古代中国有军事贵族阶级吗?欧洲有骑士，日本有武士。中国对贵族背景的战士有专门的称谓吗?你所提及的这些战士是按照骑士和武士的准则生活的吗?
正文翻译
Did Ancient China have a noble military class? Europe had knights, Japan had samurai. Did China have a specific title for warriors of noble background? Did said warriors live by a code like knights and samurai?
古代中国有军事贵族阶级吗?欧洲有骑士，日本有武士。中国对贵族背景的战士有专门的称谓吗?你所提及的这些战士是按照骑士和武士的准则生活的吗?
Did Ancient China have a noble military class? Europe had knights, Japan had samurai. Did China have a specific title for warriors of noble background? Did said warriors live by a code like knights and samurai?
古代中国有军事贵族阶级吗?欧洲有骑士，日本有武士。中国对贵族背景的战士有专门的称谓吗?你所提及的这些战士是按照骑士和武士的准则生活的吗?
评论翻译
这就是中国的“骑士”:青铜时代的战车骑士。在战国时期(公元前475年)，这一军事精英阶层已经被弓箭和长矛大军摧毁
你所说的“贵族军事阶级”是封建主义。封建主义是文明发展的必然步骤。几乎每一个成功的文明都或多或少经历过这种情况。欧洲的骑士和日本的武士都是如此。这是在欧洲和近东一步步进行的过程:
第一步:部落社会形成(新石器时代)；
第二步:部落合并成王国和帝国(西方的古典时期，近东的青铜器时代)；
第三步:中央政权崩溃，西罗马衰落，东罗马萎缩，哈里发失去权力(通常是由于地理上的过度扩张)，区域军阀接管欧洲和近东(中世纪时期)；
第四步:王国开始改革、扩张，并演变为现代威斯特伐利亚民族国家。
Zack Lu, former Financial Analysis Software Sales
Ancient China did have a “noble military class” like knights and samurai. The difference is that this class was already in decline by the time Romulus & Remus were founding Rome.
This is what a Chinese “knights” looked like: Bronze Age chariot riders. This military elite class had already been destroyed by armies of crossbows and pikes by the start of the Warring States Period (475 BC).
What you’re describing as “noble military class” is feudalism. Feudalism is an inevitable step in civilizational development. Nearly every successful civilization has undergone it at one point or another. This was true for European knights as well as Japanese samurai. This is how the process worked step by step in Europe and the Near East:
Step 1: Tribal societies form (the Neolithic)
Step 2: Tribes coalesce into kingdoms and empires (Classical Antiquity in the West, the Bronze Age in the Near East)
Step 3: Central authority collapses, Western Rome falls, Eastern Rome shrinks, the Caliphates lose power, (usually due to geographical overextension) and regional warlords take over both in Europe and the Near East (the Medi period).
Step 4: Kingdoms begin to reform, expand, and evolve into modern Westphalian nation states.
Zack Lu, 前财务分析软件销售
古代中国确实有像骑士和武士这样的“贵族军事阶层”。不同的是，当罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马时，这个阶级已经衰落了。
Ancient China did have a “noble military class” like knights and samurai. The difference is that this class was already in decline by the time Romulus & Remus were founding Rome.
This is what a Chinese “knights” looked like: Bronze Age chariot riders. This military elite class had already been destroyed by armies of crossbows and pikes by the start of the Warring States Period (475 BC).
What you’re describing as “noble military class” is feudalism. Feudalism is an inevitable step in civilizational development. Nearly every successful civilization has undergone it at one point or another. This was true for European knights as well as Japanese samurai. This is how the process worked step by step in Europe and the Near East:
Step 1: Tribal societies form (the Neolithic)
Step 2: Tribes coalesce into kingdoms and empires (Classical Antiquity in the West, the Bronze Age in the Near East)
Step 3: Central authority collapses, Western Rome falls, Eastern Rome shrinks, the Caliphates lose power, (usually due to geographical overextension) and regional warlords take over both in Europe and the Near East (the Medi period).
Step 4: Kingdoms begin to reform, expand, and evolve into modern Westphalian nation states.
Zack Lu, 前财务分析软件销售
古代中国确实有像骑士和武士这样的“贵族军事阶层”。不同的是，当罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马时，这个阶级已经衰落了。
这就是中国的“骑士”:青铜时代的战车骑士。在战国时期(公元前475年)，这一军事精英阶层已经被弓箭和长矛大军摧毁
你所说的“贵族军事阶级”是封建主义。封建主义是文明发展的必然步骤。几乎每一个成功的文明都或多或少经历过这种情况。欧洲的骑士和日本的武士都是如此。这是在欧洲和近东一步步进行的过程:
第一步:部落社会形成(新石器时代)；
第二步:部落合并成王国和帝国(西方的古典时期，近东的青铜器时代)；
第三步:中央政权崩溃，西罗马衰落，东罗马萎缩，哈里发失去权力(通常是由于地理上的过度扩张)，区域军阀接管欧洲和近东(中世纪时期)；
第四步:王国开始改革、扩张，并演变为现代威斯特伐利亚民族国家。
Japan underwent a very similar process. The Yamato Court actually wielded real central authority for a few centuries before their geographic overreach into the Kanto region of Japan (modern day Tokyo) gave rise to a military junta, and then the breakdown of central authority. This was the time of the samurai. And it wouldn’t come to an end until the Meiji Restoration.
