10 of History's Worst War Time Leaders
1) Thomas Jefferson (President of the USA, War of 1804) [1]
2) Charles X (King of France, Franco-Haitian War/"Haitian Accident") [2]
3) JOINT AWARD: Frederick William III (King of Prussia, War of the Spring) Jules de Polignac (Regency Council of France, War of the Spring), William I, (King of the Netherlands, War of the Spring) [3]
4) Frederick VI (King of Denmark, The Danish-Prussian War) [4]
5) Porfirio Diaz (President of Mexico, the First Great American War, the Slave Revolt, and Raids of '86) [5]
6) George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan (Governor-General of the Western Provinces, Great Indian Wars/Lucan's March) [6]
7) Zaifeng, Prince Chun (regent, Xinhai Revolution) [7]
8)
9)
10)
[1] Historians are still divided on whether or not Jefferson wanted war or not. But nevertheless, having gotten his war he proceeded to make a bungle of it. From the start of the war of 1804, the President had an obsession with exploiting the front from New England to Canada, and the capture of Quebec, to the ruination of other fronts. Generally caught off guard, the bulk of the fledgling US navy was in the Mediterranean fighting the Barbary Pirates, only to be cut off, corned and destroyed one ship at a time by the British. The immediate forcing of the United States on the defensive at sea was sign of things to come which Jefferson refused to see.
No longer afraid to use the Alien and Sedition Acts for a war against Britain, Jefferson forced many protests and anti-war opposition to go quiet and launched initial American advance into Canada only for it blunted short of the Saint Lawrence River. Repeated attempt to return the offensive spurned by Jefferson failed and the Americans gradually fell back as far Fort Ticonderoga, only to then be outflanked in the Northwest Territories and Sir John Moore's Chesapeake campaign. Pleas to France for help fell on deaf ears, as Napoleon rolled up the map of Europe, and the British continued to press in on all fronts. Although captured at the Burning of Washington, and Presidency falling to George Clinton, Jefferson continued to be the man Congress blamed for the poor war effort and Clinton's refusal to engaging in negotiations until the Federalist won the 1808 election.
Still accused of tunnel vision on Quebec, failure to prepare and failure to compromise, Jefferson remains the one that Americans blame their loss in the War of 1804 on, simultaneously running the fruits of his own Presidency and in a way the American Revolution as the price of peace became the bulk of the Louisiana purchase, and the vast chunk of New England that became New Ireland and the Northwest Territories to Tecumseh's Confederacy all of which killed major western expansion before it could happen. Though the American Republic would survive, its potential for greatness was squandered by its most promising founders, which is probably why Jefferson is now credited as one of the Declaration of Independence's many co-authors.
[2] Haiti had been a long term pain in the arse for France since the abolition of slavery, ever since Napoleon decided to use it as a source of "Black Jacobin" soldiers rather than as a plantation - this worked fine while the Royal Navy was distracted by the War of 1804, and then resupply was cut off. An attempted return to plantation farming during the Bourbon restoration was not catching on and Britain & America were both unhappy with Haiti allegedly provoking slave revolts, so one of Charles X's first acts in 1824 decided to send soldiers to assist Prime Minister Dessalines.
Charles X though little of either Haiti or Dessalines, and mistakenly thought limited French power would be enough and that Dessalines, who did want to install plantations, would accept help. Instead, the Prime Minister took very unkindly to being made "a slave for a distant master after all the blood we have lost"; the Haitian republicans suspected the monarchy would betray 'Napoleon's vision' all along and the Haitian monarchists rallied to the memory of the deceased 'Good King Louis'; and a substantial chunk of white population saw this as a threat to their holdings. The first invasion was bloodily routed. Charles X refused to accept the loss and committed a massive force...
...ensuring simply that he was overthrown (in part by the aging Black Jacobin expats and their children) as he was now weak at home. French soldiers and marines were pointlessly lost only for the new Regency to declare the war over, and a status quo returned now "Mad Charles" was gone. French prestige was shattered and money & blood spilled to achieve a continuing status quo, the ultimate embarrassment (and in the long-term, this damaged both French imperial ideals and led to Haiti's increasing autonomy & independence)
[3] Some small states retain their independence because no one wanted to conquer them; some because they were not worth the political capital of conquest; some because they were useful as buffers and tax havens.
Luxembourg is independent because it's too embarrassing to annex, after what happened at its birth.
The post-Vienna order of Europe had become increasingly wobbly in the 1820s, but to a casual viewer the restored monarchies were well in place. Spain had been saved for the Bourbons and the Poles put down; Greece wrested from the Ottomans, and the dragoons sent into crowds across Britain.
