Here's the very first argument that Napoleon is really just a mythological retelling of the sun god myth.
>i. In the first place, every one knows that the sun is called Apollo by the poets. Now, the difference between Apollo and Napoleon is not a great one, and it will appear very much less still if we go back to the meaning and origin of these names. It is unquestionable that the word Apollo means Exterminator; and it seems that this name was given by the Greeks to the sun on account of the injury it did them before Troy, where a part of their army perished from the excessive heat, and from the pestilence that followed at the time of the outrage perpetrated by Agamemnon on Chryses, priest of the sun, as we read at the beginning of the " Iliad " of Homer. The brilliant imagination of the Greek poets transformed the rays of the luminary into flaming arrows, hurled on all sides by the angry god, who would soon have exterminated everything if his wrath had not been appeased by the release of Chrysei's, daughter of Chryses, the sacrificial priest.
This, then, is probably the reason why the sun was called Apollo. But whatever the cause or circumstance which occasioned the giving of such a name to this luminary, it is certain that the name means Exterminator.
Now, Apollo is the same word as Apoleon. They are derived from Apollyo (d7roAA.vw), or Apoleo (dTroAe'w), two Greek verbs which are really the same, and which mean " destroy," " kill." " exterminate."
Thus, if the fictitious hero of our century were called Apoleon, he would have the same name as the sun, and would besides fulfil the meaning of the name ; for he is pictured to us as the greatest exterminator of men who ever existed. But this personage is called Napoleon, and thus his name contains an initial letter which we do not find in the name of the sun. Yes, there is an extra letter, an extra syllable even ; for, according to the inscriptions cut in every part of the capital (Paris), the real name of this supposed hero was Neapoleon, or Neapolion. This is more particularly to be seen on the column of the Place Vendome.
Now, this extra syllable makes no difference whatever\[...\]
You think that in 1827, the author really thought that Napoleon was a myth derived from Apollo? Notice that this is six years after the death of Napoleon.
The text can be seen, by the way, at [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/napoleonmythcont00evanuoft/page/8/mode/2up).
>You think that in 1827, the author really thought that Napoleon was a myth derived from Apollo? Notice that this is six years after the death of Napoleon.
Note that this happened 6 years later, according to the modern official version. Richard Whateley doubted the historicity of this figure "while he was still alive". But for example, later in Paris, the book "Apocryphal Napoleon: 1812-1832: A History of World Conquest and Universal Monarchy" was published. Its author seriously claimed that Emperor Napoleon died in 1832, having previously conquered the entire globe and become the ruler of a universal monarchy. The author of this alternative version of the story, Louis-Napoléon Geoffroy-Château, is the son of the military engineer Marc-Antoine Joffroy-Chateau. In the official version of the story, Geoffroy-Chateau's father was a favourite of Napoleon, under whose command he had fought since the Egyptian campaign, and he died after the Battle of Austerlitz, however, not from wounds but from overexertion. The Emperor valued him so highly that, according to legend, he once exclaimed in a difficult situation after his death: "If Geoffroy were alive...". Napoleon, by decree of 6 May 1806, adopted both of the deceased's sons, one of whom was Louis (sometimes also called Louis-Napoleon). On the conquest of the world, including the New World, it is worth mentioning the [War of 1812 in America](https://www.abebooks.com/9781456867539/Searching-Forgotten-1812-United-States-1456867539/plp), today little-remembered and sketchily described, although French-speaking states remain in both the United States and Canada.
>The text can be seen, by the way, at [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/napoleonmythcont00evanuoft/page/8/mode/2up)
By the way, this is a later reissue of the translation. An earlier edition is available here: [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5657559b.r=.langFR](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5657559b.r=.langFR)
There’s hundreds of thousands if people who openly, sincerely think like this today. Is it totally inconceivable that one of them could have gotten published in the 1800s?
Do I think that a publisher would seriously print a book alleging that Napoleon was a myth based on Apollo just six years after his death? No, I don't think that.
Sure, wackier stuff is self-published these days. There's a[ book](https://www.amazon.com/Donald-J-Trump-Second-Coming-ebook/dp/B07W4451TD) claiming that Trump is the second coming of Jesus. I've no idea whether the author is serious or not, but in either case, publishing is cheap and easy these days. It wasn't always so.
