当前位置： >
阿里巴巴创始人直言不讳称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途，网民评
作者：施索恩工作室　时间： 19:10　
Alibaba founderJack Ma has a brutal theory of how America went wrong over the past 30 years
阿里巴巴创始人马云直言不讳称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途
(Jack Ma.WEF) 马云在世界经济论坛
DAVOS, Switzerland ― Alibaba founderJack Ma thinks America went wrong over the past 30 years by focusing too muchon war and Wall Street. Speaking at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, Mawas asked about globalisation and the reaction to it represented by theelection of Donald Trump as US president.
达沃斯，瑞士――阿里巴巴创始人马云认为美国在过去的三十年里热衷战争和聚焦华尔街是个错误。在周三的世界经济论坛上，马云被问及全球化及其所带来的特朗普当选美国总统一事时发表上述言论。
He responded that back when ThomasFriedman published “The World Is Flat” in 2005, globalisation lookedlike “a perfect strategy” for the US: “We just want thetechnology, and the IP, and the brand, and we’ll leave the other jobs” toother countries like Mexico and China, he said.
他提到，回到2005年当Thomas Friedman出版《The World IsFlat》一书时，美国认为全球化是美国“一个完美的战略”：“我们只要技术、知识产权、品牌，其他的工作让出”给其他国家，例如墨西哥和中国。
“American international companiesmade millions and millions of dollars from globalisation,” Ma said.
As an example of just how much wasavailable, Ma said, “When I graduated from university I tried to buy abeeper, and it cost me $250. My pay at the time was $10 a month.”
“IBM,Microsoft,” he added, “the profit they made was larger than the topfour banks in China put together … But where did the money go?”
“美国跨国企业从全球化中大发横财，”马云称。
马云举了个例子，“当我大学毕业时，我想要个传呼机，当时卖250美元，而我当时的工资只有每月10美元。”
“IBM，微软，他们的利润比中国的四大银行总和还要多。。。那些钱去哪里了呢？”
U.S. Army firefight Kunar美军在阿富汗作战
(US soldiersduring a firefight with Taliban forces in Barawala Kalay Valley inAfghanistan’s Kunar province in 2011.Pfc. Cameron Boyd / Wikimedia, CC)
Ma said that 30 years ago the American companies that people in China heardabout were Ford and Boeing. Today the companies that people in China talk aboutare in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street.
马云称在三十年前中国人认识的美国公司是福特和波音，现在中国人谈论的是硅谷和华尔街。
At the sametime, the US spent a lot of money on foreign conflicts. “In the past 30years, America had 13 wars spending $2 trillion … no matter how good yourstrategy is you’re supposed to spend money on your own people,” Ma said.”The money goes to Wall Street. Then what happened? Year 2008 wiped out$19.2 trillion in US income … What if the money was spent on the Midwest ofthe United States?”
同时，美国在国际冲突中花费了大量金钱。“在过去的三十年，美国开战13场，花费了2万亿美元。。。不管是多好的战略，钱应该是花在自己人民身上。钱却到流向了华尔街。然后呢？ 2008年的金融危机抹掉了19.2万亿的美国财富。。。设想如果这些钱是花在了美国中西部地区会怎样？”
“The othercountries steal jobs from you guys ― that is your strategy. You did notdistribute the money in the proper way.”
“其他国家窃走了你们的工作――那是你们的战略。是你们没有把那些钱用在正道上。”
Elsewhere duringhis talk, Ma said his favourite film was “Forrest Gump” because hesaw something of Alibaba in Gump’s shrimp boat. Ma quoted Gump as saying”Nobody makes money catching whales ― people make money catchingshrimps.”
马云曾经提过他喜欢的一部电影是“阿甘正传”。因为他从阿甘的捕虾船上看到了阿里巴巴的共同点。阿甘的台词“没人从捕鲸中挣到了钱，大家捕虾挣了钱。”
马云说：“我们就是那样挣了钱。”
“That’s howwe make money” at Alibaba, he said.
He also revealedthat he wanted to retire early: “I don’t want to die in my office,”he said. “I want to die on the beaches.”
马云还提到他想提前退休：“我不想死在办公室，我想在海滩上老去。”
以下 是 原网站 网民 评论 部分
2 hours ago
He’s right, andthe American people know he’s right. Look at the fight over Obamacare! Theycould just fix the whats wrong with the thing and move on. But they want todismantle it and reinvent the wheel because “Obama’s” name is on it,no other reason. This country is greedy and doesn’t care about its people,that’s a fact!! This is partly the voters fault as well. We vote for the samepeople over and over again. We complain about them, then vote for them again.
