Looking for ideas about a failed fictional enlightened despot.

[u/NormalProfessional24]

I'm feeling a bit bummed by the apparently negative outlook of global and national politics for public liberty and equality, so to get myself into a more serious mood for contemplating politics, I've decided to interact with it by writing instead.

I'm interested in writing about an "enlightened" despot in pre-Revolutionary Europe, someone like Joseph II or Leopold I (as Grand Duke), who claims to wish to rule for the public happiness and rules with an Illuminati (like the real one in Bavaria, not the ridiculous conspiracist version) clique. The benefits are obvious, but I'd rather focus on what goes wrong when someone with good ideas chooses to go about executing them alone?

• How does he rule?
• What mistakes does he make because of his reliance on himself and a small clique?
• What does his style make impossible?
• What costs does this impose himself and his people?
• What opportunities does he lose?

I can imagine that his clique fails to distinguish between their benefits and humanity's, or that their lack of experience beyond their circles makes them insensitive to the benefits of the feudal past or the populist future, even as they transform their own administration in pursuit of cameralist ambitions. And of course we have all the typcal failings of oligarchic authoritarianism - lack of responsiveness, lack of time on the part of the small number of rulers, cliques, self-interest, excessive focus on "access" to the rulers, etc.

I guess the whole point is: why is the current world order, for all its faults, the one that managed to liberate, in some sense, humanity, whereas the "benevolent" autocrats of old failed to do so durably?

[u/hlary]

I think Emperor Pedro the II fits into a more personal form of "failure" as his rule as an enlightened monarch was undoubtedly successful, essentially taking a nation that was destined to be glorified, continent-spanning sugar plantation and guideing it into an emerging Major power by the end of his reign. Along the way however, Key pillars of his rule, be it in the military, the bureaucracy, the church, and eventually the plantation elites, one by one turned against perpetuating the empire in juxtaposition to Pedro growing less and less interested in rectifying the structural fault lines as his over half century of rule progressed, culminating in him being couped while abroad and him forfeiting any attempt at resistance to those who usurped him.

Emperor Pedro I think, could illuminate the limits of even a successful enlightened despot who, through undoubtedly doing more as an individual to uplift his nation than anyone would expect, still fell short. A victim of his success because of the personal mental and emotional toll it put upon him, as well as the institutions he gave life to ultimately preying on his apathy to institute their own priorities near the end of his life through a republic.

[u/charlesalmens77 → u/hlary]

I can understand him, as he had the worst job in the country since he was 14 years old. He had two sons die in infancy, and even though Princess Isabel was also quite progressive, her husband was basically universally hated.

The republic was more or less a palace coup that had little popular support outside of some positivist army officers and lawyers

[u/SenranHaruka]

Obligatory "Play Suzerain"

[u/WantDebianThanks]

I don't have any suggestions, but if/when you go to publish this, please DM me because I'd like to read it.

[u/RFFF1996]

These recommendations have been very eurocentric so far

Miranda and Bolivar story and their conflict with each other is a good pick too to look into

Iturbide and guerrero compromise and the eventual fallouts amd betrayals too

Granted these were not despots per se except maybe iturbide but they could make for useful inspiration too

[u/duckthebuck]

Look at Frederick the Great, did a lot of good for the country with reforms and stuff. But his powers allowed him to keep getting into wars that didn't benefit the population and nearly destroyed the country. He won but it wasn't worth the cost. And after he died the genius died with him. Prussian leadership during the Revolution and Napoleonic wars tended to the shambolic. Lots of the stuff we think about as Prussian developed as a response to what had been pretty much a shit show so they wouldn't be caught out like that again. Look at the first five or so Presidents in the US. Yes Washington was great, but when Adams lost his election and ceeded power peacefully to Jefferson it crated a release valve monarchies don't have. If the current guy is shit you either got to wait for death or rebellion. It's not a good system.

[u/houinator]

I think one example might be the last Shah of Iran.  His biggest mistake was trying to do too much too fast.  Essentially, in his quest to rapidly modernize Iran, he managed to alienate basically all the key interest groups, who otherwise likely would have had little reason to work together against him.

