Napoleonic Oddities

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
1,111
Reactions
2,862
The reason for starting this thread comes out of the Funeral Carriage thread and its weird displays.
During the search for images/tales of the event I came across some mad tales about the Battle of Waterloo such as Lord Castlereagh topping himself a couple of years later and Napoleons time in exile which in turn led to a realisation the whole Napoleon story is not what we are told it is and probably just a set of stories about a fictional character, Flash Gordon style.

I was intending on trying to find the various events upon the earth at the time of Napoleons events to see the big picture of what may or may not have been going on but it's turned out to be way beyond me at the moment as every Napoleonic event doesn't stand muster once more than one source has been read through.
Note to anyone who contributes to this thread no wikiwaki and no youtube please. These are true twins of evil and cannot be trusted.

Taking just one event as a start point, or else I'll never get started I went into the horses of Napoleon but as ever it led immediately to something else thanks to Napoleons apparent liking for Egyptian or Barb horses, so this thread eventually starts with the logistics at the start of the journey to Egypt through the Med.

The number of warships in the fleet is fairly consistent at 13 ships of the line and 'some' frigates. Where it all goes Pete Tong is in the number of transports said to be used to transport 40,000 people, some horses, artillery, all weapons, all ammunition, two printing presses, water, food, ropes, tack, blacksmiths tools, carpenters tools and god knows what else.
According to various sources they range in number from 400 down to 130.
Cannot find a drawing or painting of any off the transports to get a handle on what they could and carry but odds are it wouldn't be much good anyway as the range of sizes is not given anywhere.

The bulk of these ships are assembled at and off Toulon and as the soldiers seem to have been embarked at Toulon this assumption seems fair. However I do wonder what was being embarked on ships from Marseille and Genoa.

Fom here; Battle of the Nile (1st August 1798)
Despite the severe weather Napoleon managed to sail from Toulon - avoiding Nelson's squadron. When he met with contingents from Marseille, Genoa, and elsewhere he had an armada which consisted of 13 ships-of-the-line, 7 frigates, several gunboats, and nearly 300 transports of various sizes, carrying troops, and supplies.

That site favours 300 transports as you can see. A fleet of this size would have been noticed by people both on land and at sea as it assembled, as it embarked men and stores. As well as by merchants and traders of all nationalities moving through local ports. It is inconceivable to me that such a gathering of vessels was normal in any way and just as unlikely to me that the Royal Navy was unaware of the gathering.

I haven't looked into the numbers of crew on these ships but this site Napoleon in Egypt, or Egomaniac on the Loose
puts the number at 10,000 on 400 ships.

The fleet gathered to transport the army was equally large, some 10,000 sailors on 400 ships. This included 13 battleships 42 frigates and 130 transports under the command of one Admiral Brueys. (Fregosi, 116)

As I said numbers are all over the place save for the 13 ships of the line.
That is 50,000 pairs of eyes and ears wanting to know where they are going and presumably a similar number ashore wanting to know where their loved ones are going.
Simply from a logistical standpoint the victualing of the ships would give a good estimate of the number of days expected to be at sea. The tales on the sites have this covered for the ships of the line as they had 'young an inexperienced crews' I doubt the transports crews were inexperienced nor those in the frigates no matter how many of them were actually taking part.

As remarkable as all that is the Royal Navy's part is even more remarkable.

According to the site linked to above there were no British ships in the Med in 1798. A statement of utter bollocks to my mind.
As the year of 1798 began their were no British ships based in the Mediterranean. Britain had evacuated the Mediterranean in early 1797 and despite the resounding victory over the Spanish at Cape St Vincent, no British ship had reentered since.

There may have been no warships on active duty in the med, at least men of war aka ships of the line but to think that the Royal Navy would not have a few frigates wandering about the place or being repaired in friendly ports is ridiculous. A lot of British merchant ships would be sailing there from port to port importing and exporting all manned by British eyes and ears.
The med is of strategic trade importance to this island I'm sitting on today as back then, all the crap comes and goes by sea.

It seems that Frenchmen have an aversion to salt water, because when it was made known to the troops that they were destined for "service overseas" (the exact destination was still a closely guarded secret), they began grumbling and deserting. To rally the spirits of his men, Napoleon gave a speech, in which he promised "every soldier, that upon his return France he shall have enough to buy himself six acres of land." (Chandler, 214)

Sounds legit, not really. These soldiers were the victorious Army of Italy so why would they be wanting to desert if they were told where they were going. Would any of them know where Egypt really was or what was going to be waiting for them there?

