Charles of Anjou vs Wanyan Aguda

The scoring here largely aligns with the consensus among specialists, but I would push back on the Influence gap. Charles of Anjou may have been a transient figure in Sicily, but his victory at Tagliacozzo in 1268 effectively ended the Hohenstaufen dynasty, reshaping papal-imperial relations for decades. As Saba Malaspina wrote, Charles 'made the papacy tremble'—a fear that outlasted his reign. Aguda's influence, while profound in East Asia, was more localized: the Jin Dynasty never projected power beyond the steppe and northern Song. The Mongol conquest of Jin in 1234, just a century after Aguda's death, shows his empire's fragility. I'd argue Charles's influence on European power structures deserves at least a 72.

The military scores are too close for my taste—91 vs 90? Aguda's campaign against the Liao was a masterpiece of operational mobility: at the Battle of Hubudagang in 1115, he used feigned retreats to draw out Liao cavalry, then enveloped them with Jurchen heavy horse. That's textbook combined arms on the steppe. Charles's victory at Benevento in 1266 was more a function of superior Swiss crossbowmen neutralizing Manfred's German knights—a tactical adaptation, not strategic genius. Aguda built an entire empire from scratch with fewer than 10,000 Jurchen warriors; Charles inherited papal backing and French nobles. Aguda should be 94, Charles 86. The political gap is about right, though.

Okay, so I've been reading about these two and I think the Influence score for Charles is kinda low. Sure, Aguda founded the Jin Dynasty and that's huge for Chinese history, but Charles of Anjou basically redrew the map of medieval Europe. I watched this doc on the Sicilian Vespers and it said Charles's rule accidentally triggered the War of the Sicilian Vespers that lasted 20 years and involved Aragon, France, and the Pope. That's like the Game of Thrones of the 13th century! Meanwhile, Aguda's influence was mostly contained to northern China. I'd put Charles at 80 for Influence—Aguda is still the better overall leader, but not by this much.

Aguda的分打高了。你们西方史圈子的评分标准总爱把王朝创始人的“统一部落”当成政治天才，但跟同时代的赵匡胤比呢？赵匡胤杯酒释兵权、削藩镇、建文官体系，Aguda的猛安谋克制到金熙宗时就玩不下去了，得靠汉化补丁。Charles of Anjou在欧洲搅动的格局更复杂——他参加第八次十字军东征、跟拜占庭米海尔八世抢君士坦丁堡，影响力辐射地中海两岸。Aguda的辽金博弈顶多是东亚局域网，Charles是国际冲突。我觉着Charles Inf至少该给75，Aguda 80就行了。

总分差5.4分，但政治维度Aguda竟然高出近13分，这我有点异议。Charles of Anjou统治西西里固然征税重、搞出西西里晚祷，但别忘了Aguda灭辽后对契丹遗民的高压政策——耶律大石西逃建立西辽，这就说明他的整合并不完美。而且Charles在1282年失去西西里岛后，那不勒斯王国还撑了将近两百年，而Aguda的金朝从1234年就亡于蒙古-南宋联军了。政治稳定性上，Aguda的82.2是不是有点虚高？我觉得至少该拉平到75对75才合理。