Enric Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Bonaparte/Buonaparte Six of one, half dozen of another...depending on what source is used. do you mean that this link you gave, something of internet pages named 'europeanhistory', actually would be a reliable source about name consistencies in the Italian language ?? I fail to see any italian-language authority in that mishmash. Its author(s) do not strike as Italians, nor knowledgeable about Italian names. Even French renditions appear to be something they are blissfully ignorant about: there is not the -
Conner Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Chapter 12 was excellent, Mark! Granger continues to amaze me. He's making himself indispensable to Lord Hood. It also seems Mr. Shafte is becoming indisensable to George. I'm not familiar with the historical situation at Toulon. I'm curious as to whether there will be some reasonable explanation for Hood's actions in releasing the 4 French ships and 5000 sailors.
Enric Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 At some juncture, he changed the way he spelled his name. At the time of the Toulon siege, it was Buonaparte. I think this was not what I asked. Have you ascertained *when* he had 'changed the spelling' of his first name, which at birth was Napoleone ?
Mark Arbour Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 I think this was not what I asked. Have you ascertained *when* he had 'changed the spelling' of his first name, which at birth was Napoleone ? No.
Enric Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 No. so, for all we know, he as well may have spelled his first name as 'Napoleone' yet at the time of Toulon? Right? In my opinion, *consistency* speaks for the rendition 'Napoleone Buonaparte' - at the time of Toulon....
paya Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 do you mean that this link you gave, something of internet pages named 'europeanhistory', actually would be a reliable source about name consistencies in the Italian language ?? I fail to see any italian-language authority in that mishmash. Its author(s) do not strike as Italians, nor knowledgeable about Italian names. Even French renditions appear to be something they are blissfully ignorant about: there is not the - 1
colliever Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 aloha Mark!! Chapter 12 was great as expected. It looks like there's some trouble going about with Capt Knight but George sure knows how to handle it . as always mahalo for sharing and thank you (and the rest of team) for all your hard work 1
Sir Galahad Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Yeah I agree, the nit picking is getting old. I thought that there was a separate thread for 'Technical Points', perhaps it should be used a bit more often! It looks like Knight (I like that name ) is grating on the Admirals tit's, so I wonder how long it'll be before he puts his foot in his mouth again! I agree with Conner in that Granger is becoming indispensable to the Admiral, also he has a excellent rapport with Nelson which can only do him good in the future. Mr Shafte seems to be falling for George in a big way. But whilst Granger cares for him & plugs his ass whenever is convenient, that's the extent of it I think. I do wonder how they keep the noise down though! There must be an awful lot of bite marks in the pillows The question is, how will Julian handle things when he realises that Travers has his heart? Poor kid's gonna have his dreams shattered. Edited June 8, 2009 by Sir Galahad 1
DragonFire Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Oh FFS! Galahad offered some very good advice - Tech forum, try it out sometime. The rest of us are trying to enjoy the story. NOW, where was I? Great chapter Mark, as always. Indeed Captain Knight has had his nose well and truly put out of joint, I wonder if he'll try and blame Granger for his inevitable fall from grace. Quite why a he would go out of his way to make life difficult is anyone’s guess, maybe his ego took a battering and he sought some revenge. I feel it will backfire on him spectacularly. Still it was nice of Granger to go out of his way and do a favour for Carmody, since he probably didn't deserve it. Interesting plan to give the French some of the ships back, albeit disarmed. I'm intrigued I have to say behind the reasoning. I'll resist the temptation to look in the history books and await chapter 13. 1
Mark Arbour Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 OMG all this nit picking about nothing... so here you are: http://books.google.com/books?id=rbwWAAAAQ...ntsec=titlepage a link to a FRENCH book in FRENCH by a FRENCH author describing literally every step of NB's life. I recommend to all of you who are francophone to read the footnote at page 3-4 where they quote Napoleon (NEVER mentionned as NapoleonE, always Napol 1
