為什么東歐在歷史上不如西歐繁榮?
Why has Eastern Europe historically been less prosperous than Western Europe?
譯文簡介
因此，西歐可以自由地利用其河流進行經(jīng)濟發(fā)展。免于外來侵略和破壞的自由也解放了西歐經(jīng)濟。公元900年以后，西歐國家唯一遭受的挫折是來自其他國家的損害?？偟膩碚f，西歐處于相對平靜的狀態(tài)，并利用這種狀態(tài)實現(xiàn)了世界有史以來的最高繁榮。
正文翻譯
Why has Eastern Europe historically been less prosperous than Western Europe?
為什么東歐在歷史上不如西歐繁榮?
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
It was in 900 where a major divergence occurred between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.
Before that point, Western and Eastern Europe were relatively similar in prosperity. Both had one factor significantly holding them back: foreign invaders. For Western Europe, it was the Scandinavian Vikings who preyed upon river cities and traffic. The Vikings were so successful in disrupting river traffic that Western European nations could scarcely use their rivers to trade. Considering that Western Europe has one of the economically best river systems, the Vikings robbed Western Europe of significant prosperity.
西歐和東歐在公元900年出現(xiàn)了重大分歧。
在此之前，西歐和東歐的繁榮程度相對相似。兩者都有一個明顯的阻礙因素:外國入侵者。對西歐來說，掠奪河流城市和交通的是斯堪的納維亞海盜。維京人如此成功地擾亂了河流交通，以至于西歐國家?guī)缀鯚o法利用他們的河流進行貿(mào)易?？紤]到西歐擁有最經(jīng)濟的河流系統(tǒng)之一，維京人掠奪了西歐的巨大繁榮。
However, by 900, Western Europe would finally conquer the Vikings. Through the innovation of the mounted knight, Western Europe found something that matched the high mobility of the Vikings. In addition, mounted knights had much more armor and destructive force than Viking soldiers had. As a result, the Vikings, who did not innovate to match the mounted knight, lost their stranglehold on Western Europe.
對東歐來說，是草原入侵者。侵略者利用烏克蘭這條有效的大陸橋，從俄羅斯的大草原進入東歐，蹂躪那里的農(nóng)場和城鎮(zhèn)。許多入侵者的唯一目標(biāo)就是盡可能地破壞。他們這樣做是有效的。不出所料，入侵者也嚴(yán)重阻礙了東歐經(jīng)濟的全面繁榮。
然而，到了公元900年，西歐終于征服了維京人。通過對馬上騎士的創(chuàng)新，西歐發(fā)現(xiàn)了與維京人的高機動性相匹配的東西。此外，騎士比維京士兵擁有更多的盔甲和破壞力。結(jié)果，維京人沒有創(chuàng)新來與騎馬的騎士相匹敵，失去了對西歐的控制。
On the other hand, Eastern Europe was not free from its foreign invaders. They only seemed to become more prent. Foreign invaders would continue to cross Ukraine into Eastern Europe to pillage up until the Mongol Age. The Mongols, who also pillaged Eastern Europe, were the last foreign invaders to cross from Ukraine into Eastern Europe. However, briefly, after the Mongols left, the Ottomans came in from the South and conquered almost all of Eastern Europe. While the Ottomans did not pillage Eastern Europe, they did attempt to reap economic profits for themselves. For example, the largest landowners in Eastern Europe under the Ottoman age were Turkish.
