|
|
 |
|
Reply
| |
The death of Napoleon Bonaparte is almost as controversial as his life. This, in it self, isn’t strange as his life, military tactics, governmental policies had an astounding effect on his world and even ours. More books have recorded, commented and dissected him than almost any other human in history (with perhaps the exception of Jesus Christ). Where goes life; follows death.
I have read several theories on the death of Napoleon and a more plausible to me (with the help of 185 years of hindsight) is that of an Anglo-Bourbon conspiracy. The reason I mention this is that during Bonaparte’s life he had built up a reputation large enough to impress 200 years after its peak. The assignation plot of December 24, 1800 is just one example of the Royalist determination to put a permanent end to his position in European affairs.
The Sixth Coalition, after the Battle of Nations (Leipzig October 16-19, 1813), forced the French to take up defensive positions behind her natural boarders. Napoleon abdicated on April 11, 1814 and put an apparent end to his decades of European domination. The Treaty of Fontainebleau assured his exile to the island of Elba and gave Europe the chance to recover from the recent years of turmoil.
His escape and the Hundred Days culminated with his final defeat at Waterloo. This apparently simple return to power was a demonstration that Bonaparte would always be a threat to Europe. Louis XVIII, after a very short-lived return to power, had to flee once more. His last years of detention on St Helena were much different than that on Elba. Security was much tighter as the memory of his first escape and the possibility of another return to Europe wouldn’t completely fade until Napoleon Bonaparte was no more. This was the hope of all Europe but to execute him would truly make him a martyr and the consequences of that were too grave to risk.
Thus I say the most plausible hypothesis of foul play in his death would be the conspiracy premise. All of Europe had a motive and Great Britain the means.
Speculation�? All speculation; the facts are on the table with hindsight to guide us. Dr. Francesco Autommarchi, Napoleon’s personal physician recorded the cause of death as stomach cancer. That, in itself, is not enough to rule out the more intriguing argument of conspiracy, as medicine was still relatively primitive. True, arsenic was found in his hair and his remains were well preserved but arsenic was used for many things in those days (hair tonic and different types of medicines to mention just a few). The arsenic levels found in his hair were from seven to thirty-eight times higher than normal. Similar readings were taken from hair samples dating from 1805 and 1814. These levels of arsenic, according to the head if toxicology for the Paris Police, Ivan Ricordel would have killed him long before 1821. This gives more credence to the hair lotion theory as the source of high levels.
Napoleon Bonaparte weighed 76 kilos at the time of death, according to autopsy reports by Dr. Autommarchi. A year earlier, his weight was recorded as 91 kilos. This is a difference of 15 kilos (33 U.S. lbs) and consistent with someone suffering from advanced stomach cancer. This was also confirmed by a team of physicians led by Professor Biondi at the University of Monterspertoli.
This is my opinion and the reasoning that brought me to this point. I would like to hear others views on this subject as even 20/20 hindsight has its blind spots.
Yorrik
|
|
 First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I wish I had something to offer here, Yorrick, but I really don't know anything about the death of Napoleon. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable will come forward to discuss this very interesting topic. sunday |
|
Reply
| |
Yorrick Victor Hugo wrote a beautiful poem, Les Chatiments (The Punishments) about Napoleon's exile. I must say, I've been of the impression he had ingested large amounts of arsenic because his wall paper was saturated with it and St Helena is a damp humid place. My personal theory that they were trialling British boarding school food on him will be launched soon Peter |
|
Reply
| |
I am also rather fascinated by this subject and recently read a couple of books by a fellow called Ben Weider more widely known for his body building empire but an avid amatuer historian as well. In his books he makes a case for poison .but it isn't the arsenic that killed Napoleon .According to Weider Arsenic was only used to weaken his system for the real killer.First the victims system si weakened by systematic arsenic poisoning but not enought to kill as this would be detectable in the symptom, when the killer is ready they have teh victim feed a tartar emetic which prepares the stomach for the coup de grace which is delivered fisrt by a drought of Calomel follwed by a drought of bitter almonds these last three are all recorded as happening but nobody gave any significance to them because the reaction between Calomel and bitter almonds was not well known.In tyhe stomach the two combine to release mercurial salt from the one and prussic acid from the other .This is why a tartar emetic is newscessary because with out it the stomach would immediate act to throw up the deadlty combination ,however the emetic so weakens the stomach it can't and the process kills the patient leaveing the stomach looking bunrt and very jmuch as the physician who performed the autopsy found it.This method wasn't just a fancy of the author it was a method known to have been popular during the reign of Louis XVI. The books are The Murder of Napoleon Ben Weider and DAvid Hapgood robson books 1982 ISBN 0-86051-172-3 Assassination at St Helens Revisited Ben Weider and Sten Forshufvud John Wiley and Sons 1995 ISBN 0-471-12677-2 I hope if you have not already read them that they at least give you another interesting study of the Generals last years on St Helena. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to European History