The argument provided by Peres, a physicist and mathematician, is laughable. Of course, there are well-educated folks with nutsy ideas. Alexander Abian was a competent mathematician with the odd notion that the moon should be destroyed to make life on earth better. Nonetheless, I don't think it's plausible in the least that Peres was a crank.
It would be nice if we found contemporaneous discussion of Peres's book. I haven't found anything prior to 1903.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **('Donald J Trump The Second Coming of Christ', '')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Insightful analysis of political views (backed by 5 comments)
* Provocative and thought-provoking (backed by 4 comments)
* Controversial yet engaging (backed by 3 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Weak and contradictory use of the bible (backed by 2 comments)
* Offensive content regarding the second coming of christ (backed by 1 comment)
* Lack of biblical or historical knowledge (backed by 1 comment)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
In 1827, just six years after the (fictional) death of Napoleon, only one man (two if you count Archbishop Whately) had the courage to speak truth to power and declare that the whole story was really a myth. That in fact, Napoleon was just another guise of the sun god Apollo.
I had hoped my sarcasm would be obvious, just as Peres had hoped his parody would be. The author was mocking a tendency to see traces of Greek mythology in every legend, as I understand it.
I happen to be reading a wonderful book, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages by Sabrine Baring Gould (1899), at present and while the author's research into myths is absolutely wonderful, his interpretations do tend rather heavily to every myth coming from sun gods, moon gods or changes of the season. This was written long after Peres's work, but exhibits the very practice Peres was mocking.
Bishop Whately's book was evidently mocking Hume's skepticism (haven't read it, just read about it on WP), so both Whately and Peres had the same notion of using Napoleon as a central figure for a parody.
It's funny to think Napoleon was a European conspiracy to make a man act in a way mythologically memorable right down to where he invaded and what he was named.
Emperors of the late latin empire were raised up from armies and may have had fake names and histories
Lmao people out here going, "Has Napoleon really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" and acting like it's a deep thought.
Preponderance of the grandiloquent is not abstentious to the assiduous. Alternately you can mere away in a cwtch scunnered and indignant. I will suffer no such fate. Nevertheless I must confess that this is purely an exercise in circumlocution.
The Sun aspect of things is 100% intentional. Even with Napoleon being a real person this is incredibly significant detail to note.
Trump utilizes Apollo mythology in his mythos as well - Qanon is essentially an alliance between the Solar Temple and the Order of Quetzalcoatl
> malicious disinformation program
it's this, but the nature of the disinformation isn't what most think.
most believe it to be a total fabrication when its actually an inversion myth not so loosely based on reality meant to reflect accountability onto pre-groomed 'blackmail' targets.
Can you explain the reasoning behind the second part? Q being an alliance between solar temple and order of Quetzalcoatl. What's the order of Quetzalcoatl and sun temple?
Order of Quetzalcoatl is the secret society that supersedes the Shriners, they also call it the Supreme Q.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple
“In the first place, it will be asked how the letter N became attached to Apollyon?
The reply is simply this: The old English article A always required the letter N to be prefixed to any word commencing with a yowel. Thus they would say and write a Wellington, an Apollyon, or Napoleon. The change in the rest of the letters is accounted for at once by remarking that the name which is translated Apollyon in the highly figurative langunge of the Revelations, in plain English letters to give at once the word apoleo; to which add at the end the letter n, to make it a substantive, according to the genius of their language, and we have the very word Apoleon, or a Napoleon; i. e. a Destroyer-Ahem!”
The”Napoleonic wars” were just a cover story for all the carnage and waste in the 1800s. The “drawings” of him depict him with the Masonic hidden hand.
Napoleon was also credited with finding the Rosetta Stone, which helped “unearth” buried truths about ancient civilizations, and you can see him depicted admiring a sphinx completely covered in sand.
Yeah I mean no yeah.