日本经历了一个非常相似的过程。大和朝政实际上在地理上越界进入日本关东地区(现在的东京)之前，拥有真正的中央权力长达几个世纪，直到一个军事集团的产生，然后中央权力崩溃。这是日本武士的时代。直到明治维新才结束。
日本经历了一个非常相似的过程。大和朝政实际上在地理上越界进入日本关东地区(现在的东京)之前，拥有真正的中央权力长达几个世纪，直到一个军事集团的产生，然后中央权力崩溃。这是日本武士的时代。直到明治维新才结束。
China just ended its feudal period much earlier, by about 2,000 years. This was what happened in China:
Step 1: Tribal societies along the Yellow River form (early Bronze Age)
Step 2: The Shang and Zhou Dynasties expand China too far (late Bronze Age)
Step 3: Central authority erodes during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, the early Spring and Autumn period ushers in Chinese feudalism (8th Century BC).
Step 4: Certain feudal states prove more efficient at warfare than others. They raise huge crossbow & pike infantry armies that destroy the chariot-riding aristocracy (similar to what would happen in Europe 2,000 years later with the introduction of gunpowder). Feudalism gives way to more and more centralized states. Nobles still retain power at court, but they no longer participate in battle. A man on a chariot, no matter how noble in blood, is still going to die to a crossbow bolt to the face.
Step 5: The Qin Kingdom manages to reunify China by conquest (221 BC), and China puts feudalism in the rearview mirror forever, both economically and militaristically. Effectively, the Qin and Han Dynasties would achieve a level of centralized, meritocratic bureaucracy that Europeans would not achieve until the 18th Century.
中国结束其封建时期要早得多，大约已有2000年。这就是在中国发生的事情:
第一步:黄河流域的部落社会(青铜时代早期)；
第二步:商代和周代把中国扩张得太大了(青铜时代晚期)；
第三步:东周时期中央政权被侵蚀，春秋初年中国进入封建制度(公元前8世纪)；
第四步:某些封建国家在战争中比其他国家更有效率。他们组建了庞大的弩和长矛步兵部队，摧毁了骑战车的贵族(类似于2000年后欧洲引入火药所发生的情况)。封建制度让位于越来越集中的国家。贵族在宫廷中仍然拥有权力，但他们不再参与战争。一个坐在战车上的人，无论他的血统多么高贵，还是会被弩箭射中脸而死；
第五步:秦朝通过征服统一了中国(公元前221年)，中国在经济上和军事上永远把封建主义抛在了身后。实际上，秦汉王朝达到了欧洲直到18世纪才达到的中央集权、精英统治的官僚体制。
Step 1: Tribal societies along the Yellow River form (early Bronze Age)
Step 2: The Shang and Zhou Dynasties expand China too far (late Bronze Age)
Step 3: Central authority erodes during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, the early Spring and Autumn period ushers in Chinese feudalism (8th Century BC).
Step 4: Certain feudal states prove more efficient at warfare than others. They raise huge crossbow & pike infantry armies that destroy the chariot-riding aristocracy (similar to what would happen in Europe 2,000 years later with the introduction of gunpowder). Feudalism gives way to more and more centralized states. Nobles still retain power at court, but they no longer participate in battle. A man on a chariot, no matter how noble in blood, is still going to die to a crossbow bolt to the face.
Step 5: The Qin Kingdom manages to reunify China by conquest (221 BC), and China puts feudalism in the rearview mirror forever, both economically and militaristically. Effectively, the Qin and Han Dynasties would achieve a level of centralized, meritocratic bureaucracy that Europeans would not achieve until the 18th Century.
中国结束其封建时期要早得多，大约已有2000年。这就是在中国发生的事情:
第一步:黄河流域的部落社会(青铜时代早期)；
第二步:商代和周代把中国扩张得太大了(青铜时代晚期)；
第三步:东周时期中央政权被侵蚀，春秋初年中国进入封建制度(公元前8世纪)；
第四步:某些封建国家在战争中比其他国家更有效率。他们组建了庞大的弩和长矛步兵部队，摧毁了骑战车的贵族(类似于2000年后欧洲引入火药所发生的情况)。封建制度让位于越来越集中的国家。贵族在宫廷中仍然拥有权力，但他们不再参与战争。一个坐在战车上的人，无论他的血统多么高贵，还是会被弩箭射中脸而死；
第五步:秦朝通过征服统一了中国(公元前221年)，中国在经济上和军事上永远把封建主义抛在了身后。实际上，秦汉王朝达到了欧洲直到18世纪才达到的中央集权、精英统治的官僚体制。
The Imperial Examination system was unique to ancient China. It produced a corps of professional bureaucrats whose authority and power were bound to the imperial court. The Court would routinely rotate these bureaucrats from province to province to prevent them from forming a hereditary military class. The modern PRC uses this same system.
Ancient Rome is often compared to Han Dynasty China, but this is a poor comparison since the Romans never managed to institute a meritocratic bureaucracy. The Romans ran their empire by military junta (Roman Emperors were military dictators) and aristocratic (Senatorial class) administration. For the first 3 centuries of its history, the Roman Empire couldn’t even collect taxes on its own. It had to contract the work out to private “tax farmers”, a practice that was inefficient, and unpopular.
科举制度是中国古代特有的制度。它产生了一批专业的官僚，他们的权威和权力受制于朝廷。朝廷会定期将这些官僚从一个省轮换到另一个省，以防止他们形成一个世袭的军事阶层。现代的中国使用也是同样的制度。
人们经常把古罗马比作中国的汉朝，但这是一个糟糕的比较，因为罗马从未成功地建立起一套精英官僚制度。罗马人通过军政府(罗马皇帝是军事独裁者)和贵族(元老院阶级)管理他们的帝国。在其历史的前3个世纪里，罗马帝国甚至无法自行收税。它不得不把这项工作承包给私人“税农”，这种做法效率低下，也不受欢迎。
Ancient Rome is often compared to Han Dynasty China, but this is a poor comparison since the Romans never managed to institute a meritocratic bureaucracy. The Romans ran their empire by military junta (Roman Emperors were military dictators) and aristocratic (Senatorial class) administration. For the first 3 centuries of its history, the Roman Empire couldn’t even collect taxes on its own. It had to contract the work out to private “tax farmers”, a practice that was inefficient, and unpopular.
