|
歷史學 -- 開欄文
|
瀏覽11,755 ｜回應43｜推薦3 |
|
|
|
我在《 政治學 – 開欄文》一文中提到：年輕時我因為「急功近利」；對政治學的興趣不大。也由於同樣的原因，雖然初、高中時讀過幾篇《史記》的選錄，我對歷史學也一直興趣缺缺。
家父2004年過世後，他的藏書幾乎都捐給了武漢大學圖書館。我保留了20本左右；陳序經教授的《中國文化的出路》之外，大概有10本以「歷史哲學」為主題的著作。我保留和閱讀它們的原因在於：家父雖然以「政論家」聞名，但他把自己定位在歷史學家和歷史哲學家。在他老人家逝世10周年的紀念演討會上，我發表過一篇《胡秋原史學方法論》；可惜文檔不慎遺失。
所以，我在60歲以後才開始重視歷史學。近20年來我發表過關於「歷史」的看法以及轉載過一些史學論文；相形之下，寥寥無幾。
本文於 修改第 7 次
|
|
19個被信以為真的歷史烏龍 -- Julia Corrigan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考以下視頻：
33 Dumbest Historical "Facts" That Are Actually Epic Lies
並請至原網頁觀看相關照片。
19 Of The Biggest Historical Lies People Somehow Still Believe Despite All Evidence To The Contrary
Julia Corrigan, 08/11/25
Recently, a post from Reddit user Repulsive-Finger-954 on the popular Ask Reddit forum caught my eye. In it, they asked people, "What is the biggest historical lie that many people believe?" and the answers were both entertaining and informative. I decided I had to share; so, here are some of the best:
1. "Vikings didn't wear horned helmets."
2. "People believe that Napoleon was this abnormally short man. He was 5'6, which was pretty average back then. I'm pretty sure it was this smear campaign of sorts that painted him as this weirdly short, unpowerful guy."
3. "George Washington's dentures were not made of wood, but rather a combination of teeth from slaves, ivory (hippopotamus, walrus and/or elephant), animal teeth, and metals."
4. "While Paul Revere is often credited with being the sole rider to warn the colonies of the British, he was actually one of five riders who alerted colonists on the night of April 18. Revere's mission relied on secrecy, and he didn't shout 'The British are coming!' as the phrase would have been confusing to locals who still considered themselves British. Instead, Revere's network of riders, signal guns, and church bells effectively spread the alarm."
5. People believe that the Nazis were hated and opposed for their treatment of Jewish people from the beginning. There has been plenty of narrative building through the years around the idea that the Allies were seeking justice for the Jewish people from the start. It was only when we witnessed the extent of the Holocaust that the villainy of the Nazis became more widely recognized and acknowledged."
"Antisemitism was very common in the West prior to WWII, and the Holocaust got that far in part because nobody wanted to house Jewish refugees."
6. "The idea that people used to believe the world was flat. In elementary school, I was taught that no one wanted to fund Columbus's voyage because they thought he'd just sail off the end of the world. Utter nonsense."
"Since at least Ancient Greece, it was believed the world was a sphere. I mean, you look up at the sky at night, and see nothing but other round bodies, it makes sense you’d assume that you’re on a round body as well."
"Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth and was only about 3% off. Roughly 250 years before the birth of Christ, he did this. Truly remarkable."
7. "People believe that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. He did not. Several other men pioneered it before him."
8. "People believe that women stayed home and only men worked. For the poor, which was the vast majority of people throughout history, everybody who could work worked, even the kids. If you didn't, the whole family would starve and die."
"You were working your own land, working your lord's land, working as itinerant laborers. If you weren't doing physical work, you were cooking and you were spinning, constantly spinning, and weaving and sewing. Constant work.
Women worked down mines, worked as servants, and they were working in factories as soon as there were even proto-factories.
Wealthy women also worked. They ran the households; for a wealthy family, this could be 100 people she was in charge of. She oversaw organizing supplies, ensuring that food was cooked, that they had accommodations, and food stores; she made the medicines and tended the ill.
Women have always worked. How the hell do people think men could confidently ride off to war and know that everything was being looked after while they were away fighting for years on end?"
9. "People believe that the US Civil War was over states' rights."
"I mean, it was. It was over states' rights to allow their residents to own people as property. But I totally get where you're coming from."
10. "People believe that MLK was socially acceptable to white people during the 1960s, and not in favor of radically changing the socioeconomic order of the US. He was a socialist who was widely reviled by the white culture of the time. He's been re-imagined by white people as someone willing to accept slow electoral solutions to racial problems."
11. "Many people still believe that Marie Antoinette said, 'Let them eat cake.'"
12. "The myth that there ever was a famine in Ireland. It was a genocide, and the English were exporting enough meat and grain from Ireland to feed three times the Irish population."
13. "People in ancient and medieval times lived past 30 or 40 on a regular basis. The 'life expectancy' was low due to child mortality."
"Infant mortality brought the mathematical average for life expectancy down. It’s usually thought today that in the past, if you DID make it past 10, you had as much chance of living to a ripe old age as anyone today."
14. "The idea that Galileo was imprisoned because of the heliocentric model. Nope, it was because he pissed off the pope, who was funding his research."
"Galileo didn’t follow the steps that were required to declare the heliocentric model as valid; he got angry and started talking shit about the pope. The heliocentric model wasn’t his idea; many people way before him were talking about the heliocentric model, and none of them were imprisoned because of it."
15. "There is a myth that the US has never experienced an authoritarian government. In actuality, a large portion of its history has been authoritarian. The Jim Crow South was an authoritarian government that existed until 1964."
"It wasn't until fairly recently that constitutional rights were 'incorporated' to apply to state laws. For a large portion of our history, the Constitution applied to federal laws.
State government restricted behavior on a very wide basis: interracial marriage, homosexuality, birth control, pornography, anything deemed offensive, offensive comedy, etc. were all regulated or illegal."
16. "The myth that carrots give you good eyesight. That lie came from Britain during WWII to hide the fact that they had a new technology called radar."
17. "The idea that Catherine of Aragon failed Henry VIII because she didn’t have a son and heir. She and Henry had — at least — three sons."
18. "That Samurai despised guns and saw them as 'dishonorable tools.'"
"The Samurai as a class not only were the first to embrace gunpowder weaponry in Japanese history, but Japan as a whole developed its own domestic industry surrounding gunpowder weapons, including many original designs and tactics that not even Europe would have an equivalent to until decades later."
19. And finally: "That nothing much happened in the 'Dark Ages.'"
What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments. Better yet, tell me your own historical pet peeves that drive you up the wall!
If you have something to share but prefer to remain anonymous, feel free to check out this anonymous form. Who knows — your comment could be included in a future BuzzFeed article!
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
東印度公司沒落簡史 -- Mark Cartwright
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
對中國近代史有興趣的學生對東印度公司的大名應該都有印象，但未必知道其歷史、業務、或運作等細節。我對它略有所知(該文第2.3-1)小節)，主要是因為彌爾曾任職該公司。轉載下文，做為參考資料。
Fall of the East India Company
Mark Cartwright, 10/26/22
The British East India Company (1600-1874) was the largest and most successful private enterprise ever created. All-powerful wherever it colonised, the EIC's use of its own private army and increasing territorial control, particularly in India, meant that it faced ever-greater scrutiny from the British government in the late 18th century. Restricted by several successive acts of Parliament over many decades because of allegations of corruption and unaccountability, the EIC's independence ended with the chaos of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857-8. The British Crown replaced the EIC's board of directors as the rulers of British India, and Parliament officially dissolved the EIC in 1874.
East India Docks The British Museum (CC BY-NC-SA) 請至原網頁觀看照片
A Trade Giant
Founded in 1600 by royal charter, the East India Company was established as a joint-stock trading company to exploit opportunities east of the Cape of Good Hope where it was granted a trade monopoly. Crucially, to conduct this trade, the EIC was permitted to 'wage war'. Although the EIC did not hold sovereignty in its areas of operation, it was permitted to exercise sovereignty in the name of the English (and then British) Crown and government. This subtle distinction became even more blurred as the company became more powerful, and therein lay the problem and the source of its ultimate demise.
