I chose to interpret 'greatest' not as 'most competent' or 'most morally agreeable', but as the most prestigious. Which meant I had to vote for Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. She lent her name to the Victorian Era, and her model of constitutional monarchy was an important forbear to Britain's modern constitutional arrangements. Being the ancestor of many of Europe's 20th century monarchs doesn't hurt either!
The 19th century world was dominated by Pax Britannica, of which Victoria reigned for most of and is the personification of.
But (through diplomatic blunders and consistently underfunding the army) he's pretty much the main reason why it collapsed...I voted for Franz Joseph for the simple reason that he managed to help hold Austria Hungary together.
Oh, my bad. My knowledge of the country isn't the best.But (through diplomatic blunders and consistently underfunding the army) he's pretty much the main reason why it collapsed...
Understandable, he was pretty popular in life and (generally speaking) is fondly remembered. Ironically the reason why he was so loved (he lowered taxes to reduce the burden on his subjects) is also the seed of the Empire's demise (the cut to government income fell primarily on the military's budget).Oh, my bad. My knowledge of the country isn't the best.
Or the tartan kilt, after all it was George IV who popularised it in the Scottish lowlands by wearing it during his 1822 visit to Edinburgh.Someone's voted for George IV after all. Maybe they just really, really like the modern neck-tie?
Not changing my write-in vote from John A. MacDonald, but the Conte di Carvour should be an option. He was like Italy's Bismarck (or maybe Bismarck was Germany's Carvour...).
I think a big part of it is just down to internet culture. When I was in high school (read as: "4 years ago") Cavour still got about as much coverage in the textbook and lessons as Bismarck. The internet just loves "learning" via memes, especially ones which involve national stereotypes (and Italy and Prussia tend to receive polar opposite treatment in such discourse).Definitely agree with this. When I was doing O level History at school in the 1960s, C19th European history was all 'Bismark and Cavour' (to the virtual exclusion of everything else). Bismark is, rightly, still up there, but Cavour seems almost to have dropped off the map. I wonder why - he was the real architect of a united Italy after all. Perhaps he just died too soon.
this isn't a competition bismark sweeps the floor
lincol was good buttt bismark still winds*cough* Lincoln. *cough*.
I prefer Emperor Maximillian I to be honest.I'm a bit surprised that Benito Juarez isn't on the list?
No national leader has ever come from humbler origins.
Ua, What? Bizmarks diplomacy is directly responsible in creating European peace in the 40 years after the Franco Prussian war and it was the destruction of that policy after he was fiered, blaming ww1 on him is like blaming it on napolion becuse he spread nationalism throut Europe.These are my top four. They are very close.
You are missing Napoleon and James K. Polk.
1. Polk (single handily created a super power which others could build upon, this remains preserved until the present day and long into the far future. Should have ran for a second term to build 4 Nicaragua canals, sticking all World trade through it. (Eccentric idea)
2. Lincoln (restored the power and prestige status of a nation that should of spilt but also achieved to outlaw slavery. Should have lived to implement his post civil war nation programme which probably would have made the US less racist.
3. Napoleon (lost all of his gains through greed and caused hundreds of thousands Frenchmen to die through war. However his Napoleonic code is implemented up until present day and contributed to the unification of Germany and the idea of a united Europe. Has easily won history in the minds of modern people today. Should have stopped in November 1807 and not sold the Louisiana oterritory. Could have also conquered Egypt and Syria.
4. Bismarck (indirectly caused 2 world wars causing Germany to loose a quarter of her territory and killing tens of millions of German people, (plus everyone else) this however overshadows his achievement in uniting Germany. Once he united Germany he would not reform a militaristic state and stop his Germanisation policy. This created a jingoistic state.