有意思！外国网民热议：古代中印若开战，谁会获胜？

　译文导读：中国vs印度
西方人貌似不知道中印古代曾有一战，因此他们是把这个题目当做穿越帖讨论的
现在连到88楼（果然西方人对和自己有关的问题上心得多么？。。。），目前投票的结果是：
中国赢：23人 58.97%
印度赢：10人 25.64%
两败俱伤，平：6人 15.38%
Ps: Lz是印度人

We will be comparing the armies of two awe inspiring armies- Chinese vs Indians
让我们比较一下这两支令人敬畏的部队——中国vs印度
The armies will be from the SAME ERA and not the same time period-
两国的军队设定在同一时代，不过不是同一个朝代（这设定简直囧透了）
Indian Army- Gupta Empire allied with the Chola Empire
印度军队——笈多王朝和朱罗王国
Gupta Army
（他下面放了一段似乎是从《印度vs欧洲》里转来的评论，我就不翻了，大家只要记住是大象大象大象大象大象大象就行了）
Chola_military
（同上）
Chinese- Sui-Tang (589 CE- 907 CE)
中国——隋唐
Chinese Army
中国军队
Historically both countries were isolated from each other due to geographical reasons. But we will ignore this. 
历史上，出于地理上的原因，两国之间是相互独立且没有联系的。（？！）不过现在我们穿越一下。
The battlefield would be large plains. And the battlefield will go on for a period of 10 days (so the forces will not destroy each other in a single day)...
设想战斗发生在广阔的的平原上。战场的状态会保持10天（这样就没有任何一方能在一天内灭掉对方啦）（这能算作弊么？）
So who would win this face-off? 
那么，谁会是胜利者？

评论翻译：
Lord_of_Gauda 
If its in India, the Indians would win easily: The Chinese did not have a phalanx column or elephants- the only two things that gives you an outside shot in hell to counter war elephants. Horses + Infantry = elephant chow.
要是在印度打，印度人可以轻松获胜。中国人没有（马其顿）方阵或是大象——只有拥有这两样东西你才有对抗大象的资本。战马+步兵=大象的食物
If its in China, it would probably favour the Chinese, slightly: the Indians would be severely restricted in the amount of elephants they'd bring to bear in the contest. The Indians were better horsemen than the Chinese(IMO) and have a slight advantage in cavalry, while the Chinese weild a slight superiority in infantry, who tended to be better armored than the Indians.
在中国打的话，中国的赢面会大一点点。大象的数量会被严重的限制——在战争中印度人必须忍受这一点。印度的马也比中国的好（我这么觉得），因而印度在骑兵上有一些优势，而中国则在步兵上有一些优势——他们的装甲强于印度。

philhellene 
Are you asking if they would win one battle, win a war, or occupy the other country?
你问的是哪一方会打赢这场战役，还是赢得这场战争，还是征服对方的国家？
It would be pretty hard to say since neither country had a history of foreign expeditions for us to use as comparison. China had seen more foreign occupation, but then they probably had more experience and sophisticated tactics from constant warfare.
比较这个很难啊，这两个国家都没有过远征的历史。中国见识过更多的外国军事占领，不过中国人由于常年的战乱，或许在复杂的战术方面更有经验呐。

imperialmen
（lz现身，补充问题）
Ok. I think I was not clear-
It would be a 20 day battle on a fictional plain land supporting both the armies.
The battle would be between the armies of Gupta allied with the Cholans vs Chinese Sui-Tang Dynasties
I have given an overview of Gupta military and a link to the Chola military. 
The Chinese army cant be described in a paragraph, so I have provided the link to the Wikipedia on their military(that's the best I could do)
Both armies would gather at opposite end of the fictional battlefield, and initiate the battle face-to-face. (similar to Rome:Total War style )
Winning the battle means killing/routing the opposite army. 
额，我想我没说清楚。。。
在虚拟的平原战场上战斗会持续20天，两边的军队的供给都能支持到那个时候。
战斗是印度的笈多王朝联合朱罗王国vs中国的隋朝-唐朝（囧死我了，中国的两个朝代不是像印度一样是并存的好不好，二打一要脸么）。我给了一个大致的关于笈多时期军事概述和一个有关Chola的军队的链接。
中国军队无法在一段话里被描述出来，所以我建议大家看维基百科。（这是我所能做到极限了）
两方的军队会在战场的两边聚集，而且是面对面的战斗。（就像《罗马全面战争》的风格一样）

