Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => French Royals => Topic started by: Lucien on October 22, 2006, 01:42:38 PM

Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on October 22, 2006, 01:42:38 PM
http://ameliefr.club.fr/index.html

http://www.musees-nationaux-napoleoniens.org/index.htm
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 22, 2006, 03:06:34 PM
Thanks for the links and making that topic. Napoleon was indeed such an interesting figure and there are so many aspects that could be discussed...I first have to think about what to write and then, when more time, I will write what could be interesting, are there any special topics concerning him, which interest you most? ;)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on October 22, 2006, 07:24:44 PM
I do not see any basic difference between Napoleon and Adolf Hitler. Napoleon and Hitler are predecessors of the AntiChrist and an animal. Napoleon and Hitler have brought to mankind many misfortunes and troubles. Napoleon any not great emperor and the military genius. Napoleon is only the adventurer and the usurper.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on October 23, 2006, 02:10:26 AM
The Greek word "anti" means not only contra, but still also "instead of". When Napoleon has proclaimed itself emperor of France began to resist to lawful king of France. Very proud and ambitious person has wanted to put itself on the French throne instead of lawful king of France. Napoleon Bonaparte never had any rights to the French throne. Therefore it the usurper. The proud Frenchmen have arranged revolution and have killed all royal family, and have then wanted the monarch and have bowed to "emperor" of France. We perfectly know, than all this has ended. Napoleon Bonaparte was not the son of Carlo Maria Buonaparte and Leticia Ramolino. Napoleon Bonaparte was the son of a devil. I never liked this photo with Caroline and Jean-Christophe. This young girl and its brother faced to a picture with napoleonic crowning and so smiled. This photo seems to me inadmissible and blasphemous. You can imagine, that the young both beautiful girl and its younger brother (such beautiful and nice guy) so smiled and faced to a portrait of their grandfather which call ADOLPH HITLER?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier, le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 23, 2006, 03:52:00 AM
Dmitry, as I said before, I am not the moderator of this thread, but I have to comment here, that it should not be allowed to talk here on an open message board like you do. Everyone has the right to formulate critic arguements, but you offend historic people and use words that do not have anything to do with an objective critiscm in a dicussion, but with an unloading of your peronal hate! And I must say that I will have to report it to the moderators, if you should go on with that kind of talking.
Furthermore: Not only to compare, but to set equal Napoleon and Hitler is something, which would a serious historian strongly deny. As we know the nationalsocialic ideology of the Third German Reich was in its basics completey different from the french First Empire. Historiany wouldn´t deny that Napoleon and Hitler maybe have had some "similaries" in their personalities (but only limited), but the aims of the Nazis are not to compare with the reign of Napoleon. One of Hitler´s basic aims was to extinguish the jews, because there were feared as destroyers of the "clean race". Napoleon also killed people, but the murders were not the aim of his reign, but a consequence of his battles and so on, apart from special people, who were feared as enemies of Napoleon. There is no doubt that Napoleon was a dictator, but in his basic aims different from the Nazi regime.
Even your comment about the picture of Napoleons descendants is quite strange. There is the thesis (only the thesis) that Hitler himself has grandchildren in France, so please to not put the blame on unguilty descendants of those statesmen.
I have to say here once more that you should change your choice of words, if you want to take part in our discussions, and please do think before making judgements, which are much less simple as they might seem in the first moment. This is no place to express one´s personal hate feelings!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on October 23, 2006, 08:51:10 AM
I completely agreed with you, Britt. This is a historical forum, not a place to practise a witch-hunt, sending to death burned at the stake all the figures hated by every one of us.

We need to focus on Napoleon as a great general of the French Revolutionary Army, who later ruled the country as First Consul, and later proclaimed himself emperor, the founder of a new dinasty. Of course, he was a "parvenu", but all the kings in the world had a very remote ancestor who was a "parvenu" ;) Under the command of Napoleon, the french armies fought during more than a decade almost every european power, and, at this time, he acquired control of most of continental Europe, usually by conquest, sometimes by alliance. He was a giant. But a giant that, finally, falled from grace and ended his days exiled in a little island.

I´m spanish and a number of my ancestors fought againt french armies when they occupied my country. I was born very near to the place where was fought the Battle of Elviña, where the great british general sir John Moore was wounded. He was dead between us and when I was a little child, I usually went to the grave of Moore to put in some flowers. But this (our personal feelings...) means nothing, if we try to discuss a great historical figure.

Best regards, Britt.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 23, 2006, 11:28:22 AM
Dear Yseult, Thanks for your comment. I am really no person, who simply admires any emperor, who sent many people to death, but I try to behave objective. I admit that I am fascinated and interested in Napoleon, his family and his battles since my schooldays, but that does not mean that I do not have any critism. Do you have any documents that you know that your ansistors fought in the battles? That´s quite interesting ;)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on October 23, 2006, 11:42:24 AM
Dear Yseult, Thanks for your comment. I am really no person, who simply admires any emperor, who sent many people to death, but I try to behave objective. I admit that I am fascinated and interested in Napoleon, his family and his battles since my schooldays, but that does not mean that I do not have any critism. Do you have any documents that you know that your ansistors fought in the battles? That´s quite interesting ;)

I haven´t, Britt. I always heard from my grandmother that some of her great-oncles were involved in the fight against the frenchs, but that´s only a family tradition ;)

About Napoleon...I wish to put a question. I read somewhere that at his times were floating in the aire "reasonable doubts" about his father. It seems that Letizia Ramolino was a honest woman and a good wife to Carlo Ramolino, but someone suggested that she wasn´t not such a example of chastity. I´m thinking, of course, about the relationship between Letizia and a breton general governor of Corsica, whose name I can´t remember now...He was the man who helped Napoleon to be admitted at the military school of Brienne, If I´m not making a great mistake...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 23, 2006, 11:56:52 AM
Yes, I had heard about that story. I have to look up in my biographical books, as was a long time ago that I read them, so at the moment I do not know the name of the Corsican general, too. For my part I don´t think that Napoleon´s father wasn´t Carlo Maria, I think it was rather some kind of "talking". I think all Bonaparte brothers bear a strong resemblence to both of the parents, also when I think they have more from their mother around the eyes etc. Not only the cases of stomache cancer, which had not only Carlo Maria (who died quite young because of that), but also Napoleon himself, his sister Caroline and some of the later generations (descendants of Lucien) let me think that they must have had the "same genes". Surely, I will look up for this case in my books and then I will give you a better answer. What do you personally think about that?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on October 23, 2006, 02:35:10 PM
Britt, I was searching for info in my notes. It seems that Letizia began an affair with the Comte of Marbeuf, Corsica´s military governor, circa 1770. There are a lot of historians that believed they were lovers at some point, between the years 1776 and 1784. In 1784, the Comte of Marbeuf began to distance himself from Letizia, because he wanted to marry a girl of a good family aged eighteen. By the way, Letizia lost her husband Carlo in february 1785.

Of course, it could be that he Comte fathered one or two of Letizia´s children if they were lovers, but probably not Napoleon because he was born in 1769.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 24, 2006, 02:25:53 AM
That´s quite interesting, I will try to look for further infos.  ;) It would be strange, if one of the Bonaparte children was not fathered by Carlo. By the way there are (for some historians) doubts that Napoleon III, son of Louis and Hortense was not Louis´s son, as queen Hortense and her husband did not get along with each other very well, and she had affairs, too. So there are some, who believe that Louis Napoleon wasn´t a Bonaparte (Also in the family!) Louis himself shall have ackknowdged the child Louis Napoleon (later emperor Napoleon III) first and then no and then he said yes again, maybe he was not sure about this! Louise himself had two illeg. children from an Italian lady, they carried the name of Castelvecchio. On the other side it was said that Louis resembled his father, especially as a child. But later his cousin Jerome-Napoleon, the son of Jerome and Catherine of Württemberg, whose later became chief of the family after the line of Louis Napoleon died out, once said to Napoleon III:
"You don´t have nothing from the emperor!" (Jerome looked much more like Napoleon I like Napoleon III did), and Louis Napoleon replied: "But yes! I have his family!"
Maybe this was a bit off topic, but those doubts concerning paternity seem quite strange, often for an outstanding person, it´s difficult to decide, what is only gossip and what is the truth!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on October 26, 2006, 11:49:35 AM
Thanks for the links and making that topic. Napoleon was indeed such an interesting figure and there are so many aspects that could be discussed...I first have to think about what to write and then, when more time, I will write what could be interesting, are there any special topics concerning him, which interest you most? ;)

