在不列颠帝国的巅峰时期，为什么它没有选择征服欧洲？【上】
正文翻译
At the height of the British Empire, why did it not conquer Europe?
在不列颠帝国的巅峰时期，为什么它没有选择征服欧洲？
At the height of the British Empire, why did it not conquer Europe?
在不列颠帝国的巅峰时期，为什么它没有选择征服欧洲？
评论翻译
他们的军队数量远远超过英国，他们确实有枪和大炮(尽管与英国相比过时了)，因为他们是一个热武器帝国。即使英国人试图在莫卧儿王国的土地上用他们的全部军队对付莫卧儿人，英国人也会被歼灭，因为有大量的印度士兵已经在采用早期现代战争的手段，不像祖鲁帝国，他们拿着刀和盾牌向你冲来。
然而，英国人很聪明，他们决定通过在争吵不休的小王侯之间挑起战争来分裂印度，然后一个一个地拿下他们，直到吞并孟加拉(我相信当时是地球上最富有的省份)，并与纳瓦布人、法国人和莫卧儿人交战。
然而，印度的沦陷并不完全是因为英国人的所作所为，因为印度南部发生了继承危机，马拉地联盟(马拉地联盟)推翻了莫卧儿王朝。在一片混乱中，英国人主动开始吞并印度的部分地区。
The more substantial answer is they didn’t want to. This is why they never tried, nor ever devoted any effort in building a military in that direction. Why?
In political and economic terms, Britain was a very conservative society. It’s almost a joke how conservative: remember that until 1999, the House of Lords was still mostly hereditary—earls, marquesses, and bishops (‘Lords Spiritual’) voting by right of dieu et mon droit in a modern democracy, this ‘parliament’ being the highest legal court of appeal like a medi curia regis. Britain still doesn’t have a written constitution—because codifying laws about “all men being created equal” would be siding with “the revolution.” 200 years previous, it was the same idea… but much, much more rigid and stratified. England avoided going through an Enlightenment period by sheer conservative animus, unlike all the rest of Europe.
Let me explain. Modern England was “made” with Protestantism, when Henry VIII wanted to… um, fuck and murder at a whim, well—the gist of it is, medi England was a communal society, in which the Church played a prominent role as essentially public property. Henry set things in motion by appropriating all Church property, dissolving the monasteries, breaking the icons (pocketing the gold for his army), and distributing the stolen land among his supporters. This was privatisation on a truly “revolutionary” scale.
更实质性的答案是他们不想（征服欧洲）。这就是为什么他们从来没有尝试，也从来没有投入任何努力在那个方向培养军队。为什么?
在政治和经济方面，英国是一个非常保守的社会，保守到简直是个笑话的程度: 记得吗，上议院大部分都是世袭制，直到1999年。英国仍然没有成文的宪法，因为编纂“人人生而平等”的法律将与“革命”站在一边。 200年前，也是同样的想法……只是比现在更加僵化和分层罢了。与欧洲其他国家不同的是，英国完全因为保守的敌意，避免了经历启蒙运动时期。
让我解释一下背景。现代英格兰是由新教“造就”的，当时亨利八世想要……肆意胡搞和杀人，其主旨是，中世纪的英格兰是一个公共社会，教会作为公共财产在其中扮演着重要的角色。亨利掠夺了教会的所有财产，解散了修道院，破坏了圣像(将金币私藏给他的军队)，并将偷来的土地分给他的支持者。这是一种真正“革命”级别的私有化。
Tomaž Vargazon
You have to realize what the main strength of the British empire was. It wasn’t the Royal navy (strong though it was) and it wasn’t the Redcoats either (no matter how tough they were).
No, the main strength of the British was that they were able to play various factions against one another, side with the weaker, defeat the stronger and set themselves up as the new ruler.
This didn’t work in Europe, because everyone knew what their antics were, and because their continental enemies - mainly the French - were actually stronger than Britain. The French fleet was typically larger than the Royal navy and used more powerful ships, the British achieved better results (on average) by virtue of having better trained, professional crews. The French army was also larger and at least as tough as the Redcoats. The other continental powers were also tough nuts.
Britain built the largest empire in history mainly by defeating those whom they could defeat with ease and use political games and economic carrots to keep the other powers at bay. The last time an English king had a serious chance of defeating France was when the king of England was still a French nobleman who had royal posessions across the sleeve. Other powers followed suit, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Poland and all the rest would make short work of any English/British invasions.
It turns out other nations also knew they could interdict supply coming in from England. It just wasn’t all that imporant than the reverse route was for the British. Royal navy was strong enough to prevent other nations from invading the British isles, but it couldn’t hope to support hostile invasions without massive help from continental allies.
你必须知道大英帝国的主要力量是什么。它不是皇家海军(尽管它很强大)，也不是英国士兵(无论他们多么强大)。
不，英国人的主要优势在于他们能够让不同的派别相互对抗，站在弱者一边，打败强者，然后自立为新统治者。这在欧洲行不通，因为每个人都知道他们的滑稽行为，而且他们在欧洲大陆的敌人——主要是法国，实际上比英国更强大。法国舰队通常比皇家海军规模更大，使用更强大的船只，而英国(平均而言)由于拥有更好的训练有素的专业船员，取得了更好的成绩。法国军队的规模也更大，至少和英国士兵一样强悍，其他大陆国家也是硬骨头。
英国建立了历史上最大的帝国，主要是通过击败那些他们可以轻松击败的人，并利用政治游戏和经济胡萝卜来牵制其他强国。上一次英国国王有机会打败法国是在英国国王还是一个法国贵族的时候。但与法国一样，其他强国纷纷效仿，神圣罗马帝国、西班牙、波兰和其他所有国家都将迅速应对英国/英格兰的入侵。
事实证明，其他国家也知道他们可以阻止英国。对于英国人来说，征服欧洲并不比征服其他地方来的更重要。皇家海军强大到足以阻止其他国家入侵不列颠群岛，但如果没有大陆盟友的大量帮助，它无法指望能够入侵欧洲大陆。
You have to realize what the main strength of the British empire was. It wasn’t the Royal navy (strong though it was) and it wasn’t the Redcoats either (no matter how tough they were).
No, the main strength of the British was that they were able to play various factions against one another, side with the weaker, defeat the stronger and set themselves up as the new ruler.
