this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)
AskHistorians
1290 readers
9 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, for his time he wasn't that short. In fact, at 5ft 6" he was slightly taller than the average French soldier back then.
A large part of the myth about him being short comes from a) a mistranslation to English that listed him as bring 5ft 2"; b) the fact that by today's standard 5ft 6" is shorter than average; c) the fact that 'short man syndrome' is a convenient conclusion for his assertive / ambitious / power-hungry personality.
Source.
(There are plenty of other sources that also corroborate this.)
Also, Napoleon commissioned several portrait artists based on their skills, not association. A few portraits of Napoleon including one by Paul Delaroche is noted for its portrayal of a defeated, human-sized, and "short" Napoleon. There was even a portrait artist by the name of Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun who chose to live in exile rather than paint the Emperor.
Point being, artists that didn’t like Napoleon often took the money, churned out slop, and I believe tried to make him look tiny and weak.
Goddammit, why we can't have more of this heroism today?
Also a french foot at the time was 326mm whereas nowadays a foot is 304mm.
That makes it seem like he was shorter if you are reading the height in french feet but interpreting it as normal imperial feet.