The phenomenon aka Napoleon Bonaparte Britt,the Charlemagne of his day. ;)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 26, 2006, 01:12:23 PM
Do you mean that the phenomen that so many people were fascinated by him? I have read that people, you didn´t take the little man with the italian name for serious at the beginning, completely changed in their attitude and so on, when they saw him the first time, and when they stood in front of him. He must have had a very special charisma.
Or do you mean also the legend that the won so many battles? Some at the time thought that he must have had something "godlike", because he was never killed in the battles!  ::)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on October 26, 2006, 01:38:05 PM
Britt...can you really imagine the impression that made young Napoleone? Laura Permon laughed at him. Relatives of Desiree Clary laughed at him when he began the courship of the girl. Therese de Fontenay laughed at him. Josephine Tascher de la Pagèrie laughed at him. It´s strange the way things go, jajaja.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on October 26, 2006, 01:42:02 PM
Not just fascinated,but how le petit corporal could emerge into le Grand General and eventually Emperor of the French.He had more up his sleave then most of his contemporaries,and many after,not the legend,he wasn't,he was real,clever,phenomenol and omnipotent in his day.Many civilised countries find the basis of their law/legal system in his Code Napoleon,to name but one of his achievements.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 27, 2006, 10:44:40 AM
It´s indeed a question many authours and historians were concerned with. How could a man from a little noble family with italian roots become a man of such power and whose law book were an example for so many countries... I think todays law book of France still contains a lot of Napoleons laws, even if it was changed in some ways. But it´s interesting. Napoleons also wrote rights for the jews, which was quite new at that time, because before that time jews weren´t treated like others...All people, who were born in his country were counted as his people, and I think in France it is still like that. Even if your parents might be from Afrika or somewhere else, you are a french man, if you are born there. I think that´s not the same in all other countries. Please correct me, if it is different. And again to the jews. I have read in the jewish museum in Frankfurt (where I study) that the jews were more than fascinated by him and his laws, he made for them. There were many jews of many other countries, who came to France during the first Empire. They stated that "Napoleon would help Israel to survive". He was very prominent among the jews, almost too much in my view, because in my opinion the reason for Napoleon making rights for the jews mostly wasn´t something like "wanting to help" or having compassion with those people, who were again and again descriminated in the history, because did this man really have feelings like that towards other people, who he did not know? I hardly believe that, because it´s well known how cynical he was, when soldiers fell in his battles. People, who were frightened to die or something were laughed by Napoleon, and he always talked cynically about the lives of his enemies and even his own people, when they were not as brave as he wanted. I rather hold the opinion (and there are also historians, who wrote this) that he made many laws to become more known and more influencial and famous, he knew what would happen though those rights to the jews, he would become more famous. It was a special strategy by him to reach his aims among his people more quickly. It was -in some way- similar with Napoleon and the sciences, I have written a work for the university last year about Napoleon and the sciences (the society of Arcueil), and it came out that -in many cases, even when he was partly very interested and talented in scienes like maths, physics, chemistry and so on, he pushed up them to make a great french culture and to leave a "monument" by him as a protagonist of the sciences (think of his integration in the club of scientists, with whome me made the trip to Egypt and so on) far less because of his personal knowleges and interests (only limited)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 22, 2006, 02:04:07 PM
I have to correct one of my statements here, that I once made in this thread or in that of the Bonaparte news. I think it was not correct that the french nationality automatically belonged to everyone, who was born in France. It was not under Napoleon. I remembered to have learned it like that, but in a recent lesson at our university we discussed it differently. I think under the Bourbons it was like that, during the french revolution the understanding of the french nationality was temporarly quite open, because the ideology was the most important. It was possible to get the french nationality by getting a House and property, but if you were against the attitudes of the revolution or was considered as criminal, one could be taken away the french nationality.
During the empire all was a bit more complex, as I have understood it. Important was the analogy from the nationality to a picture of a family. In general only men had the right on being a french citizen! (Officially!) Through labour one could become a citizen for others. For children, who were from parents, who were not french at all, there was the possibility that they could get the nationality, when they are grown up. For Napoleon it was quite important to get new citizens, because the needed them for the army. I think, the topic must be much more complex. Maybe there is anybody, who can add some more points or correct something. The french nationaliy under Napoleon is a quite interesting topic in my view, also if you consider that Napoleon himself was not really totally french..At school we once discussed about the difference of his title: Emperor of the French and not French Emperor...The answer is quite interesting...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on November 29, 2006, 06:15:01 AM
Nominal sign on one of predecessors of the antiChrist
(http://www.omolenko.com/spgm/gal/2004%20Apostasia/DSC_5873.jpg)
The horned basis of a sign of Napoleon
(http://www.omolenko.com/spgm/gal/2004%20Apostasia/DSC_5874.jpg)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on November 29, 2006, 10:23:16 AM
Oh please Dmitri,not the looney tunes again.... ::)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 29, 2006, 02:09:07 PM
I don´t find it to laugh anymore, he destroys the serious topics.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Prince_Lieven on November 29, 2006, 02:14:45 PM
Quote
This is a historical forum, not a place to practise a witch-hunt, sending to death burned at the stake all the figures hated by every one of us.

Yseult is right. Keep the discussion polite, please. Dmitry Russian is entitled to his opinion but I would prefer if he based his posts more on historical evidence and less on statements like 'Napoleon was the son of the devil', which lowers the tone of the discussion.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on November 30, 2006, 01:57:23 AM
I heard, that the body of Napoleon was perfectly kept after its death. I read, that the napoleonic coffin has been opened by members of the French expedition later 19 years after death of the usurper and the predecessor of the antiChrist. They have seen, that the body of Napoleon was perfectly kept and does not differ almost from any mummy. Probably, you know, that the mausoleum exists in Moscow on the Red area. Lenin's body is in this mausoleum. It is Lenin's mummy which lays in opened to a coffin, therefore visitors of this mausoleum can see result of embalming of a body. Unlike Lenin Napoleon is in closed to a coffin which has not been dug in the ground, and it is exposed on a general review. It is not pleasant to me. Please, compare their tombs.
(http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/794289_20051004192351.gif)(http://www.omolenko.com/images/vil.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Napoleon_tomb_bordercropped.jpg)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 30, 2006, 04:46:09 AM
And what do you want to express with this mail?

I don´t understand it!


And if you do not stop giving Napoleons those names like Usurpator and Antichrist, I will have to contact to moderator again. I thought it was said clearly enough before that other vocabulary is to be used here.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: grandduchessella on November 30, 2006, 08:53:49 AM
Issues have been brought to my attention here so I feel the need to wade in.

I agree that terms like the anti-Christ are needlessly inflammatory and don't really have a basis here in this discussion. I don't think that feeling Napoleon was an usurper is necessary off-limits if one feels that he took the throne away from the 'rightful' rulers of France or the thrones of other rulers and replaced them with his own relatives.

References to Adolf Hitler seem to be tossed around for shock value. However, it's not out of bounds to discuss Napoleon as a dictator or someone who took control of many countries in Europe through might and compare these to other dictators with similar aims.

