1700080623
Boutaric, p. 140 f.，reports in detail on the conditions that were issued on the levy under Louis IX and were specified in numerous “coutumes”（customs）. They limited the rights of the lord to an extreme degree. He was allowed to levy his men only for defense, or only in the region governed by the lord, or only so far as to allow the man to return home on the same evening.
1700080624
1700080625
Luce, Bertrand du Guesclin, p. 159，recounts that, according to an unpublished ordinance, on 17 May 1355 King John called up “the ban et I’arrière-ban, that is to say, all physically qualified men between the ages of eighteen and sixty.” That can hardly have been the intention of the ordinance, and Luce himself believes that the French communes did not obey this order. When Luce adds that Edward III in England really gave the arrière-ban “a truly practical character” by having all his subjects carry out weapons training, that is also an error.
1700080626
1700080627
15.In addition to the references already cited, see Spont，“La Milice des francs-archers，”Revue des questions historiques, Vol.61.
1700080628
1700080629
16.Boutaric, Institutions militaires de la France, p.218. Jähns, Handbuch, p.759. According to Juvénal des Ursins and the Monk of Saint Denis. The latter author states that the people carried out the drills with great zeal.
1700080630
1700080631
17.The military system of Charles the Bold is treated excellently by M. Guillaume，“Histoire de l’organisation militaire sous les dues de Bourgogne，” in the Mémoires couronnés et mémoires des savants étrangers publiés par l’Académie de Belgique, Vol.22，Brussels，1848. Much valuable material is also to be found in La Chauvelays, La Composition des armées de Charles le Téméraire，1879. In the Mémoires de I’Académie de Dijon, Tome VI.（also published in Paris as a separate edition）. I have discussed it myself in my Perser-und Burgunderkriege.
1700080632
1700080633
18.In 1340 the count of Armagnac had only 300 fully equipped men-at-arms in a force of 800（Grande chronique de St. Denys，5：393，ed. Paulin）.
1700080634
1700080635
In 1429 the noblemen who reinforced Charles VII“did not have the means of arming themselves or providing themselves with mounts.”（Chronique de la Pucelle, Panthéon littéraire, p.442）.
1700080636
1700080637
In 1467 Charles the Bold selected, from the vassals who had been levied, those who had full equipment; they numbered 400 of the total group of 1，400. But it happened that the nobles took their pay and rode back home（according to Guillaume, p.89）.
1700080638
1700080639
19.Lachauvelays, p.170，estimates that the two Burgundies provided Charles the Bold with thirty-two companies of soudoyers à gages ménagers.
1700080640
1700080641
The thirty-two companies numbered 899 men-at-arms with three horses each（that is，899 pages and 899 valets），541 gens de trait à cheval（mounted marksmen），178 coutilliers à cheval（light horsemen），and 177 demi-lances.（A demi-lance is an individual knight who receives the samepay as two marksmen.）
1700080642
1700080643
The totals were therefore as follows:
1700080644
1700080645
1700080646
1700080647
1700080648
20.A regulation for Hainaut appeared in 1470 and, according to Guillaume, p.113，stated the following: A fief-holder with more than 360 pounds of annual income had to provide one man-at-arms with a coutillier, a page, and six dismounted archers. A fief-holder with 240 pounds of income was to provide one man-at-arms. A fief-holder with 120 pounds was to provide three men on foot（dismounted archers, crossbowmen, or spearmen）. The smaller and larger groups were combined in accordance with the corresponding mission. Fiefs under 64 sous had no obligation. Anyone who could not serve personally was to provide an appropriate substitute, and if he could not do so, the commanders took over that responsibility for him. Every four months the items of equipment were to be inspected.
1700080649
1700080650
A similar regulation appeared in 1475 for Flanders.
1700080651
1700080652
Let us note that a certain progression upward occurred, that the smallest fief-holders were completely free, and that possessions of quite a significant extent called for providing one man on foot or even on horseback, and that the men in service were paid. Let us compare with this situation the concept that in the Carolingian Empire ownership of a few hides was burdened with providing one man at his own expense.
1700080653
1700080654
According to Lachauvelays, p. 258，the largest number of fiefs had an income of less than 50 francs, often only 10 francs.
1700080655
1700080656
The wording of the levy that Charles’governor for Burgundy issued on 3 May 1471 is very remarkable: “All types of men, both nobles and others, regardless of their class or profession, who are accustomed to bearing and using arms, whether or not they have fiefs and whether or not they have provided somebody for the present army”（quoted in Lachauvelays, p.187）. We might use this regulation as a paraphrase of the “cuncta generalitas populi”（“the whole mass of the people”）in the capitulary of Charlemagne（p.42，above）or the “universi”（“all”）in the levy of 817（p.36，above）.
1700080657
1700080658
21.This is specified in this way by the regulation of 31 July 1471. Olivier de la Marche, who commanded a company himself, states in his memoirs that the lance was composed of two archers, two men armed with the culverin, and two spearmen（according to Guillaume, p.121）.
1700080659
1700080660
7 坦嫩贝格会战、蒙莱里会战及同时期的其他若干战斗
1700080661
1700080662
1.While the special study by Karl Heveker，“The Battle of Tannenberg”（“Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg”），Berlin dissertation，1906，published by Georg Nauck, has greatly advanced the understanding of the battle and has eliminated many false ideas, it still leaves important points in the dark. If I attempt to arrive at a clear picture from it, I must add that a number of points in my account are based only on supposition. Among more recent works, I cite an article by S. Kujot in Die altpreussische Monatsschrift, Vol.48，Issue No.1，and Krollmann, Oberländische Geschichtsblätter, Issue No.13，1911. Also worthy of note is the study “The Knights’Grave of Tannenberg”（“Das Rittergrab von Tannenberg”），by E.Schnippel in the Oberländische Geschichtsblätter, Issue No.11，1909.
1700080663
1700080664
2.The valuable description of the terrain is to be found in Köhler, Warfare of the Knightly Period（Kriegswesen der Ritterzeit），2：717.
1700080665
1700080666
3.Kujot and Krollmann arrived at other conclusions on a number of points. Nevertheless, I have in general stood by my earlier account.
1700080667
1700080668
4.There is probably injected into this description an account of French knights from the battle of Nikopol, which took place fourteen years earlier. There were no Hungarians at Tannenberg.
1700080669
1700080670
第五篇 瑞士人
1700080671
1700080672
1 瑞士地方共同体的形成