Common Misconceptions?

[onedreamer]

My point was to show that art is a weak basis for an argument precisely because it is inconsistent. Given that many of the artists never met him in the first place their opinion on his height is largely irrelevant when other evidence is available. I happen to believe he was probably about average height for his time, but I don't care to use art work as evidence either way for the reasons I've outlined.

Yep I got your point but you didn't SHOW anything. You have shown a picture, without even saying how did you take it (chosen on purpouse, randomly ?) which shows how Napoleon isn't taller than ANYONE in that picture. You will note that the guys on the right are officers and not exeptionally trained "rambo" bodyguards, and on the left is another guy, which is taller than him, and is not his bodyguard either. Now, if you want to support Wiki's theory, you should show how he was taller "above average", not that he wasn't remarkably shorter than anyone.

Popular tradition says [bla blah ]

In short popular tradition says more truths than it doesn't. I'm not saying that a popular tradition can't be wrong (all the contrary) but I do expect wiki to prove with decent proofs and not with thick air that a popular tradition is wrong. The other 2 examples quoted in the OP are perfectly presented. Not so the one about Napoleon. It doesn't hold water, as I can think of at least 2 flaws just right off the bat:

According to Wiki, the whole missconception is due to his height being measured after his death (we can of course be sure of the advertised height being 100% correct... yeah, sure) in imperial french feet which were different than imperial british feet. First, do you seriously believe that the tales on his height were based on this ???? Com'on... you can't be serious. Napoleon became famous/infamous during his lifetime, and you can bet he was described with a much older system of measures: the good old comparison. Second, I kind of think there were more than just these 2 systems of measures in the XIX century.

So is this really a common missconception ? I actually noted on second thought that I am not sure I am aware of this popular tradition of Napoleon being "remarkably" short, nor that he was "above the average". The most common tradition about him is his hand folded in the jacket, which as you probably know has been put in discussion just like this one, something that just proves once more that the world is full of people who like putting everything in discussion again and again. So to go back to the point, it is possible that rather than a common missconception, this is a british missconception (it's on the EN wiki after all), in this case the otherwise utmostly weak point of French/British feet would gain some credibility.

I've seen plenty of paintings which don't show him as "dumpy", are they all wrong? You may also want to consider how many of these average paintings you cite were done in his lifetime by an artist he sat for, or the theme the artist is trying to convey.

Yeah, I may. But, did you, in the first place ? Or wikipedia ? Not that I see. And I do know the general traits of people from Corsica and Sardinia, so to me it is much more probable that he was NOT above average than otherwise.

When the consular guard were formed they had to be between 5ft 10 and 6ft tall, when the Guard infantry was expanded in 1806 Grenadiers still had to be 5ft 10, chasseurs 5ft 8. The average for the time in france was 5ft 4. Using your comment that anyone taller than average was tall Napoleon would be counted as tall if the eyewitness account of Doctor Corvisart in 1802 was correct which placed him at 5ft 6. Anyone who is 5ft 6 is going to look small when they stand next to someone who is 6ft tall, and yet according to your defenition both would still be tall. I happen to be 5ft 10, around an inch, maybe 2 taller than average, but if you stood me next to Rupert Evrett or Christopher Lee I'd look short too.

According to this petty theory, he was only standing next to rambo bodyguards, which I highly doubt since it is more probably he was standing next to officers or even on a saddleback, and eyewitnesses were 8 years old children or less unable to discern the true relative height of a person.............

Besides I'm not saying he was tall, just that the evidence is that he probably wasn't noticeably shorter or taller than the average Frenchman of the period.

And I'm not saying he was noticably short. I am saying that
1) what you call evidence is not an evidence AT ALL. They are words written on wikipedia.
2) wiki says that he was above average, NOT that he wasn't noticeably shorter. They are 2 quite different statements IMHO.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So many strong feelings about Napolean's actual height . . . must be French vs. English national pride is on the line or something.

 

[Steph]

So many strong feelings about Napolean's actual height . . . must be French vs. English national pride is on the line or something.