Remember that respect needs to be shown to various viewpoints but that there is a certain amount of civility and intellectual reasoning that is expected by the members of this Forum.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 30, 2006, 12:57:12 PM
I don´t want to be gotten wrong. I think that everyone shall discuss here, also critizise people of the history, who he does not like, also compare them maybe to other dictators (I made those Adolf Hitler comparisons sometimes by myself!), but it was the way, how it is  presented here by our member, it really seems to me, that he sometimes only appears to say:
"I want to tell the whole world, how I hate Napoleon" and to put this figure down, but without presenting any proof or objective arguments. The tone, how this stuff was presented here had for me something provocating.  I am sorry, if I should be gotten wrong.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 02, 2006, 12:08:21 AM
I hope, that you do not remove my message. I hope, that you will understand, why I agree that Napoleon is the predecessor of the AntiChrist. I know, that John Bogoslova's Revelation exists. But still also interpretation of the Apocalypse is. This interpretation has been made by the orthodox priest. In this interpretation I have seen, that lives of Napoleon and the AntiChrist are very similar. Napoleon and AntiChrist have much the general.
1) That day will not come, while deviation does not take place both the person of a sin and the son of death will not open. In France revolution has occured together with terror and execution of King and Queen. Their unfortunate son has been stirred up in prison. Only after these terrible and tragical events Napoleon has come to French people as its future master.
2) Opposing and extolled above that refers to as the God or a relic, the animal will sit in the Divine temple and will declare itself the God. Napoleon has proclaimed itself the usurper of France and was established in Thuilliries. In relation to Bourbons Napoleon did very bad things.
3) the Name of an animal will be animal. Still also the name of an animal will be искусственнм and compound. Further the name of an animal will be rare and unique. Then the name of an animal will have some pomposit, musical sonority and a height. The napoleonic name really unusual and rare, therefore it so was remembered to people. Still also this name never was characteristic for the French kings. Therefore it is possible to tell, that Napoleon has opposed with itself Louis, Charles, Philippe and Henry. If you divide a napoleonic name on two equal a syllable, the second syllable "leon" is meant by "lion" if to translate this second syllable on the French language. Here  the present ANIMAL!
4) the Animal will come for short reign. Napoleon reigned only 10 years. Something it is possible to tell?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 02, 2006, 08:09:53 AM
These ways of concluding seem very strange to a history student like me.
I don´t think that the majority of serious historians would share this kind of thinking & making conclusions.
The always used expression "predicessor of the Antichrist" make me wonder, who the "antichrist" himself shall be.
This is never explained in your statements. Many things seem always repeated in a similar way as before, but are not to be scientifically proved, instead of this your post becomes more and more filled up with superstitious, religious sounding promises, not based at all on any historical facts.
Let´s only take the example with Napoleons name: Surely is this name different from the ones of the Bourbons, because he had another regional background. The original version, how Letizia called her son was "Nabulione" , it´s italian, and she gave him this name in memory of a relative, who had fallen in a war. This name was not very often at this time (in comparison of the fact, how many of the emperor´s descendants still bear this name today), but already existed in Italy. There are many human names, which can be leaded back to animals or something, but what does a name say or prove about a person???
That´s only one example. If you tried to lead a discussion on Napoleon in any historical institute in this way, it would hardly be taken serious.
It seems strongly that superstitious imaginations and "religious" phantasy is confused here with historical facts and sources.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on December 02, 2006, 10:48:47 AM
I don´t want to be gotten wrong. I think that everyone shall discuss here, also critizise people of the history, who he does not like, also compare them maybe to other dictators (I made those Adolf Hitler comparisons sometimes by myself!), but it was the way, how it is  presented here by our member, it really seems to me, that he sometimes only appears to say:
"I want to tell the whole world, how I hate Napoleon" and to put this figure down, but without presenting any proof or objective arguments. The tone, how this stuff was presented here had for me something provocating.  I am sorry, if I should be gotten wrong.

No Britt,I,for one,didn't get you wrong at all.Think you are right that this sort of religious hullabaloo isn't appropiate in this thread.Nothing against religion ofcourse,contrary,but this thread is about Napoleon,and how he was able do get where he got mostly due to a total lack of competence by others.On how he shaped the world during his days,his failures and his achievements,the Code Napoleon many,civilised and enlightened,nations here in Europe still base their laws on.Suppose some just don't catch up with reality as quick as we do.

Ofcourse one is entitled to call him a dictator,and in many ways he was,as we dutch,ao,found out,but there wasn't anyone else around to give shape to a battered continent after the french revolution.A comparison with A.H. lacks any foundation,both started from totally different view points,so lets not go there,I don't have to explain that as that should be clear to all.I sometimes wonder what would have happened with precious russia if Napoleon had succeded,servedom would have been abolished,the Code Napoleon imposed,progress in educational fields come up.But then eventually he would have had to withdraw I'm sure,russia is not a country to take to changes lightly,always by force,as history proved,and not just by 70+ years of dictatorship from within,it's a big rumbling bear,more inclined to fatalism and excesses of it's own making.

Nappy was a one of a kind guy,clever,strategic and a pain in the b*tt to many,but to this day you find his legacy all over Europe,what will be left of many others in 200 years from now?

To Napoleon Britt,cheers!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 03, 2006, 03:17:33 AM
Well, I shall explain, why I do not love Napoleon. I cannot love and respect with Napoleon for very numerous reasons
1) Napoleon conducted numerous wars.
2) these wars have ruined the strongest, most brave and best Frenchmen.
3) these wars were necessary only to Napoleon.
4) these wars were not necessary to France.
5) Napoleon was the enemy of Russia and Russian people.
6) When Moscow has been taken by the French armies in 1812, this unfortunate city has burned down together with 40000 orthodox churches.
7) Moscow has been plundered by the French armies.
8) Napoleon never was the lawful monarch.
9) Napoleon is the aggressor of an another's throne.
10) unfortunate duke has been shot under his order in 1804.
11) Napoleon has managed with the Spanish and Neapolitan royal families very severely.
12) Napoleon has taken away thrones from the Spanish and Neapolitan kings.
13) Napoleon has created kingdoms for the brothers and sisters.
14) Napoleon wished to marry the sister of Russian emperor.
15) Napoleon married the Austrian princess.
16) Napoleon has created new nobility from children of innkeepers and grooms.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 03, 2006, 12:00:09 PM
Dmitry, nobody forces you or anyone to love the monarch Napoleon. Everyone has the right to have his own opinion towards his person and his aims. I can agree that there many facts concerning Napoleon that seem dictatoric of people of our times, when we see it in history book and read about it. Especially, when he consider certain other powerful statesmen after him...But when it is stated that Napoleon was an usurper and an aggressor on one others throne, there should also be marked that the french people had much problems with the kings and the monarchy before Napoleon, as well, or why do you think that the brutal revolution happened, if everything was fine with the french system?  The french wanted a change, the old monarchy was already broken. Napoleon did not take away the crwon from the hand of Louis XVI! That´s only one point, surely Napoleon is well known for having put the crown himself on his head, but he was elected by the people as emperor! The majority of people wanted him as that time, and I also think that he had good aims at the beginning, for example creating the new lawbook and other points, but he went too far at the end with his many wars and became dictatoric also in his behaviour. This discussion seems more and more like a simple black and white thinking.
And yes, nobody likes the wars, that were happening in Napoleons time, but sometimes things are also necessary for changements of others. Your argument that Napoleon was a enemy of the russian people and destroyed Moscow can be understood by everyone, but I think this point especially hurts you as you come from this country, and it´s something quite personal, but to remain objective he was not the only monarch, who leaded wars. Even when he seemed to lead more than many others. Concerning the innocent duke of Enghien, who had been shot, and other executions, that´s right, that is a point I don´t understand as well. He always feared people, who acted against him, but the truth was that he duke was innocent. But I know, there were many people, also among Napoleons stuff, who never forget him this deed. Two arguments I do not really understand: The fact that napoleon married an Archduchess was necessary to him to connect himself with the european dynasties and to save his familyline and get a male heir.  Josephine could not give him any children, so who should he have married instead of Marie Louise? A civil person? That would hardly have been possible. And Maries Louises fate was not not too bad in comparison with others. She lived at grandduchess of Parma later on and has still descendants from her Neipperg children today. And what about the argument with the new nobility? That´s a point, where I do not really understand you critism. Instead of the monarch before him, who simply sweat the poor people and said as fatty king on his throne, Napoleon gave people from simple families to chance to rise to the top, when they were talented, and that´s something positive.
If you put all together, many of your statements, why you do not like Napoleon are very personal- too personal in my view.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 04, 2006, 12:52:15 AM
In the letter the future French king Louis XVIII asked the first consul " to return Napoleon France its lawful king and promised Napoleon, that descendants will glorify and thank it. Still also the future Louis XVIII promised to give Napoleon the Corsican kingdom. In the answer Napoleon only has burst out laughing and has told, that will operate France independently.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 04, 2006, 02:29:41 AM
As I said, one can like or dislike him, but all that upcoming black or white thinking is not fitting to this topic in my view. This person was much more complex, how it might seem on the first look. Surely he was autoric person and made mistakes, I never said something different, but his reigh had also positive aspects. It´s not Ok only to day: "He was a devil and that´s all."
But even if the bourbon heir, you mentioned, had reigned I am not convinced that the french people would have been satisfied with this. I had surely made the similar mistakes as his brother Ludwig, but surely this is not to prove. It´s not to forget the french system was not stabile at all after the fall of Napoleon, when another Bourbon king reigned. What was the result? Napoleon III!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on December 06, 2006, 07:49:39 AM
In the letter the future French king Louis XVIII asked the first consul " to return Napoleon France its lawful king and promised Napoleon, that descendants will glorify and thank it. Still also the future Louis XVIII promised to give Napoleon the Corsican kingdom. In the answer Napoleon only has burst out laughing and has told, that will operate France independently.

To be honest, Dmitry, the Bourbon´s kings deserved the lost of their great reign of France. I don´t mean poor gentle Louis XVI deserved his cruel execution, neither Marie Antoinette deserved her tragical end, but...they ruined absolutely the prestige of the dinasty. Remember the struggle for power between Marie de Medici, widow of Henry IV, and her own son, Louis XIII. Remember Anne of Austria running away with her children Louis XIV and Philippe during the Fronda, when princes of blood where involved in the revolts. Remember Louis XIV with his large number of mistresses...Louise de La Vallière, Athenaïs de Montespan with the affair of the Poisons, Madame de Maintenon. Remember Louis XV with his more large number of mistresses, including three sisters and two low ranked woman. Remember the brothers of Louis XVI ruinning the reputation of the austrian queen.

