1700084600 11.This polarity is developed excellently by Gagliardi, Novara und Dijon, p.327.

1700084601

1700084602 12.The monograph by Heinrich Harkensee（Göttingen dissertation，1909），while also contributing to the research in detail, did not arrive at tactically correct concepts of the overall battle. The corrections that need to be made are apparent when this work is compared with the account above. In particular, Harkensee attributes too much credibility to the exaggerations in the figures for the French strength. Hadank’s review in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung, No.26，1910，concentrates too much on details and unjustly raises the accusation that the author did not understand the strategic situation. He may, however, be correct in his reckoning of the French strength as 30，000. He also justifiably defends the report that the Gascons had large shields that could be placed on the ground as a base. Such shields（pavesen）were used by the marksmen. He refers to a miniature showing crossbowmen with large shields of this kind in front of them. Hewett, Ancient Armour and Weapons，3：543（Supplement）.

1700084603

1700084604 13.On page 36 above there is a quote that praises the Swiss artillery. The facts do not justify this.

1700084605

1700084606 14.“The Battle of Bicocca”（“Die Schlacht bei Bicocca”），by Paul Kopitsch. Berlin dissertation，1909. Published by E. Ebering.

1700084607

1700084608 15.In Guicciardini the account reads：“They wanted to return home, but in order to show the whole world that it was not because of fear, they first wanted to defeat the enemy.”It is possible that this statement was made, but if they had been victorious, the Swiss would no doubt still have remained, and so they no doubt intended in the bottom of their hearts to do so from the start.

1700084609

1700084610 16.The standard monograph is the Berlin dissertation by Reinhard Thom（1907），which, as a result of precise source analysis, corrects many individual errors in earlier accounts. A few additional sources mentioned in the review of this monograph in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung, No.8，1909，are not of concern to us.

1700084611

1700084612 17.The report by the ambassador from Siena specifically gives this as the reason for the carelessness of the French.

1700084613

1700084614 18.Berlin dissertation by Karl Stallwitz，1911. Review by Hadank in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung, No.16，1912.

1700084615

1700084616 6　马基雅维利

1700084617

1700084618 1.Guillaume, p.165.

1700084619

1700084620 2.E. Fueter, in a review of Hobohm’s work in the Historische Zeitschrift，113：578，while recognizing the high value of the work, nevertheless takes exception in detail to many points, charges the author with a lack of methodological schooling and even insufficient knowledge of warfare and of the Italian language. I have checked on these accusations and have compared them with a handwritten countercritique by Hobohm. The result is that the reproach falls back on the critic. Even if all the details that he criticizes were real errors, in comparison with the stupendous scholarship and the critical perceptiveness with which Hobohm sweeps aside mountains of misjudgments appearing in the sources and constructs positive new knowledge, those errors would have very little significance. But my study shows that of all the objections and corrections made by Fueter, not even a single one—really not a single one—is justified. It is not that Hobohm’s understanding of Italian is insufficient, but rather that Fueter did not know the differences between modern Italian and the Italian of the sixteenth century. It is not Hobohm who introduces erroneous material concerning the warfare of that time but Fueter. Let us give but three examples: Machiavelli recommends that in the selection of corporals for the militia it should be taken into consideration that they are acceptable to the other conscripts（“scripti”）. Fueter is not familiar with this principle and this language. He claims he is bringing sense into this prescription by translating conscripts（“scripti”）with the word “instructions” and says that Hobohm, because of what is actually his correct translation of the passage, is unknowledgeable. Furthermore, Machiavelli recruited his militia exclusively from the peasants of the subjected countryside, and not from the burghers. Fueter read Hobohm’s book so hastily that he attributed to these peasants the attitudes of the “Florentine merchant nation.”

1700084621

1700084622 A third feature of Machiavelli’s militia system was the fact that Florence did its best, even though not always with success, to prevent its subjects from going off as mercenaries, whereas in Switzerland and Germany that was officially permitted and often even more or less organized. Fueter had such little understanding of these opposite attitudes, which are explained by Hobohm in a very interesting and thorough manner, that he believes Machiavelli borrowed the official regulations for sending men off for mercenary service from the Swiss military system, and he attempts to correct Hobohm in this matter with strong emphasis. And thus it continues point by point, and I can only regret that the Historische Zeitschrift has misled its readers on such a basic work.

1700084623

1700084624 3.Jähns，1：336.

1700084625

1700084626 4.Historia d’Italia, L.IX. Venice，1562，p.425.

1700084627

1700084628 5.Jovius, Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium（Aphorisms of Men Distinguished by Military Virtues），Basel，1575，p.323.

1700084629

1700084630 6.Hobohm，2：457，464. False army strengths for Novara and Marignano: Discorsi，2：18. Also Escher，“The Swiss Foot Troops in the Fifteenth Century and at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century”（“Das schweizerische Fussvolk im 15.und im Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts”），Neujahrsblätter der Züricher Feuerwerker，1904-1907，explains thoroughly that Machiavelli does not portray correctly either the armament or the formation of the Swiss.

1700084631

1700084632 第二篇　宗教战争时期

1700084633

1700084634 1　骑士向现代骑兵的过渡

1700084635

1700084636 1.George T. Denison’s History of the Cavalry from the Earliest Times, with Observations Concerning Its Future（Geschichte der Kavallerie seit den frühesten Zeiten mit Betrachtungen über ihre Zukunft），（German version by Brix, Berlin，1879）has no scientific-historical value.

1700084637

1700084638 2.Concerning the dispute over the explanation of the name, see Mangold in the Jahresbericht der Geschichtswissenschaften，3（1892）：247. The hussars are mentioned quite often in the Küstrin Battle Report on Mühlberg in Ranke, Werke，6：244-246，and in the report of the Nuremberg participant in the war, Joachim Imhof, in Knaake, Contributions to the History of Charles V（Beiträge zur Geschichte Karls V.），Stendal，1864，p.46. Of particular interest is Avila, History of the Schmalkaldic War（Geschichte des Schmalkaldischen Krieges），German edition, p.123. According to Susane，1：150，there had been Hungarian cavalry in France since 1635；in 1693 a regiment of hussars was formed.

1700084639

1700084640 3.See Jähns，1：498，concerning this book. Hauser, in Les Sources de l’histoire de France，2：25，rejects du Bellay as the author and says, probably correctly, that the edition of 1548 was the oldest（Jähns assumes 1535）. A very large part of the contents, but not the passage above copied from Vol.I, Chap.8，is taken from Machiavelli. See Gebelin, Quid rei militaris doctrina renascentibus litteris antiquitatis debuerit（What Military Doctrine Owed to the Renaissance），Bordeaux，1881，p.44.

1700084641

1700084642 4.Jovius, Book 44，Ed.1578，p.555.

1700084643

1700084644 5.Book 45，p.610.

1700084645

1700084646 6.Report of the Venetian Ambassador Navagero of July 1546（Bericht des venezianischen Gesandten Navagero vom Juli 1546），in Albèri, Series I, Vol.I, pp.314，328. He also describes the arms of these horsemen（p.314）. The pistol, which another report shows them as having（Ranke, Werke，4：223），is not yet mentioned in this report.

1700084647

1700084648 7.Alois Mocenigo, Relazione di Germania，1548. Ed. Fiedler, Fontes rer.austriacarum（Sources of Austrian History），30：120，Vienna，1870.

1700084649

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.7000846e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]