Home / General / Napoleon Complex

Napoleon Complex


Trump’s visit to Napoleon’s tomb in Paris yesterday is an irresistible invitation to compare the two leaders. Trendy as it is to focus on historical parallels with fascism, it’s worth thinking a bit about what we can learn from that other dude crazy enough to invade Russia in winter.

(Unavoidable aside: this may be the best graph of all time.)

Napoleon crafted a governmental system with the kind of personal power of which Trump clearly dreams. The 1804 Civil Code shored up some Revolutionary ideals (the end of feudalism, basic equality before the law), but also enshrined a number of principles Trump and our current GOP still champion. Napoleon’s regime ensured greater stability and prosperity for wealthy property-owners and former aristocrats. He significantly reduced workers’ rights and strengthened employers’ powers. Women lost the ability to file for divorce, own or sell property, or disobey their husbands (some of these rights even predated 1789). And, of course, Napoleon revoked one of the First Republic’s greatest progressive policies by reestablishing slavery in the Caribbean.

While Napoleon didn’t, to my knowledge, call out the burgeoning French press as an enemy of the people (that was more Robespierre’s style), he certainly wasn’t the biggest fan of freedom of expression. By 1800, he had decimated newspaper production in Paris. Over the next few years, he essentially brought back a full state censorship regime.

One of Napoleon’s big moves in solidifying his power was his reconciliation with the Catholic Church in the 1801 Concordat. Napoleon was not a man of strong faith, but he did believe in religion’s utility as a form of social control, and as a vehicle for self-aggrandizement. Here the echoes of an irreligious Trump promoting a set of Christian policies are unmistakable.

For all his conciliatory cuddling up to the Church when it served his needs, Napoleon had no patience for papal disapproval:

For the Pope’s purposes, I am Charlemagne… My empire, like Charlemagne’s, marches with the East. I therefore expect the Pope to accommodate his conduct to my requirements. If he behaves well, I shall make no outward changes; if not, I shall reduce him to the status of bishop of Rome.

One imagines Trump tweets of a similarly dismissive and threatening vein (though lacking lyrical historical allusion) in the aftermath of the Vatican’s latest scathing critique.

Finally, even Trump’s foreign policy mantra traces back to Bonaparte. Insisting that French silk manufacturers should not under any circumstances face competition his Italian territories, Napoleon declared,

My principle is France first… It is of no use for Italy to make plans that leave French prosperity out of account; she must face the fact that the interests of the two countries hang together. Above all, she must be careful not to give France any reason for annexing her; for if it paid France to do this, who could stop her? So make this your motto too—France first.

In the end, Napoleon might also be too hopeful of a comparison. Setting aside, for a moment, the annihilation of the rights of women, workers, and people of color, Bonaparte got some things right. Not least was his respect for the rule of law and power of institutions—and the importance of real education. We also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that he was a pretty amazing military strategist—and a general who was well-respected by rank-and-file troops (and by the population at large). Trump’s current approval ratings certainly do not suggest that he’d be able to rally a personal army to his cause while marching from Elba to Paris (Mar-a-Lago to DC?) in 100 days.

All of this, of course, begs the question of what Trump’s Waterloo could look like. An over-confident, poorly planned, and ultimately disastrous Russia strategy may indeed play a role. Given the current trajectory of scandal, missteps, and own-goals, it’s not so hard to imagine a Trump exiled for his betrayals—surrounded by only his closest family and cheating at cards (or maybe Monopoly). But let’s all just hope that the parallels end there and we’re not faced with yet another would-be-emperor in 2048.


*Translations of Napoleon’s writings taken from Keith Baker.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Steve Bannon actually has a painting of himself as Napoleon.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Is that in addition to the paintings that the entire Trump admin has stored in the WH attic?

      • In precisely which ways does a painting change so as to depict its subject becoming smarter, more ethical, and altogether less retch-inducing?

        • N__B

          How would you modify DJTJr’s and Lurch’s faces that wouldn’t make them look smarter?

        • Warren Terra

          My understanding (I say, since I’ve never troubled myself actually to read it) is that while in the popular memory and many adaptations of The Picture Of Dorian Grey the effect is to preserve Grey from the ravages of time, in the original it was far less about time and more about the stresses of a dissipated lifestyle, and also appearing an innocent youth despite utter moral corruption – the stress being on “innocent” rather than “youth”.