Napoleon had a chance because all the mistakes of the Bourbon´s family. And I don´t know why he might have returned the crown to Louis XVIII...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 06, 2006, 04:55:43 PM
Napoleon should return a crown to the French kings because they were Capetiens both lawful anointed sovereigns and kings. Their right was Divine.
It is absolutely wrong, that Napoleon spoke the wife: " To return to it a crown, then to be driven in? "
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 07, 2006, 02:17:16 AM
The divine right is something , which cannot excuse all the mistakes that the regime of the Bourbons did. A long time the divine right existed and seemed to justified everything, but in the time of the illumination the people developed more and more doubts about this view concerning a reign and the attitutes in Europa changed, the divine order became more and more replaced by  rationality and intellect: It was not enough anymore to be a monarch because of the divine order, but one had to demonstrate one´s abilities and to justify oneself and show the reasons, why one was ruling. What sense has a regime, when it is not really carried by the will of the people?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yseult on December 07, 2006, 05:04:25 AM
Napoleon should return a crown to the French kings because they were Capetiens both lawful anointed sovereigns and kings. Their right was Divine.
It is absolutely wrong, that Napoleon spoke the wife: " To return to it a crown, then to be driven in? "

Well, I don´t believe in the Divine right of the kings. And I suppose that the collapse of the "Ancien Regime" means that only a few still believed in the Divine right of the kings.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 07, 2006, 10:07:51 AM
Yes, I think so as well. In the 19 th century the Divine Right seemed to be out- dated and the civil era began: And I think Napoleons regime was at the beginning the will of the people, even when he went too far later on.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 10, 2006, 05:58:53 AM
Well! I would like to receive answers to these questions.
1) when Napoleon was born on the Corsican island, unless it was not the citizen of the French king?
2) unless the French king has not recognized many Corsican families as noblemen?
3) unless Bonapartes have not been recognized by the French royal government as nobiliary family?
4) unless Napoleon has not acquired the right to study in military school due to the French exchequer?
5) when Napoleon began to serve in the French royal army, unless it did not swear on fidelity to the French king?
6) when revolution has occured in 1789, unless Napoleon has not been obliged to protect the French king and to suppress revolts?
7) when Napoleon was a sign with the brother of revolutionary Maximilian Robespierre, unless it has not betraid king and did not become the revolutionary and the supporter of revolution?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: umigon on December 11, 2006, 06:29:44 AM


This is puerile... Napoleon died 285 years ago so, come on, move over! What's wrong with this discussion, it's supposed to be fun and interesting, not a discussion talking about Napoleon being the devil's son or the Bourbon's "Divine" Rights to the French Crown... I thought we were in the 21st century...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 16, 2006, 04:52:35 AM
Can anybody else answer Dmitrys questions this time >:(
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on December 17, 2006, 09:28:39 PM
Well! I would like to receive answers to these questions.
1) when Napoleon was born on the Corsican island, unless it was not the citizen of the French king?
2) unless the French king has not recognized many Corsican families as noblemen?
3) unless Bonapartes have not been recognized by the French royal government as nobiliary family?
4) unless Napoleon has not acquired the right to study in military school due to the French exchequer?
5) when Napoleon began to serve in the French royal army, unless it did not swear on fidelity to the French king?
6) when revolution has occured in 1789, unless Napoleon has not been obliged to protect the French king and to suppress revolts?
7) when Napoleon was a sign with the brother of revolutionary Maximilian Robespierre, unless it has not betraid king and did not become the revolutionary and the supporter of revolution?

It’s been a good long while since I’ve read about “the great Napoleon”, whom Queen Victoria, the Defender of the Faith, admired so much that she knelt in prayer at his tomb, but I’ll try to answer your questions.

1.  As I recall, Corsica was taken over by France when Napoleon was very young.   

2.  The French governor of Corsica befriended Napoleon’s parents and helped them get their noble status recognized in France.  The Bonapartes were probably naturalized at that time.  I don’t know if the noble status of “many” other Corsican families was recognized or not; it's my understanding that it wasn't an easy process.  In later years, rumors spread that the governor had taken Napoleon’s mother as a mistress and that he was Napoleon’s real father, and that this was why they'd been granted noble status in France.  These rumors were utterly untrue, but, unfortunately, that didn’t keep them from spreading.  Many were eager to blacken Napoleon’s name, and that of his family, in any way that they could, a deplorable tradition that continues, to some degree, to this day.   

3.  See answer to # 2.

4.  Napoleon and his siblings Elise and Joseph attended school in France.  Louis XVI paid for Napoleon and Elise’s tuition (and possibly Joseph’s), and for that of other impoverished members of the nobility.   

5.  I have no idea if French officers and troops were required to swear loyalty oaths in those days. 

6.  At the time of the French Revolution, Napoleon was a nobody.  As I noted in an earlier post in another thread, to lead a successful counterrevolution, a person would have needed clout, cunning, connections, a ruthless streak, and the ability to act as a free agent.  Napoleon had cunning and could be ruthless, but he didn’t have connections, clout, or the ability to act as a free agent and thus make deals on the royal family’s behalf.  Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were long dead by the time he started to become influential.

7.  Napoleon made friends with Maximilien Robespierre’s younger brother Augustin because Augustin was connected to the Army of Italy.  Napoleon still dreamed of making himself powerful in Corsica in those days.  He persuaded Augustin to send his plans for an Italian campaign to Maximilien in the hope that they would be approved and that he’d get appointed as the campaign’s commander.  It was not to be: the Robespierres soon fell from power.  Napoleon was thrown in jail for a short time after his plans were discovered among Maximilien’s papers, but it was soon recognized that he’d had nothing to do with the Reign of Terror they’d created, so he was freed. 
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 19, 2006, 12:00:43 AM
Well, at me new questions.
8) Why Napoleon has made revolution in 1799?
9) Why duke has been shot in 1804?
10) Why Napoleon has been proclaimed by "emperor"?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on December 19, 2006, 02:52:00 PM
Well, at me new questions.
8) Why Napoleon has made revolution in 1799?
9) Why duke has been shot in 1804?
10) Why Napoleon has been proclaimed by "emperor"?

1. The coup d’etat was planned by a group of powerful men who were disaffected from the corrupt Directory regime.  They wanted a popular military leader to help them effectuate the coup and, later, to act as a figurehead while they ran the show.  Napoleon returned from Egypt and they decided that he filled the bill perfectly.  He pulled off the coup with their help, then horrified them by making it clear that he wasn’t going to be their catspaw or anyone else’s, which leads to the next question.
 
2.  The Duc d’Enghien was murdered, in part, to send a twofold message to the Bourbons.  First, Napoleon wanted the Bourbons to stop trying to assassinate him; Enghien was murdered shortly after one such assassination attempt.  It must be stressed that Enghien was an innocent young man.  Unfortunately, Napoleon wanted to make an example of a Bourbon, and Enghien was, for lack of a better word, handy.  Second, Napoleon wanted the Bourbons to stop trying to cajole and bribe him into restoring them to power; he liked power and saw no reason why he should give it to them.  Napoleon might perhaps have owed a debt to Louis XVI for his education, and might perhaps have sworn an oath to him, but any debt was canceled and any oath was made moot by his execution.  Napoleon didn’t owe Louis XVIII anything.  After trying and failing to make the Bourbons understand that he wasn’t going to emulate General Monk, he finally gave up and murdered Enghien, which, I must stress, he wouldn't have done if it hadn't been for the assassination attempts.  For what it's worth, he later regretted what he'd done to Enghien. 

He had another reason to do what he did.  Many powerful men in France had participated in the French Revolution and/or had benefited from the fall of the monarchy by buying royal and noble estates, convents and monasteries, art treasures, etc., at bargain basement prices.  They were worried that Napoleon would cut a deal with the Bourbons that would leave them out in the cold; they had enough clout to destabilize Napoleon’s government and possibly even overthrow it, which meant they needed to be conciliated.  Napoleon's action implicitly assured them that, just like them, he had nothing to gain and everything to lose from a Bourbon restoration. 

3.  Napoleon underlined the message he'd sent by subsequently making himself Emperor.  His action made it clear that he would never allow the Bourbons to return to power if he could help it.  It also meant (he hoped) that his family would rule France in perpetuity.  He also did it to make his life easier; being Emperor made him more powerful than he'd been as First Consul, and allowed him to ennoble people, hand out medals, and so forth.  He understood that it was "with baubles that men are led", and hoped to secure the loyalty of powerful men through titles, estates, etc.   He also did it to increase his prestige on the world stage and thus help pave the way for alliances with various rulers.  Finally, I think it was a nod to all of the ancient Roman generals who'd made themselves Caesars through a combination of military victories and political acumen.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 23, 2006, 06:13:42 PM
Thanks for answers to these previous questions.
But at me new questions.
11) why Napoleon has arrested the Spanish and Neapolitan royal families and has expelled them from their kingdoms?
12) why Napoleon has gone to Russia per 1812?
13) unless Napoleon did not understand, what all Europe will be at war against it within 100 days in 1815?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on December 23, 2006, 10:11:00 PM
Thanks for answers to these previous questions.
But at me new questions.
11) why Napoleon has arrested the Spanish and Neapolitan royal families and has expelled them from their kingdoms?
12) why Napoleon has gone to Russia per 1812?
13) unless Napoleon did not understand, what all Europe will be at war against it within 100 days in 1815?

