Talk:First French Empire

older comments

Is this original work? -- Zoe

No, it's from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica -- Taku 00:21 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Zoe

Whoa!

I found this article quite stirring, quite lyrical — and quite unlike an NPOV encyclopedia entry. If this truly is from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, then its author must have been just a little too infused with the passion of a British Imperial, extolling the virtues and follies of the great Napoleon Bonaparte largely as an indirect way of basking in the glow of his defeat. I respectfully suggest that it need serious, dispassionate rewriting. — Jeff Q 04:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I kept getting lost in the sentences. They're awfully long. Art LaPella 00:37, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

This article glosses over nearly every factual event in order to wax poetic about Napoleon. There seems to be very little actual content. - jhf 23:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the spoliations of 1763?

Isn't the spoliations of 1793? Marc Venot 05:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another oddball Wikipedia title

...this isn't very idiomatic, though of course it is technically the first. I notice that Napoleonic Empire doesn't evenb redirect to this . I'll fix it. Has everyone discovered that the Restauration can only be found as "Bourbon Dynasty, Restored" with capital R?...

Yes, a lot of the French history is a mess. Last winter I intensely worked on the events of roughly spring 1789 – September 1792, because they are so crucial. Some time I'd love to continue forward from there. I'm pretty happy with what I did with that one span of time, although I may have leaned a little heavily on Mignet (readable and public domain, so I could grab whole sentences when it suited my purposes). We just need, oh, a hundred other people to put in comparable effort on other periods... -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bias

This article is based on Britannica 1911. As anybody can see, it's written in a very strong and lyrical style, with a lot of judgments passed here and there. I also spotted a factual inaccuracy about the dates of constitutions, so it may not even be accurate. One must also take into account the fact that Britannica was, at the time, a British encyclopedia, and the British tend to have very strong views against Napoleon. For instance, the article also makes frequent remarks as to Napoleon's "dictatorial" behavior — but, in fact, Napoleon, as far as I know, had less power or than most of the monarchs of Europe at the time, and also less than more recent dictators (Mussolini, Franco, not to mention Hitler...). For instance, Napoleon is credited with a series of codes of laws — but it seems that these codes were established after considerable legislative debate. In a true classical dictatorship, these codes would have been adopted as part of rule by decree, without discussion. One would, for instance, have to make a fair and balanced assessment of his rule. I'm not an expert on the era though, so I'd prefer somebody more knowledgeable than me to write on this. David.Monniaux 06:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- While I do agree with you that the Encyclopedia Britannica should be taken with a grain of salt in this particular case, many of the points you have made are false. There was for example, at the time the infamous "Senatus Consultum" where Napoleon (Even during the Consulate) had the right to summon up draft "classes" (In any given class, the number could vary greatly). Not only that, but he could call for classes years ahead of schedule, that is to say, that he summoned the class of 1810 in 1808. Senatus Consultum could be used for a variety of things, including legislation. With all this said though, Napoleonic France was a "benevolent' dictatorship, that is to say, the state reserved the right to censor the press and things of that sort as it saw fit. All that being said, Napoleon was vigilant about making sure that he was kept up to date on the affairs that were taking place in the country (there are anecdotal stories of him raging about his camp in the Wagram campaign when he did not recieve the mail he was supposed to have recieved that day, calling it "Criminal Negligence") --Forgive my poor spelling, I'm in a rush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmithIIV (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

User:Beland has slapped an NPOV notice on this without stating his/her issues at all. I assume it is the 1911 Britannica POV material referred to above.

Beland: as I understand it, the NPOV notice indicates a dispute. I am unaware of anyone actively defending the maintenance of the 1911 Britannica POV; it's just that no one has taken on the task of de-POVing this article. Are you saying that someone is resisting this, or are you perhaps escalating a bit far? Or is something else going on here that I am missing? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

My intent is simply to tag the article as non-neutral for the edification of readers and so that editors with knowledge or interest in the subject will notice that it needs attention. Would there be a better template to indicate this? -- Beland 13:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, there doesn't seem to be one. I've just never seen this tag put on an article where there wasn't an actual dispute. I guess it's OK; still, this use of it is unusual. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if there is vivid but POV writing that we want to preserve, we can use it as long as we attribute it correctly, such as "The 1911 Britannica wrote 'Blah'." Just make sure you check back to a reliable copy of Britannica: content currently in the article may be edited to some degree. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I "defend... the maintenance of the 1911 Britannica POV", and agree w jmabel that it should be clarified in its source. 1911 britanica is a particularly notable, valid, verifiable POV! Sam Spade 16:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did some minor clipping of some of the "Ego" description and stuff that seemed a little POV. I may be wrong, revert it if you think so. But I don't see why this article can't be worked into something good. I just think there's waaay too much dwelling on Napoleon's personality and desires. Move some of that to the biography article. I think it just needs to NOT be centered on Napoleon so much but more on the events of the period. --DanielCD 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It'd probably be better to rewrite this from scratch, and thus get this article out permanently from under the EB shadow. Alas, this isn't really my area. Ambi 03:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Old Cleanup Archive

Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 01:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• First French Empire is heavily laden with 1911 Britannica POV, and maybe some factual errors as well. There's been some discussion on the talk page. We all seem to agree it's a problem, but no one involved has considered themselves expert enough to really take it on. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

--I would be willing to take it on, but I would need someone to tell me about editing procedures and things of that Sort on Wikipedia. I've edited articles on stuff before, but it's always changed back on some technicality (not citation) if someone would send me a PM with anything I should know, I could wip this article into shape from memory... not that I would. My account is SteveSmithIIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmithIIV (talk • contribs) 08:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly notices

