Otto Von Bismarck (SLE): Personality Type Analysis

Otto, Prince of Bismarck, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg (born Junker Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck, 1815-1898) was chancellor of Prussia and later Germany. He is best known for his achievement of unifying the various German states (completed in 1871), which he continued to govern as Chancellor until his dismissal by Kaiser Wilhelm II (EIE) in 1890.

One of the most interesting things about Bismarck was his lack of real power. As a mere chancellor, his position was completely at the mercy of his benefactor, the King of Prussia and later German Kaiser, Wilhelm I. Wilhelm always had the final say as a somewhat absolute monarch, and could override or fire his chancellor whenever he wished, and in addition to that, any specific domestic law that Bismarck wanted needed to be passed by the Reichstag. Despite this, Bismarck’s contemporaries, including his friends and enemies (of which he had many) widely considered him to be a dictator.

This is because, despite his limited power, Bismarck was keenly aware of how to use what little power he had to get whatever he wanted. Bismarck managed to unite and rule Germany through sheer force of will. And it was through his forceful and temperamental personality that Bismarck maintained his nearly unchecked power over Germany for nearly 20 years. Kaiser Wilhelm I himself once remarked “It is difficult to be Kaiser under Bismarck.” 

Whenever Bismarck faced opposition, whether it was real or perceived, his first instinct was always to fight to enforce his will. Bismarck believed that open conflict had a sort of ‘cleansing’ effect. Examples of this could be seen throughout his time as Chancellor of Germany, most notably his attempt to crack down on the Catholic church (Catholics were the majority in Southern Germany) which led to suppression of Catholics themselves and Catholic practices, known as the 'Kulturkampf' or 'Culture struggle'. Other notable examples include during the 1848 revolutions, which Bismarck opposed, when Bismarck gathered the peasants of his estate to march on Berlin to defend the monarchy against the revolutionaries (though the Prussian officers he met when arriving rejected his plan and instead told him to simply gather supplies). Bismarck's constant conflicts with the Landtag (Prussian parliament) resulted in the House of Deputies declaring that they could not work with him, and the King responded by dissolving the Diet and allowing Bismarck to introduce laws suppressing freedom of the press early in his chancellorship. Bismarck also opted for a military method to unite Germany, starting wars with Denmark, Austria, and France to do so. Furthermore, he established a series of anti-socialist laws to forcefully suppress the Socialist party as much as he was legally allowed. According to Bismarck’s worldview, conflict was necessary to achieve what one wanted, best encapsulated by his now famous “iron and blood” speech.

In September 1862, when the Prussian House of Representatives were refusing to approve an increase in military spending desired by King Wilhelm I, the monarch appointed Bismarck Minister President and Foreign Minister. A few days later, Bismarck appeared before the House's Budget Committee and stressed the need for military preparedness to solve the German Question. He concluded his speech with the following statement:

“The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power [...] Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favorable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood”

This speech sent shockwaves through Prussia’s parliament, in which liberal members held a plurality of the seats, and created a mini-crisis that almost saw Bismarck losing his power immediately after acquiring it, as many in Prussia’s government pushed for Wilhelm I to fire him. Luckily for Bismarck, Wilhelm refused, and in the following decade Bismarck would make good on his promise to use iron and blood to achieve his goals.

Bismarck in general was always aware of his power and leverage in any situation. One of his many ways of maintaining control over Wilhelm I was to threaten to resign, and thus no longer offer his political expertise to the management of Prussia/Germany. Another one of Bismarck's methods was feigning a temper (which was believed by everyone because Bismarck on many occasions showed a very real and very vicious temper), such that no one would be willing to risk ending up on his bad side.

Throughout all of Bismarck’s life, fighting to achieve his goals, conflict with opposing factions, a desire for power and desire to subordinate others, were all the most common themes present. This is enough to make F1 quite obvious. It really is no wonder he was, and is, often referred to as ‘The Iron Chancellor’.

