[2020-12-13]中国主要王朝及其兴盛阶段

Money_dragon
Song Dynasty is super underrated IMO. It lasted over 300 years, but most people's first impression of Song is the dynasty that was defeated by the Mongols.

在我看来，宋朝是超级被低估的。它延续了300多年，但大多数人对宋朝的第一印象是被蒙古人打败的王朝。

MobsterRedditor
Exactly. Just look at its peak plateau. It’s way more flatten than any other dynasties. Proves it managed its peak longer than any other empires. We need to study more about Song’s system.

一点儿也没错。只要看看它的高峰期和稳定期。它比其他任何朝代都要平坦。证明了它比其他任何帝国都更长时间地处于巅峰状态。我们需要更多地研究宋朝的制度。

SonOfTheDragon101
China probably achieved its highest GDP per capita relative to the rest of the world during Song Dynasty. However, Song Dynasty was too focused on getting rich. It was territorially small, and militarily weak. An optimum has to be struck between focusing on economic wealth and military strength.

宋朝时期，中国的人均 GDP 可能是世界上最高的。然而，宋代太注重致富了。它领土狭小，军事力量薄弱。在关注经济财富和军事实力之间，必须找到一个最佳选择。

garagegymer
History has shown this twice for China, once during the Song and again during the Qing. If you're rich, you MUST convert part of that wealth into military strength to deter invasions as well as to protect your economic and development interests, else you're just a fat pig waiting for slaughter by barbarians.

中国的历史已经两次证明了这一点，一次是在宋朝，另一次是在清朝。如果你很富有，你必须将部分财富转化为军事力量来阻止侵略，同时保护你的经济和发展利益，否则你只是一头等待被野蛮人屠杀的肥猪。

asiancounterback
definitely you see millionaires and billionaires with bodyguards
china must invest more and more in self defense to deter the barbarians from ever thinking of invading again

你肯定能看到百万富翁和亿万富翁都有带着保镖
中国必须在自卫方面投入越来越多的资金，以防止野蛮人再次入侵

Ulyks
The Song did fight quite well actually. They developed and employed new technologies and held back the mongols for quite a while. They did have bad intelligence and the mongols did have one of the most formidably fighting forces in history.
For example the Song wasted considerable forces retaking the devastated north when the mongols retreated to choose a new leader.
The Song were also not good at diplomacy, they needlessly offended the mongols multiple times by killing the mongol envoys and refusing any cooperation.
There are still lessons to be learned from this part of history.

宋朝其实打得还不错。他们开发和利用新技术，使蒙古人在相当长的一段时间内被阻碍。他们的情报确实很差，而蒙古人的战斗力确实是历史上最强大的。
例如，当蒙古人撤退选择新的领导人时，宋朝浪费了大量兵力重新夺回了被破坏的北方。
宋朝也不擅长外交，他们多次杀死蒙古使臣，拒绝合作，多次无谓地触怒蒙古人。
我们仍然可以从这段历史中吸取教训。

delorisdeloris
I agree. The Song was already starting to industrialize. If not for the Mongols who knows how much history would have changed.
The Song lost out to the Mongols, but people forget that they resisted for over 70 years in war and endured droughts and famines during that time.

我同意。宋朝已经开始工业化了。如果没有蒙古人，谁知道历史会发生多大的变化。
宋朝输给了蒙古人，但是人们忘记了他们在战争中抵抗了70多年，在那段时间里忍受了干旱和饥荒。

xingfenzhen
However, Southern Song's defense is really bad when compared to Eastern Jin. It only looks decent when compared to Southern Ming.

然而，与东晋相比，南宋的防守实在是太差了。只有与南明相比，它才看起来像样。

delorisdeloris
eastern jin was around 300 to 400 CE right?

东晋大约在公元300年到400年之间，对吗？

xingfenzhen
yes, and they held against a united northern invasion of both Former Qin and Northern Wei (after they got usurped). While Jin administration is far from perfect, they don't have crazy stuff like policies of Jia Sidao.

是的，他们抵御了前秦和北魏的北方联合侵略(在他们被篡夺之后)。虽然晋朝的行政管理还远远不够完善，但他们并没有贾似道这样的疯狂政策。

allinwonderornot
Southern Song had the best heavy infantry in the pre-gunpowder era. It was with those heavy infantry that Song resisted Mongols (and other nomadic tribes) for so long.

