超级军网历史穿越流，瞅瞅老外怎么看明朝中国兵种如何VS欧洲兵种 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/01 18:13:13
翻译链接：http://www.ptfcn.com/ptfcn/l/785/
中文标题：中国vs欧洲
原文标题：.1400's, China vs Europe Rate Topic:
导读：爬山虎历史版“vs”系列第四弹，中国vs欧洲出炉！向各位保证，这次不会再大象大象的了。这次我们看到的是——“中国的火枪敌得过英国大长弓吗？”
剧本设定时代是15世纪，也就是中国的明朝。
回复很多，无法全部翻完，这里仅翻译前头的一部分。
TMPikachu （lz）
This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.
And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?
Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?
欧洲这一方已经发展出了重十字弓，金属装甲，大马骑兵等物。
而中国这边。。。相对应的则是明朝。那么，如果中国和欧洲这时发生冲突，战况会怎么样呢？
或许中国军队会因为盔甲上的螺丝钉弹了出来而战败？又或者，欧洲人会由于中国军队优良的机动性而疲于奔命，最后被中国人打败？
评论翻译
（灰色原文，粉色翻译，紫色补充）
jiangji
I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.
我想说的是，在决定战争胜败的各种要素中，将领是其中非常重要的一条。我认为永乐年间的明朝在将领方面有着极大的优势。此外，大炮在明朝就被应用于战场了。相对于欧洲，明朝的优势太大了。
ih8eurocentrix
agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win
阿金库尔战役中，（英国人）利用长弓就打赢了法国装甲骑兵，因而我实在想象不出欧洲人怎么可能赢。
阿金库尔战役发生于1415年的10月25日，是英法百年战争中著名的以少胜多的战役。在亨利五世的率领下，英军以由步兵弓箭手为主力的军队于此击溃了法国由大批贵族组成的精锐部队，为随后在1419年收服了整个诺曼底奠定基础。这场战役成为了英国长弓手最辉煌的胜利之一，也对后世战争的依靠火力范围杀伤对手密集阵形这种战术留下了深刻影响。
Effect
Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.
实际上，所谓长弓手赢得了阿金库尔战役是一种错误的说法。所选战场的地面状况等等的各种条件都在发挥作用。事实是，即使很近的距离内，长弓依然无法穿透板甲。
Kenneth （回ls）
That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.
你说的比较正确。阿金库尔战役常常被简化成“长弓vs .板甲”，在这种粗略的简化中，法国的士兵有多或少人身穿装甲，队伍的阵型如何，沼地战场的地面状况等等的条件都被排除在外了。
关于这个话题，已经有了一些深入精彩的讨论。。。而且实验发现，在长弓和板甲的对抗中，板甲的防御作用是非常有效的。这种板甲甚至可以将射来的箭弯向一个最佳角度，对方只有找到一个具体的凿点并且在比较短的距离内直接命中——而不是划出一条凌空弧线——才有可能对对方造成伤害。
These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?
How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.
这种“vs”的讨论老是出现。从这种假设中所寻找到的答案并不能真正令人满意。
可口可乐与百事可乐哪个更好?人们真的非要让两者一较长短吗?
倒不如单纯地比较一下两方的武器装备、战略能力；而不是搞这种没必要的“vs”出来。因为，两方军队的人数，战场地形和位置，还有情节和突发事件——这些都不是我们能定出个大概的东西啊。
Liang Jieming
coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too.
Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.
可口可乐更好，百事可乐.太甜了！但话又说回来, Dr. Pepper倒是相当不错。
Dr. Pepper
一种软饮料的名称，英文名为Dr Pepper，中文名称常译作：澎泉、胡椒博士、派珀博士等，是美国Dr Pepper/Seven Up（七喜）公司生产的一种焦糖碳酸饮料，该公司作为吉百利史威士公司的一个分支，坐落于德克萨斯州达拉斯市区。
Dr Pepper是一种特殊的果汁混合物，凭借其褒贬不一的独特口味在全球拥有一大批忠实的拥护者。
在有些国家，Dr Pepper是以可口可乐公司产品的形式出现的。
好吧,说真的,Kenneth的话还真是有理有据。关于这些“vs”的讨论，所得出的答案甚至不能让参与讨论的任何一方满意。
Daniel
Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right?
IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.
Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.
好了,长弓兵同样也是欧洲人,对吗?
IIRC——15世纪最强大的欧洲步兵不过是一群挤在一起的瑞士枪兵。这样拥挤不堪的阵型难道不是明朝火器的活靶子么?面对火器，就是板甲也起不了多大作用。
而且由于15世纪欧洲还没统一，（以当时欧洲各国的现状来看），我很难从中找出一个有可能打败明朝军队的国家出来。
General_Zhaoyun
The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.
在这段时间里明朝的枪支绝对比欧洲更先进。种类繁多的大炮足以炸毁欧洲的骑士阶层。
wlee15
Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.
当时的火器的杀伤范围不大，枪手需要使用两脚架，手动点燃火药。即使枪手们轮番上阵，所能节省的时间也非常有限。而且，枪兵即使有大量的负重，也能在短时间内进行远距离的突刺。不管怎么说，在15世纪，世界上还没有哪一支军队能将火器大量地应用于战争当中。
Mei Houwang
The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.
瑞士枪兵甚至在引进了火药后，都不愿把他们的战斗模式改为利用火药战斗。这或许是因为火药的（杀伤）功效还是差了些。
Liang Jieming
early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.
早期的枪在开火速度、准确性及其他很多方面都敌不过弓箭和弩。只有在降低火器的制造成本，减小武器操作难度和缩短所需的训练周期，提高其杀伤范围、火力和准确后，火药才有能力将传统武器挤出历史舞台。
Effect
Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.
And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman
Kennth的主意不错。与其搞这种“vs”比较，不如转而探索和了解一下双方军队。我们每个人都可以搜集一些信息。如果我们能够合理的把它们组织起来，我们就可以得到一些有价值的资料，并且能根据这些资料，更靠谱地讨论这个问题。
不过也有可能适得其反， 很有可能我们到时会开始比较中国矛兵和欧洲矛兵所受的训练内容。
Daniel
Well, I'm seeing a lot of disagreement with me on the issue of the power of the Ming firearms. I think Liang Jieming and others are right that firearms replaced longbows and crossbows more because they were easier to train with and becoming cheaper.
What I had in my head, though, was that the 15th-century Ming firearms were already at the level the Europeans had achieved by the start of the Thirty Years' War. And by the start of the Thirty Years' War, the Swiss pikemen had already proven too vulnerable to firearms to survive on the battlefield.
Is my conception of the level of 15th-century Ming firearms exaggerated?
嗯,在明朝火器力量强弱的问题上，有很多人都和我的意见不一致。我认为Liang Jieming他们是正确的，在火器的制造费用降低，并且所需的相关培训减少后，火器才能够打败长弓和弩。
在我的印象中，十五世纪的明代火器已经达到了欧洲人三十年战争初始时才达到的水平。而在30年战争开始之前，瑞士枪兵在战场上已经完全敌不过火器了。
难道我一直把15世纪明朝火器的力量想得太牛B了?
三十年战争
17世纪上半叶，以德意志为主要战场的一次席卷欧洲的战争。它是欧洲国家间争夺领土、王位、霸权以及各种政治矛盾和宗教纠纷尖锐化的产物。
TMPikachu
I think about 2/5ths of overall forces were armed with firearms, according to the big phat hardcover book I just got.
根据我刚买的精装书所说，整个军队的五分之二都装备了火器。
Sephodwyrm
I don't think so. But the problem with firearms according to Ji Xiao Xin Shu with raw, inexperienced and lousy soldiers is that they're not maintained properly, they tend to fire it too early, and then they run away when they missed...
我不这么认为。根据《纪效新书》的记载，火器使用的难题是：那些没有经验而拙劣的士兵无法保证能正确地使用枪支,他们总是开火开得太早,而如果他们没打中，这些士兵就会撒腿逃跑…
《纪效新书》是戚继光在东南沿海平倭战争期间练兵和治军经验的总结。他在《自序）中说：“数年间，予承乏浙东，乃知孙武之法，纲领精微莫加矣。第于下手详细节目，则无一及焉。犹禅家所谓上乘之教也，下学者何由以措。于是乃集所练士卒条目，自选*亩民丁以至号令、战法、行营、武艺、守哨、水战，间择其实用有效者，分别教练，先后次第之，各为一卷，以海诸三军俾习焉。顾苦于缮写之难也，爱授粹人。客为题曰：《纪效新书》。
Puerto Rican Legionary
I can tell you this, European armor will be very, very hard to penetrate.
The first firearms can not penetrate, the longbow, crossbows, Spears swords etc.
All these weapons had a very, very hard time penetrating….
Not including that European armor is lighter than what you think it is.
我可以告诉你,欧洲的护甲非常、非常的难以穿透。
最早的火枪是不能穿透它的。而长弓、弩、刀剑、枪等等，所有这些武器也都非常、非常难以穿透这种护甲…。
不仅如此，欧洲的护甲绝对轻得超乎你的想象。。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
I think it depends on whether we are talking of the early or late 1400's.
Early 1400's: Ming army is formidable, excellent training, most advanced gunpowder technology in the world, and a gigantic fleet. Not to mention the warlikeness of the first few emperors.
late 1400's : Military has declined, corruption has lessened the efficiency of Chinese armies, the emperor's are neo confucian weaklings. and of course, European guns have surpassed those of China.
我认为这取决于我们正在谈论的是15世纪早期的明朝还是晚期的明朝。
15世纪早期：明军超强,训练有素，拥有在世界范围内最先进的火器技术,还有个庞大的舰队。不用明朝那好战的头几位皇帝。
15世纪晚期： 军事力量有所下降,腐败已经削减了中国军队的效率,皇帝的是在新儒学的熏陶下长大的胆小鬼。当然,此时欧洲的枪支已经超过了中国。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_* (回复说枪有时敌不过箭的那位)
Yes, but gunpowder weapons had some other advantages, e.g cannon had a higher rate of fire, and required less man power than the trebuchet, and later cannon were also more powerful.
是的,但是火药武器有一些其他的优势。例如大炮有较高的开火速度,需要的人力比投石机要少,而且后期的trebuchet大炮威力更为强大。
tadamson （回ls）
In Europe, the key factor was cost. Any 14thc smith could make a handgun, they were cheaper than crossbows almost from the start.
