British historian David Andress wrote the following on his twitter account about the commemoration of the bicentenary of Napoleon's death:
"The world as a whole would have been better off if he, like a number of less lucky generals of his generation, had been cut in half by a cannon-ball some time in the later 1790s"
Then he goes on to compare himself favorably to Napoleon:
"Today's small satisfaction - realising that I have now outlived Napoleon, AND managed not to embroil a continent in a decade of futile and murderous war at the same time."
When a historian harbors this kind of feelings towards a historical figure can they still be trusted with their research? Where do we draw the line between a historian and a propagandist?
I'm inclined to agree with Jean Tulard when he says that as a historian he doesn't judge but merely presents facts and explains the reason behind actions.