1700080473
10.The Englishman Walsingham believes the French had 140，000 men.
1700080474
1700080475
11.That is specifically attested to by Saint Rémy, who was present at the battle.
1700080476
1700080477
12.That is the opinion of Luce, for example, in Bertrand du Guesclin, I：147.
1700080478
1700080479
13.In the engagement at Termonde，1452. Olivier de la Marche, I Chap.25.
1700080480
1700080481
14.Monstrelet, II, Chap.108.
1700080482
1700080483
15.Luce, Bertrand du Guesclin et son époque, p.169. The knights vowed “that they would never flee in battle more than 4 arpents by their estimate, but they would rather die or have themselves taken prisoner.”
1700080484
1700080485
16.A certain survey of the decisive battles is provided by M.de la Chauvelays in Dismounted Combat of the Cavalry in the Middle Ages（Le combat à pied de la cavallerie au moyen-âge），Paris，1885. To be sure, the author is very uncritical, and the individual facts are in no way reliable.M.T. Lachauvelay, Guerres des Francais et des Anglais du Xlième au XVième siècle，1875，seems to be the same author, despite the different spelling of the name.
1700080486
1700080487
17.For example, Thwrocz, chronica Hungarorum（Chronicles of the Hungarians），reports erroneously that the French knights at Nikopol in 1396 attacked on foot.
1700080488
1700080489
4 奥斯曼土耳其
1700080490
1700080491
1.For a while it was even believed that the Mongols had to be credited for an outstanding role in the history of the art of war, particularly since there exist theoretical concepts that supposedly stem from Tamer lane. But in the final analysis their accomplishments were no different from those of other nomads, and Tamerlane’s principles were without real content. For a summary of these points and applicable references, see Jähns, Handbuch, p.698 ff. The battle of Liegnitz，1242，in view of the legendary nature of the source, gives us nothing new, as far as I can see, on the history of the art of war.
1700080492
1700080493
2.P.A. von Tischendorf, The Feudal System in the Moslem Nations, especially in the Ottoman Empire. With the Book of Laws of the Fiefs under Sultan Ahmed I（Das Lehnswesen in den moslimischen Staaten insbesondere im osmanischen Reiche. Mit dent Gesetzbuch der Lehen unter Sultan Ahmed I.），Leipzig，1872.
1700080494
1700080495
3.Heinrich Schurtz，“The Janissaries”（“Die Janitscharen”），Preussische Jahrbücher, Vol.112（1903）. Leopold von Schlözer, Origin and Development of the Ancient Turkish Army（Ursprung und Entwickelung des alttürkischen Heeres），1900. Ranke, The Ottomans and the Spanish Monarchy（Die Osmanen und die spanische Monarchie），Werke, Vol.35.
1700080496
1700080497
4.The Segban were supposedly formed from the sultan’s hunting retinue. The report that this body was 7，000 men strong was, of course, a great exaggeration. And with this point there also collapses the idea that an oda numbered more than 200 men and the resulting ideas concerning the file and the tent group. Schurtz, p.459. Under Selim I，1512-1520，the janissaries are supposed to have been only 3，000 men strong, but in 1550 they were supposedly 16，000. Schurtz, p.454. In that case, the “3，000” would no doubt refer only to the original 66 oda. On p.459，Schurtz states that under Mohammed II the janissaries numbered 12，000.
1700080498
1700080499
5.The standard special study is the Berlin dissertation “The Battle of Nikopol”（“Die Schlacht bei Nikopolis”），by Gustav Kling. Published by Georg Nauck，1906.
1700080500
1700080501
6.Kling estimates the Turkish strength between 16，000 and 20，000 men. That would then be more than twice the strength of the Christians. Based on the numbers given by Schurtz, discussed in Note 4，above, he assumes a strength of only 3，000 men for the janissaries but believes that dismounted irregulars were also present, for whom the janissaries had formed the nucleus. I would prefer to eliminate completely these “dismounted irregulars”—Beyazid would hardly have brought along any troops other than quality warriors—but I would assume a greater strength for the janissaries.
1700080502
1700080503
7.Characteristic of the loose manner in which chroniclers treated army strengths is the fact that Königshofen gave the strength of the Christian army as 100，000 men but stated its losses as 200，000.
1700080504
1700080505
5 胡斯派
1700080506
1700080507
1.Handbuch, p.943.
1700080508
1700080509
2.Geschichte Böhmens（History of Bohemia），3：2：67.
1700080510
1700080511
3.“The Hussite Wagon Fort”（“Die hussitische Wagenburg”）by Max von Wulf, Berlin dissertation，1889.“Hussite Military System”（“Hussitisches Kriegswesen”），by Max von Wulf, Preussische Jahrbücher，69：673. May 1892.
1700080512
1700080513
4.Preussische Jahrbücher，69：674. Dissertation, p.21.
1700080514
1700080515
5.See Vol.I, pp.162，211，218，241.
1700080516
1700080517
6.Jähns, Kriegswissenschaften, p.943.
1700080518
1700080519
7.Loserth, p.489.
1700080520
1700080521
8.Palacky, Geschichte Böhmens，3：2：361.
1700080522
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.700080473e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]