Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur

[britt.25]

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?

[Dmitry Russian]

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.

[britt.25]

As far as I know the poisoing theory is not proved.

[palatine]

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

[britt.25]

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?

[palatine]

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.

[Dmitry Russian]

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.

[palatine]

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.  

[Dmitry Russian]

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

I looked napoleonic portraits. They have not liked me. They any pompous, self-satisfied, impudent...

[britt.25]

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

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.

[Dmitry Russian]

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.

[britt.25]

In general this could be an interesting aspect to examine.

[James_Davidov]

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…

[James1941]

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.

[britt.25]

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.