美知乎提问：谁了解世界历史、欧洲历史或中国历史？纵观整个历史长河，哪个地区的军事力量更强大，是中国还是欧洲？

Carlos Alberto Follow
From a purely military technology perspective, the first time Europe truly surpassed China was during the Ming(but the gap between the two sides was still small, and the Ming was still a behemoth for Europeans). During the Qing Europe was far ahead. But for most of the years, Europe had no military and technological advantages over China, and in many cases was even more backward. The military technology of Chinese dynasties such as the Han, Sui , Tang , and even Song Dynasty was obviously more advanced. Forgive me for mentioning the Han , but the Roman iron forging technology is not as good as that of China at that time. By the Tang , the gap was already huge. Even the Byzantine armor casting technology was obviously inferior to the Chinese, and the gap between the rest of Europe was even greater.
The Tang and the Arab Empire were known as the two most powerful empires in the world. In terms of the technology of casting weapons and armor, the Chinese had a great advantage at that time.

从纯军事技术角度来看，欧洲首次真正超越中国是在明朝时期（但双方差距仍然很小，对欧洲人而言明帝国仍是庞然大物）。到了清朝，欧洲已遥遥领先。但在历史长河中绝大多数时期，欧洲对中国并不具备军事科技优势，许多方面甚至更为落后。汉、隋、唐乃至宋朝等中国王朝的军事技术显然更为先进。请容我以汉朝为例，当时罗马的冶铁技术就不及中国。至唐代时，这种差距已十分显著。就连拜占庭的铠甲铸造技术也明显逊色于中国，欧洲其他地区的差距则更为悬殊。
唐王朝与阿拉伯帝国并称当时世界两大最强帝国。在武器铠甲铸造技术方面，当时的中国人拥有巨大优势。

Olivia· Sep 20
Interesting breakdown! It’s fascinating how power shifted over time—China often had the edge in centralized might, while Europe’s strength came from constant rivalries pushing rapid innovation

有趣的剖析！权力格局的变迁令人着迷——中国往往因为中央集权而在实力上占优，而欧洲的强盛则源于持续竞争推动的快速创新。

Adrotanko· Sep 22
A distinction should be made between continents and countries. A key moment was when Britain's development of the steamship enabled it to decisively surpass Chinese military technology.

应当区分大陆与国家概念。关键转折点是英国蒸汽船的发展使其军事技术决定性地超越了中国。

Joseph Xue· Sep 23
No, not really. European firearms technology started to surpass the Ming by the mid-16th century. The Europeans, after the 15th century, were able to make large, large high-carbon steel sheets en-mass. None of these advantages was decisive as the Ming quickly caught up with the latest firearms innovation (and brigandine steel armour was brought to the West by the Mongols, who got it from the Song) by interacting and sometimes fighting European powers. What changed with Britain and the 18th-century Enlightenment gave major European powers a decisive edge in technological development and systematic innovation.

不，并非如此。欧洲的火器技术到 16 世纪中叶才开始超越明朝。15 世纪后，欧洲人已能大规模生产厚重的高碳钢板材。但当明朝通过与欧洲列强的交流及偶尔交战，迅速跟上了最新的火器革新（而蒙古人从宋朝获得的鳞甲技术也传入了西方）时，这些优势都不再具有决定性。真正改变格局的是 18 世纪英国与启蒙运动的结合，这使欧洲列强在技术发展和系统性创新上获得了决定性优势。

Tsien-Hsin· Tue
There’s some debate and it’s more likely that it was a constant back and forth between the 1400 and 1700 which of the old world continental blocks “Europe”, or “East Asia” had more advanced fire arms. While the Europeans did surpass East Asia for good by the mid-late 1700s, prior to that the argument can be made that either side had the slight advantage.
E.g. composite material cannons where Ming metallurgists built on European designs put them ahead in that field for a bit, before European technology once again leapfrogged East Asia.

关于 1400 至 1700 年间，旧大陆的两个主要文明板块——"欧洲"与"东亚"在火器技术上孰优孰劣的问题，学术界存在一定争议。虽然欧洲确实在 18 世纪中后期确立了长期领先优势，但在此之前，双方的技术优势实际上处于此消彼长的拉锯状态，很难断言哪一方始终占据明显上风。
例如，明朝冶金学家基于欧洲设计制造的复合金属大炮曾让他们在该领域一度领先，而后欧洲技术再次超越东亚。

Danny Salim · Sep 24
Because european invented plate armour, the plate armour itself was not that great compare to older type of amour because it was very hard & very expensive to make
The real advantage of plate armour is the advancement of metallurgy, that enabled european to cast more advanced thing that require advance metallurgy, from more durable gun, printing press, steam engine, etc
What China didnt have is that plate armour, China is huge its impossible to produce so many plate armour for their massive army, that why logicaly they never invented plate armour, basicaly huge number of population prevent that

