在中世纪早期（5-11世纪），中国不是超级大国吗？
正文翻译
Today i had an discussion in class about the worlds greatest power over time.And when we riched the period after Rome's fall to the visigoths we disagreed about what was the world top superpower then.
Long story short we decided it was the E.R.E And i couldnt help but wonder why it wasnt China (the teacher didnt have time to answer it).Can somebody please tell me why Byzantium was considered superior to china at that time (5th century to 11th century)?
今天我在课堂上讨论了随着时间的推移世界上最强大的力量。当我们说到在罗马倒台后的那段时间里时，我们对当时的世界顶级超级大国有不同的看法。
长话短说，我们决定当时的超级大国是E.R.E（东罗马/拜占庭帝国），我不禁想知道为什么不是中国（老师没有时间回答）。有人能告诉我为什么拜占庭在当时（5世纪到11世纪)被认为优于中国吗？
Was china not a super power in early medi times?
中国在中世纪早期不是超级大国吗？
中国在中世纪早期不是超级大国吗？
Today i had an discussion in class about the worlds greatest power over time.And when we riched the period after Rome's fall to the visigoths we disagreed about what was the world top superpower then.
Long story short we decided it was the E.R.E And i couldnt help but wonder why it wasnt China (the teacher didnt have time to answer it).Can somebody please tell me why Byzantium was considered superior to china at that time (5th century to 11th century)?
今天我在课堂上讨论了随着时间的推移世界上最强大的力量。当我们说到在罗马倒台后的那段时间里时，我们对当时的世界顶级超级大国有不同的看法。
长话短说，我们决定当时的超级大国是E.R.E（东罗马/拜占庭帝国），我不禁想知道为什么不是中国（老师没有时间回答）。有人能告诉我为什么拜占庭在当时（5世纪到11世纪)被认为优于中国吗？
评论翻译
LiquidEther
These kinds of questions are always difficult because power is ultimately a question of perspective. If you lived around the Mediterranean in that time, the Byzantine Empire is what you had your eye on. If you lived in East Asia, Byzantium was irrelevant next to China. There has never been obxtive history (all of our records are written by people with biases), and it's difficult to speak of "world superpowers" during times when the world wasn't so connected.
That said, 5th century to 11th century is a pretty long time frx, and both empires waxed and waned during that time. The other comment about China going through turbulent changes is correct, although this time period also saw the prosperity of the Tang dynasty. It's really hard to say. If your class generally focuses on the Western world, of course it would see Byzantium as the dominant power, but you can't directly compare two empires that had very limited interaction.
这类问题总是很难，因为权力终究是一个视角问题。如果你当时生活在地中海周边，拜占庭帝国就是你眼中的超级大国。如果你生活在东亚，拜占庭在中国眼里就算不得什么了。从来就没有客观的历史（我们所有的记录都是由有偏见的人写的），在世界还没有那么紧密联系的时代，很难说谁是"世界超级大国"。
话说回来，5世纪到11世纪是一个相当长的时间段，这期间两个帝国都有过萎靡不振的时期。另外关于中国经历动荡变化的评论是正确的，虽然这个时间段也出现了唐朝的繁荣。这真的很难说。如果你的课一般关注西方世界，当然会认为拜占庭是主导力量，但你无法直接比较这两个互动非常有限的帝国。
These kinds of questions are always difficult because power is ultimately a question of perspective. If you lived around the Mediterranean in that time, the Byzantine Empire is what you had your eye on. If you lived in East Asia, Byzantium was irrelevant next to China. There has never been obxtive history (all of our records are written by people with biases), and it's difficult to speak of "world superpowers" during times when the world wasn't so connected.
That said, 5th century to 11th century is a pretty long time frx, and both empires waxed and waned during that time. The other comment about China going through turbulent changes is correct, although this time period also saw the prosperity of the Tang dynasty. It's really hard to say. If your class generally focuses on the Western world, of course it would see Byzantium as the dominant power, but you can't directly compare two empires that had very limited interaction.
这类问题总是很难，因为权力终究是一个视角问题。如果你当时生活在地中海周边，拜占庭帝国就是你眼中的超级大国。如果你生活在东亚，拜占庭在中国眼里就算不得什么了。从来就没有客观的历史（我们所有的记录都是由有偏见的人写的），在世界还没有那么紧密联系的时代，很难说谁是"世界超级大国"。
话说回来，5世纪到11世纪是一个相当长的时间段，这期间两个帝国都有过萎靡不振的时期。另外关于中国经历动荡变化的评论是正确的，虽然这个时间段也出现了唐朝的繁荣。这真的很难说。如果你的课一般关注西方世界，当然会认为拜占庭是主导力量，但你无法直接比较这两个互动非常有限的帝国。
AgoraiosBum
You decided that because of a Euro-centric viewpoint. Byzantium under Justinian (through 565) was significantly smaller than the old Roman Empire (no Gaul, Britain, most of Spain), but much of that territory was lost by about 1000 AD (and especially after the Muslim conquests in the mid 600s).
Even at its late peak around the middle of the 11th Century, the Byzantine Empire likely had less than half the population of the Chinese empire.
Of course, neither projected power into the other's sphere. It was a time of major regional powers, not world superpowers.