科举制度是中国古代特有的制度。它产生了一批专业的官僚，他们的权威和权力受制于朝廷。朝廷会定期将这些官僚从一个省轮换到另一个省，以防止他们形成一个世袭的军事阶层。现代的中国使用也是同样的制度。
人们经常把古罗马比作中国的汉朝，但这是一个糟糕的比较，因为罗马从未成功地建立起一套精英官僚制度。罗马人通过军政府(罗马皇帝是军事独裁者)和贵族(元老院阶级)管理他们的帝国。在其历史的前3个世纪里，罗马帝国甚至无法自行收税。它不得不把这项工作承包给私人“税农”，这种做法效率低下，也不受欢迎。
The Emperor Diocletian was the first Roman Emperor to collect taxes directly from the populace rather than contracting out the work to third parties.
In 287 AD, the Roman Empire finally started collecting its own taxes under the system of Capitatio-Iugatio - Wikipedia. For the first time, imperial bureaucrats (mostly freedmen, former slaves) were sent out to assess the value of land holdings and determine their taxable income. This system was never terribly efficient due to a lack of professional bureaucrats. The efficiency problem was further exacerbated by the fact that taxes were paid in kind, rather than in gold or silver. This made the system even more complex and unwieldy. Later Emperors went back to tax farming or collecting direct taxes in gold.
In fact, Rome’s perennial inability to collect taxes ultimately doomed the Western Empire. The Emperors were always strapped for cash, even just to pay their own field armies of a 30 to 50 thousand men. They ended up giving away land to Germanic tribesmen in exchange for military service because they couldn’t afford to pay the mercenaries/foederati in hard currency.
Centuries later, the Byzantines were forced to accept a pseudo-feudal system of “themes” which were essentially non-hereditary feudal fiefs. Soldiers were tied directly to small plots of land, just like Medi feudal armies. Pay was collected and distributed locally. Only a small elite imperial army was retained through central funding, the tagmata. Despite their reputation for “byzantine bureaucracy” the Byzantines didn’t have that much of a bureaucracy when compared to their contemporaries in China.
戴克里先罗马皇帝是第一位直接向民众征税而不是将工作外包给第三方的罗马皇帝。
公元287年，罗马帝国终于在Capitatio-Iugatio制度下开始征税。帝国的官僚们(大部分是自由人和前奴隶)第一次被派去评估土地持有的价值，并确定他们的应税收入。由于缺乏专业官僚，这套制度从来都不是很有效率。税收是用实物而不是黄金或白银支付的，这进一步加剧了效率问题，这使得制度更加复杂和笨拙。…………
事实上，罗马长期无法收税最终导致了西罗马帝国的灭亡。皇帝们总是缺钱，甚至连给自己3万到5万人的部队发工资都不够。他们最终把土地给了日耳曼部落以换取服兵役，因为他们无力支付雇佣兵/联邦官员的硬通货。
几个世纪后，拜占庭人被迫接受一个伪封建制度，本质上是非世袭的封建封地。士兵被直接绑在小块土地上，就像中世纪的封建军队一样。工资在当地收取和分发。只有一小部分精英帝国军队通过中央资金——塔塔马塔(tagmata)得以保留。尽管他们有“拜占庭官僚”的名声，但与中国的同时代人相比，拜占庭人并没有那么官僚。
In 287 AD, the Roman Empire finally started collecting its own taxes under the system of Capitatio-Iugatio - Wikipedia. For the first time, imperial bureaucrats (mostly freedmen, former slaves) were sent out to assess the value of land holdings and determine their taxable income. This system was never terribly efficient due to a lack of professional bureaucrats. The efficiency problem was further exacerbated by the fact that taxes were paid in kind, rather than in gold or silver. This made the system even more complex and unwieldy. Later Emperors went back to tax farming or collecting direct taxes in gold.
In fact, Rome’s perennial inability to collect taxes ultimately doomed the Western Empire. The Emperors were always strapped for cash, even just to pay their own field armies of a 30 to 50 thousand men. They ended up giving away land to Germanic tribesmen in exchange for military service because they couldn’t afford to pay the mercenaries/foederati in hard currency.
Centuries later, the Byzantines were forced to accept a pseudo-feudal system of “themes” which were essentially non-hereditary feudal fiefs. Soldiers were tied directly to small plots of land, just like Medi feudal armies. Pay was collected and distributed locally. Only a small elite imperial army was retained through central funding, the tagmata. Despite their reputation for “byzantine bureaucracy” the Byzantines didn’t have that much of a bureaucracy when compared to their contemporaries in China.
戴克里先罗马皇帝是第一位直接向民众征税而不是将工作外包给第三方的罗马皇帝。
公元287年，罗马帝国终于在Capitatio-Iugatio制度下开始征税。帝国的官僚们(大部分是自由人和前奴隶)第一次被派去评估土地持有的价值，并确定他们的应税收入。由于缺乏专业官僚，这套制度从来都不是很有效率。税收是用实物而不是黄金或白银支付的，这进一步加剧了效率问题，这使得制度更加复杂和笨拙。…………
事实上，罗马长期无法收税最终导致了西罗马帝国的灭亡。皇帝们总是缺钱，甚至连给自己3万到5万人的部队发工资都不够。他们最终把土地给了日耳曼部落以换取服兵役，因为他们无力支付雇佣兵/联邦官员的硬通货。
几个世纪后，拜占庭人被迫接受一个伪封建制度，本质上是非世袭的封建封地。士兵被直接绑在小块土地上，就像中世纪的封建军队一样。工资在当地收取和分发。只有一小部分精英帝国军队通过中央资金——塔塔马塔(tagmata)得以保留。尽管他们有“拜占庭官僚”的名声，但与中国的同时代人相比，拜占庭人并没有那么官僚。
Josip Almasi
Huh. The question got one thing wrong, and the answer picked up on it: knights were not a class.