But it seems someone in the British government knew something was afoot as a squadron of ships was sent to 'keep watch' on Toulon. They didn't send five or six of small fast ships that could get in close and have a quick look and get out to sea again, no no they sent three 74 gun ships of the line, a pair of frigates and a sloop.

Nelson, in the Vanguard, along with the Alexander and the Orion, the frigates Emerald and Terpsichore and a sloop, entered the Gulf of Lion.

They were on a look see mission not blow the French out of the water mission, nor a blockading mission. But it gets worse as a great storm blew up which scattered the British ships to Sardinia and Gibralter but miraculously the French fleet of whatever number of vessels put too sea and sailed away.

On this day Nelson received notification that he would be given ten additional ships-of-the-line commanded by "choice fellows of the inshore squadron".

A severe storm blew up.

Despite the severe weather Napoleon managed to sail from Toulon - avoiding Nelson's squadron.


What's the chances that the heavily loaded French transports of varying size and the 'young and inexperienced' crews of the warships were able to handle storm conditions that the seasoned British sailors and ships couldn't?

And the British frigates sailed off to Gibralter as 'they thought that' here Nelson had gone when in 'reality' he went to nearby Sardinia where his ship was demasted in the storm and had to be towed by another ship of the line during the storm.
How they got a line from one ship to the other in the conditions is anyone's guess as is what happened to the sloop.

Surely it is common sense to lay down general order for all captains of what to do when bad weather strikes and which ports to head for if split up, seems Nelson didn't use common sense as this 'storm window' was all the French needed.
Neither of the sites, most of whose content is based on the books referenced at the sites, mentions anything about the French being aware that the British were in the vicinity. It is always possible they weren't but as the French were allegedly assembling a fleet and 50,000 men in total secrecy who were they keeping the secret from?
Presumably the British as the people in Egypt, Turks, Mamelukes, Arabs, Bedouin didn't have any warships but possibly the ever watchful merchants would have given them some advance notice. If the French were wise enough to realise the British might just be interested in what they were up to surely they would have had frigates wandering about offshore looking for British ships, or is that a common sense too far?

Time for a map. This is just how close Italy France and Sardinia are.
SFTcorsicamap.gif

Now were Nelson assuming, guessing, had knowledge of the intent of the French and he only had three ships of the line, two frigates and a sloop at his disposal where would be the best place to get eyes on the French fleet at sea?
In that gap betwixt Tunisia and Sicily would be my choice as the to be of any use as defence of the convoy of transports the warships would have to stay close in such a narrow space compared to the more open parts of the sea where they could spread out in relative safety.

A fleet of that size would have to move at the speed of the slowest vessel as all of the ships, including the warships were loaded up.

None of it makes sense when I step outside of everything I was taught, have read was told about this period of time.
Embarking 40,000 men would have been noticed by someone wanting to flog their knowledge to the British. British spies would have been in Toulon and they couldn't have failed to notice the build up of transport vessels or picked up on the harbour chatter or the movements of the soldiers and their supplies and to be fair this does get mentioned in the timeline.
The French could not have kept the destination secret from the soldiers/sailors or their families and the constant stream of travelers and merchant travelers in the area.
The French must have been alert to the likely presence of the Royal Navy either off Toulon or off Sicily.
The French must have know British merchant ships were sailing all over the med. They must also have been aware that people will sell information to the highest bidder, people who are not British nor specifically liked the British.
The chances of a young and inexperienced set of French warship crews being able to put to sea in storm that scattered the experienced British crews are low but not as low as the probability of merchant captains willing to risk their vessels in the storm loaded as they were with men, stores and provisions.

So there it is for now. The whole thing reeks to high heaven. Now I need to go to French sources as up to now I've only read through English speaking sources and seek out what else was going on during this period.

March/April 1798
From September 1797 through to March 1798 Nelson had been back in England recovering from the loss of his arm at Tenerife. By March, his health and strength restored, he pressed the Admiralty for re-employment. He was appointed to the Vanguard(74) with Edward Berry as his Captain. He rendezvoused with Earl St Vincent off Cadiz in late April and St Vincent reported that it gave him "new life".

It was obvious that the French were preparing a large expedition, but even English spies could not discover its purpose.