因为欧洲人发明了板甲，这种盔甲本身相比旧式盔甲并不算出色，因为它制作难度大且成本极其高昂。
板甲真正的优势在于冶金技术的进步，这使得欧洲人能够铸造出需要先进冶金工艺的更高端产品——从更耐用的枪支、印刷机到蒸汽机等。
中国未曾拥有板甲的原因在于国土辽阔，要为庞大的军队配备如此数量的板甲根本不可能实现。因此从逻辑上讲，他们从未发明板甲，本质上正是庞大的人口基数阻碍了这一发展。

Gary Soh · Mon
Plate armour started being widespread in Europe in the 13th century, but in China, guns had already been in use since the 11th century and plate armour became no longer cost effective for a centralised bureaucracy to equip an army with (China preferred brigandine instead)

13 世纪时，板甲在欧洲开始普及，但在中国，自 11 世纪就已使用火器的中央集权官僚体系发现，为军队配备板甲已不再划算（中国更倾向于使用布面甲）。

Dragoș Popescu· 10h
Plate armour was also far from the game changing thing that people assume it was. It was most commonly combined with chainmail or brigantines in European armies, which makes it of dubious advantage in comparison to the traditional scale or lamellar armours used through most of the world (talk of “European plate armour” is rather silly considering how full plate never came into fashion in say Russia or Balkans, and indeed was something specific to Western European nobility). Full plate armour came on much later though, mostly in response to gunpowder (not the other way around). As such, armour became thicker in competition with guns, especially during the shot & pike period, and continued doing so for quite a long period (up to 17th century) before it was mostly dropped.

板甲也远非人们所认为的那种改变战局之物。在欧洲军队中，它最常与锁子甲或片甲结合使用，这使得它与世界大部分地区使用的传统鳞甲或札甲相比，优势存疑（考虑到全身板甲从未在俄罗斯或巴尔干等地流行，且确实是西欧贵族特有的装备，谈论“欧洲板甲”是相当可笑的）。全身板甲的出现要晚得多，主要是为了应对火药（而非相反）。因此，在与火枪的竞争中，盔甲变得更厚，尤其是在枪矛时期，并在很长一段时间内（直至 17 世纪）持续如此，之后才被大部分淘汰。

Fontaine Follow
First, Europe, for a long time in history, was not a single nation, but rather a fragmented collection of dozens of small states. Even at its peak, the Roman Empire did not rule all of Europe.
The Qin Dynasty, the first dynasty to unify China, had an area of ​​3 million square kilometers. This is much larger than most so-called European countries except the Roman Empire.
If truly want to discuss so-called military strength, with the possible exception of the Age of the Industrial Revolution between the 18th and 20th centuries (because European technology was far superior to China at that time), European armies were clearly no match for the Chinese military.
Even now, in 2025, China's military is clearly much more powerful than any single European nation's... (The Central Empire has finally achieved its revival.)

首先，历史上的欧洲在很长时期内并非一个统一的国家，而是由数十个小邦国组成的分散集合。即便在其鼎盛时期，罗马帝国也未能统治整个欧洲。
中国首个统一王朝秦朝的疆域达 300 万平方公里。这远超除罗马帝国外绝大多数所谓的欧洲国家。
若真要讨论所谓的军事实力，除了 18 至 20 世纪工业革命时代（因当时欧洲技术远超中国）可能是个例外，欧洲军队显然无法与中国军队匹敌。
即便到了 2025 年的今天，中国军力仍明显强于任何一个欧洲国家……（中央帝国终于实现了复兴。）

The reason is simple: the so-called European states were generally much smaller than any Chinese dynasty. Furthermore, for most of their history, they lacked a military technological advantage and often lagged behind China.
The Roman Empire was actually the closest period between Europe and China before the Industrial Revolution.
The Roman Empire during this period covered approximately 6 million square kilometers, while the Han Dynasty covered approximately 6.5 million square kilometers.
The Romans were more powerful in navy and heavy infantry, while the Chinese were superior in cavalry and crossbowmen. Therefore, even today, some people still hype the debate over who was stronger, Rome or the Han Dynasty.
After the Roman Empire, Europe was long divided into a series of small, fragmented states. For much of the period before the Industrial Revolution, their military strength was vastly inferior to that of Chinese dynasties.

