Talk:Napoleon

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2026

Change "born Napoleone di Buonaparte" to "née Napoleone di Buonaparte" UltimateCyborg (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Née is used for surname change via marriage per MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:NE (also Née is the feminine and woulnd't be used anyways). _♥^✿ TheMDC4 chat :3 ^✿_♥ 23:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thx UltimateCyborg (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

OK ~2026-19932-47 (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The French Penal Code of 1810 and Napoleon's contributions to gay rights

In the French Penal Code of 1810, Napoleon essentially codified the law that Homosexuality should not be an act that merited being penalized, thus continuing the revolutions legacy of making France a pioneer for the decriminalization of same sex acts in Europe. The 1810 code remained in place in France until 1994, upholding the decriminalization of private homosexual acts, though a specific age of consent restriction was added later in the 20th century. I feel this aspect of Napoleon's legacy is extremely relevant to the present day and has been too long ignored. Napoleon himself employed an openly gay minister named Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès. May I suggest a mention of Napoleon's codification of decriminalization for same sex is merited in the lead section of this page alongside his abolishment of feudalism and emancipation of Jews? Grenadier On Beans (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It was the Constituent Assembly that decriminalised sodomy in 1791. Napoleon's regime was quite puritanical and often persecuted male homosexuals. It would be very misleading to state that Napoleon was a champion of gay rights. But if you want to draft something with reliable academic sources it can certainly be considered. Given that the article is already over the recommended word limit it would be helpful if you suggested things that could be cut to accommodate any new content. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While it's true that the Constituent Assembly decriminalized sodomy, it was formally put into a code under Napoleon and more importantly, because of his conquests, it was spread to many other countries as well. I feel something as influential as this at least merits a mention. You are correct that Napoleon was far from a "champion of gay rights" because he cared very little about the topic one way or the other, yet his Penal Code was a still an important step for the future of gay rights. It's also fair to say that Napoleon wasn't especially positive about Jews in terms of his personal opinions, but that didn't prevent us including the positive effects his administrative policies had for Jews long term. I guess my question is, what do you want me to draft? The citing of good sources regarding the effects of the Penal Code of 1810 are very easy to find even on the Wiki page dedicated to Decriminalization of homosexuality. Grenadier On Beans (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There already was a French criminal code promulgated in 1791 and this did not include any penalties for sodomy. Napoleon's only "achievement" is that his criminal code (written by others) didn't reintroduce penalties for sodomy or male homosexual acts. However, both the 1791 code and the 1810 code included penalties for "indecent acts" and there were a few prosecutions of male homosexuals under this provision during Napoleon's regime. If the decriminalisation of homosexual acts was exported to conquered territories by Napoleon then that might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. If you want, I would suggest that you draft a sentence on this aspect with reliable sources. If you want to include anything more than a short sentence, I would also recommend that you suggest something in the article which should be cut to make way for it. We can then see if there is a consensus for inclusion. I'm not trying to be difficult; it's just that the article is already very long and of the many books on Napoleon I have read none have mentioned that his regime was a major milestone in gay rights. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

The introductory section of the article states the victory at Borodino. See the article Battle of Borodino - the outcome of this battle is clearly ambiguous, as described in the Aftermath section. User:Aemilius Adolphin, this especially concerns you, please read it. Military history RUS (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

A wikipedia article is not a reliable source for another wikipedia article. And that article looks particularly dubious. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not have a reference in the article Napoleon about the victory at Borodino.

Secondly. You are not satisfied with the article, but maybe you will be satisfied with at least this specific referenced paragraph from this article? -

"Historian Oleg Sokolov who once earned the title of the chevalier of the National Order of Legion of Honour, spoke out on this matter and posited Borodino constituted a Pyrrhic victory for the French, which would ultimately cost Napoleon the war and his crown, although at the time none of this was apparent to either side. Sokolov added the decision to not commit the Guard saved the Russians from an Austerlitz-style defeat. He quoted Marshal Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr, one of Napoleon's finest strategists, who analyzed the battle and concluded an intervention of the Guard would have torn the Russian army to pieces, allowed Napoleon to safely follow his plans to take winter quarters in Moscow, and resume his successful campaign in spring or offer the Tsar acceptable peace terms. He also claims the victory "did not bring anything to the French." Historian Digby Smith called Borodino 'a draw', but believes posterity proved Napoleon right in his decision to not commit the Guard so far away from his homeland. According to historian Christopher Duffy, the battle of Borodino could be seen as a new Battle of Torgau, where both sides sustained terrible losses but neither could achieve their tactical goals, and the battle itself did not have a clear result, although both sides claimed the battle as their own victory. Historian Frederick Kagan called the battle a "victory for the Russians, which they got at a great price". Historian Nikolai Troitsky[ru] argues the battle was indecisive for both sides, but in light of long-term events, the French were in a worse position. Soviet historian Pavel Zhilin[ru] concluded Kutuzov did not have enough strength to win, but he was able to inflict great damage on the French in a battle that did not give advantages to anyone. In 1992, In the Russian magazine Rodina, there was a debate between historians Boris Abalikhin[ru] and Alexey Vasilyev, the first claiming the battle ended in a draw, the second that the French won a tactical victory." Military history RUS (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

