• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t quite get it. Apparently, Napoleon’s height was ridiculed and used for english propaganda, but I often hear that actually, he wasn’t a small person. I looked it up, wikipedia says he was 1.68 m. That’s damn short though.

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        No, not always. There were fluctuations depending on several factors, nutrition being one (and an important one).

        Still, 1.68 seems just tiny ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • peregrin5@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          1.68m is 5’5" which is yeah short but not too far from the (self-reported) average male height in France today which is 5’9" (1.75m) (Bayesian estimates actually say 5’7" (1.70m)). During Bonaparte’s time average male height in France was 5’4" (1.62m) so he was actually taller than average by a tiny bit.

          • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            I cannot relate to feet and inches for height, I’m all but used to imperial units.

            All I am saying though is that 1.68 is very small from my perspective and if that’s the average height back around 1800, people where tiny then.