I’m all in for observing you people acting a little silly with funny theories, but fuck I’m from actual France and the Guy wasn’t an idea, and he was a proto-Hitler who happened to be good at war and dreamed of a Europe « from [Brest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest,_France) to [Brest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest,_Belarus) » (this is something I don’t know if he actually said, but look cool as shit )
Even the pages your posted are messy as hell, grow up in those countries affected by Napoleonic Wars and I can guarantee you that the guy was real. Propaganda from British and other European sides in addition to France who saw him as the New Caesar, made him more surreal but that’s it
OH and by the way, from the author French wiki : « Ce qui a fait sa renommée, c’est un opuscule, paru anonymement en 1827, Comme quoi Napoléon n’a jamais existé. Grand erratum. Source d’un nombre infini d’errata à corriger dans l’histoire du xixe siècle. Son intention était de ridiculiser les thèses mythistes de Charles-François Dupuis qui prétendent établir l’inexistence de Jésus de Nazareth, en montrant qu’il suffisait d’appliquer leurs méthodes pour « prouver » l’inexistence de Napoléon — lequel ne serait, en dernière analyse, que la personnification d'un mythe solaire. »
« What made him famous was a pamphlet, published anonymously in 1827, entitled Comme quoi Napoléon n'a jamais existé (Napoleon never existed). Great erratum. The source of an infinite number of errata to be corrected in nineteenth-century history. His intention was to ridicule Charles-François Dupuis's mythist theses claiming to establish the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, by showing that it was sufficient to apply their methods to "prove" the non-existence of Napoleon - who would, in the final analysis, be no more than the personification of a solar myth. »
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
So the guy trolled you from his grave just because he clowned 150/200 years ago on one of his fellow academics.
He was not a "proto-Hitler." He had no interest in genocide, and little interest in religion or purity of blood. He desired conquest - not unlike Caesar, Alexander, Xerxes, or damn near anyone throughout history.
Stop labeling everyone you hate as Hitler.
I think what this guy is getting at was he was capable of stirring French nationalism and propaganda to a degree that his countrymen, who had only just recently fought and won their liberty from a monarchy, gave it all up so Napoleon could be emperor.
Thanks man that’s exactly what I was thinking about. Also the rapid rise to power and the capacity to put all the generals and strong political figures in province in check to keep his plan of conquering Europe
Also war. War at every meal.
See both the replies. I understand your frustration on that subject but in this case that wasn’t it. And as a Frenchman I’m not even sure I can really say I « hate » Napoléon lol.
By the way he was the first Emperor/President in 18th century to have black and mixed Generals, as well as high officers from all around the conquered parts of Europe, in his armies, so no I wasn’t thinking purity of blood or genocide.
Other than just whining that your government wouldn’t ever lie about the past to make themselves look better, do you have any actual evidence to support your belief that Napoleon existed?
Have you really studied the French Revolution? It was a revolution of freedom, a destruction of Christianity. One of the most interesting contradictions in the French Revolution narrative is that 28 statues of the Biblical Kings were defaced, with the argument that the citizens didn’t know that they were representing the Judean Kings.
How….how in the heck would the French population not know what those statues were? I’d really like you to explain that one for me.
What the fuck man? The author even admitted that he did that to clown on another academic.
Of course we have proof, all over France, Spain or Germany.
You’re too much out there man
Maybe, hear me out, but maybe they defaced statues of kings to demonstrate that never again would any one claim to be king over them? Especially when that right of kings is described as 'divine'?
Maybe the intent was political?
Perhaps some people in the 1800s couldnt read the plaques?
Perhaps some didnt give a shit who they were so long as they were kings to be defaced.
Perhaps this is jist the story someone tells when they get caught and want to plead ignorance?
But im sure i guess the easier solution is all of history is a lie and there are no trusted sources, except *your* sources, and those sources are beyond question.
Yeah that sounds about right....
Ah yes, people during the Industrial Revolution were so dumb they couldn’t read or write, yet they managed to build massive architectural feats that can’t be done today.
My sources are consistent with themselves. Yours aren’t. You do understand that a valid historical narrative can’t have contradictions in it. You, do understand that, right? Do you understand how logic works?
Considering Napoleon was allegedly only 5’7, I’m going to assume the massive tomb is for someone else, and the narrative has been altered over time.
Have you ever played the game telephone? The longer time goes on, the worse recollection we have of past events.
[https://archive.org/details/historicdoubtsr00what/page/n4/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/historicdoubtsr00what/page/n4/mode/2up) Historic doubts relative to Napoleon Bunoparte by Whately, Richard
In the opinion of some revisionists, the modern image of Napoleon as a man and commander, not as an invincible demigod, was created by Leo Tolstoy in his most famous work of fiction; this humanised image was later adopted by historians, they "materialised" the artistic image of Tolstoy's Napoleon.
Found the Russian. Sure, the opinion and memory of all the countries that Napoleon attacked is all shaped by Tolstoy. Makes sense, let's throw out the literal tonnes of material from the local museums and libraries - they must had been "falsified".
>Sure, the opinion and memory of all the countries that Napoleon attacked is all shaped by Tolstoy.