This didn’t work in Europe, because everyone knew what their antics were, and because their continental enemies - mainly the French - were actually stronger than Britain. The French fleet was typically larger than the Royal navy and used more powerful ships, the British achieved better results (on average) by virtue of having better trained, professional crews. The French army was also larger and at least as tough as the Redcoats. The other continental powers were also tough nuts.
Britain built the largest empire in history mainly by defeating those whom they could defeat with ease and use political games and economic carrots to keep the other powers at bay. The last time an English king had a serious chance of defeating France was when the king of England was still a French nobleman who had royal posessions across the sleeve. Other powers followed suit, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Poland and all the rest would make short work of any English/British invasions.
It turns out other nations also knew they could interdict supply coming in from England. It just wasn’t all that imporant than the reverse route was for the British. Royal navy was strong enough to prevent other nations from invading the British isles, but it couldn’t hope to support hostile invasions without massive help from continental allies.
你必须知道大英帝国的主要力量是什么。它不是皇家海军(尽管它很强大)，也不是英国士兵(无论他们多么强大)。
不，英国人的主要优势在于他们能够让不同的派别相互对抗，站在弱者一边，打败强者，然后自立为新统治者。这在欧洲行不通，因为每个人都知道他们的滑稽行为，而且他们在欧洲大陆的敌人——主要是法国，实际上比英国更强大。法国舰队通常比皇家海军规模更大，使用更强大的船只，而英国(平均而言)由于拥有更好的训练有素的专业船员，取得了更好的成绩。法国军队的规模也更大，至少和英国士兵一样强悍，其他大陆国家也是硬骨头。
英国建立了历史上最大的帝国，主要是通过击败那些他们可以轻松击败的人，并利用政治游戏和经济胡萝卜来牵制其他强国。上一次英国国王有机会打败法国是在英国国王还是一个法国贵族的时候。但与法国一样，其他强国纷纷效仿，神圣罗马帝国、西班牙、波兰和其他所有国家都将迅速应对英国/英格兰的入侵。
事实证明，其他国家也知道他们可以阻止英国。对于英国人来说，征服欧洲并不比征服其他地方来的更重要。皇家海军强大到足以阻止其他国家入侵不列颠群岛，但如果没有大陆盟友的大量帮助，它无法指望能够入侵欧洲大陆。
Michael Gallagher
I agree with nearly everything you have said, but they still practised that tactic in Europe, even if not for conquest. If you look at the Iberian Penninsula, and the long running partnership with Portugal who were certainly weaker than either Spain or France.
我基本同意你所说，但他们仍然在欧洲使用了这种策略，即使不是为了征服。如果你看看伊比利亚半岛，以及与葡萄牙的长期合作关系，而葡萄牙显然比西班牙或法国都弱。
I agree with nearly everything you have said, but they still practised that tactic in Europe, even if not for conquest. If you look at the Iberian Penninsula, and the long running partnership with Portugal who were certainly weaker than either Spain or France.
我基本同意你所说，但他们仍然在欧洲使用了这种策略，即使不是为了征服。如果你看看伊比利亚半岛，以及与葡萄牙的长期合作关系，而葡萄牙显然比西班牙或法国都弱。
Tomaž Vargazon
Of course they did, divide and conquer is an effective strategy.
But in Europe this just means they were able to prevent any one country from dominating the continent. Britain dominating the continent was a pipe dream, but at least no continental country could either.
That was the limit of the British power and it is a testament to how far ahead Europe was from everyone else at the time. Not only Europe spawned the largest empire in history, that empire was readily checked by their European neighbors of comparible strength, who simply did not build as extensive colonial empires as Britain did (for a multitude of reasons, including the British).
当然，分而治之是一种有效的策略。
但在欧洲，这只是意味着他们能够阻止任何一个国家统治欧洲大陆，但英国（想借此）统治欧洲大陆是白日做梦。
不过，至少没有哪个大陆国家能做到这一点。这是英国力量的极限，也是当时欧洲远远领先于其他所有国家的证明。欧洲不仅催生了历史上最大的帝国，而且这个帝国也很容易受到实力相当的欧洲邻国的牵制，这些邻国没有建立像英国那样庞大的殖民帝国(原因有很多，包括英国)。
Of course they did, divide and conquer is an effective strategy.
But in Europe this just means they were able to prevent any one country from dominating the continent. Britain dominating the continent was a pipe dream, but at least no continental country could either.
That was the limit of the British power and it is a testament to how far ahead Europe was from everyone else at the time. Not only Europe spawned the largest empire in history, that empire was readily checked by their European neighbors of comparible strength, who simply did not build as extensive colonial empires as Britain did (for a multitude of reasons, including the British).
当然，分而治之是一种有效的策略。
但在欧洲，这只是意味着他们能够阻止任何一个国家统治欧洲大陆，但英国（想借此）统治欧洲大陆是白日做梦。
不过，至少没有哪个大陆国家能做到这一点。这是英国力量的极限，也是当时欧洲远远领先于其他所有国家的证明。欧洲不仅催生了历史上最大的帝国，而且这个帝国也很容易受到实力相当的欧洲邻国的牵制，这些邻国没有建立像英国那样庞大的殖民帝国(原因有很多，包括英国)。
James LaBare
For whatever reason people fail to realize that the British also had a superior economic system, particularly banking. The Bank of England allowed, just like the Dutch, for the British to punch well above their weight. With the reliable ability to borrow money on credit, they were able to build that great naval fleet in the first place. Before the Glorious Revolution, the British were so badly managed financially that they invited the Dutch to invade, just so they could copy their financial system.
不管出于什么原因，人们没有意识到英国也有一个优秀的经济体系，尤其是银行业。就像荷兰一样，英格兰银行允许英国人发挥超出自身能力的作用。有了可靠的信用贷款能力，他们就能在一开始就建立起庞大的海军舰队。在光荣革命之前，英国人的财政管理非常糟糕，以至于他们邀请荷兰人入侵，这样他们就可以复制荷兰的金融体系。
For whatever reason people fail to realize that the British also had a superior economic system, particularly banking. The Bank of England allowed, just like the Dutch, for the British to punch well above their weight. With the reliable ability to borrow money on credit, they were able to build that great naval fleet in the first place. Before the Glorious Revolution, the British were so badly managed financially that they invited the Dutch to invade, just so they could copy their financial system.
