第一篇 古罗马人与日耳曼人的冲突
1 早期日耳曼民族
1.According to Caesar（6.21），the Germans did not marry before their twentieth year; it could not have been much later, however, that they went about establishing a family, since otherwise they would not have been able to maintain their strict custom with respect to chastity. Consequently, in a community of 100 families we must subtract from the 100 heads of families as warriors the aged, invalids, sick, and accidentally crippled, while the quite young men of fourteen to twenty fill the ranks, more or less balancing off the total.
2.The estimate of a Germanic village at a strength of some 750 souls has recently received a noteworthy corroboration in the area of prehistoric research. In Albert Kiekebusch's dissertation “The Influence of Roman Culture on the Germanic as Reflected in the Burial Mounds of the Lower Rhine”（“Der Einfluss der römischen Kultur auf die german ische im Spiegel der Hügelgraber des Niederrheins”），Berlin，1908，on the basis of the graves of Darzau the size of the community that buried its urns here is reckoned at a minimum of 800 souls. This is opposed, it is true, by Kaufmann in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie（1908），p.456.
3.Cf Braune, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 22：212.
4.Paulus Diaconus 2.9：“nisi ei quas ipse eligere voluisset Langobardorum faras, hoc est generations vel lineas, tribueret. Factumque est, et annuente sibi rege quas obtaverat Langobardorum praecipuas prosapias, ut cum eo habitarent, accepit.”（“... unless he granted to him those farae [that is, races or familial lines] of the Langobards he had wanted to select. And so it happened. With the king's assent he received his wish that the distinguished families of the Langobards which he had chosen should reside with him.”）
5.Caesar's claim（Bell. Gall.6.22）that among the Germans the most powerful man possessed no more than any other is not to be taken literally but is, rather, a rhetorical exaggeration of the impression that the account of the agrarian communism necessarily made on the Roman listener. Princes who had a retinue that they fed and provided with expensive weapons must have had significant means and men like Ariovistus or Arminius and his brother Flavus, who appeared in Rome as eminent men, are unthinkable without a certain wealth. For all that, however, in the eyes of a prominent Roman they still appeared not much different from a common German. The agrarian communism gave the latter such a great economic support that Caesar could no doubt be permitted to write this rhetorical embellishment without our being justified or obligated to interpret it strictly and base further conclusions on it.
6.Tacitus, Ann.13.54.
2 日耳曼战士
1.Tacitus, Germania 6.
2.Tacitus, Annals 2.45. Mauritius, G.A.，167. Agathias, Bonn. A.，p.81.cit, Müllenhoff, pp.180-181.
3.Müllenhoff, Germania, p.179.
4.The passage reads（taken from Scheffer, p.269）：“In battles they make the front of their line even and closely packed, and they render their mounted forces or infantry violent and uncontrollable, thinking that only these of all traits keep them from every deed of cowardice.”* Müllenhoff, in Germania, p.179，has interpreted that in the completely opposite way, as a phalanx front. In my first edition of this volume andagain in the first edition of Vol. III, p.286，I agreed with him, but now I believe that I have found the correct interpretation. Cf. the passage from Leo’s Tactics, in Vol. III, Book III, Chap.2. At Leo’s time, whatever it might have been（cf. Vol. III, Book II, Chap.7），the Germanic square mass no longer existed. His description was only taken over from Mauricius.
5.Tacitus, Germania 3. Historia 2.22：4.18. Ammianus，16.12：31.7. Eduard Norden, in The Early Germanic History in Tacitus Germania（Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus'Germania）（1920），p.125，sees somewhat too much significance in the “Shield song，” in my opinion.
6.Plutarch, in Marius 25，describing the battle formation of the Cimbri, tells us that it was just as deep as it was wide, and it may be that this serves as the basis for the concept of the German square mass. But since it is also said that this square mass was 30 stadia（about 3½miles）deep and wide and the entire account is also riddled with fables in otherplaces, its validity as evidence is slight.