在欧洲,最关键的因素是成本。15世纪任何一位工匠都会制造手枪,后者几乎从一开始就比弩便宜。
TMPikachu
what was the most powerful military power in early 1400 europe, and how did they fight?
15世纪早期世界上最强的军事力量是什么？他们如何打仗？
。翻译链接：http://www.ptfcn.com/ptfcn/l/785/
中文标题：中国vs欧洲
原文标题：.1400's, China vs Europe Rate Topic:
导读：爬山虎历史版“vs”系列第四弹，中国vs欧洲出炉！向各位保证，这次不会再大象大象的了。这次我们看到的是——“中国的火枪敌得过英国大长弓吗？”
剧本设定时代是15世纪，也就是中国的明朝。
回复很多，无法全部翻完，这里仅翻译前头的一部分。
TMPikachu （lz）
This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.
And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?
Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?
欧洲这一方已经发展出了重十字弓，金属装甲，大马骑兵等物。
而中国这边。。。相对应的则是明朝。那么，如果中国和欧洲这时发生冲突，战况会怎么样呢？
或许中国军队会因为盔甲上的螺丝钉弹了出来而战败？又或者，欧洲人会由于中国军队优良的机动性而疲于奔命，最后被中国人打败？
评论翻译
（灰色原文，粉色翻译，紫色补充）
jiangji
I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.
我想说的是，在决定战争胜败的各种要素中，将领是其中非常重要的一条。我认为永乐年间的明朝在将领方面有着极大的优势。此外，大炮在明朝就被应用于战场了。相对于欧洲，明朝的优势太大了。
ih8eurocentrix
agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win
阿金库尔战役中，（英国人）利用长弓就打赢了法国装甲骑兵，因而我实在想象不出欧洲人怎么可能赢。
阿金库尔战役发生于1415年的10月25日，是英法百年战争中著名的以少胜多的战役。在亨利五世的率领下，英军以由步兵弓箭手为主力的军队于此击溃了法国由大批贵族组成的精锐部队，为随后在1419年收服了整个诺曼底奠定基础。这场战役成为了英国长弓手最辉煌的胜利之一，也对后世战争的依靠火力范围杀伤对手密集阵形这种战术留下了深刻影响。
Effect
Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.
实际上，所谓长弓手赢得了阿金库尔战役是一种错误的说法。所选战场的地面状况等等的各种条件都在发挥作用。事实是，即使很近的距离内，长弓依然无法穿透板甲。
Kenneth （回ls）
That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.
你说的比较正确。阿金库尔战役常常被简化成“长弓vs .板甲”，在这种粗略的简化中，法国的士兵有多或少人身穿装甲，队伍的阵型如何，沼地战场的地面状况等等的条件都被排除在外了。
关于这个话题，已经有了一些深入精彩的讨论。。。而且实验发现，在长弓和板甲的对抗中，板甲的防御作用是非常有效的。这种板甲甚至可以将射来的箭弯向一个最佳角度，对方只有找到一个具体的凿点并且在比较短的距离内直接命中——而不是划出一条凌空弧线——才有可能对对方造成伤害。
These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?
How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.
这种“vs”的讨论老是出现。从这种假设中所寻找到的答案并不能真正令人满意。
可口可乐与百事可乐哪个更好?人们真的非要让两者一较长短吗?
倒不如单纯地比较一下两方的武器装备、战略能力；而不是搞这种没必要的“vs”出来。因为，两方军队的人数，战场地形和位置，还有情节和突发事件——这些都不是我们能定出个大概的东西啊。
Liang Jieming
coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too.
Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.
可口可乐更好，百事可乐.太甜了！但话又说回来, Dr. Pepper倒是相当不错。
Dr. Pepper
一种软饮料的名称，英文名为Dr Pepper，中文名称常译作：澎泉、胡椒博士、派珀博士等，是美国Dr Pepper/Seven Up（七喜）公司生产的一种焦糖碳酸饮料，该公司作为吉百利史威士公司的一个分支，坐落于德克萨斯州达拉斯市区。
Dr Pepper是一种特殊的果汁混合物，凭借其褒贬不一的独特口味在全球拥有一大批忠实的拥护者。
在有些国家，Dr Pepper是以可口可乐公司产品的形式出现的。
好吧,说真的,Kenneth的话还真是有理有据。关于这些“vs”的讨论，所得出的答案甚至不能让参与讨论的任何一方满意。
Daniel
Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right?
IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.
Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.
好了,长弓兵同样也是欧洲人,对吗?
IIRC——15世纪最强大的欧洲步兵不过是一群挤在一起的瑞士枪兵。这样拥挤不堪的阵型难道不是明朝火器的活靶子么?面对火器，就是板甲也起不了多大作用。
而且由于15世纪欧洲还没统一，（以当时欧洲各国的现状来看），我很难从中找出一个有可能打败明朝军队的国家出来。
General_Zhaoyun
The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.
在这段时间里明朝的枪支绝对比欧洲更先进。种类繁多的大炮足以炸毁欧洲的骑士阶层。
wlee15
Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.
当时的火器的杀伤范围不大，枪手需要使用两脚架，手动点燃火药。即使枪手们轮番上阵，所能节省的时间也非常有限。而且，枪兵即使有大量的负重，也能在短时间内进行远距离的突刺。不管怎么说，在15世纪，世界上还没有哪一支军队能将火器大量地应用于战争当中。
Mei Houwang
The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.
瑞士枪兵甚至在引进了火药后，都不愿把他们的战斗模式改为利用火药战斗。这或许是因为火药的（杀伤）功效还是差了些。
Liang Jieming
early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.
早期的枪在开火速度、准确性及其他很多方面都敌不过弓箭和弩。只有在降低火器的制造成本，减小武器操作难度和缩短所需的训练周期，提高其杀伤范围、火力和准确后，火药才有能力将传统武器挤出历史舞台。
Effect
Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.
And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman
Kennth的主意不错。与其搞这种“vs”比较，不如转而探索和了解一下双方军队。我们每个人都可以搜集一些信息。如果我们能够合理的把它们组织起来，我们就可以得到一些有价值的资料，并且能根据这些资料，更靠谱地讨论这个问题。
不过也有可能适得其反， 很有可能我们到时会开始比较中国矛兵和欧洲矛兵所受的训练内容。
Daniel
Well, I'm seeing a lot of disagreement with me on the issue of the power of the Ming firearms. I think Liang Jieming and others are right that firearms replaced longbows and crossbows more because they were easier to train with and becoming cheaper.
What I had in my head, though, was that the 15th-century Ming firearms were already at the level the Europeans had achieved by the start of the Thirty Years' War. And by the start of the Thirty Years' War, the Swiss pikemen had already proven too vulnerable to firearms to survive on the battlefield.
Is my conception of the level of 15th-century Ming firearms exaggerated?
嗯,在明朝火器力量强弱的问题上，有很多人都和我的意见不一致。我认为Liang Jieming他们是正确的，在火器的制造费用降低，并且所需的相关培训减少后，火器才能够打败长弓和弩。
在我的印象中，十五世纪的明代火器已经达到了欧洲人三十年战争初始时才达到的水平。而在30年战争开始之前，瑞士枪兵在战场上已经完全敌不过火器了。
难道我一直把15世纪明朝火器的力量想得太牛B了?
三十年战争
17世纪上半叶，以德意志为主要战场的一次席卷欧洲的战争。它是欧洲国家间争夺领土、王位、霸权以及各种政治矛盾和宗教纠纷尖锐化的产物。
TMPikachu
I think about 2/5ths of overall forces were armed with firearms, according to the big phat hardcover book I just got.
根据我刚买的精装书所说，整个军队的五分之二都装备了火器。
Sephodwyrm
I don't think so. But the problem with firearms according to Ji Xiao Xin Shu with raw, inexperienced and lousy soldiers is that they're not maintained properly, they tend to fire it too early, and then they run away when they missed...
我不这么认为。根据《纪效新书》的记载，火器使用的难题是：那些没有经验而拙劣的士兵无法保证能正确地使用枪支,他们总是开火开得太早,而如果他们没打中，这些士兵就会撒腿逃跑…
《纪效新书》是戚继光在东南沿海平倭战争期间练兵和治军经验的总结。他在《自序）中说：“数年间，予承乏浙东，乃知孙武之法，纲领精微莫加矣。第于下手详细节目，则无一及焉。犹禅家所谓上乘之教也，下学者何由以措。于是乃集所练士卒条目，自选*亩民丁以至号令、战法、行营、武艺、守哨、水战，间择其实用有效者，分别教练，先后次第之，各为一卷，以海诸三军俾习焉。顾苦于缮写之难也，爱授粹人。客为题曰：《纪效新书》。
Puerto Rican Legionary
I can tell you this, European armor will be very, very hard to penetrate.
The first firearms can not penetrate, the longbow, crossbows, Spears swords etc.
All these weapons had a very, very hard time penetrating….
Not including that European armor is lighter than what you think it is.
我可以告诉你,欧洲的护甲非常、非常的难以穿透。
最早的火枪是不能穿透它的。而长弓、弩、刀剑、枪等等，所有这些武器也都非常、非常难以穿透这种护甲…。
不仅如此，欧洲的护甲绝对轻得超乎你的想象。。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
I think it depends on whether we are talking of the early or late 1400's.
Early 1400's: Ming army is formidable, excellent training, most advanced gunpowder technology in the world, and a gigantic fleet. Not to mention the warlikeness of the first few emperors.
late 1400's : Military has declined, corruption has lessened the efficiency of Chinese armies, the emperor's are neo confucian weaklings. and of course, European guns have surpassed those of China.
我认为这取决于我们正在谈论的是15世纪早期的明朝还是晚期的明朝。
15世纪早期：明军超强,训练有素，拥有在世界范围内最先进的火器技术,还有个庞大的舰队。不用明朝那好战的头几位皇帝。
15世纪晚期： 军事力量有所下降,腐败已经削减了中国军队的效率,皇帝的是在新儒学的熏陶下长大的胆小鬼。当然,此时欧洲的枪支已经超过了中国。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_* (回复说枪有时敌不过箭的那位)
Yes, but gunpowder weapons had some other advantages, e.g cannon had a higher rate of fire, and required less man power than the trebuchet, and later cannon were also more powerful.
是的,但是火药武器有一些其他的优势。例如大炮有较高的开火速度,需要的人力比投石机要少,而且后期的trebuchet大炮威力更为强大。
tadamson （回ls）
In Europe, the key factor was cost. Any 14thc smith could make a handgun, they were cheaper than crossbows almost from the start.