他是对的，美国人知道他是对的。看看围绕奥巴马医保的争论。大家可以修改不足之处继续推进，然而有人却想推倒从来，仅仅是因为有“奥巴马”这几个字。这是个贪婪的国度，对国人毫不关心，这是事实！！部分责任在投票人身上。我们一次又一次给同一帮人投票。我们抱怨他们，然后再次给他们投票。
ReplyReplies (78)
Stupid GOPers
2 hours ago
He’s right. Wespend more on UNNECESSARY war than we do our own people.
他是对的，我们在没有意义的战争上花的钱比在自己人民身上的多。
ReplyReplies (26)
1 hour ago
He’s right aboutone thing…… Too much money spent on wars…..
有件事他说对了。。。在战争上花了太多的钱。。。
ReplyReplies (9)
Copyright &
.&版权所有    Ta的最新译文
您还没有登录！
评论过百赞有奖励哦！马云称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途 美网友：他是对的，美国人知道他是对的
我的图书馆
马云称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途 美网友：他是对的，美国人知道他是对的
马云称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途 美网友：他是对的，美国人知道他是对的
国外网友看中国
国外网友看中国
微信号 ichina21
功能介绍 看世界，爱中国！?china，ichina21！
国外网友看中国换一个角度，看到一个新的中国Alibaba founderJack Ma has a brutal theory of how America went wrong over the past 30 years阿里巴巴创始人马云直言不讳称美国在过去的三十年是误入歧途(Jack Ma.WEF) 马云在世界经济论坛DAVOS, Switzerland — Alibaba founderJack Ma thinks America went wrong over the past 30 years by focusing too muchon war and Wall Street. Speaking at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, Mawas asked about globalisation and the reaction to it represented by theelection of Donald Trump as US president.达沃斯，瑞士——阿里巴巴创始人马云认为美国在过去的三十年里热衷战争和聚焦华尔街是个错误。在周三的世界经济论坛上，马云被问及全球化及其所带来的特朗普当选美国总统一事时发表上述言论。He responded that back when ThomasFriedman published 'The World Is Flat' in 2005, globalisation lookedlike 'a perfect strategy' for the US: 'We just want thetechnology, and the IP, and the brand, and we'll leave the other jobs' toother countries like Mexico and China, he said.他提到，回到2005年当Thomas Friedman出版《The World IsFlat》一书时，美国认为全球化是美国“一个完美的战略”：“我们只要技术、知识产权、品牌，其他的工作让出”给其他国家，例如墨西哥和中国。'American international companiesmade millions and millions of dollars from globalisation,' Ma said.“美国跨国企业从全球化中大发横财，”马云称。As an example of just how much wasavailable, Ma said, 'When I graduated from university I tried to buy abeeper, and it cost me $250. My pay at the time was $10 a month.'马云举了个例子，“当我大学毕业时，我想要个传呼机，当时卖250美元，而我当时的工资只有每月10美元。”'IBM,Microsoft,' he added, 'the profit they made was larger than the topfour banks in China put together ... But where did the money go?'“IBM，微软，他们的利润比中国的四大银行总和还要多。。。那些钱去哪里了呢？”U.S. Army firefight Kunar美军在阿富汗作战Ma said that 30 years ago the American companies that people in China heardabout were Ford and Boeing. Today the companies that people in China talk aboutare in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street.马云称在三十年前中国人认识的美国公司是福特和波音，现在中国人谈论的是硅谷和华尔街。At the sametime, the US spent a lot of money on foreign conflicts. 'In the past 30years, America had 13 wars spending $2 trillion ... no matter how good yourstrategy is you're supposed to spend money on your own people,' Ma said.'The money goes to Wall Street. Then what happened? Year 2008 wiped out$19.2 trillion in US income ... What if the money was spent on the Midwest ofthe United States?'同时，美国在国际冲突中花费了大量金钱。“在过去的三十年，美国开战13场，花费了2万亿美元。。。不管是多好的战略，钱应该是花在自己人民身上。钱却到流向了华尔街。然后呢？ 2008年的金融危机抹掉了19.2万亿的美国财富。。。设想如果这些钱是花在了美国中西部地区会怎样？”'The othercountries steal jobs from you guys — that is your strategy. You did notdistribute the money in the proper way.'“其他国家窃走了你们的工作——那是你们的战略。是你们没有把那些钱用在正道上。”Elsewhere duringhis talk, Ma said his favourite film was 'Forrest Gump' because hesaw something of Alibaba in Gump's shrimp boat. Ma quoted Gump as saying'Nobody makes money catching whales — people make money catchingshrimps.'马云曾经提过他喜欢的一部电影是“阿甘正传”。因为他从阿甘的捕虾船上看到了阿里巴巴的共同点。阿甘的台词“没人从捕鲸中挣到了钱，大家捕虾挣了钱。”'