1700088616
1700088617
所有人都相信海因里希·冯·西贝尔（Heinrich von Sybel）[119]或者海因里希·冯·特赖奇克（Heinrich von Treitschke）是普鲁士军队发展史的行家。只要两人都认同的观点，后人就会认为质疑它是放肆之举。但是，两人都认为弗雷德里克·威廉一世时期就有普遍兵役制的思想了，尽管我们都知道，普鲁士直到弗雷德里克·威廉三世[120]在位的民族解放战争时期才实施普遍兵役制。西贝尔在《德意志帝国创立史》（Begründung des Detschen Reiches 1：32）中将1733年的分区征兵法令称作“通往普遍兵役制的第一步”。特赖奇克在《德意志史》（Deutsche Geschichte）（1：75，另见153）中认为，早在弗雷德里克大王时期，“民族结构的支柱之一，普遍兵役制就开始隐约可见”。就这一点而言，我们甚至能确定错误的来源。马克斯·莱曼（Max Lehmann）在早期著作《克内泽贝克与舍恩》（Knesebeck und Schön）（第284页）中写道，弗雷德里克·威廉一世“已经看到了普遍兵役制的观念，即便不是洞若观火，至少一半照亮”。这句评语在当时造成了深刻的影响；西贝尔和特赖奇克当然是相信只要复述一遍就够了，但因为表述的缘故，他们犯的错误要比原文严重得多。没有什么能比马克斯·莱曼本人的近著更让人们认清了这一点。他的《沙恩霍斯特传》（Scharnhorst）一书的基本观念是，普遍兵役制不仅不是旧普鲁士军制的延续，反而是整个旧普鲁士国家的对立面。弗雷德里克·威廉一世的目标是尽可能明确地区分平民身份和军人身份。在他眼中，普遍兵役制的含义与当时列国——法国、奥地利、俄国——既有的观念没有任何区别，也就是统治者有权任意征召臣民当兵。但我们今天理解的普遍兵役不只是一种抽象的原则，更是一套普鲁士——只有普鲁士一国——从1813年来推行的现实制度。
1700088618
1700088619
按照这个词的另一个含义，我们必须说法国和奥地利在1870年之前就实行了普遍兵役制，这不过是文字游戏罢了。但是，西贝尔和特赖奇克这样的大学者正是被这种可能产生的歧义蒙蔽——假如有人提醒他们，两人自然会马上意识到错误并大方承认。
1700088620
1700088621
希望读者原谅我冗长的说明，但上面的类比具有极大的方法论意义。写作本书的过程中，我发现自己屡次陷入这样的境地：按照批判分析，我不得不驳斥古代作者对本国战绩兵制的明确记载，比如希罗多德所说的雅典军在马拉松会战中一路跑了8道的距离，比如李维对支队战斗的描述，比如修昔底德记录的雅典公民数目，现在又有撒路斯特乌斯对罗马征兵情况的记载。不管我认为自己的结论是多么坚固可靠，但我有时还是不免担心，高耸的塔楼能不能经得起所有驳论的风暴，于是，我会努力用坚不可摧、如磐石一般的事实建成扶壁，支撑我那如同哥特式大教堂的轻薄墙壁的理论。
1700088622
1700088623
李维（10.21）中的记载也表现出了后人对最初的分等级制度的认识：公元前295年高卢人入侵，令罗马人惊恐不已之际，当局在森提努姆会战（battle of Sentinum）前下令“征召所有等级从军”（omnis generis hominum dilectum haberi）。另外，奥罗修斯《反世俗的世界史》（4.1.3）中引用李维的话，说公元前280年皮洛士逼近罗马时，罗马编成了两个由无产者组成的军团。据说，为了给国家生产后代，无产者一直住在城里。
1700088624
1700088625
1700088626
1700088627
1700088629
战争艺术史 注释
1700088630
1700088631
第一篇 希波战争
1700088632
1700088633
1 史籍记载中希腊军队的兵力
1700088634
1700088635
1.Beitzke, History of the German Wars of Liberation（Geschichte der deutschen Freiheitskriege），Vol.1，Appendix. Bernhardi, Memorable Events in the Life of Toll（Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben Tolls），Vol.3，Appendix.