原因很简单：所谓的欧洲国家通常比任何中国王朝都要小得多。此外，在它们历史的大部分时期，它们不仅没有军事技术优势，还常常落后于中国。
罗马帝国实际上是工业革命前欧洲与中国实力最接近的时期。
这一时期，罗马帝国的疆域约达 600 万平方公里，而汉朝则约为 650 万平方公里。
罗马人在海军和重步兵方面更为强大，而中国人在骑兵与弩兵上占据优势。因此直至今日，仍有人热衷于炒作罗马与汉朝孰强孰弱的争论。
罗马帝国衰落后，欧洲长期处于小国林立的分裂状态。在工业革命前的大部分时期，其军事实力远逊于中国各朝代。

I even think that
powerful Chinese dynasties (such as the Han and Tang dynasties) > mediocre or even weak Chinese dynasties (the Song dynasty) > European countries (for most of history).
To give a simple example, the Song Dynasty, with its 1.8 million square kilometers, single-handedly resisted the Mongols at their peak for nearly half a century before they were finally conquered. Remember, the Chinese were right next to the Mongols. Other countries conquered by the Mongols during the same period typically took between a few months and two to three years.
I think it would have been difficult for any European country at the time to single-handedly resist a 50-year Mongol invasion.

我甚至认为：
强盛的中国王朝（如汉唐）>平庸甚至孱弱的中国王朝（宋朝）>欧洲国家（在历史大部分时期）。
举个简单例子，疆域 180 万平方公里的宋朝曾独力抵抗巅峰时期的蒙古人近半个世纪才最终被征服。要知道，中国人就住在蒙古人隔壁。而同期被蒙古征服的其他国家，通常只需数月到两三年时间。
我认为当时任何欧洲国家都难以独力抵挡蒙古人长达 50 年的入侵。

The biggest difference between China and other civilizations is that it achieved centralized power very early on and maintained this system for nearly 2,000 years. For most of history, China itself was a developed civilization.
Centralization combined with advanced technology—these two factors alone were sufficient to guarantee China's strong military strength. You see, of all the powerful nomadic empires that fought wars with China in history, only the Mongols at their peak conquered China, and that was during the relatively weak Song Dynasty (which never even managed to unify China). Most of the others were defeated by Chinese dynasties (I've answered this in another question), and the Ming Dynasty itself perished from severe internal strife (it wasn't even conquered by the Manchus).

中国与其他文明最大的区别在于，它很早就实现了中央集权，并将这种制度维持了近 2000 年。在历史长河中大部分时期，中国本身就是个发达的文明。
中央集权与先进技术相结合——仅这两点就足以确保中国强大的军事实力。纵观历史上所有与中国交战过的强大游牧帝国，唯有鼎盛时期的蒙古征服了中国，而那还是相对孱弱的宋朝（甚至未能统一中国）。其余多数都被中原王朝击败（我在其他回答中详述过），明朝本身亡于严重内乱（甚至算不上被满清征服）。

There are many great ancient civilizations, including India, Egypt, Greece, Persia, and China. However, they were conquered by foreign powers very early on, while China didn't fall until the 13th century (to the Mongols). The Manchus and Mongols ruled China for only 350 years. For an ancient civilization, being completely dominated by foreign powers for just over 300 years speaks volumes about its military superiority. Many civilizations younger than China were completely dominated by foreign powers for over 500 years.
For a long time, Europe was just a few dozen small countries, and for most of the time before the Industrial Revolution, it did not have obvious technological advantages. Naturally, their armies were not as strong as China's.

世界曾涌现诸多伟大古文明，包括印度、埃及、希腊、波斯与中国。但它们很早就被外族征服，而中国直到 13 世纪才首次沦陷（于蒙古）。满清与蒙古统治中国仅 350 年。对于古文明而言，完全被外族统治仅 300 余年，已充分说明其军事优越性。许多比中国年轻的文明，被外族完全统治的时间都超过了 500 年。
长久以来，欧洲只是几十个小国家的集合体，在工业革命前的大部分时期都未占据显著技术优势。因此，他们的军队自然无法与中国相抗衡。

Tom Howard· Sep 18
The example of the Song is very good. The Southern Song only had a pitiful 1.8 million square kilometers, right next to the Mongols. However, even so, it still took the Mongols nearly half a century to complete the conquest, an achievement that other European countries at the time could not achieve.

宋朝的例子非常典型。南宋仅有区区 180 万平方公里领土，紧邻蒙古。即便如此，蒙古人仍耗费近半个世纪才完成征服，这一成就是当时欧洲诸国所无法企及的。

Kwonsook Gerena · Sep 19
Completely different geography, like comparing an apple and an orange. You cannot compare the “pitiful” Song dynasty to an equivalent in Europe that faced as similarly sized threat. The Magyars invading in the 950s represent something close to that, but one cannot compare decentralized feudalism to centralized imperial bureaucracy. Like an apple and an orange.