          All of that rather longwindedly to say, since Trump’s appearance rather matches his lifestyle, a reversal of The Picture Of Dorian Grey might work quite well.

          • wjts

            A picture that stays the same even when the person depicted changes? Not the spookiest story I’ve ever heard, honestly.

            • Warren Terra

              There is that.

              • wjts

                It would, I suspect, make for a pretty good, “Well, Since You Ask Me For A…”, though.

            • sonamib

              Just as spooky as Zeno’s unparadox : if Achilles has a head start over the tortoise, the tortoise will never catch up to him.

              • wjts

                Or the first draft of W.W. Jacob’s “The Monkey’s Paw,” where a family is given the opportunity to make three wishes, but none of them come true and so – in a horrifying twist – they realize a poor, innocent monkey has been horribly maimed for no good reason.

                • rm

                  “The Turn of the Screw” where the governess is fired and gets adequate mental health care, and there are no ghosts.

                • wjts

                  (Am I alone in thinking that the primary reason so many critics are so insistent that the supernatural elements in “The Turn of the Screw” are all in the governess’ head is that they don’t want to allow for the possibility that something so vulgar as genre fiction might actually have some artistic merit?)

                • rm

                  As a general rule I agree with whatever you say, but with this, depends who you mean. Current day literature scholars are usually genre nerds. Is anyone publishing on Henry James anymore? If they are, I bet they will genre-bend him and appreciate ghosts and stuff as both literal and symbolic, not to mention what I am sure has been done to read it through a feminist frame that would drive Henry nuts. (I am too lazy to check on this right now). (Also too lazy to publish my own damn article if the ones I expect should exist are not in existence). (Also drank a single beer just now, which for me is a binge).

                  The Great Modernist Scholars of the last century were hostile to genre, and also they prized ambiguity. If you see the ghosts in the story, you don’t get to see it as an exquisitely well-wrought urn, balanced perfectly between different possible readings that only a gauche vulgar reader would want to reduce to one single narrative. You must swish the story around on your tongue, appreciating the delicate balances of opposing narrative flavors, and then spit it on the ground before you enjoy it too fucking much. Damn fucking New Critics.

                • Origami Isopod

                  Current day literature scholars are usually genre nerds.

                  Lit.snobs haven’t really gotten the message.

                • N__B

                  Surely I’m not the only person who puts the genre fiction with lurid covers on the top of my pile in the checkout line because I prefer unwanted conversations with genre nerds to unwanted conversations with lit and history snobs?

                • rm

                  In my (no-prestige regional state school) experience, you find more lit snobs among creative writing teachers than study-of-literature teachers, but still a minority. However, I am sure prestigious doctorate-granting departments are chock full of ’em. The most insufferable lit snobs are non-academic, like poetry critics for fancy magazines and shit.

                • wjts

                  Yeah, I suspect you’re right. Twenty-some years ago, I read a comment by William Veeder on whether or not the ghosts in “Turn of the Screw” were real along the lines of, “Only someone who has never read the story could think there are ghosts in it.” It stuck in my craw, I guess, and I’m not even a big fan of James’ ghost stories. (If I’m going to read a ghost story by someone named “James,” it’ll be Monty and not Henry, thank you very much.)

          • Anna in PDX

            You’re right. I read it several years ago and that’s my recollection. Mostly, I recommend it because of Wilde’s ridiculously purple prose. It was sort of like reading a good Gothic. A really fun read.

            • Deborah Bender


              • rm

                I think Anna in PDX was responding to the Dorian Gray comments above, and the Turn of the Screw got in between in the middle, which is confusing because Disqus displays threads without enough levels of indentation.

    • N__B

      For some reason that bothers me less than the fact that A-Rod has a painting of himself as a centaur.

      Of course, it’s possible that Bannon has a painting of himself as centaur…

      • firefall

        the one of him as a satyr is more a photograph, really

        or do I mean a kallikantzaros?

    • Warren Terra

      Trump famously has stolen money from charities – his and his son’s – to buy portraits of himself (at least three of them), though so far as I know none have depicted him as Napoleon or any other historical figure.

    • NewishLawyer

      Someone should tell him that Napoleon liberated the Jews.

    • CP

      Steve Bannon actually has a painting of himself as Napoleon.