资料：
笈多王朝
中世纪统一印度的第一个封建王朝。疆域包括印度北部、中部及西部部分地区。公元4世纪初北印度小国林立，摩揭陀国王旃陀罗·笈多一世（约320～330在位)据华氏城为首都，建立笈多王朝。 
沙摩陀罗·笈多（海护王，约330～380在位)采取武力征服政策，统一了北印度。此外，海陆并进南下征服奥里萨、德干东部，直抵帕拉瓦王国首都建志。 
旃陀罗·笈多二世（超日王，380～415在位 )征服乌阇衍那的塞种州长国，夺取马尔瓦、卡提阿瓦和信德。除西旁遮普和克什米尔外，北印度尽入笈多王朝版图，笈多王朝至此达到鼎盛时期。 
鸠摩罗·笈多一世（415～455在位)时代，笈多王朝尚能保持北印度安定局面。 
塞建陀·笈多在位期间（455～467 )，嚈哒人首次南侵笈多，他调集兵力击退敌人，保卫印度免于灭亡。但佛陀·笈多以后（约500)发生经济危机，各地封臣叛离中央，国家陷于分裂。嚈哒王托拉马纳和米西拉库拉卷土重来，吞并笈多王朝大部分领土，严重破坏北印度政治经济文化，促使其瓦解为许多封建小国，北印度再度处于政治分裂局面。然后灭亡。


朱罗（Chola）
古代和中世纪印度泰米尔三王国之一。又译乔拉。早期都城乌罗尤尔（今蒂鲁奇拉帕利），晚期都城坦焦尔 
大约从公元1世纪起，朱罗的一些酋长分别统治了泰米尔人的各个地区。卡里卡拉（主要活动在2世纪晚期）是朱罗王国早期最著名的国王，在文尼战役中，打败潘地亚、哲罗和11个酋长国的联军，在泰米尔建立霸权。以后衰落，7～8世纪朱罗沦为帕拉瓦和遮娄其王国的附属国。9～12世纪朱罗再度兴起，成为印度次大陆最重要的王国。毗查耶拉耶统治时（850～871），朱罗战胜遮娄其，以坦焦尔为首都。巴兰答伽一世（950～955）时吞并潘地亚，侵入锡兰。罗阇罗阇一世（985～1014在位）和拉金德拉一世（1012～1044在位）时，朱罗王国鼎盛，以强大海军为基础，征服哲罗及锡兰北部，并挥师北上战胜孟加拉的帕拉王朝，占领恒河下游，在恒河三角洲建立新都恒伽孔达-朱罗普兰。为争夺印度洋海上交通控制权，保障印度对中国及东南亚的直接贸易联系的利益，朱罗王国在11世纪，与其海上劲敌室利佛逝进行百余年的争夺印度洋霸权的斗争。1025年一度占领马来半岛、东苏门答腊及南缅甸。

philhellene 
What are some good sources for asian military history? I think many of the Chinese historians are careful to record battles but do not give many details, and were almost always written by court officials instead of actual generals.
All I know of Indian military history is references in holy texts and poems. 
有没有关于亚洲军队的一些好的资料？很多中国历史学家都仔细的记录下了本国的战役，但是却没有给出太多的细节。而且他们大都是政府官员而不是领兵打仗的将军。
而我所知的印度军事历史都是来源于史诗传说。

imperialmen 
Just the crossbow could lead to victory? Actually, Chinese crossbows (chu ko nus) had a higher rate of fire, but lesser range, accuracy and penetration power. They dint use the chu ko nus often too, they used the normal bows, which apparently had more advantages. 
十字弓能够对战争起决定性的作用么？确实，中国的十字弓（诸葛弩）有更高的连发速度，但是范围更下，精度更差，穿透力也更低。他们也不常用诸葛弩，他们一般都用普通的弓，普通的弓很明显更有优势。

plutoboyz 
I mean the elephant, Indian main weapon. if the battle took place outside India, Indian can't bring all of its elephant. the elephant need plenty food.
in large plain, Indian chariot have an advantage. however, the chinese, due to frequent contact with nomad, they developed better cavalry than Indian. to counter this, Indian have elephant. elephant would grind those horsie easily.
in a short battle, Indian will win. for long term campaign, Chinese win.
我的意思是大象是印度人的主要武器（又见大象！）。如果战斗发生在印度境外，印度人不能带上他们全部的大象。大象需要相当多的食物。
如果发生在广阔的平原，印度战车有相当的优势，不过中国人由于常常和游牧民族接触，他们有强于印度的骑兵。印度军队可以拿大象抵抗骑兵。大象可以将这些马儿轻松碾杀。
如果是短期战斗，印度人会胜。长期战役，中国人胜。

imperialmen 
Indian war elephants were used wisely
印度人会用他们的聪明才智来驱使大象的。

Logistically.... elephants could carry most of the things, but if you moved them into unsuitable terrain..... damn they are dead!!
后勤的话，，，大象可以携带好多东西，不过如果你让大象移动到不合适的地形上。。。靠，那就废了。