在欧洲,最关键的因素是成本。15世纪任何一位工匠都会制造手枪,后者几乎从一开始就比弩便宜。
TMPikachu
what was the most powerful military power in early 1400 europe, and how did they fight?
15世纪早期世界上最强的军事力量是什么？他们如何打仗？
。
中文标题：中国vs欧洲
原文标题：.1400's, China vs Europe Rate Topic:
导读：爬山虎历史版“vs”系列第四弹，中国vs欧洲出炉！向各位保证，这次不会再大象大象的了。这次我们看到的是——“中国的火枪敌得过英国大长弓吗？”
剧本设定时代是15世纪，也就是中国的明朝。
回复很多，无法全部翻完，这里仅翻译前头的一部分。
TMPikachu （lz）
This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.
And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?
Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?
欧洲这一方已经发展出了重十字弓，金属装甲，大马骑兵等物。
而中国这边。。。相对应的则是明朝。那么，如果中国和欧洲这时发生冲突，战况会怎么样呢？
或许中国军队会因为盔甲上的螺丝钉弹了出来而战败？又或者，欧洲人会由于中国军队优良的机动性而疲于奔命，最后被中国人打败？
评论翻译
（灰色原文，粉色翻译，紫色补充）
jiangji
I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.
我想说的是，在决定战争胜败的各种要素中，将领是其中非常重要的一条。我认为永乐年间的明朝在将领方面有着极大的优势。此外，大炮在明朝就被应用于战场了。相对于欧洲，明朝的优势太大了。
ih8eurocentrix
agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win
阿金库尔战役中，（英国人）利用长弓就打赢了法国装甲骑兵，因而我实在想象不出欧洲人怎么可能赢。
阿金库尔战役发生于1415年的10月25日，是英法百年战争中著名的以少胜多的战役。在亨利五世的率领下，英军以由步兵弓箭手为主力的军队于此击溃了法国由大批贵族组成的精锐部队，为随后在1419年收服了整个诺曼底奠定基础。这场战役成为了英国长弓手最辉煌的胜利之一，也对后世战争的依靠火力范围杀伤对手密集阵形这种战术留下了深刻影响。
Effect
Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.
实际上，所谓长弓手赢得了阿金库尔战役是一种错误的说法。所选战场的地面状况等等的各种条件都在发挥作用。事实是，即使很近的距离内，长弓依然无法穿透板甲。
Kenneth （回ls）
That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.
你说的比较正确。阿金库尔战役常常被简化成“长弓vs .板甲”，在这种粗略的简化中，法国的士兵有多或少人身穿装甲，队伍的阵型如何，沼地战场的地面状况等等的条件都被排除在外了。
关于这个话题，已经有了一些深入精彩的讨论。。。而且实验发现，在长弓和板甲的对抗中，板甲的防御作用是非常有效的。这种板甲甚至可以将射来的箭弯向一个最佳角度，对方只有找到一个具体的凿点并且在比较短的距离内直接命中——而不是划出一条凌空弧线——才有可能对对方造成伤害。
These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?
How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.
这种“vs”的讨论老是出现。从这种假设中所寻找到的答案并不能真正令人满意。
可口可乐与百事可乐哪个更好?人们真的非要让两者一较长短吗?
倒不如单纯地比较一下两方的武器装备、战略能力；而不是搞这种没必要的“vs”出来。因为，两方军队的人数，战场地形和位置，还有情节和突发事件——这些都不是我们能定出个大概的东西啊。
Liang Jieming
coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too.
Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.
可口可乐更好，百事可乐.太甜了！但话又说回来, Dr. Pepper倒是相当不错。
Dr. Pepper
一种软饮料的名称，英文名为Dr Pepper，中文名称常译作：澎泉、胡椒博士、派珀博士等，是美国Dr Pepper/Seven Up（七喜）公司生产的一种焦糖碳酸饮料，该公司作为吉百利史威士公司的一个分支，坐落于德克萨斯州达拉斯市区。
Dr Pepper是一种特殊的果汁混合物，凭借其褒贬不一的独特口味在全球拥有一大批忠实的拥护者。
在有些国家，Dr Pepper是以可口可乐公司产品的形式出现的。
好吧,说真的,Kenneth的话还真是有理有据。关于这些“vs”的讨论，所得出的答案甚至不能让参与讨论的任何一方满意。
Daniel
Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right?
IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.
Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.
好了,长弓兵同样也是欧洲人,对吗?
IIRC——15世纪最强大的欧洲步兵不过是一群挤在一起的瑞士枪兵。这样拥挤不堪的阵型难道不是明朝火器的活靶子么?面对火器，就是板甲也起不了多大作用。
而且由于15世纪欧洲还没统一，（以当时欧洲各国的现状来看），我很难从中找出一个有可能打败明朝军队的国家出来。
General_Zhaoyun
The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.
在这段时间里明朝的枪支绝对比欧洲更先进。种类繁多的大炮足以炸毁欧洲的骑士阶层。
wlee15
Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.
当时的火器的杀伤范围不大，枪手需要使用两脚架，手动点燃火药。即使枪手们轮番上阵，所能节省的时间也非常有限。而且，枪兵即使有大量的负重，也能在短时间内进行远距离的突刺。不管怎么说，在15世纪，世界上还没有哪一支军队能将火器大量地应用于战争当中。
Mei Houwang
The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.
瑞士枪兵甚至在引进了火药后，都不愿把他们的战斗模式改为利用火药战斗。这或许是因为火药的（杀伤）功效还是差了些。
Liang Jieming
early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.
早期的枪在开火速度、准确性及其他很多方面都敌不过弓箭和弩。只有在降低火器的制造成本，减小武器操作难度和缩短所需的训练周期，提高其杀伤范围、火力和准确后，火药才有能力将传统武器挤出历史舞台。
Effect
Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.
And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman
Kennth的主意不错。与其搞这种“vs”比较，不如转而探索和了解一下双方军队。我们每个人都可以搜集一些信息。如果我们能够合理的把它们组织起来，我们就可以得到一些有价值的资料，并且能根据这些资料，更靠谱地讨论这个问题。
不过也有可能适得其反， 很有可能我们到时会开始比较中国矛兵和欧洲矛兵所受的训练内容。
Daniel
Well, I'm seeing a lot of disagreement with me on the issue of the power of the Ming firearms. I think Liang Jieming and others are right that firearms replaced longbows and crossbows more because they were easier to train with and becoming cheaper.
What I had in my head, though, was that the 15th-century Ming firearms were already at the level the Europeans had achieved by the start of the Thirty Years' War. And by the start of the Thirty Years' War, the Swiss pikemen had already proven too vulnerable to firearms to survive on the battlefield.
Is my conception of the level of 15th-century Ming firearms exaggerated?
嗯,在明朝火器力量强弱的问题上，有很多人都和我的意见不一致。我认为Liang Jieming他们是正确的，在火器的制造费用降低，并且所需的相关培训减少后，火器才能够打败长弓和弩。
在我的印象中，十五世纪的明代火器已经达到了欧洲人三十年战争初始时才达到的水平。而在30年战争开始之前，瑞士枪兵在战场上已经完全敌不过火器了。
难道我一直把15世纪明朝火器的力量想得太牛B了?
三十年战争
17世纪上半叶，以德意志为主要战场的一次席卷欧洲的战争。它是欧洲国家间争夺领土、王位、霸权以及各种政治矛盾和宗教纠纷尖锐化的产物。
TMPikachu
I think about 2/5ths of overall forces were armed with firearms, according to the big phat hardcover book I just got.
根据我刚买的精装书所说，整个军队的五分之二都装备了火器。
Sephodwyrm
I don't think so. But the problem with firearms according to Ji Xiao Xin Shu with raw, inexperienced and lousy soldiers is that they're not maintained properly, they tend to fire it too early, and then they run away when they missed...
我不这么认为。根据《纪效新书》的记载，火器使用的难题是：那些没有经验而拙劣的士兵无法保证能正确地使用枪支,他们总是开火开得太早,而如果他们没打中，这些士兵就会撒腿逃跑…
《纪效新书》是戚继光在东南沿海平倭战争期间练兵和治军经验的总结。他在《自序）中说：“数年间，予承乏浙东，乃知孙武之法，纲领精微莫加矣。第于下手详细节目，则无一及焉。犹禅家所谓上乘之教也，下学者何由以措。于是乃集所练士卒条目，自选*亩民丁以至号令、战法、行营、武艺、守哨、水战，间择其实用有效者，分别教练，先后次第之，各为一卷，以海诸三军俾习焉。顾苦于缮写之难也，爱授粹人。客为题曰：《纪效新书》。
Puerto Rican Legionary
I can tell you this, European armor will be very, very hard to penetrate.
The first firearms can not penetrate, the longbow, crossbows, Spears swords etc.
All these weapons had a very, very hard time penetrating….
Not including that European armor is lighter than what you think it is.
我可以告诉你,欧洲的护甲非常、非常的难以穿透。
最早的火枪是不能穿透它的。而长弓、弩、刀剑、枪等等，所有这些武器也都非常、非常难以穿透这种护甲…。
不仅如此，欧洲的护甲绝对轻得超乎你的想象。。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
I think it depends on whether we are talking of the early or late 1400's.
Early 1400's: Ming army is formidable, excellent training, most advanced gunpowder technology in the world, and a gigantic fleet. Not to mention the warlikeness of the first few emperors.
late 1400's : Military has declined, corruption has lessened the efficiency of Chinese armies, the emperor's are neo confucian weaklings. and of course, European guns have surpassed those of China.
我认为这取决于我们正在谈论的是15世纪早期的明朝还是晚期的明朝。
15世纪早期：明军超强,训练有素，拥有在世界范围内最先进的火器技术,还有个庞大的舰队。不用明朝那好战的头几位皇帝。
15世纪晚期： 军事力量有所下降,腐败已经削减了中国军队的效率,皇帝的是在新儒学的熏陶下长大的胆小鬼。当然,此时欧洲的枪支已经超过了中国。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_* (回复说枪有时敌不过箭的那位)
Yes, but gunpowder weapons had some other advantages, e.g cannon had a higher rate of fire, and required less man power than the trebuchet, and later cannon were also more powerful.
是的,但是火药武器有一些其他的优势。例如大炮有较高的开火速度,需要的人力比投石机要少,而且后期的trebuchet大炮威力更为强大。
tadamson （回ls）
In Europe, the key factor was cost. Any 14thc smith could make a handgun, they were cheaper than crossbows almost from the start.