不管出于什么原因，人们没有意识到英国也有一个优秀的经济体系，尤其是银行业。就像荷兰一样，英格兰银行允许英国人发挥超出自身能力的作用。有了可靠的信用贷款能力，他们就能在一开始就建立起庞大的海军舰队。在光荣革命之前，英国人的财政管理非常糟糕，以至于他们邀请荷兰人入侵，这样他们就可以复制荷兰的金融体系。
Steinar Vilnes
It can really be argued that Britain started to expand by creating a colonical empire exactly because they were no longer able to expand on the continent of Europe.
我们也可以说，英国通过建立殖民帝国开始扩张正是因为他们不再能在欧洲大陆扩张。
It can really be argued that Britain started to expand by creating a colonical empire exactly because they were no longer able to expand on the continent of Europe.
我们也可以说，英国通过建立殖民帝国开始扩张正是因为他们不再能在欧洲大陆扩张。
David Paul Evans
“Never were” is a better fit than “no longer”. That implies they even tried to expand on the European continent. After the 100 Years’ War (which was a dynastic, rather than nation state war) they never seriously tried. They held on to Calais until the Tudor period, and that was it. Britain’s European possessions were almost exclusively islands or tiny enclaves like Gibraltar.
"从未能"比"不再能"更合适，这意味着他们曾经试图在欧洲大陆扩张。在百年战争(这是一场王朝战争，而不是民族战争)之后，他们从未认真尝试过。他们曾经一直占领加来直到都铎时期，仅此而已。英国在欧洲的属地几乎都是岛屿或像直布罗陀这样的小飞地。
“Never were” is a better fit than “no longer”. That implies they even tried to expand on the European continent. After the 100 Years’ War (which was a dynastic, rather than nation state war) they never seriously tried. They held on to Calais until the Tudor period, and that was it. Britain’s European possessions were almost exclusively islands or tiny enclaves like Gibraltar.
"从未能"比"不再能"更合适，这意味着他们曾经试图在欧洲大陆扩张。在百年战争(这是一场王朝战争，而不是民族战争)之后，他们从未认真尝试过。他们曾经一直占领加来直到都铎时期，仅此而已。英国在欧洲的属地几乎都是岛屿或像直布罗陀这样的小飞地。
Vivek
Agreed. Apart from clever politics that you mentioned, another advantage was that the locals mostly saw them as random traders that the Kings didn’t have to worry about. They never realized that they were from a powerful country halfway across the world with millions of people and a massive Millitary.
同意。除了你提到的明智的政治，另一个优势是……他们从来没有意识到他们来自一个强大的国家，在世界的另一边，有数百万的人民和庞大的军队。
Agreed. Apart from clever politics that you mentioned, another advantage was that the locals mostly saw them as random traders that the Kings didn’t have to worry about. They never realized that they were from a powerful country halfway across the world with millions of people and a massive Millitary.
同意。除了你提到的明智的政治，另一个优势是……他们从来没有意识到他们来自一个强大的国家，在世界的另一边，有数百万的人民和庞大的军队。
Christopher Paige
The thing is that the Mughal empire had HUNDREDS of millions and an economy that controlled the same amount of the world economy as the British empire (25%)
Their military vastly outnumbered that of the British and they did have guns and artillery (however obsolete compared with the British) as they were a gunpowder empire. Even if the British were to even try and take on the Mughals with their entire military on Mughal lands, the British would be decimated simply because there were way too many Indian soldiers that used early modern warfare unlike the Zulu empire which just ran at you with knives and shields. The British however, were clever and decided to split India by igniting war between smaller squabbling Maharajas and pick them of one by one until annexing the big prize of Bengal( I believe the wealthiest province on the planet at the time) against the Nawab of Bengal, French, and Mughals.
However, the fall of India to the British isn’t strictly to the doings of the British as there was a succession crisis, a war in the south of India, and a coalition of Maharajas (Maratha Confederation) to dethrone the Mughals. In all of the chaos, the British took the initiative to start annexing parts of India.
事实是，莫卧儿帝国拥有数亿人口，其经济控制的世界经济总量与大英帝国(25%)相当
The thing is that the Mughal empire had HUNDREDS of millions and an economy that controlled the same amount of the world economy as the British empire (25%)
Their military vastly outnumbered that of the British and they did have guns and artillery (however obsolete compared with the British) as they were a gunpowder empire. Even if the British were to even try and take on the Mughals with their entire military on Mughal lands, the British would be decimated simply because there were way too many Indian soldiers that used early modern warfare unlike the Zulu empire which just ran at you with knives and shields. The British however, were clever and decided to split India by igniting war between smaller squabbling Maharajas and pick them of one by one until annexing the big prize of Bengal( I believe the wealthiest province on the planet at the time) against the Nawab of Bengal, French, and Mughals.
However, the fall of India to the British isn’t strictly to the doings of the British as there was a succession crisis, a war in the south of India, and a coalition of Maharajas (Maratha Confederation) to dethrone the Mughals. In all of the chaos, the British took the initiative to start annexing parts of India.
事实是，莫卧儿帝国拥有数亿人口，其经济控制的世界经济总量与大英帝国(25%)相当
他们的军队数量远远超过英国，他们确实有枪和大炮(尽管与英国相比过时了)，因为他们是一个热武器帝国。即使英国人试图在莫卧儿王国的土地上用他们的全部军队对付莫卧儿人，英国人也会被歼灭，因为有大量的印度士兵已经在采用早期现代战争的手段，不像祖鲁帝国，他们拿着刀和盾牌向你冲来。
然而，英国人很聪明，他们决定通过在争吵不休的小王侯之间挑起战争来分裂印度，然后一个一个地拿下他们，直到吞并孟加拉(我相信当时是地球上最富有的省份)，并与纳瓦布人、法国人和莫卧儿人交战。
然而，印度的沦陷并不完全是因为英国人的所作所为，因为印度南部发生了继承危机，马拉地联盟(马拉地联盟)推翻了莫卧儿王朝。在一片混乱中，英国人主动开始吞并印度的部分地区。
Jacob Baumgardner
I've always been facilitated at the British ability to at others. Whether it be the Russians and their attribution to bears, or Napoleon now known as being a short man. Even these tidbits of false information live on as subconscious fact in society's mind today.
This skill of propaganda and playing the cards right has even spilled over into America, with the US having the most potent propaganda machine in the world, leaving adversaries such as China and Russia in the dust.
Britain played their cards so well that their colonies instead of hating them decided to create the Commonwealth of Nations, with the the UK at the head of it all, helping Britain not fall into obscurity in a time of superpowers.
