美知乎提问：为何蒙古人征服了中国，而匈奴人却被汉朝击败并逃亡，突厥人甚至被唐朝所征服？

Fontaine Follow
In short, nomadic empire grew stronger, while Chinese empire weakened.
The Mongols are widely considered the most powerful nomadic people in history. At their peak, their empire conquered numerous regions
China itself also weakened significantly. The Mongols conquered China in the 13th century, taking 74 years and three generations. The Song Dynasty was most hard, taking nearly half a century, while the Jurchen jin dynasty took about 20 years.

简而言之，游牧帝国日益强大，而中华帝国则走向衰弱。
蒙古人被普遍认为是历史上最强大的游牧民族。在其鼎盛时期，他们的帝国征服了无数地区。
中国自身也大幅衰落了。蒙古人于 13 世纪征服中国，耗时 74 年，历经三代人。征服南宋最为艰难，用了近半个世纪，而征服金朝则用了大约 20 年时间。

It's worth noting, however, that since the decline of the Tang dynasty and the subsequent Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period and the Song dynasty, no truly powerful unified dynasty emerged in China (like the Han, Sui, Tang, and later the Ming Dynasty). Indeed, China was mired in centuries of division. The Song dynasty was never a truly powerful dynasty, and even at its peak, it didn't truly rule the entire country. When the Mongols conquered the Song, it only covered 1.8 million square kilometers.
Indeed, conquering the entirety of China was extremely difficult; even at its peak, the Mongols took 74 years to complete the task.

但值得注意的是，自唐朝衰落及随后的五代十国时期和宋朝以来，中国并未出现真正强大的统一王朝（如汉、隋、唐及后来的明朝）。实际上，中国曾陷入数百年的分裂局面。宋朝从未成为真正强大的王朝，即使在鼎盛时期也未能完全统治整个国家。蒙古征服宋朝时，其疆域仅覆盖 180 万平方公里。
是的，要完全征服整个中国极其困难，即使是蒙古人，在其最强盛时期也花了 74 年才完成这一任务。

Such a prolonged period placed incredibly high demands on the conquerors' logistical resources and economic strength.
This was something the xiongnu of 2000 years ago and the Turks of the 7th century AD simply could not accomplish.
As for why the xiongnu were ultimately defeated by the Han dynasty and even migrated to other regions, and why the Tang dynasty was able to conquer the Turks, this cannot be summarized in a few simple words.

如此漫长的征服过程，对征服方的后勤保障与经济实力提出了极高要求。
这是 2000 年前的匈奴以及公元 7 世纪的突厥都难以企及的。
至于匈奴为何最终被汉朝击败并迁徙，唐朝为何能成功征服突厥，这些并非寥寥数语就能解释清楚。

Unlike the Song , the peak Han and Tang Dynasties consistently maintained 150,000 to 200,000 cavalrymen, who were well-equipped and highly trained. They also possessed the organizational capabilities and resources of a settled civilization, making their eventual defeat of the xiongnu and Turks unsurprising. Furthermore, both of these Chinese dynasties exhibited militaristic characteristics (in fact, many Chinese dynasties, except for the Song dynasty, favored war).

与宋朝不同，强盛的汉唐时期始终维持着十五万至二十万装备精良、训练有素的骑兵。这两个朝代还拥有定居文明的组织能力和资源积累，因此最终击败匈奴和突厥并不令人意外。此外，这两大王朝都展现出鲜明的尚武特质（事实上除宋朝外，中国多数朝代皆推崇武备）。

Luke Wang· Mon
Song emperors were a bunch of self centered cucks who consistently backstab their own military, refused proper reforms, and make consistent used of traitors who cared more about personal wealth than the good of country. Swap in some competent Tang emperors and generals and ministers and Mongol won’t have a chance.

宋朝皇帝乃是一群以自我为中心的懦夫，他们不断背后捅刀自家军队，拒绝进行合时宜的改革，并且一贯重用那些只顾个人财富而非国家利益的叛徒。若换上几位能干的唐朝皇帝、将领与大臣，蒙古人根本毫无胜算。

Fontaine · Mon
The Song consistently suppressed its military, while the Han and Tang both exhibited militaristic characteristics; their mindsets were fundamentally different.

