""General" Bonaparte" Topic

I had read many times in this forum that Nap had to be mention as "General" Bonaparte because the English Goberment never accepted him with another tittle.
But at the Treaty of Amiens…

"The first consul of the French republic, in the name of the French people, and his majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being equally animated with a desire to put an end to the calamities of war, have laid the foundation of peace, by the preliminary articles, which were signed in London the 9th Vendemaire, (or the first of 0ctober 1801)…."

"The first consul of the French republic, in the name of the French people, has named as plenipotentiary the citizen Joseph Buonaparte, counsellor of state…"

"His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has named the marquis Cornwallis, knight of the most noble order of the garter, one of his majesty's privy council, general in his majesty's army…"

"…In testimony whereof, we, the undersigned plenipotentiaries, have signed with our hands, and in virtue of our respective full powers, the present definitive treaty, causing it to be sealed with our respective seals…"

So, can I understand that in some part ot Nap Era the English Goberment and King accepted to singned a treaty with the head of the French State Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul of France?.

I cannot read anywere that the plenipotenciaries called or named or described or write on any document him as "General Bonaparte"!.

Thank in advance for your comments.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

Well found and stated. Seems to me we have more than a little residual prejudice against Napoleon today from some folks who cannot abide the success that Napoleon did achieve which have lasted much longer than any of his fellow heads of state achieved during their reigns. And none changed warfare or Europe as did Napoleon, even though his career ended in defeat and exile. He was a Titan, where the others, to use David Chandler's turn of phrase, were merely pygmies.

Sincerely,
Kevin

<shrug> Who cares? Really?

If you want to get hung up about the semantics of the correct form of address

Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte

Start there. You might want to consider your woeful lack of capitalisation of 'Marquis', 'Majesty', 'United Kingdom' and 'Republic' too. I won't even start on your insistence in abbreviating 'Napoleon' to 'Nap' in every post you make about the Great Man (sarcasm)

Coming next: Hitler, as self appointed head of the Third Reich, should he be afforded the appellation 'Kaiser'? Or not? Who's bothered?

In 1801, the Corsican Ogre had not yet appointed himself Emperor. THAT is the title the British refused to acknowledge, and for which they substituted "General".
"First Consul" does not imply kingly or imperial status. It is merely a government title, subject to appointment and election. No harm there. It is no more than a tarted up Prime Minister.

I will be saving my popcorn and beer for the Super Bowl tonight.

Hitler was not 'self appointed' he was elected first – just like the other Imperial Napoleon.

Say, Armand, just out of curiosity, why the new membership with different screen name?

If any of you would like to see the reason for the 'elevation' of Napoleon from First Consul to Emperor I would suggest you take a look at Vincent Cronin's biography, Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography, Chapter 16, page 245. The catalyst was the British-sponsored assassination attempts on Napoleon's life that convinced him, and others in the French government, to establish a hereditary monarchy, making Napoleon Emperor of the French. So, apparently it is the fault of the British. Maybe that's why the British have a very hard time with the imperial title-it's their fault.

Sincerely,
K

I think he was just a dictator who want to crown himself, reasons could always be found to do it.

Napoleon was once asked by one of his subordinates while he was First Consul if he would voluntarily give up power when he believed his task was completed.

His answer was no and he added 'Who do you think I am-George Washington?'

Sincerely,
K

I've run across two groups with serious issues regarding Napoleon. The one group falls into the Corsican ogre camp that's coming under criticism above, spitting out various dismissive or deliberately insulting variations of his name and/or titles and seemingly incapable of saying the name properly, as if speaking his name would summon the beast to snip off their thumbs in their sleep. The other group, which may include some of the current posters in this thread, consistently refer to Napoleon as "The Emperor" (as if there is one and only one) in hushed reverential tones as if about to genuflect with each mention of his exalted title.

Vendome – remember that this is a wargaming forum and, in purely military terms, there are plenty of good reasons why people think he is THE 'Emperor'.

Sure, he gets the biggest leadership modifier. But at a wargaming table, no one is offended when folks refer to Boney/Nappy, Welly, or Bags (Bagration in case that one wasn't as obvious). At least not at the wargaming tables where I'm participating. I've encountered much more offensensitivity away from games.

Mr. Sundance, thanks for asking.

I really cannot understand why, but it is the third time I had been borrowed from the forum and cannot access to it.

So, I had to began again with another name.

I supouse that it was because of my geographical position (??).

