1700079330
1700079331
这样一解释，疑难就都解决了。这座桥封锁了两处城区之间的塞纳河水面。尽管郊区临河一侧自然也有城墙，但如果能预先阻止敌军从水上进攻的话，防守起来就容易多了，所以法兰克人才会全力夺取这座桥和塔楼。但就算桥塔都丢了，胜负依然未分。诺曼人之前当然不是只攻打桥头堡，附近的整个北郊都遭到了猛攻。进攻重点之所以放在塔楼上，是因为它孤悬在外，看起来最容易突破。但守军的积极抵抗让他们失去了斗志，于是尽管拿下了塔楼，他们还是放弃了攻城，只是封锁而已。他们在南岸设下基地，劫掠周边地区。
1700079332
1700079333
因此，即便丢掉了一座桥和塔楼——那里只是外围防御——法兰克人还是守住了塞纳河左岸和右岸的部分城区，通过桥与岛上联络。后来，阿波发自真心地写道（2.232）：“城墙，瞭望塔，就连每一座桥都在庇护着他们。”阿波（2.160）描绘了“城里的人”与“城外的人”交战的场景。塔兰内在《诺曼人围攻巴黎城研究》（Le Siège de Paris par les Normands）第258页中认为，这意味着诺曼人（“城外的人”）必然控制了岛对岸的城区。我们不必如此解读，正如我们不必将史诗开头（1.10-1.19）理解为所有城区都在岛上一样。无论如何，巴黎有围在墙内的郊区（2.322），我们也没有理由假设郊区从一开始就疏散了。北岸的圣日耳曼-欧塞尔和南岸的圣日耳曼-普雷斯都在墙外。
1700079334
1700079335
（第2版新增内容）W.福格尔（W.Vogel）在1906年出版的《诺曼人与法兰克帝国》（Die Normannen und das fränkische Reich）的第39页中主张，诺曼人在9世纪的战斗力强于法兰克人的主要原因“不在于个体更有勇气，而在于组织性强得多，而且法兰克军队正处于转型期，诺曼人的战术则更加完善”。正确理解的话，这句话的重点要落在“组织性”上。诺曼人有明晰的单位；而一个封建国家不容易集结大军，而且总是需要很长时间。这正是封建制度下“组织性”的关键。诺曼人“战术”优越是子虚乌有，福格尔口中法兰克军队“转型”也不会削弱战斗力，反而会强化战斗力。假如当时转型尚未完成，也就是说，法兰克人中间还遗存着全民皆兵的元素，那么对付诺曼人就要容易得多了。重点不在于法兰克军队“处于转型期”，而是转型已经完成了。
1700079336
1700079337
1700079338
1700079339
1700079340
战争艺术史 [:1700069551]
1700079341
战争艺术史 附录一 本卷会战年表
1700079342
1700079343
1700079344
1700079345
1700079346
1700079347
1700079348
1700079349
1700079350
1700079351
1700079352
1700079353
1700079354
1700079355
1700079356
1700079357
1700079358
1700079359
1700079360
1700079361
战争艺术史 [:1700069552]
1700079362
战争艺术史 注释
1700079363
1700079364
第一篇 查理曼及其继承者
1700079365
1700079366
1 查理曼
1700079367
1700079368
1.Lex Ripuaria（Ripuarian Law），36.11.M.G. LL.，5.231.
1700079369
1700079370
2.A cow is equated to 1 solidus. The expression “3 solidi，” which we find in one of the manuscripts, is obviously false, since an ox is counted as 2 solidi and a mare as 3. In a capitulary of Louis the Pious of the year 829，a cow is indicated in one place as the equivalent of 2 solidi.
1700079371
1700079372
3.（Note to the second edition）. The economic base of the Carolingian military organization is, as shown in Vol.Il, a barter economy. Alfons Dopsch, in his Economic Development of the Carolingian Period（Wirtschaftsentwicklung der Karolingerzeit），especially Vol. III, para.12，has recently claimed to prove that the generally accepted concept of this barter economy is incorrect and that there existed along with it a very considerable money economy. Consequently, he claims, the contrast between antiquity and the Middle Ages in this respect and in general is very overemphasized. I cannot agree with him. I find, on the contrary, the conclusions of my studies on the changes in military organization to be a new confirmation of the accepted concept. The transition from the Roman legionary to the medieval knight is not conceivable without the shift of the ancient money economy into a barter economy. See my review of Dopsch in the Deutsche Politik，26（1921）：620.“Römertum und Germanentum.”
1700079373
1700079374
4.The plebs urband（urban dwellers）were not considered as completely free in the Merovingian period. Brunner, German Legal History（Deutsche Recbtsgeschicbte），1：253，says: “We cannot determine with certainty how the decrease in freedom was expressed in a legal sense.”There can be no doubt that it is a question of the difference between the worrior and the nonwarrior. That point is not clear in Brunner because he believes, like Roth, in a general military obligation. According to the capitulary M.G. Capitularia Reg. Franc.，ed. Boretius，1：145，the tenant farmers were counted among the unfree men.
1700079375
1700079376
5.God. Kurth, in “The Nationalities in Auvergne”（“Les Nationalités en Auvergne”），Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l’Académie belgique，11（1899）: 769 and 4（1900）：224，proves with respect to Auvergne that no Franks at all settled there. In that region, even the great families holding the position of count were Romanics. Of almost all of the few Germans who appear in Auvergne, it can be proven that they did not settle there, except perhaps for a very few West Goths.
1700079377
1700079378
6.Numerous references in Guilhiermoz, Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse francaise, p.490.
1700079379