宋朝一直压制军队，而汉朝和唐朝都表现出好战的特征；它们的思维方式从根本上来说是不同的。

Yap You Wai · Tue
but but it was also during that Dynasty Science & Tech devt was at a very high level?

但是，也是在那段时期，（宋朝）的科技发展达到了非常高的水平吗？

Luke Wan · Wed
I think Song is more known for high level of literature. Tech wise it did have first use of rockets, gun, and cannons. Supposedly they could have started some early kind of Industrial Revolution but decided not to, to avoid job losses. They also had the idea of basic social safety nets and benefits like retirement homes, public school, etc.

我认为宋朝更以高文学水平而闻名。在技术方面，它确实首次使用了火箭、火枪和火炮。据说他们本可以启动某种早期的工业革命，但为了避免百姓失业而决定不这样做。他们还拥有基本的社会安全网和福利的概念，如养老院、公立学校等。

Yap You Wai· Wed
As per persuasive evidence, during that period, the ppl genenerally became more educated, cultured & civilized (the term “Hua”) in contrast to the tougher, more militant-minded Mongols across the Yellow River

根据有力证据，那时的人们普遍更有教育水平、文雅且文明（即所谓的“华”），相比之下，黄河对岸的蒙古人则更为强悍、尚武且较为蛮族化。
凛冬 将至 · Mon

The use of the word conquer in this title is completely wrong.
—In the long run of history, judging whether a nation has been conquered depends not on temporary military outcomes, but on whether its civilizational foundation has been rewritten. The Mongol rule in CN lasted less than a century, which is just an extremely brief and costly military occupation in the 5,000 year history of CN.

标题中使用“征服”一词完全错误。
从历史长河来看，判断一个民族是否被征服，并非取决于一时一地的军事胜负，而在于其文明根基是否被改写。蒙古在华夏大地的统治不足百年，在五千年文明史中不过是一次极其短暂且代价沉重的军事占领。

—From the absolute perspective of civilizational history, There has never been a scenario where CN was conquered. The so-called Mongol conquest of CN or Manchu conquest of CN, Were merely military overthrows of the reigning dynasties at those times, Rather than a conquest of Chinese civilization itself.

从文明史的绝对维度而言，华夏大地从未真正被征服。所谓的蒙古征服或满洲征服，充其量只是彼时当权王朝的军事倾覆，而非华夏文明本体的沦陷。

The Mongols won back then largely by taking advantage of CN’s internal instability. But such an occupation based on force is extremely fragile because they had no capacity to manage a CN that was far more advanced in terms of systems, productivity, and culture. To keep the state functioning, they had to fully rely on the management logic of CN, which is essentially a cultural surrender. A regime that occupies the land physically but depends on the occupied for its mind and soul has no right to talk about conquest.

蒙古当年的胜利很大程度上是利用了华夏内部动荡的时机。但凭借武力建立的占领极为脆弱，因为他们在制度、生产力与文化层面根本不具备治理先进华夏的能力。为维持国家运转，他们必须全盘依赖华夏的治理逻辑，这本质上是一种文化投降。一个仅占领土地却在精神灵魂上仰赖被占领者的政权，根本无权谈论征服。

This rootless rule was ultimately overthrown and thoroughly purged by the armed uprisings of the CN grassroots. If a so-called conqueror is eventually digested by the civilization they occupied and violently expelled by the people, it is a total failure in history. Brute force can only cause temporary chaos, but it can never conquer a great civilization with the resilience of CN. This was true for the Yuan Dynasty established by the Mongols, and it was also true for the Qing Dynasty established by the Manchus. As for the xiongnu and the Turks, they have already vanished into the long river of history. In other words, they were defeated by CN and completely assimilated. This is true conquest.

这种没有根基的统治最终被中华民国的武装起义推翻并彻底清除。如果一个所谓的征服者最终被其占领的文明所吞噬，并被人民暴力驱逐，那么在历史上就是彻底的失败。武力只能造成暂时的混乱，但永远无法征服像中华这样拥有强大韧性的伟大文明。蒙古人建立的元朝如此，满族人建立的清朝亦如此。至于匈奴和突厥，他们早已消失在历史长河中。换句话说，他们被中华击败并彻底同化。这才是真正的征服。

Michael X Follow
All empires collapses from the inside. When the Mongols started raising in the 13th century, not only the Song dynasty was at the end of their cycle, but all three kingdoms(Liao, jin, Song) dynasty were at the end of their cycle. This also applied to the Mongols. When the Ming dynasty started raising, the Yuan dynasty was already falling apart. The Mongols didn't put up a single fight, the Ming dynasty just took over and absorbed the majority of Mongols to their side. One peaking empire goes against another peaking empire rarely happens in history.

