King Taejo of Goryeo vs Napoleon Bonaparte

Okay, so Napoleon gets a 94 in military and Taejo only 89? That feels a bit unfair. I was watching a documentary on the Goryeo unification, and Taejo basically pulled off a three-way civil war with way fewer resources than Napoleon had. Plus, Napoleon lost in the end—twice. Taejo’s dynasty lasted 500 years. That’s like saying a sprinter who wins the race but trips at the finish line is better than a marathon runner who finishes steady. Also, the political score gap (75 vs 68) seems too small given that Taejo actually kept his throne and founded a stable government. Just my two cents from reading a few Osprey books.

The military score difference is justified when you look at operational scale. Napoleon commanded over 600,000 men for the invasion of Russia, with corps-level maneuver and combined arms coordination that Taejo never attempted. Taejo’s largest battles, like the siege of Naju, involved maybe 30,000-50,000 troops—impressive for 10th-century Korea, but tactically simpler. However, I’d argue the legacy gap is overstated. Napoleon’s Corps system and use of artillery are still taught at Sandhurst; Taejo’s guerrilla campaigns and naval blockades against Later Baekje are obscure. The real mis-scoring is political: Taejo’s merger of rival elite families through marriage alliances was Machiavellian brilliance, yet he gets a 68. That’s a miss.

拿拿破仑跟高丽太祖比，西方中心主义的评分又来了。拿破仑94分军事，但看看他的对手：反法同盟各怀鬼胎，跟中国战国时期的合纵连横没法比。Taejo面对的后三国时代，类似于中国的三国归晋，但他在10世纪就完成了统一，而且没有像拿破仑那样耗尽国库。更有意思的是，Taejo的“纳土归降”政策，跟宋太祖赵匡胤的杯酒释兵权异曲同工，但早了20年。政治分给Taejo68分太低了，他建立的五部官制和科举改良，为高丽500年基业打下基础。拿破仑的滑铁卢战役如果放在东亚语境，就是一场失败的远征而已。

这个评分体系明显有偏差。拿破仑军事94分，但Taejo只有89分？看看控制变量：拿破仑的对手是分裂的欧洲封建国家，而Taejo面对的是统一战争中的三国混战。拿破仑的战役规模确实大，但Taejo在10世纪统一朝鲜半岛的难度不亚于拿破仑征服欧洲——后勤线更长、地形更复杂。另外，政治分给拿破仑75分太高了，他的法典确实好，但最终流放厄尔巴岛和圣赫勒拿岛；Taejo建立的王朝延续500年，政治稳定性远胜拿破仑。我算了一下，如果加权稳定性，Taejo总分应该高于拿破仑。