Here’s how European feudalism used to work: firstborn son inherits everything, others go to army or church. As simple as that, possibly oversimplified, but let’s keep it simple.
So even when knights became obsolete, noblemen sons became e.g. hussar. You can track this tradition all the way to WWII, e.g. half of German generals are named von this or von that (Austrian ones lost ‘von’ after WWI, and it’s not as easy to spot the heritage in other nations and languages).
Anyway, back to medi classes - noblemen, military and clerics were essentially the same class! Not just any soldier and priest of course, but high ranking ones. They were brothers, often literally.
But then again, neither clergy nor military were classes as such. Especially not clergy, as they bred no children. Class is something you’re born into.
(that’s not to say that the answer is wrong about ‘noble soldier class’ of Japan and China)
哈，这个问题搞错了一件事，而答案也印证了这一点: 骑士不是一个阶级。
欧洲的封建制度是这样运作的:长子继承一切，其他人进入军队或教堂。就这么简单，可能过于简化了，但让我们保持简化。
所以即使骑士过时了，贵族的儿子也成了轻骑兵。你可以把这个传统一直追溯到二战，例如，一半的德国将军都叫von（冯）(奥地利人在一战后失去了“von”，而在其他国家和语言中很难找到这一遗产)。
总之，回到中世纪的阶级——贵族、军人和牧师本质上是同一个阶级!当然不是普通的士兵和牧师，而是高级别的。他们是兄弟，且通常是字面意义上的。
但话说回来，神职人员和军人都不是阶级。尤其是神职人员，因为他们不养孩子，而阶级是与生俱来的。
(这并不是说日本和中国的“贵族军事阶级”是错误的)
Huh. The question got one thing wrong, and the answer picked up on it: knights were not a class.
Here’s how European feudalism used to work: firstborn son inherits everything, others go to army or church. As simple as that, possibly oversimplified, but let’s keep it simple.
So even when knights became obsolete, noblemen sons became e.g. hussar. You can track this tradition all the way to WWII, e.g. half of German generals are named von this or von that (Austrian ones lost ‘von’ after WWI, and it’s not as easy to spot the heritage in other nations and languages).
Anyway, back to medi classes - noblemen, military and clerics were essentially the same class! Not just any soldier and priest of course, but high ranking ones. They were brothers, often literally.
But then again, neither clergy nor military were classes as such. Especially not clergy, as they bred no children. Class is something you’re born into.
(that’s not to say that the answer is wrong about ‘noble soldier class’ of Japan and China)
哈，这个问题搞错了一件事，而答案也印证了这一点: 骑士不是一个阶级。
欧洲的封建制度是这样运作的:长子继承一切，其他人进入军队或教堂。就这么简单，可能过于简化了，但让我们保持简化。
所以即使骑士过时了，贵族的儿子也成了轻骑兵。你可以把这个传统一直追溯到二战，例如，一半的德国将军都叫von（冯）(奥地利人在一战后失去了“von”，而在其他国家和语言中很难找到这一遗产)。
总之，回到中世纪的阶级——贵族、军人和牧师本质上是同一个阶级!当然不是普通的士兵和牧师，而是高级别的。他们是兄弟，且通常是字面意义上的。
但话说回来，神职人员和军人都不是阶级。尤其是神职人员，因为他们不养孩子，而阶级是与生俱来的。
(这并不是说日本和中国的“贵族军事阶级”是错误的)
Roman Huczok
Ah, but was there a name for them when they existed?
PS: knight and samurai both come from words meaning approximately ‘servant’, and initially emerged from the armed retainers of feudal lords. I suppose a Chinese equivalent might also have been derived from a word meaning servant, even if it was in the Zhou Dynasty
但他们存在的时候有名字吗?
骑士(Knight)和武士(samurai)都来自于近似“仆人（servant）”的词语，最初出现于封建领主的武装侍从。
我想，即使在周朝，也可能从“仆人”一词衍生出一个与之对应的词。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Ah, but was there a name for them when they existed?
PS: knight and samurai both come from words meaning approximately ‘servant’, and initially emerged from the armed retainers of feudal lords. I suppose a Chinese equivalent might also have been derived from a word meaning servant, even if it was in the Zhou Dynasty
但他们存在的时候有名字吗?
骑士(Knight)和武士(samurai)都来自于近似“仆人（servant）”的词语，最初出现于封建领主的武装侍从。
我想，即使在周朝，也可能从“仆人”一词衍生出一个与之对应的词。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Jesuan Wu
They did not have a specific term. But as recorded in a famous Chinese call to arms from 209 BC, “Are Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers born?”, the term 王候将相, or Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers, was used by the rebels, and is still used by Chinese today, to refer to the aristocratic class in general.
他们没有一个具体的术语。
但据记载，公元前209年有一句中国名言：“王候将相宁有种乎？“
其中的“王侯将相“为叛军所使用，并且沿用至今，代指整个贵族阶级。
They did not have a specific term. But as recorded in a famous Chinese call to arms from 209 BC, “Are Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers born?”, the term 王候将相, or Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers, was used by the rebels, and is still used by Chinese today, to refer to the aristocratic class in general.
他们没有一个具体的术语。
但据记载，公元前209年有一句中国名言：“王候将相宁有种乎？“
其中的“王侯将相“为叛军所使用，并且沿用至今，代指整个贵族阶级。
Roman Huczok
Mm, I suppose the flaw ultimately lies with the question, in that neither knights nor samurai are understood…
Knights and samurai absolutely could be noble, but that only became in any way the norm when both classes were on their last dying legs. Ultimately these were armed retainers protecting the nobility, more than they were nobles themselves. The original questioner also greatly misunderstands both chivalry and bushido.
