A matter of perspective:

"he was harsh with both treason...." Rather ironic, from someone who from a British perspective was a treasonous rebel who took up arms against his rightful sovereign.

Had he lost the war of independence (it wasn't a revolution, the machinery of government remained intact), Washington's tarred head would probably have adorned a spike in London. The right and proper fate of a traitor and oath-breaker. He would have then become nothing more than an interesting footnote, as would the young Napoleon if he'd have suffered a fatal wound. History is that fickle.

As I say, a matter of historical perspective. One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter.

Napoleon a villian?

A villian is someone who commits crimes, and when caught gets imprisoned. You can see why people might confuse him for one. Napoleon committed the worst crime of any historical figure. He gambled once too often and lost. Lost badly and was imprisoned for his trouble.