That's howwe make money' at Alibaba, he said.马云说：“我们就是那样挣了钱。”He also revealedthat he wanted to retire early: 'I don't want to die in my office,'he said. 'I want to die on the beaches.'马云还提到他想提前退休：“我不想死在办公室，我想在海滩上老去。”网友评论OLIVER2 hours agoHe's right, andthe American people know he's right. Look at the fight over Obamacare! Theycould just fix the whats wrong with the thing and move on. But they want todismantle it and reinvent the wheel because 'Obama's' name is on it,no other reason. This country is greedy and doesn't care about its people,that's a fact!! This is partly the voters fault as well. We vote for the samepeople over and over again. We complain about them, then vote for them again.他是对的，美国人知道他是对的。看看围绕奥巴马医保的争论。大家可以修改不足之处继续推进，然而有人却想推倒从来，仅仅是因为有“奥巴马”这几个字。这是个贪婪的国度，对国人毫不关心，这是事实！！部分责任在投票人身上。我们一次又一次给同一帮人投票。我们抱怨他们，然后再次给他们投票。Stupid GOPers2 hours agoHe's right. Wespend more on UNNECESSARY war than we do our own people.他是对的，我们在没有意义的战争上花的钱比在自己人民身上的多。Marty1 hour agoHe's right aboutone thing...... Too much money spent on wars.....有件事他说对了。。。在战争上花了太多的钱。。。Tony1 hour agoWell now withthe new Joker as President, We are doomed !!!!!!!!!!!!!现在这个新的大王上台当总统，我们的在劫难逃！BirdWatcher2 hours agoIt is ourtrading and foreign policies with China + letting them stealing and copyingeverything without any punishment or retaliation. That is our huge error thatwill be extremely difficult to correct.我们的对中国的贸易和外交政策+让他们窃走和拷贝却不加惩罚或报复。我们的大错，很难再纠正了。Michael2 hours agoDoes anybodytake that monkey seriously?谁拿这只猴子当真？guy1 hour agomost are goingfrom 2 trillion on war and then jumping to spending in the midwest missing: Themoney goes to Wall Street. Then what happened? Year 2008 wiped out $19.2trillion in US income ... What if the money was spent on the Midwest of theUnited States?' we gave the wealthy almost 20 trillion to play with andsee if they could get richer instead of improving sewers, bridges, earthquakeretrofit. st louis will wish they did that.我们给了那些富人20万亿去玩玩，看看他们是否能变得更有钱，却不去改善排水、桥梁、圣路易人期盼的地震灾后重建。TRIUMPH2 hours agoChina exportsgoods by train through 1/2 dozen countries all the way to London, now that'sinfrastructure and Nation building. Benefits China and its people.'In the past 30 years, America had 13 wars spending $2 trillion ... nomatter how good your strategy is you're supposed to spend money on your ownpeople, according to Ma.中国通过铁路穿过6、7 个国家一路开到伦敦出口产品，现在是基础设施和国家建设。造福中国和其人民。“在过去的三十年，美国开战13场，花费了2万亿美元。。。不管是多好的战略，钱应该是花在自己人民身上。马云mike1 hour agoMove overAmerica. China is the new world leader.美国让让，中国是新的世界领袖。Curtis s1 hour agoCan anybody sayMilitary Industrial complex? Eisenhower warned us of this when he left office. Youhave the military always clamoring for more money. If you are working for anycompany, when have you ever asked for the company that you work for to stopsending you more money than you need? You don#$%$ a self fulfilling prophecy,What I don't understand is why people can't see that.We are tired of being theworlds policeman, but we need a strong military. For what purpose?.有人说说军工综合体吗？艾森豪威尔离任时曾警告过。军队总是嚷嚷着要更多的钱。当你为一家公司工作，你会要求公司不要给你超出所需的钱吗？你不n#$%$ 一个自我应验的预言。我不能理解的是，既然我们厌倦做世界警察，我们为何还要一支强大的军队，用来干嘛？ &转载侵权请联系删除 原创请注明来源ichina21小编微信：chentuo1218
该文章作者已设置需关注才可以留言
该文章作者已设置需关注才可以留言
以上留言由公众号筛选后显示
微信扫一扫关注该公众号
馆藏&25263
TA的推荐TA的最新馆藏This is a topic on the revolutionary system of warfare that the Chinese had during their dynasties till 1911. Do you think it was truly advanced compared to the Persian, Turk, Arab, Greek, Roman, and European Warfare systems throughout that time?