I cut these notices from the top of the article. Yes, the article is in 1911EB style. Yes, it needs to be improved. But sticking silly notices won't make it magically fix itself: someone actually has to do the work. Until then, let's leave the article looking a bit nicer. Gdr 10:39:04, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

{{cleanup-date|April 2005}}{{cleanup-tone}}{{NPOV}}

"The tone of this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article." -- for an article copy-pasted from the Britannica, this is a harsh criticism ! :D Rama 07:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I no wikied the tags because this talk page was showing up in the NPOV disputes category, and probably the other categories as well. I suggest at least putting back the first cleanup tag so people are aware that it needs work. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And now it has {{POV}} + {{inappropriate tone}}. The latter seems particularly bizarre, for the reasons given above. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Legend

The {{legend}} in the map doesn't seem to work, at least not on my Firefox browser. The blocks render in black, not in the appropriate colors. Given that picture captions also function as "alt" text, which exists mainly for the blind and for search engines, the whole approach seems to me to be off kilter. I would be inclined to revert to the earlier version, which used text to refer to "dark blue" and "light blue". - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been 5 days, no one has responded, I am going back to the old way of doing this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Napoleonic Code revert

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I do believe that the Napoleonic Code "made everyone equal before the law" except Napoleon himself. --70.30.56.94 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NO, not in theory. In practice, things were different.

What is disputed?

User:UberCryxic added the "disputed" tag to this without explaining what is disputed. I'll drop a note on his talk page asking for clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Among some of the many ridiculous statements in this article:

Napoleon made a desperate effort in 1812 against a country as invincible as Russia - ?????

Napoleon had hardly succeeded in putting down the revolt in Germany when the tsar of Russia himself headed a European insurrection against the ruinous tyranny of the continental blockade - weird......

Napoleon himself was no longer the 'General Bonaparte' of his campaign in Italy. He was already showing signs of physical decay; the Roman medallion profile had coarsened, the obese body was often lymphatic. Mental degeneration, too, betrayed itself in an unwonted irresolution. - I almost don't want to continue. The entire article is horrible and outdated. I was going to completely rewrite it (that's what was behind my major additions to the lead), but unfortunately I haven't continued my work here too thoroughly. Maybe some other time...UberCryxic 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we have a section here, let's make sure we discuss any wishes about wanting to remove the disputed tag. I am disputing right now because of the statements listed above and many others that I don't feel like listing. Unless these get corrected, and for that matter unless this entire gets a reconstruction, that disputed tag should be there.UberCryxic 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole article shows a quite appalling lack of objectivity. White Guard 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is written from a very British perspective, and a rather outdated, at that. Hence the lyrical style and shameless instrumentalisation of the narration. This article is basically an ode to the British Empire. Which is fine for the Britannica of 1908, but is not really appropriate by contemporary standards (I mean outside of some USAyan right-wingers), not to speak of to the standards to which Wikipedia abides. Rama 08:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Should there be an infobox to the side, detailing the specifics of the country? Other nations of this period have sidebar infoboxes in their articles, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -Alex The Gonz 10:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm....this was just a different administration ruling over the nation of France and wishing to call itself an 'empire.' I doubt that represents a separate country.UberCryxic 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, it wasn't just wishing to call itself an empire. It had an Emperor as head-of-state, and was by definition an Empire. Second of all, Wiki has done the same thing with other regions, making seperate articles for different administrations, such as Yugoslavia and Germany. Third, the historical significance of the first French Empire cannot be understated, and seeing as its system of government was very different from either the Republic or Bourbon Monarchy, this article deserves an infobox. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make one. So, if someone knows how to, please do as soon as possible. -The Gonz 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ehh...perhaps. I'm not really that keen on it, but you do have a point in the larger Wikipedia context (the Third Reich, for one, as you mentioned).UberCryxic 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Connaught

In 1798 France brief held a portion of the west of Ireland known as Connaught. However, there is no mention of this in the article. Vintagekits 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That was 1798; First Empire existed from 1804 to 1815 (with an interruption in 1814 to 1815).UberCryxic 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to alter this article then - Republic of Connaught as its state it was a client state of the First French Empire Vintagekits 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Better map?

File:Grand-empire.png

This shows alliances also. - Leonard G. 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. No image. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From Consulate to Empire

This section doesn't make any sense. It seems like every other sentence is missing. I can't follow its development at all.85.116.207.246 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a mess. I've just put in 40 minutes or so reorganizing, rewriting, & sorting out. I hope this helps. Someone could probably put several more hours just into cleanup on this article, let alone citations, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Empire and Republic?

Between l'An 12 and 1808, French coins bore the inscription "Napoleon Empereur" on the obverse and "Republique Française" on the reverse. Only in 1809 did the revere inscription change to "Empire Française". Was this a foul up at the mint or did the Republic really continue to exist until 1808/9?
Dove1950 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon was named "Emperor" in 1804, but he was proclaimed such (at least in theory and government declaration) by the "Constitution of the Republic." Whether or not this may be why it was written as "Republic" or not, I am unsure, but it may be why. Mnmazur (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the Kingdom

The French article about the flag of France (fr:Drapeau de la France) says explicitely that the de facto national flag of the Kingdom of France was a simple white flag - the lily banner was only used in presence of members of the royal family except the King: When he was present, the white flag had been hoised. To cut a long story short: Please do not insert the lily banner (Pavillon royale de France.svg) anymore, it's the wrong flag here. Louis88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.30.46 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

that is so good then 84.65.19.132 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC) the time time and they eat different to us andnhow. End change some people have to pay for there dinner and it was so much