在欧洲,最关键的因素是成本。15世纪任何一位工匠都会制造手枪,后者几乎从一开始就比弩便宜。
TMPikachu
what was the most powerful military power in early 1400 europe, and how did they fight?
15世纪早期世界上最强的军事力量是什么？他们如何打仗？
。翻译链接：http://www.ptfcn.com/ptfcn/l/785/
中文标题：中国vs欧洲
原文标题：.1400's, China vs Europe Rate Topic:
导读：爬山虎历史版“vs”系列第四弹，中国vs欧洲出炉！向各位保证，这次不会再大象大象的了。这次我们看到的是——“中国的火枪敌得过英国大长弓吗？”
剧本设定时代是15世纪，也就是中国的明朝。
回复很多，无法全部翻完，这里仅翻译前头的一部分。
TMPikachu （lz）
This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.
And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?
Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?
欧洲这一方已经发展出了重十字弓，金属装甲，大马骑兵等物。
而中国这边。。。相对应的则是明朝。那么，如果中国和欧洲这时发生冲突，战况会怎么样呢？
或许中国军队会因为盔甲上的螺丝钉弹了出来而战败？又或者，欧洲人会由于中国军队优良的机动性而疲于奔命，最后被中国人打败？
评论翻译
（灰色原文，粉色翻译，紫色补充）
jiangji
I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.
我想说的是，在决定战争胜败的各种要素中，将领是其中非常重要的一条。我认为永乐年间的明朝在将领方面有着极大的优势。此外，大炮在明朝就被应用于战场了。相对于欧洲，明朝的优势太大了。
ih8eurocentrix
agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win
阿金库尔战役中，（英国人）利用长弓就打赢了法国装甲骑兵，因而我实在想象不出欧洲人怎么可能赢。
阿金库尔战役发生于1415年的10月25日，是英法百年战争中著名的以少胜多的战役。在亨利五世的率领下，英军以由步兵弓箭手为主力的军队于此击溃了法国由大批贵族组成的精锐部队，为随后在1419年收服了整个诺曼底奠定基础。这场战役成为了英国长弓手最辉煌的胜利之一，也对后世战争的依靠火力范围杀伤对手密集阵形这种战术留下了深刻影响。
Effect
Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.
实际上，所谓长弓手赢得了阿金库尔战役是一种错误的说法。所选战场的地面状况等等的各种条件都在发挥作用。事实是，即使很近的距离内，长弓依然无法穿透板甲。
Kenneth （回ls）
That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.
你说的比较正确。阿金库尔战役常常被简化成“长弓vs .板甲”，在这种粗略的简化中，法国的士兵有多或少人身穿装甲，队伍的阵型如何，沼地战场的地面状况等等的条件都被排除在外了。
关于这个话题，已经有了一些深入精彩的讨论。。。而且实验发现，在长弓和板甲的对抗中，板甲的防御作用是非常有效的。这种板甲甚至可以将射来的箭弯向一个最佳角度，对方只有找到一个具体的凿点并且在比较短的距离内直接命中——而不是划出一条凌空弧线——才有可能对对方造成伤害。
These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?
How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.
这种“vs”的讨论老是出现。从这种假设中所寻找到的答案并不能真正令人满意。
可口可乐与百事可乐哪个更好?人们真的非要让两者一较长短吗?
倒不如单纯地比较一下两方的武器装备、战略能力；而不是搞这种没必要的“vs”出来。因为，两方军队的人数，战场地形和位置，还有情节和突发事件——这些都不是我们能定出个大概的东西啊。
Liang Jieming
coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too.
Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.
可口可乐更好，百事可乐.太甜了！但话又说回来, Dr. Pepper倒是相当不错。
Dr. Pepper
一种软饮料的名称，英文名为Dr Pepper，中文名称常译作：澎泉、胡椒博士、派珀博士等，是美国Dr Pepper/Seven Up（七喜）公司生产的一种焦糖碳酸饮料，该公司作为吉百利史威士公司的一个分支，坐落于德克萨斯州达拉斯市区。
Dr Pepper是一种特殊的果汁混合物，凭借其褒贬不一的独特口味在全球拥有一大批忠实的拥护者。
在有些国家，Dr Pepper是以可口可乐公司产品的形式出现的。
好吧,说真的,Kenneth的话还真是有理有据。关于这些“vs”的讨论，所得出的答案甚至不能让参与讨论的任何一方满意。
Daniel
Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right?
IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.
Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.
好了,长弓兵同样也是欧洲人,对吗?
IIRC——15世纪最强大的欧洲步兵不过是一群挤在一起的瑞士枪兵。这样拥挤不堪的阵型难道不是明朝火器的活靶子么?面对火器，就是板甲也起不了多大作用。
而且由于15世纪欧洲还没统一，（以当时欧洲各国的现状来看），我很难从中找出一个有可能打败明朝军队的国家出来。
General_Zhaoyun
The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.
在这段时间里明朝的枪支绝对比欧洲更先进。种类繁多的大炮足以炸毁欧洲的骑士阶层。
wlee15
Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.
当时的火器的杀伤范围不大，枪手需要使用两脚架，手动点燃火药。即使枪手们轮番上阵，所能节省的时间也非常有限。而且，枪兵即使有大量的负重，也能在短时间内进行远距离的突刺。不管怎么说，在15世纪，世界上还没有哪一支军队能将火器大量地应用于战争当中。
Mei Houwang
The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.
瑞士枪兵甚至在引进了火药后，都不愿把他们的战斗模式改为利用火药战斗。这或许是因为火药的（杀伤）功效还是差了些。
Liang Jieming
early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.
早期的枪在开火速度、准确性及其他很多方面都敌不过弓箭和弩。只有在降低火器的制造成本，减小武器操作难度和缩短所需的训练周期，提高其杀伤范围、火力和准确后，火药才有能力将传统武器挤出历史舞台。
Effect
Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.
And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman
Kennth的主意不错。与其搞这种“vs”比较，不如转而探索和了解一下双方军队。我们每个人都可以搜集一些信息。如果我们能够合理的把它们组织起来，我们就可以得到一些有价值的资料，并且能根据这些资料，更靠谱地讨论这个问题。
不过也有可能适得其反， 很有可能我们到时会开始比较中国矛兵和欧洲矛兵所受的训练内容。
Daniel
Well, I'm seeing a lot of disagreement with me on the issue of the power of the Ming firearms. I think Liang Jieming and others are right that firearms replaced longbows and crossbows more because they were easier to train with and becoming cheaper.
What I had in my head, though, was that the 15th-century Ming firearms were already at the level the Europeans had achieved by the start of the Thirty Years' War. And by the start of the Thirty Years' War, the Swiss pikemen had already proven too vulnerable to firearms to survive on the battlefield.
Is my conception of the level of 15th-century Ming firearms exaggerated?
嗯,在明朝火器力量强弱的问题上，有很多人都和我的意见不一致。我认为Liang Jieming他们是正确的，在火器的制造费用降低，并且所需的相关培训减少后，火器才能够打败长弓和弩。
在我的印象中，十五世纪的明代火器已经达到了欧洲人三十年战争初始时才达到的水平。而在30年战争开始之前，瑞士枪兵在战场上已经完全敌不过火器了。
难道我一直把15世纪明朝火器的力量想得太牛B了?
三十年战争
17世纪上半叶，以德意志为主要战场的一次席卷欧洲的战争。它是欧洲国家间争夺领土、王位、霸权以及各种政治矛盾和宗教纠纷尖锐化的产物。
TMPikachu
I think about 2/5ths of overall forces were armed with firearms, according to the big phat hardcover book I just got.
根据我刚买的精装书所说，整个军队的五分之二都装备了火器。
Sephodwyrm
I don't think so. But the problem with firearms according to Ji Xiao Xin Shu with raw, inexperienced and lousy soldiers is that they're not maintained properly, they tend to fire it too early, and then they run away when they missed...
我不这么认为。根据《纪效新书》的记载，火器使用的难题是：那些没有经验而拙劣的士兵无法保证能正确地使用枪支,他们总是开火开得太早,而如果他们没打中，这些士兵就会撒腿逃跑…
《纪效新书》是戚继光在东南沿海平倭战争期间练兵和治军经验的总结。他在《自序）中说：“数年间，予承乏浙东，乃知孙武之法，纲领精微莫加矣。第于下手详细节目，则无一及焉。犹禅家所谓上乘之教也，下学者何由以措。于是乃集所练士卒条目，自选*亩民丁以至号令、战法、行营、武艺、守哨、水战，间择其实用有效者，分别教练，先后次第之，各为一卷，以海诸三军俾习焉。顾苦于缮写之难也，爱授粹人。客为题曰：《纪效新书》。
Puerto Rican Legionary
I can tell you this, European armor will be very, very hard to penetrate.
The first firearms can not penetrate, the longbow, crossbows, Spears swords etc.
All these weapons had a very, very hard time penetrating….
Not including that European armor is lighter than what you think it is.
我可以告诉你,欧洲的护甲非常、非常的难以穿透。
最早的火枪是不能穿透它的。而长弓、弩、刀剑、枪等等，所有这些武器也都非常、非常难以穿透这种护甲…。
不仅如此，欧洲的护甲绝对轻得超乎你的想象。。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
I think it depends on whether we are talking of the early or late 1400's.
Early 1400's: Ming army is formidable, excellent training, most advanced gunpowder technology in the world, and a gigantic fleet. Not to mention the warlikeness of the first few emperors.
late 1400's : Military has declined, corruption has lessened the efficiency of Chinese armies, the emperor's are neo confucian weaklings. and of course, European guns have surpassed those of China.
我认为这取决于我们正在谈论的是15世纪早期的明朝还是晚期的明朝。
15世纪早期：明军超强,训练有素，拥有在世界范围内最先进的火器技术,还有个庞大的舰队。不用明朝那好战的头几位皇帝。
15世纪晚期： 军事力量有所下降,腐败已经削减了中国军队的效率,皇帝的是在新儒学的熏陶下长大的胆小鬼。当然,此时欧洲的枪支已经超过了中国。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_* (回复说枪有时敌不过箭的那位)
Yes, but gunpowder weapons had some other advantages, e.g cannon had a higher rate of fire, and required less man power than the trebuchet, and later cannon were also more powerful.
是的,但是火药武器有一些其他的优势。例如大炮有较高的开火速度,需要的人力比投石机要少,而且后期的trebuchet大炮威力更为强大。
tadamson （回ls）
In Europe, the key factor was cost. Any 14thc smith could make a handgun, they were cheaper than crossbows almost from the start.