所有帝国的崩塌都源于内部。当蒙古在 13 世纪崛起时，不仅宋朝已步入衰亡周期，辽、金、宋三国皆处气数将尽之时。这一规律同样适用于蒙古——明朝兴起之际，元朝早已分崩离析。蒙古人未作抵抗，明朝直接接管政权并吸纳了绝大多数蒙古部众。历史上极少出现两个巅峰帝国正面交锋的情形。

The Han/Tang dynasty met the rivals on the raising. Raising empires almost never fall apart due to external pressures, they turns external pressure into internal strength.

汉唐两朝皆在对手崛起之时与其交锋。处于上升期的帝国几乎从不因外部压力而瓦解，它们反而能将外部压力转化为内部力量。

Panda Man Mon
The xiongnu and Turks faced the powerful, mature Han and Tang empires with significant financial and population advantages, which were difficult for even the West to contend with at the time. By the time the Mongols rose to power, the Song, jin, and Western xia dynasties had already exhausted each other, and the Mongols had formed an overwhelming advantage.

匈奴与突厥面对的是财力雄厚、人口众多、处于鼎盛期的汉唐帝国，其实力之强连当时西方都难以抗衡。而蒙古崛起之时，宋、金、西夏已在内耗中元气大伤，使得蒙古形成了碾压性优势。

Lawrence Wong Sing Ung Mon
Chinggis is a one trick pony who got very lucky once. Ming dynasty China have defeated it, as proven in real world History. Many barbarians have come and go before the Mobgols, such as the xiongnu, xianbei, Huns and Kitan tribes.

成吉思汗不过是侥幸赢得一次胜利的匹夫。明朝中国已将其击败，真实历史可证。蒙古人之前，众多蛮族如匈奴、鲜卑、突厥、契丹皆如过客。

Once Ming Dynasty invented and deployed gunpowder weapons, muskets and cannons, the Mongols were trashed despite their warrior reputation. They all surrendered, ran away in despair or got slaughtered. The Mongols still worship Chinggis because they are dirt poor and lack any other cultural heroes.

自明朝发明并装备火药武器、火枪和火炮后，蒙古人虽有勇武之名却一败涂地。他们或投降、或绝望逃窜、或被屠杀殆尽。蒙古人至今仍崇拜成吉思汗，只因他们极度贫困，再无可称道的文化英雄。

Today, Mongolia survives as a dirt poor country despite abundant coal and rare earth mineral reserves. Neither Russia nor China want to subsidize its millions of nomadic herders, prostitutes and pimps. Outer Mongolia is one of the poorest country in the world despite its location in Northeast Asia, one of the most advanced regions of the world.

如今，蒙古虽拥有丰富的煤炭和稀土矿藏，却依然是一个极度贫困的国家。俄罗斯和中国都不愿为其数百万的游牧牧民、妓女和皮条客提供补贴。外蒙古是全球最贫穷的国家之一，尽管它地处世界最发达地区之一的东北亚。

Tom Howard Follow
Fontaine's answer was excellent. The Mongols were far more powerful than the xiongnu Turks, yet it still took them 75 years to conquer China.
This would have placed extremely high demands on resources and the economy. Furthermore, the Song Dynasty's military strength is often criticized by the Chinese as mediocre, and it simply cannot compare to the Han, Tang, or even the later Ming Dynasty.

“Fontaine”的解答非常精彩。蒙古人的实力远超匈奴、突厥，但他们依然花了 75 年才征服中国。
这将对资源和经济提出极高的要求。此外，宋朝的军力常被国人批评为平庸，根本无法与汉、唐乃至后来的明朝相比。

park Follow
The Mongol Empire's organizational capabilities were unprecedented among nomadic peoples, a primary reason for its ability to conquer vast territories. Furthermore, when they conquered China, the country had been divided for nearly three centuries

蒙古帝国的组织能力在游牧民族中前所未有，这是其能够征服广袤领土的主要原因之一。此外，当他们征服中国时，中国已经分裂了近三个世纪。

Adam Wu Follow
China during the Han Dynasty and Tang Dynasties was relatively much stronger. It was a unified state with a vigorous functional government and it had territorial control of strategically vital territories in the north that made defense of the central plains from invasion from the north was much easier.