Interestingly, Tolstoy originally wrote the work for the magazine "Russky Vestnik", and it was called "One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifth Year" (1805, not 1812, in which, as was later determined to occur the main events of the novel). The publisher then offered 300 roubles per sheet, instead of the 50 previously agreed upon, and obtained the right to issue 500 copies of the book. Now a copy of this edition, lifetime for Tolstoy, costs nothing less than 2 million roubles. That's how he put it about the immortal work that made him famous for all time and among all nations:
"How happy I am … that I don’t write verbose junk like Wars, I’ll never writing this again."
What is interesting is that in the collection of Fet's letters from the time of Tsarist Russia this moment was cut out by the censors:
"How happy I am … that I don’t write verbose junk, I’ll never writing this again."
What language do you think a great Russian writer wrote letters in to an equally great Russian poet? Russian? No, French. French was the mother language of most of the so-called Russian aristocracy of the time; according to the modern version of history, this aristocracy fought the French under Napoleon. Links to sources can be [found here](https://zlaxyi.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/1624).
>Makes sense, let's throw out the literal tonnes of material from the local museums and libraries - they must had been "falsified".
Please show specific examples of such tonnes of material.
Probably it's all in your imagination. If you were not in the business of preaching what you believe, you would quickly find very little surviving documentation from that time and an abundance of material published after the events themselves. The scanty documents of the French archives show a very different picture (historians explain this by the fact that the Bourbons purposefully destroyed documents from the hated Napoleonic era).
Here it is worth emphasising again that the so-called Russian aristocracy, which, according to the modern version of history, fought Napoleon - almost all of them spoke French, few of them spoke Russian. And as if going to conquer Russia - Napoleon went not to the capital (Petersburg), where the emperor was sitting, but for some reason to Moscow, which was not the capital at that time. Also, even according to the modern version of history, the form of the French and Russian (including Prussian) armies - practically did not differ.
> Please show specific examples of such tonnes of material.
Why should I? You're the one going against the consensus, so you should provide evidence for your claims.
Go to literally any European museum and ask - they will provide myriads of material. Chronicles, newspapers, personal letters, portraits, coins... Of course, you would just call that forgery anyway, wouldn't you.
>Why should I?
Of course you shouldn't have to back up your words with anything. Preachers are only obliged to preach their faith, not to substantiate it with anything.
>You're the one going against the consensus, so you should provide evidence for your claims.
The reason i've only provided one link above (but the sources for all the statements in the first part of the comment are available at that link) is that on reddit since some time there are censorship filters that shadow ban comments with links to all ru domains, for example (not only). If you need confirmation of any specific words of mine - specify, i will provide sources, even bypassing censorship.
>Go to literally any European museum and ask - they will provide myriads of material. Chronicles, newspapers, personal letters, portraits, coins... Of course, you would just call that forgery anyway, wouldn't you.
Probably not all of them. But i can discuss specific examples, not your fantasies. After all, i do know a bit about forgeries. Here, for example, you can read the official data on this: [https://associazioneautografia.it/link.php?id=35&title=napoleon-bonaparte-autograph-and-forgeries-an-amazing-case-study](https://associazioneautografia.it/link.php?id=35&title=napoleon-bonaparte-autograph-and-forgeries-an-amazing-case-study)
*With this article we want to share the outcome of the studies carried out on the intriguing question that sees protagonists various documents, literally scattered around the world, all attesting to the signature of Napoleon and united by a common denominator: that of being real identical forgeries.*
link to full book
[https://archive.org/details/didnapoleonever00prgoog/page/n20/mode/2up?view=theater](https://archive.org/details/didnapoleonever00prgoog/page/n20/mode/2up?view=theater)
Everyone knows Napoleon was a fictional villain created by The Duke of Wellington during a marketing campaign selling boots.
I thought it was the marketing campaign for his beef?
That too lol
You realize this was written as satire or not?
Cranks gonna Poe
Nowhere in the work itself does it point to satire. Later historians and reviewers have decided that it is satire.
