Not that I disagree with pretty much all the overall points you make, but I'm really weirded out by Napoleon always being put alongside Hitler in the "agressive

Not that I disagree with pretty much all the overall points you make, but I'm really weirded out by Napoleon always being put alongside Hitler in the "agressive conquerors" group. There are plenty of example that would fit, but a man who was fighting defensive wars >90% of the time and mostly ended up conquering because he and his army were better than the others at wars is kind of an odd choice. Even his push on Russia was made defensively since they refused to apply the continental blockade, and the english used the money to fund countries to rise against France. It's especially true since almost every time he tried to turn into the agressor it failed and he didn't conquer anything that way, only when defending. Also he didn't exactly fit what is usually understood by "dictator that was deposed", he was beloved by the french people, took over by referendum and deposed by the nobilities of the other surrounding countries because they got scared that their own populace would start asking for this whole "meritocracy" thing. You make a few coalitions with all of europe against a country because they believe their people are all equals, don't be surprised that after a while they try seize control of your resources.