Balance of Power and the Military Revolution · 均势与军事革命
| English | 中文 | Pinyin · 拼音 |
|---|---|---|
| The inability of the Polish monarchy to consolidate its authority over the nobility led to Poland's partition | 瓜分 | guā fēn |
A competitive state system
- The competitive state system led to new patterns of diplomacy and new forms of warfare.
- After 1648, dynastic and state interests, along with Europe's expanding colonial empires, influenced the diplomacy of European states and frequently led to war.
- Three interests in the CED's list: dynastic, state, and colonial — and they do not always point the same way.
一个竞争性的国家体系
- 竞争性的国家体系带来了新的外交格局与新的战争形式。
- 1648 年之后,王朝利益与国家利益,连同欧洲不断扩张的殖民帝国,影响了欧洲各国的外交,并频频导致战争。
- CED 清单上有三种利益:王朝的、国家的与殖民的——而它们并不总是指向同一个方向。
Select all · 所有 the interests the CED says influenced diplomacy after 1648. · 选择CED所述1648年后影响外交的所有利益。
They do not always point the same way. · 它们并不总是指向同一方向。
Poland: what failure to centralise cost
- The inability of the Polish monarchy to consolidate its authority over the nobility led to Poland's partition 瓜分 by Prussia, Russia and Austria, and its disappearance from the map of Europe.
- The CED states a direct causal link between an internal failure and an external outcome.
- So 1.1's varying degrees of centralisation has a limiting case, and this is it.
波兰:未能集权的代价
- 波兰君主国未能对贵族确立其权威,导致波兰被普鲁士、俄国与奥地利瓜分(partition),并从欧洲地图上消失。
- CED 陈述了一条从内部失败直接到外部结果的因果链。
- 因此 1.1 中集权的"程度不一"有一个极端情形,而这就是它。
The CED links Poland's partition directly to... · CED将波兰的瓜分直接归因于……
It is the limiting case of 1.1's varying degrees of centralisation. · 它是1.1中不同程度中央集权的极限情况。
The military revolution
- Advances in military technology led to new forms of warfare, including greater reliance on infantry, firearms, mobile cannon and more elaborate fortifications.
- All financed by heavier taxation and requiring a larger bureaucracy.
- So a military change becomes an administrative change, which is why this subtopic explains 3.7's absolutism.
军事革命
- 军事技术的进步带来了新的战争形式,包括更依赖步兵、火器、机动火炮与更复杂的筑城工事。
- 这一切都由更重的赋税来筹措,并需要一个更庞大的官僚体系。
- 因此一场军事变化成为一场行政变化,这正是本小节解释了 3.7 专制主义的原因。
Diplomacy, military change, or fiscal consequence? · 外交、军事变革还是财政后果？
Sort each element of the balance of power. · 对均势的每个要素进行分类。
Select all · 所有 the new forms of warfare the CED names. · 选择CED提到的新型战争形式。
All financed by heavier taxation and requiring a larger bureaucracy. · 所有这些均由更重的税收资助，并需要更大的官僚机构。
The military revolution is a fiscal and administrative change, not only a technical one. The CED's sentence ends all financed by heavier taxation and requiring a larger bureaucracy — which is precisely why a change in warfare produced a change in the form of the state.
**军事革命是一场财政与行政的变化,而不只是技术的变化。**CED 那句话的结尾是"这一切都由更重的赋税来筹措,并需要一个更庞大的官僚体系"——这恰恰是战争的变化产生了国家形式之变化的原因。
The military revolution tipped the balance toward states able to marshal sufficient ____. · 军事革命使平衡倾向于能够动员足够____的国家。
So the balance of power is a function of fiscal capacity. · 因此，均势是财政能力的函数。
Who could afford the new warfare
- New military techniques and institutions (i.e., the military revolution) tipped the balance of power toward states able to marshal sufficient resources for the new military environment.
- So the balance of power is not only diplomacy — it is a function of fiscal capacity.
- A state that cannot tax cannot field the new armies, and Poland is the CED's own illustration.
谁负担得起新式战争
- 新的军事技术与制度(即军事革命),使力量的天平向那些能够为新军事环境调集足够资源的国家倾斜。
- 因此力量均衡不只是外交——它是财政能力的函数。
- 一个无法征税的国家,就无法组建新式军队,而波兰正是 CED 自己的例证。
The military revolution was a fiscal and administrative change as well as a technical one. · 军事革命既是技术和行政变化，也是财政变化。
Which is why a change in warfare produced a change in the form of the state. · 这就是为什么战争形式的变化导致了国家形式的变化。
Two objectives, one mechanism
- The balance of power objective asks how states tried to maintain equilibrium; the technology objective asks how technology contributed to it.
- They meet in one mechanism: new warfare costs more, so the balance shifts toward states that can raise more.
- Naming that mechanism answers both objectives in a sentence.
两个目标,一个机制
- 力量均衡这一目标问的是各国如何试图维持平衡;技术这一目标问的是技术如何促成了它。
- 它们在同一个机制上相遇:新式战争花费更高,因此天平向能够筹到更多的国家倾斜。
- 点出这一机制,一句话就回答了两个目标。
A state that can assess and collect a land tax annually can keep a permanent infantry force; one that must ask an assembly each time cannot. Within fifty years the first has a standing army and the second has neighbours who do. Poland is the CED's example of where that ends.
一个能够逐年评估并征收土地税的国家,可以维持一支常备步兵;一个每次都必须请求某个议会的国家则不能。五十年之内,前者拥有了常备军,而后者的邻国拥有了常备军。波兰正是 CED 举出的、说明这会走向何处的例子。
The competitive state system led to new patterns of diplomacy and new forms of warfare, driven by dynastic and state interests along with expanding colonial empires. Poland's monarchy could not consolidate authority over the nobility, leading to partition by Prussia, Russia and Austria. The military revolution — infantry, firearms, mobile cannon, fortifications, all financed by heavier taxation and requiring a larger bureaucracy — tipped the balance toward states able to marshal resources.
竞争性的国家体系带来了新的外交格局与新的战争形式,由王朝利益与国家利益,连同不断扩张的殖民帝国所驱动。波兰君主国未能对贵族确立权威,导致被普鲁士、俄国与奥地利瓜分。 军事革命——步兵、火器、机动火炮、筑城工事,这一切都由更重的赋税筹措并需要更庞大的官僚体系——使天平向能够调集资源的国家倾斜。