• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

Bob thats absolutely wonderful, the only thing I have a problem with is Dorothy Day being on a ticket after a war where everyone gets its justified. Hard to see 10 Million Americans dead for the survivors in the Popular Front to select an absolute pacifist for their ticket.
 
Bob thats absolutely wonderful, the only thing I have a problem with is Dorothy Day being on a ticket after a war where everyone gets its justified. Hard to see 10 Million Americans dead for the survivors in the Popular Front to select an absolute pacifist for their ticket.

Yeah, also it's hard to see Day as the electoral type.
 
Bob thats absolutely wonderful, the only thing I have a problem with is Dorothy Day being on a ticket after a war where everyone gets its justified. Hard to see 10 Million Americans dead for the survivors in the Popular Front to select an absolute pacifist for their ticket.

Yeah, also it's hard to see Day as the electoral type.

you're probably both right
 
It Was As If a Million Butterflies Cried Out, And Were Suddenly Silenced

President-General of the Confederation of British American Colonies, Albany Charter

1757-1759: Benjamin Franklin (Chartist)
1760: Sir William Johnson, Baronet (Chartist)
1761-1763: Jeffery Amherst, Baron Amherst (Royalist) [Royal Prerogative]
1765-1767: Sir Benjamin Franklin (Chartist)
1768: Sir William Johnson, Baronet (Chartist)
1769: Joseph Galloway (Confederate)
1770: Sir George Washington (Chartist)
1771: Thomas Fairfax, Baron Fairfax of Cameron (Confederate)
1772-1774: Thomas Hutchinson (Confederate)

1774-1777: Patrick Henry as Leader of the First Radical Rising
1775: Sir Robert Rogers (Chartist) [Royal Prerogative]

President-General of the Kingdom of Columbia, Philadelphia Charter

1776-1781: Sir Benjamin Franklin, Earl of Philadelphia (Friends of the King) [Royal Prerogative]
1782-1784: Sir George Washington (Friends of the King)
1785-1787: William Alexander, Earl Stirling of Hudson Highlands (Tory)
1788-1793: Sir George Washington (Friends of the King)
1791-1793: Sir Joseph Brant Thayendanegea, Lord-Protector of the Iroquois Confederacy (Liberal Whig)
1794-1797: Sir John Adams (Conservative Whig)
1797-1800: Sir William Franklin Earl of Philadelphia (Liberal Whig)

1800-1801: Thomas Paine as Nominal Leader of the Second Radial Plot
1800-1805: Sir George Washington, Duke of Mount Vernon (Friends of the King) [Royal Prerogative]
1806-1808: Sir John Johnson, 2nd Baronet (Tory)
1809-1814: Sir John Adams (Conservative Whig)
1815-1817: Sir James Madison (Conservative Whig)
1817-1819: Sir Alexander Hamilton ('Hamiltonian' Tory)
1819-1821: Sir James Madison (Conservative Whig)
1822-1826: Sir Alexander Hamilton, Baron of Harlem Heights (Liberal Whig & Tory)
1826-1830: Sir Andrew Jackson, Earl of New Orleans (Conservative Whig)
1831-1833: Sir Aaron Burr (Liberal Whig & Tory)
1834-1837: Sir Winfield Scott, Duke of Queenston Heights (Independent) [Royal Prerogative]

1833-1835: John C. Calhoun as leader of the Slaver’s Revolt
1838-1840: Sir Martin Van Buren, Baron of Old Kinderhook (Liberal Whig)
1841-1843: Sir Louis-Joseph Papineau (Liberal Whig)
1844-1846 Sir John Q. Adams, Earl of Braintree (Conservative Whig)
1847-1849: Sir James K. Polk (Liberal Whig)