That order would have survived any one of the great powers having a domestic crisis, and indeed already had. It would not survive two of them suffering one at once.
By 1829, France had spent five years in the absurd situation of being ruled by a Regency without a King; first the council was preserving the throne until a Bourbon came of age, then until the child of the late Duke of Orleans could be brought to Paris. The remaining Bonapartists played both sides against each other, hoping that in time the throne might be offered to the Emperor's son. Finally, in 1829 the Chair of the Council of Ministers passed to the ultralegitimist Jules de Polignac, who decided that the key to securing the throne for his candidate was a short victorious war. He thought it would be in Algeria- and then Belgium revolted.
In Prussia, Frederick William I had become increasingly worried about the assertive middle class, and surrounded himself with ultraconservatives. He had no desire to be shackled by a constitution, but a worrying budget deficit made the government seem weak and unable to rule. The solution seemed to be that old proof of Prussian glory: a short victorious war. He thought it would be against the Danes, but then Belgium revolted.
William I of the Netherlands wanted to recapture the glory of the golden age of the Dutch- and to do that he needed to ensure that he kept every last inch of land in Europe. And then Belgium revolted.
And there was Luxembourg- German speaking Luxembourg, Luxembourg within the natural frontiers of France, Luxembourg that rightfully belonged to Amsterdam.
Three so-called great powers sent their armies to the Rhine in the spring of 1830, and three so-called great powers broke. The Prussians and the Dutch beat the French, then the French and Belgians beat the Dutch, then the Dutch and the French and the Belgians beat the Prussians, and then the British landed at Antwerp.
In the resulting settlement, the Dutch lost half their state, and William lost all three of his thrones. Frederick William kept his crown, but gained a hated constitution.
And in Paris, the Regency Council turned out to have been keeping a seat warm for His Excellency The President of France Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette.
The War of the Spring is still taught as an example of how wars must never be fought without clear objectives and operational plans.
4). 1833, Fredrick VI of Denmark seeing that the Prussian's had gotten a bloody nose from the War of Spring though it would be good time to kick it whilst it was down as Frederick William I was having to balancing the people and the Junkers and dealing with war debt. A short quick campaign would ensure that Denmark wouldn't be dealing with Prussian expansion into Denmark for decades to come was the thinking of the Danish higher ups, the Danish would become a dominant power in the Baltics as a result was the continuation of that.
But what was meant to be short decisive war ended up taking three year slog as the Danish had vastly underestimated how defeated the Prussians were. Frederick William I was able to present himself as a defender of Prussian democracy and that combined Nationalistic rhetoric would revitalise a gloomy Prussia, this combined with a Prussian plan that abused a rapid but well fortified series of trenches and forts created near the border which the Danish would bleed themselves on for two years before the Prussians pushed forward into Denmark and captured Copenhagen. Not helping Denmark was Fredrick's constant middle managing of various Generals and pursuing ineffective plans would help causing Denmark's immense defeat. When Denmark signed the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1836 it was a humiliation for what seemed like an easy war and would lead to the Danish Revolution in 1839 in the aftermath of Fredrick's death as people let there anger and humiliation over a stupid war be felt.
5) While Europe had the Scramble for Africa, the Americas had the Long Game between the US and Mexico for dominance (the name from recurring metaphors in both countries and Canada, depicting it as a sports match between two teams achieving a draw). Various small wars and trading deals were made throughout the 19th century but President Diaz, as part of his ongoing plans to reform the country as a modern empire, wanted to score a final knockout blow. He was going to finally pacify the restive Tejas province and sweep up into the southern states, justifying it as an anti-slavery war. The Kingdom of Haiti, as it was then, was greatly interested in assisting with landings on Florida. How could this fail?
It failed because: a) Even in 1882, it was impossible to mobilise the army & navy forces large enough and catch your neighbour by surprise, and Diaz greatly underestimated how far troops could advance b) Diaz was aware the United States was fractuous but naively thought this lack of unity would stop southern states fighting to the death against, horrors, non-whites c) Diaz was a former military officer and thus assumed he knew better than all his generals. Mexican ground troops were bogged down in trench warfare inside the US. The Haitians made a strike on Florida and US-dominated Cuba, noticed this war was a pig, and swiftly proposed a treaty partitioning Cuba that cut out Mexico. When Diaz realised in 1884 that he needed to get out, it was too late: the United States wanted a pound of flesh and Tejas was finally swallowed up by the Union.
