Unhistorical Napolean

It is a well known fact that Napolean had red hair (he was a ginger)

It is interesting CA has chosen the unhistorical route and made him not appear with his real hair color.

Why do you think they have chosen to do that?

Honestly don't care, I like the way CA has choose to depict Napoleon for the game.

Originally Posted by Reiksmarshal

Honestly don't care, I like the way CA has choose to depict Napoleon for the game.

yeah because getting the guy your basing your entire game around wrong is really acceptable and noone should care.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brown. >_>

Yer,hes right, napoleon did not have red hair, have you seen the numerous paintings of him, not a single on depicts hims of having red hair, and I myself have seen napoleons hair personally, and it is a dark brown.

Well, I don't remember Napoleon having non-brown hair...

But about the historical inaccuracies in the TW games, CA never based on it.

Seeing that lock of hair made me think of some Boys from Brazil type scenario where a future generation clones Bonaparte and teaches him about his past, so that he can become Emperor once more.

Another thing it remined me of was an article I read in Reader's Digest a few years back that suggested that Napoleon had died of arsenic poisoning due to the huge levels of the stuff in his hair. Some suggested he'd been assassinated, although I read later that the same levels of arsenic was present in his hair at an earlier date.

Originally Posted by Doe3000

Another thing it remined me of was an article I read in Reader's Digest a few years back that suggested that Napoleon had died of arsenic poisoning due to the huge levels of the stuff in his hair. Some suggested he'd been assassinated, although I read later that the same levels of arsenic was present in his hair at an earlier date.

I remember reading that one too (it was in like the 50 greatest unsolved mysteries edition or something I think). The only problem with the murder theory is that a lot of people from around that time had high levels of arsenic in them, due to horrible health conditions at the time. Also it doesn't make sense why they would want to murder him years after he has been on St. Helena with no serious attempts to rescue him tried.

It would be a good mystery if he was though, it could have been so many people.

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

I remember reading that one too (it was in like the 50 greatest unsolved mysteries edition or something I think). The only problem with the murder theory is that a lot of people from around that time had high levels of arsenic in them, due to horrible health conditions at the time. Also it doesn't make sense why they would want to murder him years after he has been on St. Helena with no serious attempts to rescue him tried.

It would be a good mystery if he was though, it could have been so many people.

I was under the impression that it was established fact that Napoleon was poisoned by a Bourbon agent at St. Helena, using arsenic. (looking...)

Yep. Napoleon, as well as his majordomo Cipriani, were poisoned. Probably by the Comte de Montholon acting on the orders of the Comte d'Artois, brother of King Louis XVIII.

Note: the Napoleonic Series website is one of the most respected historical Napoleonic sites, though a bit less of a one-stop-shopping center than Napoleonistyka.

Link:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/w...ination_w.html

Edit: summary -

"The case is very clear. Napoleon was murdered by the Comte de Montholon, using chronic arsenical intoxication followed by acute cyanide poisoning. As an agent of the Bourbons, he succeeded with his mission. Montholon had the opportunity, competence and credible motive to achieve secretly the removal of any likelihood that Napoleon might return to claim the throne from Louis XVIII."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ja..._David_017.jpg

Looks pretty accurate to how he was portrayed in the trailer

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

I remember reading that one too (it was in like the 50 greatest unsolved mysteries edition or something I think). The only problem with the murder theory is that a lot of people from around that time had high levels of arsenic in them, due to horrible health conditions at the time. Also it doesn't make sense why they would want to murder him years after he has been on St. Helena with no serious attempts to rescue him tried.

It would be a good mystery if he was though, it could have been so many people.

There were rescue attempts. His brother Joseph attempted to rescue him. It makes perfect sense for the British to want him dead after that. He escaped before, and there were people trying to help him escape again. The best way to get rid of the old boy, arsenic.

Originally Posted by hitokiri2486

This statement doesn't make logical sense. If red hair is a recessive trait, you'd have to be a homozygous recessive to be a red head. By definition, that should not be as common as say, heterozygous.

No it's perfectly logical. People did not travel around as much, so red hair would be confined to small groups, where it would be more prevalent because the dominant gene was never introduced do to lack of contact with humans retaining the dominant gene. With the growth of travel the dominant gene spread much more.

