How Europe Conquered the World过去欧洲何以征服世界

文/菲利普·T. 霍夫曼 译/王飞云 审订/白丽梅

By Philip T. Hoffman

How Europe Conquered the World过去欧洲何以征服世界

文/菲利普·T. 霍夫曼 译/王飞云 审订/白丽梅

ByPhilip T. Hoffman

Between 1492 and 1914, Europeans conquered 84 percent of the globe,establishing colonies and spreading their influence across every inhabited1inhabited有人居住的。continent. This was not inevitable. In fact, for decades, historians, social scientists, and biologists have wondered: Why and how did Europe rise to the top, even when societies in Asia and the Middle East were far more advanced?

[2] So far, satisfactory answers have been elusive. But this question is of the utmost importance given that Europe’s power determined everything from who ran the slave trade to who grew rich or remained mired in poverty.

[3] One might think the reasons for Europe’s dominance obvious: the Europeans were the first to industrialize, and they were immune to the diseases, such as smallpox, that devastated indigenous2indigenous土著的，土生土长的。populations. But the latter reason alone cannot explain the conquest of the Americas, since many young Native American warriors survived the epidemics. And it fails to explain Europe’s colonization of India, since the Indians had similar immunity. Industrialization also falls short as an explanation: the Europeans had taken control of more than 35 percent of the planet even before they began to industrialize. Of course,the lead Europeans took in developing the technology of guns, armed ships,and fortifications was critical. But all the other major civilizations in Asia had the same gunpowder technology, and many of them also fought with guns.

1492年至1914年间，欧

洲人征服了全球84%的袤土，建立起多处殖民地，把势力范围扩张到每一块有人类居住的大陆，但这并非不可避免。事实上，历史学家、社会科学家及生物学家在过去几十年以来一直心存疑问：在当时亚洲和中东社会都更为发达的情况下，欧洲为什么能够崛起，又是凭借何种方式称霸全球的呢？

[2]迄今为止，尚未找到令人满意的答案。但是，解决这一问题却至关重要，因为当时由谁从事奴隶贸易，是财运亨通还是贫困潦倒，归根到底都是由欧洲霸权决定的。

[3]人们或许认为，欧洲处于主宰地位的原因显而易见：首先，欧洲最先步入工业化；其次，欧洲人对天花等疾病具有免疫力，而这些疾病对土著居民却是致命的。但是，美洲的许多年轻土著士兵却在流行病中幸存下来，所以第二个原因并不能解释欧洲人为什么能够征服美洲。此外，印度人对这些疾病同样具有免疫力，因此，这也不能作为印度沦为欧洲殖民地的缘由。同时，工业化也不足以解释欧洲的统治地位：工业化开始之前，欧洲就已经控制了世界上35%的地区。当然，欧洲在枪支弹药、武装船只和防御工事等技术方面遥遥领先，这一点也至关重要。但亚洲其他主要文明国家同样掌握了火药技术，不少国家也在战争中使用枪支。

[4] So what did contribute to Europe’s success? Mostly, it derived from the incentives3incentive刺激因素，动机。that political leaders faced in Europe—incentives that drove them not just to make war, but also to spend huge sums on it. Yes, the European monarchs built palaces, but even the huge Chateau at Versailles cost King Louis XIV less than two percent of his tax revenue. The rest went to fighting wars. He and the other kings in Europe had been raised since childhood to pursue glory on the battlefield, yet they bore none of the costs involved—not even the risk of losing their thrones after a defeat. Leaders elsewhere faced radically different incentives, which kept many of them militarily weak. In China, for example,emperors were encouraged to keep taxes low and to attend to people’s livelihoods rather than to pursue the sort of military glory that obsessed European kings.

[4]那么，欧洲成功的原因究竟是什么？主要原因在于欧洲政治领导人面临的刺激因素，这些因素不仅驱使他们发动战争，而且还为此投入巨额资金。没错，欧洲各国君主都对兴建宫殿乐此不疲，但即使是规模宏大的凡尔赛宫也只耗费了国王路易十四不足2%的税收，其余则投入战争。路易十四与欧洲其他各国君主一样，从小受到的教育就是要在战场上建功立业，然而，他们不需承担任何风险，甚至没有战败后失去王位的风险，而其他地方的统治者则面对着完全不同的刺激因素，从而导致这些国家军事羸弱。例如，中国的皇帝从小被劝导关注民生，减轻税负，而不像欧洲君主一样痴迷于追求所谓的军事荣耀。

[5] For this and a variety of other reasons, leaders outside of Europe could not match Europe’s innovations in warfare innovation. The huge sums of money showered on fighting in Europe gave military leaders the flexibility to buy new weapons and battleships and try out new tactics, fortifications, and methods of supply. In the process, they learned from their mistakes and improved their technologies. And because European countries were small and geographically close, they could easily learn from their rivals’ errors and copy their improvements. When the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus constructed one of the earliest two-decked gunships in 1628, for example, it sank shortly after setting sail. But the Swedish navy and other navies across Europe swiftly learned from this failure, and by the eighteenth century they were building warships with two or more gun decks that were not only stable, but also had a longer range and were more maneuverable than seventeenth-century warships.

