Agustin de Iturbide leads by 2.5 pts · 2 figures compared

Emperor · Modern

Emperor · Modern
Iturbide, a royalist general who had fought against the insurgents, was appointed to command the army against Vicente Guerrero. Instead of fighting, he negotiated with Guerrero and issued the Plan of Iguala on February 24, 1821, proposing independence, constitutional monarchy, and protection of the Catholic Church.
Iturbide's Army of the Three Guarantees entered Mexico City on September 27, 1821, ending the Mexican War of Independence. The next day, the Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire was signed. Iturbide became the head of a provisional government, effectively ruling Mexico.
Iturbide was crowned Emperor of Mexico on July 21, 1822, as Agust
Facing revolts led by Antonio L
Iturbide returned to Mexico in July 1824, unaware that Congress had declared him a traitor and outlaw. He was captured upon landing and executed by firing squad on July 19, 1824, in Padilla, Tamaulipas. His death ended any possibility of restoring the monarchy.
Gojong's government implemented the Gabo Reforms, a series of modernization measures including the abolition of slavery, reform of the civil service exam, and adoption of a solar calendar. These reforms aimed to strengthen Korea against foreign encroachment.
King Gojong proclaimed the Korean Empire, declaring himself Emperor Gwangmu. This was an attempt to assert Korea's sovereignty and independence from foreign influence, particularly China and Japan, and to modernize the state.
Gojong's government was forced to sign the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905, which made Korea a Japanese protectorate. This stripped Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty and paved the way for full annexation in 1910.
Gojong was forced to abdicate by the Japanese Resident-General, Ito Hirobumi, after he sent a secret envoy to the Hague Peace Conference to protest Japanese control. This led to the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907, which increased Japanese control over Korea.
Gojong died suddenly, with rumors of poisoning by Japanese authorities. His death sparked the March 1st Movement, a nationwide protest against Japanese rule, which became a pivotal event in the Korean independence movement.
Each figure is scored on 6 dimensions (0—100 scale) based on structured historical data: Military (10%), Political (20%), Influence (20%), Legacy (20%), Leadership (15%), Strategy (15%). The weighted total produces the final ranking.
Scores are computed from structured sub-indicators in the database. Scale factors adjust for era (Ancient ×0.85, Modern ×1.0) and civilization size (Eastern ×1.05, Other ×0.80) to account for differences in population and military scale.
Comparisons are limited to 2—3 figures to ensure readability and statistical meaningfulness.
±5 points per dimension — Sub-scores are derived from historical records with inherent uncertainty. Two figures within 5 points on a dimension should be considered roughly equivalent in that area.
±3 points overall — The weighted combination of 6 dimensions produces a total score with approximately ±3 points of uncertainty. Differences of less than 3 points are not statistically significant— the figures are effectively tied.
This ranking completely misses the colonial context. Gojong gets a 97 in politics? Sure, he played the diplomatic game, but his 'Empire' was a desperate last-ditch effort that even his own ministers saw as hollow. Iturbide at least unified a fractured Mexico under the Plan of Iguala—a concrete political achievement that actually held for a moment. And calling Gojong's influence 'shaping national identity' while he literally signed the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 under duress is revisionist fluff. The real story is that both were puppets of larger powers, but Iturbide's failure was his own, not forced by foreign guns. The scoring reeks of modern Korean nationalism dressed as objective history.
把高宗和伊图尔比德放一起比,本身就有点关公战秦琼。伊图尔比德更像是中国五代十国时的刘守光——靠武力仓促称帝,根基未稳,很快垮台。高宗则是晚清式的悲剧人物,他的政治操作其实类似光绪帝在戊戌变法中的挣扎,但四面受敌,最后被日本吞并。评分里政治分给到97,其实可以理解——高宗在那么恶劣的环境下还能维持朝鲜王国三十年,已经比中国许多末代皇帝强了。但军事分只给43?要知道他面对的是甲午战争后如日中天的日本陆军,换谁去都守不住。拿伊图尔比德那点镇压地方的战绩跟他比,不太公平。
这个评分系统有问题。总分67.4对65.4,差距只有2分,但各维度差距大得离谱。政治97对85,差了12分,但伊图尔比德至少建立了有效统治一年,高宗这边1897年才称帝,1905年就丧失了外交权,实际自主施政时间不到8年。我算了一下,如果按统治时间加权,伊图尔比德的政治得分应该更高。还有军事43对57.6,你告诉我为什么高宗低这么多?他1894年派遣袁世凯镇压东学党起义,虽然失败但至少行动了,伊图尔比德对付的只是地方游击队。这个军事分明显参考了西方标准——看重野战和征服,不重视防御和维持秩序。按中国史书的评价标准,高宗治下二十多年没大规模内乱,军事组织能力至少是中等偏上。