红迪网历史梗：中英历史的区别

评论：
revealedbyai
Chinese General: We lost 3 million men in a vanguard skirmish. European King: I lost 12 knights and a cousin. My kingdom is ruined

中国将军：我们在一次先锋小规模战斗中损失了三百万人。
欧洲国王：我损失了十二名骑士和一个表亲，我的王国就完了。

Zealousideal-Act8304
Roger Bosso at the Battle of Cerami.
"A siege with about 200 men? Fuck yeah, let's do this!

罗杰·博索在切拉米战役中说道：
“用大约200人去打一场围城战？干就完了！”

revealedbyai
The Norman strategy. We are outnumbered 20 to 1? Good, it's a fair fight. ⚔️

诺曼人的战术：“我们以一敌二十？很好，这是一场公平的战斗。”

lenzflare
Is it because the 20 are mostly civilians...

是因为这 20 人大多是平民吗

ihatetheplaceilive
King Harold's (England) men fought off an invading viking force les by King Harald (Sweden)at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. With a keynote of one lone viking warrior holding off the english forces alone with an axe. The english finally threw a guy in a bucket with a spear, floated him under the bridge who stabbed the viking warrior right in the groin.
After winning that battle, English Harold force marched his army 250 miles from York to Hastings in 11 days (york to london... 190 miles in 8 days, brief rest, 60 miles to Hastings in 2 days) to meet Norman.
The battle was going well for the english until an arrow lodged itaelf in Harolds eye and then the English routed.

英格兰国王哈罗德的军队在斯坦福桥战役中击退了由瑞典国王哈拉尔率领的维京入侵部队。此战中，一名孤胆维京战士仅凭一把斧头独自挡住了英军的进攻。最终，英军将一名士兵装进桶里，手持长矛顺水漂到桥下，从下方刺中了那名维京战士的腹股沟，才将其击败。
赢得这场战役后，哈罗德立即率军急行军250英里（约400公里），从约克奔赴黑斯廷斯，仅用了11天时间（其中约克至伦敦约190英里，耗时8天；短暂休整后，再用2天走完剩下的60英里抵达黑斯廷斯），以迎战诺曼人。
起初，英军在黑斯廷斯战役中形势大好，直到一支箭射中哈罗德王的眼睛，英军随即溃败。

Whole_Maybe5914
The arrow-eye thing is a bit apocryphal.
The Anglo-Saxons were doing well at the Battle of Hastings because they had the high ground and built up a good shield wall. But William feigned a few retreats, forcing the Anglo-Saxons to pursue, after which it became easier to encircle them and pick them off.

中箭失明” 的说法其实有些不实。
在黑斯廷斯战役中，盎格鲁-撒克逊人起初占据上风，因为他们占据了高地，并构筑了一道坚固的盾墙。然而，威廉（即诺曼底公爵）多次佯装撤退，诱使盎格鲁-撒克逊人离开阵地追击，这样一来，诺曼军队便更容易包围他们并逐个歼灭。

ihatetheplaceilive
Apocryphal or not, it IS on the tapestry.

不管是否不实，这件事确实被绣在了挂毯上。

UncleRuckusForPres
Whoa a Roger Bosso reference in the wild brought me back to OPB's CK3 series with him and his dynasty

哇！居然在现实中看到罗杰·博索的梗，这让我一下子想起了OPB那部以他和他的王朝为主角的《十字军之王3》系列！

Magma_Rager
To be fair though, European armies were a lot smaller during the middle ages. Also most of the soldiers are not under the direct service of the king, but rather their local lords.

不过公平地说，中世纪时期欧洲军队的规模要小得多。而且，大多数士兵并非直接为国王效力，而是效忠于他们的地方领主。

revealedbyai
Yeah, Feudalism really capped the server population limit.

是啊，封建制度简直把“服务器人口上限”给卡得死死的。

MostTattyBojangles
I mean, Henry has barely dealt with Skalitz, let alone Bohemia or the Cumans or the Orient 

我的意思是，亨利连斯卡利茨都还没怎么搞定呢，更别说波希米亚、库曼人或者东方了。

sioux612
I'm still not entirely convinced that there were actually a noteable amount of people in europe during the middle ages

我至今仍不太相信中世纪的欧洲真有那么多人口。

AppropriateNewt
There would've been more except for that plague thingy.

要不是那场瘟疫，人口本来会更多的。

Rhamni
Ah yes. Covid 1346.

啊，对啊，新冠1346年。（欧洲黑死病瘟疫）

DrHolmes52
If studying every Chinese war that had a monstrous death toll was required, no one would get out of school until they were 45.

如果非要学完每一场伤亡惨重的中国战争才算毕业，那大家得等到45岁才能走出校门了。

TeaAndCrumpetGhoul
Were the numbers in anyway exaggerated by...a lot. Or something maybe was lost in translation? Because every time I look up the death toll for battles in China I'm just left thinking "do you even have a population left" after the 4th war in the same year.