这次的主题是关于中国历朝历代不断变更的战争系统（截止到1911年）。相比于同时代波斯，土耳其，阿拉伯，希腊，罗马和欧洲的战争体系，中国（的战争系统）果真如人们所想的那样更为先进么？
The Chinese techology during the Warring states period and its organization and logistics was very good due to the experiences and ways to get better. The Phalanx formation adopted by the Greeks, the Chinese had formations of locked formations just like that too. However due to the advancement of Crossbows. Chinese bronze smelting technology was far ahead of its time, making swords longer and stronger than any European Celtic sword.
在战国时期，由于连年战乱，各国都在改良和改进用于军事上的工艺技术。（所以相较于世界其他地区而言），中国的军事技术，组织结构，和后勤在当时都是首屈一指的。相比于希腊人采用的方阵，中国也有类似的（步兵）方阵。（在当时）中国的青铜器冶炼技术把其他国家远远的甩到了后面，相比与欧洲人凯尔特人所铸的铜剑，中国人制造的青铜剑更加锋利，更加坚固，耐久度也更高。在弓箭方面（也同样如此），（因为弓的幅度和弯曲度等原因）中国人所制的弓箭比起中世纪欧洲人所用弓箭更加精准，穿透力也更强。
Also Crossbows were fielded on mass probaly as powerful(and more accurate due to the bowspan and recurve) than a European foot spanned crossbow of the Medieval age.
By the End of the Warring states army sizes went from 10s of thousands to 100 of thousands(although might be overexaggerated) but the Chinese definetley did develop systems to feed massive ammounts of armies. 2 million Qin army is definetley an overexaggeration though.
（虽然可能有一些夸大的成分），在战国末期，一支军队的规模已经从一开始的数以万计，上升到了数以十万计。但中国确实发展和完善了相关体系来维持如此数量的军队。但是200万秦军绝对是夸大其词了。
By the Xiongnu Wars, massive ammounts of cavalry were fielded reflecting almost Blitzkrieg tactics of the Modern era in massive conglomerated field armies rather than singular field armies Alexander the Great or the Persians. Roman armies had &army groups& but they never were that large or on the scale of the Chinese. What administration system and logistical system made them so revolutionary?
到了汉朝，（当时中国的主要敌人是匈奴）大规模的匈奴骑兵就像近代运用闪电战的大规模装甲集群一样，同样是以集团为单位作战（而不是单兵作战）比如亚历山大大帝时期的马其顿和后来的波斯帝国。马其顿军队有自己的&军团&。但他们的军团从来没有达到像中国军队这样的规模。究竟是什么样的管理体系和后勤体系让这庞大的中国军队如此具有革命性？
The Three kingdoms period armies tended to be smaller due to the division of states. High numbers are often overexaggerated to scare enemies(like Cao Cao at Red Cliff, his army was only 200,000) The Tang and Song armies were large as well.(battle of Talas)
How well did the Chinese stand up to the other powers around the region? I believe Juge Liang fought Southwestern tribes.
而到了三国时期，因为军阀割据，(相比于之前)此时的军队规模相对较小。军队数量往往被主帅夸大来恐吓敌人。例如在赤壁之战时，曹操军队不过二三十万，（却诈称百万）。尔后唐宋两朝的军队规模也与此相若。
What did the Mongols possess the Chinese did not? Why couldn't they do the massive cavalry blitz that Han did years earlier? Jin armies I believe were really poorly moraled seeing how 100,000 Mongols beat a 400,000 Jin army. 60,000 Mongols beat 200,000 Jin at Badger Mouth I believe.
