Talk:Napoleon/Archive 2

Italian Accent
An earlier revision of this article had the following line: "At age ten, Napoleon was admitted to a French military school at Brienne-le-Château, a small town near Troyes, on 15 May 1779. He had to learn to speak French before entering the school, which he spoke with a marked Italian accent throughout his life, and never learned to spell properly." (the accent can be corraborated at http://www.france.com/docs/364.html, which is already listed as a source, and also at many other places and is mentioned in biographical TV shows; I am unsure if the spelling part is true)

The fact that Napoleon spoke French with an Italian accent throughout his life is rather substantial, and also influenced some perceptions towards him at the time (creating a political hurdle to overcome). I nominate re-integrating this into the article. A good place would be after the current line: "He became proficient enough in French to speak and understand the basics of the language, but was unable to completely master the language even by the time of his death."

Article Rewrite
I have made substantial changes today to the article, in an effort to make it more factual and complete. I have been working on this project for weeks (it took much longer than I had imagined when I started!) and had only gotten up to 1806. Serendipitously, anonymous user 211.27.144.67 came along and rewrote the sections after that date! Thanks!! Anyway, I have reorganized this Discussion page so that anyone who wants to comment on the new version of the article can do so in this section, and these comments will be distinct from ones relating to older versions. RussBlau 02:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've archived the older comments. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * The part about a "psycho" named Rostopchin setting Moscow on fire because he hated the French is absolute BS (pardon my French :)). He was ordered to do so by the military council headed by Kutuzov. The fire got out of hand due to numerous circumstances (I may write an article named Moscow fire of 1812), but Rostopchin was following orders. I got some material in Russian and will write an article about this guy and will change this part of the article. KNewman 18:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is new evidence about the stomach cancer theory.  68.238.7.26 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Campaigns in Italy and Egypt
The article now states, "Just days after his marriage, Bonaparte took command of the Army of France and led it on a successful invasion of Italy." It used to say, "…Bonaparte took command of the Army of the Army of Italy…" I believe (but do not know, and do not have a source handy) that what he took command of was, indeed, known as "the army of Italy". Can someone more knowledgable please comment one way or the other? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a recurring source of confusion. The organization over which he took command was indeed the "Army of Italy." That was the name of a unit of the French military, much as the U.S. Army had an organization in the Civil War called the "Army of Virginia."  In each case, the army was named after its area of operations, not after the country it served.  But to avoid any future confusion, I've changed the text to read 'the French "Army of Italy".' RussBlau 14:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The factoid in this section "a term reflecting his camaraderie with his soldiers, all of whom he knew by name" sounds preposterous to me. I could believe that a company, or even a battalion commander might know the names of their charges, but I would imagine the Army of Italy to be comprised of some tens of thousands. We can do better than this. Drogue 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Misconception about his height
I've added a section on the misconception of his height. I think the text is somewhat badly written, and might be placed better as well. Can anyone help? Csl77 09:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-written this section a bit, compressing the text somewhat and making it more concise. Hope you like it. It's my first edit ever and I still have to learn how to re-position sections within an article. I'd suggest placing it between "burial" and "legacy". --Vyrus724 21:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Could someone please convert Napoleon's height to metres? Also I believe that Napoleon himself would give his height in that units (as metre was invented in France). Przepla 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The metric height should be given, but so should the imperial. We 'mer'kuns can't understand your wacky metric system.  One would add that the metric system didn't exist for the first part of Napoleon's life. john k 22:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My intention was to suggest stating height in metres with imperial units in parenthesis. (As the policy generally suggest Imperial units being primary in US topics while metric in European). I have long time ago given hope of converting Americans to the rest of the world ;-). Przepla 22:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the rewrite is better, thanks. Google converts 5 foot 6.5 inches to 1.6891 meters. Also, what about changing the title of that section? "Height misconception" sounds a bit lame. :-) Also, the section was mostly taken from this page: http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030724.html  Csl77 09:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, If 2.71 cm is accurate for the French inch, his height was 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in), rather than 1.69 m (62 × 2.71 = 168.02). Naturally, all conversion should be done from the original value in old French units. --Anshelm &#39;77 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I checked it from the French units of measurement article, and the exact value seems to be 2.707 cm, and not really changing the figures I gave: 62 × 2.707 = 167.834 – a little closer to 5 ft 6 in Imperial mark. --Anshelm &#39;77 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to Misconceptions About Napoleon's Height. I think that's somewhat of an improvement, but if anyone can come up with a better title, feel free to change it. Funnyhat 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed the inclusion. I posted this where we were discussing `Napoleon complex' and it must have been removed for that reason. I guess someone couldn't stand the fact. I've reinserted it for now; not sure about the location in the entry. Click my name or contact me if you wish to obtain the section again. Dwayne2005 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the section on Napoleon's height not because it wasn't interesting -- it was quite interesting and well-written, too. I removed it (as part of a very long edit) because I think that Napoleon can be a featured article, but that it is very, very long at present, and adding what amounts to trivia (and I'm not using that in a perjorative sense: again, I find it all very interesting) is making the article too long. In my view, the article needs yet another pass through for cleanup and consistency, and little details like "(in Corsican, Nabolione or Nabulione)" must be excised or, better yet, sent to a daughter article. Misconceptions about N.'s height has daughter article written all over it. I say this because, while it is true that many people believe Napoleon to have been abnormally short, it is not essential to our understanding of who Napoleon was or what he did. Nor, I might add, is there a scholarly citation saying, "Napoleon wasn't as short as everyone thinks he was; therefore, attempts to portray him as suffering from "small man's complex" are inaccurate." And even if such a citation could be found, there are a thousand other interesting facts we could include as well. The important thing for an article this long is to keep everything organized and findable. I'll go ahead and leave the section in for now while people give thoughts. IronDuke 00:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this site, so rather than delete it, can you place this in it's own article? I'll be content with that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; I posted a link to this article just several days ago and it seems to have been up there (judging by the posts here) for several months. It is an important fact to me, so I'd like it preserved. You may indeed have a point concerning this section. It does seem the least important, but important nonetheless. In actual fact, I found it linked across a Wikipedia entry about Napoleon Complex. It is important to that part of the site, more so than it is here, but is too broad for that entry. Dwayne2005 16:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a new entry under Napoleon's height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_height I hope that's the way to go about it. Dwayne2005 17:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But that just redirects to this article. Or, more precisely double-redirects. Yes, it would be reasonable to factor out to that title and have a see-also link to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have no idea what I'm doing. [sigh] Dwayne2005 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

he was actually 5 foot 7 inches got it good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Legacy
I feel some mention should be made of the opposing views in France and England: "In Britain he is remembered as a despot, the prototypical dictator, on which Hitler modelled himself. This difference in anglo-french perception reflects a deeper divide in outlook. He is remembered in song (e.g. 'Boney was a warrior') and poem, and as the grand enemy threatening the gates. wkp 30th April 2005.

