外媒：为什么中国最后生存统一了，欧洲却分裂了
document.write("")
发帖人：陈中禹
In the 5th century both the Roman Empire and China were invaded by nomadic peoples and were divided. But why did the idea of unified China survive while Europe developed into many different states that never unified？
在5世纪，罗马帝国和中国同样被游牧民族入侵而分裂。但为什么最终中国统一并生存下来，而欧洲变成了许多不同的国家，没能再次统一？
It's a rather complicated question to answer because China did not have a clear concept of nationalism (as defined by Benedict Anderson) before 1949.
Many of the subjects in an empire would identify themselves according to the ruling dynasty， so a subject of the Qin empire would be a &Qin& person， or a subject of the Han empire would be a &Han&. (The latter would be the basis for the Chinese ethnic majority identifying as Han. Also， many Chinese today still refer to themselves as Tang people in identification with the Tang Dynasty. This is why they still refer to Chinatown as Tang Ren Jie.)
There is also the matter of shifting boundaries. Conflicts with other tribes and kingdoms meant that each empire's borders would shift constantly. The territory of Qin China， for example， was mostly concentrated near the Yellow River. It is very much different from the territory of China during the height of Tang power， or present-day China's boundaries.
o how did the concept of a unified China survive？ Primarily due to the socio-political groundwork laid down by Qin and Han. Please take a look at this very helpful collection， the History of Imperial China for more information.
Also， it should be noted that the concept of the &Mandate of Heaven& and the &Son of Heaven& made it possible to create a sense of continuity despite the change in leadership. Confucianism (rooted in Zhou and possibly pre-Zhou social mores and political principles) provides legitimacy through its concept of the Mandate of Heaven， wherein a bad ruler can be replaced by someone more deserving who has earned Heaven's approval.
Finally， on the matter of a shared cultural/social identity. Despite not having a clear concept of nationalism， the presence of shared history， culture， language， and customs made China's mostly-unified 5000 years possible.
这是一个相当复杂的问题，因为在1949年之前中国并没有一个明确的民族主义的概念(由本尼迪克特安德森所定义的)。
许多人根据统治王朝称呼当时的人，所以秦帝国是&秦&人，汉帝国则是&汉人&(后者是中国民族组成的基础。同时，今天许多中国人认同唐朝，仍然称自己为唐人。这就是为什么他们仍然把Chinatown称为唐人街)。
还有不断改变的疆界的问题。中国不断与其他部落和王国冲突，意味着每个朝代的边界会不断变化。例如，秦中国的领土主要是集中在黄河附近。与强大的唐帝国或者现在的中国的边界有很大的不同。
所以统一的中国是一个什么样的概念呢？主要是由于社会政治基础是由秦和汉所奠定的。请看看这个非常有用的合集，《中华帝国的历史》（一个链接，直译，不知是哪本书）。同时，应该注意的是，&天命&和&天子&的概念能创造一种连续不断的领导层的变化。儒家思想(发源于周的社会习俗和政治原则)提供了合法的继承天命的概念，一个糟糕的统治者可以被一个得到了上天的批准的人取而代之。
最后，关于文化/社会身份的问题。尽管(在中国古代）没有一个明确的民族主义的概念，但是共同的历史，文化，语言，风俗使中国5000年内不断的统一提供了基础。
&5000 years& isn't even supported by the most parodic of the nationalist historians
&5000年&没有得到大部分有趣的民族历史学家的支持
--see the recent Cambridge volume Early Chinese Empires.
看看剑桥出版的剑桥中国史秦汉卷
Oh wow， 85￡？！
我擦 居然要85英镑？！
I probably shouldn't have used &5000& years. It was a lazy step to try and shortcut what I wanted to say.
I agree with you that this concept of consistent unity isn't always true as far as China is concerned. That's why I specified a few of my questions with the concept in my first post. However， it is true that China is one of the oldest civilizations still in existence， hence the validity of OP's question despite some of the inherent problems within.
Finally， I would like to clarify that Confucianism really is simply an aggregation of earlier beliefs and practices. Even the books attributed to Confucius has the sage unwilling to take full credit， claiming that he learned his tenets from the learned people of Zhou.