That still wouldn't put him on this list if he hadn't seen the Slave Revolt kick off in the weakened US and think 'here's a chance at round two' - when he didn't have an army and navy in good enough shape. A few minor army victories led to the US Navy, who had reformed for just such a mission, launching bombardment raids down Mexico's coast. That was it for Diaz. It was also it for the Long Game, with neither Mexico nor the United States as powerful as they had been - new American and Carribean nations, such as Haiti, filled the gap.
[6]
(May have gotten a little carried away with this one)
[7] It's not Chun's fault he inherited a China in severe decline, and it's not his fault he was appointed regent despite little taste for politicking. Unfortunately, it is his fault that he decided the Qing Dynasty would continue to fight on in 1911 rather than accept a peace deal and abdication: he felt he should fulfil his duty to the young emperor. Beijing burned during a siege and was only saved by Russian military forces arriving, promised territorial concessions. Thus saved, the Qing forces... failed to achieve much at all, and Russia decided this wasn't worth it. With Russian guns at his head, Chun agreed a peace deal after a pointless two more months of war.
The Qing Dynasty was preserved, so arguably Chun achieved his goal. Problem was that the Qing Dynasty (allies of Their Friend The Tsar) no longer ruled two-thirds of China, much of it nominally under republican control but big chunks lawless; Britain, Germany, and Portugal all seized more land around their concessions; and Japan took advantage to carve out a section of Manchuria as a 'friendly republic'. So a king was saved but the kingdom was lost, and millions of Chinese lives with it. Chun's death is greatly assumed to have been a suicide.
1) Thomas Jefferson (President of the USA, War of 1804) [1]
2) Charles X (King of France, Franco-Haitian War/"Haitian Accident") [2]
3) JOINT AWARD: Frederick William III (King of Prussia, War of the Spring) Jules de Polignac (Regency Council of France, War of the Spring), William I, (King of the Netherlands, War of the Spring) [3]
4) Frederick VI (King of Denmark, The Danish-Prussian War) [4]
5) Porfirio Diaz (President of Mexico, the First Great American War, the Slave Revolt, and Raids of '86) [5]
6) George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan (Governor-General of the Western Provinces, Great Indian Wars/Lucan's March) [6]
7) Zaifeng, Prince Chun (regent, Xinhai Revolution) [7]
8)
9)
10)
[1] Historians are still divided on whether or not Jefferson wanted war or not. But nevertheless, having gotten his war he proceeded to make a bungle of it. From the start of the war of 1804, the President had an obsession with exploiting the front from New England to Canada, and the capture of Quebec, to the ruination of other fronts. Generally caught off guard, the bulk of the fledgling US navy was in the Mediterranean fighting the Barbary Pirates, only to be cut off, corned and destroyed one ship at a time by the British. The immediate forcing of the United States on the defensive at sea was sign of things to come which Jefferson refused to see.
No longer afraid to use the Alien and Sedition Acts for a war against Britain, Jefferson forced many protests and anti-war opposition to go quiet and launched initial American advance into Canada only for it blunted short of the Saint Lawrence River. Repeated attempt to return the offensive spurned by Jefferson failed and the Americans gradually fell back as far Fort Ticonderoga, only to then be outflanked in the Northwest Territories and Sir John Moore's Chesapeake campaign. Pleas to France for help fell on deaf ears, as Napoleon rolled up the map of Europe, and the British continued to press in on all fronts. Although captured at the Burning of Washington, and Presidency falling to George Clinton, Jefferson continued to be the man Congress blamed for the poor war effort and Clinton's refusal to engaging in negotiations until the Federalist won the 1808 election.
Still accused of tunnel vision on Quebec, failure to prepare and failure to compromise, Jefferson remains the one that Americans blame their loss in the War of 1804 on, simultaneously running the fruits of his own Presidency and in a way the American Revolution as the price of peace became the bulk of the Louisiana purchase, and the vast chunk of New England that became New Ireland and the Northwest Territories to Tecumseh's Confederacy all of which killed major western expansion before it could happen. Though the American Republic would survive, its potential for greatness was squandered by its most promising founders, which is probably why Jefferson is now credited as one of the Declaration of Independence's many co-authors.
[2] Haiti had been a long term pain in the arse for France since the abolition of slavery, ever since Napoleon decided to use it as a source of "Black Jacobin" soldiers rather than as a plantation - this worked fine while the Royal Navy was distracted by the War of 1804, and then resupply was cut off. An attempted return to plantation farming during the Bourbon restoration was not catching on and Britain & America were both unhappy with Haiti allegedly provoking slave revolts, so one of Charles X's first acts in 1824 decided to send soldiers to assist Prime Minister Dessalines.