Why are views in England more notable than views in Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, &c.? john k 13:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole legacy question is pretty weak, by the way. Napoleon is not much liked on either the traditional French left or the traditional French right... john k 13:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * England was in a sense Napoleon's arch-enemy; it was at war with France longer than any other country during his rule, and is the only country that was a member of all the coalitions against him, so English views in this case would be particularly significant. However, views from other countries would also be worthy of mention if you have some sources you could incorporate into the article. (The reference to Hitler, I think, is a bit over the top; what's the source for this perception?)  RussBlau 19:44, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The views of the Italians, who were ruled by Napoleon for as long as the French, are not relevant? Or of the Germans? The British, while they were at for France for longer than any other country, were also at war with considerably less intensity. To say that their view of Napoleon is somehow more important than that of any other European country besides France is simply Anglocentrism. john k 22:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You might try reading what I wrote again, since you obviously didn't comprehend it the first time. And I repeat -- if you have any good sources about Italian, German, or other national opinions about Napoleon's legacy, please insert them in the article. RussBlau 15:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that really true about the traditional French left and right? Interesting, because it seems like there are a lot of monuments dedicated to him scattered across France (so some people out there must like the guy). Funnyhat 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think one of the reasons he was not well liked by other countries at the time has more to do with those countries respective aristocracies than with the people. The aristocrats feared losing power if Napoleon would win and the end of feudalism (which happened anyway). I think it can be argued that the people ruled by Napoleon I had far more rights and liberties than most people ruled by his opponents (particularly Prussia, Austria and Russia). So I believe a significant portion of the deaths during the Napoleonic era are not because of Napoleon but because of aristocrats demanding their respective countries oppose Napoleon and his ideas of rights and liberties for people and thus should not be part of Napoleons legacy. Britain had other motives than fearing the emancipation of it's population, namely they saw Napoleon as a threat for the British empire (funny if you think about it, their reasoning was they had the right to occupy other peoples land but Napoleon did not). His legacy is great and some of the benefits are still with us today, comparisons with Hitler are ridiculous as Hitler was exclusively malevolent, Napoleon was very benevolent and only had to continue waging war because of others ganging up on him all the time. --62.41.69.18 11:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Marcel de Vries


 * On the point of British concern over Napoleon, the issue was more specific than merely becoming concerned over his expanding empire (in the sense that it was negative in and of itself). One of the main issues Britain had with any powerful continental power was control over the Benelux ports, such as Antwerp, as they would be good staging points for a seaborne invasion of Britain itself. Even back in the Seven Years' War, the British happily handed over Guadeloupe at the Treaty of Paris, in part to keep the French out of the northern ports. If I'm not mistaken, Antwerp out of French hands was considered to be 'worth 100 Guadeloupes'. Given that France was already the one mainland power with the most viable staging points for a strike on southern England, any ruler in Paris or Versailles who held sway in the north was seen as a threat to Britain's survival. Even if the centuries worth of warfare between France and England (later Britain) not been a factor, this alone would have given London plenty of concern over the impact that Napoleon was having in Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century. --Nerroth 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Napoleonic legacy
Well, as a rather unbiased Swede, I can tell you that in the Swedish literature the authers tend to see Napoleon as a man of brillient intellect and innovator in many fields, not just the military but others as well (code civil for instance). Moreover, I think that it´s more or less recognised (at least in Sweden) that many historians (most notably British) right up to this day tend to downplay the impact of Napoleons many victories and just look at his final defeat. (anon 11 Aug 2005)

Paintings
I've added a painting of the retreat from Moscow, from a 1902 history book. The same book also has some other art that might be relevant:


 * The Sunken Road at Waterloo by Stanley Berkley (color)
 * Napoleon at Wagram, by Horace Vernet (b/w)
 * Napoleon on Board the Bellerophon, by W. Q. Orchardson (b/w)

If they seem like they'd be useful, please give me a holler on my talk page,a nd I'll scan them and post them. --Bcrowell 00:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Egyptian Expedition of 1798–99
I recently read about a "supernatural" experience that Napoleon was supposed to have alluded to - August 12, 1799 in the Pyramid of Cheops. Does anyone know anything about this? McPhail 21:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon Dynamite
A proposition to users for redirection to Napoleon Dynamite should be installed on the page, as it is a film of genuine and influential effect on modern culture - Napoleon is of course Bonaparte's first name and thus can not be only applied to one figure if another notable "Napoleon" exists. nogoodnamesremain 21:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There's already a disambiguation link at the top of the article, see Napoleon (disambiguation). siafu 28 June 2005 20:16 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously believe that Napoleon Dynamite is as well known and as influential as Emperor Napoleon is? Kuralyov 28 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)


 * Here's a clue: the comment that started this section was written by an anonymous editor, signed with the username of a registered user who has, to date, made exactly one edit. Do not feed. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 01:03 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, I find your elitism disheartening in an online community that claims to have such a great degree of openess. Kuralyov, in re-reading my comments I see nowhere that I have claimed N.D. is as influential or well known as Bonaparte, but I believe my argument that Dynamite is of note has merit. I thank siafu for his constructive comments and am glad that all Napoleons of note are, to my knowledge, being recognized. --nogoodnamesremain 21:00, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
The article on Napoleonic Wars is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote for this article there if you want it to be improved. --Fenice 12:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Poisoning theory
"In June, 2005, a team of Montreal-based experts declared to have established proof beyond reasonable doubt that Napoleon's death was rather caused by arsenic poisoning. The International Napoleonic Society had obtained samples of Napoleon's hair through Paris' cooperation. Detailed and modern testing methods revealed entirely abnormal and lethal arsenic levels in the hair, 185 years after the death. Mass media around the world rapidly concluded that this analysis was rock-solid, and finally concluded the centuries-old debate."

