Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur

[Lucien]

http://ameliefr.club.fr/index.html

http://www.musees-nationaux-napoleoniens.org/index.htm

[britt.25]

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?

[Dmitry Russian]

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.

[Dmitry Russian]

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?

[britt.25]

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!

[Yseult]

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.

[britt.25]

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

[Yseult]

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...

[britt.25]

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?

[Yseult]

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.

[britt.25]

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!

[Lucien]

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.

[britt.25]

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! 

[Yseult]

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.

[Lucien]

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.