地理环境截然不同，就像拿苹果和橘子作比较。你不能把"孱弱"的宋朝与面临同等规模威胁的欧洲王朝相提并论。950 年入侵欧洲的马扎尔人（匈牙利人）或许接近这种威胁级别，但分散的封建制度与中央集权的帝国官僚体系根本无从比较——就像苹果和橘子一样。

Fontaine· Sep 20
The key point is that for most periods of history, Europe had no technological advantage over China, and sometimes was even more backward. Europe has long been composed of dozens of small countries, and unless it has huge technological advantages, it is difficult to be compared with China.

关键在于，在历史的大部分时期，欧洲对中国并不具备技术优势，有时甚至更为落后。欧洲长期由数十个小国组成，除非拥有巨大的技术优势，否则难以与中国相提并论。

BL Cheah· Sep 18
There are way too many meaningless comparisons between Romans and Chinese empires.
Rome was a Mediterranean power. A big part of their power was naval. Rome could move and resupply armies all over the Mediterranean.
China was a continental power. Han Dynasty waged war in land theaters 5000km apart from each other. Han Dynasty had practically no navy, but a highly mobile cavalry.
Rome has no hope of winning a continental war against the Han Dynasty. Their foot soldiers would take forever to march into Central Asia, while the Han was mobile and could hit them very hard with their superior ranged weapons.
The Han would have no hope of winning a coastal/ maritime struggle against Rome.

关于罗马与中华帝国的无意义比较实在太多了。
罗马是一个地中海强国，其力量的重要组成部分在于海军。罗马能够在整个地中海范围内调动军队并进行补给。
中国则是一个大陆强国。汉朝曾在相隔 5000 公里外的陆地战场上作战。汉朝几乎没有海军，但拥有一支高度机动的骑兵部队。
罗马若与汉朝在大陆上开战毫无胜算。他们的步兵需要极长时间才能行军至中亚，而汉军机动性强，还能以优势远程武器给予致命打击。
汉朝若与罗马在沿海或海上交锋则必败无疑。

Hu Shi xiong · Sep 18
Rome ships hug the Mediterranean coast when travelling. Once they became an empire they didn't really have a naval rival . It was just the Carthaginians
Their naval prowess might not be as good as you think .
Han had superior cavalry even at the start compared to Rome who had to rely on auxiliaries. If you compare expedition armies sent to obtain horses , Chinese mounted infantry could strike further and absorb greater costs then strike again compared to how Octavius felt when he lost legions in Germany

罗马船只航行时紧贴地中海沿岸。一旦成为帝国后，他们实际上就没有了海上对手。唯一的对手就是迦太基人。
他们的海军实力或许不如你想象的那般强大。
即便在初期，汉朝的骑兵也优于依赖辅助部队的罗马。若对比为获取马匹而派遣的远征军，中国的骑步兵能够突袭更远、承受更大代价后再度出击，相比之下，屋大维在日耳曼损失军团时的感受就截然不同了。

BL Cheah· Sep 18
During those days, nobody’s navy was very strong. Nobody was even using the compass. But at least Rome had a sizeable navy, experienced sailors, experienced combat at sea. So I’ll concede this to them.
But realistically they could not have sailed down the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, round Peninsula Malaya, up the South China Sea to attack China. It would have required capturing a zillion ports and holding these ports for resupply. So neither empire could have attacked each other by sea.
Rome would have been crushed by Han China in Central Asia and Scythia.

那时候，还没有哪支海军称得上强大，人们甚至尚未使用罗盘。但至少罗马拥有一支规模可观的海军，经验丰富的水手，以及海战历练。所以这点我姑且承认他们更胜一筹。
但现实而言，他们不可能沿红海、印度洋南下，绕过马来半岛进入南海进攻中国。这需要攻占无数港口并长期驻守以维持补给线。因此两大帝国都无法通过海路相互征伐。
若在中亚和斯基泰地区交锋，罗马必将被汉朝所击溃。

Frieza· Sep 18
Comparison is meaningless. Europe is not a country, it is a continent. If you compare a European country to China, it will not be able to compete with the Chinese army most of the time. Whether it is scale or even technology, Europe is often at a disadvantage. Until the Europeans started the Industrial Revolution

比较毫无意义。欧洲不是一个国家，而是一个大陆。如果将欧洲某个国家与中国相比，大部分时间都没有一个国家的军队能与中国军队抗衡。无论是规模还是技术，欧洲往往处于劣势。直到欧洲人发起工业革命...
凛冬 将至 · Sep 19

Here’s the question: Why was China able to accomplish national unification more than 2,200 years ago, while Europe has never achieved unification? — To this day, China remains a unified country, while Europe is still chaotic Europe.