This paragraph needs to be better supported. It appears to be a re-hash of Ben Wieder's arsenic theory. Mass media concluded that this analysis was rock solid? That does not make it so. I don't see any evidence that the centuries old debate is "finally concluded. Kmorrow 08:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the paragraph needs to be better supported. It is true that the proponents of this theory claim to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, as you note, acceptance of this theory by the mass media would not make it so.  Moreover, my own review of available media reports suggests that it simply isn't true that they "rapidly concluded that [the] analysis was rock-solid..."  To the contrary, most media reports (as one would expect) report both the statements of the Montreal-based experts and the statements of others contradicting their conclusions.  --Russ Blau (talk) 13:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also the theory that the arsenic was delivered as poison is presented in the first paragraph and the alternative explanations only appear in the second. At around the same time the British were busy killing their own king with quack medicines containing a wide range of poisons. In any case the British had ample cause to put Napoleon on trial and execute him if they wanted to kill him.


 * I would like to know the relation of the 'Montreal experts' to the International Napoleonic society. If they are the same they do not appear to be an objective source by any reasonable standard. I took out the ridiculous assertion that their opinion was considered rock solid and has settled the controversy, it is clear the controvery is not likely to ever be solved. I would like to have more info here, it looks like all they did was to simply repeat earlier analysis of hair samples. And in any case there should be a citation to a peer reviewed journal.

ALERT: The International Napoleonic Society IS Ben Weider,. So the last paragraph is simply a restatement of the earlier research results. It is not independent confirmation of BeN Weider's arsenic theory, it is recycling of it. Unless anyone can think of a good reason to revert I am going to rewrite the last part of the section. The 'crippling blow' and 'rock solid' statements should never have been there in the first place. The last paragraph looks to me like it should never have been there in the first place.

I removed the comment about the press release, Ben Weider may still dispute the cause of death but there is no reason that he should get the final word on the basis of a press release. Instead I prefixed the whole discussion with a short paragraph stating that the cause of death is in dispute and that there are currently three principle theories. I think it quite likely that there was more than one factor contributing to his death. The doctors of the age tended to kill rather more patients than they cured.

Clarification
I've read Murder at St Helena and would like to clarify a few things.
 * First, the arsenic poisoning theory presented says Napoleon was weakened with arsenic and finished off with standard medecine. Over a few years, Napoleon would have been given concentrated but non lethal doses of arsenic at periodic intervals. Larger doses were given him towards the end. Once he was in a very weak state, his doctors administered the medecines that finished him off.
 * Second, Ben Weider didn't develop the theory, he championed it. The theory was initially developed by Dr. Sten Forshufvud in the 1950s.
 * Third, the theory has been floating for a few decades, not centuries. Napoleon's valet, Louis Marchand, kept diaries which were only published in the 1950s. These diaries described in detail the deterioration of Napoleon's health. From these diaries, Dr. Forshufvud, an amateur expert on poisons, suspected arsenic.
 * The Science & Vie article refuting the assasination theory did not address the issue of varying concentration. They explained the presence of arsenic in Napoleon's hair with hair tonics and with compounds from the wallpaper in Napoleon's bedroom. However, this would imply that the arsenic was distibuted uniformly over the length of the hair. The fact is that the arsenic appears in spikes along the length of the hair, strongly suggesting that it was ingested in discrete doses.

That's it. I personally found the book convincing and the Science & Vie refutation unconvincing. However, I don't think the issue is settled. More sleuthing is needed. As for the argument that if the English wanted him dead, they could simply have executed him, well not if they wanted to avoid a European revolution. Keep in mind two things: Napoleon had charisma and he ran a meritocracy (except for a few top positions he reserved for his family). He had popular opinion on his side, even after decades of war and the disaster of 1812. Napoleon had to be gotten rid of discretely. Vincent 08:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I don't quite completely trust French labs to be dispassionately objective when national honor is at stake. Remember Lance ;-) Vincent 10:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No matter how reliable the research is, the paragraph is by its very wording not NPOV. You can't just say "Napoleon was definitely poisoned, and we've proved this is how they did it" You can list it as support for the poisoning theory, but not claim it as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Billy Shears 05:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy
While reading this section I noticed a few sentances that do not flow with the rest of the text. This may be due to some rule of the english language that I am unware of. If so feel free to revert my edits. The following sentances were changed slightly.


 * "He describes Napoléon in the months leading up to his death, and led many, most notably Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider, to conclude that he had been killed by arsenic poisoning."

This excerpt uses both the present tense and the past tense in the same breath.


 * "The group suggested that the most likely source in this case was a hair tonic. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, arsenic was also a widely used treatment for syphilis. This has led to speculation that Napoleon might have suffered from that disease."

I have two problems with this block of text. The first and most conspicous is the awkward final sentance. I cannot think of way to replace it however I do want to bring it to the attention of others. The second and far more serious problem is this completely unsourced claim. WHO THE FUCK IS THIS GROUP? IF you would like to complain about my outburst feel free to do so. I however see it as entirely acceptable. This is the equivelent of wikipedia kindergarden. If you want to claim something please provide a god damn source. Foolishben 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Word Edits
My "anon" edits under 208 Aug 14 were meant to be signed in. Regrets, Kyle Andrew Brown 23:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In First Consul am I correct to describe Britain as a democratic constitutional monarchy?Kyle Andrew Brown 04:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Britain was a constitutional monarchy, but certainly not a democratic one. As to the general remark, there were at least a few other non-autocratic regimes in Europe at the time. The only one I can think of at the moment is Württemberg, though (Sweden had returned to royal absolutism around 1789, while the United Provinces and Poland had ceased to exist.) john k 05:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and, uh, Hungary. Part of the Habsburg domains, but very proud of its parliamentary traditions. john k 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Venetian Republic was at least moderately democratic, almost certainly no less so than the UK. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hand in his shirt
Why did Napoleon put his hand in his shirt? --Abdull 08:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I've gathered, it was apparently just a fashion of the period.Snapdragonfly 12:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I came to the discussion page to ask just that question, and I see sombody beat me to it. I've heard two theories, neither of which seems satisfactory:
 * 1. He held his hand over his stomach because of stomach pain.
 * 2. He lost one or more fingers, and wanted to hide this fact.