Bismarck’s worldview is also indicative of his sociotype. Bismarck was a radical conservative, believing in maintaining royal supremacy and a strict social hierarchy. Maintaining royal power was one of Bismarck’s main goals after unifying Germany, with his other goals being the maintaining of his own power and creating a united German identity. While it is unsurprising that Bismarck would seek to preserve the social hierarchy in Germany since Bismarck himself was a Junker (Prussian nobility), his genuine belief in the King's divine right to rule and the fervor with which he defended royal and aristocratic power makes it clear that his hierarchical values come from a genuine internal motivation, rather than solely pragmatic concern for his own position in society (though maintaining his position in society certainly played a role in Bismarck's ideology). This hierarchical worldview is indicative of valued, and likely confident L blocked with F. Bismarck also had a strong ability to use laws and legal loopholes to his advantage, such as when Bismarck, as well as King Wilhelm, disliked the budget put forward by the Landtag, so rejected it and despite the lack of legal precedent, asserted that he would be able to use the previous years budget to run the government since a new budget had not been agreed on. Bismarck's skills at legal manipulation also point toward strong L.

Despite his conservative leanings, Bismarck was not a strict ideologue. He was willing to compromise on his views in pursuit of his goals. For example, although he would have preferred an authoritarian royalist state, Bismarck introduced universal male suffrage to gain a political advantage in the North German Confederation (the northern states joined Prussia prior to Bismarck’s unification of the South) in 1867. Though pursuing the Kulturkampf to reduce the power of the Catholic church, Bismarck would end the Kulturkampf and ally with his former Catholic opponents in the German Centre Party to fight against the Socialists. To fight against the Socialists, despite being reactionary, Bismarck would introduce one of the most advanced welfare states in Europe to gain support from the working classes that would have likely gone to the Socialists instead. For Bismarck, there were few hard lines, and policies were tools to be used to resist opposing ideologies and power blocks, rather than be ends in and of themselves. This is best summarised by one of Bismarck’s well known quotes, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” This is enough to say conclusively that Bismarck used F and L with great confidence but also with notable flexibility in his use of L, most consistent with L2. In addition, Bismarck’s ability to change tactics and compromise his ideological pursuits when needed is indicative of some effective I usage, but unvalued, seeing as it was only used when necessary. The adaptive nature of Bismarck’s use of I, combined with the complete lack of value placed on it for its own sake, is most consistent with I3.

While Bismarck was easily able to rely on F and L to navigate the politics in Germany and push through his agenda, one of the most interesting facts that sets him apart from many other authoritarian leaders was his lack of overt grandiosity. While Bismarck certainly had a high opinion of himself and knew that, by uniting Germany, he had forever changed world history more drastically than the vast majority of leaders, during his time in power he was not one to advertise this fact often. He did not tend to give grand speeches and in fact was a somewhat poor public speaker (except for in debates, of course, where he was quite skilled). He also lacked charisma in the conventional sense of the word. Though many were attracted to his very powerful personality, he did not project an appealing image nor make others feel good through charm.

At least, this was how he acted while in power. After his fall from grace and dismissal by Wilhelm II, Bismarck briefly retreated to isolation in his estate, before eventually getting back into politics indirectly through giving interviews, releasing secrets, and playing at what his son Herbert called 'pseudo-politics'. He also began writing his memoirs. During this period between his downfall and his death, he began going on tours through Germany where large crowds gathered to see the ‘Iron and Blood Chancellor’ in person, cheering him on. During these events, Bismarck would enjoy reveling in all of the praise and attention. He would then give actual public speeches meant to create an emotional effect, rather than for purely pragmatic and political purposes. For most of his life, Bismarck operated purely for political gain and acquisition of power, but later in life became more extroverted and engaged in the social and emotional atmosphere, consistent with E6.

As one would expect from Bismarck’s lack of emotional awareness, his behavior regarding his personal relationships left much to be desired. Bismarck’s quick temper and vindictiveness would often lead to him mistreating his loved ones, causing him much shame and regret once he had calmed down. One minor example was when Bismarck, in a fit of anger, hit his dog. Shortly after, his dog died of natural causes related to old age (not due to Bismarck’s mistreatment), causing Bismarck to break down in tears over having mistreated the dog he loved so close to its death. A much bigger example would be when Bismarck used his power to threaten to change German primogeniture laws to disinherit his eldest son Herbert, thereby preventing him from marrying the woman he loved due to many perceived personal failings, such as her divorce and because she was from a family of Bismarck’s political rivals. This turned Herbert into a cynical alcoholic and he never recovered, causing Bismarck much guilt throughout the rest of his life.