One example is land reform.  Like many fuedal systems, Iran had a pretty significant bit of aristocracy that owned much of the land, and thus the peasants had little choice but to pay whatever rents they wanted to charge.   This was an enormously popular reform, and one that helped Iran's economy greatly, but that caused the major landowners and religious leaders (religious foundations owned much of the land as well) to find common cause.  Khomenei in particular was strongly opposed to the land reforms (though its worth noting when he came to power, even he didnt reverse most of them).

[u/ohgodatextfield → u/houinator]

As I understand it, Iranian land reform as it was actually enacted ended up being not particularly beneficial for the peasantry.  Many did not get any land, and those that did mostly did not get enough  to sustain themselves.  The latter often ended up selling the land they got for cash to a new middle class of commercial farmers.  This made the peasant class more sympathetic towards the similarly disgruntled clergy during the revolution.

Which makes it a very a good example of the weakness of "enlightened" despots - it's very difficult for an insulated, rich, and powerful leader to deeply understand the needs and challenges of the masses, even if the despot intends to act in their best interests.

[u/KazuyaProta → u/ohgodatextfield]

Land reform is one of those things that pop culture turn into a "fix everything" button that ignore how and why land distribution ever developed

[u/Unterfahrt]

I would argue that Catherine the Great is pretty close to an enlightened despot. She took power in a coup, she genuinely tried to do a lot for regular russians, set up an assembly of people from all ethnic groups to air their grievances, did her best to weaken serfdom etc. But she couldn't go too far because of the boyars who put her in power didn't want to lose their power.

She made many mistakes, but largely, her issues were structural and were unfixable without the support of the boyars

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/Unterfahrt]

Anyone's work you'd recommend looking at, or is this a more general recommendation?

[u/Unterfahrt → u/NormalProfessional24]

Robert Massie's book on her is a great overview of her life, and the Russian court throughout and her attempted reforms. It's more chronological than analytical though.

It's got a lot of stuff you'd find interesting on her coup, the causes, also her lovers and how each of them effectively stamped their influence on policy (specifically the Orlovs, Potemkin and a couple of others), the successes and failures of the Legislative Commission and the Nakaz (her enlightenment-based reform of legal principles, religious toleration, disapproval of the death penalty etc.), her letters with Diderot and Voltaire etc.

But it also has her brutal crackdowns after the Revolution in France, because of her fear of being overthrown.

[u/WolvesAreNeoliberal]

Also read up on Alexandru Cuza

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/WolvesAreNeoliberal]

Oh, from Romania? Tell me a little more - how did one of the founders of Romania try to change it?

[u/1EnTaroAdun1]

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44326303-metternich

You might find this interesting. Prince Metternich did, of course, exercise leadership some time after the height of the enlightened despots. 

But he was deeply marked by the Enlightenment, and grew up on its ideals, before being further shaped by the wars of revolution. 

Some argue that he failed, and in some senses he did. But this book goes in-depth into his mindset, his actions, and the wider situation in Europe. Highly, highly recommend. 

[u/oywiththepoodles96 → u/1EnTaroAdun1]

Fuck Klemens ‘ the genocide of the whole Greek population of the Ottoman Empire would not be a problem ‘ Metternich .

[u/1EnTaroAdun1 → u/oywiththepoodles96]

Metternich's fear was that if they intervened, Russia would probably have dismembered the Ottoman Empire and snatched up the choice prizes for itself.

Certainly the massacres of the Greeks were deplorable, but I do think intervening in that situation was a more complex issue than some would portray. 

Certainly, any European intervention would have drastically changed the face of Europe, and increased competition and tensions amongst the great powers, which was a difficult proposition in a community just recovering from a devastating decades-long series of wars

[u/oywiththepoodles96 → u/1EnTaroAdun1]

But eventually because the Greek people refused to back down ( Greece was in a constant state of was for almost 10 years and almost 25% of the population was killed ) the Great Powers did intervene . In the battle of Navarino , Corrington and De rigny pushed their orders to the limit and destroyed the Ottoman military thus opening up the road for Greek independence. The world did not collapse , Europe was not destabilised. Matternich and Austria simply lacked the moral imagination to envision a new world . They were small minded conservatives .