Or a misterius of TMP Zone. (??). Who knows?.
I'm not glad to beggin once again, but no problem with that.
As you know, it's impossible to choose the same name.

Dear Conrad, please allow me to said that Hitler were not denominated "Kaiser", he was the "Fûhrer" and if you mention the word "Fûhrer" everybody knows from who you are speaking about.

Mr. Vendome, very well explained, but I had to said that I cannot read yet "genuflection" or "revential" therms in this History Forum. I had read some respect and admiration for the man, but anything more.
Only my opinion about that and I respect your position.

My point is that in some moment, even the King of England had made tratements and arrengements and even signed side by side with Napoleon and I'm sure he didn't consider him only as a simple General.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand – The genuflection and fear of thumb-snipping were exaggerations for effect, not intended to be literal. The hushed tones, sadly, were not exaggeration. I've encountered several of them. And the spitting – or maybe spluttering – of the other type, also not exaggeration. One learns to stand clear when the topic comes up with certain people.

My point is that in some moment, even the King of England had made tratements and arrengements and even signed side by side with Napoleon and I'm sure he didn't consider him only as a simple General.

The British treated with the American government. I have no idea what the status of "First Consul" was, but if it was an imitation of the Roman practice, a Consul was certaily not a hereditary monarch, and partclularly not a usurping commoner monarch.
As far as I can see, "First Consul" was merely another office held by those damnde politicians.
When George III was lucid, I am sure he did not consider himself another monarch.

Phrases like:

"The first consul of the French republic, in the name of the French people, has named as plenipotentiary the citizen Joseph Buonaparte, counsellor of state…"

"His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has named the marquis Cornwallis, knight of the most noble order of the garter, one of his majesty's privy council, general in his majesty's army…"

are just diplomatic boilerplate. Mere words.

Vendome, there are those who say that you never loved the Emperor.

"The catalyst was the British-sponsored assassination attempts on Napoleon's life that convinced him, and others in the French government, to establish a hereditary monarchy"

The word "attempts" would indicate more than one under British auspices.

The one I know of was that of Caudodal. He was arrested on 9 March 1804.
On 18 May 1804, the French Senate formally changed the government to an empire, naming the first emperor.
So, only about two months. Really makes you wonder if this plot was the cause for the change in the whole French government, or merely a convenient pretext for some anti-British propoganda.

In any case, an "admirer" of Napoléon has led us to believe that there were "plots", plural, created or sponsored or whatever by the British leading up to the change in the French ogvernemnt. What is(are) the other plot(s)?

Chuvak

There was a plot to blow up Napoleon and his entourage on 25 December 1800. The three 'bombers' were Francois Carbon, Limoelan, and Saint-Rejat. They detonated a bomb loaded in a wine cask on the Rue Saint-Nicaise. It was on a one-horse cart and a 14-year old girl named Pensol was asked to hold the horse. As the First Consul's carriage drove past the cart, the bomb was lighted by Saint-Rejant and it exploded killing nine people and injuring twenty-six. This was done on the orders of Georges Cadoudal.

In August 1803 Cadoudal was landed by the British on the French coast and he and fellow conspirators were planning to assassinate Napoleon by dressing in French uniforms and stabbing him to death at a review. The plot was uncovered by the French police in early 1804 and Cadoudal was arrested after murdering a policeman. He was executed in June 1804.

Cadoudal worked for the Bourbons in exile in England and ran a training camp for conspirators financed by the British from at least May 1803. Some of his co-conspirators were the Comte d'Artois and the Polignac brothers, close friends of Artois.

There was also another assassination attempt against Napoleon in 1801.

These three plots/attempts convinced the government and Napoleon to make the First Consul a hereditary monarch.

Sincerely,
K

These three plots/attempts convinced the government and Napoleon to make the First Consul a hereditary monarch.

If factual, I don't see the sense in this. By what logic would a hereditary monarchy provide a more resilient form of government in case of assassination?

How many heirs did he have at the time?

10th Marines,

Are you ducking the question, or did you miss it.

Other than the plot by Caudodal culminating in his arrest in March 1804, what evidence do you proffer for BRITISH involvement in any attmept on the life of the First Consul?

You wrote "British-sponsored assassination attempts on Napoleon's life" – that's plural, "attempts", more than one BRITISH-SPONSORED attempt. Did you make a typographical error? Or do you have evidence of BRITISH-SPONSORSHIP for more than one attempt?

Chuey

If factual, I don't see the sense in this. By what logic would a hereditary monarchy provide a more resilient form of government in case of assassination?