Mark Arbour Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 Interesting plan to give the French some of the ships back, albeit disarmed. I'm intrigued I have to say behind the reasoning. I'll resist the temptation to look in the history books and await chapter 13. It was a controversial decision. One of the biggest drivers of the Toulonais to invite Hood into the town was their lack of supplies, so Hood would have inherited that problem. For him, feeding 5000 prisoners, and allocating precious military resources to guard them, must have seemed like an enormous and unnecessary drain. On the other hand, he was much-criticized for handing the French four battleships and 5000 seamen, especially since France did not have Britain's maritime resources, so true sailors were a rare commodity. Especially since at least one of the ships (Entreprenant) fought against the British in subsequent battles. Personally, I can see both points of view. 1
Hoskins Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Good old granger, always willing to give passage to seamen. Great chapter, Mark, I'm also interested in the tactical reasons for the 4 ships and deportee crew. 1
Mark Arbour Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 Good old granger, always willing to give passage to seamen. Great chapter, Mark, I'm also interested in the tactical reasons for the 4 ships and deportee crew. Thanks. When you say tactical reasons, can you explain what you mean? Just trying to make sure I answer your questions. 1
Hoskins Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Thanks. When you say tactical reasons, can you explain what you mean? Just trying to make sure I answer your questions. Oh, heh, I'm a doofus, I meant strategic, not tactical - what was the reasoning behind returning the troops on the ships - expediency? Political capital? Or did I miss something in the story because I was wondering who would be in G's cabin? Or perhaps I should wait for the story to develop in the fullness of time? That sort of thing. H 1
Mark Arbour Posted June 9, 2009 Author Posted June 9, 2009 Oh, heh, I'm a doofus, I meant strategic, not tactical - what was the reasoning behind returning the troops on the ships - expediency? Political capital? Or did I miss something in the story because I was wondering who would be in G's cabin? Or perhaps I should wait for the story to develop in the fullness of time? That sort of thing. H Ah. Well it was practical, as I mentioned, to get 5000 rebellious sailors out of Toulon where they'd have to be fed and guarded. If they were just released, the French would be able to re-arm them and then Hood would have 5000 more men to fight. By sending them to the Atlantic, he was removing them from the Toulon theater of war. It would be complicated and impractical for the French to send the sailors BACK to Toulon to fight once they arrived in Brest or L'Orient. The reason they picked battleships is because they were designed to carry large crews. By removing the guns, they would be able to carry a lot of people. The French would do this at other points in the war; remove the guns to allow a warship to carry a large number of troops instead. These ships were known as "Flutes" because there were no guns behind their gunports, so if they were opened they'd resemble a flute. 1
Enric Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Oh FFS! ... well, I think you had already lots earlier shown your mettle and fuse; and this comment appears to continue that.
DragonFire Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 well, I think you had already lots earlier shown your mettle and fuse; and this comment appears to continue that.As does your continuing petty dissection of every small detail. As has been stated already, there is a technical point’s forum where, if you must, you can air your ‘fascinating’ analysis of how historical figures spelt their surnames! 1
Enric Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 As does your continuing petty dissection of every small detail. As has been stated already, there is a technical point
DragonFire Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Trust me; nothing would give me more pleasure than to tell you exactly where to shove your 'strawman', but that kind of language is not tolerated on this forum. So I'll leave it to your imagination! My point remains, technical points should be made elsewhere. This forum is to discuss the story, so in the interest of everyone else’s sanity, I will refrain from continuing this discussion any further. 1
Mark Arbour Posted June 9, 2009 Author Posted June 9, 2009 Stop it, the pair of you. My Knight in shining condom. Thanks Galahad! 1
colliever Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Stop it, the pair of you. I agree this is getting a bit out of control. But Dragon and Galahad have made their point..there is a separate thread for technical points!! 1
Sir Galahad Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 My Knight in shining condom. Thanks Galahad! My pleasure. Though I was sure the dragon would have stopped anyway. 1
Hoskins Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Is there somewhere I can post to discuss the more technical parts of this story? ::runs away:: 1
Recommended Posts