• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(*_*)m

Among the regiomal international syrtems into which the world was divided that which evolved in Europe was distinctive in that it came to repudiate any hegemonial principle and regard itself as a society of states that were sovereign or independent. This non-hegemonial society was not without historical precedent:the city states of classical Greece,the Hellenistic Kingdoms between the death of Alexander and the Roman conquest, perhaps the 'period of warring states' in ancient China,may all be thought to provide examples.

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数36
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • sayshe
  • ベストアンサー率77% (4555/5903)

世界が分けられた地域の国家間のシステムの中では、それがいかなる覇権主義をも拒否し、それ自体を最高の、あるいは、独立した国家社会と考えるようになったという点で、ヨーロッパで進化したシステムは特徴的でした。 この非覇権主義の社会は、歴史の先例がないと言うわけではありませんでした: 古代ギリシャの都市国家、アレキサンダーの死とローマによる(プトレマイオス朝エジプトの)征服の間のヘレニズムの王国、おそらく古代中国の『春秋戦国時代』のすべてが、例を提供すると考えられるかもしれません。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

本当にありがとうございます!感謝です

関連するQ&A

  • この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(**)m

    Nor should it be overlooked that the European states, as they evolved this non-hegemonial system in their relations with one another,at the same time established a number of empires which,while they were rival and competing,taken together amounted to a European hegemony over the rest of the world,which in the nineteenth century became an immense periphery looking to a European centre. Moreover,the non-hegemonial system among the Europeans themselves was evolved only slowly,and with great difficulty,after 1500. よろしくお願い致します

  • 英文の和訳で困っています 和訳を助けてください

    英文の和訳で困っています 和訳を教えていただきたいです よろしくお願いします!! Of the buildings in the forum area, it is in conceivable that the colonists did not make changes to the dominant temple at the northern end. Even if this was already dedicated to Jupiter, there was probably now a rebuilding that laid emphasis on the Capitoline version of that god’s cult, in which Jupiter shared honours with Juno and Minerva. It may have been at this stage that the base for the cult-statue within the temple was radically re-designed and monumentalized. At the south end of the forum the Comitium, or voting enclosure, though perhaps begun in the pre-colonial period, was brought to completion in the first years of the colony. Much of the building work of the colonists was carried out in a distinctive technique of quasi reticulatum in black lava with cornering in brickwork(often arranged to form a series of superposed wedges).

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします

    以下の文章です。 It is, of course, true that the emancipation of Asia and Africa and the development of the European crisis went hand in hand. Among the factors which facilitated the rise of independence movements in Asia and Africa, we must include the weakening of the grip of the European powers, Iargely as a consequence of their own discords and rivalries and of the wastage of resources in which their wars resulted. From the time of the First World War the incipient nationalist movements in the non-European world profited and the sudden collapse of the European empires after 1947 was to a large extent a consequence of external pressures and of the impact of world politics. In Asia neither the British nor the French nor the Dutch ever recovered from the blows inflicted by japan between 1941 and 1945; while in Africa and the Middle East they were checked and forced into retreat by pressures from the United States-acting directly and through the United Nations-which had a strong anti-colonial tradition of its own and was unwilling to stand aside while colonialism drove the peoples of Asia and Africa over to the side of the Soviet Union. Nationalism came to Asia a century later than it came to Europe and to black Africa fifty years later than to Asia. Two external events in the early years of the twentieth century were a powerful stimulus in its rise. The first was the victory of Japan over Russia in the war of 1904-5ー a victory hailed by dependent peoples everywhere as a blow to European ascendancy and proof that European arms were not invincible. Its impact was redoubled when, ten years later,the Japanese defeated the Germans in Shantung; and the successful campaigns of Kemal Ataturk against France in 1920 and Greece in 1922 were greeted in the same way as Asian victories over western military power. The second event was the Russian revolution of 1905ーa revolution which produced scarcely an echo in Europe but which, seen as a struggle for liberation from despotism, had an electrifying effect throughout Asia. The wave of unrest extended as far as Vietnam, and its impact, in sparking off the Persian revolution of 1906, the Turkish revolution of 1908 and the Chinese revolution of 1911, and in the new impetus it gave to the Indian Congress movement in 1907, was such that its consequences in Asia have been compared with those of the French revolution of 1789 in Europe.