Additionally, Bismarck could only enforce his political will through his power and leverage, since he was often unable to get others to join his side personally due to his reputation for having a poor moral character. While beloved by the masses, particularly after his dismissal by Wilhelm II, Bismarck often made a poor impression on the individuals he interacted with in politics, which would prove a massive hindrance to him when trying to push his agenda. This all would seem to make R4 a good fit. Biographer Jonathan Steinberg said of him, while describing how he was forced to resign by Wilhelm II, as..."Having crushed his parliamentary opponents, flattened and abused his ministers, and refused to allow himself to be bound by any loyalty, Bismarck had no ally left when he needed it."

Lastly, Bismarck’s legacy of a united, royalist Germany as the most powerful country in Europe would come crashing down after his death in the world wars, partially due to Wilhelm II’s expansionist ambitions and the relative incompetence of Germany’s early 20th century leaders. Bismarck had created a system in German politics and foreign policy where only he, by nature of his genius, was capable of managing the various conflicting interests. No else one understood the systems that Bismarck had created, such as the League of the Three Emperors, which formed an alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, an alliance that made no logical sense due to the extreme and explicit hostility between Austria and Russia over control of the Balkans. In fact, sometimes even Bismarck didn’t understand them himself, but managed to keep these systems and policies going despite the seeming impossibility, thanks to his pure political skill, but despite being praised for his genius, the German state and foreign policy that Bismarck oversaw was always a house of cards, and without the “genius statesman” keeping it up, it was destined to come crumbling down.

Strangely, for someone as obsessed with his legacy as Bismarck, he did not see this turn of events coming until long after his fall from power. It is often said that Bismarck’s legacy crumbled so soon after his fall from power because Bismarck could not envision a world without himself. Bismarck’s desire to protect his legacy and complete inability to do so despite his immense power seems most indicative of T5.

Further indication of T5 can be seen throughout Bismarck's time in power in how he pushed through policies or systems in the moment to gain more immediate power and leverage which would later come back to disadvantage him in the future. His establishment of universal suffrage is a perfect example of this, as it helped him gain an immediate political advantage, but in the time of the German Empire, would come to be a hinderance as liberalism became more popular in other German states and its popularity would continue to grow under Bismarck's reign.

Having argued for Bismarck’s use of F1, L2, I3, R4, T5, and E6, I find it impossible to see Bismarck as any type other than SLE.

Sources

My main source was Jonathan Steinberg's biography 'Bismarck: A Life

Henry Kissinger (ILI): Personality Type Analysis

Henry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Kissinger in 1923) is a German-American writer, geopolitical analyst, consultant, and former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to presidents Richard Nixon (ESI) and Gerald Ford (SLI), having the distinction of being the only person in history to have held both titles at the same time. Kissinger’s reputation is controversial. He is praised by some for his use of realpolitik, an approach to diplomacy that chooses to eschew ideology or morality in favor of pragmatism. He is also praised by many for his achievements, including his pivotal role in pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, opening negotiations with the diplomatically isolated Maoist China, negotiating a ceasefire to the Yom-Kippur war, setting the stage for long-lasting peace between Israel and Egypt (completed during the Carter administration), and negotiating the end of America’s involvement in the Vietnam war. However, Kissinger is also routinely criticized for his amoral approach to diplomacy, often called a 'war criminal' for his involvement in bombing campaigns in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, as well as his support of right-wing dictators throughout Latin America, among other actions he took while in power.

Henry Kissinger’s most notable personality trait, and one of his greatest strengths, is his analytical ability and strategic mind. Kissinger, and even his critics would admit this, has a masterful understanding of the long-term geopolitical implications of any one event or idea. Biographer Walter Isaacson said of him: “Likewise, his fingertip feel for the world’s webs of interdependence – how an event in one corner of the planet will reverberate in another – has become more important in an era of complex globalization.” Kissinger was known to analyze every situation with a long-term strategy. When writing about Kissinger’s time as a consultant in the Kennedy administration, Walter Isaacson also stated “... (John F.) Kennedy (EIE), who considered Kissinger brilliant but tiresome, was driven to distraction by his ponderous insistence that all issues be put in a long-range, strategic context,” which was a focus that Kissinger had throughout his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Even before joining Nixon’s administration, and after leaving the president’s cabinet with the defeat of Gerald Ford to Jimmy Carter (SEI) in the 1976 election, Kissinger continued writing books and articles about geopolitics where he commented on the current trends and where they would likely lead the world in the future. Most of Kissinger’s books are meant to analyze the contemporary geopolitical trends and predict where these trends will lead in the future. For the ones that do not concern contemporary geopolitics, such as ‘A World Restored’ or ‘Diplomacy’, Kissinger still explains events and trends in sequential order, how one leads into the next, and what the modern world can learn from analyzing the past. Kissinger’s strategic thought process and long-term thinking, his desire for every action to lead toward a specific end-goal, and his masterful understanding of the global and long-term consequences of any action or event, as well as his “fingertip feel” for geopolitics, and his constant focus on how current trends will affect future outcomes, make a strong case for T1.

