西方是从什么时候开始变得比东方更强大的？
When did the West become more powerful than the East?
译文简介
可能在此很久以前就超过了
在阿迪亚尔战役中，大约几百名法国人和他们的本土士兵击败了一支一万人的印度军队
正文翻译
When did the West become more powerful than the East?
西方是从什么时候开始变得比东方更强大了的？
西方是从什么时候开始变得比东方更强大了的？
So after the fall of Rome, Europe was kind of lagging behind compared to contemporary civilizations in Asia like the Caliphates of Arabia and empires in China, right? And that went on for a while, but in the 19th century there are European armies colonizing everywhere they can reach with little trouble. So the West''s military level must have skipped over that of the East at some point, but when was that specifically? And what would''ve been the most proximate factors that lead to it?
在罗马沦陷后，欧洲与亚洲的当代文明相比有点落后，比如阿拉伯的哈里发和中国的帝国，对吗？这种情况持续了一段时间，但在19世纪，欧洲军队在他们可以到达的任何地方殖民，几乎没有遇上任何麻烦。因此，西方的军事水平肯定在某个时候超过了东方，但具体是什么时候？最相关的因素又是什么？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
在罗马沦陷后，欧洲与亚洲的当代文明相比有点落后，比如阿拉伯的哈里发和中国的帝国，对吗？这种情况持续了一段时间，但在19世纪，欧洲军队在他们可以到达的任何地方殖民，几乎没有遇上任何麻烦。因此，西方的军事水平肯定在某个时候超过了东方，但具体是什么时候？最相关的因素又是什么？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
图
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
Probably during the industrial revolution.
可能是在工业革命期间。
Probably long before
At the Battle of Adyar about a few hundred French and their native soldiers routed an Indian army of 10,000
I think a better place to start would be whenever Ottoman armies started losing regularly to Western armies
可能在此很久以前就超过了
在阿迪亚尔战役中，大约几百名法国人和他们的本土士兵击败了一支一万人的印度军队
我认为一个显著的标志是是每当奥斯曼帝国军队开始经常输给西方军队的时候
army of 10,000
People regularly exaggerated the size of enemy forces.
I think a better place to start would be whenever Ottoman armies started losing regularly to Western armies
That would be the industrial revolution....
“1万人...”
人们经常会夸大敌军的规模。
“奥斯曼帝国军队...”
那就是工业革命的时候...
People regularly exaggerated the size of enemy forces.
Seems like a reasonable estimate, based on the average of Indian armies at the time
That would be the industrial revolution....
That would, in fact be, prior to the industrial revolution. Turks lost to Austrians and Russians long before either were industrialized, and while both were clearly not on the same level as Britain and France
The West surged ahead before the revolution itself. Country sized chunks of India, Indonesia etc were conquered before the Industrial Revolution proper.
根据当时印度军队的平均水平，这似乎是一个合理的估计
这实际上是在工业革命之前。土耳其人早在工业化之前就输给了奥地利人和俄罗斯人，而这两者显然不在与英国和法国的同一水平上。
I would read Kenneth Pomeranz''s book The Great Divergence. Pomeranz makes the compelling argument that it was the "western" powers'' initial and then sustained exploitation of the resources found in the Americas that powered their rise to supremacy over the "east."
我会建议你读肯尼斯·波美兰兹的书《大分流》。波美兰兹提出了一个令人信服的论点，即正是“西方”大国最初并随后持续地开发了在美洲发现的资源，推动了它们的崛起，使之超过了“东方。”
that doesnt really tell whole story, central europe and Italy was on similar level as colonizers without colonies, similarly France in 16th century(didnt really have colonies) rivaled Spains power at their peak
colonialism is certainly a factor but not the only one
这并不能完全说明问题，中欧和意大利没有殖民地但水平和他们相似，同样，16世纪的法国（没有真正的殖民地）能与巅峰西班牙的实力相媲美
Dan Carlin talks about this on HHHistory and he talks about the Mongol empire setting the east back by annihilating all the eastern powers and technology hubs. The west emerges relatively unscathed and passes islam because Baghdad was leveled etc.
Generalizing but very interesting take.
