Not Austria, that didnt exist until the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Same with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. And, no- Russia was just a “state” of the USSR for 7 decades or so. Belgium is close, since 1830.
wiki: *On 15 March 1953, Voroshilov was approved as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (i.e., the head of state) with Nikita Khrushchev as First Secretary of the Communist Party and Georgy Malenkov as Premier of the Soviet Union. *
Pope Julius II, the Warrior Pope, personally lead the papal armies in several battles.
Austria as a separate country dates back to the foundation of the Empire of Austria in 1804, shortly before the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. It entered into a federal union with Hungary in 1867, but did not cease to exist as a separate country. The federation broke up after WWI, but it’s not as if a new country was created.
The current Russian Federation is the successor state to the USSR (as shown by it having the permanent seat on the UN Security Council initially designated for the USSR. The USSR in turn had been recognised as the successor to the Russian Empire.
Same for Turkey as the successor to the Ottoman Empire.
There can be major governmental changes within a country without it becoming a new country.
My purpose in asking this question is I’m thinking about the political culture within a country, rather than the particular details of a country’s constitutional structure.
If you want to get technical, though, the Vatican City didn’t exist until 1929. Julius led the Papal States, which became part of Italy in 1870.
Tibet?
I looked through this thread and didn’t see any reference to Eisenhower.
He is surely the top candidate? 5 Star General and also President of the USA.
Ulysses S Grant also was a ranking General and US President.
Arthur Wellesley was both the most famous general in British history and also Prime Minister of Britain twice.
That should be enough to go on with?
Read the question again. Both US and UK are disqualified because of Eisenhower and Wellington, among other top generals. The question is about countries that never had a general (or admiral or equivalent) as a leader.
If we were actually looking for the exact opposite of the OP’s question, something like the most experienced military officer serving as the head of a state, I think it would be hard to beat CGE Mannerheim.
Gustav Adolphus might give ol’ Mannerheim a run for his money.
In the olden days, monarchs usually were the commanders-in-chief of their militaries. That was part of their job description.
Has Libya already been mentioned? Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi never made it to General (which goes to show that he really was a humble man).
That position and title were honorary and ceremonial, and not closely correlated with real power at the time Voroshilov assumed them. See esp. Kalinin on that note- never more than a peripheral figure in the corridors of real power, he was the titleholder 1922-1946 (perhaps because he was one of the few prominent Bolsheviks with a peasant background), going back even to Lenin’s time. From Stalin on it was the General Secretary of the Communist Party who was the real chief executive of the USSR. Neither Stalin nor Khrushchev ever bothered to assume the Chairman of the Presidium title.
Stalin couldn’t have been a general during the Russian Civil War, for the simple reason that the Red Army abolished all officer titles. Marshal was reinstated in 1935, and general ranks were only reinstituted later than that.
Whatever his actual title might have been, Stalin’s role was equivalent to that of general, and one with several stars at that.
Didn’t the 13th Dalai Lama command troops in the Sino-Tibetan war? And then, back in the 17th century, Gushri Khan, obviously, and before him, the Tsangpa kings.
Cited in post # 5.
Cited in post # 1.
So Sweden and Finland are both off the list.
Interesting - hadn’t realised that.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And, no- Russia was just a “state” of the USSR for 7 decades or so
[/QUOTE]
Just to follow-up on this: I’m intersted in the political culture. I doubt that people in Russia today would say that Stalin hadn’t been their leader in the past; in fact, I think folks like Putin think it’s a mistake that the USSR broke up, undermining Stalin’s legacy, rather than viewing the current Russian Federation as a completely new entity with no connection to the USSR.