為什麼中國能延續2000年，但羅馬帝國卻不能？

正文翻譯

原創翻譯：龍騰網 翻譯：Q__Q 轉載請註明出處

論壇地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-468602-1-1.html

Why did China survive for over 2000 years while the Roman empire did not?

為什麼中國能延續2000年，但羅馬帝國卻不能？

評論翻譯

原創翻譯：龍騰網 翻譯：Q__Q 轉載請註明出處

論壇地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-468602-1-1.html

Kaiser Kuo, 從1996年到2016年，在北京生活了20年

The question is not technically accurate. The idea of China may have survived for over 2000 years—arguably, even longer—but the Chinese empire welded together in 221 BC by the First Emperor of Qin didn"t by any means survive intact through this period.

從學術上說這個提問並不準確。中國這一概念可能已經存在了超過2000年，可能甚至更久，但是中華帝國在公元前221年由秦始皇開創，並沒有在2000年里完整的延續下來。

From 220 AD, when the Han Dynasty formally collapsed, China was divided into three separate kingdoms, and though they were briefly unified in the late 3rd century, it wasn"t long before incursions from the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, and other nomadic- and semi-nomadic people carved out numerous kingdoms in North China while the South saw a rapid series of messy dynastic changes lasting until the late 6th century. These nomadic incursions that sparked this long Era of Division (known in China as the "Six Dynasties and 16 Kingdoms" or the "Southern and Northern Dynasties") corresponds in many ways with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire under the pressure of the Vandals, the Alans, the Visigoths, and the Huns—the "crisis of classical civilization."

公元220年，當漢朝正式崩潰時，中國被分為三個獨立的王國，雖然他們在第三世紀晚期被暫時地統一了，但不久之後，遭受了匈奴、鮮卑以及其他游牧民族和半游牧民族的入侵，這些民族在華北地區建立了許多王國，而中國南方則出現了一系列混亂的王朝變遷，這一情況持續到了六世紀晚期。這些游牧民族的入侵引發了這個時代的長期分裂（在中國被稱為「六朝和五胡十六國」或者「南北朝」）。在很多方面就和西羅馬帝國在汪達爾人，阿蘭人，西哥特人，以及「古典文明的危機」——匈人這些壓力下崩潰一樣。

The major difference was that China was reunited in the late 6th century by the Sui Dynasty, which briefly ruled a unified China from 589 to 618 AD, followed by the Tang Dynasty, which solidified rule and oversaw a period of prosperity until the mid-8th century. A bitter civil war tore the country apart again at that time, but Tang recovered, limping along until 907.

主要的區別在於，在六世紀後期由隋朝統一了中國，隋朝從公元589年到公元618年暫時性的統一了中國，隨後是唐朝，鞏固了統治，並在公元8世紀中葉達到了繁榮時期。一場痛苦的內戰使這個國家再次四分五裂，但是唐朝又恢復過來了，一瘸一跛地存活到了907年。

There followed yet another period of disunity, this one only spanning two generations; the "Five Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms" lasted until reunification once again under the Song dynasty in 960. Even after that, China rarely maintained real political integrity: The Khitan (Qidan) people from north of the Great Wall managed to carve out a substantial part of North China, including the city that is now Beijing, and held it through most of the 11th century and into the early 12th. They were superseded by the Jurchen (also Nuzhen) people from Manchuria, who conquered North China as far south as the Yangzi River. Throughout the 13th century, the Mongols made incursions into China, eventually conquering the entirety of the country by 1274 and incorporating it into their empire.

接著又出現了另一段不團結的時期，這一時期僅僅經歷了兩代人就結束了。「五代十國」一直延續到960年的宋朝統一。即使在那之後，中國也很少保持真正的政治大一統：長城以北的契丹人成功地統治了華北的大部分地區，包括現在的北京，並在11世紀的大部分時間裡維持著統治，一直到12世紀早期。契丹人被來自東北地區的女真人所取代，他們征服了華北，統治地區遠至長江流域。在整個13世紀，蒙古人入侵了中國，最終在1274年征服了整個國家，並將中國併入了他們的帝國。

The restoration of ethnic Chinese rule under Ming from 1368 to 1644 was followed by China"s conquest by the Manchu Qing dynasty, but even then, its rule of China wasn"t complete throughout its three centuries in power: we see yet another period of political division during the mid-19th century, when the quasi-Christian Taiping Rebels took control of much of South China between 1851 and 1863. Finally, shortly following the end of the Qing and the founding of the Republic, there was another era of division from 1916-1928 under the "Warlord Period," though even after 1928, when the Kuomintang (Nationalist) Party took control of the Lower Yangzi and ruled from Nanjing, it would be a great exaggeration to claim that China was in fact unified. Powerful warlords still controlled the north (Yan Xishan in Shanxi, Feng Yuxiang in Henan and Shaanxi, Zhang Xueliang in the Northeast) and control of the western provinces was in name only.

從1368年到1644年，在明朝之下中國人恢復了統治，隨後是滿清王朝對中國的征服，但即便如此，滿族對中國的完全統治在三個世紀里都沒有完成：我們看到了19世紀中期的另一段政治分裂時期，在1851年到1863年間，類似基督教的太平天國起義控制了中國南部的大部分地區。最後，清朝結束和民國建立後不久後，在「軍閥時期」的統治下又出現了另一個分裂時期，雖然在1928年，國民黨控制了長江下游，並佔據了南京，宣稱中國統一了，但這是一種誇張的說法。強大的軍閥仍然控制著北方（山西的閻錫山，馮玉祥在河南和陝西，張學良在東北)，而對西部省份的控制只是名義上的。

Through this all, though, it could be argued that an "idea" of China survived. Chinese historiography, even at a popular level, understood that there was a cyclical process at work: "The empire long united must divide; long divided, must unite" was the saying (合久必分，分久必合). Obviously, the idea of Rome long outlived the collapse of the (Western) Roman empire, too: Germanic kings styled themselves Holy Roman Emperors, after all. Byzantium kept the idea of a united Rome alive too before it fell before the onslaught of first Crusaders (in the early 13th century) and finally, Ottoman Turks in the mid-15th. Never, though, in that whole time were either the Greek-speaking East or the Latin West able to effectively reunite politically, and that"s ultimately why the idea of a Roman Empire didn"t enjoy the longevity—interrupted many times though it may have been—that China did.