这些数字是不是在某种程度上被严重夸大了？或者可能是翻译过程中出了什么问题？因为每次我查中国历史上某场战役的死亡人数时，看到同一年里打完第四场仗后，我都不禁怀疑：“你们国家还有人剩下吗？”

Breadmaker9999
Yes they were definitely exaggerated, but China also had a very large population than Europe at that time so their battles and other disasters had a higher casualty rate simply because there were more people.

是的，那些数字确实被明显夸大了，但中国当时的人口也远比欧洲多得多，因此他们的战争和其他灾难造成的伤亡人数更高，纯粹是因为人口基数更大。

NeedsToShutUp
Also it was extremely dependent on a couple of river systems.
So if the Yellow River flooded or was in drought, you might massive food issues which usually were combined with civil unrest.
And it turns out the Yellow River floods a lot. Like Chinese history is intimately tied to the floods, and trying to control them.
One example is the Chen Sheng and Wu Guang uprising. Two officials were late to showing up at their post due to the floods. Being late was punishable by death. So they revolted. While their revolt failed to overthrow the Qin Dynasty, they were considered the inspiration for the first Han Emperor who was in a similar position and also decided to revolt.

此外，中国古代社会极度依赖几大河流系统。
一旦黄河发生洪水或干旱，就可能引发严重的粮食危机，而这类危机通常又会引发社会动荡。
事实上，黄河经常泛滥——中国历史实际上与这些洪涝灾害紧密相连，也与人类试图治理这些灾害的努力密不可分。
一个典型的例子是陈胜、吴广起义：两位小卒因洪水延误了抵达驻地的时间，而按秦律，迟到就要处死。于是他们索性揭竿而起。虽然他们的起义未能推翻秦朝，却成为后来汉朝开国皇帝刘邦的榜样——刘邦当时也处于类似的困境，同样选择了起兵反秦。

phedinhinleninpark
I'm more familiar with Vietnamese history, and I can't remember where I came across the quote, but I always think "East Asian history is mostly the history of dealing with water" (very much paraphrasing)

我对越南历史更为熟悉，也记不清是从哪里看到过这句话，但我总会想到 “东亚历史在很大程度上就是与水打交道的历史”（这是经过大幅意译的说法）。

tinytim23
Not much different from Egyptian or Dutch history, then.

那这样看来，（东亚历史与水打交道的特点）和埃及或荷兰的历史也没什么不同嘛。

andre5913
Accurate, albeit the Nile is extremely tame next to the Yellow river.

说得对，只不过尼罗河比起黄河来，可要温顺多了。

RevenantBacon
Or the Romans, for that matter.

就这一点而言，罗马人也差不多。

Aeseld
Yeah... the Romans took a different approach to dealing with water. Like using it to literally break mountains. Also, far less trouble with out of control rivers.

是啊……罗马人应对水的方式不太一样。比如，他们真的会用水利手段来开山凿石。而且，他们几乎没怎么受河流泛滥失控的困扰。

Breadmaker9999
Instead they just had to deal with a very big lake.

相反，他们只需要应对一个面积很大的湖泊（地中海？）。

Third_Sundering26
I think that statement is generally true for most of human history, but it definitely was more prominent in certain regions.
Any time I read up about Native American history, the importance of water management is always emphasized. Like with the Aztecs, Maya, Nazca, Inca, et cetera. Creating and maintaining canals, aqueducts, and buildings and roads that were resistant to erosion were important aspects of survival. A ruler that couldn’t build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for civilization to survive was seen as illegitimate.

我认为这种说法在人类历史的大部分时期基本成立，但在某些地区显然更为突出。
每当我查阅美洲原住民历史时，水资源管理的重要性总是被反复强调。比如阿兹特克人、玛雅人、纳斯卡人和印加人等文明皆是如此。修建并维护运河、渡槽，以及建造抗侵蚀的建筑与道路，都是关乎生存的重要事项。一个无法修建和维护文明存续所必需的基础设施的统治者，会被视为不具合法性。

scarlet_sage
From the time I started being a homeowner, I quickly learned that uncontrolled water flow (a decaying roof in my home's case) is one of the biggest and scariest things to worry about.

自从我开始当房主以来，很快就意识到：失控的水流（就我家而言，问题是屋顶老化漏水）是最令人头疼、也最需要担心且让人害怕的问题之一。

theclacks
Kids have nightmares about monsters. Adults have nightmares about water.

孩子做噩梦梦见怪物，大人做噩梦梦见漏水。

theevilyouknow
That's pretty much all history. Civilization is all about water. Just look at where everyone lives.

