在中世紀早期（5-11世紀），中國不是超級大國嗎？

LiquidEther
These kinds of questions are always difficult because power is ultimately a question of perspective. If you lived around the Mediterranean in that time, the Byzantine Empire is what you had your eye on. If you lived in East Asia, Byzantium was irrelevant next to China. There has never been obxtive history (all of our records are written by people with biases), and it's difficult to speak of "world superpowers" during times when the world wasn't so connected.
That said, 5th century to 11th century is a pretty long time frx, and both empires waxed and waned during that time. The other comment about China going through turbulent changes is correct, although this time period also saw the prosperity of the Tang dynasty. It's really hard to say. If your class generally focuses on the Western world, of course it would see Byzantium as the dominant power, but you can't directly compare two empires that had very limited interaction.

這類問題總是很難，因為權(quán)力終究是一個視角問題。如果你當時生活在地中海周邊，拜占庭帝國就是你眼中的超級大國。如果你生活在東亞，拜占庭在中國眼里就算不得什么了。從來就沒有客觀的歷史（我們所有的記錄都是由有偏見的人寫的），在世界還沒有那么緊密聯(lián)系的時代，很難說誰是"世界超級大國"。
話說回來，5世紀到11世紀是一個相當長的時間段，這期間兩個帝國都有過萎靡不振的時期。另外關(guān)于中國經(jīng)歷動蕩變化的評論是正確的，雖然這個時間段也出現(xiàn)了唐朝的繁榮。這真的很難說。如果你的課一般關(guān)注西方世界，當然會認為拜占庭是主導(dǎo)力量，但你無法直接比較這兩個互動非常有限的帝國。

AgoraiosBum
You decided that because of a Euro-centric viewpoint. Byzantium under Justinian (through 565) was significantly smaller than the old Roman Empire (no Gaul, Britain, most of Spain), but much of that territory was lost by about 1000 AD (and especially after the Muslim conquests in the mid 600s).
Even at its late peak around the middle of the 11th Century, the Byzantine Empire likely had less than half the population of the Chinese empire.
Of course, neither projected power into the other's sphere. It was a time of major regional powers, not world superpowers.

你之所以這么認為，是因為你歐洲中心的觀點。查士丁尼統(tǒng)治下的拜占庭（至565年）比舊羅馬帝國小得多（沒有高盧、英國、西班牙的大部分地區(qū)），但到公元1000年左右（尤其是600年代中期穆斯林征服后），大部分領(lǐng)土已經(jīng)喪失。
即使在11世紀中葉左右的晚期巔峰時期，拜占庭帝國的人口可能還不到中華帝國的一半。
當然，兩者都沒有將力量投射到對方的領(lǐng)域。這是一個地區(qū)大國的時代，而不是世界超級大國的時代。

BornIn1142
The definitions of the terms "great power" and "superpower" are tied to the reach of their influence. In the medi period, there were no great powers (and no superpowers) because there were no states that could project influence or military force across the globe. I would say that even China, with its great territory, could only be called a regional power at that time.

"大國"和"超級大國"這兩個詞的定義是與其影響力的范圍相聯(lián)系的。在中世紀時期，沒有大國（也沒有超級大國），因為沒有國家可以將影響力或軍事力量投射到全球。我想說的是，即使是疆域遼闊的中國，在當時也只能稱為地區(qū)性大國。

Intranetusa
Yeh. Superpowers only exist in the modern era as they need to be able to project power across the world (eg. USA, USSR).

是的。超級大國只存在于現(xiàn)代，因為它們需要能夠在全世界投射力量（例如美國、蘇聯(lián)）。

Andrewescocia
i would say that historical great power and a modern great power are different things with different definitions.
but, Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents. pretty global.