问题在于：为什么中国能在 2200 多年前实现国家统一，而欧洲却从未达成统一？——直到今天，中国仍是一个统一的国家，而欧洲依旧是分裂的欧洲。

KokHin Lim Follow
Europeans wrote the history that westerners read and they generally glorifies the west and demonised their perceived or real adversaries so that made the west generally not know the real truth. China recorded history on paper since 1000 BC it is written by Chinese bureaucrats based on accurate depiction of what actually happened. History in the west are written by the victors, not loser of each war. So you will always think the person in power is almost always right. So westerners read that Mao and Stalin did this and did that all written in London or Paris and they created the rules based world order, the rules are set arbitrary by themselves to favour themselves and at the disadvantage of the rest of the world. Example the developing countries sell their resources at prices set in London and millions of workers will get a small returns. But Swiss Chocolate must be sold at exorbitant price.

欧洲人书写了西方人阅读的历史，这些历史往往美化西方，妖魔化他们认定或真实的对手，导致西方通常不了解真相。中国自公元前 1000 年起就用纸张记录历史，由中国的官僚基于对实际事件的准确描述撰写。西方的历史由胜利者而非每场战争的失败者书写，因此你总会觉得掌权者几乎永远正确。西方人读到关于毛和斯大林所作所为的内容，全都是由伦敦或巴黎撰写的，他们建立了基于规则的世界秩序，这些规则由他们任意制定以利于自身，却使世界其他国家处于不利地位。例如，发展中国家以伦敦设定的价格出售资源，数百万工人只能获得微薄回报，而瑞士巧克力却必须以高昂价格出售。

The history of the world is written by the lairs and racists who sees themselves as superior and self righteous. This cannot stand. From now onwards. The right must prevailed. The slaves were brought from Africa to Americas by British ships. Million die from the trip. But laws today allowed the slave traders families to enjoy the wealth till today! The people who sold the opium to China are long dead but their off springs still owned the castles in Scotland be cause of aws written by the British to protect themselves not the people who are poisoned by opium.
If you want the real history don't read western history. Search for the truth.

世界历史是由那些自视优越、自以为是的谎言家与种族主义者书写的。这种状况必须改变。从今往后，正义必将获胜。奴隶们被英国船只从非洲运往美洲，数百万人死于途中。但如今的法律竟允许奴隶贩子的后代至今仍享受着这些财富！向中国贩卖鸦片的人虽已死去，他们的子孙却因英国制定的保护自身（而非被鸦片毒害者）的法律，至今仍占据着苏格兰的古堡。
若想了解真实历史，切莫阅读西方史籍。探寻真相吧。

Jānis Šnepsts Follow
Historically, China has had the numbers while Europeans had the skill, which ultimately let Western civilization to become the dominant one of the world.
China has since its unification been a centralized bureaucratic empire, ruled by an emperor and administered by civilian bureaucrats promoted on merit. Where it comes to mobilizing manpower and resources for large-scale projects, China has had no equals, as the Great Wall and the vast fortified cities, canals and levees of China well attest. Centralization has also allowed China to field vast armies beyond anything Europeans could muster.
And yet, the overall performance of Chinese armies has been lackluster historically. They have regularly lost wars to technologically and numerically inferior but motivated opponents like the Mongols, Manchus and Vietnamese.

从历史来看，中国拥有人数优势，而欧洲则具备技术优势，最终使得西方文明成为世界主导文明。
自统一以来，中国始终是中央集权的官僚帝国，由皇帝统治并通过科举晋升的文官治理。在动员人力和资源进行大型工程方面，中国举世无双，长城、宏伟的防御城池、运河与堤坝都是明证。中央集权体制也使中国能调动远超欧洲任何国家规模的庞大军队。
然而，中国军队在历史上的整体表现并不出色。他们屡屡败给技术落后、人数处于劣势但斗志昂扬的对手，如蒙古人、满洲人和越南人。

Bureaucratic imperial administrations have a deep distrust for the military and will purposely hamstring it to keep militarists from seizing power. Generals and officers will be appointed based on loyalty rather than competence. Soldiers in traditional Chinese society occupy the lowest rung of society, because they are neither learned, nor produce anything of value, so Chinese armies have historically consisted mostly of poorly motivated peasant conscxts, and the lack of social prestige prevented a class of professional soldiery from forming, in turn preventing a pool from which to draw professional officers. Modern communist China has arguably the most pro-military government it has had in the last 2000 years.
Being by far the most powerful empire in the region also meant China generally had little need for a standing army. Their only enemies were nomads, pirates and occasionally their own rebels. However, if these disparate foes united, China was in trouble.

