Help: Translating Napoleon

Hail EB countrymen! I need your help. Dodge quoted a huge chunk of Napoleon in relation to Hannibal's Alpine crossing and while I have tried to check the dictionary, there are some parts still obscure. Is there any French-speaker here who can help me decipher this and let me check if my jangled personal 'translation' is correct?

It goes:

'Le première qualité d’un général en chef, c’est d’avoir un esprit calme qui ne reçoive des objets qu’une impression exacte. Il ne lui est pas permis de se laisser éblouir par les bonnes nouvelles ni abattre parles mauvaises. Les sensations qu’il perçoit successivement ou simultanément dans le cours de la journée doivent se classer dans sa memoire de manière à n’y occuper chacune que la place qui lui est dévolue; car le raisonnement et l’appréciation des faits sont le résultat de l’exacte comparaison des différentes impressions qu’ils produisent. Il y a des hommes qui se font ue singulière peinture des événements d’après leurs conditions morales et physiques; aussi, malgré leurs connaissances, leur habilitè, leur courage et toutes les autres qualités qu’ils possèdent, la nature ne les a pas appelés au commandement des armées, ni à la direction des grandes opérations militaires.'

I'd really appreciate any help you guys could give, because Dodge quotes this without translation and makes the whole paragraph sound like it's something very important...

There's actually another shorter passage further on, another Napoleon commentary on Hannibal's crossing. I need to find it...

Once again, thanks in advance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

'Le première qualité d’un général en chef, c’est d’avoir un esprit calme qui ne reçoive des objets qu’une impression exacte. Il ne lui est pas permis de se laisser éblouir par les bonnes nouvelles ni abattre parles mauvaises. Les sensations qu’il perçoit successivement ou simultanément dans le cours de la journée doivent se classer dans sa memoire de manière à n’y occuper chacune que la place qui lui est dévolue; car le raisonnement et l’appréciation des faits sont le résultat de l’exacte comparaison des différentes impressions qu’ils produisent. Il y a des hommes qui se font ue singulière peinture des événements d’après leurs conditions morales et physiques; aussi, malgré leurs connaissances, leur habilitè, leur courage et toutes les autres qualités qu’ils possèdent, la nature ne les a pas appelés au commandement des armées, ni à la direction des grandes opérations militaires.'

---

Let's give it a try:

"The first and foremost quality of a general is mainly to have a calm spirit which does not receive anything but a clear impression of matters at hand. He is not allowed to let himself become full of the good nor may his spirits be damped by the bad news. The sensations (feelings) he perceives in succession or simultainously during the course of the day must each be given nothing but their proper place and recognition in his memory; for reasoning and the appreciation of facts are the results of meticulous comparison of the different impressions they produce. There are those men whose state of morale and shape forms towards/after a single interpretation of events; and also despite their knowledge, skill, courage and all their other qualities; nature does not call them for the command of armies nor the supervisions of major/large-scale military operations."

Thanks Tellos! I had suspected something of the sort, because I read some subchapters in Clausewitz which sounded a lot like it and also made much of the impressions a general received and what he did with it.

EDIT: I skipped 'en chef' which means "mainly"; secondly it might not be entirely 'clean': it's been some time since I used to read French regularly.

My French is very bad.

'The most important quality of a commander in chief is a calm demeanor which entertains substance with an exacting sense. He can not be overwhelmed by good news nor laid low by negativity. Successive or simultaneous emotions perceived over the course of a day must be cataloged in his memory so each may be revisited only in a setting reserved for themselves; as interpretation and appreciation of facts result from a precise contrast of the various effects they evoke. There are men who make a singular picture of events according to their morals and physic; also, in spite of their knowledge, their ability, their courage, and all their other skills, they are not called to command armies, nor direct great military operations.’

I hope this helps?

It certainly does, cmacq. Clearly your bad French is practically literary in comparison to mine... One thing I do know is that 'general en chef' is commander in chief. Hope this helps in return, Tellos!

EDIT: The last one, just a very short sentence on Hannibal's making across the Alps into Insubramrog: 'Cet Annibal... qui ne descend en Italie qu'en payant de la moitie de son armee la seule acquisition de son champ de bataille, le seul droit de se combattre.'

Right, I may have rounded off a few edges here and there. Just trying to make Napo sound good.

A bit on the poetic side?

'This Hannibal…
who did not descend into Italy by paying half his army, choose only his battlefield and only his right to fight.’

I'm not totally sure about this?

Would this line have something to do with a New Republic not entirely funding a certain Franco-Italian campaign?