 * That's the first time I've read that it was just a fashion thing, but that sounds reasonable. Can anyone find a portrait of someone else doing this?  I've only seen Napoleon do it.  I'd like to see this included in the article at some point, because I think a lot of people wonder about this.  -Just some unregistered (l)user, Sept 13, 2005
 * OK, replying to my own post here. I found one example of someone else doing this here: http://pics.amres.com/p_asp/hw526.asp I wish I could find a definitive answer to this question.
 * Hello all. First post here.  However, I would like to add that the gentleman in the picture linked above is none other than General George B. McClellan.  For those familiar with the American Civil War, you will recall that he was widely known as the "American Napoleon," or even the "young Napoleon," and was also one of his great admirers. Likewise, he often took on the mannerisms of the French Emperor.  Furthermore, McClellan came to prominence some forty years after Napoleon's death on St. Helena, and would have been wholly familiar with his gestures.  Since the style of dress changed significantly between McClellan's prominence and Napoleon's I have to strongly disagree that men from two different periods can be said to be performing the same act because of "style."  I would also point out that he often posed for his pictures in this same manner.  He is -- in the modern vernacular -- a poser. Jebousley


 * It was a common pose of the period. Look no further than our own wikipedia for confirmation of this:




 * Voila. IronDuke 05:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many portraits of distinguished men with their hand in their shirt. This is because hands are particularly difficult to paint, so painters charged extra to have the hand showing. Thus, the hand was hidden in the shirt to decrease the cost of an already expensive portrait. A tour guide at one of the famous houses in Lexington, MA explained this to me. 27 Nov 2005
 * I think the tour guide was pulling your leg (or, possibly, someone else had pulled his). -- Mwanner | Talk 22:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the tour guide was right (and anyone who's tried to paint hands understands why ;) ). It's a common artistic technique of the time. Also, if you look at paintings of Napoleon with his hand in his jacket, you notice that sometimes it's the right hand, and other times the left, thus discounting the theory that he was somehow maimed and wanted to hide it. You could, of course, argue that the artists did this in order to throw off any suspicions that his hands were indeed disfigured somehow. But if you're going to go that far, then why wouldn't the artists just paint his hands normally in the first place? 129.93.198.97 07:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what I have heard, it is to create a feeling of uncertianty. Does anyone know what he has in his shirt? It could be a gun, ready to shoot someone, or just his hand, to offer peace. 63.147.48.242 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense that he would want o hide his maimed hand, because people would look down at him as not bieng perfect, an image he strived to achive, even if it was through propaganda. MINOR

Death and taxes citations
"In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed… A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

the reason he put his hand in his shirt was to help his painful indegestion &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.161.203.6 (talk • contribs) 7 Oct 2005.

Speculation
"However, it has also been speculated that Napoleon's invasions of Germany and Italy contributed to the cultural and political unrest that would eventually lead to the development of fascism in those countries." No citation. Seems like a very remote effect, if relevant at all; both Germany and Italy unified some 45 years after Napoleon, and fascism came another 60-70 years later. If someone has a citation for this&mdash;some significant scholar who has made this case&mdash;great. Otherwise, this should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've allowed enough time for a response to this. No citation has been forthcoming. Removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Abbé de Pradt gave Napoleon the nickname Jupiter Scapin, after a valet of the name of Scapin in a comedy of Molière's, noted for his knaveries." So what? Did the nickname stick? I've never heard it. Admittedly, this is a topic where I'm merely clueful, not expert, but why does this belong in an article on Napoleon? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If anything, Napoleon helped those countries unify even more. So take it out.

Yeah that original statement is a bit silly. French incursions did, indeed, spark unity and the first strong signs of national conscience in those regions. The rise of Fascism has more to do with the racialized concept of the nation-state, a development that has little if no connection at all to Napoleon.UberCryxic 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's Penis
Is there any truth to the legend about his penis being preserved in a jar ?

I found this article about is Dowew 03:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As Straight Dope points out, the purported purloined penis is of problematic provenance. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Is it really that important? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.128.70 (talk • contribs) 6 Nov 2005.

Featured article nomination
I evidently overlooked the fact that this article was nominated for FA status earlier this month, and rejected. Considering that Napoleon (like him or not) was one of the most significant historical figures of the past two centuries, Wikipedia really ought to have a "feature-worthy" article on him. We have a good group of regular contributors on this page; I'd like to suggest that we all make it our collective goal to improve this article over the next month or two so that it can once again be nominated, and this time approved, as a Featured Article. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

La Maddalena
According to this article Napoleon led an assault on the town of La Maddalena in 1793, while he still used his Italian name. I don't see it mentioned in this article anywhere, perhaps it is worth adding. (I will do it if no-one else has in few days). nick 08:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but it's a fairly minor incident (a capture of a tiny offshore island as part of an abortive attempt to invade Sardinia). It was just one of several misadventures in which Buonaparte was involved on Corsica in the 1790-93 period. If we're trying to achieve Featured Article status, we want to stick to the highlights. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure nick 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Better wording?
It seems like there should be a better way to word the following, as it is quite repetitive:


 * He ended the lawlessness and disorder spawned by the Revolution; in modern terms, he was a "law and order" ruler.

Firestorm 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest? --Russ Blau (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest something more along the lines of 'He ended the lawlessness and disorder of the times, being a ruler who favoured order over chaos.' Firestorm 01:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -- Svest 20:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up

Still sounds awkward to me, and the last clause relies on the passive voice. Also, how many leaders favor chaos over order, in the long run? How about "His strong emphasis on the rule of law brought order to the chaos caused by the Revolution." Drogue 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Major revision
I just completed a long edit over the whole article. Many stylistic changes were made for clarity and readability. I made some changes which I assume will be controversial, such as eliminating much of the discussion about arsenic (although I believe it is valuable, it should have its own article) and some trivia about Napoleon (again, interesting, but the article even after my edit may be too long). IronDuke 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user just reverted my changes without explanation. Am reverting back. Please, everyone, feel free to engage me on these changes. I think this ought to be a featured article. IronDuke 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruthless Edit in Service of Feature Article status
The article, as it stands of this writing, is 47kb long. 32kb is the recommended maximum. Obviously, some things have to be pared down. I plan to start ruthlessly paring down some of these sections, eliminating a lot of colorful detail. Some things may be spun off into their own articles. I just took a look at Julius Caesar, which was a FA at 59kb. I think the Napoleon article is in many ways already superior to the Julius Caesar article, but we need to get it shorter (even though the Caeser article is huge) and make sure the writing is as crisp as it can be. Anyone have any thoughts on this before I dig in? IronDuke 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely support your efforts, with the qualification that quality is at least as important as quantity! I frankly don't care if this article is longer than average; we are talking about one of the most significant historical figures in European history, so the article ought to be substantial.  However, a lot of the trivia and miscellany that's now in the article certainly could be cut out.  --Russ Blau (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Project Consulate and Empire
Hello,

first, let me introduce myself. My name is Frank Schulenburg, I come from Germany and have been contributing to the German Wikipedia since February 2005. My special field of interest is early modern history, especially economic and world history. You'll find more information on my german userpage.