There are other eminent historians with different views:

David Bell "The French lost thirty to thirty-five thousand men killed and wounded; the Russians as many as fifty thousand. But Kutuzov managed to keep the remainder of his forces intact and retreated successfully, making Borodino a French victory but not the decisive one Napoleon had hoped for.".

Adam Zamoyski ."The French victory was complete; Russian losses were such that most of the units had ceased to be operational and nothing stood between the French and Moscow."

David Chandler. "Although technically a victory, Borodino cannot be represented as the decisive battle Napoleon so long wanted."

Philip Dwyer. "Kutuzov had, moreover, claimed to have held Napoleon in check at Borodino....The shock of the defeat and the abandonment of Moscow was then all the greater; the atmosphere in Petersburg was tense. Rumours started flying of peasant revolts. Alexander's life was feared for."

Jean Tulard calls Borodino "a bloody and nondecisive victory" for Napoleon.

As a compromise, I would be happy to change the wording in the lead to a: "costly victory", "incomplete victory", or "nondecisive victory" for Napoleon. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course many historians think differently. But the essence remains the essence: not all of them. What a historian says is also largely his personal opinion, his personal sympathies, or his views based on certain factors or quotes. The historian draws conclusions from them. I encourage you to draw your own conclusions from this paragraph in the article Battle of Borodino, which I wrote:

"It can be called a tactical victory for the French, with some reservations described further, and strategically indecisive encounter. The French managed to press the Russians back to a distance of plus or minus 1 kilometer (±0.6 mi) having captured the redoubt and flèches, but did not break through their formations and generally failed to achieve the set tactical (to destroy the Russian army) and strategic (to end the war) goals. Assuming short-term objectives, such as capturing the flèches/redoubt and pushing back the Russian army, were achieved, and also the French remained masters of the battlefield after Kutuzov's decision to retreat the next day, it can be said the French had won a tactical victory." It is clear from this that the outcome is ambiguous. Because what do we see as the key point? That the Russians maintained their formation and were not forced to retreat precisely under French pressure, but only the next day, on Kutuzov's orders after the battle. We also see that Napoleon failed to achieve his tactical goal - destroying the Russians. Military history RUS (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The strategic result of Borodino is well described in the chapter Battle of Borodino#Attrition warfare Military history RUS (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your change again because you have no consensus for it. You have the obligation to establish a consensus for reinstating content over the objection of another editor. See WP:ONUS. I have stated my reasons for my objection citing reliable academic sources. I have offered compromise wording which you didn't directly respond to. I am happy to further discuss compromise wording but if you are unwilling to compromise I suggest you seek a third party opinion or start a request for comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources that call the outcome uncertain, some talking about a Russian victory (Kagan) and many talking about a French victory.

I think it would be better to write it this way: instead of "After victory at the Battle of Borodino, he briefly occupied Moscow before conducting a catastrophic retreat of his army that winter." put "After Napoleon forced the Russians to abandon Moscow following the Battle of Borodino, he briefly occupied this city before conducting a catastrophic retreat of his army that winter." - This is the option that will satisfy everyone, since it does not speak about anyone's victory, but only facts. Everyone considers victory as they wish. By reverting my edit, you are no longer taking into account the opinions of others. You are only considering what suits your own point of view. My editing, although it did not reach a consensus with you, took into account all points of view, including yours and mine. Military history RUS (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

That wording sounds good to me. Thank you for your cooperative and constructive approach to this discussion. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not a fan of chatter, but sometimes have to. I edited my last comment three times because my stupid head cannot formulate it correctly right away, I hope you saw the changes. Military history RUS (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is an even better way to emphasize that it was the battle that influenced the abandonment of Moscow: instead of the word "following", put "owing to" or "in consequence of". How about? Military history RUS (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "following" sounds fine for now. We already say "forcing" the abandonment of Moscow which implies that it was the heavy losses at Borodino which forced the Russians to leave Moscow to Napoleon. But we will see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

..if they think at all.

"Following" could be ambiguous, I think, since it might seem like "Napoleon somehow forced the Russians to abandon Moscow following (after) Borodino." One might think that after the battle of Borodino, he, through some maneuver or his numbers, forced them to leave the city, but not because of the battle. Something like that. Military history RUS (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I see your point. "As a result of" is wordier but probably more accurate. Please fell free to make the change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Can put Napoleon as Anglophobic?