究竟什么是蒙古独有，而中国人却不具备的呢，为什么此时的中国人不能像几百年前的老祖宗一样，用大规模骑兵闪电战来对付蒙古？在我看来，金国军队实在是不堪一击，（野狐岭会战，10万蒙古军队大败40万金军，而后6万蒙古军队再败20万金军）。
Finally when did the Chinese arms race and reputation as a advanced nation end? When the Europeans set sail?
最后，又是从何时开始，在军事和国际声望方面，作为一个世界一流大国的中国开始走向衰落的呢？欧洲人又是什么时候开始走向强盛的呢？
美国网友评论：
China was among the most advanced, if not the most advanced, civilization for a long time.
The nomadic peoples were extremely mobile, and when they were threatened, could muster massive experienced armies and pack up camp at a moment's notice.
I think the end of the Chinese being the among the most advanced was slow. Starting probably in the 1500s but not really catching on until the mid-late 1700s. This was due to China declining, as well as the West improving.
Once Europeans had surpassed East Asia, I think the largest factor was that of organization and training, rather than technology (except when rifles were used, of course).
中国长期以来都是最先进的国家，如果不是这样，他们的文明也不可能存在这么久。
游牧民族具有极强的机动性，如果他们想要作战，可以在极短的时间内聚集大量能征善战的部队，并且可随时席卷而去。
我认为中国登上世界巅峰地位过程是缓慢的，差不多从16世纪开始一直到18世纪才达成。此后中国开始衰弱，而西方世界开始崛起。
欧洲人领先于东亚国家，我认为很大一个原因是与其说是技术因素不如说是组织能力和教育训练（当然如果不算火枪的使用这个因素）
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt
&Ancient& China being far ahead, probably not. Ahead maybe in some ways but not far ahead. The Achaemenids were, in my opinion, much stronger than the Chinese at the time. So I would state it as &late ancient and pre-Qing Imperial China being far-ahead.&
Regarding the Mongol invasion, the Song lacked good horses and was troubled with intrigues in the Song court. General Yue Fei's downfall for example, it is a case of national disunity, political rivalry, and what I would call jealousy. A lack of administrative and/or bureaucratic competence would be one reason to your second last question.
Personally I would say the Chinese edge with late-Ming and Qing isolationism coinciding with European enlightenment and rationality. Though the rate of change was slow in the Ming, it was still outward looking and open-minded during the early and mid years of the dynasty.
&古代&中国是遥遥领先的，这么说不一定对。可能是在某些方面领先，但文明差距并不大。我认为阿契美尼德人比同时代的中国人更强大。所以我主张&中国从中古晚期到清代前期遥遥领先。&
（译注：阿契美尼德王朝，公元前553年-前334年，也称波斯第一帝国，是第一个横跨欧亚非三洲的君主制国。极盛时期的领土疆域东起印度河平原，西至小亚细亚、欧洲的巴尔干半岛的色雷斯，西南至埃及、利比亚、努比亚和阿比西尼亚。）
关于蒙古入侵，宋朝缺乏优质的战马并且在朝中有奸臣。岳飞将军被害就是个例证，当时情况是国家分裂，政治对立，还有我称之为的猜忌。对你倒数第二个问题，我认为其中一个原因就是缺少有效的行政管理，并且/或者官僚主义盛行。
我个人认为相较于欧洲人开始启蒙运动和走向理性，同时代中国的明晚期和清代则奉行孤立主义。不过尽管明代变革速率较低，但是其早期和中期依然对外开放并思想较为开明。
（回复&What did the Mongols possess the Chinese did not? Why couldn't they do the massive cavalry blitz that Han did years earlier? Jin armies I believe were really poorly moraled seeing how 100,000 Mongols beat a 400,000 Jin army. 60,000 Mongols beat 200,000 Jin at Badger Mouth I believe&一段）
The Mongols and the Central Asian tribes under them were people whose whole lives consisted of constant warfare on horseback.Warfare on horseback which also included using one of the most advanced weapons back then , the bow.
You can think of this as a life long military training for the nomads since their infancy.
This among with exceptional leadership is what made the Mongols stand out.
蒙古和中亚民族这些民族的国民都是在马背上征战一生。马背上的战争也包括当时最先进的武器之一，弓。
你可以这么认为，这些游牧民们从出生开始就接受军事训练，直至死去。（合格的士兵），再加上卓越的军事统帅，这才成就了蒙古人的辉煌。
（回复&&Ancient& China being far ahead, probably not. Ahead maybe in some ways but not far ahead. The Achaemenids were, in my opinion, much stronger than the Chinese at the time.&一段）
Persians stronger than the Chinese? In 550 BC mabye but by 300s the Chinese were getting way advanced with logistics and levying. Persian armies sizes are grossly overexaggerated.