我一直很欣赏英国人“看“人的能力。无论是把俄国人视为“熊”，还是拿破仑以“矮子”闻名。即使是这些零碎的错误信息，在今天的社会中也作为潜意识的事实而存在。
这种宣传和打好牌的技巧甚至蔓延到了美国，美国拥有世界上最强大的宣传机器，将中国和俄罗斯等对手甩在了身后。
英国玩得非常好，以至于他们的殖民地没有憎恨他们，而是决定创建英联邦，以英国为首，帮助英国后超级大国时代不会陷入默默无闻。
I've always been facilitated at the British ability to at others. Whether it be the Russians and their attribution to bears, or Napoleon now known as being a short man. Even these tidbits of false information live on as subconscious fact in society's mind today.
This skill of propaganda and playing the cards right has even spilled over into America, with the US having the most potent propaganda machine in the world, leaving adversaries such as China and Russia in the dust.
Britain played their cards so well that their colonies instead of hating them decided to create the Commonwealth of Nations, with the the UK at the head of it all, helping Britain not fall into obscurity in a time of superpowers.
我一直很欣赏英国人“看“人的能力。无论是把俄国人视为“熊”，还是拿破仑以“矮子”闻名。即使是这些零碎的错误信息，在今天的社会中也作为潜意识的事实而存在。
这种宣传和打好牌的技巧甚至蔓延到了美国，美国拥有世界上最强大的宣传机器，将中国和俄罗斯等对手甩在了身后。
英国玩得非常好，以至于他们的殖民地没有憎恨他们，而是决定创建英联邦，以英国为首，帮助英国后超级大国时代不会陷入默默无闻。
Dimitris Almyrantis
The prima facie, too obvious answer is it couldn’t. Britain was not a serious military power on land, and the British army was a fairly timid affair—the British empire was not a 19th century version of the United States, in size, organization, or priorities. The American military after their civil war was built on the Prussian mold, as was the Russian, both with good reason.
I’ll come out and say it: most people from the former colonies have a very exaggerated idea of British strength, mostly because they have an exaggerated image of their own countries’ abilities relative to Europe prior to colonization. The army that conquered India wasn’t even “the British army”, it was a part-time merchant subsidiary. Colonial service was never a serious military affair, and little effort was put into managing the colonies: apart from the fancy dress and parade elephants, “empire on the cheap” was the operative phrase.
乍一看，（英国征服欧洲）答案是不可能。
英国在陆地上并不是一个真正的军事强国，英国军队也相当胆小——大英帝国无论是在规模、组织或优先级上都不是现代美国的19世纪版。美国内战后的军队是建立在普鲁士模式的基础上的，俄罗斯也是如此。
我想说的是:大多数来自前殖民地的人对英国的实力有一个非常夸张的看法，主要是因为他们对自己国家在被殖民之前相对于欧洲的能力有一个夸大的形象。征服印度的军队甚至不是“英国军队”，而是一个兼职商人的附属机构。殖民服务从来都不是一件严肃的军事事务，管理殖民地也不需要付出多少努力:除了华丽的服装和游行的大象，“廉价的帝国”是最好的描述。
The prima facie, too obvious answer is it couldn’t. Britain was not a serious military power on land, and the British army was a fairly timid affair—the British empire was not a 19th century version of the United States, in size, organization, or priorities. The American military after their civil war was built on the Prussian mold, as was the Russian, both with good reason.
I’ll come out and say it: most people from the former colonies have a very exaggerated idea of British strength, mostly because they have an exaggerated image of their own countries’ abilities relative to Europe prior to colonization. The army that conquered India wasn’t even “the British army”, it was a part-time merchant subsidiary. Colonial service was never a serious military affair, and little effort was put into managing the colonies: apart from the fancy dress and parade elephants, “empire on the cheap” was the operative phrase.
乍一看，（英国征服欧洲）答案是不可能。
英国在陆地上并不是一个真正的军事强国，英国军队也相当胆小——大英帝国无论是在规模、组织或优先级上都不是现代美国的19世纪版。美国内战后的军队是建立在普鲁士模式的基础上的，俄罗斯也是如此。
我想说的是:大多数来自前殖民地的人对英国的实力有一个非常夸张的看法，主要是因为他们对自己国家在被殖民之前相对于欧洲的能力有一个夸大的形象。征服印度的军队甚至不是“英国军队”，而是一个兼职商人的附属机构。殖民服务从来都不是一件严肃的军事事务，管理殖民地也不需要付出多少努力:除了华丽的服装和游行的大象，“廉价的帝国”是最好的描述。
The more substantial answer is they didn’t want to. This is why they never tried, nor ever devoted any effort in building a military in that direction. Why?
In political and economic terms, Britain was a very conservative society. It’s almost a joke how conservative: remember that until 1999, the House of Lords was still mostly hereditary—earls, marquesses, and bishops (‘Lords Spiritual’) voting by right of dieu et mon droit in a modern democracy, this ‘parliament’ being the highest legal court of appeal like a medi curia regis. Britain still doesn’t have a written constitution—because codifying laws about “all men being created equal” would be siding with “the revolution.” 200 years previous, it was the same idea… but much, much more rigid and stratified. England avoided going through an Enlightenment period by sheer conservative animus, unlike all the rest of Europe.
Let me explain. Modern England was “made” with Protestantism, when Henry VIII wanted to… um, fuck and murder at a whim, well—the gist of it is, medi England was a communal society, in which the Church played a prominent role as essentially public property. Henry set things in motion by appropriating all Church property, dissolving the monasteries, breaking the icons (pocketing the gold for his army), and distributing the stolen land among his supporters. This was privatisation on a truly “revolutionary” scale.
更实质性的答案是他们不想（征服欧洲）。这就是为什么他们从来没有尝试，也从来没有投入任何努力在那个方向培养军队。为什么?