Therefore I agree that claiming cultural unity through Confucian values is weak. What is true is that the Qin and Han empires managed to create a shared cultural identity (e.g. the use of a shared written language during the Q shared history during the military expansion of Han， etc.) that managed to keep the various tribes in the territory roughly linked， if not always unified.
我可能不应该说&5000&年。我想说这是一个偷懒快捷的方式。我同意你的观点，统一对中国来说并不总是存在。这就是为什么在我的第一个回答里，指定了的几个问题的概念。然而，中国作为最古老的文明之一，并且仍然存在这是事实，因此对于楼主的问题做出这个回答，尽管一些问题。
最后，我想澄清一下，儒家思想仅仅是一个信仰和实践的集合。甚至儒家声称能从中学到周朝的人生信条的书是不是孔子所著也得不到证实。
因此我同意仅通过儒家价值观的文化统一是薄弱的。事实是，秦和汉帝国设法创建一个共同的文化(例如秦朝使用了共同的书面文字;汉朝创建的共同的历史记录方式，扩张，等等)，如果不是统一的话，设法保持各个领土的联系。
It's a rather complicated question to answer because China did not have a clear concept of nationalism (as defined by Benedict Anderson) before 1949.
Does it mean the Romans had a clear concept of nationalism？ Didn't Anderson say that the prerequisites of nationalism is print-capitalism - which would make that impossible？
引用&这是一个相当复杂的问题，因为在1949年之前中国并没有一个明确的民族主义的概念(由本尼迪克特安德森所定义的)。&
这个的意思是，罗马人有一个明确的民族主义概念？安德森难道没说说，民族主义的先决条件是资本主义&&这怎么可能呢？
Nationalism as you know it is an 18th century european invention.
你所知道的民族主义是18世纪欧洲人发明的。
I am not an expert on Roman history， so I don't dare make such claims. I merely mentioned that the lack of a clear nationalism in China made OP's question complicated. This is because claiming that China has continuous unity is something that few historians will agree with.
我不是罗马历史的专家，所以我不敢做出这样的声明。我只是提到在楼主的复杂问题中中国缺乏一个清晰的民族主义概念。这些对研究中国为何统一的历史学家也会同意的。
Wouldnt chinese nationalism go back to at least the 1890s
中国的民族主义兴起至少要追溯到19世纪90年代
The birth of a nationalist movement does not equal to the greater populace embracing the concept of nationalism. Until 1949， many Chinese were more used to identifying with their clans first， then ethnic groups， then regions， then local governments， then -- in a very distant sort of way -- the emperor.
民族主义运动的诞生并不等于普通民众接受民族主义的概念。直到1949年，许多中国人更习惯于认同他们的家族第一，接着是民族，区域，然后地方政府，然后，在一个非常遥远的&&皇帝。
add to that the fact that china itself acted like a global economy in ancient times. unlike europe， china had specialized regions that produced certain goods. when china is separated， everyone in china suffers and they quickly want it to be reunited so trade can flow again. european countries are more compartmentalized so it was easier for them to be their own nation.
再加上在古代中国本身就像一个&全球经济&。与欧洲不同，中国每个区域专门生产某些商品。当中国分裂了，每个在中国的人都会遭殃，他们想要很快再次统一，可以再次进行贸易。而欧洲国家有更多的区分，所以容易被区分产生独立的国家。
I think a large part of it has to do with the conquering party's intentions. With China it was the Mongolians who very much respected Chinese culture and desired to rule China rather than plunder it. Indeed the Mongolians ruled as a the Yuan dynasty in China for over 100 years. With the Germanic Barbarians there is little evidence to say they actually wanted to conquer Rome. Instead they focused on plundering Rome.
