A Soldier\u27s Thoughts on Napoleon\u27s Grave

Napoleon Bonaparte died at the age of 52 on St. Helena, to which he had been exiled in 1815, an island in the Atlantic Ocean 2,000 km away from any major landmass. Despite rumors that he may have been poisoned, both the autopsy at the time of his death and later studies found that he died of gastric cancer due to poor treatment and diet. He had previously been exiled to Elba, an island in the Mediterranean from which he escaped to France to govern again for a period known as the Hundred Days. This period ended when Napoleon lost to the allied forces in the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815. The Bourbon Monarchy returned to power after his defeat and exiled him to St. Helena. They had no intention of giving him a proper burial at the St. Denis Cathedral with the other French Kings at the time of his death. Napoleon used his period of exile to shape and refine his legacy, and with the help of Mémorial de Saint Helène by Count Emmanuel De Las Cases, he was able to paint himself as a savior, punished cruelly by England, whose government feared he would succeed in liberating all of Europe. As De Las Cases writes in Mémorial, “How can the monarchs of Europe permit the sacred character of sovereignty to be violated in my person? Do they not see that they are, with their own hands, working their own destruction at St. Helena?” Pensée d’un Soldat sur la sépulture de Napoléon was written by a horse artillery captain and member of the Legion of Honor, Alexandre Goujon, as a reaction to Napoleon’s death far away from his country, wife, and son, without honor or proper burial. The dramatic and incendiary voice the author uses puts it among the many propagandist writings surrounding Napoleon’s rule. Goujon frequently compares Napoleon and his situation to historical and biblical figures, much like the propagandist newspapers Napoleon oversaw during his rule. Pensée d’un Soldat sur la sépulture de Napoléon (1821) came before Mémorial de Saint Hélène (1823) and is thus from a period of Napoleon propaganda that is less well-known

Gender and Crime, 1815-1834

The years between 1815 and 1834 marked a transition from the Age of Napoleon to the Age of Victoria. England experienced a period of civil strife and economic fluctuations. London was in the midst of industrialization and urban growth. These changes affected all classes of society and their effects impacted views of crime and justice. This study focuses on the Old Bailey, London\u27s central court. Its intent is to look at this age of transition through the microcosm of criminal trials with a view toward gauging contemporary opinions on the nature of crime and assessing the impact of economic fluctuations on constructs of class and gender

The Napoleonic Wars: A Very Short Introduction

Part of Oxford University Press' 'Very Short Introduction' series, this book aims to unpack the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars for readers. It discusses the causes of the conflict in the first chapter, provides an outline of the course of the war in chapters two and three, while the remaining four chapters discuss the ways in which the wars were fought on both land and sea; the experience 'at the sharp end' as lived by soldiers, sailors and civilians; and the ways in which societies were mobilized in the prosecution of the war. The book concludes with some thoughts on the legacy of the conflict. There is an annotated reading list at the end

The Grand Manifesto of Alexander I

Written following Napoleon’s final exile on the Island of St. Helena, The Grand Manifesto of Alexander I was simultaneously a work of royalist and national propaganda and of personal passion. From the French Revolution through Napoleon’s rule, in period of no more than thirty years, both the ideology of the sovereign monarch and the autonomous sovereignty of the European nations were profoundly threatened. In his manifesto, Alexander I protects his own throne both with both carrot and the stick of Christianity: he paints Napoleon as a dangerous monster and refers to his defeat as evidence that the Russians are God’s chosen people. But, he also warns that the Napoleonic wars were God’s punishment for their sins and that the Russian people must remain obedient subjects lest they provoke His anger again. At the end, he clearly states that the people are reliant on their rightful sovereign—God’s representative on Earth—for their entry to heaven: “But as from our Royal Majesty, inspired and elated by our great people; nothing is left but to constantly implore in our prayers for God’s benevolence for our people” (11). Alexander’s manifesto also directly warns the leaders of the other European powers to respect his autonomy. As with his people, he refers to Christianity as both a positive and negative motivator. He praises the steadfast unity of the European Alliance by comparing it to God’s “sun of peace and tranquility” (10). But he also stresses the might of the Russian military and the holy power behind it, noting that Russia defeated Napoleon at his height while no other country could stop him even when he had lesser power. In the end he emphatically states: “It will be honorable and glorious for us to show the world that though we desire to make no man tremble, no longer do we fear any man” (11). Ultimately, as sincere as Alexander the First’s piety was (and indeed it was intensely sincere), in this manifesto Christianity is a calculated weapon against both his people and his counterparts to protect his rule from the very real threats that shook the European aristocracy at the end of the eighteenth and the turn of the twentieth century. In addition to the question of religion, in order in deter any nostalgia that could undermine his authority, Alexander plays on the very raw and painful memory of the Napoleonic conquests. With highly dramatized prose, he illustrates the antithetical relationship in which he is the hero and Napoleon the villain. He is pious, brave, preoccupied with the welfare of his people: a rightfully born Emperor while Napoleon is an ungodly, cowardly destroyer of his people: a usurper. Each and every step of the story highlights that any attempt to disable the sovereign throne, to usurp, is the embodiment sin and sordidness. To honor and obey the throne is the embodiment of virtue and heroism. Although Alexander’s story is very consciously purposed it also profoundly emotional. He and Napoleon had a very personal antagonism and the wounds it left were a driving force behind the manifesto. Alexander took the throne only three years before Napoleon was crowned Emperor. In 1801 at the age of 24, Napoleon was eight years older than him and already legendary both as a villain for his role in the French Revolution and as a hero for his military and political prowess. Alexander carried this dual sentiment for Napoleon throughout their concurrent reigns. At the beginning of his career he actually reversed his father’s policies and openly admired France. With the murder of a familial connection to the Bourbon Dynasty (the Duc d’Eghien), his self-appointment to Consul for life, followed by his coronation as Emperor, Alexander pitted himself against Napoleon by forming the European Alliance of Russia, Austria and Prussia. After the European Alliance suffered heavy losses at Austerlitz, Jena, Eylau and Freidland, Napoleon lured the young Emperor into a Franco-Russian alliance by promising to divide the rule of all Europe with him. This alliance, solidified by the Treaty of Tilsit in 1808, Napoleon was obligated to cede his eastern-most territories (most importantly the Duchy of Warsaw) and restore their autonomy, but by 1810 Alexander saw that his only intention was to continue his own expansion. In addition Napoleon repeatedly toyed with Alexander, in one case demanding the hand of marriage of his younger sister. When this was refused Napoleon refused to ratify his and Alexander’s convention and formed an alliance with Austria by marring Princess Marie-Louise. Their relationship dissolved, and Alexander, having been deceived at least twice, was doubly embittered. When the harsh winters destroyed Napoleon’s army in his 1812 invasion of Russia and after second return to power in 1815 he was again defeated, Alexander felt more than the relief of defeating a long term threat. He felt the elation of defeating an intensely personal enemy—an enemy that had been an object of admiration and friendship. In this manifesto, when Alexander speaks of Napoleon’s duplicitous ways in treaties it is more than just propaganda, it is personal experience. The cinematic description is more than effect, it is emotion. The scarred relationship between the most might leaders of Europe speaks loud and clear. In reading through this document we see both an astute politician preempting any antagonistic action by his European counterparts as well rallying his people in the face of a very real threat: the loss of both national and personal sovereignty. We also see the deeply angry and prideful young Emperor of Russia reacting to the final overthrow of Napoleon, a worthy opponent who was alternately an idol and an enemy

