Quote

I once read that there are more biographical works about Napoleon Bonaparte than any other man in history.

Few great men would have got past personnel.

There had so lately been a large force of Spanish cavalry at the village, which had made a great impression on the minds of the young men, as to their power, consequence, which my appearance with 20 infantry was by no means calculated to remove.

We think that groups of between 30 and 40 early men would have settled in an area measuring a hundred square kilometers.

When I read that the British army had landed thirty-two thousand troops - and I had realized, not very long before, that Philadelphia only had thirty thousand people in it - it practically lifted me out of my chair.

Napoleon the Third was not much. He died in England, and was buried in a country church-yard much the same as Kiltartan. But Napoleon the First was a great man; it was given out of him there never would be so great a man again.

The French are true romantics. They feel the only difference between a man of forty and one of seventy is thirty years of experience.

Napoleon was probably the equal at least of Washington in intellect, his superior in education. Both of them were successful in serving the state.

Active people don't change the world profoundly; ideas do. Napoleon is less important in world history than Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Napoleon might have understood Dwight D. Eisenhower, who fought not even a hundred and fifty years after Waterloo. But I don't think Eisenhower could even begin to wrap his mind around drone warfare, spy satellites, or any of the technology that now defines the security of our world.