在欧洲,最关键的因素是成本。15世纪任何一位工匠都会制造手枪,后者几乎从一开始就比弩便宜。
TMPikachu
what was the most powerful military power in early 1400 europe, and how did they fight?
15世纪早期世界上最强的军事力量是什么？他们如何打仗？
。
tadamson
The various participants in the hundred years war were all very powerful, France, England, Burgundy, Gascony, and smaller states. Also large numbers of mercinaries had been involved. However the Tutonic Knights in the North and Hungarians in the East were also constantly at war.
英法百年战争的各位参与者都是很强大的，法国、英国、勃艮第、卡斯肯尼和一些小国。大量的雇佣兵也被投入战场。然而北方的条顿骑士，南方的匈牙利人也一直处于战争状态中。
Tactics were very varied and were finely tuned to the particular opponants and terrain faced. In Western Europe the men at arms (full plate armour, with a selection of weapons), archers (the term was used for longbowmwn and crossbowmen, mostly well armoured and multi armed) and heavy infantry (pikemen, spearmen, billmen, partizanmen, halberdeers etc all heavily armoured) dismounted to fight and used lots of field fortifications to improve their position. handgunners were used both en masse and as skirmish screens.
战术是多样的，常常会因为特定的对手和地形而改变。在西欧军队服役的男人们（他们都全副武装，而且会选择自己适用的武器），
战术非常改变,被调谐和地形的特殊opponants面对它。西欧的战士(他们都全副武装，并且会选择自己适用的武器)，弓箭手(指的是长弓手和十字弓手),大部分都盔甲精良，装备着多种多样的武装)，和重型步兵(包括枪兵,矛兵, 钩镰兵, partizanmen（我实在不知道这是什么。。。）, 戟兵等的重装步兵)都曾活跃于战场之上，并被综合应用以提高军势。他们既被应用于大规模的武装冲突上，也被投入小规模的冲突之中。
All men at arms and most others had horses and could fight mounted if necessary. Cannon were widely used.
Late Medieval warfare is a big subject, too much for posts in forums.
所有战士和其他大多数人可以投入到有马匹和安装,如果必要的话。大炮被广泛的应用。
大部分的战士们都拥有马匹，并且能在需要时进行马战。大炮也被广泛使用。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
Not in the early half of the 15th century. The Swiss pikemen really only developed to its height until the end of that century.
Prior to that European infantry can't charge in formation, they are not disciplined enough to do that. They could only keep a formation in static mode and thats very vulnerable to mobile cavalry horse archery tactics.
并不是15世纪早期。瑞士枪兵在15世纪末才发展到了它的顶峰。
在这之前，欧洲的步兵还不能在保持阵型的状态下发起冲锋，他们还没有训练有素到足以完成这种动作。他们只能在静止不动的时候保持阵型，而这使他们很容易受到灵活移动的骑兵的弓箭攻击。
The knights, however, by this time was already quite discipline in formational charges and retreats. But they still lack horse archery and systematic organizations of flexible changes during the battle.
骑士们,然而,这时候已经十分学科信息费用和回撤。但是他们仍然缺少系统的组织的马射箭和灵活的改变在战斗中。
然而，在这之前骑兵们已经在进攻和后撤上相当训练有素了。不过他们仍然缺少骑射手，在战场上的灵活机变也没有系统组织。
The whole reason why Swiss infantry was so successful is because they could charge while in formation, and that was a big advantage against the cavalry. Yet at its initial stage they are pike dominated and less flexible.
The weaponry and armament should be comparable in advantage of different areas. But in missile, the Ming was still more developed. Continetal Europe focused on the crossbow, but they did not have the counermarch, England focused on the Longbow, but none manage to use both to effect. While Ming had both composite and crossbows. The firearm is actually comparable. But at this date it would have little decisive advantage.
为什么瑞士的步兵如此成功？这是因为他们可以在进攻时保持阵型，这一点在对付骑兵的时候是个很大的优势。在最初军队还以枪兵为主力，并且灵活性方面很弱的时候，他们就拥有这种能力了。
军备和武器的各自优势应该在不同的领域进行比较。不过在投掷式武器方面，还是明朝更先进。欧洲大陆上的人的注意力都放在了弩上；而英格兰的人把焦点放在长弓上，但没有一个人设法使其同时拥有两种效果。但是明朝人就既拥有十字弓，又拥有复合材料的技术。火器倒是比得上它，但是在那时它决定性的优势并不显著。
tadamson
There are too many factors. Army effectivness depends on leadership, logistics, experience, moral, training, equipment . All of these are tied to the terrain in which you fight and the enemies you face. Both sides would have made significant changes if faced with the other.
世界上有太多的因素了。军队的作战效果取决于军队领导、物流、经验、道德修养、军事训练还有装备。所有的这些都与战场的地形和你所面对的敌人紧密联系。如果换个对手，战斗的双方都会有显著地变化。
eg. The English armies of the time were predominantly horse archers, but of a very different type to those of the East (longbows, heavy armour, dismounting to fight, etc) but they operated in an entirely diffferent environment 。
比方说当时英国的弓骑兵十分卓越，与东方相比有许多优势（比方说长弓、重甲、下马战斗之类），不过他们作战的环境可完全不同啊。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
（回ls）
The Ming infantry and cavalry is no less heavy. The Ming shockers of the period had a combination of steel chain and scale. But the fighting methods is indeed different. But the advantage is much more on the Ming's side if its in 1400. Since as already been stated, European infantry of the time are not highly disciplined and are very vulnerable to deceptions. The Mongols has alerady shown that. And in 1400, its little better. Only the armament, weaponry and certain cavalry units were better. And in this case the Ming was also an improvement over the 13th century Eastern weapons.
明朝的步兵和骑兵（在装备方面）也不差。明清时期盔甲是由铁链和鳞甲组成的。不过二者战斗方法确实是不同的。如果时间设定在1400，那么明朝的赢面大得多。因为我们已经确实地知道，当时欧洲的步兵还没有高度的组织化和纪律化，而且极易受到敌人的欺骗。其于蒙古人的战斗已经证明了这一点。在15世纪这种状况才改善了一点点——只在军备、武器装备和一部分骑兵部队上有所好转。而在欧洲的武器取得进步的同时，明朝的军队也有了发展。
tadamson
By 1400 European infantry from the better counties (England, France, Germany most Italian states etc) were far better trained, disciplined and equipped than their Ming contemporaries (many were long term professionals). For 100 years they had dominated Western European battlefields.
到了15世纪，那些长于步兵的国家（如英国、法国、德国和意大利的大部分州）——它们的步兵都受到了非常良好的训练，极富纪律性且装备精良，远胜于同时期的明朝（其中很多都是职业军人）。100年来他们一直主导者西方的欧洲战区。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
They were hardly "far better" than the soldiers of the Hungwu/Yongle reign. the only advantage I can see is their equipment, which admittedly, outclassed that of the Ming.
他们很难“远胜于”洪武和永乐年间的中国军人。我所见到的唯一的优势是他们的装备,他们的装备确实远远超过了明朝。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada （回ls 的ls）
Wrong, only selected groups were professionals, while all of the Ming armies from the Wei Suo were professionals in an inherited military system. I will repeat again, European infantries at this time is undisciplined as a whole, they are not able to keep formation while attacking, the Ming has no problem of doing so. The Swiss infantry was the first European infantry that could do such.
错。唯一选择的群体是职业运动员,而所有的明军从魏索是一种遗传性的专业人士在军事系统。我要再次运用步兵在这个时候,欧洲作为一个整体是没有纪律,他们不能够保持形成攻击时,明朝的问题没有做这样的事情。瑞士步兵是第一个欧洲的步兵能做这样的。
错。只有被选拔出来的才是职业军人。而明朝自Wei Suo(这个。。。求解答)起，所有的军人都是职业的——明朝的军事系统有其代代继承的特性。我再说一遍，当时的欧洲步兵没有整体纪律性，在攻击时也不能保持阵型。而明朝在这两点上就完全没有问题。瑞士步兵是全欧洲第一个能做到这两点的军队。
Care to explain what equipment of European armies are better? Firearm on both sides are comparable, Ming actually has a more variety and percentage for its army. Armaments are comparable. The Mings were superior in missile weaponry. The Ming crossbow were superior in mechanism to its Euroepan counterparts, while the composite bow is efficient to the longbow in different aspects. Your claims are largely groundless.
你倒是说说欧洲军队的什么器械能比明朝好？比火器的话，明朝在火器种类和应用比例上占优。比军备，明朝在投掷类武器更强。明朝的十字弓也在机巧上胜于欧洲的同类武器。（明朝）复合短弓在许多方面也比长弓更有效。你的论点在很大程度上是毫无根据的。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
Yes, Ming missile weapons were superior. But in terms of close combat equipment, European soldiers clad in full plate, wielding halberds, maces, and flails are obviously going to be hard to beat.
是的,明投掷类武器的表现的很强大。但在近身肉搏战的装备方面，欧洲士兵全副武装，浑身板甲，挥舞着狼牙棒,戟,枷等武器——显而易见,他们看来是很难被击败的。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
No, 1400 Europe did not have full plate, that only developed towards the very end of the 15th century. The best armour are mail reinforced with plates of various shapes over the back, abdomen and chest, most infantry of that time had chainmail. Plate is far too expensive to create even in late periods.
不,1400的欧洲不可能全身装备板甲，只有发展到15世纪末才能达到这一水平。（当时）最好的盔甲是那种在胸部、背部、腹部用板甲加固过的那种，而大多数的步兵穿的是链子甲。即使是在晚期，板甲的造价也是相当昂贵的。
Plate is far from invulnerable, the Ming had numerous ways to destroy knights in armour. The Zhang Ma Dao has already proven to smash the helmet to a bulp when brought down, and on the joint, it would immedieately dislocate it when come in contact. If anything, the plate hampers certain reflex movements and would be disadvantage in this instance when they are brought against the heavy weapons of Ming arms.
板甲远非无懈可击，明军有很多破坏骑士的盔甲的方法。
板空防远非无懈可击,明朝有许多破坏骑士的盔甲的方法。斩马刀（原作者打成了zhangmadao ，我猜测它可能是斩马刀）已被证实可以粉碎士兵们的头盔,并且能在突然的接触中使关节脱臼。如果有什么区别的话，板甲会极大地妨碍士兵们的移动，而这一点在很多情况下，比如说在对抗明军的重武器时，会成为欧洲人的软肋。
斩马刀
明朝士兵所用之步骑两用长刀，仿陌刀制式。
Of course chest protection might be another story, but such generalization has little evidence, the Zhang Ma Dao could easily cut through any form of scale or chain by a slight touch from the wielders. The plates just require a good hack to smack and dent. The ming also had mace and heavy handled weapon like the halberd and axe.