你之所以这么认为，是因为你欧洲中心的观点。查士丁尼统治下的拜占庭（至565年）比旧罗马帝国小得多（没有高卢、英国、西班牙的大部分地区），但到公元1000年左右（尤其是600年代中期穆斯林征服后），大部分领土已经丧失。
即使在11世纪中叶左右的晚期巅峰时期，拜占庭帝国的人口可能还不到中华帝国的一半。
当然，两者都没有将力量投射到对方的领域。这是一个地区大国的时代，而不是世界超级大国的时代。
You decided that because of a Euro-centric viewpoint. Byzantium under Justinian (through 565) was significantly smaller than the old Roman Empire (no Gaul, Britain, most of Spain), but much of that territory was lost by about 1000 AD (and especially after the Muslim conquests in the mid 600s).
Even at its late peak around the middle of the 11th Century, the Byzantine Empire likely had less than half the population of the Chinese empire.
Of course, neither projected power into the other's sphere. It was a time of major regional powers, not world superpowers.
你之所以这么认为，是因为你欧洲中心的观点。查士丁尼统治下的拜占庭（至565年）比旧罗马帝国小得多（没有高卢、英国、西班牙的大部分地区），但到公元1000年左右（尤其是600年代中期穆斯林征服后），大部分领土已经丧失。
即使在11世纪中叶左右的晚期巅峰时期，拜占庭帝国的人口可能还不到中华帝国的一半。
当然，两者都没有将力量投射到对方的领域。这是一个地区大国的时代，而不是世界超级大国的时代。
BornIn1142
The definitions of the terms "great power" and "superpower" are tied to the reach of their influence. In the medi period, there were no great powers (and no superpowers) because there were no states that could project influence or military force across the globe. I would say that even China, with its great territory, could only be called a regional power at that time.
"大国"和"超级大国"这两个词的定义是与其影响力的范围相联系的。在中世纪时期，没有大国（也没有超级大国），因为没有国家可以将影响力或军事力量投射到全球。我想说的是，即使是疆域辽阔的中国，在当时也只能称为地区性大国。
The definitions of the terms "great power" and "superpower" are tied to the reach of their influence. In the medi period, there were no great powers (and no superpowers) because there were no states that could project influence or military force across the globe. I would say that even China, with its great territory, could only be called a regional power at that time.
"大国"和"超级大国"这两个词的定义是与其影响力的范围相联系的。在中世纪时期，没有大国（也没有超级大国），因为没有国家可以将影响力或军事力量投射到全球。我想说的是，即使是疆域辽阔的中国，在当时也只能称为地区性大国。
Intranetusa
Yeh. Superpowers only exist in the modern era as they need to be able to project power across the world (eg. USA, USSR).
是的。超级大国只存在于现代，因为它们需要能够在全世界投射力量（例如美国、苏联）。
Yeh. Superpowers only exist in the modern era as they need to be able to project power across the world (eg. USA, USSR).
是的。超级大国只存在于现代，因为它们需要能够在全世界投射力量（例如美国、苏联）。
Andrewescocia
i would say that historical great power and a modern great power are different things with different definitions.
but, Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents. pretty global.
我想说的是，历史上的大国和现代的大国是不同的东西，有不同的定义。
但是，拜占庭或罗马可以而且确实在三大洲传播了力量和影响，具有相当的全球性。
i would say that historical great power and a modern great power are different things with different definitions.
but, Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents. pretty global.
我想说的是，历史上的大国和现代的大国是不同的东西，有不同的定义。
但是，拜占庭或罗马可以而且确实在三大洲传播了力量和影响，具有相当的全球性。
Intranetusa
Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents
Let's not forget that that is because they were conveniently geographically located near the cross section of the 3 artificially defined continents (there is no real geographic or plate tectonic separation of Asia and Europe), and they really only controlled a fraction of Europe and a tiny piece of Asia and Africa.
不要忘了，那是因为他们在地理位置上很方便，靠近3个人工定义的大陆的分界线（亚欧大陆并没有真正的地理或板块构造上的分隔），他们实际上只控制了欧洲的一部分和亚非大陆的一小块。
Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents
Let's not forget that that is because they were conveniently geographically located near the cross section of the 3 artificially defined continents (there is no real geographic or plate tectonic separation of Asia and Europe), and they really only controlled a fraction of Europe and a tiny piece of Asia and Africa.
不要忘了，那是因为他们在地理位置上很方便，靠近3个人工定义的大陆的分界线（亚欧大陆并没有真正的地理或板块构造上的分隔），他们实际上只控制了欧洲的一部分和亚非大陆的一小块。
undercrux
Tang lasted from 618 to 907. It’s one of the most powerful dynasties in China. I think you can say it was a super power at that time.
唐从618年持续到907年。这是中国最强大的朝代之一。我想你可以说它当时是超级大国。
Tang lasted from 618 to 907. It’s one of the most powerful dynasties in China. I think you can say it was a super power at that time.
唐从618年持续到907年。这是中国最强大的朝代之一。我想你可以说它当时是超级大国。
Misticsan
5th century to 11th century
As others have said, in such a wide timefrx, it will depend on the exact point chosen to make the comparison.
It could be argued that, between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the early 7th century, the Byzantine Empire was the stongest superpower in the world, only rivalred by Sasanian Persia. China during those centuries was fractured, from the Sixteen Kingdoms to the Northern and Southern Dynasties.
Things started changing when the Sui dynasty unified China and, especially, when the Tang dynasty took over and brough Central Asia to China's sphere of influence. At the same time, Persia was conquered and the Byzantines lost many of their possessions to the Islamic Caliphates which, under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, managed the largest empire ever seen until that moment.
