西方是從什么時候開始變得比東方更強大的？

czk_21
that doesnt really tell whole story, central europe and Italy was on similar level as colonizers without colonies, similarly France in 16th century(didnt really have colonies) rivaled Spains power at their peak
colonialism is certainly a factor but not the only one

這并不能完全說明問題，中歐和意大利沒有殖民地但水平和他們相似，同樣，16世紀的法國（沒有真正的殖民地）能與巔峰西班牙的實力相媲美

MicHAELmhw
Dan Carlin talks about this on HHHistory and he talks about the Mongol empire setting the east back by annihilating all the eastern powers and technology hubs. The west emerges relatively unscathed and passes islam because Baghdad was leveled etc.
Generalizing but very interesting take.

丹·卡林在“硬核歷史”上談到了這一點，他談到了蒙古帝國通過消滅所有東方大國和技術(shù)中心使東方倒退。西方國家相對毫發(fā)無損，并且因為巴格達被夷為平地等原因而一舉超越伊斯蘭文明。
這是概括性很強但非常有趣的觀點。

Minecraft_Cymmo
oh that''s a nice approach

哦，這是個不錯的觀點

Sectalam
The west emerges relatively unscathed
The Black Death: "Hello"

“西方國家相對毫發(fā)無損”
黑死?。骸肮D？”

MicHAELmhw
Yes, and Dan Carlins Hardcore History episode touches on the plague and how that loosened the grip of the church and he draws a direct correlation to the reformation because of how many clergy die in the plague and how young the replacements are.
Was very interesting.

是的，丹·卡林硬核歷史的一集里也講述了瘟疫，以及這如何松開了教會的控制，認為瘟疫與宗教改革有直接相關(guān)，因為有非常多的神職人員死于瘟疫，替代者又都很年輕。

AgoraiosBum
Different powers at different time. For seafaring and navigation, it was in the 1500s, when European fleets could go around the world while Eastern fleets focused on trade in the Sea of Japan, China Sea, Indian Ocean, and Java Sea. The Dutch East India Company realized that this trade within the East could actually be very profitable, and became one of the richest companies in history by building shipyards in the East and trading among the east (and using the profits to buy spices and other goods to take back to Europe.
On land, the Mughal Empire and the Chinese (and Japanese) were still very powerful; for example Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb crushed the British East India Company in a short war that led to an apology, prostration before the throne, and payment of a large indemnity.

在不同的時間擁有不同的力量。對于航海和航行，大約是在1500年代，歐洲船隊就已經(jīng)可以環(huán)游世界，而東方船隊則專注于日本海，中國海，印度洋和爪哇海的貿(mào)易。 荷蘭東印度公司意識到，這種在東方的貿(mào)易實際上可能是非常有利可圖的，于是通過在東方建造造船廠和在東方進行貿(mào)易，成為歷史上最富有的公司之一（利用利潤購買香料和其他商品帶回歐洲）。
在陸地上，莫臥兒帝國和中國人（還有日本人）仍然非常強大。例如，莫臥兒皇帝奧朗則布在一場短暫的戰(zhàn)爭中擊潰了英國東印度公司，導致英國進行道歉，在其王位前俯首稱臣，并支付大量賠款。

But then internal decay beset the Mughals and Chinese; a series of civil wars broke Mughal power, and Delhi was conquered by the Marathas (and then sacked by an Afghan warlord), and by 1800, the British East India Company was the most significant force in India. China took longer to crack, but the two Opium Wars showed that China could not do much to protect its harbors and shipping, and after the massive and destructive Taiping Rebellion (which killed between 10 and 30 million) China was a broken power by the late 1860s.
Japan had stagnated since 1600, when it drove out the foreigners and limited foreign trade to Nagasaki with the Dutch; in the 1850s the US forced them to open to trade, which led to significant internal reforms that put them at the peer level of the West not long after.
The main factors were new developments in transport and artillery, accelerated by the industrial revolution, and the desires of international trade entities to open markets in these countries that was backed by national and nationalist sentiment.

