Is there anything to all this Napoleon complex talk? This article explains whether thereโs any scientific basis to all the noise, and why it might not be a bad thing.
![Napoleon rides a horse](https://www.themodestman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Napoleon-rides-a-horse.jpg)
It is the victor who writes history and counts the dead.
As far as victories go, Napoleon chalked up his share.
Widely recognized as one of the greatest and most influential military commanders in history, heโs the kind of leader often imitated, never duplicated.
You May Also Like…
Are you enjoying this article? You might want to read this one next:
How to Be More Attractive (Regardless of Your Height)
Don’t worry, it opens in a new window ๐
Fast, fearless, adaptable, aggressive, strong, ambitious. Leaders like him shape historyโs narrative.
Of all the events he had a hand in writing, though, he couldnโt shake a rumor that persisted in his day and remains in ours, namely that Napoleon Bonaparte was short.
Seen as more than merely a physical characteristic, many attribute his aggressive style and military conquests to a desire to make up for his diminutive dimensions.
Is there anything to this theory? Do you have a Napoleon complex? And if you do, is that necessarily a bad thing?
What Is a Napoleon Complex?
If you havenโt heard of the Napoleon complex before, hereโs a sciency definition for your consideration: Short men compensate behaviorally in dyadic intrasexual competitions with taller rivals by behaving more indirectly aggressive in resource contests. Rolls off the tongue, doesnโt it?
In real talk, the widely held notion holds that relatively shorter men are more aggressive than their taller peers due to a height-related inferiority complex.
Itโs a subconscious balancing of the scales. Men respond to feelings of inferiority in certain physical traits by overcompensating in social interactions.
Known euphemistically as short man syndrome or little man syndrome (the “little” seems just a bit more pejorative, doesnโt it?), the theory has its roots in the evolutionary model.
Height has always had inherent advantages, like being able to reach asparagus water bottles strategically located on top shelves of Whole Foods or getting more hugs than their shorter counterparts on February 11th.
Shorter people have to balance the scale somehow, and increased aggression is seen as the gift the short man gives himself. Itโs his survival strategy.
Napoleon seems like an appropriate torchbearer.
Beyond his gangster hand-in-waistcoat pose and reduced height, he is renowned for his aggressive military tactics, which were all about quick movement, large mobile batteries and utterly destroying the opposing army.
If Napoleon was the guys from Office Space, his enemies were definitely the photocopier.
He was quite the conqueror.
Land of the Tall?
Asparagus water bottles and hugs aside, it would seem that our world favors the tall.
Presidential Proportions
In the 20th century, the taller candidate has won in all but three American presidential elections.
The 21st century is following suit. Most recently, a surprisingly tall 6 ft 2 Donald J Trump and his 306 Electoral College votes defeated 5 ft 5 Hillary Clintonโs 232 votes. [Abraham Lincoln? A towering 6 ft 4.]
Earnings
โTaller workers receive a substantial premium in earningsโ according to many independent studies.
This made sense when labor markets were dependent on physical productivity.
But the trend has continued into the modern era, where most occupations are increasingly sedentary.
The difference between tall and short earnings isnโt nothing. One researcher estimates that over a lifetime, a tall person may enjoy an earning advantage of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Dang!
What Are You Doing Friday Night?
This one might hurt a bit. The whole tall, dark and handsome line appears to be a thing with women expressing a general preference for dating men taller than themselves.
They also rate men as more attractive when taller than the woman theyโre with.
The dating world is kind of like running away from a bear: you donโt have to be faster than the bear; you just have to be faster than the guy next to you. You donโt have to be the tallest guyโjust taller than those around you.
These points are by no means hard and fast rules. The victory doesnโt always have to go to the tall. Take 5 ft 7 Tom Cruise as a counter argument. If he can buck the trend, certainly you can!
So, How Tall Was Napoleon?
One of monsieur Bonaparteโs most famous quotes has him talking to a military commander who felt uncomfortable being taller than the Emperor: โYou may be taller, but I am greater.โ That right there was the equivalent of a 19th century mic drop.