当然也可能是另一个故事胸部的保护,但很少有证据表明这样的泛化、樟马刀很容易割破通过任何形式的规模或链从wielders一个轻微。只需要一个良好的板和凹痕所属的巴掌。明也有了锤重处理像戟武器和斧头。
当然，欧洲人对胸部的保护或许能让情况有所不同，但是这种概括几乎是毫无依据的。斩马刀只要轻轻一挥，就能切碎所有的鳞甲锁链什么的。即使对于板甲，只需要猛地来一刀，就能把它们砍坏。明朝还有狼牙棒，还有斧头和戟之类的重型武器。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
Actually, transitional plate armour has been in use since the 14th century, as my first post on this topic shows. In addition, regular troops could be equipped in munitions plate, which is protective but very uncomfortable due to the fact that it is not custom fitted to the wearer.
其实，就如我在前面几楼所说的，过渡型板甲早在14世纪的欧洲就投入使用了。此外，传统的军队可以装备军需板甲，这种板甲防御能力很好，不过也有个坏处——它们不可能为每个士兵量身定做，所以或许不大合身。
I'm well aware that the Ming had anti-armour weapons. But they were never designed to deal with the more protective European plate armour.
我知道明朝有反装甲武器（这个可能有点囧，不过我也想不出来有那个词能更靠谱了。。。），不过他们可没设计过专门用来对付欧洲板甲的东西啊。
TMPikachu
I heard of History channel show or something like that doing a test with attacking a full plate suit, and out of the various weapons used, only the zhanmadao actually cut through (the rest bashed/dented).
That's just something I've heard though, and it's been mentioned here before, I have no way of confirming it.
我听说历史频道还是别的什么的节目做过一个测试，用各种武器一个个砍一套板甲，只有斩马刀把板甲切开了（其他的只是给予了板甲重击，或是砍出了条印而已）。
这只是我听说的啊，以前也没人提过，我也没法确认是不是真的。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
（回ls的ls。本帖自此进入掐架的氛围，下面的回复几乎都是针对别的评论者的说法而发。因此在此略去原文评论者们引用别人回复的部分，并且不注明“回复xx”——因为已经是混战了。。。）
I'm talking about full plate, the plate of 1400 has its advantage, but Ming scale have its own advantages. saying one is superior is simply generalizing and baseless.
我说的就是全身板甲的情况。15世纪的板甲有它的优势，但明军也有他们自己的优势。你这么一刀切地概括说欧洲的板甲更强是毫无根据的。
Care to explain? Because testing have been done and Zhang Ma Dao has no problem cutting right through the best plate armours of Europe.
能解释一下你的话么？因为根据测试的结果，战马刀在切碎欧洲最好板甲方面完全没问题。
TMPikachu
What are the advantages of Ming scale (by scale do you mean the kind that's stitched together that I call 'lamellar' ?)
I have the idea in my head that western chain/plate armor is the best in the world, and that bugs me. Any valid info to get rid of that feeling would be super!
things I would think of being... lamellar is cheaper/faster to make, easier to maintain, but those are not 'cool/impressive' positive points.
明代的优势是什么规模量表(通过你的意思是这类的缝合在一起,我称之为的”鳞甲,'吗?)
明朝鳞甲的优势是什么?(你用了scale这个词，你是不是指的是这种东西缝在一起的产物，我所说的lamellar——鳞甲？)
在我的一直以来的印象中,西方的链子甲或是板甲是世界上最好的装甲,不过这种想法让我烦透了。我很乐意看到能反驳这一条的信息!
我想，鳞甲可能能便宜，制造所需的时间也短，更容易保养维修。不过这些也不是那种“冷静理性/令人印象深刻”的积极观点啊。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
I do believe that full plate is the best armour. But partially plated knights have no advantage. Islamic armies used these as well from 15th century on. Ming scales are far more complicated designed and folded than European lamellars. And Ming chain mail were said to be so intricate that the Katana during the Imjin war makes absolutely no effect on it. Add to this were silk undercoats for the generals. In essense Ming infantry were just as missile resistant as Swiss pikemen(which were better armoured than most other European infantrymen). And their well trained heavy pollarm users nullify much of the advantage of plate armour especially when its not full plating, the arms joints are very vulnearble with the fact that they are chain mail.
我相信欧洲的板甲如果能包裹全身的话会是最好的盔甲。不过只有一部分身体被盔甲保护的骑士在战场上没有什么优势。伊斯兰军队从15世纪就采用了这套工艺，并且在这方面做得很好。明朝鳞甲的工艺要复杂得多,和欧洲鳞甲相比有更多的折叠设计。明朝链子甲极其复杂，以至于在Imjin战争中武士刀几乎奈何不了它。将军们的盔甲里头还穿着丝绸衣服。从根本上说，明朝步兵就像瑞士枪兵一样是使用火器弹药作战的部队（他们在盔甲方面做得比欧洲大多数国家都好）。明军训练有素，大多数的盔甲在明军的重武器面前几乎不堪一击。尤其是那种只有并不是包裹全身的，只保护局部的盔甲，尽管实际上它们以锁链连结，它们在关节处仍极其脆弱。
The Imjin War
万历朝鲜战争，又称朝鲜壬辰卫国战争；日本称之为文禄之役，第二次称之为庆长之役，或合称为文禄-庆长之役，朝鲜征伐，征韩；南、北韩称之为壬辰倭乱，第二次称之为丁酉再乱；中国称为朝鲜之役，与宁夏之役、播州之役合称为万历三大征。这场战争由日本前关白丰臣秀吉在1592年（壬辰年，中国万历年间，日本文禄、庆长年间）派兵入侵朝鲜引起。因朝鲜的宗主国是明国，是故向中国求援，明神宗应请求派军救援，日本占领朝鲜并以之为跳板进攻明国的行动受阻，丰臣秀吉也在战争末期死去。他死后不久，日本军队全部从朝鲜撤退。
tadamson
It's still a matter of armies evolve to meed the specific threats and environment that they face, as such Western European and Chinese armies were different (not necessaraly better or worse). Even in Europe there was considerable variation.
eg French army 1415 (Agincourt a fairly well documented battle - yat there is still considerable academic discussion re numbers etc...).
The total French army was over 150,000 but only 12,000 to 20,000 actually fought.
军队所面对的具体威胁和战场环境对战事的影响也很大，比方说西欧和中国的军队就是完全不同的（这不是说一个就比另一个厉害或是差了）。即使是同属于欧洲的各个军队，它们之间的差异也很大。
例如1415年间的法国军队(阿金库尔战役被很好的记录了下来,直到今天依然有围绕这场战役的，关于数量之类的相当学术的讨论)。
法国军队总额超过15万的,但是实际上只有1.2万到2万真正投入到战场。
The French first line was entirely dismounted men at arms in full plate harness. Ther were small groups of mounted men at arms on the flanks, a second line of heavily armoured archers and crossbowmen, then a third line of heavily armoured infantry with polearms (5-20% in plate harness), spears etc
Interestingly as the 15th c progressed many European infantry wore less ans less armour.
法军的第一列部队就是全身披挂且不用马匹的士兵。一小队骑兵安排在侧翼，第二列部队是重甲弓箭手和十字弓手，然后第三列队是配备类似长矛的长柄武器的重甲骑兵（其中5-20%穿板甲）。
有趣的是，到了15世纪，许多欧洲步兵反倒减少了盔甲。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
The thing is, early 15th century European army just isn't disciplined enough. Only the later half of 15th century does the European armies have comparison.
In 1400, the Knights were the major offensive weapons, the infantry are only a base of which the knights revolve around. While in China, the infantry takes just as much offensive role as the cavalry. For example the Yue Jia Jun used the MaZhaDao and the Tang used the MoDao to rush up against the heavy cavalries and completely cut them up to force them to retreat. This puts a disadvantage against the Euroepan knights since they have no mounted archers, the ZhangMaDao would do some serious damage. While the infantry would be at a disadvantage when its repeately harrassed by mounted archers and heavy cavalries which takes the initiative to berak their formation through the typical Liao style of repeated charging groups of ten until the enemy finally breaks their formation. Since the European infantry can't counterattack in cohesive formation, this would be deadly.
The Swiss infantry would be another story, , thats why I divide 1400s into two halfs.(or more)
事实是,15世纪早期的欧洲军队并不如何训练有素。只有15世纪下半页的欧洲军队可堪一比。
在15世纪,骑士们是主要的进攻武器,步兵仅仅是围绕着骑兵战斗的基础部队。
而在中国，步兵与骑兵一样承担着进攻的任务。比方说岳家军曾用斩马刀、唐朝曾使用陌刀冲击重装骑兵，并且彻底地切开了部队并且最终迫使敌人撤退。而由于没有弓骑兵，他们在对付欧洲骑兵时会处于不利地位。斩马刀将造成很大的伤害。而步兵的劣势是，当它弓骑兵和重甲骑兵可以持续对步兵发起冲锋，直到他们的阵型崩溃。由于欧洲步兵无法对抗紧密结成阵型的不对，这样的伤害将使致命的。
瑞士枪兵可以拿出来另说。。。。。。这也就是为什么我将15世纪分成两部分来讨论。
The various participants in the hundred years war were all very powerful, France, England, Burgundy, Gascony, and smaller states. Also large numbers of mercinaries had been involved. However the Tutonic Knights in the North and Hungarians in the East were also constantly at war.
英法百年战争的各位参与者都是很强大的，法国、英国、勃艮第、卡斯肯尼和一些小国。大量的雇佣兵也被投入战场。然而北方的条顿骑士，南方的匈牙利人也一直处于战争状态中。
Tactics were very varied and were finely tuned to the particular opponants and terrain faced. In Western Europe the men at arms (full plate armour, with a selection of weapons), archers (the term was used for longbowmwn and crossbowmen, mostly well armoured and multi armed) and heavy infantry (pikemen, spearmen, billmen, partizanmen, halberdeers etc all heavily armoured) dismounted to fight and used lots of field fortifications to improve their position. handgunners were used both en masse and as skirmish screens.