但隨后內(nèi)部的衰敗困擾著莫臥兒和中國人；一系列內(nèi)戰(zhàn)打斷了莫臥兒的權(quán)力，德里被馬拉塔斯征服（然后被阿富汗軍閥取代），到了1800年，英國東印度公司已經(jīng)是印度最強大的一支部隊。中國用了更長的時間才崩潰，但兩次鴉片戰(zhàn)爭表明中國在保護其港口和航運方面無能為力，在大規(guī)模破壞性的太平天國叛亂（殺害了1000萬至3000萬人）之后，中國在19世紀60年代后期已成為一個破碎的大國。
自從1600年驅(qū)逐外國人并限制與荷蘭人到長崎的的對外貿(mào)易以來，日本就一直停滯不前。在1850年代，美國迫使他們開放貿(mào)易，這導致了日本重大的內(nèi)部改革，不久之后，他們就已經(jīng)可以與西方同行相提并論。
主要因素是工業(yè)革命加速了運輸和火炮方面的新發(fā)展，以及國際貿(mào)易實體希望在這些得到了民族主義情緒的支持國家開放市場。

Indo_Aryan_
example Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb crushed the British East India Company in a short war that led to an apology, prostration before the throne, and payment of a large indemnity.
It is highly misleading to call the company''s refusal to pay taxes a "short war" when it barely involved maybe a few hundred company officials at most, although clearly the situation wasn''t as bad as 50 years later when about those numbers routed (technically) Mughal armies of tens of thousands
The Mughals at their best couldn''t oust the Safavids, who were at best the equal of the Ottomans, who were not the equal of Britain or France by the early 18th c. The Mughals couldn''t even oust the Portuguese from their holdings
Clearly wherever the split off occurred between the Islamic Powers and Western Powers, it was a long before the reign of Aurangzeb

“莫臥兒帝國皇帝奧朗則布在一場短暫的戰(zhàn)爭中擊敗了英國......”
將公司最多涉及到幾百名官員拒絕納稅的行為稱為“短期戰(zhàn)爭”是極具誤導性的，雖然當時莫臥兒的情況顯然沒有50年后那么糟，那時同樣是數(shù)百人，就（在技術(shù)上）擊敗了數(shù)萬名莫臥兒軍隊。
莫臥兒人在他們最好的情況下都不能驅(qū)逐薩法維的軍隊（注：波斯王朝），后者充其量等于18世紀的奧斯曼人，而奧斯曼在18世紀初已不是和英國或法國平級的對手。
莫臥兒甚至不能將葡萄牙人從他們的地產(chǎn)中驅(qū)逐出去。顯然，無論伊斯蘭列強和西方列強之間的分裂發(fā)生在哪里，都是在里奧朗則布統(tǒng)治之前很長的一段時間內(nèi)。

AgoraiosBum
The Company always used loads of local troops and local allies; the Battle of Plassey was won because the British made a treaty with one of the major generals of the Nawab of Bengal (Mir Jaffar) that if they won, Jaffar would get the throne.
The Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, was young (24) and had just received the throne a year before. He had only a little military experience. He made many changes in the court of Bengal, which sparked all kinds of intrigues and conspiracies against him. He had one general that was adequate and loyal, but that general was killed leading a cavalry attack. A halfway competent leader would have crushed Clive at Plassey (even with the betrayal of Mir Jaffar), but Siraj panicked and ran away.
If the other side had a general like Aurangzeb at Plassey, it would have been very different.

英國東印度公司總是使用大量的當?shù)夭筷牶彤數(shù)孛擞?；普拉西?zhàn)役英國獲勝，是因為英國人與對手孟加拉納瓦布的主要將領(lǐng)之一賈法爾簽訂了一項秘密條約：如果他幫助英國取勝，英國就幫賈法爾取得王位。孟加拉的領(lǐng)主西拉杰·烏德·達烏拉 很年輕（24歲），一年前剛剛獲得王位。他只有有限的軍事經(jīng)驗。他對孟加拉的宮廷做了許多改變，這引發(fā)了針對他的各種陰謀。他有一位對他足夠忠誠的將軍，但這位將軍在一次騎兵攻擊中被殺。這場戰(zhàn)斗孟加拉方面只要是稍微稱職一點的人來領(lǐng)導，都會在普拉西（即使賈法爾依然背叛）把克萊夫撕個粉碎，但西拉杰驚慌失措地逃跑了。
如果對方在普拉西有一個像奧朗則布這樣的將領(lǐng)，那結(jié)局就完全不同了。
（注：普拉西戰(zhàn)役，發(fā)生于1757年6月23日，是英國東印度公司與印度的孟加拉王公的戰(zhàn)爭，而孟加拉王公西拉杰·烏德·達烏拉有法國為其支持者。）