I'm unsure about Napoleon. He was a tyranical megalomaniac with ambitions of ruling Europe and caused the deaths of countless thousands (some estimate over 5 million). An unlikely hero. Not even French.

Mind you, how many other respected people could that description fit?

I'm just here for the French lesson?

I just came across this topic. And I'm French, and I don't want to comment on Napoleon's means, behaviour and achievements :clown:
@ Tellos Athenaios
«général en chef» means «commander in chief», so you can keep it as it is in the translation.
EDIT: I just read Cmaq's translation and correction about it. Nevermind.

Apart from that, this is pretty good. The sense of it is very well rendered, and the style you applied perfectly fits.

Mon arrangement de Francais est si mauvais? Pardon, ma mauvaise plaisanterie, merci.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horst Nordfink

I'm unsure about Napoleon. He was a tyranical megalomaniac with ambitions of ruling Europe and caused the deaths of countless thousands (some estimate over 5 million). An unlikely hero. Not even French.

Mind you, how many other respected people could that description fit?

---

Agreed, he was megalomaniacal. But he was a great general for a time. And at least when he started out, the intentions for France were good. He did reform things in the period between the Peace of Amiens until and Third Coalition war, and undoubtedly would have done more if war had not broken out (admittedly through his own shoddy and jingoistic mismanagement of the Brits).

And if we want to look at it that way, practically every other 'great man' we know of in history also waded over the blood of innocents, whose smaller number were no doubt a commensurate proportion of the population of the world then. Alexander massacred the Gazans. Julius Caesar practically carried out genocide in Gaul. The Assyrians were famously bloodthirsty, just read their monuments and tally the heads they collected. Genghis Khan, Qin Shihuang, Asoka and Chandragupta, all the same too. Louis XIV made France a Power but damn near bled his country dry at the same time. Peter the Great may have built St Petersburg and made Russia a force to be reckoned with, but at what cost of those who died in the Neva marshes?

This description is not really meant to fit respected people, Horst. It's meant to fit feared people, when it boils down to the bare basics, people with the auctoritas and the gravitas and the wherewithal to compel that their will be obeyed. Respect is just the people's justification for their fear, most of the time, though in some cases what they have accomplished is indeed worthy of respect, if one puts away the human cost.

I have to agree with Pezhetairoi. Napoleon was a tyrant, but his intentions were originally good. He wanted what was good for his adopted country, yes I am aware that Corsica was independent not long before his birth.

He wanted France to be strong and respected. Ruling just about all of continental Europe is one way to acheive this.

And a fair few 'respected' people could be thought of like that. Henry the fifth and Edward the first of England I'd like to add to the list. Suleiman the magnificent, an epithet that is truly deserved, killed most of his sons before his own death. The battle of Mohacs has come down through history to us (... think ears... I'll say no more). Richard the Lionheart. (yes... I am English).

Respect doesn't have to come through fear. But fear on that sort of scale can make for a lot of respect!:whip:

That said I thought the French people of the time, at least in the early years, believed in the 'Little Sergeant's' cause. Or maybe that's just me.

There were good things about Napoleon too. That is why I am unsure about him. I don't know whether I should dislike him for his war-mongering or respect him for his brilliant command.

As with everyone, there are aspects of a persons personality that don't fit the mould.

I didn't want to upset people. Apologies if I did.

He may have had a terrible personality an may have killed many, many people.
But in the eyes of the French back then he was truely a hero, a conqueror.

And don't forget the Code Napoléon. He knew military victories were only temporarily, but a legal victory would last! And he was right, because except for the common law lands, every single other nation has had a civil code that was either litteraly the Code Napoléon or a derivate of it.
Of course he didn't right the code himself, but he did attend half the meetings.
Not that he improved it much, because Napoleon was Coriscan provincial boy, with conservative provincial views. So in some ways it was even more backward than the "backward" local rules that existed everywhere, it replaced.

For example Napoleon made the women totally unable. Because of this they had to accompagnied by or would need written permission of their husbands or fathers every time they went to buy a bread.
And he only kept divorce legal because he wanted to get rid of his own wife.

Anyway, he did some good things too. Their even is a Western European nation who still uses the Code Napoléon (in name, it's content has been adapted by special laws) and it ain't France.

This whole code thing was pure propaganda for Napoleon. Before him you had different law every 5 miles, now you had the same law in most parts of the world. This made him a hero with the upper classes and his military victories made him popular with the lower classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horst Nordfink

There were good things about Napoleon too. That is why I am unsure about him. I don't know whether I should dislike him for his war-mongering or respect him for his brilliant command.

As with everyone, there are aspects of a persons personality that don't fit the mould.

I didn't want to upset people. Apologies if I did.

