为什么东欧在历史上不如西欧繁荣?
Why has Eastern Europe historically been less prosperous than Western Europe?
译文简介
因此，西欧可以自由地利用其河流进行经济发展。免于外来侵略和破坏的自由也解放了西欧经济。公元900年以后，西欧国家唯一遭受的挫折是来自其他国家的损害。总的来说，西欧处于相对平静的状态，并利用这种状态实现了世界有史以来的最高繁荣。
正文翻译
Why has Eastern Europe historically been less prosperous than Western Europe?
为什么东欧在历史上不如西欧繁荣?
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
It was in 900 where a major divergence occurred between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.
Before that point, Western and Eastern Europe were relatively similar in prosperity. Both had one factor significantly holding them back: foreign invaders. For Western Europe, it was the Scandinavian Vikings who preyed upon river cities and traffic. The Vikings were so successful in disrupting river traffic that Western European nations could scarcely use their rivers to trade. Considering that Western Europe has one of the economically best river systems, the Vikings robbed Western Europe of significant prosperity.
西欧和东欧在公元900年出现了重大分歧。
在此之前，西欧和东欧的繁荣程度相对相似。两者都有一个明显的阻碍因素:外国入侵者。对西欧来说，掠夺河流城市和交通的是斯堪的纳维亚海盗。维京人如此成功地扰乱了河流交通，以至于西欧国家几乎无法利用他们的河流进行贸易。考虑到西欧拥有最经济的河流系统之一，维京人掠夺了西欧的巨大繁荣。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
However, by 900, Western Europe would finally conquer the Vikings. Through the innovation of the mounted knight, Western Europe found something that matched the high mobility of the Vikings. In addition, mounted knights had much more armor and destructive force than Viking soldiers had. As a result, the Vikings, who did not innovate to match the mounted knight, lost their stranglehold on Western Europe.
对东欧来说，是草原入侵者。侵略者利用乌克兰这条有效的大陆桥，从俄罗斯的大草原进入东欧，蹂躏那里的农场和城镇。许多入侵者的唯一目标就是尽可能地破坏。他们这样做是有效的。不出所料，入侵者也严重阻碍了东欧经济的全面繁荣。
然而，到了公元900年，西欧终于征服了维京人。通过对马上骑士的创新，西欧发现了与维京人的高机动性相匹配的东西。此外，骑士比维京士兵拥有更多的盔甲和破坏力。结果，维京人没有创新来与骑马的骑士相匹敌，失去了对西欧的控制。
On the other hand, Eastern Europe was not free from its foreign invaders. They only seemed to become more prent. Foreign invaders would continue to cross Ukraine into Eastern Europe to pillage up until the Mongol Age. The Mongols, who also pillaged Eastern Europe, were the last foreign invaders to cross from Ukraine into Eastern Europe. However, briefly, after the Mongols left, the Ottomans came in from the South and conquered almost all of Eastern Europe. While the Ottomans did not pillage Eastern Europe, they did attempt to reap economic profits for themselves. For example, the largest landowners in Eastern Europe under the Ottoman age were Turkish.
因此，西欧可以自由地利用其河流进行经济发展。免于外来侵略和破坏的自由也解放了西欧经济。公元900年以后，西欧国家唯一遭受的挫折是来自其他国家的损害。总的来说，西欧处于相对平静的状态，并利用这种状态实现了世界有史以来的最高繁荣。
另一方面，东欧没有摆脱外国侵略者。它们似乎变得越来越频繁。外国侵略者继续越过乌克兰进入东欧进行掠夺，直到蒙古时代。蒙古人也曾掠夺过东欧，他们是最后一批从乌克兰进入东欧的外国侵略者。然而，蒙古人离开后，奥斯曼人又从南方来到这里，几乎征服了整个东欧。虽然奥斯曼人没有掠夺东欧，但他们确实试图为自己获取经济利益。例如，奥斯曼时代东欧最大的地主是土耳其人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
As a result of this system, Eastern Europe was only slowly economically industrializing. There was no incentive to in a system where it was unneeded. In addition, the internal infrastructure of Eastern Europe was weak, as the only “important” infrastructure was that that would help the export process. By World War One, with a few notable exceptions, Eastern Europe was significantly undeveloped compared to Western Europe.