南宋在前火药时代拥有最好的重步兵。正是这些重步兵长期抵抗蒙古人(和其他游牧部落)。

xingfenzhen
indeed, however, they lack of cavalry as well as defensive oriented tactics meant if a Mongol army is defeated (even a devastating one that kills their khan), they can usually lick their wounds and come back with minimal loss of their position; while any Song defeat would mean major army units destroyed and huge loss of territory. This weakness is not new either, through out Song-Liao and Song-Jin wars, we see this pattern repeat again and again. (However, Mongol is unique in that they can put up a determined siege lasting years even when facing mounting losses, while Khitan and Jurchen forces will usually retreat upon stiff resistance.)
This is again strongly contrasted with Ming armies less than a century later which blitzkrieged from South of Yangtze to North of the Gobi in about two years.

然而事实上，他们缺乏骑兵和防御性战术，这意味着如果蒙古军队被击败(即使是毁灭性的，比如杀死了他们的可汗)，他们通常会舔舐伤口，然后以最小的损失夺回他们的阵地；而任何宋的失败将意味着主要的军队被摧毁和领土的巨大损失。这种弱点也不是新出现的，通过宋辽、宋金战争，我们看到这种模式一次又一次地出现。(然而，蒙古人的独特之处在于，即使面临越来越大的损失，他们也能坚持长达数年的围攻，而契丹和女真的部队通常会在顽强抵抗下撤退。)
这再次与不到一个世纪后的明军形成鲜明对比，明军在两年左右的时间里从长江以南突袭到戈壁以北。

ConstitutionalMaoist
Song was a culturally rich period but the lack of military culture ended up driving them down. It was more socially palatable to become a government official than anything else, so the state kind of collapsed on itself

宋朝是一个文化丰富的时期，但是缺乏军事文化最终导致了他们的衰落。在社会上，当一名政府官员比做其他任何事都要容易得多，所以这个王朝就这样崩溃了

RTR73
That's fascinating! Do you have a source with more detail behind this chart? I'd be curious what scales the 1.0 all-time max. I'd probably put more stock in "recent" measurements, which could benefit from modern methods of quantification, but clearly the PRC era shows a skyrocketing improvement.

这太吸引人了！你有没有这张图表后更详细的资料来源吗？我很好奇1.0的最大值是什么比例。我可能会更看重“最近”的测量结果，这可以从现代的量化方法中受益，但很明显，中华人民共和国的时代显示出了飞速的进步。

xerotul
I would not take Ray Dalio's theory seriously. Dalio forms his conclusion and make historical rise and fall of empires to fit it. When it involves people things are more complicated and unpredictable. Economics is social and it is not physical law which some economists like to make it out to be.

我不会认真对待雷 · 达里奥的理论。达里奥形成了他自己的结论，并用帝国的兴衰来证明这一结论。当涉及到人的时候，事情就变得更加复杂和不可预测。经济学是社会性的，而不是一些经济学家所喜欢说的物理定律。

RTR73
Good point. And to the limited extent that economics is "physical law", our ability to measure it was pretty sketchy back in 700 AD. It is interesting (although, as you point out, maybe entirely contrived) that the relative value dropped precipitously toward the end of each dynasty. Whether the figure of merit is accurate for today's PRC, it's at least on a rapid upswing, not drifting down. But the devil is in the details -- was there ANYTHING quantitative in how the graph was produced?

说得好。在有限的范围内，经济学是“物理定律”，早在公元700年，我们对它的测量能力还很粗略。有趣的是(尽管，正如你所指出的，可能完全是人为的) ，每个王朝末期的相对价值都急剧下降。无论这个价值数字对于今天的中国来说是否准确，它至少是在快速上升，而不是下降。但是问题在于细节——这张图表是如何制作的，有什么量化的东西吗？

wakeup2019
Got it from Ray Dalio’s LinkedIn page.

从达里奥的领英页面上看到的。

badlores
As much as i love PRC - no way is it at the level of the peak of the Ming dynasty, and above ALL of the Qing dynasty.
Remember Zheng He in the early Ming Dynasty? His fleet could've damn well conquered/colonized half the world if they wanted to.
I'd elevate everything before mid-Qing dynasty a big step up. Late Qing / ROC era was yes... a disaster.