I'm currently working on a project at the french wikipedia, which I've started a few days ago. You can find it at Wikipédia:Projet/Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire. The main goal of this project is the collaboration between the different Wikipedias on the topic of the French Consulate and First French Empire (1799–1815).

Everyone with a special interest in Napoleon Bonaparte is invited to contribute or just to take a look at it. If you want to take part in this project, please put your name in the list of participants.

Greetings, --Frank Schulenburg

Innovator?
at the time of napoleons rule and around there a lot of contemporary historians viewed him as an innovator but really these theories were pretty much nullified (imo) when jomini pointed out that he really didn't innovate or anything or put aside the principles of war like so many of the time said he did (including napoleon himself), but he really just strained them and madde them mean a lot more: for example his divisions sometimes moved very far apart and he stressed the importance of communications. its not like surprise or speed or flanks didn't exist before napoleon, he just used them all together and was successful which was something people really didnt do before

a lot of things that napoleon did like guibert's divisional armies in a corps setup were already done before and just expanded on

really his only innovation was a lack of logistical support allowing him to move faster and living off the land, and even that had been done before iirc

also columnar warfare had been done before, it was just that napoleon was like the only one to do it right at all &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zandwich (talk • contribs) 18 Nov 2005.

Napoleon: Stop Shocking Change
Some guy is about to add that some part of the world thinks Napoleon is crazy. Try to stop him.--Mac Simms 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Infernal machine
I have suspicions that the new article Infernal machine is a translation of some ofd french text about "La machine infernale". Please napoleon experts, try to figure this out. mikka (t) 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Infernal vandalism
Sorry about the multiple reverts – with the serial vandalism that this article attracts, it's sometimes a challenge to find a clean version to revert back to. -- Kbh3rd 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Escape from Elba?
How did Napoleon manage to escape Elba?

The article is missing a lot of critical details, but is also too long and summary-ish. paradoxically, this article needs to be both shorter, and more detailed. we need to achieve a high level of quality for such important historical figures.

Nick 11:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Answer - without much trouble at all. Napoleon was not under arrest, there was no garrison to imprison him. At the time nobles would typically be granted the courtesy of being kept under what amounted to house arrest if they gave their word that they would not attempt to escape. Napoleon had given his surrender. Putting him under guard would imply that his word could not be trusted, which of course it could not. --Gorgonzilla 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

siege of Toulon
The name of the location seems to be "la pointe de l'Aiguillette". The alternate "Éguillette" spelling exists, and was maybe more common at the time, but it took an accent.

Do we really need a speech?
It seems to me that the longish hunk of a speech recently added to section Exile in Elba, return and Waterloo is excessive. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a nice speech and all, but not so notable that it needs to be quoted at length in what is supposed to be a brief capsule biography.  --Russ Blau (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cut. It can be found online at http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/speeches/c_speeches13.html Since it is old enough to be public domain, anyone should feel free to copy the speeches there (but not the copyrighted elements of the site!) to Wikisource. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Duckies?! Pardon my French, but WTF?!
At the very bottom of the "Early life and military career" section, there is the sentence (simply this and nothing else): "Napoleon also liked duckies." Is this a joke that someone hasn't deleted yet, or a name for something (a food or whatever) that I'm not familliar with? There's no context whatever, so I can't even guess. Could somebody please tell me what is going on here (and what 'duckies' have to do with his military career)? WAS 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries - this user has a history of trolling. Thanks for removing that nonsense. Cheers Jbetak 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Consequences & Actions
The article feels hagiographic in places. It seems very odd that the kidnap and 'murder' of the duc d'Enghien, an action held at the time and still by many historians today against Napoleon is not mentioned. Just as perhaps I might have expected mention of the provision in his will that paid a very handsome sum to Cantillon - the would-be assassin of N's (by then bitter rival) the Duke of Wellington. Or perhaps the mention of either the massacre of 4,000 prisoners at Jaffa in 1799 or the proposed 'killing' of sick French soldiers with opium during a following plague outbreak.

The section on Elba seems unclear when it says "Whilst there, with a small cadre of followers, he dictated his memoirs and criticized his captors." He spent his time producing accounts of his wars and why he was never to blame for his defeats and blaming 'traitors' or a string of marshals for any and every failure. The accounts, loyally recorded by his acolytes, are filled with obvious errors (for instance over troop numbers and positions - both French and Allied)Alci12 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. If you see obvious errors or ommisions, fix them (preferably adding sources - I'd like to know more about the Opium story (this might just be enlightened thinking - "they're dying anyways, so let's make it painless" or ruthless utilitarianism ("let's get rid of them, they slow us down"))). In modern context, it might need ...erm...context ;-). --Stephan Schulz 12:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally I would have amended but as several of the above posts are endevoring to reduce the article size I was a little reluctant to undo their good works by adding a new section off my own bat. I hoped collectively we might decide how to go forward. The opium incident is mentioned in the better biographies. (see David                     Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon p241 iirc) or for an American audience Bonaparte in Egypt by Herold) It was due to the wish not to leave the sick to suffer ill treatment at the hands of the turks. It also made the army more mobile, obviously militarily advantageous.  I might suggest it was also a function of the French army tending not to ever have sufficient transport and supplies for its goals. You see something of the same in Spain later where the reliance on foraging rather than proper supply trains sees tens of thousands starve. Either way we will no doubt need contextAlci12 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Messonier's painting - not 1812
The image of Napoleon and his Generals on horseback, with soldiers trudgng through the mud is NOT meant to represent the retreat from Moscow in 1812. Rather, it is an image of the campaign in France early in 1814. 172.215.46.114 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.109.194 (talk • contribs) 23 Jan 2006.

word choice
I think that this article needs to be revised for word choice. Things like chasing a "hooligan", and "With that, the seeds of a hero were sown." make the article sound kind of... old fashioned or silly, or like a fictional book. When I say fictional book, what I mean by that is that I'm pretty sure the phrase "seeds of a hero were sown" is something like a metaphor (I don't know the name for it) which shouldn't be used in encyclopedia articles. And just to take an objective stance (I think he's a pretty cool guy, but:), some people probably don't think of Napoleon as a hero.†Sƒ 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

usage of word hero is not neutral
this article is too worshipful of napoleon, the external link napoleon and his tactics is worshipful to the point of absurdity. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.56.160.44 (talk • contribs) 3 Feb 2006.