But history is ever changing. The Tang dynasty was severely weakened after the An Lushan rebellion and, while it recovered, the empire finally collapsed in the 9th century. Meanwhile, the Abbasid Caliphate was undergoing a similar period of fracture, losing many territories to provincial rulers, whereas Byzantium enjoyed an important recovery under the Macedonian dynasty. And yet, in the 11th century, the Byzantines suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a new rising Islamic power, the Seljuk Turks, and China was living under the golden age of the Song Dynasty.
So, it's complicated.
“5世纪到11世纪”
正如其他人所说，在如此宽广的时间范围内，要看具体选择什么点来进行比较。
可以说，从西罗马帝国灭亡到7世纪初，拜占庭帝国是世界上最坚固的超级大国，只有萨珊波斯可以与之媲美。那几百年间的中国是四分五裂的，从十六国到南北朝。
当隋朝统一中国后，尤其是唐朝接替并将中亚纳入中国的势力范围后，情况开始发生变化。同时，波斯被征服，拜占庭人失去了许多财产给伊斯兰哈里发王朝，在倭马亚王朝和阿拔斯王朝的统治下，在那一刻管理着有史以来最大的帝国。
但历史是不断变化的。唐朝在安禄山之乱后被严重削弱，虽然有所恢复，但帝国终于在9世纪崩溃。与此同时，阿拔斯哈里发王朝也在经历类似的分裂期，许多领地被省级统治者夺走，而拜占庭则在马其顿王朝的统治下获得了重要的恢复。然而，在11世纪，拜占庭人在新崛起的伊斯兰势力塞尔柱土耳其人手中遭遇惨败，而中国则生活在宋朝的黄金时代之下。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
5th century to 11th century
As others have said, in such a wide timefrx, it will depend on the exact point chosen to make the comparison.
It could be argued that, between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the early 7th century, the Byzantine Empire was the stongest superpower in the world, only rivalred by Sasanian Persia. China during those centuries was fractured, from the Sixteen Kingdoms to the Northern and Southern Dynasties.
Things started changing when the Sui dynasty unified China and, especially, when the Tang dynasty took over and brough Central Asia to China's sphere of influence. At the same time, Persia was conquered and the Byzantines lost many of their possessions to the Islamic Caliphates which, under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, managed the largest empire ever seen until that moment.
But history is ever changing. The Tang dynasty was severely weakened after the An Lushan rebellion and, while it recovered, the empire finally collapsed in the 9th century. Meanwhile, the Abbasid Caliphate was undergoing a similar period of fracture, losing many territories to provincial rulers, whereas Byzantium enjoyed an important recovery under the Macedonian dynasty. And yet, in the 11th century, the Byzantines suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a new rising Islamic power, the Seljuk Turks, and China was living under the golden age of the Song Dynasty.
So, it's complicated.
“5世纪到11世纪”
正如其他人所说，在如此宽广的时间范围内，要看具体选择什么点来进行比较。
可以说，从西罗马帝国灭亡到7世纪初，拜占庭帝国是世界上最坚固的超级大国，只有萨珊波斯可以与之媲美。那几百年间的中国是四分五裂的，从十六国到南北朝。
当隋朝统一中国后，尤其是唐朝接替并将中亚纳入中国的势力范围后，情况开始发生变化。同时，波斯被征服，拜占庭人失去了许多财产给伊斯兰哈里发王朝，在倭马亚王朝和阿拔斯王朝的统治下，在那一刻管理着有史以来最大的帝国。
但历史是不断变化的。唐朝在安禄山之乱后被严重削弱，虽然有所恢复，但帝国终于在9世纪崩溃。与此同时，阿拔斯哈里发王朝也在经历类似的分裂期，许多领地被省级统治者夺走，而拜占庭则在马其顿王朝的统治下获得了重要的恢复。然而，在11世纪，拜占庭人在新崛起的伊斯兰势力塞尔柱土耳其人手中遭遇惨败，而中国则生活在宋朝的黄金时代之下。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
DeaththeEternal
It depends on which China we're talking about. The Tang Empire would qualify as a great power, if not a superpower, by any stretch of the imagination. It was the second truly great Chinese Empire and reached far enough into Central Asia that it had one of the forgotten clashes of civilizations at Tallas.
这要看我们说的是哪个中国。唐帝国即使不是超级大国，也可以称得上是一个大国。它是第二个真正伟大的中华帝国，并且深入中亚，在那里的怛罗斯发生了被遗忘的文明冲突之一。
It depends on which China we're talking about. The Tang Empire would qualify as a great power, if not a superpower, by any stretch of the imagination. It was the second truly great Chinese Empire and reached far enough into Central Asia that it had one of the forgotten clashes of civilizations at Tallas.
