>be in school
>learning about nicholas ii
>teacher hands us text on him
>see this
we are literally being taught in schools that people under ~6ft are disgusting weak babies
>tfw called Nicholas
>only 5'7''
Maybe I'm fated to do great things.
>>27110042
that's accurate
>>27110042
He was probably a giant compared to all the other potato starved slavshits of his era. Probably written by a woman who doesn't realize not every man is a 7 foot chad
>>27110042
Hey, Napoleon was the exact same height.
>>27110084
He was shorter than his wife.
>>27110084
>robably written by a woman
guy called Orlando Figes
>>27110064
Nick is pretty well-known for being an underwhelming monarch, though.
>>27110042
Try reading about Louis XIV from school textbooks.
In one of my very old textbooks, there was an entire paragraph on his height.
>>27110042
napoleon is proof that, no matter how successful you are, the only thing people will remember you for is being a manlet
and napoleon wasnt even that short
why wont manlets learn? manlets have never done anything at all and the only thing that matters is the height of the man
do you think abe lincoln could have freed the slaves if he was a weak 5'6? NO
>>27110600
>The British Tory press sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists.
> In fact, he was 1.68 metres (5 ft 6 in) tall, an average height for a man in that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon
Triggers my inner sperg every time.
>>27110064
>great things
Nicholas II was a failure and his weak rule led to the communist revolution
>>27110877
Augustus, first Emperor of Rome, was a manlet
He was probably insecure about it. All the statues of him depict him as being tall and muscular
Pablo Escobar was 5'5....
>>27110600
The french called him the "little general" or something, didn't they?
And that word "little" got misinterpreted and abused to hell and back.
Now Napoleon is a midget and that's all that will ever matter.