In that case it's mora an Italian vs a French and an English on the same side eek.
Something is feeling wrong... PrivateHudson, could you say something mean to me please?

 

[Swedishguy]

Russian warprisoners at Sachsenhausen.

 

[onedreamer]

it's funny how I took the time to write a post that makes sense and the comments are jokes.... why don't you just admit that Wiki's theory doesn't hold water, or disprove me, instead of writing nonsense ?

 

[Sharwood]

Every ounce of evidence I've ever seen indicates that the disparity between French and English inches accounts for Napoleon's supposed small stature, and that he was actually a relatively normal sized guy. I even remember seeing a news story on it not long ago. Have absolutely no evidence on me though.

As for other misconceptions, I can off a few:

The Laughing Kookaburra; It's just a kookaburra. Kookaburra in that particular Aboriginal language means "laughing bird." If it were said "laughing kookaburra" you'd effectively be saying "laughing, laughing bird."

There has never been a battle fought on Australian soil; There have actually been several battles fought on Australian soil, most of them during the gold rush in Victoria, with the most famous being that of the Eureka Stockade. There were also numerous battles between settlers and Aborigines, including many massacres on both sides, although mainly perpretrated by Europeans. There were also quite a few bombing raids conducted by the Japanese in WWII if you want to include them.

British pilots saved Britain from invasion in 1940-41; Actually, Operation: Sealion never would have worked, even if Britain didn't even have an airforce. The German Fleet simply was not capable of ferrying enough troops across the English Channel to successfully invade the country. It would actually have been more effective to parachute troops in than try an amphibious assault, but this would still have failed. Also, British pilots were actually among the worst in the RAF at this time, with only Canadian and Australian pilots scoring fewer kills during the course of the Battle of Britain. The vast majority of German casualties were caused by Czech and Polish pilots, with Poles especially being noted for the total disregard for their own safety in their efforts to kill Germans, even shooting down parachutists.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Laughing Kookaburra; It's just a kookaburra. Kookaburra in that particular Aboriginal language means "laughing bird." If it were said "laughing kookaburra" you'd effectively be saying "laughing, laughing bird."

There are plenty of other examples, especially in geography, such as East Timor (what do you think the word "timor" means?) or Lake Chad (the word from which "chad" is derived means, that's right . . . ) and there is some hill in England that manages to get not merely a double but a quadruple name.

 

[Plotinus]

The river Avon is often cited as an example of that.

I remember there's a bit in one of Terry Pratchett's books where he makes a joke out of the fact that explorers visit some distant country, point to some topographical feature and ask a native what it's called, and end up naming it something like "Who is this idiot who doesn't know what a mountain is?" or "Your finger, you fool".

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It was [wiki]Torpenhow Hill[/wiki] that I was thinking; there is also a list of others here.

 

[Mirc]

There are plenty of other examples, especially in geography, such as East Timor (what do you think the word "timor" means?) or Lake Chad (the word from which "chad" is derived means, that's right . . . ) and there is some hill in England that manages to get not merely a double but a quadruple name.

The same with the phrase "Red Desert". Desert used to mean in Egyptian "Red Earth/Land" (from the words "des hert" or "des kert"), so "Red Desert" means "Red Red Land".

Interesting enough, according to some website I saw long ago, "desert" is one of the oldest known non-European words that entered European languages (and became a kind of "wanderword" - a word that is present in similar form through a number of languages).

 

[privatehudson]

Yep I got your point but you didn't SHOW anything. You have shown a picture, without even saying how did you take it (chosen on purpouse, randomly ?) which shows how Napoleon isn't taller than ANYONE in that picture. You will note that the guys on the right are officers and not exeptionally trained "rambo" bodyguards, and on the left is another guy, which is taller than him, and is not his bodyguard either. Now, if you want to support Wiki's theory, you should show how he was taller "above average", not that he wasn't remarkably shorter than anyone.

I don't care to use artwork to support my theory for the reasons I've laid out more than once now, that is your choice of source. As I stated I prefer to use eyewitness accounts of him and measurements taken during his life. Artwork as evidence for his height is in my opinion at best inconclusive and at worst useless. My use of the paintings I have spoken above was merely to demonstrate this point.

n short popular tradition says more truths than it doesn't.