我想說的是，歷史上的大國和現(xiàn)代的大國是不同的東西，有不同的定義。
但是，拜占庭或羅馬可以而且確實在三大洲傳播了力量和影響，具有相當?shù)娜蛐浴?br />
Intranetusa
Byzantine or Rome could and did spread power and influence or 3 continents
Let's not forget that that is because they were conveniently geographically located near the cross section of the 3 artificially defined continents (there is no real geographic or plate tectonic separation of Asia and Europe), and they really only controlled a fraction of Europe and a tiny piece of Asia and Africa.

不要忘了，那是因為他們在地理位置上很方便，靠近3個人工定義的大陸的分界線（亞歐大陸并沒有真正的地理或板塊構(gòu)造上的分隔），他們實際上只控制了歐洲的一部分和亞非大陸的一小塊。

undercrux
Tang lasted from 618 to 907. It’s one of the most powerful dynasties in China. I think you can say it was a super power at that time.

唐從618年持續(xù)到907年。這是中國最強大的朝代之一。我想你可以說它當時是超級大國。

Misticsan
5th century to 11th century
As others have said, in such a wide timefrx, it will depend on the exact point chosen to make the comparison.
It could be argued that, between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the early 7th century, the Byzantine Empire was the stongest superpower in the world, only rivalred by Sasanian Persia. China during those centuries was fractured, from the Sixteen Kingdoms to the Northern and Southern Dynasties.
Things started changing when the Sui dynasty unified China and, especially, when the Tang dynasty took over and brough Central Asia to China's sphere of influence. At the same time, Persia was conquered and the Byzantines lost many of their possessions to the Islamic Caliphates which, under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, managed the largest empire ever seen until that moment.
But history is ever changing. The Tang dynasty was severely weakened after the An Lushan rebellion and, while it recovered, the empire finally collapsed in the 9th century. Meanwhile, the Abbasid Caliphate was undergoing a similar period of fracture, losing many territories to provincial rulers, whereas Byzantium enjoyed an important recovery under the Macedonian dynasty. And yet, in the 11th century, the Byzantines suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of a new rising Islamic power, the Seljuk Turks, and China was living under the golden age of the Song Dynasty.
So, it's complicated.

“5世紀到11世紀”
正如其他人所說，在如此寬廣的時間范圍內(nèi)，要看具體選擇什么點來進行比較。
可以說，從西羅馬帝國滅亡到7世紀初，拜占庭帝國是世界上最堅固的超級大國，只有薩珊波斯可以與之媲美。那幾百年間的中國是四分五裂的，從十六國到南北朝。
當隋朝統(tǒng)一中國后，尤其是唐朝接替并將中亞納入中國的勢力范圍后，情況開始發(fā)生變化。同時，波斯被征服，拜占庭人失去了許多財產(chǎn)給伊斯蘭哈里發(fā)王朝，在倭馬亞王朝和阿拔斯王朝的統(tǒng)治下，在那一刻管理著有史以來最大的帝國。
但歷史是不斷變化的。唐朝在安祿山之亂后被嚴重削弱，雖然有所恢復(fù)，但帝國終于在9世紀崩潰。與此同時，阿拔斯哈里發(fā)王朝也在經(jīng)歷類似的分裂期，許多領(lǐng)地被省級統(tǒng)治者奪走，而拜占庭則在馬其頓王朝的統(tǒng)治下獲得了重要的恢復(fù)。然而，在11世紀，拜占庭人在新崛起的伊斯蘭勢力塞爾柱土耳其人手中遭遇慘敗，而中國則生活在宋朝的黃金時代之下。

DeaththeEternal
It depends on which China we're talking about. The Tang Empire would qualify as a great power, if not a superpower, by any stretch of the imagination. It was the second truly great Chinese Empire and reached far enough into Central Asia that it had one of the forgotten clashes of civilizations at Tallas.