Charles X though little of either Haiti or Dessalines, and mistakenly thought limited French power would be enough and that Dessalines, who did want to install plantations, would accept help. Instead, the Prime Minister took very unkindly to being made "a slave for a distant master after all the blood we have lost"; the Haitian republicans suspected the monarchy would betray 'Napoleon's vision' all along and the Haitian monarchists rallied to the memory of the deceased 'Good King Louis'; and a substantial chunk of white population saw this as a threat to their holdings. The first invasion was bloodily routed. Charles X refused to accept the loss and committed a massive force...
...ensuring simply that he was overthrown (in part by the aging Black Jacobin expats and their children) as he was now weak at home. French soldiers and marines were pointlessly lost only for the new Regency to declare the war over, and a status quo returned now "Mad Charles" was gone. French prestige was shattered and money & blood spilled to achieve a continuing status quo, the ultimate embarrassment (and in the long-term, this damaged both French imperial ideals and led to Haiti's increasing autonomy & independence)
[3] Some small states retain their independence because no one wanted to conquer them; some because they were not worth the political capital of conquest; some because they were useful as buffers and tax havens.
Luxembourg is independent because it's too embarrassing to annex, after what happened at its birth.
The post-Vienna order of Europe had become increasingly wobbly in the 1820s, but to a casual viewer the restored monarchies were well in place. Spain had been saved for the Bourbons and the Poles put down; Greece wrested from the Ottomans, and the dragoons sent into crowds across Britain.
That order would have survived any one of the great powers having a domestic crisis, and indeed already had. It would not survive two of them suffering one at once.
By 1829, France had spent five years in the absurd situation of being ruled by a Regency without a King; first the council was preserving the throne until a Bourbon came of age, then until the child of the late Duke of Orleans could be brought to Paris. The remaining Bonapartists played both sides against each other, hoping that in time the throne might be offered to the Emperor's son. Finally, in 1829 the Chair of the Council of Ministers passed to the ultralegitimist Jules de Polignac, who decided that the key to securing the throne for his candidate was a short victorious war. He thought it would be in Algeria- and then Belgium revolted.
In Prussia, Frederick William I had become increasingly worried about the assertive middle class, and surrounded himself with ultraconservatives. He had no desire to be shackled by a constitution, but a worrying budget deficit made the government seem weak and unable to rule. The solution seemed to be that old proof of Prussian glory: a short victorious war. He thought it would be against the Danes, but then Belgium revolted.
William I of the Netherlands wanted to recapture the glory of the golden age of the Dutch- and to do that he needed to ensure that he kept every last inch of land in Europe. And then Belgium revolted.
And there was Luxembourg- German speaking Luxembourg, Luxembourg within the natural frontiers of France, Luxembourg that rightfully belonged to Amsterdam.
Three so-called great powers sent their armies to the Rhine in the spring of 1830, and three so-called great powers broke. The Prussians and the Dutch beat the French, then the French and Belgians beat the Dutch, then the Dutch and the French and the Belgians beat the Prussians, and then the British landed at Antwerp.
In the resulting settlement, the Dutch lost half their state, and William lost all three of his thrones. Frederick William kept his crown, but gained a hated constitution.
And in Paris, the Regency Council turned out to have been keeping a seat warm for His Excellency The President of France Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette.
The War of the Spring is still taught as an example of how wars must never be fought without clear objectives and operational plans.
4). 1833, Fredrick VI of Denmark seeing that the Prussian's had gotten a bloody nose from the War of Spring though it would be good time to kick it whilst it was down as Frederick William I was having to balancing the people and the Junkers and dealing with war debt. A short quick campaign would ensure that Denmark wouldn't be dealing with Prussian expansion into Denmark for decades to come was the thinking of the Danish higher ups, the Danish would become a dominant power in the Baltics as a result was the continuation of that.
But what was meant to be short decisive war ended up taking three year slog as the Danish had vastly underestimated how defeated the Prussians were. Frederick William I was able to present himself as a defender of Prussian democracy and that combined Nationalistic rhetoric would revitalise a gloomy Prussia, this combined with a Prussian plan that abused a rapid but well fortified series of trenches and forts created near the border which the Danish would bleed themselves on for two years before the Prussians pushed forward into Denmark and captured Copenhagen. Not helping Denmark was Fredrick's constant middle managing of various Generals and pursuing ineffective plans would help causing Denmark's immense defeat. When Denmark signed the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1836 it was a humiliation for what seemed like an easy war and would lead to the Danish Revolution in 1839 in the aftermath of Fredrick's death as people let there anger and humiliation over a stupid war be felt.
