Talk:Napoleon I of France/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

An event in this article is a February 26 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

Contents 1 Comments on Old Version of Article 1.1 Page Layout 1.2 Austerlitz 1.3 Coronation 1.4 Cezzar Ahmet 1.5 Consul 1.6 Something Missing 1.7 Abdication 1.8 More Formatting 1.9 His name 1.10 Napoleon In Popular Culture 1.11 two images without descriptions 1.12 Preceded by... 1.13 Dictator? 1.14 Little Corporal 1.15 successor 1.16 Adding some facts/opinions 1.17 graduation date 1.18 Just did some dot-connecting... 1.19 Napoléon? 1.20 Pasquale Paoli 1.21 Constitutional limits 1.22 Demote the corporal! 1.23 Islam? 1.24 External link: Napoleon's Theorem 1.25 The Government Section 2 Napoleon Bone-Apart

Comments on Old Version of Article

Page Layout

Could somebody move that picture so the page doesn't spread into the right margin? I still don't have a clue how to do that. -- Zoe

---

I don't quite get what wants doing... the article looks fine to me User: Dragon Dave, using IE5.5 on Win95 [640x480].

---

On some browsers in low-resolution modes, wide pictures with text flowing around them can cause odd effects, especially if there's something like a long unbreakable word in the text. The only options are: use narrower images (the image here probably is a bit larger than it needs to be, so scaling it down would help), or arrange the image on its own to that text doesn't flow around it (this is natural for images that are wide and short--but for this one it might break up the text too much). --LDC

Austerlitz

Why did Austerlitz get changed to Jena-Auerstadt? -- Zoe

It didn't, Zoe. Austerlitz is still there, in the same place as before. But the previous version said that Austerlitz was France vs Russia and Prussia - which was mistaken. At the time of Austerlitz, France and Prussia were at peace and nominally allies. It was Austria and Russia that fought Napoleon at Austerlitz.

As a matter of detail, Frederick William III of Prussia was standing on the sidelines waiting for confirmation of the expected Austrian/Russian victory at Austerlitz in December 1805 before he brought Prussia into the Third Coalition, and grabbed as much loot from the (expected) ruins of France as could be managed. Of course, the French surprised everyone by winning Austerlitz, and the Prussian Ambasador found himself in a very awkward position - sent with one message of congratulation, suddenly having to deliver the opposite one! Napoleon was not fooled for a moment. Frederick William was cowed, but Queen Louise (the 'strongest man in Prussia", Napoleon called her) pressed for war, and by mid-year 1806 both France and Prussia were preparing. Napoleon invaded Prussia with a large, well-led, vereran force, the Prussians had a huge army but bungled and mismanaged it. The result was Jena-Auerstadt: half of Napoleon's force thrashed about a third of Prussia's army at Jena under Napoleon, while on the same day the outnumbered Marshal Davout with about a quarter of the French Army defeated two-thirds of the Prussians at nearby Auerstadt, and Marshal Bernadotte (later to be King of Sweden) frittered the remainder of the French army away without firing a shot on either battlefield - probably because he was too stiff-necked to place himself in a position where he would have to take orders from the more junior but much more competent Davout. Davout was a hero (Napoleon made him Duke of Auerstadt on the strength of it) and Bernadotte was very nearly court-martialed. Napoleon would regret his lieniency later, when Bernadotte continued to prove difficult, and eventually switched sides.

Anyway, digression aside, Austerlitz was the more crucial battle, but it was Jena-Auerstadt that resulted in the remaking of Germany. (And no - I don't keep all this in my head! I'm part-way through writing the campaign of 1806 up to replace the present stubs at Jena and Auerstadt.) Tannin

Coronation

The article says

Claims that he seized the crown out of the hands of Pope Pius VII during the ceremony in order to avoid subjecting himself to the authority of the Pontiff are apocryphal; after the Imperial regalia had been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon crowned himself before crowning his wife Josephine as Empress.

In EB, I read

Pius VII agreed to come to Paris, and the ceremony, which seemed equally outrageous to royalists and to the old soldiers of the Revolution, took place in Notre-Dame on December 2, 1804. At the last moment, the Emperor took the crown from the Pope and set it on his own head himself.