這要看我們說的是哪個中國。唐帝國即使不是超級大國，也可以稱得上是一個大國。它是第二個真正偉大的中華帝國，并且深入中亞，在那里的怛羅斯發(fā)生了被遺忘的文明沖突之一。

DaKeler
First of all, are you comparing governments ("Tang Dynasty", "Western or Eastern Rome") or the civilizations ("Zhonghua 中華", "Rome") that they belong to? It is possible for the state and civilization to be the same thing but it is certainly not always so. So if we are talking about governments, especially with state fragmentation, one has to consider which one and at which stage we are talking about. If considering civilization (which I argue is not a meaningless categorization) we additionally also have to much more informal factor of soft power which can be hard to obxtively gauge at times even for material culture. Take for example the conquest dynasties of the Chinese central plains (中原) in the context of distinction between Chinese and non-Chinese (華夷之辨). States like that of the Xianbei and Khitans were already heavily sinicized/sinicizing when they assumed control over parts of 中原 but were originally did not identify as Chinese. To what degree should conquest dynasties be included in the uation of "China" from 400-1000 AD? On a related note, to what degree should the spread of Roman/Chinese civilization to countries that did not identify as Roman/Chinese factor into this comparison of Rome and China?
Secondly, it reasonable to assert that any unified Chinese dynasty or the Roman state at its height were great powers from a modern perspective but as people of discussed, there was no such thing as a superpower in this period (and I would argue for several reasons that this concept was simply impossible for that time).

首先，你是在比較政府（"唐朝"、"西羅"或"東羅馬"）還是在比較它們所屬的文明（"中華中華"、"羅馬"）？國家和文明有可能是同一種東西，但不一定是這樣。所以，如果我們談?wù)撜?，尤其是國家分裂的情況下，就必須考慮我們談?wù)摰氖悄囊粋€政府，在哪個階段。如果考慮文明（我認為這并不是一個毫無意義的分類），我們還得另外考慮更多非正式的軟實力因素，即使是物質(zhì)文化，有時也很難客觀地衡量。以華夷之辨中的中原王朝為例。像鮮卑和契丹這樣的國家，在控制中原部分地區(qū)的時候，就已經(jīng)被嚴重的漢化了，但他們一開始的時候并不認同自己是中國人。在評價公元400-1000年的"中國"時，在多大程度上應(yīng)該包括征服王朝？與此相關(guān)的是，羅馬/中國文明向不認同羅馬/中國的國家的傳播，在多大程度上應(yīng)納入羅馬和中國之間的比較？
其次，從現(xiàn)代的角度看，斷言任何一個統(tǒng)一的中國王朝或羅馬國家在其鼎盛時期都是大國是合理的，但正如人們討論的那樣，這一時期并不存在超級大國的說法（我想說的是，出于幾個原因，這個概念在當時根本不可能）。
為了簡單起見，我假定一些假設(shè)，并對中世紀早期的中國/羅馬國家進行非常簡單、概括性的考察。

For the sake of simplicity, I'll presume some assumptions and take very brief, general look at the Chinese/Roman states in early medi times.
Anyways, after losing control of Italy, Egypt, Syria, etc in the 7th century, the ERE really could not compare to any unified China in terms of aggregate power and influence. The loss of these territories were absolute economic disasters for the Roman state as it lost much of its most agriculturally productive and wealthiest lands and also its capability to meaningfully rival Chinese economic output. On the other hand, Chinese states in their various forms consistently maintained control over the regions of Jiangnan, the Yellow River valley, Guanzhong, Sichuan, Lingnan, etc each which compared with and exceeded the population and wealth of some powerful European polities (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf). Militarily, the Tang dynasty at its height also had tributaries in all directions and had military protectorates up to present-day Afghanistan, which the ERE could not compare at any point after the fall of Western Rome. Only in the field of religion/culture did the ERE substantially compare with China as the champion of the Orthodox Church, transmitter of Christianity to the Slavic peoples, and the protector of (non-heretical) Eastern Christians.

