Augustus vs Simeon I the Great

This comparison reeks of Western bias. Augustus gets 92 for politics mostly because his system lasted and influenced Europe. But let’s talk about the blood cost: he slaughtered 300+ senators and knights in proscriptions, and his 'peace' (Pax Romana) was built on slavery and imperial extraction. Simeon I, on the other hand, built a Slavic-based empire that challenged Byzantine hegemony, promoted Cyrillic literacy, and forced tribute from Constantinople. His empire collapsed due to internal fractures, but that’s typical for medieval states—Augustus’s system only 'lasted' because Rome had more resources to bribe elites. The Eurocentric yardstick here undervalues Simeon’s cultural and military achievements. Rome’s legacy is not inherently superior.

Augustus’s political score of 92 is generous but defensible. Tacitus noted in the *Annals* that Augustus 'enticed everyone with the sweetness of repose,' subtly eroding republican liberty. Yet the Principate was a *de facto* monarchy with a *de jure* republican facade—clever, but not unprecedented. Simeon I’s claim to be 'Tsar of the Bulgarians and Romans' (basileus) was a direct challenge to Byzantine universalism. The Battle of Achelous (917) was a staggering victory, but Simeon’s failure to capitalize on it diplomatically shows a gap between military and political acumen. I’d argue Augustus’s institutional reforms—like the praetorian guard and provincial reorganization—had a deeper, longer impact on governance than Simeon’s Bulgarian Golden Age, which was brilliant but brittle.

这个评分体系有点怪。Augustus 的政治分92，但 Simeon I 的军事分才78？我说几个数字：Simeon在917年Achelous之战击溃了拜占庭主力，据说拜占庭阵亡数万，之后他迫使拜占庭纳贡，统治区域覆盖巴尔干大部。而Augustus的军事成就主要靠Agrippa，他本人没带过几次大战。如果按中国历史评分标准，比如汉高祖刘邦，政治分高但军事分也高（因为他亲自带兵平叛）。这里Simeon的军事分应该至少85以上。另外，Augustus的统治稳定性被高估了：他晚年继承人问题折腾很久，Tiberius上位后清洗不断。反观Simeon，他死后10年内帝国就分裂了，但那是继承制度问题，不是他个人政治能力的错。建议调整权重。

I’ve been reading Mary Beard’s *SPQR* and a book on medieval Bulgaria, and this comparison is tricky. Augustus was basically a political genius who sold dictatorship as freedom. But Simeon I? That guy was like a medieval Napoleon—he fought Byzantium to a standstill and even made them pay him tribute! The score says Simeon’s military is 78 and Augustus 72, but that feels low for both. Augustus won at Actium (31 BC) but that was Agrippa’s plan. Simeon won at Achelous (917 AD) and almost took Constantinople. If Simeon had actually taken the city, we’d be talking about him differently. Still, Augustus’s Pax Romana gave 200 years of relative peace, which is insane. Simeon’s empire collapsed fast, so maybe the political score is fair.

把Simeon I和Augustus比，其实有点像中国历史上宋太祖赵匡胤和唐太宗李世民？Augustus好比赵匡胤，都是‘改朝换代’但延续前朝制度（罗马共和→元首制，后周→宋），而且都靠部下打仗（Agrippa vs 曹彬）。Simeon I更接近李世民，都是亲自带兵、扩张疆域、文化繁荣（李世民的贞观之治 vs Simeon的保加利亚黄金时代）。但注意，中国史观里更看重‘统一’和‘长久’：Augustus统一了地中海世界，且罗马帝国延续数百年，所以政治分高合理。但Simeon只统一了巴尔干部分地区，且死后帝国就乱，这点确实不如。不过西方评分往往忽略Simeon推广西里尔字母的文化贡献，这相当于秦始皇‘书同文’的级别啊！如果算上这个，Simeon的影响力应该更高。