Kissinger’s approach to foreign policy had a distinct pragmatism to it, with Kissinger being one of the most committed pragmatists to influence US foreign policy during the twentieth century, eschewing moral concerns on the basis that a country’s only duty is to maintain its own power to prevent any foreign threats against it. While many politicians used moralistic rhetoric to pursue practical ends, and some actively pursued a moralistic foreign policy, Kissinger openly and unashamedly practiced realpolitik, the term coined in the 19th century to describe the approach Otto Von Bismarck (SLE) took in foreign policy, one of ignoring moral and ideological concerns in favor of purely power-based diplomacy. In fact, it is no surprise that when Charles de Gaulle (ESI) asked Kissinger who his favorite diplomat was, he answered that it was Otto Von Bismarck. Kissinger makes use of a plethora of facts and information in his analyses, which can be seen most clearly in his books, which are packed with context, events, and examples, all of which are synthesized to form a cohesive analysis, and presented in a very dry and factual way, with little emotion or moralism to be found. Kissinger took the same approach in his memoirs. He explained the events of his years in power in clear, factual terms, and made a point of relying as little on memory as possible and using the plethora of documents available to him (as well as his personal diary from the time period) to describe events. Kissinger’s strong usage of facts and data as well as his dry presentation to explain his analyses of long-term trends seems indicative of P2 supporting T1.

Kissinger had a seemingly ideological devotion to the idea of pragmatism in foreign policy. He would explain his views in a clear, structured way, and views geopolitics through a systematic lens, often utilizing structural analysis to promote his pragmatic views. Notably though, Kissinger only used this sort of ideological framework to promote a pragmatic foreign policy which he saw as the end goal in and of itself. This is most consistent with L8 supporting P2, all of which fed his T1 motivations.

In his promotion of a pragmatic foreign policy, Kissinger states plainly his belief that the only purpose of foreign policy is to promote a country’s power and protect its national security. He is quite forthright in his lack of moral considerations, and while he does defend his views as being the most moral, often using the Metternich system which set up a balance of power in Europe that (mostly) maintained peace for a century as an example of his principles in action, he sees no point in masking his cynical calculus with something that would be more acceptable to the average person. Regardless of the objective merits of a purely pragmatic foreign policy, it is not something most average people find appealing given the inherent amorality of it, and most politicians would at least make an attempt to sound more appealing when presenting their ideas. Kissinger, on the other hand, saw no purpose in playing these games to make his ideas more palatable. While previous politicians, although promoting continued involvement in Vietnam, talked about promoting democracy and self-determination in order to stop the spread of communism, Kissinger (and Nixon) instead talked about pragmatic concerns of how a sudden withdrawal would affect America's other alliances, as well as linkage (linking geopolitical concerns in one area to the concerns in a different area to gain more leverage in negotiations). In fact, contrary to the common media narrative, Kissinger is unique, not because of his realpolitik approach (other presidential administrations before and after had the a similar approach), but he is unique because of how openly cynical he was with regard to foreign policy. This is consistent with E4.

While showing very few signs of R on the surface, Kissinger in his memoirs, whenever introducing a new person, always makes a point of describing not just their personalities but also his view of them, making his opinion clear with his descriptions, such as describing someone as being “a man of integrity and honesty” and often saying outright how much he admired certain individuals based on their character traits. On the rare occasion that Kissinger describes an event in emotional terms, it is often framed from his personal perspective. For example, in his chapter on what he called “the agony of Vietnam”, he spends little time discussing the severe agony of Indochina during a period of war, instead focusing on the United States, specifically because of his personal attitude toward it: “I cannot yet write about Vietnam except with pain and sadness…” he wrote in his first of three memoirs, ‘The White House Years’, and after describing the severe reaction of US citizens to the war, how it divided the country, he explains his pain at seeing America tear itself apart, saying “The principles of America’s honor and America’s responsibility were not empty phrases to me. I felt them powerfully. I had been born in Germany in the Bavarian town of Fuerth, six months before Hitler’s attempted beerhall putsch in Bavaria’s capital, Munich. Hitler came to power when I was nine years old… Until I emigrated to America, my family and I endured progressive ostracism and discrimination… Through this period America acquired a wondrous quality for me. When I was a boy it was a dream, an incredible place where tolerance was natural and personal freedom unchallenged… I therefore have always had a special feeling for what America means, which native-born citizens perhaps take for granted… The domestic turmoil of the Vietnam debate therefore pained me deeply… I believed in the moral significance of my adopted country.” Therefore, while tangents involving Kissinger’s emotional attachment to certain issues were rare, when he did write emotionally, it heavily concerned his personal views written from his perspective, rather than a general, emotionally charged description like one would find in E valuing types.

