1700072495

1700072496 2.For an exception, see p.56，above.

1700072497

1700072498 6　伊巴密浓达　无

1700072499

1700072500 第三篇　马其顿军队

1700072501

1700072502 1　马其顿军制

1700072503

1700072504 1.Thucydides does not mention here the superior protective armor of the Greeks, and perhaps the Illyrians were better equipped in this regard than the Macedonians, who were more accustomed to the agricultural life and therefore, in general, less warlike, although Arrian（1.1.12）again specifically characterizes the Illyrian and Thracian barbarians as “ill-equipped allies.”* Furthermore, in his speech Brasidas specifically calls the Illyrians the equals of the Macedonians, and we may therefore apply the description to the latter also.

1700072505

1700072506 2.“Concerning Horsemanship”*（12. 12），“in place of a spear made of cane.”* The meaning of the Greek word “kamakinon” is not certain, nor is even the manner of reading it, but judging from the whole context, it is almost impossible that anything but a long spear is meant here.

1700072507

1700072508 3.Xenophon’s remark may be considered in connection with the cavalry combat in Hellenica 3.4.13. The account shows, however, that at that time the Greek cavalry carried not the short spear, but the long one.

1700072509

1700072510 Furthermore, it is not understandable without further explanation in this account, why the Persians had such a deep formation. They were not able to throw their spears from the rearmost ranks. The explanation lies perhaps in the fact that the Persians were counting on penetrating the Greek line with their deep column and, in doing so, throwing their spears to the right and left.

1700072511

1700072512 4.Diodorus 17.60. Arrian 1.15.

1700072513

1700072514 5.Adolf Bauer, para.313（2d ed.，para，433），concludes from Arrian 1.6.5 that the companions did not normally carry a shield.1 cannot find that the passage necessitates this conclusion; in fact, it hardly permits it.Cavalry shields were naturally much smaller than those of the infantry. Since in Plutarch, Alexander, Chapter 16，there is specific mention of the shield that the king carries into combat, and later, according to Polybius 6.25.7，the Macedonian cavalrymen undoubtedly had shields, it seems certain to me that such was also the case in earlier periods.

1700072515

1700072516 6.See also below, Vol.IV, Book III, Chapter III.

1700072517

1700072518 7.Concerning the discomfort of carrying and the difficulty of fighting with the long spear, see also Vol.IV, Book I, Chapter I.

1700072519

1700072520 8.Adolf Bauer, para.272，estimates 3 meters; among all the vase figures that I have looked through, however, I have never found such long hoplite spears, even where there is no limitation of space.

1700072521

1700072522 9.R.Wille, Text on Arms（Waffenlehre），p.79.

1700072523

1700072524 10.A.Krause, in Hermes，1890，para.66，proved quite conclusively that Alexander also had slingers in his army and that Arrian intends them to be included in the word “toxetai”（“archers”）.*

1700072525

1700072526 2　亚历山大与波斯：格拉尼卡斯河会战

1700072527

1700072528 1.That is the result of the careful examination of the sources in W. Dittberner, Issos（Berlin: George Nauck，1908）.

1700072529

1700072530 2.Bauer, para.314（2d ed.，434）even claims that the Macedonians represented not much more than a sixth of the entire army. That is too small under any circumstances. A. Krause, in the passage cited above（Hermes，1890），distinguishes among（1）a field army；（2）an army of occupation；（3）a satrap army, which was formed in the conquered areas by the appointed satraps.

1700072531

1700072532 That is fundamentally correct but much too sharply distinguished. Naturally, there were troops that were used primarily for operations and battles, others that were more often assigned to garrisons, and finally the appointed governors did indeed form new military organizations But according to the circumstances, all of these various troops were naturally used for the various purposes of the waging of war, sometimes in battle, sometimes as occupation forces.

1700072533

1700072534 3　伊苏斯会战

1700072535

1700072536 1.After having had to rework the presentation of this battle for the second edition, I have now once again had to make not unimportant changes. The reason was the same both times—that is, a more correct and more detailed understanding of the structure of the terrain. Even now, however, I have felt obliged to stand by the fundamental fact that the battle took place not on the Deli-Tschai, but on the Pajas. Accordingly, I continue to regard the dissertation of W. Dittberner（Berlin，1908）as the authoritative work and cannot find that it has been eliminated by Colonel Janke, to whom we are indebted in other respects for the topography（Klio 10：137，“Annex to Petermann’s Reports，”May 1911[“Beilage von Peter-manns Mitteilungen，”1911，Maiheft]）. See also the review of Dieulefoy’s study by Dittberner in the Deutsche Literarische Zeitung, No.24，（1912），Column 1525，and the article by Kromayer in the Historische Zeitschrift 112：348.

1700072537

1700072538 2.Arrian 2.2.1. Curtius 3.8.1.

1700072539

1700072540 3.An absolute proof for the moderate strength of the Persian army is not to be concluded from the march action, in that, according to Janke, a rather large number of more or less usable passes lead over the Amanus mountain chain into the plain of Issus. Nevertheless it can hardly be assumed that there was an elaborate allocation of forces to various approach roads, and since in the bat tle it was almost exclusively the Greeks who played a significant infantry role, then the other infantry contingents on hand cannot have been so very strong.

1700072541

1700072542 Kromayer, in the work cited above, believes that the Persian army can be estimated at 50，000 to 60，000 men, since the Seleucids had raised armies of similar strength. The Diadochi states differ, however, from the Achaemenidae Empire precisely in the fact that they had a completely different concept of war, and in any case no comparison is possible in view of the positive factors that exclude the possibility of an army of more than some 25，000 men.

1700072543

1700072544 4.Arrian 2.5.1 reports that Parmenio had been sent out in advance with the Greeks and other troops from Tarsus in order to secure the Cilician-Syrian passes. Now since the Greeks are not mentioned in the two sources specifying the battle formation at Issus, we can accept the account above with certainty. Köhler, in “The Conquest of Asia”（“Die Eroberung Asiens”），in Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie，1898，p.130，believes that Alexander did not need to post troops to cover his rear, since the Persian army was, obviously, in front of him. The flimsiness of this conclusion is evident.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700072495e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]