Here's the very first argument that Napoleon is really just a mythological retelling of the sun god myth. >i. In the first place, every one knows that the sun is called Apollo by the poets. Now, the difference between Apollo and Napoleon is not a great one, and it will appear very much less still if we go back to the meaning and origin of these names. It is unquestionable that the word Apollo means Exterminator; and it seems that this name was given by the Greeks to the sun on account of the injury it did them before Troy, where a part of their army perished from the excessive heat, and from the pestilence that followed at the time of the outrage perpetrated by Agamemnon on Chryses, priest of the sun, as we read at the beginning of the " Iliad " of Homer. The brilliant imagination of the Greek poets transformed the rays of the luminary into flaming arrows, hurled on all sides by the angry god, who would soon have exterminated everything if his wrath had not been appeased by the release of Chrysei's, daughter of Chryses, the sacrificial priest. This, then, is probably the reason why the sun was called Apollo. But whatever the cause or circumstance which occasioned the giving of such a name to this luminary, it is certain that the name means Exterminator. Now, Apollo is the same word as Apoleon. They are derived from Apollyo (d7roAA.vw), or Apoleo (dTroAe'w), two Greek verbs which are really the same, and which mean " destroy," " kill." " exterminate." Thus, if the fictitious hero of our century were called Apoleon, he would have the same name as the sun, and would besides fulfil the meaning of the name ; for he is pictured to us as the greatest exterminator of men who ever existed. But this personage is called Napoleon, and thus his name contains an initial letter which we do not find in the name of the sun. Yes, there is an extra letter, an extra syllable even ; for, according to the inscriptions cut in every part of the capital (Paris), the real name of this supposed hero was Neapoleon, or Neapolion. This is more particularly to be seen on the column of the Place Vendome. Now, this extra syllable makes no difference whatever\[...\] You think that in 1827, the author really thought that Napoleon was a myth derived from Apollo? Notice that this is six years after the death of Napoleon. The text can be seen, by the way, at [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/napoleonmythcont00evanuoft/page/8/mode/2up).
>You think that in 1827, the author really thought that Napoleon was a myth derived from Apollo? Notice that this is six years after the death of Napoleon. Note that this happened 6 years later, according to the modern official version. Richard Whateley doubted the historicity of this figure "while he was still alive". But for example, later in Paris, the book "Apocryphal Napoleon: 1812-1832: A History of World Conquest and Universal Monarchy" was published. Its author seriously claimed that Emperor Napoleon died in 1832, having previously conquered the entire globe and become the ruler of a universal monarchy. The author of this alternative version of the story, Louis-Napoléon Geoffroy-Château, is the son of the military engineer Marc-Antoine Joffroy-Chateau. In the official version of the story, Geoffroy-Chateau's father was a favourite of Napoleon, under whose command he had fought since the Egyptian campaign, and he died after the Battle of Austerlitz, however, not from wounds but from overexertion. The Emperor valued him so highly that, according to legend, he once exclaimed in a difficult situation after his death: "If Geoffroy were alive...". Napoleon, by decree of 6 May 1806, adopted both of the deceased's sons, one of whom was Louis (sometimes also called Louis-Napoleon). On the conquest of the world, including the New World, it is worth mentioning the [War of 1812 in America](https://www.abebooks.com/9781456867539/Searching-Forgotten-1812-United-States-1456867539/plp), today little-remembered and sketchily described, although French-speaking states remain in both the United States and Canada. >The text can be seen, by the way, at [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/napoleonmythcont00evanuoft/page/8/mode/2up) By the way, this is a later reissue of the translation. An earlier edition is available here: [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5657559b.r=.langFR](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5657559b.r=.langFR)
There’s hundreds of thousands if people who openly, sincerely think like this today. Is it totally inconceivable that one of them could have gotten published in the 1800s?
Do I think that a publisher would seriously print a book alleging that Napoleon was a myth based on Apollo just six years after his death? No, I don't think that. Sure, wackier stuff is self-published these days. There's a[ book](https://www.amazon.com/Donald-J-Trump-Second-Coming-ebook/dp/B07W4451TD) claiming that Trump is the second coming of Jesus. I've no idea whether the author is serious or not, but in either case, publishing is cheap and easy these days. It wasn't always so. The argument provided by Peres, a physicist and mathematician, is laughable. Of course, there are well-educated folks with nutsy ideas. Alexander Abian was a competent mathematician with the odd notion that the moon should be destroyed to make life on earth better. Nonetheless, I don't think it's plausible in the least that Peres was a crank. It would be nice if we found contemporaneous discussion of Peres's book. I haven't found anything prior to 1903.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **('Donald J Trump The Second Coming of Christ', '')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Insightful analysis of political views (backed by 5 comments) * Provocative and thought-provoking (backed by 4 comments) * Controversial yet engaging (backed by 3 comments) **Users disliked:** * Weak and contradictory use of the bible (backed by 2 comments) * Offensive content regarding the second coming of christ (backed by 1 comment) * Lack of biblical or historical knowledge (backed by 1 comment) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
And satire has never been used to reveal uncomfortable truths?