这要看我们说的是哪个中国。唐帝国即使不是超级大国，也可以称得上是一个大国。它是第二个真正伟大的中华帝国，并且深入中亚，在那里的怛罗斯发生了被遗忘的文明冲突之一。
DaKeler
First of all, are you comparing governments ("Tang Dynasty", "Western or Eastern Rome") or the civilizations ("Zhonghua 中華", "Rome") that they belong to? It is possible for the state and civilization to be the same thing but it is certainly not always so. So if we are talking about governments, especially with state fragmentation, one has to consider which one and at which stage we are talking about. If considering civilization (which I argue is not a meaningless categorization) we additionally also have to much more informal factor of soft power which can be hard to obxtively gauge at times even for material culture. Take for example the conquest dynasties of the Chinese central plains (中原) in the context of distinction between Chinese and non-Chinese (華夷之辨). States like that of the Xianbei and Khitans were already heavily sinicized/sinicizing when they assumed control over parts of 中原 but were originally did not identify as Chinese. To what degree should conquest dynasties be included in the uation of "China" from 400-1000 AD? On a related note, to what degree should the spread of Roman/Chinese civilization to countries that did not identify as Roman/Chinese factor into this comparison of Rome and China?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
First of all, are you comparing governments ("Tang Dynasty", "Western or Eastern Rome") or the civilizations ("Zhonghua 中華", "Rome") that they belong to? It is possible for the state and civilization to be the same thing but it is certainly not always so. So if we are talking about governments, especially with state fragmentation, one has to consider which one and at which stage we are talking about. If considering civilization (which I argue is not a meaningless categorization) we additionally also have to much more informal factor of soft power which can be hard to obxtively gauge at times even for material culture. Take for example the conquest dynasties of the Chinese central plains (中原) in the context of distinction between Chinese and non-Chinese (華夷之辨). States like that of the Xianbei and Khitans were already heavily sinicized/sinicizing when they assumed control over parts of 中原 but were originally did not identify as Chinese. To what degree should conquest dynasties be included in the uation of "China" from 400-1000 AD? On a related note, to what degree should the spread of Roman/Chinese civilization to countries that did not identify as Roman/Chinese factor into this comparison of Rome and China?
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Secondly, it reasonable to assert that any unified Chinese dynasty or the Roman state at its height were great powers from a modern perspective but as people of discussed, there was no such thing as a superpower in this period (and I would argue for several reasons that this concept was simply impossible for that time).
首先，你是在比较政府（"唐朝"、"西罗"或"东罗马"）还是在比较它们所属的文明（"中华中华"、"罗马"）？国家和文明有可能是同一种东西，但不一定是这样。所以，如果我们谈论政府，尤其是国家分裂的情况下，就必须考虑我们谈论的是哪一个政府，在哪个阶段。如果考虑文明（我认为这并不是一个毫无意义的分类），我们还得另外考虑更多非正式的软实力因素，即使是物质文化，有时也很难客观地衡量。以华夷之辨中的中原王朝为例。像鲜卑和契丹这样的国家，在控制中原部分地区的时候，就已经被严重的汉化了，但他们一开始的时候并不认同自己是中国人。在评价公元400-1000年的"中国"时，在多大程度上应该包括征服王朝？与此相关的是，罗马/中国文明向不认同罗马/中国的国家的传播，在多大程度上应纳入罗马和中国之间的比较？
其次，从现代的角度看，断言任何一个统一的中国王朝或罗马国家在其鼎盛时期都是大国是合理的，但正如人们讨论的那样，这一时期并不存在超级大国的说法（我想说的是，出于几个原因，这个概念在当时根本不可能）。
为了简单起见，我假定一些假设，并对中世纪早期的中国/罗马国家进行非常简单、概括性的考察。
首先，你是在比较政府（"唐朝"、"西罗"或"东罗马"）还是在比较它们所属的文明（"中华中华"、"罗马"）？国家和文明有可能是同一种东西，但不一定是这样。所以，如果我们谈论政府，尤其是国家分裂的情况下，就必须考虑我们谈论的是哪一个政府，在哪个阶段。如果考虑文明（我认为这并不是一个毫无意义的分类），我们还得另外考虑更多非正式的软实力因素，即使是物质文化，有时也很难客观地衡量。以华夷之辨中的中原王朝为例。像鲜卑和契丹这样的国家，在控制中原部分地区的时候，就已经被严重的汉化了，但他们一开始的时候并不认同自己是中国人。在评价公元400-1000年的"中国"时，在多大程度上应该包括征服王朝？与此相关的是，罗马/中国文明向不认同罗马/中国的国家的传播，在多大程度上应纳入罗马和中国之间的比较？
其次，从现代的角度看，断言任何一个统一的中国王朝或罗马国家在其鼎盛时期都是大国是合理的，但正如人们讨论的那样，这一时期并不存在超级大国的说法（我想说的是，出于几个原因，这个概念在当时根本不可能）。
为了简单起见，我假定一些假设，并对中世纪早期的中国/罗马国家进行非常简单、概括性的考察。
For the sake of simplicity, I'll presume some assumptions and take very brief, general look at the Chinese/Roman states in early medi times.
Anyways, after losing control of Italy, Egypt, Syria, etc in the 7th century, the ERE really could not compare to any unified China in terms of aggregate power and influence. The loss of these territories were absolute economic disasters for the Roman state as it lost much of its most agriculturally productive and wealthiest lands and also its capability to meaningfully rival Chinese economic output. On the other hand, Chinese states in their various forms consistently maintained control over the regions of Jiangnan, the Yellow River valley, Guanzhong, Sichuan, Lingnan, etc each which compared with and exceeded the population and wealth of some powerful European polities (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf). Militarily, the Tang dynasty at its height also had tributaries in all directions and had military protectorates up to present-day Afghanistan, which the ERE could not compare at any point after the fall of Western Rome. Only in the field of religion/culture did the ERE substantially compare with China as the champion of the Orthodox Church, transmitter of Christianity to the Slavic peoples, and the protector of (non-heretical) Eastern Christians.