在政治和经济方面，英国是一个非常保守的社会，保守到简直是个笑话的程度: 记得吗，上议院大部分都是世袭制，直到1999年。英国仍然没有成文的宪法，因为编纂“人人生而平等”的法律将与“革命”站在一边。 200年前，也是同样的想法……只是比现在更加僵化和分层罢了。与欧洲其他国家不同的是，英国完全因为保守的敌意，避免了经历启蒙运动时期。
让我解释一下背景。现代英格兰是由新教“造就”的，当时亨利八世想要……肆意胡搞和杀人，其主旨是，中世纪的英格兰是一个公共社会，教会作为公共财产在其中扮演着重要的角色。亨利掠夺了教会的所有财产，解散了修道院，破坏了圣像(将金币私藏给他的军队)，并将偷来的土地分给他的支持者。这是一种真正“革命”级别的私有化。
This set the main fear of the English ruling class until today, namely socialism or (then) “political Catholicism”: the landowning Protestant nobility was sitting on a bag of loot, ever-fearful that someone would seek to give their gains away. Over the next several centuries, the propertied class went through a number of fairly contrary political systems (absolutism, theocracy, parliamentarianism, &c.) all aimed at preventing the dreaded redistribution of land, and keeping the hateful “priestcraft & popery” away.
Hence, the British military. Its main job was not to wage successful war, but to remain firmly in the hands of the aristocracy, even at the cost of incompetence. Britain could not afford revolutionary change, such as conquest, simply because a ruler like Napoleon would spell death for “security of property.” Until well into the 1850s, the British military remained scornfully above things like promotion by merit: commissions were purchased, usually by “gentlemen” with little experience. Keeping armed force in the British isles in the hands of landowners committed to “the Protestant mission” was the main and avowed purpose of the system.
Think of it like what did slavery in in the US: expansion westwards was the crack in the status quo that called existing institutions into question, leading to a major break in the “security of property” of the Southern landowners. Likewise, any entanglement in continental Europe would challenge the insular status quo of splendid isolation, industry, country houses and fox-hunting.
这是英国统治阶级直到今天的主要恐惧，即社会主义或(当时)“政治天主教”: 拥有土地的新教贵族坐在一袋战利品上，一直担心有人会把他们的利益分给别人。在接下来的几个世纪里，有产阶级经历了许多截然相反的政治制度(专制主义、神权政治、议会制等等)，这些制度都旨在阻止可怕的土地再分配，并将可恶的“祭司和教皇制”拒之千里。
因此，英国军队，其主要任务不是发动成功的战争，而是即使以无能为代价，也要牢牢地掌握在贵族手中。英国无法承受革命性的变化，比如征服，就因为统治者愿意不惜一切代价保障“财产安全”。将不列颠群岛的武装力量掌握在信奉“新教使命”的地主手中，是该体系公开表明的主要目的。
想想美国的奴隶制:向西扩张是现状的裂痕，使现有制度受到质疑，导致南方地主的“财产安全”遭到重大破坏。同样，在欧洲大陆的任何纠缠都将挑战产业、乡间别墅和与世隔绝的现状。
Hence, the British military. Its main job was not to wage successful war, but to remain firmly in the hands of the aristocracy, even at the cost of incompetence. Britain could not afford revolutionary change, such as conquest, simply because a ruler like Napoleon would spell death for “security of property.” Until well into the 1850s, the British military remained scornfully above things like promotion by merit: commissions were purchased, usually by “gentlemen” with little experience. Keeping armed force in the British isles in the hands of landowners committed to “the Protestant mission” was the main and avowed purpose of the system.
Think of it like what did slavery in in the US: expansion westwards was the crack in the status quo that called existing institutions into question, leading to a major break in the “security of property” of the Southern landowners. Likewise, any entanglement in continental Europe would challenge the insular status quo of splendid isolation, industry, country houses and fox-hunting.
这是英国统治阶级直到今天的主要恐惧，即社会主义或(当时)“政治天主教”: 拥有土地的新教贵族坐在一袋战利品上，一直担心有人会把他们的利益分给别人。在接下来的几个世纪里，有产阶级经历了许多截然相反的政治制度(专制主义、神权政治、议会制等等)，这些制度都旨在阻止可怕的土地再分配，并将可恶的“祭司和教皇制”拒之千里。
因此，英国军队，其主要任务不是发动成功的战争，而是即使以无能为代价，也要牢牢地掌握在贵族手中。英国无法承受革命性的变化，比如征服，就因为统治者愿意不惜一切代价保障“财产安全”。将不列颠群岛的武装力量掌握在信奉“新教使命”的地主手中，是该体系公开表明的主要目的。
想想美国的奴隶制:向西扩张是现状的裂痕，使现有制度受到质疑，导致南方地主的“财产安全”遭到重大破坏。同样，在欧洲大陆的任何纠缠都将挑战产业、乡间别墅和与世隔绝的现状。
Brian Dales
Maybe it's because it's my country being talked about, but this feels like a half-truth.
Yes, I think during the revolutionary period there was a very defensive political conservitism in Britain that endured to this day.
But, it was only able to do that because it went through it's own revolutionary period before the rest of Europe. What ultimately came out of the English revolution was a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian than other European powers of its time.
The French Revolution could only happen in a country more despotic than Britain was.
So I agree with you post 1848 but think you are wrong to paint Britain/England — which has been at the forefront of political radicalism for much of it's existence — as conservative over all.
Even the empire, which was foremost a trade empire, was done with a synthesis of the merchant class, venture capital, and the state — without aristocratic involvement (except as investors). This was itself a pretty liberal undertaking and has parallels in the Netherlands, a country that had little aristocracy or monarchy.
也许是因为谈论的是我的国家，所以这听起来像是半真半假。
是的，我认为在革命时期英国存在一种防御性的政治保守主义，这种保守主义一直延续到今天。但是，它之所以能够做到这一点，是因为它比欧洲其他国家更早经历了自己的革命时期。英国革命最终产生的是一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更平等的议会政府。
法国大革命只可能发生在一个比英国更专制的国家。所以我同意你1848年后的观点，但我认为你把英国/英格兰描绘成总体上的保守派是错误的——英国在很大程度上一直处于政治激进主义的前沿。
即使是最重要的贸易帝国，也是由商人阶层、风险资本和国家组成的——没有贵族的参与(除了作为投资者)。这本身就是一项相当自由的事业，在几乎没有贵族或君主制的荷兰也有类似的情况。
Maybe it's because it's my country being talked about, but this feels like a half-truth.
Yes, I think during the revolutionary period there was a very defensive political conservitism in Britain that endured to this day.
But, it was only able to do that because it went through it's own revolutionary period before the rest of Europe. What ultimately came out of the English revolution was a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian than other European powers of its time.
The French Revolution could only happen in a country more despotic than Britain was.
So I agree with you post 1848 but think you are wrong to paint Britain/England — which has been at the forefront of political radicalism for much of it's existence — as conservative over all.
