1700091912 16.Biedermann, in his Studies on Egyptian Governmental History（Studien zur ägyptischen Verwaltungsgeschichte），1913，establishes in detail（p.108）that the old Egyptian administrative organization disappeared toward the middle of the third century.

1700091913

1700091914 17.It is generally assumed that the auxiliaries had been increased as early as the second century because at that time they still had fewer demands than the legions. Under Augustus, for example.they received only a third of the pay of the legions and had no claim on the large donatives. At the same time, the demands of the legions were continuously increasing, while their military efficiency was declining. Domaszewski, Heidelberger Jahrbücher 10：226. This assumption is contrary to the possibility that I expressed on p.171 above that the auxiliaries had been organized into legions. Both theories are mere possibilities. And it is, of course, also imaginable that they existed side by side and that now one and now the other actually took place.

1700091915

1700091916 18.I do not believe it necessary to attribute any significance to Caracalla’s military frivolities, which are reported in Dio Cassius 77.7 and in Herodian 4.8.2.3.

1700091917

1700091918 19.Petersen, in The Marcus Aurelius Column, Text（Die Markus-Säule, Textband），p.44，says of the legionaries shown on the relief: “Their shield is seldom a normal scutum, their lance never shown as a pilum，” and on page 45 he continues: “… often they have trousers.”These are unusual phenomena which I do not know how to explain. It has also struck me in Tacitus’account of the German war how little reference is made to the unusual aspects of the Roman combat with the pilum.

1700091919

1700091920 20.Von Domaszewski, Die Religion des römischen Heeres, p.49. See also p.113.

1700091921

1700091922 第二篇　民族大迁徙

1700091923

1700091924 1　日耳曼人为主体的古罗马军队

1700091925

1700091926 1.Robert Grosse’s Roman Military History from Gallienus to the Beginning of the Byzantine Thematic Constitution（Römische Militärgeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen Themenverfassung），Berlin，1920，has unfortunately very little to offer, despite all the energy that went into it. I have not been able to draw anything from it for my account. See my review in the Historische Zeitschrift，1921.

1700091927

1700091928 2.Dio Cassius 78.17.

1700091929

1700091930 3.Zosimus 2.15.1.“He collected his forces, which included subjugated barbarians, Germans, and other Celtic nations, and some assembled from Britain.”*

1700091931

1700091932 4.Ammianus 20.4.17. A source of little value, Nicephorus Callistus, also reports this of Valentinian I. But the description in Symmachus, orationes 1.10，to the extent that this rhetorician is to be trusted, excludes that possibility.

1700091933

1700091934 5.Ammianus 31.7.11.

1700091935

1700091936 6.Schuchhardt，“Anastasius’Wall at Constantinople and the Dobrudscha Walls（“Die Anastasiusmauer bei Konstantinopel und die Dobrudschawalle”），Jahrbücher des Archäologischen Instituts 16：107.

1700091937

1700091938 7.Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 1：39；（2d edition, p.58）.

1700091939

1700091940 8.This point is correctly observed by Dahn in Procop von Cäsarea, p.391.

1700091941

1700091942 9.Ammianus 12.12.61.

1700091943

1700091944 10.Lavisse, Histoire de la France 1：2. Les Origines, la Gaule indépendant et la Gaule Romaine, by G. Bloch, Paris.1901，p.299 f. Ad. Blanchet, in The Roman Walls of Gaul（Les enceintes Romaines de la Gaule），1907，rejects, on the basis of the broadest research, the theories that would place the construction of these fortifications as late as Diocletian’s period, in the fourth century or even later.

1700091945

1700091946 11.According to the citation by Dahn, in Könige der Germanen 5：26.

1700091947

1700091948 12.Mommsen, Ostgotische Studien, Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichte 14：460. L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Vandalen，1901，pp.65，72，122.

1700091949

1700091950 13.The study on the battle at the Milvian Bridge by F. Trebelmann in the Abhandlung der Heidelberger Akademie，1915，is very valuable topographically, but from the military history viewpoint it misses the mark just as much as Seeck’s account does. Both authors are still entangled in the concept of massive armies. They even believe the sources to the effect that Maxentius had superior forces—and even several times as many—to those of Constantine. Since it is naturally impossible to construct any reasonable account with such preconceptions, Seeck grasps the expedient of having both commanders lead their armies by dreams and portents rather than strategic considerations. I do not see why both Constantine and Maxentius should not have been capable of interpreting their dreams and signs in the same way as had previously been done by Themistocles. Pausanias, and Mardonius. The account by Landmann in Dölgner’s Constantine the Great and His Times（Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit），1913，is reasonable, but in view of the lack of sources, it is without any conclusion of importance to military history.

1700091951

1700091952 2　斯特拉斯堡会战　无

1700091953

1700091954 3　阿德里安堡会战

1700091955

1700091956 1.It is curious that the West Roman troops were fighting in the Dobrudscha and when they were returning to Illyricum, they encountered the Taefalae. Is it possible that they had previously left the Taefalae behind them? These bands probably did not cross the Danube until the Roman troops had already moved farther eastward. Perhaps the East Goths under Alatheus and Safrax also did not come across the Danube until now, although Ammianus recounts this earlier. In any case, the reinforcements that moved to join the Germans must have been very significant.

1700091957

1700091958 2.Here I believe it is permissible to combine the accounts by Eunapius and Zosimus with that of Ammianus. See Excursus.

1700091959

1700091960 3.Constantine Joseph Jirecek. The Military Road from Belgrade to Constantinople（Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel），1877，p.145.

1700091961

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700091912e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]