Talk:Coup of 18 Brumaire

Lack of Citation

This is short on citation of sources. In no small part this is my fault: large portions of this are among my first contributions to Wikipedia, and I hadn't yet realized how important that is. (I've just gone back and done my best to fix that.)

Also, much of the same material is covered at French_Directory#18_Brumaire. Probably this article is where it should be, with maybe a 2-paragraph summary there and a "See main article" reference. In any case, the two should be merged. -- Jmabel 07:04, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC) * I'll work on this over the next day or two. -- Jmabel 20:16, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've now dealt with integrating the material here. The other article was just a straight cut & paste from the 1911 EB, not much new. -- Jmabel 20:38, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Two Councils

I think a much better job needs to be done of introducing the "two Councils". The first mention of them uses just those words, and it isn't until several paragraphs later that they both are named. No description of their roles or membership is given (except that one evidently has 500 members). I know we don't need to recapitulate the article on The Directory here, but surely a sentence or two on each council is not out of order. Mdotley 13:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a parenthetical remark "that is, the upper and lower houses of the legislature". - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte coup?!

Having just finished William Boyle's Oxford History of the French Revolution, I was surprised to read here in this article that a coup was involved. It wasn't mentioned in this well regarded telling. Shenanigans perhaps, but coup? Boyle has it that Bony's installation as First Consul (of three) was nearly by acclamation. He had just made short work of winning all of France's continental wars for her against heavy odds!

I would like to see a citation for this claim of a coup involving troops. wgoetsch (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Doyle discusses the Brumaire coup in pp.374–375 (2nd edition). I added a few citations here. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact Napoleon had been sent off to Egypt after his first victorious Italian campaign. While he was away the French were getting clobbered militarily in Europe. Napoleon returned and staged his coup - then a few months later embarked on his second victorious Italian campaign - Marengo. This wiki article describes one of them. Napoleon did not command of the German Front and he lost the Near East to the British. It certainly was a coup in every sense of the word. Napoleon deserted his army in Egypt with the goal of taking power in France. When he returned was immediately seen by many as a potential saviour of France and he had many political backers ready to propel him into a leadership role in order to reverse the rapidly declining situation in France. In secret negotiations with an inner circle of plotters, Napoleon began carefully planning the coup. This article does not do justice to the extraordinary planning Napoleon made in carefully assigning military units throughout Paris in strategic locations. The majority of short descriptions about the 18 Brumaire never show how calculated Napoleon planned the junta takeover. His 2 political co-conspirators clearly saw themselves as fifth wheels when Napoleon made it known to them that he did not require them thereafter. Yes, France was saved at that point, but they had a dictator in control who then stylized himself as an Imperial dynasty along the lines of the Emperor Francis and Tsar Alexander. So, the article really needs more substance rather than citations regarding troops used. I recommend the book "Napoleon on Napoleon" by Somerset de Chair, p.138-156. It gives great detail on the event based on Napoleon's description of his plot.--Joey123xz (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Coup of 18 Brumaire. This title seemed to be preferred in the request, while everyone agreed that the title needed to be moved somewhere. The title which was selected is more WP:CONCISE. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

18 Brumaire → Coup d'état of 18 Brumaire – We cannot tell from just the title that we are referring to a coup d'état. It must be clear exactly what the article is about: the coup, not the day itself that happened once a year for about a decade. Kndimov (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question - in English language books is it called "Coup d'état of 18 Brumaire" or just "18 Brumaire" with no "coup"? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a textbook here: The West and the World, written by Arthur Haberman and Adrian Shubert and published in 2002, that calls it "Napoleon's coup of 18 Brumaire". In this source [1] (which is listen on the article page) the even is referred to as: "the coup of 18-19 Brumaire, Year VIII (November 9th-10th, 1199)". I guess different sources can word things differently. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Request – I agree about the need for a move because "18 Brumaire" is an overtly literary expression – it's a metonym, as you've noted (and I believe it reached its peak usage somewhere in the 19th century). But can we move it to the existing redirect Coup of 18 Brumaire? I think "Coup d'état of..." is unnecessarily wordy, while "Coup of..." is not only just as common (if not more so) but it's shorter and clearer, better suited to a general readership and searches, and matches up with Coup of 18 Fructidor. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Coup of 18 Brumaire as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Coup of 18 Brumaire per all above. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support coup d'état; oppose coup. I also support the status quo and would like to see the 18 Fructidor article match this one. Srnec (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Coup of 18 Brumaire SteveStrummer (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, SteveStrummer, In ictu oculi and victor falk prefer Coup of 18 Brumaire, while Srnec and Kndimov prefer Coup d'état of 18 Brumaire. There doesn't seem to be consensus here. (3-2) -- Kndimov (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer 18 Brumaire coup d'état as most concise and precise, and easiest to work in body text sentences per WP:PIPELINK. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Coup d'état of 18 Brumaire" can also be worked in. Honestly, it depends on the sentence. There are a lot of article names that don't work well in a body of text, like European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). I don't think that should be a major factor in deciding. But that's just my opinion. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.