You write "My only issue here is co-opting a 20th century term with its 20th century baggage and applying it to an early 19th century ruler, especially when there are historically correct terms that convey the same sense of "absolute power," as well as the power to declare war you seem so fond of citing as the hallmark of a "dictator." It was a hallmark of an absolute monarch/enlightened despot/autocrat too."
So, I was correct when stating that the only real problem with applying the term to N. is that it makes him sound bad. It's not a polite term. It has, as you say, "baggage."
Please recall the title of this thread.. "the silly -and unsupported- claims that N. was a dictator." Clearly, there are numerous supportable examples of N. acting exactly like a dictator and there is nothing silly about those acts. 1812 was not silly and it only occurred on the singular order of N. There aren't too many orders ever given in history, by a single person, that directly caused more death and destruction than N.'s in 1812. Nobody else is responsible for 1812 and 1813-1815 are all just a continuation of that one decision made by a solitary human for his own personal reasons. At that moment, N. was a dictator.
"absolute monarch/enlightened despot/autocrat too." Yes, of course, these would come under the same description as dictators.