战术是多样的，常常会因为特定的对手和地形而改变。在西欧军队服役的男人们（他们都全副武装，而且会选择自己适用的武器），
战术非常改变,被调谐和地形的特殊opponants面对它。西欧的战士(他们都全副武装，并且会选择自己适用的武器)，弓箭手(指的是长弓手和十字弓手),大部分都盔甲精良，装备着多种多样的武装)，和重型步兵(包括枪兵,矛兵, 钩镰兵, partizanmen（我实在不知道这是什么。。。）, 戟兵等的重装步兵)都曾活跃于战场之上，并被综合应用以提高军势。他们既被应用于大规模的武装冲突上，也被投入小规模的冲突之中。
All men at arms and most others had horses and could fight mounted if necessary. Cannon were widely used.
Late Medieval warfare is a big subject, too much for posts in forums.
所有战士和其他大多数人可以投入到有马匹和安装,如果必要的话。大炮被广泛的应用。
大部分的战士们都拥有马匹，并且能在需要时进行马战。大炮也被广泛使用。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
Not in the early half of the 15th century. The Swiss pikemen really only developed to its height until the end of that century.
Prior to that European infantry can't charge in formation, they are not disciplined enough to do that. They could only keep a formation in static mode and thats very vulnerable to mobile cavalry horse archery tactics.
并不是15世纪早期。瑞士枪兵在15世纪末才发展到了它的顶峰。
在这之前，欧洲的步兵还不能在保持阵型的状态下发起冲锋，他们还没有训练有素到足以完成这种动作。他们只能在静止不动的时候保持阵型，而这使他们很容易受到灵活移动的骑兵的弓箭攻击。
The knights, however, by this time was already quite discipline in formational charges and retreats. But they still lack horse archery and systematic organizations of flexible changes during the battle.
骑士们,然而,这时候已经十分学科信息费用和回撤。但是他们仍然缺少系统的组织的马射箭和灵活的改变在战斗中。
然而，在这之前骑兵们已经在进攻和后撤上相当训练有素了。不过他们仍然缺少骑射手，在战场上的灵活机变也没有系统组织。
The whole reason why Swiss infantry was so successful is because they could charge while in formation, and that was a big advantage against the cavalry. Yet at its initial stage they are pike dominated and less flexible.
The weaponry and armament should be comparable in advantage of different areas. But in missile, the Ming was still more developed. Continetal Europe focused on the crossbow, but they did not have the counermarch, England focused on the Longbow, but none manage to use both to effect. While Ming had both composite and crossbows. The firearm is actually comparable. But at this date it would have little decisive advantage.
为什么瑞士的步兵如此成功？这是因为他们可以在进攻时保持阵型，这一点在对付骑兵的时候是个很大的优势。在最初军队还以枪兵为主力，并且灵活性方面很弱的时候，他们就拥有这种能力了。
军备和武器的各自优势应该在不同的领域进行比较。不过在投掷式武器方面，还是明朝更先进。欧洲大陆上的人的注意力都放在了弩上；而英格兰的人把焦点放在长弓上，但没有一个人设法使其同时拥有两种效果。但是明朝人就既拥有十字弓，又拥有复合材料的技术。火器倒是比得上它，但是在那时它决定性的优势并不显著。
tadamson
There are too many factors. Army effectivness depends on leadership, logistics, experience, moral, training, equipment . All of these are tied to the terrain in which you fight and the enemies you face. Both sides would have made significant changes if faced with the other.
世界上有太多的因素了。军队的作战效果取决于军队领导、物流、经验、道德修养、军事训练还有装备。所有的这些都与战场的地形和你所面对的敌人紧密联系。如果换个对手，战斗的双方都会有显著地变化。
eg. The English armies of the time were predominantly horse archers, but of a very different type to those of the East (longbows, heavy armour, dismounting to fight, etc) but they operated in an entirely diffferent environment 。
比方说当时英国的弓骑兵十分卓越，与东方相比有许多优势（比方说长弓、重甲、下马战斗之类），不过他们作战的环境可完全不同啊。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
（回ls）
The Ming infantry and cavalry is no less heavy. The Ming shockers of the period had a combination of steel chain and scale. But the fighting methods is indeed different. But the advantage is much more on the Ming's side if its in 1400. Since as already been stated, European infantry of the time are not highly disciplined and are very vulnerable to deceptions. The Mongols has alerady shown that. And in 1400, its little better. Only the armament, weaponry and certain cavalry units were better. And in this case the Ming was also an improvement over the 13th century Eastern weapons.
明朝的步兵和骑兵（在装备方面）也不差。明清时期盔甲是由铁链和鳞甲组成的。不过二者战斗方法确实是不同的。如果时间设定在1400，那么明朝的赢面大得多。因为我们已经确实地知道，当时欧洲的步兵还没有高度的组织化和纪律化，而且极易受到敌人的欺骗。其于蒙古人的战斗已经证明了这一点。在15世纪这种状况才改善了一点点——只在军备、武器装备和一部分骑兵部队上有所好转。而在欧洲的武器取得进步的同时，明朝的军队也有了发展。
tadamson
By 1400 European infantry from the better counties (England, France, Germany most Italian states etc) were far better trained, disciplined and equipped than their Ming contemporaries (many were long term professionals). For 100 years they had dominated Western European battlefields.
到了15世纪，那些长于步兵的国家（如英国、法国、德国和意大利的大部分州）——它们的步兵都受到了非常良好的训练，极富纪律性且装备精良，远胜于同时期的明朝（其中很多都是职业军人）。100年来他们一直主导者西方的欧洲战区。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
They were hardly "far better" than the soldiers of the Hungwu/Yongle reign. the only advantage I can see is their equipment, which admittedly, outclassed that of the Ming.
他们很难“远胜于”洪武和永乐年间的中国军人。我所见到的唯一的优势是他们的装备,他们的装备确实远远超过了明朝。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada （回ls 的ls）
Wrong, only selected groups were professionals, while all of the Ming armies from the Wei Suo were professionals in an inherited military system. I will repeat again, European infantries at this time is undisciplined as a whole, they are not able to keep formation while attacking, the Ming has no problem of doing so. The Swiss infantry was the first European infantry that could do such.
错。唯一选择的群体是职业运动员,而所有的明军从魏索是一种遗传性的专业人士在军事系统。我要再次运用步兵在这个时候,欧洲作为一个整体是没有纪律,他们不能够保持形成攻击时,明朝的问题没有做这样的事情。瑞士步兵是第一个欧洲的步兵能做这样的。
错。只有被选拔出来的才是职业军人。而明朝自Wei Suo(这个。。。求解答)起，所有的军人都是职业的——明朝的军事系统有其代代继承的特性。我再说一遍，当时的欧洲步兵没有整体纪律性，在攻击时也不能保持阵型。而明朝在这两点上就完全没有问题。瑞士步兵是全欧洲第一个能做到这两点的军队。
Care to explain what equipment of European armies are better? Firearm on both sides are comparable, Ming actually has a more variety and percentage for its army. Armaments are comparable. The Mings were superior in missile weaponry. The Ming crossbow were superior in mechanism to its Euroepan counterparts, while the composite bow is efficient to the longbow in different aspects. Your claims are largely groundless.
你倒是说说欧洲军队的什么器械能比明朝好？比火器的话，明朝在火器种类和应用比例上占优。比军备，明朝在投掷类武器更强。明朝的十字弓也在机巧上胜于欧洲的同类武器。（明朝）复合短弓在许多方面也比长弓更有效。你的论点在很大程度上是毫无根据的。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
Yes, Ming missile weapons were superior. But in terms of close combat equipment, European soldiers clad in full plate, wielding halberds, maces, and flails are obviously going to be hard to beat.
是的,明投掷类武器的表现的很强大。但在近身肉搏战的装备方面，欧洲士兵全副武装，浑身板甲，挥舞着狼牙棒,戟,枷等武器——显而易见,他们看来是很难被击败的。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
No, 1400 Europe did not have full plate, that only developed towards the very end of the 15th century. The best armour are mail reinforced with plates of various shapes over the back, abdomen and chest, most infantry of that time had chainmail. Plate is far too expensive to create even in late periods.
不,1400的欧洲不可能全身装备板甲，只有发展到15世纪末才能达到这一水平。（当时）最好的盔甲是那种在胸部、背部、腹部用板甲加固过的那种，而大多数的步兵穿的是链子甲。即使是在晚期，板甲的造价也是相当昂贵的。
Plate is far from invulnerable, the Ming had numerous ways to destroy knights in armour. The Zhang Ma Dao has already proven to smash the helmet to a bulp when brought down, and on the joint, it would immedieately dislocate it when come in contact. If anything, the plate hampers certain reflex movements and would be disadvantage in this instance when they are brought against the heavy weapons of Ming arms.
板甲远非无懈可击，明军有很多破坏骑士的盔甲的方法。
板空防远非无懈可击,明朝有许多破坏骑士的盔甲的方法。斩马刀（原作者打成了zhangmadao ，我猜测它可能是斩马刀）已被证实可以粉碎士兵们的头盔,并且能在突然的接触中使关节脱臼。如果有什么区别的话，板甲会极大地妨碍士兵们的移动，而这一点在很多情况下，比如说在对抗明军的重武器时，会成为欧洲人的软肋。
斩马刀
明朝士兵所用之步骑两用长刀，仿陌刀制式。
Of course chest protection might be another story, but such generalization has little evidence, the Zhang Ma Dao could easily cut through any form of scale or chain by a slight touch from the wielders. The plates just require a good hack to smack and dent. The ming also had mace and heavy handled weapon like the halberd and axe.
当然也可能是另一个故事胸部的保护,但很少有证据表明这样的泛化、樟马刀很容易割破通过任何形式的规模或链从wielders一个轻微。只需要一个良好的板和凹痕所属的巴掌。明也有了锤重处理像戟武器和斧头。
当然，欧洲人对胸部的保护或许能让情况有所不同，但是这种概括几乎是毫无依据的。斩马刀只要轻轻一挥，就能切碎所有的鳞甲锁链什么的。即使对于板甲，只需要猛地来一刀，就能把它们砍坏。明朝还有狼牙棒，还有斧头和戟之类的重型武器。
Guest_Conan the destroyer_*
Actually, transitional plate armour has been in use since the 14th century, as my first post on this topic shows. In addition, regular troops could be equipped in munitions plate, which is protective but very uncomfortable due to the fact that it is not custom fitted to the wearer.
其实，就如我在前面几楼所说的，过渡型板甲早在14世纪的欧洲就投入使用了。此外，传统的军队可以装备军需板甲，这种板甲防御能力很好，不过也有个坏处——它们不可能为每个士兵量身定做，所以或许不大合身。
I'm well aware that the Ming had anti-armour weapons. But they were never designed to deal with the more protective European plate armour.