这差不多就是历史的全部了。文明的核心始终离不开水。看看人类聚居的地方就知道了。

Redqueenhypo
The problem with the Yellow River is that until the giant dams put there very recently, it would routinely clog its delta with sediment, be unable to reach the ocean, and then change course to who fucking knows where and destroy anything in its path, causing geopolitical instability to shoot up

黄河的问题在于，在近代修建大型水坝之前，它经常因泥沙淤积而堵塞三角洲，导致河水无法流入海洋，于是便随意改道——天知道会流向哪里——摧毁沿途的一切，从而引发严重的地缘政治动荡。

Bergasms
Yeah "the border is the river" because problematic when the river decides to donate 50% of your kingdom to your rival

是啊，“以河为界”这事儿麻烦就麻烦在——要是河流哪天改道，把你王国一半的土地“送”给了对手，那可就糟了。

Divine_Entity_
Something Something this is why we have different penalties for different crimes. When everything is punishable by death, then you may as well commit murder or rebellion to not be caught/punished since its the same punishment.

这就是为什么我们对不同罪行设置不同刑罚的原因。如果所有行为都能被判处死刑，那人们为了不被抓住、不受到惩罚，倒不如干脆直接去杀人或造反好了——反正惩罚都是一样的，不如干票大的。

Whizbang35
The Qin Dynasty- and the state it came from- ran on a philosophy known as Legalism. All crimes were to be punished heavily, no room for leniency, and people should only be rewarded for achievements in war or agriculture. On the other hand, he espoused total meritocracy and equality before the law. Oh, did that barbarian peasant do a better job storming the ramparts than you, the nephew of the king? Too bad, he gets the promotion. Now stop complaining or you'll be arrested and killed.
Funny enough, the founder of Legalism- the councilor Shang Yang- was a victim of his own teachings. He had his liege's son flogged like a common criminal, and when that son came to power he immediately issued an arrest warrant for Shang Yang. Shang tried to hide at a hotel, but the innkeeper wouldn't let him in without showing a proper ID- if he did, then that would be a crime punishable by death, a law Shang Yang made himself. Shang was found and sentenced to death by being torn apart by horses.

秦朝及其前身秦国奉行一种名为“法家”的哲学。所有犯罪都必须严惩，绝不容情；人们只有在战争或农业方面立下功劳，才能获得奖赏。另一方面，法家主张彻底的任人唯贤和法律面前人人平等。哦，那个蛮夷出身的农夫攻城时表现得比你——国王的侄子——还要出色？那太遗憾了，升职的就是他。现在别再抱怨了，否则你就会被捕处死。
颇具讽刺意味的是，法家思想的奠基人——商鞅丞相——最终成了自己所推行制度的牺牲品。他曾将君主的儿子像普通罪犯一样鞭笞。后来这位王子继位为君，立刻对商鞅发出通缉令。商鞅逃亡途中试图躲进一家旅店，但店主因他无法出示合法身份证明而拒绝收留——因为按照商鞅自己制定的法律，若收留无证旅客，店主将被处以死刑。最终，商鞅被抓获，并被处以车裂之刑（五马分尸）。

Divine_Entity_
Sounds like karma got Mr. Shang Yang.
Half of that philosophy sounds good, meritocracy and equality before the law regardless of social status. (Theoretically part of many countries' core values today)
But the rest not so much. Firstly as already mentioned when everything is punished by death you incentivize escalation instead of accepting punishment for a minor crime.
Also only rewarding achievements in war and agriculture is curious, because other useful fields like medicine, math, engineering, science, ect would not be as attractive and could stagnate.

听起来商鞅先生是遭了报应啊。
这套哲学中有一半听起来还不错——任人唯贤，法律面前人人平等，不论社会地位如何。（理论上，这也是当今许多国家核心价值观的一部分。）
但剩下的部分就不怎么样了。首先，正如之前所提到的，若所有罪行都以死刑论处，人们不会甘心为小罪受罚，反而会被刺激着犯下更严重的罪行。
此外，只奖励军功与农事方面的功绩也颇为费，因为其他同样重要的领域——比如医学、数学、工程、科学等等——就会变得缺乏吸引力，甚至可能陷入停滞。

-thecheesus-
tbf, a society doesn't care very much about math and science if the basics of war and agriculture are not addressed and stable

说实话，如果一个社会连战争和农业这些基本需求都没解决、还不稳定，那它确实不会太在乎数学和科学。

Windfade
It's basically the answer to every question and plea along the lines of "why don't people care more about [giant scientific achievement] or [going to space?!]": People gotta eat and be comfortable before they care about things that don't directly effect them in the short term.

这基本上能回答所有类似“为什么人们不更关注[重大科学成就]或者[去太空探索]之类的问题和呼吁：人们得先吃饱饭、过得安稳，才会去关心那些短期内不会直接影响自己的事。

-thecheesus-
Yeah. Like when you hear people (not unjustifiably) complain about, like, Russians' average acceptance of homophobic hate, misogynistic violence, etc. My response is "its because their hospitals don't have heating"

是啊。比如当你听到有人（并非毫无道理地）抱怨俄罗斯人普遍对恐同仇恨、厌女暴力等现象的容忍度较高时，我的回应是：“那是因为他们的医院连暖气都没有。”

Grand_Actuator3812
Yeah but then they torture you too.