However, despite Kissinger frequently commenting on R related things, the vast majority of his written work concerns analysis of trends using factual data, including in his memoirs. Kissinger’s ability to establish relations with individuals on the world stage was lacking, with him often requiring others to bridge the gap. For example, while negotiating a ceasefire to the Yom Kippur war, Kissinger faced difficulty getting along with Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, but was helped in his efforts due to Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat’s ability to easily establish a rapport with Kissinger. Kissinger primarily showed valued R in his memoirs, where the reader is given access to his personal thought process, showing that R is certainly valued and focused on somewhat, but overall remains a less important and less noticeable part of his personality than T and P, consistent with R6.

Henry Kissinger’s other most notable personality trait is his desire for power. Throughout his life he was always looking for a way to gain more influence. Kissinger himself would often say “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” and one of his brief girlfriends (one of many, he was quite a womanizer) said of Kissinger that “for him, power was an aphrodisiac, but it was also the climax”. This, in addition to his view of the world as an endless competition between opposing forces, is enough to confidently say that F is a valued element for him.

Conversely, Kissinger himself often lacked the aggression needed to make his mark and acquire what he wanted. The extent of his personal assertiveness were his common fits of anger and Kissinger frequently needed to attach himself to other more powerful individuals. After being drafted into the US army in World War II, Kissinger joined the military intelligence part of his division and eventually was put in charge of the German city Krefeld solely due to establishing his connection with a strong-willed, assertive, and eccentric officer named Fritz Kraemer. Later, in Kissinger’s political career, he would become known due to his personal and advisory relationship to Governor Nelson Rockefeller (SEE), only gaining real political power when he was hired to be president Richard Nixon’s national security advisor. In addition, Henry’s wife, Nancy Kissinger, is described as being strong-willed and assertive, readily using aggression in public, such as one event where Henry was accosted by a cultist at an airport and Nancy was the one who pushed her aside and threatened to “slug” the cultist so she would go away. In fact, despite what one would expect based on traditional gender roles, it was said that Nancy was the one who felt protective of Henry. While it is a minor point, Kissinger eventually settling down with a strong-willed assertive woman would indicate that he not only sought people with powerful personalities for the sake of his career, but also because he liked assertive people in general. Therefore, Kissinger’s love of power and influence, along with his own lack of assertiveness, and his desire to attach himself to other more assertive individuals for both his career and love life, indicates F in his super-id, most consistent with F5.

Overall, it’s been argued that Henry Kissinger’s personality best fits T1, P2, E4, F5, R6, and L8, making ILI the most likely type for him.

To learn more about ILI, click here.

If you are confused about our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Sources

My main source was Walter Isaacson’s biography, simply titled ‘Kissinger’.

For a much more detailed (though naturally biased) look at Kissinger’s years in power, one could read his set of gargantuan memoirs, titled (in order of release) ‘The White House Years’, ‘Years of Upheaval’, and ‘Years of Renewal’. 

For a look at Kissinger’s worldview which his geopolitical analysis is filtered through, one could read his 1994 magnum opus ‘Diplomacy’.

Napoléon Bonaparte (SLE): Personality Type Analysis

Napoléon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821), otherwise known by the regnal name Napoleon I, was a French general, politician, and emperor, who thanks to circumstances provided by the French Revolution, rose from mild Corsican nobility through the ranks to lead Revolutionary France through wars against 5 coalitions, expanding its borders to cover most of Western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe. Widely considered to be one of the greatest military generals in history, he is also remembered for his many domestic reforms within France, his most notable being the standardization of France’s different regional legal systems into a single 'Napoleonic Code' which would go on to form the basis of most Western European legal systems. Following his defeat in the war of the 6th coalition, Napoleon was exiled to the small island of Elba, which he had been promised for him to rule as a sort of mini-emperor. However, after less than a year, with the deal not being upheld, he snuck back to France to take power one last time. He was, however, defeated in the battle of Waterloo soon after by General Arthur Wellesley (LIE) and exiled to the island of St. Helena in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, where he died shortly after in 1821.

