Montholon. The same chapter of this book also tells that from the evening of the 3rd of May and until he become mute he said barely anything else than “give me my chamber-pot”. So these may well have been his real last words. I was curious about how they may have sounded in the original French. I just wanted to dissuade people which are too bad at French to try to translate it back. If nobody who read this has read the original eyewitness accounts, that is.
Referring to the sentence: "Napoleon Bonaparte (French: Napoléon Bonaparte French pronunciation: [napoleɔ̃ bɔnɑpaʁt], Italian: Napoleone di Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), was a military and political leader of France and Emperor of the French as Napoleon I, whose actions shaped European politics in the early 19th century."
Shouldn't it say whose actions shaped European politics in the early 18th century? Since he ruled during the early 18th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraz1993 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Done, per WP:AGF. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Though it is not required, there are many benefits to creating an account, including the ability to edit semi-protected pages. Intelligentsium 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