The Plains of Mars, European War Prints, 1500-1825

Over fifty original prints by renowned artists from the sixteenth through the early nineteenth century, including Albrecht Dürer, Lucas Cranach, Théodore Géricault, and Francisco de Goya, among many others, are featured inThe Plains of Mars: European War Prints, 1500-1825. On loan from the Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, the works of art included in this exhibition examine the topics of war and peace, propaganda, heroism, brutal conflicts, and the harrowing aftermath of battle. Spanning from the Renaissance to the Romantic periods and encompassing a wide geographic scope including Italy, Germany, France, Spain, the Low Countries, England, and North America, the prints depict triumphant Renaissance soldiers, devastating scenes of violence, and satirical caricatures of political figures. Also on display is Goya’s compelling “Disasters of War” series, completed in response to the brutality of the Spanish War of Independence. Goya’s prints serve as a powerful testament to the horrors faced by both soldiers and civilians. Under the direction of Professor Felicia Else and Shannon Egan, Melissa Casale ‘19 and Bailey Harper ‘19 have researched and written didactic labels, catalogue essays, and created an interactive digital interface to complement the exhibition. Together, Melissa and Bailey will lead public tours of the exhibition. A Gallery Talk by Prof. Peter Carmichael will draw connections between the depictions of warfare on view in the Gallery with representations of the American Civil War. James Clifton, Director of the Sarah Campbell Blaffer Foundation at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, will be delivering a lecture in conjunction with the exhibition. Dr. Clifton, who also serves as curator of Renaissance and Baroque painting at MFAH, curated the exhibition in its first iteration and wrote the exhibition catalogue (published by Yale University Press). Dr. Clifton’s lecture not only will provide an overview of the exhibition, but also will focus on the concept of “mediated war.” A full-color catalogue with images and essays by Bailey Harper ’19 and Melissa Casale ’19, under the supervision of Profs. Felicia Else and Shannon Egan, is planned to accompany the exhibition.https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/artcatalogs/1028/thumbnail.jp

Maryland Insurance Co. v. Woods

Maryland Insurance Company v. Woods, 10 U.S. 29 (1810). In 1803, Britain utilized France’s interference in the Civil Swiss Strife as a pretext to continue its occupancy of Malta, effectively ending the short-lived Treaty of Amiens. As the most impressive Naval Power in the world, Britain proceeded to blockade French, Spanish, and Dutch ports. In 1805, Williams Woods purchased two insurance policies from The Maryland Insurance Company, a successful and lucrative Baltimore marine insurance institution. The two policies covered the ship, The William and Mary, and its cargo. The policy assured the journey from Baltimore to Laguira, with “liberty at one other neighboring port.” After the William and Mary was captured as a prize by the British Ship of War, Fortune, and condemned in a Jamaican admiralty court, William Woods brought suit in the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. The ensuing case spanned eight years and appeared before the Supreme Court in 1810 and 1813. This Supreme Court maritime case addressed issues regarding insurance policies such as deviations from the delineated journey, underwriter liability, and deference to admiralty judgments perpetrated by other nations

The Whalesong

Tuition jumps up -- All is well, coffee stand opens its doors -- Center vital to student success -- Ultimate frisbee guru Cody Bennett shares about club -- Leadership works for student-friendly accessibility -- Unique publication for unique campus -- It's PFD time: Can the free money last much longer? -- Album inspired by punk ropera -- Open mic features music, adult jokes auf Deutsch and Hawaiian Bill -- 'Napolean' shines on screen -- Guertin on a mission -- Fill up with gas! -- Real life experience greets UAS student interns -- Update on the student recreation joint use facilit