Map Misleading

I believe the map of Europe, of Napoleon's empire is misleading. In Napoleon Bonapatre by Alan Schom, he has a map of Europe and the status of each country. There are three catagories; Conqured "vassal" states, Conquered "allied" states and Conquered "rebellious" states. Under "vassal" there is Belgium, Holland, Savoy, Piedmont, tuscany and Corsica. Under "allied" there is Denmark, Prussia and Austria. Under "rebellious" there is Spain,the Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Italy, Switzerland and the Confederation of the Rhine. In addition, Schom says that Prussia, Denmark, Austria and Portugal were under military occupation by France. I think a new map should be drawn up showing the territory occupied by Napoleon's French forces before his downfall in Russia. Thoughts? Objections?-Kieran4 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read Alan Schom's book, and it should not be considered a sholarly work on any level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmithIIV (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

About the new map, if it shows Europe in 1789, then Finland sould still be a part of the Russian Empire if I am correct.--SelfQ (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Catalonia was part of France during this time, and the map doesn't show that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.140.225 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why one would call the Kingdom of Italy, Switzerland, or the Rheinbund "rebellious." And the territories you list as "vassal" were not vassal states, but actually part of the French Empire.~ john k (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we do need a new map, or atleast an info box.

Infobox Preceded by / Succeeded by

I find the content given in the info box under this topic as rather misleading. For instance it is said that the First French Empire was, amongst others, preceded by the Holy Roman Empire but then when you look at the successors the only successor from the former Holy Roman Empire listed is the Austrian Empire which made up less than half of the Holy Roman Empire. What about Prussia? What about the other German countries? Now I could understand the argument saying that only big successors are listed, but wasn't Prussia big? Also why then list tiny Neutral Moresnet? IMO this list should be redone. Hadoriel (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The successors thing is weird - surely at least the Confederation of the Rhine ought to be listed as a successor of the Empire. john k (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this article have possibly been featured for a featured (SP) article?

I was just combing through this article, and I looked at the map of the first French Empire. It says that that is what the First French Empire looked like in 1814... I do know a lot about France during this time, but I will confess that I don't know what the Empire looked like in 1814, but I know it did not look anything like that..... That's the empire in 1808-1812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSmithIIV (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From a descendant of a victim of Napoleon's Genocides

File:Partida Defuncion Manuel Joseph López de Prado.jpg

Transcript of the death certificate of Don Manuel Joseph Martin López de Prado, preserved at the Archives of the Bishop of Lugo.

Please respect the memory of the dead. My ancestor was executed by Michel Ney's 6th Corps on April 20th 1809, in Monforte de Lemos. He had 6 small children, all younger than 10 years old, one to be born less than 3 weeks later. He was assassinated in the most cruel and grotesque manner, in front of his entire family. His wife pleaded he could be administered the Catholic Ritual of extreme unction, but the French prevented it and killed him like an animal. She gave birth prematurely his posthumous son less than 3 weeks later. We know all this because the priest who buried him wrote it down in the book of defuncts of the parish. I have enclosed a transcript here. That very same day, 1,100 innocent civilians of the same village were assassinated in a similar manner. Napoleon murdered millions of innocent civilians all over Europe, and France should be ashamed of this as much as Germany is of the Jewish Holocaust. I do not ask anything from France or the descendants of Napoleon, or those building monuments and celebrating the memory of that genocide. Just respect for the dead and historical truth. (167.206.29.162 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

As much as we sympathise with you you must understand that this is a talk page for improving the article only, if atrocities are not mentioned in the article than perphaps a sentence/paragraph could be added. You have posted this same comment on the Peninsular War article, the Napoleon article and the Napoleonic Wars article (and perphaps more). You have my condolences but Wikipedia cannot just put these things on articles randomly.Willski72 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Willski72. Following your advice, I have added a very short and neutral comment remembering the millions of European civilians who were taken from their families and murdered like animals. Innocent people like you and me who committed no crime. Please, let's not glorify mass murderers, for the sake of historical truth. Not mentioning the genocides committed by Napoleon is as perverse as writing an article on Adolf Hitler without mentioning the Holocaust (Niaps (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)).

I removed the newly added paragraph on genocide etc:

• Undue weight (WP:DUE) is given to a minority view (seemingly Claude Ribbe's, full stop) regarding comparisons with Hitler and genocide in WWII, even more so to the paragraph on descendants of "victims" requesting a memorial, which is also original research on a primary source (and a blog at that).
• Reliable sources are needed. While the Daily Mail article is not the worse they have published, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, and not just in format, besides the reference does not actually support the sentence (article does not mention descendants of victims at all). The second reference is a random web page, I can't read much spanish, but it also appears to be anecdotal, and used as a primary source. As noted above, the memorial request is out of a blog.
• Phrasing was not neutral, "genocide" has a very definite meaning inappropiate for the whole section, "murdered" is not an appropriate term for civilian casualties of war.

More generally, I have to point out atrocities are commited in time of war, by all sides. Napoleon was no saint at all, but neither were the ennemies of the empire, and besides, the historical context was not that of the 20th century. We shouldn't be moralising history in the first place, we certainly shouldn't do so selectively, which is what the IP was requesting.