是啊，但接着他们还会折磨你。

Loki_of_Asgaard
Then you have zero incentive to surrender so you might as well go down fighting to the last man

既然你没有任何投降的动机，那倒不如殊死抵抗，战斗到最后一人。

axonxorz
Which makes administrators feel good, but as history shows, is extremely ineffective, bordering on counterproductive, at eliminating resistance.
Did the Iraqis stop doing an insurgency once the Abu Ghraib story broke? Of course they didnt, they got angrier.

这让管理者感觉良好，但历史表明，这种做法在消除抵抗方面极其无效，甚至近乎适得其反。
阿布格莱布事件（虐囚门事件）曝光后，伊拉克人就停止了叛乱吗？当然没有，他们反而更加愤怒了。

ralphy_256
Did the Iraqis stop doing an insurgency once the Abu Ghraib story broke? Of course they didnt, they got angrier.
Just made me think. I wonder if it would be a good tactic when there's a large economic gradient between the individual combatants on the different sides, to make POW camps as attractive as possible, for propaganda purposes.
Send videos/letters home, "Hope you're doing well on the front! Keep fighting hard! When the war ends, I have to go back to my crops and my goats, and I won't have my icemaker and ipad anymore!"
I would think having seen/read that would make holding a position to the last man a lot less attractive, and might put the commander who orders such an action in immediate personal danger.
Battlefields are dangerous places, don't ya know.
Surrendering to an air-conditioned motel room with good food, internet(monitored, read-only), and a pool sure sounds a lot better to me than getting shot with my buddies.
Send fat POWs home, see how many people wanna keep fighting.

阿布格莱布事件曝光后，伊拉克人就停止了叛乱吗？当然没有，他们反而更加愤怒了。
这让我想到一点：当交战双方的普通士兵之间存在巨大的经济差距时，是否可以考虑一种策略——出于宣传目的，把战俘营打造得尽可能舒适诱人？
比如，让战俘拍视频或写信回家：“希望你们在前线一切顺利！继续努力战斗吧！等战争结束，我就得回去种地、放羊了，到那时可就没有我的制冰机和iPad啦！”
我想，如果前线士兵看到或读到这样的信息，恐怕就不会那么愿意死守阵地、战斗到最后一人了。甚至下令死守的指挥官本人，都可能立刻面临人身危险——毕竟战场本就是个危险的地方，对吧？
对我来说，向一个有空调、有美食、有（受监控但可读的）网络，还有游泳池的汽车旅馆式战俘营投降，可比跟战友们一起被子弹打中要强多了。
把养得白白胖胖的战俘遣送回国，看看还会有多少人愿意继续打仗。

After_Network_6401
Saw a great cartoon about this.
First Official: “What’s the penalty for rebellion?”
Second Official: “Death”
First Official: “What’s the penalty for being late to muster?”
Second Official: “Death”
First Official: “Well guess what, we’re late”

看到一幅很棒的漫画讲的就是这个：
第一位官员：“叛乱的惩罚是什么？”
第二位官员：“死刑。”
第一位官员：“那集合迟到的惩罚呢？”
第二位官员：“也是死刑。”
第一位官员：“那好吧，猜猜怎么着——我们迟到了。”

SkyRonin14
God damn it I love Chinese history. Imagine deciding to try and over throw the government because you where going to be late to work that day.

该死的，我太爱中国历史了。试想一下，就因为上班要迟到了，居然决定要推翻朝廷。

axonxorz
Two officials were late to showing up at their post due to the floods. Being late was punishable by death.
Good example of unintended consequences.
Like when governments make the punishment for rape or child sexual crimes more strict than the punishment for murder, leading to more rape victims and children being murdered to catch the "lesser" charge.
Leaving people with the binary options of fight or death, HMMmmmm.jpg

两名官员因洪水耽误，未能按时到岗，而迟到按律当斩。
这是一个典型的“意料之外的后果”的例子。
就像有些政府将强奸或性侵儿童的刑罚定得比谋杀还重，结果反而导致更多受害者和儿童被杀害——因为罪犯宁愿选择“较轻”的谋杀罪名。
把人逼到只有“反抗”或“死亡”这两个选项，嗯……

JudgmentalOwl
"Late showing up to your post? Believe it or not, death."