Napoleon’s most notable personality trait was his seemingly infinite willpower and energy. Napoleon always had a goal and would move towards it relentlessly, pushing aside or breaking whatever obstacles stood in his way, and often putting himself in physical danger. Indecision and hesitancy was almost a foreign concept for him.

Examples of this could be seen in his Italian campaign as a general in the War of the First Coalition. When Napoleon took control of the Italian army, it was in an awful state, lacking in both resources and morale. Morale increased as soon as he arrived. Despite being initially looked down on for his short stature, young age, and the perception that he was only put in charge due to political connections, he was said to have radiated a commanding energy, and possessed a very strong capacity for hard work, both of which soon earned him the respect of his fellow officers and his soldiers. Napoleon also made incessant demands to the French Directory for more and more materials due to the outrageously weak state of the Italian army, and due to his stubbornness, managed to gain enough material to wage war against the Austrians. Throughout the Italian campaign, Napoleon disobeyed orders from the government frequently when he believed, usually correctly, that he could push forwards and gain more. He also exceeded his authority as a general by making peace with various Italian states, while invading the ones that would not submit, such as Venice and the Papal States. Eventually, after taking his army close to Vienna, he signed a peace agreement with Austria, thus ending the war of the first coalition.

Moving on to his years in power, Napoleon showed a severe lack of restraint. While most of the Napoleonic wars were started by other countries attacking France, Napoleon’s insistence on taking territory for France and its client states, led to the perception among other countries that Napoleon was a ruthless warmonger bent on endless war and conquest. 

Napoleon was driven by a need to acquire more, and to achieve more, endlessly. Knowing he was destined for great things, he felt incredibly frustrated with the focus on promoting nobility at the expense of meritocracy during his initial days as a low-level soldier prior to the French Revolution, since it held him back. He became thankful for the introduction of meritocratic promotion following the revolution. After Napoleon’s first defeat, he was given a very generous deal that would allow him to be the emperor of a small island called Elba and reign there along with an offer to pay for his and his family’s expenses. However, this promise did not follow through, with King Louis XVIII (ILI) refusing to provide the necessary funds, and facing bankruptcy, Napoleon fell into a depression and even unsuccessfully attempted suicide, because this was such a tremendous loss of status and power.

Napoleon’s strong-willed nature was present throughout his life, seen in his tendency to fight with school bullies and stubbornness against those with more authority than him. For example, in a class as a child, children were seated and on one side of the room they were seated under a Roman flag, and on the other side a Carthaginian flag. Napoleon refused to sit under the Carthaginian flag because they lost the Punic wars to Rome.

Napoleon’s ability to make demands of his superiors while disobeying orders and suffering no consequences, his commanding aura, his willingness to bulldoze his enemies as a standard method of getting what he wanted rather than using diplomacy, his constant expansion of French territory, and never ending desire for more status and power, are all indicative of F1.

In pursuit of his goals, Napoleon made use of whatever structure he could, and created structure as well. This can be seen in his time in power. After overthrowing the directory in a coup d'état, Napoleon was able to rewrite the French constitution in a way that gave the First Consul (which would be Napoleon himself) nearly unchecked power. Napoleon further made use of this structure to give himself more power upon making himself Emperor. Upon gaining power as Consul and continuing while Emperor, Napoleon set about restructuring French society in a very systematic way, first doing away with the excesses of the French Revolution such as its new calendar and the associated 'decimal time', while bringing back Catholicism as the state religion. Napoleon’s biggest contribution in his attempts to reform France was, as I alluded to before, his establishment of the Napoleonic Code. Prior to Napoleon, France had different legal systems depending on which province one was in. The Napoleonic Code standardized France’s legal system at the national level, and Napoleon spread this system to all of the territories he conquered.

