古代中國(guó)有軍事貴族階級(jí)嗎?歐洲有騎士，日本有武士。中國(guó)對(duì)貴族背景的戰(zhàn)士有專(zhuān)門(mén)的稱(chēng)謂嗎?你所提及的這些戰(zhàn)士是按照騎士和武士的準(zhǔn)則生活的嗎?
?Did Ancient China have a noble military class? Europe had knights, Japan had samurai. Did China have a specific title for warriors of noble background? Did said warriors live by a code like knights and samurai?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
這個(gè)問(wèn)題是關(guān)于貴族軍事精英的。顯然，我關(guān)注的是封建主義下的軍事定義，而不是經(jīng)濟(jì)定義。
經(jīng)濟(jì)封建主義也是一個(gè)模糊的術(shù)語(yǔ)。甚至可以說(shuō)，像貝佐斯或扎克博格這樣的人是如今的封建領(lǐng)主。
正文翻譯
?Did Ancient China have a noble military class? Europe had knights, Japan had samurai. Did China have a specific title for warriors of noble background? Did said warriors live by a code like knights and samurai?
古代中國(guó)有軍事貴族階級(jí)嗎?歐洲有騎士，日本有武士。中國(guó)對(duì)貴族背景的戰(zhàn)士有專(zhuān)門(mén)的稱(chēng)謂嗎?你所提及的這些戰(zhàn)士是按照騎士和武士的準(zhǔn)則生活的嗎?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 11 )
收藏
Ancient China did have a “noble military class” like knights and samurai. The difference is that this class was already in decline by the time Romulus & Remus were founding Rome.
This is what a Chinese “knights” looked like: Bronze Age chariot riders. This military elite class had already been destroyed by armies of crossbows and pikes by the start of the Warring States Period (475 BC).
What you’re describing as “noble military class” is feudalism. Feudalism is an inevitable step in civilizational development. Nearly every successful civilization has undergone it at one point or another. This was true for European knights as well as Japanese samurai. This is how the process worked step by step in Europe and the Near East:
Step 1: Tribal societies form (the Neolithic)
Step 2: Tribes coalesce into kingdoms and empires (Classical Antiquity in the West, the Bronze Age in the Near East)
Step 3: Central authority collapses, Western Rome falls, Eastern Rome shrinks, the Caliphates lose power, (usually due to geographical overextension) and regional warlords take over both in Europe and the Near East (the Medi period).
Step 4: Kingdoms begin to reform, expand, and evolve into modern Westphalian nation states.
Zack Lu, 前財(cái)務(wù)分析軟件銷(xiāo)售
古代中國(guó)確實(shí)有像騎士和武士這樣的“貴族軍事階層”。不同的是，當(dāng)羅穆盧斯和雷穆斯建立羅馬時(shí)，這個(gè)階級(jí)已經(jīng)衰落了。
這就是中國(guó)的“騎士”:青銅時(shí)代的戰(zhàn)車(chē)騎士。在戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期(公元前475年)，這一軍事精英階層已經(jīng)被弓箭和長(zhǎng)矛大軍摧毀
你所說(shuō)的“貴族軍事階級(jí)”是封建主義。封建主義是文明發(fā)展的必然步驟。幾乎每一個(gè)成功的文明都或多或少經(jīng)歷過(guò)這種情況。歐洲的騎士和日本的武士都是如此。這是在歐洲和近東一步步進(jìn)行的過(guò)程:
第一步:部落社會(huì)形成(新石器時(shí)代)；
第二步:部落合并成王國(guó)和帝國(guó)(西方的古典時(shí)期，近東的青銅器時(shí)代)；
第三步:中央政權(quán)崩潰，西羅馬衰落，東羅馬萎縮，哈里發(fā)失去權(quán)力(通常是由于地理上的過(guò)度擴(kuò)張)，區(qū)域軍閥接管歐洲和近東(中世紀(jì)時(shí)期)；
第四步:王國(guó)開(kāi)始改革、擴(kuò)張，并演變?yōu)楝F(xiàn)代威斯特伐利亞民族國(guó)家。
日本經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)非常相似的過(guò)程。大和朝政實(shí)際上在地理上越界進(jìn)入日本關(guān)東地區(qū)(現(xiàn)在的東京)之前，擁有真正的中央權(quán)力長(zhǎng)達(dá)幾個(gè)世紀(jì)，直到一個(gè)軍事集團(tuán)的產(chǎn)生，然后中央權(quán)力崩潰。這是日本武士的時(shí)代。直到明治維新才結(jié)束。
Step 1: Tribal societies along the Yellow River form (early Bronze Age)
Step 2: The Shang and Zhou Dynasties expand China too far (late Bronze Age)
Step 3: Central authority erodes during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, the early Spring and Autumn period ushers in Chinese feudalism (8th Century BC).