It could be bound for any country bordering the Mediterranean - including the now neutral kingdom of the Two Sicilies - or preparing to attack Portugal, or by breaking out into the Atlantic for a descent upon Lisbon, or even upon Ireland to encourage a revolt against the British.

What was evident was that the Royal navy would need to re-enter the Mediterranean, and that a close watch must once again be kept on Toulon.

29 April 1798
Earl Spencer, the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed that "the appearance of a British Squadron in the Mediterranean is a condition on which the fate of letting agents Kingston in Europe may at this moment be stated to depend".

It was Spencer's personal decision that if St Vincent did not proceed in person with a squadron, he should "put it under the command of Sir H. Nelson, whose acquaintance with that part of the world, as well as his activity and disposition, seem to qualify him in a particular manner for that service".
Early May Nelson, in the Vanguard, along with the Alexander and the Orion, the frigates Emerald and Terpsichore and a sloop, entered the Gulf of Lion.
Mid-May Nelson arrived off Toulon.
19 May 1798

On this day Nelson received notification that he would be given ten additional ships-of-the-line commanded by "choice fellows of the inshore squadron".

A severe storm blew up.

Despite the severe weather Napoleon managed to sail from Toulon - avoiding Nelson's squadron. When he met with contingents from Marseille, Genoa, and elsewhere he had an armada which consisted of 13 ships-of-the-line, 7 frigates, several gunboats, and nearly 300 transports of various sizes, carrying troops, and supplies.

20 May 1798
When near Sardinia, the Vanguard was dismasted, and was only saved from wreck by the tireless activity of Captain Ball on the Alexander who took the flagship in tow. At one stage, fearing that the ship would be lost, Nelson asked Ball to cast off, but Ball caught up his speaking trumpet and hailed back: "I feel confident that I can bring her in safe. I therefore must not, and by the help of Almighty God I will not, leave you." Ball was right, but Nelson was never nearer going ashore in his life.

Afterwards Nelson wrote to his wife and said "I believe firmly that it was the Almighty's goodness to check my consumate vanity".

22 May 1798
The Vanguard had lost just 2 men and within 2 days was repaired and able to resume her mission.

However his frigates had been swept away, and when the storm moderated, their captains assumed that the admiral would retire to repair his ships at Gibraltar and made their own way thence. This deprived Nelson of his fast scouts. "I thought they would have known me better" was his rather caustic comment.

7/8 June 1798
Nelson's ten reinforcements, under Thomas Troubridge, joined him.

15 June 1798
Nelson wrote to Earl Spencer saying " If the French fleet pass Sicily I shall believe that they are going on their scheme of possessing Alexandria, and getting their troops to India. . . The whole squadron is perfectly healthy, and perfectly equal to meet the French."

Meanwhile, on this same day the French fleet had captured the island of Malta.


And the date Napoleon supposedly set all this in motion, well truly fantastic what he achieved in only a few weeks.

As the year of 1798 began their were no British ships based in the Mediterranean. Britain had evacuated the Mediterranean in early 1797 and despite the resounding victory over the Spanish at Cape St Vincent, no British ship had reentered since. This gave the French under General Napoleon Bonaparte great scope to widen their campaign of invasion. A secret decree was issued on 12 April 1798. It included plans to occupy Egypt, and exclude the English "from all their possessions in the East to which the General can come." The implication was that the French would revive their aspirations in India and Ceylon. The General was also empowered to seize Malta, which was seen as a strategic base of the greatest importance. There was a need for speed because by August the Nile would be in flood and would seriously hamper their plans.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,790
Reactions
19,611
Probably could factor in his identity. What was he? I have my doubts about him being a regular human; may be a semi-god or a god...

Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon “Good Solution”...​

Who ever had a name of Napoleon prior to this guy? He was from Corsica. How many Corsicans ever had this name? What kind of name is it? It’s not a normal name at all.
  • n’Apollyon?
  • Ne Pas Leon?
May be we could get a crack at the meaning here.
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
567
Reactions
1,884
Discovered this pamphlet, 'Historical Doubts relative to Napolean Bounaparte' written by Richard Whately in 1819 (Also bishop of Dublin)

Interesting passage...