The EB version seems to imply that his crowning himself was not expected by the pope. What is the reference favoring our version over EB's? AxelBoldt 00:30 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

I read the biography about Napoleon by Emil Ludwig. It seems that the pope was called to France, but he was only told in the last moment that Napoleon would crown for himself. And the pope could not go back to Rome any more. --Formulax 09:47 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cezzar Ahmet

Can someone who knows what they are talking about incorporate Cezzar Ahmet into this article? Kingturtle 23:58 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Consul

This article contains a link to Consul but that article does not explain what "Consul" meant in France. Andres 11:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Something Missing

IMHO, something is missing in this article : the way the French see Napoleon. Calling him a dictator is not accurate. Napoleon is closer to Caesar than to Hitler... People used to enjoy much more liberties during the napoleonic era than during french monarchy (freedom of religion, ...). 193.48.126.32

Abdication

"The Allies demanded unconditional surrender and on 11 April Napoléon agreed their demand. Napoléon abdicated on 13 April. His abdication took place on 6 April."

The last couple of sentences are a bit of a mess. When did the abdication take place? Clearly, it can't have been the 6th of April, after the allies demanded his surrender! dduck

Napoleon abdicated twice. The first time: 6 April 1814, in favor of his son. The second time: 11 April 1814, unconditionally. Actually, he arguably abdicated a third time<G>...after Waterloo. 22 June 1815. -- Someone else 10:18, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Glad you cleared that up. dduck

More Formatting

Hi, I reverted some changes to correct the formatting of this page. The only non-formatting change was reverting NapLogo_copy.jpg to Napoleon.jpg in the "Struggle in Europe, rise to emperor" section. However, DefunKt complained, so I'm changing it back to NapLogo_copy.jpg. I really don't care which image is used, and don't want to become involved in an edit war over this. Thanks! Wmahan 07:03, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

His name

I've tried copy editing the first couple of paragraphs. I encountered phrase "...declared himself Napoléon I le Grand...". I revised this to "...declared himself Emperor Napoléon I le Grand..." because "Emperor" is what he declared himself. However, I think it is false that he declared himself le Grand: the man had a world-class ego, but I don't think he took le Grand as part of his title. Unless someone can cite a source for this claim in the next 48 hours, I will feel free to remove "le Grand" from this lead paragraph. -- Jmabel 05:56, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

No one has replied. I am editing accordingly. -- Jmabel 18:25, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

While we are at it, why "Napoléon" rather than "Napoleon", here and elsewhere in Wikipedia? Isn't the policy to follow common English-language usage, and isn't "Napoleon" more common English-language usage? I tried the Google test: admittedly an imperfect tool, especially because it gives contradictory numbers here -- how can a larger number of French sites use both words than use one particular word? -- but the pattern seems to favor "Napoleon":

	"Napoleon"	"Napoléon"	both
English	2,100,000	40,900	13,900
Any language	3,110,000	447,000	44,300
French	414,000	415,000	418,000

-- Jmabel 19:01, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

• It's difficult, isn't it? Because a lot of people just simply don't know (nor have the inclination to learn - I'm guilty of this too) how to access those alt-characters. So I imagine that will be reflected in the search results. --bodnotbod 19:08, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Someone brought this up earlier but I don't see any further discussion of it. Why, throughout this article, is he referred to as Napoléon? This is not the way his name is normally written (or pronounced) in English, which is the language used for this particular version of the Wikipedia? I wish someone would clear this up. Hayford Peirce 01:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- The thing is, that his real name is Napoleon Buenaparte, and he himself changed it to Bonaparte to make it more french and make the other forget his Corsican/Italian origins. And as they dont use the "é" in italian the most accurate name would be Napoleon.

Napoleon In Popular Culture

This section is inappropriate. One it's dismissive of Napoleon's status and is therefore POV. Second, it's not about Napoleon per se, it's about how people see Napoleon later on. In the same vein, we shouldn't mention Asterix in Julius Caesar's entry, or Tintin in an entry on opera (the Castafiore) or on merchant shipping (the Captain). If you want to create a separate page, fine, but it doesn't belong here.

As for Bill and Ted, well, it's a minor movie, and Napoleon's place in it is minor too. If we were to include all minor details about views on Napoleon, we'd have something longer than Gibbon's Decline and Fall!

I'd like other opinions please before I delete the entries from this article and move them to a page on Napoleon's place in popular culture.