然而，雖然經歷了這麼多，但仍然可以認為「中國」這一「觀念」一直倖存下來。中國的史學，就連一般民眾也明白在中國的歷史是循環的過程：合久必分，分久必合。顯然，羅馬這一觀念在（西）羅馬帝國滅亡後也存活了很久：畢竟，日耳曼的國王們還是把自己塑造成神聖羅馬帝國的皇帝。拜占庭在第一次十字軍（13世紀早期）的猛烈進攻之前還保留了一個統一的羅馬帝國的觀念，最後是15世紀中期的奧斯曼土耳其人。然而，在這一時段里，無論是在講希臘語的東部還是講拉丁語的西部，都成功地在政治上重新團結，這就是為什麼羅馬帝國無法一直維持下去的原因，中國的延續儘管可能有很多次被打斷，但中國確實延續到了現在。

An Addendum: As Jireh Tan suggested in his comment, it might be useful to address the question of China"s (supposed) linguistic unity as a factor in either its cohesion or its fissiparous nature. The languages spoken in different regions of China are not mere dialects: They don"t pass the test of mutual intelligibility to this day, and must be considered separate languages. A guanyu or "official speech" of the court—what we call Mandarin is the latest example—has existed through much of Imperial (and Republican, and Communist) history, but the extent to which it was known or practiced outside of the court and the bureaucracy in the provinces and prefects was always very limited.

補充：就如Jireh Tan認為的，將中國（假定）的語言統一性作為其內聚性或分裂性的一個因素，或許有助於解決這個問題。在中國不同地區使用的語言不僅僅是方言：直到今天，這些語言仍無法做到相互溝通交流，被視為獨立的語言。我們稱之為「官語」或「官話」的語言是朝廷的語言，它在很大程度上存在於帝制（以及民國和共產主義）中國的歷史中，但是，它在朝廷外被人所知或使用，而各省的官僚機構和官員則使用非常有限。

To this day there are a huge number of variants of Chinese, each with many sub-variants that often are not mutually intelligible either; "Mandarin" is spoken in the North China Plain and in the three Northeastern provinces, and in the southwest (Sichuan, Yunnan) where Han settlement was relatively late; the Wu "dialect" is spoken in the lower Yangi; the Gan dialect (assume the word dialect to be in quotes!) mainly spoken in Jiangxi; the Min dialect in Fujian province (though with very strong subregional dialects-cum-languages); and Yue in Guangdong and surrounding areas. Many of these are rooted in the far, far distant past and suggest the limited nature of the empire"s cultural cohesiveness in even the times of greatest political unity. In times of fracture, the names given to geographically circumscribed dynasties or kingdoms by their various strongmen founders would often take the name of ancient feudal states or kingdoms from the Warring States period that flourished in a given geography in the distant past—arguably an indication that the separate identities of those states had survived in some cultural memory.

到今天，中文有大量的變種方言，每一種都有很多的子變體，這些變體往往也無法做到相互溝通；「普通話」流行於華北平原和東北三省及西南（四川、雲南）地區，那裡的漢族定居下來的時間相對較晚；吳語流行於長江下游；贛語主要流行於江西地區；閩語是福建省的方言（分區明顯的方言）；廣東及周邊地區講粵語。這些方言都植根於遙遠的過去，表明了帝國文化凝聚力的局限性，即使是在最偉大的政治大一統的時代也是如此。在分裂時期，在地理上受限制的朝代或王國的不同鐵腕人物會將國名取為戰國時期的古代封建國家或王國的名字，這些戰國時期的國家在古代繁榮昌盛過。可以說，這些國家的獨立身份在某種文化記憶中保留了下來。

That said, the imposition of a standard writing system in the 3rd century BC by the founding emperor of Qin (秦始皇) went far toward knitting together the country into a single polity. As serving in the civil service—office holding was the sine qua non for membership in the elite, and was the only real ladder for success in imperial China—required passing a grueling series of written exams focused on one"s knowledge of the Confucian canon, there was strong incentive to learn the orthodox writing system. This official written language proved a powerful force in the sinicization of conquest dynasties, none of whom ever successfully supplanted written Chinese as the dominant form of written communications.

即便如此，公元前3世紀，秦始皇強行推廣書寫體系大大有利於國家的單一政體化。在行政機構中當官，在朝廷中任職是獲得精英身份的必要條件，是中華帝國時期唯一仕途攀升的途徑，這要求通過一系列嚴格的書面考試，主要集中在對儒家經典的認識上，因此人們有了很強的動機去學習正統的書寫體系。這種官方的書面語言被證明是各個王朝中國化的強大力量，這些王朝中沒有出現能成功取代漢字成為書面交流主要形式的書寫體系。

————

Panagiotis Limnios

During the First Balkan War in 1912 the Greek navy captured the island of Lemnos from the Ottoman Empire and promptly sent soldiers to every village and stationed them in the public squares. Children from all over the island ran to see what these so called Greeks looked like.

在1912年的第一次巴爾幹戰爭中，希臘海軍從奧斯曼帝國手中奪取了利姆諾斯島並迅速派遣士兵到每個村莊，並讓他們駐紮在公共廣場。全島的孩子們都跑去看這些所謂的希臘人長什麼樣。

"What are you looking at?" one of soldiers asked. "At you Greeks" one of the children replied. "Are you not Greek yourselves?" said the soldier. "No, we are Romans" replied the child.