5) While Europe had the Scramble for Africa, the Americas had the Long Game between the US and Mexico for dominance (the name from recurring metaphors in both countries and Canada, depicting it as a sports match between two teams achieving a draw). Various small wars and trading deals were made throughout the 19th century but President Diaz, as part of his ongoing plans to reform the country as a modern empire, wanted to score a final knockout blow. He was going to finally pacify the restive Tejas province and sweep up into the southern states, justifying it as an anti-slavery war. The Kingdom of Haiti, as it was then, was greatly interested in assisting with landings on Florida. How could this fail?
It failed because: a) Even in 1882, it was impossible to mobilise the army & navy forces large enough and catch your neighbour by surprise, and Diaz greatly underestimated how far troops could advance b) Diaz was aware the United States was fractuous but naively thought this lack of unity would stop southern states fighting to the death against, horrors, non-whites c) Diaz was a former military officer and thus assumed he knew better than all his generals. Mexican ground troops were bogged down in trench warfare inside the US. The Haitians made a strike on Florida and US-dominated Cuba, noticed this war was a pig, and swiftly proposed a treaty partitioning Cuba that cut out Mexico. When Diaz realised in 1884 that he needed to get out, it was too late: the United States wanted a pound of flesh and Tejas was finally swallowed up by the Union.
That still wouldn't put him on this list if he hadn't seen the Slave Revolt kick off in the weakened US and think 'here's a chance at round two' - when he didn't have an army and navy in good enough shape. A few minor army victories led to the US Navy, who had reformed for just such a mission, launching bombardment raids down Mexico's coast. That was it for Diaz. It was also it for the Long Game, with neither Mexico nor the United States as powerful as they had been - new American and Carribean nations, such as Haiti, filled the gap.
[6]
There is perhaps no more famous or celebrated an act of the Canadian/Colombian frontier than Kitchener's stand at Little Bighorn, however the road to it was paved with blood and the follies of Lord Lucan.
The typical Flashman-esque high Victorian officer, George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan, had been bounced around from one imperial posting to another before finally being booted to an out-of-the-way posting on the Canadian Frontier (an amalgamation of what is now the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Dakota and Montgomery). But there could not have been a more exciting time to be out on the Frontier as it finally opened up to settlement that had been promised since the end of the War of 1804 and the inter-colonial rivalry between Atlantic bound Canada and Pacific bound Colombia grew more intense over their competition to build the first Transcontinental Railway in North America. Lucan became involved in the whole sordid business when Ottawa's section of the line ran into deep trouble with the path it was cutting through tribal lands and was falling behind. Desperate to push the line forward and defend the vast gold deposits that the Royal Pacific Rail Company (subsidary of the Hudson Bay Company) had found near Sherwood, Dakota, Lucan was summoned to Ottawa to discuss and expedition to forcibly move the Plains Indians out of the Company's way: foolish and desperate for glory, Lucan agreed.
Except, Lucan returned to his command at Fort Gibraltar only to pause and work himself into a frenzy based on his own ambitions and mania. Suddenly, the call went out across North America about Lucan's grand plan to march on the Plains Indians and wipe them off the face of the earth, and it was answered from across the continent as restless Americans, German revolutionary exiles, Mexican nobility, cowboys, prospectors, homesteaders and bandits of all nationalities, even Chinese and Indian labour all abandoned their jobs and homes to answer Lucan's call: and the entirely false promises of land and gold in the newly cleansed territory.
After six months delay, on March 6th 1876, two regiments of redcoats and a regiment of hussars, plus the various militias of the Western territories, were bolstered by an extra 30,000 armed auxiliaries (and many other volunteers who despite lack of an ability to properly arm them, followed Lucan anyway). Caught up in his own arrogance and blatant racism, Lucan advanced casually into wilderness fully expecting to just roll up one village after another, what he did not expect despite intelligence to the contrary, was for a vast coalition of from all the Indian nations of the Plains to oppose him. Blackfoot, Arapahoe, Crow, Iowa, Sioux, Saulteaux, Cheyenne and even displaced Apache and Comanche assembled to wage a guerrilla war against Lucan that matched the resistance to Napoleon in Russia and Iberia with its skill, ferocity, bloodiness, and effectiveness.