我认为它的产生很大一部分是由于征服者的意志。对于中国，蒙古人非常尊重中国文化，想要统治中国，而不是掠夺。实际上蒙古人统治的元朝在中国有100多年。日耳曼蛮族几乎没有证据说他们实际上想征服罗马。相反，他们只是想掠夺罗马。
It seems to me that there is a pretty big part of this question that has not yet been discussed. In Europe， the collapse of the Western regime was not merely a political collapse， but coincided with a general collapse of urban civilization. In the 8th century in Europe， urban populations were considerably lower， as was the general population， than during Roman times. The economy of Europe transformed from one interconnected and protected by Roman political power to one predominantly defined by local forms of production centered on the manor. For one， the overwhelmingly local character of Europe likely contributed to the development of many localized customs and ethno-linguistic identities that perhaps might have made political unification more difficult. On the other hand， and I think more importantly， the construction and maintenance of a large， complex political formation was made more difficult by the generally depressed and simple nature of the European economy. By the time of European economic 'recovery，' there were too many disparate political powers in Europe competing with one another to get an edge with obviously the closest being Napoleon's France for a very brief moment.
By contrast， to the extent that the end of the Han and the invasions and warfare of the Northern/Southern period disrupted commerce and manufacture， it was not nearly to the extent of the European cataclysm. By the 8th century， again， Chang'an (modern day Xian， a center of political power as early as the Zhou state and the main capital of the Tang dynasty) had a population (including suburbs) of perhaps 1.9 million people and was probably the largest and most sophisticated urban settlement in human history up to that point. Chang'an was also essentially the beginning or the end of the Silk Road， depending on one's perspective， and had an incredibly diverse and cosmopolitan character， as did many of the other major cities in the Tang period - Luoyang certainly as the other seat of political power， but also commercial cities like Jiangdu， Suzhou， and Hangzhou (the later capital of the southern Song). Europe， by contrast， had almost no urban activity in comparison. The strength and continued functioning of the Chinese economy allowed for the continuation of high urban populations and for the continued existence of the shih as a force of governmental and administrative power. It also allowed for the resources to concentrate sufficiently to establish and maintain vast political systems. These systems were obviously not perfect. Tang power was great， but just 150 years after Li Yuan's founding of the dynasty， Chang'an lost practical control of large portions of the northeast and Chinese civilization was wracked by warfare and destruction as part of An Lushan's rebellion. The Tang's eventual collapse in 907 was prefigured by many decades by the collapse of central political power and the dominance of warlords and bureaucratic administrators of state monopolies.
Ultimately there are many reasons to think that a unified Europe could have been possible despite differences between peoples at various times， but I think the chief problem was an issue not of consciousness but of practical and material limitations to political power.
在我看来，这个问题中有一个相当大的部分尚未讨论。在欧洲，西方政权的崩溃不仅是一个政权崩溃，恰恰是一般城市文明的崩溃。相比罗马时代，在8世纪在欧洲，城市人口低得多。欧洲经济的从由罗马保护的一个联合体，转变为本地化生产集中独立的庄园式经济。首先，欧洲的绝大多数地方特色可能导致许多本地化的发展民族风俗和语言，也许会使政治统一更加困难。另一方面，我认为更重要的是，一个大型的帝国的建设和维护，对于存在复杂的政治和普遍低迷的欧洲经济有很大的难度。当欧洲经济复苏后，已经有太多不同的政治权力在欧洲彼此竞争，优势明显的拿破仑的法国，也只是一个非常短暂的瞬间。
相比之下，在某种程度上，汉族与北方和南方的侵略和战争时期，商业和生产中断，这不同于的欧洲灾难。同样在8世纪，长安(现代的西安，周和唐代政治权力中心)人口大约190万人(包括郊区)，可能是当时人类历史上最大、最复杂的城市。长安也是丝绸之路的起点与终点，从个人的角度来看，这是一个令人难以置信的多样化和国际化的城市，在唐代时期和许多其他大城市一样，洛阳也是相当大的都市，还有江都等商业城市，苏州和杭州(后来的南宋的首都)。相比之下，欧洲几乎没有一个城市能与之相比。中国经济的实力能让他持续运行的大量的城市人口和能连续存在的政府和行政力量。它还能够集中足够的资源建立和维护庞大的政治制度。这些系统显然是不完美。唐朝很好，但是150年之后的安史之乱，长安失去了东北大部分的实际控制能力，中国文明在这场叛乱中饱受战争和毁灭。在几十年中央政权的崩溃，军阀统治，国家垄断的官僚管理下，907年唐最终崩溃。
有许多理由相信一个统一的欧洲是有可能的，尽管在不同的时代人们之间存在差异，但我认为主要的实际的问题不是意识和物质，而是政治权力。
Although one thing you should keep in mind， the collapse of urbanization did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because (well this is Chris Wickham's theory anyway) of the breaking of the dual trade spines of the western and eastern empire， the Carthage-Rome route， and the Alexandria-Constantinople route due to military conquest.
o in this case， one could argue that the economic factors for the demise of the empire were still subject to military/political forces.