However, as of recently, Eastern Europe is catching up economically to Western Europe. Poland now has a better standard of living than Portugal, and there many Eastern European nations growing much faster than their Western European counterparts. It may not be long before Eastern Europe and Western Europe are on a similar development level.
Thank you for reading.
土耳其的统治地位在18世纪开始衰落(尽管在此之后土耳其的统治地位仍然很残酷)。到那时，西欧比东欧繁荣得多，这并不奇怪。当独立的东欧国家与西欧国家互动时，总是一种不平衡的互动。西欧人看到了剥削较弱的东欧国家的机会，他们也这样做了。与重商主义殖民体系类似，东欧会向西欧输送原材料，西欧会用这些原材料制造成品，然后再卖给东欧人。
由于这套体系，东欧只能缓慢地实现经济工业化。在一个不需要它（实现工业化）的体系中，没有动机这样去做。此外，东欧的内部基础设施薄弱，因为唯一的“重要”基础设施是帮助出口。
到第一次世界大战时，除了少数几个显著的例外，东欧与西欧相比明显落后。但最近，东欧在经济上正在赶超西欧。波兰现在的生活水平比葡萄牙高，许多东欧国家的经济增长比西欧国家快得多。东欧和西欧不久就会达到类似的发展水平。
I think this post is inadequate on the economic development side. Goes to show how complex a question it is.
Western Europe was a feudal system (like eastern); this system did not encourage economic growth. There was little economic growth until the industrial revolution.
One of the main critical junctures between east and west was the Black Death, which decimated their peasant population and unbalanced the supply and demand of labourers. With a labour shortage, surviving peasants were more valuable and lords would compete for them. This fundamentally changed the dynamic in the country. The Crown tried to reverse this situation, and it led to the Peasants’ Revolution of 1381 in England, demanding an end to high taxes and the institution of serfdom.
我认为这篇描述文章在经济发展方面是不够的，没有展示这个问题的复杂性。
西欧是封建制度(像东欧一样)，这种制度并没能促进经济增长。在工业革命之前，经济几乎没有增长。东西方之间的一个重要转折点是黑死病，它造成了大量农民人口的死亡，使劳动力的供求失衡。在劳动力短缺的情况下，幸存的农民更有价值，贵族们会为他们而竞争。这从根本上改变了这个国家的动态。国王试图扭转这种局面，1381年英国爆发了农民革命，要求结束高税收和农奴制。
On the other hand the same circumstances had the opposite outcome in east Europe, where the lords strengthened their grip on the workforce. Thus a static, oppressive economic system was entrenched for another few centuries.
起义的结局并不好，但最终废除了农奴制，并在英国和西欧建立了充满活力的市场经济。另一方面，同样的情况在东欧产生了相反的结果，那里的领主加强了他们对劳动力的控制。因此，一个静态的、压迫性的经济体系在接下来的几个世纪里被确立了下来。
Your post is correct and I agree. However, the feudal system itself was a product of the mounted knight. Eastern Europe did not have the mounted knight (as a result of not finding a way to deal with the Eastern nomadic invaders), so Eastern Europe, economically, was behind that of the feudal system (Eastern Europe did not have a natural native class of landowners). When Eastern Europe developed a natural, native class of landowners, the feudal system became prent. When this happened, Western Europe was free of feudalism and economically much better.
I don’t think we disagree. I am just saying that Eastern Europe was not allowed to have a feudal system until much later in time.
你的评价是正确的，我同意。
然而，封建制度本身就是骑士制的产物。东欧没有骑马的骑士(因为没有找到对付东方游牧入侵者的方法)，因此，东欧在经济上落后于封建制度(东欧没有一个天生的地主阶级)。当东欧发展出一个自然的、本土的地主阶级时，封建制度开始盛行起来。当这种情况发生时，西欧已经摆脱了封建主义，经济状况也好得多。
我想我们意见一致。这里我只是想说，东欧直到很久以后才允许有封建制度。
Eastern Europe is not a clear term. So when using it one must always clarify what countries/areas are included. If you include Poland and the Czech Republic, those two did have knights and land owners, contrary to what you are saying. The late medi Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to be more precise) was in fact a feudal republic where the king was sexted by the parliament. The Czech territories were part of the Holy Roman Empire and Prague was the most advanced medi city. It had paved streets when Paris and London didn’t. As for vikings, they were not defeated, but assimilated and became part of the populace they conquered. E.g. William the Conqueror was of viking descent and so was the ruling dynasty of Kievan Rus, the precursor of Russia (speaking of Eastern Europe). So if I were you, I would do more reading and fact-checking on the subject. European history is way richer and more complex than your answer is suggesting.