Vincent 23:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not POV, since all the detail there is referenced. You may not like the fact that the first thing many people think about when the name Napoleon is mentioned is some form of mental illness, however that is indeed what he has come to signify for many people.

I wouldn't be against the portrayal of Caesar in the Asterix books being mentioned in Caesar, particularly under a heading Caesar in popular culture.

To mention Tintin in an opera article is not analagous to this situation. If a Tintin book featured a portrayal of, say, Pavorotti then it might be worth a passing mention in article:Pavarotti, but probably not: what is important here is the vast number of portrayals of Napoleon relating to him to mental illness.

To mention Captain Haddock in article:merchant shipping is again not at all analagous to this situation. Mentioning a fictional character who does a particular job, on an article relating to that job, should only be done if the fiction were striking enough to illuminate the subject. Captain Haddock cannot add - as far as I know - anything enlightening or educational to a piece on Merchant Shipping.

In this instance the number of Napoleon references which bind him to mental health issues - both in widely read psychiatric literature and in popular culture - IS striking, IS enlightening, IS of interest.

I don't have a POV on Napoleon. I was struck by the heading and added what I knew, then added references to stop someone deleting the content as being unfounded. I notice that the section was not deemed unsuitable when it stood as a dull puff piece about streets being named after him. --bodnotbod 01:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I would also welcome input from others. However, if none is forthcoming we should take it to arbitration and thrash it out there, as I will not accept a unilateral decision to excise the section completely and move it elsewhere. I would accept it becoming a separate article, but I would fight for the basic point to remain in the article: Napoleons legacy is partially but strikingly as a by-word for mental ill health. --bodnotbod 01:09, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

1) I did not mean to spite, but I moved the text to a separate article before I saw that you had added this talk entry. Sorry. However, I did notice that you added a bunch of "Bill and Ted" type entries, so I guess we're even.

2) Napoleon's place in pop culture works better as a sepate article. I included the link. Please note that an article on Napoleon should be about the facts of his life and about his achievements. A generally accepted assesment of his legacy in his field (i.e. statementship, military arts, etc.]] is appropriate as well. But the pop culture stuff is not about Napoleon, it's about how a few movie makers see Napoleon. As such it is POV. : Vincent 01:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you think your actions are acceptable given that:

At 23:46, 19 Jul 2004 you asked at my talk page that I see your message here [1] which states (as can be seen above) that you'd "like other opinions please before I delete the entries from this article and move them to a page on Napoleon's place in popular culture."

At 02:06, Jul 20 2004 you move it?

You're suggesting that 2 hours 20 minutes is enough to reach a consensus, are you?

I would suggest you leave the content until others have a chance to comment and I would ask that you revert your changes. Leave it as is.

Furthermore your argument about a few film makers is discounted by 1) my content, which includes psychiatrists as well as film-makers and 2) can be further discounted by my adding more references (something I have been doing continuously so far). --bodnotbod 01:41, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

OK, as it stands I have reached this page in attempting to arrive at a solution/consensus to our dispute Vincent. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment it says: "Article content disputes - Please only list links to talk pages where two or more participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article.".

I propose, therefore, to draft a section for the Napoleon article which will provide a link to the separate article page with it's references. I state that I will not be satisfied with the current small link to the new popular culture article - I shall make the broad point and then link to the references. However, since it is 3am here I do not propose to do this now - but it should be at some stage in the next 24 hours. --bodnotbod 02:07, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "Pop culture" or "By-word for mental ill health" warrant a whole section, but I wouldn't object to a section called "Napoleon Today" which briefly examines various opinions on Napoleon, and "Pop Culture" could be a paragraph within that. I would however continue to object to listing "Bill and Ted" type examples. These trivialize Napoleon rather than explain or present him. : Vincent 03:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

two images without descriptions

there are two images on the page without description - perhaps whoever added them could write a little something? violet/riga (t) 11:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Preceded by...

The box at the bottom that says he was nominally preceded by Louis XVII and effectively by Louis XVI seems to me to be actively misleading. His reign as emperor was effectively preceded by the First French Republic; it was nominally preceded by his own reign as First Consul under the increasingly monarchical forms into which that republic devolved. -- Jmabel 22:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

And it seems to label three kings as "Emperor". I agree with you entirely...these types of misleading statements often occur in "succession" boxes at points of transition, and they always err towards oversimplification and a false emphasis on continuity. You should change it accordingly, pointing out the discontinuity. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dictator?