The company made a fortune for its shareholders from its global trade in spices, tea, textiles, and opium. In order to protect its interests, the EIC paid for its own private armies in India, headquartered in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay (Mumbai). It also hired out on a long-term basis regiments of the regular British Army. From the mid-18th century, starting with Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, these forces allowed the EIC to take over territory from the decaying Mughal Empire and Indian princely states. The EIC then administered these territories, extracting taxes and duties to further enrich its shareholders and maintain its armed forces.
Increasing Criticism
The EIC had many enemies, not only rival European trading companies and rulers in India but also back in Britain. It was criticised for its monopolies, harsh trading terms, and corruption. The company's trade was so large it was responsible for a serious drain of Britain's stock of silver. Its directors returned to England with vast new wealth that upset the established hierarchy of British society. This nouveau riche was disparagingly called 'nabobs' (from the Indian term nawab for ruler). The EIC was not popular for the damage it did to the English wool trade through its cheap imports of Indian-made textiles. Later, Indians would be equally disturbed by the import to India of even cheaper cotton cloth manufactured by the large mills of industrialised England. Finally but by no means least, the EIC swept away rulers that stood in its path, relentlessly siphoned off resources, and was not doing enough (or anything) to spread Christianity amongst the peoples living within its vast territories.
British Conquest in India c. 1857 Simeon Netchev (CC BY-NC-ND) 請至原網頁觀看地圖
In effect, the EIC was a state within a state, now even collecting its own taxes and dispensing justice through its courts. It was an entity with sovereign powers, but one which was not accountable for its actions to anyone but its shareholders. As the celebrated Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790) noted in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, a sovereign that was holding a trade monopoly could not possibly rule with fairness to all its subjects, the two ideas were simply not compatible. Parliament, although with over 100 members actually in the employ of the EIC at one point, was also raising uncomfortable questions: Was the EIC suitably representing British interests abroad? Did its trade monopoly not infringe upon the potential growth of other British companies?
Increasing Regulation
1773 Regulating Act
One of the first ominous signs for the EIC directors that their long process of enrichment might be coming to an end involved the return of Robert Clive (1725-1774) to England. With rumours rife that the former Governor of Bengal's vast riches had largely been gained through corruption, Parliament set up an inquiry into Clive's affairs in 1773. In the end, Clive was honourably acquitted, but his advice to Parliament to take over the EIC was not heeded. There was, though, a restructuring of the management of the company. The 1773 Regulating Act resulted in changes. The leverage acted upon by the government was that the EIC needed a loan despite the fact it had just awarded its shareholders a 12.5% dividend. There was the appointment of the first Governor-General of the EIC, Warren Hastings (1732-1818), who now governed with a board of four advisors. Additional restrictions are here summarised by M. Mansingh:
The Court of Directors in London was required to hold elections every four years, with one-fourth of its membership replaced annually, and shareholders of £1,000 or more stock entitled to vote. Further, the Directors were required to submit copies of all correspondence to and dispatches from their factors [traders] in India to a Minister of the Crown, that is the Secretary of State for India…A Supreme Court was established in Calcutta with appeals only to the King in Council.
Robert Clive & Shah Alam Benjamin West (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看油畫
The British government had at least gained some influence on the military, financial, and political decisions in the territories administered in its name by the EIC. The greater interest the British government began to take in India was likely a direct result of the loss of its colonies in North America in 1783.
Hastings was specifically charged with reducing corruption, mostly the convention of traders indulging in private trade and accepting bribes from future contract holders. All private trade by EIC employees was prohibited, and salaries were increased. Hastings also attempted to stop the worst of the abuses carried out by local EIC agents on indigenous peoples.
Rather ironically given his original brief, Hastings was himself investigated for corruption when he returned to England in 1785. The Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was particularly scathing of what he regarded as yet another 'nabob'. Even worse in Burke's eyes, Hastings had sullied the name of Britain in India and on the international stage by stealing on a grand scale and acquiring for the EIC "all the landed property of Bengal upon strange pretences" (Wilson, 132). Once again, prominent members of the British Parliament were aghast at lurid tales of the EIC's policies in India, and many sought to bring the company under much greater scrutiny and control. Reform was not straightforward, though, when dealing with such a commercial giant. Many MPs remained in EIC employ or were shareholders (23% in the 1770s). Further, the British monarchy was not in favour of infringing on private property. Still, the burning question of the day was why was this private company with private interests being allowed to conduct itself like a state but without any of the constraints of an electorate or any of the scruples of justice. The atmosphere of the time was relevant here. Political philosophers were now influencing politicians in Britain with their thoughts on the importance of individual liberty, government by consent, and rule through justice.
The Trial of Warren Hastings Unknown Artist (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看繪畫
1784 India Act
The 1784 India Act (often called 'Pitt's India Act' after the then prime minister William Pitt the Younger, 1759-1806) did restructure the top management of the EIC once again, and Parliament installed one of its representatives on the now all-powerful Board of Control based in London. The India Act stipulated that the Board of Control "superintend, direct, and control all acts, operations, and concerns, which in any wise relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the British territorial possessions in the East Indies" (Barrow, 63). For the moment, government interference remained largely limited to oversight rather than regular intervention, but the cumbersome bindings of red bureaucratic tape were growing ever tighter on the liberties long taken by the EIC.
In 1787, Hastings was impeached by Parliament and charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors." The case was heard in Westminster Hall under the auspices of the House of Commons, and the public and press could attend. Just like Clive, Hastings was ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing during his time in India. This time, though, the dark affairs of the EIC had come under a very bright and public spotlight of scrutiny.
1813 Charter Act
The next wave of regulation came with the Charter Act of 1813. From now on, any new territory captured by the EIC would come under the direct sovereignty of the British Parliament. In addition, the EIC's trade monopoly in India was ended, and it had to end its ban on missionaries in its territory (although they required a license to operate). Further control came following the global economic crash of 1825. The EIC got itself into financial difficulties and required a bail-out from the British government. The loan was forthcoming, but the catch was further regulation of EIC affairs. MPs were considering yet more drastic action against the EIC:
The broad questions before Parliament were whether the Company should continue to exist, whether it should retain its monopoly of trade to China, and what the role the Company should play if allowed to continue to exist but without its monopoly. (Barrow, 110).
As one MP, Mr James Silk Buckingham, noted in 1830, "The idea of consigning over to a joint stock association …the political administration of an Empire peopled with 100 million souls… [was] preposterous" (Dalrymple, 390).
Copper Coin of the East India Company Billjones94 (CC BY-SA) 請至原網頁觀看圖片
1833 Charter Act
The 1833 Charter Act further tightened the noose around the neck of the EIC. The Act removed all limitations the EIC had set on immigration to India. The company's monopoly on trade with China also came to an end. The judicial system – woefully behind in terms of cases being heard – was centralised and future regular issues of new codes attempted to homogenise the laws and their application in India. Perhaps most importantly, this charter enlarged the ruling Council and gave it and the Governor-General the power to create legislation applicable to everyone resident in EIC territory. In 1835, for the first time, the Company issued a coinage that was legal tender in all its presidencies (administrative regions) and in the Indian princely states.
The new Company coin symbolically established the British - not just the Company - as the dominant power in India and created one of the conditions for the emergence of a national economy…it could be said that the unveiling of the Company rupee was also the unveiling of the colonial state. (Barrow, 113-14)
The coins carried a portrait of King William IV of the United Kingdom (r. 1830-1837).
1853 Charter Act
The 1853 Charter Act reduced the EIC's powers again so that the EIC was "now nothing more than a managing agency for the administration of India subject to the British government's direction in matters of policy" (Spears, 148). The great trading company was very much like a British colonial administration elsewhere in all but name. It could raise taxes, had an army and a vast civil service, all connected monetarily by its coinage and physically by a network of railway and telegraph lines. Further, the very idea that Britain was both in charge of and responsible for India had become an accepted one in the minds of colonial administrators and the British Parliament. It had been a long and progressive process to reign in the EIC, but the final closure came in one climatic and bloody disaster.