丹·卡林在“硬核历史”上谈到了这一点，他谈到了蒙古帝国通过消灭所有东方大国和技术中心使东方倒退。西方国家相对毫发无损，并且因为巴格达被夷为平地等原因而一举超越伊斯兰文明。
这是概括性很强但非常有趣的观点。
oh that''s a nice approach
哦，这是个不错的观点
The west emerges relatively unscathed
The Black Death: "Hello"
“西方国家相对毫发无损”
黑死病：“哈喽？”
Yes, and Dan Carlins Hardcore History episode touches on the plague and how that loosened the grip of the church and he draws a direct correlation to the reformation because of how many clergy die in the plague and how young the replacements are.
Was very interesting.
是的，丹·卡林硬核历史的一集里也讲述了瘟疫，以及这如何松开了教会的控制，认为瘟疫与宗教改革有直接相关，因为有非常多的神职人员死于瘟疫，替代者又都很年轻。
Different powers at different time. For seafaring and navigation, it was in the 1500s, when European fleets could go around the world while Eastern fleets focused on trade in the Sea of Japan, China Sea, Indian Ocean, and Java Sea. The Dutch East India Company realized that this trade within the East could actually be very profitable, and became one of the richest companies in history by building shipyards in the East and trading among the east (and using the profits to buy spices and other goods to take back to Europe.
On land, the Mughal Empire and the Chinese (and Japanese) were still very powerful; for example Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb crushed the British East India Company in a short war that led to an apology, prostration before the throne, and payment of a large indemnity.
在不同的时间拥有不同的力量。对于航海和航行，大约是在1500年代，欧洲船队就已经可以环游世界，而东方船队则专注于日本海，中国海，印度洋和爪哇海的贸易。 荷兰东印度公司意识到，这种在东方的贸易实际上可能是非常有利可图的，于是通过在东方建造造船厂和在东方进行贸易，成为历史上最富有的公司之一（利用利润购买香料和其他商品带回欧洲）。
在陆地上，莫卧儿帝国和中国人（还有日本人）仍然非常强大。例如，莫卧儿皇帝奥朗则布在一场短暂的战争中击溃了英国东印度公司，导致英国进行道歉，在其王位前俯首称臣，并支付大量赔款。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Japan had stagnated since 1600, when it drove out the foreigners and limited foreign trade to Nagasaki with the Dutch; in the 1850s the US forced them to open to trade, which led to significant internal reforms that put them at the peer level of the West not long after.
The main factors were new developments in transport and artillery, accelerated by the industrial revolution, and the desires of international trade entities to open markets in these countries that was backed by national and nationalist sentiment.
但随后内部的衰败困扰着莫卧儿和中国人；一系列内战打断了莫卧儿的权力，德里被马拉塔斯征服（然后被阿富汗军阀取代），到了1800年，英国东印度公司已经是印度最强大的一支部队。中国用了更长的时间才崩溃，但两次鸦片战争表明中国在保护其港口和航运方面无能为力，在大规模破坏性的太平天国叛乱（杀害了1000万至3000万人）之后，中国在19世纪60年代后期已成为一个破碎的大国。
自从1600年驱逐外国人并限制与荷兰人到长崎的的对外贸易以来，日本就一直停滞不前。在1850年代，美国迫使他们开放贸易，这导致了日本重大的内部改革，不久之后，他们就已经可以与西方同行相提并论。
主要因素是工业革命加速了运输和火炮方面的新发展，以及国际贸易实体希望在这些得到了民族主义情绪的支持国家开放市场。
example Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb crushed the British East India Company in a short war that led to an apology, prostration before the throne, and payment of a large indemnity.
It is highly misleading to call the company''s refusal to pay taxes a "short war" when it barely involved maybe a few hundred company officials at most, although clearly the situation wasn''t as bad as 50 years later when about those numbers routed (technically) Mughal armies of tens of thousands
The Mughals at their best couldn''t oust the Safavids, who were at best the equal of the Ottomans, who were not the equal of Britain or France by the early 18th c. The Mughals couldn''t even oust the Portuguese from their holdings
Clearly wherever the split off occurred between the Islamic Powers and Western Powers, it was a long before the reign of Aurangzeb
“莫卧儿帝国皇帝奥朗则布在一场短暂的战争中击败了英国......”
