The sun was setting over the island of St. Helena on May 5, 1821, as Napoleon Bonaparte took
his final breath. In that moment, one of history’s most legendary figures, the man who had
conquered much of Europe, reformed France’s legal system, and forever changed the face of
warfare, passed into history. Yet in the centuries that followed, something strange happened.
While scholars would debate his military genius, his political legacy, and his impact on modern
Europe, one peculiar “fact” about Napoleon would embed itself so deeply in our collective
consciousness that it became virtually unquestionable: Napoleon Bonaparte was a short man.
We’ve all heard it. We’ve seen the cartoons, the paintings, the movie depictions. We know the
psychological term, the “Napoleon Complex”, used to describe short men who compensate for
their lack of height with aggression and ambition. The image is so pervasive that Napoleon’s
name has become synonymous with shortness and the insecurity it supposedly breeds.
But what if I told you that this foundational “fact” about one of history’s most famous figures
was completely wrong?
The Emperor’s True Measure
On a rainy afternoon in Paris, I found myself standing in Les Invalides, gazing at Napoleon’s
magnificent tomb. A tour guide nearby was entertaining a group of American tourists with
anecdotes about the emperor’s small stature. “He was barely five feet tall, ” the guide claimed
confidently, “which explains why he was so determined to conquer Europe!”
The tourists nodded knowingly. Of course, it all made sense. A small man with big ambitions,
compensating for his physical limitations.
Except Napoleon Bonaparte was not short.
In fact, Napoleon stood approximately 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.69 meters), which was slightly
above average for a Frenchman of his era. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the
average height for men in France was around 5 feet 5 inches. This means that when Napoleon
walked into a room, he would have appeared perfectly normal, perhaps even somewhat tall, to
his contemporaries.
So where did this persistent myth come from? And why has it endured for over two centuries?
Manufacturing a Small Emperor: The British Propaganda
Machine
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
Though this quote is often misattributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt, it aptly describes the origins
of the Napoleon height myth.
The story begins in the halls of British power during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).
Napoleon had emerged as Britain’s greatest enemy, a military genius who threatened not just
British interests on the continent, but potentially the British Isles themselves. The British
government, led by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, recognized that defeating
Napoleon would require more than just military might. They needed to undermine his mystique,
to transform the fearsome Emperor of the French into a figure of ridicule.
British newspapers and political cartoonists became the primary weapons in this propaganda
war. James Gillray, George Cruikshank, and other prominent caricaturists of the era portrayed
Napoleon as comically diminutive, a tiny, petulant child throwing tantrums as he attempted to
conquer Europe. In these cartoons, British leaders towered over the French emperor, literally
looking down on him as they thwarted his ambitions.
One of the most famous examples is Gillray’s 1805 cartoon “The Plumb-pudding in Danger, “
which depicts Napoleon and British Prime Minister William Pitt carving up the world
(represented as a plum pudding). In the image, Napoleon is noticeably smaller than his British
counterpart, standing on his tiptoes to reach the table.British newspapers widely circulated these images, consistently referring to Napoleon with
diminutive nicknames like “Little Boney, ” “The Little Corporal, ” and “The Corsican Dwarf.”
These characterizations served a dual purpose: they made Napoleon seem less threatening to the
British public while simultaneously undermining his dignity and authority.
What began as calculated wartime propaganda soon took on a life of its own. The image of a
short Napoleon became so pervasive in British culture that it eventually transcended its political
origins. By the time of Napoleon’s death in 1821, the myth had been repeated so often that it was
accepted as fact, even by those with no particular animosity toward the former emperor.
Lost in Translation: The Measurement Mistake
While British propaganda played a crucial role in creating the myth of Napoleon’s shortness,
there was another, more innocent factor that contributed to the misunderstanding: conflicting
measurement systems.
During Napoleon’s lifetime, standardized international measurements didn’t exist. France used
the French foot (pied de roi), which was longer than the British foot. Napoleon’s height was
recorded in his military records as 5 feet 2 inches in French measurements. When British
observers heard this figure, they naturally interpreted it according to their own measurement
system, not realizing that the French foot was larger than their own.
When properly converted, 5 feet 2 inches in French units equals approximately 5 feet 7 inches in
British/Imperial units. This simple conversion error, combined with deliberate propaganda,
created the perfect conditions for a historical misconception to take root.
The irony of this measurement confusion is striking. Napoleon himself had championed the
metric system in France, pushing for standardized measurements to replace the hodgepodge of
local systems that had caused confusion for centuries. Yet his own height would become one of
history’s most famous victims of measurement inconsistency.
To put Napoleon’s actual height in context, he was approximately the same height as:
Modern figures like Martin Freeman, Tom Cruise, and Robert Downey Jr.
None of these men are considered remarkably short by historical or contemporary standards.
Napoleon’s height was perfectly ordinary for his time, a fact confirmed by the measurement of
his body after death and by the dimensions of his clothes and furniture, which still exist in
museums today.
From Historical Error to Psychological Theory
The Duke of Wellington, his British adversary at Waterloo James Madison, the fourth President of the United States Ludwig van Beethoven, the famous composer
By the early 20th century, the myth of Napoleon’s shortness had become so entrenched that it
influenced the development of psychological theory. Alfred Adler, a colleague of Sigmund
Freud who later broke away to develop his own school of psychology, coined the term
“inferiority complex” to describe feelings of inadequacy and their compensatory behaviors.
Though Adler himself never used the term “Napoleon Complex, ” his theories about
compensation for physical limitations were quickly linked to the popular image of Napoleon as a
short man driven to conquest by insecurity. By the mid-20th century, the “Napoleon Complex”
had become a widely recognized concept in popular psychology, the idea that short men often
compensate for their lack of height through aggressive or domineering behavior.