      Like every significant historical figure, Napoleon comes with that unfortunate cohort of wannabe-successors who could only dream of measuring up to the original (note that I’m saying this about a guy who thought invading Russia was a good idea). The first of them was his own nephew. Napoleon I and Napoleon III are the origin of the saying “history repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce.”

  • Thomas W

    Napoleon had a lot more energy than Trump.

    • And bigger hands.

      • Origami Isopod

        And Napoleon kept his hands inside his own shirt.

  • Snarki, child of Loki

    Napoleon certainly could give Trump some tips on decoration and style.

    • reattmore

      Actually, Napoleon’s gaudy tastes had a lot in common with Trump’s–golden capital N’s or T’s all over everywhere.

      • NewishLawyer

        On the other hand, I do like David paintings.

  • Napoleon’s excuse for not fighting in Vietnam was that it was not then a French possession.

  • Napoleon, love him or hate him, at least earned his place in history. Trump has earned nothing.

    • Trump has earned nothing.

      well, somebody has to hold the title of Worst President Ever.

      • NonyNony

        It would be hard to top either James Buchanan or Franklin Pierce for that mantle. Trump looks like he might try to do it, but I bet like so much else in his life he underperforms and only makes it to third or fourth worst president.

        • That’s bad enough!

        • Mr__Neutron

          Don’t forget about Warren G. Harding!

        • dstatton

          Keep in mind that George W. Bush is a direct descendant of Pierce. His mother was Barbara Pierce.

      • Tony Prost

        well, he is certainly the worst to be president, so there is that.

  • tsam100

    Napoleon had a Russia problem too

  • Thom

    The decimation police will be coming for you, Melissa.

    Great post, thanks.

    • bw

      Goddamn it, you beat me to the joke.

      Come on, none of the Trumps has the attention span or the candlepower to learn the rules of Monopoly, let alone cheat at it. They’d just go “vroom vroom” as they drive the metal car around and maybe try to name all the hotels after themselves.

      Can you somehow cheat at coloring books?

      • rm

        Pay someone to do them for you. Print pre-colored pages off the internet.

        You can see that I’m a teacher.

  • Kevin

    Trump wishes he could be Napoleon. At best, he can be the syphilitic version who was losing his marbles at the end…fuck, maybe he already is there.

  • wjts

    Trump’s current approval ratings certainly do not suggest that he’d be able to rally a personal army to his cause while marching from Elba to Paris (Mar-a-Lago to DC?) in 100 days.

    The 100 Days (111 days, really) started when Napoleon arrived in Paris on March 20, 1815 and ended with the rerestoration of Louis XVIII on July 8. The trip from Elba took 23 days.

  • what we can learn from that other dude crazy enough to invade Russia in winter.

    Napoleon invaded Russia in June, and left Moscow in November. That’s hardly a Winter invasion.

    • Rob in CT

      And unlike the Nazis, he captured Moscow, for all the good it did him.

      Winter certainly came into play during the retreat.

      • Napoleon invaded on June 22, and had Moscow on Sept 1.

        Hitler invaded on June 22 and never took Moscow.

        • sibusisodan

          Wait, did Hitler really invade on the same day? That seems obviously inauspicious.

          • wjts

            The operation code name “Barbarossa” was the nickname of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, who famously led a massive eastward military expedition that failed to accomplish its goal. The Nazis were not smart guys.

          • Thomas W

            No. Nappy invaded Russia on June 24th. And he didn’t have Moscow on September 1st. Heck, Borodino was Sept 7th.

            • reattmore

              Charles XII started his disastrous invasion of Russia on January 1, which was possibly not his most sensible decision.

      • sonamib

        But, to be fair to the Germans, they did win one out of two World Wars against the Russians. I mean, we might think of Versailles as a humiliating peace agreement, but it’s nothing compared to Brest-Litovsk.

  • kindasorta

    Napoleon fought sixty pitched battles where he was present and won almost all of them.

    And the Russians were afraid of him.

  • Warren Terra

    RE Trump’s Waterloo, there is every reason to think it, like the original, will be a war in Asia.

    • reattmore

      The original Waterloo was a war in Asia?

      • wjts

        Well, Eurasia.

      • Warren Terra

        I was mixing metaphors and arguing Napoleon’s true Waterloo – his downfall – was the invasion of Russia.

        • njorl

          Yep. I nearly said that once unironically, before remembering what “Waterloo” was based on. Then I decided to say it ironically and feel clever about myself. Others did not share my opinion.

