We inevitably spend a lot of time talking about Napoleon - its only natural. But if we set Napoleon to one side for a moment, who is the most significant/influential/important figure in this period, apart from Bonaparte?
They can be any nationality, have had any occupation (ie they needn't have been a soldier). A few contenders spring to mind that we might want to think about, but I'm not enough of an expert on their lives to make an authoritative case for them:
Metternich? Archduke Charles? Talleyrand? Berthier?
I'm reluctant to say Tsar Alexander, and people may be surprised to hear that I wouldn't make the case for Wellington, or in fact any of the British PMs. Anyhow, what do we all think?
Probably Metternich. He was involved in so much of the politics and diplomacy of the era (and after) that he would be in the top of any list.
I would go for the British PMs - Nabulieone's obsession was to destroy Britain, this was goal number one, all means which seemed to be feasible were used, and he failed miserable in this and ended in self destruction.
Interesting. I can't help but feeling that the Brits have their own agendas, at times to the point of being virtually as bad as Napoleon (when it came to colony grabbing, arguably even worse). I suppose the refusal the back down in the face of opposition at home is significant in its own right, and of course bankrolling other nations armies in the coalitions was a major contribution in its own right. I completely agree on the self-destruction element though - between a refusal to compromise when proposing peace terms, and equally an obstinate refusal to accept the peace proposals offered to him on two occasions before his abdication, feel like a serious case of shooting himself in the foot.
@Zack White
Of course the Brits had their own agenda - otherwise they wouldn't have achieved to build their Empire.
Without Britain, even the Russian Emperor (good choice in my view) nor Metternich wouldn't be able to play their important parts.
The only Brit PMs I'd rate to that extent might be Pitt or Liverpool, probably Pitt more, although there are serious issues with him as a war minister. Castlereagh would be more my pick but only 1813+. Zack, was there anyone who didn't have an agenda of some sort? ;)
How is Talleyrand viewed these days? I would have thought that he'd be up there as a contender, but I'm no expert on the diplomatic side of things.
Talleyrand would be in the top ten, I would think, but no way would he be numero uno, IMHO. I'd put him at the lower end of the ten.
Fair enough. I confess, I've never entirely lost the positive image of him picked up from his sympathetic portrayal in Dennis Wheatley's 'Roger Brook' novels which I read as a teenager, so I really ought to find something more objective to read about him. Anyone care to recommend a biography?
Reviews of some Talleyrand biographies: https://www.h-france.net/revman/registry/result.php?UserID=&Submit=Search&author=&title=talleyrand&publisher=&pyear=&rauthor=&Keywords=
José de San Martín fought for Spain and Napoleon during the second coalition, and against Napoleon during the Peninsular War. He went on to liberate Argentina, Chile, and Perú. Along with (but not in an alliance with) Simón Bolívar, he’s largely responsible for the independence of South America. If the connection to Napoleon seems tenuous because San Martín was so young when he fought in Europe, I would point out that Argentina had installed a national government in the first place (May of 1810) precisely in response to the illegitimacy of the viceroy‘s mandate due to the fact that the King (Ferdinand VII) had been deposed and imprisoned by Napoleon, who then installed Joseph Bonaparte. José de San Martín may not be a well-known entity in the northern hemisphere, but his influence in South America was extraordinary.