Rulers that never got the chance to reign during peace time and spent their entire time in power at war?

Feb 2019
670
Serbia
#12
I was gonna say Napoleon, although 1801 to 1804 could be considered as peace-time, since only the Haitian rebellion was going on and it was very distant and relatively small-scale. It was in this time that most of Napoleon's great legal reforms occurred.
The only period of peace under his rule was the Amiens peace in 1802. In 1803 France was very much at war. They were blockaded by Britain, their merchant shipping swept from the seas and they were actively preparing an army to invade Britain. There were also several raids and smaller actions during the blockade and numerous British attempts to attack the French navy, particularly at Boulogne. So I wouldn't call 1803 and 1804 a period of peace due to the actions and the mobilisation in France itself. Even during Amiens Napoleon pulled some military maneuversin Switzerland and the Atlantic.

Anyway, to answer the OP: Joseph I of Austria. He ruled for a few years between 1705 and 1711, as we know this in the middle of the War of the Spanish Succession so he did not reign in peace time at all. He was actually considered quite formidable physically and was thought to be a good ruler. He instituted some reforms and was less authoritarian in nature than his predecessors. He died young at the age of 32 from Smallpox. Because of his death there was a bit of a diplomatic crisis in the Grand Alliance because Joseph's brother and successor, Charles VI was also supposed to be King of Spain, threatening the balance of power.
 
Likes: Futurist
Sep 2016
1,141
Georgia
#13
Joseph I of Austria. He ruled for a few years between 1705 and 1711, as we know this in the middle of the War of the Spanish Succession so he did not reign in peace time at all. He was actually considered quite formidable physically and was thought to be a good ruler. He instituted some reforms and was less authoritarian in nature than his predecessors.
Prince Eugene of Savoy said that he was the happiest when serving under Joseph I.
 
May 2019
82
Earth
#14
I suppose this is more referring to monarchs of old rather than closer to modern times where term duration and limits for elected leaders often mean that wars are either not started or ended by them.
Well, I think Puyi (Emperor of Manchukuo) could qualify as a modern example. Even before 1937, his country was bogged down in border skirmishes and violent internal resistance against the regime. Manchukuo never really saw a period of total peace.
 
Mar 2016
1,182
Australia
#15
Well, I think Puyi (Emperor of Manchukuo) could qualify as a modern example. Even before 1937, his country was bogged down in border skirmishes and violent internal resistance against the regime. Manchukuo never really saw a period of total peace.
Suggesting that Puyi was the leader of Manchukueo is a bit misleading. He was just a puppet for the Japanese, so whether "his" country was at war or peace really wasn't up to him at all.
 
May 2019
82
Earth
#16
Suggesting that Puyi was the leader of Manchukueo is a bit misleading. He was just a puppet for the Japanese, so whether "his" country was at war or peace really wasn't up to him at all.
He was the official head of state, no denying that. If you don't want to consider him, no problem, but since legally he was the ruler of Manchukuo, I just thought I'd throw him in to the conversation. You didn't mention that you were discounting "puppet" rulers in your op...
 
Mar 2016
1,182
Australia
#17
He was the official head of state, no denying that. If you don't want to consider him, no problem, but since legally he was the ruler of Manchukuo, I just thought I'd throw him in to the conversation. You didn't mention that you were discounting "puppet" rulers in your op...
Queen Elizabeth is also the official head of state of Australia, but I wouldn't bring her into a discussion about the de facto running of Australian politics. I'll edit my post so as to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, even though the word "ruler" does in itself imply they actually rule and not just preside, but anyway.
 

Similar History Discussions