Hereโs the rub, though. Despite reports to the contrary, Napoleon wasnโt short for his time.
Historians generally estimate his height to be somewhere in the 5โ6โ to 5โ7โ ballpark. This may seem less than average by modern day standards, but it was unremarkably average for Frenchmen at the time. What gives? Why does the short dictator trope endure?
Like most injustices in life, the blame lies squarely with the Brits.
Without diving too deeply into 19th century European politics (who has the energy for that?!), the English had an axe to grind with the Frenchman, who was aggressively conquering much of Western Europe.
Was the UK to be next? Not if British cartoonists had anything to do with it.
James Gillray, for example, brought โLittle Boneyโ to lifeโa diminutive, childlike dictator prone to proper strong fits, flipping furniture and decrying the Brits while kitted out in oversized boots and a big hats. (About that last one, he was clearly just ahead on the bleeding edge of fashion.)
The trope caught on and a wee Bonaparte became the norm for English newspapers.
Wait. What about his nickname Le Petit Caporal? In short (low-hanging fruit, I know), this was a term of affection, not animosity.
His soldiers loved their definitely-beyond-a-doubt-completely-average-height leader. He boasted a battle record of 60 victories to 8 losses.
He was one of the greatest military commanders to ever walk the earth. Napoleon was lโhomme and his soldiers knew it.
Contemporary French paintings confirm Napoleonโs average height.
When heโs riding a horse, as in Jacques-Louis Davidโs Napoleon Crossing the Alps, his body is depicted as proportionate to the steed.
Antoine-Jean Grosโ painting of the emperor visiting his troops in Jaffa presents the fully clothed Bonaparte as being of the same height as his clothed-to-varying-degrees plague-ridden troops. French art has never lied to us before, so weโre inclined to take it at its word.
What can we distill from these propaganda games between the French and the British?
Firstly, political press coverage was a lot more fun a few hundred years ago than, say, reading presidential tweets today. Secondly, for the purposes of this discussion, Napoleon was just a regular guy of average height trying to make it in this crazy world.
Now that weโve righted that historical wrong, how about taking on the theory from an analytical angle? Is there something to this whole Napoleon complex thing?
What Science Says
First off, we should take a moment to applaud the fact that scientists have been paid to do this kind of groundbreaking research at a time when diseases continue to ravage mankind and PhD-less teenagers are leading the charge against global warming.
This is a victory for the little guy in every sense of the word.
On to the research. A study conducted by academics in Amsterdam proposed that relatively shorter men would be inclined to keep more assets for themselves when pitted against taller peers, thereby supporting the Napoleon complex.
Considering themselves as ill-equipped to compete against taller males, โshorter men show greater behavioral flexibility in securing resources.โ Work harder, not taller, or something to that effect.
Participants of varying heights were led into cubicles and asked if they ever felt small, grading this on a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = often). They were given eight โฌ1 coins and a set of instructions.
The participants could take as many coins as they wanted, leaving the rest for a second unknown party. The results of the coin game are displayed on a fun XY graph below.
Note that the smaller a participant felt, the more coins they kept for themselves. Researchers explain that self-reported height was not a predictor of coin allocation, but rather the feeling of being small.
Significantly, this โgameโ (seems like a generous termโฆ) was played blind. The participants did not know the height of the other person that would collect the remaining coins.
TL;DR version? The smaller a person feels, the more likely they are to keep assets for themselves.
A second study called โDictator Gameโ was conducted, this time incorporating a competitive element. Twenty-one pairs of men were recruited.
They were introduced to each other. Their heights were measured and read out loud in front of the pair. In other words, a real dictator-measuring contest. Then they were led into separate rooms.
Eighteen coins were placed on a table. Participants were instructed to take as many of the eighteen coins as they wanted, with the remainder being given to the other man.
They were told that they would leave the lab separately, never having to meet the competitor again. No consequences.
