Napoleon was probably the equal at least of Washington in intellect, his superior in education. Both of them were successful in serving the state.

Simpson juxtaposes Napoleon and Washington to separate raw ability and schooling from moral-political ends. By granting Napoleon intellectual parity (and even greater formal education), he undercuts any simplistic claim that Washington’s greatness rests on superior genius or training. The final sentence shifts the criterion of “success” to public service: both men, in different systems and by different means, proved effective instruments of state power. The comparison invites readers to weigh leadership not only by talent but by how that talent is directed—toward republican restraint and civic legitimacy in Washington’s case, versus centralized, often coercive state-building in Napoleon’s. The remark thus functions as a prompt to evaluate greatness through the lens of service and statecraft rather than celebrity or conquest alone.