Step 4: Certain feudal states prove more efficient at warfare than others. They raise huge crossbow & pike infantry armies that destroy the chariot-riding aristocracy (similar to what would happen in Europe 2,000 years later with the introduction of gunpowder). Feudalism gives way to more and more centralized states. Nobles still retain power at court, but they no longer participate in battle. A man on a chariot, no matter how noble in blood, is still going to die to a crossbow bolt to the face.
Step 5: The Qin Kingdom manages to reunify China by conquest (221 BC), and China puts feudalism in the rearview mirror forever, both economically and militaristically. Effectively, the Qin and Han Dynasties would achieve a level of centralized, meritocratic bureaucracy that Europeans would not achieve until the 18th Century.
中國(guó)結(jié)束其封建時(shí)期要早得多，大約已有2000年。這就是在中國(guó)發(fā)生的事情:
第一步:黃河流域的部落社會(huì)(青銅時(shí)代早期)；
第二步:商代和周代把中國(guó)擴(kuò)張得太大了(青銅時(shí)代晚期)；
第三步:東周時(shí)期中央政權(quán)被侵蝕，春秋初年中國(guó)進(jìn)入封建制度(公元前8世紀(jì))；
第四步:某些封建國(guó)家在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中比其他國(guó)家更有效率。他們組建了龐大的弩和長(zhǎng)矛步兵部隊(duì)，摧毀了騎戰(zhàn)車(chē)的貴族(類(lèi)似于2000年后歐洲引入火藥所發(fā)生的情況)。封建制度讓位于越來(lái)越集中的國(guó)家。貴族在宮廷中仍然擁有權(quán)力，但他們不再參與戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。一個(gè)坐在戰(zhàn)車(chē)上的人，無(wú)論他的血統(tǒng)多么高貴，還是會(huì)被弩箭射中臉而死；
第五步:秦朝通過(guò)征服統(tǒng)一了中國(guó)(公元前221年)，中國(guó)在經(jīng)濟(jì)上和軍事上永遠(yuǎn)把封建主義拋在了身后。實(shí)際上，秦漢王朝達(dá)到了歐洲直到18世紀(jì)才達(dá)到的中央集權(quán)、精英統(tǒng)治的官僚體制。
Ancient Rome is often compared to Han Dynasty China, but this is a poor comparison since the Romans never managed to institute a meritocratic bureaucracy. The Romans ran their empire by military junta (Roman Emperors were military dictators) and aristocratic (Senatorial class) administration. For the first 3 centuries of its history, the Roman Empire couldn’t even collect taxes on its own. It had to contract the work out to private “tax farmers”, a practice that was inefficient, and unpopular.
科舉制度是中國(guó)古代特有的制度。它產(chǎn)生了一批專(zhuān)業(yè)的官僚，他們的權(quán)威和權(quán)力受制于朝廷。朝廷會(huì)定期將這些官僚從一個(gè)省輪換到另一個(gè)省，以防止他們形成一個(gè)世襲的軍事階層?，F(xiàn)代的中國(guó)使用也是同樣的制度。
人們經(jīng)常把古羅馬比作中國(guó)的漢朝，但這是一個(gè)糟糕的比較，因?yàn)榱_馬從未成功地建立起一套精英官僚制度。羅馬人通過(guò)軍政府(羅馬皇帝是軍事獨(dú)裁者)和貴族(元老院階級(jí))管理他們的帝國(guó)。在其歷史的前3個(gè)世紀(jì)里，羅馬帝國(guó)甚至無(wú)法自行收稅。它不得不把這項(xiàng)工作承包給私人“稅農(nóng)”，這種做法效率低下，也不受歡迎。
In 287 AD, the Roman Empire finally started collecting its own taxes under the system of Capitatio-Iugatio - Wikipedia. For the first time, imperial bureaucrats (mostly freedmen, former slaves) were sent out to assess the value of land holdings and determine their taxable income. This system was never terribly efficient due to a lack of professional bureaucrats. The efficiency problem was further exacerbated by the fact that taxes were paid in kind, rather than in gold or silver. This made the system even more complex and unwieldy. Later Emperors went back to tax farming or collecting direct taxes in gold.
