Hi there, First time asking a question , looking for historical figures, whom:
So there, I imagine not many of those who fail to topple an oppressive regime end up making the history books, but im interested in reading about some of the people that tried to overthrow a corrupt government or at least lead the people in a quest for freedom, get to the point of fighting the power, and either die before its finished or have the revolution fizzle.
Bonus category : Lead a benevolent revolution, get usurped by hawkish supporters, revolution succeeds to supplant government with an even worse alternative, because it's been co-opted by worse people than the government consisted of. (Eg. French revolution, orange revolution in ukraine)
Thanks so much! I imagine we're all tired of hearing about ghandi and fidel castro by now.
I think the term "morally corrupt" is a little tricky here because that's so subjective. Chances are if a rebellion breaks out, those who are rebelling are deeming their oppressors to be morally bankrupt.
Anyway, off the top of my head, Spartacus may be a good choice here, helping to lead the slave rebellion in the Third Servile War. Additionally, you may be interested in looking at the failed revolutions that spread through Europe and parts of Latin America in 1848.
These were seen as liberal rebellions, but were ultimately squashed in most areas (with some notable victories being the abolition of serfdom in Austria and Hungary and the end of a few monarchies, mainly in France and Denmark), despite the fact that about 50 countries were affected by the wave of revolutionary spirit.
Also, you could look at Lenin and Chernov in the Revolution of 1905, which was a labor-based revolution. Tsar Nicholas II ultimately retained power for the time being, but the revolution had long lasting effects.
As for your bonus category, this is again really dependent upon what your point of view is, but you could look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Revolution didn't start out as an Islamist revolution (though obviously there were elements of that from the get go) but rather as a protest against the Shah and the Pahlavi Dynasty. However, the end result was that there was a vacuum of power and the Ayatollah was able to consolidate power and emerged as the most viable leader, while also representing the polar opposite of the Shah. Depending on who you ask, you could make the case that this was a worse alternative for many people living in Iran.
Another one that you could look at is King Faisal. While I don't think Faisal is really a "failed" revolutionary, he is an incomplete revolutionary. During the Arab Revolt, which was championed by T.E. Lawrence, the promise from the British Empire was that if the Arabs revolted against the Ottomans in the Hejaz and elsewhere in the Middle East, they'd be granted independence. One of Lawrence's ultimate goals by which was nearly obsessed, was retaking Damascus in the name of the Arabs, deposing the Turks. Lawrence and Faisal were able to accomplish this in 1918, but the Arabs quickly fractured, with various tribes declaring themselves the rightful rulers. However, the British ultimately had no intention of granting independence to the Arabs anyway, evidenced by the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement signed with the French and Russians in 1916. Faisal, who was supposed to be the "King of the Arabs", ended up as only the "king" of Syria, but was very quickly deposed after France got Syria at the San Remo Conference, which started a short-lived war.
The British then decided Faisal would be a good leader in British-controlled Iraq, an area that Faisal had little to do with during the Arab Revolt and wasn't well known. So, while Faisal did end up Iraq, he and the rest of the Arabs were largely duped by the Europeans, as a unified Arabia never came close to fruition.