Poll: Greatest leader of the 19th century

Greatest leader of the 19th century

  • Alexander I of Russia

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • George IV of the United Kingdom

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Charles X of France

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Willem I of the Netherlands

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nicholas I of Russia

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mahmud II of Turkey

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nasr ed Din of Persia

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abdulmecid I of Turkey

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Victoria I of the United Kingdom

    Votes: 13 6.3%
  • Alexander II of Russia

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Franz Josef of Austria

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Bismarck of Prussia

    Votes: 88 42.9%
  • Andrew Jackson of the United States

    Votes: 5 2.4%
  • Jose de San Martin of Argentina

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Simon Bolivar of Colombia

    Votes: 10 4.9%
  • Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana of Mexico

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Abdulhamid II of Turkey

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Abraham Lincoln of the United States

    Votes: 69 33.7%
  • Napoleon III of France

    Votes: 4 2.0%
  • Mehmed Ali of Egypt

    Votes: 5 2.4%

  • Total voters
    205
Not one non-political/military leader.
Ironically, in the long run, that crowd are usually the least important figures.

Just for fun, several alternative great leaders:

Sai Baba of Shirdi
Florence Nightingale
Pope Pius IX
William Lloyd Garrison

Yeah, I often feel like people are too focused on a certain kind of leader.
 
My own personal favorite, not on the list - Moshoeshoe I, king of Lesotho. Having been dealt what looked like an almost impossible hand (an African monarch sandwiched between the British and Boers) through a combination of diplomatic agility and military success he managed to preserve the core of Lesotho's territory and institutions and is a large part of the reason why Lesotho is an independent country today and not part of South Africa unlike the higher profile and more glamorous Zulus.

My favorite story showing Moshoeshoe's style, in 1851 he was at war with the British empire. After embarrassingly defeating a couple of invasions he pulled off his master stroke - he surrendered. He'd realised that continued resistance would only invite an overwhelming response that would destroy his country so by seeking terms at the height of his success he ensured that those terms would be very generous indeed. The local British commanders, who were worrying about how to explain being humiliated by a native ruler, were only too grateful for the opportunity to construct a victory narrative instead and went along with it.
 
My own personal favorite, not on the list - Moshoeshoe I, king of Lesotho. Having been dealt what looked like an almost impossible hand (an African monarch sandwiched between the British and Boers) through a combination of diplomatic agility and military success he managed to preserve the core of Lesotho's territory and institutions and is a large part of the reason why Lesotho is an independent country today and not part of South Africa unlike the higher profile and more glamorous Zulus.

My favorite story showing Moshoeshoe's style, in 1851 he was at war with the British empire. After embarrassingly defeating a couple of invasions he pulled off his master stroke - he surrendered. He'd realised that continued resistance would only invite an overwhelming response that would destroy his country so by seeking terms at the height of his success he ensured that those terms would be very generous indeed. The local British commanders, who were worrying about how to explain being humiliated by a native ruler, were only too grateful for the opportunity to construct a victory narrative instead and went along with it.
^This. Unlike Shaka, Moshoeshoe realized right away that cavalry and firearms would be the future of war. Not to mention how he established a literate modern bureaucracy.
 
Lincoln and Bismarck are the pretty strong outliers. They excelled in nation-building and in political acumen, and thus could be considered great. Heck, Lincoln's nickname is The Great Emancipator.

Tsar Alexander II, aka Alexander the Liberator, ought to get more praise. He ended Serfdom in Russia and implemented a variety of positive reforms to the Russian State. The big mark against him is how he treated the separatist peoples of the western borderlands, especially the Poles.
 
Louis XVIII, who would have succeeded in moulding French society back together had not his brother endeavored to step on as many toes as possible, should be on this list.

Beyond that, Bismarck and Lincoln are obvious frontrunners. I have a romantic affection for Alexander I, and I do think he's in the top tier of this list; I voted for him because my boy Alexander needs more recognition, get fucked Bonapartists. Franz Joseph is also highly underrated; he did manage to hold Austria together and I believe that in terms of being a good man he's second to only Lincoln on this list, even if he made some fairly big mistakes. I'm also surprised that Meiji isn't on here even if him not being there is accurate as the Emperor was mostly second fiddle to the Genro.
 
