1700096927
1700096928
17.The military system of Charles the Bold is treated excellently by M. Guillaume，“Histoire de l’organisation militaire sous les dues de Bourgogne，” in the Mémoires couronnés et mémoires des savants étrangers publiés par l’Académie de Belgique, Vol.22，Brussels，1848. Much valuable material is also to be found in La Chauvelays, La Composition des armées de Charles le Téméraire，1879. In the Mémoires de I’Académie de Dijon, Tome VI.（also published in Paris as a separate edition）. I have discussed it myself in my Perser-und Burgunderkriege.
1700096929
1700096930
18.In 1340 the count of Armagnac had only 300 fully equipped men-at-arms in a force of 800（Grande chronique de St. Denys，5：393，ed. Paulin）.
1700096931
1700096932
In 1429 the noblemen who reinforced Charles VII“did not have the means of arming themselves or providing themselves with mounts.”（Chronique de la Pucelle, Panthéon littéraire, p.442）.
1700096933
1700096934
In 1467 Charles the Bold selected, from the vassals who had been levied, those who had full equipment; they numbered 400 of the total group of 1，400. But it happened that the nobles took their pay and rode back home（according to Guillaume, p.89）.
1700096935
1700096936
19.Lachauvelays, p.170，estimates that the two Burgundies provided Charles the Bold with thirty-two companies of soudoyers à gages ménagers.
1700096937
1700096938
The thirty-two companies numbered 899 men-at-arms with three horses each（that is，899 pages and 899 valets），541 gens de trait à cheval（mounted marksmen），178 coutilliers à cheval（light horsemen），and 177 demi-lances.（A demi-lance is an individual knight who receives the samepay as two marksmen.）
1700096939
1700096940
The totals were therefore as follows:
1700096941
1700096942
1700096943
1700096944
1700096945
20.A regulation for Hainaut appeared in 1470 and, according to Guillaume, p.113，stated the following: A fief-holder with more than 360 pounds of annual income had to provide one man-at-arms with a coutillier, a page, and six dismounted archers. A fief-holder with 240 pounds of income was to provide one man-at-arms. A fief-holder with 120 pounds was to provide three men on foot（dismounted archers, crossbowmen, or spearmen）. The smaller and larger groups were combined in accordance with the corresponding mission. Fiefs under 64 sous had no obligation. Anyone who could not serve personally was to provide an appropriate substitute, and if he could not do so, the commanders took over that responsibility for him. Every four months the items of equipment were to be inspected.
1700096946
1700096947
A similar regulation appeared in 1475 for Flanders.
1700096948
1700096949
Let us note that a certain progression upward occurred, that the smallest fief-holders were completely free, and that possessions of quite a significant extent called for providing one man on foot or even on horseback, and that the men in service were paid. Let us compare with this situation the concept that in the Carolingian Empire ownership of a few hides was burdened with providing one man at his own expense.
1700096950
1700096951
According to Lachauvelays, p. 258，the largest number of fiefs had an income of less than 50 francs, often only 10 francs.
1700096952
1700096953
The wording of the levy that Charles’governor for Burgundy issued on 3 May 1471 is very remarkable: “All types of men, both nobles and others, regardless of their class or profession, who are accustomed to bearing and using arms, whether or not they have fiefs and whether or not they have provided somebody for the present army”（quoted in Lachauvelays, p.187）. We might use this regulation as a paraphrase of the “cuncta generalitas populi”（“the whole mass of the people”）in the capitulary of Charlemagne（p.42，above）or the “universi”（“all”）in the levy of 817（p.36，above）.
1700096954
1700096955
21.This is specified in this way by the regulation of 31 July 1471. Olivier de la Marche, who commanded a company himself, states in his memoirs that the lance was composed of two archers, two men armed with the culverin, and two spearmen（according to Guillaume, p.121）.
1700096956
1700096957
7 坦嫩贝格会战、蒙莱里会战及同时期的其他若干战斗
1700096958
1700096959
1.While the special study by Karl Heveker，“The Battle of Tannenberg”（“Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg”），Berlin dissertation，1906，published by Georg Nauck, has greatly advanced the understanding of the battle and has eliminated many false ideas, it still leaves important points in the dark. If I attempt to arrive at a clear picture from it, I must add that a number of points in my account are based only on supposition. Among more recent works, I cite an article by S. Kujot in Die altpreussische Monatsschrift, Vol.48，Issue No.1，and Krollmann, Oberländische Geschichtsblätter, Issue No.13，1911. Also worthy of note is the study “The Knights’Grave of Tannenberg”（“Das Rittergrab von Tannenberg”），by E.Schnippel in the Oberländische Geschichtsblätter, Issue No.11，1909.
1700096960
1700096961
2.The valuable description of the terrain is to be found in Köhler, Warfare of the Knightly Period（Kriegswesen der Ritterzeit），2：717.
1700096962
1700096963
3.Kujot and Krollmann arrived at other conclusions on a number of points. Nevertheless, I have in general stood by my earlier account.
1700096964
1700096965
4.There is probably injected into this description an account of French knights from the battle of Nikopol, which took place fourteen years earlier. There were no Hungarians at Tannenberg.
1700096966
1700096967
第五篇 瑞士人
1700096968
1700096969
1 瑞士地方共同体的形成
1700096970
1700096971
1.That is the opinion of Oechsli, in The Beginnings of the Swiss Confederation（Die Anfänge der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft），p.121.
1700096972
1700096973
2.Oechsli, p.230. Durrer, The Unity of Unterwalden（Die Einheit Unterwaldens）Jahrbücher fur Schweizerische Geschichte，1910，p.96，confirms Oechsli’s assumption.
1700096974
1700096975
3.In 1252 the abbot of Saint Gall took them into his service in a feud with the bishop of Constance. Oechsli, p.229.
1700096976