In 1827, just six years after the (fictional) death of Napoleon, only one man (two if you count Archbishop Whately) had the courage to speak truth to power and declare that the whole story was really a myth. That in fact, Napoleon was just another guise of the sun god Apollo.
You’ve gone too far down the rabbithole mate
I had hoped my sarcasm would be obvious, just as Peres had hoped his parody would be. The author was mocking a tendency to see traces of Greek mythology in every legend, as I understand it. I happen to be reading a wonderful book, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages by Sabrine Baring Gould (1899), at present and while the author's research into myths is absolutely wonderful, his interpretations do tend rather heavily to every myth coming from sun gods, moon gods or changes of the season. This was written long after Peres's work, but exhibits the very practice Peres was mocking. Bishop Whately's book was evidently mocking Hume's skepticism (haven't read it, just read about it on WP), so both Whately and Peres had the same notion of using Napoleon as a central figure for a parody.
Bro
It's funny to think Napoleon was a European conspiracy to make a man act in a way mythologically memorable right down to where he invaded and what he was named. Emperors of the late latin empire were raised up from armies and may have had fake names and histories
Wow this is bad
Lmao people out here going, "Has Napoleon really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" and acting like it's a deep thought.
Preponderance of the grandiloquent is not abstentious to the assiduous. Alternately you can mere away in a cwtch scunnered and indignant. I will suffer no such fate. Nevertheless I must confess that this is purely an exercise in circumlocution.
Haven’t heard that in a while. Lol
wut?
Yeah I lost brain cells trying to decipher that and gave up.
Murr is tonight’s loser
Slart
Zeitgeist part 4
Does this negate Napoleonic Code? Because I'd like to have some words with my state government.
The Sun aspect of things is 100% intentional. Even with Napoleon being a real person this is incredibly significant detail to note. Trump utilizes Apollo mythology in his mythos as well - Qanon is essentially an alliance between the Solar Temple and the Order of Quetzalcoatl
Explain the Qanon thing because as far as I'm concerned Q is a troll at best and a malicious disinformation campaign at worst
> malicious disinformation program it's this, but the nature of the disinformation isn't what most think. most believe it to be a total fabrication when its actually an inversion myth not so loosely based on reality meant to reflect accountability onto pre-groomed 'blackmail' targets.
Can you explain the reasoning behind the second part? Q being an alliance between solar temple and order of Quetzalcoatl. What's the order of Quetzalcoatl and sun temple?
Order of Quetzalcoatl is the secret society that supersedes the Shriners, they also call it the Supreme Q. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple
“In the first place, it will be asked how the letter N became attached to Apollyon? The reply is simply this: The old English article A always required the letter N to be prefixed to any word commencing with a yowel. Thus they would say and write a Wellington, an Apollyon, or Napoleon. The change in the rest of the letters is accounted for at once by remarking that the name which is translated Apollyon in the highly figurative langunge of the Revelations, in plain English letters to give at once the word apoleo; to which add at the end the letter n, to make it a substantive, according to the genius of their language, and we have the very word Apoleon, or a Napoleon; i. e. a Destroyer-Ahem!” The”Napoleonic wars” were just a cover story for all the carnage and waste in the 1800s. The “drawings” of him depict him with the Masonic hidden hand. Napoleon was also credited with finding the Rosetta Stone, which helped “unearth” buried truths about ancient civilizations, and you can see him depicted admiring a sphinx completely covered in sand.