不管怎么说，在7世纪失去了对意大利、埃及、叙利亚等地的控制后，东罗马在综合实力和影响力上确实无法与任何统一的中国相比。失去这些领土对罗马国来说绝对是经济上的灾难，因为罗马政权失去了大部分农业生产力最强、最富裕的土地，也失去了与中国经济产出有意义的竞争能力。另一方面，中国政权以各种形式始终保持着对江南、黄河流域、关中、四川、岭南等地区的控制，每一个地区的人口和财富都超过了一些强大的欧洲政体（https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf）。在军事上，唐朝最鼎盛的时候也是四面八方都有附庸国，并有军事保护地，一直延申到今天的阿富汗，这是西罗马灭亡后，东罗马在任何时候都无法相比的。只有在宗教/文化领域，东罗马作为东正教的拥护者、基督教向斯拉夫民族的传播者、东方基督徒（非异端）的保护者，才能与中国有实质性的比较。
Even during contemporary eras of division and portions of realm (天下) under non-Chinese states, in China, the model of rulership and the Mandate of Heaven was challenged but did not collapse. Chinese contenders for the unification of the realm would often be other Chinese former colleagues/associates/acquaintance. Dynastic founders like the Zhao Kuangyin and Li Yuan were of course not exceptions to this trend. But examining the Northern Wei/Xianbei, they actually forced their people to adopt (Han) Chinese style of administration, clothing, customs, and manners and went as far as to replaced their names with Chinese ones. Even in the case of the Southern Song dynasty (apologies for stretching the time limit a little), when one dynasty did not have monopoly over the realm and there were multiple Sons of Heaven (天子), the Jin and Liao dynasties, who were originally outsiders, also called themselves Chinese and consciously assimilated themselves into the Han population. Not even the Mongols (apologies again) tried to discard the system of Chinese rulership inherited from the Song.
As for clearly non-Chinese/Roman countries and their relation to the Chinese and Romans respectively, take for example Japan. Although it has been reputed as the maverick of Sinosphere, where the emperors are called 天皇 and 天子, they never dared assume the title of 皇帝. In contrast, the ERE failed to prevent the Germans from successfully challenging their claim as the only legitimate Roman Empire and had to constantly deal with Islamic rivals.
Anyways, after losing control of Italy, Egypt, Syria, etc in the 7th century, the ERE really could not compare to any unified China in terms of aggregate power and influence. The loss of these territories were absolute economic disasters for the Roman state as it lost much of its most agriculturally productive and wealthiest lands and also its capability to meaningfully rival Chinese economic output. On the other hand, Chinese states in their various forms consistently maintained control over the regions of Jiangnan, the Yellow River valley, Guanzhong, Sichuan, Lingnan, etc each which compared with and exceeded the population and wealth of some powerful European polities (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf). Militarily, the Tang dynasty at its height also had tributaries in all directions and had military protectorates up to present-day Afghanistan, which the ERE could not compare at any point after the fall of Western Rome. Only in the field of religion/culture did the ERE substantially compare with China as the champion of the Orthodox Church, transmitter of Christianity to the Slavic peoples, and the protector of (non-heretical) Eastern Christians.
不管怎么说，在7世纪失去了对意大利、埃及、叙利亚等地的控制后，东罗马在综合实力和影响力上确实无法与任何统一的中国相比。失去这些领土对罗马国来说绝对是经济上的灾难，因为罗马政权失去了大部分农业生产力最强、最富裕的土地，也失去了与中国经济产出有意义的竞争能力。另一方面，中国政权以各种形式始终保持着对江南、黄河流域、关中、四川、岭南等地区的控制，每一个地区的人口和财富都超过了一些强大的欧洲政体（https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf）。在军事上，唐朝最鼎盛的时候也是四面八方都有附庸国，并有军事保护地，一直延申到今天的阿富汗，这是西罗马灭亡后，东罗马在任何时候都无法相比的。只有在宗教/文化领域，东罗马作为东正教的拥护者、基督教向斯拉夫民族的传播者、东方基督徒（非异端）的保护者，才能与中国有实质性的比较。
Even during contemporary eras of division and portions of realm (天下) under non-Chinese states, in China, the model of rulership and the Mandate of Heaven was challenged but did not collapse. Chinese contenders for the unification of the realm would often be other Chinese former colleagues/associates/acquaintance. Dynastic founders like the Zhao Kuangyin and Li Yuan were of course not exceptions to this trend. But examining the Northern Wei/Xianbei, they actually forced their people to adopt (Han) Chinese style of administration, clothing, customs, and manners and went as far as to replaced their names with Chinese ones. Even in the case of the Southern Song dynasty (apologies for stretching the time limit a little), when one dynasty did not have monopoly over the realm and there were multiple Sons of Heaven (天子), the Jin and Liao dynasties, who were originally outsiders, also called themselves Chinese and consciously assimilated themselves into the Han population. Not even the Mongols (apologies again) tried to discard the system of Chinese rulership inherited from the Song.
As for clearly non-Chinese/Roman countries and their relation to the Chinese and Romans respectively, take for example Japan. Although it has been reputed as the maverick of Sinosphere, where the emperors are called 天皇 and 天子, they never dared assume the title of 皇帝. In contrast, the ERE failed to prevent the Germans from successfully challenging their claim as the only legitimate Roman Empire and had to constantly deal with Islamic rivals.
In short, the power of countries wax and wane constantly, but overall, for unified Chinese dynasties, they were ahead of the ERE before the arrival of Islam and without a doubt well ahead post-Yarmouk. However, for Chinese ages of division, it is a different question depending on which particular Chinese state and depending on if they are compared with pre-Islam or post-Islam Rome. To be fair, Tang and Song Dynasties are two of the greatest dynasties in Chinese history so it is no great shame for the post-Yarmouk ERE to fall short.