I'm a little confused, I thought the examples I posted showed that it is almost always wrong?

According to Wiki, the whole missconception is due to his height being measured after his death (we can of course be sure of the advertised height being 100% correct... yeah, sure) in imperial french feet which were different than imperial british feet. First, do you seriously believe that the tales on his height were based on this ???? Com'on... you can't be serious. Napoleon became famous/infamous during his lifetime, and you can bet he was described with a much older system of measures: the good old comparison. Second, I kind of think there were more than just these 2 systems of measures in the XIX century.

I'm sure there were more than 2 systems of measurement in the 19th Century, but I doubt very much that Boney would take kindly to say the Russian ambassador measuring his height. Of the eyewitness accounts of meeting him that I read on one website just two mentioned a specific measurement. One was taken when he was in military school (sometime between the ages of 9 and 14 if memory serves) when he was 4ft 10 and another taken in 1802 which I'll come back to. I don't recall any of the others comparing him height wise to anyone to be honest.

So is this really a common missconception ? I actually noted on second thought that I am not sure I am aware of this popular tradition of Napoleon being "remarkably" short, nor that he was "above the average". The most common tradition about him is his hand folded in the jacket, which as you probably know has been put in discussion just like this one, something that just proves once more that the world is full of people who like putting everything in discussion again and again. So to go back to the point, it is possible that rather than a common missconception, this is a british missconception (it's on the EN wiki after all), in this case the otherwise utmostly weak point of French/British feet would gain some credibility.

I don't think the EN in wikipedia refers to it being English or British (I think its American but don't quote me on that) but the language used. I wouldn't know how widespread the misconception is outside the UK, but even if it is only in English speaking countries that's still pretty widespread.

Yeah, I may. But, did you, in the first place ?

I have a tendency to research the quality of the sources I use yes. You'll notice that despite the fact that art is not a major interest of mine I could still tell you which of the Crossing the Alps pictures is more accurate (although to be fair anyone with an ounce of sense could tell that David's version is to be polite fanciful).

According to this petty theory, he was only standing next to rambo bodyguards, which I highly doubt since it is more probably he was standing next to officers or even on a saddleback, and eyewitnesses were 8 years old children or less unable to discern the true relative height of a person.

You misunderstand my point there, I wasn't pointing to heights of guardsmen in a link to the paintings at all. I was responding to where you stated that if the Guardsmen were tall, and Napoleon was "not as tall" then he probably wasn't tall. You then defined tall as being above average height. I demonstrated that because guardsmen were considerably taller than average it was quite possible for a man to be both taller than average and yet noticeably shorter than the guardsmen.

That doesn't mean that in every painting he should be standing next to a 6ft Rambo, it just means that if the painting was accurate and it contained a Grenadier then that soldier would look taller than Napoleon. Since most paintings aren't very accurate in my experience its a rather moot point however.

Now about this 8 year old thing I'm not sure where you get the age from because the person I was referring to was a Doctor who gave his height in 1802 as 5ft 6, and I'm pretty sure that the doctor wouldn't have been an eight year old child at the time.

And I'm not saying he was noticably short. I am saying that
1) what you call evidence is not an evidence AT ALL. They are words written on wikipedia.

Actually also on other websites and in the case of the heights of Guardsmen from a book called Napoleon's Military Machine by Philip J Hawthornwaite. I've generally found sites like the Napoleon series a pretty good source which also says he was 5ft 6.

wiki says that he was above average, NOT that he wasn't noticeably shorter. They are 2 quite different statements IMHO.

The actual phrase I used was "he probably wasn't noticeably shorter or taller than the average Frenchman of the period." By this I mean that anyone 2 inches either side of average would IMO be hard to distinguish by sight alone as either taller or shorter than the average, and lead to conflicting views on the subject from people who had met him. I live with someone who is 5ft 3 and you can see a big difference in height between us, but my sister who is 5ft 8 isn't noticeably shorter than me until we stand back to back or right next to eachother.