Indo_Aryan_
The point being that the English were not using local levies of any significant number when Aurangzeb attacked them. It''s like someone attacking an American embassy or more accurately an Apple factory and claiming they "defeated the Americans'' in a ''war'' (when it takes them years to even take that one factory)
Plassey is overblown, not least because of Buxar which followed shortly after, where the Brits again won convincingly against the combined forces of 3 Indian rulers including the titular Mughal Emperor, against overwhelming odds.

問題是，當奧朗則布襲擊英格蘭人時，英國并未使用任何數(shù)量可觀的地方軍隊。就像有人攻擊美國大使館或更準確地說是蘋果工廠，就聲稱他們在一場“戰(zhàn)爭”中擊敗了美國人（當時，他們甚至花了數(shù)年時間才攻下那家工廠）
普拉西戰(zhàn)役的重要性被夸大了，尤其是因為緊隨其后就是布克薩爾戰(zhàn)役，英國人再次以令人難以置信的優(yōu)勢擊敗了包括名義上的莫臥兒皇帝在內(nèi)的3個印度統(tǒng)治者聯(lián)合起來的力量。

Also as I''ve noted the Mughals couldn''t even dislodge the Portuguese. They couldn''t chase the Persians out of Qandahar. The same Persians lost territory to the Ottomans, who themselves were losing repeatedly against Austria and Russia, both of which were not on the same level as Britain and France of the era
To talk about any competent Bengal Nawab stopping the British invasion is to ignore how Siraj''s much more powerful predecessors were literally paying the Marathas to stay away to the extent of signing away entire provinces after losses against them, which was nowhere near as bad as how the Nizam of Hyderabad was performing against them at the same time, and how useless both Hyderabad and the Carnatic were against the English or the French in the Carnatic Wars 10 years before Plassey.

同樣，正如我上面已經(jīng)提到的，莫臥兒人甚至無法驅(qū)逐葡萄牙人。他們無法將波斯人趕出坎大哈。同一時間，波斯人在對奧斯曼帝國的戰(zhàn)爭中丟失了領(lǐng)土，而奧斯曼帝國卻屢屢遭受奧地利和俄羅斯的侵害，而這兩個國家和當時的英國和法國甚至沒有處于同一水平。
說只要換一個稍微能勝任的孟加拉大公就能制止英國的入侵，就是無視西拉杰之前更強大的前任是如何從字面上輸給馬拉塔聯(lián)盟（印度本土政權(quán)）然后簽署條約賣了整個省份的，隔壁的海得拉巴的尼扎姆在同一時間面對馬拉塔時的表現(xiàn)一樣很糟糕，更不用提海得拉巴和卡爾納蒂克人在普拉西戰(zhàn)役前10年的卡爾納蒂克戰(zhàn)爭中對英國或法國人的表現(xiàn)是多么無能了。

Or the British themselves performing considerably better than either Bengal or Hyderabad in their encounters with the Marathas or even Hyder Ali, despite again minimal numbers compared to native armies
Simply put Europeans were clearly better in open battle than Indian (or any ''Eastern'') armies by the 18th c, (and their navies long before that) and the British were the pre eminent global power already by the time Plassey rolled around. Having a general like Aurangzeb would arguably have made little difference considering some of the lopsided victories of European armies and territories conquered, long before the Plassey conspiracy

倒是英國人在與馬拉塔聯(lián)盟甚至海德·阿里的交鋒中的表現(xiàn)要比孟加拉大公或海得拉巴好得多，盡管與他們本土的軍隊相比，英國軍隊的人數(shù)仍然很少。
簡而言之，到18世紀時，歐洲人在公開的戰(zhàn)爭中顯然比印度（或任何“東方”）軍隊要好（以及很早以前的海軍），而在普拉西戰(zhàn)役發(fā)生之時，英國已經(jīng)是全球最強大的力量。考慮到早在普拉西之前歐洲軍隊眾多以少勝多的勝利和征服的領(lǐng)土，就算擁有像奧朗則布這樣的將軍可能對于結(jié)果也沒有什么區(qū)別。