        • reattmore

          Although he did not cross the Urals, so he remained in Europe.

  • Hogan

    For all his conciliatory cuddling up to the Church when it served his needs, Napoleon had no patience for papal disapproval

    You could say that:

    As pope, he followed a policy of cooperation with the French-established Republic and Empire. He was present at the coronation of Napoleon I in 1804. He even participated in France’s Continental Blockade of Great Britain, over the objections of his Secretary of State Consalvi, who was forced to resign. Despite this, France occupied and annexed the Papal States in 1809 and took Pius VII as their prisoner, exiling him to Savona. Despite this, the pope continued to refer to Napoleon as “my dear son” but added that he was “a somewhat stubborn son, but a son still”.

    This exile ended only when Pius VII signed the Concordat of Fontainebleau in 1813. One result of this new treaty was the release of the exiled cardinals, including Consalvi, who, upon re-joining the papal retinue, persuaded Pius VII to revoke the concessions he had made in it. This Pius VII began to do in March 1814, which led the French authorities to re-arrest many of the opposing prelates. Their confinement, however, lasted only a matter of weeks, as Napoleon abdicated on 11 April of that year.

  • sleepyirv

    Andrew Roberts, an author I otherwise don’t agree with, made an excellent point that Napoleon’s values came from a strong military ethos intertwined with Revolutionary values that fit the military ethos: equality before the law, rational government, meritocracy, and nationalism. He rejected human rights and democratic government for their “messy” nature. He, like many other military dictators, was a cold-hearted rationalist who thought his way was best, or at least it was never worth arguing over as some solution was better than no solution. This comes from a place of strong ego and confidence, necessary for success on the battlefield.

    Donald Trump somehow beats Napoleon in the ego department. He thinks his way is best because he’s a raging narcissist too stupid to understand how far little he understands anything. I don’t think he has a lust for power as much as a love for himself. Making himself President gave him positive attention. The press gives him negative attention so he hates him. Smart people give him negative attention so he hates him. He’s more in the model of Idi Amin than Napoleon.

    • Drew

      Is Andrew Roberts’ biography of Napoleon any good? Or should I read another one?

      • sleepyirv

        There are a gazillion biographies of Napoleon and I do not know which is considered the preferred one-volume. Roberts is fine. Pretty pro-Napoleon, great pacing, not particularly insightful, but he did his homework. Fine as your only book on Napoleon, as long as you’re okay with the author defending the guy.

        • Mellano

          Pretty pro-Napoleon

          Roberts’s is the only biography I’ve read. He starts by asserting that, as an initial matter, Napoleon was certainly no Hitler. Which, okay. Fair enough. A thousand pages later, I was all but throwing the book across the room in frustration as the evil, greedy Britons refuse again and again to let the First Empire take its place at the table of nations, but instead ship Bonaparte off to miserable isolation in St. Helena, where they proceed to poison the great captain without mercy.

          But yeah, it’s a fun read and, to a non-expert’s eyes, covers a lot of ground.

          • sleepyirv

            In relative terms that fairly even-handed. There’s a lot of Napoleon biographies that would suggest he was Mars sent to Earth to save us from are frivolities only for us to reject his righteousness for our own venal sins. These books are directed to the armchair general set, who, when not arguing over Napoleon, are re-fighting the Eastern front.

      • Nathan Goldwag

        I really recommend J. Christopher Herold’s “The Age of Napoleon”, which is pretty old but also pretty great, mainly because Herold makes no effort to be objective and spends a lot of the book shouting about the inherent immorality of monomaniacal emperors and how dumb it is to hero worship them.

        There’s also David Bell’s “Napoleon: A Concise Biogrpahy”, which is, uh, very concise but provides a very nice introduction to the topic.

    • CP

      Andrew Roberts, an author I otherwise don’t agree with, made an excellent point that Napoleon’s values came from a strong military ethos intertwined with Revolutionary values that fit the military ethos: equality before the law, rational government, meritocracy, and nationalism.

      There’s a weird sort of third-wayish tradition in recent (by French standards) French history, involving a charismatic leader with a fairly conservative/monarchist governing style, in service to policies that end up being a good deal more progressive/egalitarian than the actual conservatives would like. Bonapartism was this in the nineteenth century, and Gaullism was it in the twentieth.

  • altofront

    As another commenter pointed out recently, Napoleon III is a much better match for Trump.