汉代与唐代的中国实力相对强大得多。这是一个统一的国家，拥有功能活跃、富有活力的政府，并控制着北方具有重要战略意义的领土，这使得抵御北方对中原的入侵变得容易得多。

While China during the time of the Mongol Conquest was divided into three kingdoms, all of which were in a period of systemic decline. Western xia was a relatively small and weak state with little capacity for resisting invasion from something as strong as the Mongols on its own. The jin Dynasty in the north that controlled that strategically vital territory was on paper the strongest in the area, but they had by this time become a paper Tiger in which internal problems resulted in a fatally slow and disorganized military mobilization and they cracked like poorly fired porcelain when the Mongols pushed them. Meanwhile the Southern Song, without access to that strategic territory had limited availability to good horses for cavalry, and were stuck in a defensive posture where they had almost no capacity for counterattacking into the Mongol heartland and could only sit and turtle against constant Mongol attacks. The Mongols gobbled them up one at a time.

在蒙古征服时期，中国分裂为三个王国，且均处于系统性衰败期。西夏国相对弱小，难以独立抵抗蒙古这般强大的入侵者。控制北方战略要地的金朝表面上最强，但此时已成纸老虎，内乱导致军事动员迟缓无序，当蒙古大军压境时便如劣质瓷器般碎裂。与此同时，南宋由于缺乏战略要地，难以获得优良战马组建骑兵，只能陷入被动防守，几乎无力反攻蒙古腹地，面对蒙古的持续进攻只能固守。蒙古人遂将其逐个吞并。

And though the Song held out for 20 years it was only a matter of time before their defences would inevitably crack as the Mongol Empire expanded in other directions during that time, gaining resources and strength, until eventually they could marshall manpower, resources and technology from across the known world.

尽管宋朝坚守了二十年，但随着蒙古帝国在此期间向其他方向扩张，获取资源和增强实力，其防御终究难以持久。最终，蒙古得以从整个已知世界调集人力、资源和技术。

Additionally, the Mongols of that era were relatively much stronger than the xiongnu or the Turks in theirs. Genghis Khan was a once in a millennia genius who revolutionized steppe governance, producing a political system much more robust and much more capable of keeping a much larger empire unified and functional than the systems the xiongnu had, which in comparison were much more brittle. The xiongnu never fully pacified all their steppe neighbours the way the Mongols did, and the Han was able to leverage existing rivalries between many of these tribes to help them in the fights with the xiongnu. Likewise the Turks were divided and the Tang in their golden age always had an alliance arranged with at least one major Turkic power when in hostilities with any of the others. The ruling clan of the Tang Dynasty actually had some Turkic blood due to marriage alliances arranged from even before they founded the Tang.

此外，那个时代的蒙古人相对匈奴或突厥人来说要强大得多。成吉思汗是一位千年一遇的天才，他彻底改革了草原治理模式，创造了一种比匈奴所拥有的政治体系更加稳固、更能够维持一个更庞大帝国统一和运转的政治体系，相比之下，匈奴的体系要脆弱得多。匈奴从未像蒙古人那样完全平定所有的草原邻国，而汉朝则能够利用这些部落之间的现有敌对关系，在其与匈奴的战斗中帮助他们。同样，突厥人也分裂了，而唐朝在其黄金时代，每当与任何一方发生敌对行动时，总会与至少一个主要的突厥势力结成联盟。唐朝的统治氏族实际上由于通婚联盟而拥有一些突厥血统，这些联盟甚至在唐朝建立之前就已经安排好了。

And Genghis Khan also gathered a group of subordinates that were almost unprecedented in the sheer concentration of talent among them. Including arguably 3 or 4 of the greatest generals of all time. All serving one empire together at the same time.
The Mongol Conquests were very much a short-lived once in a couple millennia phenomenon where a highly unlikely confluence of individual talent and geopolitical opportunity all came together at one time to result in all the usual rules governing geopolitics in the region getting broken enabling unprecedented things to happen. And the Mongol Empires collapsed quickly once the tides of history shifted again and that confluence disappeared.