In fact, Rome’s perennial inability to collect taxes ultimately doomed the Western Empire. The Emperors were always strapped for cash, even just to pay their own field armies of a 30 to 50 thousand men. They ended up giving away land to Germanic tribesmen in exchange for military service because they couldn’t afford to pay the mercenaries/foederati in hard currency.
Centuries later, the Byzantines were forced to accept a pseudo-feudal system of “themes” which were essentially non-hereditary feudal fiefs. Soldiers were tied directly to small plots of land, just like Medi feudal armies. Pay was collected and distributed locally. Only a small elite imperial army was retained through central funding, the tagmata. Despite their reputation for “byzantine bureaucracy” the Byzantines didn’t have that much of a bureaucracy when compared to their contemporaries in China.
戴克里先羅馬皇帝是第一位直接向民眾征稅而不是將工作外包給第三方的羅馬皇帝。
公元287年，羅馬帝國(guó)終于在Capitatio-Iugatio制度下開(kāi)始征稅。帝國(guó)的官僚們(大部分是自由人和前奴隸)第一次被派去評(píng)估土地持有的價(jià)值，并確定他們的應(yīng)稅收入。由于缺乏專(zhuān)業(yè)官僚，這套制度從來(lái)都不是很有效率。稅收是用實(shí)物而不是黃金或白銀支付的，這進(jìn)一步加劇了效率問(wèn)題，這使得制度更加復(fù)雜和笨拙?！?br /> 事實(shí)上，羅馬長(zhǎng)期無(wú)法收稅最終導(dǎo)致了西羅馬帝國(guó)的滅亡?；实蹅兛偸侨卞X(qián)，甚至連給自己3萬(wàn)到5萬(wàn)人的部隊(duì)發(fā)工資都不夠。他們最終把土地給了日耳曼部落以換取服兵役，因?yàn)樗麄儫o(wú)力支付雇傭兵/聯(lián)邦官員的硬通貨。
幾個(gè)世紀(jì)后，拜占庭人被迫接受一個(gè)偽封建制度，本質(zhì)上是非世襲的封建封地。士兵被直接綁在小塊土地上，就像中世紀(jì)的封建軍隊(duì)一樣。工資在當(dāng)?shù)厥杖『头职l(fā)。只有一小部分精英帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)通過(guò)中央資金——塔塔馬塔(tagmata)得以保留。盡管他們有“拜占庭官僚”的名聲，但與中國(guó)的同時(shí)代人相比，拜占庭人并沒(méi)有那么官僚。
Huh. The question got one thing wrong, and the answer picked up on it: knights were not a class.
Here’s how European feudalism used to work: firstborn son inherits everything, others go to army or church. As simple as that, possibly oversimplified, but let’s keep it simple.
So even when knights became obsolete, noblemen sons became e.g. hussar. You can track this tradition all the way to WWII, e.g. half of German generals are named von this or von that (Austrian ones lost ‘von’ after WWI, and it’s not as easy to spot the heritage in other nations and languages).
Anyway, back to medi classes - noblemen, military and clerics were essentially the same class! Not just any soldier and priest of course, but high ranking ones. They were brothers, often literally.
But then again, neither clergy nor military were classes as such. Especially not clergy, as they bred no children. Class is something you’re born into.