President-General of the Empire of Columbia, Philadelphia Charter

1850-1851: Sir James K. Polk (Liberal Whig)
1851-1852: Sir Henry Clay, Baron of Ashland (Conservative Whig)
1853-1855: Sir John A. Quitman (Conservative Whig)
1856-1858: Sir Samuel Houston, Viscount of San Jacinto (Liberal Whig)
1858-1861: Sir James Buchanan, Baron of Wheatland (Liberal Whig)
1861-1866: Sir Abraham Lincoln (Unionist)

1861-1864: George W. Randolph, Earl of Monticello as leader of the Peon-Plantations Revolt
1866-1868: Sir Hiram U. Grant, Earl of Vicksburg (Unionist)
1869-1871: Sir Sitting Bull Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake, Lord-Protector of the Seven Council Fires and the Great Sioux Nation (Liberal Unionist)
1871-1873: Sir Frederick Douglass, Baron Douglass of Rochester (Unionist)
1874-1876: Sir Charles F. Adams, Sr., Earl of Braintree (Liberal Unionist)
1877-1879: Sir Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. (Unionist)
1880-1881: Sir Samuel J. Tilden (Liberal Unionist)
1881-1883: Sir Charles F. Adams, Jr., Viscount of Secessionville (Liberal Unionist)
1883-1885: Sir James A. Garfield (Unionist)



President-General of the Empire of Columbia, First Franklin Charter

1886-1891: Sir James A. Garfield, Viscount of Hiram College (Unionist)
1892-1897: Sir Booker T. Washington, Baron of Tuskegee (Unionist)
1898-1903: Sir William J. Bryan (Agrarian Liberal)
1904-1914: Sir Theodore Roosevelt, 2nd Earl of Oyster Bay (Unionist)
1915-1921: Sir Andrew Bonar Law (Unionist)

1915-1916: Woodrow Wilson as leader of the Independence Rising
1922-1927: Sir James Connolly (Socialist Labor)
1928-1932: Sir J. Calvin Coolidge (Unionist)
1932-1933: Sir Charles Curtis, Governor-Protector of Sequoyah Free State Nations (Unionist)
1934-1945: Sir Franklin D. Roosevelt, Duke of Hyde Park (Liberal-Labor)
1946-1951: Sir Robert A. Taft, Baron of Windham (Unionist)
1952-1957: Lady Eleanor Roosevelt-Roosevelt, Countess of Val-Kil (Labor)
1958-1963: Sir Lester B. “Mike” Pearson (Labor)
1964-1969: Sir Robert M. McNamara (Reform Unionist)


Direct Elections Instituted, 1969 following ratification of Second Franklin Charter

Deep Background for my upcoming submission for this months Vigenette challange. I think the Cliche is probably obvious at this point so I wont go into detail about how very smart I am.

The In-context idea is obviously that the Albany Plan of Union is adopted as the basis for the creation of an ever-increasing loyalist British North America. There are obvious hicups and national crisises but the Columbians remain loyal to their British sovereigns and prevail time and time again. The President-General is an odd hybrid between traditional heads of state and heads of government. An indirect election process from 1755 to 1969 would see various provincial legislatures or at various times governors agree to a number of candidates who were then offered to the monarch, initially to choose but over time eventually to just ratify the results. The President-General would then chair a cabinet made up of several directly elected members and others he selected himself, generally from the Continental Congress. The nation was mostly decentralized, with a large part of the Royal & Imperial governments policies enacted out by passing revenues to the provinces, at times this has lead to disaster as seen in the days of the Slaver's revolt, its compromise conclusions and the rise and fall of the same sort of men a generation later with the much larger revolt against the abolition of Peonage, at other times it has led to varied solutions for problems that there were few easy solutions for and impressive and competitive welfare states in the various provinces.
 
Yeah, also it's hard to see Day as the electoral type.
Thats not something I'd actually worry about, its fine to nudge someone from political activism to political action. Its something else for their actions to be embraced without a problem when there would be problems.
 