到岗迟到？信不信由你，死罪一条。

Winjin
USSR was big and WW2 that killed like 16 million people has left a HUGE gap in population that took decades to rebound
The constant hundreds of thousands of everything everywhere seem sus

苏联幅员辽阔，而二战造成约1600万人死亡，留下了巨大的人口缺口，花了数十年才恢复过来。
（因此）到处动辄几十万、上百万的各类数字看起来都挺可疑的。

FriendlyCraig
Modern historians generally feel that the numbers were exaggerated up to 10x, for impact. But even a reasonable and realistic amount of 30k deaths for a battle or campaign is absurdly high compared to other regions at the same time. Many of these numbers are from multiple years, or even decades, of warfare, so the count could be as low as only a few thousand a year. An example of this is the Warning States period, which has over 1.5 million deaths attributed to it. This is spread out over 250 years or so, making the annual deaths well under 10k a year. A big number to be sure, but not an absurd amount for an era of near constant war.
Other times the data is pulled from census data where we can see drops of millions of people in only a generation. This can be attributed not only to death, but also the breakdown of bureaucracy due to extended periods of war, as well as people just moving out of the area.
For instance the Lushan Rebellion lasted less than a decade but there is a supposed loss of up to 35+million people! This isn't too wild if we consider the government was only counting about half of its territory, and even then with a severely crippled infrastructure. It's more likely they just straight up missed a ton of people.

现代历史学家普遍认为，古代文献中记载的伤亡数字往往被夸大了多达10倍，目的是为了增强震撼效果。但即便我们采用一个更合理、更现实的估算——比如一场战役或一次军事行动造成3万人死亡——这个数字与其他地区同时期的情况相比，仍然高得离谱。
实际上，许多这类“数百万”的死亡数字往往是多年、甚至数十年战争累积的结果，因此年均死亡人数可能仅有几千人。例如战国时期据称有超过150万人死亡，但这实际上是分布在大约250年间的总和，平均每年死亡人数远低于1万人。这当然是个不小的数字，但在一个几乎持续战乱的时代，并不算离谱。
另一些时候，数据来源于人口普查记录，我们可以看到某些地区在短短一代人的时间内人口骤减数百万。这种下降不仅源于死亡，也与长期战乱导致的行政体系崩溃有关，同时还包括大量人口迁徙离开该地区。
例如，安史之乱持续不到十年，却据称造成高达3500万以上的人口损失！但如果考虑到当时政府实际控制的区域可能还不到全国的一半，且其行政和统计能力已因战乱严重瘫痪，那么更合理的解释或许是：他们根本漏记了大量人口，而非真的死了那么多人。

Soggy_Parking1353
An example of this is the Warning States period
Careful now.

比如战国时期就是这样一个例子。
小心点啊。

Redqueenhypo
China has a fuck ton more people. By the year 1900 after two different rebellions, they had more people than the U.S. does today. Flooding rice fields are fertile as hell and help you get a lot more people

中国的人口多得离谱。到1900年，经历了两次大规模起义之后，中国的人口数量仍然比今天的美国还要多。水稻田一旦被洪水淹没，就会变得极其肥沃，从而能养活多得多的人口。

Breadmaker9999
But it did bounce back in just a couple of decades. Humans are really good at making more humans. 

但人口仅用几十年就恢复了。人类在繁衍后代这件事上确实很擅长。

Winjin
We're on Reddit, how would we know? Sounds sus

咱们这可是在Reddit上，怎么可能知道真相？听起来很可疑啊。

Stephenrudolf
I mean, they're obviously exaggerated. No one is suggesting otherwise...
That being said. These deaths happened over hundreds of years, and yes took decades to recover. At one point one of the warring states held their first major census and discovered they had millions of more people than they thought they had.

我的意思是，这些数字显然被夸大了，没人会否认这一点……
话虽如此，这些死亡确实是在数百年间累积发生的，而且人口也的确花了数十年才恢复过来。曾有一次，某个战国诸侯国进行了首次大规模人口普查，结果发现实际人口比他们原先估计的多了几百万。

Blindsnipers36
a lot of the “death tolls” were breakdowns of local governments and inability to do censuses

许多所谓的“死亡人数”其实源于地方政府的崩溃以及无法进行有效的人口统计。

okthisisepicyouguyss
well China is like, really, really big, and quite the fertile land I think, it may help to explain it

嗯，中国幅员辽阔，而且土地非常肥沃，我觉得这或许有助于解释这一点。

2ndTaken_username
India is about as big and fertile and yet they aren't known for these crazy historical records afaik.

印度的面积和土地肥沃程度也差不多，但据我所知，他们并没有留下这类夸张的历史记载。

Nevada_Lawyer
India did not keep written histories until the Muslims arose. The whole of Southern Asia is a relative black hole of historical records. We don't even know for sure who built Angkor Wat. The "best" historical sources usually come from China or Greece, so it's all very much an outsider looking in and overgeneralizing.

印度在穆斯林兴起之前并没有系统地记载历史。整个南亚在历史记录方面相对是一片空白。我们甚至无法确定吴哥窟到底是谁建造的。“最权威”的历史资料通常来自中国或希腊，因此这些记载在很大程度上都是外部视角的观察，且存在过度概括的问题。

2ndTaken_username
It'd be funny the Greek and Chinese sources correspond with the meme

要是希腊和中国的史料能跟这个梗对上，那就有意思了。

SlyBoy28
India kept a lot of written history, the Mauryan Period and the Gupta Period, alongside the Cholas in the South are a testament to the fact. Rock edicts, pillars, and a whole of architecture. Alongside religious sources (which have embellishments, of course) like the Puranas, and other Buddhist and Jain sources.