7.The description in Dio Cassius 38.49.50 is purely rhetorical and has no historical worth.
8.According to Kiekebusch in The Influence of Roman Cultureon the Germanic as Reflected in the Burial Mounds of the Lower Rhine（Der Einfluss der römischen Kultur auf die germanische im Spiegel der Hügelgräber des Niederrheins），p.64（see p.36 n.2 above），that applies only to the Rhenish Germans. According to him, the Elbe Germans, judging from the grave finds, were rich in iron and generally superior to the Rhenish Germans in their culture.
9.An excellent work is the broad-based study that appeared in 1916 from the Kossinnas Mannus Library, The Armament of the Germans in the Older Iron Age, from About 700 B.C. to 200 A.D.（Die Bewaffnung der Germanen in der älteren Eisenzeit etwa von 700 v. Chr.bis 200 n. Chr.），by Martin Jahn（Würzburg, Curt Kabitzsch）. In order to determine their possible influence on the Germanic weapons system, the author extends his study to cover those of the Celts and the Romans. According to the grave finds, the shields were so light and thin that they could hardly have withstood a powerful thrust of the lance or blow of the sword. For that purpose, however, they had a metal projection which in its extreme form extended into a rod more than 12 centimeters long. This can hardly be interpreted in any other way than that the Germans not only used the shield for passive parrying.like the Romans but also brandished it actively and sought not so much to stop the enemy thrusts and slashes but to ward them off, and therefore fought simultaneously with both arms. In this connection, see below. Book III, Chapter 1，the excursus concerning the Herulians. According to information given to me by Jahn in a letter, the battle-ax played hardly any role before 200 A.D.，judging from grave finds. It is more often found from the third and fourth centuries on, especially in the graves of the Lusatian region, which at that time was inhabited by the Burgundians.
10.They are collected in the publication Catalogue of the Castings ... with German Depictions（Verzeichnis der Abgüsse ... mit Germanen-Darstellungen），by K. Schumacher，2d ed.，Mainz，1910.
11.Martin Jahn, Bewaffnung der Germanen, pp.87，216.
3 古罗马降服日耳曼
1.Florus 4.12.
2.Ritterling（Bonner Jahrbücher，1906）would substitute here, instead of the Yssel, the Vecht River, which branches off farther away from the Rhine. This difference has no significance for our purposes.
3.Velleius 2.106.
4.Strabo 7.1.3. Velleius 2.121.
5.Tacitus, Hist.5.22.
6.Florus 4.12：“Praeterea in tutelam provinciarum praesidia atque custodias ubique disposuit, per Mosam flumen, per Albim, per Visurgim. Nam per Rheni quidem ripam quinquaginta amplius castella direxit.”（“Moreover, for the protection of the provinces he stationed garrisons and guardhouses everywhere along the Meuse, Elbe, and Weser rivers. In fact, along the bank of the Rhine he erected more than fifty forts.”）Instead of “Mosam，” Asbach（Bonner Jahrbücher 85[1888]：28），probably justifiably, would read “Amisiam.” See also in this connection Tacitus, Annals 1.38.
7.It is therefore an erroneous expression when Köpp. The Romans in Germany（Die Römer in Deutschland），p.22，explains that Drusus’dvance to the Elbe was only an “isolated, temporary move forward.”
4 条顿堡森林会战
1.The fact that the road ran over the hill and not along the valley seems curious to us today, but that was almost the general rule with theroads of antiquity. The Roman milestones in the area of the Rhine that have remained until the present day date back only to the time of Trajan.
2.Frontinus, Strategem.2.9.4.
3.It is appropriate that the citations in Frontinus, Strategem.3.15.4 and 4.7.8. Velleius 2.120.and Dio Cassius' reference to the effect that only one Roman fort had held out have been combined. In this connection, see below, the special study on the location of Aliso following Chapter VI.
4.Schuchhardt，“Roman-Germanic Research in Northwest Germany”（“Römisch-Germanische Forschung in Nordwestdeutschland”），extract from Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum（1900），p.29.