1700088636
1700088637
2.Pertz-Delbrück, Life of Gneisenau（Leben Gneisenaus），large ed.，Vol.4，Appendix; small ed.，2d printing，2：19.
1700088638
1700088639
3.Delbrück, Persian and Burgundian Wars（Perser-und Burgun-derkriege），p.157.
1700088640
1700088641
4.P.Bailleu in the Deutsche Rundschau, December 1899.
1700088642
1700088643
5.von Lettow. The War of 1806 and 1807（Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807）.
1700088644
1700088645
6.Compare “Mind and Mass in History”（“Geist und Masse in der Geschichte”），Preussische Jahrbücher 147（1912）：193.
1700088646
1700088647
7.R.Adam, in his dissertation “De Herodoti ratione historica quaestiones selectae sive de pugna Salaminia atque Plataeensi”（Berlin，1890），shows that the army strengths and number of ships given by Herodotus are based on an estimate table that removes from them any residual element of credibility.
1700088648
1700088649
2 希腊人的装备与战术
1700088650
1700088651
1.Adolf Bauer, Section 40，says three meters. On this point, see also below, the study on the sarissae.
1700088652
1700088653
2.H.Droysen, Army Organization（Heerwesen），p.24，cites several passages in which the harness is not named as a piece of equipment for the Spartans and considers it possible that they, in contrast to the other Greeks, did not wear any. That would be a far-reaching difference. Nevertheless, this opinion is certainly incorrect. Droysen himself cites a passage from Tyrtaeus in which armor is expressly named, and if one were inclined to conclude from the passage in Xenophon’s Anabasis 1.2.16 that Cyrus’ mercenaries wore no armor, that would also have to apply to all the Greeks represented among them.
1700088654
1700088655
3.H.Droysen, Heerwesen, p.171，footnote, recommends using the word phalanx only with respect to foot soldiers armed with the sarissa, whose particular combat position consisted in the “closeness of their formation in comparison with those in the rear.”* I believe in holding fast, however, to the expression that has become quite common, which I think I can best establish with the definition given above. The basis therefore will gradually emerge as our study progresses. Droysen himself shows that the Greek usage is very indefinite and has varied.
1700088656
1700088657
4. The account of Isocrates（Archidamus, p.99），which says the Spartans had conquered the Arcadians at Dipaea in one rank, which Duncker，8：134，accepted, has been justifiably rejected by Droysen, p.45，and Adolf Bauer, p.243（2d ed.，p.305），as rhetorical exaggeration. Droysen, with equal justification, also rejects the two ranks of Polyaenus 2.1.24.
1700088658
1700088659
5.Lysias, Mantitheus 16.15. The speaker, Mantitheus, boasts
:“There was an expedition to Corinth, and everyone knew ahead of time that it would be a dangerous undertaking. Although some were shirking back, I arranged it so that I might fight our enemies in the front line. And our phyle had the worst luck and suffered the worst losses among its own men. I quit the field later than that excellent man from Steiria who has been accusing everyone of cowardice.”* For this fine quotation I am indebted to the book Warfare of Antiquity（Das Kriegswesen des Altertums），by Hugo Liers, p.46.
1700088660
1700088661
6.Concerning the combination of Spartiates and Perioeci in the same military formation, see Bauer, paras.18，19，and 23，and, now at the center of a lively controversy, Kromayer, Klio 3（1903）：177 ff, and Beloch, Klio 6：63. On this occasion the following splendid evidence of the importance of the first rank has come to light. Isocrates, Panathenaicus 180.271，writes: “For in the campaign that the king led, they arranged them man by man in rank with themselves, and they also stationed some men in the first rank.”*
1700088662
1700088663
7.Xenophon, Cyropaedia 6.3.25. For further information on this point, see below, Book II, Chapter V.
1700088664
1700088665
8.Xenophon, Hellenica 6.2.21.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.700088616e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]