官僚化的帝国行政体系对军队怀有根深蒂固的不信任，往往会刻意削弱军权以防止军事强人夺权。将领和军官的任命更看重忠诚而非才能。在传统中国社会，士兵处于社会最底层——他们既不学无术，也不创造价值，因此中国军队历史上多由缺乏斗志的农民征召兵组成。社会地位的缺失阻碍了职业军人阶层的形成，进而导致无法储备职业军官人才。现代共产主义中国可以说拥有两千年来最支持军队的政府。
作为该地区遥遥领先的最强大帝国，也意味着中国通常无需维持常备军。他们的敌人只有游牧民族、海盗和偶尔出现的叛军。然而一旦这些分散的敌人联合起来，中国就会陷入困境。

By contrast, rulership and military command were one and the same thing in Europe since the Bronze Age. The elite of society were almost invariably warriors who were expected to personally lead their men in battle. Even in democratic societies like Athens, citizen and warrior was one and the same thing, and one’s social status as a citizen was determined by the contribution one was able to make to the city’s armed forces.
Roman Empire firmly cemented the idea that rulership and military command was one and the same thing, and the entire later Western civilization was built on that paradigm. This idea was taken to extreme in the Middle Ages, with the feudal system essentially being rule by the military aristocracy. Even today, European royals and nobles are expected to serve in the military, and not as token servicemen, but full-on combat roles.

相比之下，自青铜时代起，欧洲的统治权与军事指挥权就合二为一。社会精英几乎清一色是武士阶层，他们必须亲自率军出征。即便在雅典这样的民主社会，公民与战士也是同义词，个人的公民身份地位完全取决于其对城邦武装力量的贡献。
罗马帝国将"统治即统兵"的理念固化成型，后世西方文明皆建构于此范式之上。中世纪时这一理念走向极端，封建制度本质上就是军事贵族的统治体系。直至今日，欧洲王室贵族仍需从军服役，且非象征性任职，而是实打实地承担战斗岗位。

Political fragmentation meant Europeans had an ample experience with near-constant warfare against peer-level powers. While it meant no European kingdom could muster anywhere remotely as many fighters as China, the majority of them were also assured to be hardened warriors for whom war was a way of life. The high prestige and social mobility offered by a military life led commoners to seek out the occupation of a soldier. In some societies, an entire class of petty nobility emerged ftom commoners who had been ennobled for battlefield merits. Once standing armies became economically viable, European militaries professionalized.
All that led to Europe having armies and fleets that were second to none in experience and leadership.

政治上的分裂意味着欧洲人长期与实力相当的对手交战，积累了丰富的战争经验。虽然这使得欧洲任何王国都无法集结哪怕接近中国规模的军队，但这也确保了大部分士兵都是将战争视为生活方式的铁血战士。军旅生涯带来崇高声望和社会阶层流动，促使平民主动投身行伍。在某些社会中，甚至形成了一个由战功封爵的平民构成的小贵族阶层。当常备军在经济上可行时，欧洲军队便走向了职业化道路。
这一切造就了欧洲在作战经验和指挥艺术上无与伦比的陆军与海军力量。

Lastly, Europe’s fragmented and feuding political structure drove constant innovation. European kingdoms existed in a constant state of competition and one-upmanship. Whenever an inventor or entrepreneur needes a sponsor for a wild new idea, he had no shortage of potential patrons to approach, and if his idea succeeded, rival kingdoms would assuredly try to match and outdo it. In China, the emperor was the first and last recourse to petition for sponsorship - if he wasn’t interested, that was it. Moreover, a narrow-minded emperor without a vision could bury even already existing advantages.
A perfect example is Ming Dynasty navy. In 1430, China had the largest and most technologically advanced navy in the world that sailed as far as Africa to show China’s might and extract tribute. China could easily have reached America 50 years ahead of Columbus if they had attempted to venture that way. And yet, by 1492, not a single ship of that navy remained. It was scrapped down to the smallest fishing boat and Chinese people were banned from traveling abroad on pain of death solely on the order of an isolationist emperor who thought navies and foreign expeditions were a waste of money and foreign barbarians had nothing to offer to China.
So, to summarize, European armies have historically proven China’s betters despite China’s numerical advantages, simply due to the quality advantage that their entire social structure conferred.

最后，欧洲分裂且争斗不断的政治结构推动了持续创新。欧洲各国长期处于竞争与攀比的状态。当发明家或企业家需要为激进的新想法寻找赞助时，他们总能找到众多潜在资助者；而一旦某个创意取得成功，竞争对手们必然会设法效仿并超越。在中国，求助皇帝是寻求资助的唯一途径——若他对此不感兴趣，一切便戛然而止。更甚的是，一个缺乏远见的狭隘君主，甚至可能葬送既有的优势。
明朝海军就是一个绝佳的例子。1430 年时，中国拥有世界上规模最庞大、技术最先进的海军，其舰队远航至非洲以彰显国威并收取朝贡。倘若当时尝试向西航行，中国本可以比哥伦布早 50 年抵达美洲。然而到了 1492 年，这支海军竟未剩下一艘战舰——所有舰船都被拆解成小渔船，百姓被禁止出海违者处死，只因一位闭关锁国的皇帝认为海军和海外远征纯属浪费钱财，而海外蛮夷对中国毫无价值。
因此综上所述，尽管中国在人数上占优，但历史证明欧洲军队的战斗力始终更胜一筹，这完全得益于其社会结构赋予的质量优势。

