Napoleon Bonaparte, the Mahárájá of Lahore failed to found a lasting dynasty on the ruins of the petty States, Rájput, Muhammadan, and Sikh, which he in turn attacked and destroyed. His victories had no permanent result; his possessions, like a faggot of sticks, bound together during his lifetime by the force of his imperious will, fell asunder the moment the restraining band was severed. His throne and the tradition of his power and greatness passed into the hands of incompetent successors, who allowed the ship of the State to drift on to the rocks in irremediable wreck. It is very easy to stretch historical parallels too far, but the likeness between the character and fortunes of Napoleon and Ranjít Singh is not only striking in its superficial resemblance, but interesting as showing how similar conditions work out the same results in Asia as in Europe; among Frenchmen intoxicated with the first triumphant revolt against feudal tyranny, and Sikhs fresh from a revolt as momentous against the crushing spiritual despotism of Bráhmanism. The revolutionaries of the West and the East found their masters in Napoleon and Ranjít Singh, men of military genius, absolutely selfish, pitiless and immoral; but the power they seized they were unable to transmit to others. It is true that Napoleonism had in our day a late revival, but it did no more than emphasize the fact that adventurers do not easily found dynasties. The popular obedience is willingly given to the great captain, the leader of men, who seems in the dazzled eyes of the people
