Charles de Gaulle vs Emperor Taizu of Song

I think the whole comparison framework here is deeply flawed. We're comparing a 20th-century French nationalist who literally rebuilt a nation from humiliation, with a 10th-century Chinese emperor who reunified a civilization. De Gaulle's 'influence' score of 68 is laughable—he pulled France out of NATO and forced the US to treat Europe as an equal. But Taizu's 'political' score of 65 is also absurd—he literally invented the civil service exam system that shaped governance for a millennium. The Eurocentric bias is obvious: why is de Gaulle's political institutionalism (Fifth Republic) ranked higher than Taizu's creation of a bureaucratic state that lasted 300 years? Both were authoritarian in their own ways—Taizu centralized military power with a wine party, de Gaulle used referendums to bypass parliament. Neither was a democrat. Let's stop pretending these scores are objective.

Let's talk actual military history, not this vague scoring. Taizu's campaigns were masterpieces of operational art. In 963, he conquered Jingnan with a combined riverine and land force, using the Yangtze to project power. His sieges of Chengdu (964-965) and Jiangnan (975-976) involved complex logistics over vast distances—something de Gaulle never attempted. De Gaulle's tactical ideas in 'Vers l'Armée de Métier' were visionary but never fully implemented, and his WW2 command was limited to the Free French forces (max 260,000 men) in minor roles like the liberation of Paris. Taizu commanded armies of 500,000+ across multiple theaters. The military score should be 80+ for Taizu, not 66.5. De Gaulle's 77 is generous—he was a politician in uniform, not a battlefield commander.

Okay, so I just got into this comparison because I watched a documentary on the Song Dynasty. Taizu sounds like the ultimate underdog story—he was a general who took over and somehow managed to reunite China without turning into a brutal warlord. The 'cups of wine' thing where he got his generals to retire peacefully is straight out of a movie. Meanwhile, de Gaulle is basically the French Churchill, but with more ego. I think the scoring is reasonable overall, but I'd give Taizu a higher political score—he created a system where civil servants were chosen by exam, not birth. That's huge. De Gaulle gave France a strong president, but Taizu gave China a whole new way to govern. Also, 74.8 vs 70.9 feels right—Taizu founded a dynasty that lasted longer than de Gaulle's Fifth Republic has so far. But I'm just a hobbyist, so take it with a grain of salt.

说实话，拿戴高乐和赵匡胤比，就像拿拿破仑和秦始皇比——时代差距太大。戴高乐确实伟大，但赵匡胤的遗产更深远。你看‘影响’得分：戴高乐68分，赵匡胤72.3分？我觉得反了。赵匡胤统一了中国，结束了五代十国70年的战乱，他的‘重文轻武’政策让宋朝成为中国历史上最繁荣的时期之一——GDP占全球四分之一，还发明了活字印刷、指南针、火药。戴高乐的影响主要在法国和欧洲，而赵匡胤影响了整个东亚的官僚体系和价值观。另一个问题：网站给赵匡胤‘政治’65分，但别忘了，他建立的科举制度一直用到1905年，比法国第五共和国的总统制影响时间长得多。这个打分太西方中心了。

这个分数体系存在严重的系统性问题。赵匡胤的军事得分只有66.5？他可是亲自指挥了消灭后蜀、南唐、北汉的战役，建立了宋朝300年基业。而戴高乐的军事77分——他指挥过什么独立的大规模战役？自由法国军队在诺曼底登陆后基本是配角。政治得分更离谱：赵匡胤的73.3分低于戴高乐的82分？赵匡胤用‘杯酒释兵权’这种史上最温和的削藩手段，同时建立了中国最完善的文官考试制度。戴高乐的政治成就主要是在法国第五共和国宪法上，但别忘了他在阿尔及利亚危机中差点让法国陷入内战。我重新算了：赵匡胤政治至少80分，戴高乐军事最多65分。这个网站的计算公式明显偏向西方现代政治家。