Lately, I have been reading a lot about Napoleon. He hated the British, so much that he considered them his existential enemy, and he was one of the first to spread the term "Perfidious Albion," so it surprises me that he is not listed in the category of Anti-British Sentiment, since Napoleon was deeply Anglophobic. Furthermore, upon his death, in his will, he claimed to have been murdered by the "English oligarchy," and listed them as an enemy of the French Revolution. Alexgt2007 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is useful to add the category "anti-English sentiment in Europe" to an article on Napoleon. It's not about whether Napoleon liked England: he didn't; the issue is whether this is a useful category for people to navigate to an article on Napoleon. Napoleon wasn't Europe. If the category were: "Europeans who didn't like England" or "French people who didn't like England" that would be more accurate (but I still would argue not very useful). The issue is over-categorisation: see WP:OVERCAT. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that yes, we should put it, so that it complements the category. Alexgt2007 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Napoleon's aversion to England isn't even discussed in the article. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Alexgt2007 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources? Also, establish why the supposed aversion to the British (or is it just to the English) is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. "...and listed them as an enemy of the French Revolution." Yes, that is correct, they were. '...he claimed to have been murdered by the "English oligarchy," ' Anti-British? Where? You have made similar anti-British accusations at talk at the Wairau Affray. See WP:SYNTH. There must be a direct connection - sources must say it explicitely and even if they do it must be relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Anti-British sentiment is also an aversion to the British government. Alexgt2007 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Read it

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210503-perfidious-albion-napoleon-and-his-british-nemesis Alexgt2007 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That link is not a proper source, it is some unsigned person's opinion published by a media outlet. Therefore, don't use it. Second, you appear to fundementally misunderstand what being 'anti-British' means, or in fact anti-any race. It is a dislike of someone or some group simply because they are British, not for what they do. In current society it is a negative racial slur; it is the way many Germans viewed Jews and Gypsies in the 1930s. Your source ends by saying:'Napoléon liked English people when he met them; he just obviously didn’t when he thought of them en masse.' That is not being anti-British. Your similar approach to Maori views on European settlers in 1843 is similarly based on a complete misunderstanding of what being anti-British means, (as well as being based on the personal agenda based opinions of many others, not on quality academic secondary sources). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

1. You don't read, he is not an anonymous person, a historian, Andrew Roberts, author of Napoleon: A Life, was interviewed.

2. You don't know or ignore that an anti-national sentiment is not a vague concept of hating a person from a certain culture; it encompasses the culture, the country, or even the government, and it is not precisely just hate, but rather a rejection or an aversion. An example: Leopoldo Galtieri is an Anglophobe because he had a rejection of Great Britain over the Falklands issue, but it does not mean that he necessarily hated an English person per se.

I hope you are not doing it with the intention of discrediting me, but with the intention of improving the content. Alexgt2007 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Roger was referring to the France24 link you posted, not the work of Andrew Roberts. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, it is an interview by France 24 with Andrew Roberts, Roger told me that the interviewee was anonymous. Alexgt2007 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The article was not anonymous, it was written by a named journalist. However, it is is of low quality. Half way down, this opinion article changes to reporting on an interview with Andrew Roberts, who is an historian expert in this field. However, Roberts is not the author, as you claim. His words are a primary source. Primary comments by experts can be treated in WP as reliable in most cases, such as in a blog. The fact that this is a a primary source reporting a primary source is not at all ideal. Roberts only comment on this so-called anti-British view is this - When he went to Angers and Brienne as a military academician, he was taught by people whose major formative influence was the Seven Years War. And of course the French had been absolutely trounced by the British in the Seven Years War. So he grew up very much in an atmosphere of Anglophobia. We then get your interpretation of what that means. Note Anglophobia has been changed by you to anti-British: they are different. I won't waste time discussing what anti-British means in the context of both this and the NZ 1843 article. Back to the points raised here and in the other article - proper sources? Where are they? So far you have given your interpretation of low grade sources or simply relied on non-references, and where is the relevance in all of this, even if it were true? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd also point out that this debate isn't happening in a vacuum. @Alexgt2007 has evidently recently decided to add these kinds of categories wholesale to many different articles. SamWilson989 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Roger, you continue not reading carefully what is being said to you and you keep repeating the same errors of interpretation.

1. The France24 article is not "some low-quality opinion piece by an anonymous person". It is signed by Tom Wheeldon and contains a direct interview with Andrew Roberts, one of the leading Napoleonic historians today. You yourself acknowledge that Roberts is an expert on the subject. His statements in that interview are not "my interpretation"; they are the historian’s own words. Trying to dismiss the entire source simply because the journalist is not Roberts is a weak argument, typical of someone who wants to discard inconvenient evidence.

