Quote Originally Posted by Fenring View Post
Napoleon was agressive, but as far as I know he always had a pretext for his campaigns. Pretty much every kingdom ganged up on France once the republic had been declared.

For the 19th century, I'd go for Bismarck.
Do not forget, Napoleon annexed a lot of lands, invaded most of Europe, installed puppet governments, reformed and created countries. Bismarck did create a nation which would give him a load of badboy (As it certainly did upset the balance of power by creating a behemoth in Nobody's land), but it can't be compared to Napoleon messing up the entire continent.

On the Putin deal, the Chechen war has nothing to do with the badboy concept as I see it. It was restoring sovereignty over a territory which was formerly Russian (Not saying I agree or disagree with the independence of Chechenya or not). There was no upseting of the balance of power in the war. The Georgian war is however, other matter, but as Sarmatian said, Bush did invade and took two countries. The Russian intervention was limited to a few kilometers and it didn't upset the balance of powers in the region (Georgia might be more fragile now, but not much did change), Iraq was a great power of the Middle East, and its fall, along with Afghanistan earn the USA and Bush much more badboy than any other nation/person until now in this century.

I might go back until Xerxes in the Greek War, in terms of Century limit.