(that’s not to say that the answer is wrong about ‘noble soldier class’ of Japan and China)
哈，這個(gè)問(wèn)題搞錯(cuò)了一件事，而答案也印證了這一點(diǎn): 騎士不是一個(gè)階級(jí)。
歐洲的封建制度是這樣運(yùn)作的:長(zhǎng)子繼承一切，其他人進(jìn)入軍隊(duì)或教堂。就這么簡(jiǎn)單，可能過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)化了，但讓我們保持簡(jiǎn)化。
所以即使騎士過(guò)時(shí)了，貴族的兒子也成了輕騎兵。你可以把這個(gè)傳統(tǒng)一直追溯到二戰(zhàn)，例如，一半的德國(guó)將軍都叫von（馮）(奧地利人在一戰(zhàn)后失去了“von”，而在其他國(guó)家和語(yǔ)言中很難找到這一遺產(chǎn))。
總之，回到中世紀(jì)的階級(jí)——貴族、軍人和牧師本質(zhì)上是同一個(gè)階級(jí)!當(dāng)然不是普通的士兵和牧師，而是高級(jí)別的。他們是兄弟，且通常是字面意義上的。
但話(huà)說(shuō)回來(lái)，神職人員和軍人都不是階級(jí)。尤其是神職人員，因?yàn)樗麄儾火B(yǎng)孩子，而階級(jí)是與生俱來(lái)的。
(這并不是說(shuō)日本和中國(guó)的“貴族軍事階級(jí)”是錯(cuò)誤的)
Ah, but was there a name for them when they existed?
PS: knight and samurai both come from words meaning approximately ‘servant’, and initially emerged from the armed retainers of feudal lords. I suppose a Chinese equivalent might also have been derived from a word meaning servant, even if it was in the Zhou Dynasty
但他們存在的時(shí)候有名字嗎?
騎士(Knight)和武士(samurai)都來(lái)自于近似“仆人（servant）”的詞語(yǔ)，最初出現(xiàn)于封建領(lǐng)主的武裝侍從。
我想，即使在周朝，也可能從“仆人”一詞衍生出一個(gè)與之對(duì)應(yīng)的詞。
They did not have a specific term. But as recorded in a famous Chinese call to arms from 209 BC, “Are Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers born?”, the term 王候?qū)⑾? or Kings, Dukes, Generals and Ministers, was used by the rebels, and is still used by Chinese today, to refer to the aristocratic class in general.
他們沒(méi)有一個(gè)具體的術(shù)語(yǔ)。
但據(jù)記載，公元前209年有一句中國(guó)名言：“王候?qū)⑾鄬幱蟹N乎？“
其中的“王侯將相“為叛軍所使用，并且沿用至今，代指整個(gè)貴族階級(jí)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Mm, I suppose the flaw ultimately lies with the question, in that neither knights nor samurai are understood…
Knights and samurai absolutely could be noble, but that only became in any way the norm when both classes were on their last dying legs. Ultimately these were armed retainers protecting the nobility, more than they were nobles themselves. The original questioner also greatly misunderstands both chivalry and bushido.
I suppose it's possible that China simply never a had knights/samurai equivalent, even when it was feudal. The usual explanation for that would be the 諸葛弩 though, which dates from the warring states period. There was at least an opportunity for something like knights/samurai to emerge, but perhaps the word used has been lost to time.
EDIT: Nope, they were called 賓客/食客/門(mén)客. And would you know they disappeared right around the time feudalism did. 賓客 are exactly equivalent to knights and samurai, hell I might even make an answer of my own pointing this out.
我想問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)就在于這個(gè)提問(wèn)，因?yàn)轵T士和武士都沒(méi)有被正確理解。
騎士和武士絕對(duì)可以是貴族，但只有當(dāng)兩個(gè)階級(jí)都奄奄一息的時(shí)候，這才成為一種常態(tài)。本質(zhì)上這些人都是保護(hù)貴族的武裝侍衛(wèi)，而不是貴族本身。最初的提問(wèn)者也極大地誤解了騎士精神和武士道。
我認(rèn)為中國(guó)可能從來(lái)沒(méi)有一個(gè)與騎士/武士對(duì)等的位置，即使是在封建時(shí)代。對(duì)此，通常的解釋是“諸葛弩“的存在（注：戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期，秦國(guó)就已擁有了戰(zhàn)弩，這里此人理解有誤但無(wú)傷大雅），可追溯到戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期。不過(guò)我覺(jué)的當(dāng)時(shí)應(yīng)該還是有機(jī)會(huì)出現(xiàn)一些像騎士/武士這樣的東西，但也許這個(gè)詞已經(jīng)被時(shí)間遺忘了。
補(bǔ)充：這群人被稱(chēng)為賓客、食客、門(mén)客。你知道嗎，它們消失的時(shí)間和封建主義差不多。
賓客和騎士及武士完全一樣，我甚至可以自己給一個(gè)回答指出這一點(diǎn)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Oh yeah, that would be 食客 for sure, but they didn’t own lands, just salary, I guess.