Even the empire, which was foremost a trade empire, was done with a synthesis of the merchant class, venture capital, and the state — without aristocratic involvement (except as investors). This was itself a pretty liberal undertaking and has parallels in the Netherlands, a country that had little aristocracy or monarchy.
也许是因为谈论的是我的国家，所以这听起来像是半真半假。
是的，我认为在革命时期英国存在一种防御性的政治保守主义，这种保守主义一直延续到今天。但是，它之所以能够做到这一点，是因为它比欧洲其他国家更早经历了自己的革命时期。英国革命最终产生的是一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更平等的议会政府。
法国大革命只可能发生在一个比英国更专制的国家。所以我同意你1848年后的观点，但我认为你把英国/英格兰描绘成总体上的保守派是错误的——英国在很大程度上一直处于政治激进主义的前沿。
即使是最重要的贸易帝国，也是由商人阶层、风险资本和国家组成的——没有贵族的参与(除了作为投资者)。这本身就是一项相当自由的事业，在几乎没有贵族或君主制的荷兰也有类似的情况。
Dimitris Almyrantis
it's because it's my country being talked about
I humbly suggest this is a more serious problem than you give it credit for.
a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian
It was not. Parliamentary rule was by the propertied class, for the propertied class: things like the Bloody Code were ridiculously draconian by continental standards. If you examine these ordinances, you’ll see they’re almost exclusively concerned with crimes regarding property, fraud, and theft—things done by the lower class against the upper class.
The French Revolution could only happen in a country more despotic than Britain was.
I don’t want to praise the French Revolution, just to point out that the despotic ancien regime was more egalitarian for the mass of people (the peasantry) than parliament, as was the case with Austria, the other great continental monarchy.
In fact, the French Revolution (much like Stalin’s anti-kulak programme) moved to suppress the rights of the peasantry and force them off their land.
a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian than other European powers of its time.
What you are missing here is that the rights of the barons and merchants were not the rights of the common man. “Security of property” benefited the bourgeoisie, and hurt the peasantry, whose lands were invariably reduced.
Look for the Highland Clearances (The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery) as an example of how total and brutal the expropriation could be. These was not an accident, but an imposition of the same system that had been imposed in England.
“也许是因为谈论的是我的国家”
我谦逊地认为，这是一个比你想象的更严重的问题。
“一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更平等的议会政府”
不，不是。议会是由有产阶级统治的，对于有产阶级来说，像《血腥法典》这样的东西以大陆的标准来看是非常严厉的。
（译注：“血腥法典”是18世纪和19世纪早期英国的犯罪制度。在它自己的时代并没有这样称呼它，而是后来才用了这个名字，因为挡是被判处死刑的人数急剧增加，即使按21世纪的标准被认为是轻罪。）
如果你仔细研究这些法令，你会发现它们几乎只涉及财产犯罪、欺诈和盗窃——底层阶级对上层阶级的行为。
“法国大革命只可能发生在一个比英国更专制的国家”
我并不想赞扬法国大革命，只是想指出专制的旧政权对大众(农民)来说比议会更平等，就像奥地利一样，另一个伟大的大陆君主政体。事实上，法国大革命(很像斯大林的反富农计划)反而镇压了农民的权利，迫使他们离开自己的土地。
“一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更加平等的议会政府”
你在这里忽略的是：贵族和商人的权利不等于普通人的权利。“财产安全”对资产阶级有利，对农民有害，农民的土地必然减少。高地清场( the Highland Clearances)就是一个例子，说明土地征用是多么彻底和残酷。这不是偶然的，而是强加于英国的同样的制度。
it's because it's my country being talked about
I humbly suggest this is a more serious problem than you give it credit for.
a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian
It was not. Parliamentary rule was by the propertied class, for the propertied class: things like the Bloody Code were ridiculously draconian by continental standards. If you examine these ordinances, you’ll see they’re almost exclusively concerned with crimes regarding property, fraud, and theft—things done by the lower class against the upper class.
The French Revolution could only happen in a country more despotic than Britain was.
I don’t want to praise the French Revolution, just to point out that the despotic ancien regime was more egalitarian for the mass of people (the peasantry) than parliament, as was the case with Austria, the other great continental monarchy.
In fact, the French Revolution (much like Stalin’s anti-kulak programme) moved to suppress the rights of the peasantry and force them off their land.
a monarchy with it's wings clipped and a parliamentary government much more egalitarian than other European powers of its time.
What you are missing here is that the rights of the barons and merchants were not the rights of the common man. “Security of property” benefited the bourgeoisie, and hurt the peasantry, whose lands were invariably reduced.
Look for the Highland Clearances (The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery) as an example of how total and brutal the expropriation could be. These was not an accident, but an imposition of the same system that had been imposed in England.
“也许是因为谈论的是我的国家”
我谦逊地认为，这是一个比你想象的更严重的问题。
“一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更平等的议会政府”
不，不是。议会是由有产阶级统治的，对于有产阶级来说，像《血腥法典》这样的东西以大陆的标准来看是非常严厉的。
（译注：“血腥法典”是18世纪和19世纪早期英国的犯罪制度。在它自己的时代并没有这样称呼它，而是后来才用了这个名字，因为挡是被判处死刑的人数急剧增加，即使按21世纪的标准被认为是轻罪。）
如果你仔细研究这些法令，你会发现它们几乎只涉及财产犯罪、欺诈和盗窃——底层阶级对上层阶级的行为。
“法国大革命只可能发生在一个比英国更专制的国家”
我并不想赞扬法国大革命，只是想指出专制的旧政权对大众(农民)来说比议会更平等，就像奥地利一样，另一个伟大的大陆君主政体。事实上，法国大革命(很像斯大林的反富农计划)反而镇压了农民的权利，迫使他们离开自己的土地。
“一个羽翼被剪掉的君主政体和一个比当时其他欧洲强国更加平等的议会政府”
你在这里忽略的是：贵族和商人的权利不等于普通人的权利。“财产安全”对资产阶级有利，对农民有害，农民的土地必然减少。高地清场( the Highland Clearances)就是一个例子，说明土地征用是多么彻底和残酷。这不是偶然的，而是强加于英国的同样的制度。
Britain/England — which has been at the forefront of political radicalism
I know what you mean: there was broad latitude for speech and publication in certain areas (especially where the outside world were concerned). But this was all very narrow did little to change the status quo. I suggest you are applying the wrong yardstick here.
it went through it's own revolutionary period before the rest of Europe.