将公司最多涉及到几百名官员拒绝纳税的行为称为“短期战争”是极具误导性的，虽然当时莫卧儿的情况显然没有50年后那么糟，那时同样是数百人，就（在技术上）击败了数万名莫卧儿军队。
莫卧儿人在他们最好的情况下都不能驱逐萨法维的军队（注：波斯王朝），后者充其量等于18世纪的奥斯曼人，而奥斯曼在18世纪初已不是和英国或法国平级的对手。
莫卧儿甚至不能将葡萄牙人从他们的地产中驱逐出去。显然，无论伊斯兰列强和西方列强之间的分裂发生在哪里，都是在里奥朗则布统治之前很长的一段时间内。
The Company always used loads of local troops and local allies; the Battle of Plassey was won because the British made a treaty with one of the major generals of the Nawab of Bengal (Mir Jaffar) that if they won, Jaffar would get the throne.
The Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, was young (24) and had just received the throne a year before. He had only a little military experience. He made many changes in the court of Bengal, which sparked all kinds of intrigues and conspiracies against him. He had one general that was adequate and loyal, but that general was killed leading a cavalry attack. A halfway competent leader would have crushed Clive at Plassey (even with the betrayal of Mir Jaffar), but Siraj panicked and ran away.
If the other side had a general like Aurangzeb at Plassey, it would have been very different.
英国东印度公司总是使用大量的当地部队和当地盟友；普拉西战役英国获胜，是因为英国人与对手孟加拉纳瓦布的主要将领之一贾法尔签订了一项秘密条约：如果他帮助英国取胜，英国就帮贾法尔取得王位。孟加拉的领主西拉杰·乌德·达乌拉 很年轻（24岁），一年前刚刚获得王位。他只有有限的军事经验。他对孟加拉的宫廷做了许多改变，这引发了针对他的各种阴谋。他有一位对他足够忠诚的将军，但这位将军在一次骑兵攻击中被杀。这场战斗孟加拉方面只要是稍微称职一点的人来领导，都会在普拉西（即使贾法尔依然背叛）把克莱夫撕个粉碎，但西拉杰惊慌失措地逃跑了。
如果对方在普拉西有一个像奥朗则布这样的将领，那结局就完全不同了。
（注：普拉西战役，发生于1757年6月23日，是英国东印度公司与印度的孟加拉王公的战争，而孟加拉王公西拉杰·乌德·达乌拉有法国为其支持者。）
The point being that the English were not using local levies of any significant number when Aurangzeb attacked them. It''s like someone attacking an American embassy or more accurately an Apple factory and claiming they "defeated the Americans'' in a ''war'' (when it takes them years to even take that one factory)
Plassey is overblown, not least because of Buxar which followed shortly after, where the Brits again won convincingly against the combined forces of 3 Indian rulers including the titular Mughal Emperor, against overwhelming odds.
问题是，当奥朗则布袭击英格兰人时，英国并未使用任何数量可观的地方军队。就像有人攻击美国大使馆或更准确地说是苹果工厂，就声称他们在一场“战争”中击败了美国人（当时，他们甚至花了数年时间才攻下那家工厂）
普拉西战役的重要性被夸大了，尤其是因为紧随其后就是布克萨尔战役，英国人再次以令人难以置信的优势击败了包括名义上的莫卧儿皇帝在内的3个印度统治者联合起来的力量。
To talk about any competent Bengal Nawab stopping the British invasion is to ignore how Siraj''s much more powerful predecessors were literally paying the Marathas to stay away to the extent of signing away entire provinces after losses against them, which was nowhere near as bad as how the Nizam of Hyderabad was performing against them at the same time, and how useless both Hyderabad and the Carnatic were against the English or the French in the Carnatic Wars 10 years before Plassey.
