战国歧途

by 刘勃

本书所述自韩、赵、魏三家分晋到秦始皇统一六国的战国历史。作者以《史记》、《资治通鉴》、《战国策》等史籍为底本，并结合新近考古资料，以年代为经，以国别为纬，考察了商鞅变法、长平之战等决定中国历史命运的事件。

战国历史本来纷繁复杂，加之秦始皇焚烧六国史书，更显扑朔迷离。晋国 的消失，强楚的一蹶不振，田齐的身死国灭乃至西秦最后定鼎天下，在史籍中多有自相矛盾的记述。本书没有照搬史书译文，简单罗列史实，而是利用史籍、研究著作和舆地等资料上下引证，多方比勘，力求再现大变局时代的历史图景。

在这本书中，有邦国兴亡之道，游士沉浮之思，也有英雄失路之悲，展现了一幅革故鼎新的多彩画卷。

Genres: History

216 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2019

Reviews

[Maverick Mo · Rating 4 out of 5]

1/12/2026-1/17/2026
【2026Book02】Liu Bo’s《战国歧途》 (the title can be translated as “The Warring States at a Crossroads”). This is the fourth book in my “Chinese history catch-up plan.” The Warring States period was the final stage of the Zhou dynasty (475 BCE / 403 BCE–221 BCE). At that time, China was ruled by several aristocratic local polities. Until 221 BCE, Qin, one of the polities, conquered all its contenders and unified China.

In this 200-page book, Liu Bo analyzes the ambitions of the Seven Warring States and the dilemmas each of them faced. The point that struck me most is this: Qin's annihilating all the other six states was a militaristic victory—uncivilization triumphing over civilization. Qin’s geography was relatively closed off; its aristocratic culture was the least developed, so the resistance to its centralization reform was the weakest. Yet, interestingly, to achieve that kind of victory, “uncivilized” Qin still needed Shang Yang—someone from the more “civilized” regions—to design its social system and make the system work.

This point reminds me of my biggest takeaway from reading history in recent years: don’t use today’s values to judge ancient people—but also don’t deify them, ignore their limitations, or project some bizarre modern fantasies onto the past.

Take Shang Yang, for example: at that particular moment in the Warring States era, he aligned himself with the historical trend toward centralized monarchic power, and that was how Qin gained its advantage. Today, many people like to attack Shang Yang from the standpoint of modern liberalism and universal values; I don’t think that is right.

However, if someone today believes we should still follow Shang Yang’s militarist path, lavish praise on Qin, and cast Shang Yang as a tragic hero, then that is truly sinister. As for works like 《大秦赋》 (Qin Dynasty Epic), in which a conquered Chu person declares, “If we go back to Chu, we have no way to live. I don’t want to be a Chu person; I want to be a Qin person!”—I suspect many people in the Warring States era, like Lu Zhonglian, who held that one should “never serve Qin as emperor” as a moral code and the people of Han State who would rather submit to Zhao State than “become Qin’s people,” would all be so furious and burst out of their graves if they watched this TV show. The screenwriters and directors must have their education finished by their pet dogs.

I also want to quote two lines from the afterword, which feel like profound insights into Ancient Chinese History: “In eras of unification, the population climbed slowly; then came fragmentation, and in one short time, thirty to fifty percent died. This demographic cycle was probably unique to ancient China.” “If you accepted the Qin system (a unified empire), you must endure corruption until corruption became intolerable and the realm fell apart. If you attempted to return to the Zhou system (divided local polities), it would inevitably lead to warfare; amid mountains of corpses and seas of blood, people longed for unification again. This is exactly what “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” says at the beginning: ‘Such is the grand trend under Heaven: long divided, it must unite; long united, it must divide.’”
Finally, I think this book’s strength lies in its analysis. But if what you want is a clear account of historical events—especially the step-by-step process by which Qin conquered the six states—this is not the best choice.

《战国歧途》·读后
2026年1月12日-2026年1月17日
【2026年的第二本书】刘勃的《战国歧途》，算作我“中国史补习计划”的第四弹。在这本200页的小册子里，刘勃分析了战国七雄的野望和他们各自的困境。我印象最深的一个观点是：秦灭六国，是军国主义式的胜利，是野蛮战胜了文明——秦国地理环境闭塞，贵族文化和第三产业最不发达，故变法阻力最小——但是要实现这种胜利，野蛮的秦国依然需要来自文明之地的商鞅来帮它做制度设计。从这个观点说开去，我觉得最近几年读历史，最大的感触是：不要用今天的价值观去苛责古人，也不应该神化古人，忽视他们的局限性，甚至把一些莫名其妙的意淫投射在历史中。比如，在战国这个时间节点，商鞅就是迎合了君主集权的历史趋势，从而让秦国取得了胜利。现在很多人喜欢用自由主义、普世价值去批判商鞅，我觉得大可不必。但是，如果有人觉得现在还应该效法商鞅，还大肆歌颂秦国，把商鞅塑造成一个悲情英雄，那确实是其心可诛。至于像《大秦赋》之流，被征服的楚人说“回楚国，我们没有活路，我不愿当楚民，愿当秦人！”我估计“义不帝秦”的吕仲连，还有宁可归附赵国也“不欲为秦”的韩国人看了都要揭棺而起，编剧导演的书恐怕是都读到狗肚子里去了。

