DBWI: Otto Von Habsburg vs. Louis XIV, who was greater?

(Because I knew his death would mean *somebody* would do something like this)

Now that the longest reigning monarrch in Europeean history has finally passed away, I thought it would be fun to consider who whether he or the man whose record he broke was greater - Otto or Louis XIV, who reigned 72 years in France..

Actually, some will even put an asterisk on that number - if not on the record - because of his service in exile for part of the time, before and during World War Two after he was banished by the Nazis, but his protests against the Nazis and great work in rallying the Free Austrians was incredible, and one can just as easily claim that Louis XIV should rightly get time deducted for his reign during the time he had a regent, too.

OTOH, he was not an absolute monarch, and much of his work - besides working with both sides to secure a neutral Austria in the postwar era - was in pan-European movements. Then again, I guess that's one of those things where you ask what makes someone greater, how much they do for the country or how much they do for the world. After all, even the Hungarians - who had totally snubbed him for decades - expressed their gratitutde to him for working in the revolution that overthrew Communism in that nation.

(Edit: Sorry I forgot which board I was in, please move to post-1900)
 
Last edited:
I'm with the recently passed Archduke. Mainly because while Louis XIV's reign was long and a flourish for France it led to the Revolution in the long run. Archduke Otto's reign saw Austria go from strength to strength after WWII and it was one of the leaders of European integrating.
 
Top