波斯人比中国人更强？在公元前550年也许如此，但是到了公元300年左右中国人在后勤和募兵上就更胜一筹了。波斯人军队的数量被过于夸大了。
Dreamhunter
（回复&&Ancient& China being far ahead, probably not. Ahead maybe in some ways but not far ahead. The Achaemenids were, in my opinion, much stronger than the Chinese at the time.&一段）
Which then makes one wonder, how the Achaemenid army under Darius the Great (550 - 486 BC) would hv fared against the Wu kingdom army under Sun Tzu (554 - 496 BC), the man who fought and orchestrated 100 battles and never lost one.
那么有件事让人很好奇，在大流士一世（公元前550-486）领导下的波斯军队会不会害怕在孙武（公元前554-486）领导下的吴国军队。 要知道孙武可是身经百战，未逢一败啊。
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt
Ancient China was probably not &far ahead& at 550 BCE, but I might be wrong. I'd say it was around 300-200 BCE when it started to surge far forward.
The Persian army was very diverse and visibly and practically soft with their light armor and wicker shields (when met with Greeks on foot they melted, especially at Platea). The Qin had standardized coat of plates, shields, weapons, and missile weaponry for their troops. Like the Persians the Chinese also fielded good horsemen. For example, the state of Zhao copied the Xiongnu and raised good horse archers. Also, the metal quality of the Qin was top-notch and survived until today in good quality. In terms of levying I think you are also right. Although the actual numbers might have been exaggerated, the Qin was great at raising large amounts of troops multiple times to invade the other states. So I think the mid-later periods of the Warring States period was when the Chinese surged far forward.
波斯军队兵种繁多，士兵装备的（大多为）轻甲和柳条盾，实际战斗力却很薄弱（在与希腊人交战时他们甚至不堪一击，在派拉提海战中尤其如此）。秦军则拥有着标准规格的盔甲、盾牌、兵器，以及投掷武器。和波斯人一样，中国战场上也出现过优秀的骑兵，例如，（赵武灵王胡服骑射，)为赵国训练了很多技术精湛的弓骑兵。此外，秦国铸造的兵器也是顶尖的，（秦国）流传下来的兵器，直到今天依然寒光四射。关于士兵的征募，你的说法也没错。实际的士兵数量可能被夸大了，（但不可否认）为了开疆拓土秦国总是维持着多过别国几倍的军队。所以，我认为战国中后期是中国（军事）迅猛发展的时期。
The Chinese often had a better organised and centralised state than anywhere else in the world. They simply had more resources, I dont think there was much qualitative difference in troops quality (the period of Good Chinese armies I think they are no better or worse than anyone else) and no particular technological difference till the development of round ships and mass castings of cannons by the t he europeans. The Chinese while early adopters of gun powder didnt development as much of then later europeans eventually did.&
But China was often divided and weak and I think the Mongol conquest was mostly down to this (though the Mongols, had superb discipline, organisation and political leadership)&
I think the Romans at their best had better organisation than Chinese.
中国的组织性和集权程度往往比当时任何国家都高，仅仅是有更多的资源和劳动力罢了。
在军队的战斗力上我认为他们（中国人的军队）与其他国家军队没有本质上的区别（即使在中国铁骑纵横天下的时候我还是认为他们的实际战斗力与他国军队相若）；在技术上也并未遥遥领先，后来甚至被欧洲人所超越（造船技术的发展和壮大以及火炮的大规模生产起到了关键作用）。中国人尽管最先运用了火药，但却未能像随后的欧洲人一样将其发展和壮大。
中国历史上常现群雄割据，国力也弱，我想最后南宋之所以会被蒙古所灭就是因为这个原因吧（虽然蒙古人有更加严明的组织纪律和更加优秀的政治领袖）。
我觉得，在罗马帝国最辉煌的时期，他们的组织结构要比中国人的更好。
purakjelia
（回复 pugsville的&The Chinese while early adopters of gun powder didnt development as much of then later europeans eventually did.&一段）
That's a wrong assumption. The Chinese created many gunpowder weapons, such as cannons, mortars, rockets and rocket arrows, landmines, naval mines, bombs, grenades, etc.