The Three Mark Lathams
Mark Latham (Labor majority) 2004-2007
2004: def. John Howard (Liberal/National coalition)
Latham has done it. By riding a wave of discontent with Iraq, he has won the election. First order on the list, Australian troops home by Christmas! This would be surprisingly done easily despite complaints from the Coalition. His policies apart from that would be quite divisive, including a national youth mentoring service [that would over the years change into something horrific, along with the man who created it]. In the end, the economy stagnated and the people decided that Latham was indeed inexperienced and not fit to lead

Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal/National coalition) 2007-2013
2007: def. Mark Latham (Labor)
2010: def. Julia Gillard (Labor) and David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democratic)
Turnbull would be rather divisive, including alienating many financial conservatives. Nevertheless, he held a firm hand and led Australia to recovery which ensured his re-election over a divided opposition. With Labor under Julia Gillard and seeking to move on from the Latham years, the bitter former leader declared that he was now a libertarian and would back the Lib Dems under their controversial leader David Leyonhjelm. The unlikely coalition of energised "Latham Legion" youth voters, disaffected fiscal conservatives and many on the Labor Right, led them to win three seats and surge in the vote. The Lib Dems were here to stay as a major force in Australian politics, it seemed?

Mark Latham (Liberal Democratic/National coalition) 2013-2015
2013: def. Julia Gillard (Labor) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal)
Latham's "dirty deal" with the Nationals ended Turnbull's hopes of a third term, and a terrible campaign by Gillard and her party led to the new Coalition surging to win a surprise majority. Mark Latham was back, but according to him, this was "a new Mark Latham". Libertarian economic polcies were here [apart from agrarian subsidies for the National boys, of course] and social issues were left alone apart from the further expansion [and political radicalisation] of the service he originally constructed to mentor young people. He was now the Leader of many thousands of youth, which led many to decry this. In the end, Leyonhjelm spilled him because of his refusal to repeal agricultural subsidies, and the Nationals walked

David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democratic minority) 2015-2016
Leyonhjelm would find out that his kicking Latham out of power would have dire consequences. As a result of coalitioning with the Nationals and buddying up with people like Bob Katter, Latham has increasingly went even more right-wing, and when he was announced to be the new leader of One Nation [kicking out Pauline Hanson], ON surged to a close third. People panicked

Bill Shorten (Labor/Liberal/National coalition) 2016-2019
2016: def. Mark Latham (One Nation) and David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democratic)
In the end, the deal with the devil had to be made, and Latham was stopped from returning to power, at least for three years. Bill Shorten was an unpopular man, and an unpopular PM, but the support of all of the Big Three was enough to prop him up. Right? Entering the 2019 election with a comfortable lead, the economy blew out on the second day after months of looking shaky. In the end, it couldn't be stopped

Mark Latham (One Nation majority) 2019-
2019: def. Bill Shorten (Labor/Liberal/National/Green coalition)
The third and most terrifying Mark Latham was now in power. Deeply bitter, fully far-right and with a mob of radical reactionary youth ready to do what their Dear Leader ordered them to do, Australia was now in the grips of its equivalent to President Santorum. Latham was now determined to never let power go out of his grip ever again. By any means necessary. As Australian society regressed and borders closed, the downgrades in the Democracy Rank kept coming. By 2022, Australia wasn't even considered a democracy at all
 
Britain as Sweden:

1895-1902: Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative)
1902-1905: George Goschen, 1st Viscount Goschen (Liberal Unionist)
1905-1905: Sir Thomas Vezey Strong (Independent)
1905-1905: Joseph Chamberlain (Liberal Unionist)
1905-1906: Herbert Henry Asquith (Liberal)
1906-1911: Arthur Balfour (Conservative)
1911-1914: Herbert Henry Asquith (Liberal)
1914-1917: F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead (Independent)
1917-1917: Oliver Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill (National)
1917-1920: Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon (Liberal)
1920-1920: Arthur Henderson (Labour)
1920-1921: Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire (Independent)
1921-1921: Maurice Hankey, 1st Baron Hankey (Independent)
1921-1923: Arthur Henderson (Labour)
1923-1924: George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (Conservative)
1924-1925: Arthur Henderson (Labour)
1925-1926: Ramsay MacDonald (Labour)
1926-1928: David Lloyd George (Liberal)
1928-1930: Arthur Balfour (Conservative)
1930-1932: David Lloyd George (Liberal)
1932-1932: Herbert Samuel (Liberal)
1932-1936: Stafford Cripps (Labour)
 