Frieza· Sep 25
China ruled Vietnam for 1000 years. The Mongol army at its peak was larger than that of the Song Dynasty. The Manchus did not defeat the Ming Dynasty, which died in serious civil strife. These few simple sentences reveal that you have no knowledge of Chinese history. Secondly, China has long been ahead of Europe in military technology. Rome could not suppress the Han Dynasty. The Chinese army of the Tang and Song dynasties was much stronger than any medi army in Europe.
I can easily find historical records of Chinese armies from the Han, Tang, Ming, and Sui dynasties defeating the majority of Mongolian, xiongnu（hun）, and Turkic armies with a small force.

中国统治越南长达千年之久。蒙古大军鼎盛时期的规模远超宋朝。满人并未击败明朝，明亡于严重的内乱。寥寥数语便暴露出你对中国历史的无知。其次，中国在军事技术上长期领先欧洲。罗马无法压制汉朝。唐宋时期的中国军队远胜于欧洲任何中世纪军队。
我可以轻易找到汉、唐、明、隋各朝中国军队以少胜多击败蒙古、匈奴和突厥军队的历史记载。

Fontaine · Sep 25
There's a lot of text, but unfortunately, most of it is nonsense. Did the Chinese military rely solely on numbers? I doubt you can even recite the order of Chinese dynasties. As for the level of military technology? Over the past two thousand years, Europe has lagged behind by at least 1,500 years. Whether it's armor or weapon forging technology, it's clearly inferior to China.
The Southern Song conquered by the Mongols was a country of only 1.8 million square kilometers. The Mongol Empire was much larger than China at that time. This guy had no basic knowledge of Chinese history. The Manchus faced the corrupt Ming army at the end of its reign. At the peak of the Ming they had conquered the capital of the Mongol Empire more than once.
According to your logic, China directly ruled Vietnam for 1000 years, which neither the Mongols nor the Manchus could do. China also ruled Vietnam for 20 years during the Ming, which neither the Yuan before nor the Qing after it could do. Study more history, man.

内容虽多，可惜大多是无稽之谈。中国军队仅靠人数制胜？恐怕你连中国朝代顺序都背不全。至于军事科技水平？过去两千年间，欧洲至少落后中国一千五百年。无论是铠甲还是武器锻造技术，都明显逊色于中国。
南宋被蒙古征服时，其疆域仅余 180 万平方公里。当时的蒙古帝国远大于南宋版图。此人对中国历史缺乏基本认知。满清面对的是明末腐朽的军队，而明朝鼎盛时期曾多次攻陷蒙古帝国都城。
按照你的逻辑，中国直接统治越南长达千年，这是蒙古人和满人都未能做到的。明朝时期中国还统治过越南 20 年，这是之前的元朝和之后的清朝都未能复现的。多读点历史吧，伙计。

on Diplomacy & Warfare · Follow
In the Middle Ages, China was more militarily powerful. In the modern era, it it was Europe that was more militarily powerful until the end of the 20th century. In the 21st century, China is more militarily powerful.
In ancient Roman times China and Europe were comparable militarily.
The rather easy way Britain defeated China in both Opium Wars in the 19th century demonstrated that in the modern era Europe was more military powerful. And Britain was able to conquer Burma (Myanmar) which the Chinese were unable to despite trying 4 times. But with the rise of Chk a in the late 20th century, Europe isn't really a military match for China anymore. By the 16th century, Europeans has unquestioned naval superiority, and were able to project their military power all over the world, something China was never able to do.
But no European country could come close to matching the military might of the medi Tang Dynasty, or even the Song and early Ming Dynasties.

中世纪时，中国的军事实力更强。到了近代，则是欧洲的军事实力更强，这一局面一直持续到 20 世纪末。进入 21 世纪，中国的军事实力更为强大。
古罗马时期中国与欧洲的军事实力不相上下。
19 世纪英国在两次鸦片战争中相对轻松地击败中国，表明近代欧洲在军事实力上更胜一筹。即便中国曾四次尝试征服缅甸却未成功，英国却成功做到了这一点。但随着 20 世纪末中国的崛起，欧洲在军事上已无法与中国匹敌。到 16 世纪时，欧洲已拥有无可争议的海军优势，并能在全球范围投送军力，这是中国从未实现的能力。
但没有哪个欧洲国家能接近中世纪唐朝的军事实力，甚至宋朝和明朝初期也无法企及。

Bowen Lau Follow
I have answered a similar question a couple of days ago: Which one is more influential, China or the Roman Empire.
Countries in Europe are relatively small in terms of size of each country and size of population. The Vikings and Celtics were good at sea and thus the Anglo Saxon countries viz England ( UK today) and Netherlands had become naval powers and great colonial imperialists.
The Romans were great and influential too, thus had sustained themselves in many Latin speaking countries today.
Not to forget the Persians!

