Maybe it was felt that he was not a criminal (even though mythologised as a bogeyman by the British) but rather just an impediment to Britain’s own ambitions of Empire. Maybe it was by agreement with or for appeasing the French. He was certainly useful in generating our own heroes (Nelson, Wellington) and allowing us to create a sense of British jingoism.

For whatever reasons Napolean ended up on St Helena and living initially with the xxxx family. Apparently as an individual Napoleon was charismatic, engaging, enjoyed the company of children and took an interest in his surroundings. Quite a pleasant house guest you would think and yet through his political ambitions responsible for invasions, war, death and destruction. So how should you treat people such as Napoleon? Entertaining house guest or social pariah?!

I sometimes wonder how individuals become heroes or demons and how and why the rest of us meekly go along with them in either case. It is said that history is written by the victor and Boney may be a good example. We portray him as a tyrant and yet the French revere him as a great leader who ushered in modern France eg the Napoleonic Code of property reform. To this day France pays for the upkeep of his (reconstructed) house and empty grave on St Helena.

At the moment Europe is resisting Valodimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine (and so we should). Certainly his targeting of civilians and their infrastructure is despicable and there is talk of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And yet, despite some sharp commentary on the subject, Churchill is regarded as a national hero while razing whole cities to the ground as part of the war effort.

Adolf Hitler seems more clear cut and yet was he much different to Napoleon? I actually think he was and  there are no circumstances in which he could be viewed in a favourable light and yet millions of people followed him and implemented his political ambitions.

Do individuals exploit or create history or are they the inevitable consequence of political circumstances? The political circumstances of Hitler’s rise to power were created, as I understand it, by the impositions placed upon Germany after World War I. The break up of the Soviet Union and the rush by the West to enrol the newly created independent countries within NATO may have created an historical humiliation for Russia leading inevitably to the rise of a leader such as Putin.

However they get there, why do so many people support these big historical figures? Why would the average French peasant drop his (or possibly her) pitchfork and go off to fight and lay down their life on behalf of someone they will never meet and for a cause they probably wouldn’t understand?! Maybe it’s because political circumstances transcend the individual and why leaders are so difficult to pin down for their actions?

I am sure that there are eminent and considered opinions on these matters in legal and academic circles. I suspect our evolutionary history has a lot to do with it. Essentially humans are tribal creatures that hunt with the pack and for whom group identity is important.

Political figures that have set out to make their mark on the world have usually been bad news for many. From Alexander all the way through to Tony Blair millions have suffered at their hands, either in support of them or opposing them or, most likely, just as collateral damage. Group identity will continue to ensure there will be many more. And, just like Napoleon, I am sure most of them would make an amiable and interesting house guest.