Q: Was Napoleon Really a Shrimp?
Published October 30, 2006
A: When we think of Napoleon, we all tend to think of a tiny French elf presiding over his empire or commanding at Waterloo. After all, Napoleon complexes are basically reserved for short people, right? Actually, you might be surprised to learn Napoleon wasn't really all that short. So how'd the myth get started?
Well, it might have had to do with a misinterpretation of measurement. The French foot measured 1.067877 English feet, or roughly 13 inches. So by the French system of measurement, Napoleon was 5 feet 2 inches, but in the British system (which Americans still use today) he stood roughly 5 feet 6 inches, or about 168 centimeters. At the time, this wasn't much shorter than the average man.
The myth also might have had something to do with whom Napoleon stood next to. Like a point guard on a basketball team, Napoleon was much smaller than those he played with; i.e., his royal guard was made up of 6-footers. Additionally, political critics in France liked to perpetuate the idea that he was on the smaller side, and that he had a slight build, while also making fun of his short, military-style haircut. They called him le petit tondu ("the little crop-head") — enough to give anyone a complex!
- Q: Was Napoleon Really a Shrimp?
- Published: October 30, 2006
- Type: News
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: History
- Part of a feature: mental_floss Question of the Day
- Writer: Mental_Floss
- Mental_Floss's BC Writer page
- Mental_Floss's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I'd forgotten that measurement, Michael.
Plus he was called "little" because when he first started gaining accolades in the military, he was fresh out of military school & just out of his teens, so the sobriquet "little" in the sense of "young"; in addition to which he had a thing for taller women. In fact, like a lot of small people, he did have a penchant for surrounding himself with large people, riding large horses, wearing outsized hats, capes, etc. all intended (unsuccessfully) to give the impression of commensurate largeness, which didn't work then however, any more than it works now. His camp bed & remaining souveniers such as clothing do show that he was a tad on the short side, altho not as extremely as historical rumor has it. His burgeoning width with age didn't help with illusions of height, either.
Thank God for the Duke of Wellington, who famously said "just because a man is born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse".
Had it not been for the good Duke, and that other great Englishman, Lord Horatio Nelson, we might now all be eating franchised fast-food Frog's legs.
Americans are only just beginning to realise how duplicitous the French can be. But don't say we didn't warn you.
A thousand years of war will do that to you and in reality, they remain the one true enemy. However, no one should make the mistake of believing they are cowardly devils with garlicky breath. That's only half right.
They are nothing if not passionate about everything they do, including hating you or not hating you (sometimes both in the same day).
And I suspect Napolean would have had far more success had he not spent most of his adult life with his hand shoved down his pants. Perhaps that was what was meant by "little".
Poor bone apart. Even in death the legendary micro-penis surfaces yet again. He must have been Republican.
Silas, it's not just a legend. After his autopsy, his most private body part was sold off. Apparently it measured one inch.
He was dead, but one inch is still a very small body part.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/54937)
So are we expected to then reason that the French must have had big feet? Or am I prompting another question, about how the source of the "foot" wasn't really a "foot?"