印度其实保存了大量书面历史，孔雀王朝时期和笈多王朝时期，以及南印度的朱罗王朝，都充分证明了这一点。这些历史记录包括石刻诏令、石柱，以及大量的建筑遗存。此外还有各类宗教文献（当然其中不乏夸张修饰），如《往世书》，以及佛教和耆那教的典籍。

2ndTaken_username
Ok do they mention any conflicts or events where a gazillion people die?

好吧，那这些文献里有提到任何造成无数人死亡的冲突或事件吗？

The_Autarch
i've always heard that studying Indian history is difficult because they believed that time was cyclical. like they would just take the history books and upxe the names of the people involved to match current rulers, but basically left the actual events the same.
so one historical battle would show up multiple times, but have vastly different dates and kings involved.

我一直听说研究印度历史很难，因为他们认为时间是循环的。比如，他们会直接拿历史书，把里面涉及的人物名字改成当时的统治者，但基本上保留事件本身不变。
这样一来，同一场历史战役会反复出现多次，只是发生的年代和涉及的君王完全不同。

GaldanBoshugtuKhan
Next you’ll tell me Herodotus’ army of 5 million Persians was an exaggeration.

接下来你是不是要告诉我，希罗多德记载的波斯500万大军其实也是夸大其词了？

NefariousnessEven591
From friends I knew in the Chinese language and history program at my college, when you see those numbers it less an estimate and more the speaker signifying numbers beyond counting. They're not necessarily meant to be taken a literal value in context, that's just apparently how they'd phrase it. I know there's some idioms that are just a couple words (cause a native person who know the story behind those words would know the implication) that just trip up translations if you don't know.

根据我在大学里认识的中文和历史专业的朋友们所说，当你看到那些（古代中国史料中的）数字时，它们与其说是某种估算，不如说是一种表示“多到无法计数”的修辞手法。在当时的语境下，这些数字并不一定是要被当作字面数值来理解的——那似乎只是他们惯用的一种表达方式。
我知道有些中文成语或典故仅由几个字组成（母语者一听就明白其中的含义），但如果你不了解这些背景，翻译起来就很容易出错或产生误解。

AdDependent5136
I think their casualty reports at the time come from censuses. They probably included anyone that wasnt around on the next census.
This could mean they included people who were displaced or became bandits or people who changed their names?
I know in the past Chinese people often adopted different names.

我觉得当时他们的伤亡数字很可能来自人口普查。他们大概把下一次普查时“不在册”的所有人都算作了伤亡。
这意味着，那些因战乱流离失所的人、沦为盗匪的人，甚至改名换姓的人都可能被计入其中。
我知道在过去，中国人经常使用不同的名字。

ThaneKyrell
Yes, in reality the fall in population in the census following wars and rebellions was not just due to deaths but due to many people moving, avoiding the census to stop paying taxes or just the inability of the state after a major war to send tens of thousands of burocrats and soldiers to count every single household across millions of square kms

是的，实际上，在战争和叛乱之后的人口普查中出现的人口锐减，并不仅仅是因为死亡，还因为大量人口迁移、刻意躲避普查以逃避赋税，或者仅仅是因为国家在经历大规模战争后，无力再派遣成千上万的官吏和士兵，去跨越数百万平方公里的土地挨家挨户进行统计。

Seienchin88
It’s crazy people are downvoting you…
There are no reliable numbers from any country until the 19th century if not 20th century (and even then - Bombing of Dresden, Nanjing Massacre and even the deathtoll of civilians at Stalingrad are famous examples of death tolls we don’t even know for sure in the 20th century).
If you believe the collapse of the Han dynasty killed two thirds of the population then maybe you should also start believing the Persians invaded Greece with a million soldiers…

真离谱，居然有人给你点踩……
在19世纪甚至20世纪之前，世界上任何国家都没有真正可靠的人口或伤亡数据（即便到了20世纪，也仍存在争议——比如德累斯顿大轰炸，斯大林格勒战役中的平民死亡人数，都是著名的、至今无法确切确认的案例）。
如果你真的相信东汉末年的人口减少了三分之二，那或许你也该开始相信波斯人入侵希腊时真带了一百万士兵了……

BigDBob72
It’s crazy how many times China has decimated their population through war and famine over the past thousands of years, and they’ve still ended up with billions of people today. The Chinese are really something else.

不可思议的是，在过去几千年里，中国经历了无数次因战争和饥荒导致的人口锐减，却至今仍拥有十几亿人口。中国人真是非同寻常。

GradeAPrimeFuckery
I read a history book on China a long while ago and came out of it with the opinion that millions would die roughly every 70 years in some uprising or other.

