Was Chiang Kai-Shek the best choice as a leader of the Kuomintang

Probably not, but the KMT was incredibly corrupt and inefficient regardless and full of petty rivalries and leadership struggles. I'm amazed that it still exists today.

>>2593906
I think someone better was needed. A better general able to crush the warlord menace for good and end banditry, a better administrator and more effective at getting infrastructure improvements and other stuff, someone who'd crack down on corruption that rotted the government and parties from within. In short China needed a Napoleon who could have forged a new nation.

>>2594028
Honeslty, crushing the Warlordism was more of an issue of administration than it was of generalship. Chiang smashed his share of warlords, the problem was that they kept springing back up whenever his army left the area. The KMT in general didn't seem to have the administrative capacity to run all of China, so something is going to fill that vacuum. They needed a Numa, not necessarily a Napoleon.

>>2594072
> Numa
who's this

>not necessarily a Napoleon.
Napoleon was a solid administrator though. he combined good governance/efficiency with military victory.

> The KMT in general didn't seem to have the administrative capacity to run all of China
Well this begs the question of WHY the KMT lacked such an administrative capacity. Was it for lack of bureaucrats? Perhaps he should have brought in foreigners to help train bureacrats in different regions. It might have been unpopular but Chiang did a lot of unpopular stuff and a lot of westerners had his ear anyway. Yuan Shikai also had a lot of American advisers as well.

Or was this administrative failure a symptom of corruption aka bad administrative practices and other things lack of national police force, lack of communications such as railroad and telegraph? Local elites were also a major problem because they tended to control local politics and pursue their own economic and political interests.

>>2594115

>who's this
A (probably mythical) king of Rome who supposedly set up the administration and the laws that the City and later Republic of Rome went by. He's notable in classical history because he's a celebrated king who didn't fight any wars whatsoever, he just focused on things like administration and honoring the gods.

>Napoleon was a solid administrator though. he combined good governance/efficiency with military victory.
Oh, to be sure, and I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't. But the KMT didn't lack for force or even ability to throw it around in the 1920s china. I mean, a Napoleon would be great, but it's kind of overkill.

>Well this begs the question of WHY the KMT lacked such an administrative capacity.
I honestly don't have an answer to that one, and I've at least amateurishly studied the issue for some time.

>
Or was this administrative failure a symptom of corruption aka bad administrative practices and other things lack of national police force, lack of communications such as railroad and telegraph? Local elites were also a major problem because they tended to control local politics and pursue their own economic and political interests.
I mean, you get something like a chicken and an egg problem with questions like this. Yes, local elites dominated things and even had their own armies, but generally, even well before where KMT China was technologically, strong and efficient central governments clamped down on that kind of shit. The Commies did a lot of things terribly badly and inefficiently, but they managed to destroy regionalism to a large extent on more or less the same technological footing as the KMT. Yes, they didn't have a national police force, but I have the feeling that if they tried, it would go the same way as the army, you'd suddenly have dozens of separate sub-groups in between them, nobody really in charge ,and nobody having any real idea how it works.

>>2593906
He was trash and destroyed ROC without obvious reasons.

>>2594150
I appreciate the answer