AgoraiosBum
I don''t disagree that European armies were better, pound for pound - and were significantly better at that. However, India is far away and the British couldn''t field large armies against them - so they weren''t "more powerful" in the regional sense. Which is why they didn''t start to control significant territory until the mid 1700s, and even then it took weak opponents. Buxar was another example of an incompetent fight; the three groups couldn''t agree among themselves, one didn''t fight at all, and then the other ran away after suffering some setbacks and even blew the bridges behind him, trapping the Shah and leaving him to the British.
The Mughal Empire went way downhill after Aurangzeb (and had plenty of strain during his reign).

我不同意歐洲軍隊更好，不過一碼歸一碼——他們在這方面表現(xiàn)得確實很好。然而，印度很遠，英國人不能對他們進行大規(guī)模的軍事打擊。因此他們在這個地區(qū)來說上并不“更強大”。 這就是為什么他們直到17世紀中期才開始控制印度重要的領(lǐng)土，甚至直到那時它才征服了那些軟弱的對手。布克薩爾戰(zhàn)役是一個無能的戰(zhàn)斗的另一個例子；印度方面聯(lián)盟中的三個體之間無法達成一致，一個根本沒有戰(zhàn)斗，另一個在經(jīng)歷了一些挫折逃跑了，甚至逃跑途中還炸毀了他們身后的橋梁，困住了國王，把他留給了英國人。
莫臥兒帝國在奧朗則布之后走下坡路（在他的統(tǒng)治期間就有很多壓力）。

The Anglo-Maratha wars showed that well led Indian troops had a shot at holding their own against the British until the early 1800s. The British didn''t win the first Anglo-Maratha war (it ended as a draw), and Wellington himself listed the Battle of Assaye as his finest victory, which shows that the Marathas still had legitimate fighting ability into the early 1800s.

盎格魯-馬拉塔戰(zhàn)爭表明，領(lǐng)導良好的印度軍隊在19世紀初之前曾有過與英國人對抗的機會。英國人沒有贏得第一場盎格魯-馬拉塔戰(zhàn)爭（這場戰(zhàn)爭以平局告終），威靈頓（注：就是滑鐵盧那個威靈頓）自己也把阿薩耶戰(zhàn)役列為他取得過的最好的勝利，這表明馬拉塔斯在19世紀初仍然有被承認的戰(zhàn)斗能力。

achmed011235
That''s not the case for China. For one, would anyone say losing to the British Empire is an indication that you are a ''broken power''? No. We wouldn''t. China was not a broken power in the 1860s or from the 1860s, especially in 1880s China fought a war against the French and achieved their desired outcome. China was able to modernize in that period and had a mini restoration from the 70s to the 90s. China was reduced from a world power after the defeat in the First Sino-Japanse War.

中國的情況并非如此。首先，有人會說輸給大英帝國意味著你是一個“崩潰的大國”？ 不。 我們沒有。 中國在19世紀60年代或19世紀60年代并不是一個崩潰的大國，特別是在1880年代，中國與法國開戰(zhàn)，并取得了預期的結(jié)果。中國在這一時期進行了現(xiàn)代化，并在70年代至90年代進行了小型修復。中國從世界強國中被除名是第一次中日戰(zhàn)爭（甲午戰(zhàn)爭）失敗后的事情。

Seedo201
Colonising the americas. Its like Europe started making gold and silver suddenly in the kitchen. It made the rest of the world gradually suffer of inflation.
I think also the 30 years war made an impact in Europe of how to avoid another exhausting war like this. Plus led to big advancements in war technologies. Plus printing which led to more people have access to books and knowledge. Lesser illiterate population, made more freedom and innovations.