User:J.J. recently changed "Napoléon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 — 5 May 1821) was the ruler of France..." to "Napoléon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 — 5 May 1821) was the dictator of France..." I don't think this is so wrong that I would change it without consensus, but in an era of powerful monarchs, I don't see that he was any more "dictatorial" than was common for his time. We do not use similar language in referring to other monarchs of the period. I think this does not belong in the lead, and I think we should cite someone calling him a "dictator" rather than say so in the narrative voice of the article. What do others think? -- Jmabel 02:31, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

At that time and place, there was a difference between notions of "dictator" and "emperor". The French Revolution brought up some of the politics of the Ancient Rome. Robespierre acted like a Roman "dictator"; Bonaparte acted like a Roman "emperor". --Vasile 03:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revert: it is POV. In Rome, a dictator was appointed by the senate, and given unlimited powers. Cincinnatus was the example of a virtuous Roman dictator: elected to deal with a crisis, he laid down his office once the crisis was over. Today, the term "dictator" is no longer a specific office, but more likely reflects a judgement by journalists or historians. Vincent 03:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I remember well, Napoleon was a constitutional monarch with some wide, but not unlimited, executive powers. David.Monniaux 22:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Without taking sides on the degree to which Napoleon could be characterized as a dictator, the mere presence of a constitution is neither here not there. Stalin had a constitution, too, but ignored it at his whim. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Little Corporal

Why was Napoleon nicknamed the Little Corporal ? Was it because of his height ? How tall was he ? Article says he was nicknamed so after the Battle of Lodi. Whats with that ? Jay 09:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How tall was Napoleon (answered). I don't know the other answers offhand. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Little corporal" is the English translation of French "le petit caporal", and maybe this is not the best translation. This nickname was given to him by his soldiers in 1796 when Napoleon, then a very young and unknown corporal, Corporal Bonaparte, was appointed at the head of the lackluster and demoralized French army on the Italian border (the main French armies were on the German border, the Italian front was considered unimportant), and incredibly staged victories after victories against the mighty Austrians. "Petit" here is used not to refer to height, but it means "low ranking", "unknown". It means that he was not a well-knwon, high ranking general. It is also a term of endearment used by women (he was quite popular among women after his return to Paris following his hard-to-believe Italian victories). Hardouin 15:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Battle of Lodi is one of the key victories in the campaign of Italy fought by Napoleon against the Austrians. Perhaps more importantly, Napoleon is reported to have behaved as a real hero during that battle (the French army had to cross the last bridge on the Lodi river in order to defeat the Austrians, and soldiers were hesitating to go on the bridge, afraid of being an easy target for Austrians snipers, so Corporal Bonaparte took a French flag in his had and crossed the bridge alone, under Austrian fire). This gesture was totaly unprecendented, because traditionally in European monarchies generals, or commanders of armies, were never in front of their armies, but always behind, so soldiers were bewildered and in total awe at his gesture, and they all followed him, crossed the bridge, and defeated the Austrians. Historians said he took great risk, and could have died that day, then the Napoleonic era would not have happened, but his luck was with him, and incredibly he was not shot. That episode made him some sort of a hero in the army and in France, and after that he could ask anything from his men who would always follow him (until Lodi this young unexperienced Corporal Bonaparte had been regarded with some suspicion by the old soldiers of the demoralized French army of Italy). His crossing of the bridge of Lodi has been the subject of some famous paintings which contributed to his fame. Hardouin 15:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The explanation was very read-worthy and I've tried to incorporate it to the article. I had earlier actually gone to Battle of Lodi and found nothing. Maybe the above para can be refactored and put there. Jay 16:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this above from memory, and of course there were mistakes. So I made a little research to refresh my memory, and here it goes: Lodi was the name of the town, not the river. The river was the Adda. The victory of Lodi was a show of bravery, indeed French generals crossed the bridge ahead of their troops, and defeated the Austrians against all odds, so it is a key battle in the campaign of Italy, the French army entering Milano shorlty after that battle, BUT Napoleon did not cross the bridge ahead of his troops. That episode happened 6 months later at the famous Battle of Arcole, near the village of Arcole. Again, there was only one bridge left on river Alpone, and again it had to be crossed. The first column sent was decimated by Austrian shooting. Things looked bad for the French, a new Austrian army had been sent to Italy after the French entry in Milano, and General Bonaparte's spirits were very low. France was sending no fresh troops, he was left alone. Seeing that things were almost lost, he indeed seized a French flag, called his man, and crossed the bridge ahead of them, among Austrian fire. He was saved by one of his aides who put his body between the bullets and Napoleon. He then fell in the river, was almost captured by some Croatian soldiers, but was saved by some of his men who took him back to the French side. The battle was not won that day, but was eventually won in the following days. This episode at the Pont d'Arcole (Bridge of Arcole) made him a hero, even though propaganda only showed his crossing of the bridge, keeping quiet the failure of the crossing and his falling in the river. Nonetheless it was certainly a very courageous and also desperate gesture. Now back to Lodi: at the time of Lodi, Napoleon was already a general, he had been named general of the Army of Italy the year before (Army of Italy = French army in Italy, let's not misunderstand). The reason why he was called "little carporal" was because during the battle he personally supervised the shooting of the French canons, personally directing the manoeuver of the French canons (Napoleon was a specialist of artillery since his days at the military school), thus behaving as an artillery carporal more than as a general behind the front. And his men were delighted by that and called him "petit caporal" ever since after that. "Petit" here is as much a term of endearment as it is used to show that a carporal is a "low ranking", "little" grade compared to general, not one of these top brass that look down on you, but a man whom simple soldiers can give a tap on the shoulder, an equal. So, I hope this clarifies everything. Please always double-check sources yourself before you write anything.Hardouin 20:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would someone please sort this out in the article, it looks like an intermediate stage of this made it into the article. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion of the "little corporal" is only one of several sections of this article that are grossly inaccurate. Napoleon in 1796 was not a "very young and unknown corporal" — he was a full general in command of the Army of Italy! In fact, since he was a graduate of a military academy, he was a commissioned officer throughout his military career, and never served as a corporal. I am working on a full rewrite of this article to fix this and many other egregious errors. RussBlau 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