东欧不是一个明确的术语。所以在使用它的时候，一定要明确哪些国家/地区包括在内。如果算上波兰和捷克共和国，这两个国家确实有骑士和地主，这和你说的正好相反。
中世纪后期的波兰(更准确地说是波兰-立陶宛联邦)实际上是一个封建共和国，国王由议会选出。捷克领土是神圣罗马帝国的一部分，布拉格是中世纪最先进的城市。当巴黎和伦敦还没有铺路的时候，它已经铺好了街道。至于维京人，他们并没有被打败，而是被同化，成为他们所征服的平民的一部分。
例如：征服者威廉是维京人的后裔，统治基辅罗斯的王朝也是维京人的后裔，基辅罗斯是俄罗斯的先驱(说到东欧)。
所以，如果我是你，我会多读些书，对这个问题进行事实核查。欧洲的历史比你的回答要丰富和复杂得多。
Is there any proof that the Vikings were conquered by Knights?
My history lessons was that the Vikings were a mass migration of Norse fleeing the refreezing of Scandinavia, that eventually died out because they successfully migrated, the Catholicizing of the Norse, and the eventual technological redundancy of their maritime vessels to that of the other nations. The north would still be a military power for many centuries however.
And no matter how I look at it calvary have no advantage over a well formed shield and spear formation, which Vikings were masters of. And they raided France during Charlemagne’s era. So there was already a Frankish calvary force there. Who were themselves adept at raiding. By the time plate armour become widespread, the Vikings were a page of history.
有任何证据证明维京人是被骑士征服的吗?
我的历史课上讲的是维京人是为了逃离斯堪的纳维亚半岛的重新冰冻而进行的大规模迁移，最终导致维京海盗消亡，因为他们成功地迁移、挪威人的天主教化以及他们的海船最终在技术上落后于其他国家。然而，北方在接下来的几个世纪里仍然是一个军事强国。
不管我怎么评价（骑士），它都比不上维京人擅长的矛盾阵型。他们在查理曼时代袭击了法国。他们本身就擅长抢劫。只是当板甲广泛使用时，维京人才成为历史的一部分。
I hate to pick fault with such a good post, but in the year 900 armour worn by European knights would be the same as worn by Vikings. The steel clad knight wasn’t until 500 odd years after
The Vikings took over & settled, were bought off or amalgamated. For the purposes of this topic I suppose after this time they aided prosperity with new trading routes, navigation etc etc . They were pioneers as much as raiders.
Enjoyed your writings, followed
我讨厌给好帖子挑错，但在公元900年，欧洲骑士的盔甲和维京人的一样。五百多年后，骑士才穿上了铠甲。
维京人接管和定居，被收买或合并。我想在这之后，他们通过新的贸易路线、航海等促进了繁荣。他们既是先驱者，也是掠夺者。
喜欢你的帖子。
The effect of the university system in Western Europe shouldn’t be overlooked. Perhaps more important, Western Europe had more mineral resources and began next level chemical and engineering development centuries before the East as a result
西欧大学制度的影响不容忽视。也许更重要的是，西欧拥有更多的矿产资源，因此比东方早了几个世纪开始了更高水平的化学和工程发展。
Of course. Agricultural potential is way better in the West than in the East too. I just tried to focus a facet which most people don’t realize.
当然了。西部的农业潜力也比东部好得多。我只是想关注一个大多数人都没有意识到的方面。
I would say the start of the eastern decline is much earlier. While the west had Viking raids (with feudal kings settling them and using them as shields against other raiders), the east had barbarian kings conquering and ravaging areas constantly.
While western Europe was conquered by franks and then kept until middle feudal ages (and this allowed franks to get polished and civilized), eastern europe was in constant turmoil with gepids, huns, slavs, bolghars, pechenegs, maghyars, cumans in fast succession, none of them having any civilisation and all of them ravaging the land and being defeated before they could get civilized (mostly).