    • Warren Terra

      Definitely not his son Napoleon The Prince Imperial, though, who believed in a sort of pan-European identity and died gallantly if stupidly trying to slaughter the Zulus.

      • reattmore

        Possibly the last member of European royalty to be speared to death.

        • Thom


    • spork_incident

      I was thinking Napoleon XIV.


    • Fats Durston

      Third time as farcedy?

      • wjts

        Fourth time as tragical-comical-historical-pastoral.

    • stepped pyramids

      That is a huge insult to Louis-Napoléon, who was a worse general but a much more effective and progressive ruler than his uncle. He was no Bismarck, but, then again, who is?

    • CP

      I think the best historical comparison I’ve heard for Trump I’ve heard yet is still Kaiser Wilhelm II.

      Not sure who his closest equivalent in French history would be.

  • Tracy Lightcap

    Napoleon was the only Great Captain to compere with the other two at the top of the list: Alexander the Great (generally considered to be the best ever) and Genghis Khan. His fame, then and now, is largely dependent on this. As an administrator he had all the faults and all the virtues mentioned below. His intelligence – he was a crack mathematician -and energy – he regularly stayed awake for days at a time when in the field and never lost his abilities – also mark him out. Finally, he had personal characteristics that have seldom been matched. My favorite story about that: Augereau, one of Napoleon’s generals, was a former smuggler and, at 6’3″ and 220 pounds, a giant of his day. Napoleon was 5’2″ and about 120. Augereau had been to a personal meeting with Napoleon in the early days of the first Italian campaign. He came back to his tent and immediately ordered a glass of wine, Then he looked around at his staff and said, “I don’t know how the little bastard does it, but he scares me.”

    We would have real worries if Trump was even half that. But … he isn’t.

    • wjts

      Napoleon was 5’2″ and about 120.

      5 pieds, 2 pouces. So 5’6″-5’7″ in Imperial.

      • Thomas W

        Which was about average height for the time.

        • wjts

          Upvoted for the Tati avatar.

    • firefall

      Subutai would like to have a word with you

      • Tracy Lightcap

        He was Genghis’s Massena; good, but not up to the Emperor.

    • CP

      Interesting that you say this. The three historical conquerors I always hear mentioned together are usually Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon. Usually not Genghis, which may just be the usual Eurocentricm in historical memories (the popular image of Genghis Khan is still more that of a Hitler-esque bloodthirsty mass-murdering lunatic, though I understand that makes historians tear their hair out).

      • Tracy Lightcap

        On the lists I’ve seen Caesar barely makes it into the top 10 among Great Captains. True, he very seldom lost and never catastrophically. Oth, he was often on the brink of having his army destroyed – usually because of really poor decisions about dispositions caused by his distraction by Roman politics or his penchant for taking unnecessary risks. He avoided this by the better training and weaponry of the Roman army, his tactical brilliance, and his remarkable energy. (Having, in the main, pretty poor opponents also helped.) By all rights he should have been wiped out at Alesia and he was on the brink at Pharsalus, but he won through. A great battlefield commander, iow, but no strategist.

  • N__B

    “Complex” is the right word, as everything about this is part real and part imaginary.

  • Anna in PDX

    Thank you for sharing that graph, it’s wonderfully done (rather heartbreaking if you were a French person back then, I guess). Amazing use of visual representation of several different variables.

  • rm_rm_rm

    I support sending Trump to St. Helena to stay.

    The rude rushing waves, all around they are washing
    And the white billows heave, on the rocks they are crashing
    He may list’ to the wind o’er the great Mt. Diana
    While alone he remains on the isle of St. Helena

    • gocart mozart

      Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
      And build them a home, a little place of their own.
      The Fletcher Memorial
      Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.


    • Fluttbucker

      Check out General Humbert’s version of this song from the 70’s. It makes you feel sorry for the little fucker. I could easily imagine G.H. playing shows on the island in the original “Wicker Man” movie.
      As for the exile, I was hoping Trump would end his European jaunt by hoping on the plane with Putin. He could follow in the footsteps of Philby and Burgess, enjoying a quiet retirement in a nice dacha outside Moscow. Vlad would give him some updated version of “Hero Of The Soviet Union” just to stick it in our eye. Then back to business as usual.

  • NewishLawyer

    Serious thought/question: Wouldn’t you think that they would rather be the Duke of Wellington or Alexander I of Russa? For all his accomplishments/victories, Napoleon met a rather disgraceful end.