Finally, and as some kind of side note, while some atrocities commited during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars might be noteworthy, they would unlikely belong to overview articles such as this. Equendil Talk 03:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: The IP's message above has been posted on the talk pages of several articles (Talk:The Crime of Napoleon, Talk:Napoleon I of France, Talk:Peninsular War, Talk:First French Empire, Talk:Napoleonic Wars, so this discussion is all over the place, someone suggested to centralise on Talk:Napoleon I of France which seems sensible. Equendil Talk 03:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

French Empire

I corrected the official name of the State, Franch Empire, as we can see on coins [1] and in treaties. I added the interesting fact that until 1808 the State was still styled, for domestic affairs, as French Republic. The previous source, Sheperd's Historical Atlas, is not correct about this matter. Indeed, it contains many errors in its pages: for example, the border between France and Italy on the Atlas is erroneous.--Cusio (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The name "Empire of the French" was used, and Napoleon's title, as seen on many treaties, is "Emperor of the French", which would further indicate such. The term "Empire of the French" is used in Shepherd's Historical Atlas, widely considered a reliable source for historical data. The border you mention was later changed - the map in question was from the early days of the Empire. The Oxford Family Encyclopedia and the Funk & Wagnall's Revised Encyclopedia, both of wich I possess and, barring copyright restrictions, get you scanned images of their pages, also back up the reference on Napoleon's title, and one backs up the name of the state. mnmazur  voicemail 

Pay attention: many kings' titles were "His Most Christian Majesty....", but their States weren't "The Most Christian Kingdom of...". The French form "Empire des Français" doesn't exist in treaties or laws, and also yahoo gives us very poor results ( [2] against [3] ). I repeat: Shepherd's Historical Atlas contains a lot of errors, and the border between France and Italy was never put where in the Atlas' pages is, not even during the early days of the Empire. The Treaty of Tilsit officially use the term "French Empire" (article XXVII [4]), not "Empire of the French". More, coins and banknotes are usually sure sources [5], and also fr.wiki uses "Empire français".--Cusio (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

However, popular monarchies, including the July Monarchy (Kingdom of the French) all used ruler titles and state titles that were compatible. The atlas in question does show the correct border, I assure you - I have done extensive research into the First French Empire. Now, with regard to the French name, I understand your point of view on the currency. Despite this, currency does not provide the same historical value as the numerous peace treaties do. Now, recognizing that there is a dispute, I am going to maintain Empire of the French, as well as the reference, but I will insert a note regarding French Empire and the continued use of French Republic. mnmazur  voicemail 

Napoleon's title was certainly "Emperor of the French". I have never heard that the country was called the "Empire of the French". The King of the Belgians rules over the Kingdom of Belgium. The King of the Hellenees ruled over the Kingdom of Greece. Nor have I have ever heard that France was called the "Kingdom of the French" under the July monarchy, even though Louis Philippe's title was "King of the French." Could you provide any evidence for either the term "Kingdom of the French" or "Empire of the French." My understanding was that under the July Monarchy, the state was still known as the Kingdom of France, and that under both the first and second empire, France was known as the French Empire. The borders of the map are problematic - Lucca and Piombino were not part of France, which means there should be two breaks in Italy - France didn't control the whole coastline from Nice to Rome. Compare this map and [6]. john k (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I provided six sources of the official name of the State. I'd like to underline one of them, the imperial decree fixing the borders with France and Italy (with the official signature of Napoleon, which cancels every doubt about the name of the Empire), which confirms that Shepherd's atlas is incorrect and erroneous: the border between the two states was the Sesia River, not the Ticino River as Shepherd shows.--Cusio (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The presence of all those reference notes in the infobox is very aesthetically unpleasant. john k (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can put them in the text proper: do you think it could be better?--Cusio (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to do that. I also think we don't need six references. One or two good ones should be sufficient. john k (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited in this sense. Do you think it's better now?--Cusio (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New départements

Were there any assimilationist trends or policies in the newly annexed départements of France? Would some of them become French like Corsica and Alsace did had Napoleon ultimately won the conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Chant du départ or Veillons au Salut de l'Empire is anthem of First French Empire? Newone (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is, from what we know, incorrect. Altough "Chant du depart" was used almost in the same way as an anthem, officially it was not (there was none), according to "http://www.napoleon.org/en/fun_stuff/music/". Because of that, I suggest 2 possible decisions :

1. Either change the actual text from "Chant du départ" to "Chant du depart (de facto)" OR 2. Change "Chant du depart" to "None (de jure)" 75.119.224.120 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Coats of arms

I’ve noticed their seem to be two different coats of arms for the First French Empire for some reason the one on the left i recognise from various historical books and pictures etc. However, the one on the right looks different. Does anyone know where the second coat of arms comes from? Mackay 86 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is never any such thing as an "official image" of a coat of arms. Any visual representation that matches the "blazon," or description, of a coat of arms is acceptable- in other words, different pictures that show the same coat of arms do not have to look the same as long as the symbols are all there. In fact, if the color of something isn't specified in the blazon, I believe it doesn't even matter what color that thing is in the visual representation. Swarm ^X 18:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy or an Absolute Monarchy

Was the Napoleonic Empire really Constitutional Monarchy or could it be considered an Absolute Monarchy given the nature of Napoleons rule. Mackay 86 (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unwieldy sentence

Pushed back, as he had been in Spain, from bastion to bastion, after the action on the Berezina, Napoleon had to fall back upon the frontiers of 1809, and then—having refused the peace offered him by Austria at the Congress of Prague, from a dread of losing Italy, where each of his victories had marked a stage in the accomplishment of his dream—on those of 1805, despite Lützen and Bautzen, and on those of 1802 after his defeat at Leipzig, when Bernadotte – now Crown Prince of Sweden – turned upon him, Jean Victor Moreau also joined the Allies, and the Saxons and Bavarians forsook him as well.

Can someone who knows about this period please reword this sentence, which has more complex sub-clauses and internal references than a Joyce novel. I'd do it myself, except that the reason for my posting this request is that I find it utterly incomprehensible. Lordrosemount (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Andorra?

Dear Wikipedia: After adding the Principality of Andorra to the info box under the "Today part of" heading some asshole Wikipedia mod not only reverted the changes more than once, but sent me a message threatening to report me. About me: I had no intention of vandalizing Wikipedia, but only to update with correct information. Is that not the entire purpose of Wikipedia? Also, when I edit Wikipedia, I tend to focus on very specific topics, as I think that is more effective than concentrating on a broad range of facts. Right now my interest may be Napoleonic history, for instance, but I am currently focusing not so much on military history, biographical details about Napoleon Bonaparte, or the internal politics of France from 1789-1814, but more specifically on the territorial constitution and administrative division of France and French client states during the French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon I.