確實(shí)是食客，但他們不擁有土地，只有薪水，我猜。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Eh, most knights didn’t own land either, and for most of their history most samurai certainly didn’t
在他們的歷史上，大多數(shù)騎士也沒(méi)有土地，大多數(shù)武士當(dāng)然也沒(méi)有。
Spartan was the Qin of western civilization. If it won instead of Athens, who knows what Europe would look like
斯巴達(dá)是西方文明中的秦始皇。如果它贏了而非雅典，誰(shuí)知道歐洲會(huì)變成什么樣子。
Are you being sarcastic… sorry, I can sometimes miss obvious sarcasm.
I ask, because it’s a well known fact that Sparta won the war against Athens.
Also, Sparta is nothing like the Qin, the two cultures have nothing in common. Sparta was city state where every male citizen fought as a professional soldier from adolescence. It was also a republic.
Furthermore, Sparta’s model relied entirely on slave labor (Helots) for economic subsistence, which is how they were able to sustain an entire professional army of citizen soldiers.
The Qin army consisted mainly of levied peasants who were not professionals. And the Qin economy was not based on slave labor.
你是在諷刺嗎…抱歉，我有時(shí)會(huì)忽略明顯的諷刺。
我這么問(wèn)是因?yàn)楸娝苤拱瓦_(dá)贏得了對(duì)雅典的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。另外，斯巴達(dá)一點(diǎn)也不像秦國(guó)，兩種文化沒(méi)有任何共同之處。斯巴達(dá)是一個(gè)城邦，每個(gè)男性公民從青春期開(kāi)始就作為職業(yè)士兵作戰(zhàn)。它也是一個(gè)共和國(guó)。
此外，斯巴達(dá)的模式完全依賴(lài)奴隸勞工(希洛人)來(lái)維持經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)，這就是他們能夠維持由公民士兵組成的整個(gè)職業(yè)軍隊(duì)的原因。
秦軍主要由征召農(nóng)民組成，并非專(zhuān)業(yè)人員。秦的經(jīng)濟(jì)并不是建立在奴隸勞動(dòng)的基礎(chǔ)上的。
The similarity was overall militaristic nature of both empires, not about detailed specific.
For the record, Sparta’s government is not quite Republic either. It was a mix of several types: Spartan Constitution - Wikipedia
I also didn’t make it clear. By “won” I mean tried to physically occupy Athens and unify the entire Greek world, much like Macedonians did later. But perhaps Sparta don’t have the strength to do so unlike Qin dynasty.
相似之處是兩個(gè)帝國(guó)的整體軍國(guó)主義本質(zhì)，而不是具體細(xì)節(jié)。
需要說(shuō)明的是，斯巴達(dá)政府也不完全是共和國(guó)政府。它是幾種類(lèi)型的混合，鏈接：《斯巴達(dá)憲章》——維基
我也沒(méi)說(shuō)清楚。我說(shuō)的"贏"是指試圖占領(lǐng)雅典統(tǒng)一整個(gè)希臘世界，就像后來(lái)的馬其頓人那樣。但也許斯巴達(dá)不像秦國(guó)那樣有實(shí)力這么做。
The fouding of Rome is placed in the 8th century BC. Even if feudalism ended in China with the unification of China under Qin in 221 BC as you said, that still wouldn't mean that the Chinese left behind Feudalism when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome" as you put it. It's a nice exaggeration I suppose, for people who want to feel superior to westerners. But that's all it is, with no basis in real history.
When Rome was founded the Zhou dinasty were entering their final period of decline and becoming little more than symbolic Kings, while feudalism was really just beginning to take place in Ancient China.
羅馬的建立是在公元前8世紀(jì)。即使像你說(shuō)的那樣，中國(guó)的封建主義隨著秦始皇于公元前221年統(tǒng)一中國(guó)而終結(jié)，也并不意味著中國(guó)在“羅穆盧斯和雷穆斯建立羅馬”時(shí)就拋棄了封建主義。我想，對(duì)于那些想要比西方人優(yōu)越的人來(lái)說(shuō)，這是一種很好的夸張手法。但事實(shí)就是這樣，沒(méi)有真實(shí)的歷史依據(jù)。
當(dāng)羅馬建立時(shí)，周朝正進(jìn)入最后的衰亡時(shí)期，只不過(guò)是象征性的國(guó)王，而封建制度實(shí)際上才剛剛開(kāi)始在古代中國(guó)發(fā)生。
“The fouding of Rome is placed in the 9th century BC.”