I admit that Japan is not my main field of research so any recommendations on sources for Japanese imperial legitimacy is appreciated.
Edit: Changed "China" to "Zhonghua 中華" for clarity and edited some minor points
至于明显的非中国/罗马化国家及其分别与中国人和罗马人的关系，以日本为例。虽然它被誉为中国圈的特立独行者，在这里，天皇和天子都被称为天皇，但他们从来不敢以皇帝的身份自居。相比之下，东罗马未能阻止日耳曼人成功挑战其作为唯一合法罗马帝国的主张，只能不断与伊斯兰对手打交道。
总之，国家的力量是不断变化的，但总的来说，对于统一的中国王朝来说，在伊斯兰教到来之前，他们是领先于东罗马的，而在亚尔穆克战役（穆斯林军队击溃拜占庭军队夺取叙利亚）之后，无疑是远远领先的。但是，对于中国的分裂时代来说，要看是哪个特定的中国政权，要看是与伊斯兰教前还是伊斯兰教后的罗马相比，这是一个不同的问题。平心而论，唐宋两朝是中国历史上最伟大的两个朝代，所以亚尔穆克后东罗马落后一点，并不丢人。
我承认日本不是我的主要研究领域，所以如果有任何关于日本帝国合法性的资料来源推荐，我都会感激不尽。
I admit that Japan is not my main field of research so any recommendations on sources for Japanese imperial legitimacy is appreciated.
Edit: Changed "China" to "Zhonghua 中華" for clarity and edited some minor points
至于明显的非中国/罗马化国家及其分别与中国人和罗马人的关系，以日本为例。虽然它被誉为中国圈的特立独行者，在这里，天皇和天子都被称为天皇，但他们从来不敢以皇帝的身份自居。相比之下，东罗马未能阻止日耳曼人成功挑战其作为唯一合法罗马帝国的主张，只能不断与伊斯兰对手打交道。
总之，国家的力量是不断变化的，但总的来说，对于统一的中国王朝来说，在伊斯兰教到来之前，他们是领先于东罗马的，而在亚尔穆克战役（穆斯林军队击溃拜占庭军队夺取叙利亚）之后，无疑是远远领先的。但是，对于中国的分裂时代来说，要看是哪个特定的中国政权，要看是与伊斯兰教前还是伊斯兰教后的罗马相比，这是一个不同的问题。平心而论，唐宋两朝是中国历史上最伟大的两个朝代，所以亚尔穆克后东罗马落后一点，并不丢人。
我承认日本不是我的主要研究领域，所以如果有任何关于日本帝国合法性的资料来源推荐，我都会感激不尽。
antman4242
I appreciate the time this took, thank you
感谢你花了这么多时间写的回复，谢谢。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I appreciate the time this took, thank you
感谢你花了这么多时间写的回复，谢谢。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thibaudborny
You and your class need to think of criteria first, what is a ‘superpower’ - a rather anachronistic term - in your subjective minds?
你们和同学们首先要想好，在你们的主观心目中，什么是"超级大国"--这个相当不合时宜的名词的标准？
You and your class need to think of criteria first, what is a ‘superpower’ - a rather anachronistic term - in your subjective minds?
你们和同学们首先要想好，在你们的主观心目中，什么是"超级大国"--这个相当不合时宜的名词的标准？
RomanItalianEuropean
I would actually say it's between Islam, Byzantium, India and China. A source of the period i have found on the internet:
The inhabitants of China and India agree that there are four great kings in the world. They place the King of the Arabs (Kalif of Baghdad) at the head of these for it is admitted without doubts that he is the greatest of Kings....The King of China reckons himslef second after the King of the Arabs...after him comes the King of the Greeks* and lastly the Balhará the most emeninent of the princes of India etc etc
From "The Muhammadan Period", a collection of Islamic primary sources translated into English by Sir H.M. Elliot. Now of course it's a pro-Arab source. But it gives you the idea that these four were considered the biggest. And, at least to the Arabs, China was greater than Byzantium (the Greeks as they called it).
Also, i'd say that after 800 the HRE was at least as powerful as the ERE.
其实我想说是，这时期的超级大国就是在伊斯兰教、拜占庭、印度和中国之间选一个。我在网上找到的关于这一个时期的资料说：
“中国和印度的居民都认为，世界上有四个伟大的国王，他们把阿拉伯人的国王（巴格达的哈里发）放在这些国王之首，因为人们毫无疑问地承认他是最伟大的国王....中国国王认为他是阿拉伯人国王之后的第二位......在他之后是希腊人的国王*，最后是印度王子中最杰出的巴尔哈拉，等等。”
摘自 《穆罕默德时代》，由H. M. 艾略特爵士翻译成英文的伊斯兰原始资料集。当然，这是一个亲阿拉伯的资料，但它可以让你知道，这四个人被认为是当时最强大的。而且，至少对阿拉伯人来说，中国比拜占庭（他们称之为希腊人）更伟大。
另外，我想说的是，公元800年以后，HRE（神圣罗马帝国）至少和ERE（东罗马帝国）一样强大。
I would actually say it's between Islam, Byzantium, India and China. A source of the period i have found on the internet:
The inhabitants of China and India agree that there are four great kings in the world. They place the King of the Arabs (Kalif of Baghdad) at the head of these for it is admitted without doubts that he is the greatest of Kings....The King of China reckons himslef second after the King of the Arabs...after him comes the King of the Greeks* and lastly the Balhará the most emeninent of the princes of India etc etc
From "The Muhammadan Period", a collection of Islamic primary sources translated into English by Sir H.M. Elliot. Now of course it's a pro-Arab source. But it gives you the idea that these four were considered the biggest. And, at least to the Arabs, China was greater than Byzantium (the Greeks as they called it).
