1700089026
1700089027
The question of which pass Hannibal used for his crossing of the Alps does not belong in the framework of this book, since no important strategic or tactical conclusions result from the variety of routes. Fuchs has decided on the Mont Genevre Pass. Konrad Lehmann in The Attacks of the Three Barcas Against Italy（Die Angriffe der drei Barkiden auf Italien），1905，has once again, with a very thorough argument, pointed to the Little Saint Bernard. Subsequently, French Captain of Engineers Colin, too, has appeared in this arena with a work entitled Hannibal in Gaul（Annibal en Gaule），1904. To date, none of the various theories has been able to win general acceptance.
1700089028
1700089029
5 罗马占据上风
1700089030
1700089031
1.Raimund Oehler, The Last Campaign of Hasdrubal Barca and the Battle on the Metaurus. An historical-topographical Study.（Der letzte Feldzug des Barkiden Hasdrubal und die Schlacht am Metaurus.Eine historisch-topographische Studie.）1897. The significant aspects of its conclusions were rejected by Konrad Lehmann, Deutsche Literaturzeitung，1897，No.23，Column 902.
1700089032
1700089033
Lehmann himself later treated the battle in detail in his book The Attacks of the three Boreas（Die Angriffe der drei Barkiden），1905，and sought to reconstruct the battle, but the result remains subject to serious doubts. I doubt that, in view of the sources available, it will ever be possible to gain a positive insight into the battle. Even the army strengths are very uncertain. Lehmann estimates that Hannibal still had 15，000 men and Hasdrubal 12，000，whereas there were 150，000 Romans under arms in Italy. With numbers such as these, the Romans’conduct would be incomprehensible. See also the critique of Kromayer, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen，169，No.2（June 1907）：458. Beversdorff gives Hasdrubal 15，000 men on the Metaurus, whereas Kromayer estimates some 30，000.
1700089034
1700089035
2.Mommsen, Political Law（Staatsrecht），Vol.2，Part 1，p.652.
1700089036
1700089037
3.Livy 29.19.
1700089038
1700089039
4.Livy 30.1.10.
1700089040
1700089041
5.Livy 24.18.
1700089042
1700089043
6.Livy 27.7.
1700089044
1700089045
7. The Locrians made such a complaint on this score that the Senate conducted an investigation. Livy 29.8-22.
1700089046
1700089047
6 扎马-那拉加拉会战：梯队战术
1700089048
1700089049
1.Livy 27.49.
1700089050
1700089051
2.Why he did not go directly to Carthage is not reported. Perhaps he simply did not want to arrive in the capital with the few survivors of the battle and may have had in Hadrumet some troop reinforcements and supplies of weapons, which, if brought along with him, would still give him a position and the city a possibility to defend itself.
1700089052
1700089053
3.Livy 29.22.
1700089054
1700089055
4.See also p.276，above.
1700089056
1700089057
7 汉尼拔与西庇阿
1700089058
1700089059
1.In the speech that Livy has the elderly Quintus Fabius Max-imus and Scipio himself make in the Senate concerning the planned expedition, this motive does not appear with correct emphasis.If he pointed this out, Scipio would have been placing too much stress on the difficulty of the whole undertaking, whereas his speech was based, and necessarily so, on emphasizing the concept of the offensive with unconditional confidence.
1700089060
1700089061
2.We can assume that Hannibal returned to Africa in the fall of 203 B.C. and that the battle of Naraggara took place in about August of 202 B.C. Lehmann, p.555.
1700089062
1700089063
3.Proved by Konrad Lehmann in Jahrbücher fur klassische Philologie 153：573.
1700089064
1700089065
第六篇 作为世界征服者的罗马军队
1700089066
1700089067
1 罗马军队与马其顿军队
1700089068
1700089069
1.Polybius 18.28.
1700089070
1700089071
2.It was already understood in this way by Johann von Nassau and Montecucoli. Jähns I：573. Montecucoli, Writings（Schriften）2：225.
1700089072
1700089073
3.See also in this connection Livy 33.18.
1700089074
1700089075
4.Polybius 18.28.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.700089026e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]