「你們在看什麼？」一名士兵問道，「看你們希臘人啊」其中一個小孩子回應。「你們不是希臘人嗎？」士兵疑問。「不是，我們是羅馬人」，小孩答道。

The above story was told by Peter Charanis, a well known historian, himself born in Lemnos in 1908. At that time, more than half of all Greeks still identified themselves as Romans and lived outside the official Hellenic Republic, in the Aegean, Thrace, but mostly in Asia Minor.

上面的故事是由著名的歷史學家Peter Charanis講述的，他在1908年出生在萊姆諾斯島。當時有超過一半的希臘人仍然認為自己是羅馬人，他們生活在希臘共和國之外的愛琴海和色雷斯，但主要是在小亞細亞。

In the following decade, as the Hellenic Republic expanded and encompassed those areas as well (and eventually lost them in 1923), every child was taught to think of itself as Greek, not Roman. Thus ended the world"s most ancient national identity, over 2700 years old since the founding of Rome.

在接下來的十年里，隨著希臘共和國的擴張和吞併這些地區（最終在1923年失去了這些地區），每個孩子都被教導要把自己看作是希臘人，而不是羅馬人。由此結束了世界上最古老的民族身份認同，自羅馬建立以來，已經有2700多年的歷史了。

However, if the original author is inquiring as to why there is a Chinese nation-state in existence today but no Roman nation-state, then the answer interestingly enough may be found in medi and modern Greek history.

然而，如果提問者想知道為什麼今天有一個中國人的單一民族國家存在，卻不存在一個羅馬民族國家，那麼可以在中世紀和現代希臘歷史中找到有趣的答案。

The gradual collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire forced the remaining East to redefine itself by a predominantly Greek population. Indeed, Roman citizens in the Middle Ages would commonly refer to themselves as Greeks as well as Romans and call their land Greece and Rome (Romania) alike.

羅馬帝國西部分的崩潰迫使殘存的東部重新定義自己，因為主要的居民是希臘人。

事實上，中世紀的羅馬公民通常把自己稱為希臘人，也稱自己為羅馬人，稱他們的土地為希臘和羅馬（羅馬尼亞）。

This relatively homogeneous state with a sense of common identity among the people, stood in stark contrast to the earlier massive multi-ethnic Empire.

這個相對同質的國家，其人民有一種共同的身份認同，與早期很多多民族帝國形成了鮮明的對比。

This is the defining characteristic of nationalism, which was growing all over Europe during the middle ages and eventually culminated with the French Revolution in 1789 and the world"s first nation-state, France. In Greece proper and Asia Minor however, the totalitarian rule of the Ottoman conquerors hindered Roman nationalism from maturing and prevented it materializing in a Roman nation-state.

這是民族主義的典型特徵，中世紀期間這種民族主義在整個歐洲茁壯成長，最終在1789年的法國大革命及世界第一個民族國家——法蘭西的建立中達到了頂點。然而，在希臘和小亞細亞，奧斯曼帝國的極權統治阻礙了羅馬民族主義的成熟，使其無法建立一個羅馬人的民族國家。

When the Ottoman Empire began dissolving in the early 19th century, the Roman people came together and finally did form their nation-state, which they named Greece instead Romania which was the de facto name the people used.

當奧斯曼帝國在19世紀初開始解體時，羅馬人聚在一起，最終形成了他們的民族國家，他們將其命名為希臘而不是羅馬尼亞，而羅馬尼亞則是當時人們使用的實際名稱。

This break in tradition is attributed to the Renaissance on the one hand, which gave birth to admiration of the Classic era, and the increased reliance on the Great Powers for help on the other, who frankly found the prospect of aiding the descendants of Pericles and Leonidas far more appealing than helping the descendants of Basil and Constantine.

這一傳統的打破一方面是由於文藝復興，讓人們對希臘古典時期產生了無盡的嚮往，另一方面羅馬人對大國給予援助的依賴程度越來越大，各個大國坦率地發現，幫助列奧尼達和伯利克利的後代，遠比幫助巴西流和君士坦丁的後代更有吸引力。

（註：列奧尼達和伯利克利分別是古希臘城邦斯巴達和雅典的領袖，巴西流和君士坦丁分別是羅馬帝國有名的修道士和君主。）

More importantly, by identifying themselves as Greeks, they renounced their claims to all and any Roman lands and titles their forefathers held, which put the great monarchs of Europe a little bit more at ease and inclined to help.

Still, once the political integrity of this newborn state was no longer at stake, the Greeks began a series of all out wars against the Ottomans anyway, in an attempt to reclaim all remaining Greek speaking territories in Asia Minor. Had they been successful, the final form of modern Greece would look suprisingly similar to the medi Roman Empire on a map (The above is a real map published by the Hellenic Republic in 1920).

更重要的是，通過承認自己是希臘人，他們放棄了申索他們的祖先所擁有的羅馬土地和頭銜，這使得歐洲的君主們更加對他們放心，也樂於幫助他們。

然而，一旦這個新生國家的政治完整性不再受到威脅，希臘人就開始了一系列針對奧斯曼人的戰爭，試圖奪回在小亞細亞說希臘語的領土。如果他們成功了，從地圖上看，現代希臘的最終形式將會和中世紀的羅馬帝國非常相似（上面是1920年希臘共和國出版的真實地圖）。

————

Daniel Walker, 計算機程序設計員，養了一匹馬.

China assimilates its past. John Man describes this rather nicely in his book Genghis Khan, where he describes the neatly circular logic, by which the official histories prove that China wasn"t actually invaded.

中國同化了他的過去。John Man在他的專著《成吉思汗》中形象生動的形容。在書中他描述了一套簡潔的循環邏輯，通過這套邏輯，中國的官方史書證明了中國實際上並沒有被入侵。

Who attacked the Tanguts in the early Thirteenth century?

The Mongols under Genghis Khan.

Very good. What happened?

Genghis Khan won.

Excellent, and?

And eventually the Mongols defeated the rest of China.

They did, indeed. And?

And they set up the Yuan dynasty.