我很久以前读过一本关于中国历史的书，读完后留下的印象是：大约每70年左右，就会因某次起义或其他动乱而死伤数百万人。

ApartRuin5962
Every "new religion" founded in the British Isles is just someone looking at the German Protestant Reformation and saying "what if, like, all the stuff you said, but I'm in charge?"

在不列颠群岛创立的每一种 “新宗教”，本质上都是有人看着德国宗教改革，然后心想：“要是把你那一套全照搬过来，但由我掌权呢？”

SubArcticTundra
I'm pretty sure the CofE was just founded because Henry VIII got bored of his sex life

我敢肯定，英国国教（圣公会）的创立，纯粹是因为亨利八世对自己的性生活感到厌倦了

EntropyKC
He wanted to be able to divorce his wives

他只是希望能够与自己的妻子们离婚。

AnneMichelle98
And if he were married to anyone else, the pope would have allowed it. Kings had their marriages annulled all the time. Hell, Henry’s brother-in-law, King Louis xiI of France had his first marriage annulled under extremely flimsy excuses.
Unfortunately for him, Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon, who was aunt of Emperor Charles. Charles had the pope under his thumb after the sack of Rome 1527 and did not like the idea of his aunt being divorced, especially in favor of the king’s mistress.

而且，如果亨利八世娶的是别人，教皇本来是会批准他离婚的。国王们经常以各种理由宣布婚姻无效——就连亨利的姐夫、法国国王路易十二世，都曾用极其牵强的借口成功废除了自己的第一次婚姻。
可亨利倒霉就倒霉在，他娶的是阿拉贡的凯瑟琳，而她是神圣罗马帝国皇帝查理五世的姑妈。1527年罗马之劫后，教皇实际上已落入查理五世的掌控之中，而查理坚决反对自己的姑妈被休弃，尤其还是为了国王的情妇。

el_grort
That's ignoring the Scottish sects, which looked at the English and German Protestants and deemed them too 'Papist'.

这还忽略了苏格兰的各个教派——他们看了英格兰和德国的新教徒后，认为这些人仍然太“教皇派”（即保留了太多天主教色彩）。

EtienneBismarck
Tbf, both are probably the same percentage of the population.

说实话，这两者在人口中所占的比例可能差不多。

Admirable-Poetry4312
yeah thats the thing many people forget, China has pretty much always had a far higher population density than Europe, and far larger cities and urban terrains too, as a result of it's geography
it's the reason why people think the Mongols "prioritized" taking China over Europe, because they had far larger armies in China compared to their armies in Europe, when in reality the reason why their armies had such a size difference was because the primary Mongol recruitment strategy was just rounding up every local man and force conscxting them, or hiring them as mercenaries, and snowballing the sizes of their armies that way with every additional piece of territory gained
turns out that's like a million times easier to do in China, where there are giga cities that are damn near comparable to the urban metropolises of today, as compared to Europe where like 99% of the population lives in tiny villages and the few big cities there are are also stacked to hell in terms of defense because they are just that important to hold on to since they're so (or comparatively at least) rare

没错，这正是很多人忽略的一点：中国的人口密度几乎一直远高于欧洲，而且由于地理条件的原因，也拥有规模大得多的城市和更发达的城区。
这也是为什么人们误以为蒙古人“优先”攻打中国而非欧洲——因为在华的蒙古军队规模远大于他们在欧洲的军队。但实际上，造成这种兵力差距的原因在于，蒙古人的主要征兵策略就是每占领一地，就把当地所有成年男子抓来强行征召入伍，或雇佣为雇佣兵，然后随着占领的领土越来越多，军队规模像滚雪球一样越滚越大。
而在中国，这种做法简直容易了不止一百万倍——那里有超大规模的城市，其人口密集程度几乎可与今天的都市相媲美；相比之下，欧洲99%的人口都住在小村庄里，仅有的几座大城市又往往防御森严，因为它们实在太稀有（至少相对而言），所以各方势力都拼死守住这些关键据点。

TDAPoP
I'm pretty sure Chinese cities had walls that were higher and thicker than European ones for similar reasons- more people in the city means more people to work and put effort into protecting it. That said, I don't know how China was in terms of fortresses, and that is one thing that made Europe more difficult for the mongols to deal with. There were stone fortresses everywhere, and even if you took the area that fortress protects then you're getting maybe a thousand men to join you. Then you go over the next hill and have to do the same thing.
I have no doubt that the Mongols would have taken Europe in this way eventually if they were insistent on doing so, but it would have been bloody and they would be questioning if it's worth having all their armies there so far from home to play castle hopping when they need to control and administrate pretty much the rest of the known world that they recently conquered.