For the record, Andorra was annexed as part of Catalonia during the period of 1812-1814. There is no question that Andorra, along with the rest of Catalonia, was administered by the French Empire (albeit briefly), but the question is whether said annexation should count. All of Catalonia was administered by France even if it was never fully integrated in the French state. Case in point, the article 130 departments of the First French Empire lists 130 departements, when a more complete total was more like 141 because the article omits both the Illyrian Provinces and the four Catalonian departements of the French Empire from the list. The latter article contains the claim that: "As with the other foreign departments of the Empire, their annexation by France was never officially validated even by France itself..." Such a statement is, on face value, patently absurd and ridiculous! It may be true about the four departements in question, but I can guarantee it is NOT the case that the French annexation of the other "foreign departments" was never validated even by France itself. After all, by definition annexation of a territory must be officially recognized by the one doing the annexation! The inclusion of such a ridiculously absurd statement without a "Citation Needed" tag (which I added) or even clarification (i.e., what is meant by the "other foreign departments," all territory annexed after 1792? after 1804? just the non-contiguous departements?) reveals the inferior quality of Wikipedian scholarship.

Granted, whether or not the Catalonian annexation should count in the territorial definition of the First French Empire is another question. However, the "Today part of" info box includes present-day nation-states overlapping with the Adriatic territory. Granted, the annexation of Catalonia was in practice, more akin to military rule than civil administration, and Napoleon Bonaparte as well as others in the French government were distracted by other concerns from "completing the paperwork" on the annexation of Catalonia, so it is understandable why the territory is sometimes neglected or deliberately omitted. (Many maps of Europe during 1812 show the French-Spanish border at the Pyrenees, and more detailed maps even show the outline of Andorra.) But I think we should review the list of states in the "Today part of" box.

(In reverse alphabetical order)

Vatican City

Papal States, annexed 1809.

Switzerland

Throughout the course of the French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon I, the boundaries of France extended well into Switzerland. For instance, the Jura was annexed to the French Republic early in the course of the French Revolutionary Wars. Likewise, the city of Geneva and its vicinity and the territory of the Rhodanic Republic were annexed to France. (The Principality of Neuchatel, now a Swiss canton was made a French vassal and practically part of France, but the French never actually got around to annex it.) The territory of Switzerland was considerably smaller during the period.

Spain

Territory of the Kingdom of Spain annexed in 1812.

Slovenia

Part of the Illyrian Provinces (annexed 1809).

Netherlands

Kingdom of Holland, annexed 1810.

Monaco

Annexed early in the course of the French Revolutionary Wars.

Luxembourg

Hapsburg territory west of the Rhine, annexed 1795.

Italy

Three non-contiguous areas of Italy directly administered/ruled by France: Duchy of Savoy (annexed 1792 from Kingdom of Sardinia), County of Nice (annexed 1793 from Kingdom of Sardinia), Subalpine Republic (French client republic annexed 1802), Ligurian Republic (French client republic annexed 1805), Duchy of Parma (annexed 1808); Tuscany & the Papal States (annexed 1807 and 1809 respectively); Italian territory within the Illyrian Provinces (Istria).

Germany

German territory west of the Rhine, mostly within the Cisrhenian Republic, annexed 1802. Also, the "North Sea Strip" annexed in 1810, which included Holland and the territory of German states along the North Sea shore east of Holland and south of (then Danish) Schleswig-Holstein all the way to the Baltic Sea.

France

I think this one is so obvious, it goes without saying! ;)

Croatia

Illyrian Provinces, annexed 1809.

Belgium

Hapsburg territories west of the Rhine, including states of the Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian Netherlands, annexed 1795-1801.

Austria

Territory of what is now Austria included in Illyrian Provinces (annexed 1806).

Andorra

The only entry excluded from your list. It was annexed with the rest of Catalonia in 1812 as part of the departement of Segre.

In conclusion, unless you allow the addition of Andorra to the list, you must delete Spain from your list as well. After all, if you can justify excluding the principality from your list, then that same reason for omission applies equally to Spain (unless you can provide another reason why Spain should be included).

If you need evidence that Andorra was ever territorially part of the French Empire, then I submit the following. This highly detailed <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dep-fr.svg>map of the First French Empire</a> shows the Empire and its internal administrative divisions plus all other states in its vicinity. The map includes such tiny states as the Principality of Neuchatel, or minor Italian states including the principalities of Benevento, Lucca, Piombino, Pontecorvino, and the Republic of San Marino, but no Andorra! Bottomline: either you must add Andorra to your list, or else delete the map (if you can not update it) because you believe that Andorra was never included, but the map says otherwise. Either you are wrong or the creators of the map were mistaken.

This whole experience may be my final straw with Wikipedia! I did not wish to "vandalize" your precious encyclopedia, only to improve it. However, this refusal to correct a very simple, and relatively trivial factual issue calls into question your credibility. This persuades me that Wikipedia is nothing more than a top-down totalitarian organization with more interest in promoting orthodoxies than with factual accuracy. I was hoping to address other possible errors later on, but since you all prefer to "spy" on editors by tracking their IP address and harassing them with empty threats on their talk pages to constructive improvement, I have given up hope.

Case in point, despite Wikipedia's pretensions of being "NPOV" you still seem to retain some of the old anti-Napoleon bias endemic in the Anglophone world. For instance, your claim that, "As with the other foreign departments of the Empire, their annexation by France was never officially validated even by France itself..." reveals a belief that the French are a nation of incompetents, and your description of the Government type as a "Dictatorship" in your info box is not only unfairly biased, but vague. In all honesty, I have read less biased encyclopedia articles on the French Revolution, Napoleon, and related topics from encyclopedias without the pretension of being NPOV. Also, how the hell was the First French Empire a republic until 1808 if Napoleon I was emperor by 1804? That makes no sense!