5 日尔曼尼库斯与阿米尼乌斯
1.Müllenhoff, in Germania, pp.436 and 545，has sought explanations for such an apparently incredible error and has made various suggestions: nonetheless, he finally arrives at the conclusion that Tacitus had erroneous geographical concepts. Bremer’s attempt in his “Ethnography of the Germanic Tribes”（“Ethnographie der germanischen Stämme”），Pauls Grundriss, to bring order to this confusion by shifting the peoples has also failed to have any satisfying result.
2.See in the last chapter of this volume “Provisions and Train.”
3.Knoke has already correctly explained the sequence of events in this manner.
4.General F. Wolf, in The Feat of Arminius（Die That des Arminius），has determined that the region of Iburg corresponds in every respect to Tacitus'description. Caecina would then have split off from Germanicus near Osterkappeln or Bramsche.
6 战争的高潮与结束
1.Tacitus 2.6，recounts the fact that unusually shallow-bottomed vessels were also built as if that was done in consideration of the tides. This can probably be more correctly considered, as Knoke does, as referring to the ships that were to be able to navigate as far as possible up the rivers.
2.It would not be impossible to explain the return march of one part of the army as serving Germanicus as a covering force, since he had personally come with his legions to Aliso, where he reconstructed an old altar that had once been erected in honor of his father and had dedicated it with a festival. In such cases.however, a cavalry unit, which can move quickly, is no doubt a better covering force than the slow-moving legions. Furthermore, it still seems more likely that the six legions were left at Aliso and two were moved by sea.
3.This is the sense of the words “cuncta inter castellum Alisonem ac Rhenum novis limitibus aggeribusque permunita”（“The whole area between the fort Aliso and the Rhine was completely built up with new roads and embankments.”）In this connection, see paragraph 3 of the Excursus.
4.This is effectively proved by Paul Höfer in Germanicus’Campaign of 16 A.D.（Der Feldzug des Germanicus im Jahre 16），1885.
5.Paul Höfer, Germanicus’Campaign of 16 A.D.
7 古罗马与日耳曼的僵持局面
1.In my opinion.Tacitus, Annals 11.19，stands in contradiction to the indications that the Wetterau was not given up in 16 A.D. either, but, even if at first it was still without a Roman settlement, it remained a Roman occupation area. Tacitus says of Claudius: “adeo novam in Germanias vim prohibuit, ut referri praesidia cis Rhenum juberet.”（“He so strongly forbade a new campaign in the Germanies that he ordered the garrisons to be withdrawn to the near side of the Rhine.”）A possible explanation for this statement is that it refers only to lower Germany. This explanation is not acceptable, however, and all the less so when Germania, Chapter 29，“protalit magnitudo populi Romani ultra Rhenum ultraque veteres terminos imperii reverentiam”（“The greatness of the Roman people expanded the respect of the empire beyond the Rhine and beyond the old borders”）stands in opposition to it, and also when Seneca says: “Rhenus Germaniae modum faciat.”（“The Rhine should mark the border of Germany.”）Germanicus fought against the Chatti not only in lower Germany but also right here in the Wetterau. See Herzog, Bonner Jahrbücher，105（1901），p.67. I do not venture to decide how this contradiction is to be clarified.
2.At any rate, this is claimed by General Schröder, Preussische Jahrbücher 69：511. But I have never found this point confirmed.
3.Preussische Jahrbücher 69：514.
4.A quite similar system of watchtowers along the borders and of signaling by fires is to be found with the Swiss up to the eighteenth century. A very interesting account of this system, based on documents and topographical research, is to be found in E. Lüthi, The Bern Chuzen or High Watchtowers in the Seventeenth Century（Die bernischen Chuzen oder Hochwachten im 17. Jahrhundert），3d ed.，Bern，1905，A. Francke. When the Freiburgers made a pillaging incursion into the Bern area in 1448，that was reported to the capital by the high watchtower on the Guggershorn. The Bern territorial guard assembled at once but did not move directly against the Freiburgers. Instead, they blocked their retreat, defeated them, and took away their booty.