'With Buonaparte, however, it has been otherwise. This obscure Corsican adventurer, a man, according to some, of extraordinary talents and courage, according to others, of very moderate abilities, and a rank coward, advanced rapidly in the French army, obtained a high command, gained a series of important victories, and, elated by success, embarked in an expedition against Egypt; which was planned and conducted, according to some, with the most consummate skill, according to others, with the utmost wildness and folly: he was [Pg 9]unsuccessful, however; and leaving the army in Egypt in a very distressed situation, he returned to France, and found the nation, or at least the army, so favourably disposed towards him, that he was enabled, with the utmost ease, to overthrow the existing government, and obtain for himself the supreme power; at first, under the modest appellation of Consul, but afterwards with the more sounding title of Emperor'

Source

A god?

However, it seems as though history is perhaps telling us that Mr Whately's opinionion was biassed, or even satire.. but it is easy to say this, to sew seeds of doubt in a reader... here is one such doubter

Doubter

Perhaps Mr NB is a variation of different characters, or a god, hopefully we can get the bottom of it!
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,307
Great find! @Time-shifter
@KorbenDallas this article could answer you questions.

I thought his story sounded like Alexander’s

Will the conquests of Alexander be compared with his? They were effected over a rabble of effeminate, undisciplined barbarians; else his progress would hardly have been so rapid: witness his father Philip, who was much longer occupied in subduing the comparatively insignificant territory of the warlike and civilized Greeks, notwithstanding their being divided into numerous petty States, whose mutual jealousy enabled him to [Pg 37]contend with them separately. But the Greeks had never made such progress in arts and arms as the great and powerful States of Europe, which Buonaparte is represented as so speedily overpowering. His empire has been compared to the Roman: mark the contrast; he gains in a few years, that dominion, or at least control, over Germany, wealthy, civilized, and powerful, which the Romans in the plenitude of their power, could not obtain, during a struggle of as many centuries, against the ignorant half-savages who then possessed it; of whom Tacitus remarks, that, up to his own time they had been "triumphed over rather than conquered."

What, for instance, would the great Hume, or any of the philosophers of his school, have said, if they had found in the antique records [Pg 43]of any nation, such a passage as this? "There was a certain man of Corsica, whose name was Napoleon, and he was one of the chief captains of the host of the French; and he gathered together an army, and went and fought against Egypt: but when the king of Britain heard thereof, he sent ships of war and valiant men to fight against the French in Egypt. So they warred against them, and prevailed, and strengthened the hands of the rulers of the land against the French, and drave away Napoleon from before the city of Acre. Then Napoleon left the captains and the army that were in Egypt, and fled, and returned back to France. So the French people, took Napoleon, and made him ruler over them, and he became exceeding great, insomuch that there was none like him of all that had ruled over France before."

Supposing there be a state-prisoner at St. Helena, (which, by the way, it is acknowledged many of the French disbelieve,) how do we know who he is, or why he is confined there? There have been state-prisoners before now, who were never guilty of subjugating half Europe, and whose offences have been very imperfectly ascertained. Admitting that there have been bloody wars going on for several years past, which is highly probable, it does not follow that the events of those wars were such as we have been told;—that Buonaparte was the author and conductor of them;—or that such a person ever existed. What disturbances may have taken place in the government of the French people, we, and even nineteen-twentieths of them, have no means of learning but from imperfect hearsay evidence; and how much credit they themselves attach to that evidence is very doubtful. This at least is certain: that a M. Berryer, a French advocate, has published memoirs, professing to record many of the events of the recent history of France, in which, among other things, he states his conviction that Buonaparte's escape from Elba was designed and contrived by the English Government. And [Pg 53]we are assured by many travellers that this was, and is, commonly reported in France.

hero. Is it not just possible, that during the rage for words of Greek derivation, the title of "Napoleon," (Ναπολεων,) which signifies "Lion of the forest," may have been conferred by the popular voice on more than one favorite general, distinguished for irresistible valour? Is it not also possible that "Buona Parte" may have been originally a sort of cant term applied to the "good (i.e., the bravest or most patriotic) part" of the French army, collectively; and have been afterwards mistaken for the proper name of an individual? I do not profess to support this [Pg 56]conjecture; but it is certain that such mistakes may and do occur.@,
 

Recognition

Well-known member
Messages
175
Reactions
451
Probably could factor in his identity. What was he? I have my doubts about him being a regular human; may be a semi-god or a god...

Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon “Good Solution”...​

Who ever had a name of Napoleon prior to this guy? He was from Corsica. How many Corsicans ever had this name? What kind of name is it? It’s not a normal name at all.
  • n’Apollyon?
  • Ne Pas Leon?
May be we could get a crack at the meaning here.
@KorbenDallas Yowza!!!! I just googled Apollyon expeting stuff on the sun god apollo, instead this is what we get.

What is the meaning of Apollyon?
In the New Testament Book of Revelation, an angel called Abaddon is described as the king of an army of locusts; his name is first transcribed in Greek (Revelation 9:11—"whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, The Angel of Death.") as Ἀβαδδὼν, and then translated ("which in Greek means the Destroyer", Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon).

IMG_5816.jpg

Wikipedia › wiki › Abaddon
Quite fascinating.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,790
Reactions
19,611
Yup, Apollyon is quite a character unlike our Mr. Napoleon. It appears that he is great through the word of mouth only. A detailed analysis of his biography produces a ridiculous number of inconsistencies, and political actions which do not make any sense in the real life.

No matter where you look at, stuff is weird. For example we have the famous Battle of Trafalgar. How exactly do you load 770+ people on the boat like this? Most importantly what for? They had to be like a bunch of sardines in a can. These ships were designed for a type of battle not requiring a lot of people.

Here is an example of 1,000 people. So about 230 more than there had to be on every 50 meter long ship Napoleon had.

1000.jpg

And this is one of the bigger French ships in that battle?

  • Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia
  • France: 18 ships of the line and eight others, ~13,886 Sailors and Marines
    • 770 people average per ship
  • French Ships
  • All of them were Ships of the Line
    • A ship of the line was a type of naval warship constructed from the 17th through to the mid-19th century. The ship of the line was designed for the naval tactic known as the line of battle, which depended on the two columns of opposing warships maneuvering to fire with the cannons along their broadsides. In conflicts where opposing ships were both able to fire from their broadsides, the side with more cannons, and therefore more firepower typically had an advantage.
    • Since these engagements were almost invariably won by the heaviest ships carrying the most powerful guns, the natural progression was to build sailing vessels that were the largest and most powerful of their time.
What do you need 770 people for, on a 50 meter/160 foot long ship designed for the gun battle? You don't I think.

And it's like this starting with his childhood, and apparently all the way through the glorious end.

Another One
It gets better - Napoleon’s failed attempt to recapture Corsica.
  • Napoleon set sail from Marseilles with 15 ships, 16,900 men and 1174 guns with the aim to recapture Corsica from his one-time hero Pasquale Paoli and the British. His expedition was soon scattered by a British squadron of 15 ships with fewer guns and half the number of men. Two French ships were captured.
  • Can you find the names of the ships? I failed.
This here is 1,126 men per ship. What them people historians smoke I do not know, but they need to at least try to load 1,120 people on a 150-160 foot long sail boat.
  • Titanic had 2,224 people total on board
kd_separator.jpg

Anyways, this is just the way it goes with Mr. Napoleon. Something is seriously not right there.
 

Obertryn

Well-known member
Messages
160
Reactions
413
It really is weird how Napoleon was let off by the British so easily after being captured. Everyone else in Europe was clamoring to hack off his head for what he did but then Britain steps in "No, no, let's instead put him on this easy-to-escape island out in who-the-hell-knows-where." and lays down the law on the matter.

And let's not forget that Napoleon Bonaparte is basically the main reason that the Rockefeller family owns all of the British money supply nowadays.
 
OP
J

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
1,111
Reactions
2,862
Oh well that request for no wikiwaki was soon ignored, how sad.
Here's some sites that may be of interest.

The funerals.
Reflections on A Journey to St Helena
William Thackeray and The Second Funeral of Napoleon
Napoleon's Funeral on St. Helena

Genealogy of Napoleon - The Bonaparte Family
Genealogy of Napoleon - The Bonaparte Family - Napoleon & Empire

Carlo Maria Buonaparte Family on geni
Carlo Maria Bonaparte

Napoleone Bonapart 1715 on geni
Napoleone Bonaparte

Pictures of the Buonoparte's
Humo-Gen info - Personen

A Buonoparte family tree
Geboortedag van Carlo Buonaparte - MyHeritage Blog

Tales of Napoleon
Napoleon’s mom

Napoleon's mistress in Egypt
Pauline Bellisle | Les Scandaleuses

A french take on the assembly of ships
La Campagne Secrète

Jewish and catholic involvement in the event
Jews, Napoleon and the Ottoman Empire: the 1797-9 Proclamations to the Jews

If you search away from wikiwaki you will find the freemasonry connection as well.
Italian was the primary language of the med.
Bonaparte was actually Buonoparte.
Napoleon was a family name if the genealogies are real.
He was in no way French.
 