The fact that 8 people upvoted this without bothering to check the basic facts is disappointing. The traditional founding of Rome happened in 753 BC. That’s not the 9th century BC.
And yes, I am aware that archeological findings in the Seven Hills have found evidence of human settlement dating back to the late Bronze Age, but we’re talking about Romulus here.
Also, feudalism was ended centuries before the Qin finished their final conquests. By the start of the Warring States period (5th Century BC) , the old feudal class was already on its last legs, at least as a dedicated fighting class. I made this point clear.
This destruction was gradual, the result of hundreds of battles between the hundreds of feudal states in the centuries of the late Zhou Dynasty.
“羅馬的建立是在公元前9世紀(jì)。 “（原文如此）
居然有8個(gè)人連基本事實(shí)都沒(méi)查就點(diǎn)了贊，真是令人失望。羅馬傳統(tǒng)上是在公元前753年建立的。那不是公元前9世紀(jì)。
是的，我知道在七山的考古發(fā)現(xiàn)了人類(lèi)（在歐洲）定居的證據(jù)可以追溯到青銅時(shí)代晚期，但我們現(xiàn)在說(shuō)的是羅穆盧斯。
此外，封建制度在秦完成最后的征服之前的幾個(gè)世紀(jì)就已經(jīng)結(jié)束了。到了戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期(公元前5世紀(jì))，古老的封建階級(jí)已經(jīng)奄奄一息，至少作為一個(gè)致力于戰(zhàn)斗的階級(jí)是如此。這一點(diǎn)我講得很清楚。
這種破壞是逐漸發(fā)生的，是周朝后期數(shù)百個(gè)封建國(guó)家之間數(shù)百場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Your last statement is self-conflicting. The feudalism in ancient China reached its peak in Zhou Dynasty and started to fade away during the Spring and Autumn period. It met its final end by the foundation of Qin dynasty. So the author definitely exagerated when he said China already left feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”. More accurately, China already started to leave feudalism behind when “Romulus and Remus were fouding Rome”.
你的最后一句話(huà)自相矛盾。中國(guó)古代的封建制度在周朝達(dá)到頂峰，在春秋時(shí)期開(kāi)始衰落。直到秦朝的建立，它才結(jié)束。
因此，當(dāng)作者說(shuō)“羅穆盧斯和雷穆斯建立羅馬”時(shí)，中國(guó)已經(jīng)拋棄了封建主義，這無(wú)疑是夸大其詞。
更準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)，在“羅穆盧斯和雷穆斯建立羅馬”的時(shí)候，中國(guó)已經(jīng)開(kāi)始擺脫封建主義?！?/b>
I feel the Chinese people who are answering me must be either confused about Feudalism, or about China’s Ancient period. Feudalism is literally the cornerstone of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States period. To be completely frank, I -know- Feudalism didn’t end with the establishment of the Qin Dinasty, since dukedoms were still important during the Han, the Three Kingdoms Period and the following Jin. It was the Tang that annihilated Feudalism and established the system of Generals. I was merely going with what the OP said; I will say it again, I -don’t- agree with the OP, I was merely saying that even IF what he said were true, Romulus and Remus still founded Rome in the 9th century BC and Qin united China in 221 BC.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that the Zhou Dynasty was literally a dynasty whereby the ruler visited the courts of his vassals in order to maintain personal relationships with them, one of ruler and vassal. It was only after the Rong managed to conquer Zhou’s capital because their vassals refused to aid Zhou with troops that the Zhou’s REAL power declined, in 771 BC. - remaining a nominal king of its vassals. You will notice that vassals were intrumental in the decline of the Zhou, and that after 771 BC vassals became the focus of politics in China, in the Spring and Autumn Period, where the vassals, none of which were “kings” but still nominally vassals, dealt amongst themselves, recognising each other as nobles. A king with strong vassals which own their own lands and deal with each other, diplomatically establishing marriage ties, is literally within the definition of feudalism.