因此，西歐可以自由地利用其河流進行經(jīng)濟發(fā)展。免于外來侵略和破壞的自由也解放了西歐經(jīng)濟。公元900年以后，西歐國家唯一遭受的挫折是來自其他國家的損害?？偟膩碚f，西歐處于相對平靜的狀態(tài)，并利用這種狀態(tài)實現(xiàn)了世界有史以來的最高繁榮。
另一方面，東歐沒有擺脫外國侵略者。它們似乎變得越來越頻繁。外國侵略者繼續(xù)越過烏克蘭進入東歐進行掠奪，直到蒙古時代。蒙古人也曾掠奪過東歐，他們是最后一批從烏克蘭進入東歐的外國侵略者。然而，蒙古人離開后，奧斯曼人又從南方來到這里，幾乎征服了整個東歐。雖然奧斯曼人沒有掠奪東歐，但他們確實試圖為自己獲取經(jīng)濟利益。例如，奧斯曼時代東歐最大的地主是土耳其人。
As a result of this system, Eastern Europe was only slowly economically industrializing. There was no incentive to in a system where it was unneeded. In addition, the internal infrastructure of Eastern Europe was weak, as the only “important” infrastructure was that that would help the export process. By World War One, with a few notable exceptions, Eastern Europe was significantly undeveloped compared to Western Europe.
However, as of recently, Eastern Europe is catching up economically to Western Europe. Poland now has a better standard of living than Portugal, and there many Eastern European nations growing much faster than their Western European counterparts. It may not be long before Eastern Europe and Western Europe are on a similar development level.
Thank you for reading.
土耳其的統(tǒng)治地位在18世紀(jì)開始衰落(盡管在此之后土耳其的統(tǒng)治地位仍然很殘酷)。到那時，西歐比東歐繁榮得多，這并不奇怪。當(dāng)獨立的東歐國家與西歐國家互動時，總是一種不平衡的互動。西歐人看到了剝削較弱的東歐國家的機會，他們也這樣做了。與重商主義殖民體系類似，東歐會向西歐輸送原材料，西歐會用這些原材料制造成品，然后再賣給東歐人。
由于這套體系，東歐只能緩慢地實現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟工業(yè)化。在一個不需要它（實現(xiàn)工業(yè)化）的體系中，沒有動機這樣去做。此外，東歐的內(nèi)部基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施薄弱，因為唯一的“重要”基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是幫助出口。
到第一次世界大戰(zhàn)時，除了少數(shù)幾個顯著的例外，東歐與西歐相比明顯落后。但最近，東歐在經(jīng)濟上正在趕超西歐。波蘭現(xiàn)在的生活水平比葡萄牙高，許多東歐國家的經(jīng)濟增長比西歐國家快得多。東歐和西歐不久就會達到類似的發(fā)展水平。
I think this post is inadequate on the economic development side. Goes to show how complex a question it is.
Western Europe was a feudal system (like eastern); this system did not encourage economic growth. There was little economic growth until the industrial revolution.
One of the main critical junctures between east and west was the Black Death, which decimated their peasant population and unbalanced the supply and demand of labourers. With a labour shortage, surviving peasants were more valuable and lords would compete for them. This fundamentally changed the dynamic in the country. The Crown tried to reverse this situation, and it led to the Peasants’ Revolution of 1381 in England, demanding an end to high taxes and the institution of serfdom.
我認(rèn)為這篇描述文章在經(jīng)濟發(fā)展方面是不夠的，沒有展示這個問題的復(fù)雜性。
西歐是封建制度(像東歐一樣)，這種制度并沒能促進經(jīng)濟增長。在工業(yè)革命之前，經(jīng)濟幾乎沒有增長。東西方之間的一個重要轉(zhuǎn)折點是黑死病，它造成了大量農(nóng)民人口的死亡，使勞動力的供求失衡。在勞動力短缺的情況下，幸存的農(nóng)民更有價值，貴族們會為他們而競爭。這從根本上改變了這個國家的動態(tài)。國王試圖扭轉(zhuǎn)這種局面，1381年英國爆發(fā)了農(nóng)民革命，要求結(jié)束高稅收和農(nóng)奴制。
On the other hand the same circumstances had the opposite outcome in east Europe, where the lords strengthened their grip on the workforce. Thus a static, oppressive economic system was entrenched for another few centuries.