Compare this to the Chinese world where there was a limit to the amount of easy trade and transport (no Mediterranean sea， only ground and river transport)， thus most urban centers were still capable of supporting themselves through the economy of their immediate hinterlands，This hinterland support would be crucial as the empire fragmented， and especially in the post-Han era， as power began to cluster around aristocratic stronghold ownership of fortified cities. Something that ironically didn't happen in the west because of the limiting of conflict to primarily top level political players within a kingdom or state， rather than in China with regional conflict involving all classes of people between competing states (although this process would eventually come to the west in the 10th century after the collapse of the Carolingian empire).
但有一件事你应该记住，城市的崩溃并不是凭空发生的。这是因为(好吧，这是克里斯韦翰书中说的)东西罗马帝国之间、迦太基-罗马之间、亚历山大征服君士坦丁堡的路线上的贸易破坏。所以在这种情况下，有人会说，导致帝国的灭亡的经济因素仍受军事和政治力量的影响。
相比于中国的世界，几乎没有限制贸易和运输的情况(没有地中海，只有地面和河道运输)，大多数城市仍能够让自己的货物直通他们的经济腹地。这个对于内陆地区将是至关重要的，因为当帝国支离破碎，比如在东汉末年，权力开始集群在诸侯所拥有得坚固的据点。具有讽刺意味的是这没有发生在西方，因为冲突主要限制在顶层的政治家与王国之间，而不是中国地区冲突涉及各阶层的人之间的状态。(唯一与之相同的是在10世纪，西方的加洛林帝国的崩溃)。
What did the infrastructure of Chang'an look like in the 8th century？ I am having trouble imagining how a city of 2 million could be run in that time period.
在8世纪长安的基础设施是什么样子？我难以想象在那个时期一个200万人口的城市如何运行。
I would also add that Europe was untied in a way unlike China. God. The political boundaries weren't as defined or as important as so much that every citizen be united under Christendom.
我得补充一下，欧洲分裂的方式与中国是不同的。天哪。与政治的定义不一样，更重要的是，每个国家基督教是统一的。
Ian Morris， in Why the West Rules ... for Now， argues that China's economy recovered after the fall of the Han dynasty because of the discovery of refugees in the South that they could reclaim swamp land and make it into productive rice paddies. No such new resources were discovered in the Mediterranean， so it simply wasn't practical to create a new empire after the Roman empire declined， despite several efforts to do so (not just by Europeans but also by nations from the Middle-east). While this theory isn't accepted by everyone， it certainly seems that China discovered some means to recover more quickly than the West， and it really wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the West again jumped ahead of the East.
伊恩&莫里斯的《为什么是西方规则》提到&&现在，认为中国东汉经济恢复后，前往南方的难民，他们把那里的沼泽地变成高效的稻田。但是在地中海地区没有这样的新资源被发现，所以它只是实际创建了一个新的帝国罗马帝国（东罗马）后衰弱，尽管做出了一些努力(不管是由欧洲人还是中东人)。虽然不是每个人都接受这个理论，但中国确实发现了新的地区，恢复的速度会快于西方，而且它直到工业革命之前，西方又超过了东方。
I'm not going to answer， just take issue with the question. The idea that a unified China &survived& while a unified roman empire didn't discounts the byzantines and Holy Roman Emperors， while elevating a history of diversity， disunity， and frequent dynastic struggle in China to a &surviving idea of unity.& The idea of a unified Rome/Europe lasted straight up until Napoleon， who intentionally cast himself in the role of a Roman emperor. If he had won and the 20th century went differently in China， this might be a curious student in from the country of Hunan asking why the unified idea of rome &survived& in Greater France while China developed into many different states.
