When you hear the name Napoleon Bonaparte, who do you picture? For many, it is a short, middle-aged, French man in an officer’s uniform. Regardless of his height, Napoleon was the fearless leader of France’s army for almost 15 years. He conquered parts of northern Italy, German territories within the east bank of the Rhine, and today’s Belgium and the Netherlands. So why is it that we still discuss the issue of his height, instead of remembering him as a great leader, who shaped today’s 21st century Europe?
The answer to this is simple. Napoleon’s military and political rival, Britain. Even though the French Empire fought with multiple European states, most were led by Britain. Britain formed the idea that Napoleon’s crazy ambitions had to do with his height. It is said that in order for Napoleon to compensate for his short stature, he became power hungry. Britain formed all sorts of propaganda to run along with this. They deemed him “Le Petit Corporal” or the “Little Corporal”. They would depict him next to taller men or being looked at with a magnifying glass. It is believed that, while the British overtook Napoleon, they were terrified of him and his army for a while. To overcome some of their fears, they poked fun at him to lessen him in their eyes.
Napoleon is continuously depicted as a small man in multiple portraits. He was also characterized as a short-tempered man. In all actuality, Napoleon was roughly 5’6” to 5’7”. French measurements at the time measured him as 5’2”. He was considered to actually be a normal height for a man in the during the 1700s and 1800s. The reason that he was sometimes depicted as small in real life was due to his Imperial Guards. These were very tall men, who followed Napoleon around everywhere. Standing next to them, one could see how Napoleon was considered puny.
Scientists have actually looked into the idea of Napoleon being a small, short-tempered man. There is a supposed condition deemed the “Napoleon Complex” in which shorter men tend to display more aggressive behavior towards their taller counterparts. Napoleon could have been 4’2” or 6’7”. No matter his height or some of the “endearing” nicknames he was given, he was one of the most ambitious emperors in the world. Although, there seems to be no stopping his height being part of the significance of the name Napoleon Bonaparte.
Citations:
“Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic Revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. Https://Doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720.” doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.
“Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic Revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. Https://Doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720.” doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.
This was very interesting to read and your visuals matched perfectly! Valid point about how we measure size--this was a matter of debate in the 2016 presidential election between Trump and Cruz, right (hand size). One lingering question is how we measure a "great" leader? That might be a good question for today (2019) and in today's class. Is it possible we over assign this term to certain types of individuals while neglecting others (women, those who have virtue, those who are peaceful . . . Jimmy Carter for instance advocates for all three but is rarely considered great). And then how to we classify poor leaders, and are we willing to do that--when it might mean questioning our own country? Can we use the term terrible or evil . . . in short I am fascinated by the way we view Napoleon, and if you view him as great then his many propaganda techniques have been successful!! I'm so glad you wrote on this topic.
ReplyDeleteSubstitute "you" for "we" in the 2nd to last line; I meant we the class. :)
ReplyDeleteIt is rather odd that we remember such a powerful figure in history by his height instead of his accomplishments. Honestly the very first thing I learned and constantly remembered about Napoleon was his height. It comes to show how easy it is for an enemy to control the situation even if they aren't winning the battle.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the British promoting the notion that Napoleon was lacking in height, I feel that Napoleon had warranted some of the propaganda. Napoleon was an emotional man, evidence being his romantic letters. I think that the British wanted to provoke his emotional side in the hopes that it caused him into making mistakes out of anger.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting! It makes me think a bit about how our society reacts to and portrays opposing political leaders such as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. In reality, we recognize them as powerful men, and our country's leaders would definitely engage with them that way. However, our social media and requisite meme culture reflects a lot of mockery on the public level. It seems like this technique of mocking foreign rivals to reduce intimidation is still a common practice.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the first comment, I was drawing a correlation between Napoleon being small with the comments about appearance, small hands in particular, used in the presidential election. They used it as if it was an insult to belittle one another. To make one seem like less of a leader or important figure throughout history... Interesting that the main fact we learn about Napoleon is that he was small even though his impact was big.
ReplyDelete