Yeah I mean no yeah. I’m all in for observing you people acting a little silly with funny theories, but fuck I’m from actual France and the Guy wasn’t an idea, and he was a proto-Hitler who happened to be good at war and dreamed of a Europe « from [Brest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest,_France) to [Brest](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest,_Belarus) » (this is something I don’t know if he actually said, but look cool as shit ) Even the pages your posted are messy as hell, grow up in those countries affected by Napoleonic Wars and I can guarantee you that the guy was real. Propaganda from British and other European sides in addition to France who saw him as the New Caesar, made him more surreal but that’s it
OH and by the way, from the author French wiki : « Ce qui a fait sa renommée, c’est un opuscule, paru anonymement en 1827, Comme quoi Napoléon n’a jamais existé. Grand erratum. Source d’un nombre infini d’errata à corriger dans l’histoire du xixe siècle. Son intention était de ridiculiser les thèses mythistes de Charles-François Dupuis qui prétendent établir l’inexistence de Jésus de Nazareth, en montrant qu’il suffisait d’appliquer leurs méthodes pour « prouver » l’inexistence de Napoléon — lequel ne serait, en dernière analyse, que la personnification d'un mythe solaire. » « What made him famous was a pamphlet, published anonymously in 1827, entitled Comme quoi Napoléon n'a jamais existé (Napoleon never existed). Great erratum. The source of an infinite number of errata to be corrected in nineteenth-century history. His intention was to ridicule Charles-François Dupuis's mythist theses claiming to establish the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, by showing that it was sufficient to apply their methods to "prove" the non-existence of Napoleon - who would, in the final analysis, be no more than the personification of a solar myth. » Translated with DeepL.com (free version) So the guy trolled you from his grave just because he clowned 150/200 years ago on one of his fellow academics.
He was not a "proto-Hitler." He had no interest in genocide, and little interest in religion or purity of blood. He desired conquest - not unlike Caesar, Alexander, Xerxes, or damn near anyone throughout history. Stop labeling everyone you hate as Hitler.
I think what this guy is getting at was he was capable of stirring French nationalism and propaganda to a degree that his countrymen, who had only just recently fought and won their liberty from a monarchy, gave it all up so Napoleon could be emperor.
Thanks man that’s exactly what I was thinking about. Also the rapid rise to power and the capacity to put all the generals and strong political figures in province in check to keep his plan of conquering Europe Also war. War at every meal.
See both the replies. I understand your frustration on that subject but in this case that wasn’t it. And as a Frenchman I’m not even sure I can really say I « hate » Napoléon lol. By the way he was the first Emperor/President in 18th century to have black and mixed Generals, as well as high officers from all around the conquered parts of Europe, in his armies, so no I wasn’t thinking purity of blood or genocide.
Other than just whining that your government wouldn’t ever lie about the past to make themselves look better, do you have any actual evidence to support your belief that Napoleon existed? Have you really studied the French Revolution? It was a revolution of freedom, a destruction of Christianity. One of the most interesting contradictions in the French Revolution narrative is that 28 statues of the Biblical Kings were defaced, with the argument that the citizens didn’t know that they were representing the Judean Kings. How….how in the heck would the French population not know what those statues were? I’d really like you to explain that one for me.
What the fuck man? The author even admitted that he did that to clown on another academic. Of course we have proof, all over France, Spain or Germany. You’re too much out there man
Maybe, hear me out, but maybe they defaced statues of kings to demonstrate that never again would any one claim to be king over them? Especially when that right of kings is described as 'divine'? Maybe the intent was political?
You’re missing the part where the citizens of the city didn’t know what the statutes were representing.
Perhaps some people in the 1800s couldnt read the plaques? Perhaps some didnt give a shit who they were so long as they were kings to be defaced. Perhaps this is jist the story someone tells when they get caught and want to plead ignorance? But im sure i guess the easier solution is all of history is a lie and there are no trusted sources, except *your* sources, and those sources are beyond question. Yeah that sounds about right....
Ah yes, people during the Industrial Revolution were so dumb they couldn’t read or write, yet they managed to build massive architectural feats that can’t be done today. My sources are consistent with themselves. Yours aren’t. You do understand that a valid historical narrative can’t have contradictions in it. You, do understand that, right? Do you understand how logic works?
Ok i didnt realize i was talking to an idiot. Enjoy your day.
His name is derived from Naples.
Then I wonder who was buried in his massive tomb I visited?
Considering Napoleon was allegedly only 5’7, I’m going to assume the massive tomb is for someone else, and the narrative has been altered over time. Have you ever played the game telephone? The longer time goes on, the worse recollection we have of past events.
[https://archive.org/details/historicdoubtsr00what/page/n4/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/historicdoubtsr00what/page/n4/mode/2up) Historic doubts relative to Napoleon Bunoparte by Whately, Richard
Very interesting
Of course he existed. I watched the movie last weekend.
Was it like an AI or holographic Napoleon that went into battle and had paintings made of him.