And the Yuan dynasty is an essential part of the history of which nation?

China.

誰在十三世紀早期襲擊了党項人？

成吉思汗統帥下的蒙古人。

回答的很棒，那結果怎麼樣？

成吉思汗打贏了。

很好，還有呢？

最終蒙古人征服了中國的其他部分。

他們確實做到了，然後呢？

他們建立了元朝。

元朝是哪個國家歷史的重要一部分？

中國。

————

Jay Liu, 我一直在說我是個中國人...

Most of the answers cite the fundamental differences between the two civilizations as the cause for the longevity of the Chinese over the Roman. And while I agree that the cultural integrity of China is definitely stronger than that of Rome in most respects, this is not the reason why Rome collapsed while China did not.

I"ll start by countering the 2 common explanations that are often brought up:

大多數的答案都說明了兩種文明之間的根本差異，將這視為中國比羅馬的更延續的原因。雖然我同意中國的文化完整性在很多方面都比羅馬更強大，但這不是羅馬崩潰而中國沒有崩潰的原因。

我先來反駁通常提到的兩種常見的解釋：

Chinese civilization was better at integrating barbarians.

Not really.The Romans were masters of spreading their civilization and language. There"s a reason why the French and Spanish speak a Latin language and not a Celtic one despite the fact their DNA is probably still mostly Celtic. The Western Roman Empire was the more culturally integrated half of the Empire, and it fell first. The Eastern Roman Empire had influence from 3 major civilizations, and one of which was openly hostile towards Roman rule, that of the Persians. But despite this lack of cultural cohesion, the ERE survived for 1,000 years after the WRE fell.

中華文明更善於同化蠻夷。

不完全是。羅馬人十分擅長傳播他們文明和語言。儘管法國人和西班牙人可能仍然大部分是凱爾特人血統，但他們說的是拉丁語，而不是凱爾特語，之所以這樣是有原因的。西羅馬帝國在文化上融合了大半個帝國，而它首先崩潰。東羅馬帝國受到三個主要文明的影響，其中一個對羅馬的統治有公開敵意的，就是波斯人。但是，儘管缺乏文化上的凝聚力，但在西羅馬帝國倒下後，東羅馬帝國仍然存活了1000多年。

Chinese geography is more suited for an enduring empire than that of the Mediterranean.

Definitely false. The Mediterranean made the Roman Empire possible in first place. It"s no coincidence that the Mediterranean became a Roman lake. It meant that every major corner of the Empire was but a short sea journey from any other part. The geography of the Roman Empire was pretty much ideal for empire building.

China, being almost circular, meant you had to cross long tracts of land if you wanted to travel beyond your own river. This is why the Grand Canal had to be built.

中國的地理位置比地中海的地理位置更有利於帝國的延續。

完全錯誤。地中海讓羅馬帝國有了稱霸的可能。地中海變成了一個羅馬人的內湖，這並不是巧合。這意味著帝國的每一個主要位置的來往都只是短途海上旅行。羅馬帝國的地理位置對於帝國的構建來說是非常理想的

中國幾乎是圓弧型的，意味著如果你想要越過河流，你必須穿越大片土地。這就是為什麼要建造大運河的原因。

The main reason is far more simplistic, and far more specific.

The Romans had to deal with the Germanic tribes, the Chinese did not.

主要的原因更簡單，更具體的多。

羅馬人必須處理日耳曼部族的問題，而中國人不需要。

The Germanic tribes represented a truly existential threat to any empire. They were not simple steppe nomads who could be easily integrated into a settled civilization, which is what the Chinese mainly dealt with. No, the Germans were a highly aggressive, highly adaptive, and highly organized civilization that could maintain its identity even within the cultural borders of the Roman Empire.

日耳曼部落對任何帝國而言都是實打實的威脅。他們不是簡單的草原游牧民族，可以很容易地融入到一個定居的文明中，這是中國人主要處理的問題。而羅馬帝國卻不能這樣做，日耳曼人是一個具有強烈的侵略性，高度適應力和組織能力的文明，即使在羅馬帝國的文化邊界內也能保持它的身份認同。

Now, with the right preparation and strategy, the German migrants into the Empire in the 5th Century could have been properly integrated and the Western Roman Empire may have lived on. But due to the circumstances of the time (the Romans were facing a far greater threat to the East against the Sassanid Persians), the process of integration was completely bungled and the German tribes migrated in as whole tribes, independent of Roman authority or civilization.

如果立即進行恰當的準備和策略，5世紀的日耳曼移民可以被適當地整合，那麼西羅馬帝國可能得以生存下來。但是由於當時的情況（羅馬人面對的更大威脅來自對東方的波斯人），整合的過程完全失敗了，整個日耳曼部落一起遷徙，在羅馬的統治或文明下仍保持了獨立性。

Ironically, the collapse of Roman Imperial authority in the Western Empire didn"t stop the Romans from eventually integrating the Germans who crossed into Roman territory. Britain, France, Spain, Italy and North Africa were all overrun by Germanic tribes at some point. But with the exception of Britain, Germanic culture was successfully integrated into the native culture. The problem was that the Roman Empire itself was already gone by the time that integration had completed.

諷刺的是，在西羅馬帝國內羅馬人統治的崩潰並沒有阻止羅馬人最終整合羅馬帝國內的日耳曼人。在某種程度上，不列顛、法蘭西、西班牙、義大利和北非都被日耳曼部落所佔領。但除了不列顛外，日耳曼文化成功地融入了本土文化中。問題是在整合完成的時候羅馬帝國已經滅亡了。

The barbarians that the Chinese had to deal with were an entirely different gang, and far easier to integrate.

The Mongol and Turkic tribes of the eastern Steppe were indeed fierce and relentless. But they were just too few of them to actually overwhelming the Chinese population, their culture, and civilization. The fact that none of these tribes had a written language (prior to integrating with a settled civilization) or detailed set of religious beliefs didn"t help their chances.

