Which leader's situation was most surmountable?

[polyharmonic]

The following end-of-regime leaders faced tremendous challenges and ultimately failed to overcome them. In all cases, the result was that the regimes completely collapsed and the country plunged into dissolution and turmoil. Many historians believe that these situations, while difficult, were not entirely insurmountable.

In your opinion, which leader's situation was most surmountable?
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)

Also since the poll doesn't allow it, please rank the situations from easiest to hardest to surmount if you can.

 

[wietze]

don't know enough about 2, but 1 & 3 unlikely since both louis xvi (and his wife) and nicholas II were part of the problem, Gorbatchev tried to actually solve the problems. but was stopped dead in its track by the generals

 

[jahenders]

I think Nicholas could have saved things had he really tried. He could have made some political deal to give some more power to the workers and peasants, worked to reduce the corruption and ineptitude in government service, etc. But, most especially, he could have worked to avoid WWI. He didn't have to agree to help Serbia. He could either avoid the war altogether or could have fought purely defensively if attacked. That would avoid horrendous bloodshed, lots of money, and also avoid the army being away from home (and not available to deal with revolution).

 

[Lalli]

Nicholas II

Russia had serious troubles on early 20th century but not so serious that these could have fix if the tsar just would have been more competent ruler. He could have easily push needful reforms and create real constitutional monarchy. Rarely can say that fall of empire was one man's fault, but when you talk about Nicholas II, he could have avoid situation easily.

Cixi

Not so incompetent as Nicholas II but she could have reform Qing China easily. There was much people who could have accepted constitutional monarchy. China could have easily pull China version of Meiji.

Louis XIV

France was pretty bankcrupted nation and was needing of reforms. But there was just too few too late.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Gorbachev get very stagnatised nation and conservative party system. But Gorbachev had fight against corrupted and stagnatised system almost alone. He wanted and tried fix things but his predecessors had caused too much damage for Soviet Union.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Louis has to accept that absolutism is over and that he can stay king (and alive) only if he give up his power and let a parlamentarian government rule.

Gorbachev has to be much more careful with his reforms - he has to control both military and the opposition much more closely instead of simply hoping that everything is going to be alright.

 

[Drizzt]

Nicholas II because he was an autocrat with much more control over his regime than Gorbachev and unlike Cixi and Louis had foreign examples on how to do moderate reforms. Don't go to war to bail out a gouvernement sponsoring terrorism and make some political reforms was probably all it would have taken for the Tsardom to survive.

On the other side of the spectrum: Gorbachev's challenge was insurmountable. He inherited a dysfunctional system, that a huge percentage of the population didn't want to live in made worse by being plagued with endemic corruption and somehow brought it down to a rather soft landing with no Civil Wars (which might have involved nukes flying) expect an unsuccessful coup. Blaming him for failing so "save" the New Russian Empire aka USSR & Warsaw Pact is like blaming de Klerk for failing to "save" White Minority Rule in South Africa.

 

[polyharmonic]

Personally I would say that of all the leaders, Gorbachev had it the easiest and had a situation that was much more manageable. His situation was the most salvageable of all the four leaders IMHO.

Here I will grade difficulty of situation of each leader (10=most difficult).

1) Louis XVI: Difficulty = 7/10
He faced a situation that few if any monarchs had ever faced. With economy in ruins mostly due to his predecessor and an intransigent nobility unwilling to countenance any reforms required a very exceptional leader to manage.

2) Cixi: Diffculty = 10+/10
Cixi's situation was the most difficult of all four. She faced the same intransigence to reform from an ossified and corrupt gentry similar to Louis. But unlike Louis she also had to face off multiple world powers encroaching on China at the same time and in a world rapidly advancing. She was in an insurmountable situation IMHO.

3) Nicholas II: Difficulty = 6/10
Although Nicholas faced challenges, Tsarist Russia was in a much better shape, relatively, than China. It was technologically behind the other powers but much less so than China and its nobility was practically begging for reforms (unlike with Louis and Cixi). His disastrous forays into wars of his choosing also made things more difficult than needed.

4) Gorbachev: Difficulty = 4/10
Of all the leaders, Gorbachev's USSR was in the strongest situation. His country was a global superpower with tech only slightly below that of the West. By the time of his rise, USSR possessed nukes, enough to destroy the entire world. His state was completely secure from any external threats. Some economical reforms to loosen up state control and giving up trying to out compete the West militarily while maintaining authoritarian rule was all that was needed. A more competent and savvy leader, like Putin, could have maintained a superpower USSR to this very day.