I suppose it's possible that China simply never a had knights/samurai equivalent, even when it was feudal. The usual explanation for that would be the 諸葛弩 though, which dates from the warring states period. There was at least an opportunity for something like knights/samurai to emerge, but perhaps the word used has been lost to time.
EDIT: Nope, they were called 賓客/食客/門客. And would you know they disappeared right around the time feudalism did. 賓客 are exactly equivalent to knights and samurai, hell I might even make an answer of my own pointing this out.
我想问题的症结就在于这个提问，因为骑士和武士都没有被正确理解。
骑士和武士绝对可以是贵族，但只有当两个阶级都奄奄一息的时候，这才成为一种常态。本质上这些人都是保护贵族的武装侍卫，而不是贵族本身。最初的提问者也极大地误解了骑士精神和武士道。
我认为中国可能从来没有一个与骑士/武士对等的位置，即使是在封建时代。对此，通常的解释是“诸葛弩“的存在（注：战国时期，秦国就已拥有了战弩，这里此人理解有误但无伤大雅），可追溯到战国时期。不过我觉的当时应该还是有机会出现一些像骑士/武士这样的东西，但也许这个词已经被时间遗忘了。
补充：这群人被称为宾客、食客、门客。你知道吗，它们消失的时间和封建主义差不多。
宾客和骑士及武士完全一样，我甚至可以自己给一个回答指出这一点。
Mm, I suppose the flaw ultimately lies with the question, in that neither knights nor samurai are understood…
Knights and samurai absolutely could be noble, but that only became in any way the norm when both classes were on their last dying legs. Ultimately these were armed retainers protecting the nobility, more than they were nobles themselves. The original questioner also greatly misunderstands both chivalry and bushido.
I suppose it's possible that China simply never a had knights/samurai equivalent, even when it was feudal. The usual explanation for that would be the 諸葛弩 though, which dates from the warring states period. There was at least an opportunity for something like knights/samurai to emerge, but perhaps the word used has been lost to time.
EDIT: Nope, they were called 賓客/食客/門客. And would you know they disappeared right around the time feudalism did. 賓客 are exactly equivalent to knights and samurai, hell I might even make an answer of my own pointing this out.
我想问题的症结就在于这个提问，因为骑士和武士都没有被正确理解。
骑士和武士绝对可以是贵族，但只有当两个阶级都奄奄一息的时候，这才成为一种常态。本质上这些人都是保护贵族的武装侍卫，而不是贵族本身。最初的提问者也极大地误解了骑士精神和武士道。
我认为中国可能从来没有一个与骑士/武士对等的位置，即使是在封建时代。对此，通常的解释是“诸葛弩“的存在（注：战国时期，秦国就已拥有了战弩，这里此人理解有误但无伤大雅），可追溯到战国时期。不过我觉的当时应该还是有机会出现一些像骑士/武士这样的东西，但也许这个词已经被时间遗忘了。
补充：这群人被称为宾客、食客、门客。你知道吗，它们消失的时间和封建主义差不多。
宾客和骑士及武士完全一样，我甚至可以自己给一个回答指出这一点。
Jesuan Wu
Oh yeah, that would be 食客 for sure, but they didn’t own lands, just salary, I guess.
确实是食客，但他们不拥有土地，只有薪水，我猜。
Oh yeah, that would be 食客 for sure, but they didn’t own lands, just salary, I guess.
确实是食客，但他们不拥有土地，只有薪水，我猜。
Roman Huczok
Eh, most knights didn’t own land either, and for most of their history most samurai certainly didn’t
在他们的历史上，大多数骑士也没有土地，大多数武士当然也没有。
Eh, most knights didn’t own land either, and for most of their history most samurai certainly didn’t
在他们的历史上，大多数骑士也没有土地，大多数武士当然也没有。
Tianren Tan
Spartan was the Qin of western civilization. If it won instead of Athens, who knows what Europe would look like
斯巴达是西方文明中的秦始皇。如果它赢了而非雅典，谁知道欧洲会变成什么样子。
Spartan was the Qin of western civilization. If it won instead of Athens, who knows what Europe would look like
斯巴达是西方文明中的秦始皇。如果它赢了而非雅典，谁知道欧洲会变成什么样子。
Zack Lu
Are you being sarcastic… sorry, I can sometimes miss obvious sarcasm.
I ask, because it’s a well known fact that Sparta won the war against Athens.
Also, Sparta is nothing like the Qin, the two cultures have nothing in common. Sparta was city state where every male citizen fought as a professional soldier from adolescence. It was also a republic.
Furthermore, Sparta’s model relied entirely on slave labor (Helots) for economic subsistence, which is how they were able to sustain an entire professional army of citizen soldiers.
The Qin army consisted mainly of levied peasants who were not professionals. And the Qin economy was not based on slave labor.
你是在讽刺吗…抱歉，我有时会忽略明显的讽刺。
我这么问是因为众所周知斯巴达赢得了对雅典的战争。另外，斯巴达一点也不像秦国，两种文化没有任何共同之处。斯巴达是一个城邦，每个男性公民从青春期开始就作为职业士兵作战。它也是一个共和国。
此外，斯巴达的模式完全依赖奴隶劳工(希洛人)来维持经济生计，这就是他们能够维持由公民士兵组成的整个职业军队的原因。
秦军主要由征召农民组成，并非专业人员。秦的经济并不是建立在奴隶劳动的基础上的。
Are you being sarcastic… sorry, I can sometimes miss obvious sarcasm.
I ask, because it’s a well known fact that Sparta won the war against Athens.
Also, Sparta is nothing like the Qin, the two cultures have nothing in common. Sparta was city state where every male citizen fought as a professional soldier from adolescence. It was also a republic.
Furthermore, Sparta’s model relied entirely on slave labor (Helots) for economic subsistence, which is how they were able to sustain an entire professional army of citizen soldiers.
