Humanities desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 17

execute Napoleon in secret

I was watching this video[1] that seemed to suggest, at best as I can understand, that the biggest reason why Napoleon wasn't executed after his capture at Waterloo was that Britain feared news of his death would trigger conflict in continental Europe.

Britain also obviously didn't want him alive either, because he escaped exile once before and there's no way to 100% guarantee that he won't again.

Was there any consideration back then to execute him in secret? That seems like the obviously solution to satisfying the dual conditions of "dead Napoleon" and "no news of Napoleon's death".

Napoleon received plenty of visitors and mail in both Elba and Saint Helena. But Britain wasn't obligated to grant those special privileges to him. If Britain executed him in secret and pretended that he was alive and held in permanent solitary confinement, it could be years before news of his death reached the outside world. OptoFidelty (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governments are generally reluctant to execute or assassinate defeated leaders of (current) rivals, in part because it sets a bad precedent (one day they might lose), and in part because yesterday's enemy may be desired as tomorrow's friend, and having killed someone admired by the other party might hinder this.

Of course, there have been theories that Britain (or someone) poisoned Napoleon, but this might just be down to his green wallpaper. Green dyes containing dangerous amounts of arsenic were commonly used in the 19th century, because nobody had realised how dangerous they were. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprisingly hard to keep even small secrets in modern times. It was much harder to keep big secrets in early 19th century society. "Britain" was not a homogenous hive-mind, and an act like the execution of Napoleon would require a significant number of people to be involved - both on the decision level and during execution (pun noted ;-) of the plan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I call a false pun, because the word is really the same. Once upon a time one did not execute a convict, one executed a sentence upon a convict. — For a machine intelligence, the supreme penalty is non-execution! —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In choosing to surrender himself to the British, Napoleon addressed a note to the Prince Regent in which he asked "asylum at the hearth of the British people", placing himself "under the protection of their laws".^[2] The summary execution of a prisoner, without a fair trial, would have been considered murder also in early 19th-century Britain. --Lambiam 13:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The British Government hoped that in exile, Napoleon would be forgotten about rather than having a martyr's death. As Lord Bathurst, the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies wrote to Wellington:

"There is much reason to hope that in a place from whence we propose excluding all neutrals, and with which there can be so little communication, Bonaparte’s existence will be soon forgotten". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if he was secretly executed, and the secret isn't out of the cat's bag, he wouldn't have died a martyr's death, as far as the world knows.

Exile and secret execution are two methods that equally accomplishes the goal of having him forgotten. OptoFidelty (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the fallen Emperor was able to evoke a good deal of sympathy from the English people.^[4] Note that it was the British who declared war on France in 1803, not the other way around, not provoked by hostilities but by the fear of losing dominance. --Lambiam 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He died a natural death - the stomach cancer. He had severe stomach pains during the battle of the Waterloo. AboutFace 22 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he claimed during his final months that the British were killing him (presumably by the unhealthiness of his accommodation), and significant traces of arsenic were later found in his hair, etc., though this was later shown to have existed since his childhood – arsenic was widely used in medicines as well as for other domestic purposes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Naval Attaché in London

It has been said that as prime minister H. H. Asquith was so little interested in the press that he "habitually confused the editor of the Daily Express with the Chilean Naval Attaché". R. D. Blumenfeld was editor of the Express, but who was the Chilean Naval Attaché? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source and a date for this quotation? --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 'Asquith as Prime Minister', Cameron Hazlehurst, English Historical Review July 1970. Hazlehurst cites RDB’s Procession by Blumenfeld, published 1935, pp. 121-123. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1913-1914 it was Captain Alfredo Santander. —Simon Harley (Talk). 16:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]