I've had a few drinks and I'm feeling good tonight and I just wanted to say, I'm really glad that this thread has maintained high quality work without anyone having to be an asshole yelling about footnotes. 40 pages of high quality stuff is awesome, especially when the format is having a bad time at The Other Place.
 
I've had a few drinks and I'm feeling good tonight and I just wanted to say, I'm really glad that this thread has maintained high quality work without anyone having to be an asshole yelling about footnotes. 40 pages of high quality stuff is awesome, especially when the format is having a bad time at The Other Place.

The format is sort of still alive in the test threads on the other place but that’s basically it now. The quality of the main list thread has absolutely tanked since the SLP exodus and it’s got to the point where I don’t even really check a thread I used to check pretty much daily anymore.
 
The format is sort of still alive in the test threads on the other place but that’s basically it now. The quality of the main list thread has absolutely tanked since the SLP exodus and it’s got to the point where I don’t even really check a thread I used to check pretty much daily anymore.
I hadn't checked it in a couple months and having done so I feel sad. There's a new acceptance of low effort and mediocrity that used to not be there.
 
Bluntly I’d say a lot of that decline is down to a lot of the top-tier lists being made by people who are now here.
Definitely true but the new people starting arguments about how realism is convergence isn't helping. Or the guy who shot down @Turquoise Blue a while ago for "Trying to be a new Japhy"
 
Revanche!

'Chef D'État' of the French State

1889-1891: Georges Ernest Boulanger (League of Patriots)
1889 Constitutional Referendum 'Reform' 72.3%
1891-1896: Arthur Dillon, Comte Dillon (League of Patriots)
1896-1898: Arthur Dillon, Comte Dillon (League of Patriots leading War Directorate)
1898-1899: Arthur Meyer / Paul Déroulède / Georges Clemenceau (LoP and Independent leading Armistice Government)

President of the French Republic

1899-1903: Georges Clemenceau (Nonpartisan)
1899 def. Victor Jaclard (Boulangiste - 'Left'), Arthur Meyer (Boulangiste - 'Right'), Jacques Cavaignac (Republican), Henri Brisson (Constitutional Left)
1903-1907: Charles de Freycinet (Nonpartisan)
1903 def. Victor Jaclard (National Syndicalist), Arthur Meyer ('Boulangiste' Patriots), Édourd Drumont ('Anti-Jew' Patriots)
1907-1907: Georges Sorel (National Action)
1907 def. Charles de Freycinet (Constitutional Union), Édouard Drumont (French Peoples'), Arthur Meyer (Boulangiste)

'Chef D'État' of the French Nation

1907-1909: Georges Sorel (National Action)
1907 Constitutional Referendum 'Abolish' 96.5%
1909-1915: Georges Sorel / Joseph Joffre / Édouard Vaillant (National Action / MILITARY / Trade Union War Directorate)

Ok, so on the topic of the AH.Com list thread's decline, this is a list which I posted there which I intended to also post here (something which I couldn't do in the end because I couldn't work out how to copy the colours over...).