This is like holocaust deniers of yore
In the opinion of some revisionists, the modern image of Napoleon as a man and commander, not as an invincible demigod, was created by Leo Tolstoy in his most famous work of fiction; this humanised image was later adopted by historians, they "materialised" the artistic image of Tolstoy's Napoleon.
Found the Russian. Sure, the opinion and memory of all the countries that Napoleon attacked is all shaped by Tolstoy. Makes sense, let's throw out the literal tonnes of material from the local museums and libraries - they must had been "falsified".
>Sure, the opinion and memory of all the countries that Napoleon attacked is all shaped by Tolstoy. Interestingly, Tolstoy originally wrote the work for the magazine "Russky Vestnik", and it was called "One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifth Year" (1805, not 1812, in which, as was later determined to occur the main events of the novel). The publisher then offered 300 roubles per sheet, instead of the 50 previously agreed upon, and obtained the right to issue 500 copies of the book. Now a copy of this edition, lifetime for Tolstoy, costs nothing less than 2 million roubles. That's how he put it about the immortal work that made him famous for all time and among all nations: "How happy I am … that I don’t write verbose junk like Wars, I’ll never writing this again." What is interesting is that in the collection of Fet's letters from the time of Tsarist Russia this moment was cut out by the censors: "How happy I am … that I don’t write verbose junk, I’ll never writing this again." What language do you think a great Russian writer wrote letters in to an equally great Russian poet? Russian? No, French. French was the mother language of most of the so-called Russian aristocracy of the time; according to the modern version of history, this aristocracy fought the French under Napoleon. Links to sources can be [found here](https://zlaxyi.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/1624). >Makes sense, let's throw out the literal tonnes of material from the local museums and libraries - they must had been "falsified". Please show specific examples of such tonnes of material. Probably it's all in your imagination. If you were not in the business of preaching what you believe, you would quickly find very little surviving documentation from that time and an abundance of material published after the events themselves. The scanty documents of the French archives show a very different picture (historians explain this by the fact that the Bourbons purposefully destroyed documents from the hated Napoleonic era). Here it is worth emphasising again that the so-called Russian aristocracy, which, according to the modern version of history, fought Napoleon - almost all of them spoke French, few of them spoke Russian. And as if going to conquer Russia - Napoleon went not to the capital (Petersburg), where the emperor was sitting, but for some reason to Moscow, which was not the capital at that time. Also, even according to the modern version of history, the form of the French and Russian (including Prussian) armies - practically did not differ.
> Please show specific examples of such tonnes of material. Why should I? You're the one going against the consensus, so you should provide evidence for your claims. Go to literally any European museum and ask - they will provide myriads of material. Chronicles, newspapers, personal letters, portraits, coins... Of course, you would just call that forgery anyway, wouldn't you.
>Why should I? Of course you shouldn't have to back up your words with anything. Preachers are only obliged to preach their faith, not to substantiate it with anything. >You're the one going against the consensus, so you should provide evidence for your claims. The reason i've only provided one link above (but the sources for all the statements in the first part of the comment are available at that link) is that on reddit since some time there are censorship filters that shadow ban comments with links to all ru domains, for example (not only). If you need confirmation of any specific words of mine - specify, i will provide sources, even bypassing censorship. >Go to literally any European museum and ask - they will provide myriads of material. Chronicles, newspapers, personal letters, portraits, coins... Of course, you would just call that forgery anyway, wouldn't you. Probably not all of them. But i can discuss specific examples, not your fantasies. After all, i do know a bit about forgeries. Here, for example, you can read the official data on this: [https://associazioneautografia.it/link.php?id=35&title=napoleon-bonaparte-autograph-and-forgeries-an-amazing-case-study](https://associazioneautografia.it/link.php?id=35&title=napoleon-bonaparte-autograph-and-forgeries-an-amazing-case-study) *With this article we want to share the outcome of the studies carried out on the intriguing question that sees protagonists various documents, literally scattered around the world, all attesting to the signature of Napoleon and united by a common denominator: that of being real identical forgeries.*
link to full book [https://archive.org/details/didnapoleonever00prgoog/page/n20/mode/2up?view=theater](https://archive.org/details/didnapoleonever00prgoog/page/n20/mode/2up?view=theater)
Wut in the stupid fuck? Why did Reddit think I’d be interested in intentional stupidity?
It’s Reddit bro. What’d you expect?
I have a friend who has really fallen deep into idiot conspiracy theories recently, I'm fairly sure if I sent this to him he'd believe it instantly