Obertryn

Well-known member
Messages
160
Reactions
413
However, it seems as though history is perhaps telling us that Mr Whately's opinionion was biassed, or even satire.. but it is easy to say this, to sew seeds of doubt in a reader... here is one such doubter

Doubter

Perhaps Mr NB is a variation of different characters, or a god, hopefully we can get the bottom of it!
The "Doubter" link is aimed at mocking the idea, since Mr. Whately was trying to counter a publication questioning the existence of Jesus through the usage of the "in absurdum" logical fallacy. Unfortunately for both the doubter and Mr. Whately, they don't seem to understand that the "in absurdum" fallacy applies only when the person applying it tries to pull a bait-and-switch by seemingly addressing the argument proposed but actually addressing a different variation of it which is slightly modified to be easier to push towards an absurd conclusion. If you can demonstrate that the actual argument itself leads to an absurd conclusion, that's a valid debating technique in formal logic. A variant of it is also used in mathematics to prove theorems - proof by contrapositive, I believe it is called.
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
567
Reactions
1,884
The "Doubter" link is aimed at mocking the idea, since Mr. Whately was trying to counter a publication questioning the existence of Jesus through the usage of the "in absurdum" logical fallacy. Unfortunately for both the doubter and Mr. Whately, they don't seem to understand that the "in absurdum" fallacy applies only when the person applying it tries to pull a bait-and-switch by seemingly addressing the argument proposed but actually addressing a different variation of it which is slightly modified to be easier to push towards an absurd conclusion. If you can demonstrate that the actual argument itself leads to an absurd conclusion, that's a valid debating technique in formal logic. A variant of it is also used in mathematics to prove theorems - proof by contrapositive, I believe it is called.
Very true, however at this point, how do we really know this was the intention of Whately? It is easy to suggest Whately was attempting to prove a point, he could however have literally being telling us his thoughts.

The trouble with history (or the recorders of it) can easily skew the words and context of others :cautious:
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,790
Reactions
19,611
I think I might have a rather unorthodox idea of who Napoleon really was, and why he had such a funeral. I also might have an idea of why the streets were empty before repopulation.

Unfortunately after this A, B will have to come later. Hopefully within a few days a rather big article will come out where our Mr. Napoleon is only a small part of.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,307
The "Doubter" link is aimed at mocking the idea, since Mr. Whately was trying to counter a publication questioning the existence of Jesus through the usage of the "in absurdum" logical fallacy. Unfortunately for both the doubter and Mr. Whately, they don't seem to understand that the "in absurdum" fallacy applies only when the person applying it tries to pull a bait-and-switch by seemingly addressing the argument proposed but actually addressing a different variation of it which is slightly modified to be easier to push towards an absurd conclusion. If you can demonstrate that the actual argument itself leads to an absurd conclusion, that's a valid debating technique in formal logic. A variant of it is also used in mathematics to prove theorems - proof by contrapositive, I believe it is called.
Yes, but actually nether are required to reflect reality. Goes along with thesis/antithesis which has been used in propaganda for a long time. Both are also related to mystery schools with their own agendas.
 

VonKitty

Well-known member
Messages
62
Reactions
257
Something to perhaps keep in mind when trying to figure out Napoléon, is that he was responsible for much of what was written about himself. He was considered a master at propaganda. And so we have to wonder, just how much is this image we have of Napoléon based on his own creation?

Here’s what looks to be an informative article but I haven’t had a chance to finish it:
The Genesis of Napoleonic Propaganda: Introduction