Napoleon also overhauled the structure of the French army, adopting the ‘corps system’ which would divide the French army into separate corps that would have subdivisions below them and were under the command of a particular army being led by a particular general. The corps would be composed of all necessary types of soldiers (infantry, cavalry, and artillery) allowing them to act independently when necessary and thus greatly improving the speed and efficiency of Napoleon’s 'Grande Armée'. 

Napoleon’s mind was just as structured as his government and military. Historian and biographer Andrew Roberts wrote “Napoleon was capable of compartmentalizing his life, so that one set of concerns never spilled over into another - probably a necessary attribute for any great statesman, but one he possessed to an extraordinary degree.”

Napoleon himself said “Different subjects and different affairs are arranged in my head as in a cupboard. When I wish to interrupt one train of thought, I shut that drawer and open another. Do I wish to sleep? I simply close all the drawers, and there I am - asleep.”

This all points to strength in F + L, but Napoleon’s use of L was not focused on a global system like L1 but rather used flexibly, fitting L2.

This description of the structure of Napoleon’s army also brings me to discuss his relationship with P. Napoleon was known to be a very efficient leader. He excelled at managing his resources in his armies, spent long amounts of time poring over maps to learn the terrain of areas he was in, constantly asking questions to learn whatever information he could. He was always focused on taking in information and how he could use that information to make things more efficient. Napoleon’s skill at management was nearly unrivalled and was one of his greatest assets in his wars. All of this suggests a strong focus on P, yet motivated entirely by F. Napoleon certainly did not ignore P aspects but only used it as a means to an end, consistent with P8.

While engaging in practicalities, Napoleon was also known to neglect his health often. Others frequently commented on his extreme workaholism, which caused him to neglect his sleep. On campaigns he would adopt a polyphasic sleep schedule, meaning he would sleep in very short bursts allowing him to get frequent but short breaks to refresh himself. However, despite this, Napoleon would still take time to rest his body and mind when not fighting, and would return to a normal sustainable sleep schedule after campaigns. Napoleon took frequent baths, once claiming that 1 hour in a bath was as refreshing as 4 hours of sleep. He enjoyed living in luxury, however this was often in the form of art and decorations (particularly of the ‘Empire’ style pioneered under Napoleon’s patronage) used to promote Napoleon’s image and to satisfy his wife Josephine (EIE) who was insistent on having as much luxury as possible, rather than any sort of desire for relaxation and comfort on Napoleon’s part. This is all consistent with S7.

Another of Napoleon’s greatest assets in his conquests was his innovativeness. From his creation of the corps system to his many unique and unheard of battlefield tactics, Napoleon in the early and middle parts of his military career constantly brought something new to the table. One of the earliest examples was when he was an artillery officer during the war of the first coalition in the siege of Toulon, where his creative placement of his artillery resulted in a French victory and the evacuation of British forces from the city. However, this never came at the expense of action, as Napoleon never stopped to consider alternate options when the time came to act. Napoleon himself said “Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.”

However, Napoleon’s enemies eventually adapted to the changes Napoleon brought to warfare of the time period. Many of them adopted the corps system as well and grew used to Napoleon’s creative battlefield tactics. Yet, when his enemies had learned how to counter him, Napoleon never adapted again, choosing to stick with the same old tactics he was used to, even after they had stopped working. This all suggests Napoleon was capable of using I when needed to some extent, but ultimately lacked strength in it and, given his clear valuing of F, that makes I3 clear.

A more important trait than his failure to continue innovating that led to Napoleon’s downfall was also his severe short-sightedness. I already touched on this earlier when I discussed how Napoleon’s insistence on constantly annexing new territory led others to perceive him as a warmonger, despite the fact that most of his wars were defensive in nature. Napoleon’s short-sightedness also is seen in his lack of ability to take a step back and view the big picture. More specifically, his constant aggression led to him gaining many subjects, client states, and unwilling allies, as well as a shortage in French manpower. Napoleon did not realize the consequences this would have on future campaigns, and he began relying more and more on his clients and unwilling allies to provide soldiers for his wars, culminating in his impulsive and disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Napoleon believed that the Russian war would be just like any other, but he was wrong. Napoleon was oblivious to the machinations of Russian Tsar Alexander I (EIE), who had been forging relationships with Napoleon’s allies, especially Prussia and Austria. The armies of these two states happened to never engage in any combat with Russian armies, likely not a coincidence. Alexander, along with his best general, Mikhail Kutuzov, lured Napoleon deep into the country until winter, and Napoleon did not realize he was caught in the trap until it was too late.

