The history of Goryeo is often described as a journey through the era of aristocratic rule, followed by the violent waves of military dictatorships, ultimately confronting the immense challenge of the Mongol invasions. Among these, the Choe military regime wielded absolute power for approximately 60 years, dominating Goryeo. At the end of a blood-soaked struggle for power, the Choe family established unique governing bodies like the Jeongbang (Personnel Authority) and Seobang (Secretariat), completing a peculiar system that reigned above the monarchy itself. However, precisely when they enjoyed their zenith of power, Goryeo faced a cataclysmic historical event: the invasions of the Mongol Empire that swept across Eurasia. Amidst this gory power struggle and desperate resistance against the Mongols, who truly emerged as the victor?

Paradoxically, the Choe regime proved adept at consolidating its power amidst national crisis. Choe Chung-heon deposed King Myeongjong and enthroned King Sinjong, replacing four monarchs and laying the foundation for the military regime. His son, Choe U, spearheaded the resistance against the Mongols by relocating the capital to Ganghwa Island. "Goryeosa" (History of Goryeo) and "Goryeosajeoryo" (Essentials of the History of Goryeo) meticulously record the brutal plundering by Mongol forces and the immense suffering of the Goryeo populace. Moving the capital to Ganghwa was a strategic choice to overcome Goryeo's vulnerability to Mongol cavalry tactics, but simultaneously, it was a means for the Choe regime's core power and ruling class to safely endure. Isolated on an island, completely detached from the lives of the suffering people on the mainland, they focused on maintaining their own power.

The anti-Mongol struggle after the relocation to Ganghwa vividly illustrates the duality of the Choe regime. On one hand, they organized resistance forces like the Sambyeolcho and carved the Tripitaka Koreana, igniting national pride and the will to fight. This undoubtedly served as a spiritual rallying point for a nation in crisis. Yet, on the other hand, the Choe regime's resistance was close to a final desperate effort to preserve their *own* power. While the people on the mainland groaned under the merciless devastation of the Mongol army, luxurious living continued on Ganghwa Island, and resources and manpower painstakingly accumulated from the common people were sometimes used for the Choe regime's private purposes. Their resistance was strongly driven by the desire to prolong their own system of dominance rather than the long-term well-being of the entire nation.

Ultimately, the Choe regime collapsed after a prolonged struggle with the Mongols, and Goryeo was relegated to a son-in-law nation (부마국, a vassal state) under Yuan interference. So, who can truly be called the victor in this bloody century? The Choe family lost power and vanished into history, and the Goryeo dynasty, though it persisted, lost its autonomy. The Mongols, while not directly governing the peninsula, exerted powerful influence. Perhaps there were no true 'winners' during this period. However, this horrific era left deep scars on the people of the Korean peninsula, yet simultaneously served as an opportunity to solidify the will to resist external invasion and strengthen national identity. As seen in the final stand of the Sambyeolcho, the persistent resistance of the common people, transcending the interests of the ruling class, laid the foundation for the later establishment of Joseon and its spirit of independence.

What can we learn today? Through the history of Goryeo's military regime, we witness the immense price a society pays when those at the pinnacle of power prioritize personal safety and group interests over the survival of the entire nation. Is it not a solemn lesson that true victory is not found in the immediate acquisition of power or the temporary success of resistance, but rather in the struggle for the sustainable development and a better future for the community? The tragedy of Goryeo continues to pose profound questions about the nature of leadership and the role of the state even today.