The Mutiny & Crash
In 1857, the EIC was rocked by the Sepoy Mutiny (aka The Uprising or First Indian War of Independence), which started with Indian soldiers (sepoys) in the EIC army rebelling against their officers. The unrest quickly spread to involve several princely state rulers and Indians of all classes. The causes of the rebellion were many and ranged from discrimination against Indian cultural practices to Indian princes not being allowed to pass on their territories to an adopted son, but the initial spark came from the sepoys. Sepoys protested against (amongst other things) their much lower pay compared to British EIC soldiers. At this point, the EIC employed around 45,000 British soldiers and over 230,000 sepoys. The sepoys took over important centres like Delhi, but their lack of overall command and coordination meant they could not win against the superior resources of the EIC, especially when 40,000 troops were shipped into India by the British government.
The Recapture of Delhi Bequet Freres (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看油畫
After the mutiny was quashed, the sentiment in Britain was that such an important colony as India could no longer be left in the hands of a private company. The general mood was captured by the Illustrated London News in the following article extract of July 1857:
The state of affairs in India may well exercise the alarm of the nation…Our house in India is on fire. We are not insured. To lose that house would be to lose power, prestige, and character – to descend in the rank of nations…Whether it were desirable that we should win India by the sword is no longer a question. Having won it we must keep it. (Barrow, 167-8)
The British Crown took full possession of EIC territories in India with the Government of India Act of 2 August 1858. The EIC armies were absorbed into the British Army, and the EIC navy was disbanded. The most aggressive and utterly ruthless private company ever yet created was effectively nationalised. So began what is popularly termed the British Raj (rule) in India. A new Secretary of State for India was appointed and made responsible directly to Parliament, while a Viceroy represented the Crown. The Viceroy led a cabinet of ministers, and they collectively supervised the daily administration and judicial operations. India was divided into governorships, which were in turn split into deputy governorships. On 1 June 1874, after generously allowing its shareholders to reap yet more dividends for 16 years, Parliament formally dissolved the EIC. In 1877, Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India. The East India Company was no more.
Follow us on YouTube!
Book Recommendation：The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire；by Dalrymple, William；published by Bloomsbury Publishing (2019)；$9.99 請至原網頁觀看此著作封面
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
迦太基帝國素描-Daisy Dunn
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文是「書評體裁」；它著重於討論迦太基的文化。迦太基帝國全盛時期對應於羅馬的共和時代(該欄2025/07/26)。漢尼拔在202 BC的第二次布匿戰爭中被羅馬將領阿菲芮咖諾斯擊敗於扎瑪城。
Forget Rome – this was the ancient empire that made the modern world
Daisy Dunn, 07/22/25
Hannibal Crossing the Alps by Jacopo Ripanda, c. 1510 – Getty 請至原網域觀看油畫
Napoleon is relatively unusual in western history for aligning himself with the brutal Hannibal – not Hannibal’s Roman enemy, Scipio Africanus. The Frenchman’s interest in the Carthaginian bordered on obsessional. He read every book about him he could find, including the Latin histories of Livy, and made copious notes. He could work examples from Hannibal’s life into conversation with ease, and when he crossed the Alps in 1800, he knew precisely whose footsteps he was following in. Hannibal was more than a man: he was, like Napoleon, a god.
Hannibal was no stranger himself to self-mythologising. His name meant “he who is favoured by Ba’al”: Ba’al Hamon being the chief god of the Carthaginians, who reached the apex of their global powers from their city near Tunis (in modern Tunisia) in the third and second centuries BC. Hannibal had the air of an immortal, but also believed that he enjoyed the protection of Melqart, the Phoenician equivalent of Hercules. Melqart was often equated with the sun itself. Such confidence in one’s divine credentials can only breed an appetite for risk-taking.
Hannibal was clever, charismatic and fair. His success as a commander, argues Eve MacDonald in her comprehensive new book, Carthage: A New History of an Ancient Empire, “rested in his soldiers and their loyalty to him”. The general was known for distributing bounties to his soldiers – a professional army drawn from many territories, including North Africa, Iberia, Greece and Italy – and following with further payments. The Romans, of course, despised him as the apparently unbeatable foe. The phrase Hannibal ad portas (“Hannibal is at the gates”) gained currency during the Punic Wars between the two ancient superpowers, epitomising the fear as well as the awe he inspired in his adversaries.
But has Hannibal’s fame eclipsed that of his civilisation? This is one of the questions MacDonald, a senior lecturer in Ancient History at Cardiff, poses in Carthage. The fact that Greek and Roman sources dating from soon after Hannibal’s time focus so heavily upon him, she suggests, “tends to skew our evidence about Carthage around the life of one man and his great deeds and adventures.” As a result, wider-ranging historical interest in the region “gets lost in the appetite for daring deeds of great soldiers”. Napoleon’s fascination is a prime example. MacDonald’s history, then, is not so much revisionist as expansionist. Its subtitle might have been: “Who Were the Carthaginians?”
Inhabitants of the ancient city were committed to comfortable living. Men – we know far more about them than we do the women – wore long tunics and earrings for pierced ears. On the evidence of Aristophanes, the Greek comedian, we can conjecture that they were mainly circumcised. From as early as the third century BC, the wealthier members of society had bathrooms with cisterns in their homes. They dined well on fish and a porridge consisting of grain with eggs, curd and honey. Meat was consumed mainly after religious sacrifices. One very early banquet, the remains of which were recently uncovered in the former Carthaginian city of Utica (near modern Bizerte), featured goat, oxen, pig, horse, and even turtle and dog.
The ruins of Carthage’s Antonine baths in modern-day Tunisia – Getty 請至原網域觀看照片
The architects of Carthaginian cities gave some consideration to the breeding and keeping of animals. MacDonald, who draws effectively upon her background in archaeology, describes stabling for horses and spaces inside the double “casemate” walls of Carthage for raising elephants. Before Hannibal famously led 37 of the beasts across the Alps, Pyrrhus, King of the region of Epirus, introduced 20 to Italy, prior to his expedition to expel Carthaginians from Sicily. Having seen elephants in action, the Carthaginians were smitten, and went on to use them during their conquests of the Iberian Peninsula. The animals provided unparalleled cover for their retreat during a river-crossing beset by an hostile Celtic tribe. There’s no consensus over which species the Carthaginians used, but a combination of African and Asian elephants is likely.
The Carthaginians would not have been nearly so famous had they not fought with Rome. And the Romans might never have created their enduring empire had it not been for Carthage, which they mercilessly destroyed in 146 BC following a lengthy siege. The difficulty for the modern historian is that, in putting Carthage on the map, the Romans cast shadow on its virtues.
It’s a typical story of history being written by the conquerors. MacDonald’s ambition to retell the history of Carthage from a Carthaginian perspective, then, is hampered by the limitations of the written material. This is unavoidable and only to be expected. No historian of the ancient world should be taken to task over the gaps in the sources; it’s how they navigate those gaps that matters.
MacDonald pieces the material together admirably and succeeds in creating a thickly-layered portrait of a culture that has often struck readers as peculiar and violent. She takes a particularly sensitive approach to the interpretation of phenomena such as child-sacrifice. An open-air sanctuary in Carthage has been found to contain thousands of urns filled with the cremated bodies of babies, young children and animals. It is known as a tophet – from the Hebrew name of a valley in Jerusalem where the Philistines were said to “sacrifice their children through fire”. Greek and Roman writers wrote with abhorrence of Carthaginian children being rolled into flame-filled pits.
Dido Building Carthage by J.M.W. Turner, 1815 – Getty 請至原網域觀看油畫
Were children sacrificed in prayer for the wellbeing of the city? Or are these the dedicated remains of infants who died from natural causes? Most were very young when they died and we know that the rate of infant mortality was high. MacDonald draws attention to the inscriptions upon the stelae erected next to the urns, and particularly to the words, “because he / she heard our voice”. This looks very much like a divine offering in fulfilment of a vow or an answered prayer. While it remains unclear exactly what was happening here, it is interesting to observe, as MacDonald does, that similar sanctuaries have been discovered in Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and elsewhere in north Africa.
MacDonald is more vehemently myth-busting in her examination of the foundation of Carthage. According to the legend elaborated in Virgil’s Aeneid, the city was established by Dido (known to the Carthaginians as Elissa), who fled her home in the Phoenician city of Tyre (in modern Lebanon) to escape her tyrannical brother Pygmalion. Having made landfall on the coast near Tunisia, the beleaguered Dido requested a piece of land only as large as an ox-hide. Her wish was granted, and she proceeded to chop up a hide into skinny strips, which she laid end to end to encompass a sizeable area for her new city. The citadel at Carthage was known thereafter as Byrsa, from the Greek for “ox-hide”.