我敢肯定，中国城市的城墙通常比欧洲的更高、更厚，原因也类似——城里人口更多，意味着有更多人力可以投入城防建设与保卫工作。
话虽如此，我对中国的堡垒情况不太了解，而这一点确实是欧洲让蒙古人更难对付的原因之一：欧洲到处都是石砌的坚固堡垒，即便你攻下了某个堡垒所保护的地区，可能也就只能招降大约一千人加入你的军队；然后你翻过下一座山丘，又得重复一遍同样的苦战。
我毫不怀疑，如果蒙古人铁了心要征服欧洲，他们最终是能做到的。但那将是一场血腥而漫长的消耗战，而且他们会不断质疑：是否值得把全部军队派到离家这么远的地方，玩这种逐个攻城的游戏？毕竟他们刚刚征服了几乎整个已知世界，眼下更紧迫的是如何有效控制和管理这些新领土。

monticore162
Because China never really entered a true feudal society there was no reason for everyone lord and his dog to have a castle to hide in when the next lord over sends some knights over because of a minor disagreement. Fortresses generally are pretty useless in the context of large armies but are great at deterring smaller forces so in China where armies were organised on the level of the state and therefore much larger fortresses didn’t make much sense. But in Europe where armies were organised around a lord and therefore you had lots of smaller forces moving around it made more sense to build fortresses.

因为中国从未真正进入过典型的封建社会，所以不存在“每个领主甚至他家的狗都得有座城堡躲藏”的情况——不像欧洲，邻近领主之间稍有争执，就会派骑士打上门来。
在大规模军队作战的背景下，堡垒通常作用有限；但它们在抵御小股部队时却非常有效。在中国，军队是由国家层面统一组织的，规模庞大，因此修建大量堡垒并无太大意义。
而在欧洲，军队围绕各个封建领主组建，四处活动的多是小规模部队，这种情况下修建堡垒就显得更为合理。

Talinoth
China did, once, have a very recognisably feudal society during the Zhou era and the Spring-and-Autumn Warring States period (like 700-200 BC or so) - what also happened is that the Warring States period eliminated probably hundreds of now un-recorded ethnic groups/100+ fiefdoms/50+ breakaway kingdoms/the other 6 great warring states of Zhao, Yan, Han, Wei, Qi and Chu, leaving behind Qin as the sole victor... Like the world's worst game of musical chairs - you start out with dozens of contestants and continue for hundreds of years until everyone else is dead! All glory to Qin! May their rule be everlasting!
Well, until they fractured, and even more blood was spilled until a resurgent Han won. Anyway, ever since then, China's largely been solidified into absolute rule by a single Emperor ever since... (leaving aside the messy parts like all the warlord periods in between major dynasties lul).
But yes, the main point - that the Emperor and his governors are highly incentivised to make sure local lords can't develop impregnable defenses against imperial armies - are well taken.

中国曾在周朝及春秋战国时期（约公元前700年至公元前200年左右）出现过典型的封建社会——而春秋战国时期还造成了数百个如今已无记载的族群、100多个封地、50多个分裂王国，以及赵、燕、韩、魏、齐、楚另外六个战国七雄的消亡，最终仅留下秦国成为唯一胜利者……这简直像一场史上最惨烈的抢椅子游戏：一开始有几十个参与者，持续数百年后，其他人全被淘汰出局！大秦万岁！愿其统治千秋万代！
不过，秦王朝后来分崩离析，随后又经历了更多流血冲突，直至复兴的汉朝胜出。总之，从那以后，中国在很大程度上就确立了由单一皇帝实行的集权统治……（暂且不谈那些混乱时期，比如主要王朝之间的军阀割据时代啦，哈哈）。
但核心观点没错——皇帝及其官员有极强的动机确保地方领主无法修建出能抵御帝国军队的坚不可摧的防御工事，这一点是完全成立的。

democracy_lover66
It was a wild experience visiting England for the first time and they're like : "This river is what the Welsh English border is based on, many battles were fought here"
And it's basically just a creek.

第一次去英国的经历真的很有意思 —— 当地人会说：“这条河就是威尔士和英格兰边境的划分依据，这里曾发生过无数场战役”。
可它说白了就是一条小溪。

AnneMichelle98
The Rubicon river in Italy is a tiny little river with major historical importance.

意大利的卢比孔河是一条极小的河流，却有着重大的历史意义。

ALA02
I always find it funny how when talking about British Roman history they’re like “the Romans really struggled to get over this hill and were forced to go around through the valley” and it’s like a gentle wooded slope 200m in elevation

我总觉得说英国罗马史时的一个点很有意思——人们会说“罗马人当年费了好大劲才翻过这座山，最后被迫绕路从山谷穿行”，可那地方说白了就是一片树木繁茂的缓坡，海拔才200米。

Taletad
Try to charge up that slope with 15kg of equipment on yourself, in the rain, with slippery footwear (shoes that grip well in the mud won’t exist until the 1800’s)

试想一下，你身上扛着 15 公斤的装备，冒着雨，穿着抓地力极差的鞋子（直到 19 世纪才出现能在泥泞中站稳的鞋子），还要往那个斜坡上冲。