I am sorry for the negative experience you have had. I understand that you may want some anonymity, but in the future please sign your posts with four tildes (~~-~~, without the dash in the middle). In regard to the angry message for adding Andorra to the list: I am sorry that this guy was reverting it. In the future, you should have added a source to prove your point. In regards to the article itself: Yes, it's a low point for Wikipedia. The entire article was copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica years ago, and nobody has completely fixed it. I am working on it, but it takes an awfully long time to do so. I hope your negative experience here did not ruin any potential edits you may make to Wikipedia. PS: The guy's threat of reporting you was empty; he could have reported the case itself for arbitration and fact checking, but there was nothing wrong with your edits unless you began to edit war. Marechal Ney (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Population density in infobox

The population density specified in the 'infobox' appears to have an 'expression error', as indicated by the red text. Derfel73 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV language

I have added a NPOV tag to this article due to the apparent anti-Napoleonic, and to some degree anti-French, bias. I have started to rewrite about half of it, but until my work is completed it should still be tagged as NPOV. Marechal Ney (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Today part of

The infobox rubric "Today part of" would be misleading if it were not so ludicrously cart-before-the-horse! The First French Empire is not today part of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, etc. Rather, all or part of today's Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, etc. were once part of the First French Empire. The Empire now part of the Vatican City? What part is that? And in which drawer have they put it?

In my view it would be far better to expand the list of preceding and following entities to 10 and 17 respectively (as in the French Wikipedia article) and dispense with the muddle-headed "Today part of" section altogether. --Picapica (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the colonies?

Why does the map only show the European territories? what about the different colonies of the French Empire? Kintaro (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of Topics

Currently this article reads as a poorly written description of French military and foreign policy moves during the Napoleonic Era. This article, instead, should be discussing the nature of France between 1804 and 1815. While acquiring adequate sources will take a while, a section should be added on domestic affairs and the economy. Marechal Ney (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirming Statistics

I was wondering if anybody knew the source for the following statistics. One only has a vague footnote, and the other has no reference at all.

• 1812 Area, 2,100,000 km2 (810,815 sq mi), (vaguely footnoted as 'Taagepera1997.' To my knowledge, Rein Taagepera didn't author any books in 1997. Does anyone else know where else this is from?)

• 1812 Population est. 44,000,000 (no footnote)

Cheers Danielpwn93 (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Flag of the Netherlands

The flag of the united kingdom of the netherlands in the "preceded by, succeeded by" box is wrong. It should be the flag of the kingdom of the Netherlands which is red white and blue and not the orange white and blue flag of the dutch republic (prinsevlag). Id change it myself, but im not sure how.--213.10.126.30 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nvm it seems that both flags were accepted as national flag at the time.--213.10.126.30 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy?

This article calls the French Empire an absolute monarchy, but wasn't it a de jure constitutional monarchy since it had a constitution?
24.2.217.188 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I am not convinced by arguments that the First French Empire was an absolute monarchy since that has more negative connotations. It's more an Elective Monarchy which is what I've put in place as the government; however, the First French Empire was unique at its time because it had a system that was neither a monarchy nor republic in a conventional sense since in the former monarchy is hereditary and in the latter it is elected. Here we have a combination whereby anyone could rightfully be elected emperor. Professed Reason 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I challenge those who view the FFE as an absolute monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs)

Map

The second map of the infobox is wrong, Josefino Spain never controlled much more than the hinterland of the peninsula, and how could be the Rhine Confederacy a Satellite of France if it changed sides in 1813? And certain Denmark wasn't in the Sphere of Influence of France if entered the war after the British Attack and fought until the bitter end, much on the contrary of Prussia and Austria that were in it just for their convenience, the French hadn't much influence on it, no wonder they changed sides in the first opportunity in 1812. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamakkusa (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First French Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605171204/http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/esdaile_10_09.html to http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/esdaile_10_09.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025065033/http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/index.html to http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Since its territory encompassed part of the Rhineland, there are some German successor states missing, aren't they? 58.39.122.222 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Since its territory encompassed part of the Rhineland, there are some German successor states missing, aren't they? 58.39.122.222 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Intrigues Section

The Intrigues section is not only horribly biased, but has faulty information.

Specifically Soult's "treason of 1812?" I presume that refers to a loss in battle.

Also the piece on Bernadotte "playing Napoleon false" to gain election as Swedish Crown Prince. Napoleon assisted Bernadotte, nor did Bernadotte deceive the Emperor.

Some of the verbiage is also confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJCreecy (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a little question

I do have a question, does the total Area shown in the Infobox include or exclude France’s client states? If not it should be added that it doesn’t include french client states Josexgoz11 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Map

() What is this map? It's completely inaccurate. Why is French Senegal so large? It wasn't even close to anything like that. Also why is Morocco shown as an occupied/satelite state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatever748 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Motto of the French Empire

Hello, The article states that the motto of the Empire was ”Liberté et Ordre publique (sic)”. Other than the fact that the corresponding entry on French Wikipedia states that the French Empire had no motto, I wonder why my correction was rejected. I had changed ”“publique“ (feminine form) for ”public” (masculine form). The French word ”ordre” is masculine, and the corresponding adjective form is ”public”, not ”publique”. Javandy (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My error, thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusing lead sentence