Between Hirschberg and the Riesengebirge, near Arnsdorf, there are also the remains of such a stone watchtower on a hill from which one can observe the various crossings over the mountain. It perhaps stems from the period of the Hussites.
5.Mommsen, Römische Geschichte 5：108，note, estimates the auxiliaries of the upper German army in the period of Domitian and Traan at some 10，000 men. The Raetian limes was considerably shorter and more weakly occupied than the upper German limes. The Raetian troops, who, according to Mommsen 5：143，were at the most 10，000 strong, also had to garrison the Danube line from Ratisbon to Passau. For this reason. Mommsen believes that the forts were probably only very weakly garrisoned in times of peace. Nevertheless, they still had to be able to defend themselves against a sudden attack and to send troops in pursuit of strong robber bands. According to Mommsen, the lower Germanic auxiliaries were perhaps even less numerous than those in upper Germany.
8 古罗马帝国的军队建制与军人生活
1.Eclog.1.71.
2.W.Bahr, De centurionibus legionariis（on the Centurions of the Legions），Berlin dissertation，1900，p.45f.
3.Bang, The Germans in the Roman Service（Die Germanen im römischen Dienst），p.78.
4.This is a very significant piece of new knowledge which we owe to Domaszewski’s careful study of inscriptions, The Hierarchy of the Roman Army（Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres），1908.
5.This results from the very nature of the situation and is also evident from a citation in Hyginus, de mun.，Chapter 42，which I find on page 60 in Domaszewski's Hierarchy. It was probably the same as in the present-day Austrian army（before 1918），where the regiments, in addition to their German army language, had their own national regimental language. As the Romanization of the provinces progressed, the national character of the cohorts gradually faded out. It may also have happened that cohorts stationed very far from their home area received other replacements and changed their character as a result. We must agree with Mommsen.when he emphasizes in Hermes 19：211，that the national character of the cohorts can be concluded from their designations with certainty only at the time of their creation.
6.Seeck. History of the Fall of the Ancient World（Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt）1：390，534.
7.Marquardt, Roman Political Administration（Römische Staatsverwaltung）2.542，2d ed.
8.In the year 367，cod. Theodosianus. Cited in Marquardt. In Germany.it was not until 1893 that the minimum height was lowered to 1.54 meters. In 1870.the following regulation was still in force: “The smallest height is 1.57 meters, but men under 1.62 may be selected only if they have a particularly strong body frame and if the yearly replacement figure cannot be met without resorting to this expedient.”The smallest height for the Guard is 1.70 Meters.
In France. Napoleon set the height at 1.59 meters in 1801，but then he lowered it to 1.54 in 1804. In 1818，it was raised again to 1.57，and in 1872，after some variations, it was lowered again to 1.54. The Roman foot was 0.296 meters and was consequently shorter than the old Prussian one, which was 0.314.
9.Suetonius, Nero 19.
10.Schulten，“The Domain of the Legion”（“Das Territorium legionis”）. Hermes 29：481.
11.Cicero, Acad.2.1.2.
12.Sallustus, Bell. Jug.85.12.
13.The matter is perhaps somewhat more complicated. The references to the promotion of the centurions are not easy to understand. One theory after another has been advanced on this subject, but no solution has been found that clarifies the whole situation. Theodore Wegeleben's study，“The Hierarchy of the Roman Centurions”（“Die Rangordnung der römischen Centurionen”），Berlin dissertation，1913，Ad. Weber, publisher, has superseded Domaszewski’s study, to be sure, and has thrown some light on the subject through its comprehensive comparison of the inscriptions, but some points have still remained doubtful. Wegeleben’s conclusion is that the centurions were of equal rank among themselves, with the exception of the six centurions of the first cohort, of whom the three highest ones, of the primus pilus, of the princeps, and of the hastatus, stood so high that they were no longer referred to as centutions at all. This higher position in the first cohort was not just a position of honor. It was also based on the practical organization, since this cohort was 1，000 men strong, while all the other cohorts had about 480 men（Wegeleben, p.37）. We are not told how that was balanced off in the formation of the legion. Either the six centurions of the first cohort or the three highest ones were designated as the primi ordines. Also unclear is the meaning of praepositus（see Grosse, Roman Military History[Römische Militärgeschichte]，p.143）. The remark in Wegeleben, p.60，concerning the receipt of commands is probably not correct; it is contradicted by Polybius 2.34.