This is not a thing that happened. There are no revolutionary stages, before or after—what you are dealing with, really, is generations of Whig history explicitly written to portray England’s situation in the 18th-19th century as the peak of human advancement, and interpret all other human history as trying to reach that stage, often against real development in Britain and abroad.
This was itself a pretty liberal undertaking and has parallels in the Netherlands
In some ways it was: the empire (the basis for which was laid with a Dutch invasion in 1688, mind you) was indeed for some a way to blow off progressive steam: “liberals” like JS Mill could go and make their progressive experiments in India. Noticeably, it was done outside the purview of parliament.
But for all that, I suggest you keep in mind the distinction between “liberal” big business and “liberal” egalitarianism in mind. Britain wasn’t really the Netherlands—where much larger pieces of the populace were represented—and while empire was the less traditional force, this did not at all make it a liberal undertaking in a way most modern people would understand it.
“英国/英格兰——一直处于政治激进主义的前沿”
我明白你的意思:在某些领域(特别是涉及外部世界的领域)有广泛的言论和出版自由。但这些都是非常狭隘的，对改变现状没有什么帮助。我认为你用错了标准。
“它比欧洲其他国家更早经历了自己的革命时期”
这不是真的。英国没有革命的阶段，无论是之前还是之后，你所接触的，其实是辉格党（英国旧时激进党派）的历史，明确地将18 -19世纪的英格兰描绘成人类进步的顶峰，并将所有其他的人类历史解释为试图达到那个阶段，而这通常与英国和国外的真正发展相违背。
“这本身就是一项相当自由的事业，在几乎没有贵族或君主制的荷兰也有类似的做法”
从某种程度上来说，确实如此:帝国(注意，1688年荷兰入侵奠定了帝国的基础)确实是一种释放进步力量的方式:像JS Mill这样的“自由主义者”可以去印度进行他们的进步实验。值得注意的是，这是在国会权限之外进行的。
但尽管如此，我建议你记住“自由的”大企业和“自由的”平等主义之间的区别。英国并不是真正意义上的荷兰——荷兰代表了更多的民众——虽然帝国是一种不那么传统的力量，但这并没有使它成为大多数现代人所理解的自由事业。
I know what you mean: there was broad latitude for speech and publication in certain areas (especially where the outside world were concerned). But this was all very narrow did little to change the status quo. I suggest you are applying the wrong yardstick here.
it went through it's own revolutionary period before the rest of Europe.
This is not a thing that happened. There are no revolutionary stages, before or after—what you are dealing with, really, is generations of Whig history explicitly written to portray England’s situation in the 18th-19th century as the peak of human advancement, and interpret all other human history as trying to reach that stage, often against real development in Britain and abroad.
This was itself a pretty liberal undertaking and has parallels in the Netherlands
In some ways it was: the empire (the basis for which was laid with a Dutch invasion in 1688, mind you) was indeed for some a way to blow off progressive steam: “liberals” like JS Mill could go and make their progressive experiments in India. Noticeably, it was done outside the purview of parliament.
But for all that, I suggest you keep in mind the distinction between “liberal” big business and “liberal” egalitarianism in mind. Britain wasn’t really the Netherlands—where much larger pieces of the populace were represented—and while empire was the less traditional force, this did not at all make it a liberal undertaking in a way most modern people would understand it.
“英国/英格兰——一直处于政治激进主义的前沿”
我明白你的意思:在某些领域(特别是涉及外部世界的领域)有广泛的言论和出版自由。但这些都是非常狭隘的，对改变现状没有什么帮助。我认为你用错了标准。
“它比欧洲其他国家更早经历了自己的革命时期”
这不是真的。英国没有革命的阶段，无论是之前还是之后，你所接触的，其实是辉格党（英国旧时激进党派）的历史，明确地将18 -19世纪的英格兰描绘成人类进步的顶峰，并将所有其他的人类历史解释为试图达到那个阶段，而这通常与英国和国外的真正发展相违背。
“这本身就是一项相当自由的事业，在几乎没有贵族或君主制的荷兰也有类似的做法”
从某种程度上来说，确实如此:帝国(注意，1688年荷兰入侵奠定了帝国的基础)确实是一种释放进步力量的方式:像JS Mill这样的“自由主义者”可以去印度进行他们的进步实验。值得注意的是，这是在国会权限之外进行的。
但尽管如此，我建议你记住“自由的”大企业和“自由的”平等主义之间的区别。英国并不是真正意义上的荷兰——荷兰代表了更多的民众——虽然帝国是一种不那么传统的力量，但这并没有使它成为大多数现代人所理解的自由事业。
Rhodri James Gillham
Hmm. Partly true. Yes, Britain was never really a land-power, and yes, it’s more small c-conservative that it likes to admit.
However, from the Napoleonic wars onwards, it had a relatively small and very well-trained army that it preferred to shuttle about at speed, taking advantage of the mobility provided by the fleet or - later, in India - by the rail network it built.
Your analysis of the Protestantism situation and fear of Catholicism is incorrect. Henry did indeed want to marry (fuck) whomever he wished, and couldn’t because the Pope wouldn’t grant annulment on the grounds that Charles V, Henry’s nephew-in-law, was sitting on his doorstep with a very large army.
However, it wasn’t a guilty conscience/fear of a deprivation of stolen property that drove the fear of Catholicism, so much as a fear of both foreign interference (primarily Spanish) and the political absolutism that a monarch anointed by God could theoretically wield.