Its all about the climate..... Chinese fought in cold and dry climates, Indians fought in hot and humid climates..... Bring the fight to India, Indians win..... Bring the fight to China.... Chinese win.... 
说到天气，中国人适应干冷的气候，印度人适应热而潮湿的气候。。。在印度打，印度人赢。。。在中国打，中国人赢。。。

Lord_of_Gauda 

1. I would not dismiss the Indian cavalry so easily. For one, the cavalry from western India (Rajputs/Gujjar Pratiharas) are historically attested to've been a match for the very best going around: the Gujjar-Pratiharas defeated the Caliphate armies- which in that era were the apex of cavalry. The Rajput definitely held their own against the Mongols. 
我没有轻易的否认印度的骑兵。第一，西印度(Rajputs/Gujjar Pratiharas)的骑兵在历史上被证明是那一片儿最好的：Gujjar-Pratiharas打败了伊斯兰国家的军队——那个时代他们是骑兵的顶峰。拉其普特人可以和蒙古人相抗衡。
Secondly, Indian history has a long tradition of importing cavalry from the Kambojas, who were the nomadic substrate of the Bactrians. Recall that Han China went to war with Bactria over their war horses. Stands to reason that when most Indian cavalry in pre-Gujjar era is Bactrian imports, they have the most reputed horses and mercenaries in their contingent. 
第二，印度的历史上有长期的从the Kambojas那里进口骑兵的传统，后者是游牧民族，后来发展成了巴克特利亚人。汉朝曾用骑兵和巴克特利亚人交战。因而合乎情理的推论是：因为大多数的印度骑兵是在前Gujjar时代从巴克特利亚进口的，所以印度人那里肯定会有更好的战马和更强的雇佣兵。（神逻辑帝）

2. War elephants were the most deadly weapon in the ancient world IMO. The aspects of 'war elephants being unreliable' is mostly a trait of mediterranean cultures, such as Romans, Greeks, Selucids, etc. IMO, that is understandable- the elephant is not native to these cultures and never really procured in large quantities for purposes of warfare. But history of India, Burma and Thailand proves, categorically so, that the elephants were not only the bulwark of their armies, they were far more competent in its use, given the much more frequent battles involving elephants (and on greater scale) with far less mention of 'elephants losing it and stampeding'.
IMO, if you don't have elephants, there isnt much you can do against a corps of 4000 war elephants, with an archer on top shooting at you. If the elephant did not charge(which in Indian battles, they did not-unless the infantry were at a breaking point and a final push was required) and you were forced to charge the elephant, while these people on top keep shooting at you, it is almost hopeless. 
我认为战象是古代最厉害的武器。“战象是不可战胜的”已经是地中海文化的一种共识，比方说罗马人，希腊人，Selucids等等。我认为这是可以理解的——大象不是他们当地所产的，而且也没有大量应用于战争目的。不过在印度、缅甸和泰国的历史中，它们确实被大量应用了。大象之于他们不仅仅是军队中的肉盾，它们频繁的活跃在战场上，被赋予更大的职能，并且其实很少受惊混乱。
我的观点是，如果你没有大象，你就没法和一支有4000头大象的军队抗衡。弓手会从上方向你射击，大象也会来踩你（在印度的战役中，步兵在军队在崩溃的边缘，需要背水一战时其实是没啥用的），如果你冲向大象，那么我上述所说的人会向你射击，你很难存活啊。