中國人要對付的野蠻人是一群完全不同的一伙人，而且要容易得多。

東部大草原上的蒙古和突厥部落確實兇猛也殘忍的。但是他們的數量太少不足以征服中國的人口、文化和文明。事實上，沒有一個部落有書面語言（在與定居形式的文明整合前）也沒有建立起一套複雜的宗教信仰，這阻礙了他們。

Had China been confronted with the likes of the Germans or another collection of tribes who preferred to settle and farm rather than to ride and pillage, then Chinese history would be very different.

如果中國遇到的是像日耳曼人或者其他的部落那樣更願意定居和耕種而不是騎馬和掠奪的蠻族，那麼中國人的歷史可能會被改寫。

————

Joe Rigodanzo, 主持人, "萊茵河" 播客

I would add one thing to some of the fantastic answers that mention the Germanic tribes being an altogether different threat than Steppe Nomads, the primary non-state actors that China faced throughout it"s history.

我會對那些有意思的答案加以補充，這些回答認為與貫穿中國歷史的非國家體——大草原游牧民族相比，日耳曼部族是個完全不同的威脅。

Tens of thousands of Germanic Warriors from various tribes crossed the Rhine in the year 406 of our common era. These tribesmen were fundamentally different than, for example, the Germanii of 110 BCE, when two tribes invaded the Balkans, Gaul, and Spain and did a lot of damage. The Germanic tribes of 406 were also different than the tribes led by Arminius - those tribes that handed Rome a pretty terrible defeat in the year 9 CE at Teutoberg Forest.

在公元406年，成千上萬來自不同部落的日耳曼戰士越過萊茵河。這些部族人與公元前110年的日耳曼人完全不同，後者的兩個部落入侵過巴爾幹半島，高盧和西班牙，並造成了嚴重的破壞。406年的日耳曼部族也與阿米尼烏斯領導的部落不同，後者在公元9年的條頓堡森林一役中大敗羅馬。

（註：阿米尼烏斯是日耳曼部族切魯西人的首領。西元9年在條頓堡森林裡他大敗羅馬人，被推崇為日耳曼民族的英雄。）

Why?

Because by 406, the Germanic tribes had been living alongside the Romans on the Rhine and the Danube for 450 years. The kingdoms opposite the Romans not only benefited from Roman subsidies, but from Roman technology and goods that spilled across the border.

為什麼會不同？

因為到了406年，日耳曼部落和羅馬人一起生活在萊茵河和多瑙河上已經長達450年了。與羅馬相對的日耳曼王國不僅僅從羅馬的補貼中獲益，也從羅馬技術和貨物的邊界流通

中受益

The Germanii of 406 had multi-crop farming. Arminius"s Germanii of the year 9 were largely cattle-herders and single-crop farmers. Multi-crop farming can support a much larger population - and the tribes near the river were bigger and much more capable of sustaining a large warrior class.

公元406年的日耳曼人掌握了多農作物種植技術。而公元9年的阿米尼烏斯統領下的部族主要是牧民和只會單一耕作法的農民。多農作物種植能為大量人口提供食物，鄰近河流的部族更龐大，更有能力維持其龐大的軍人階層。

The Germanii of 406 were well-equipped. The amount of Roman-made swords found in Germany is staggering. Compare to Arminius"s Germanii of the year 9 - perhaps only 10% of these warriors had swords.

406年的日耳曼人裝備精良。在德國發現了相當數量的羅馬造的短劍，這讓人驚訝。而阿米尼烏斯時期的日耳曼人，可能只有10%的戰士裝備了短劍。

The Germanii were well organized. They"d borrowed a lot from the Roman military. Many historians have commented on the porous nature of the frontier zones, especially in the late Empire. This meant that many of the Germanic warriors who crossed the Rhine in 406 had served in the Roman military or against it - and the higher ranking chieftains knew how to use

日耳曼人組織有序。他們從羅馬軍隊那裡學會了很多。許多歷史學家對前線地區的多孔性物質發表過看法，特別是在帝國晚期。這意味著很多日耳曼軍人在406年越過萊茵河，在羅馬軍隊中服役或起義反抗羅馬——高層首領知道怎麼做。

Left: An overly dramatic representation of the battle of Teutoberg Gap, 9 CE. Note the scantily clad warriors with relatively weak weapons. They had no choice but to try to ambush the Romans - they could never defeat them in open battle. Compare to Right: a representation of Goths attacking the Romans in the late 300s, early 400s. Wow, they sure are outfitted a lot like the Romans, with heavy armor, helmets, and swords. These paintings are overdone but a good depiction of an overall trend.

左邊：戲劇性的表現是在公元9年的條頓堡森林之戰。注意那些衣不蔽體武器匱乏的戰士。他們別無選擇，只能去伏擊羅馬人——在面對面的戰鬥中，他們永遠無法打敗羅馬人。和右邊相比：這展現了哥特人在四世紀末，五世紀初襲擊羅馬人的畫面。哇哦。哥特人武裝的很像羅馬人，裝備有重甲、頭盔和劍。這些畫有些誇張但總體上描述的很貼切。

There was another way in which the Germanii of 406 were not the "simple barbarians" of centuries past. They had developed political systems that could be extended to landed civilizations - in many ways, they were more like highly mobile mini-states than they were like tribes.

以上換個說法就是406年的日耳曼人並不是幾個世紀以前的「簡單野蠻人」。他們建立了政治制度，在很多方面，可以影響到陸地上的文明。他們更像是能夠快速移動的迷你小國而不是部落。

As a result, the tribal confederations were able to establish themselves in Roman territory as semi-independent - and then fully independent - fiefdoms. Compare to barbarians in the Chinese Empires - semi-independent fiefdoms almost never popped up. In Western Roman territory, there were at least 5 major Germanic groups from 395 - 476 in Western Roman territory itself. (Franks, Western Goths, Eastern Goths, Vandal/Alan, Burgundian)

所以，日耳曼部落聯盟能夠在羅馬地區建立自己半自治的領地，之後還獲得了完全獨立的封地。而中華帝國的蠻夷與之相比，基本上沒有獲得過半自治的封地。在西羅馬的領土上，從395年到476年，至少存在過5個主要的日耳曼部落。（法蘭克、西哥特、東哥特、汪達爾/阿蘭王國、勃艮第）。

I recognize that there were a TON of other reasons Rome fell - including civil wars, disintegrating tax structure, and enemies in the east. Without one, a few, or all of these negative drags, Rome might have been strong enough to hold off the Germanii, as they had done successfully for 500 years.

