Talk:Napoleon

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|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <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>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

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

i didn't write above but am adding signature and date so it gets archived at some point, Tom B (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 christened Hélène 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 prince Charles 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.

i didn't write above but am adding signature and date so it gets archived at some point, Tom B (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Frania W. (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

        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)[reply] 

I think this title is fine too, although not for POV reasons. We have had this discussion before. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course, right after I post, I find the archives ... presumably, your referring to Talk:Napoleon_I of France/Archive 3#Requested move. There User:Sohelpme points out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which does seem to support "Napoleon I of France". I think this clashes with general WP naming conventions, but c'est la vie. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re Flamarande: I agree with you that the most common name should be used, but it looks like it would be better for us to discuss this on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) page. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't measure people in Europe in METERS. but centimeters. So Napoleon was 170cm. Can somone fix that? 71.99.101.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

I am officialy recorded as 182 (onehundredandeightytwo) centimetres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.69.34 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Emperor of the French has 2 lines in the table. Looks silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.123.17 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

A discussion has been going for a few weeks now on the renaming of (some) sovereigns {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28royalty_and_nobility%29]in order to have every one of them treated the same way; however, the discussion seems to be stalling on Elizabeth & Victoria.

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.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any monarch article which use the monarch's offical title as the name? Its name number and country. Not name number and title. Elizabeth's article is not Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, which is the official title... Unless they have a legendary type name, the name number country is standard. Or Leopold II of Belgium, his title is actually Leopold II King of Belgians. This name is standard. Lets keep it as such. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" ?

I made the same propositions on the Napoleon II and Napoleon III articles. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Both: end of discussion for me.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! :) I would say though about Marie Antoinette, that in that case WP:COMMONNAME would trump WP:NCROY. As a person well read in French history, Marie Antoinette is the nearly universally known name for her. I say let them eat cake; I like the policy as it is. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

I really think that we should not sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of naming conventions uniformity.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[1], so I do not think it is necessary to open one somewhere else.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Britain Georg 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)[reply]

And for the record I would support a move to Napoleon I, Emperor of the French in line with, say, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Albrecht (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Which would be logical since there are also Napoléon II and Napoléon III. --Frania W. (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2] [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think that Josephine was Paul Barras's mistress, as Napoleon's page said it was. --JosephineBonaparte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephinebonaparte (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may interest people to know that there is a move discussion to bring about consistency of titles with Napoleon II and III taking place at Talk:Napoleon III of France. PatGallacher (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]