不管怎么說，在7世紀失去了對意大利、埃及、敘利亞等地的控制后，東羅馬在綜合實力和影響力上確實無法與任何統(tǒng)一的中國相比。失去這些領(lǐng)土對羅馬國來說絕對是經(jīng)濟上的災(zāi)難，因為羅馬政權(quán)失去了大部分農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)力最強、最富裕的土地，也失去了與中國經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)出有意義的競爭能力。另一方面，中國政權(quán)以各種形式始終保持著對江南、黃河流域、關(guān)中、四川、嶺南等地區(qū)的控制，每一個地區(qū)的人口和財富都超過了一些強大的歐洲政體（https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2718941.pdf）。在軍事上，唐朝最鼎盛的時候也是四面八方都有附庸國，并有軍事保護地，一直延申到今天的阿富汗，這是西羅馬滅亡后，東羅馬在任何時候都無法相比的。只有在宗教/文化領(lǐng)域，東羅馬作為東正教的擁護者、基督教向斯拉夫民族的傳播者、東方基督徒（非異端）的保護者，才能與中國有實質(zhì)性的比較。

Even during contemporary eras of division and portions of realm (天下) under non-Chinese states, in China, the model of rulership and the Mandate of Heaven was challenged but did not collapse. Chinese contenders for the unification of the realm would often be other Chinese former colleagues/associates/acquaintance. Dynastic founders like the Zhao Kuangyin and Li Yuan were of course not exceptions to this trend. But examining the Northern Wei/Xianbei, they actually forced their people to adopt (Han) Chinese style of administration, clothing, customs, and manners and went as far as to replaced their names with Chinese ones. Even in the case of the Southern Song dynasty (apologies for stretching the time limit a little), when one dynasty did not have monopoly over the realm and there were multiple Sons of Heaven (天子), the Jin and Liao dynasties, who were originally outsiders, also called themselves Chinese and consciously assimilated themselves into the Han population. Not even the Mongols (apologies again) tried to discard the system of Chinese rulership inherited from the Song.



As for clearly non-Chinese/Roman countries and their relation to the Chinese and Romans respectively, take for example Japan. Although it has been reputed as the maverick of Sinosphere, where the emperors are called 天皇 and 天子, they never dared assume the title of 皇帝. In contrast, the ERE failed to prevent the Germans from successfully challenging their claim as the only legitimate Roman Empire and had to constantly deal with Islamic rivals.
In short, the power of countries wax and wane constantly, but overall, for unified Chinese dynasties, they were ahead of the ERE before the arrival of Islam and without a doubt well ahead post-Yarmouk. However, for Chinese ages of division, it is a different question depending on which particular Chinese state and depending on if they are compared with pre-Islam or post-Islam Rome. To be fair, Tang and Song Dynasties are two of the greatest dynasties in Chinese history so it is no great shame for the post-Yarmouk ERE to fall short.
I admit that Japan is not my main field of research so any recommendations on sources for Japanese imperial legitimacy is appreciated.
Edit: Changed "China" to "Zhonghua 中華" for clarity and edited some minor points

至于明顯的非中國/羅馬化國家及其分別與中國人和羅馬人的關(guān)系，以日本為例。雖然它被譽為中國圈的特立獨行者，在這里，天皇和天子都被稱為天皇，但他們從來不敢以皇帝的身份自居。相比之下，東羅馬未能阻止日耳曼人成功挑戰(zhàn)其作為唯一合法羅馬帝國的主張，只能不斷與伊斯蘭對手打交道。
總之，國家的力量是不斷變化的，但總的來說，對于統(tǒng)一的中國王朝來說，在伊斯蘭教到來之前，他們是領(lǐng)先于東羅馬的，而在亞爾穆克戰(zhàn)役（穆斯林軍隊擊潰拜占庭軍隊奪取敘利亞）之后，無疑是遠遠領(lǐng)先的。但是，對于中國的分裂時代來說，要看是哪個特定的中國政權(quán)，要看是與伊斯蘭教前還是伊斯蘭教后的羅馬相比，這是一個不同的問題。平心而論，唐宋兩朝是中國歷史上最偉大的兩個朝代，所以亞爾穆克后東羅馬落后一點，并不丟人。
我承認日本不是我的主要研究領(lǐng)域，所以如果有任何關(guān)于日本帝國合法性的資料來源推薦，我都會感激不盡。

antman4242
I appreciate the time this took, thank you

感謝你花了這么多時間寫的回復(fù)，謝謝。

Thibaudborny
You and your class need to think of criteria first, what is a ‘superpower’ - a rather anachronistic term - in your subjective minds?