Where a people was strong enough to last for more than 1–2 centuries (slavs in a few parts, magyars, bulgars we see a civilisation showing up), but they were also constantly raided by their barbarian neighbours.
我想说，东方（欧洲）衰落的开始要早得多。当西方有北欧海盗袭击(封建国王定居并将其作为防御其他入侵者的盾牌)时，东方有野蛮国王不断地征服和蹂躏该地区。
当西欧被法兰克人征服并一直保持到封建时代中期，东欧不断地与盖庇德人（Gepids）、匈奴人（Huns）、斯拉夫人（Slavs）、博尔加尔人（Bolghars）、Pechenegs人、Maghyars人、库曼人（Cumans）发生冲突，他们都没有任何文明，他们都在破坏土地。并且在他们变得文明之前就被打败了(大部分)。
一个民族强大到足以持续超过1-2个世纪(少数地区的斯拉夫人，马扎尔人，保加利亚人，我们看到一个文明的出现)，但他们也经常被他们的野蛮邻居袭击。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Aren’t we saying the same thing?
我们说的不是一回事么？
I think you are on to some key points. More easily defended boarders are major reasons why nations thrive. Nations with a large amount of coasts don’t have to guard that portion of their country like England, France, Spain, and Italy. These four modern nations were all part of the Roman Empire and a major reason they were so peaceful for so long was defensible boarders. With traditions of Roman law, government, and military knowledge on their side Western Europe has a heritage of prosperity. Not to mention the colonization of the Americas that gave untold riches to the West, this is the major difference of the European nations for the last 500 years.
我认为你说到了一些关键点。更容易防御的边界是国家繁荣的主要原因。拥有大量海岸的国家，如英国、法国、西班牙和意大利，不需要保卫他们国家的那部分海岸。
这四个现代国家都曾是罗马帝国的一部分，他们如此和平的一个主要原因是可防御的边界。在罗马法律、政府和军事知识的传统的支持下，西欧有着繁荣的传统。更不用说美洲殖民给西方带来了数不清的财富，这是欧洲国家在过去500年里的主要区别。
The Plague - decimated Western Europe had to intensify its labour usage due to lack of hands to work, Poland was basically not affected by the Plague, we kept Feudalism and extensive* ways of agricultural production due to that;
Coastal Fringe of Eurasia against mainland Europe - yes it is cheaper and faster to jump over the coast, so trade develops better, the other thing is - Westerners fought their bloody internal wars while being cosy and safe (at least after the Reconquista) from external dangers, Central and Eastern Europeans paid with their blood for this while the Westerners cashed in and never shared their profits. Poland and Ukraine were raided by armies of Ottoman Slavers as late as XVIII century (Jasyr**);
Great Discoveries - Magellan, Columbus et consortes - Western Europeans discovered that most of the riches they need are in the hands of cultures still deep into Neolithic or just jumping into Metal Ages, they used that without mercy and colonised whole world drowning continents in blood, Poles or Romanians, Serbs or Croats and Russians had to fight against enemies on same civilisational levels just to survive;
And it was only when point 3 kicked in that Western Europe started to develop faster than Central and Eastern Europe and it took time for them to catch up to the levels of Pol-Lit, it did not happen overnight.
黑死病
由于缺乏人手，西欧不得不加强劳动力的使用，波兰基本上没有受到鼠疫的影响，因此我们保留了封建主义和广泛的农业生产方式。
欧亚大陆 VS 欧洲大陆的海岸边缘
是的，海岸交通更便宜、更快，所以贸易发展得更好，另一件事是，西欧人在打血腥的内战的同时(至少在重新占领后)还能舒适、安全地躲避外部危险。中欧和东欧人则为此付出了血的代价，而西欧人却从中获利，从不分享。直到18世纪，波兰和乌克兰还遭到奥斯曼帝国奴隶军队的袭击。
大发现——麦哲伦，哥伦布等人
西欧人发现，他们需要的大部分财富，都掌握在新石器时代或刚刚进入金属时代的文化手中，于是他们毫无怜悯地殖民了整个世界，把整片大陆淹没在血泊之中。而波兰人、罗马尼亚人、塞尔维亚人、克罗地亚人和俄罗斯人为了生存，不得不与处于同样文明水平上的敌人作战;
并且，只有当第三点被打破时，西欧才开始比中欧和东欧发展得更快，他们需要一段时间才能赶上政治文学的水平，这不是一蹴而就的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
While I agree that point no 3 was definitely the main driving point of western european economic development after the renaissance, I think point no 2 was a bit unfair when you said that eastern europe paid for it with their blood. The Spanish, Italians and others in western europe were terribly plagued by the Barbary Corsairs, which if anything was just as bad or worse compared to the Tartar attacks on the PLC and Muscovy. The estimates on the number of victims was just as high, about 3 million. So the west paid tremendously with their blood too.