Publius Aelius Hadrianus 
1) I didnt dismiss India cavalary but to my thinking Chinese might be better even if not by much.
2) I dislike them and i am not alone in thinking so. Nonetheless as i said, they are an interesting asset and if used wisely they can be useful.
The seleucids were used to use Indian elephants in battle (in fact once a seleucid basileus made peace with an Indian warlord and received 300 India elephants with their masters but even they were not that useful in battle.
There are cleaver ways to set the elephant in disarray, for instance once the Romans used flamed pigs to do it. I just the chinese been cleaver enough to counter the elephants,
I dont like put all my cash in beasts for even highly trained ones are still beasts.
我没有否定印度的骑兵，不过我认为中国的骑兵比印度的强，尽管没有强太多。
我不喜欢战象，而且我也不是一个人。尽管如此，如果它们被聪明的利用还是一种战斗中的有利条件。
The seleucids习惯于在战争中使用印度象（实际上一旦他们和印度之间的关系处于和平，他们就能得到300头印度象，还附带他们的驯养员。不过他们在战场上没什么用）。
更聪明的办法是直接让大象在战场上杂乱无章的暴走，比方说罗马就曾经拿点着了的猪这么干过（人道主义啊喂！）。
我相信中国人聪明到足以对付大象。我可不喜欢把我所有的钱都赌在畜生身上，即使是训练有素的野兽仍然是野兽。

（下面又开始大象大象的了，我摘一些不太一样的出来）

mingming 
Considering the battlefield is just a normal flat grassland you get from selecting default in a RTS game, China would definitely win. The reason being: superior technology.
想象战场只是一块平坦的草原，你是在玩即时战略游戏，中国必赢。理由是：先进的科技。（看到63楼，这是第一个提到科技的哥们）

The Indians have elephants yes but elephants are easily startled. The Chinese had land mines and rockets that can easily cause havoc among the elephants, leading them to trample their own handlers and troops.
China also possessed the flamethrower and the repeating crossbow. I don't think we need to go there. 

印度人的大象很猛，不过很容易受惊吓。中国人可以通过地雷和火箭轻易地在象群中制造动乱，让它们反过来连自己人都踩
中国人在火器和连发十字弓上遥遥领先。我觉得我们不需要去那儿。（指不需要近距离接触，对应大象秒杀范围内杂兵的观点）
And lastly, if I'm not mistaken, China had better cavalry. If if the Indians have better cavalry, the Chinese definitely know how to deal with them. The fact that the Southern Song dynasty kept the Jin Dynasty at bay for so long implies something about Chinese technology. 
最后，如果我没弄错，中国有更厉害的骑兵。如果印度的骑兵更好，那么中国人肯定知道怎么对付他们。有一个例子：南宋曾把金国逼退到海湾地区很长时间——这意味着大量科技的使用。

Lord_of_Gauda 
1. Flame-throwers/land-mines are relatively useless. As i said before, the Indians used their elephants to predominantly engage cavalry or hang back and shower infantry formation with arrows. These are not the 'charging elephants' of western lore, these are elephants that stay at periphery before being used in a decisive fashion.
点了火的投掷物和地雷一点用都没有。就像我先前说的，印度人用大象—弓箭组合对付骑兵和步兵。西方的知识里没有“冲向大象”的学问，在发生决定性的改变之前大象就已经呆在外围了。

2. Presence of elephants negates any enemy cavalry, period. Horses won't charge into a mass of elephants- nomatter how well trained. Even with extensive exposure to elephants, horses can barely hold their composure around elephants- to ask them to charge, is as impossible as getting a horse to charge a lion.
大象秒杀任何骑兵。马匹冲不进象群——无论它们多么训练有素。即使是接触到了大象，骑兵们所能做的也只是环绕在大象周围，保持着冷静——要是让他们冲向大象，这无异于让马儿冲向一头狮子。
（草原无狮子，大象称大王）

3. Repeater crossbows is countered by the longbow. 
IMO, if the fight is in India, where they can bring thousands of elephants to bear, they win easily.
回应你所谓的用诸葛弩对抗长弓。
我认为，在和印度的战斗中，只要它们摆出上千头大象，印度人就赢定了。（印度无敌主角光环秒杀所有npc）

mingming 
1. Land mines might be useless but definitely not rockets. Rockets have greater range and in a situation when thousands of troops and animals are crowded together, a rocket can be quite deadly. All it takes is for one startled elephant to start a stampede. Trebuchets and catapults can also provide ranged damage. 
地雷或许没用，但是火箭绝对有用。火箭打击范围大,对于一个拥有上千人且动物都挤在一块的部队，一直火箭就足以致命。一旦受惊的大象开始暴走，神马投石机啊弹弩啊都会受到损伤。
2. Flamethrowers and repeating crossbows would be used in a situation when infantry and cavalry are charging at the lines. No general would use those weapons for ranged attacks. China also have their own composite longbows. Plus China's extensive use of shield and pike formations can be deadly to any infantry/cavalry attack.
燃烧投掷品和连弩也可以用来对付步兵和骑兵啊。这些武器没有固定的用法。中国人的盾牌和箭矢阵可以给步兵或骑兵造成很大的伤害。
（我想到了三国志11。。。）