起義的結(jié)局并不好，但最終廢除了農(nóng)奴制，并在英國和西歐建立了充滿活力的市場經(jīng)濟。另一方面，同樣的情況在東歐產(chǎn)生了相反的結(jié)果，那里的領(lǐng)主加強了他們對勞動力的控制。因此，一個靜態(tài)的、壓迫性的經(jīng)濟體系在接下來的幾個世紀(jì)里被確立了下來。
Your post is correct and I agree. However, the feudal system itself was a product of the mounted knight. Eastern Europe did not have the mounted knight (as a result of not finding a way to deal with the Eastern nomadic invaders), so Eastern Europe, economically, was behind that of the feudal system (Eastern Europe did not have a natural native class of landowners). When Eastern Europe developed a natural, native class of landowners, the feudal system became prent. When this happened, Western Europe was free of feudalism and economically much better.
I don’t think we disagree. I am just saying that Eastern Europe was not allowed to have a feudal system until much later in time.
你的評價是正確的，我同意。
然而，封建制度本身就是騎士制的產(chǎn)物。東歐沒有騎馬的騎士(因為沒有找到對付東方游牧入侵者的方法)，因此，東歐在經(jīng)濟上落后于封建制度(東歐沒有一個天生的地主階級)。當(dāng)東歐發(fā)展出一個自然的、本土的地主階級時，封建制度開始盛行起來。當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時，西歐已經(jīng)擺脫了封建主義，經(jīng)濟狀況也好得多。
我想我們意見一致。這里我只是想說，東歐直到很久以后才允許有封建制度。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Eastern Europe is not a clear term. So when using it one must always clarify what countries/areas are included. If you include Poland and the Czech Republic, those two did have knights and land owners, contrary to what you are saying. The late medi Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to be more precise) was in fact a feudal republic where the king was sexted by the parliament. The Czech territories were part of the Holy Roman Empire and Prague was the most advanced medi city. It had paved streets when Paris and London didn’t. As for vikings, they were not defeated, but assimilated and became part of the populace they conquered. E.g. William the Conqueror was of viking descent and so was the ruling dynasty of Kievan Rus, the precursor of Russia (speaking of Eastern Europe). So if I were you, I would do more reading and fact-checking on the subject. European history is way richer and more complex than your answer is suggesting.
東歐不是一個明確的術(shù)語。所以在使用它的時候，一定要明確哪些國家/地區(qū)包括在內(nèi)。如果算上波蘭和捷克共和國，這兩個國家確實有騎士和地主，這和你說的正好相反。
中世紀(jì)后期的波蘭(更準(zhǔn)確地說是波蘭-立陶宛聯(lián)邦)實際上是一個封建共和國，國王由議會選出。捷克領(lǐng)土是神圣羅馬帝國的一部分，布拉格是中世紀(jì)最先進的城市。當(dāng)巴黎和倫敦還沒有鋪路的時候，它已經(jīng)鋪好了街道。至于維京人，他們并沒有被打敗，而是被同化，成為他們所征服的平民的一部分。
例如：征服者威廉是維京人的后裔，統(tǒng)治基輔羅斯的王朝也是維京人的后裔，基輔羅斯是俄羅斯的先驅(qū)(說到東歐)。
所以，如果我是你，我會多讀些書，對這個問題進行事實核查。歐洲的歷史比你的回答要豐富和復(fù)雜得多。
Is there any proof that the Vikings were conquered by Knights?
My history lessons was that the Vikings were a mass migration of Norse fleeing the refreezing of Scandinavia, that eventually died out because they successfully migrated, the Catholicizing of the Norse, and the eventual technological redundancy of their maritime vessels to that of the other nations. The north would still be a military power for many centuries however.
And no matter how I look at it calvary have no advantage over a well formed shield and spear formation, which Vikings were masters of. And they raided France during Charlemagne’s era. So there was already a Frankish calvary force there. Who were themselves adept at raiding. By the time plate armour become widespread, the Vikings were a page of history.
有任何證據(jù)證明維京人是被騎士征服的嗎?