你們和同學們首先要想好，在你們的主觀心目中，什么是"超級大國"--這個相當不合時宜的名詞的標準？

RomanItalianEuropean
I would actually say it's between Islam, Byzantium, India and China. A source of the period i have found on the internet:
The inhabitants of China and India agree that there are four great kings in the world. They place the King of the Arabs (Kalif of Baghdad) at the head of these for it is admitted without doubts that he is the greatest of Kings....The King of China reckons himslef second after the King of the Arabs...after him comes the King of the Greeks* and lastly the Balhará the most emeninent of the princes of India etc etc
From "The Muhammadan Period", a collection of Islamic primary sources translated into English by Sir H.M. Elliot. Now of course it's a pro-Arab source. But it gives you the idea that these four were considered the biggest. And, at least to the Arabs, China was greater than Byzantium (the Greeks as they called it).
Also, i'd say that after 800 the HRE was at least as powerful as the ERE.

其實我想說是，這時期的超級大國就是在伊斯蘭教、拜占庭、印度和中國之間選一個。我在網(wǎng)上找到的關(guān)于這一個時期的資料說：
“中國和印度的居民都認為，世界上有四個偉大的國王，他們把阿拉伯人的國王（巴格達的哈里發(fā)）放在這些國王之首，因為人們毫無疑問地承認他是最偉大的國王....中國國王認為他是阿拉伯人國王之后的第二位......在他之后是希臘人的國王*，最后是印度王子中最杰出的巴爾哈拉，等等?！?br /> 摘自 《穆罕默德時代》，由H. M. 艾略特爵士翻譯成英文的伊斯蘭原始資料集。當然，這是一個親阿拉伯的資料，但它可以讓你知道，這四個人被認為是當時最強大的。而且，至少對阿拉伯人來說，中國比拜占庭（他們稱之為希臘人）更偉大。
另外，我想說的是，公元800年以后，HRE（神圣羅馬帝國）至少和ERE（東羅馬帝國）一樣強大。

Trainer-Grimm
The medi period was a long, long time. At times Frankia was #1, but 20 years after Charlemagne it was the ERE. but China especially had a turbulent period. From the War of the 16 kingdoms, the fall of the Song dynasty to the mongols, and then slowly rebuilding itself under the ming. The ming were especially bad for no other reason than it doesn't matter how powerful you are if you don't do anything with it and are able to largely be ignored (think america between the civil war and like, ww2)

中世紀時期是一個很長很長的時期。有的時候法蘭克王國是第一，但是查理曼大帝之后20年最強的就是東羅馬。特別是中國有一個動蕩的時期。五胡十六國混戰(zhàn)，宋朝滅亡給蒙古人，然后在明朝的帶領(lǐng)下慢慢重建。明朝特別糟糕，沒有其他原因，如果你不做任何事情，并在世界上很大程度上被忽視，那么你是多么強大并不重要（想想從內(nèi)戰(zhàn)和第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之間的美國）。

achmed011235
I would challenge the notion that the Tang wasn't equally powerful to the ERE, I would also challenge the notion that the Ming did nothing with it. You don't know what the Ming did doesn't mean it didn't do anything.
Power is power, whether you use it to enforce something or the threat of using it to enforce something are the same, it's power. Ming's power and ability to control the Tribuatory System was both a matter of soft power and hard power.

