Which end-of-regime leader was "most inept"?

Which of the following leaders was "most inept"?

  • Louis XVI of France (1774-1792)

    Votes: 39 15.9%

  • Cixi of China (1861-1908)

    Votes: 35 14.3%

  • Nicolas II of Russia (1894-1917)

    Votes: 158 64.5%

  • Mikhail Gorbachev of USSR (1985-1991)

    Votes: 13 5.3%
  • Total voters
    245

polyharmonic

In history, the following leaders faced tremendous challenges and failed to meet them. The result is that each of their regimes ended and they became their regime's last effective rulers.

Many historians have blamed the failures on the leaders themselves even while acknowledging the challenges they inherited and faced when they assumed power.

So in your opinion, which of the following leaders was "most inept" and most to blame for their regime's failures?
1 King Louis XVI of France (1774-1792)
2 Empress Dowager Cixi of China (1861-1908)
3 Emperor Nicolas II of Russia (1894-1917)
4 General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of USSR (1985-1991)

Note that the one you rate as "most inept" needs to take into account both the leader's own "incompetence" as well as the level of challenge they faced and not simply the end result. So perhaps another way to look at this is which leader "underachieved" the most and shoulders most of the blame for the failure of their regimes?
 
Gaius Julius Magnus

Gaius Julius Magnus

Nicolas II of Russia. The Russian monarchy may have been heading on it's way out before him but I think a lot of the blame for it ending the way it did can be placed at him, probably the worst Russian leader barring Stalin on the basis of of incompetence alone. King Louis XVI is a close second (though I believe he was more of a victim of his time's than anything else).

Gorbachev inherited the a country and system with problems dating back to the early years of Stalin and Lenin, it would have taken a series of highly competent leaders to make the Soviet Union survive.

I don't know anything about the The Dowager Empress
 
Last edited:
Maeglin

Maeglin

Louis XVI was a well-meaning nice guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Dowager Empress can hardly be described as inept. Incredibly out of touch, yes, but hardly a bumbler on the scale of the others.

Gorbachev is a figure from Shakespearean tragedy: a man who destroyed that which he was trying to save.

And then there's Nicky. Neither well-meaning like Louis or Gorbachev, nor politically savvy like Cixi. There really is nothing nice that can be said about him - he wins this contest by a country mile.
 
Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
Empress Dowager Cixi is the one who can be blamed with almost single handedly plunging the Chinese public confidence of the Qing Dynasty, and actually encourage corruptions and dismal efficiency from within.

Nicholas II come close second with reasons given by previous poster.

Louis XVI and Mikhail Gorbachev is good natured leaders who try their best to avoid the fall of their nations, alas, they are tragic end because their nations are already mostly unsalvageable by the time they come into real power. And Gorbachev is far more tragic because the Gerontocracy of Soviet Union is the real culprit of its fall.
 

fishingfred

You should have put Willhelm II in here.
Now Willi vs Nicki; two "absolute" monarchs (read figureheads) with ridiculous ideas of grandeur who where essentially puppets of their respective countries conservativ establishment.
 

polyharmonic

There's two parts to this question. One part is the leaders's own level of "incompetence". The other question is the level of challenge they faced.

So one thing I wonder is which of the four faced the "easiest" challenge or faced a situation that was the most "salvageable"? (Or conversely which leader faced the hardest or least salvageable situation?)

I'm thinking Gorbachev. I think that of the four, his situation was the least "dire". This doesn't necessary mean that I think he is the most "inept" per se, only that I think he faced the least "difficult" challenge of the four IMHO.

I can imagine lots of plausible ATL where Gorbachev succeeds, at least partially. I imagine fewer of such ATL for the others.
 
Green Painting

Green Painting

fishingfred said:
You should have put Willhelm II in here
Click to expand...

Seconded.

Wilhelm, and Emperor Hirohito, and Enver Pasha.

Unlike the four leaders listed above, who came at a time of crisis, this three rulers destroyed their own countries after they have pulled a successful reform in their respective countries, and squandered whatever their people achieved in those reforms.
 