我知道羅馬衰亡也有很多其他的原因，包括內戰，瓦解的稅收體制，以及東方的敵人。如果去除掉以上一個、幾個或者所有的拖累，羅馬可能強大到足以抵擋日耳曼人，就像他們在過去500年里成功做到的那樣。

That said, it"s hard to deny that the Germanic tribes put the nail in the coffin, or were the straw that broke the Camel"s back, or whatever you want to say.

即便如此，不能否認的事實是日耳曼部落把釘子釘入了棺材，或者說日耳曼人是壓垮駱駝（羅馬）的最後一根稻草。

————

M Markus Harrison.

If you say, "Why did China survive for over 2000 years while the Roman empire did not?", then I would answer, "And who says the Roman empire did not survive for 2000 years?"

What we can call Roman civilization and rule was in existence from 509 BC through to 1453 AD, or 1962 years. Close enough for me.

如果你問的是「為什麼中國存在了2000多年，但羅馬帝國沒有」的話，那麼我的回答是「誰說羅馬帝國沒有存在2000年？」

我們所說的羅馬文明和及其統治，從公元前509年開始到公元1453年結束，總計1962年。

The Roman Republic was the period of ancient Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of Roman Kingdom, traditionally dated to 509 BC, and ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire. The empire was eventually split in two, with two emperors, and the Western Roman Empire did eventually fall, but the Eastern empire did not fall for another 1,000 years!

羅馬王政時代的瓦解導致了羅馬共和國的開始，屬於古羅馬文明。傳統上始於公元前509年，結束於公元前27年羅馬帝國的建立。羅馬帝國最終分裂為兩個國家，有兩個皇帝，西羅馬帝國最終崩潰，但是，東羅馬帝國延續了1000年。

Summarizing Wikipedia, theByzantine Empire was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the eastern half of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Its capital city was Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), originally known as Byzantium. Often called the Eastern Roman Empire in this context, it survived the 5th century fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empireand continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe.(Please upvote if this answer was of interest)

維基百科總結，主要講希臘語的拜占庭帝國，在古典時代晚期和中世紀期間，延續了羅馬帝國在東部的統治。拜占庭帝國的首都是君士坦丁堡（現在叫伊斯坦布爾），最初以拜占庭為人所知，由此也可以稱之為東羅馬帝國，東羅馬帝國經歷了5世紀羅馬帝國的分裂和西羅馬帝國的滅亡，仍然延續了1000年，直到1453年被奧斯曼土耳其人滅亡。在東羅馬帝國存在的時候，是歐洲經濟、文化、軍事最強大的國家。

（要是覺得回復有意思的話請點贊）

————

Michael Cardinal, 一年四季都很爺們

As James indicates, location had a large role. The isolated nature of China made it difficult to invade. The distinction in the eyes of the Chinese between Inner China (where ethnic Chinese lived) and Outer China (wher non Chinese lived) created a core and buffer zone. Rome had this as well but being more open to invasion degraded the buffer areas (Northern and Eastern Europe).

如James所言，地理位置發揮了巨大的作用。中國的孤立於世的特點使其很難被侵略。在中國人看來，中國內部（中國人居住的地方）和中國外部（非中國人居住的地方）區別很明顯，這提供了重要的緩衝地帶。羅馬也類似，但對入侵者的開放降低了緩衝區域（北歐和東歐）的作用。

But perhaps just as important is society and culture. The presence of philosophies like Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism each contributed to a communally focused society that could survive the ups and downs of politics and shifts of power. Citizens were not seen so much as individuals, rather part of the greater collective of China as a whole. History is seen as a cyclical flow, rather than points and periods in time. This gave the Chinese the perspective that if leaders changed, in general life would go on as it always had. In Rome (and in the larger Western civilization that emerged from Rome) citizens were seen as individuals. Each person was out for themselves (and in many ways still are in the West) rather than concerned with success of society as a whole. History for Rome was about power and control, not about a continuum of values, virtues, ethics and morals as it was seen in China.

同樣重要的可能也有社會和文化。儒家、道家和法家等哲學思想的存在，都促成了社會在政權興敗國力轉變時能夠生存下來。中國公民不太被視為個體，而被看作是大中國這一集體的一部分。在中國人看來，歷史是周期性流動著的，而不是時間點和某個階段。這讓中國人認識到，即使皇帝換人了，民眾的普通生活也會一如既往地繼續下去。在羅馬（以及從羅馬而出的更大的西方文明中），公民被視為個體。每個人都追求獨立（在西方，很多方面仍然是這樣）而不是關注整個社會的成功。羅馬的歷史是關於權力和控制的歷史，而不像中國歷史那樣在價值觀、美德、倫理和品行方面具有延續性。

A good work that helps to make this clear is Fire in the Lakeby Frances Fitzgerald. It is written about the Vietnam War, but the first few chapters are some of the best explanations of the difference between East and West I have encountered.

有一本很好的專著能幫我們更好理解這方面，就是Frances Fitzgerald著的《湖中之火》。該書寫的是越南戰爭，但是前幾章對於東西方差異的解釋是我看過的最好解釋。

————

ET

The book "The Confucian Mind" by Daniel Wang makes the very insightful and apt point that China is the only "empire" that ever expanded its territory by repeatedly being conquered by other nations.

