Not one which would ever have been able to rise very high under the ancien régime. Minor, impoverished nobility from Corsica (then a backwater in France) were not in line for the throne. As a Corsican, he was barely even considered French (and spoke the language poorly when he was young). The fact that someone from such a lowly social station would be able to rise to be the head of state was astonishing. It would have been completely impossible, of course, without the Revolution, and for someone without great ability.

Napoleon wasn't a peasant, but he wasn't anywhere near the ruling social class - which is what the GP implied when they said they weren't interested in "white folk with life-and-death power over millions, because of an accident of birth." Although, in one sense, I could grant that Napoleon did come to power due to accident of birth - the accident of being born shortly before the Revolution, and perfectly the right age to rise through the ranks of the military during the Revolution, and then take power just as the Directorate was becoming unpopular. If he had been born 10 years earlier or later, that would have been impossible. But nevertheless, without also being possibly the greatest general in history and extremely charismatic, he wouldn't have come to power.

But sans his education, exposure to an exclusive social tier, and thus his subsequent study at École Militaire, and finally being commissioned as an officer, he would not have had the opportunity to shine.

So the point is, if he were indeed a "nothing", regardless of his substantial qualities, you and I would not be discussing him couple hundred years later on hacker news.

> what the GP implied

I am very clearly focused on the notion of "nothing". Per my reading of history, almost all of the major spiritual and secular figures in history, regardless of period or locale, belonged to (or were closely attached) to the upper classes.

You're taking "nothing" very literally. My point was that he was not born into the crown, and that based on his birth, he could never have hoped to wield much of any political power, had it not been for the Revolution.

> an exclusive social tier

It wasn't nearly as exclusive as you're making it out to be. There were hundreds of thousands of people with higher social rank than Napoleon.

> his subsequent study at École Militaire, and finally being commissioned as an officer, he would not have had the opportunity to shine

That's probably true, but not because studying at the military academy at Brienne was anything particularly prestigious. It's because the Republic was in desperate need of competent officers and under extreme military pressure, so people from fairly low social stations and with little military training were being put in command of significant forces. Lots of people from outside the ruling class rose to high stations during this time. Napoleon was simply the most extreme example, because of the seeming military miracles he pulled off and a great deal of political shrewdness.

What you're arguing is a bit like saying that Albert Einstein was just lucky to be born to a family that could afford tutors. But being born to decent circumstances were just the beginning, and the vast majority of people born to those circumstances go nowhere near as far as Einstein did. Napoleon wouldn't have been who he was had he been born a serf. But he was also probably the greatest military mind in history, and without that we wouldn't be talking about him here.

> almost all of the major spiritual and secular figures in history, regardless of period or locale, belonged to (or were closely attached) to the upper classes.

I don't think that's true at all of the era we're discussing. The people who rose to prominence in France during the Revolution tended to be decidedly middle-class: lawyers, penniless minor nobility, journalists, army engineers, minor clergy, and so on.