And something on PBS, which I know can be one-sided.
PBS - Napoleon: The Man and the Myth
Bonaparte was not only a warrior; he was also a shrewd propagandist. During his first campaign in Italy, he carefully crafted reports from the battlefield, designed to increase his glory while masking the ruthlessness with which he plundered the country.
TULARD: He created his own newspapers — France and the Army of Italy, and The Newspaper of the Army of Italy, which exalt his victories. Bonaparte himself actually writes some articles. He himself wrote: "Bonaparte flies like lightning and strikes like a thunderbolt."
JOURQUIN: He saw that his intelligence, his abilities were more than just military. Not only had he become a great general, but also possibly a future statesman. And everybody realizes it, not only in Italy, but in France too.
His strategy included commissioning paintings of himself. He brilliantly created a mythical image of himself – an infallible hero, destined by God to rule over France.
BERTAUD: He orders a painting after a victory. He dictates the theme, the layout of the characters. He even orders the dimensions of the frame.
TULARD: From the very beginning Napoleon gave himself an image. He created his own history. From his first triumphs, Bonaparte understood that it’s not enough to win victories. He uses images to make sure that his victories in Italy are widely publicized in France.
Although the Egyptian campaign was a military disaster, Napoleon was able to exploit the French people's fascination with the mysterious country to his advantage. He used the press to keep the campaign, and himself, in people’s minds. Street vendors in Paris sold pictures with palm trees, with pyramids, or with a general covered by plumes who harangues his troops and massacres the infidels. Paris theaters produced spectacles about the "Victory of the Pyramids." Paintings of the time show him returning to France, grandly victorious, with a star of destiny shining over his ship. By the time Napoleon returned to France from Egypt in August 1799, he was famous.
His brillant career ended on June 22, 1815 — four days after the Battle of Waterloo, when he abdicated his throne for the second time. With no hope of escape, he put himself at the mercy of Great Britain. He wished, he said, "to reside in a country house near London." The British turned him down. Instead, they sent him back into exile and took no chances that he would ever return.
Allowing him a small group of loyal followers, they chose a far-flung outpost of their Empire, a slab of volcanic rock in the South Atlantic Ocean, and one of the most remote places on earth — St. Helena.
KAUFFMANN: No one escapes from St. Helena. This far-away island, this isolated piece of rock, beaten by the winds, sinister. When Napoleon sees this fortress for the first time, he understands everything. He knows at this moment this is going to be his grave.
Once the ruler of nearly all of Europe, Napoleon found himself confined to an island ten miles long and six miles wide. On Elba, he had at least been an Emperor. On St. Helena he was a prisoner, guarded by 2000 soldiers and two ships that circled the island 24 hours a day. His final palace would be a wooden bungalow that had once been a row of cattle stalls.
He was forty-six years-old, with nothing to do for the rest of his life but eat, sleep, and search for a way to occupy his mind. "To die is nothing," he said, "but to live defeated and without glory is to die every day."
Stripped of every vestige of power, on this stifling, windswept island lost in the Atlantic, Napoleon fought the endless boredom of his days. He gardened, read any book or newspaper he could get his hands on, tried re-writing a tragedy of Voltaire's, imposed an exacting imperial etiquette on his retinue, and sparred with the island’s English governor, who insisted on calling Napoleon General Bonaparte.
Only one weapon was left him — words. With words, he would launch his last campaign. Day after day, he dictated his memoirs, forging the story of his life into the stuff of legend.
"History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon," Napoleon said. "Even when I am gone, I shall remain in people's minds the star of their rights, my name will be the war cry of their efforts, the motto of their hopes."​

Napoleon > Propaganda
Napoleon – Master of Propaganda

As a shrewd strategist and politician – a master of managing appearances to manipulate opinion – Napoleon realised the potential of great works of art to instill in hearts and minds the validity and might of the Empire and his authority to lead. Napoleon took the Classical revival of the 1790s, originally used to promote the Republican values of austerity, citizenship, self-sacrifice and duty, and used it to promote his own achievements as Emperor.

Jacques-Louis David undertook a number of patently propagandist commissions for Napoleon: Napoleon at the St Bernard Pass 1801 compared Napoleon to Hannibal and Charlemagne. Napoleon in his Study 1808 depicted the First Consul hard at work in the early hours of morning, for the good of the nation. David also portrayed the coronation in 1804, emphasising the physical splendour of Napoleon and his court, the richness of ceremony and allusions to the grand characters and traditions of the past.

David’s pupil Antoine-Jean Gros accompanied Napoleon’s campaigns and represented his deeds as close to superhuman: General Bonaparte at the Bridge of Arcole on 17 November 1796 1796 showed the Italian Campaign as an effortless triumph; Napoleon visiting the plague victims at Jaffa 1804 paralleled Napoleon with Christ aiding the sick; and Napoleon at the Battle of Eylau 1807 showed the Emperor comforting the dying.
 