Basically in this world Boulanger is able to pull off a coup in 1889, but the ultranationalist revanchist government he sets up doesn't last too long after his successor the Comte Dillon drags France into an ill-fated and ill-chosen war with Germany to reclaim lost territories and honour, leading to the collapse of the French State in 1899 and Clemenceau's assumption of power as the "palatable" nationalist to all of the various interest groups in French society. He establishes a weak democracy which falls apart in 1907 when the "left" of the Boulangiste movement manages to get its act together and sucks in leftists who are unwilling to support Freycinet's Constitutional Union and is able too synthesise a working-class popular movement with a continued sense of nationalism and the ongoing desire for revenge. In 1907 Sorel amends the constitution and establishes a semi-Communard, semi-Boulangiste, and thoroughly authoritarian new government; think an awful hybrid of the USSR and Nazi Germany. In 1909 this state goes to war with Germany again, dragged into conflict by Sorel's support for a revolution in Italy led by the poet and politician Gabrielle D'Annunzio which seeks to imitate the Sorelian France and fuse popular interests with intense nationalism. To wage this war Sorel establishes a corporatist "War Directorate" Trade Union and Military leaders in the hopes that the full might of the workers and soldiers of France might enable French victory against the hideous alliance of aristocratic power and bourgeois money in the German reich...
 
Last edited:
Definitely true but the new people starting arguments about how realism is convergence isn't helping. Or the guy who shot down @Turquoise Blue a while ago for "Trying to be a new Japhy"
The guy who I tried talking to about his ‘convergence = realism’ shtick was really just the tip of the iceberg. The tendency to change one presidency and then leave all the rest the same has grown to the point that I think it’s the new orthodoxy.
 
Revanche!




1909-1915: Georges Sorel / Phillipe Pétain / Édouard Vaillant (National Action / MILITARY / Trade Union War Directorate)

To be frank, I really doubt Pétain would be the person chosen here. He was not a particularly famous commander before WWI and the reason why he became famous was his trench-oriented hyper-defensive mode of waging warfare, which contrasted with the attack-focused, expansion-dominated, élan-obsessive tactics that were the orthodoxy of the French high command before and during the early days of WWI. I'm not an expert on French civilian-military relations, much less in this period, but I feel like any kind of fascistoid regime would probably prefer someone more interested in élan tactics in the beginning, partly because it fits better with fascist ideas of life and violence, than say the master of 'digging a hole and waiting for the Huns to get close'.

Joffre might work, he and Gallieni were offensive generals (in fact they purged the French high command of defensive ones), was well-connected to the right-wing of the French establishment, and not too liked by the left. Paul Pau could be another option, or Joseph Gallieni (although he was perhaps too tied to colonial politics rather than national ones).
 
(something which I couldn't do in the end because I couldn't work out how to copy the colours over...)

What I do is I do my list in my test thread, then switch to BB code formatting, copy everything, come over here, ensure that it is also set to BB code formatting, paste in the list, switch back to rich text and it should all be fine.
 
To be frank, I really doubt Pétain would be the person chosen here. He was not a particularly famous commander before WWI and the reason why he became famous was his trench-oriented hyper-defensive mode of waging warfare, which contrasted with the attack-focused, expansion-dominated, élan-obsessive tactics that were the orthodoxy of the French high command before and during the early days of WWI. I'm not an expert on French civilian-military relations, much less in this period, but I feel like any kind of fascistoid regime would probably prefer someone more interested in élan tactics in the beginning, partly because it fits better with fascist ideas of life and violence, than say the master of 'digging a hole and waiting for the Huns to get close'.

Joffre might work, he and Gallieni were offensive generals (in fact they purged the French high command of defensive ones), was well-connected to the right-wing of the French establishment, and not too liked by the left. Paul Pau could be another option, or Joseph Gallieni (although he was perhaps too tied to colonial politics rather than national ones).

Oh great thanks - I knew Petain wasn't a fantastic choice but those are some damm good ones. I think I'll go for Joffre on balance, in part because I think he was characterised by the ruthless flexibility necessary to be able to adapt to National Syndicaist France in a way that other established military figure slight not (because though the French Nation sees itself as a continuation of Boulangisme it is far too the left and not as acceptable to "bourgeois" sentiments...)
 
Back
Top