It’s a brilliant story, and according to MacDonald, calls on the well-known concept of “using an ox to plough an area of land to mark out boundaries”. That sounds plausible. One thing the ancient writers did get absolutely right was that Carthage was founded in the 9th century BC and had Phoenician origins. The earliest inscription found at Carthage – on a gold pendant placed in a tomb – dates to then and even refers to a “Pygmalion”. Radiocarbon dating further supports a foundation date in the 9th century BC.
MacDonald writes clearly and frankly, and has produced an enjoyable and readily digestible introduction to Carthage. Hers is not a book of stylish prose or vivid description. The closest we come to the latter is in the opening pages, which recount the final destruction of Carthage, and in a survey of the aftermath of the Battle of Cannae, when “steam rose in the morning off the still warm bodies of the dead and injured”. Some readers will favour such an information-over-atmosphere approach, and there is much to be said for giving it to us straight. But there were moments in which I felt that MacDonald could have let go a little. If Hannibal has one lesson for writers, it is surely that triumph is dependent upon risk.
Daisy Dunn is the author of books including The Missing Thread: A New History of the Ancient World Through the Women Who Shaped It. Carthage: A New History of an Ancient Empire is published by Ebury at £22. To order your copy, call 0330 173 0523 or visit Telegraph Books
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
歷史上可能真有過特洛伊戰爭 - Jessica McBride
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Archaeologists Make New Trojan War Discovery That May Rewrite History
Jessica McBride, 07/16/25
The Trojan War was celebrated by legendary authors like Homer, who told the tale of the large wooden horse that tricked the soldiers of Troy.
In the stories, Paris, the son of a Trojan King, ran away with a Spartan's wife named Helen; the Spartan's brother then "led a Greek expedition against Troy," according to Britannica.
War raged for a decade before the Greeks pretended to withdraw, hiding soldiers in the horse.
But was the Trojan War real? It's described by Britannica as a "legendary conflict between the early Greeks and the people of Troy in western Anatolia," probably in the 12th or 13th century. That's present-day Turkey.
According to BBC, it's generally believed that the Trojan War was a real event, despite its appearance in various works of literature.
Now a new excavation is shedding more light on that. The dig has already unearthed 3,500-year-old "sling stones" that match the right time frame, and that's not all.
Memnon against Achilles, detail of the Trojan War, relief, east frieze of the Siphnian Treasury, 530-525 BC, from Delphi, Greece. Ancient Greek civilization, 6th century BC. DEA / ALBERT CEOLAN/Getty Images 請至原網頁觀看照片
They're providing clues that could flesh out the storyline of the Trojan War, and, thus, illuminate and potentially even rewrite history.
The sling stones "offer valuable insights into Bronze Age defense and attack strategies," according to Hurriyet Daily News.
Archaeologists have "resumed excavations at the ancient city of Troy in modern-day Turkey, hoping to uncover new evidence" of the Trojan War, according to a July 9 article in Greek Reporter.
The Trojan War. Bildagentur-online/Getty Images請至原網頁觀看照片
According to Greek Reporter, the lead archaeologist Rustem Aslan is focusing on "layers from the Late Bronze Age, specifically those associated with the city’s destruction around 1200 B.C."
That's the time period of the Trojan War, and the archaeologists want to "investigate areas between the agora, palace, and city walls," the site reports.
The X page Arkeolojihaber (or "Archaeology Talks") shared photos and wrote, "At the Troy Ancient City, included on the UNESCO World Heritage List, this year's excavations focused on the Late Bronze Age and traces of the famous Trojan War."
The site quoted Aslan as saying, "Our main goal this year is to uncover archaeological findings that point to the Trojan War, which everyone talks about and has been debated for centuries."
The earliest days of the excavations produced "3,500-year-old sling stones" in front of a "palace structure," the site reported, adding that "archaeologists are now searching for more evidence of the war in a destruction layer dated to around 1200 BC, which bears traces of fire. Arrowheads, war tools, and hastily buried skeletons carry traces of Troy's dramatic past."
According to Indian Defence Review, the excavation has discovered "destruction layers, filled with war tools and human remains that suggest signs of conflict," quoting Aslan as saying, “These destruction layers contain war tools and disturbed human remains that could indicate conflict.”
Unearthed "weapons, charred remains, and other destruction debris" provide clues that "a violent event that may have led to Troy’s fall," the site noted.
Related:
Archaeologists Say They've Found a Legendary Pirate Ship, Rewriting History
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
|
|
「黑龍會」的肇始
「黑龍會」的肇始來自樽井藤吉（1850～1922）的啟發。
樽井藤吉是民權派東洋社會黨的創始人，他於1893年出版了一本
《大東亞合邦論》的書，他在這本書中提出：「團結全亞洲民族，
結成同盟軍，共同防禦白種人帝國主義的侵略，挽回東亞危機，
亞洲民族應以日本為盟主，建立大東亞同盟……」的主張
。這本書最大的特色就是：強調中日同盟的重要性。
但隨著1894年中日甲午戰爭，中國的戰敗，日本民權運動
因此退潮，取而代之的是國權主義的興起，於是繼承樽井藤吉思想
的內田良平（1874～1937）於1901年2月在東京成立了「黑龍會」，
提倡「大亞細亞主義」，後又與玄洋社的首領頭山滿結為一體，
成為日本軍國主義組織的右翼核心。另外會取名為：「黑龍會」
的寓意，就是在於謀取黑龍江流域為日本領土。為了達到侵吞
中國領土的目的，因此他們階段性的支持孫文所領導的革命黨，
共同圖謀推翻清朝政府。在黑龍會的斡旋幫助下，各派中國革命組織
於1905年7月30日在東京黑龍會總部共同成立了「中國同盟會」。
日本投降後，美軍解散了勢力龐大的「黑龍會」。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
歷史真相都藏在小說裡!
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
看紅樓夢
就知道歷史真相都藏在小說裡!
有人曾經引述一句名言:
歷史除了人名,事情都是假的!
小說除了人名,事情都是真的!
稗官野史隱藏真相!
|
|
俄、烏族群小史 - Darius von Guttner Sporzynski
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Why does Putin insist Ukranians and Russians are ‘one people’? The answer spans centuries of colonisation and resistance
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, 04/15/25
Russian president Vladimir Putin does not seem interested in peace: Sunday’s missile strike on Sumy, the worst civilian attack this year, proves he is determined to expand into Ukraine at any cost.
This is a war of ideas, narratives and myths – one that can be traced to the mid-1500s, when Ivan the Terrible, Grand Duke of Muscovy declared himself the first “tsar” of all Russia.
As part of his quest for power, Ivan the Terrible challenged King Sigismund I of Poland, who as Duke of Rus, ruled over territories that now comprise parts of modern-day Ukraine.
Russian rulers have often repurposed history to build their power, according to historian Orlando Figes. Putin wrote a well known essay in 2021 that called Russians and Ukrainians “one people”. He was relying on old beliefs that Russia has the right to “restore” or reunite lands it once ruled.
Ukraine has survived bans on its language, forced assimilation policies, and famines like the Holodomor, orchestrated by Stalin in the 1930s. The country declared independence from Russia in 1991. Now, teachers, artists and local leaders have joined soldiers in resisting Russia.
Ukrainian servicemen react after returning from captivity during a prisoner of war exchange between Russia and Ukraine. Efrem Lukatsky/AAP 請至原網頁觀看照片
Empire and a holy mission
A broad expanse of the former medieval kingdom of Kyivan Rus incorporated territories in present-day Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, including Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. From 1386 until 1772, the majority of these lands came under the rule of Poland-Lithuania, governed by the Lithuanian Jagiellon dynasty, and their successors.
Today, Russia often points to Kyivan Rus (which lasted from the 9th to the 13th century), claiming it is reuniting these ancient lands, as Ivan the Terrible claimed in the mid-1500s.
Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ruled by the Jagiellon dynasty in the 13th to 15th centuries. Wikipedia, CC BY 請至原網頁觀看地圖
In 1547, Ivan declared Muscovy a tsardom and Moscow to be the “Third Rome” – in other words, the latest centre of true Christianity, after Rome and Constantinople. This idea made conquest seem like a holy mission. By the late 1700s, the Russian Empire had destroyed Poland-Lithuania in a series of territorial annexations and wars. It had spread far to the south and east, and now bordered with Prussia and Austria.