14. We have just recently been enlightened on the situation of the principales by the work of A.von Domaszewski, which is as thoroughas it is valuable. The Hierarchy of the Roman Army（Die Rangord-nung des römischen Heeres），1908.
Vegetius 2. 7，speaking of the responsibilities, says: “Campigeni, hocest antesignani, ideo sic nominate, quia eorum opere atque virtute exercitii genus crescit in campo.”（“The campigeni, that is antesignani, were so named because the kind of training in the field depended on their hard work and ability.”）I have not found an explanation of this passagein Domaszewski.
15.The history of the Roman military pay was first set forth in Domaszewski's essay，”The Military Pay of the Imperial Period”（“Der Truppensold der Kaiserzeit”），Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, Vol.10，1900. But Domaszewski, in judging the pay increases in the imperial period, failed to take into account the simultaneous debasement of the money. Consequently, he exaggerated the significance of the numerical increase. I consider it impossible that on the occasions of donatives the centurions were excluded and only the soldiers benefited, as Domaszewski believes, p.231，note 2. In that case, depending on the amount of the donative（under Marcus Aurelius it was once 5，000 denarii for the Praetorians, or five times their annual pay），the privates would often have been better off than the officers.
16.P.Steiner，“The Military Decorations”（“Die dona militaria”），Bonner Jahrbücher 114：1 f.
17.In Polybius'camp description, there is no mention of a hospital, whereas there is in Hyginus. See W. Haberrling, The Ancient Roman Military Doctors（Die altrömischen Militärärzte），Berlin.1910.
18.Premerstein，“The Bookkeeping of an Egyptian Legionary Unit”（“Die Buchfuhrung einer ägyptischen Legionsabteilung”）. Klio, Vol. III.
19.This is reported by Polybius 14.3.6. We may assume that the Romans also retained this custom in later periods.
20.Tertullian says: “Religio Romanorum tota castrensis signa veneratur signa jurat.signa omnibus deis proponit.”（“The religion of the Romans was completely military. It venerated the standards, swore by the standards, and preferred the standards to all the gods.”）Cited in Harnack, Christian Armies（Militia Christi），p.V.
21.Alfred von Domaszewski，“The Religion of the Roman Army”（“Die Religion des römischen Heeres”）. Special reprint from the Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst, Vol.14，Trier，1895. The very important point of the difference between the military and civilian forms of religion has not been mentioned in this article. See also Hirschfeld，“On the History of the Roman Emperor Cult”（“Zur Geschichte des römischen Kaiserkultus”），Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, Vol.35，1888.
22.Beloch.in The Population of the Greco-Roman World（Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt），estimated some 54 million. In a later article, however, in the Rheinisches Museum, Vol.54，1899，he reached a somewhat higher estimate for Gaul than in his book. I myself have gone even higher. See Vol. I, p.493. The higher estimate for Gaul tends in turn to lower somewhat the figures for the other countries.
23.“Venio nunc ad praecipium decus et ad stabilimentum Romani imperii salutari perseverantia ad hoc tempus sincerum et incolume servatum militaris disciplinae tenacissimum vinculum, in cuius sinu ac tutelaserenus tranquillusque beatae pacis status adquiescit.”（“Now I come to the principal glory and support of the Roman Empire—the most stubborn bond of military training, safely preserved and intact by its wholesome persistence up to the present time. In its bosom and guardianship the cheerful and calm state of a blessed peace rests.”）Valerius Maximus 2.7.
