The myth that Napoleon Bonaparte, the former French Emperor, was short is a well-established one, but it is not supported by historical evidence. In reality, Napoleon was of average height for his time, or possibly even taller than average. He was recorded to be 5 feet 2 inches in French units (which translates to about 5 feet 7 inches or 1.70 meters in modern international units). This was actually slightly above the average height of Frenchmen during his lifetime. So, the origin of this myth is not in Napoleon’s physical stature itself, but in a misunderstanding of historical measurements.
The confusion primarily arises from the difference between English and French measurements. When he died in 1821, Napoleon was listed as being 5 feet 2 inches tall, but this measurement was in French feet (pieds de roi), which are longer than English feet. 1 French foot equals approximately 1.06575 English feet. Therefore, when converted correctly, his height was around 5 feet 7 inches in English measurements, which is above the period’s average height.
Napoleon was often seen with his Imperial Guard, which was made up of very tall soldiers. The Imperial Guard were elite soldiers, and one of the criteria for being in this group was above-average height. As a result, Napoleon may have appeared short by comparison.
As for the claim that Napoleon suffered from “short man syndrome” or “Napoleon complex”—a psychological condition theorized to affect some people of shorter stature, making them overly aggressive or ambitious to compensate for their height—there’s no real evidence to support this either. This term is largely used in pop psychology, and it’s not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or by the broader psychological community.
Given that Napoleon wasn’t actually short for his time, attributing his military ambitions and combative strategies to compensation for perceived short stature doesn’t have a basis in historical fact. It’s more accurate and useful to understand Napoleon’s behaviors in terms of his personal and political ambitions, the context of the times in which he lived, and his strategic and tactical genius, rather than attributing them to a psychological complex linked to a physical characteristic he didn’t actually possess.