Before I answer any more of your questions, I'd like to address something you posted earlier.  Some while ago, you pointed out that Napoleon’s body was found in a perfect state of preservation.  This was because Napoleon had been exposed to extremely high, possibly toxic, levels of arsenic over a long period of time.  Ben Weider and David Hapgood wrote an excellent book called The Murder of Napoleon in which they argued that Napoleon died as a result of deliberate arsenic poisoning.  Weider and Hapgood believed that the Comte d’Artois (later Charles X) ordered the murder to be carried out. 

There's something I'd like you to do before I answer any more of your questions.  I'd like you to read a passage from The Court of the Tuileries by Lady Jackson, Volume 1, page 132, and consider its implications.  The passage refers to Louis XVIII's unpopularity after he returned to France and his attempt to assert divine right:

"But discontent was not confined to the army.  Even among the partisans of the monarchy there were complaints…Much disgust was also inspired by (Louis XVIII’s) constant harping on the ‘right divine and the 19th year of his reign.’  A coronation and its accompanying festivities, by amusing the public mind, might perhaps for a time have veiled from it the political inaptitude of the king and his newly formed ministry.  But Pius VII, who crowned Napoleon, absolutely refused to recognize the pretension of Louis XVIII to date his reign from the death, in 1795, of the young dauphin called Louis XVII."

"His holiness was reminded that in crowning Napoleon he had acted under compulsion.  He, however, utterly rejected such a suggestion.  No constraint, he said, had been put on him.  It was of his own free will he came to Paris to crown the man whom the nation had chosen; and he declared that Napoleon was duly consecrated, anointed with the holy oil, recognized by the sovereigns of Europe as of the brotherhood of kings, and was as legitimately a sovereign prince as the rest.  This was an unexpected and mortifying rebuff to the ‘right divine’ and in vain Louis talked of reuniting the separate links of the chain of time, of blotting from his memory, as he would wish to blot from the page of history, what had occurred in his kingdom during his 'absence'…."

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 24, 2006, 11:09:35 AM
Hello Palatine,

You seem to be very well informed about Napoleon I. ! Are you also very interested in that subject? Here are not so many contributing in that topic, so it´s interesting what you have written! ;)
One question about the book of the poison theory of Napoleon. I personally rather believe that the emperor really died of stomach cancer as this illness was very common in the napoleonic family. There were different members and generations having it. One question to you: Have you read the book of Ben Weider? As far as I know, he is a supporter of the poisoning theory, as Charles Napoleon is the same, too. Which arguments does he bring  to support that the Comte d´Artois has murdered Napoleon? I think this is only a theory, but not proved. What is your opinion?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on December 24, 2006, 05:34:17 PM
I too read this book. Napoleon had too many enemies to live in a quiet old age. I consider a slow poisoning of Napoleon on far island as the most terrible punishment. To live on very far island where the airport even has not been constructed because of the sizes of this island, the nobility that there is no opportunity to leave from island, to suffer rough attacks of the governor, to not know, that the traitor is available among napoleonic servants, to suffer from a cancer of a stomach, to die of terrible tortures... Probably, such punishment is more terrible than execution or a guillotine. I think, Napoleon would prefer immediate execution, but to not live on such far island and to suffer from poisonings.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 25, 2006, 02:28:13 AM
As far as I know the poisoing theory is not proved.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on December 25, 2006, 12:04:35 PM
Hello Palatine,

You seem to be very well informed about Napoleon I. ! Are you also very interested in that subject? Here are not so many contributing in that topic, so it´s interesting what you have written! ;)
One question about the book of the poison theory of Napoleon. I personally rather believe that the emperor really died of stomach cancer as this illness was very common in the napoleonic family. There were different members and generations having it. One question to you: Have you read the book of Ben Weider? As far as I know, he is a supporter of the poisoning theory, as Charles Napoleon is the same, too. Which arguments does he bring  to support that the Comte d´Artois has murdered Napoleon? I think this is only a theory, but not proved. What is your opinion?
   
Thanks for your kind words.  I think that Napoleon and his family were fascinating, so I wouldn't mind discussing them once in a while. 

In answer to your question: I've read Weider and Hapgood’s The Murder of Napoleon.  I thought that it was well-researched and convincing.  If you have a chance to read it, you should definitely do so.  I’m not going to try to sum it up for you because there’s an excellent article about it at this link:
 
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/napoleon_bonaparte/index.html
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on December 25, 2006, 12:46:50 PM
Thanks for the interesting link to the text. It must be an interesting book. Once I saw a picture with Ben Weider and Charles Napoleon, the todays head of the family, presenting that book. But I still think the poisoning is a possibility and a theory and as far as I know scientists still argue about that topic, even if the book was already written some years ago (as I seem to remember) There were recent articles I have read, where voices say that the arsenic amounts in the hair may have other reasons like the conserving of Napoleons body and other things. There are scientists, who have doubts about the theory. I do not know, if I should believe that Napoleon really died only because of a poisoning, I personally really think that he suffered of cancer, because as I know quite well the genealogy of the Bonapartes, I know that there were different members, who died of this type of cancer, like his sister Caroline, his father Carlo Maria and also his illeg. son count Léon. Then also his brother Lucien and Lucien´s daughter Laetitia, who was married to Thomas Wyse. I have read that all of them died of stomach cancer. But as I do not know the whole book, I cannot know which kind of convincing theories it might bring... Maybe it was both, that Napoleon was ill on the one side and was some kind of poisoned by enemies as well?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on December 27, 2006, 01:01:10 PM
Thanks for the interesting link to the text. It must be an interesting book. Once I saw a picture with Ben Weider and Charles Napoleon, the todays head of the family, presenting that book. But I still think the poisoning is a possibility and a theory and as far as I know scientists still argue about that topic, even if the book was already written some years ago (as I seem to remember) There were recent articles I have read, where voices say that the arsenic amounts in the hair may have other reasons like the conserving of Napoleons body and other things. There are scientists, who have doubts about the theory. I do not know, if I should believe that Napoleon really died only because of a poisoning, I personally really think that he suffered of cancer, because as I know quite well the genealogy of the Bonapartes, I know that there were different members, who died of this type of cancer, like his sister Caroline, his father Carlo Maria and also his illeg. son count Léon. Then also his brother Lucien and Lucien´s daughter Laetitia, who was married to Thomas Wyse. I have read that all of them died of stomach cancer. But as I do not know the whole book, I cannot know which kind of convincing theories it might bring... Maybe it was both, that Napoleon was ill on the one side and was some kind of poisoned by enemies as well?

There can be no doubt that stomach cancer was responsible for the deaths of many members of the Bonaparte family, including those you named as well as Napoleon’s sister Elise, but I don’t think that’s what killed Napoleon.  People who have terminal cancer become very thin during their last months, but Napoleon was overweight at the time of his death.  As for the “conservation” of his body, his body wasn’t embalmed before it was buried.  When his coffin was opened almost 20 years later, it was in a perfect state of preservation, undoubtedly because of all the arsenic he’d ingested.  There is no evidence that the body of anyone else who’d been buried there was similarly preserved by something in the soil, etc.   

The locks of hair that Weider and Hapgood tested for arsenic came from private owners who’d inherited it from people who got the locks from Napoleon himself or from members of his staff soon after his death.  There was no evidence that any of those people had dusted the hair with arsenic over the years.   Weider and Hapgood went into great detail about where they got each hair sample from so that no one could say that it wasn’t really Napoleon’s.

My copy of their book was published in 1982, which wasn’t so long ago in the grand scheme of things.  I didn’t read The Assassination at St. Helena Revisited, the follow-up book by Ben Weider and Stan Forshufvud, because I didn’t need any further convincing.  I’m going to try to get a copy; perhaps it answers some of the objections that have been raised to their theories. 