China were powerful at time of several dynasties ie Han Dynasty, the followed by Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty. Chinese are Han race (not Mongolian in case you have been told since childhood). They thrived along the Yangtze River and Yellow River and thus agricultural. Most dynasties were ruled by Han except the Yuan Dynasty ( which was ruled by Mongolian for two generations , less than 100 years) , and the Ching or Qing Dynasty 清朝 which was the last dynasty ruled by the Manchurians.

几天前我曾回答过一个类似问题：中国与罗马帝国，哪个影响力更大？
欧洲各国在国土面积和人口规模上都相对较小。维京人和凯尔特人擅长航海，因此盎格鲁-撒克逊国家如英格兰（今英国）与荷兰成为了海上强国及强大的殖民帝国。
罗马人同样伟大且影响深远，因此至今仍在许多拉丁语国家延续着他们的影响力。
更不用说波斯人了！
中国在多个朝代时期都曾非常强盛，例如汉朝，随后是唐朝和宋朝。中国人属于汉族（并非如你从小可能听说的蒙古族）。他们在长江与黄河流域繁衍生息，因此以农耕文明为主。除元朝（由蒙古人统治了两代，不足百年）和最后一个由满族人统治的清朝外，大部分朝代都由汉人统治。

Among all the thirteen major dynasties, the Tang Dynasty 唐朝 (618 to 907 CE) was the greatest and most influential in China History in terms of military power as indicated by their map in those days, commercial trade ( Silk Road as you all have heard), literature (as the Three Hundred Tang Poems are still studied today in schools as they had nurtured quite a few renowned poets at that time).
Tang people 唐人are still well known across the world today！China Towns are called Tang People Streets in its literal meaning and words. Chinese have been called Tang people even after Tang Dynasty, till today, though officially we call ourselves as Middle Kingdom People 中国人。Chinese is only an anglocized word.
As a trivia, Karate was evolved from Tang Hands 唐手 in Ryukyu Islands, based on Japanese history.

在十三个主要朝代中，唐朝（公元 618 年至 907 年）是中国历史上军事力量最强大、影响力最深远的王朝——从其版图规模、商贸繁荣（众所周知的丝绸之路），到文学成就（《唐诗三百首》至今仍是学校教材，当时还孕育了许多著名诗人）都可见一斑。
时至今日，"唐人"仍闻名全球！"唐人街"在字面上直译即为"唐人之街"。即使唐朝结束后，中国人仍被称为"唐人"，这种称呼延续至今，不过官方称谓是"中国人"。英文中的"Chinese"只是这个词汇的英译形式。
作为一则趣闻，空手道根据日本历史记载，是由琉球群岛的"唐手"演变而来。

Buddhism was made a national religion and the founder of Tang Dynasty ordered a Buddhist monk 唐三藏 to take a trip to India for the scxts of Buddhism. The original copy of this hand written Buddhist scxt is now kept in xi An 西安 which is used to be the capital city of Tang Dynasty. Prime Minister Modi of India went to look at this old literature when he first visited China in 2015, one year after he assumed office during his first term. He went to xi An instead of Beijing as his priority itinerary which said something! xi had to fly to xi A from Beijing to greet him!

All in all, Europeans and Chinese were all great and influential at different times and places in the world history. Personally, I don’t consider which one is greater in terms of military, culture and whatnots.
Wars are not a good choice to exert oneself as world leader to achieve hegemony. Many wars were fought in the name of religion. We are still seeing it today. Humans have not learned from history. Humans are driven by selfish greed.

佛教曾被其奉为国教，唐朝开国皇帝敕令高僧唐三藏赴印度求取佛经。这部手抄佛经的原件现存于唐代都城——如今的西安。印度总理莫迪 2015 年首次访华时（就任首任总理次年），专程前往西安而非北京优先观摩这部古籍，此举意味深长！中国不得不专程从北京飞赴西安迎接！
总体而言，在世界历史的不同时期与地域，欧洲人和中国人都曾各领风骚。就个人而言，我并不认为在军事、文化等领域有必要评判孰优孰劣。
通过战争来确立世界霸权绝非明智之选。历史上许多战争都以宗教之名发动，这种情形至今仍在延续。人类从未真正汲取历史教训，始终被自私的贪欲所驱使。