Ukraine, with its rich farmland and cultural connection to Kyivan Rus, was a top prize. Russian leaders called Ukraine “Malorossiya”, or “Little Russia”, to claim it was just a small part of a larger, Russian whole. They banned Ukrainian-language publications, forced the Orthodox Church of Ukraine to answer to Moscow, and tried to stamp out any sense of a separate Ukrainian identity.
However, Ukraine developed its own cultural identity, shaped by its Cossack traditions, its history under Polish–Lithuanian rule, and its separate experiences. Many Ukrainians argue their culture existed long before Muscovy evolved into an empire.
Winter Scene in Little Russia. Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky/Wikimedia Commons 請至原網頁觀看繪畫
Meanwhile, Russia had expanded into its next-door neighbours, then pretended these lands had always been part of Russia. Historian Alexander Etkind calls this process “internal colonisation”. This strategy helped Russia become a vast empire. But it also built lasting resentment, particularly in Ukraine.
Famine and ‘fascists’
The Soviet Union (USSR), established in 1922 in the wake of the successful Bolshevik Coup in 1917, claimed to be a union of equal republics. But in practice, Moscow stayed firmly in control.
Ukraine had the label of “Soviet Republic”, but had little genuine independence. Soviet leaders demanded enormous amounts of grain, coal, and labour from Ukraine to support the rest of the USSR.
A postcard printed in Germany by Ukrainian Youth Association for the 15th anniversary of Holodomor, 1933. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 請至原網頁觀看插圖
One of the darkest periods in Ukrainian history was the Holodomor, an orchestrated famine that spanned 1932–33, in which millions of Ukrainians died of hunger, after Stalin’s government seized huge amounts of grain from farmers. These policies aimed to break Ukrainian resistance and nationalist feelings.
The Holodomor was an act of genocide against Ukrainians, though Russia disputes this interpretation.
After World War II, the Soviet Union took over the Baltic states and parts of Poland, including regions now in western Ukraine. Although Ukraine became one of the more industrialised parts of the USSR, genuine displays of Ukrainian culture or independent thought were often met with harsh punishment. People who spoke out were labelled “fascists”, a term still used in Russia’s modern propaganda.
Starved peasants on a street in Kharkiv during the famine. Widener Library, Harvard University 請至原網頁觀看照片
Reclaiming Ukraine
The USSR fell apart in 1991. Ukraine, along with other former Soviet republics, became independent nations. This was a major blow to Russia’s idea of itself as a world empire. For centuries, Moscow had seen Ukraine as central to its identity.
The 1990s brought tough economic reforms and political changes in Russia. Then Vladimir Putin rose to power in the early 2000s, promising to restore Russia’s influence. He described the former Soviet states as the “near abroad”, suggesting Moscow still had special rights over these regions.
In 2008, Russia went to war with Georgia. After winning, it recognised two breakaway provinces in Georgia, effectively keeping troops there.
In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, claiming it was protecting Russian speakers. It also backed separatists in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 68/262 in March 2014, declaring Russia’s annexation of Crimea illegal. The Kremlin continued its policies regardless.
A Putin supporter celebrates the 2014 annexation of Crimea in Sevastopol, Republic of Crimea. Sergei Chirkov/AAP請至原網頁觀看照片
‘Denazifying’ Ukraine?
In February 2022, Russia expanded the conflict by launching an invasion of Ukraine. It described its actions as a mission to “denazify” the country, accusing Ukraine’s government of being controlled by Nazis – although president Zelenskyy has Jewish heritage.
There was no evidence to support these claims. Still, Russian leaders used these slogans to justify their aggressive push. They also spoke of “traditional values” and “Orthodox unity”, painting themselves as defenders of a shared Slavic culture.
The military objective was to capture the Donbas completely, create a land bridge to Crimea, and maybe advance further to Transnistria in Moldova, a pro-Russian separatist region.
What Russia hoped would be a quick victory has become a long, brutal conflict. For many Ukrainians, independence is more than just avoiding control by Moscow. It is about creating a society built on democracy, human rights and ties to Europe.
These values inspired the Euromaidan protests in Kyiv in 2013–14, where demonstrators demanded less corruption and closer links to the European Union. Russia used these protests to justify seizing Crimea in 2014.
Ukrainians mark the first anniversary (in November 2014) of the Euromaidan Revolution. Sergey Dolzhenko/AAP 請至原網頁觀看照片
A message of self-determination
The Kremlin’s insistence that Ukrainians and Russians are the same mirrors the older imperial model: expand, absorb and claim these territories were always part of Russia. Breaking free from this “mental empire” demands a deep shift in how Russians, Ukrainians, and the world view Eastern Europe’s past and present.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, many hoped for a new era of cooperation in Eastern Europe. Instead, authoritarian politics and old beliefs about empire have led to a devastating conflict.
By refusing to be pulled back into Russia’s orbit, Ukrainians send a message about self-determination. They reject the claim bigger nations can absorb smaller ones simply by invoking a shared past.
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski is a historian, Australian Catholic University.
Disclosure statement
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
Australian Catholic University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
View all partners
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
Republish this article
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
英、法百年戰爭的結果和影響 - Mark Cartwright
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我對歐洲史相當陌生，現在偶而了解一下，只是有興趣和打發時間。
歷史知識在「前事不忘，後事之師」這個功能外，知道概念、制度、和物質文明的來龍去脈後，它們能幫助我們深入了解變化和發展的「所以然」。智慧，如「舉一反三」的能力，應該就是借助前人經驗的「思考」累積而來。
The Hundred Years' War: Consequences & Effects
Mark Cartwright, 03/06/20
The Hundred Years' War was fought intermittently between England and France from 1337 to 1453 CE and the conflict had many consequences, both immediate and long-lasting. Besides the obvious death and destruction that many of the battles visited upon soldiers and civilians alike, the war made England virtually bankrupt and left the victorious French Crown in total control of all of France except Calais. Kings would come and go but for many of them, one significant measure of the success of their reign was their performance in the Hundred Years' War. Divisions were created within the nobilities of both countries which had repercussions for who became the next ruling monarch. Trade was badly affected and peasants were incessantly taxed, which caused several major rebellions, but there were more positive developments such as the creation of more competent and regularised tax offices and the trend towards more professional diplomacy in international relations. The war also produced enduring and iconic national heroes, notably Henry V of England (r. 1413-1422 CE) and Joan of Arc (1412-1431 CE) in France. Finally, such a long conflict against a clearly identifiable enemy resulted in both participants forging a much greater sense of nationhood. Even today, a rivalry still continues between these two neighbouring countries, now, fortunately, largely expressed within the confines of international sporting events.
Edward III Crossing the Somme, Benjamin West (Public Domain) 請至原網頁觀看插圖
The consequences and effects of the Hundred Years' War may be summarised as:
* The loss of all English-held territory in France except Calais.
* A high number of casualties amongst the nobility, particularly in France.
* A decline in trade, especially English wool and Gascon wine.
* A great wave of taxes to pay for the war which contributed to social unrest in both nations in forms of tax collection.
* The development of a stronger Parliament in England.
* The almost total bankruptcy of the English treasury at the war's end.
* The disagreement over the conduct of the war and its failure fuelled the dynastic conflict in England known as the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487 CE).
* The devastation of French towns and villages by mercenary soldiers between battles.
* Developments in weapons technology such as cannons.
* The consolidation of the French monarch's control over all of France.
* A greater use of international diplomacy and specialised diplomats.
* A greater feeling of nationalism amongst the populations of both countries.
* The creation of national heroes, notably Henry V in England and Joan of Arc in France.
* A tangible rivalry between the two nations which still continues today, seen particularly in sports such as football and rugby.
Death & Taxes: The Economics of Failure
Beyond the immediate consequences of England's failures in the war such as the loss of all territory except Calais and France's defeats in the large-scale battles which saw a huge number of nobles killed, there were many more, deeper and subtler effects of this 116-year conflict. There were also consequences which occurred long before the war had even ended as successive monarchs on either side struggled with the problems created by their predecessors. Finally, the conflict had an impact which lasted for decades and centuries after it had long finished.
