Peter the Great did lead many of armies personally. While a young man he took a great interest in the science of artillery and the study of logistics. He led an assault on Azov
This is the biggest misconception about Peter I. The first Azov campaign (1694/95) was conducted by Lefort, Gordon and Golovin. True, Peter I was there, but his role was pretty much limited to being a yeah- or neigh-sayer (mostly yeah) to what the generals had proposed. His only direct military engagement was dubious and failed assault on Azov with 200(!) Cossacks. The whole assault idea was against Gordon's will, the assault was executed poorly, and the Russians had to lift the siege in October. In this light Peter's military accomplishments look even more dubious.
The second Azov campaign (1696/97) was done more professionally. Some fleet was brought in to blockade Azov, and not allow the Turks to bring in supplies and reinforcements. BTW, Lefort was the first nominal admiral of the Russian galleys, with his vice-admirals being a Venetian colonel Lima and French de l'Osiere. The only naval engagement of the campaign, though, was won by Cossacks.
The chief commander of the army was a little known (military) boyar Alexander Shein (1681-1700), with Lefort, Gordon and Golovin serving as his assistants. This campaign was a success. Azov was captured, but Peter's role was basically the same.
At Narva Peter wasn't a chief commander again. In fact, upon learning that a Russian reconaissance detachment commanded by Sheremetev got routed by an advancing army of Karl XII, Peter fled quite hurriedly to Novgorod and didn't take any part in the ensuing battle, which was cleanly won (mostly due internal problems of Russian army) by Karl XII.
So, should we add Peter to the leaders list? I can hardly justify that. Even though Peter I as well as a lot of other monarchs of his time spent quite some time in the army, he wasn't involved in a battle as, say Gustav II was, but rather his role was kind of similar to the role of Louis XIV who hadn't missed a single French campaign, being a chief commander in each and every one of them, but yet leaving to handle the rest to professionals.
True, Peter was quite fond of "engineering" and artillery, and ship-building; even his position in the Russian army was that of a bombardir, but then again he was only a captain.........
And why do we need to add a monarch to a leaders list if we already have quite capable generals?
