Common Misconceptions?

[danrh]

Napoleon was measured as 5 feet 2 inches on St. Helena where there probably wasn't a French yardstick around.

I believe he had his own personal (French) physician in attendance with him in exile.

Dan

 

[sydhe]

I believe he had his own personal (French) physician in attendance with him in exile.

Dan

Kind of rough on the physician, but I guess he too had six years to write his memoirs.

 

[North King]

Claim that Romans spread salt to ruins of Carthage is most likely BS which originated at 19th century IIRC.

I read somewhere that there may have been a symbolic salting: they plowed a single furrow, and salted that.

 

[West 36]

I know that Catherine the Great did not die the way thats been popularized!

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I read somewhere that there may have been a symbolic salting: they plowed a single furrow, and salted that.

Yeh, that makes more sense and is possible, instead of the "sowed so much salt that nothing would grow", especially since Romans colonized Carthage later again .

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Really? Are you sure that the 72 virgins thing isn't true?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I found this in wikipedia, I found some of it rather suprising such as this for example:








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions

So are these true? And did you know about these?

I didn't know the Muslim one, but I did the other two.

 

[Yoda Power]

Really? Are you sure that the 72 virgins thing isn't true?

Yep. I don't know about oversees, but it's been told quite a few times in my local Danish media that it's just a myth. (Since people were starting to use it as a discrimination against muslims in the country)

 

[onedreamer]

Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not especially short. After his death in 1821, the French emperor's height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in French feet. This corresponds to 5 feet 6.5 inches in Imperial (British) feet, or 1.686 metres, making him slightly taller than an average Frenchman of the 19th century.[4] The metric system was introduced during his lifetime, so it was natural that he would be measured in feet and inches for much of his life. A French inch was 2.71 centimetres,[5] an Imperial inch is 2.54 centimetres. In addition to this miscalculation, his nickname, "le petit caporal", adds to the confusion, as non-francophones mistakenly take petit literally as meaning "small"; in fact, it is an affectionate term reflecting on his camaraderie with ordinary soldiers. He also surrounded himself with soldiers, his elite guard, who were always six feet tall or more.

What about the numerous paintings you can find accross Europe ? All fake because Wiki says so ? Naaah...

 

[privatehudson]

The British cartoons of the period usually, although not always portray him as a small individual, which may have played some part in the misconception.

 

[onedreamer]

I'm not talking of cartoons, heh...

 

[Steph]

If you look at picture of him among the Guards, it can give a false idea, as they were tall guys.

 

[Dachs]

If you look at picture of him among the Guards, it can give a false idea, as they were tall guys.

Yeah, they were supposed to be after all. Plus, didn't they wear shakoes for extra height?

 

[Steph]

Yeah, they were supposed to be after all. Plus, didn't they wear shakoes for extra height?

Only some of them. The Shakos was the standard headgear for most European armies at the time.

Some Elite units (Grenadiers of the French imperial Guards or of the British goot guard) wore Bearksins.
However, other regiments of the French impedial guards were wearing a shako.

French voltigeur with a Shako

Grenadier of the French imperial guard.

 

[privatehudson]

I'm not talking of cartoons, heh...

Lets be honest artists usually take liberties in their role, and wiki provides a number of reasoned arguments to suggest Boney wasn't that small. Furthermore many artists, especially those painting after his death would never have met him to know either way. I suggest you should try refuting the arguments individually rather than with such a sweeping statement.

And whilst we're at it the artist argument is weak anyway because many paintings protray him as similar height to those around him. Take the following examples:

In both I wouldn't say he was remarkably shorter than the people to the right of him.

My point about the cartoons is that they would have helped promote the concept (true or not) that he was a small person. It all helped belittle him in the eyes of the British people of the time.

 

[onedreamer]

so in the same statement you first say that artists take liberties and then state that paintings portray him as tall as others ? Not very coherent IMO.
Wiki is only throwing in some suppositions, which aren't strong than a popular tradition. Popular traditions are based on something, not on air.

You don't even need a painting with other people in it (and it doesn't prove much btw, as they can be short as well). The average portrait of Napoleon shows the typical traits of a dumpy person.

 

[onedreamer]

If you look at picture of him among the Guards, it can give a false idea, as they were tall guys.

What wiki says is not to be taken too seriously as it is already wrong in the title: "Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not especially short".
AFAIK Napoleon is said to be short, not especially short. Haven't read anywhere he was a dwarf, just that he was short. The fact that his guards are "tall" and he is not "as tall", suggests at least that he was not tall, yet the wiki says that he was taller than the average French. To me this means he should be tall, at least that's what we call people taller than the average, in Italy. But we just said he's not tall... Where do all these inconsistences lead ? Wiki is just wiki and you shouldn't take just about everything as an absolute truth.

 

[privatehudson]

so in the same statement you first say that artists take liberties and then state that paintings portray him as tall as others ? Not very coherent IMO.

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.

Wiki is only throwing in some suppositions, which aren't strong than a popular tradition. Popular traditions are based on something, not on air.

Popular tradition says Richard III was a hunchback, I don't think any paintings done in his lifetime support the theory though. It says that Nelson said "I see no ships" when he actually said " I really do not see the signal, Damn the signal, Keep mine for close action flying". Ask anyone for a quote by Sherlock Holmes and they'll probably say "elementary my dear Watson" yet you won't find that anywhere in Conan-Doyle's writings. Nelson's last words, were neither "Kiss me Hardy" or "Kismet Hardy" since Hardy wasn't present at the time Nelson passed away having been called back to his duties. Nelson's original order said confides rather than expects but it was changed on the suggestion of the flag officer that it would take less time.

Popular tradtion like urban legends can often grow from very weak origins to gain a life of its own. I think its much safer to fall back on contemporary eye witness accounts than base our opinions it on the whims of artists and popular opinion which tends to be wrong.

You don't even need a painting with other people in it (and it doesn't prove much btw, as they can be short as well). The average portrait of Napoleon shows the typical traits of a dumpy person.

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.

AFAIK Napoleon is said to be short, not especially short. Haven't read anywhere he was a dwarf, just that he was short. The fact that his guards are "tall" and he is not "as tall", suggests at least that he was not tall, yet the wiki says that he was taller than the average French. To me this means he should be tall, at least that's what we call people taller than the average, in Italy. But we just said he's not tall

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.

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.

 

[Plotinus]

I think privatehudson officially wins that argument.

 

[privatehudson]

Just to clarify things there are occasions were art, whether in paintings, mosaics or coinage can be a useful source material for the appearance or character of a person. They form a significant study method into the lives of ancient people for example. But such sources have to be taken with a pinch of salt as they can often be trying to portray the person in a certain light. Many short-ruling Roman Emperors for example used titles on their coins that were at best wishful thinking. David's version of Napoleon crossing the Alps is extremely fanciful (a much better version IMO hangs in the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool but even that has him going through snow whereas the real crossing was made in good weather) but designed as a gift to Spain at a time when France and Spain were allied. You'd think David's version might be likely to be more accurate since it was painted in his lifetime by an artist who had met Napoleon (the Walker one was painted in 1848 by an artist who was three years old at the time of the crossing), but David was dissapointed because Napoleon refused to sit for the painting leaving David to base his facial features on a bust.

I don't think however that such sources should replace or discount those which are often more accurate such as eyewitness accounts. Even these have to be put in context however, a brooding bored Bonaparte on St Helena would look very different to the optimistic energetic Napoleon the night before Austerlitz.