The Qin army consisted mainly of levied peasants who were not professionals. And the Qin economy was not based on slave labor.
你是在讽刺吗…抱歉，我有时会忽略明显的讽刺。
我这么问是因为众所周知斯巴达赢得了对雅典的战争。另外，斯巴达一点也不像秦国，两种文化没有任何共同之处。斯巴达是一个城邦，每个男性公民从青春期开始就作为职业士兵作战。它也是一个共和国。
此外，斯巴达的模式完全依赖奴隶劳工(希洛人)来维持经济生计，这就是他们能够维持由公民士兵组成的整个职业军队的原因。
秦军主要由征召农民组成，并非专业人员。秦的经济并不是建立在奴隶劳动的基础上的。
Tianren Tan
The similarity was overall militaristic nature of both empires, not about detailed specific.
For the record, Sparta’s government is not quite Republic either. It was a mix of several types: Spartan Constitution - Wikipedia
I also didn’t make it clear. By “won” I mean tried to physically occupy Athens and unify the entire Greek world, much like Macedonians did later. But perhaps Sparta don’t have the strength to do so unlike Qin dynasty.
相似之处是两个帝国的整体军国主义本质，而不是具体细节。
需要说明的是，斯巴达政府也不完全是共和国政府。它是几种类型的混合，链接：《斯巴达宪章》——维基
我也没说清楚。我说的"赢"是指试图占领雅典统一整个希腊世界，就像后来的马其顿人那样。但也许斯巴达不像秦国那样有实力这么做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The similarity was overall militaristic nature of both empires, not about detailed specific.
For the record, Sparta’s government is not quite Republic either. It was a mix of several types: Spartan Constitution - Wikipedia
I also didn’t make it clear. By “won” I mean tried to physically occupy Athens and unify the entire Greek world, much like Macedonians did later. But perhaps Sparta don’t have the strength to do so unlike Qin dynasty.
相似之处是两个帝国的整体军国主义本质，而不是具体细节。
需要说明的是，斯巴达政府也不完全是共和国政府。它是几种类型的混合，链接：《斯巴达宪章》——维基
我也没说清楚。我说的"赢"是指试图占领雅典统一整个希腊世界，就像后来的马其顿人那样。但也许斯巴达不像秦国那样有实力这么做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Lanathil Lanafel
The fouding of Rome is placed in the 8th century BC. Even if feudalism ended in China with the unification of China under Qin in 221 BC as you said, that still wouldn't mean that the Chinese left behind Feudalism when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome" as you put it. It's a nice exaggeration I suppose, for people who want to feel superior to westerners. But that's all it is, with no basis in real history.
When Rome was founded the Zhou dinasty were entering their final period of decline and becoming little more than symbolic Kings, while feudalism was really just beginning to take place in Ancient China.
罗马的建立是在公元前8世纪。即使像你说的那样，中国的封建主义随着秦始皇于公元前221年统一中国而终结，也并不意味着中国在“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”时就抛弃了封建主义。我想，对于那些想要比西方人优越的人来说，这是一种很好的夸张手法。但事实就是这样，没有真实的历史依据。
当罗马建立时，周朝正进入最后的衰亡时期，只不过是象征性的国王，而封建制度实际上才刚刚开始在古代中国发生。
The fouding of Rome is placed in the 8th century BC. Even if feudalism ended in China with the unification of China under Qin in 221 BC as you said, that still wouldn't mean that the Chinese left behind Feudalism when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome" as you put it. It's a nice exaggeration I suppose, for people who want to feel superior to westerners. But that's all it is, with no basis in real history.
When Rome was founded the Zhou dinasty were entering their final period of decline and becoming little more than symbolic Kings, while feudalism was really just beginning to take place in Ancient China.
罗马的建立是在公元前8世纪。即使像你说的那样，中国的封建主义随着秦始皇于公元前221年统一中国而终结，也并不意味着中国在“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”时就抛弃了封建主义。我想，对于那些想要比西方人优越的人来说，这是一种很好的夸张手法。但事实就是这样，没有真实的历史依据。
当罗马建立时，周朝正进入最后的衰亡时期，只不过是象征性的国王，而封建制度实际上才刚刚开始在古代中国发生。
Zack Lu
“The fouding of Rome is placed in the 9th century BC.”
The fact that 8 people upvoted this without bothering to check the basic facts is disappointing. The traditional founding of Rome happened in 753 BC. That’s not the 9th century BC.
And yes, I am aware that archeological findings in the Seven Hills have found evidence of human settlement dating back to the late Bronze Age, but we’re talking about Romulus here.
Also, feudalism was ended centuries before the Qin finished their final conquests. By the start of the Warring States period (5th Century BC) , the old feudal class was already on its last legs, at least as a dedicated fighting class. I made this point clear.
This destruction was gradual, the result of hundreds of battles between the hundreds of feudal states in the centuries of the late Zhou Dynasty.
“罗马的建立是在公元前9世纪。 “（原文如此）
居然有8个人连基本事实都没查就点了赞，真是令人失望。罗马传统上是在公元前753年建立的。那不是公元前9世纪。
是的，我知道在七山的考古发现了人类（在欧洲）定居的证据可以追溯到青铜时代晚期，但我们现在说的是罗穆卢斯。
此外，封建制度在秦完成最后的征服之前的几个世纪就已经结束了。到了战国时期(公元前5世纪)，古老的封建阶级已经奄奄一息，至少作为一个致力于战斗的阶级是如此。这一点我讲得很清楚。
这种破坏是逐渐发生的，是周朝后期数百个封建国家之间数百场战争的结果。
“The fouding of Rome is placed in the 9th century BC.”
The fact that 8 people upvoted this without bothering to check the basic facts is disappointing. The traditional founding of Rome happened in 753 BC. That’s not the 9th century BC.