我的歷史課上講的是維京人是為了逃離斯堪的納維亞半島的重新冰凍而進行的大規(guī)模遷移，最終導(dǎo)致維京海盜消亡，因為他們成功地遷移、挪威人的天主教化以及他們的海船最終在技術(shù)上落后于其他國家。然而，北方在接下來的幾個世紀(jì)里仍然是一個軍事強國。
不管我怎么評價（騎士），它都比不上維京人擅長的矛盾陣型。他們在查理曼時代襲擊了法國。他們本身就擅長搶劫。只是當(dāng)板甲廣泛使用時，維京人才成為歷史的一部分。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I hate to pick fault with such a good post, but in the year 900 armour worn by European knights would be the same as worn by Vikings. The steel clad knight wasn’t until 500 odd years after
The Vikings took over & settled, were bought off or amalgamated. For the purposes of this topic I suppose after this time they aided prosperity with new trading routes, navigation etc etc . They were pioneers as much as raiders.
Enjoyed your writings, followed
我討厭給好帖子挑錯，但在公元900年，歐洲騎士的盔甲和維京人的一樣。五百多年后，騎士才穿上了鎧甲。
維京人接管和定居，被收買或合并。我想在這之后，他們通過新的貿(mào)易路線、航海等促進了繁榮。他們既是先驅(qū)者，也是掠奪者。
喜歡你的帖子。
The effect of the university system in Western Europe shouldn’t be overlooked. Perhaps more important, Western Europe had more mineral resources and began next level chemical and engineering development centuries before the East as a result
西歐大學(xué)制度的影響不容忽視。也許更重要的是，西歐擁有更多的礦產(chǎn)資源，因此比東方早了幾個世紀(jì)開始了更高水平的化學(xué)和工程發(fā)展。
Of course. Agricultural potential is way better in the West than in the East too. I just tried to focus a facet which most people don’t realize.
當(dāng)然了。西部的農(nóng)業(yè)潛力也比東部好得多。我只是想關(guān)注一個大多數(shù)人都沒有意識到的方面。
I would say the start of the eastern decline is much earlier. While the west had Viking raids (with feudal kings settling them and using them as shields against other raiders), the east had barbarian kings conquering and ravaging areas constantly.
While western Europe was conquered by franks and then kept until middle feudal ages (and this allowed franks to get polished and civilized), eastern europe was in constant turmoil with gepids, huns, slavs, bolghars, pechenegs, maghyars, cumans in fast succession, none of them having any civilisation and all of them ravaging the land and being defeated before they could get civilized (mostly).
Where a people was strong enough to last for more than 1–2 centuries (slavs in a few parts, magyars, bulgars we see a civilisation showing up), but they were also constantly raided by their barbarian neighbours.
我想說，東方（歐洲）衰落的開始要早得多。當(dāng)西方有北歐海盜襲擊(封建國王定居并將其作為防御其他入侵者的盾牌)時，東方有野蠻國王不斷地征服和蹂躪該地區(qū)。
當(dāng)西歐被法蘭克人征服并一直保持到封建時代中期，東歐不斷地與蓋庇德人（Gepids）、匈奴人（Huns）、斯拉夫人（Slavs）、博爾加爾人（Bolghars）、Pechenegs人、Maghyars人、庫曼人（Cumans）發(fā)生沖突，他們都沒有任何文明，他們都在破壞土地。并且在他們變得文明之前就被打敗了(大部分)。
一個民族強大到足以持續(xù)超過1-2個世紀(jì)(少數(shù)地區(qū)的斯拉夫人，馬扎爾人，保加利亞人，我們看到一個文明的出現(xiàn))，但他們也經(jīng)常被他們的野蠻鄰居襲擊。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Aren’t we saying the same thing?
我們說的不是一回事么？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I think you are on to some key points. More easily defended boarders are major reasons why nations thrive. Nations with a large amount of coasts don’t have to guard that portion of their country like England, France, Spain, and Italy. These four modern nations were all part of the Roman Empire and a major reason they were so peaceful for so long was defensible boarders. With traditions of Roman law, government, and military knowledge on their side Western Europe has a heritage of prosperity. Not to mention the colonization of the Americas that gave untold riches to the West, this is the major difference of the European nations for the last 500 years.
