1700075475 3.This is the sense of the words “cuncta inter castellum Alisonem ac Rhenum novis limitibus aggeribusque permunita”（“The whole area between the fort Aliso and the Rhine was completely built up with new roads and embankments.”）In this connection, see paragraph 3 of the Excursus.

1700075476

1700075477 4.This is effectively proved by Paul Höfer in Germanicus’Campaign of 16 A.D.（Der Feldzug des Germanicus im Jahre 16），1885.

1700075478

1700075479 5.Paul Höfer, Germanicus’Campaign of 16 A.D.

1700075480

1700075481 7　古罗马与日耳曼的僵持局面

1700075482

1700075483 1.In my opinion.Tacitus, Annals 11.19，stands in contradiction to the indications that the Wetterau was not given up in 16 A.D. either, but, even if at first it was still without a Roman settlement, it remained a Roman occupation area. Tacitus says of Claudius: “adeo novam in Germanias vim prohibuit, ut referri praesidia cis Rhenum juberet.”（“He so strongly forbade a new campaign in the Germanies that he ordered the garrisons to be withdrawn to the near side of the Rhine.”）A possible explanation for this statement is that it refers only to lower Germany. This explanation is not acceptable, however, and all the less so when Germania, Chapter 29，“protalit magnitudo populi Romani ultra Rhenum ultraque veteres terminos imperii reverentiam”（“The greatness of the Roman people expanded the respect of the empire beyond the Rhine and beyond the old borders”）stands in opposition to it, and also when Seneca says: “Rhenus Germaniae modum faciat.”（“The Rhine should mark the border of Germany.”）Germanicus fought against the Chatti not only in lower Germany but also right here in the Wetterau. See Herzog, Bonner Jahrbücher，105（1901），p.67. I do not venture to decide how this contradiction is to be clarified.

1700075484

1700075485 2.At any rate, this is claimed by General Schröder, Preussische Jahrbücher 69：511. But I have never found this point confirmed.

1700075486

1700075487 3.Preussische Jahrbücher 69：514.

1700075488

1700075489 4.A quite similar system of watchtowers along the borders and of signaling by fires is to be found with the Swiss up to the eighteenth century. A very interesting account of this system, based on documents and topographical research, is to be found in E. Lüthi, The Bern Chuzen or High Watchtowers in the Seventeenth Century（Die bernischen Chuzen oder Hochwachten im 17. Jahrhundert），3d ed.，Bern，1905，A. Francke. When the Freiburgers made a pillaging incursion into the Bern area in 1448，that was reported to the capital by the high watchtower on the Guggershorn. The Bern territorial guard assembled at once but did not move directly against the Freiburgers. Instead, they blocked their retreat, defeated them, and took away their booty.

1700075490

1700075491 Between Hirschberg and the Riesengebirge, near Arnsdorf, there are also the remains of such a stone watchtower on a hill from which one can observe the various crossings over the mountain. It perhaps stems from the period of the Hussites.

1700075492

1700075493 5.Mommsen, Römische Geschichte 5：108，note, estimates the auxiliaries of the upper German army in the period of Domitian and Traan at some 10，000 men. The Raetian limes was considerably shorter and more weakly occupied than the upper German limes. The Raetian troops, who, according to Mommsen 5：143，were at the most 10，000 strong, also had to garrison the Danube line from Ratisbon to Passau. For this reason. Mommsen believes that the forts were probably only very weakly garrisoned in times of peace. Nevertheless, they still had to be able to defend themselves against a sudden attack and to send troops in pursuit of strong robber bands. According to Mommsen, the lower Germanic auxiliaries were perhaps even less numerous than those in upper Germany.

1700075494

1700075495 8　古罗马帝国的军队建制与军人生活

1700075496

1700075497 1.Eclog.1.71.

1700075498

1700075499 2.W.Bahr, De centurionibus legionariis（on the Centurions of the Legions），Berlin dissertation，1900，p.45f.

1700075500

1700075501 3.Bang, The Germans in the Roman Service（Die Germanen im römischen Dienst），p.78.

1700075502

1700075503 4.This is a very significant piece of new knowledge which we owe to Domaszewski’s careful study of inscriptions, The Hierarchy of the Roman Army（Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres），1908.

1700075504

1700075505 5.This results from the very nature of the situation and is also evident from a citation in Hyginus, de mun.，Chapter 42，which I find on page 60 in Domaszewski’s Hierarchy. It was probably the same as in the present-day Austrian army（before 1918），where the regiments, in addition to their German army language, had their own national regimental language. As the Romanization of the provinces progressed, the national character of the cohorts gradually faded out. It may also have happened that cohorts stationed very far from their home area received other replacements and changed their character as a result. We must agree with Mommsen.when he emphasizes in Hermes 19：211，that the national character of the cohorts can be concluded from their designations with certainty only at the time of their creation.

1700075506

1700075507 6.Seeck. History of the Fall of the Ancient World（Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt）1：390，534.

1700075508

1700075509 7.Marquardt, Roman Political Administration（Römische Staatsverwaltung）2.542，2d ed.

1700075510

1700075511 8.In the year 367，cod. Theodosianus. Cited in Marquardt. In Germany.it was not until 1893 that the minimum height was lowered to 1.54 meters. In 1870.the following regulation was still in force: “The smallest height is 1.57 meters, but men under 1.62 may be selected only if they have a particularly strong body frame and if the yearly replacement figure cannot be met without resorting to this expedient.”The smallest height for the Guard is 1.70 Meters.

1700075512

1700075513 In France. Napoleon set the height at 1.59 meters in 1801，but then he lowered it to 1.54 in 1804. In 1818，it was raised again to 1.57，and in 1872，after some variations, it was lowered again to 1.54. The Roman foot was 0.296 meters and was consequently shorter than the old Prussian one, which was 0.314.

1700075514

1700075515 9.Suetonius, Nero 19.

1700075516

1700075517 10.Schulten，“The Domain of the Legion”（“Das Territorium legionis”）. Hermes 29：481.

1700075518

1700075519 11.Cicero, Acad.2.1.2.

1700075520

1700075521 12.Sallustus, Bell. Jug.85.12.

1700075522

1700075523 13.The matter is perhaps somewhat more complicated. The references to the promotion of the centurions are not easy to understand. One theory after another has been advanced on this subject, but no solution has been found that clarifies the whole situation. Theodore Wegeleben’s study，“The Hierarchy of the Roman Centurions”（“Die Rangordnung der römischen Centurionen”），Berlin dissertation，1913，Ad. Weber, publisher, has superseded Domaszewski’s study, to be sure, and has thrown some light on the subject through its comprehensive comparison of the inscriptions, but some points have still remained doubtful. Wegeleben’s conclusion is that the centurions were of equal rank among themselves, with the exception of the six centurions of the first cohort, of whom the three highest ones, of the primus pilus, of the princeps, and of the hastatus, stood so high that they were no longer referred to as centutions at all. This higher position in the first cohort was not just a position of honor. It was also based on the practical organization, since this cohort was 1，000 men strong, while all the other cohorts had about 480 men（Wegeleben, p.37）. We are not told how that was balanced off in the formation of the legion. Either the six centurions of the first cohort or the three highest ones were designated as the primi ordines. Also unclear is the meaning of praepositus（see Grosse, Roman Military History[Römische Militärgeschichte]，p.143）. The remark in Wegeleben, p.60，concerning the receipt of commands is probably not correct; it is contradicted by Polybius 2.34.

1700075524

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700075475e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]