    Now I am imaging a Congress of Toronto where Trudeau, Merkel, Marcon, and maybe someone else decide what to do with America after the fall of Trump….

    • Steve LaBonne

      Please give the southern shores of the Great Lakes to Canada! I’m begging here!

    • liberalrob

      President Nieto of Mexico, maybe?

      If there is any justice in the world, Trump will meet a more disgraceful end than Napoleon. And really, I can think of more ignominious ends than being exiled to a small isolated island. The lack of good broadband Internet service would be hard to swallow, though.

      • rm_rm_rm

        Some of us might enjoy the isolation, but for a narcissist with a constant need for external validation who loves playing at dominance . . . . I say we put him alone somewhere with automated food and water supplies, but no human contact, and set up hidden cameras. Give him volleyballs. One set of volleyballs will be his adoring entourage and another set he will bully. I feel sorry for the one he marries.

      • wjts

        “I’ve had you watched, child, and Postumus Agrippa… as I had his mother watched – your Aunt Julia. Do you remember her? She was sent to an island called Pandataria. It’s a few minutes’ walk from end to end. Well, I shouldn’t think she walks it much anymore. She’s been on it for seven years.”

  • Xer

    At least Napoleon stopped the Inquisition. My guess is that Trump would be the first to subject Hillary to an auto-de-fe.

    • CP

      What’s an auto-de-fe?

      • wjts

        It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway.

  • Good post.
    Napoleorange (Shakezula dixit) has none of Napoleon´s virtues. However, Napoleon is an example of rationality turning into irrationality. Ah, the perils of great power and success… He ruined himself -lost all power, trying to get even more, in ten years.

    • firefall

      . He ruined himself -lost all power, trying to get even more, in ten years.


      • Emperor: 1804. Battle of the nations: 1813. Saint Helen: 1815. During that period, a pretty brief period in absolutist terms, he gained and lost his true great power. Napoleon provoked his fall: never stopped trying to expand what was already enormous. You should read Metternich.

  • Nathan Goldwag

    Wonderful post!

    If you will excuse a lapse into History Pedantry though, I would like to lodge my usual complaint about Waterloo being referred to as the decisive end of Bonaparte’s reign. By 1815, France was out of men, money, supplies, allies, and hope. If Napoleon had defeated Wellington, Blucher would have likely defeated him the next day. If he had defeated Blucher, then he would have been crushed by the waves of Austrian, Russian, German, and Italian troops marching towards the Rhine. Napoleon’s downfall was at the Battle of the Nations, at Leitzpig, in 1813. The only reason we all talk about Waterloo so much is that the British weren’t at Leipzig and they have to make EVEEERYTHHHING about themselves. It’s ridiculous. Humph. //endrant//

    • reattmore

      the British weren’t at Leipzig

      Apart from a battery of rocket artillery

    • sonamib

      Of course, the only reason we talk about the battle of Waterloo and not the battle of Braine-l’Alleud (which was closer to where the battle was actually fought) is that Waterloo is a catchier name. The commune of Braine-l’Alleud is still bitter about it, though.

      • wjts

        Someone pumped for “Battle of la Belle Alliance” after a nearby tavern and as a nod to the coalition that defeated Napoleon, but that was nixed for some stupid reason.

        (My source for this is a Bernard Cornwell novel, by the way, so take that for what it’s worth.)

    • CP

      The only reason we all talk about Waterloo so much is that the British weren’t at Leipzig and they have to make EVEEERYTHHHING about themselves. It’s ridiculous. Humph.

      Note also that the Man Who Defeated Napoleon mantle is usually given to Wellington rather than Blücher, even though, IIRC, Blücher was the one whose arrival saved Wellington’s ass.

  • Bruce Baugh

    Trump’s Waterloo is more likely to be ABBA karaoke.

    • N__B

      His Waterloo is “Waterloo”.

      • Bruce Baugh

        That looks suspiciously like Wittgenstein, and/or Lisp programming.

        • N__B

          Is there a difference between those two?

  • dstatton

    “I’m hearing a lot of great things about Napoleon. He’s doing some really, really amazing things.”

  • MikeG

    St Helena has an airport now. Trump could be exiled there in a matter of hours if the British are willing to accommodate his stench of corruption.

It is main inner container footer text