同样，正如我上面已经提到的，莫卧儿人甚至无法驱逐葡萄牙人。他们无法将波斯人赶出坎大哈。同一时间，波斯人在对奥斯曼帝国的战争中丢失了领土，而奥斯曼帝国却屡屡遭受奥地利和俄罗斯的侵害，而这两个国家和当时的英国和法国甚至没有处于同一水平。
说只要换一个稍微能胜任的孟加拉大公就能制止英国的入侵，就是无视西拉杰之前更强大的前任是如何从字面上输给马拉塔联盟（印度本土政权）然后签署条约卖了整个省份的，隔壁的海得拉巴的尼扎姆在同一时间面对马拉塔时的表现一样很糟糕，更不用提海得拉巴和卡尔纳蒂克人在普拉西战役前10年的卡尔纳蒂克战争中对英国或法国人的表现是多么无能了。
Simply put Europeans were clearly better in open battle than Indian (or any ''Eastern'') armies by the 18th c, (and their navies long before that) and the British were the pre eminent global power already by the time Plassey rolled around. Having a general like Aurangzeb would arguably have made little difference considering some of the lopsided victories of European armies and territories conquered, long before the Plassey conspiracy
倒是英国人在与马拉塔联盟甚至海德·阿里的交锋中的表现要比孟加拉大公或海得拉巴好得多，尽管与他们本土的军队相比，英国军队的人数仍然很少。
简而言之，到18世纪时，欧洲人在公开的战争中显然比印度（或任何“东方”）军队要好（以及很早以前的海军），而在普拉西战役发生之时，英国已经是全球最强大的力量。考虑到早在普拉西之前欧洲军队众多以少胜多的胜利和征服的领土，就算拥有像奥朗则布这样的将军可能对于结果也没有什么区别。
I don''t disagree that European armies were better, pound for pound - and were significantly better at that. However, India is far away and the British couldn''t field large armies against them - so they weren''t "more powerful" in the regional sense. Which is why they didn''t start to control significant territory until the mid 1700s, and even then it took weak opponents. Buxar was another example of an incompetent fight; the three groups couldn''t agree among themselves, one didn''t fight at all, and then the other ran away after suffering some setbacks and even blew the bridges behind him, trapping the Shah and leaving him to the British.
The Mughal Empire went way downhill after Aurangzeb (and had plenty of strain during his reign).
我不同意欧洲军队更好，不过一码归一码——他们在这方面表现得确实很好。然而，印度很远，英国人不能对他们进行大规模的军事打击。因此他们在这个地区来说上并不“更强大”。 这就是为什么他们直到17世纪中期才开始控制印度重要的领土，甚至直到那时它才征服了那些软弱的对手。布克萨尔战役是一个无能的战斗的另一个例子；印度方面联盟中的三个体之间无法达成一致，一个根本没有战斗，另一个在经历了一些挫折逃跑了，甚至逃跑途中还炸毁了他们身后的桥梁，困住了国王，把他留给了英国人。
莫卧儿帝国在奥朗则布之后走下坡路（在他的统治期间就有很多压力）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
盎格鲁-马拉塔战争表明，领导良好的印度军队在19世纪初之前曾有过与英国人对抗的机会。英国人没有赢得第一场盎格鲁-马拉塔战争（这场战争以平局告终），威灵顿（注：就是滑铁卢那个威灵顿）自己也把阿萨耶战役列为他取得过的最好的胜利，这表明马拉塔斯在19世纪初仍然有被承认的战斗能力。
That''s not the case for China. For one, would anyone say losing to the British Empire is an indication that you are a ''broken power''? No. We wouldn''t. China was not a broken power in the 1860s or from the 1860s, especially in 1880s China fought a war against the French and achieved their desired outcome. China was able to modernize in that period and had a mini restoration from the 70s to the 90s. China was reduced from a world power after the defeat in the First Sino-Japanse War.
中国的情况并非如此。首先，有人会说输给大英帝国意味着你是一个“崩溃的大国”？ 不。 我们没有。 中国在19世纪60年代或19世纪60年代并不是一个崩溃的大国，特别是在1880年代，中国与法国开战，并取得了预期的结果。中国在这一时期进行了现代化，并在70年代至90年代进行了小型修复。中国从世界强国中被除名是第一次中日战争（甲午战争）失败后的事情。
Colonising the americas. Its like Europe started making gold and silver suddenly in the kitchen. It made the rest of the world gradually suffer of inflation.