我認(rèn)為你說到了一些關(guān)鍵點。更容易防御的邊界是國家繁榮的主要原因。擁有大量海岸的國家，如英國、法國、西班牙和意大利，不需要保衛(wèi)他們國家的那部分海岸。
這四個現(xiàn)代國家都曾是羅馬帝國的一部分，他們?nèi)绱撕推降囊粋€主要原因是可防御的邊界。在羅馬法律、政府和軍事知識的傳統(tǒng)的支持下，西歐有著繁榮的傳統(tǒng)。更不用說美洲殖民給西方帶來了數(shù)不清的財富，這是歐洲國家在過去500年里的主要區(qū)別。
The Plague - decimated Western Europe had to intensify its labour usage due to lack of hands to work, Poland was basically not affected by the Plague, we kept Feudalism and extensive* ways of agricultural production due to that;
Coastal Fringe of Eurasia against mainland Europe - yes it is cheaper and faster to jump over the coast, so trade develops better, the other thing is - Westerners fought their bloody internal wars while being cosy and safe (at least after the Reconquista) from external dangers, Central and Eastern Europeans paid with their blood for this while the Westerners cashed in and never shared their profits. Poland and Ukraine were raided by armies of Ottoman Slavers as late as XVIII century (Jasyr**);
Great Discoveries - Magellan, Columbus et consortes - Western Europeans discovered that most of the riches they need are in the hands of cultures still deep into Neolithic or just jumping into Metal Ages, they used that without mercy and colonised whole world drowning continents in blood, Poles or Romanians, Serbs or Croats and Russians had to fight against enemies on same civilisational levels just to survive;
And it was only when point 3 kicked in that Western Europe started to develop faster than Central and Eastern Europe and it took time for them to catch up to the levels of Pol-Lit, it did not happen overnight.
黑死病
由于缺乏人手，西歐不得不加強勞動力的使用，波蘭基本上沒有受到鼠疫的影響，因此我們保留了封建主義和廣泛的農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)方式。
歐亞大陸 VS 歐洲大陸的海岸邊緣
是的，海岸交通更便宜、更快，所以貿(mào)易發(fā)展得更好，另一件事是，西歐人在打血腥的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的同時(至少在重新占領(lǐng)后)還能舒適、安全地躲避外部危險。中歐和東歐人則為此付出了血的代價，而西歐人卻從中獲利，從不分享。直到18世紀(jì)，波蘭和烏克蘭還遭到奧斯曼帝國奴隸軍隊的襲擊。
大發(fā)現(xiàn)——麥哲倫，哥倫布等人
西歐人發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們需要的大部分財富，都掌握在新石器時代或剛剛進入金屬時代的文化手中，于是他們毫無憐憫地殖民了整個世界，把整片大陸淹沒在血泊之中。而波蘭人、羅馬尼亞人、塞爾維亞人、克羅地亞人和俄羅斯人為了生存，不得不與處于同樣文明水平上的敵人作戰(zhàn);
并且，只有當(dāng)?shù)谌c被打破時，西歐才開始比中歐和東歐發(fā)展得更快，他們需要一段時間才能趕上政治文學(xué)的水平，這不是一蹴而就的。
While I agree that point no 3 was definitely the main driving point of western european economic development after the renaissance, I think point no 2 was a bit unfair when you said that eastern europe paid for it with their blood. The Spanish, Italians and others in western europe were terribly plagued by the Barbary Corsairs, which if anything was just as bad or worse compared to the Tartar attacks on the PLC and Muscovy. The estimates on the number of victims was just as high, about 3 million. So the west paid tremendously with their blood too.
雖然我同意第三點絕對是文藝復(fù)興后西歐經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的主要推動力，但我認(rèn)為第二點有點不公平，因為你說東歐為之付出了鮮血。
如果有什么比韃靼人對烏克蘭和莫斯科的攻擊更糟糕的話，西班牙、意大利和其他西歐國家都受到巴巴里海盜的嚴(yán)重困擾。對受害者人數(shù)的估計也同樣高，大約300萬。所以西方也付出了巨大的鮮血代價。
The Barbary Corsairs - yeah one of the “gaps” in Eastern European curriculum, at least if one does not specialize in History. My mistake then.