Daniel Wang著的《儒家思想》這本書，深刻地指出了中國是唯一一個通過不斷被其他國家征服而擴張領土的「帝國」。

"China" historically has been more of a form of "civilization", i.e., a form of social organization based on culture, religion and written language used by whatever rulers are then in power as a means of unifying the east Asian landmass, than a historically contiguous political entity or "nation".

在歷史上「中國」更像是某種形式的「文明」，也就是說，是基於文化、宗教和文字的社會組織形式，這種社會組織形式被統治者所利用，作為一種將東亞地區統一起來的方式，而不是一個歷史上連續的政治實體或「國家」。

Within "China" today, you will see numerous ethnicities, and even among the so-called "Han" Chinese, who like to imagine themselves as single ethinicity, you will see such regional variation that is tantamount to ethnicity, so that the idea of "China" cannot be an ethnicity-based nation, but rather is a civilization (as I previously stated).

在今天的「中國」，你會看到許多民族，即使在視自己為單一民族的所謂「漢族人」中，你也會看到這樣的等同於民族劃分的區域差異，因此，「中國」不是以民族為基礎的國家，而是一種文明（如我之前所言）。

Rome, as we understand it today, is a contiguous political entity from its founding to around 400 AD when it officially collapsed in the west. However, if you think of Rome as a political idea, you will see that, like the idea of "China", it has continued throughout history in various forms until today.

正如我們今天所理解的，從羅馬建國開始到公元400年左右它在西方正式崩潰，羅馬一直是一個連續的政治實體。但是，如果你把羅馬視為一個政治觀念，你會看到，就像中國這個概念一樣，羅馬在歷史上一直延續到今天。

For example, in the west, the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire and now the EU, and in the east, the "Byzantine" Empire which was succeeded by Russia. However, as a cultural civilization, we might observe the most notable features of Roman civilization (bloodsports and gladiator games, Apollo and Zeus worship, public baths, wearing togas, chariot races, etc. are some of the stereotypical ideas that come to mind) seemed to have largely vanished.

例如，在西方，有羅馬天主教會，神聖羅馬帝國，現在是歐盟，在東方，有拜占庭帝國，後來由俄羅斯繼承。然而，作為一種文化意義上的文明，我們可能會觀察到羅馬文明最顯著的特徵（血腥運動和角鬥士遊戲，阿波羅和宙斯崇拜，公共澡堂，羅馬寬外袍，戰車比賽等等，這些都是能想到的陳規陋習）大部分都已經消失了。

But one might say the same of much of "old China" also (e.g., footbinding, kow towing, the Confucian scholar examination system, etc.), but those observations merely reflects outward norms of behavior. The key to the survival of China, and why Rome disappeared, is the fact that the people of China continue to identify themselves as Chinese, whereas the people of Europe no longer identify themselves as Romans (but rather as French, British, Spanish, German, Italian, etc.). So the difference between the idea of Rome and China is simply that the culture of China has had sufficient permanence in the minds of its people to remain a unifying basis for national identity to this day.

但也有人可能會說 「舊中國」（例如，磕頭，拖拽，儒家考試製度等等）也沒有了啊，但這些僅僅反映了外在的行為規範。中國能夠生存到現在，而羅馬消失的關鍵原因，是因為中國人繼續將自己視為中國人，而歐洲人不再將自己視為羅馬人（而是視自己為法國人、英國人、西班牙人、德國人和義大利人等）。所以，羅馬和中國的區別僅僅在於，直到今天中國的文化在中國人思想中已經根深蒂固，這都保持了中國人統一的國家身份認同。

————

Christos Antoniadis, 在伯羅奔尼撒大學學習歷史

Actually, Rome did survive 2000 years (or, to be more exact, 2200 years); the most surprising fact is that the Roman state did not fracture like the Han Empire did into the the Three Kingdoms (AD 220–280) only to be reunited by the Sui Dynasty in 581 AD and then fractured again once the Tang Dynasty fell in 907 AD, then (after a Song reunification) be conquered by the Mongols in 1271 and the Manchus in 1644.

事實上，羅馬存活了2000年（或者精確點是2200年）。讓人吃驚的是羅馬國家並沒有像漢帝國那樣分裂成三國（公元220—280）卻又在581年被隋朝重新統一，之後隨著997年唐朝滅亡又陷入分裂，然後（在宋朝重新統一）在1271年被蒙古人征服，在1644年被滿族人征服。

Chinese civilization is continuous and lasts from ancient times until now. The different Chinese states claimed the Mandate of Heaven and organized their government according to an Imperial system that originated in the Qin Dynasty. Yet, there was no one Chinese Empire lasted from 221 BC to 1911 AD.

中國文明源遠流長，從古代一直延續到了現在。中國的不同王朝聲稱天命所歸，並根據秦朝建立的帝國體系組織他們的政府。然而，沒有一個中國的王朝從公元前221年存活到1911年。

On the other hand, legally speaking, the Roman state survived from 753 BC to 1453 AD with only two 『divisions』; the first one between East and West in 395 AD. Yet this was not considered to be a real division by the Romans themselves. According to them, the Roman Empire was one with two Emperors.

另一方面，從法律上講，羅馬國家從公元前753年存活到公元1453年，其間只經歷了兩次「分裂」。第一次是公元395年的東西羅馬分治。然而在羅馬人看來這不算真正的分裂。從羅馬人角度看，羅馬帝國是個整體，只是有兩個皇帝。

The state continued to have two Consuls (one Easterner and one Westerner) and laws issued in one part of the Empire took effect in the other too. The deposition of the last Western Emperor was not considered that important by the Romans themselves exactly because of this reason.

國家一直有兩個執政官（一個是帝國東部人，一個是帝國西部人），在帝國的某個地方頒布的法律也在另一個地方生效。正是因為這個原因，西羅馬帝國的最後一任皇帝被廢黜並沒有被羅馬人視為很嚴重的事情。

The second division was that of 1204, after the Fourth Crusade. Three Greek states emerged, yet the Empire of Nicaea managed to restore Constantinople to Roman rule and reasonably claim to be the legitimate successor of the Angeloi Emperors. Thus, Rome fell in 1453. Although its capital, language, religion, culture and system of government changed significantly in that 2200 years, legally and ideologically speaking Rome survived to 1453.

