section_path: Personality
section_name: Personality
paragraph_text: Personality
  
  Pieter Geyl wrote in 1947, "It is impossible that two historians, especially two historians living in different periods, should see any historical personality in the same light." There is no dispute that Napoleon was ambitious, although commentators disagree on whether his ambition was mostly for his own power and glory or for the welfare of France. Historians agree that Napoleon was highly intelligent with an excellent memory, and was a superior organizer who could work efficiently for long hours. In battle, he could rapidly dictate a series of complex commands to his subordinates, keeping in mind where major units were expected to be at each future point.
  
  He was an inspiring leader who could obtain the best from his soldiers and subordinates. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington said his presence on the battlefield was worth 40,000 soldiers. He could charm people when he needed to but could also publicly humiliate them and was known for his rages when his plans were frustrated. Historian McLynn sees him as a misogynist with a cruel streak which he often inflicted on women, children and animals.
  
  There is debate over whether Napoleon was an outsider who never felt at home in France or with other people. Hippolyte Taine said Napoleon saw others only as instruments and was cut off from feelings of admiration, sympathy or pity. Arthur Lévy replied that Napoleon genuinely loved Joséphine and often showed humanity and compassion to his enemies or those who had let him down. He had the normal middle class virtues and understood the common man.
  
  Similarly, historians are divided over whether Napoleon was consistently ruthless when his power was threatened or surprisingly indulgent in some cases. Those arguing for a ruthless personality point to episodes such as his violent suppression of revolts in France and conquered territories, his execution of the Duc d'Enghien and plotters against his rule, and his massacre of Turkish prisoners of war in Syria in 1799. Others point to his mild treatment of disloyal subordinates such as Charles XIV John, Talleyrand and Fouché.
  
  Many historians see Napoleon as pragmatic and a realist, at least in the early years of his rule. He was not driven by ideology and promoted capable men irrespective of their political and social background, as long as they were loyal. As an expert in military matters, he valued technical expertise and listened to the advice of experts in other fields. However, there is a consensus that once he dominated Europe he became more intolerant of other views and surrounded himself with "yes men". Towards the end of his reign he lost his realism and ability to compromise.
  
  Some historians talk of Napoleon's dual nature: a rationalist with a strong romantic streak. He took a team of scholars, artists and engineers with him to Egypt in order to scientifically study the country's culture and history, but at the same time was struck by romantic "orientalism". "I was full of dreams," he stated. "I saw myself founding a religion, marching into Asia, riding an elephant, a turban on my head and in my hand a new Koran that I would have composed to suit my need."
  
  Napoleon was superstitious. He believed in omens, numerology, fate and lucky stars, and always asked of his generals: is he lucky? Dwyer states that Napoleon's victories at Austerlitz and Jena in 1805–06 left him even more certain of his destiny and invincibility. "I am of the race that founds empires", he once boasted, deeming himself an heir to the Ancient Romans.
  
  Various psychologists have attempted to explain Napoleon's personality. Alfred Adler cited Napoleon to describe an inferiority complex in which short people adopt over-aggressive behaviour to compensate for lack of height; this inspired the term Napoleon complex. Adler, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich ascribed his nervous energy to sexual dysfunction. Harold T. Parker speculated that rivalry with his older brother and bullying when he moved to France led him to develop an inferiority complex which made him domineering.