Also, i'd say that after 800 the HRE was at least as powerful as the ERE.
其实我想说是，这时期的超级大国就是在伊斯兰教、拜占庭、印度和中国之间选一个。我在网上找到的关于这一个时期的资料说：
“中国和印度的居民都认为，世界上有四个伟大的国王，他们把阿拉伯人的国王（巴格达的哈里发）放在这些国王之首，因为人们毫无疑问地承认他是最伟大的国王....中国国王认为他是阿拉伯人国王之后的第二位......在他之后是希腊人的国王*，最后是印度王子中最杰出的巴尔哈拉，等等。”
摘自 《穆罕默德时代》，由H. M. 艾略特爵士翻译成英文的伊斯兰原始资料集。当然，这是一个亲阿拉伯的资料，但它可以让你知道，这四个人被认为是当时最强大的。而且，至少对阿拉伯人来说，中国比拜占庭（他们称之为希腊人）更伟大。
另外，我想说的是，公元800年以后，HRE（神圣罗马帝国）至少和ERE（东罗马帝国）一样强大。
Trainer-Grimm
The medi period was a long, long time. At times Frankia was #1, but 20 years after Charlemagne it was the ERE. but China especially had a turbulent period. From the War of the 16 kingdoms, the fall of the Song dynasty to the mongols, and then slowly rebuilding itself under the ming. The ming were especially bad for no other reason than it doesn't matter how powerful you are if you don't do anything with it and are able to largely be ignored (think america between the civil war and like, ww2)
中世纪时期是一个很长很长的时期。有的时候法兰克王国是第一，但是查理曼大帝之后20年最强的就是东罗马。特别是中国有一个动荡的时期。五胡十六国混战，宋朝灭亡给蒙古人，然后在明朝的带领下慢慢重建。明朝特别糟糕，没有其他原因，如果你不做任何事情，并在世界上很大程度上被忽视，那么你是多么强大并不重要（想想从内战和第二次世界大战之间的美国）。
The medi period was a long, long time. At times Frankia was #1, but 20 years after Charlemagne it was the ERE. but China especially had a turbulent period. From the War of the 16 kingdoms, the fall of the Song dynasty to the mongols, and then slowly rebuilding itself under the ming. The ming were especially bad for no other reason than it doesn't matter how powerful you are if you don't do anything with it and are able to largely be ignored (think america between the civil war and like, ww2)
中世纪时期是一个很长很长的时期。有的时候法兰克王国是第一，但是查理曼大帝之后20年最强的就是东罗马。特别是中国有一个动荡的时期。五胡十六国混战，宋朝灭亡给蒙古人，然后在明朝的带领下慢慢重建。明朝特别糟糕，没有其他原因，如果你不做任何事情，并在世界上很大程度上被忽视，那么你是多么强大并不重要（想想从内战和第二次世界大战之间的美国）。
achmed011235
I would challenge the notion that the Tang wasn't equally powerful to the ERE, I would also challenge the notion that the Ming did nothing with it. You don't know what the Ming did doesn't mean it didn't do anything.
Power is power, whether you use it to enforce something or the threat of using it to enforce something are the same, it's power. Ming's power and ability to control the Tribuatory System was both a matter of soft power and hard power.
我会质疑唐没有东罗马那么强大的说法，我也会质疑对于明说它什么都没做的说法。你不知道明朝做了什么，不代表它什么都没做。
力量就是力量，不管你是用它来执行什么，还是用它来威胁执行什么都是一样的，都是力量。明有力量和能力去控制着部落系统，这既是软实力的问题，也是硬实力的问题。
I would challenge the notion that the Tang wasn't equally powerful to the ERE, I would also challenge the notion that the Ming did nothing with it. You don't know what the Ming did doesn't mean it didn't do anything.
Power is power, whether you use it to enforce something or the threat of using it to enforce something are the same, it's power. Ming's power and ability to control the Tribuatory System was both a matter of soft power and hard power.
我会质疑唐没有东罗马那么强大的说法，我也会质疑对于明说它什么都没做的说法。你不知道明朝做了什么，不代表它什么都没做。
力量就是力量，不管你是用它来执行什么，还是用它来威胁执行什么都是一样的，都是力量。明有力量和能力去控制着部落系统，这既是软实力的问题，也是硬实力的问题。
Shahadem
Not in Europe because the distance was too great for the transportation of the time period. The limited productive power of the technology also limited the ability of the country to project power outwards.
In order to be a super power you need to be able to project power which means you need an excess of something. When most people are subsistence farmers then you don't really have a surplus.
不在当时的欧洲，因为距离太远，不符合当时的交通条件。科技的生产力有限，也限制了国家向外投射力量的能力。
要想成为一个超级大国，你必须要有投射力量的能力，也就是说你需要一个过剩的东西。当时当大多数人都是自给自足的农民时，那么你就没有真正的过剩。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Not in Europe because the distance was too great for the transportation of the time period. The limited productive power of the technology also limited the ability of the country to project power outwards.
In order to be a super power you need to be able to project power which means you need an excess of something. When most people are subsistence farmers then you don't really have a surplus.
