View previous topic | View next topic


Page 1 of 1

1141866.  Sat Jul 18, 2015 4:01 am Reply with quote

At the same time there was an Emperor Napoléon, a King Napoléon, and a King Napoléon. Three brothers.

Luigi Bonaparte, Louis Napoléon or Lodewijk Napoleon, was the first King of the Netherlands. There he was known as the Rabbit of Holland. Unlike his older brother he was quite friendly, and really tried to learn and use the Dutch language. During speeches in Amsterdam and Deventer he said that he was the Konijn van Olland (pron.: conine), the Rabbit of Holland. He was trying to say that he was the Koning van Holland, the King of Holland.

1141897.  Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:04 pm Reply with quote

Oh I like that!

1141900.  Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:38 pm Reply with quote

Bit of an exaggeration, that. He wasn't known as 'Konijn van 'Olland', but people did poke fun at his pronunciation although his efforts to learn the language were certainly appreciated.

1152089.  Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:39 am Reply with quote

Wikipedia (the battle of Waterloo, 1815) wrote:
Wellington decided to offer battle on the Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment, across the Brussels road. Here he withstood repeated attacks by the French throughout the afternoon, aided by the progressively arriving Prussians. In the evening Napoleon committed his last reserves to a desperate final attack, which was narrowly beaten back.

Q: who was the winner?

K: Wellington (he "decided", he "withstood" repeatedly, and he was "aided").

A: nobody, it was a coalition. For example, the English version of Wikipedia doesn't mention at all which army withstood Napoleon's final attack in the evening. The text suggests that Wellington withstood yet another repeated attack. That myth is quite old. It wasn't Wellington's army nor the Prussian army. It was the local army, i.e. a member of the Coalition. At best Wellington was a winner.

1152104.  Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:45 am Reply with quote

Surely it was Colonel Richard Sharpe who repulsed the Imperial Guard and marched Napoleon off the field?

Alexander Howard
1152517.  Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:17 am Reply with quote

Revisionism comes up with horrible results. Re-examine legends, but with Waterloo, the best documented battle in our history, there is little more to be said.

At the time there was no doubt about who won the battle: Wellington. He was the presiding genius commanding the field. He chose the position, he arranged his British / Dutch / Hanoverian force, he secured La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont and held his ground in a way that the French attacks repeatedly broke against it.

Blücher finally turned the French flank and ended the battle, but the victory was Wellington's.

Napoleon had sent Grouchy to intercept the Prussians so they could not relieve the British: how he missed them history does not reveal, nor what would have happened had he succeeded.

Incidentally, it is often said that no British soldier fired a shot in anger in Europe for 99 years after Waterloo (the Crimea being Asia presumably), but there were skirmishes all the way to Paris as Grouchy brought the shattered army into an ordered retreat.

Alexander Howard
1153745.  Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:02 am Reply with quote

Napoleon died after just six years of exile on St Helena and many Frenchmen believe a conspiracy theory, namely that he was poisoned. The wallpaper in his room was indeed slightly poisonous, so modern science tells us, but only if he spent all his time inside with the doors and windows closed. Anyway he died of stomach cancer and mercury poisoning has very obvious signs, which were absent and every study disproves the idea.

Another cause of his death is utterly Napoleonic.:

When Napoleon first abdicated in 1814, he determined to kill himself, and took poison. One version has it that he had carried the vial of poison with him since the Egyptian campaign and it had gone off. Another (far more Napoleonic) version has it that he obtained enough poison from an apothecary to kill a strong man, but doubled the dose because it might not be sufficient for a man such as him. The result was that he vomited it all up again. That poison dose might have caused a cancer in his stomach that killed him seven years later.

1170316.  Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:14 am Reply with quote

Napoléon Louis Bonaparte is almost a "forgotten" King of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Louis II was 5 years old, and his reign lasted hardly more than one week. The Napoléon didn't like what his brother, King Louis I, was doing. Louis I was really trying hard to do a good job, and perhaps his last trick to offend his brother was to crown his son. Hence the young King Louis II.

1310814.  Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:51 pm Reply with quote, Google-translated wrote:
It is almost unbelievable, but here on the beach (near Katwijk), at the water outlet, Napoleon once picniced. On Thursday, October 24, 1811 to be precise. The Emperor was on his way to Leiden with his wife Marie-Louise from Haarlem (where among others Teylers Museum was visited), but Napoleon had not traveled from Hillegom with his wife and the parade of riders and carriages. Instead, he had taken a detour past Katwijk because he wanted to see the new locks and the steam engine here.

While Napoleon admired the enormous work that had been accomplished here, he saw to his displeasure crossing an English warship off the coast. When he heard that he and his staff were within range, he decided defiantly that lunch would be used on the beach. A table was towed and covered for the company. From the ship the English watched the scene with their viewers, but apparently did not realize who was sitting there. That could have been very strange.

The emperor sat there with his supervisors (three generals) in the sun. It was a beautiful autumn day with a temperature that rose to 12 degrees Celsius. Marie-Louise and entourage had already arrived in Leiden at half past one, much to the horror of the local reception committee without Napoleon. After lunch at the beach, the imperial company went to Leiden in trot.
1390177.  Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:12 pm Reply with quote

And here's another interesting aside about Napoleon that I've just discovered, concerning the Louisiana Purchase.

Napoleon was planning to invade Britain.

From 1803 to 1805 a new army of 200,000 men, known as the Armée des côtes de l'Océan (Army of the Ocean Coasts) or the Armée d'Angleterre (Army of England), was gathered and trained at camps at Boulogne, Bruges and Montreuil. A large "National Flotilla" of invasion barges was built in Channel ports along the coasts of France and the Netherlands (then under French domination as the Batavian Republic), right from Étaples to Flushing, and gathered at Boulogne.

Now comes the interesting part. France was nearly broke and could not afford an invasion. So how would it be financed? These preparations were financed by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, whereby France ceded her huge North American territories to the United States in return for a payment of 50 million French francs ($11,250,000). The entire amount was spent on the projected invasion.

It gets better. The US did not have the total purchase price being a new nation.. So they had to borrow part of the purchase price. The United States had partly funded the purchase by means of a loan from Baring Brothers, a British bank, which essentially meant that the British were funding an invasion of themselves.


Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group