Napoleon seemed incapable of observing the big picture and seeing how everything would develop over time. Other examples of this lack of foresight include his invasion of Spain, which began the Peninsular War; his inability to notice when his opponents began adapting to his military innovations (which I’ve already described); and his enforcement of the Continental System, a blockade against Britain that Napoleon enforced on the whole continent and stubbornly refused to back down from, even when it hurt the French economy more than it hurt the British economy.

Napoleon was always wrapped up in the moment, fighting battle after battle, war after war, focusing on the present and failing to see the forest for the trees. Nevertheless, Napoleon still made attempts to plan for the future; when he began to realize Josephine was likely infertile, Napoleon divorced her because he had become obsessed with producing an heir, and he married an Austrian princess. Overall his attempts at planning for the future were very limited and usually unsuccessful. This best fits T5.

Although lacking awareness of how his image carried over in the long-term, Napoleon was a very inspirational leader, and a masterful propagandist in the short-term. He knew well how to promote his image to others, how to raise the morale of his soldiers, and how to inspire loyalty in his army and his people. He patronized art which depicted him in an imperial style. Napoleon’s speeches were always said to have been incredibly inspiring and uplifting. While exiled to Elba, Napoleon picked up on the unpopularity of the returned Bourbons in France and made his way back with a small handful of soldiers loyal to him. When one of Napoleon’s former Marshals, Marshal Ney was sent with an army to defeat Napoleon’s small band, Napoleon walked up to the army alone and said “Soldiers, if there is one among you who wants to kill his general and emperor, here I am.” The loyalty that the soldiers had toward Napoleon was so great that all the soldiers (and Marshal Ney) put down their weapons and joined Napoleon. This happened several more times on his way back to Paris. However, this loyalty could only have been achieved due to Napoleon’s constant battlefield victories, so while this shows some skill in E, Napoleon was ultimately more reliant on F.

Despite Napoleon’s charisma, Napoleon faced difficulties in his personal relationships. This was partially due to his introverted, borderline antisocial behavior. When Napoleon was young, he had no interest in making friends and as an adult was quite socially reclusive. He was easily manipulated by Josephine early on in their relationship, when she did not seem interested in him at all, and Napoleon would obsessively worry about whether or not she liked him, and if she was cheating on him. He was also notoriously a loner when he was young, finding it incredibly difficult to make friends.

More than that though, Napoleon was very bad at the personal side of politics. He was far too trusting, having no understanding of who he could trust and who he couldn’t trust. After he fired foreign minister Talleyrand (ILI) and police minister Fouché, he continued to trust them, take their advice and give them other powerful positions, oblivious to the fact that his firing of them turned both of them against him. Talleyrand in particular was known to everyone at the time to only be looking out for himself, being willing to lie whenever needed and betray whoever was necessary to maintain his position. Napoleon seemed oblivious to all of these red flags. Today Talleyrand is known for having betrayed every single government he worked for, having betrayed the Bourbon monarchy, the Revolutionary government, and the directory. He, along with Fouché would go on to betray Napoleon as well. Napoleon also made a grave mistake in trusting Tsar Alexander I. While discussing a peace deal (the treaty of Tilsit) he became convinced that Alexander I was his ally, and was steadfast in that belief until Alexander dropped out of the continental system (which prompted the 1812 invasion). This is despite the fact that Alexander was diplomatically undermining Napoleon at every opportunity, specifically by getting closer to Prussia and Austria (which, according to the treaty of Tilsit, were under France’s sphere of influence) as well as exchanging letters on a regular basis with the aforementioned Talleyrand. Napleon knew that these exchanges were occurring but did not realize that they was also a big, red flag. Unlike Napoleon’s mild efforts to plan for the future, he showed practically zero focus on judging his relationships or figuring out who was on his side or against him. I think the combination of Napoleon’s impressive charisma but lack of skill in managing one on one relationships makes a very strong case for E6 and R4. In my research, it would also seem that Napoleon’s extremely weak use of T and R were the main contributing factors to his downfall.

Putting all of this together, Napoleon Bonaparte best matches with F1, L2, I3, R4, T5, E6, S7, and P8, making SLE the only reasonable typing for him.

To learn more about SLE, click here.

If you are confused about our use of Socionics shorthand, click here.

Sources

The primary source for Napoleon’s life I used was Andrew Roberts’ biography ‘Napoleon: A Life’