And yes, I am aware that archeological findings in the Seven Hills have found evidence of human settlement dating back to the late Bronze Age, but we’re talking about Romulus here.
Also, feudalism was ended centuries before the Qin finished their final conquests. By the start of the Warring States period (5th Century BC) , the old feudal class was already on its last legs, at least as a dedicated fighting class. I made this point clear.
This destruction was gradual, the result of hundreds of battles between the hundreds of feudal states in the centuries of the late Zhou Dynasty.
“罗马的建立是在公元前9世纪。 “（原文如此）
居然有8个人连基本事实都没查就点了赞，真是令人失望。罗马传统上是在公元前753年建立的。那不是公元前9世纪。
是的，我知道在七山的考古发现了人类（在欧洲）定居的证据可以追溯到青铜时代晚期，但我们现在说的是罗穆卢斯。
此外，封建制度在秦完成最后的征服之前的几个世纪就已经结束了。到了战国时期(公元前5世纪)，古老的封建阶级已经奄奄一息，至少作为一个致力于战斗的阶级是如此。这一点我讲得很清楚。
这种破坏是逐渐发生的，是周朝后期数百个封建国家之间数百场战争的结果。
Manqing Li
Your last statement is self-conflicting. The feudalism in ancient China reached its peak in Zhou Dynasty and started to fade away during the Spring and Autumn period. It met its final end by the foundation of Qin dynasty. So the author definitely exagerated when he said China already left feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”. More accurately, China already started to leave feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”.
你的最后一句话自相矛盾。中国古代的封建制度在周朝达到顶峰，在春秋时期开始衰落。直到秦朝的建立，它才结束。
因此，当作者说“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”时，中国已经抛弃了封建主义，这无疑是夸大其词。
更准确地说，在“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”的时候，中国已经开始摆脱封建主义。”
Your last statement is self-conflicting. The feudalism in ancient China reached its peak in Zhou Dynasty and started to fade away during the Spring and Autumn period. It met its final end by the foundation of Qin dynasty. So the author definitely exagerated when he said China already left feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”. More accurately, China already started to leave feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”.
你的最后一句话自相矛盾。中国古代的封建制度在周朝达到顶峰，在春秋时期开始衰落。直到秦朝的建立，它才结束。
因此，当作者说“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”时，中国已经抛弃了封建主义，这无疑是夸大其词。
更准确地说，在“罗穆卢斯和雷穆斯建立罗马”的时候，中国已经开始摆脱封建主义。”
Lanathil Lanafel
I feel the Chinese people who are answering me must be either confused about Feudalism, or about China’s Ancient period. Feudalism is literally the cornerstone of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States period. To be completely frank, I -know- Feudalism didn’t end with the establishment of the Qin Dinasty, since dukedoms were still important during the Han, the Three Kingdoms Period and the following Jin. It was the Tang that annihilated Feudalism and established the system of Generals. I was merely going with what the OP said; I will say it again, I -don’t- agree with the OP, I was merely saying that even IF what he said were true, Romulus and Remus still founded Rome in the 9th century BC and Qin united China in 221 BC.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that the Zhou Dynasty was literally a dynasty whereby the ruler visited the courts of his vassals in order to maintain personal relationships with them, one of ruler and vassal. It was only after the Rong managed to conquer Zhou’s capital because their vassals refused to aid Zhou with troops that the Zhou’s REAL power declined, in 771 BC. - remaining a nominal king of its vassals. You will notice that vassals were intrumental in the decline of the Zhou, and that after 771 BC vassals became the focus of politics in China, in the Spring and Autumn Period, where the vassals, none of which were “kings” but still nominally vassals, dealt amongst themselves, recognising each other as nobles. A king with strong vassals which own their own lands and deal with each other, diplomatically establishing marriage ties, is literally within the definition of feudalism.
我觉得回答我问题的中国人要么对封建主义感到困惑，要么对中国古代感到困惑。封建主义是春秋战国时期的基石。
坦白地说，在我看来，封建主义并没有随着秦朝的建立而结束，因为公国（注：在英语语境中指公爵爵位、公爵的领地）在汉代、三国时期和之后的晋代仍然很重要。唐朝消灭了封建主义，建立了将军制度。…………
最后，我想强调的是，周朝是通过造访诸侯国以维持与他们的私人关系的朝代，后者是诸侯国的统治者。只是因为后来戎人试图在公元前771年征服周朝首都，而诸侯们拒绝支援周朝从而导致周朝的衰落。
公元前771年后，这些诸侯开始专住中国境内的政治，进入春秋时期，诸侯们，虽然不是"国王"但名义上仍是诸侯，他们互相交易，承认彼此为贵族。一个拥有强大诸侯的国王拥有自己的土地，并在外交上建立婚姻关系，这是封建主义的定义。
I feel the Chinese people who are answering me must be either confused about Feudalism, or about China’s Ancient period. Feudalism is literally the cornerstone of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States period. To be completely frank, I -know- Feudalism didn’t end with the establishment of the Qin Dinasty, since dukedoms were still important during the Han, the Three Kingdoms Period and the following Jin. It was the Tang that annihilated Feudalism and established the system of Generals. I was merely going with what the OP said; I will say it again, I -don’t- agree with the OP, I was merely saying that even IF what he said were true, Romulus and Remus still founded Rome in the 9th century BC and Qin united China in 221 BC.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that the Zhou Dynasty was literally a dynasty whereby the ruler visited the courts of his vassals in order to maintain personal relationships with them, one of ruler and vassal. It was only after the Rong managed to conquer Zhou’s capital because their vassals refused to aid Zhou with troops that the Zhou’s REAL power declined, in 771 BC. - remaining a nominal king of its vassals. You will notice that vassals were intrumental in the decline of the Zhou, and that after 771 BC vassals became the focus of politics in China, in the Spring and Autumn Period, where the vassals, none of which were “kings” but still nominally vassals, dealt amongst themselves, recognising each other as nobles. A king with strong vassals which own their own lands and deal with each other, diplomatically establishing marriage ties, is literally within the definition of feudalism.
