Antommarchi's autopsy report is very complete and shows Napoleon's general state of health at his death, notably a chronic stomach ulcer and pulmonary lesions linked to tuberculosis. Cancer cannot be diagnosed because of a lack of histological evidence from the stomach lining. At any rate, one does not die 'of cancer', one dies of the effects of the cancer on the organism.
Analysis of the emperor's hair and the discovery of high level of arsenic therein poses several questions. But it is intellectually impossible to accept the theory of death by arsenic poisoning.
First of all, we can never be 100% certain that the hairs analysed come from Napoleon. Furthermore, the level of arsenic could be interpreted in different ways, notably the methods of analysis and the ways of calculating the levels used by the toxicologists (numbers obtained weighed against the number of hairs analysed: in fact, very few hairs have been analysed. Whilst presence of arsenic cannot be explained arguing from its external use (in cosmetics, for example), we still do not know where the arsenic came from, and it could have come from many sources. The hairs on the head of the people in Napoleon's entourage could also have a high arsenic content.
Finally, to pass from toxicological results to a poisoning theory, then to a voluntary criminal act is very difficult. Indeed, one cannot establish a theory, accepting certain elements of the correspondence of one of the protagonists whilst eliminating other elements two paragraphs further on which contradict this position.
The only certainties thus are, Napoleon's general state of health was very poor and no direct cause of death can be determined accurately. This is the only satisfactory conclusion from an ontological point of view, both for the scientist and for the historian. A deeply held conviction may be the starting point of an investigation but certainly not its conclusion.
2006-10-17 12:04:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by angel_boo_2 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
In October, 2005, a document was unearthed in Scotland that presented an account of the autopsy, which again seems to confirm Antommarchi's conclusion. The original post-mortem examination carried out by Francesco Antommarchi concluded Napoleon died of stomach cancer without knowing Napoleon’s father had died of stomach cancer.
Taken from the website below.
2006-10-17 08:51:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by hot_pink_dragonfly86 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
The cause of his death is disputed and controversy remains to this day. His personal physician gave "stomach cancer" as a reason for Napoleon's death in his death certificate. But there is a claim that he was killed by arsenic poisoning because the arsenic levels of Napoleon's hair, preserved after his death were seven to thrity-eight times higher than normal.
2006-10-17 09:02:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Martha P 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever. Napoleon Bonaparte I find this one most applicable to the YA community who is constantly criticizing Obama, Bush and others. I will include myself there as well. Irony is those destined to obscurity diminishing the intelligence of those who are not.
2016-05-22 11:23:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If there was a large amount of arsenic in his hairs, this would indicate chronic arsenic poisoning, he would have had to have been almost constantly exposed and taken probably orally arsenic for many months or years. Was this a contributing factor to his death?. Maybe , it certainly would have debilitated his system. Chronic arsenic poisoning produces gastrointestinal inflammation and chronic diarrhoea, it also affects the bone marrow, causing anemia and susceptibility to infections.
If his enemies had wanted for Bonaparte to die , they would have executed him up front, as they had the power over his life.
2015-10-17 10:14:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rasputin 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
He may have been poisoned by the governor of St. Helena.
He may have gotten arsenic poisioning from wallpaper.
It may have been a stomach ulcer or cancer.
There will alway be mistique around his death, considering he was such a high- profile character.
2006-10-17 09:22:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
He died May 5, 1821 of a "stomach ailment" in St Helenes, where he had been banished to by the British.
2006-10-17 08:56:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Miz Teri 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was thought by results of a post mortem he had died from a perforated ulcer that had turned cancerous.But later tests found traces of arsenic in his hair,so he could have been poisoned,but this could not be proved.
2006-10-17 08:52:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I thought it was a stomach ulcer.
2006-10-17 08:51:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by ee 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He is still alive and hanging out with Elvis.
2006-10-17 09:30:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Eric H 1
·
0⤊
1⤋