2. Regarding "Anglophobia" versus "anti-British": you continue changing the words to create an artificial distinction that suits you. In the historical context of the 18th-19th centuries, Anglophobia precisely referred to a deep rejection of England as a nation, as a power, and as a government. It was not an irrational racial hatred of the individual Englishman (something no one has claimed here), but a widespread cultural and political aversion in France after the Seven Years’ War. Roberts says it clearly: Napoleon grew up “in an atmosphere of Anglophobia”. That is the word the historian uses, not me. Trying to separate "Anglophobia" from "anti-British" in this context is pure semantics to avoid the substance of the matter.

3. On primary and secondary sources: you constantly demand "proper sources" but provide none that refute the point. Napoleon’s will from Saint Helena is an explicit primary source in which he states that he dies murdered by “the English oligarchy”. His 1813 proclamations ordering England to be called “Perfidious Albion” are primary sources. The letters and memoirs of his contemporaries (Caulaincourt, Las Cases, etc.) are full of references to his visceral hatred of the British system. Where are your academic secondary sources that say this was not a notable aversion? So far you have only dismissed mine without offering anything in return.

4. Relevance: Napoleon’s aversion to Great Britain is not a minor detail. It was the central axis of his foreign policy for more than 15 years: the attempted invasion, the Continental System, the Peninsular War, the naval blockade, state propaganda. Ignoring this in the article would be like writing about the Second World War without mentioning Hitler’s anticommunism or his aversion to the Soviet Union. It is directly relevant to understanding his motivation and his decisions. WP:UNDUE does not apply when the fact is central in the historiography.

5. I am not "interpreting" anything. I am summarising what multiple historians (Roberts, Dwyer, McLynn, Chandler, among others) have documented for decades. If you consider all of that to be "my interpretation of low-grade sources", then the problem is not in my sources, but in your threshold being so high that you only accept what already suits you.

I will stop wasting time discussing modern definitions of "anti-British" that have nothing to do with the context of 1800. If you want to improve the article, provide reliable academic secondary sources that contradict the point instead of repeating that "it is not ideal" or that "I change the terms". Otherwise, this seems more like an attempt to block inconvenient content than a discussion based on Wikipedia policies.

I expect concrete sources this time, not more generic dismissals Alexgt2007 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"listed them as an enemy of the French Revolution." Most of the planet would agree, given how often the Kingdom of Great Britain/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was part of the various anti-French coalitions during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Britain was part of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh coalition, even though it played a largely peripheral role in the Austrian-led Fifth coalition. Britain was in near-constant war with France from 1792 until 1815. And to be honest, it was not particularly friendly to the French royalist governments either. It was part of the Triple Alliance (1788) with the goals of opposing the territorial ambitions of both France and the Russian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Napoleons more specific birthday and death-day

According to https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Bonaparte,_Napol%C3%A9on_I, Napoleons exact birthday was the 15th of August at about 11:00 AM. For his death-day from the site https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/close-up/a-close-up-on-napoleons-death/ was at 5:49 PM May 5th. This may seem meaningless/miniscule however we need detail and specifics. Vivelempereur1! (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make (and either way, these don't look like reliable sources). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Napoleon II as successor

Current successor to the title "emperor of the french" is louis XVII, as king, but the direct next person to hold the title "emperor of the french" is napoleon II, though only for a few weeks, the next person to actually claim to be emperor of the french is napoleon III

If im not mistaken the consensus is to only show a successor who held a different title (i.e successor to Jim, King of Wikipedia, is Bill as Emperor of Wikimedia), is if no successor held the subject's title. (i.e if between Jim and Bill there was Ricky, King of Wikipedia, he should be shown as Jim's successor, as he is the next to hold the title)

So as it stands, options are, (or atleast the options i think work)

1. Show Louis 17th as successor 2. Show Napoleon II as de-jure successor and Louis 17th as de-facto 3. Show napoleon II as sole successor 4. Show Napoleon II "(as emperor of the french)" and louis 17th "(as king of the french)". Which is what is shown on the Napoleon II article Zenryzap (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We can’t identify Louis XVIII (not 17) as king of the French, because his title was King of France. The only “king of the French” was Louis Phillipe. —R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for mistakes!! I was on my phone, usually i would have cross referenced and not screwed things up but its really difficult to look at the article and add a topic to the talk page on the mobile app. My mistakes!! Zenryzap (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the topic is worth discussing. The problem is that the legitimacy of Napoleon II is disputed and is difficult to accommodate in an info box without complicated explanations. There was a consensus decision some time ago to remove it, but this can always be discussed. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)