Lalli

Cixi and Nicholas II were most inept but I can't decide both was more. They were totally out from reality and thought that anything not be needful to change. They are biggest guilties for collapsing of their regimes.

Louis XVI wasn't so inept thant Cixi and Nicky. Leastly he tried fix things but probably too less too late. But I don't know could anyone save Ancien Régime.

Gorbachev had some view what should do. But he was too late and met stagnatised and collapsing system which back to days of Stalin and Brezhnev. Things were just too messy.
 

Colin

Voted for nicholas who marginally gets it above Louise XIV, but what about Charles I similarly incompetent and out of touch with that added stubborn nature that prevented him making concessions when they would have worked, the Ming emperor who ended up hanging himself also comes to mind.
 
V-J

V-J

Voted Cixi. Not too bad if you rate ineptitude purely based on political tactics and ability to intrigue and hold power, horrible if you rate it based on strategy and vision. I think the fact that she showed traces of ability actually makes the judgement worse for me when set against an outright dunce like Nicholas II.
 
Last edited:

MichaelF

I would have included Franz Joseph- yeah, he died before the last two years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire but he certainly did his best to destroy it.
 

Upton_Sinclair

Cixi. Her coup as a result of the Hundred Days Reform, a last-minute attempt to save China from Imperialism, as well as the Boxer Rebellion deeply damaged Imperial China to death. Yes, she was politically savvy, but once she was in power, she was an incredibly inept and out-of-touch ruler. She was capable of getting into power, yes, but she was incapable of ruling.
 

MoraesSarmento

I know he wasn't really trying hard to do anything, but it's funny to see how EVERY move by João Figueiredo in order to gain the regime time/a legacy ended helping the opposition.

Amnesty, the end of bipartidarism, the 1985 election...you name it.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Nicky was both inept and unlucky. He lasted twenty three years so there is a measure of competencey

Cixi the same- she endured on the throne for many years. She also had to balance Manchu and Chinese interests and did so pretty well for decades. The Boxer Rebellion was bad but everyone makes mistakes

Louis was truly inept, naive and foolish. He didn't need to give the liberals the opening and the revolution was truly avoidable

Gorbechev is the king of fools, one of the most stupid and inept idiots to ever rule a great power. The country had problems but they were manageable. A quite foreign policy plus a few well considered economic reforms and the Soviets would still be in power today

As to who faced the greatest problems- I would go with:

Cixi

Nicky

Louis

Gorbachev
 

Emperor Julian

Cixi managed to make the entire regime last her entire life, and several years after her death - that's more than any of the other people here can do.

Nicholas was an idiot, but even then, he had compromised and saved the regime before in 1904. Also, every other monarch got involved in the World War, and a whole lot of regimes fell - Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, shortly after the Italians, even the British and French elected governments had some trouble though the regime held. It was a bad time to be in power.

Gorbachev inherited a rotted system dominated by reactionary old hardliners. He did his best to reform it. The USSR was doomed by that point I feel. He also managed to prevent it from collapsing anywhere near as badly as the other regimes on this list.

Louis gets my vote because he really ratcheted up the debt with wars and extravagance, and his ineptitude continued through the Revolutions - he managed to lose most of his power and become a constitutional monarch, and he couldn't even handle that.
 

Balwin

Gorbachev should not be on the list. He was a great leader and did something no one else ever had the courage to offer a peace deal with the West.
 

Karelian

Nicholas II.
He was a an insecure man in a wrong place on a wrong time, and stubbornly kept on making the same mistakes again and again until the downfall of his own life, family, dynasty and empire.
 

MerryPrankster

I voted Cixi. From what little I know of her, it seems to me like she vetoed any attempt to reform the decrepit Qing dynasty out of selfishness or spite, including spending money intended for the navy on a summer palace.

(IIRC the direct result was the Chinese navy getting defeated by the Japanese due to their poor quality of shells in a particular battle.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top