而且，成吉思汗还聚集了一群下属，他们的才华集中程度几乎前所未有。其中包括可以说是史上最伟大的三到四位将军。他们都在同一时间为一个帝国效力。
蒙古人的征服是非常短暂的，是千年一遇的现象，个人才能与地缘政治机遇的极不可能结合同时出现，导致该地区地缘政治的通常规则被打破，使得史无前例的事情发生。一旦历史潮流再次转变，这种结合消失，蒙古帝国便迅速崩溃。

Igor S Follow
The xiongnu 匈奴 indeed warred with the Han 漢, but their downfall was brought about through the combined military actions of their former vassals originating from Manchuria, Mongolia, and Turkestan. In fact, the Eastern Han suffered considerably from the collapse of the xiongnu polity. Moreover, the xiongnu did not truly flee anywhere; the majority of them were incorporated into the xianbei 鮮卑, as the historical sources explicitly emphasize. A portion of the aristocracy, which for various reasons migrated westward, continued for many centuries to occupy leading positions in political formations stretching from Kashmir to Serbia.

匈奴确实曾与汉朝交战，但其衰落是由源自满洲、蒙古及突厥斯坦地区的前属臣联合军事行动所致。事实上，东汉因匈奴政体崩溃而遭受重创。况且匈奴并未真正逃离何处；多数史籍明确记载，他们被并入鲜卑。部分贵族因各种原因西迁，此后数百年间，他们在克什米尔至塞尔维亚的广阔地域内的政治组织中持续占据领导地位。

Only a segment of the Turks 突厥 was actually subordinated to the Sui 隋 and Tang 唐 dynasties. Specifically, the eastern branch of the Ashina 阿史那 clan. It must be remembered that the ruling houses of Yang 楊 and Li 李, founders of the Sui and Tang respectively, were of xianbei descent. They ruled the steppe peoples not as emperors 皇帝 of China, but as Heavenly Khaghans 天可汗, titles to which they were formally elected. The early Tang emperors are reliably known to have spoken the Turkic language. From this perspective, it becomes a matter of some ambiguity as to who, in fact, conquered whom.

实际上，只有一部分突厥人臣服于隋唐两朝。具体来说，是阿史那氏的那支。必须记住，隋唐的开国君主杨氏和李氏，其王室家族均出自鲜卑。他们统治草原民族时，并非以中国皇帝的身份，而是以天可汗的头衔，这一称号是经过正式选举授予的。有可靠记载显示，早期的唐朝皇帝会说突厥语。从这个角度来看，究竟是谁征服了谁，其实变得有些模糊不清。

It has long been observed that steppe regimes controlling Central Mongolia never attempted to conquer China proper. This was an entirely deliberate policy, for which we possess credible evidence. The so-called Short Inscxtion of Tonyukuk explicitly testifies to this understanding. The threat to China traditionally arose not from the central steppe polity itself, but from regimes positioned along its flanks: in the west, from the Qiangic Zhou 周 and then semi-barbarian Qin 秦 states—and later from Tibet 吐蕃 during the late Tang period—and, in the east, from the Tuoba 拓跋, Yuwen 宇文, Khitan 契丹, and Jurchen 女真.

长期以来观察到，控制外蒙古的草原政权从不试图征服中国本部。这是一种完全有意的政策，我们有可信的证据支持这一观点。所谓的"暾欲谷碑"明确证实了这种理解。传统上对中国的威胁并非来自中央草原政权本身，而是来自其侧翼地区的政权：西部来自羌系的周朝及后来的半蛮夷秦朝——以及唐代后期的吐蕃——东部则来自拓跋、宇文、契丹和女真。

One might obxt that the Mongols constituted a Central Mongolian regime. This is true; yet their conquest of China began only after they secured control over Liaodong 遼東 and Western xia 西夏. In other words, they commenced expansion precisely from those same flanking regions.

或许有人会提出异议，认为蒙古人构成了中央蒙古政权。这是事实；然而，他们对中国的征服始于他们确保了对辽东和西夏的控制之后。换言之，他们的扩张正是从这些相同的侧翼地区开始的。

H.F.FANG Follow
The direction of domestic policy determines the fate of the dynasty. Han and Tang valued military prowess while Song emphasized culture. In Song dynasty, military officers had lower status than civil officials, and they had to kneel when they met them. This was because the Song emperors did not trust military generals, always suspecting they might rebel. In contrast, Han and Tang dynasties were completely the opposite.