[5]基于以上以及其他种种缘由，欧洲以外的统治者们在战争创新方面无法和欧洲媲美。欧洲统治者在战争中投资巨大，这为军事领导者购买新型武器和战舰、尝试新战术、构筑防御工事及补给方式等提供了便利条件。在这一过程中，他们吸取教训，改进技术。此外，欧洲各国由于面积较小，彼此邻近，因而可以轻而易举地吸取敌方经验教训。例如，瑞典国王古斯塔夫·阿道夫斯在1628年建造了世界上最早的双甲板武装战舰，起航后不久便沉没了。但瑞典海军及欧洲其他各国海军迅速从中汲取教训，到18世纪时，欧洲各国造出了双甲板和多甲板战舰。这些战舰不仅性能稳定，而且与17世纪的战舰相比，航程更远、操控性更强。

[6] Outside of Europe, political and military conditions kept war innovations,particularly new gunpowder technology,from being advanced at the same relentless pace. China, for instance, had far less tax revenue to spend on the military than the Europeans did. In the late eighteenth century, per-capita taxes were 15 times higher in France than in China, and 40 times higher in England, and much of the tax money China did collect went not toward new forms of fighting but to aid archers on horseback, who were far more effective than musketeers4musketeer步兵。in fighting the nomads5nomad游牧民。who had long been China’s major enemy. What’s more, China was often the dominant power in East Asia,so fewer rivals dared to challenge it,which meant it had little incentive to spend heavily on its military. As a result,there was simply less use for gunpowder weapons in East Asia.

[7] Europe, by contrast, had no such dominant power. And once the Western Europeans took the lead in pushing gunpowder technology forward, it was hard for China to catch up.

[8] Europe’s military lead continued into the nineteenth century. Tax revenues rose as Europe industrialized,and the innovations from the Industrial Revolution—applied science and engineering—made it possible for Europeans to improve their technology not just by waging war, but also by conducting research, which magnified what the Europeans learned on the battlefield.

[6]欧洲之外的各国，由于受政治和军事条件所限，战争技术，尤其是新型火药研发技术，不断落后于欧洲。比如中国当时用于军事的税收远不及欧洲。18世纪末，法国的人均税收是中国的16倍，英国则是中国的41倍。而且，中国大部分税收并未用于战争技术的革新，而是供养马背上的弓箭手，因为弓箭手在应对中国长久以来的劲敌——游牧民时要比步兵更具优势。此外，中国在历史上多数时间都是东亚地区的强国，鲜有对手敢于挑衅，也就意味着中国缺乏把税收用于军事的动力。因此，火药武器在东亚地区几乎没有用武之地。

[7]相比之下，欧洲没有中国这样的强国。而且，西欧一旦在火药技术方面占据领先地位，对中国来说就望尘莫及了。

[8]进入19世纪，欧洲在军事领域依然遥遥领先。随着欧洲工业化进程的推进，税收也随之增加。工业革命带来了应用科学和工程学等诸多领域的革新，使欧洲人不仅可以通过发动战争，还可以借助研究来改进技术，因此欧洲人在战场更具优势。

[9] By 1914, Europe had not only achieved global military dominance, it also had powerful states that could raise huge sums of tax revenue to fund wars.In France and Germany, real per-capita tax revenue had increased 15 fold or more over the previous two centuries. That enormous capacity to tax went well beyond what can be explained by the higher per capita incomes that industrialization brought to Europe. It was the result of the same kind of learning that advanced the gunpowder technology. The only difference was that here the learning involved economics rather than military technology, and the rewards went to political leaders who successfully bargained with the elites to boost tax revenues. The leaders then used the added tax revenue to expand and equip their armies and navies.

[10] Europe’s ability to tax was no small achievement. China could not raise equivalent tax revenues, even in the nineteenth century. And countries in sub-Saharan Africa today still lack the basic capacity to tax, which keeps them from providing security and other basic public goods to their citizens.