successor

The claim of Napoléon II rather than Louis XVIII as Head of State of France seems specious. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:44, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Napoleon II was recognized by the French legislative assemblies, who signed documents under his name until the return of Louis XVIII in Paris, that's why he is the official successor of Napoleon I, albeit just for a few days. This is very different from say, Louix XIX in 1830, or Louis-Philippe II in 1848, who were never recognized by the French legislative assemblies. Hardouin 13:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've just made some further research to be totally sure about the matter, and it appears that Napoleon II was recognized by the assemblies in 1815, but NOT IN 1814. In 1814, Napoleon I abdicated on April 4 in favor of his son, then on April 6 he abdicated for himself and for his son. That same day the assemblies called "Louis-Stanislas-Xavier de France, brother of the last king" to the throne of France. The abdication of Napoleon I in favor of his son was not recognized. So head of state goes directly from Napoleon I to Louis XVIII in 1814. I am correcting that in the tables. But in 1815 there's Napoleon II for sure. Hardouin 15:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding some facts/opinions

“Battle of Waterloo, June 18, 1815.” Discovering World History. November 17, 2004. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC Document #: CD2105241046

Hugo, Victor. “Russia 1812.” Ed. Beverly Chin, et al.. Glencoe World Literature. New York: Glencoe Macgraw-Hill Companies, inc., 2000.

Connelly, Owen. “Napoleon I.” World Book Online Reference. November 17, 2004. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/article?id=ar3810407.

Dufraisse, Roger. “Napoleon I Bonaparte.” U*X*L* Biographies. November 17, 2004. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC Document #: CD2108101661

Ellis, Geoffrey. Napoleonic Empire. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003. Newark High School Library: 944.05

“The French Revolution (Era), 1774-1815.” Discovering World History. November 17, 2004. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC Document #: CD2105230016

I added some stuff to the article on Napoleon that I used for my Senior Research paper. Listed above is my works cited page. They are pretty reliable sources if you want to check them out.

graduation date

"...the elite École Militaire in Paris, from which he graduated on October 28, 1784...": the lattter phrase was recently changed, without apparent citation, to "...from which he graduated in September, 1785". I have no idea of the facts, but if it is also true that he "receiv[ed] his commission as a 2nd lieutenant of artillery in January 1785, at the age of 16" then this has him receiving his commission before he graduated, which seems unlikely. Does someone have a citation on any of this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just did some dot-connecting...