我知道明朝有反装甲武器（这个可能有点囧，不过我也想不出来有那个词能更靠谱了。。。），不过他们可没设计过专门用来对付欧洲板甲的东西啊。
TMPikachu
I heard of History channel show or something like that doing a test with attacking a full plate suit, and out of the various weapons used, only the zhanmadao actually cut through (the rest bashed/dented).
That's just something I've heard though, and it's been mentioned here before, I have no way of confirming it.
我听说历史频道还是别的什么的节目做过一个测试，用各种武器一个个砍一套板甲，只有斩马刀把板甲切开了（其他的只是给予了板甲重击，或是砍出了条印而已）。
这只是我听说的啊，以前也没人提过，我也没法确认是不是真的。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
（回ls的ls。本帖自此进入掐架的氛围，下面的回复几乎都是针对别的评论者的说法而发。因此在此略去原文评论者们引用别人回复的部分，并且不注明“回复xx”——因为已经是混战了。。。）
I'm talking about full plate, the plate of 1400 has its advantage, but Ming scale have its own advantages. saying one is superior is simply generalizing and baseless.
我说的就是全身板甲的情况。15世纪的板甲有它的优势，但明军也有他们自己的优势。你这么一刀切地概括说欧洲的板甲更强是毫无根据的。
Care to explain? Because testing have been done and Zhang Ma Dao has no problem cutting right through the best plate armours of Europe.
能解释一下你的话么？因为根据测试的结果，战马刀在切碎欧洲最好板甲方面完全没问题。
TMPikachu
What are the advantages of Ming scale (by scale do you mean the kind that's stitched together that I call 'lamellar' ?)
I have the idea in my head that western chain/plate armor is the best in the world, and that bugs me. Any valid info to get rid of that feeling would be super!
things I would think of being... lamellar is cheaper/faster to make, easier to maintain, but those are not 'cool/impressive' positive points.
明代的优势是什么规模量表(通过你的意思是这类的缝合在一起,我称之为的”鳞甲,'吗?)
明朝鳞甲的优势是什么?(你用了scale这个词，你是不是指的是这种东西缝在一起的产物，我所说的lamellar——鳞甲？)
在我的一直以来的印象中,西方的链子甲或是板甲是世界上最好的装甲,不过这种想法让我烦透了。我很乐意看到能反驳这一条的信息!
我想，鳞甲可能能便宜，制造所需的时间也短，更容易保养维修。不过这些也不是那种“冷静理性/令人印象深刻”的积极观点啊。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
I do believe that full plate is the best armour. But partially plated knights have no advantage. Islamic armies used these as well from 15th century on. Ming scales are far more complicated designed and folded than European lamellars. And Ming chain mail were said to be so intricate that the Katana during the Imjin war makes absolutely no effect on it. Add to this were silk undercoats for the generals. In essense Ming infantry were just as missile resistant as Swiss pikemen(which were better armoured than most other European infantrymen). And their well trained heavy pollarm users nullify much of the advantage of plate armour especially when its not full plating, the arms joints are very vulnearble with the fact that they are chain mail.
我相信欧洲的板甲如果能包裹全身的话会是最好的盔甲。不过只有一部分身体被盔甲保护的骑士在战场上没有什么优势。伊斯兰军队从15世纪就采用了这套工艺，并且在这方面做得很好。明朝鳞甲的工艺要复杂得多,和欧洲鳞甲相比有更多的折叠设计。明朝链子甲极其复杂，以至于在Imjin战争中武士刀几乎奈何不了它。将军们的盔甲里头还穿着丝绸衣服。从根本上说，明朝步兵就像瑞士枪兵一样是使用火器弹药作战的部队（他们在盔甲方面做得比欧洲大多数国家都好）。明军训练有素，大多数的盔甲在明军的重武器面前几乎不堪一击。尤其是那种只有并不是包裹全身的，只保护局部的盔甲，尽管实际上它们以锁链连结，它们在关节处仍极其脆弱。
The Imjin War
万历朝鲜战争，又称朝鲜壬辰卫国战争；日本称之为文禄之役，第二次称之为庆长之役，或合称为文禄-庆长之役，朝鲜征伐，征韩；南、北韩称之为壬辰倭乱，第二次称之为丁酉再乱；中国称为朝鲜之役，与宁夏之役、播州之役合称为万历三大征。这场战争由日本前关白丰臣秀吉在1592年（壬辰年，中国万历年间，日本文禄、庆长年间）派兵入侵朝鲜引起。因朝鲜的宗主国是明国，是故向中国求援，明神宗应请求派军救援，日本占领朝鲜并以之为跳板进攻明国的行动受阻，丰臣秀吉也在战争末期死去。他死后不久，日本军队全部从朝鲜撤退。
tadamson
It's still a matter of armies evolve to meed the specific threats and environment that they face, as such Western European and Chinese armies were different (not necessaraly better or worse). Even in Europe there was considerable variation.
eg French army 1415 (Agincourt a fairly well documented battle - yat there is still considerable academic discussion re numbers etc...).
The total French army was over 150,000 but only 12,000 to 20,000 actually fought.
军队所面对的具体威胁和战场环境对战事的影响也很大，比方说西欧和中国的军队就是完全不同的（这不是说一个就比另一个厉害或是差了）。即使是同属于欧洲的各个军队，它们之间的差异也很大。
例如1415年间的法国军队(阿金库尔战役被很好的记录了下来,直到今天依然有围绕这场战役的，关于数量之类的相当学术的讨论)。
法国军队总额超过15万的,但是实际上只有1.2万到2万真正投入到战场。
The French first line was entirely dismounted men at arms in full plate harness. Ther were small groups of mounted men at arms on the flanks, a second line of heavily armoured archers and crossbowmen, then a third line of heavily armoured infantry with polearms (5-20% in plate harness), spears etc
Interestingly as the 15th c progressed many European infantry wore less ans less armour.
法军的第一列部队就是全身披挂且不用马匹的士兵。一小队骑兵安排在侧翼，第二列部队是重甲弓箭手和十字弓手，然后第三列队是配备类似长矛的长柄武器的重甲骑兵（其中5-20%穿板甲）。
有趣的是，到了15世纪，许多欧洲步兵反倒减少了盔甲。
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
The thing is, early 15th century European army just isn't disciplined enough. Only the later half of 15th century does the European armies have comparison.
In 1400, the Knights were the major offensive weapons, the infantry are only a base of which the knights revolve around. While in China, the infantry takes just as much offensive role as the cavalry. For example the Yue Jia Jun used the MaZhaDao and the Tang used the MoDao to rush up against the heavy cavalries and completely cut them up to force them to retreat. This puts a disadvantage against the Euroepan knights since they have no mounted archers, the ZhangMaDao would do some serious damage. While the infantry would be at a disadvantage when its repeately harrassed by mounted archers and heavy cavalries which takes the initiative to berak their formation through the typical Liao style of repeated charging groups of ten until the enemy finally breaks their formation. Since the European infantry can't counterattack in cohesive formation, this would be deadly.
The Swiss infantry would be another story, , thats why I divide 1400s into two halfs.(or more)
事实是,15世纪早期的欧洲军队并不如何训练有素。只有15世纪下半页的欧洲军队可堪一比。
在15世纪,骑士们是主要的进攻武器,步兵仅仅是围绕着骑兵战斗的基础部队。
而在中国，步兵与骑兵一样承担着进攻的任务。比方说岳家军曾用斩马刀、唐朝曾使用陌刀冲击重装骑兵，并且彻底地切开了部队并且最终迫使敌人撤退。而由于没有弓骑兵，他们在对付欧洲骑兵时会处于不利地位。斩马刀将造成很大的伤害。而步兵的劣势是，当它弓骑兵和重甲骑兵可以持续对步兵发起冲锋，直到他们的阵型崩溃。由于欧洲步兵无法对抗紧密结成阵型的不对，这样的伤害将使致命的。
瑞士枪兵可以拿出来另说。。。。。。这也就是为什么我将15世纪分成两部分来讨论。
明矾飘过：要你命3000作战系统
tadamson
The various participants in the hundred years war were all very powerful, France, Englan ...
aeondxf 发表于 2011-4-23 21:31
wei suo
明朝开始的卫所制度。
所以他们说是职业军人
tadamson
The various participants in the hundred years war were all very powerful, France, Englan ...
aeondxf 发表于 2011-4-23 21:31
wei suo
明朝开始的卫所制度。
所以他们说是职业军人
辽东铁骑可不是瑞士雇佣兵搞的定的
求源地址，好好研究下
明朝火器的确很厉害，可惜末期这方面几乎被废了。
几个火器方面的大家，流放的流放，赋闲的赋闲，实在可惜，那才是真正的体制问题。
不过也不能夸大。。。什么加特林的雏形那都是扯淡的。。。
几个火器方面的大家，流放的流放，赋闲的赋闲，实在可惜，那才是真正的体制问题。
不过也不能夸大。。。什么加特林的雏形那都是扯淡的。。。
留名，有没有其他朝代的
回复 4# redstorm
[:a1:]一开始我只想到猥琐……这一提醒太突然想起有这东西……
[:a1:]一开始我只想到猥琐……这一提醒太突然想起有这东西……
回复 6# 华夏冉闵
楼顶有翻译链接，点过去有原文链接。
楼顶有翻译链接，点过去有原文链接。
redstorm 发表于 2011-4-23 22:59 ![]()
其实不用1400年，光血战鄱阳湖中的明军火器就够欧洲受的了。
其实不用1400年，光血战鄱阳湖中的明军火器就够欧洲受的了。
redstorm 发表于 2011-4-23 22:59 ![]()
的确，从明朝开始其实中国在走滑坡路的，明末积重难返，清朝满州入关，一方面野蛮民族习性造成一定历史倒退，另一方面讽刺的是，身为野蛮人的满洲严格继承明朝制度，又加以强化，反而使中国衰落得加快，的确是制度问题。
的确，从明朝开始其实中国在走滑坡路的，明末积重难返，清朝满州入关，一方面野蛮民族习性造成一定历史倒退，另一方面讽刺的是，身为野蛮人的满洲严格继承明朝制度，又加以强化，反而使中国衰落得加快，的确是制度问题。
记得据当年明月的书里说，明初沐英（？好像是，记不清了）就已经开始用三线战法了。当时的骑兵还使用上了三管手铳。后来就自废武功了。可惜