不在当时的欧洲，因为距离太远，不符合当时的交通条件。科技的生产力有限，也限制了国家向外投射力量的能力。
要想成为一个超级大国，你必须要有投射力量的能力，也就是说你需要一个过剩的东西。当时当大多数人都是自给自足的农民时，那么你就没有真正的过剩。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
ZackHBorg
Given the limitations on transportation and communications back in those days, you can't really speak of a global superpower in the sense of the US today or the British Empire c. 1900. Instead, you had at most regional superpowers. Of which one was China for much of this period. Other candidates would be the Byzantines and Arabs at various points.
考虑到当时交通和通讯的局限性，你真的说不出一个全球性的超级大国能像今天的美国或1900年的大英帝国一样。相反，你能说出很多区域性的超级大国。其中一个是在这一时期大部分时间里的中国。其他候选国是在不同时期的拜占庭人和阿拉伯人。
Given the limitations on transportation and communications back in those days, you can't really speak of a global superpower in the sense of the US today or the British Empire c. 1900. Instead, you had at most regional superpowers. Of which one was China for much of this period. Other candidates would be the Byzantines and Arabs at various points.
考虑到当时交通和通讯的局限性，你真的说不出一个全球性的超级大国能像今天的美国或1900年的大英帝国一样。相反，你能说出很多区域性的超级大国。其中一个是在这一时期大部分时间里的中国。其他候选国是在不同时期的拜占庭人和阿拉伯人。
MyPigWhistles
The problem starts with the question itself. Firstly it's already problematic to speak about "countries" like they were modern nation states when it comes to the early middle ages. Secondly countries don't have power, individuals have. That is especially true for pre-modern societies which rely on a face to face network and structures of personal dependencies. Thirdly: How do you want to measure "power" in this context? You can't make lists with GDP or standing army sizes for them.
这个问题本身就有问题。首先把中世纪初期的 "国家"说成是现代民族国家，这已经是个问题了。其次国家没有权力，个人才有。尤其是对于前现代社会，依靠面对面的网络和个人依附的结构，更是如此。第三：在这种情况下，你想如何衡量"权力"？你不能用GDP或常备军规模为他们列个清单来比较。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The problem starts with the question itself. Firstly it's already problematic to speak about "countries" like they were modern nation states when it comes to the early middle ages. Secondly countries don't have power, individuals have. That is especially true for pre-modern societies which rely on a face to face network and structures of personal dependencies. Thirdly: How do you want to measure "power" in this context? You can't make lists with GDP or standing army sizes for them.
这个问题本身就有问题。首先把中世纪初期的 "国家"说成是现代民族国家，这已经是个问题了。其次国家没有权力，个人才有。尤其是对于前现代社会，依靠面对面的网络和个人依附的结构，更是如此。第三：在这种情况下，你想如何衡量"权力"？你不能用GDP或常备军规模为他们列个清单来比较。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
P_elquelee
I think the scale would go: Regional powers (any kingdom / small empire you like), great powers (like Rome, China, Persia, etc), global powers (starting with Spain and Portugal up to Great Britain until WW1), and finally Superpowers (USA and the URSS).
Some thoughts for comparison:
Nowadays I would say USA is the only true superpower as it has economical, cultural, diplomatic, and military influence over the world.
Russia could be labeled as great power or global power (their global influence is limited).
China is on the rise, having nowadays a great economical and diplomatic influence. Their military and cultural projection is limited to SE asia.
The EU has global influence in diplomacy, economy and culture.
我想这个规模的进阶排列会是这样的：地区性强国（任何一个你喜欢的王国/小帝国），大国（如罗马、中国、波斯等），全球性强国（从西班牙和葡萄牙开始到第一次世界大战的英国），最后是超级大国（美国和苏联）。
一些想法供比较：
现在我想说美国是唯一真正的超级大国，因为它在经济、文化、外交和军事上对世界有影响。
俄罗斯可以被称为大国或全球强国（他们的全球影响力是有限的）。
中国正在崛起，如今拥有巨大的经济和外交影响力。但他们的军事和文化影响仅限于东/东南亚。
欧盟在外交、经济和文化方面都具有全球影响力。
I think the scale would go: Regional powers (any kingdom / small empire you like), great powers (like Rome, China, Persia, etc), global powers (starting with Spain and Portugal up to Great Britain until WW1), and finally Superpowers (USA and the URSS).
Some thoughts for comparison:
Nowadays I would say USA is the only true superpower as it has economical, cultural, diplomatic, and military influence over the world.
Russia could be labeled as great power or global power (their global influence is limited).
China is on the rise, having nowadays a great economical and diplomatic influence. Their military and cultural projection is limited to SE asia.
The EU has global influence in diplomacy, economy and culture.
我想这个规模的进阶排列会是这样的：地区性强国（任何一个你喜欢的王国/小帝国），大国（如罗马、中国、波斯等），全球性强国（从西班牙和葡萄牙开始到第一次世界大战的英国），最后是超级大国（美国和苏联）。
一些想法供比较：
现在我想说美国是唯一真正的超级大国，因为它在经济、文化、外交和军事上对世界有影响。
俄罗斯可以被称为大国或全球强国（他们的全球影响力是有限的）。
中国正在崛起，如今拥有巨大的经济和外交影响力。但他们的军事和文化影响仅限于东/东南亚。
欧盟在外交、经济和文化方面都具有全球影响力。
很赞 5
收藏