Despite living off the land and a not wholly ineffective supply wagon, Lucan simply couldn't feed his army as one combined unit, yet Lucan refused to separate his army until he had fought one major engagement with the enemy, but they continued to deny him it. Only as the summer passed and winter began breathing down his neck, Lucan chanced an action between his Hussars and a Sioux village did he claim his victory and began to spread his army into separate forts, columns and camps across the Dakota and Montgomery territories - at the worst possible time. Effectively cut off from one another as the snows set in, each unit now had to fend for itself through the winter. Those that did not simply flee and abandon their positions, soon began to cannibalise (literally in some cases) each other, the enemy, even the settlers they were sent to defend and resorted to banditry. Notable incidents like an auxiliary regiment fighting a week long skirmish with a detachment of the South Wales Borders Regiment, and when a squadron of the 7th Cavalry flat burned the town of Sherwood to the ground after the locals refused to part with their food or gold.
Bashfully admitting he could no longer keep control of the Expedition, Lucan ordered a retreat of those few units he still had contact with. Over the remains of winter, the few units still cohesive or brave enough to march fell into Fort Gibraltar a sorry and ruinous lot. Shocked to find letters from Ottawa and London had arrived for him while on his campaign demanding exactly what the Earl was playing at, issuing cease and desist orders, and his dismissal and recall to London for an inquiry while a replacement and commission to see the damage that the Expedition had wrought on the Canadian expansion. Aghast, and with nothing to loose anymore, Lucan ignored the letters and reassembled his force and rearming them as best he could. With the first officers of the commission arriving, and the snows barely melted, Lucan sallied forth again. Now totally unafraid of the whitemen they had chased from the plains, the assembled tribes gave Lucan his battle and totally routed him, armed with the equipment left behind in the retreat they broke his column at a crossing on the Yellowstone River, capturing the colours of 7th Hussars and the 60th Regiment Foot and killing the man himself.
The final defeat of Lucan should have been the end of the Canadian Frontier: its epilogue, instead the actions of Lieutenant Kitchener and his small band of redcoats at Little Big Horn made it prologue. Certainly, it was set back a good while. The Royal Pacific Rail Company went flat bust as news of Lucans rout reached Ottawa and its main possession had been ripped back up again by marauders and the tribes, and Sherwood gold deposits plundered by deserters and independent prospectors, and thoroughly disappointed in the leadership of Ottawa and the mismanagement of the Hudson Bay Company both were rolled up as London took increasing control as the Disraeli Commission made its findings plain to see. Frontier settlement and the Transcontinental project was handed over to the Imperial American Rail Company of Portland, Oregon, Colombia, who gradually rebuilt the honour of British America with a soft(er) touch by fair(ish) deals with the tribal leaders, following the peace that Disraeli and Kitchener managed to negotiate with the Plains coalition. The Canadian Confederacy did eventually rehabilitate itself as a Dominion in 1900, 20 years after Colombia celebrated its status as the Empire's first Dominion as the last spike of the Railway was driven in at Rugby, Dakota - marking the border between Britain's Atlantic and Pacific colonies in North America.
Lucan's reputation has never been rehabilitated, nor is it likely to be. Facing every caricature imaginable to this day from blood thirsty white supremacist, aloof and snotty toff, the brash, incompetent 'donkey' leading his lions to slaughter. He has been cited by comedy bigwigs as the original inspiration behind Flashman, Flashheart, and Lord Melchett.
(May have gotten a little carried away with this one)
[7] It's not Chun's fault he inherited a China in severe decline, and it's not his fault he was appointed regent despite little taste for politicking. Unfortunately, it is his fault that he decided the Qing Dynasty would continue to fight on in 1911 rather than accept a peace deal and abdication: he felt he should fulfil his duty to the young emperor. Beijing burned during a siege and was only saved by Russian military forces arriving, promised territorial concessions. Thus saved, the Qing forces... failed to achieve much at all, and Russia decided this wasn't worth it. With Russian guns at his head, Chun agreed a peace deal after a pointless two more months of war.
The Qing Dynasty was preserved, so arguably Chun achieved his goal. Problem was that the Qing Dynasty (allies of Their Friend The Tsar) no longer ruled two-thirds of China, much of it nominally under republican control but big chunks lawless; Britain, Germany, and Portugal all seized more land around their concessions; and Japan took advantage to carve out a section of Manchuria as a 'friendly republic'. So a king was saved but the kingdom was lost, and millions of Chinese lives with it. Chun's death is greatly assumed to have been a suicide.