1700096760
5.See above, p.411，the formation of the English under Richard the Lion-Hearted at Jaffa in 1192.
1700096761
1700096762
6.Comines says concerning the battle of Montl’héry（ed.de Mandrot，1：31）
:“The most important thing in the world for battles is the archers, but let them number in the thousands, for they are worth nothing in small numbers, and let them be men with poor mounts, so that they will have no regrets in losing their horses, or let them have no mounts at all.”
1700096763
1700096764
7.Both these battles are discussed excellently by Oman, History of the Art of War, p.581 ff. Dupplin is described on the basis of a study by Morris, English Historical Review，1897.Halidon Hill is thoroughly described in Tytler, History of Scotland，2：32 and 454，on the basis of a presumably ancient manuscript, whose credibility, however, is not proven.
1700096765
1700096766
8.Berlin dissertation，1908.
1700096767
1700096768
9.Berlin dissertation，1907.
1700096769
1700096770
10.The Englishman Walsingham believes the French had 140，000 men.
1700096771
1700096772
11.That is specifically attested to by Saint Rémy, who was present at the battle.
1700096773
1700096774
12.That is the opinion of Luce, for example, in Bertrand du Guesclin, I：147.
1700096775
1700096776
13.In the engagement at Termonde，1452. Olivier de la Marche, I Chap.25.
1700096777
1700096778
14.Monstrelet, II, Chap.108.
1700096779
1700096780
15.Luce, Bertrand du Guesclin et son époque, p.169. The knights vowed “that they would never flee in battle more than 4 arpents by their estimate, but they would rather die or have themselves taken prisoner.”
1700096781
1700096782
16.A certain survey of the decisive battles is provided by M.de la Chauvelays in Dismounted Combat of the Cavalry in the Middle Ages（Le combat à pied de la cavallerie au moyen-âge），Paris，1885. To be sure, the author is very uncritical, and the individual facts are in no way reliable.M.T. Lachauvelay, Guerres des Francais et des Anglais du Xlième au XVième siècle，1875，seems to be the same author, despite the different spelling of the name.
1700096783
1700096784
17.For example, Thwrocz, chronica Hungarorum（Chronicles of the Hungarians），reports erroneously that the French knights at Nikopol in 1396 attacked on foot.
1700096785
1700096786
4 奥斯曼土耳其
1700096787
1700096788
1.For a while it was even believed that the Mongols had to be credited for an outstanding role in the history of the art of war, particularly since there exist theoretical concepts that supposedly stem from Tamer lane. But in the final analysis their accomplishments were no different from those of other nomads, and Tamerlane’s principles were without real content. For a summary of these points and applicable references, see Jähns, Handbuch, p.698 ff. The battle of Liegnitz，1242，in view of the legendary nature of the source, gives us nothing new, as far as I can see, on the history of the art of war.
1700096789
1700096790
2.P.A. von Tischendorf, The Feudal System in the Moslem Nations, especially in the Ottoman Empire. With the Book of Laws of the Fiefs under Sultan Ahmed I（Das Lehnswesen in den moslimischen Staaten insbesondere im osmanischen Reiche. Mit dent Gesetzbuch der Lehen unter Sultan Ahmed I.），Leipzig，1872.
1700096791
1700096792
3.Heinrich Schurtz，“The Janissaries”（“Die Janitscharen”），Preussische Jahrbücher, Vol.112（1903）. Leopold von Schlözer, Origin and Development of the Ancient Turkish Army（Ursprung und Entwickelung des alttürkischen Heeres），1900. Ranke, The Ottomans and the Spanish Monarchy（Die Osmanen und die spanische Monarchie），Werke, Vol.35.
1700096793
1700096794
4.The Segban were supposedly formed from the sultan’s hunting retinue. The report that this body was 7，000 men strong was, of course, a great exaggeration. And with this point there also collapses the idea that an oda numbered more than 200 men and the resulting ideas concerning the file and the tent group. Schurtz, p.459. Under Selim I，1512-1520，the janissaries are supposed to have been only 3，000 men strong, but in 1550 they were supposedly 16，000. Schurtz, p.454. In that case, the “3，000” would no doubt refer only to the original 66 oda. On p.459，Schurtz states that under Mohammed II the janissaries numbered 12，000.
1700096795
1700096796
5.The standard special study is the Berlin dissertation “The Battle of Nikopol”（“Die Schlacht bei Nikopolis”），by Gustav Kling. Published by Georg Nauck，1906.
1700096797
1700096798
6.Kling estimates the Turkish strength between 16，000 and 20，000 men. That would then be more than twice the strength of the Christians. Based on the numbers given by Schurtz, discussed in Note 4，above, he assumes a strength of only 3，000 men for the janissaries but believes that dismounted irregulars were also present, for whom the janissaries had formed the nucleus. I would prefer to eliminate completely these “dismounted irregulars”—Beyazid would hardly have brought along any troops other than quality warriors—but I would assume a greater strength for the janissaries.
1700096799
1700096800
7.Characteristic of the loose manner in which chroniclers treated army strengths is the fact that Königshofen gave the strength of the Christian army as 100，000 men but stated its losses as 200，000.
1700096801
1700096802
5 胡斯派
1700096803
1700096804
1.Handbuch, p.943.
1700096805
1700096806
2.Geschichte Böhmens（History of Bohemia），3：2：67.
1700096807
1700096808
3.“The Hussite Wagon Fort”（“Die hussitische Wagenburg”）by Max von Wulf, Berlin dissertation，1889.“Hussite Military System”（“Hussitisches Kriegswesen”），by Max von Wulf, Preussische Jahrbücher，69：673. May 1892.
1700096809
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70009676e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]