Analysis of Napoleon
I realise that Wikipedia is more of a fact-based initiative than an analytical one, which is why it surprises me that the opening paragraph claims that Napoleon did little that was innovative - I would have thought that his use of artillery, use of tactics such as le mouvement sur la derrière etc. would count for new.... Madmatt52 14:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No Madmatt, that part is correct. I've studied Napoleonic warfare for quite a while, so I can vouch for that statement (I wasn't the one who put it up, but it is right). Napoleon primarily used elements of war that had existed in a new way. So for example, under the revolutionary governments we have divisions, and under the First Empire we have the larger corps. But it was nothing new; Napoleon just made whatever existed larger and gave it a new name (for this case).

Now, as for his military mind, that's another story. In that department there are few who can touch him.UberCryxic 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, from what I've read he was less good at keeping up with new technology as times changed. Durova 19:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So, UberCryxic, what do you have to say about the reference to his use of "divisional squares" as an innovation? As far as I've read, square formations weren't uncommon before Napoleon, (pike squares, the Roman Army, et al). Is it a scale thing? As in the use of a square formation at the division level was innovative? That probably needs clarifying, as it caused me some confusion. Drogue 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's political initiatives were exceedingly bold, and 'innovative' if you like. But consider his resting place in Paris; would the Germans build such a tomb for Hitler? The French under Napoleon caused far more deaths (as a percentage of population) and dislocation in Europe than did the Third Reich. The Napoleonic Wars also lasted longer with effects just as serious for Britain then as they were in World War II. I'm glad they poisoned him. I say throw him into the Seine. I find nothing to commend the dictator and he must also count as the biggest upstart of all time. T A F

Large sections of copyvio
The article contained some rather large copyvios from this site; I've reverted to the last pre-copyvio version (which, unfortunately, is this one, from January 28). —Kirill Lok s hin 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

death from cancer and claimed weight loss needs explanation and citation
there is no proper citation given for NB's claimed weight loss prior to his death. It says 'multiple forensic sources' or something of the kind. What does this mean? How can such definitives be given for a man long dead? WE need much more info or this is as partisan as the earlier stuff about poisoning.

--Dee-Dee 16:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to fix this so hopefully someone else will. The second paragraph states "although whether he was murdered or ingested arsenic in some accidental way ... is still under dispute.", but the third paragraph states "There is no question that Napoleon was given rat poison as part of the cosmetic phase of his assasination.". Clearly one of these statements is false. --Sysys 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The section about his death reads like Alex Cockburn's joke about the "balanced" discussion between the person who thinks that cannibalism should be unregulated and the one who is concerned that the FDA ought to inspect the meat before it is eaten. I don't know much about this, so I'm not taking on editing it, but obviously ignorance did not deter whoever wrote the current version. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This part of the article appears to be regularly edited to peddle a partisular theory about the cause of death that has failed to gain support from historians beyond the two proponents. Each time they come up with a minor modification of the basic claim the article is edited to claim that this is the last and final word. All mention of previous exposures of their sloppy scholarship is removed from the article. As a temporary measure I have removed the part claiming that the rat poisoning theory has been proved beyond all doubt, it has not. I suggest that we return to the earlier version of this part of the article which contained the links to the debunking. --Gorgonzilla 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a look back through the history. The conspiracy theory has been eliminated and reverted several times. I do not think it is acceptable for the article to claim that there is 'no question' on this issue. The theory is very recent and there has not been time for a rebuttal. The theory certainly does not appear to be accepted widely amongst historians of the period. Given the medical practice of the time that made copious use of poisons including arsenic it is impossible to be sure what the motive was even if arsenic was detected in hair samples. Medical malpractice was one of the leading causes of death amongst the nobility at the time. --Gorgonzilla 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reintroduction of Slavery
Can anyone find any info on Napolean's reintroduction of Slavery that had been abolished during the foundation of the Republic. I heard the slavery issue was the reason why the commemoration of the battle of Austerlitz was played down.

- Anon 08:25, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
 * I don't have the sources in front of me, but I believe it had a lot to do with Josephine and her associates. She was born in the Caribbean. Durova 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is well covered in C.L.R. James The Black Jacobins (about the Haitian revolution), but it's a long time since I read it. I don't believe that the Republic ever effectively abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue (later Haiti) by law; slavery was effectively abolished by Black revolutionaries claiming, originally, the rights of French citizens and later (in the face of Napoleonic and planter repression) fighting for independence. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Benitez
Reference to this weightlifter under "The Egyptian Expedition" are added by anon poster who has vandalised many other pages, including the Battle of Waterloo. I'm not 100% certain, but I'd say 99% that the sentence is complete vandalism. I'll remove it soon if no objections.--DreamsReign 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New succession box
Charles the Bald may have been Emperor and ruled in France, but surely he never used the title "Emperor of the French"! --Russ Blau (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I will replace it. –Whaleyland 23:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm alot has been deleted I checked against some older versions and this has been deleted
''a large passage that had been removed by a vandal was placed here by (Deng 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)). It has now been moved back to the article and removed from here.'' -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte & Comnène Connection
I was doing some research on the Medici family and came across this interesting and puzzeling piece of information which I had a question on its authenticity. Its writing by François-René de Chateaubriand Mémoires d’outre-tombe, translated into English:

"There is another genealogy that Monsieur Panckoucke has placed at the head of a collection of Bonaparte’s writings; it differs in several details from that given by Napoléon-Louis. Madame d’Abrantès, (also known as Laure Stefanopoulos-Permon) on her side, thinks that Bonaparte might be a Comnène, alleging that the name Bonaparte is a literal translation of the Greek Caloméros, the surname of the Comnène. Napoleon-Louis feels he must end his genealogy with these words: ‘I have omitted many details, since these titles of nobility are only an object of curiosity for a small number of people, and besides the Bonaparte family acquires no lustre from them."

Then I came across these interesting sites here which translated into English, they says something similar. We do know that Greeks have been present in Corsica for centuries, especially in Cargese. Is there any legitimacy that the Bonaparte family really were related to the Comnene aka Caloméros Family as Madame d’Abrantès claimed? ~ Mallaccaos, 11 May, 2006

Napoleon
Who napoleon pics wanted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.34.196.57 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2006.