尽管我非常热爱中国，但它绝不可能达到明朝鼎盛时期的水平，更不可能达到清朝的水平。
还记得明初的郑和吗？如果他的舰队愿意的话，他们完全可以征服/殖民半个世界。
我会把清朝中期以前的一切都提高了一大步，但晚清/民国时代是的... 是一场灾难。

SonOfTheDragon101
The vertical scale is relative to the world's other empires. I suspect the reason why China's peaks during Ming and Qing are lower is because this coincided with the European peak and their colonisation of the world. China had fewer international competitors during Tang and Song Dynasties. The only credible competition for size and power then was the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. During Europe's peak, there were always multiple Empires that were very strong, including non-European ones like the Ottoman. Today, the world is much more fragmented than ever before. Power is more dispersed, so the absolute strength of the top powers should also be weaker. Even in 2020, the PRC is clearly in second place in terms of raw national power (economic+military). PRC isn't doing worse than Ming or Qing in world rankings.

纵向比例尺是相对于世界上其他帝国的。我怀疑，中国明清时期的高峰期之所以较低，是因为这一时期正好是欧洲高峰期，也是对世界进行殖民统治的时期。唐宋时期，中国的国际竞争对手较少。当时，对规模和实力的唯一可信的竞争对手是倭玛亚王朝和阿巴斯王朝。在欧洲的鼎盛时期，总是有多个非常强大的帝国，包括像奥斯曼帝国这样的非欧洲帝国。今天，世界比以往任何时候都更加支离破碎。权力更加分散，所以顶尖大国的绝对力量也应该更弱。即使到了2020年，中华人民共和国就原始国力(经济+军事)也明显处于第二位。在世界排名中，中国并不比明清差。

SonOfTheDragon101
According to the graph, the Ming peak occurred between 1500-1600. There are several contenders for top power in this period: Spain and Portugal have just colonised most of the Americas between them, while the Ottomans was close to its maximum strength. The Mughals in India were also near maximum strength. I'd say the world was quite multi-polar during this period, but these four plus China should be the top powers.
The Qing peak in that graph was late-1700s/early-1800s. Considering that the 19th century was the British century, it was likely already the top power. It lost the US, but more than compensated by gaining control over India, and rapidly expanding into Canada, Australia and parts of Africa. France was also very strong around the time of Napoleon - it had been the strongest power in Europe before Britain's ascendancy. Russia was gaining the upper hand over all of its neighbours (Ottomans, Persia) and had already expanded to the Far East, Unequal Treaties were coming. These along with China are the top powers.

根据图表，明朝高峰期出现在1500年至1600年之间。在这个时期，有几个争夺最高权力的竞争者：西班牙和葡萄牙刚刚殖民了美洲大部分地区，而奥斯曼帝国已经接近其最大的实力。印度的莫卧儿王朝也接近最大实力。我想说，在这段时期，世界是相当多极化的，但是这四个国家加上中国，应该是世界上最强大的国家。
这张图表中的清朝高峰期是18世纪末/19世纪初。考虑到19世纪是英国的世纪，它很可能已经是世界上最强大的国家。它失去了美国，但通过获得对印度的控制权，并迅速扩张到加拿大、澳大利亚和非洲部分地区，它得到了足够的补偿。在拿破仑时期，法国也非常强大，在英国崛起之前，法国是欧洲最强大的国家。俄罗斯在所有邻国(奥斯曼，波斯)中占上风，并且已经扩张到远东地区，不平等条约接踵而至。这些国家和中国都是世界上最强大的国家。

ConstitutionalMaoist
China today is comparatively poorer than it was during those eras, Ming Dynasty at its peak was formidable, and China pre opium war was still stronger than the European empires.

与那些时代相比，今天的中国相对贫穷，鼎盛时期的明朝让人生畏，鸦片战争前的中国仍然比欧洲帝国强大。

GoGetParked
The thing that people overlook in this graph is the absolutely steep climb at the end. The recovery and the short amount of time it took to achieve that is a stupendous feat in itself.
And long may it continue to rise!

在这张图表中，人们忽略的是最后绝对陡峭的攀爬。短时间复苏经济以及实现这一目标本身就是一项了不起的成就。
愿它能长久地继续上升！