The problem, of course, is that the psychological theory was built on a historical falsehood.
Napoleon wasn’t short, so his ambition and drive cannot be attributed to height-related
insecurity. Nevertheless, the concept persists in our cultural lexicon, influencing how we
perceive short men in positions of power.
Recent research has largely debunked the Napoleon Complex. A 2007 study by the University of
Central Lancashire found that short men were actually less likely to lose their temper than men
of average height. Other studies have found no consistent correlation between male height and
aggressive behavior. Yet the stereotype continues to influence public perception, particularly in
politics and business.
Hollywood and the Perpetuation of a Myth
Walk into any costume party where someone is dressed as Napoleon, and you’re likely to see the
same thing: a short person with a hand tucked into their waistcoat, wearing a bicorne hat. This
image has been reinforced by countless film and television portrayals that continue to depict
Napoleon as remarkably short, despite historical evidence to the contrary.
In the 1970 film “Waterloo, ” the 5’5″ Rod Steiger played Napoleon (two inches shorter than the
real emperor). In “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989), Napoleon is portrayed as childlike
and diminutive. Even in more recent portrayals, the image of a short Napoleon persists, it’s
simply too ingrained in our cultural consciousness to easily correct.
The entertainment industry has found the short Napoleon trope too useful to abandon. It provides
an easy visual shorthand for ambition born of insecurity, for the small man with big dreams. The
truth, that Napoleon was of average height for his time and showed no signs of height-related
insecurity, is less dramatically compelling than the myth.
During my research for this book, I interviewed several screenwriters who had worked on
historical dramas featuring Napoleon. One admitted: “We know he wasn’t actually short, but
audiences expect it. If we showed a Napoleon of average height, viewers would be confused.
Sometimes historical accuracy has to take a backseat to audience expectations.”
This circular logic, perpetuating a myth because people expect the myth, reveals how difficult it
is to correct historical misconceptions once they become embedded in popular culture.
Height, Power, and Modern Leadership
The Napoleon height myth reflects deeper cultural biases about height and leadership that persist
today. Research consistently shows that taller individuals are perceived as more authoritative and
competent, and this perception translates into concrete advantages:
- In U.S. presidential elections since 1900, the taller candidate has won the popular vote in
two-thirds of contests. - A 2004 study found that each inch of height corresponds to approximately $789 more in
annual salary. - Fortune 500 CEOs are, on average, 2.5 inches taller than the typical American man.
These height biases create a curious irony in how we remember Napoleon. His actual
achievements, conquering much of Europe, reforming France’s legal and educational systems,
and revolutionizing military tactics, are often overshadowed by a physical characteristic he didn’t
even possess. By focusing on his supposedly short stature, we unconsciously diminish his actual
accomplishments, much as the British propagandists intended two centuries ago.
The persistence of the Napoleon height myth serves as a reminder of how deeply our biases
about physical appearance influence our assessments of leadership and capability. We continue
to associate height with authority to such an extent that we’ve retroactively shortened one of
history’s most successful leaders to make him conform to our expectations about the relationship
between physical stature and achievement.
Rewriting Napoleon’s Story
The great irony of the Napoleon height myth is that while his enemies tried to diminish him
physically, Napoleon himself stands as one of the most towering figures in Western history. Few
individuals have had a more profound impact on warfare, politics, and law. The Napoleonic
Code, which reformed and codified French civil law, became the model for civil law systems
around the world. His military innovations transformed warfare. His rise from obscure Corsican
officer to Emperor of France remains one of history’s most remarkable stories of ambition
realized.
Yet for many, the first thing that comes to mind when Napoleon is mentioned is not these
achievements but the false notion that he was unusually short. This case illustrates perfectly how
historical myths distort our understanding of the past and, by extension, our understanding of
the present.
If such a widely accepted “fact” about one of history’s most famous figures can be completely
wrong, what does this tell us about other “facts” we take for granted? The Napoleon height myth
serves as a warning about how propaganda, cultural bias, and simple misunderstandings can
create historical falsehoods that persist for centuries.
By examining how and why this myth developed, we can better understand the processes by
which history becomes distorted. The case of Napoleon’s height is not merely a historical
curiosity, it’s a lens through which we can examine how information becomes misinformation,
how stereotypes form, and how difficult it is to correct falsehoods once they become embedded
in cultural consciousness.
As we move through this book, we will encounter many more such myths, historical “facts” that
aren’t facts at all. Each case will reveal something about how we construct our understanding of
the past and, in turn, how that understanding shapes our perception of the present. The story of
Napoleon’s height is just the beginning of our journey through the lies we live by.
Key Insights from Chapter 1
- Napoleon Bonaparte stood at 5’7″ (1.69 meters), slightly above average height for a
Frenchman of his era. - The myth of his short stature originated from British wartime propaganda and a
confusion between French and British measurement systems. - Political cartoonists like James Gillray played a crucial role in creating and spreading the
image of a diminutive Napoleon. - The “Napoleon Complex” psychological theory was built on this historical
misconception. - Despite historical evidence, films, books, and popular culture continue to portray
Napoleon as unusually short. - The persistence of this myth reveals our cultural biases about height and leadership.
- This case demonstrates how thoroughly propaganda and misinformation can shape our
understanding of historical figures and events.
In the next chapter, we’ll explore another persistent historical myth: the idea that medieval
Europeans believed the Earth was flat. Like the Napoleon height myth, this widely accepted
“fact” about the medieval worldview turns out to be entirely false, a modern invention with
surprising origins.