CitizenShip

Active member
Messages
74
Reactions
148
15 June 1798
Nelson wrote to Earl Spencer saying " If the French fleet pass Sicily I shall believe that they are going on their scheme of possessing Alexandria, and getting their troops to India. . . The whole squadron is perfectly healthy, and perfectly equal to meet the French."

Meanwhile, on this same day the French fleet had captured the island of Malta.
Haha, that's the funniest thing i have heard all week, Malta has a funny history for sure but at that point in time it was also one of the best fortified positions in all of europe, the capital Valletta is literally one big fortress.
Although the above seems to contradict the main wiki where it says it was the british who took Malta!
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,344
Probably could factor in his identity. What was he? I have my doubts about him being a regular human; may be a semi-god or a god...

Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon “Good Solution”...​

Who ever had a name of Napoleon prior to this guy? He was from Corsica. How many Corsicans ever had this name? What kind of name is it? It’s not a normal name at all.
  • n’Apollyon?
  • Ne Pas Leon?
May be we could get a crack at the meaning here.
From here: Napoleon m History, English
From the old Italian name Napoleone, used most notably by the French emperor Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821), who was born on Corsica. The etymology is uncertain, but it is possibly derived from the Germanic Nibelungen meaning "sons of mist", a name used in Germanic mythology to refer to the keepers of a hoard of treasure (often identified with the Burgundians). Alternatively, it could be connected to the name of the Italian city of Napoli (Naples). [Translation: we have no flippin' idea]

From wiki: He was named Napoleone di Buonaparte. He took his first name from an uncle who had been killed fighting the French. However, he later used the more French-sounding Napoléon Bonaparte. [So he CHOSE his name rather than being given one at birth? This seems like a big hint]

From houseofnames.com: The surname Napoleon was first found in the province of Salerno, just south of Naples. The Napoli family in this region had the noble status continued from hundreds of years earlier. From the ancient and beautiful Italian island of Sicily emerged a variety of distinguished names, including the notable surname Napoleon.

Now, if wiki is correct in stating that Napoleon took his uncle's name and "Napoleone" is a surname (family or last) name, shouldn't his uncle's last name have also been Bonaparte? It's either a place name (Napoli) or a name was conferred upon him as has happened frequently throughout history with famous people.

* Mohandas Karamchand, also known as Mahatma Gandhi
* HYACINTHUS, used to refer to the 17th-century Italian saint Hyacintha Mariscotti (real name Giacinta).
* Geronimo, From Gerónimo, a Spanish form of JEROME. This is the better-known name of the Apache leader Goyathlay.
* Genghis (or Chinggis) Khan, meaning "universal ruler", which was adopted by the Mongol Empire founder Temujin
* Confuscius, Anglicized form of the Chinese name Kong Fuzi. His given name was Qiu.
* Caligula, Means "little boot" in Latin. This was a nickname for the Roman emperor Gaius Caesar Germanicus given to him in his youth by his father's soldiers.
* Buddha, This is a title applied to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.
* Attila, Attila was the name given to him by his Gothic-speaking subjects in Eastern Europe; his real name may have been Avithohol.
* Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid.
* Timur, also known as Tamerlane.

Trying to upload picture of Napoleone family crest and it says it's uploaded but I don't see it here. Anyway, you can find it at the HouseofNames.com link.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,344
Yeah, I would too but when you click on the highlighted word "uncle" it just defines what an uncle is. Wiki gives us this: Napoleon's maternal grandmother had married into the Swiss Fesch family in her second marriage, and Napoleon's uncle, the cardinal Joseph Fesch, would fulfill a role as protector of the Bonaparte family for some years. (I fail to see how he got "Napoleon" out of "Joseph Fesch").

Wiki contradicting itself: Napoleon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 - 5 May 1821), namesake of his deceased older brother and Emperor of the French. (Of course they may be talking about Napoleon III, instead of Napoleon I). *shrugs*

Reddit has looked at the name.
dhmontgomery
Napoléon was not a completely unique name, but everything I've read has suggested that it was quite uncommon before Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to fame. (After that, he sparked lots of imitators, especially as part of a longer hyphenated name.) u/kieslowskifan brings my attention to Napoleon's namesake, St. Neopolus, whose saint's day, Aug. 15, was celebrated as a sort of national holiday by Bonaparte regimes throughout the 19th Century. But as u/kieslowskifan notes, "Saint Neapolus was an incredibly minor and obscure Egyptian martyr."
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Etymology and Languages 12
Similar threads
Linguistic oddities
Top