目前，全世界一共有兩百多個國家。但作為在世界文明歷史上佔有過重要地位的歐洲，這片與中國土地面積相差無幾的土地上，曾經也有過羅馬帝國和查理曼帝國大一統的輝煌，但現在卻已經大大小小分裂成了五十一個國家。但中國變得越來越統一。導致這種差異的原因是哪些？對此國外網友也感到很好奇，所以提出了這個問題：歐洲和中國都有悠久的歷史，兩個國家的面積都差不多(370萬平方英里)，為什麼歐洲被劃分為51個國家，而中國只有一個?讓我們看看國外網友的回答。
熱門提問
網友Erik Engheim的回答
Great question！ It is all about geography。 Study the maps of China and Europe。 Look specifically at where the mountain ranges and major rivers are。 You will quickly see a different pattern。
好問題!這一切都與地理有關。研究中國和歐洲的地圖。要特別注意山脈和主要河流的位置。你很快就會看到不同的模式。
Europe has a very different geological history that caused mountain ranges to be formed in many different directions across the continent。 This also caused created more but smaller rivers going in more varied directions than in China。
歐洲有著非常不同的地質歷史，這導致了山脈在歐洲大陸的許多不同方向形成。這也造成了比中國更多但更小的河流流向更多樣化的方向。
Chinese geography is simpler。 Mountains go one way， rivers another。 Thus mountains and rivers don’t naturally split up China into multiple chunks they way they do in Europe。 Mountains and rivers are natural boundaries for countries。
中國的地理比較簡單。山是這樣，河是那樣。因此，山脈和河流不會像歐洲那樣自然地把中國分割成許多塊。山川是國家的天然邊界。
Also look at the irregular coastline of Europe。 Countries like Italy and Spain are accessible only through a relatively narrow stretch of land which also happens to be a mountain area。 Britain is on an island making it even less accessible。
再看看歐洲不規則的海岸線。像義大利和西班牙這樣的國家只有透過相對狹窄的山區才能到達。英國位於一個小島上，這讓它更加難以接近。
Uniting Europe would thus always be difficult for an army。 A lot of smaller areas of Europe are easily defendable against an invading army。 This further led to the development of Feudalism in Europe and frequent wars。 This caused Europe to be dotted with strong castles。
因此，統一歐洲對於一支軍隊來說永遠是困難的。歐洲許多較小的地區很容易抵禦入侵的軍隊。這進一步導致了歐洲封建主義的發展和戰爭的頻繁。這使得歐洲到處都是堅固的城堡。
It is interesting to compare the significance of this when comparing Mongol invasion of Europe vs China。 With the highly centralized power structure， you could invade the capital and take the whole country。 Feudalism meant you had to fight down every Count， Earl， Baron etc in the country to win。 And each one of them had castles you had to lay siege to for months， and which point your army is vulnuralbe to counter attacks。
比較蒙古入侵歐洲和中原的重要性是很有趣的。在高度集中的權力結構下，你可以打敗歐洲首都，佔領整個國家。封建主義意味著你必須打敗這個國家的每一個伯爵、伯爵、男爵等人才能獲勝。他們每個人都有城堡，你必須圍攻幾個月，而你的軍隊在這一點上很容易反擊。
In Mongol armies each soldier had five horses。 They used all of them during the attack， switching horses when one got tired。 However this required vast plains of grass。 Europe did not have that。 Thus Mongol armies faced a shortage of food for their horses， which was made significantly worse by conquering Europe being very time consuming due to the sheer number of castles。
在蒙古軍隊中，每個士兵有五匹馬。他們在進攻時使用了所有的馬匹，當一匹馬累了就換一匹。然而，這需要廣闊的草原。歐洲沒有這些。因此，蒙古軍隊面臨著馬匹食物短缺的問題，而由於城堡數量眾多，征服歐洲非常耗時，這讓情況變得更加糟糕。
Spending mounts laying siege to a castly meant you would run out of grass for your horses。 This is one of several reasons why Mongols could defeat a much stronger China but had much bigger problems taking Europe。 Europe simply isn‘t easy to conquer。
用坐騎圍攻城堡意味著你會耗盡馬匹的草料。這就是為什麼蒙古人能打敗強大得多的中國，卻在佔領歐洲方面面臨更大問題的原因之一。歐洲不容易被征服。
There are been simulations of world history only using geography， which shows on each run that China will end up united but Europe ends up being a patchwork of states。 So it is not a random occurence， but very much expected even in simulations。
有一些只使用地理的世界歷史模擬，每次都顯示中國最終將統一，而歐洲最終將是一個國家拼湊的國家。所以這不是隨機發生的，但即使在模擬中也很有可能發生。
如果單單從地理位置來分析的話，你認同他的觀點嗎？