虽然我同意第三点绝对是文艺复兴后西欧经济发展的主要推动力，但我认为第二点有点不公平，因为你说东欧为之付出了鲜血。
如果有什么比鞑靼人对乌克兰和莫斯科的攻击更糟糕的话，西班牙、意大利和其他西欧国家都受到巴巴里海盗的严重困扰。对受害者人数的估计也同样高，大约300万。所以西方也付出了巨大的鲜血代价。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Barbary Corsairs - yeah one of the “gaps” in Eastern European curriculum, at least if one does not specialize in History. My mistake then.
I think the winner here is then the North-West of Europe as Indeed Italians and Spaniards had their quite recent “burning borders”.
巴巴里海盗。是的，东欧教育的“空白”之一。我的错误。
我认为当然欧洲西北部才是赢家，因为意大利人和西班牙人最近也有“燃烧的边境”。
Yup. The Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians were the first to reap the fruits of the colonial conquests, but it was the English who were most at liberty to carry on colonization efforts, due to their geographical positionings. The Dutch were constantly under siege by the Spanish and later the French and English too, its quite a testament of their early tremendous technological and organisational lead that they were able to amass such a massive colonial empire in the face of such opposition!
是的。西班牙人、葡萄牙人和意大利人最先收获了殖民征服的果实，但由于英国人的地理位置，他们最能自由地进行殖民活动。
荷兰人经常被西班牙人包围，后来又被法国人和英国人包围。这充分证明了他们早期巨大的技术和组织领导能力，他们能够在如此大的阻力的情况下聚集如此庞大的殖民帝国!
In the book “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson explains how the Black Death led to different outcomes in the West and the East. It led to the dissolution of feudalism in the West, and increased serfdom in the East. In fact, there is a very striking map in that book that shows which countries had serfdom around 1800, and it divides Europe neatly into today’s Eastern Europa and Western Europe. All the countries that had serfdom ended up being the less prosperous “Eastern European” countries of today, except Germany.
Having peasants, i.e. most of the population, in a slave-like state, with no freedom to move or seek employment elsewhere or improve their lot in any way has had a lasting, negative effect.
在《国家为何失败》一书中，詹姆斯·罗宾逊解释了黑死病如何在西方和东方导致不同的结果。它导致了西方封建制度的瓦解，东方农奴制的增强。
事实上，那本书里有一张非常引人注目的地图，显示了1800年左右哪些国家有农奴制，它将欧洲清晰地划分为今天的东欧和西欧。除了德国，所有的农奴制国家都是今天不那么繁荣的“东欧”国家。
农民，即大多数人口，处于类似奴隶的状态，没有自由迁移或在其他地方寻找工作，或以任何方式改善他们的命运，这产生了持久的负面影响。
I deeply suspect item 3. Colonization (at least XVI-XIX century colonization) did not paid off. Portugal and Spain were the first and arguably the more intense ( per capita) owener of colonies. Still, at the start of the XIX century they were poor and backward countries. As poor as Eastern Europe.
In contrast, Switzerland never held colonies. Other countries started colonization only after they were developed. Examples: Germany, Belgium and even UK.
I believe that what helped Western Europe were the liberal institutions (rule of law, freedom of press, proto-democracy, private property, etc). In the case of Portugal and Spain, colonization may have slowered the adoption of these institutions.