---

No worries there. Fair points you made, I thought you were being a bit one-sided originally but I know better now.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive, you know. Most people are love-hate objects. They're good at one thing but at the cost of another. So it is possible to respect Nappy (as I used to call him in history class) for his brilliance, but to dislike him for the chaos he brought to Europe.

No one can fully fit within his mould, I think.

.
This horse is being recently beaten here.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

Cet Annibal... qui ne descend en Italie qu'en payant de la moitie de son armee la seule acquisition de son champ de bataille, le seul droit de se combattre.'

---

If I may help (I'm French)...

'This Hannibal... who came in Italy buying with half of his army the single acquisition of his battlefield, the single right to fight.'

I can assure you that, even for me, this sentence is barely understandable at the first glance.

It certainly was eccentric, that much I could tell from the context and my limited french. It's a lot clearer now!

As I see it, what he meant was, paraphrased, 'This Hannibal...who, at the price of half his army, bought the right to choose his own battlefield, and the right to come to grips with his enemy.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikaïa's tyrannos

If I may help (I'm French)...

'This Hannibal... who came in Italy buying with half of his army the single acquisition of his battlefield, the single right to fight.'

I can assure you that, even for me, this sentence is barely understandable at the first glance.

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
As I see it, what he meant was, paraphrased, 'This Hannibal...who, at the price of half his army, bought the right to choose his own battlefield, and the right to come to grips with his enemy.'

---

Right, very good, I think these are as close as you can get. I just can't get 'ne descend en' or 'descended not into,' within the context of the sentence?

Could it be. 'This Hannibal...who descended not into Italy [save for] half his army paying [the cost] of only his chose of battlefield, and only his right to fight???'


Again, as my French is very bad, yet my spelling is far worse.

The best periphrasis I can make close to the sense of this sentence is:
'This Hannibal... who could only descend in Italy at the cost of half of his army bought only his acquisitition of the battlefield and his right to fight.'

To be clear this sentence doesn t seem to be grammatically correct, so, assuming he was not grammaticaly challenged (but who knows?:inquisitive: ), it must be an old syntax.

He was not grammatically challenged and was able to speak corsican, french, english and was learning britton. I wonder of he knew german too. I don't know but sounds like possible since the man only slept a few hours per night.

I'll give a try to translation since i am french. (By the way, the grammar is correct).

Cet Annibal... qui ne descend en Italie qu'en payant de la moitie de son armee la seule acquisition de son champ de bataille, le seul droit de se combattre.'

For the record, the "ne" in "ne descend", is linked to the "que" in "qu'en Italie". "ne" ... "que" translates into "only".

this is the sophisticated version of the french language. It is full of hidden meanings and can't be easily translated into english.

this Hannibal... who comes into Italy only by buying his battlefield, even the right to fight, at the cost of half his army.


It is a comment driven by admiration and awe. Meant to underline the will power of Hannibal who was ready to sacrifice half is army to fight. In Napoleon's mind, it is also a rebuke. He loved his men and had the habit of sleeping within the camp. All of these feelings are conveyed in the way words are arranged in the sentence. Quite hard to turn it into english.

About Napoleon : you can't understand the man if you don't understand what happened in France during the revolution. The people got rid of the church and of the nobility through a great slaughter that one might compare to a nation-wide catharsis, and they did so while every single knigdom in europe sent his troops to kill the emerging republic "in the egg". And those got their asses handed to them on a silver plate. Add this to a long standing hatred against anything prussian and the desire for revenge after the loss of Quebec to England and you have the perfect exploding mix.

Napoleon was just a general good enough to use the will for survival, revenge and freedom of a whole nation and forge it into a weapon that could subdue all of Europe. And it almost worked. Of course he was a tyrant, he was just an enlightened one compared to french kings like Louis the XIV, Francis the first or any french ruler that followed him until Clémenceau. Too bad he was a powermonger, had he been more reasonnable and less intent on killing men in droves, he would have made the best ruler France ever had. Still, i believe he deserves his mausoleum.

To horst : "Not even french" ? Hey, being french is just about either having french parents or being born on french soil (french airplanes and embassies do the trick too) or being granted the nationality. I am french. I am also of Flemmish descent, and also austrian jewish from the Ashkenaz tribe, right in mother line. It is not a question of blood, it is a question of law. If the law tells someone is french, then he is. Like it or not, Napoleon was french, like William the conqueror was. Like i am, like Ngô Nhu Ba Ky, my colleague who was born in Viêt-Nam, is. No matter what their origins were.

I would interpret the last remark about Hannibal as being that he payed with half his army only to be able to choose the field of battle and the circumstances himself.