That is why it is best to fall back on measurements taken of him.

Something is feeling wrong... PrivateHudson, could you say something mean to me please?

I'll remind you of the annecdote where the French officers at a gathering in Vienna snubbed Wellington by turning away from him. When a woman offered sympathy to him Wellington said "I've seen their backs before madam"

Better?

 

[Sharwood]

The British man who first saw a kangaroo asked his Aboriginal guide, in English, what it was called. The Aborigine, not understanding a word of English, said kangaroo; literally, "I don't understand you." True story.

EDIT: Sorry, that was directed at Plotinus. I forgot to tick the quote button.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

That US fighter pilots in World War II stayed in combat for their entire tours. They didn't, they were rotated back to the States as trainers after a certain number of kills, iirc.

 

[RalofTyr]

That the nukes forced Japan to surrender.

Sure, the Americans can destroy one Japanese city with one bomb, but at that time, most of the Japanese cities were already destroyed. The USSR entering the war made Japan realize it was going to be invaded, by one side or the other, so why not surrender to the Americans?

 

[Evie]

Let'S not get into the issue of Japanese surrender. What actually caused it is still a contentious issue at best, with everything from the atomic bombs to the economic strangling to the utter defeat of the imperial forces to the russian intervention to a secret alien conspiracy* all being touted.

*Not really.**

**I hope.

 

[mitsho]

Let'S not get into the issue of Japanese surrender. What actually caused it is still a contentious issue at best, with everything from the atomic bombs to the economic strangling to the utter defeat of the imperial forces to the russian intervention to a secret alien conspiracy* all being touted.

*Not really.**

**I hope.

Still, there are not many left that believe that the atomic bomb was the only and most important reason. And there is the thought that the nuking of hiroshima was directed against Stalin and the USSR.

Another misconception: The Swiss are a neutral peaceful mountain people unable to fight anything. Wrong, in 1508 Northern Italy was "occupied"* by the Swiss, there were many many wars though on Swiss territory between Swiss and Swiss and between others and Swiss. It goes on to the Napoleonic Era and the Civil War of 1847, but even then, Switzerland didn't become a peaceful country but a militaristic one which doesn't fight wars. Example 1870 Bourbaki incident or the World War II reduit. The only reason we didn't fought in WWI is that we are one third French and one third German... Neutrality isn't even written into our constitution (which is the most changing one in the world btw. with about 3-4 changes per year), but it is a national myth nevertheless.

m

*huge abstraction, so don't strangle me on that

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

That the nukes forced Japan to surrender.

Sure, the Americans can destroy one Japanese city with one bomb, but at that time, most of the Japanese cities were already destroyed. The USSR entering the war made Japan realize it was going to be invaded, by one side or the other, so why not surrender to the Americans?

But I do believe they didn't know how many more nukes we had (none after Nagasaki), I personally wouldn't risk the lives of my people trying to hold out if the enemy was using nukes.

Though I do agree that that was probably not the only reason.

 

[OttoManD]

Interesting post!

I've heard the grapes/virgins point before, and I think the evidence points largely to grapes.

The Quranic verses describing the afterlife consistently use the word jannah, rather than firdaus. Firdaus is from the persian word which also gives us paradise, while jannah as a common (not proper) noun refers to a garden. I don't know about you guys, but to me grapes in the garden seems more likely.

 

[Pannonius]

The river Avon is often cited as an example of that.

I remember there's a bit in one of Terry Pratchett's books where he makes a joke out of the fact that explorers visit some distant country, point to some topographical feature and ask a native what it's called, and end up naming it something like "Who is this idiot who doesn't know what a mountain is?" or "Your finger, you fool".

There are small islands in Dalmatia called "Big Whore", "Little Whore" and such. The locals made fun of the 19 century austrian surveyers.

 

[Otkell]

Canada is derived from the Iroquoiens word kanata, meaning "village". Near Ottawa, there is a the city of Kanata, so it's the city of village.

The is a MLB club called The Los Angeles Angels, which means the the angels angels.