1700072729
1700072730
The question of which pass Hannibal used for his crossing of the Alps does not belong in the framework of this book, since no important strategic or tactical conclusions result from the variety of routes. Fuchs has decided on the Mont Genevre Pass. Konrad Lehmann in The Attacks of the Three Barcas Against Italy（Die Angriffe der drei Barkiden auf Italien），1905，has once again, with a very thorough argument, pointed to the Little Saint Bernard. Subsequently, French Captain of Engineers Colin, too, has appeared in this arena with a work entitled Hannibal in Gaul（Annibal en Gaule），1904. To date, none of the various theories has been able to win general acceptance.
1700072731
1700072732
5 罗马占据上风
1700072733
1700072734
1.Raimund Oehler, The Last Campaign of Hasdrubal Barca and the Battle on the Metaurus. An historical-topographical Study.（Der letzte Feldzug des Barkiden Hasdrubal und die Schlacht am Metaurus.Eine historisch-topographische Studie.）1897. The significant aspects of its conclusions were rejected by Konrad Lehmann, Deutsche Literaturzeitung，1897，No.23，Column 902.
1700072735
1700072736
Lehmann himself later treated the battle in detail in his book The Attacks of the three Boreas（Die Angriffe der drei Barkiden），1905，and sought to reconstruct the battle, but the result remains subject to serious doubts. I doubt that, in view of the sources available, it will ever be possible to gain a positive insight into the battle. Even the army strengths are very uncertain. Lehmann estimates that Hannibal still had 15，000 men and Hasdrubal 12，000，whereas there were 150，000 Romans under arms in Italy. With numbers such as these, the Romans’conduct would be incomprehensible. See also the critique of Kromayer, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen，169，No.2（June 1907）：458. Beversdorff gives Hasdrubal 15，000 men on the Metaurus, whereas Kromayer estimates some 30，000.
1700072737
1700072738
2.Mommsen, Political Law（Staatsrecht），Vol.2，Part 1，p.652.
1700072739
1700072740
3.Livy 29.19.
1700072741
1700072742
4.Livy 30.1.10.
1700072743
1700072744
5.Livy 24.18.
1700072745
1700072746
6.Livy 27.7.
1700072747
1700072748
7. The Locrians made such a complaint on this score that the Senate conducted an investigation. Livy 29.8-22.
1700072749
1700072750
6 扎马-那拉加拉会战：梯队战术
1700072751
1700072752
1.Livy 27.49.
1700072753
1700072754
2.Why he did not go directly to Carthage is not reported. Perhaps he simply did not want to arrive in the capital with the few survivors of the battle and may have had in Hadrumet some troop reinforcements and supplies of weapons, which, if brought along with him, would still give him a position and the city a possibility to defend itself.
1700072755
1700072756
3.Livy 29.22.
1700072757
1700072758
4.See also p.276，above.
1700072759
1700072760
7 汉尼拔与西庇阿
1700072761
1700072762
1.In the speech that Livy has the elderly Quintus Fabius Max-imus and Scipio himself make in the Senate concerning the planned expedition, this motive does not appear with correct emphasis.If he pointed this out, Scipio would have been placing too much stress on the difficulty of the whole undertaking, whereas his speech was based, and necessarily so, on emphasizing the concept of the offensive with unconditional confidence.
1700072763
1700072764
2.We can assume that Hannibal returned to Africa in the fall of 203 B.C. and that the battle of Naraggara took place in about August of 202 B.C. Lehmann, p.555.
1700072765
1700072766
3.Proved by Konrad Lehmann in Jahrbücher fur klassische Philologie 153：573.
1700072767
1700072768
第六篇 作为世界征服者的罗马军队
1700072769
1700072770
1 罗马军队与马其顿军队
1700072771
1700072772
1.Polybius 18.28.
1700072773
1700072774
2.It was already understood in this way by Johann von Nassau and Montecucoli. Jähns I：573. Montecucoli, Writings（Schriften）2：225.
1700072775
1700072776
3.See also in this connection Livy 33.18.
1700072777
1700072778
4.Polybius 18.28.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.700072729e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]