1700088796

1700088797 第三篇　马其顿军队

1700088798

1700088799 1　马其顿军制

1700088800

1700088801 1.Thucydides does not mention here the superior protective armor of the Greeks, and perhaps the Illyrians were better equipped in this regard than the Macedonians, who were more accustomed to the agricultural life and therefore, in general, less warlike, although Arrian（1.1.12）again specifically characterizes the Illyrian and Thracian barbarians as “ill-equipped allies.”* Furthermore, in his speech Brasidas specifically calls the Illyrians the equals of the Macedonians, and we may therefore apply the description to the latter also.

1700088802

1700088803 2.“Concerning Horsemanship”*（12. 12），“in place of a spear made of cane.”* The meaning of the Greek word “kamakinon” is not certain, nor is even the manner of reading it, but judging from the whole context, it is almost impossible that anything but a long spear is meant here.

1700088804

1700088805 3.Xenophon’s remark may be considered in connection with the cavalry combat in Hellenica 3.4.13. The account shows, however, that at that time the Greek cavalry carried not the short spear, but the long one.

1700088806

1700088807 Furthermore, it is not understandable without further explanation in this account, why the Persians had such a deep formation. They were not able to throw their spears from the rearmost ranks. The explanation lies perhaps in the fact that the Persians were counting on penetrating the Greek line with their deep column and, in doing so, throwing their spears to the right and left.

1700088808

1700088809 4.Diodorus 17.60. Arrian 1.15.

1700088810

1700088811 5.Adolf Bauer, para.313（2d ed.，para，433），concludes from Arrian 1.6.5 that the companions did not normally carry a shield.1 cannot find that the passage necessitates this conclusion; in fact, it hardly permits it.Cavalry shields were naturally much smaller than those of the infantry. Since in Plutarch, Alexander, Chapter 16，there is specific mention of the shield that the king carries into combat, and later, according to Polybius 6.25.7，the Macedonian cavalrymen undoubtedly had shields, it seems certain to me that such was also the case in earlier periods.

1700088812

1700088813 6.See also below, Vol.IV, Book III, Chapter III.

1700088814

1700088815 7.Concerning the discomfort of carrying and the difficulty of fighting with the long spear, see also Vol.IV, Book I, Chapter I.

1700088816

1700088817 8.Adolf Bauer, para.272，estimates 3 meters; among all the vase figures that I have looked through, however, I have never found such long hoplite spears, even where there is no limitation of space.

1700088818

1700088819 9.R.Wille, Text on Arms（Waffenlehre），p.79.

1700088820

1700088821 10.A.Krause, in Hermes，1890，para.66，proved quite conclusively that Alexander also had slingers in his army and that Arrian intends them to be included in the word “toxetai”（“archers”）.*

1700088822

1700088823 2　亚历山大与波斯：格拉尼卡斯河会战

1700088824

1700088825 1.That is the result of the careful examination of the sources in W. Dittberner, Issos（Berlin: George Nauck，1908）.

1700088826

1700088827 2.Bauer, para.314（2d ed.，434）even claims that the Macedonians represented not much more than a sixth of the entire army. That is too small under any circumstances. A. Krause, in the passage cited above（Hermes，1890），distinguishes among（1）a field army；（2）an army of occupation；（3）a satrap army, which was formed in the conquered areas by the appointed satraps.

1700088828

1700088829 That is fundamentally correct but much too sharply distinguished. Naturally, there were troops that were used primarily for operations and battles, others that were more often assigned to garrisons, and finally the appointed governors did indeed form new military organizations But according to the circumstances, all of these various troops were naturally used for the various purposes of the waging of war, sometimes in battle, sometimes as occupation forces.

1700088830

1700088831 3　伊苏斯会战

1700088832

1700088833 1.After having had to rework the presentation of this battle for the second edition, I have now once again had to make not unimportant changes. The reason was the same both times—that is, a more correct and more detailed understanding of the structure of the terrain. Even now, however, I have felt obliged to stand by the fundamental fact that the battle took place not on the Deli-Tschai, but on the Pajas. Accordingly, I continue to regard the dissertation of W. Dittberner（Berlin，1908）as the authoritative work and cannot find that it has been eliminated by Colonel Janke, to whom we are indebted in other respects for the topography（Klio 10：137，“Annex to Petermann’s Reports，”May 1911[“Beilage von Peter-manns Mitteilungen，”1911，Maiheft]）. See also the review of Dieulefoy’s study by Dittberner in the Deutsche Literarische Zeitung, No.24，（1912），Column 1525，and the article by Kromayer in the Historische Zeitschrift 112：348.

1700088834

1700088835 2.Arrian 2.2.1. Curtius 3.8.1.

1700088836

1700088837 3.An absolute proof for the moderate strength of the Persian army is not to be concluded from the march action, in that, according to Janke, a rather large number of more or less usable passes lead over the Amanus mountain chain into the plain of Issus. Nevertheless it can hardly be assumed that there was an elaborate allocation of forces to various approach roads, and since in the bat tle it was almost exclusively the Greeks who played a significant infantry role, then the other infantry contingents on hand cannot have been so very strong.

1700088838

1700088839 Kromayer, in the work cited above, believes that the Persian army can be estimated at 50，000 to 60，000 men, since the Seleucids had raised armies of similar strength. The Diadochi states differ, however, from the Achaemenidae Empire precisely in the fact that they had a completely different concept of war, and in any case no comparison is possible in view of the positive factors that exclude the possibility of an army of more than some 25，000 men.

1700088840

1700088841 4.Arrian 2.5.1 reports that Parmenio had been sent out in advance with the Greeks and other troops from Tarsus in order to secure the Cilician-Syrian passes. Now since the Greeks are not mentioned in the two sources specifying the battle formation at Issus, we can accept the account above with certainty. Köhler, in “The Conquest of Asia”（“Die Eroberung Asiens”），in Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie，1898，p.130，believes that Alexander did not need to post troops to cover his rear, since the Persian army was, obviously, in front of him. The flimsiness of this conclusion is evident.

1700088842

1700088843 5.Arrian’s description, that behind the Persian battle line, which he describes for us, there still stood in useless depth huge numbers of barbarian peoples, has been understood by recent historians as an echelon formation. Aside from the fact that an echeloned formation, as we shall see, means a refinement of tactics that did not occur until a later period, Arrian’s report is naturally only the complement of his estimate of the Persian army at a strength of 600，000 men. What the Greeks saw in front of them was only a moderate-sized army; the barbarians, however, were, once and for all, masses—consequently these masses were placed somewhere or other in the rear, drawn up “in unusable depth.”

1700088844

1700088845 6.Polybius 12.17.7，“… the peltasts in a line which stretched to the mountains，”* according to Callisthenes. These lightly armed men, who stretched out all the way to the mountains, were probably principally Persian archers. Arrian, in 2.10.6，reports specifically that the Macedonians, after moving forward slowly at first in order not to have their battle line become wavy，finally attacked on the run so that they would not suffer too much from the enemy archers.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700088796e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]