AHC: Save an incompetent or unlucky ruler

[Deleted member 114175]

The challenge is to rehabilitate the reputation of a ruler perceived as incompetent (such as King John “Lackland”), by changing events in their life or gradually changing them over time by creating the situations that would shape them into a better ruler.

Bonus: have a monarch regarded as mentally disabled or insane (whether or not it was true or just propaganda, such as Joanna the Mad who was not mad at all), become one of the greatest leaders in that country’s history. For example there have been arguments that Caligulas reign was much exaggerated by his enemies.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

Nice weather under Louis XVI. He wasn't incompetent, but really unlucky. If the working class is well fed, the French Revolution will not necessarly be butterflied, but the source will be a financial crisis, so the rebellous people will be the rich.

Having Louis XVI improve his self-confidence and keeping Necker would be another great thing.

 

[von Adler]

Karl XII decides to ignore the Polish crown and marches into Saxony 1703, knocking August out of the war. A better show against Archangelsk lets Sweden capture it 1704.

A gruelling dual campaign in Ingria and central Russia sees Peter defeated and dethroned, although he returns after a Russian civil war against the conservatives that try to place his son on the throne. He then fo uses southwards, considering Sweden too tough to deal with alone.

Being stubborn when you lose in tje end is considered madness. Being stubborn when you win in the end the pinnacle of personal virtue.

Cue Karl XII being viewed as one of the greatest generals and monarch in European history rather than either the romantic tragic hero or outright callous idiot that is his legacy today.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

John Casimir of Poland seems doable. He was terrible ruler, but one thing could save his image-if he had surviving son, he would not try to enforce vivente rege madness and thus would not inflict civil war. In such situation he would be remembered mostly as hero, who helped to save country from Swedes during Deluge (and would be able to push his other reforms, more needed than vivente rege).

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Richard III of England surviving Bosworth.

 

[dannythegreat]

Joanna the Mad

The revolt of the Comuneros is a resounding success and Joanna is installed as sole monarch with her children dethroned and disinherited. On her death the thrones of Castile and Aragon pass to Maria and Manuel, uniting all of Iberia. United Iberia goes on to greatness while the Habsburgs enter a state of terminal decline in Burgundy and the Empire as they stubbornly fight a losing battle against the Reformation. Joanna is viewed as the farsighted monarch who kept her realm from being tied to the doomed Habsburg cause, even though in reality she probably ends up as the puppet ruler of the Comuneros and the Portuguese.

 

[Kaiser of Brazil]

D. Pedro I is not a womanizer, this way his popularity isn't hit by his infidelity and suicide of his popular wife. Also would be nice if he didn't waste Brazilian money and resources in a war against his brother in Portugal and instead focused on keeping the Cisplatina.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Saladin is more successful against the forces of the Third Crusade, leaving no space for the restitution of the crusader states. As a result, Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos renegotiates his alliance deal with the Ayyubids, and secures his throne against potential usurpers. Negotiations with the west would sour, however.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Richard III of England surviving Bosworth.

Problem is if he survives he's gotta trade his kingdom for a horse. He did promise after all.

 

[RMcD94]

Peter III of Russia marries someone nicer

 

[Beacon]

Charles II of Spain (the Bewitched) - poor dude got too much habsburg in him, he died without any heirs. The brits, french & dutch plotted to split up his empire before he died, without even consulting him.

 

[David T]

I once had a post on how if James Buchanan had been elected in 1844 instead of 1856, he might be ranked as one of America's better presidents: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-a-great-or-only-near-great-president.432236/

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Selim III - was unlucky that he did not know his close officials were hostile to him which resulted in his abdication in 1807 to a handful of Yamaks (garrisons of the Rumeli Fortress). Had he taken initiative to crush the Yamak rebellion he could have kept the reforms going on rather than being delayed for 20 years.

Mustafa II - Was looking successful in his campaign in Transylvania vs the Habsburgs but he was caught by surprise by Prince Eugene while crossing the River. If he became Sultan in 1687 rather than one of his ill uncles, he'd had more resources and more able commanders at his disposal.

Ismail II Safavi - Was open for tolerating Sunnis in Persia but he got deposed by the Qizilbash in court. Thus ended his two years rule.

 

[BBadolato]

At the risk of coming off as obnoxious self-promoter, my TL a Storm Over Okehazama covers something like this. Imagawa Yoshimoto was by no means incompetent, and one of the better-positioned warlords to at least stake a claim to power he held a power base not too far from Kyoto with little in the way of powerful rivals. Yoshimoto by all rights should have had Nobunaga beaten, only he was taken by surprise at Okehazama and was killed throwing his forces into chaos.