The best way to settle the question of how Napoleon died would be to open his coffin so that doctors could take samples from his body.  It’s highly unlikely that this will happen.  Many in France have no wish to see his body disturbed for any reason whatsoever, even to determine if he was murdered or not.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on January 28, 2007, 05:36:24 AM
When I was in Madrid, I have visited Prado museum. In its picture gallery I saw remarkable works of artist Fransisko Goya. This artist has written remarkable portraits of members of the Spanish royal family. Still also I saw a group portrait on which all royal family has been represented. I closely peered into persons of members of this royal family. I have been shaken and shocked by their destiny during napoleonic the soldier. It is very terrible to think of how Napoleon has acted with the Spanish royal family. To entice them into the French trap, to force them to renounce a throne, to contain them in a captivity. It is very dishonourable, meanly and is absolutely inadmissible.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: palatine on January 28, 2007, 03:50:34 PM
When I was in Madrid, I have visited Prado museum. In its picture gallery I saw remarkable works of artist Fransisko Goya. This artist has written remarkable portraits of members of the Spanish royal family. Still also I saw a group portrait on which all royal family has been represented. I closely peered into persons of members of this royal family. I have been shaken and shocked by their destiny during napoleonic the soldier. It is very terrible to think of how Napoleon has acted with the Spanish royal family. To entice them into the French trap, to force them to renounce a throne, to contain them in a captivity. It is very dishonourable, meanly and is absolutely inadmissible.

I think that the proper place to complain about Napoleon’s treatment of Carlos IV and his family is the Spanish royals board.  


Incidentally, Napoleon and his brother Joseph made some positive changes in Spain during their time there.  They created tax laws that applied to everyone equally, abolished torture, guaranteed freedom from arrest without a warrant, forbade the imprisonment of anyone unless they were formally charged with something in a court of law, and abolished the Spanish Inquisition, which had killed thousands of innocent Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and homosexuals over the centuries.  
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 06, 2007, 06:39:10 PM
Please, pay attention to those small wooden figures, which near to this person. On what they are similar? They remind me of demons.
There is imaging of NB
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpg)
I looked napoleonic portraits. They have not liked me. They any pompous, self-satisfied, impudent...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 07, 2007, 07:58:16 AM
Please, pay attention to those small wooden figures, which near to this person. On what they are similar? They remind me of demons.
There is imaging of NB
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpg)
I looked napoleonic portraits. They have not liked me. They any pompous, self-satisfied, impudent...

I think it is your personal interpretation that the golden Lion next to the emperor bears something of a "devil" or a "demon". I am sure you can find similar figures in rooms and at the chattles of other royals (of that time and even later) as well. I don´t think that is something very special or at least something very typical for napoleonic portraits. It may be (I am not so well informed about such symbols at the moment) that it symbolizes something like "being mighy", but to see the devil in it seems to be something, which depends of what a person wants to see.
Generally I don´t hold the opinion that Portraits of the french emperor are very pompous or very pretentious. Not more than those of others. I think the contrary. If you compare them with portraits of kings of the absolutism, you will notice that they are much more pompous. The most portraits of the emperor are in his uniform and "simple" clothes, which was very typical for Napoleon. A thing which other (especially absolutistic) kings would never have done. Do only think of the very pompous portraits of Ludwig XIV. Napoleon was well known for the rather simple uniform portraits, there are only very few ones in imperial clothes (like the one of the crowning). I am sorry, but I don´t see any more of "self satisfaction or "impudence" (to quote you ) in Napoleon portraits than in those of other rulers. Concerning the expression "pompous" rather the contrary, category "normal" for an emperor.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 08, 2007, 06:11:22 AM
Now I shall study portraits of the French kings before revolution and to compare them to napoleonic images. When I shall draw conclusions then I shall make comments on them so with what I see these portraits.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 08, 2007, 11:22:10 AM
In general this could be an interesting aspect to examine.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: James_Davidov on February 09, 2007, 04:13:45 AM
I’m fascinated by Napoleon, and there is a fine series on him that was produced a couple of years ago, it had the daughter of Ingrid Bergman (name escapes me) and a heap of big names (I realise that’s a lame attempt at identifying it) also I am most sympathetic to you Britt, throughout this thread you have attempted to maintain a legitimate level of historical discussion despite the onslaught of a somewhat humorous adversary.

Anyway, I had this archaic Viennese trained art dean who harassed me about art history throughout grammar school (she harassed everyone lol) anyway one lesson I was flipping through the pages of a random book and came about the famous portrait of Napoleon by Jean Auguste Dominique, I have loved his work since then and especially his Napoleon…


(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/jpjsimos/napoleon-throne.jpg)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: James1941 on February 09, 2007, 03:09:12 PM
For a new and interesting perspective on what caused Napoleon's death, go to this website:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116131630.htm

It wasn't arsenic poisoning, nor stomach cancer, but a gastric ulcer. And Napoleon did lose a lot a weight at the end.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 10, 2007, 02:21:23 AM
Thanks very much for mentioning this interesting article. It really brings a lot of new facts - sometimes really surprising ones- to me! I did not know before that this examination was made to clear the circumstances and the explicit reason for his death.
Firstly I always had the feeling that Napoleon did not die of poisoning as it was sometimes stated- even if here was a message telling that the book, which was written about that case shall have brought secure proof. I always thought that the arsenic amounts that were found had any other reason that a poisoning of the emperor by his emenies. The new examination seems to underline that. A fact that is really somewhere surprising to me is that Napoleon does not seem to have had the same (or similar) type of "stomach cancer", which caused the early death of his father, but that the reasons for Napoleon´s cancer (it was cancer but a different one) seem to have been completely others, like an ulcer, which he developed as a result of an infection with the well known Helicobacter and also because of his eating orders and other facts. It seemed always "clear" to me that stomach cancer was a "family illness" among the early Bonaparte generations, which even caused the death of the emperor, but the doctors seem to have disproved this thinking with very modern ways and methods, and show the real reason for his illness and death. It´s really interesting, how many theories now exist, but to me it seems that the recent examinations are the most serious (there is no any political or other background), and they show that Napoleons death was not simply a "family fate" (even if there might have been different deaths of fam. members with similar symtoms), but partly a result of Bonaparte´s living and an infection, and that he was not a victim of a murder as it was sometimes speculated. (I never believed that anyway) It was very interesting to read this. It clarified many things and takes away myths and legends like the murdering theory.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 25, 2007, 09:07:11 PM
I was surprised and shocked that such familiar red stars were in Napoleonic empire. Whereas in the past the red stars associated with communism and the Soviet Union for me, I was very surprised and shocked by the fact that the hated red stars were already in the Napoleonic Empire. >:(
When Napoleon invaded Spain and Sicilian kingdoms and put its relatives in Spanish and Sicilian thrones, the red stars were introduced as a top Royal Orders :(
(http://www.netdialogue.com/yy/Europe/Spain/Royal/Royal.jpg)
(http://www.netdialogue.com/yy/Europe/Spain/Royal/Royalrev.jpg)
(http://www.netdialogue.com/yy/Europe/Italy/TwoSicilies/TS/TSI2rev.jpg)
(http://www.netdialogue.com/yy/Europe/Italy/TwoSicilies/TS/TSb3.jpg)
(http://www.netdialogue.com/yy/Europe/Italy/TwoSicilies/TS/TSb3rev.jpg)
The same blasphemy! :'(

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 26, 2007, 03:23:41 AM
I strange conclusion in my opinion. That you see any similarity to sovietsm here seems to be something very personal....I don´t think that there is any connection, and even if...the communism developed after the napoleonic empire...

Look also at this ;D It represents Napoleon´s family crest:

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/Bonaparte.gif)

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/wapen20Bonaparte.jpg)

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/Bon.gif)