I think questions like this are often rooted in a complete lack of understanding about the tremendous diversity there is in China， still， despite a program in the 60s designed explicitly to eliminate it， which itself followed a massive nationalization effort by the Nationalist government. To believe that &China& is a monolithic political entity going back for-all-intents-and-purposes forever is to completely take the CCP's propaganda at face value.
Also， anyone who gives you a just-so story of any of these kinds：
It's just geography！
omething something china had a unified writing system (because europe didn't have Latin， apparently)， something something vernaculars can't develop in China (even though they did)
Examination system！
Religions are different！...is generally wrong. Many of these are interesting concepts and all can tell us interesting things about their respective areas of history， and all are constantly overstated and anachronistically projected across millennia (with analogues in their counterpart ignored) to present a tidy narrative that goes &they are like this and we are like this.&
我不是想回答，而是对这个观点提出争议。这种统一的中国存活了，而统一的罗马却没有的想法， 忽略了拜占庭和神圣罗马帝国，然而却强调了一个有着多元化、分裂 同时又为&统一才能存活&而频繁斗争的中国历史。 统一欧洲这种想法一直延续到了拿破仑，他有意第将自己扮演成罗马皇帝。如果他赢了，并在20世纪以不同的方式与中国相逢，可有会有一个来自湖南国的好奇学生会问为什么有着统一罗马思想的大法国存活了，而中国却分裂了。我认为这类问题通常由于缺乏对于中国巨大多样性的理解，尽管伴随着一个庞大的民族化进程，一个60年代的计划企图消除它。 但中国无论怎么看都是一个永远落后的政体，你们看到的只是GCD宣传的表面而已。(感谢iceye2072的翻译
当然，别人也会给你类似这样的答案：&是因为地理位置！
&什么什么中国统一的书写系统(显然因为欧洲没有拉丁化)，什么什么方言没有在中国发展(即使他们有)
&科举考试系统！
&宗教不同！
这些通常是错误的。这些有趣的概念，对各自领域的历史都可以告诉我们这些有趣的事情，经常用一个整洁的叙述进行不断夸大和预期(与之类似，经常忽略一些东西)，&他们是这样的，我们是这样的。&
国家领导人在任时，往往公务繁重，退休之后不再承担具...
热门关键字扫二维码下载作业帮
拍照搜题，秒出答案，一键查看所有搜题记录
下载作业帮安装包
扫二维码下载作业帮
拍照搜题，秒出答案，一键查看所有搜题记录
欧洲为什么没有统一?《三国》中第一句,“天下分久必合,合久必分”为什么中国很早就统一了但欧洲没有,就是古罗马还算强大,然后就一直打仗打到第二次世界大战、
扫二维码下载作业帮
拍照搜题，秒出答案，一键查看所有搜题记录
欧洲是很明显的政治上分裂,思想上统一的代表~欧洲虽然分为若干个国家,但是欧洲文化的根源在希腊,在罗马,直到现在也无出其右.另外,基督教在思想上的同一作用也使得欧洲在思想上高度统一.由于以上两点,使得现代欧洲出现欧盟成为现实.我们不能拿中国的情况、经验套用到欧洲去,历史背景不同.我们说中国第一个大一统时代是秦.背景是周天子分封诸侯,拱卫京师.诸侯环绕在天子周围.后来诸侯势大,开疆扩土,但是名义上周天子依然是共主.秦国一统天下,这个天下,还是周天子的天下,疆土扩展了而已.之后大一统的思想贯穿中国历史.另外中国的汉族势力特别强大,同化、征服了无数名族,使得大一统的实现有了良好的民族、文化基础.提炼一下,我们的统一的关键词,大一统思想、历史传承、统一的民族和文化.再看欧洲,只有文化上的统一（相对的统一）.欧洲民族国家林立（现代欧洲很多都是民族国家）,历史上不曾统一（神圣罗马帝国根本不能算数）,没有大一统的思想.这些都没有,如何政治统一?一家之言,仅供参考.
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码