Gojong of Korea vs Yelu Abaoji

Okay, so maybe I’m reading too much into this, but Gojong’s leadership score at 85 vs Abaoji’s 80 feels like it’s compensating for his low military score. I just finished that PBS documentary on the Korean Empire, and Gojong was basically playing a 4D chess game with Russia, Japan, and China. He sent a secret mission to the Hague in 1907—that’s like sending your prime minister to the UN behind enemy lines! But Abaoji… man, that guy created an entire alphabet out of nowhere for the Khitan language. That’s like if Genghis Khan decided to invent a Unicode system for Mongolia. Both are impressive, but I feel like Gojong’s story is more relevant today because it’s about a leader trying to keep his country independent in a globalized world, while Abaoji is more of a founder figure. The scores look fair to me though—Abiaji’s military edge is real.

Are you kidding me? Gojong only gets a 68.3 total? That’s a travesty! A man who single-handedly kept Korea from being swallowed by Japan for over a decade, who modernized the military (yeah, it didn’t save him, but he tried!), and who literally took on the big three powers—Russia, China, Japan—at once. He was the ultimate underdog! Meanwhile, Yelu Abaoji is just another steppe warlord who got lucky with good generals and a divided China. Yeah, he unified the Khitans and made a script—big deal. Gojong had to deal with the Japanese fleet, the Boxer Rebellion spillover, and a court full of traitors. His political score of 85 is STILL too low. I’d give him at least 92. Abaoji’s 90? Should be 75, max. The only reason Abaoji scores higher is because he won battles. But Gojong’s battle was for survival itself, and he fought it with diplomacy and guts. This is a case of ‘history is written by the victors’—and the victors are Japanese historians who want to paint him as weak. Rubbish!

Let’s look at the raw military numbers: Abaoji’s score of 73.3 vs Gojong’s 59.7. That difference of 13.6 points is justified when you examine their actual campaigns. Abaoji led the Khitan cavalry in the conquest of 16 prefectures in northern China (e.g., the Youzhou campaign of 917-918), where he used a combined-arms approach—horse archers for mobility and Han Chinese infantry for sieges. His army numbered around 100,000 at its peak, and he successfully integrated Chinese siege engineers. Gojong, by contrast, never fought a single battle. His military reforms (the 1898 Military Reform Law) focused on equipment modernization—repeating rifles, Maxim guns—but the Korean army had only 8,000 men when the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 reduced them further. In the 1907 disbandment, the Korean army resisted with just 1,300 soldiers in the Battle of Namdaemun, which lasted 2 days. That’s a heroic last stand, but not a campaign. Abaoji’s score should actually be higher on the military dimension—his system of tribal levies was a true military innovation, while Gojong’s score is inflated by sympathy for his resistance. For pure military achievement, Abaoji deserves at least 85.

这个比较让我想起中国历史上的光绪帝与成吉思汗。Gojong和光绪都是末代君主，试图在列强压力下改革却以失败告终；而Abaoji更像是成吉思汗的前辈，都是草原部落统一者。但评分似乎低估了Gojong的政治智慧：他在1897年称帝，建立大韩帝国，试图用“皇帝”头衔提升国际地位，这和中国晚清的光绪帝在戊戌变法中的努力何其相似？但光绪的评分如果放在这个系统里，可能更低。反过来，Abaoji的军事成就被过度放大了：他征服的只是幽云十六州的一部分，而非全中国。西方历史学者容易把游牧民族的所有征服都归为“军事天才”，却忽略了他们往往在后勤和战略上依赖汉人谋士。比如Abaoji的汉人谋臣韩延徽，才是他成功的真正推手。

这个评分体系有点意思，但我有几个疑问。首先，政治分：Gojong 85分 vs Abaoji 90分。Abaoji 创立了南北面官制，这确实是双轨制管理的创新，但他统治时期屡次发生部落叛乱，比如926年耶律倍的反叛。Gojong在1897年建立大韩帝国，推行光武改革，虽然最终失败，但他在列强夹缝中维持了主权22年。我认为实际政治分应该更接近。其次，影响力：Gojong 75.7分 vs Abaoji 72.3分。Abaoji的契丹文字影响了后来的女真文和西夏文，而Gojong的密使活动（比如海牙密使事件）只是短期轰动。从文明辐射角度看，Abaoji的影响更深远，得分应该反超。最后，总分68.3 vs 79.3，差11分，但Gojong的军事分59.7实在拉低太多——他改革了军队但从未实战，不能和征服者直接比。这个评分体系对和平时期的君主不利。