Final answer:
Machiavelli's opinions of Henry are irrelevant since they lived in different eras, and Machiavelli's works do not relate directly to Napoleon's time. Napoleon's autocratic rule and approach to governance are in stark contrast to democratic ideals, reflective of the different historical contexts they each experienced.
Step-by-step explanation:
Machiavelli's opinions of Henry are not directly relevant to a discussion about Napoleon because Machiavelli lived in the 16th century and his works were inherently based on the context of his time, which was well before Napoleon's era in the 19th century. Instead, when assessing Napoleon, the focus tends to be on his autocratic style of governance, his expansionist military campaigns, and his impact on the state and people he ruled over.
The original question may contain a typo, as Machiavelli could not have an opinion on Henry (assuming Henry refers to a figure from Napoleon's time), instead, Machiavelli's writings on leadership, power, and statecraft, primarily in his work The Prince, are used to analyze leaders of various eras, including Napoleon.
Napoleon's approach to governance contrasted with democratic ideals as he was known for being a megalomaniac who sought personal power above all else. His imposition of puppet states controlled by his relatives, disregard for the sentiments of the conquered, and centralized micromanagement of his empire reflects a governance style that focused on efficiency and order, but lacked democratic principles.
To understand why historical figures like Machiavelli and Napoleon held different views on government, one must consider the distinct circumstances and needs of their respective times.