In summary, it goes (least to most difficult with difficulty rating out of 10):
1) Gorbachev: 4/10
2) Nicholas: 6/10
3) Louis: 7/10
4) Cixi: 10+/10

Do others agree with this assessment of level of difficulty as well?

 

[frustrated progressive]

How the New union thingy was nearly implemented makes me vote for Gorbachev.

 

[jsb]

1) Gorbachev: 4/10
2) Nicholas: 6/10
3) Louis: 7/10
4) Cixi: 10+/10
Do others agree with this assessment of level of difficulty as well?

I would basically agree but think that Nicholas should get a 5/10 or easier all he had to do is accept a constitutional monarchy and not start a war. He would likely have been kept in power and Russian economic growth would have solved many problems by itself.

(I would add with Cixi the only thing to add is that she is also a woman in 19th century China/world)

 

[LordKalvert]

Personally I would say that of all the leaders, Gorbachev had it the easiest and had a situation that was much more manageable. His situation was the most salvageable of all the four leaders IMHO.

Here I will grade difficulty of situation of each leader (10=most difficult).

1) Louis XVI: Difficulty = 7/10
He faced a situation that few if any monarchs had ever faced. With economy in ruins mostly due to his predecessor and an intransigent nobility unwilling to countenance any reforms required a very exceptional leader to manage.

2) Cixi: Diffculty = 10+/10
Cixi's situation was the most difficult of all four. She faced the same intransigence to reform from an ossified and corrupt gentry similar to Louis. But unlike Louis she also had to face off multiple world powers encroaching on China at the same time and in a world rapidly advancing. She was in an insurmountable situation IMHO.

3) Nicholas II: Difficulty = 6/10
Although Nicholas faced challenges, Tsarist Russia was in a much better shape, relatively, than China. It was technologically behind the other powers but much less so than China and its nobility was practically begging for reforms (unlike with Louis and Cixi). His disastrous forays into wars of his choosing also made things more difficult than needed.

4) Gorbachev: Difficulty = 4/10
Of all the leaders, Gorbachev's USSR was in the strongest situation. His country was a global superpower with tech only slightly below that of the West. By the time of his rise, USSR possessed nukes, enough to destroy the entire world. His state was completely secure from any external threats. Some economical reforms to loosen up state control and giving up trying to out compete the West militarily while maintaining authoritarian rule was all that was needed. A more competent and savvy leader, like Putin, could have maintained a superpower USSR to this very day.

In summary, it goes (least to most difficult with difficulty rating out of 10):
1) Gorbachev: 4/10
2) Nicholas: 6/10
3) Louis: 7/10
4) Cixi: 10+/10

Do others agree with this assessment of level of difficulty as well?

Nicholas should be about a half a point- all he has to do is make a few minor adjustments to his military or foreign policy and he's there. In fact he could easily have gone down as Nicholas the Great if he quickly crushes Japan and uses the resources for a quick win in WWI. Very plausible PODs there

Cixi- she faces a horridly complex internal situation. She understands that reforms are needed but can't fathom what they would be. Internally, the Manchus are very weak and need to keep the Chinese in check. Some obvious reforms would be impossible as they would raise the Chinese relative position against the Manchus.

Gorbachev- he's much weaker here than you think. He can do a lot by moderating his foreign and defense policies and relying on the nuclear deterrent. The problems he faces though are severe-

1) dissatisfaction is much more widespread in the Soviet Union than any of the other societies

2) their is the ethnic tensions within the Soviet Union. Decentralization is needed but to decentralize the country is to encourage the forces of dissolution

3) his greatest weakness is the Eastern Europe buffer. These states are not under his direct control, seethe under Soviet occupation and wish to throw off the foreign yoke. Its the Hungarian reforms that spell the end to the Soviet Empire

That said, yes, a true authoritarian could keep the regime in place for decades

 

[Amelikite]

Nicholas II because he was an autocrat with much more control over his regime than Gorbachev and unlike Cixi and Louis had foreign examples on how to do moderate reforms. Don't go to war to bail out a gouvernement sponsoring terrorism and make some political reforms was probably all it would have taken for the Tsardom to survive.

On the other side of the spectrum: Gorbachev's challenge was insurmountable. He inherited a dysfunctional system, that a huge percentage of the population didn't want to live in made worse by being plagued with endemic corruption and somehow brought it down to a rather soft landing with no Civil Wars (which might have involved nukes flying) expect an unsuccessful coup. Blaming him for failing so "save" the New Russian Empire aka USSR & Warsaw Pact is like blaming de Klerk for failing to "save" White Minority Rule in South Africa.