GA nomination
This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: for a 62K article it should have more than 6 footnotes and the 6-7 "citation needed" tags need to be fixed, and the footnotes should be in a standard cite php format, right now they are a mishmash. The cite needed tags need to (preferably) have cited footnotes made or less preferably the text can be reworded so the citation isn't needed. Rlevse 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * GA failed due to items not fixed after 7 days. Rlevse 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon's Army
Given that Napoleon was a military leader, and his military victories were the accomplishment which brought him to power, more attention should be given to the sources of French military dominance. Napoleon was one of several outstanding generals elevated from low social standing by the leadership of the Directory, particularly the mathematician/technocrat Lazare Carnot, whose motto "careers open to talent" gave commands to young and ambitious men. Napoleon was one of a "class" that included Desaix, Pichegru, and others-- and the opportunity that the Directory gave such men was extraordinary.

Also extraordinary was the size of the French Armies. The article mistakenly states "Napoleon is credited with introducing the concept of the modern professional conscript army to Europe, an innovation which other states eventually followed." -- again, the innovation of conscription, and indeed the term "levee en masse" is Carnot's, and predates Napoleon-- a fact which is noted in the Wikipedia article on Carnot, which should be referenced here. Like Alexander the Great fighting with the army that Phillip made, Napoleon was very fortunate to arrive on the scene and inherit a military establishment with critical advantages over opponents; he made good use of these numbers, and he supported the system, but he did not invent it.

Finally, there ought be some discussion of the politics of the French Army, a view from the bottom-- the common soldier-- and at the top, the talented Generals and Marshals. The reason that the French were able to conscript masses of men and give them weapons, and permit divisions to operate with great independance, was that as a revolutionary state, France trusted its people with weapons in a way that, say, Austria, did not trust their own. The monarchies, after all, were very much in fear of a revolution of the French variety in their own countries, and thus military efficiency was subordinated to political reliability. At the bottom of the military pyramid, France could draft more people; and at the top of the pyramid, the Directory, and then later Napoleon had much more flexibility in selecting leaders-- one might compare the careers of Napoleon's Marshals with the Austrian Archduke Charles or Russian Generals who kept their commands through many years of military failure. --Crocodilian 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good comments. Some of this belongs in this article; some of it probably belongs in French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, or elsewhere. Is there any reason you don't want to start working on this yourself? - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Haiti campaign
"In 1803, Bonaparte faced a major setback when an army he sent to reconquer Haiti and establish a base was destroyed by a combination of yellow fever and fierce resistance led by Toussaint L'Ouverture. Recognizing that the French possessions on the mainland of North America would now be indefensible, and facing imminent war with Britain, he sold them to the United States —the Louisiana Purchase—for less than three cents per acre ($7.40/km²)."

Is there a link that supports the claim of a major defeat? And did the haitian campaign force the decicion to sell Lousiana? Toussant died of pneumonia in France as a prisoner as far as I know. -Ravage. 09.08.2006


 * Toussaint did, indeed, die a prisoner, but still the French were ultimately trounced. Read The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard the Haitian campaign as anything but a disaster. General Leclerc died of yellow fever in Haiti, so that's about an even trade with Toussaint, no?  At any rate, Toussaint's generals (Dessalines, in particular) did indeed, as Jmabel says, trounce the French, whose whole army basically died of yellow fever.  Whatever remained of the white population left for France, and so forth.  BTW, is there a better source on the subject than James?  The book is wonderful, and incredibly well written, but it's also written from a more or less Stalinist perspective, and came out 75 years ago.  john k 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But where is the proof that the haiti campaign had anything to do with the French mainland possessions being indefensible? The text seems to make a connection between the two that I dont really see the foundation for. -Ravage. 04:00 15.08.2006


 * Ravage, I don't have a solid answer for you on that last. My guess is that it is because deprived the French of both their main base in the Caribbean (from which they could face the British Navy), and it also destroyed so much of their military in the Americas (and it would have been no light thing to assemble another expiditionary force), but that is slightly conjectural on my part, and would in any case need fleshing out. Not to hard to research I would imagine. If you find something citable, please bring it back here.


 * John, I agree that James is not exactly a neutral academic, and certainly I disagree with many of his opinions, but he seems to be accurate on all the basic facts of the military campaigns, illuminating on the race and class dynamics, and the book is a great read. I'm sure there is something more recent, and more objective, and doubtless much duller, but I don't know what it would be. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Novels
Apparently nobody in Wikipedia is talking about the bestselling novels based on Napoleon's life by Max Gallo, which is strange because of the fact that they were selling like hotcakes in Europe. Anyway I was wondering how accurate the novels are. Are they really as real as it gets? And oh yeah, for those Napoleon fans out there who haven't heard about the novels here are their titles: InGenX 09:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Napoleon: The Song of Departure
 * Napoleon: The Sun of Austerlitz
 * Napoleon: The Emperor of Kings
 * Napoleon: The Immortal of Saint Helena

Enlightened Despot?
This line in the introduction seems appropriate to me, but POV without a balancing statement, perhaps: "while others consider him to be a mere despot." Gabrielthursday 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole article is POV. The man was considered in a similar light to Adolf Hitler in the early 19th Century. He was a monster. Pray that no one like him again darkens the earth. Wallie 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And your changes is less POV? Carl Logan 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I guess we all have some POV. However, I do stand my comments. Can you not imagine that if someone like Napoleon got power now, with today's weaponry... The thought is to horrible to contemplate. 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In a blog that would be commendable, in a encylopedia less so. Carl Logan 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Carl, thanks for removing the englightened despot line (it was you, I think?). Gabrielthursday 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, I don't think that Napoleon can be included in the enlightened despot category. More correct is to include him in the Popular monarchy category. What do you think Gabrielthursday? Carl Logan 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Carl Logan, I am sure that your ideas are more blogs than mine. I doubt hardly anyone at the time Napoleon was living considered him a "popular monarch". Beethoven had an even worse opinion of him than I did. And I trust Beethoven's judgement over yours, that's for sure. These were people who lived and mostly died under his merciless tyranical rule. This article needs to be put into the proper perspective. Wallie 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that Napoleon was a "popular monarch". To the French, perhaps, but the French had just suffered through one of the worst times for any traditional monarchy and the Terror.  The Duc d'Enghiens episode sealed his reputation with me, aside from the atrocious politics he embodied.  There are, imho, remaining subtle POV aspects to the current article.  Gabrielthursday 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A popular monarchy doesn't need to be popular as a enlightened despot isn't necessarily enlightened. The definition of a popular monarchy is "a system of monarchical governance in which the monarch's title is linked with the people rather than a unitary state." Which a think Napoleon was because he adopted the title Emperor of the French rather than Emperor of France. Check out the article on Popular monarchy. Carl Logan 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Napoleon was a monster. Period. This is not POV. It was widely thought especially around the 20s. I see you have not responded to my comments about Beethoven. Napoleon made life hell for Germans, including Beethoven, plus Austrians, Russians and anyone else in his murderous path. He had no reason to cause all that misery. Wallie 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the notion of popular monarchy. However, it rather begs the question as to whether Napoleon should be considered a monarch at all, or rather a dictator.  Certainly he intended to establish a dynasty, but his means of attaining power was far from that of a monarch, his mode of governing unlike that of a king, and his relationship with other centres of power in France again unmonarchial.  In short, I think dictator better suits Napoleon than monarch.  Gabrielthursday 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To Wallie: admittedly at the time he was fighting he was hated by the vast majority of Europe, but following his death there was huge Napoleon-mania throughout Europe in the 19th century, and particularly in France. This was mostly as a result of the Romantic movement, which essentially turned Napoleon into the modern Prometheus. Regardless of your personal opinions about Napoleon, it is unwise to try to equate views regarding Napoleon and Hitler. Even now, Napoleon is far more popular around the world than Hitler.