Tsar Alexander II, aka Alexander the Liberator, ought to get more praise. He ended Serfdom in Russia and implemented a variety of positive reforms to the Russian State. The big mark against him is how he treated the separatist peoples of the western borderlands, especially the Poles.

He implemented quite a few reforms but more than one of them had results quite different from the intended. During his reign Russia passed through period of economic stagnation, high national debt, growing unpopularity of the government and unchecked political terrorism (thanks to seemingly progressive judicial reform). Practically no industrial development and most of the agriculture still being stuck with the ancient methods. By the end of his reign he practically lost control over the situation in the country leaving his son with the terrible domestic problems. Not to mention an absurd war which was declared to be a “war of honor” and ended up with a near military fiasco (thanks to Alexander’s meddling and making Plevna into a major operation instead of a routine blockade of strategically insignificant point), huge losses, unchecked profiteering and international isolation. Army reform was, in general, a good thing but it included numerous back and forth changes in many important areas, especially functionality of the General Staff. Besides, absence of the industrial development made rearmament somewhat tricky, especially in the area of a heavy artillery. Naval buildup led by his brother was rather hectic and wasteful (including famous construction of the round ships) and resulted in having “a collection of ships”. Extensive railroad construction (good) was done in such a way that they became profitable only during the reign of Alexander III thanks to Witte’s reforms.

Great leadership, indeed. I’d put him as a competitor for the title of “Best intentional”.

OTOH, as far the the Poles are involved, what exactly was he supposed to do? Just grant them independence (which IMO would be the best thing to do but, unfortunately, totally ASB)? As the Russian subjects, they could not be excluded from service in the army just on the basis of not liking an idea and emancipation of the serfs did not please the local nobility (actually, it did not please a big part of the Russian nobility as well but they did not rebel). An armed uprising could not be pacified without the harsh measures and slightly earlier the Austrians executed a number of the Hungarian political and military leaders as well. Ditto for the French handling of the Commune of Paris.
 
Last edited:
Davout, and probably Moltke.

No, he wouldn't, he'd simply have to be a better military commander than Boney.

It is rather difficult to define “better military commander” in a sweeping manner. Davout (just as Lannes) was a great field commander who also paid a lot of attention to the details (like organization of a baggage train and even the backpacks of his corps) but he never conducted an independent campaign of his own so it is rather difficult to compare him to Napoleon on a strategic level.

With Moltke it is other way around: he was a great planner on a strategic level but, AFAIK, he never commanded an army in the battle.

None of them built an army.
 
Last edited:
Davout, and probably Moltke.



No, he wouldn't, he'd simply have to be a better military commander than Boney.
Davout was good yes, but not on the level of boney, there was a very good reson he was never givin an independent comand if napolion could help it.and molke was also very good but battles of mars-la-tour and gravelotte are not exactly shinning examples of tactical exalince. And how exactly would a "better" commander have helped when litraly all of Europe is fighting agenst you?
 
While Willem I of the Netherlands had good intentions, and many of the schemes he devised were wildly profitable (eg:société generale de Belgique), he was rather incapable of internal diplomacy. He tried to do too much at the same time, and offended practically everyone. He doesn't deserve to be on the list.

My vote goes to Bismarck, even tho he was losing his touch near the end of his career.
 
No Pedro II of Brazil? Desgracefull.

To be honest my list would go as:

Best military leader: Napoleon I
Best political leader: Otto Von Bismarck
Best administrative leader: Victoria
And the best morally good speaking, Pedro II of Brazil.



Ultracatholics. Still to have Charles X and not Pedro II is like the Pickett charge of the polls.

I voted for Lincoln, but you are right - if Pedro II had fought back against the coup and died as Emperor, he would probably rank on most lists as top 10 (or more) of the century. And Henri (V), Count of Chambord was much more influential in the long run than his grandfather. If Henri had been a different personality, the French Republic would have disappeared and been replaced by a constitutional monarchy (one of the reasons Clemeanceau joked that Chambord was France's Washington - the Father of the Republic).

Another person missing from this list - not a "leader" of a country but definitely one of its foremost statesmen - Metternich. His peace following the the Napoleonic Wars, was - for better or worse - the longest continuous peace on the Continent in the entire century.
 
Voted for Bismarck because of German unification and realpolitik which maintained peace and stability in Europe for over forty years. Also, revolutionary social reforms.
 
Top