The first sentence is poorly worded, and scrambles the order of usage of the terms. Obviously, it was called "French Empire" first, before it became known as the "First French Empire". This confusion is probably due to someone seeking to place the article title up front and bolded in the sentence, in order to be able to say, "The First French Empire is..." and then add its other names (which came first) in the same sentence (but afterwards). That's too confusing. Either start the sentence with "The French Empire is.." and then add the article title expression later in the sentence, or start with the bolded article title, and wait till the second sentence to say what it used to be called. The latter is probably better; see World War I for how they did it, which is clear and unambiguous. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Napoleonic era into First French Empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds of overlapping but different scope for an important topic warranting expansion. Klbrain (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Seems to largely duplicate much the same topic. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Napoleonic era" has a broader scope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It appears that the issue is really that the Napoleonic era article needs substantial work done to it. For example, more details on political and cultural trends, especially outside of core France, so it has more than just a few lists. Yeoutie (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11 April 1814 - 3 May 1814

When napoleon abdicated in 1814, he was not immediately succeeded by Louis the 18, and for a few weeks following his abdication the french empire ,at least nominally, continued to exist even fighting some battles (see the battle of Toulouse). For this gap of a few weeks, I have failed to find any acting head of state for France. Should this period be acknowledged in the leaders tab as a “vacant”, or is it too insignificant to be mentioned? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Nature of Napoleon Bonaparte's rule

It's in French. Can we get an English version please so it can be understood by those using english verison of wikipedia? Or at least a translation below it. Genabab (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

First Empire, 100 Days

Hello fellow editor @Vichycombo, I recently noticed you reverted one of my edits, and so not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. The First Empire lasted from 18 May 1804 to 3 May 1814 and then again from 20 March 1815 to 7 July 1815 (the Hundred Days). As per convention, if an entity had non-continuous existence, the lifespan is written as, for example:

1076–1345
1349–1406

The same is the case for the First Empire which had an interlude between 3 May 1814 and 20 March 1815, when the House of Bourbon was temporarily restored, only to be removed again by Napoleon I. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

About the previous map

I noticed that the updated map of the territories of the empire in Europe has been removed and changed back to the original one. Could somebody please put it back because it was more accurate and less sloppy than the current one. Yippt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong map

So, I have several sources from history books saying Prussia was under a military occupation of France until 1813. Those are from french books so I translated them.

1. "On July 12, to add insult to humiliation, Frederick William was forced to accept the occupation of all his remaining territory by French troops pending the payment of a large war indemnity, set at 140 million francs in 1808." (Source : "Les guerres napoléoniennes, une histoire globale - Alexander Mikaberidze (2020) )

2. Napoleon's long-term influence varied considerably across Europe. Nevertheless, even in territories where the French were unable to intervene directly, the shock of military defeat and foreign occupation had profound repercussions, forcing local elites to accept domestic reforms in order to be in a better position to deal with France. The best example of this is Prussia. The years after 1807 were marked by an economic meltdown caused by the state's mounting debts, incessant French demands for compensation payments and the cost of maintaining the occupying army. The government had to raise taxes, devalue currencies and issue paper money. The state's financial health continued to deteriorate: its debt, which stood at 53 million guldens in 1806, reached 112 million in 1811, and exceeded 200 million by the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The effects of the French occupation aroused nationalist sentiments in many Germans. The plight of the German states prompted Johann Fichte, professor at the University of Erlangen, to deliver his fourteen famous Addresses to the German Nation (1808), one of the earliest expressions of German nationalism. Selfishness and division, Fichte argued, had brought ruin to the German states, which now faced the daunting task of surviving French domination. Referring to their different languages, traditions and literatures, he called on the Germans to free themselves from the Napoleonic yoke.

3. Prussian universities - in Königsberg, Frankfurt (Oder) and Halle, plus the new ones in Berlin and Breslau - played a major role in the national revival, igniting the spirit of patriotism and training a new generation of men capable of leading the country. Prussian patriots also formed secret societies to promote national revival, the best-known of which was the League of Virtue (Tugendbund), founded in Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) in 1808. It was made up of army officers, men of letters and landowners' sons, all eager to put an end to the French occupation and bring about, as the royal order authorizing it put it, "the revival of morality, religion, a taste for serious things and public spirit". (Source : "Les guerres napoléoniennes, une histoire globale - Alexander Mikaberidze (2020) )

4. Napoleon had ensured that Prussia was reduced to the status of a second-rate power, but he added contempt to diktat by expressly stating in the text of the Franco-Russian treaty of July 7 that, "in deference to H.M. the Emperor of Russia, he agrees to restore to H.M. the King of Prussia" the territories listed thereafter. By unleashing such arrogance on his downtrodden adversary, he made an inexpiable enemy out of him, albeit a powerless one for the time being, but one who retained enough means to exact his revenge when the time came. As Napoleon later regretted, the Treaty of Tilsit with Prussia was "too hard for its softness, and too soft for its hardness". When he realized this after a few months, he tried to remedy the situation by maintaining a very heavy occupation. The supplementary agreement signed in Königsberg on July 12 by Kalckreuth and Berthier had left the fortresses of Stettin, Küstrin and Glogau in French hands, as long as the planned contribution, the amount of which had yet to be fixed, had not been paid. With this weapon, Napoleon would continue to exact harsh revenge on Prussia, but also alienate the relative sympathy he had initially enjoyed among the population. (Source : Histoire de la Prusse - Michel Kerautret (2005) )

5. "This observation also applies to religions, as Clausewitz rightly says. It's also worth noting that the preacher confirmed Marie von Brühl when she was a teenager, and saw her again in 1807. Finally, he showed a strong patriotic reaction against the French occupation and became a friend of Scharnhorst as much as of Clausewitz". (Source : Clausewitz - Colson Bruno (2023) )

This website, omniatlas, also states that Prussis has garrisons occupied by France : https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18120722/

Also, I am a student and history and my modern history teacher agreed. I think all of this suffices, but I can do more researches if you don't think so. Clem le Nem (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering Prussia was officially allied to France since 1808 and with french military influence and outposts throughout the country, would you say considering it a client state would be more accurate? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, de jure, no. But if tsar Alexander I didn't insist, Frederick-William III would have lost his crown. But you don't really overthrow a king like this especially the king of a great power like Prussia. So officialy, Prussia was still a sovereign state, but Napoleon made it so it was only de jure.