It's obvious that we're all biased here, and it's difficult not to take a harsh stance when analyzing someone like Napoleon. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean we should tear at each other's throats. Let's instead try to resolve any disputes we have peacefully and reasonably, remembering (particularly Wallie) that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.UberCryxic 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This site here does not say anything about Napoleon sowing the seeds for the future world wars. I have thus removed those two sentences about people considering him a genius and this other allegation.UberCryxic 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am really surprised by some of the comments posted above, believing that we had moved far enough away from the life of Napoleon to view it with objectivity: seemingly not. A monster? Considered in the same light as Adolf Hitler? Merciless tyrannical rule? This, quite frankly, is utter tosh. He may have been unpopular with the crown heads of Europe, but there were many during his lifetime who saw him as a progressive, even a revolutionary figure, one who swept away the creaking feudal anachronism to the east of the Rhine. And what exactly was Beethoven's opinion of Napoleon? Napoleon made life hell for him? That's news to me; it would also, I suspect, have been news to Beethoven. He certainly approved of him as late as 1804. Napoleon was indeed the first of the modern dictators, but far more enlightened in every way than the twentieth century pygmies. Napoleon was a great man, a great ruler, and a great soldier. White Guard 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Beethoven composed the Eroica in Napoleon's honor, but when he'd seen him and his works at closer quarters, he changed his views. I believe that at one point he refused a command performance (I don't know the details and could be wrong, does someone know more on this?). - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think his rededication of the Eroica had little to do with observing Napoleon and his works, and everything to do with the metamorphosis of the First Consul of the Republic into the Emperor. White Guard 00:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly at least a factor. And I agree that the comparisons to Hitler are absurd. But as I'm sure you've noticed, reductio ad Hitlerum is a big sport around here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

napoleon and religion
I had written a couple of paragraphs, sourced and all about his disenchantment with Christianity and some of his leadings with Islam, and someone just removed it.

thanks. 129.173.95.1 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)AK


 * Please see what else was in the edits that I reverted. That's what happens when you edit an article without noticing that it has been vandalized.  --Someone (Russ Blau (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

I didn't like what this guy wrote anyway. Seems to be POV pushing. Islam was never a big part of Napoleon's life, nor was any other religion for that matter.UberCryxic 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The anon contributor made the error of taking something Napoleon did indeed write, or at least directed to be written over his name, and assuming that every word of it corresponded precisely to his personal beliefs. That is a very dubious assumption for this subject!  I would suppose that, when Napoleon told his valet in the morning what he wanted for breakfast, there is a good chance that he honestly meant it, although even in that case I would be open to considering evidence to the contrary.  Beyond that, the presumption swings the other way! :) Russ Blau (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On completely unrelated note, I think the picture a anonymous user removed should be remained removed. My reasons is: it is a bad copy of a bad picture, it is in the wrong section and there is already to many pictures in the article. Carl Logan 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this site right in attributing the quote to Napoleon? http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Napoleon.html 74.137.230.39 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure which of the several quotes there you are referring to; because Napoleon was all over the map in his remarks on religion, he could have said any of these things. If you don't trust the site, I'd seek more primary sources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This one. "Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne" and from then on. Its not that I distrust this site, but rather I was suprised to find pro-religious quotes by him. I had always thought he purely saw religion as a tool, but its just an interesting quote, since it was near the end of his life. 74.137.230.39 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Last words
I'm confused a bit: The article says "His last words were: “Tête d’Amrée!” (Head of Army!)", yet the article on Joséphine de Beauharnais, Napoleon's wife, gives them "the Emperor's last words on the Island of St. Hélena were "France, the Army, the Head of the Army, Josephine." So is one in need of extension or is the other one wrong? 84.50.128.79 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Josephine article is right; "Josephine" was his last word (and the others are correct too).UberCryxic 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There were half a dozen witnesses to Napoleon's death, four of whom kept diaries (Bertrand, Montholon, Marchand and Antommarchi). Only Montholon records "Josephine" as his last word - the others all record “Tête d’Amrée!” Laurenticwave (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate Children
Can anyone cast any light on the claim that Napoleon might have been the father of Eugenie Mayer? Her mother was undoubtedly Fanny Mayer (nee Kreilsamner) of Alsace, but she always claimed that the father was an unknown French soldier called Louis Mayer who had left her and died somewhere in Africa. What is the evidence for any connection with Napoleon? Where does this idea come from?Mattbrett 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, I will remove Eugenie Meyer until there is a creditable source. Carl Logan 15:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Observations
My impressions of this article are that it is heavily pro-Napoleon. The Legacy section in particular is ridiculously one-sided. I'm hesitant to go out there and make changes because I don't want to compromise the work of previous individuals, but we do need to restore some balance to this article. Napoleon was not all that great, even though he did have many admirable qualities.UberCryxic 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say at times the reverse! The entry opens by stating that "In the first decade of the nineteenth century, he turned the armies of France against almost every major European power" whereas I would have said "In the first decade of the nineteenth century, he defended the nascent French Republic against almost every major European power". Given that virtually all the monarchies of Europe had declared "a war of extermination" (Pitt's words) against the French Revolution, one can plausibly argue that Napoleon acted in self-defence. Laurenticwave (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)