France, c. 1420 CE, Aliesin (CC BY-NC-SA) 請至原網頁觀看地圖
In England, many barons had become extremely rich as their power increased at local level and the king became correspondingly weaker and poorer as the barons kept local revenues to themselves. The king could not tax his people without the permission of Parliament and so this body had to be called each time a monarch required more cash for his campaigns in France or elsewhere. As a result of Parliament frequently meeting, it did not necessarily gain any new powers but it did create for itself an identity and, by being involved in diplomatic policy discussions and the ratification of peace treaties, the institution was starting to become a part of English political life. The 'Long Parliament' of 1406 CE, for example, sat an unusually long time from March until December as it deliberated over the ever-prickly issue of state finances, and there was very much a feeling that the king, although still an absolute monarch, was perhaps just a little less absolute than before the war.
In France, the opposite was true as the monarchy's position was strengthened because of the success of the war while that of the nobility and the Estates General (the legislative assembly) weakened. This was because the king did not need to consult anyone else regarding taxation policies which could be levied at will to pay for the war. The conflict also saw the introduction of long-lasting indirect taxes such as the salt tax (gabelle) that was not abolished until the French Revolution of the late 18th century CE. The French monarch was thus able to triple his income through taxes from the start to the end of the war. Further, such taxes required a whole new state apparatus of tax collectors, keepers of public records, and assessors for payment disputes, ensuring the sustained enrichment of the Crown.
In England, there was often disagreement amongst the nobles of England as to how to best conduct the war against France, indeed even whether to conduct it at all. This became more serious in times of failure but the final loss in 1453 CE was one of the reasons Henry VI of England (r. 1422-61 & 1470-71 CE) became so unpopular and it was probably a contributory factor to the king's episodes of madness. This dissatisfaction with the monarch, his obvious aversion to warfare and the inevitable search for scapegoats for the loss of the war ultimately led to the dynastic conflict known to history as the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487 CE). In addition, now that the war with France was over, English nobles dissatisfied with the current regime could better use their own private armies as a tool to increase their own wealth and influence. Another consequence was the sheer number of nobles as monarchs often created more aristocrats - two new ranks in England were (e)squire and gentlemen - as they sought to increase their tax base. Indeed, during the war, the nobility of England tripled in size as new members qualified via property ownership rather than just hereditary titles (although it was still under 2% of the total population in the mid-15th century CE).
At a lower level in society, the slump in trade caused by the war brought economic hardship for many. English wool was a major export to the clothmakers in the Low Countries, and this trade was disrupted. In the other direction, the quantity of wine imported from Gascony crashed (from 74,000 tuns/barrels in 1336 CE to 6,000 tuns in 1349 CE), a trade which never really recovered. Sailing vessels were frequently commandeered by the state to ferry armies across to France; herring fishermen were particularly susceptible to this state interference in their livelihoods. Piracy was another blow to merchants, as were such direct raids as the French attack on Southampton in 1338 CE, not to mention the random pillaging of armies throughout the war, both in France where the battles were fought but also in southeast England where armies were stationed prior to embarkation to the Continent.
The poor economic situation of many communities was only worsened by taxes - Edward III of England (r. 1327-1377 CE), for example, had called for taxes 27 times during his reign. The Peasants' Revolt of June 1381 CE was the most infamous popular uprising of the Middle Ages as ordinary folk protested at the huge problems caused by the Black Death plague and, above all, the never-ending taxes which, since 1377 CE, included indiscriminate poll taxes. The rebellion of 1450 CE led by Jack Cade again saw commoners protest at high taxes, perceived corruption at court, and an absence of justice at local level. The commoners might not have had any direct influence on government but the discord did perhaps give those nobles keen to overthrow the regime another excuse to do so beyond merely extending their own interests.
In France, too, the general population was, as we have seen, subject to taxes to pay for the war but they had to endure the additional problem of marauding armies. Although, highly localised to battle areas and main roads, some towns and villages were ravaged by bands of mercenary soldiers (routiers) before and after battles. Soldiers brought diseases, took away grain, cattle and produce, and left behind only despair. The problem was particularly prevalent in Brittany, Périgord, and Poitou. In addition, Edward III had deliberately employed the strategy of chevauchées - striking terror into local populations by burning crops, raiding stocks and permitting general looting prior to his battles in the hope of drawing the French king into open battle. Finally, the civil war between the French nobility which involved the two rival groups of Burgundians and Armagnacs fighting for who should control and then succeed the mad Charles VI of France (r. 1380-1422 CE) brought further distress to local populations. Even those who avoided a direct loss of property often suffered from a crash in rent values, down by up to 40% in places like Anjou, or a hike in food prices, which went up by 50% during the siege of Reims, for example, in 1359 CE.
The Church
The medieval Church as an institution on either side tended to support the war, giving patriotic services, saying prayers, and ringing out bells whenever there was a victory. The Christian faith, though, did receive some challenges on a pan-European scale. The Great Schism of 1378 CE (aka Western Schism) in the Catholic Church ultimately saw three popes all in office at the same time. The situation was not resolved until 1417 CE as the rival camps jockeyed for the support of French and English kings. Further, the Church in Rome was weakened as the kings of England and France sought to limit taxes going to anywhere else except their own military campaigns. A consequence of this policy was the creation of 'national churches' in each country. Local churches also became the hubs of community news with news of the wars' events being posted on their noticeboards and official communications being read out in the preacher's pulpit.
New Weapons
As each side strived to better the other, weapons, armour, fortifications, and strategies of warfare developed during the war, and armies became more and more professional. By the wars' end, Charles VII created France's first permanent royal army. Notably, the use of archers armed with powerful longbows by English armies brought great success as the importance of heavy cavalry diminished and there was a tendency for medieval knights on both sides to fight on foot. Gunpowder weapons were first used at the Battle of Crécy in 1346 CE but, still crude in design, they had no great influence on the English victory. The French did use small handheld cannons to great effect at the battles of Formigny (1450 CE) and Castillon (1453 CE). From around 1380 CE, there were also giant cannons known as 'bombards' which could fire massive stone balls weighing up to 100 kilos (220 lbs). Such guns were too heavy and cumbersome to use in field engagements but they were especially useful in siege warfare such as at Harfleur in September 1415 CE.
Finally, an oft-neglected weapon developed over the period of the war was diplomacy. On both sides, but first to a higher degree in England, monarchs relied on a team of specialised diplomats and archive-keepers who could use their skills in language, law, and cultural awareness to forge useful alliances, persuade defections from the enemy, arrange the payment of ransoms, and negotiate the best terms for treaties. The international politics of the Hundred Years War, which involved several states (France, England, Spain, the Low Countries, Scotland and others), consequently saw the regular participation of experienced diplomats, forming what would soon become a formal body of ambassadors and embassies which we recognise today as an essential part of international relations.
The Birth of Nations & National Heroes
The war, boosted by stirring medieval literature, poems and popular songs, fostered a greater feeling of nationalism on both sides. Kings appealed to their armies prior to battles to fight for their king and country. The French monarchy was ultimately seen as the saviour of the country which went on to absorb such regions as Brittany, Provence, Burgundy, Artois, and Roussillon, thus the state largely took the form we know today. On the other side of the Channel, England's great battlefield victories were celebrated with popular processions welcoming back heroic kings such as Edward III and Henry V and those monarchs who failed on the battlefield suffered seriously in the popularity stakes back home. The same was true in France, as the historian G. Holmes puts it: "The war with England was to some extent the anvil upon which the identity of early modern France was forged" (301).
Another consequence of the military successes was the revival of medieval chivalry, especially by Edward III who, along with his son Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376 CE), founded the exclusive chivalric Order of the Garter c. 1348 CE which still survives today. Saint George, the patron of the order, was now firmly established as a national saint of a confident country finally on equal military terms with the French. By the end of the war, England became wholly separated from the affairs of the Continent and was already moving towards a more 'English' cultural identity where the English language was spoken at court and used in official documents, and where customs and the view of the world were now firmly part of an island outlook. France, meanwhile, was richer and more powerful than ever before and ready to expand its interests on the Continent, notably in Italy.