我會質(zhì)疑唐沒有東羅馬那么強大的說法，我也會質(zhì)疑對于明說它什么都沒做的說法。你不知道明朝做了什么，不代表它什么都沒做。
力量就是力量，不管你是用它來執(zhí)行什么，還是用它來威脅執(zhí)行什么都是一樣的，都是力量。明有力量和能力去控制著部落系統(tǒng)，這既是軟實力的問題，也是硬實力的問題。

Shahadem
Not in Europe because the distance was too great for the transportation of the time period. The limited productive power of the technology also limited the ability of the country to project power outwards.
In order to be a super power you need to be able to project power which means you need an excess of something. When most people are subsistence farmers then you don't really have a surplus.

不在當時的歐洲，因為距離太遠，不符合當時的交通條件?？萍嫉纳a(chǎn)力有限，也限制了國家向外投射力量的能力。
要想成為一個超級大國，你必須要有投射力量的能力，也就是說你需要一個過剩的東西。當時當大多數(shù)人都是自給自足的農(nóng)民時，那么你就沒有真正的過剩。

ZackHBorg
Given the limitations on transportation and communications back in those days, you can't really speak of a global superpower in the sense of the US today or the British Empire c. 1900. Instead, you had at most regional superpowers. Of which one was China for much of this period. Other candidates would be the Byzantines and Arabs at various points.

考慮到當時交通和通訊的局限性，你真的說不出一個全球性的超級大國能像今天的美國或1900年的大英帝國一樣。相反，你能說出很多區(qū)域性的超級大國。其中一個是在這一時期大部分時間里的中國。其他候選國是在不同時期的拜占庭人和阿拉伯人。

MyPigWhistles
The problem starts with the question itself. Firstly it's already problematic to speak about "countries" like they were modern nation states when it comes to the early middle ages. Secondly countries don't have power, individuals have. That is especially true for pre-modern societies which rely on a face to face network and structures of personal dependencies. Thirdly: How do you want to measure "power" in this context? You can't make lists with GDP or standing army sizes for them.

這個問題本身就有問題。首先把中世紀初期的 "國家"說成是現(xiàn)代民族國家，這已經(jīng)是個問題了。其次國家沒有權(quán)力，個人才有。尤其是對于前現(xiàn)代社會，依靠面對面的網(wǎng)絡(luò)和個人依附的結(jié)構(gòu)，更是如此。第三：在這種情況下，你想如何衡量"權(quán)力"？你不能用GDP或常備軍規(guī)模為他們列個清單來比較。

P_elquelee
I think the scale would go: Regional powers (any kingdom / small empire you like), great powers (like Rome, China, Persia, etc), global powers (starting with Spain and Portugal up to Great Britain until WW1), and finally Superpowers (USA and the URSS).
Some thoughts for comparison:
Nowadays I would say USA is the only true superpower as it has economical, cultural, diplomatic, and military influence over the world.
Russia could be labeled as great power or global power (their global influence is limited).
China is on the rise, having nowadays a great economical and diplomatic influence. Their military and cultural projection is limited to SE asia.
The EU has global influence in diplomacy, economy and culture.

我想這個規(guī)模的進階排列會是這樣的：地區(qū)性強國（任何一個你喜歡的王國/小帝國），大國（如羅馬、中國、波斯等），全球性強國（從西班牙和葡萄牙開始到第一次世界大戰(zhàn)的英國），最后是超級大國（美國和蘇聯(lián)）。
一些想法供比較：
現(xiàn)在我想說美國是唯一真正的超級大國，因為它在經(jīng)濟、文化、外交和軍事上對世界有影響。
俄羅斯可以被稱為大國或全球強國（他們的全球影響力是有限的）。
中國正在崛起，如今擁有巨大的經(jīng)濟和外交影響力。但他們的軍事和文化影響僅限于東/東南亞。
歐盟在外交、經(jīng)濟和文化方面都具有全球影響力。