第二次分裂是1204年，在第四次十字軍之後。出現了三個希臘人的國家，但尼西亞帝國設法讓君士坦丁堡重歸羅馬統治，併合理地宣稱是羅馬帝國皇帝的合法繼承者。因此，羅馬滅亡於1453年。儘管在2200年的時間裡，羅馬的首都、語言、宗教、文化和政府體系發生了巨大的變化，但從法律和思想上講，羅馬仍活到了1453年。

（譯註：第四次十字軍東征中，西歐騎士和威尼斯人聯合攻佔了君士坦丁堡，從君士坦丁堡出逃的拜占廷貴族建立了三個希臘人主導的拜占廷流亡政權，分別是伊庇魯斯專制君主國、特拉布松帝國和尼西亞帝國。）

————

Jason St. Pierre, 帶有痞子氣的歷史學家，過去是天文物理學家，時常無聊。

Your premise is flawed. According to the Roman civil calendar, Rome was founded on April 21 in either 750 or 753 BC. The last major city in the Roman Empire, Constantinople, didn"t fall until 1453. That works out to just over 2200 years where the Roman state existed in some form.

Now let"s look at Chinese history:

你的前提就有問題。羅馬民用歷表明，羅馬建於公元前750或者753的四月21日。羅馬帝國最後的主要城市，君士坦丁堡淪陷於1453年。可以算出羅馬國家以不同的形式存在超過了2200年。

讓我們看下中國歷史：

Shang Empire: c. 1600 - 1046 BC

Zhou Empire: c. 1045 - 256 BC

Qin Dynasty: 221 - 206 BC

Han Dynaty: 206 BC - AD 201

Jin Dynasty: 265 - 420

Sui Dynasty: 581 - 618

Tang Dynasty: 618 - 907

Song Dynasty: 960 - 1279

Yuan Dynasty: 1271 - 1368

Ming Dynasty: 1368 - 1644

Qing Dynasty: 1644 – 1911

商朝：公元前1600——公元前1046

周朝：公元前1045——公元前256

秦朝：公元前221——公元前206

漢朝：公元前206——公元201

晉朝：265——420

隋朝：581——618

唐朝：618——907

宋朝：960——1279

元朝：1271——1368

明朝：1368——1644

清朝：1644——1911

Each gap in there represents an era where either China had broken apart and the smaller successor kingdoms were no more China than the Frankish or Vandalic kingdoms were the same thing as the Roman Empire. Going by this timeline, the longest continuous period of time where you had a unified China was from 1600 BC to 256 BC, some 1344 years under the Shang and the Zhou.

在這些朝代之間的每個缺口都代表了一段時期，中國處於分裂，更小的繼承性的王朝不再是中國了，這類似於法蘭克和汪達爾王國之於羅馬帝國。按著這條時間線，你會發現統一中國時間最長的是從公元前1600年至公元前256年，商朝和周朝總共延續了1344年。

Thing is, that"s not the whole story either. The Shang and the Zhou were separate cultures, so you have to ask yourself whether or not the Zhou conquest of Shang represents a unified Chinese state or two different states that went to war. You can ask yourself the same thing with the Yuan and the Qing. The Yuan Dynasty saw China conquered by the Mongols and the Qing saw China conquered by the Manchus. They both adopted large amounts of Chinese culture, but is this situation really any different than the Ottoman conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire?

還沒說完。商和周有著不同的文化，所以你要問自己，周人征服商人是一個統一的中國國家還是兩個不同國家之間發生的戰爭。元朝和清朝也是如此。元朝代表了蒙古人征服了中國，清朝代表了了滿族人征服了中國。雖然他們都借鑒了很多的中國文化，但這種情況和奧斯曼帝國征服東羅馬帝國有什麼不同？

Edit: In response to the comments, let me pose a question of my own here: are we talking about the Chinese and the Romans or are we talking about China and the Roman Empire? Cultural identification is trickier to define, but the original question seems to be asking about political continuity.

編輯：回複評論，我要問個問題：我們是在談論中國人和羅馬人，還是我們在談論中國和羅馬帝國？用文化認同來定義是很複雜的，但原本的問題就是在問政治的連續性。

————

John Kuo, 失意的業餘科學家

My own hypothesis to this (which I"ve discussed with my brother Kaiser) is that agricultural practices that are renewable and resilient have much to do with cultural/civilization longevity.

The only "culture" that spans longer than Chinese is/was Egyptian, which "ended" with the Arab conquests of North Africa.

我對此的假設（我和我的兄弟Kaiser的交流結果）是可持續和適應性強的農業耕作方式對文化/文明的壽命起到了很大作用。

唯一比中國人有更長「文明」的是埃及人，而阿拉伯人對北非的征服終結了這一文明。

Both Egyptian and Chinese cultures share in common a riverine based agriculture where fertile fields were renewed by annual flooding. However, Chinese/Asian agriculture progressed to intensive terraced farming where fields do not lose their topsoil at the rate of Western flat-field practices, and are renewed with compost as well. This allows stable, constant agriculture in the same location without farms turning to deserts, and no silting up of harbors, etc. These issues plagued Roman cities throughout the Mediterranean.

埃及文明和中國文明的相同之處是他們都有一個沿河流發展而成的農業，在那裡每年的河水泛濫使肥沃的土地得以恢復。然而，中國/亞洲的農業發展到了集約化的梯田農業，那裡土地的土壤流失速度沒有西方平場農田快，還能通過糞肥恢復土壤肥力。這使得中國在相同的地方保持穩定的、不變的農業，他們的農場不會變成沙漠，港口也不會淤塞，等等。而這些問題則困擾著整個地中海的羅馬城市。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！