...with the wider Wik.

There was a reference to the "Marmeluke" army, but the wider Wik convention there seems to be "Mamluk" or "Mameluk" - changed accordingly. There was a link to "Notre-Dame Cathedral", which is simply "Notre Dame" or "Notre Dame de Paris" in the wider Wik community. The wording was not altered but the link was addressed.

Hope that's OK. Nice page, y'all!

(unsigned, User:CaseyBennetto approx 31 Jan 2005)

Napoléon?

I agree with the use of the accent. That is how his name is properly spelled. I don't see much difference between this and speaking of say, King Felipe V of Spain (rather than Phillip V).

As for his height, I believe he was either 5'1" or 5'2". That's pretty darn short!

I disagree with the use of the accent. It is almost never used when writing his name in English. And, in fact, Wikipedia style is Philip V of Spain. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Five feet two inches, according to Meneval, his long-time secretary, who should have known. But Meneval was using traditional French units of measure -- in the English units, he would have been about 5'6" or so. RussBlau 13:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pasquale Paoli

The recent anonymous addition "after coming into conflict with Pasquale Paoli" is accurate, but probably confusing without some further explanation of their past relationship and, for that matter, of who Pasquale Paoli was (not exactly a household word). Does someone want to take this on? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional limits

Napoléon had legislative assemblies under him, even as Emperor. He ruled as a constitutional monarch. There were legislative bodies working alongside him. We should probably have something on the constitution of the Empire. David.Monniaux 22:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And it should probably be an expansion of the existing stub Constitution of the Year XII. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, seen. I added links to the original texts. These constitutions were somewhat complex... David.Monniaux 07:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Demote the corporal!

The guy's wiki should be napoleon bonaparte. He had no legal basis to be monarch. The lawful monarch were all the Louis of France, all descendants of saints, whom the Holy Coalition finally restored to the throne. Beethoven would really be offended by this wiki's title. (anon, 22 March 2005)

Last I noted, Beethoven had not edited in a while. Perhaps he is not in the best of health. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

He has rolled over recently, however. siafu 19:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Has he told Tschaivoksky the news? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Islam?

Quotes

• I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness
• The existence and unity of Allahu ta'ala, which Musa 'alaihis-salam', had announced to his own people and Isa 'alaihis-salam' to his own ummat, was announced by Muhammad 'alaihis-salam' to the entire world. Arabia had become totally a country of idolaters. Six centuries after Isa 'alaihis-salam', Muhammad 'alaihis-salam' initiated the Arabs into an awareness of Allahu ta'ala, whose existence prophets previous to him, such as Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail, Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus) alaihim-us-salam', had announced. Peace in the east had been disturbed by the Arians, [i.e. Christians who followed Arius], who had somehow developed a degree of friendship with the Arabs, and by heretics, who had defiled the true religion of Isa 'alaihis-salam' and were striving to spread in the name of religion a totally unintelligible credo which is based on trinity, i.e. God, Son of God, and the Holy Ghost. Muhammad 'alaihis-salam' guided the Arabs to the right way, taught them that Allahu ta'ala is one, that He does not have a father or a son, and that worshiping several gods is an absurd custom which is the continuation of idolatry.

• Napoleon had a Qur'an, on to which he had written, by himself, the first part of the shahadda ("There is no god but God").

There is a good bit more, but is it worth mentioning? --195.7.55.146 16:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Something worth mentioning for starters is where those quotes are coming from. siafu 16:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Yeah, sorry, [2], [3], [4], [5], Which all appear to be quoting the book referenced here [6] (REF 6725)

The Islamic Party of Britain states[7]:"In one of the most valuable pieces of evidence, attesting to his grasp of the subject, he is reported as having given the following reasons for his love of the Islamic religion. In a recently acquired copy of Bonaparte et l'Islam by Cherfils from the Bibliotheque National De France, we find on pages 105 - 125 the following well kept secret"

And then goes on to quote Napoleon from this book;

• Moses", Napoleon says, "has revealed the existence of God to his nation, Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the old continent... Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries after Jesus, Muhammad [re]introduced the worship of the God of Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses, and of Jesus Christ. The Arians and some other sects had disturbed the tranquillity of the East by agitating the question of the 'Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.' Muhammad declared that there was none but one God, who had no father, no son, and that the trinity imported the idea of idolatry...

