Close, but not quite. Nicholas II took over the role of supreme commander during WWI from Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich in the summer of 1915. While that meant that he spent a great deal of time at Headquarters (Mogilev) and not in St. Petersburg, as you rightly say, he wasn’t close to where he’d be hearing shots fired in anger. That seems to be the point of the original question.
Uncle Joe… errr Stalin stayed in Moscow to face the Germans during the seige ther in WW2. How much active participation he had I cannot remember.
Maybe a Russian historian will come along and put me straight.
Osip
I don’t think that being in a city while bombs are falling really counts – it’s like you’re just sitting there taking cover while stuff is dropping on you. I understood the question to be about leading troops out on the battlefield.
If it’s true that Haile Selassie actually led troops on the battlefield against Italians, then he takes the cake. That was in 1935.
First runner-up would then be Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, who wrapped up his battles circa 1930-31. The name "Saudi Arabia" wasn't used until 1932, but prior to that he was a head of state, the Sultan of Najd and Hijaz. It became Saudi Arabia once he added the southern province of Asir. The last battles he fought were against Yemen in 1930; they didn’t settle the boundary dispute until this year!
Right. Field command, riding the jeep out to meet with your division commanders on an everyday basis, at risk of being surrounded and captured.
I’ll take Kim as a joke. As to Fidel at Playa Giron (a.k.a. Bay of Pigs) it’s hard to cut thru the propaganda and determine the degree of his field command “in harm’s way.” If he was at the beach (or at least in the next town over, directing traffic as it were) he’d be in the running.
Saddam’s uniform is a Joke, since he has no formal military service record. Contrast with Generals Sadat, Mubarak, Rabin, and Assad(senior), who as rulers stuck to business suits.
Saddam was definitely in Bagdad when the bombs were falling, but he definitely was not in command, he was running for cover.
After the war was over, I read a report of an incident that seemed both plausible and authoritative. According to the report, during the initial attacks on Bagdad, a convoy of armored vehicles was seen leaving the city and was attacked with laser guided missiles. According to intelligence analysts, that convoy was carrying Saddam, and they managed to destroy the armored car NEXT to Saddam’s car. But he escaped unhurt.
If ONLY they had known, I’m sure they would have just pounded the hell out of that convoy. But the best the US could come up with was some experimental “bunker busters” designed to penetrate Saddam’s underground hideout. These were eventually ruled out, as the US doesn’t deliberately assassinate world leaders. How ridiculous. This was war.
That’s the official public policy in case they ever get asked, but there’s no mistake about the effort to do just that. If the Allied command had ever admitted that was a purpose, not only would there have been a hopeless PR fallout, but every day that passed without the goal being achieved would have made them look like bunglers. In war, it’s only OK to kill the other country’s soldiers, not their leaders, I guess. That’s what I find ridiculous.
The policy itself is merely a presidential order, which can be cancelled (selectively if necessary) by another presidential order, which doesn’t even need to be public.
Several of the suggestions already made postdate this one, but Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was President of Mexico in 1836 when he led his troops against the Texans at the Alamo and San Jacinto. He was captured during the battle of San Jacinto and negotiated a treaty with the Texans while in their custody. If I recall correctly, his Vice President (whose name I don’t have handy) refused to accept the treaty and wanted to fight on and the Texans had to release Santa Ana so he could enforce his own surrender terms.
So I guess we don’t count LBJ’s visit to the troops in 'Nam?
What about people who became leaders by a military action (Pol Pot for example or the leaders of that recent Solomon Islands coup)… And would Yassir Arafat count?
Francisco Solano Lopez, president of Paraguay, died with his sword in his hand at the battle of the Aquidaban River in 1870, shot down by enemy cavalry (Argentine or Brazilian, I can’t remember which). I think that does count as personal leadership when you are fighting the enemy hand to hand.
This is not meant to wax unduly romantic about Lopez, who was the monster little dictators want to be when they grow up.
I think you might be able to count this one. In 1994, Paul Kagame personally directed his 5000 man force of footborne Tutsi warriors against the 25000 man Hutu army during the massacre in Rwanda.
His eventual victory was a tactical and strategic triumph of the highest order, worthy of comparison to Jackson or Turenne. He was the de facto political leader of the Tutsis at the time, and later officially became Rwanda’s president.
I think he was almost constantly in the field except when he was manipulating the press by showing up on the outskirts of Kigali while his force was in fact moving in another direction.