殖民美洲開始。就像歐洲突然能在廚房里制造金銀一樣。它使世界其他地區(qū)逐漸遭受通貨膨脹之苦。
我還認為，30年戰(zhàn)爭對歐洲如何避免再發(fā)生一場如此令人筋疲力盡的戰(zhàn)爭產(chǎn)生了影響。 此外，戰(zhàn)爭技術(shù)也取得了巨大進步。加上印刷術(shù)，使更多的人有機會獲得書籍和知識。較少的文盲人口帶來了更多的自由和創(chuàng)新。

Mr_FreeSpeech
I think two factors had to do with this: the instability enviroment in Europe and the ability to learn from other cultures.
The instabilityin Europe forced Europeans to inovate. I guess war in general makes progress. If you want an edge over your enemy you must have something they don''t. For example: conscxt armies that made Napoleon''s France and Prussia such deadly forces, Great Britain''s capitalism which improved the efficiency to manufacture war material or Sweden''s firearm warfare revolution (men firing in salvo). This nessesity to innovate to get an advantage over your enemy was necessary in such a chaotic atmosphere.
Westerner''s ability to adopt things from other cultures is key to this rise. The necessity to get products from other cultures was what plunged Europe to a global scale. Europeans constantly wanted to have commercial ties to China, India, Japan, Indonesia and Arabian powers. If we take a look to these cultures, most of them adopted an isolationist mentality. This argument make sense if we consider the rise of Europe is after the Age of Exploration and the end of the Cursades. Europe''s arrival to the global stage is after contact with different cultures and when isolation ended in the continent.

我認為這與兩個因素有關(guān)：歐洲不穩(wěn)定的環(huán)境和向其他文化學習的能力。
歐洲的動蕩迫使歐洲人發(fā)動革命。我想戰(zhàn)爭在此情況下總會取得進展。如果你想超越敵人，則必須擁有他們所沒有的東西。例如：征召軍隊使拿破侖的法國和普魯士成為如此致命的力量，英國的資本主義提高了制造戰(zhàn)爭材料的效率，瑞典的火器戰(zhàn)爭革命（齊射）。 在如此混亂的氛圍中，為了獲得優(yōu)勢而進行創(chuàng)新是必要的。
西方人采用其他文化的能力也是其崛起的關(guān)鍵。從其他文化中獲取產(chǎn)品的必要性使歐洲進入了全球時代。歐洲人一直希望與中國，印度，日本，印度尼西亞和阿拉伯大國建立商業(yè)聯(lián)系。如果我們看一下這些文化，會發(fā)現(xiàn)它們中的大多數(shù)都采取了孤立主義的心態(tài)。如果我們認為歐洲的崛起是在“探索時代”之后和“十字軍”時代結(jié)束之后的話，那么這種說法很有意義。而歐洲是在各大洲的孤立被打破并且與不同文化接觸之后進入全球舞臺的。

Intranetusa
Your question is rather ambigious as the terms used are ambigious. What is the east and what is the west? The Ottomans controled large swaths of Europe, north africa, and parts of Western Asia. The Emirate of Cordoba was primarily a European and North African power. The Roman empire controlled parts of North Africa (eg. Egypt), southern Europe, and Western Asia. The Eastern Roman Empire, who were the direct continuation of the Romans, controlled more of North Africa and Asia than Europe.
The Greeks adopted many things from Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The Afro-Asiatic Semitic people such as the Phoenicians had colonies in North Africa (eg. Carthage), Sicily, and Southern Europe, amd the Indo-European Greeks had colonies in Western Asia.
Are Egyptians, Persians, Ottomans, various Caliphates, Eastern Romans, Indo-Greeks, Greco-Persians, etc considered east or west?

你的問題相當模棱兩可，因為你所使用的術(shù)語很模棱兩可。什么是東方，什么是西方？奧斯曼帝國控制了歐洲，北非和西亞部分地區(qū)的大部分地區(qū)?？茽柖嗤咔蹰L國是歐洲和北非大國。羅馬帝國控制著北非（例如埃及），南歐和西亞的部分地區(qū)。東羅馬帝國是羅馬人的直接延續(xù)，控制著北非和亞洲，而不是歐洲。
希臘人采納了埃及人和美索不達米亞人的許多東西。諸如腓尼基人這樣的亞非裔猶太人在北非（例如迦太基），西西里島和南歐都有殖民地，而印歐希臘人在西亞也有殖民地。
埃及人，波斯人，奧斯曼帝國，各種哈里發(fā)，東羅馬人，印歐希臘人，希臘波斯人等應被視為東方還是西方？