"The Parthians, the Scythians, the Mongols, and the Tartars and the Turks, had shown generally themselves to be enemies of science and the arts, but this reproach cannot be fastened onto the Arabs, no more than upon Muhammad. The first Omayad Caliph, was a poet and he granted peace to a Rabbi, because he prayed for grace in four beautiful Arabic verses...

"Al Mansour, Harun al Rashid and Al Mamun cultivated Arts and Sciences. They were fond of literature, chemistry, and mathematics; they lived with savants, caused the Greek and Latin authors, the Illiad, the Odyssey, Euclid, etc., to be translated into Arabic, and founded schools and colleges for medicine, astronomy, and moral science. Ahmed corrected the tables of Ptolemy; Abbas was a distinguished Mathematician; Costa, Alicude, Thabit, and Ahmed measured one degree of meridian from Saana to Kufa. Chemistry, alembics, sun - dials, clocks and numerical signs owe their existence to Arab invention. Nothing is more elegant than their moral tales; their poetry is full of fervour...

"Muhammad extolled everywhere the savants and such men as devoted themselves to a speculative life and cultivated letters... In the library of Cairo there were 6000 volumes on astronomy, and more than 100,000 on other subjects; in the library of Cordova there were 3,000,000 volumes... Sciences and Arts reigned under the Caliphs and made great progress, which was brought to naught by the Mongols...

"I hope that the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness..."

"Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. A society of true Christians would not be a society of men." --195.7.55.146 10:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• So.. err.. Should it be mentioned? --195.7.55.146 13:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where or how; this is certainly information that paints Napoleon in a different light from the way most are used to seeing him. It's obvious that however much he may have "loved" or "respected" Islam he never converted, nor attempted to convert from Catholicism to any other religion. Because of that, I personally have to remain skeptical and suggest that if you it is to be mentioned extra care should be taken regarding POV: this is obscure evidence which makes very strong claims re: Napoleon's religious beliefs which, outside of one very rare book, are unsubstantiated. So, say something like "Christian Cherfils, a French historian, claims..." so as not to represent a majority of opinion that doesn't exist. Sound good? siafu 14:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concur with that caution. On the whole, most historians agree that Napoleon saw religion mainly as a tool of statecraft. He re-established the Catholic Church in France because it was a popular thing to do; he remarked at least once that if he were governing a nation of Jews he would re-establish the Temple of Solomon. It would be very interesting to know to whom he ostensibly made these remarks. I would imagine that he had some political purpose at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right, but then should there be a seperate heading/Article on Napoleon and Religion ? --195.7.55.146 14:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a good, well-researched, well-cited section or article on Napoleon and religion would be great. If you read a few languages, you might see if the French or Germans are ahead of us on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that Napoleon was eager to praise Islam as long as he was in the business of occupying Egypt, but that he dropped the subject like a hot potato as soon as his ship left Alexandria Harbor in 1799. [Hmm, are there no smilies in the Wikipedia software?] More seriously, the problem with trying to plumb Napoleon's inner thoughts is that almost everything he said after 1796 (and even some before) was designed to serve a political or propaganda purpose, so it is risky (at best) to assume that any quotation from the man represents his actual beliefs. RussBlau 13:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

External link: Napoleon's Theorem

I cut the following from the external links. There was no indication what it actually has to do with Napoleon.

• Napoleon's Theorem by Antonio Gutierrez from "Geometry Step by Step from the Land of the Incas"

Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is well known that Napoleon was skilled in geometry (remember, he was trained as an artillery officer), and was a member of the French Institute. I believe I have seen references to his geometric theorem in some biographies; if I can find a source, I will likely reinsert this reference. RussBlau 13:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. And something in the article about it. This was just a blind link and, as you can see, nothing at the linked page even indicates that the theorem is, indeed, his. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Government Section

It didn't look like there was any real information on his government so I started a new section with some facts I know. Most of what I wrote is taken from notes I took during a humanities course.--Drozmight 14:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Napoleon Bone-Apart

Photo of Napoleon Bone-Apart:

I was looking for information about someone who I thought was Napoleon III, emperor of Mexico, but I found no mention :(

Yeah, yeah. BTW, it's Maximilian von Habsburg who was Emperor of Mexico, installed by Napoleon III. He ended up rather soon about like the picture you provided, but probably in more separate pieces. -- Jmabel 04:17, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)