那是一个错误地假设。中国人发明了许多火药武器，比如大炮，迫击炮，火箭，地雷，水雷，炸弹，手雷等等。
They did not develop modern gunpowder weapons, but it's not the case that they did not develop anything.
他们过去确实没有发展现代武器，但是那不能就此说他们没有发展任何东西。
Chinese development of gunpowder weapons halted during the Qing Dynasty due to the fact that the Manchurians did not pay too much attention in developing gunpowder weapons because they thought that archery was still useful on the battlefield. I remember there was a case when a Han Chinese firearm expert presented his new invention (a multi-barreled musket) to the Qing emperor, but the Qing emperor rejected his invention and exiled him.
由于满族并不注重火药武器上的发展，因为他们认为箭术在战争中仍然是有效地，导致中国的火药武器在清朝趋近停止。我记得有历史记载说一个汉族火药专家把他的新发明呈给大清皇帝（一个多管火枪），但是清朝地统治者拒绝了他的发明并且流放了他。
purakjelia
（回复楼主最后两段）
First, Song lacked horses. The Chinese had lost the horse breeding areas due to the fact that in 936 AD during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period a sinicized Shatuo Turk named Shi Jingtang gave up the northern territories (the sixteen states of the Yan Yun area) to the Khitans. Song tried to retake the sixteen states several times, but they failed to do so.
首先，宋朝缺少马匹。公元936年五代十国时期，由于汉化的沙陀突厥人石敬瑭割让北方的领土（燕云十六州）给契丹，导致中国失去了马匹地放养之地。虽然宋朝曾多次试图夺回十六州，但是他们还是没有成功。
Secondly, it was because of the political intrigues of the Song court and rivalries between different parties.
其次，那是因为宋朝地政治阴谋和不同党派竞争地结果。
But in general, I think the Song did pretty well against the Mongols. They resisted for some 40 years under continuous attacks from Mongols and from the subjugated peoples across the Mongol empire. Song used heavy infantry equipped with crossbows, pavis, battle axes, spears, and pikes to counter Jurchen and Mongol cavalry. Song armies were among the first armies in the world to use gunpowder weapons against their enemies. I know they had rocket arrows, fire lances, flamethrowers, and bombs.
但是总的来説，我觉得宋朝在对抗蒙古方面还是做得不错的。他们抵住了蒙古和它征服的地区四十多年的持续攻击。宋朝用装备了军弩，大盾，战斧，长矛和长枪的重装步兵来抵抗女真和蒙古骑兵。宋军是世界上使用火药对敌的军队之一。我知道他们有火箭，火矛，火焰喷射器和炸弹。
China's arms race and reputation as an advanced nation ended during the late Ming or early Qing period. I think China started to stagnate after the Mongol conquest. The events in 1279 and 1644 were two traumatizing blows to the Chinese civilization.
中国的军备竞赛和先进国家的声誉结束于明末清初。我认为自从蒙古征服后中国的就开始停滞了。发生于1279年和1644年的事件是中华文明的两次巨大地冲击。
Hmm if they lacked horses how did the Han field almost 200,000 horsemen or it was a overexaggeration?
嘿。。。如果他们是真的是缺少马匹，那么为什么汉朝的骑兵能达到20万之多，难道那只是夸大其辞？
purakjelia
Song lacked horses, but Han did not.
是宋朝缺少马匹，但是汉朝并不缺少。
Han ruled some of the areas of northeastern and northwestern China, but Song did not.
汉朝统治了中国东北和西北的一些游牧地区，但是宋朝没有。
China lost those areas during the chaotic period between Tang and Song known as the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. During that time, the Chinese were busy fighting each other while Khitans and Tanguts had gradually taken the peripheral areas of the Chinese empire.
在唐朝与宋朝之间以五代十国著称的动乱时期中国丢失了那些地区。在那期间，中国人正忙着内乱而契丹人和西夏人则趁机占领了中华帝国的外围地区。
Even though the Han did not lack horses, I still think 200,000 horsemen is an overexaggeration. Some sources indicate that Han generals Wei Qing and Huo Qubing only had 30,000 to 50,000 horsemen when they attacked Xiongnu.