Because no-one would dare execute an hereditary monarch?

Oh.

Hang on…

No, because there would be a succession in place if Napoleon died or was murdered. The fear was that the Bourbons might return, a Jacobin government installed as in the Terror, or a military government run by another general or succession of generals.

Sincerely,
K

All of the plots against Napoleon originated in England. Overtly or covertly, the British government gave tacit approval for the attempts in 1800, 1801, and 1804.

Sincerely,
K

"Vendome, there are those who say that you never loved the Emperor."

Careful John the OFM, or you will be pistols at dawn!

:-)

Ken

ooops should read "or it will be pistols at dawn!"

can we film the pistols at dawn?

I recommend a small wooded hillside in Royalist country.

each comes in from the opposite side, fire at will.

10th Marines,

You now write:
"Overtly or covertly, the British government gave tacit approval for the attempts in 1800, 1801, and 1804."

1. Please describe, with contemporary sources, the "tacit approval" that the British government gave to the attempts in 1800 and 1801.

2. You first wrote :
"The catalyst [for regime change in France] was the British-sponsored assassination attempts"
"Maybe that's why the British have a very hard time with the imperial title-it's their fault."

These two seem a contradiction with the much lighter assertion that "Overtly or covertly, the British government gave tacit approval". Are you now changing your statements about British "sponsorship" and British "fault"?

Chuey

Not trying to be obtuse, but wasn't there a line of succession in place during the Consulate? Namely, the Second and Third Consuls?

An acute observation.

Mr. Vendome, many thanks for your explanation.
As english is not my idiom, sometimes I didn't understand very well some comments.

Hope we, ALL forum fellow members, can continue interchanging ideas in the most cinvil manner.

And for the first and only time I would write about Mr. JCBCB.
I had to understand thay you are very young and without very good manners, but… really Mister, do you not feel very silly to enter a forum like this ONLY to snippe a person you didn't know and that had not made anything bad to you?.
What kind of "contribution" is that?.
And if I were you, I was so ashame that my own fellow members of the forum had to write to me how bad I'm performing here.Always.

So, Mr. JBCBC I ask you with all my respect that please think things over, reflect your actions at TMP.
But if you decided to persit with you behavior, well, it's your choise I would never read your post again and of course not any comment about them.
It's not funny at all Mr. JBCBC. Plese, reconsider.

Amicalement
Armand

<sigh>

There is only one reason for calling the Corsiacan Ogre; "Boneparte", "di Buoneparte" or "General Boneparte"

It is guaranteed to upset his partisans – especially on this list.

Why do that? the gentle reader may well ask.

Simple because the Bonepartists refuse to Boneys faults or gloss them over. Remember the story of "The Emperor's New Cloths" some of us like the little boy rather than those who waste purple prose on his boots or hat etc.

So sit back and waite for the flak and the cries it was all the fault of English gold.

Burn the heretic!!!!

Dear 138SquadronRAF, I really enjoy your posts.

About Napoleon INMHO there are trully reasons to speak very well about him and very bad too!

He was human, so he has his good moments and bad decitions too. As all of us.

What boring would be a forum where all the people only play a roll of defending him at ultrance or atack him with hate!.
Changing thougths and information about him is very interesting but only when we travell to a good manner way.

Amicalement
Armand

138SquadronRAF

"<sigh>"?

Even the wittiest joke gets old after repeated airings, and yours truly resembles a dead horse long past its prime. Perhaps it's time you buried this dear old friend and found something new to flog.

What a parcel of rogues in a nation.

O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Burns was last month.

any pertinent poets from February?

I'm sure Napoleon (sorry THE Emperor) was a brilliant poet as well as everything else which he did superbly.

There you go, 138SquadronRAF, you can now actually provide your first reference for your silly assertion regarding us Bonapartists.

"[A]ny pertinent poets from February?"

Ah, a 'thunderbolt' from out of the blue! Perhaps a Macadonian?

Not for the faint-hearted

link

Not for the faint-hearted

Yikes! Not for the faint-heated indeed!

-Scott
djokergaming.wordpress.com

I'd sooner read McGonagall than Burns any day of the week.

It matters not that the Brits didn't (and many still do not) want to call him by his title of Emperor.

The fact is he was the Emperor, by his own hand, and most of Europe at one time or another accepted that.

It's strange that people today still chafe at his superiority on the battlefield.

But as my kids would say..

Whatever..