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 26, 2007, 06:32:50 AM
I hate these accursed red stars! They are pentagrammes. They are symbols of diabolical evil, that prevailed in Russia for 75 years, which is the cause of terrible tragedies of Russian people after 1917. Soon it will be 90 years,  when Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was forcibly overthrown from the throne by betrayal and treachery and the martyr death from monsters. Red pentagramma were symbols Bolsheviks and the Communists, their hands are in blood. Red Star were symbols of the terrible and bloody crimes Communists to the Russian people and Russian identity. Therefore, I hate red stars. Unfortunately, red stars and satanists pentagramma were highest royal honors during the Napoleonic rule of the invaders in Spain and the Two Sicilies. Ironically, the direct descendants of the French King Louis XIV is the most close relatives to the French royal family, has suffered penalty of King Louis XVI and his Austrian wife and massacre their son and heir. What a pity it is that the Spanish and Sicilian Bourbons were toppled napoleonic invaders led by the who took French throne following the destruction of the French royal family. Napoleon was not loved and hated Spanish and Sicilian kings and members of their families ...  :'(
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 26, 2007, 08:32:58 AM
It´s everything very personal what you are saying. You can´t blame Napoleon for the things that happened in Russia, even if you personally see the connections- I don´t see it. Also the fact that Napoleon invaded in Spain and things like that have nothing to do with the communistic background of your country. And: Always repeating not to like the napoleonic empire it will not change anything about the things that happened in the past in France. The napoleonic Empire existed- you can like it or dislike it. It´s one´s personal opinion, it´s no basis for an objective discussion, that is still my opinion.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: James1941 on February 26, 2007, 10:33:27 AM
Actually I believe that the Spanish Bourbons allied themselves to Napoleon and his France. At the battle fo Trafalgar it was the British against the Spanish and French fleets. So, I don't think Napoleon had anything against the family. It wasn't until the heir, Ferdinand, and his father and mother, along with Godoy began fighting with one another that Napoleon decided to intervene.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 26, 2007, 07:22:21 PM
Here Napoleon sits on a chair before great Moscow fight. It in gloomy mood, because it did not sleep almost all the night long, as it suffered from an attack of a gastric poisoning (can be, because of arsenic? ;)).
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver08.jpg)
Here Napoleon waits delegation of the Moscow boyars which should present emperor keys from Moscow gate. But it vainly waits for them because almost all inhabitants of Moscow have left Russian capital. Muscovites have not wanted to remain in napoleonic occupation.
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver09.jpg)
One of numerous certificates of vandalism from French  soldier. They have organized a dirty stable in an orthodox temple which is the greatest relic for Russian people.  :'(
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver10.jpg)
Here Napoleon looks at the Moscow fire.
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver11.jpg)
Here unfortunate and distressful Moscow has burned down completely... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver12.jpg)
Vainly Napoleon waits for ambassadors from Russian tsar Alexander. Russian tsar does not want any world with Napoleon. Russian tsar wants only one: that Napoleon has left Russia  ::)
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver16a.jpg)
Napoleon and its soldiers go on road. Here Napoleon ahead of the the soldier. As it is a pity, that they have not guessed to invent skis...  ;D ;D ;D
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver18.jpg)
Unfortunate French soldiers perish from Russian winter and frosts  :'( :'( :'( :'(
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver19.jpg)
And here it is my most favourite portrait of Napoleon.  :) ;) :D ;D :P
(http://www.museum.ru/museum/1812/Library/ver/ver18a.jpg)

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 27, 2007, 02:10:57 AM
The pics are interesting, have you been occupied with the napoleonic war concerning Russia? Are there memorial tables in your county? Would be interesting to know!
And to the last picture: Oh, very funny, but are you sure this is Napoléon???? Is it him in a Russian dress or was it a joke? ;D
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on February 27, 2007, 04:05:54 PM
He is really Napoleon in Russian winter clothes. It is dressed in a warm seignioral fur coat and a fur cap because to it it is very cold. But to it it is very bad. He leaves Russia, but he does not know, that soon he will lose for battle at Leipzig that is fast its opponents will appear in Paris and will force it to refuse a throne that is fast it will be separated from the Austrian wife and the Eaglet. He does not know, that it will be banished on a rock somewhere in Atlantic ocean where he will die from arsenic poisonings or of a cancer of a stomach. He yet does not know, that its son will never reign and will die absolutely young of a tuberculosis. He still also will not know, that from its family only descendants of its younger brother Jerome will be its successors and to have Bourbon blood. Its end once nice career is well, those...
Dear Britta, by the way, what Russian national proverb speaks? It speaks, that it is better to hold a titmouse in a hand, than to pursue a crane in the sky...
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on February 28, 2007, 06:42:29 AM
I have never seen that last picture of Napoleon in a Russian Winterdress. It seems very usual, and because of that even more interesting and funny! ;) But I still have doubts that the pic shows our dearest Nappi  ::) The slight full beard is also very untypical for a Napoleon :o :o But maybe he carried it temporarily during his Russian campagn. Do you have any source, where this picture comes from ? I seem to remember that I have seen that site before, where this paintings are taken from, there are many great pictures of Napoleon and his battles, but at the moment I can´t remember it...
Yes, sometimes it´s better, if people don´t know about their coming future. The history has proved that almost all people, who went too far in their political career and were too radical or dictatoric will end somewhere in a tragic way (Exile, murder, suicide or execution), but despite of that such people existed, and now you can´t help in anymore, if you don´t like different aspects of their career, BUT: compared with later one´s of that "sort" Napoleon once had some good aims at the beginning, but then went too far, when his star ascended...
As to the arsenic thing, it is unlikely that he died of that, even when it was stated not only once, but especially the latest article (the link was also posted here) says that an ulcer, which became cancer later, was the main reason for his death. The ulcer was not caused by arsenic poisoning!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on March 12, 2007, 01:34:53 AM
Somebody from you read these books?  ???
(http://a526.g.akamai.net/7/526/14067/v1/img.priceminister.com/photo/421963430_L.jpg)
(http://a526.g.akamai.net/7/526/14067/v1/img.priceminister.com/photo/493689783_L.jpg)
(http://a526.g.akamai.net/7/526/14067/v1/img.priceminister.com/photo/406009530_L.jpg)
(http://a526.g.akamai.net/7/526/14067/v1/img.priceminister.com/photo/394615630_L.jpg)
(http://a526.g.akamai.net/7/526/14067/v1/img.priceminister.com/photo/424366130_L.jpg)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 12, 2007, 03:57:03 AM
I haven´t read the books that you posted the covers of, but the authour Claude Ribbe is known to me. All these books seem be to contra - books on Napoleon (could it be different, Dmitry? ;D).
There was an article on Claude Ribbe´s most recent book on Napoleon in the newspaper some time ago. His new book raised a lot of hot discussion (it had appeared just shortly before Napoleon´s 200 th crowing anniversary in 2006) and discussed parallels of Napoleon and Hitler (as far as I can remember it). There was something about the question, if Napoleon was a predecessor and an example for Hitler, and if the murderings of Napoleon could stand in any connection with that Hitler, and if Napoleon was already a rascist as well.  But there were a lot of doubts of such a connection, because Napoleon murdered out of different reasons. Most historians don´t share Ribbe´s views as far as I know. At the moment I don´t know, where this article is, but I kept it, and if I find it, I can give further details. Unfortunately I haven´t read the book itself, but only the article about that. But in general all that black and white thinking (only looking for the good or - like in your case- only looking for the bad) concerning the emperor is wrong in my opinion.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on March 13, 2007, 04:17:37 AM
Memoirs of Napoléon Bonaparte by Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne,private secretary to HM The Emperor.

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Napoleon10/index.htm

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 13, 2007, 05:37:23 AM
Oh, thanks for that link!!!

That looks interesting, and it´s in English, that´s good!  :D

So I´ll have a lot to read, when more time ;D

Have you read it, Lucien? Does it give new details?
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on March 19, 2007, 09:10:30 AM
Malmaison.

http://www.tascher-de-la-pagerie.org/fr/index.php?menu=histoire


Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 19, 2007, 10:54:24 AM
Wonderful and interesting site about Josephine. Thanks!!! ;) I never saw that before!
And the jewels are very beautiful as well. Who do they belong to in these days? To the swedish royal family? They really look phatastic!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on March 20, 2007, 06:53:59 PM
Wonderful and interesting site about Josephine. Thanks!!! ;) I never saw that before!
And the jewels are very beautiful as well. Who do they belong to in these days? To the swedish royal family? They really look phatastic!

Some of the jewellery is in the Louvre,the rest was "seized" by Dmitry......... :P ::)

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w112/Jan-Maarten1/Napoleon1er_tableau.jpg

Courtesy Jan-Maarten.
 :)



Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 21, 2007, 03:33:11 AM
Maybe I am stupid, but I haven´t really understood, what was seized by Dmitry??? ???

And the picture is phantastic, never seen before. But what means the scene??
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on March 21, 2007, 11:03:27 AM
Maybe I am stupid, but I haven´t really understood, what was seized by Dmitry??? ???

And the picture is phantastic, never seen before. But what means the scene??

Nah,you're far from stupid Britt,just absent minded..... :P :P,was just joking about dear Dmitry and his deeprooted love for our Empereur ::)

The scene probably depicts Napoléon granting an allowance to a war widow,watched by Joséphine and Hortense.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Dmitry Russian on March 21, 2007, 05:33:11 PM
I do not love Napoleon Bonaparte and everything, that concerns the French revolution.
Most of all it is very a pity to me unfortunate French king, its Austrian wife and their innocent kid who has died for famine and mockeries in 1795. I shall reveal to you secret. Is that prediction, that Russian tsar will be necessarily restored in Russia, thus Russian Tsar will be granted to Russian people by the Lord the God. Thus Russian tsar it will be obligatory the relative of Nikolas II (on a female line).
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on March 21, 2007, 07:04:30 PM
I do not love Napoleon Bonaparte and everything, that concerns the French revolution.
Most of all it is very a pity to me unfortunate French king, its Austrian wife and their innocent kid who has died for famine and mockeries in 1795. I shall reveal to you secret. Is that prediction, that Russian tsar will be necessarily restored in Russia, thus Russian Tsar will be granted to Russian people by the Lord the God. Thus Russian tsar it will be obligatory the relative of Nikolas II (on a female line).