Results showed that shorter participants, regardless of their opponentโs height, kept more coins for themselves. Hereโs another graph for your viewing pleasure.
Findings from the second study revealed that the shorter a person is, the more coins theyโre likely to take. Fascinatingly, this was only the case when the participant was assured that they wouldnโt interact with their competitor again.
There was a third study conducted involving participants called Hot-sauce allocation task. Itโs as great as it sounds! Participants could decide how much hot sauce their opponent had to drink. The results were inconclusive… but so good, right? Why didnโt I pursue research science?!
That was a lot of data. The take home is that, despite the inaccurate historical reference, science supports the viability of the Napoleon complex.
Short men tend to hold onto more assets in competitive interactions, whether the inferiority is perceived or actual. Researchers interpret this as aggression. Short people may call it leveling the playing field.
Do You Have a Napoleon Complex? (Probably Not)
This is the thing, isnโt it? Learning that the Napoleon complex actually has some foundation in fact might make a person of less generous vertical proportions start to look internally. Would I take more coins? How much hot-sauce would I have made a taller nemesis drink?
For starters, this complex isnโt part and parcel of being short. Statistical findings, such as those above, have to be understood as what they are: generalizations.
Not every short person is inevitably bound to fall somewhere on the Napoleon spectrum. Painting with a broad brush not only lacks accuracy but also the ability to incorporate personality nuances that are intrinsic in describing the real you. You are not a complex or syndrome.
Further, itโs natural to compensate for things we donโt have. This doesnโt make us less than; it makes us human.
For example, I talk a lot of smack when playing ping pong because my backhand flick is weak. Some people wear hats to take attention away from their face. We all have our thing that weโre sensitive about.
At its worst, someone who exhibits traits of the Napoleon complex may be belligerent, quarrelsome, aggressive, and difficult to deal with. Is that you? We donโt think so either.
On the other hand, do you have a penchant for wearing shoes with a slight thicker heel? Do you hang pictures a bit lower? That doesnโt make you a despot.
What if after some careful soul searching you find that there might be a little bit of Napoleonic aggression in you? Domage. Is it all bad news?
The Silver Lining and Last Laughs
Taller people may enjoy more presidential campaign wins, go out on more dates and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more than their shorter counterparts. But shorter people enjoy the last laugh.
Research from the University of Hawaii revealed that shorter men were more likely to have FOXO3, a protective form of the longevity gene.
Shorter men also have lower blood insulin levels and less cancer. The news gets even better if you happen to be under 5 ft 2. Researchers say those folks live the longest. Conversely, the taller you get, the shorter you live. [Excuse me as I get my affairs in order.]
Actually, there are several physical advantages to being relatively short.
Faster reaction times, quicker muscle gains when hitting the gym, greater endurance, and being less likely to break bones in a fall or die in a car crash. No joke!
Physiological benefits aside, are there advantages to getting your Napoleon on?
In a word, yes! The Napoleon complex is a phenomenon that implies motivation to do more, to try harder, to go faster, to be better.
If we can borrow a Charlie Sheen-ism, itโs about winning. And although weโre all pretty sure there was something wrong with him, thereโs nothing wrong about trying to be the best you possible.
If we get down to brass tacks, shorter people often have to work harder to prove their worth.
Whether you choose to attribute the bias towards taller people as part of the evolutionary model or a conspiracy designed by the height blessed or simple ignorance, the prejudice is out there.
So, if you feel an unexplainable force driving you more, embrace it. Do you feel like you have to do an extra set at the gym? Go for it.
Are you inexplicably inclined to run some extra miles after your partners stop for water? Those guys are quitters. Youโve got this. Are you prone to work harder than the rest of your team? Deliver the goods on your next project like your life depended on it.
Are you motivated to be the best boyfriend/husband you can possibly be? Your partner is luckier than they know.
With a bit of Napoleon fueling your fire, youโll very likely be a better person for it. Channel your inner French emperor and shout:
You may be taller, but I am greater!
Ask Me Anything