Finally, the war created enduring national heroes who continue to be celebrated today in popular culture. In England, Henry V became a legend in his own lifetime after his stunning victory at the 1415 CE Battle of Agincourt against enormous odds and, thanks to writers such as William Shakespeare (1564-1616 CE), his star has risen only ever higher as Henry V continues to be performed, filmed, and quoted. In France, Joan of Arc became the great figure of the conflict as her heavenly visions inspired her to lift the siege of Orleans in 1429 CE, turning the tide of the war. Joan was burnt at the stake as a witch but, made a saint in 1920 CE, she still today symbolises defiance against the odds and French patriotism. Both countries, then, have created a mythology of the Hundred Years' War, a now long-past time where the enemy was clear, the heroes were virtuous and the victories golden.
Bibliography
Allmand, Christopher. The Hundred Years War. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Blockmans, Wim. Introduction to Medieval Europe 300–1500. Routledge, 2017.
Cannon, John. The Kings and Queens of Britain. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Crouch, David. Medieval Britain, c.1000-1500. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years' War. Osprey Publishing, 2002.
Holmes, George. The Oxford History Of Medieval Europe. Oxford University Press, U.S.A., 2002.
Jones, Dan. The Plantagenets. Penguin Books, 2014.
Keen, Maurice. The Penguin History of Medieval Europe. Penguin Books, 1991.
Saul, Nigel. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Starkey, David. Crown and Country. HarperPress, 2011.
Turvey, Roger. Lancastrians, Yorkists and the Wars of the Roses, 1399-1509. Hodder Education Publishers, 2015.
Wilson, Derek. The Plantagenet Chronicles 1154-1485. Metro Books, 2020.
Mark Cartwright is a full-time writer, researcher, historian, and editor. Special interests include art, architecture, and discovering the ideas that all civilizations share. He holds an MA in Political Philosophy and is the WHE Publishing Director.
Editorial Review
This human-authored article has been reviewed by our editorial team before publication to ensure accuracy, reliability and adherence to academic standards in accordance with our editorial policy.
World History Encyclopedia is an Amazon Associate and earns a commission on qualifying book purchases.
Subscribe to topic Bibliography Related Content Books Cite This Work License
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
考古與歷史：羅馬的慢性衰亡 - Tim Newcomb
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考羅馬簡史。
A Staggering Excavation Has Rewritten the Fall of the Roman Empire
Tim Newcomb, 03/05/25
* A 13-year archeological excavation has shown that what was once believed a backwater town for the Roman Empire lasted far longer than originally believed.
* Interamna Lirenas was a thriving town well into the 3rd century AD.
* A geophysical survey has allowed researchers to build a highly detailed image of the town’s layout, with an impressive list of urban features.
Interamna Lirenas has turned out to be far more than a “backwater town” of the Roman Empire. According to a published study in Roman Urbanism in Italy, this central Italian town thrived well beyond previous belief, using its impressive urban features and forward-thinking design to stave off the effects of the empire’s collapse well into the 3rd century AD.
“We started with a site so unpromising that no one had ever tried to excavate it,” Alessandro Launaro, the study’s author and Interamna Lirenas Project lead at the University of Cambridge’s Classics Faculty, said in a statement. “That’s very rare in Italy.”
The team was astonished by what they found. From a roofed theater and market locations to warehouses and a river port, the discovery tossed aside assumptions previously held about the area and the decline of Roman Italy. It turns out that Interamna Lirenas survived for around 300 years longer than previously believed, and was a flourishing town to boot.
“There was nothing on the surface, no visible evidence of buildings, just bits of broken pottery,” Launaro said. “But what we discovered wasn’t a backwater, far from it. We found a thriving town adapting to every challenge thrown at it for 900 years.”
The team of archaeologists used magnetic and ground-penetrating radar to survey roughly 60 acres of mostly open fields. They then launched a series of targeted excavations to unearth the history. “We’re not saying that this town was special, it’s far more exciting than that,” Launaro sadi. “We think many other average Roman towns in Italy were just as resilient. It’s just that archaeologists have only recently begun to apply the right techniques and approaches to see this.”
The team believes that the proof is in the pottery. By focusing on common ware pottery used for cooking—and not the imported pottery that often shows evidence of high-status living—the team could better map the location and dates of citizen movement in the region. This evidence showed that instead of the town’s size peaking in the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC, as previously believed, the town staved off decline until the later part of the 3rd century AD.
“Based on the relative lack of imported pottery,” Launaro said, “archeologists have assumed that Interamna Lirenas was a declining backwater. We now know that wasn’t the case.” Instead of favoring imported pottery, the town—which was likely home to about 2,000 residents—was busy making their own way.
Thanks to a found inscription, researchers also believe that the town was likely visited by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, likely because Intermana Lirenas was part of a regional urban network and ideally situated between a river and major road.
“This town continually played its cards right,” Launaro said, “it was always forging relations with communities between Rome and southern Italy while thriving as a trading hub.” Of course, the River Liri may have helped in that department—the town may have served as a river port. Archeologists also found evidence of warehouse measuring 131 feet by 39 feet, which was likely used to hold goods for widespread trade. There was also a temple and bath complex—one of three in the town—near the port.
“River ports didn’t just need warehouses,” Launaro said. “People spent a lot of time working and resting in the vicinity, so they needed all kinds of amenities, just like the ones we found here.”
Interamna Lirenas wasn’t just a port, though. Archaeologists also found a roofed theater, roughly 147 feet by 85 feet in size and large enough to seat 1,500 visitors. “The fact that this town went for a roofed theater, such a refined building, does not fit with a backwater in decline,” Launaro said. “This theater was a major status symbol. It displayed the town’s wealth, power, and ambition.”
The theater was in a state of growth, not decline. The team found evidence of a wealthy donor backing what was likely an improvement to the structure. And combined with other evidence, that shows that the theater was in full use throughout the life of the town.
Three bath complexes—with evidence of continued use and upkeep beyond Roman Italy’s decline—and housing that showed no signs of zoning or separation by social status further contributed to the town’s apparently thriving status. Throughout the 60 acres of their survey, the team identified 19 courtyard buildings that they believe could have been markets, guild houses, warehouses, or apartments. The archaeologists believe they found a sheep and cattle market, which would have been key to the region’s thriving wool trade.
As there was no layer of ash or evidence of a violent end to the town, Launaro believes that it was eventually abandoned as residents grew fearful of marauding armies. The end of Interamna Lirenas wasn’t as sudden or as soon as previously believed, which has now opened a new world of understanding.