Thank you for your humour and sharing your secret Dmitry,I promise I won't tell anyone...... ;D

The Russians however have their own thread so I won't go on that any further here,although...through the female line,if ever?Somehow she always reminds me of the "Sound of Music" song....What shall we do with Maria....?Nada.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 22, 2007, 07:28:15 AM
I do not love Napoleon Bonaparte and everything, that concerns the French revolution.
Most of all it is very a pity to me unfortunate French king, its Austrian wife and their innocent kid who has died for famine and mockeries in 1795. I shall reveal to you secret. Is that prediction, that Russian tsar will be necessarily restored in Russia, thus Russian Tsar will be granted to Russian people by the Lord the God. Thus Russian tsar it will be obligatory the relative of Nikolas II (on a female line).

What always repeating the same? Your personal opinion does not change anything about historical facts.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on March 27, 2007, 01:59:26 AM
Especially dedicated to Dmitry ;D:


N. Bonaparte in his wedding dress (for the marriage with Archduchess Marie Louise)

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/02-008314.jpg)



Bonaparte in civil clothes (never saw a picture of him in civil cloth before)

St. Helena?

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/05-529328.jpg)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on June 11, 2007, 10:03:54 AM
The Emperors sword.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6737909.stm

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on June 12, 2007, 03:05:26 AM
Interesting is that they say that it belonged to eight napoleonic heirs...I still wonder, who were/are them and who decided to sell the famous sword, as I said on the other thread....

Thanks for making the link to that article, Lucien.


Ps. I hope Dmitry is already going to save money like a scot, to buy it ;D ;D
Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on August 03, 2007, 02:19:06 PM
http://www.antiquesatoz.com/napoleon/index.htm


Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on August 04, 2007, 03:28:05 AM
Hi, and thank you for the links. The second one I cannot open with my PC, but I don't know if this is only my problem.

I recently made the expecience that those organisations can be very helpful, because one of them sent me very interesting material about an emperor's descendant (see other thread) and they were very kind, more than many historians here in Germany, who don't like sharing their informations.

My favourite site about napoleonic times, wars and uniforms, it also contains a discussion forum about the topic, is on the site napoleon-online, but this is in German. ;)
Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on August 04, 2007, 01:31:15 PM
Hi, and thank you for the links. The second one I cannot open with my PC, but I don't know if this is only my problem.


http://www.napoleon.org/en/fondation/new/index.asp

http://www.invalides.org/pages/dome.html

 :)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on August 05, 2007, 03:03:46 AM
Great sites, also the foundation site, but the APN (Amis du Patrimoine Napoleonien) was more helpful to me ;D

I found on a site some interestintg caricatures of the emperor, I'll sent some of them later.  ;)
Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on October 15, 2007, 05:05:38 PM
Great sites, also the foundation site, but the APN (Amis du Patrimoine Napoleonien) was more helpful to me ;D

I found on a site some interestintg caricatures of the emperor, I'll sent some of them later.  ;)

It's a little over two months now,a french wait,bien sur,but where are the caricatures dear Britt?
Might arrive just in time,our cuckoo fell out of it's nest,again,.....and I told you too have an extra eye
on him when the leaves wouls start to fall,alas...... ::)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on October 16, 2007, 02:34:12 AM
I must confess, that I don't remember it at the moment. Some time ago I lost all my stuff on m PC, because it was completely broken, and so I also lost many Bonaparte pictures, and with the time I try to fill my archives again, and when I remember the site, I will post it.

If you find something interesting about NI , please post it to let the topic survive. Dearest Dmitry seems to be gone at the moment.... ::)


PS. I was too much concerned with the latin "cousin" of Geli Raubal as well :D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 07, 2007, 03:31:35 AM
Two articles by Prince Charles Napoléon taken from his website regarding his ansistor Napoléon Bonaparte:


(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/Le20Monde201.jpg)

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/Le20monde202.jpg)


(god bless those, who can read them! ::))

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 07, 2007, 03:33:57 AM
Klick right to copy them and then the reading (as long as you learned the language *haha*...) will be more easy. On the board it appears to small!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Imperial.Opal on November 07, 2007, 04:27:39 AM
 I read a newspaper article today on the top ten bizarre international laws.
 
 Number ten - In France, it is illegal to name a pig Napoleon  ;D
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on November 07, 2007, 11:52:22 AM
That is really funny, is it also the othe way around that Napoleon is not to be named a pig? ;D ;D

It seems that this man is still somebody like a saint in that country (even when he was no saint in reality.... :D)

But about the name, other animals or pets are allowed to be called Napoléon or not? For example I could imagine that there certainly exist dogs or other pets, which are named Napoléon....so the law is only for pigs??!?

Funny, but shows the general loyalty to the emperor, maybe they see it as destroying to emperor's fame when calling a pig like him....somewhere strange!
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: dmitryalex777 on July 02, 2008, 07:32:54 PM
Where was his military genius in Russia in 1812?

Each "Titanic" will find its iceberg
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on July 03, 2008, 05:45:41 AM
Three nicknames....one person...we are not so stupid as you might think.... ::)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: britt.25 on July 24, 2008, 02:10:25 AM
I've found this funny picture of Napoleon on the Bildarchiv Austria...


(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/7f3/PORT_00039170_01.jpg)


I find it very interesting because of the unusual clothes. I never saw him wearing a turban before...anyone else?

Does anyone know, why he was painted like that here? i would have thought there is any connection to his Egypt expedition, but from

Napoleon's appearance this picture must be from a later time, when he was already emperor, because as first consul he was much more slim...

Thanks for looking!




Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on September 04, 2010, 02:01:57 PM
On exhibit in Antwerp/Anvers,Belgium from october 1st untill december 31st 2010:

" Napoléon et les Bijoux de l'Empire" at the Diamond Museum.

http://www.napoleondiamant.be/en/

 :)
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 04, 2010, 02:23:05 PM
Thank you, Lucien for the notification. I may try and make that on  my winter holiday.
Title: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on October 01, 2010, 11:42:39 AM
On exhibit in Antwerp/Anvers,Belgium from october 1st untill december 31st 2010:

" Napoléon et les Bijoux de l'Empire" at the Diamond Museum.

http://www.napoleondiamant.be/en/

 :)

http://www.napoleondiamant.be/en/the-exhibition/

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: voyageroffreedom on November 25, 2010, 06:29:11 AM
It seems not many members of this forum are interested in Napoleon, but I’m very fond of him Napoleon was a common boy of Corsica who became a French emperor and one of the greatest General of all time imo he comes next to Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.Napoleon had an incredible charisma on the lower middle class people of whole Europe, including Russia, apparently, in some sort. He was a corsican poor farmers boy until the end. An engineer and a strategic mastermind, and accessorily an emperor. His image was very powerful as a new kind of leader, boosting free market, revolutionising the system in a very organized way.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: voyageroffreedom on February 01, 2011, 09:33:00 AM
You’re welcome =).Napoleon loved his son, he was a devoted father to his son, imo he was a better parent for his son than Marie Louise (who was very cold and selfish with her son). In some of Napoleon letter, one can notice that there are reports of his son condition that appear frequently. And at the hundred days, even if Marie Louise wanted to go back to France, I don’t think her father will allow her to go (and not to forget  his plan to introduce his daughter to Neipperg to make her forget about Napoleon). Napoleon II very impressed by his father, and he considered him a role model, he was very proud of his father accomplishment, and he never forgot him (he even cried when he heard about his father death). And due to the fact that he had a terrible relationship with his mother (she didn’t care about him after moving to Vienna) so maybe in his mind he blamed his mother for abandoning his father and it was her fault why he never reunites with his father again, which raised the what if questions about how his life could become if he stayed with his father. I find Napoleon II very fascinating character, he was very handsome, and one can only wonder what he could achieve if he didn’t die so young.
Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on February 01, 2011, 07:26:28 PM
Indeed true (thanks for the correction)!! I can remember that one day I read that the young Napoleon II wondered why his father would marry a woman as cold as his mother!! It's quite noticeable that he wasn't much pleased with her behaviour to him, and who wouldn't at being abandoned by your mother while she is having a new life!! Is a great pity that Napoleon II could never see his beloved father again, and is so sad too to think in his early death.
Title: SM Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: Lucien on December 29, 2012, 07:47:10 AM

On a freezing day in december 1804....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uXhErt5agA

Title: Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
Post by: TimM on May 06, 2014, 04:10:42 PM
Napoleon Bonaparte. 

France never had a better military leader, before or since, IMHO.