另摘录《后记》中的两句，感觉是对中国古代史的深刻洞见：“在统一时代，人口数量缓慢爬升，然后分裂，一下子死掉三五成。这种人口周期律，中国之外，大概别无分号。”“接受秦制（大一统），就得忍受腐败，腐败到忍无可忍，于是天下分崩。企图回到周制，必然导致战乱，尸山血海之中，人心渴望统一。这也就是《三国演义》开头说的：‘话说天下大势，分久必合，合久必分。’”

最后，我觉得这本书长于分析，但如果想了解历史事件，尤其是秦灭六国的过程，这本书不是很好的选择。

[Lee Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

周秦之变，作者有危行之忧。我与作者相同。如果不是暴秦、法秦、霸秦、强秦统一华夏的话，中国会不会首先产生现代政治呢？作者说未必，我也说未必。作者说中国的地理环境觉得中国很难不统一：“接受秦制，就得忍受腐败，腐败到忍无可忍，于是天下分崩。企图回到周制，必然导致战乱，尸山血海之中，人心渴望统一。”我甚至认为，民主政治能发轫于英国的偶然的，如果这个地球上没有不列颠岛，法兰西、德意志很有可能走向绝对君主制，或者在科学发展后纳粹化，即弱肉强食的民族至上的专制理论。
本书梳理了秦是怎么统一的。大衹不过是说秦国不过是土匪，或者说战争机器。手段是农战，目的是抢劫。这是我一直认为。但作者强调的士人在统一过程中的作用，却是我忽视的。春秋时期学术下移，士人从贵族脱离。他们有知识但没有封地。这又是一个处士横议、贫贱骄人、得一人而安天下的时代。作者说：燕王哙那次禅让闹剧就是士人集团编造禅让神话，让哲人当王的一个手段，事实证明失败。于是士人要想一飞冲天，只有附毛于君权之下。所以结束这士人的黄金时代的正是士人自己；至从秦创立了绝对君主制后，士的地位每下愈况，到清代终于与倡优并蓄的可悲可耻的地步。
但是士人也似乎也没有别的办法。三级阶梯的地势，黄河的浸润，山川形胜的约束。如果没有人统一，那就如作者所谓，可能年年有战争。这种说法对么？也未必！但合久必分、分久必合是史实，而且越合越大。
而且西方的士人（即掌握知识的人）也不是推翻了教会与王权的先锋队。但他们的地位比东方士人高太多了。其原因在于，西方之士是商人的同盟军，科学之士提高生产力，哲学之士为打败专制提供理论支持，文学之士则高举人道主义的旗子为弱者服务。而中国不过匠人、隐士与小说家之流。利出一孔，就是做官。
冷兵器时代，野蛮常常战胜文明，而且总是战胜文明人。原因在这个野蛮人善于学习，文明人早已腐朽。

[bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

对商鞅所谓的法家有了全新的认识。中国的法家概念就是误导人的。叫“统治术家”更贴切。

[Tualatin · Rating 5 out of 5]

封建向大一统的第一次尝试；对长平之战的分析很别具一格；商鞅变法其实也是战国时代的一个缩影，君权的高度集中，贵族的衰落；乱世中的统治者需要的是军事力量上的绝对征服，大一统时代的统治者才需要民心所向来维持政权稳定。

[RZ · Rating 5 out of 5]

好书！有深度，有思考，有见地！期待下一本司马迁的记忆之野！

[Wu · Rating 4 out of 5]

读完作者写的春秋，再来看看作者写的战国，感觉还是春秋那些虚伪的礼法更加吸引我一些。战国时代，各国就像一个个无情的战争机器，不过最终还是屈服于更强大的屠刀之下。

[Babe Gladwaller · Rating 4 out of 5]

周秦之变，其核心是一场由小共同体本位到大共同体本位的转变，是为了将人们对家族的忠诚转移到作为国家代表的君主之上，以君主之大私为天下之大公，通过君主专制的方式加强集权，其他政治、经济、文化上的转型都是这一转变的具体体现。秦制贻害至今，何处是尽头？
 

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

说是说歧途，但是作者写的像是地理决定的必然

[Heng Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

所以天下大势，分久必合，合久必分

[Chen Qu · Rating 4 out of 5]

没有上一本好懂。要了解政治和历史果然要先了解地理。