内政走向决定王朝的命运。汉唐重视军事实力，而宋朝则强调文化。在宋朝，军官地位低于文官，觐见文官时必须下跪。这是因为宋朝皇帝不信任将领，始终怀疑他们会叛变。与此同时，汉唐两朝则完全相反。

Lajos Follow
The two (xiongnu and Mongols) were different, with different mentalities and lifestyles. It is the Mongols that we know best (because their influence is more recent). The Mongols succeeded in defeating the Chinese through their brutality and terror, more than through their sheer strength. It was this brutality that a relatively small nation (perhaps one million people) conquered and subjugated approximately 300 million. By killing more than half the Chinese... the remaining ones became 'zombies' under their command ...
The Huns (as we know them) didn't exterminate their enemies... so naturally they couldn't be as effective... and neither could the Turks ...

匈奴与蒙古二者截然不同，其思维模式与生活方式存在显著差异。我们最为熟知的是蒙古（因其影响力更为贴近当代）。蒙古之所以能够击溃中原政权，与其说是凭借绝对实力，不如说是依靠残暴手段与恐怖统治。正是这种极致的暴力，让这个人口可能仅百万的民族征服并奴役了约三亿民众。通过屠戮过半人口…幸存者沦为其操控下的“行尸走肉”……
匈奴人（如我们所知的）并未将敌人赶尽杀绝…因此他们自然无法达到同等效果…突厥人亦是如此…

Even the Romans were (by far!) not as savage as the Mongols. They sought to subjugate their neighbors... primarily without violence... and if, after being subjugated, they revolted, broke their alliance... then they became harsher, more cruel ...
This was also true of other powers in the past (Persian, the Arabs, the Ottomans ...). The Mongols were exceptional. In two ways: militarily and in their treatment of the vanquished. Both combined !

即使是罗马人（相比之下！）也不及蒙古人那般野蛮。罗马人倾向于以非暴力方式控制邻邦…而若在被征服后发生叛乱、背弃盟约…才会采取更严厉、更残酷的手段…
历史上的其他强权（波斯、阿拉伯、奥斯曼…）亦是如此。蒙古人是例外。这体现在两个方面：军事能力与对待战败者的方式。两者兼具！

Cam Carmar Follow
The Han and Tang dynasties confronted the xiongnu and early Turks at moments of relative Chinese strength, with unified governments, large agrarian tax bases, professional armies, and the strategic ability to combine military campaigns with diplomacy, divide-and-rule tactics, and the co-optation of steppe elites; as a result, the xiongnu were fractured and pushed westward, and the Turkic khaganates were temporarily subordinated or destroyed. By contrast, the Mongols rose when China was politically fragmented between the Song, jin, and Western xia, allowing them to defeat each regime sequentially rather than face a single consolidated empire.

汉朝和唐朝分别在与匈奴和早期突厥对峙时，正值中原王朝国力相对强盛之际：政权统一、农业税基庞大、军队职业化，且具备结合军事行动与外交手段的战略能力——如分而治之策略及笼络草原精英；最终导致匈奴分裂并西迁，突厥汗国则暂时臣服或覆灭。相比之下，蒙古崛起时中国正处于宋、金、西夏政权割据的分裂状态，使其能各个击破而非面对统一集权的帝国。

Moreover, the Mongols possessed an unusually centralized and disciplined imperial structure, superior operational mobility, and - crucially - the willingness to adopt Chinese, Persian, and Islamic siege technology, administration, and logistics, enabling them to overcome fortified cities and govern sedentary populations.
In short, the Mongols succeeded because they were both unusually capable and unusually lucky in the geopolitical environment they faced, whereas earlier nomads were checked by stronger Chinese states.

此外，蒙古人建立了异常集权且纪律严明的帝国体系，拥有更卓越的机动战术能力，并至关重要的是——他们积极吸纳中原、波斯及伊斯兰文明的攻城技术、行政管理与后勤体系，从而得以攻克坚固城池并统治农耕定居民族。
简而言之，蒙古人成功的原因在于他们既具备非凡的能力，又在当时的地缘政治环境中格外幸运，而早期的游牧民族则遭遇了更为强大的中原王朝的遏制。