If Tsar Nicholaus was in that much control why couldn't he prevent Russia going to War in 1914? He exchanged a series of telegrams, with his cousin the Kaiser. He proposed submitting the Serbian issue to a Hague Conference, a standard diplomatic practise of the day. He even cancelled mobilisation on the 29th of July.
Are these the actions of a man who wanted war and was in control?

 

[polyharmonic]

Consensus seems to be that Cixi's situation is most difficult. In fact for those voting for her, I am curious as to the reasoning that she had it easier than the other three. That is astonishing to me.

Louis' situation seems to second most difficult.

But there seems to be a tie between Nicholas II and Gorbachev scenarios. I still think Gorbachev had it easier simply because he ruled a superpower while Nicholas II ruled over a backwards Russia that wasn't fully industrialized until after Stalin firmly took over. So in that sense, Gorbachev had fewer obstacles to overcome IMHO.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

At what point in time?

Just before the moment of dissolution?

That's swimming against a ferocious current, in every case.

I would note that the Empire of China survived after Ci Xi died, so that choice doesn't apply to her. The actual end-of-regime ruler was Pu Yi; he was six years old when the regime ended. Idunno who the regent was.

Or when the ruler first assumed power?

In that case:

• Louis XVI has 18 years before the fall.
• Ci Xi has 51 years (except she died with four years to go).
• Nicholas II has 23 years.
• Gorbachev has 6 years.

I would say that all of them except possibly Gorbachev have a reasonable chance of averting the fall of the regime. There was tremendous historical loyalty to the dynasties.

 

[takerma]

Nicholas if he was replaced by a random previous Russian monarch would have done much better. He had almost everything going his way. Better monarch could have ended up revered as a father of a great superpower.

He could go Ivan the terrible route and deal with revolutionaries properly or push economic reforms. Optimally both.

 

[ManintheField]

Louis had it the easiest, definitely. He just had to Not. God. Damned. Run. His throne would hardly have been entirely safe, even then, but his odds crashed afterwards. Had he been willing to work with the National Assembly from the beginning, France could have been a viable constitutional monarchy with relatively little ado.

 

[HIM Dogson]

All Cixi has to do to prevent collapse is let Guangxu continue with his reforms. Nicholas II is the second easiest; since he was a reactionary all he has to do is reform. Louis has it pretty tough because he needs to walk a balancing act between breaking the owed of the nobility and keeping power from the hands of the Jacobins. It should be okay if he can force through his tax on the nobility, because at least then the peasants can't claim to be treated unfairly. Gorbachev has it rough. I can't see a way for him to avoid the USSRs collapse.

 

[Drizzt]

Why are people defending Cixi here? Yes on paper your arguments fit, expect for one major thing:
She WAS the corrupt and ossified gentry, she WAS the forces of reaction. She seized power in a coup against her own son to stop his reforms and maintain the status quo.
In order to succeed at something you first of all need to actually want to. That's why Cixi's failure to reform and modernize Qing China is entirely her own.

You might as well debate how difficult it was for the Founding Fathers of the CSA to avoid the Civil War, while ignoring that they were the cause of it.

 

[LordKalvert]

Nicholas if he was replaced by a random previous Russian monarch would have done much better. He had almost everything going his way. Better monarch could have ended up revered as a father of a great superpower.

He could go Ivan the terrible route and deal with revolutionaries properly or push economic reforms. Optimally both.

Very sensible

 

[HIM Dogson]

Why are people defending Cixi here? Yes on paper your arguments fit, expect for one major thing:
She WAS the corrupt and ossified gentry, she WAS the forces of reaction. She seized power in a coup against her own son to stop his reforms and maintain the status quo.
In order to succeed at something you first of all need to actually want to. That's why Cixi's failure to reform and modernize Qing China is entirely her own.

You might as well debate how difficult it was for the Founding Fathers of the CSA to avoid the Civil War, while ignoring that they were the cause of it.

Well, yeah. Cixi is in the best position to stop a Qing collapse because the collapse was entirely her fault, which cannot be said about any of the other leaders.

 

[AYC]

Gorbachev was actually really close to reforming the USSR into a looser union IOTL. If it weren't for the army coup, the Union treaty would have been signed; the Baltics and Armenia likely would have left, but the 'stans would have stayed in and you'd see something similar to a federalized EU.