正文翻譯

（作者沃爾特·謝德爾為斯坦福大學教授，相關著作：Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity (2019)（《逃離羅馬：帝國的失敗與繁榮之路》）

評論翻譯

ChunkofWhat
A key pillar of this article's argument is that post-Roman Empire Europe enjoyed power plurality while the rest of the world was stuck with various forms of monopoly power.

本文論點的一大關鍵支柱就是，羅馬帝國之后的歐洲享有權力的多元化，而世界其他地區(qū)則擺脫不了各種形式的權力壟斷。

Is this really true? It seems to me that some governments that were empires in name were in fact just as pluralistic as Europe. Feudal Japan had a mostly impotent Emperor for the last thousand years. Even when there was a Shogun (and there often wasn't), the Shogan's power was as temperamental as that of the European kings described in this article: noble lords were the true seats of power. Being king/shogun required a delicate touch - you had to be careful not to ask too much of your vassals. History is not my best subject but I imagine there are similar stories for many of the non-European "imperial structures" described in the article.

這真的屬實嗎？在我看來，一些名義上屬于帝國的政府，實際上和歐洲一樣多元化。在封建制下的日本，其天皇在過去一千年中的大部分時間里，都是沒有作為能力的。就算那時候有幕府將軍（且經常缺位），幕府將軍的權力也和本文所描述的歐洲國王的權力一樣不穩(wěn)定：真正掌權的是身為貴族的封建領主（大名）。作為國王/幕府將軍，需要你具備一種精妙的手腕，你必須小心謹慎，不要對你的封臣要求過多。歷史不是我最擅長的科目，但我能想像文中所述的很多非歐洲 的“帝國體系”也存在類似的情況。

Yeah I agree. The great Indian unifying dynasty Maurya had already fallen long before Rome and South Asia was a cluster of numerous states vying for power with rise and fall of fortunes for various player, it didn't exactly do anything revolutionary compared to other parts of the world.

（回）是的，我同意。大一統的偉大印度王朝孔雀王朝在羅馬之前很久就滅亡了，南亞是一個由無數爭奪權力的國家組成的聚合體，各種玩家的命運此興彼衰，和世界其他地區(qū)相比，它還真沒有干出什么革命性的事情。

I think people always tend to forget South Asia when they try to attribute Europe's rise in early modern period to the fractured nature of European polity incentivizing innovation be it military or other things but South Asia was also mostly divided in the same period with various powers vying for supremacy.

我認為，當人們試圖將歐洲在近代早期的崛起歸因于歐洲政體的碎片化屬性時（這種政體激勵創(chuàng)新，無論是軍事技術還是其他方面都是如此），往往會忘記同一時期的南亞在大部分時間里也是分裂的，有各路勢力在爭奪霸權。

·
Yeah, but I think the author’s argument would be “you need the imperial structure first before plurality really matters.” India was obviously a pluralistic society, but it never unified under an imperial authority like Rome.

（回）是啊，但我認為作者的主張是“在多元性真正發(fā)揮重要作用之前，你首先需要有一套帝國架構"。印度顯然是一個多元化的社會，但它從未在羅馬這樣的皇權下完成過統一。

I think it's a great point. Not to mention that even in the heyday of the Roman Empire the power of the Emperor was not monopolistic. Examples abound of Roman Emperors being checked by the Senate, or engaged in civil war, or overthrown, or outright murdered. There were always factions and regions to be placated.

（回）我認為這個觀點很精辟。更不用說，即使是鼎盛時期的羅馬帝國，皇帝的權力也做不到壟斷。羅馬皇帝被元老院制約，陷入內戰(zhàn)，被推翻，或是被公然殺害的例子比比皆是。總有一些派系和地區(qū)需要被安撫。

katamuro
the article also completely does not mention a very important thing that happened at the time and which actually lead to europe having so many different ways on how to live.
The migration period which happened between 300AD and 800AD, which actually caused the late Roman Empire's invasions by various "barbarians" meant that all across Europe people were churning around, moving about, mixing, fighting. People were displacing cultures and societies that lived there, mixed together, formed new ones and then fractured again as another group moved in. THIS is what is responsible for the pluralism that the author of the article is so in love with. The fall of the roman empire added to it sure but it was far from the main event.

這篇文章也完全沒有提到當時發(fā)生的一件非常重要的事情，事實上此事也導致了歐洲出現了這么多不同的生活方式。
在公元300年至公元800年之間出現了一段遷徙的時代，事實上也導致了羅馬帝國后期的各種“野蠻人”入侵的情況，這意味著全歐洲的人都被劇烈攪動，四處遷移，混血，打仗。各族群取代了原本生活在那里的社會和文化，混合在了一起，形成了新的社會和文化，然后，隨著另一個族群的遷入而再次分裂。正是這一點肇發(fā)了本文作者如此鐘愛的多元主義。羅馬帝國的敗亡當然會強化這一趨勢，但它根本就不是什么主要事件。