I think also the 30 years war made an impact in Europe of how to avoid another exhausting war like this. Plus led to big advancements in war technologies. Plus printing which led to more people have access to books and knowledge. Lesser illiterate population, made more freedom and innovations.
殖民美洲开始。就像欧洲突然能在厨房里制造金银一样。它使世界其他地区逐渐遭受通货膨胀之苦。
我还认为，30年战争对欧洲如何避免再发生一场如此令人筋疲力尽的战争产生了影响。 此外，战争技术也取得了巨大进步。加上印刷术，使更多的人有机会获得书籍和知识。较少的文盲人口带来了更多的自由和创新。
I think two factors had to do with this: the instability enviroment in Europe and the ability to learn from other cultures.
The instabilityin Europe forced Europeans to inovate. I guess war in general makes progress. If you want an edge over your enemy you must have something they don''t. For example: conscxt armies that made Napoleon''s France and Prussia such deadly forces, Great Britain''s capitalism which improved the efficiency to manufacture war material or Sweden''s firearm warfare revolution (men firing in salvo). This nessesity to innovate to get an advantage over your enemy was necessary in such a chaotic atmosphere.
Westerner''s ability to adopt things from other cultures is key to this rise. The necessity to get products from other cultures was what plunged Europe to a global scale. Europeans constantly wanted to have commercial ties to China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Arabian powers. If we take a look to these cultures, most of them adopted an isolationist mentality. This argument make sense if we consider the rise of Europe is after the Age of Exploration and the end of the Cursades. Europe''s arrival to the global stage is after contact with different cultures and when isolation ended in the continent.
我认为这与两个因素有关：欧洲不稳定的环境和向其他文化学习的能力。
欧洲的动荡迫使欧洲人发动革命。我想战争在此情况下总会取得进展。如果你想超越敌人，则必须拥有他们所没有的东西。例如：征召军队使拿破仑的法国和普鲁士成为如此致命的力量，英国的资本主义提高了制造战争材料的效率，瑞典的火器战争革命（齐射）。 在如此混乱的氛围中，为了获得优势而进行创新是必要的。
西方人采用其他文化的能力也是其崛起的关键。从其他文化中获取产品的必要性使欧洲进入了全球时代。欧洲人一直希望与中国，印度，日本，印度尼西亚和阿拉伯大国建立商业联系。如果我们看一下这些文化，会发现它们中的大多数都采取了孤立主义的心态。如果我们认为欧洲的崛起是在“探索时代”之后和“十字军”时代结束之后的话，那么这种说法很有意义。而欧洲是在各大洲的孤立被打破并且与不同文化接触之后进入全球舞台的。
Your question is rather ambigious as the terms used are ambigious. What is the east and what is the west? The Ottomans controled large swaths of Europe, north africa, and parts of Western Asia. The Emirate of Cordoba was primarily a European and North African power. The Roman empire controlled parts of North Africa (eg. Egypt), southern Europe, and Western Asia. The Eastern Roman Empire, who were the direct continuation of the Romans, controlled more of North Africa and Asia than Europe.
The Greeks adopted many things from Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The Afro-Asiatic Semitic people such as the Phoenicians had colonies in North Africa (eg. Carthage), Sicily, and Southern Europe, amd the Indo-European Greeks had colonies in Western Asia.
Are Egyptians, Persians, Ottomans, various Caliphates, Eastern Romans, Indo-Greeks, Greco-Persians, etc considered east or west?
你的问题相当模棱两可，因为你所使用的术语很模棱两可。什么是东方，什么是西方？奥斯曼帝国控制了欧洲，北非和西亚部分地区的大部分地区。科尔多瓦酋长国是欧洲和北非大国。罗马帝国控制着北非（例如埃及），南欧和西亚的部分地区。东罗马帝国是罗马人的直接延续，控制着北非和亚洲，而不是欧洲。
希腊人采纳了埃及人和美索不达米亚人的许多东西。诸如腓尼基人这样的亚非裔犹太人在北非（例如迦太基），西西里岛和南欧都有殖民地，而印欧希腊人在西亚也有殖民地。
埃及人，波斯人，奥斯曼帝国，各种哈里发，东罗马人，印欧希腊人，希腊波斯人等应被视为东方还是西方？