On the other end of that, Nobunaga himself was unlucky in getting assassinated at Honnoji and was close to uniting Japan under his authority, which would have a lead to a far different Japan then under the Tokugawa.

 

[Skallagrim]

Suppose Commodus had just been content to reign as the divine figurehead who throws really great parties while leaving matters of governance to trusted advisors (instead of actually trying to rule in person, which he did in OTL, and to which task he was decidely unequal). A lot of misery would have been avoided, his increasing paranoia and bitterness (neither of which existed without reason) could easily have been butterflied away, and he would probably be rather fondly remembered as a "merry monarch" type of ruler.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Henry VI gets a luckier set of numbers in the genetic lottery and doesn't inherit his maternal grandfather's madness.

Mary Tudor reigns longer and/or has a son and/or marries Elizabeth to a Catholic who can stop her pushing Protestantism after Mary's gone. Consequently England becomes a bastion of Counter-Reformation Catholicism,* and Mary's reign is remembered as a glorious triumph rather than the insignificant interlude it tends to get portrayed as IOTL.

(* The country was already making moves in this direction even during Mary's short OTL reign. For example, the idea of setting up seminaries specifically to train clergymen seems to have originated with Cardinal Pole.)

When William of Orange was sailing across to England for the Glorious Revolution, wind kept the English navy in port and prevented it from intercepting the Dutch fleet. Have the wind change, enabling James' fleet to sally out and beat off William's, and James is now likely in a much stronger position due to the prestige of having beaten off a serious threat to his throne. With a bit of luck, this in turn lets him stay on the throne and get his Catholic toleration proposals through. I don't know how long the situation would last given English anti-Catholicism, but at the very least James will be considered more successful than his is IOTL.

Have Adolf Hitler be a run-of-the-mill fascist dictator like Franco or Mussolini rather than the extreme-even-by-fascist-standards warmonger he was. WW2 is probably averted, and Neville Chamberlain gets remembered as a great peacemaker rather than the clueless naïf he's usually portrayed as.

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

The Guangxu Emperor could have been remembered as a great reformer and modernizer if only Yuan Shikai hadn't betrayed him.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Henry VI of England could do with someone neutral and above partisan politics to stand in place if his OTL favourites. IIRC one of his uncles did this at first, though things did not go so well in France.

Edward IV lives longer - he had overcome numerous crises, had established a viable rule, had successors and spares, had a strong group supporting him, and had reformed government. It all fell apart when he died too soon because the successors and spares were too young, and his brother too ambitious. If Edward, Prince of Wales, had lived to an older age with a proper pseudo-court around him (rather than one based on tutors) then he would have been in a position to boss his uncle, or to put him down

King Louis of England - if a couple of engagements had gone his way then Prince Henry would have to been to history as Edgar the Aetheling was

 

[alexmilman]

Peter III of Russia marries someone nicer

No need of that. Just show a decisiveness in a critical moment. Catherine had on her side only the Guards (4 regiments in the fancy uniforms with no battle experience, no discipline and no even decent training). Success was achieved due to Peter’s inability to act (factor well known to the conspirators). Peter had 2 or 3 cavalry and 1 or 2 infantry regiments of loyal Holstein troops but they were sort of an ammunition (especially for artillery). Admittedly, these units were quite small but the total still would amount to something between 1 and 2,000 of loyal and well-trained troops ready to defend him.

What’s more important, he had a field army (with experience of the 7YW) led by the best Russian general, Rumiantsev, who was very loyal to him (in OTL he refused to swear loyalty to Catherine until got proof that Peter is dead). So the only things he had to do was to keep his troops adequately supplied and to send a messenger to Rumiantsev while organize an orderly retreat of his troops toward advancing Rumiantsev’s troops.

As for the rest, Peter was not a bad ruler: during his short reign he managed to issue a number of really good laws and had plans for some important initiatives like creation of a state bank and equality of the religions (well, this was not a very good idea within existing framework).

 

[Sertorius126]

Suppose Commodus had just been content to reign as the divine figurehead who throws really great parties while leaving matters of governance to trusted advisors (instead of actually trying to rule in person, which he did in OTL, and to which task he was decidely unequal). A lot of misery would have been avoided, his increasing paranoia and bitterness (neither of which existed without reason) could easily have been butterflied away, and he would probably be rather fondly remembered as a "merry monarch" type of ruler.

I mean, he wasn’t actually that bad at ruling, empire was stable, campaigns were going well, capable generals were entrusted with the frontier’s defense and with putting down internal revolts. His only real fault? He was a poor judge of character, and he cut down so many of his associates that those who were left held no love for him, plus, he fell in love with a woman who loved someone else, and murdered him to be with that someone, real sad stuff.