I will leave the choice as being ONLY heads of state in this poll
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
alternate history
fiction |
Greatest ruler of the later nineteenth century ? |
Lead | |
|
I will leave the choice as being ONLY heads of state in this poll
Grey Wolf |
|||
Dave AAA |
Re: Greatest ruler of the later nineteenth century ? | ||
|
Lincoln did a very credible job of winning the American Civil War. He did face something of a learning curve, but at least was both smart enough not to micromanange, and smart enough to learn from his mistakes. He would likely done at least as well winning the peace if not for his premature end. With only a bit over four years in power, though, I'll have to place my vote elsewhere.
Victoria, whose state was the most successful of the time, can claim little credit for it. She was only slightly more than a figurehead - though performed that role very well indeed. Wilhelm I exercised much more executive power than did Victoria, if not quite as much as Lincoln. His reign was an outstanding success for Prussia and, had his son not died early (or his grandson not been such a fool), the German Empire would have done even better than it did. Bismarck may have done the leg work, but if he hadn't had WIlhelm's approval, he'd have been replaced - as he was by Wilhelm II. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's reign ended rather badly with a defeat in Mexico followed a few years later by a disasterous war with Prussia and the German states. Alexander did well, for a Tsar, but I think that Wilhelm's acheivement in creating Germany from a collection of little states outshines anything Alexander did. It may even be that their relative acheivments are perpetuated today. Germany still exists as a unifed state, and a free and prosperous one at that, while the Russian Empire collapsed and finally broke apart, and is mostly not properous and, in places, not very free today. Of course, ALexander did have the more difficult task, and the Hohenzollern's only lasted about a year longer than the Romanoffs. Wilhelm's namesake grandson proved to be nearly as destructive to his country as his imperial cousin was to Russia. Of course, a better question might be what would have happened if one could switch them around. Would Kaiser Louis-Napoleon have permitted Bismarck to do his job without interference? Could Tsar Abraham have brought a functioning liberal democratic constitutional monarchy to Russia? Could either President Wiliam Hohenzollern or President Victoria Saxe-Coburg have acted as their own Prime Minister during a vicious Civil War? I get the feeling Alexander II might have done well in any of those jobs. |
|||
Abdul Hadi Pasha |
Re: Greatest ruler of the later nineteenth century ? | ||
|
I voted for Victoria, but I would have said Abdul Hamid II for proving monarchic autocracy can radically reform a society. Plus, Bismarck thought AHII was 17 times smarter than he was himself (the quote was "Of all the intelligence in Europe, 90% is in Abdul Hamid, 5% in myself, and 5% in eveyone else).
|
|||
alternate history
fiction |
Posts ! | ||
|
Thank you for posting on this forum
As to why there were only 5 choices, I think I was only allowed 5... I've been reading some more about Lincoln and how he actually opposed the 1846-48 Mexican War which is very much to his credit - he denounced it as an aggressive war waged simply to force Mexico to cede its own territory. Of course, like many of those who opposed Iraq last year. he didn't dare vote against the appropriations bills (budget for war). But it is certainly interesting to read about this element of his political life Regarding Tsar Aleksandr II his achievements can be measured against where Russia was at the start of his reign - defeated in the Crimean War - and where it was at the end of his reign. Sadly his assassination prevented his experiment with limited democracy from coming into effect - if he had not died like he did, then his son would not have swept away that aspect of his reforms and perhaps the Russian Empire could have been spared the bane of Nicholas II's dreams of being the supreme Autocrat I would say the thing about Victoria is that she could have done a lot worse - the role of the monarch was more than it is today, in that she was more involved in discussions and briefings were not just matters of courtesy. If she had wanted to take charge and lead Britain to catastrophe she could have given it a go. If she had not balanced everything well, then the empire would not have emerged from her reign as well as it did. But overall, perhaps in terms of who shaped policy she is somewhat less important than the others - her potential was to screw things up, which she avoided Abdul Hamid II certainly makes a strong case for himself as 'Another' had I been able to put that category in. Of course, one might hold the manner of his downfall against him in terms of achievements from his reign... Grey Wolf |
|||
Abdul Hadi Pasha |
Re: Posts ! | ||
|
Well, holding onto the Throne and the remaining parts of the Empire for 33 years under the circumstances is quite an accomplishment, and at least his deposition was bloodless! Also, he was able to short-circuit the Young Turks for a while by restoring Parliament, although a reactionary revolt gave the YTs' the excuse to depose him, by an act of Parliament, for, of all things, the "unlawful execution of Midhat Pasha".
This is very interesting for several reasons. One is that Abdul Hamid did not believe in the death penalty, and Midhat was just about the only person he had executed, because he was an extreme threat, and AH may have blamed him for the death of Abdul Aziz. In general, AH exiled opponents. Second, the right of the Sultan to execute the Grand Vizier at will was unquestioned throughout all of Ottoman history, so Abdul Hamid was in a sense the victim of the success of the Tanzimat, of which he was the fulfiller, which included the growing rule of law, of which the Sultan was no longer considered above. "Grand Vizier" is currently held to mean "Prime Minister", but it isn't the same thing. The Ottoman term is "Sadr-i Azam", which means "highest eminence"; he was the Deputy of the Sultan, more of a Viceroy than a chief minister. He was styled "His Imperial Highness", and at many times in Ottoman history held more power than the Sultan himself. Yavus Sultan Selim prevented this by rotating (executing) GV's in rapid succession, to the point that a contemporary curse was "May you become Selim's vizier!" - Oddly, there was no shortage of candidates for the posistion; sort of a macabre "1001 Nights". |
|||
Abdul Hadi Pasha |
Victoria! | ||
|
Regarding Victoria, especially early in her reign, she could very well have taken Britain in a different direction, or at least provoked a constitutional crisis, but chose to place Britain on a firmly constitutional monarchist track. If I read it correctly.
I also can't help but be thankful that she teamed with Disraeli to force British intervention against Russia in 1878 and saved the Ottoman Empire. |
|||