外国网友：为什么欧洲被划分为51个国度，而中国只需一个 ...

目前，全世界一共有两百多个国度。但作为在世界文化历史上占有过重要位置的欧洲，这片与中疆土空中积相差无几的土地上，曾经也有过罗马帝国和查理曼帝国大一统的辉煌，但往常却曾经大大小小团结成了五十一个国度。但中国变得越来越统一。招致这种差别的缘由是哪些？对此国外网友也感到很猎奇，所以提出了这个问题：欧洲和中国都有长久的历史，两个国度的面积都差未几(370万平方英里)，为什么欧洲被划分为51个国度，而中国只需一个?让我们看看国外网友的回答。

抢手提问

网友Erik Engheim的回答

Great question! It is all about geography. Study the maps of China and Europe. Look specifically at where the mountain ranges and major rivers are. You will quickly see a different pattern.

好问题!这一切都与天文有关。研讨中国和欧洲的地图。要特别留意山脉和主要河流的位置。你很快就会看到不同的方式。

Europe has a very different geological history that caused mountain ranges to be formed in many different directions across the continent. This also caused created more but smaller rivers going in more varied directions than in China.

欧洲有着十分不同的地质历史，这招致了山脉在欧洲大陆的许多不同方向构成。这也构成了比中国更多但更小的河流流向更多样化的方向。

Chinese geography is simpler. Mountains go one way, rivers another. Thus mountains and rivers don’t naturally split up China into multiple chunks they way they do in Europe. Mountains and rivers are natural boundaries for countries.

中国的天文比较简单。山是这样，河是那样。因而，山脉和河流不会像欧洲那样自然地把中国分割成许多块。山川是国度的自然边疆。

Also look at the irregular coastline of Europe. Countries like Italy and Spain are accessible only through a relatively narrow stretch of land which also happens to be a mountain area. Britain is on an island making it even less accessible.

再看看欧洲不规则的海岸线。像意大利和西班牙这样的国度只需经过相对狭窄的山区才干抵达。英国位于一个小岛上，这让它愈加难以接近。

Uniting Europe would thus always be difficult for an army. A lot of smaller areas of Europe are easily defendable against an invading army. This further led to the development of Feudalism in Europe and frequent wars. This caused Europe to be dotted with strong castles.

因而，统一欧洲关于一支军队来说永远是艰难的。欧洲许多较小的地域很容易抵御入侵的军队。这进一步招致了欧洲封建主义的展开和战争的频繁。这使得欧洲四处都是巩固的城堡。

It is interesting to compare the significance of this when comparing Mongol invasion of Europe vs China. With the highly centralized power structure, you could invade the capital and take the whole country. Feudalism meant you had to fight down every Count, Earl, Baron etc in the country to win. And each one of them had castles you had to lay siege to for months, and which point your army is vulnuralbe to counter attacks.

比较蒙古入侵欧洲和中原的重要性是很有趣的。在高度集中的权益结构下，你能够打败欧洲首都，占领整个国度。封建主义意味着你必须打败这个国度的每一个伯爵、伯爵、男爵等人才干获胜。他们每个人都有城堡，你必须围攻几个月，而你的军队在这一点上很容易回击。

In Mongol armies each soldier had five horses. They used all of them during the attack, switching horses when one got tired. However this required vast plains of grass. Europe did not have that. Thus Mongol armies faced a shortage of food for their horses, which was made significantly worse by conquering Europe being very time consuming due to the sheer number of castles.

在蒙古军队中，每个士兵有五匹马。他们在进攻时运用了一切的马匹，当一匹马累了就换一匹。但是，这需求宽广的草原。欧洲没有这些。因而，蒙古军队面临着马匹食物短缺的问题，而由于城堡数量众多，降服欧洲十分耗时，这让状况变得愈加糟糕。

Spending mounts laying siege to a castly meant you would run out of grass for your horses. This is one of several reasons why Mongols could defeat a much stronger China but had much bigger problems taking Europe. Europe simply isn't easy to conquer.

用坐骑围攻城堡意味着你会耗尽马匹的草料。这就是为什么蒙古人能打败强大得多的中国，却在占领欧洲方面面临更大问题的缘由之一。欧洲不容易被降服。

There are been simulations of world history only using geography, which shows on each run that China will end up united but Europe ends up being a patchwork of states. So it is not a random occurence, but very much expected even in simulations.

有一些只运用天文的世界历史模仿，每次都显现中国最终将统一，而欧洲最终将是一个国度拼凑的国度。所以这不是随机发作的，但即便在模仿中也很有可能发作。

假如单单从天文位置来剖析的话，你认同他的观念吗？