How tall were leaders in the past? As in the 21st century, historical famous leaders' height varied considerably, as did definitions of how tall or short a person was. But whether big or small, all of these rulers cast a shadow that exceeded their physical height.
Physical shapes and sizes were often useful political tools for hereditary monarchs and elected officials alike to validate their authority. But though society has used sizes to celebrate or denigrate those in power, these features never impacted a leader's ability to rule. From an enormous medieval king who stood head and shoulders above his subjects, to a short president of Mexico who had giant influence, historical leaders prove that a person's physical appearance or size does not determine their skills.
Although Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of France, is usually depicted as a short man whose modest size fueled his desire to conquer the world, he wasn't as short as everyone believes: at 5 feet, 7 inches tall, he was by no means small.
If Napoleon's height was average, why did everyone believe he was tiny? French measurements in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were different from British ones, leading many on the other side of the English Channel to believe he was smaller than he actually was. Because Britain was locked in a conflict with Napoleon's France, British propagandists and caricaturists depicted him as small in order to mock him.
Benito Juárez served as the president of Mexico from 1861 to 1872. The child of indigenous parents, he rose to Mexico's highest office in an era that viewed native communities through a prejudiced lens.
Juárez was also one of the shortest leaders on record to grace the world stage. He may have been short in stature, but his standing in Mexico remains gigantic - Juárez was a national hero.
Edward IV of England