即使汉朝并不缺少马匹，我始终认为20万骑兵还是过于夸张了。一些资料表明在汉朝的将军卫青与霍去病驱逐匈奴时他们也只有3万到5万左右地骑兵。
The Chinese were not ahead in everything. Although the ancient Chinese had fought naval battles, it wasn't until the Song dynasty that China established a permanent navy, a 1000 years after the Romans had established theiir navy as a separate military branch. The Romans were able largely eliminate piracy from their local waters, a feat imperial China was never able to achieve until the very end of the Qing.
And in military engineering, you also have give the nod to the Romans. Many of the structures built by Roman legions and military engineers are still standing, bridges and aquaducts, while next to nothing remains of what ever Han armies built.
I think Roman armies were modern in their structure. The generous pension plan that long serving Roman veterans recieved when completing their term of service is similar to the generous pension plans that modern armies like the US gives to their soldier retirees. (It is interesting to note that US lenght of service to get these pensions, 20 years for half pay pension and 26 years for 2/3 pay pension, are similiar to the lenght of service required of a Roman legionaire.) Also, the Romans kept written records of their soldiers service, and Roman soldiers completing their service were given written documents, not unlike the written discharge papers modern soldiers get. Such written documentation for individal ordinary soldiers is lacking for ancient Chinese soldiers.&
The Chinese had a high degree of standardization, but so did the ancient Romans - the standard gage railroad track refelects the standard width of a Roman chariot it is said. The Chinese might or might not have had better logistic organization, that I cannot say, and I willing to concede they might.&
And Chinese weapons at times might be more advanced, Han crossbows were better than anything we see in Roman times, but Roman ballistas were pretty sophisticated weapons as well, and we don't see the advance cranking mechanism in Chinese Song crossbows that we find in medieval European crossbows. Ancient Chinese sword technology might or might not have been more advanced, but we can't say for certain that Chinese swords were superior to a fine Damscus blade. In armour, nothing the Chinese produced matched the complexitly and sphistication of late medieval European plate armour. (But Euopean plate armour is not something you would want to march long distances in, and medieval Euope's battles were not fought at nearly the distances the Chinese armies often had to travel.)
That the Chinese were able beat by nomads like the Mongols speaks highly of the effectiveness of their armies, and the effecency and effectiveness of the organization of their armies.
中国人并不是在所有方面都领先，尽管古代中国人进行过海战，直到宋朝他们才建立起一支永久的海军，这是距离罗马人将海军作为他们军队的一个独立分支已经一千年了。罗马人可以大规模的消灭他们水域的海盗，而中国直到清朝末年才打到这一辉煌成就。
而且在军事工程方面，你也承认了罗马人的成就。罗马军团和军事工程师建造的一些建筑现在依然可以见到，例如桥梁和水渠，但是汉朝人建的东西已经几乎没什么留存下来的了。
我认为罗马军队的结构是非常先进的。当罗马老兵完成他们的服役后，他们会长期得到丰厚的抚恤金，这和现代军队有类似之处，例如美国军队会给退役士兵丰厚的抚恤金（非常有趣的一点是得到这些抚恤金所需的服役期限，服役20年可以得到一半，服役26年可以得到2/3，这和罗马军队领取抚恤金的期限很相近）。罗马人也会记录他们的士兵服役的记录，服役期满后，士兵们会得到书面文书，这种文书不同于今天的士兵们得到的退役文件。而古代中国的普通士兵是不会得到这样的书面文书的。
中国人有高度的标准化体系，但是古罗马也是&&铁轨的标准宽度反映了罗马马车的标准宽度。中国人也许有更好的运输体系，也许没有，不好说，我更愿意猜想他们有更好的。
中国的武器那是可能更先进，汉朝的十字弓弩比当时我们能看到的任何罗马的都好，但是罗马的投石器也非常的精密复杂，中国的宋朝的十字弓弩中并没有发现欧洲中世纪十字弓弩中的先进的摇转机构 。古中国的铸剑技术可能更先进，也可能不是，但是我们不能确切的说中国的剑比上乘的大马士革剑要好。再说盔甲，中国制造的任何盔甲都不如欧洲中世纪后期生产的板甲复杂精密（但是欧洲的板甲不适合做长途行军，而且中世纪欧洲的战役也不像中国军队那样需要长途的行军）。
中国军队可以击败游牧军队，例如蒙古人，这充分说明了他们军队的高效率，也说明了他们组织军队的高效率。
（五毛网编辑）转载
分享到微信朋友圈
打开微信，点击“发现”，使用“扫一扫”即可将网页分享到我的朋友圈。
标签列表 tags
Powered by}