{"title":"亚洲军事史中的元叙事","authors":"D. Graff","doi":"10.1080/07292473.2023.2150475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Asia, the largest of the continents, is not only vast in physical extent but also amazingly diverse, embracing cultures as different as those of China, India, Japan, and Iran, as well as the nations of Southeast Asia and (in part) the Arab world. As large as it looms for geographers, however, Asia has long been a sort of terra incognita for military historians writing in English and other Western languages. Most of what has been written focuses on just a few episodes defined primarily as conflicts between European or American protagonists and Asiatic opponents, from the Persian invasion of Greece, the Crusades, and the Mongol forays into eastern Europe to the building of the British Raj in India, the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus is usually on the Western side in the conflict, with Asians appearing most often in the role of the exotic Oriental ‘other’. The violence of Asians against other Asians, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of the continent’s martial past, has received much less attention. Apart from the obvious difficulty of mastering the languages and understanding the cultures, the relative neglect of Asian warfare may also be attributed to the persistence of impressions formed during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, when western militaries, endowed with all the advantages flowing from the industrial revolution and the social and political dynamism that accompanied it, ran roughshod over the forces of Asian states and empires. One of the legacies of the colonial era was that most Asian peoples were perceived as weak and militarily ineffectual, and their ways of war, consequently, were not considered worthy of serious study. This contemptuous attitude permeates the older literature touching on Asian military history. It can be seen, for example, in the 1924 edition of Sir Charles Oman’s classic survey of medieval warfare, in which that eminent British military historian casually dismissed the notion that the Chinese could possibly have been the inventors of gunpowder, and in Barbara Tuchman’s willingness to repeat – in her influential bestseller Stilwell and the American Experience in China – the old chestnut that Chinese warlord armies of the early twentieth century had the habit of suspending their battles to put up umbr-","PeriodicalId":43656,"journal":{"name":"War & Society","volume":"42 1","pages":"20 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metanarratives in Asian Military History\",\"authors\":\"D. Graff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07292473.2023.2150475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Asia, the largest of the continents, is not only vast in physical extent but also amazingly diverse, embracing cultures as different as those of China, India, Japan, and Iran, as well as the nations of Southeast Asia and (in part) the Arab world. As large as it looms for geographers, however, Asia has long been a sort of terra incognita for military historians writing in English and other Western languages. Most of what has been written focuses on just a few episodes defined primarily as conflicts between European or American protagonists and Asiatic opponents, from the Persian invasion of Greece, the Crusades, and the Mongol forays into eastern Europe to the building of the British Raj in India, the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus is usually on the Western side in the conflict, with Asians appearing most often in the role of the exotic Oriental ‘other’. The violence of Asians against other Asians, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of the continent’s martial past, has received much less attention. Apart from the obvious difficulty of mastering the languages and understanding the cultures, the relative neglect of Asian warfare may also be attributed to the persistence of impressions formed during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, when western militaries, endowed with all the advantages flowing from the industrial revolution and the social and political dynamism that accompanied it, ran roughshod over the forces of Asian states and empires. One of the legacies of the colonial era was that most Asian peoples were perceived as weak and militarily ineffectual, and their ways of war, consequently, were not considered worthy of serious study. This contemptuous attitude permeates the older literature touching on Asian military history. It can be seen, for example, in the 1924 edition of Sir Charles Oman’s classic survey of medieval warfare, in which that eminent British military historian casually dismissed the notion that the Chinese could possibly have been the inventors of gunpowder, and in Barbara Tuchman’s willingness to repeat – in her influential bestseller Stilwell and the American Experience in China – the old chestnut that Chinese warlord armies of the early twentieth century had the habit of suspending their battles to put up umbr-\",\"PeriodicalId\":43656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"War & Society\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"War & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07292473.2023.2150475\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"War & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07292473.2023.2150475","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
亚洲是世界上最大的大洲,它不仅幅员辽阔,而且多样性惊人,包括中国、印度、日本和伊朗,以及东南亚国家和(部分)阿拉伯世界的不同文化。然而,尽管亚洲对地理学家来说是一个巨大的隐现,但对于用英语和其他西方语言写作的军事历史学家来说,亚洲长期以来一直是一块未知的领域。所写的大部分内容主要集中在欧洲或美国主角与亚洲对手之间的冲突,从波斯人入侵希腊、十字军东征、蒙古人入侵东欧到英国在印度建立统治、中国的义和团运动、朝鲜战争、越南战争,以及最近对伊拉克和阿富汗的干预。在这场冲突中,焦点通常集中在西方方面,而亚洲人最常扮演的角色是充满异国情调的东方“他者”。亚洲人对其他亚洲人的暴力,在过去的军事冲突中占了绝大多数,却很少受到关注。除了掌握语言和了解文化的明显困难之外,对亚洲战争的相对忽视也可能归因于19世纪和20世纪上半叶形成的持续印象,当时西方军队拥有工业革命带来的所有优势以及随之而来的社会和政治活力,对亚洲国家和帝国的军队粗暴对待。殖民时代的遗产之一是,大多数亚洲人民被认为是软弱的,军事上无能为力,因此,他们的战争方式被认为不值得认真研究。这种轻蔑的态度弥漫在有关亚洲军事史的旧文献中。例如,在1924年版的查尔斯·阿曼爵士(Sir Charles Oman)关于中世纪战争的经典综述中,我们可以看到,这位著名的英国军事历史学家随意驳斥了中国人可能是火药发明者的说法,芭芭拉·塔奇曼愿意在她颇具影响力的畅销书《史迪威与美国在中国的经历》中重复一个老生常谈:20世纪初的中国军阀军队习惯于暂停战斗,以备不时之需要
Asia, the largest of the continents, is not only vast in physical extent but also amazingly diverse, embracing cultures as different as those of China, India, Japan, and Iran, as well as the nations of Southeast Asia and (in part) the Arab world. As large as it looms for geographers, however, Asia has long been a sort of terra incognita for military historians writing in English and other Western languages. Most of what has been written focuses on just a few episodes defined primarily as conflicts between European or American protagonists and Asiatic opponents, from the Persian invasion of Greece, the Crusades, and the Mongol forays into eastern Europe to the building of the British Raj in India, the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus is usually on the Western side in the conflict, with Asians appearing most often in the role of the exotic Oriental ‘other’. The violence of Asians against other Asians, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of the continent’s martial past, has received much less attention. Apart from the obvious difficulty of mastering the languages and understanding the cultures, the relative neglect of Asian warfare may also be attributed to the persistence of impressions formed during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, when western militaries, endowed with all the advantages flowing from the industrial revolution and the social and political dynamism that accompanied it, ran roughshod over the forces of Asian states and empires. One of the legacies of the colonial era was that most Asian peoples were perceived as weak and militarily ineffectual, and their ways of war, consequently, were not considered worthy of serious study. This contemptuous attitude permeates the older literature touching on Asian military history. It can be seen, for example, in the 1924 edition of Sir Charles Oman’s classic survey of medieval warfare, in which that eminent British military historian casually dismissed the notion that the Chinese could possibly have been the inventors of gunpowder, and in Barbara Tuchman’s willingness to repeat – in her influential bestseller Stilwell and the American Experience in China – the old chestnut that Chinese warlord armies of the early twentieth century had the habit of suspending their battles to put up umbr-