I think the winner here is then the North-West of Europe as Indeed Italians and Spaniards had their quite recent “burning borders”.
巴巴里海盜。是的，東歐教育的“空白”之一。我的錯誤。
我認(rèn)為當(dāng)然歐洲西北部才是贏家，因為意大利人和西班牙人最近也有“燃燒的邊境”。
Yup. The Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians were the first to reap the fruits of the colonial conquests, but it was the English who were most at liberty to carry on colonization efforts, due to their geographical positionings. The Dutch were constantly under siege by the Spanish and later the French and English too, its quite a testament of their early tremendous technological and organisational lead that they were able to amass such a massive colonial empire in the face of such opposition!
是的。西班牙人、葡萄牙人和意大利人最先收獲了殖民征服的果實，但由于英國人的地理位置，他們最能自由地進行殖民活動。
荷蘭人經(jīng)常被西班牙人包圍，后來又被法國人和英國人包圍。這充分證明了他們早期巨大的技術(shù)和組織領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力，他們能夠在如此大的阻力的情況下聚集如此龐大的殖民帝國!
In the book “Why Nations Fail”, James Robinson explains how the Black Death led to different outcomes in the West and the East. It led to the dissolution of feudalism in the West, and increased serfdom in the East. In fact, there is a very striking map in that book that shows which countries had serfdom around 1800, and it divides Europe neatly into today’s Eastern Europa and Western Europe. All the countries that had serfdom ended up being the less prosperous “Eastern European” countries of today, except Germany.
Having peasants, i.e. most of the population, in a slave-like state, with no freedom to move or seek employment elsewhere or improve their lot in any way has had a lasting, negative effect.
在《國家為何失敗》一書中，詹姆斯·羅賓遜解釋了黑死病如何在西方和東方導(dǎo)致不同的結(jié)果。它導(dǎo)致了西方封建制度的瓦解，東方農(nóng)奴制的增強。
事實上，那本書里有一張非常引人注目的地圖，顯示了1800年左右哪些國家有農(nóng)奴制，它將歐洲清晰地劃分為今天的東歐和西歐。除了德國，所有的農(nóng)奴制國家都是今天不那么繁榮的“東歐”國家。
農(nóng)民，即大多數(shù)人口，處于類似奴隸的狀態(tài)，沒有自由遷移或在其他地方尋找工作，或以任何方式改善他們的命運，這產(chǎn)生了持久的負(fù)面影響。
I deeply suspect item 3. Colonization (at least XVI-XIX century colonization) did not paid off. Portugal and Spain were the first and arguably the more intense ( per capita) owener of colonies. Still, at the start of the XIX century they were poor and backward countries. As poor as Eastern Europe.
In contrast, Switzerland never held colonies. Other countries started colonization only after they were developed. Examples: Germany, Belgium and even UK.
I believe that what helped Western Europe were the liberal institutions (rule of law, freedom of press, proto-democracy, private property, etc). In the case of Portugal and Spain, colonization may have slowered the adoption of these institutions.
我對第三項深表懷疑。殖民(至少是十六世紀(jì)到十九世紀(jì)的殖民)沒有得到回報。葡萄牙和西班牙是先驅(qū)，而且可以說是更密集的(人均)殖民地所有者。
盡管如此，在19世紀(jì)初，這些國家還是貧窮落后的國家，和東歐一樣窮。
相比之下，瑞士從未擁有過殖民地。其他國家在發(fā)展起來之后才開始殖民。例如:德國、比利時，甚至英國。
我認(rèn)為，幫助西歐的是自由制度(法治、新聞自由、原始民主、私有財產(chǎn)等)。在葡萄牙和西班牙，殖民化可能減緩了這些制度的采用。
Another often overlooked factor was weather. Western Europe (Spain, France, Italy, Low Countries, England) have milder winters than Eastern Europe, which had a huge impact on population and nation building during the Middle Ages.