[9]到1914年，欧洲不仅在全球军事领域处于统治地位，而且还出现了一些可以通过征收大量税款投入战争的强国。两个世纪以来，法国和德国的实际人均税收增加了15倍甚至更多。欧洲工业化大大提高了人均收入，但却难以解释欧洲各国所具有的强大的征税能力，这种能力还是改进火药技术的结果。唯一的区别在于，这种研究涉及的不是军事科技，而是经济问题，最终获益的是与精英协商成功、提高税收的政治领导人。进而用增加的税收扩员军队、提升陆军和海军的装备质量。

[10]欧洲各国的征税能力不容小觑。即使到了19世纪，中国还征不到同等税收。现如今，非洲撒哈拉以南地区依旧缺乏基本的征税能力，这也使得当地政府无法为国民提供安全保障和其他基本公共服务。

[11] Europe had yet another advantage as well: its entrepreneurs were free to use gunpowder technology to mount expeditions of conquest, colonization,and militarized trade. Although they usually needed official permission to launch a voyage, entrepreneurs were often encouraged by authorities eager to find riches abroad. And they had no trouble acquiring weapons or finding battle-hardened veterans to train military novices6novice新兵。who joined their undertakings. By the seventeenth century, such private expeditions had spawned7spawn使大量生产。gigantic enterprises that raised huge sums on Europe’s burgeoning8burgeoning迅速发展的，蒸蒸日上的。capital markets to finance ventures abroad, enterprises such as the Dutch East India Company,which was not only a private arm of Dutch foreign policy, but also the first business to issue tradable shares of stock.

[12] A final difference between Europe and the rest of the world lies in political history. From 221 B.C. onward,China, more often than not, was unified in a large empire. The Chinese empire soon developed a centralized bureaucracy that drew local elites into government service and gave them a stake9stake重大利益，重大利害关系。in the empire’s survival. The rewards of government service helped hold the empire together, and as long as the empire was strong and unified, other East Asian powers hesitated to attack it. This meant that China had little incentive to seek out new enemies or opportunities.

[13] Western Europe, by contrast,experienced no such lasting unification after the collapse of the Roman Empire.What it endured instead were centuries of warfare by bands of warriors whose

[11]欧洲还有另一优势：企业家可以自由使用火药进行远征、殖民以及军事贸易等活动。尽管企业家通常需要官方批准才能远航，但当局往往会鼓励企业家到海外寻求财富。同时，这些企业家可以轻而易举地获得武器、招徕身经百战的老兵来帮助训练新兵。到17世纪，这样的私人远征催生了一些巨型企业，这些企业从蒸蒸日上的欧洲新兴资本市场募集大批资金以支持海外企业，其中就包括荷属东印度公司。该公司不仅是执行荷兰外交政策的秘密组织，还是首家发行交易股票的企业。

[12]欧洲与世界其他地区的最后一点不同在于其政治史。公元前221年以后，中国基本处于大帝国的统一状态，很快发展成为一个中央集权的封建帝国。帝国招募地方精英参与政府管理，让其与帝国命运共存亡。精英们从中获益，有助于维护国家统一。只要帝国繁荣昌盛，上下统一，其他东亚各国便不敢轻易侵犯，也就意味着中国缺少寻求新对手或机会的动力。

[13]相比之下，自罗马帝国分崩离析之后，西欧地区就再也没有经历过如此持久的统leaders resembled modern-day warlords.The incessant fighting groomed10groom培养。leaders who were victorious in war. The conflict also generated enduring enmities between leaders and their followers, enmities that eventually hardened into lasting political borders. It was such ill will—and not Europe’s physical geography—that kept any single leader from ever uniting Western Europe in the sort of durable empire that prevailed for centuries in China. In the long run, the winners in Western Europe were the military leaders who learned how to impose heavy taxes to fund their fighting, and as a result,Europe ended up with kings who spent pharaonic sums on warfare and who had,in the words of Machiavelli, “no object,thought, or profession but war.”

[14] Without a single-minded focus on war and the extraordinary ability to tax, there may never have been any European empires. The wars and the taxes lavished11lavish过分给予，挥霍。on them gave the Europeans an enormous lead in military technology. This enabled their conquests, and allowed them to keep native populations under control without stationing large numbers of European troops abroad.Without such advantages, the Europeans might have grown rich anyway—and perhaps even industrialized early—but they would not have dominated the world in 1914. 一。取而代之的则是长达几个世纪的武士集团之间的争战，这些集团的领导者类似于现代的军阀。持续不断的战争造就了一批在战争中大获全胜的将领，而冲突也滋生了统治者与追随者之间长久的恩怨，这些恩怨最终演变为旷日持久的政治分裂。正是诸如此类的恩怨，而非欧洲的地理因素，使得西欧任何一位君主都不可能建立长久的统一帝国，而在中国，统一的局面已经持续了几个世纪。从长远角度来看，在西欧军事角逐中的获胜者是懂得如何通过征收重税来维系战争的人。因此，欧洲的君主们会在战争中投入巨资，并且，正如意大利政治思想家马基雅维利所言，他们“没有目标、思想或信念，唯有战争” 。

[14]如果没有专注于战争，没有非同寻常的征税能力，就永远也不可能出现欧洲帝国。战争和征税让欧洲在军事技术方面一马当先，这让各国无须在国外驻扎大批军队，就能够征服和控制当地居民。如果没有诸如此类的优势，欧洲或许也会富有，或许能更早实现工业化，但不会在1914年就称霸世界。