Napoleon died of gastric cancer

Comet

Forum Staff
Aug 2006
8,688
IA
#1
Did Napoleon die of gastric cancer instead of poisoning? According to this report, he may have.

Putting to rest a 200-year-old mystery, scientists say Napoleon Bonaparte died from an advanced case of gastric cancer and not arsenic poisoning as some had speculated.
After being defeated by the British in 1815, the French Emperor was exiled to St. Helena--an island in the South Atlantic Ocean. Six years later, at the age of 52, Bonaparte whispered his last words, "Head of Army!"
An autopsy at the time determined that stomach cancer was the cause of his death. But some arsenic found in 1961 in the ruler's hair sparked rumors of poisoning. Had Napoleon escaped exile, he could have changed the balance of power in Europe; therefore murder speculations didn't seem outlandish.
However, a new study--combining current medical knowledge, autopsy reports, Bonaparte's physician memoirs, eyewitness accounts, and family medical histories--found that gastrointestinal bleeding was the immediate cause of death.
"This analysis suggests that, even if the emperor had been released or escaped from the island, his terminal condition would have prevented him from playing a further major role in the theater of European history," said lead study author, Robert Genta of University of Texas Southwestern. "Even today, with the availability of sophisticated surgical techniques and chemotherapies, patients with gastric cancer as advanced as Napoleon's have a poor prognosis." A four-inch lesion
The original autopsy descriptions indicated that Bonaparte's stomach had two ulcerated lesions: a large one on the stomach and a smaller one that had pierced through the stomach wall and reached the liver.
Genta and his colleagues compared the description of these lesions with current images of 50 benign ulcers and 50 gastric cancers and found that the emperor's lesions were cancerous.
"It was a huge mass from the entrance of his stomach to the exit. It was at least 10 centimeters [4 inches] long." Genta said. "Size alone suggests the lesion was cancer."
A severe case
Bonaparte, the researchers said, had a very severe case of the cancer which had spread to other organs.
"Even if treated today, he'd have been dead within a year," Genta said.
Although the emperor's father also died from stomach cancer, Bonaparte's cancer most likely stemmed from an ulcer-causing bacterial infection, the researchers said.�
A diet full of salt-preserved foods but sparse in fruits and vegetables--common fare for long military campaigns--increased Napoleon's risk for gastric cancer, Genta said.
The study is detailed in the January edition of Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070116/sc_livescience/mysteryofnapoleonsdeathsaidsolved
 

MrStoff1989

Historum Emeritas
Aug 2006
844
Tennessee
#2
Nice, This poses another view of his death with alot of backing. Personally, I believe this over anything else. It seems much more relevant and interesting then "he died alone on an island of poisioning."
 
Jul 2006
1,315
Hellas
#4
I will agree with that analysis, French people worshiped Napoleon and hated English, already Napoleon had problems before 1815, even in his testament Napoleon did not accused the English for poisoning him.
Hatred against English led to that conclusion.
 
#5
I will agree with that analysis, French people worshiped Napoleon and hated English...
Certainly, whether you agree with the theory or not, you cannot use this as your reason. It could esily be countered by the idea that the British hated Napoleon and loved their own leaders, so therefore they would poison Napoleon.
 
Jul 2006
1,315
Hellas
#6
Certainly, whether you agree with the theory or not, you cannot use this as your reason. It could esily be countered by the idea that the British hated Napoleon and loved their own leaders, so therefore they would poison Napoleon.
Although British foreign diplomacy used every means necessary to achieve goals for the best interest of them, he never would kill directly or indirectly Napoleon.
The proof?
1. They had already exiled Napoleon in Elba.
2. Why poisoning Napoleon and not simply sink the ship that carried him ? ("Accident")
3. Why not shot him and say "suicide"?
4. And why not poisoning him directly by force?

The weight to carry a whole nation and state in his shoulders, with little trust to the others (sometimes from megalomania), is a weight that can damage serious your health (don't mention the campaigns from 1798 to 1815 in all Europe, all kinds of weather and all kinds of suffer).

www.napoleonguide.com

You will find there Napoleons testament. Nothing is written in his will. And please don't tell me that Napoleon was afraid the English.
 
#7
Although British foreign diplomacy used every means necessary to achieve goals for the best interest of them, he never would kill directly or indirectly Napoleon.
The proof?
1. They had already exiled Napoleon in Elba.
2. Why poisoning Napoleon and not simply sink the ship that carried him ? ("Accident")
3. Why not shot him and say "suicide"?
4. And why not poisoning him directly by force?

The weight to carry a whole nation and state in his shoulders, with little trust to the others (sometimes from megalomania), is a weight that can damage serious your health (don't mention the campaigns from 1798 to 1815 in all Europe, all kinds of weather and all kinds of suffer).
e.com
You will find there Napoleons testament. Nothing is written in his will. And please don't tell me that Napoleon was afraid the English.
Very good (and valid) points, my friend. also, the issue of poisoning is mentioned, one must remember that is does not necessarily mean the British government was the culprit. Coorect me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ben Weider, who's pushing the poisoning theory, has as his main suspect a frenchman.
 
Jul 2006
1,315
Hellas
#8
Sometimes people like to believe some things rather to search for the truth.
I believe to one thing, Napoleon was a leader, and as leader he put his stamp to the history.
For some people one of the greatest ever, for others a complex, megalomaniac, egoistic "little" man. But the point is one : he existed and created and followed his destiny till his end.
For that i admire him.
 

Similar History Discussions