Okay I like TW to be historically accurate and they failed to do this in previous games, but really, who cares about the hair color. As long as it isnt purple i'm happy. And he wears a hat over it so you won't even see it.

A Ginger ahahahah!!!!!! that sounds about right

CA likes to make fantasy TW games, thats why they add Elephants with cannons in their butts firing exploding pigs.
Historical Accuracy isnt their thing, they just like to use the setting.

Originally Posted by Augment

CA likes to make fantasy TW games, thats why they add Elephants with cannons in their butts firing exploding pigs.
Historical Accuracy isnt their thing, they just like to use the setting.

1) The Romans did set pigs on fire because their squeals frightened elephants.

2) The Mughals did put small cannons on elephants, as did Thais and the Burmese.

Try studying history before declaring it inaccurate.

Originally Posted by uanime5

1) The Romans did set pigs on fire because their squeals frightened elephants.

Not Romans, Megarians during the war of the Diadochi. Furthermore, it is the only reference to flaming pigs (de Natura Animalium, XVI 36)

Elephantum a suillo timere pecore jam dixit: nunc explicare placet, quod ad Megaram accidit. Cum ab Antipatro Megarenses circumsederentur, acerrimeque Macedones incumberent, primo in sues pice liquida oblitos incendium Megarei excitarunt, deinde sic incensos in hostes immiserunt. Ii itaque furore inflammati, cum in elephantorum agmina incurrerunt, tum clamantes, nempe igni flagrantes, quasi quibusdam furiis elephantos incitarunt, et graviter perturbarunt. Itaque nullum neque ordinem tenebant, neque amplius, quamvis a primo aetatis tempore domiti fuissent, mansuefacti erant; sive quod sua quadam natura a suibus abhorreant, sive etiam quia horum absonum vocis acument perhorreant. Cujus regi non ignari educatores generis elephantini una cum suibus pullos alunt, ex consuetudine eos ut minus horreant.

Originally Posted by uanime5

1) The Romans did set pigs on fire because their squeals frightened elephants.

2) The Mughals did put small cannons on elephants, as did Thais and the Burmese.

Try studying history before declaring it inaccurate.

But these are not the Timurids from the Middle Ages. About "flying animals", yep they were used in sieges and such in many nations.

Chyeeaaa111: why are those all famous people American (one nation)?

and to be on topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

all these pics are famous, and in all Napoleon has black hair.

Originally Posted by RO Citizen

But these are not the Timurids from the Middle Ages. About "flying animals", yep they were used in sieges and such in many nations.

Chyeeaaa111: why are those all famous people American (one nation)?

and to be on topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

all these pics are famous, and in all Napoleon has black hair.

Firstly, Lafeyette was French (how can a french man be a red head? - Answers that question)

Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but since you used it, I will prove you wrong with it

Look at the picture with the description:

"Bonaparte at the Bridge of the Arcole, by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros, (ca. 1801), Louvre, Paris"

What color is his hair?

I REST MY CASE

P.S. Winston Churchill also had red hair

Originally Posted by Chyeaaaa111

Firstly, Lafeyette was French (how can a french man be a red head? - Answers that question)

Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but since you used it, I will prove you wrong with it

Look at the picture with the description:

"Bonaparte at the Bridge of the Arcole, by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros, (ca. 1801), Louvre, Paris"

What color is his hair?

I REST MY CASE

P.S. Winston Churchill also had red hair

He doesn't have red hair in that picture :S It's brown-blonde

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._at_Arcole.jpg

I saw another version of it where it was a bit more reddish but the picture itself is also in a red lighting.
I still believe the majority of the portraits in the fact that Napoleon had black/dark brown hair.

Originally Posted by Chyeaaaa111

Firstly, Lafeyette was French (how can a french man be a red head? - Answers that question)

Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but since you used it, I will prove you wrong with it

Look at the picture with the description:

"Bonaparte at the Bridge of the Arcole, by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros, (ca. 1801), Louvre, Paris"

What color is his hair?

I REST MY CASE

P.S. Winston Churchill also had red hair

So your one portrait trumps his several portraits? Perfectly logical. Also, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill most certainly did not have red hair.