Research Tool Bench

Did Napoleon's Soldiers Shoot the Nose Off the Sphinx?

Last updated 2026-08-22

The image is almost too good: French artillerymen, bored in the desert, using a seven-thousand-year-old wonder for target practice. It shows up in trivia lists, museum captions, and at least one Ridley Scott movie. It's also one of the more widely "debunked" pieces of Egypt trivia — plenty of pages will tell you the nose was already gone before Napoleon arrived. Fewer of them show the actual evidence for that, or notice that the evidence itself doesn't agree with itself.

The claim

During France's 1798–1801 military campaign in Egypt, Napoleon Bonaparte's soldiers used the Great Sphinx of Giza's face for cannon target practice, destroying its nose.

Source trail

Nobody we found could point to when this story first started circulating — it isn't attached to a named source in any of the pages we checked. What we did find is evidence of how old and how ordinary the story already was by the 20th century, and, running the other direction, a set of 18th-century travelers' drawings that the modern debunking pages lean on to disprove it — two of which turn out to disagree with each other.

What's confirmed

What isn't

Verdict

Napoleon's troops did not shoot the nose off the Sphinx — on that, every source checked agrees, and the timeline leaves no real room for doubt: multiple independent sightings of a noseless Sphinx predate 1798 by anywhere from 53 to 252 years. Who actually did it is less settled than the confident "1378, a Sufi named al-Dahr" answer that circulates online suggests: the account traces to one medieval historian, writing decades after the fact, whose own modern citation disagrees with itself on the year, and whose claim about the ears doesn't match the statue as it stands. Even the physical evidence used to clear Napoleon has a wrinkle nobody flags — the one drawing from 1737 that shows an intact nose looks like a copy of an even older picture, not a fresh look at the monument.

Same shape as our briefs on Newton's apple and Napoleon's height: the popular "well, actually" correction turns out to rest on evidence with its own uncredited soft spots once you keep tracing it. Also related: was Napoleon really attacked by an army of rabbits?, another Napoleon story where the one source everyone cites says something more specific than the number that actually spreads. More research briefs.