History according to random people... (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"Saying that you are offended is essentially saying that you are incapable of controlling and managing your own emotions and so everybody else should do it for you."

....or as Stephen Fry puts it, "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
 
Horses for courses; you're more likely to come under fire here for persistent use of the superfluous apostrophe.
 
An error in your essay: Napoleon was 62 French inches tall. The most common French inch was about 27 mm. Napoleon's lack of stature was due to (rather infantile) propaganda and political cartoons. His real height, in US inches and feet, would be about 5'7"

A lot of things "everybody knows" have always been false; sometimes this has resulted in protests when, for example, history books get changed due to discovery of new information. Sometimes it happens when interpretations change.
 
The french revolution had implimented the metric system.
His size was 1.68 meters not 1.58. He could seem small compared to the soldiers of his Imperial Guard that were his common surrounding because size was a selection criteron.
But the required size for conscription of the line troops before 1811 was 1.544 meters. For information, the size of the infantry musket was 1.515 meters...
 

Users who are viewing this thread