我覺(jué)得回答我問(wèn)題的中國(guó)人要么對(duì)封建主義感到困惑，要么對(duì)中國(guó)古代感到困惑。封建主義是春秋戰(zhàn)國(guó)時(shí)期的基石。
坦白地說(shuō)，在我看來(lái)，封建主義并沒(méi)有隨著秦朝的建立而結(jié)束，因?yàn)楣珖?guó)（注：在英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)境中指公爵爵位、公爵的領(lǐng)地）在漢代、三國(guó)時(shí)期和之后的晉代仍然很重要。唐朝消滅了封建主義，建立了將軍制度?！?br /> 最后，我想強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，周朝是通過(guò)造訪諸侯國(guó)以維持與他們的私人關(guān)系的朝代，后者是諸侯國(guó)的統(tǒng)治者。只是因?yàn)楹髞?lái)戎人試圖在公元前771年征服周朝首都，而諸侯們拒絕支援周朝從而導(dǎo)致周朝的衰落。
公元前771年后，這些諸侯開(kāi)始專(zhuān)住中國(guó)境內(nèi)的政治，進(jìn)入春秋時(shí)期，諸侯們，雖然不是"國(guó)王"但名義上仍是諸侯，他們互相交易，承認(rèn)彼此為貴族。一個(gè)擁有強(qiáng)大諸侯的國(guó)王擁有自己的土地，并在外交上建立婚姻關(guān)系，這是封建主義的定義。
The op defined it as having “military or warrior class", you are defining it mainly as economic system which has land given by monarchs or ruler, I'm siding more with you on this, but from quick Google fuedalism seems to be more of a euro centric concept.
This is oxford definition.
“the dominant social system in medi Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."
When taken to mean the above, does it still apply to those dynasties you mentioned, doesn't seem like it? Like did the king or nobles own every single piece of land and tenants had to be a vassal and worship him or be homeless? I don't think so but I could be wrong. Like I'm pretty sure there were landlords/land/home owners who weren't nobles, and just merchants or whatever.
So while there were many similarities with euro feudalism, euro one was complete social system and was the backbone of society, while Chinese society did have some similarities, it wasn't the law of the land and dictate everything. Or did it, just like euro fuedalism?
答主將其定義為擁有“軍事或戰(zhàn)士階級(jí)”，你主要將其定義為君主或統(tǒng)治者所賜予的土地之上的一套經(jīng)濟(jì)制度，我在這一點(diǎn)上更支持你。但長(zhǎng)話(huà)短說(shuō)，封建主義似乎是更以歐洲為中心的概念。
這是牛津定義：
“在中世紀(jì)歐洲占統(tǒng)治地位的社會(huì)制度中，貴族從國(guó)王手中獲得土地以換取軍事服務(wù)，而封臣則是貴族的租戶(hù)/佃戶(hù)，而農(nóng)民(農(nóng)奴)則被迫生活在他們的領(lǐng)主的土地上，并向他效忠、勞動(dòng)和分享農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，以換取名義上的軍事保護(hù)。”
如果用在你提到的那些朝代還適用嗎，看起來(lái)不，不是嗎? 就像國(guó)王或貴族擁有每一塊土地，佃戶(hù)必須成為附庸并崇拜他否則將無(wú)家可歸? 我不這么認(rèn)為，但我也可能是錯(cuò)的。就像我非常確定有地主——土地/房屋的主人，他們不是貴族，只是商人或其他什么。
所以，雖然與歐洲封建主義有許多相似之處，但歐洲自有一套完整的社會(huì)制度，是社會(huì)的支柱，而中國(guó)社會(huì)也有一些相似之處，但它不是與土地有關(guān)的法律，也沒(méi)有主宰一切。
The question is about noble warrior elites. So obviously I focused on the martial, not economic definition of feudalism.
Economic feudalism is also a murky term. It could even be argued that someone like Bezos or Zuck Zuck is feudal lord today.
這個(gè)問(wèn)題是關(guān)于貴族軍事精英的。顯然，我關(guān)注的是封建主義下的軍事定義，而不是經(jīng)濟(jì)定義。
經(jīng)濟(jì)封建主義也是一個(gè)模糊的術(shù)語(yǔ)。甚至可以說(shuō)，像貝佐斯或扎克博格這樣的人是如今的封建領(lǐng)主。