  • 至急この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(*_*)m

    In this era preceding the emergence of a universal international society, what assumptions were made about the relationsbetween states or rulers that belonged to different regional international syrtems, as opposed to the much more intimate and continuous relations among states or rulers within the same system?This question has an important bearing on our study.We do not kmow enough to be able to provide a comprehensive answer to it,but certain things can be said.It is clearthat states or rulers have commonly enough entered into agreements with states or rulers-and indeed with merchants and other individuals and groups - outside their own regiomal international system and the civilization with which it is associated.

  • 和訳お願いします。

    What is the seacret, then,of Marx's appeal for and influence and power over millions of the earth's inhabitants? Neill has suggested that Marx is "the symbolical leader of the have-nots in their struggle against the haves."Another interpretation comes from Harold Laski:"At bottom,the main passion by which he was moved was the passion for justice. He may have hated too strongly,he was jealous and he was proud. But the mainspring of his life was the desire to take from the shoulders of the people the burden by which it was oppressed. "Yet another perceptive evaluation comes from Freehof, who wrote, "The great constructive gift of Karl Marx to modern society, socialistic and capitalistic alike,is his picture of the inevitability of a society in which poverty and suffering will cease. This ideal has become a challenge to every social system. Even a social system like ours, which rejects his economics, nevertheless accepts that ideal in its own way. Thus,the man who himself lived in misery gave the world the hope for the complete abolition of poverty. This is the accomplishment of Karl Marx. That is the way in which he has changed the mind of the modern world."

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    Austria-Hungary was internally divided into two states with their own governments, joined in communion through the Habsburg throne. Austrian Cisleithania contained various duchies and principalities but also the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Dalmatia, the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. Hungarian Transleithania comprised the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereign authority was shared by both Austria and Hungary.

  • 英文を和訳して下さい。

    The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks. Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status. Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the treaty "much enhanced" German power. Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again. By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them. Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles. Evans further noted that the parties of the Weimar Coalition, namely the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the social liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Christian democratic Centre Party, were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar Republic.

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします。

    Our need to affiliate - to feel connected and identified with others - boosted our ancestors' chances for survival, which may explain why humans in every society live in groups. When ostracized (excluded or shunned by others), people suffer from stress and depression - a real pain that increases activity in the same brain areas that respond to physical pain. Those who are socially secure in their friendships, families, or marriages tend to be healthier and to have lower levels of depression, suicide, and early death. When socially exclude, people may engage in self-defeating or antisocial behaviors.

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします。

    下記の文の穴埋めと指定部分の和訳をお願いします。 Two beakers were ( 1 ) with water. In each beaker a glass cylinder was immersed, across the bottom of which a membrane was tied. The membrane allowed water to pass through it freely, but it would not allow molecules of dissolved protein to pass which ( 2 ) molecules to pass through it is known as permeable membrane. However, since the membranes used in this experiment allowed only molecules of the solvent to pass through, they are ( 3 ) as semi-permeable membranes. Two protein solutions were then made up, one at a concentration of 5g dm^-3,and the other at 10 g dm^-3. Some of the 5 g dm^-3 solution was ( 4 ) into one of the glass cylinders, and some of the 10 g dm^-3 solution into the other cylinder. The levels of the water in the beakers and the protein solutions in the glass cylinders were ( 5 ) until they were all equal. The experiment was then left for a period of twenty-four hours. After twenty-four hours, it was ( 6 ) that the levels of the water and protein solutions were considerably different from when the experiment was ( 7 ). The level of liquid in the cylinders was seen to be higher than the level of the water in the beakers. Moreover, when the height of the liquid in each cylinder was ( 8 ), /ここから和訳/ it was found that the height of the column of liquid in the cylinder containing the more concentrated solution was twice the height of the other solution. ( )内は以下の語群から、適切な形に変えて選ぶ begin/pour/know/observe/fill/allow/adjust/measure よろしくお願いします。

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    Between 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of territory through purchase, negotiation, and conquest. At first, the new states carved out of these territories entering the union were apportioned equally between slave and free states. It was over territories west of the Mississippi that the proslavery and antislavery forces collided. With the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba and Central America as well.[45][46] Northern "free soil" interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave territory. The Compromise of 1850 over California balanced a free soil state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a political settlement after four years of strife in the 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861). In the southern states the question of the territorial expansion of slavery westward again became explosive. Both the South and the North drew the same conclusion: "The power to decide the question of slavery for the territories was the power to determine the future of slavery itself." Sen. Stephen Douglas, author of the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854. Sen. John J. Crittenden, of the 1860 Crittenden Compromise. By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly. The first of these "conservative" theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the Missouri Compromise apportionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.