我觉得回答我问题的中国人要么对封建主义感到困惑，要么对中国古代感到困惑。封建主义是春秋战国时期的基石。
坦白地说，在我看来，封建主义并没有随着秦朝的建立而结束，因为公国（注：在英语语境中指公爵爵位、公爵的领地）在汉代、三国时期和之后的晋代仍然很重要。唐朝消灭了封建主义，建立了将军制度。…………
最后，我想强调的是，周朝是通过造访诸侯国以维持与他们的私人关系的朝代，后者是诸侯国的统治者。只是因为后来戎人试图在公元前771年征服周朝首都，而诸侯们拒绝支援周朝从而导致周朝的衰落。
公元前771年后，这些诸侯开始专住中国境内的政治，进入春秋时期，诸侯们，虽然不是"国王"但名义上仍是诸侯，他们互相交易，承认彼此为贵族。一个拥有强大诸侯的国王拥有自己的土地，并在外交上建立婚姻关系，这是封建主义的定义。
John Lee
The op defined it as having “military or warrior class", you are defining it mainly as economic system which has land given by monarchs or ruler, I'm siding more with you on this, but from quick Google fuedalism seems to be more of a euro centric concept.
This is oxford definition.
“the dominant social system in medi Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."
When taken to mean the above, does it still apply to those dynasties you mentioned, doesn't seem like it? Like did the king or nobles own every single piece of land and tenants had to be a vassal and worship him or be homeless? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Like I'm pretty sure there were landlords/land/home owners who weren't nobles, and just merchants or whatever.
So while there were many similarities with euro feudalism, euro one was complete social system and was the backbone of society, while Chinese society did have some similarities, it wasn't the law of the land and dictate everything. Or did it, just like euro fuedalism?
答主将其定义为拥有“军事或战士阶级”，你主要将其定义为君主或统治者所赐予的土地之上的一套经济制度，我在这一点上更支持你。但长话短说，封建主义似乎是更以欧洲为中心的概念。
这是牛津定义：
“在中世纪欧洲占统治地位的社会制度中，贵族从国王手中获得土地以换取军事服务，而封臣则是贵族的租户/佃户，而农民(农奴)则被迫生活在他们的领主的土地上，并向他效忠、劳动和分享农产品，以换取名义上的军事保护。”
如果用在你提到的那些朝代还适用吗，看起来不，不是吗? 就像国王或贵族拥有每一块土地，佃户必须成为附庸并崇拜他否则将无家可归? 我不这么认为，但我也可能是错的。就像我非常确定有地主——土地/房屋的主人，他们不是贵族，只是商人或其他什么。
所以，虽然与欧洲封建主义有许多相似之处，但欧洲自有一套完整的社会制度，是社会的支柱，而中国社会也有一些相似之处，但它不是与土地有关的法律，也没有主宰一切。
The op defined it as having “military or warrior class", you are defining it mainly as economic system which has land given by monarchs or ruler, I'm siding more with you on this, but from quick Google fuedalism seems to be more of a euro centric concept.
This is oxford definition.
“the dominant social system in medi Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."
When taken to mean the above, does it still apply to those dynasties you mentioned, doesn't seem like it? Like did the king or nobles own every single piece of land and tenants had to be a vassal and worship him or be homeless? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Like I'm pretty sure there were landlords/land/home owners who weren't nobles, and just merchants or whatever.
So while there were many similarities with euro feudalism, euro one was complete social system and was the backbone of society, while Chinese society did have some similarities, it wasn't the law of the land and dictate everything. Or did it, just like euro fuedalism?
答主将其定义为拥有“军事或战士阶级”，你主要将其定义为君主或统治者所赐予的土地之上的一套经济制度，我在这一点上更支持你。但长话短说，封建主义似乎是更以欧洲为中心的概念。
这是牛津定义：
“在中世纪欧洲占统治地位的社会制度中，贵族从国王手中获得土地以换取军事服务，而封臣则是贵族的租户/佃户，而农民(农奴)则被迫生活在他们的领主的土地上，并向他效忠、劳动和分享农产品，以换取名义上的军事保护。”
如果用在你提到的那些朝代还适用吗，看起来不，不是吗? 就像国王或贵族拥有每一块土地，佃户必须成为附庸并崇拜他否则将无家可归? 我不这么认为，但我也可能是错的。就像我非常确定有地主——土地/房屋的主人，他们不是贵族，只是商人或其他什么。
所以，虽然与欧洲封建主义有许多相似之处，但欧洲自有一套完整的社会制度，是社会的支柱，而中国社会也有一些相似之处，但它不是与土地有关的法律，也没有主宰一切。
Zack Lu
The question is about noble warrior elites. So obviously I focused on the martial, not economic definition of feudalism.
Economic feudalism is also a murky term. It could even be argued that someone like Bezos or Zuck Zuck is feudal lord today.
这个问题是关于贵族军事精英的。显然，我关注的是封建主义下的军事定义，而不是经济定义。
经济封建主义也是一个模糊的术语。甚至可以说，像贝佐斯或扎克博格这样的人是如今的封建领主。
The question is about noble warrior elites. So obviously I focused on the martial, not economic definition of feudalism.
Economic feudalism is also a murky term. It could even be argued that someone like Bezos or Zuck Zuck is feudal lord today.
这个问题是关于贵族军事精英的。显然，我关注的是封建主义下的军事定义，而不是经济定义。
经济封建主义也是一个模糊的术语。甚至可以说，像贝佐斯或扎克博格这样的人是如今的封建领主。
很赞 11
收藏