我对第三项深表怀疑。殖民(至少是十六世纪到十九世纪的殖民)没有得到回报。葡萄牙和西班牙是先驱，而且可以说是更密集的(人均)殖民地所有者。
尽管如此，在19世纪初，这些国家还是贫穷落后的国家，和东欧一样穷。
相比之下，瑞士从未拥有过殖民地。其他国家在发展起来之后才开始殖民。例如:德国、比利时，甚至英国。
我认为，帮助西欧的是自由制度(法治、新闻自由、原始民主、私有财产等)。在葡萄牙和西班牙，殖民化可能减缓了这些制度的采用。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Another often overlooked factor was weather. Western Europe (Spain, France, Italy, Low Countries, England) have milder winters than Eastern Europe, which had a huge impact on population and nation building during the Middle Ages.
In addition, Western Europe was much better at unifying similar but different groups which solidified power. In Spain, the Catalans, Basques, Andalusians, etc have as much reason to unify under one banner as the Balkan nations of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc. There are hostilities and rivalries among the different Spanish divisions but not nearly to the degree of animosity over the past 400 years as the discord seen in the Balkans. I also think that Russian and Ottoman Empires had a destabalizing effect which hindered Eastern Europe’s growth and wealth management.
另一个经常被忽视的因素是气候。西欧(西班牙、法国、意大利、低地国家、英格兰)的冬天比东欧更暖和，这对中世纪的人口和国家建设产生了巨大的影响。
此外，西欧更善于团结相似但不同的群体，从而巩固权力。在西班牙，加泰罗尼亚人、巴斯克人、安达卢西亚人等和巴尔干半岛的塞尔维亚、克罗地亚、波斯尼亚等国家一样有理由统一在一个旗帜下。
在西班牙的不同分支之间存在着敌对和对抗，但还没有达到过去400年里巴尔干地区的不和的敌对程度。我还认为，俄罗斯和奥斯曼帝国具有不稳定的影响，阻碍了东欧的增长和财富管理。
If we imagine a parallel universe, where after long and bloody war Spain or France are treated by an Arrogant Polish Magnate (an equivalent of English Lord with wealth and personal freedom on a level of Western King) armed in a ruler and map and total lack of historical knowledge to draw borders, we would see the bloodshed similar to modern Sub Saharan Afica or Balcans but happening in Iberian peninsula, not Balcans.
Jagiellons (Jogaila was ethnic Lithuanian Balt of pagan faith) succeeded in federating several different ethnicities and religions (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Armenian Christians, Jews, Muslim Tatars) under mutual flag of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, by sharing freedoms and rights of Polish nobility, to all other nobles or tribe elders who wanted to protect the kingdom with their blood, in times where reading wrong book put Westerners on stakes.
如果我们想象一个平行宇宙，在漫长而血腥的战争之后，西班牙或法国被一个傲慢的波兰大亨对待(拥有相当于西方国王水平的财富和英国勋爵一般的个人自由的)，在统治者和地图的武装下，完全缺乏绘制边界的历史知识，我们会看到类似于现代撒哈拉以南非洲或巴尔干半岛的流血事件，但会发生在伊比利亚半岛，而不是巴尔干半岛。
Jagiellons (Jogaila是具有异教信仰的立陶宛波罗的海民族)成功地将几个不同的民族和宗教(天主教徒、东正教、新教徒、亚美尼亚基督教徒、犹太人、穆斯林鞑靼人)联合在波兰立陶宛联邦的共同旗帜下，将波兰贵族的自由和权利分享给所有其他想要用自己的鲜血保护王国的贵族或部落长老。在这个时候，阅读错误的书籍会让西方人陷入危险。
Climate yes, to a degree, Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe.
Western Europe used (passively ofc) Central and Eastern Europe as a buffer against the Turkish Nomads and land armies of proud Ottoman Empire.
We were your Gondor, Rohan and Ithilien dear Hobbits. Tolkien knew this very well
因此，现代欧盟更多的是受惠于波兰-立陶宛的遗产，而不是反过来。
气候？是的，在某种程度上，乌克兰是欧洲的粮仓。西欧(被动地)利用中欧和东欧作为对抗土耳其游牧民族和骄傲的奥斯曼帝国陆地军队的缓冲地带。
我们曾是你的刚铎，洛汗和伊蒂莲（注：《指环王》中对抗魔军的前线城市），亲爱的霍比特人。
托尔金对此非常清楚/笑