1700100832

1700100833 1.The standard document for this subject is the careful and worthwhile study by Wilhelm Erben，“Origin and Development of the German Articles of War”（“Ursprung und Entwicklung der deutschen Kriegsartikel”），in the Festgabe für Theodor Sickel, Mitteilungen des Instituts für’ostreichische Geschichtsforschung, supplementary Vol.VI，1900，with a few later additions by the same author. Closely linked with this work is the equally excellent book by Burkhard von Bonin, Bases of the Legal System in the German Army at the Beginning of the Modern Era（to 1600）（Grundzüge der Rechtsverfassung in dem deutschen Heere zu Beginn der Neuzeit[bis 1600]）. Weimar，1904. Also very important and providing good orientation by its comprehensiveness is the work by Wilhelm Beck, The Oldest Letters of Articles for the German Infantry（Die ältesten Artikelbriefe für das deutsche Fussvolk），1908. See Erben’s review in the Historische Zeitschrift，102：368.

1700100834

1700100835 2.“Weibel”（Feldwebel: first sergeant）is related to the word “weben”（“to weave”）and means the servant who moves quickly here and there, running back and forth. The Feldwebel was initially assigned by the colonel as responsible for lining up the whole regiment and only later gradually became a functionary for the company. The “Gemeinweibel，” who are supposed by some scholars to have been elected by the troops in order to present their possible complaints to the captain, seem to me somewhat questionable. On this point, see Bonin, p.50，and Erben, p.14.

1700100836

1700100837 3.Bonin, p.170，cites a few passages that indicate that the first sergeant was not to strike with his fist or with staffs, but with the shaft of his halberd. The captain and the lieutenant were supposed “to strike in their command duties with short sticks，” but “not without great reason therefor.”

1700100838

1700100839 4.Bonin, p.21.

1700100840

1700100841 5.Georg Paetel, The Organization of the Hessian Army under Philip the Magnanimous（Die Organisation des hessischen Heeres unter Philipp dem Grossmütigen），1897.

1700100842

1700100843 6.26.Discours. Observations militaires, Ed.1587，p.750.

1700100844

1700100845 7.Paetel, p.231.

1700100846

1700100847 8.Saxon Articles of War of 1546（Sächsische Kriegsartikel von 1546）. Published in the Militär-Wochenblatt, No.157，1909，by G. Berbig.

1700100848

1700100849 9.Eidgenössische Abschiede，3.1.599.

1700100850

1700100851 10.When the wars of religion started in 1562，the soldiers on both sides initially conducted themselves very properly. Among the Huguenots no swearing was heard, and no gambling or prostitutes were to be seen. The population was not bothered. But Coligny said at that time to de la Noue: “That will not last two months.” He was completely right. Furthermore, on occasion he took stringent steps and had robbers hanged. De la Noue, Discours 26，Observations militaires, Ed.1587，pp.681-686.

1700100852

1700100853 11.De la Noue treats these fraternal groups thoroughly. Discours 16，Ed.1587，p.352 ff.

1700100854

1700100855 12.Jähns，2：924.

1700100856

1700100857 13.S.C. Gigon, La troisième guerre de religion. Jarnac-Moncontour（1568-1569），p.376.

1700100858

1700100859 14.The Art of Dismounted War（Kriegskunst zu Fuss），pp.20-21.

1700100860

1700100861 15.For example, Georg von Lüneburg had no fewer than 1，200 Poles in his service in 1636.

1700100862

1700100863 16.Archives Oranien-Nassau，2d Series，2：275.

1700100864

1700100865 17.Archives, p.10.

1700100866

1700100867 18.Chemnitz, Swedish War（Schwedischer Krieg），Part IV, Book 2，p.141.

1700100868

1700100869 19.Pufendorf, B.19，Ed.1688，2：320. Apparently from Chemnitz.

1700100870

1700100871 20.Such a convention “de bonne guerre”（“of good war”）was signed by Gonzago and Brissac in 1553. Hardy, Histoire de la tactique française, p.463. Men-at-arms and private soldiers “will suddenly be released，” without having to pay, after they have been “dévalisés”—that is, disarmed and relieved of their possessions.

1700100872

1700100873 21.Kriegskunst zu Fuss, pp.16，22. Jähns，2：1018.

1700100874

1700100875 5　战例介绍

1700100876

1700100877 1.Hobohm，2：518.

1700100878

1700100879 2.This battle is thoroughly treated by Rüstow in History of the Infantry（Geschichte der Infanterie），by Jähns in Manual of a History of Warfare（Handbuch einer Geschichte des Kriegswesens），and by Ranke, History of the Romanic and Germanic Peoples（Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker），Werke，33：25. All these accounts, which differ significantly from one another, need serious correcting. Rüstow based his work too exclusively on Guicciardini, while Ranke and Jähns used as their principal source Coccinius, who can hardly be compared to the better sources. The standard study, based on the sources, is the Berlin dissertation by Erich Siedersleben（1907）. Published by Georg Nauck. His principal sources are a letter written by Fabricius Colonna, who commanded the knights on the Spanish side（printed in Marino Sanuto, Diarii，14：176. Venice，1886），and a report from the Florentine ambassador, Pandolfini, who was present at the battle in the French headquarters（printed in Desjardins, Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane，2：581.Paris，1861）.

1700100880

1700100881 3.According to Colonna’s letter.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700100832e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]