In addition, Western Europe was much better at unifying similar but different groups which solidified power. In Spain, the Catalans, Basques, Andalusians, etc have as much reason to unify under one banner as the Balkan nations of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc. There are hostilities and rivalries among the different Spanish divisions but not nearly to the degree of animosity over the past 400 years as the discord seen in the Balkans. I also think that Russian and Ottoman Empires had a destabalizing effect which hindered Eastern Europe’s growth and wealth management.
另一個經(jīng)常被忽視的因素是氣候。西歐(西班牙、法國、意大利、低地國家、英格蘭)的冬天比東歐更暖和，這對中世紀(jì)的人口和國家建設(shè)產(chǎn)生了巨大的影響。
此外，西歐更善于團結(jié)相似但不同的群體，從而鞏固權(quán)力。在西班牙，加泰羅尼亞人、巴斯克人、安達盧西亞人等和巴爾干半島的塞爾維亞、克羅地亞、波斯尼亞等國家一樣有理由統(tǒng)一在一個旗幟下。
在西班牙的不同分支之間存在著敵對和對抗，但還沒有達到過去400年里巴爾干地區(qū)的不和的敵對程度。我還認(rèn)為，俄羅斯和奧斯曼帝國具有不穩(wěn)定的影響，阻礙了東歐的增長和財富管理。
If we imagine a parallel universe, where after long and bloody war Spain or France are treated by an Arrogant Polish Magnate (an equivalent of English Lord with wealth and personal freedom on a level of Western King) armed in a ruler and map and total lack of historical knowledge to draw borders, we would see the bloodshed similar to modern Sub Saharan Afica or Balcans but happening in Iberian peninsula, not Balcans.
Jagiellons (Jogaila was ethnic Lithuanian Balt of pagan faith) succeeded in federating several different ethnicities and religions (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Armenian Christians, Jews, Muslim Tatars) under mutual flag of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, by sharing freedoms and rights of Polish nobility, to all other nobles or tribe elders who wanted to protect the kingdom with their blood, in times where reading wrong book put Westerners on stakes.
如果我們想象一個平行宇宙，在漫長而血腥的戰(zhàn)爭之后，西班牙或法國被一個傲慢的波蘭大亨對待(擁有相當(dāng)于西方國王水平的財富和英國勛爵一般的個人自由的)，在統(tǒng)治者和地圖的武裝下，完全缺乏繪制邊界的歷史知識，我們會看到類似于現(xiàn)代撒哈拉以南非洲或巴爾干半島的流血事件，但會發(fā)生在伊比利亞半島，而不是巴爾干半島。
Jagiellons (Jogaila是具有異教信仰的立陶宛波羅的海民族)成功地將幾個不同的民族和宗教(天主教徒、東正教、新教徒、亞美尼亞基督教徒、猶太人、穆斯林韃靼人)聯(lián)合在波蘭立陶宛聯(lián)邦的共同旗幟下，將波蘭貴族的自由和權(quán)利分享給所有其他想要用自己的鮮血保護王國的貴族或部落長老。在這個時候，閱讀錯誤的書籍會讓西方人陷入危險。
Climate yes, to a degree, Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe.
Western Europe used (passively ofc) Central and Eastern Europe as a buffer against the Turkish Nomads and land armies of proud Ottoman Empire.
We were your Gondor, Rohan and Ithilien dear Hobbits. Tolkien knew this very well
因此，現(xiàn)代歐盟更多的是受惠于波蘭-立陶宛的遺產(chǎn)，而不是反過來。
氣候？是的，在某種程度上，烏克蘭是歐洲的糧倉。西歐(被動地)利用中歐和東歐作為對抗土耳其游牧民族和驕傲的奧斯曼帝國陸地軍隊的緩沖地帶。
我們曾是你的剛鐸，洛汗和伊蒂蓮（注：《指環(huán)王》中對抗魔軍的前線城市），親愛的霍比特人。
托爾金對此非常清楚/笑