3. When I mentioned cavalry, I wasn't talking about cavalry vs. elephants but rather cavalry vs. cavalry or cavalry vs. infantry. Dealing with charging elephants is quite simple. Either use small animals to startle the elephant or do what the Romans did, form up the troops into squares and let the elephants pass. If a general knows he will be dealing with elephants, then he obviously will know what to do (if he is competent). 
我说到骑兵的时候，我可没说要让骑兵vs战象，我的意思是骑兵vs骑兵或是骑兵vs步兵。对付大象很简单。要么用小型动物惊扰大象，要么就像罗马人所做的，把军队列成方阵，然后让大象通过。如果一位将军知道他要对付一群大象，他就会知道他要做什么（如果他足够胜任的话）。
4. Also something I forgot to mention, China has the Art of War and the 36 Stratagems. Very useful in battle. 
If the battle takes place in India I would have no doubt that the Indians would win but on a flat terrain or if the battle takes place in China, I do think China will have the edge. 
还有，我忘了提了，中国有孙子兵法和36计。这些在战场上十分有用。如果战争发生在印度并且不再平地上，我相信印度稳赢。如果发生在中国，我认为中国拥有优势。

Thegn Ansgar 
Not exactly useful on a battlefield, seeing as how they're not manuals. The importance of these works was that they be studied beforehand. However the principles written in each of them (as well as other military treatises) were largely the same throughout the entire world, so it wouldn't offer a significant advantage.
（回ls孙子兵法说）这东西在战场上不完全是有用的。战场上的情况并不是手册上的内容。重点是有计划的提前做好准备。全世界的军事法则（还有军事论文）都是大致相同的，它可不会带来明显的优势。
Either way, I'd have to give it to the Chinese for having an incredibly more mobile army. Elephants are useful, but there is only so much range that bows can have. Not to mention the fact that when it's said that a bow can fire a long distance, that is not the optimal killing range. Firing an arrow 200 yards, is not likely to kill or even wound an armoured opponent. It'll be an annoyance to them, but not likely to cause significant damage. 
不管怎样，我把票投给了中国，因为中国有一个人数多到令人难以置信移动军队。大象很有用，而弓箭的射程就那么远。别提什么据说弓箭可以射到很远以外，那可不是有效射程。把一支箭射到200码远的话，这支箭就不太可能杀得了人甚至是刺伤穿着盔甲的对手。这可能会惹恼敌人，但不可能造成大的伤害。
The important thing is when one bow's effective killing range outclasses another bow's effective killing range. 
弓和弓相比，重要的是那边的有效射程更远。

1. Crossbow bolts were coated in a rather strong poison. Even a minor cut from a bolt fired from a repeating crossbow (which was not in widespread use during the Tang), would cause a rather painful injury and likely lead to death.
（回应大象通杀所有兵种论）
十字弓（诸葛弩）的箭头都是涂了毒的。即使一个小孩发射诸葛弩（这种兵器在唐朝还没有被广泛使用），也能造成十分致命的伤害，甚至让被击中的目标死亡。
2. As I've mentioned, repeating crossbows were not in widespread use during the Tang. The crossbows used by the Chinese on average had a draw weight of 300 pounds. This is considerably more powerful than any longbow (Indian, British, and even the African elephant hunting longbows). 
就像我提到的，连弩在唐代还没有广泛流传。在中国一般使用的连弩约重300磅。而连弩被认为比长弓力量更强。（印度人、英国人、甚至是捕猎非洲象都用的是长弓）

However the most important things here, are that the Chinese have a great emphasis on combined arms (and that is what wins battles), and mobility. It's one thing to face an opponent head on. It's an entirely different story when they're able to move around your entire army and attack you from behind and on the flanks, without you ever really knowing about it. 
无论什么是最重要的，中国有一个重视诸军兵种联合的军队（而这也是他们赢得战争的关键），移动力也是上佳的。面对中国人，你必须迎面对敌。当他们移动到你部队的周围，并且从后方和两翼夹击你是，形势会变的迥然不同，而你甚至之前都不会知道他们会这样。

imperialmen 
（三哥lz现身）
And Indians were not so obsessive with elephants..... If the Chinese concentrated on the elephants, other branches of the Indian armies were also functional too... 
印度人可不会只专注于大象。。。如果中国人集中火力应对战象，印度军队的其他分队同样也会履行职能（攻击中国军队）。