You Might Also Like
The Do’s and Don’ts of Using Painter’s Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
清朝是如何管理南海的？ ---- 斟北斗
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁觀看相關照片、地圖等。
清朝是如何管理南海的？巡邏到泰國灣，奠定了中國海疆的基礎
斟北斗，北斗維斟，2025年02月04日
南海到底是什麼時候納入到中國的版圖？這是一個循序漸進的過程。早在元朝時期，就已經在西沙群島設置了天文觀測站。而到了清朝，南沙群島已經在中國水師的巡邏範圍之內，說明南海已經基本納入到了中國的海疆版圖。到了近代，西方殖民者東來，不斷搶佔東南沿海的據點，南海也成為了列強爭奪的地區。那麼，清朝是如何維護南海主權的呢？
一，清朝將南海納入中國版圖之內
在古代，中國人將南海稱為“漲海”。在宋朝之前，人們到南海打漁、制鹽、出海貿易，於是開始在南海的一些島嶼上修建了臨時的住所。不過，當時國家的行政管轄範圍還未涉及南海，周邊其他國家的漁民也同樣可以在南海自由航行、打漁和制鹽，修建臨時住所。因此，這時候的南海處於發現階段。
到了宋朝，開始對西沙群島進行管理，根據《武經總要》記載，北宋的巡邏船隻到達了西沙群島。另外，唐宋時期已經將確立南海的海內和海外的界限，宋代官方繪製的《諸蕃圖》認為交洋與竺嶼是外國之境，“石床、長沙”，便是中國之境，其界限就是竺嶼，也就是納土納群島。周去非《嶺外代答》記載“正北行舟，曆上、下竺與交洋，乃至中國之境。”
元朝時期，在西沙群島了設置了南海測影站。以上的資訊都標誌著南海開始被納入到中國的版圖。不過，宋元時期的國家只能管轄到西沙，對於更加遙遠的中沙、南沙群島則鞭長莫及。到了明朝前期，鄭和下西洋，會在南海一些較大的島嶼上修建補給站，其中最重要的是納土納群島。不過，鄭和下西洋停止後，明朝就沒有管理南海，等於是放棄了。
北緯十三度的大致位置
到了清朝，中國的對南海的管轄得到空前的加強。根據記根據《崖州志》的記載，清朝的南海歸屬於崖州管轄，崖州的水師會定期到南海巡邏，而且巡邏的範圍非常大，北到海南島，南到占城和暹羅，已經超過了今天“九段線”的範圍。
崖州協水師營分管洋面，東自萬州東澳港起，西至昌化縣四更沙止，共巡洋面一千里。南面直接暹羅、占城夷洋，西接儋州營洋界，東接海口營洋界”——《崖州志》
清朝的一些地方誌記載了清朝水師在南海巡邏的事蹟。如《同安縣誌》記載了福建同安人吳陞在康熙年間擔任廣東水師副將，他帶領水師巡邏南海，“調瓊州，自瓊崖，曆銅鼓，經七洲洋、四更沙，周遭三千里，躬自巡視，地方寧謐。”七洲洋，大概在越南以東中南部位置。清朝外交家郭嵩燾記載“在赤道北一十三度，過瓦蕾拉山，安南東南境也，海名七洲洋”。這裡的北緯13度就是一個比較準確的位置了。
大清萬年一統天下全圖》的南海部分
清朝的官方文獻明確記載南海諸島是中國的領土。1731年的《廣東通志》記載就：“萬州三曲水環泮宮，六連山障，州治千里長沙（西沙群島）、萬里石塘（南沙群島），煙波隱見。”可見千里長沙和萬里石塘是歸屬于萬州管轄。在清代官方的地圖中，也明確地把千里長沙、萬里石塘列入清帝國版圖之內。這類地圖有1755年以前的《皇清各直省分圖》、1767年的《大清萬年一統天下全圖》、1810年的《大清萬年一統地理全圖》、1817年的《大清一統天下全圖》等。
二，據理力爭，收回東沙島
東沙群島，是南海四組群島中最靠近大陸的一組島礁，其中東沙島面積1.8平方公里，在南海中僅次於永興島。東沙島古稱“珊瑚洲”，清代時期被稱為“東沙”。東沙群島資源豐富，歷代都有中國漁民在此生活、開發，以此地發現多個王朝的錢幣以及中國人的132座墳墓為證。
甲午中日戰爭後，日本割占了中國臺灣，並試圖以此為跳板繼續向大陸和南海擴張。1901年，日本商人凱撒吉次發現了東沙群島的土壤含有磷質，就開始到東沙島掠取資源。到1907年，凱撒吉次帶領200多名士兵登陸東沙島，驅逐了這裡的中國漁民，毀掉了中國人修建的廟宇，挖掘了中國人的墳墓，企圖毀滅該島屬於中國的證據。
日本人又在島上建設了小碼頭、小鐵路、淡水廠，設電話、吸水管，並立一木牌，一面寫“明治四十年八月”，另一面寫“凱撒島”。可見，日本企圖永久佔領此島，並試圖改名為“凱撒島”。
消息傳出，全國報刊紛紛刊登。兩江總督端方和兩廣總督張人駿得知後，立即商量對策，最終決定派遣一支艦隊到東沙調查一下具體的情況。當時清朝的南洋艦隊正在接待美國艦隊，不能抽身，因此直到1909年，端方才派遣“飛鷹”號輪船到東沙查勘。為了進一步瞭解情況，端方在二月再次派遣輪船到東沙調查，並搜集到了日本欺淩中國漁民、強佔東沙的證據。
1909年2月十六日，兩廣總督張人駿向日本駐粵領事瀨川淺之進提交了照會。日本方面則說該島是“無主荒地”，需要中國提供地方誌來證明該島屬於中國才可以交還。張人駿拿出了日本人拆毀廟宇、毀掉墳墓的證據，但是日本方面堅持要清朝拿出地方誌作為證明。於是，清朝政府開始廣泛地搜集資料，最終在英國官方出版的《中國海指南》中發現證據，該書將東沙島記載為“粵雜澳十三”，也就是屬於廣東管轄的島嶼之一。另外，又在王之春《柔遠記》中發現了證據，並且和《中國海指南》的記載吻合。
日本見清朝拿出了證據，只能承認該島屬於中國，但是卻要求保護島上的日本財產，認為一旦遷走，損失很大。張人駿聽後，嚴厲斥責到: “以我國漁業，無端被逐，傷損甚巨，應作何辦法。”日本方面無言以對，又提出允許日本經營，進行租借。張人駿則強硬要求日本人趕緊撤離，不然就會強制驅逐，並且索要日本造成的經濟損失和運磷肥的賠償。
最終，雙方達成了協議，中國出資16萬元買下東沙島上的日本資產，而日本方面則賠償中國的損失3萬元。11月，日本人正式從東沙島上撤離，清朝開始派遣士兵駐守東沙島。1910年，清朝在東沙島設立“管理東沙委員會”，正式進行行政管理。
清朝收復東沙島發現在清朝末期，這時候距離清朝滅亡已經只有2年了。在這種情況下，端方和張人駿能夠據理力爭，最終收復了東沙島，實在已經不容易，他們的功績無論如何也是不可磨滅的。收復東沙後，清朝也認識到了南海島嶼的重要性，開始組織有計劃、有規模的南海維權活動。
三，清朝加強對西沙群島的管理
1909年三月，張人駿擔心西沙群島會出現類似的情況，於是派遣吳敬榮到西沙群島複勘。吳敬榮這次勘得西沙群島有15個島嶼，認為：“其地居瓊崖東南，適當歐洲來華之要衝，為南洋第一重門戶，若任其荒而不治，非惟地利之棄，甚為可惜，亦非所以重領土而保海權也。”
隨後，張人駿上報清廷，提出設立籌辦西沙島事務處。籌辦西沙島事務處成立之後，擬定了《複勘西沙島入手辦法大綱》，提出了一系列的措施，主要由：（1）對各島的基本資訊進行勘測，並繪製地圖；（2）選擇其中較為適合的島嶼修建廠屋，馬路、鐵軌等；（3）勘察磷質礦藏；（4）勘察海底資源，採取海底珊瑚和各種海石。（5）勘察海產資源，採取玳瑁、龜、蚌及各種魚類。（6）察驗土性，以備種植。
1909年5月，張人駿派遣吳敬榮和水師提督李准、廣東補用道李哲浚等帶領170多人到西沙群島考察、測繪，一共考察了15個島嶼，在6月才返回廣州。此次考察，中國的國旗首次在西沙群島上升了起來，這是中國對西沙群島主權的重申。考察隊按照原計劃繪製西沙群島的總圖和分圖，並進行了重新命名，這些命名基本沿用到了今天。
清朝的此次行動在國際上獲得了認可，“其後航海各書，稱其地為中國領土”。英國出版的文章寫道“西沙群島有兩個主要群島，還有一些小島及暗礁，1909年中國政府將其列入版圖，並經常有船前往巡視。”日本的《帕拉塞爾群島磷礦調查報告》中說：“1909年中國政府把該群島歸於中國所有”。
永興島
中沙群島和南沙群島距離中國大陸較遠，但是清朝也在試圖維護其主權。1867年英國一艘航道測量船到南沙群島考察，記載“俱有海南漁民之足跡，以捕取海參蚧貝為活，頗多長年留居於此”。1883年，德國的船隻到南沙群島進行非法調查，遭到了清朝的抗議。直到從清朝到民國，南沙群島的居民基本都是中國人，西方諸多史料也有記載。
清朝對南海的管理，確立了中國的南海海疆範圍，為民國時期的南海管理奠定了基礎。民國時期的“十一段線”和新中國的“九段線”都在清朝管理範圍之內確定，有一定的法理依據。清朝不僅奠定了中國疆域的基礎，還奠定了海疆的範圍，其歷史貢獻不可遺忘。
本人收集了大量的地圖資源，包括中國歷代古地圖和世界古地圖、中國和世界的歷史地理地圖、中國各省的地圖大全等，總量達到了330G。對地圖感興趣，可以識別以下的二維碼進行瞭解。
北斗維斟 客觀評價歷史，深度解讀文化，歡迎你的關注
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
