书评:普遍统治的极限:欧亚帝国的比较

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Krishan Kumar
{"title":"书评:普遍统治的极限:欧亚帝国的比较","authors":"Krishan Kumar","doi":"10.1177/00207152221120626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All major continental empires proclaimed their desire to rule “the entire world,” investing considerable human and material resources in expanding their territory. Each, however, eventually had to stop expansion and come to terms with a shift to defensive strategy. This volume explores the factors that facilitated Eurasian empires’ expansion and contraction: from ideology to ecology, economic and military considerations to changing composition of the imperial elites. Built around a common set of questions, a team of leading specialists systematically compare a broad set of Eurasian empires – from Achaemenid Iran, the Romans, Qin and Han China, via the Caliphate, the Byzantines and the Mongols to the Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals, Russians, andMing and Qing China. The result is a state-of-the art analysis of the major imperial enterprises in Eurasian history from antiquity to the early modern that discerns both commonalities and differences in the empires’ spatial trajectories.","PeriodicalId":51601,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","volume":"63 1","pages":"366 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: The limits of universal rule: Eurasian empires compared\",\"authors\":\"Krishan Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00207152221120626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"All major continental empires proclaimed their desire to rule “the entire world,” investing considerable human and material resources in expanding their territory. Each, however, eventually had to stop expansion and come to terms with a shift to defensive strategy. This volume explores the factors that facilitated Eurasian empires’ expansion and contraction: from ideology to ecology, economic and military considerations to changing composition of the imperial elites. Built around a common set of questions, a team of leading specialists systematically compare a broad set of Eurasian empires – from Achaemenid Iran, the Romans, Qin and Han China, via the Caliphate, the Byzantines and the Mongols to the Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals, Russians, andMing and Qing China. The result is a state-of-the art analysis of the major imperial enterprises in Eurasian history from antiquity to the early modern that discerns both commonalities and differences in the empires’ spatial trajectories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"366 - 368\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152221120626\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152221120626","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所有主要的大陆帝国都宣称他们渴望统治“整个世界”,在扩张领土上投入了大量的人力和物力。然而,两家公司最终都不得不停止扩张,转而采取防御策略。这本书探讨了促进欧亚帝国扩张和收缩的因素:从意识形态到生态,经济和军事考虑到帝国精英组成的变化。围绕一系列共同的问题,一个由顶尖专家组成的团队系统地比较了一系列欧亚帝国——从阿契美尼德伊朗、罗马、秦汉中国,到哈里发、拜占庭和蒙古,再到奥斯曼帝国、萨法维王朝、莫卧儿王朝、俄罗斯、明朝和清朝。结果是对欧亚历史上从古代到近代早期的主要帝国企业进行了最先进的分析,发现了帝国空间轨迹的共同点和差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book review: The limits of universal rule: Eurasian empires compared
All major continental empires proclaimed their desire to rule “the entire world,” investing considerable human and material resources in expanding their territory. Each, however, eventually had to stop expansion and come to terms with a shift to defensive strategy. This volume explores the factors that facilitated Eurasian empires’ expansion and contraction: from ideology to ecology, economic and military considerations to changing composition of the imperial elites. Built around a common set of questions, a team of leading specialists systematically compare a broad set of Eurasian empires – from Achaemenid Iran, the Romans, Qin and Han China, via the Caliphate, the Byzantines and the Mongols to the Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals, Russians, andMing and Qing China. The result is a state-of-the art analysis of the major imperial enterprises in Eurasian history from antiquity to the early modern that discerns both commonalities and differences in the empires’ spatial trajectories.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Comparative Sociology was established in 1960 to publish the highest quality peer reviewed research that is both international in scope and comparative in method. The journal draws articles from sociologists worldwide and encourages competing perspectives. IJCS recognizes that many significant research questions are inherently interdisciplinary, and therefore welcomes work from scholars in related disciplines, including political science, geography, economics, anthropology, and business sciences. The journal is published six times a year, including special issues on topics of special interest to the international social science community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信