I cannot really answer since it depends on wether you consider de jure or de facto superior.

Since the map decided to make the Bonapartist Spain borders appear as well as those of the General Confederation of the Kingdom of Poland, even though it wasn't under French control, I assume the de jure situation is considered superior. Clem le Nem (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying, I was just asking to clear things up The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate map of the French Empire and its colonies

While the map of the French Empire in Europe is completely right, I think the map that shows the french colonies as well as the spanish ones is innacurate. French Senegal was not that big, and the dutch colonies annexed by France were for the most part occupied by the UK. And when it comes to the spanish colonies, France controlled them only de jure. The French Empire's man preocupation with Spain was supressing the revolts in the peninsular war. Clem le Nem (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

About the french occupation of Prussia

User "Docd13" says that Prussia was never occupeid by the french army. While I already gave multiple sources from history books supporting my argument, Docd13 just keeps changing the map that shows Prussia being occupied. They claim that no source supports this and are refuting those I provided, whithout actually providing any source themselves. In order to actually end this debate, let me provide excerpts from the Elbing convention (13 October 1807) and the treaty of Paris (8 september 1808).

The first deals with the troops of the King of Saxony/Duke of Warsaw occupying and passing through Prussia. The King of Saxony/Duke of Warsaw was a vassal of Napoleon. And the convention also stipulates that this also applies to the the allies of the King of Saxony, so the French Empire is also involved.

Article 2: The first stage, starting from Guben, will be at Crossen, the second at Zullichau; but as this march, in certain seasons, could be too heavy, the commanders of the Saxon troops or of the Duchy of Warsaw who will pass on this road, will have the faculty to lodge them at Kay and in the surroundings; however that the third march makes them leave without stay of the Prussian States.

Article 3: H.M. the King of Saxony will be free to send infantry, cavalry and artillery troops through the specified communication, to go, in such circumstances as H.M. deems appropriate, from the Kingdom of Saxony to the Duchy of Warsaw and from the Duchy of Warsaw to the Kingdom of Saxony. Columns may follow one another indefinitely at the designated staging points, but each column may not consist of more than 4,000 fighting men, all arms included. The troops will march with their artillery and equipment, without the customs officials of H.M. the King of Prussia being able to stop them under any pretext, subject them to any inspection or make them pay any duty.

Article 4: The troops of foreign Powers, allied to H.M. the King of Saxony, may also pass through the States of H.M. the King of Prussia, following the military route which is determined by Article 2, and the stipulations of the present convention will in all respects be applicable to these troops.

Article 5: The maintenance of the troops, whether Saxon, Duchy of Warsaw or allied, which will pass on the communication route determined by article 2, will be the responsibility of S.M. the King of Saxony; but lodging, for men and horses, will be provided for these troops, either in the military establishments intended for this purpose, or in the homes of private individuals. Sleeping straw for soldiers will also be charged to the government of H.M. the King of Saxony. Light and heating will be provided by the Prussian subjects who house these troops.

Article 11: H.M. the King of Saxony will have the right to establish post offices under his arms, in the towns of Crossen and Zullichau. These offices will not be subject to any visit, under any pretext whatsoever, by the agents or H.M. the King of Prussia; on the contrary, they will enjoy the most marked protection. The employees of these offices will be subjects of H.M. the King of Saxony and will wear his livery.

Now, the treaty of Paris between France and Prussia deals with fortresses and citadels being occupied by the french army.

Article 2: The incomes of Prussia will belong to the French administration until the day of the signature of the present treaty, and after this day, to H.M. the King of Prussia.

Article 6: The places of Glogau, Stettin and Küstrin will remain in the power of the French army until full payment of the bills of exchange and land bills given in payment of the constribution stated in the first article. That of Glogau will be remitted when half of the total sum has been paid, and the other two after the debt has been fully extinguished. During the period of occupation, the existing works in these squares will not be destroyed.

Article 8: The pay of these garrisons will be paid by the French administration; but housing, housing allowances, food, fodder, heating and lighting will be provided by the Prussian administration, both for the troops and for the staff of each place, in accordance with the rates established by French regulations.

Article 11: During the occupation of these places by the French army, the administration of revenues and justice will belong to the King of Prussia; but the police will be in the hands of the French commander.

Article 12: No Prussian troops may approach these places within a distance of one day's march.

Article 13: There will be a military road from Glogau to Küstrin; from Küstrin to Stettin; from Stettin to Stralsund; one from Glogau to Kalisch; one from Glogau to Saxony; one from Stettin to Magdeburg; one from Stettin to Danzig. These roads will be used for recruiting, replacement and general needs of the French garrisons in the three reserved areas.

Article 14: At the time of the Treaty of Tilsit, the place of Magdeburg having been mistakenly assumed to be entirely on the left bank of the Elbe, this river was taken as the limit of Prussian territory; but the citadel of Magdeburg being on the right bank, H.M. the King of Prussia agrees to leave, for the district of this citadel, a territory of two thousand toises outside its advanced works. The posts will be placed by French and Prussian commissioners within five days of the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty.

In conclusion, both France and client-states of France occupied and could pass through prussian territory. These troops would also be housed in prussian buildings. This plus the many sources from history books I provided are, I think, crystal clear. If this isn't a military occupation, I don't know what it is. Clem le Nem (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)