[u/1EnTaroAdun1 → u/oywiththepoodles96]

In the end, you are right, the world did not collapse. But that does not mean that their concerns were not genuine. It also does not mean that just because of this decision, they were small-minded conservatives. In fact, many historians now have re-evaluated Prince Metternich, and view him as a reformer at heart who was constrained by circumstances.

It was easier for Britain and France to intervene, after all, because they had all of central Europe between them and the Ottomans and Russia. Austria was right next door.

But we do see that over the course of the 19th century, Russian expansion into the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Far East did indeed begin to transform the balance of power in Europe, and certainly became a pressing concern for all the great powers. It may not have immediately exploded during the Greek War of Independence, but each Russian success did embolden them, and lead to further aggrandisement.

I would argue that in terms of the peace of Europe, maintaining the status quo of the Congress of Vienna probably would have been the most obvious and safest path to keep the peace, in the long run.

At any rate, what ended up happening was both not what Prince Metternich envisioned, and indeed led to several great conflagarations.

I really would urge you to read the book above.

I have more, if you like:

Mark Jarrett, The Congress of Vienna and Its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy After Napoleon (I.B.Tauris, 2014)

Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics: 1763-1848 (Clarendon Press, 1996)

Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna (Harper Perennial, 2008)

Beatrice de Graaf, Fighting Terror after Napoleon. How Europe Became Secure after 1815 (Cambridge, 2020).

Wolfram Siemann, and Daniel Steuer, Metternich: Strategist and Visionary (Harvard University Press, 2019).

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/1EnTaroAdun1]

Thanks a lot! Sounds very interesting, for the supposed architect of Reaction!

[u/1EnTaroAdun1 → u/NormalProfessional24]

That's one of the narratives the book sets out to refute, certainly!

https://naos-be.zcu.cz/server/api/core/bitstreams/2051d068-5360-46f5-8ef9-e0d476c1e7f7/content

you may also find this article interesting!

[u/_m1000]

I think usually critique is related to succession, that you may have a exceptionally talented monarch or dictator, but the system is unstable and 10 years later you might get a civil war or dumb/cruel inheritor.

Liberalism tends to tie the leader’s hands in a way which makes reforms harder, but also constrains bad rulers by enough that combined with the fact that terms aren’t unlimited they can be waited out

If you want a really granular look at what the decision making and outlook of a ruler like that looks like, I recommend Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs. He’s a modern personality but you’re not going to get that kind of insight into anyone more historical.

[u/LtHargrove → u/_m1000]

Reminds me of the transition between Spain's Carlos the 3rd and Carlos the 4th

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/_m1000]

Thanks for the rec! Why LKY specifically? Is he especially honest, or is it something else?

[u/_m1000 → u/NormalProfessional24]

A memoir is generally a chance to defend your record, in LKY’s memoirs you can basically read about how a person who exercised a lot of unilateral power to help their people thought about their actions. It helps that it’s definitely not ghost written, so you’re getting his real thoughts.

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/_m1000]

Ah, okay! I thought maybe you were suggesting it for honesty about failings or whatever. Still very helpful, thank you!

[u/DirectionMurky5526]

Isn't this just how the romanticists viewed Napoleon? You can probably take that as inspiration. The illuminati type group could be based on Napoleon's Marshals and the various people he put in power to rule his continental system.

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/DirectionMurky5526]

Ah, great rec! Is this beethoven and Hegel, or someone else you're referring to?

[u/DirectionMurky5526 → u/NormalProfessional24]

Hegel

[u/arist0geiton]

In real life, read Golo Mann's Wallenstein. How he failed is obvious.

[u/NormalProfessional24 → u/arist0geiton]

Like the mercenary leader?

[u/arist0geiton → u/NormalProfessional24]

Yes. He tried to create an economy within his dominions on his own, sort of a state which he controlled, created for war, but within the holy roman empire.