Fact-check any claim. Instantly. · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
“Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average height for men of his time.”
The Conclusion
Executive Summary
Napoleon was not shorter than average for his time. His recorded "5 feet 2 inches" was in French units, converting to roughly 5'6"-5'7" in modern measurements—average or slightly above average for early 19th-century men. The "short Napoleon" myth stems from unit confusion and British propaganda.
Warnings
- The claim commits equivocation fallacy by treating 18th-century French feet/inches as equivalent to modern imperial measurements without conversion
- Missing critical context: Napoleon's 5'2" was in French units (pieds/pouces) which converts to approximately 5'6"-5'7" in modern measurements
- The popular belief in Napoleon's short stature originated from British propaganda and unit confusion, not actual below-average height for his era
The Claim
How we interpreted the user input
Intent
The user wants to know if Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than average for his time.
Testable Claim
The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis
“Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average height for men of his time.”
The Research
What we found online
Summary of Findings
All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.
The Debate
The for and against arguments
Source 2 (HowStuffWorks) confirms Napoleon measured 5 feet, 2 inches in French units at his death, which was the actual recorded measurement, and Source 4 (Quora) explicitly states that French sources documented his height as 5 feet 2 inches, establishing this as his contemporaneous recorded stature. While sources attempt to convert this to modern measurements, the historical record shows Napoleon's documented height of 5 feet 2 inches was below what Source 3 (LLM Background Knowledge) identifies as the average male height of around 5 feet 5 inches in early 19th-century France, making him shorter than his contemporaries by the standards of his time.
You're committing an equivocation fallacy by treating “5 feet 2 inches” in French units as if it were 5'2" in modern feet/inches, even though Source 2 (HowStuffWorks) and Source 1 (History Facts) explicitly say that figure converts to about 5'6"–5'7" today. And your appeal to Source 4 (Quora) doesn't rescue the claim because it repeats the same misunderstanding while Source 3 (LLM Background Knowledge) puts the period average around 5'5", which—once you use the correct conversion—makes Napoleon average to slightly above average, not shorter.
The motion claims Napoleon was shorter than the average man of his era, but Source 1 (History Facts) and Source 2 (HowStuffWorks) both convert his recorded “5 feet 2 inches” in French units to roughly 5'6"–5'7", explicitly describing that as average or slightly above average for the 18th/early-19th century. Source 3 (LLM Background Knowledge) further states early-19th-century French male average height was about 5'5" (1.65 m), which would make Napoleon taller than average, so the motion is contradicted by the provided evidence.
You're conflating modern conversions with historical reality — the actual recorded measurement that mattered to Napoleon's contemporaries was 5 feet 2 inches in the French system they used, which Source 4 (Quora) confirms was documented in French sources and perceived as short enough to spawn British propaganda about his stature. Your reliance on retrospective unit conversions ignores that historical perceptions were based on the measurement system of the time, where 5 feet 2 inches French would have been understood as below average compared to the typical French male height standards his contemporaries would have recognized.
Jump into a live chat with the Proponent and the Opponent. Challenge their reasoning, ask your own questions, and investigate this topic on your terms.
The Adjudication
How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments
The more reliable secondary sources provided—Source 1 (History Facts) and Source 2 (HowStuffWorks)—explicitly state that Napoleon's recorded “5 feet 2 inches” was in French units and converts to roughly 5'6"–5'7", which they characterize as average or slightly above average for the late-18th/early-19th century; Source 4 (Quora) is low-authority and Source 3 is not an independent citable source. Based on the highest-quality sources in the pool, the claim that Napoleon was shorter than the average man of his time is refuted (the “short” idea stems from unit confusion/propaganda rather than below-average stature).
Sources 1 (History Facts) and 2 (HowStuffWorks) explicitly interpret the contemporaneous “5 feet 2 inches” as French units and convert it to ~5'6"–5'7", and Source 3 (LLM Background Knowledge) places the early-19th-century French male average at ~5'5", which together implies Napoleon was about average or slightly above average rather than shorter than average. The proponent's argument hinges on treating “5'2"” as if it were directly comparable to the stated average without unit normalization, so the claim does not follow from the evidence and is logically refuted by the pool.
The claim omits the crucial unit-conversion context: Napoleon's oft-cited “5 feet 2 inches” was in French units and converts to about 5'6"–5'7" in modern measure, which multiple sources describe as average or slightly above average for the era (Source 1 History Facts; Source 2 HowStuffWorks; Source 3 LLM Background Knowledge), and it also ignores that the “short” reputation is widely attributed to propaganda/misunderstanding rather than true below-average stature (Source 4 Quora; Source 2 HowStuffWorks). With that context restored, the overall impression that he was shorter than average for his time is false because the best-supported framing in the provided record is that he was roughly average-to-slightly-above average relative to contemporaries (Sources 1–3).
Adjudication Summary
All three evaluation axes strongly refuted the claim with identical 2/10 scores. Source quality analysis found reliable sources (History Facts, HowStuffWorks) explicitly stating Napoleon was average height after proper unit conversion. Logic examination revealed the claim commits equivocation fallacy by treating French measurements as modern units. Context analysis showed the claim omits crucial historical context about measurement systems and the propaganda origins of Napoleon's "short" reputation.
Consensus
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
Lucky claim checks from the library
- False “There are more stars in the galaxy than trees on Earth.”
- False “Fasting is not recommended for women over 50 years of age.”
- Mostly “Approximately half of the cells in a human body are not human cells.”