部分属实。是的，英国从来就不是一个真正的陆地强国，它更愿意承认它是一个较小的保守派。
然而，从拿破仑战争开始，它拥有一支规模相对较小、训练有素的军队，它更喜欢快速穿梭，利用舰队提供的机动性。后来在印度，利用铁路网继续满足这一点。
你对新教形势的分析和对天主教的恐惧是不正确的。亨利确实想娶(操)任何他想娶的人，但他做不到，因为教皇以亨利的侄儿查理五世带着一支庞大的军队坐在他家门前为由，不允许他解除婚约。
然而，对天主教的恐惧并非源于对财产被剥夺的内疚/恐惧，而是源于对外国干涉(主要是西班牙)和政治专制主义的恐惧，即一个受上帝委任的君主理论上可能行使的权力。
必须补充的是，后者并非原则性的，也无法代表民众。首先，奥利弗·克伦威尔（注：英国17世纪资产阶级革命的领袖、政治家和军事家）掌握着绝对的权力，并被授予王位，他几乎就要夺取王位了，而且他的形象几乎完全像一个君主，他的儿子继承了王位。然而相反，它是大亨和君主之间关于谁掌握权力的长期争论的延伸，这可以追溯到《大宪章》。简而言之:这不是经济问题，更多的是国内和国际政治问题，特别是关于君主应该扮演的角色的问题。
此外，虽然在1999年《上院法案》之前，上院基本上是世袭的，但1911年和1949年的《议会法案》剥夺了他们除了延迟立法之外的任何权力——诚然，仍然保留相当大的权力，但索尔兹伯里公约已经将大部分权力都用宣言承诺来兑现了。
至于与欧洲的纠缠，挑战狭隘的现状……并非如此。这更多的是对其他欧洲列强作为殖民竞争对手的不信任。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Hmm. Partly true. Yes, Britain was never really a land-power, and yes, it’s more small c-conservative that it likes to admit.
However, from the Napoleonic wars onwards, it had a relatively small and very well-trained army that it preferred to shuttle about at speed, taking advantage of the mobility provided by the fleet or - later, in India - by the rail network it built.
Your analysis of the Protestantism situation and fear of Catholicism is incorrect. Henry did indeed want to marry (fuck) whomever he wished, and couldn’t because the Pope wouldn’t grant annulment on the grounds that Charles V, Henry’s nephew-in-law, was sitting on his doorstep with a very large army.
However, it wasn’t a guilty conscience/fear of a deprivation of stolen property that drove the fear of Catholicism, so much as a fear of both foreign interference (primarily Spanish) and the political absolutism that a monarch anointed by God could theoretically wield.
部分属实。是的，英国从来就不是一个真正的陆地强国，它更愿意承认它是一个较小的保守派。
然而，从拿破仑战争开始，它拥有一支规模相对较小、训练有素的军队，它更喜欢快速穿梭，利用舰队提供的机动性。后来在印度，利用铁路网继续满足这一点。
你对新教形势的分析和对天主教的恐惧是不正确的。亨利确实想娶(操)任何他想娶的人，但他做不到，因为教皇以亨利的侄儿查理五世带着一支庞大的军队坐在他家门前为由，不允许他解除婚约。
然而，对天主教的恐惧并非源于对财产被剥夺的内疚/恐惧，而是源于对外国干涉(主要是西班牙)和政治专制主义的恐惧，即一个受上帝委任的君主理论上可能行使的权力。
必须补充的是，后者并非原则性的，也无法代表民众。首先，奥利弗·克伦威尔（注：英国17世纪资产阶级革命的领袖、政治家和军事家）掌握着绝对的权力，并被授予王位，他几乎就要夺取王位了，而且他的形象几乎完全像一个君主，他的儿子继承了王位。然而相反，它是大亨和君主之间关于谁掌握权力的长期争论的延伸，这可以追溯到《大宪章》。简而言之:这不是经济问题，更多的是国内和国际政治问题，特别是关于君主应该扮演的角色的问题。
此外，虽然在1999年《上院法案》之前，上院基本上是世袭的，但1911年和1949年的《议会法案》剥夺了他们除了延迟立法之外的任何权力——诚然，仍然保留相当大的权力，但索尔兹伯里公约已经将大部分权力都用宣言承诺来兑现了。
至于与欧洲的纠缠，挑战狭隘的现状……并非如此。这更多的是对其他欧洲列强作为殖民竞争对手的不信任。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Craig Lyon
England “avoided going through an enlightenment period” less “by conservative animus” and more by having gone through the whole decapitating monarchs phase long before the French.
The Roundheads vs the Cavaliers was not just a civil war but also a social revolution, in which the argument in favour of rule by divine right was forcibly rebutted, the middle classes gained access to the reins of power, and the more radical elements, such as the Chartists, while on the winning side militarily, were defeated politically.
This meant that while the Enlightenment in France and elsewhere lead to revolution and the toppling of the ancien regime, Britain had already modernised and, with a more robust system, was less vulnerable to the consequences.
As industrialisation left Britain with older infrastructure by virtue of having been first, so social revolution left them with more conservative institutions by the time others caught up.
英国“避免经历启蒙时期”，并不是因为保守主义的敌意，而是因为早在法国之前就经历了整个斩首君主的阶段。
圆颅党（支持议会）vs骑士党（支持国王）不仅是一场内战，也是一场社会革命，在这场革命中，支持神权统治的论点被有力地驳斥了，中产阶级获得了权力的缰绳，而更激进的分子，如宪章派，虽然在军事上获胜，但在政治上被击败。
这意味着，虽然法国和其他地方的启蒙运动导致了革命和旧政权的推翻，但英国已经实现了现代化，拥有一个更健全的体系，因此不那么容易受到影响。
由于英国是第一个实现工业化的，这让英国的基础设施更旧，所以社会革命给他们留下了更保守的机构，从而被其他人赶上来。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
England “avoided going through an enlightenment period” less “by conservative animus” and more by having gone through the whole decapitating monarchs phase long before the French.
The Roundheads vs the Cavaliers was not just a civil war but also a social revolution, in which the argument in favour of rule by divine right was forcibly rebutted, the middle classes gained access to the reins of power, and the more radical elements, such as the Chartists, while on the winning side militarily, were defeated politically.
This meant that while the Enlightenment in France and elsewhere lead to revolution and the toppling of the ancien regime, Britain had already modernised and, with a more robust system, was less vulnerable to the consequences.
As industrialisation left Britain with older infrastructure by virtue of having been first, so social revolution left them with more conservative institutions by the time others caught up.
英国“避免经历启蒙时期”，并不是因为保守主义的敌意，而是因为早在法国之前就经历了整个斩首君主的阶段。
圆颅党（支持议会）vs骑士党（支持国王）不仅是一场内战，也是一场社会革命，在这场革命中，支持神权统治的论点被有力地驳斥了，中产阶级获得了权力的缰绳，而更激进的分子，如宪章派，虽然在军事上获胜，但在政治上被击败。
这意味着，虽然法国和其他地方的启蒙运动导致了革命和旧政权的推翻，但英国已经实现了现代化，拥有一个更健全的体系，因此不那么容易受到影响。
由于英国是第一个实现工业化的，这让英国的基础设施更旧，所以社会革命给他们留下了更保守的机构，从而被其他人赶上来。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 0
收藏