24.Suetonius, Domitian, Chapter 12.
25.Bell.Gall.2.8；7.41，81. Bell.civ.3.45，51，56. Afr.31. Schambach, Some Observations on the Roman Use of Missile Weapons, Especially in Caesar's Time（Einige Bemerkungen über die Ge-schutrverwendung bei den Romern, besonders zur Zeit Cäsars），1883. Mühlhausen in Thüringen Program. Fröhlich, Caesar’s Methods of Waging War（Kriegswesen Cäsars）1：77. Attempts have recently been made to reconstruct these weapons. During the excavations on the Lippe, an unusual wooden instrument was discovered, which some believe to be the pilum murale.G. Kropatschek has added an interesting study on that subject in the Jahrbücher des Archäoligischen Instituts 23（1908）：79.
26.Vegetius 2.25.
27.Cited in Marquardt 2：567.
28.In addition to the eighth volume of the Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, the inscription is treated by Sebastian Dehner in a Bonn dissertation，“Hadriani reliquiae，”1883，and by Albert Müller, Maneuver Critique by Emperor Hadrian（Manöverkritik Kaiser Hadrians），Leipzig，1900. I have adopted quite a few of the insertions suggested by these two authors, but not all of them. The translation from the Militär-Wochenblatt，1882，No 34，has been significantly changed in some places and filled in in others.
（Added in the second edition.）Recently, many more small fractions ofthe inscription have been found, but in general they have concerned only the heading and the date. The address is directed “at pilos”（“to the primi pili”）. Héron de Villefosse, Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 60. Geburtstag, Berlin，1903.
29.Legion is to be interpreted as “division” to the extent that it contains all the combat arms.
30.compares, actually “comrades.”The legion in Lambaesis had the name III Augusta. There were also two more legions that had the number “three”: the III Gallica and the III Cyrenaica. Consequently, men had been transferred to one of these two units.
31.I choose this expression because these three classes formed one stratum.
32.I choose this expression by way of analogy with our divisional cavalry. Each cohort of auxiliary troops was permanently assigned a small cavalry detachment.
33.“frequens dextrator” has been explained in the most varied ways, and I will not claim that my translation is beyond doubt the right one. It fits the sense and the context with respect to the previously stated number of skirmishing sharpshooters and the later closed attack.“dextratio” means the movement of going around from right to left. Thus, the word dextrator, which does not appear anywhere else in the sources, may well have been used for a specific turning movement on parade.
9 军事理论
1.In connection with this chapter, I again refer the reader to the basic facts in the introduction to Köchly and Rüstow’s Greek Military Authors（Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller），Part II, and particularly to Jähns’History of the Military Sciences（Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften），Vol. I, from which I have taken several citations.
2.Köchly and Rüstow, Greek Military Authors, Part II, second section, p.213.
3.It is also unnecessary for us to go into purely theoretical suggestions, even if they should have led to important experiments, such as Rüstow treats in his History of the Infantry（Geschichte der Infanterie）1：54，since no positive result came from them.
4.Johann Gustav Foerster, De fide Fl. Vegetii Renati, Bonn dissertation.1879，shows Vegetius'inextricable confusion in many places.
5.As a supplement to the translation in Greek Military Authors by Köchly and Rüstow，1：201.
10 古罗马军事体系的衰落与解体
1.For example—and certainly correctly—L. Schmidt in Hermes 34：135，on the war with the Marcomanni.
2.Dessau，“The Source of Officers and Officials of the Roman Empire During the First Two Centuries of Its Existence”（“Die Herkunft der Offiziere und Beamten des Römischen Kaiserreichs, während der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte seines Bestehens”），Hermes 45（1910）.
3.Tacitus, Annals 3.40.
4.Tacitus, Annals 3.53.
5.Nissen，“The Trade Between China and the Roman Empire”（“Der Verkehr zwischen China und dem römischen Reich”）. Bonner Jahrbücher, Vol.95.
6.Mitteis, in his “Studies on the Ancient Banking System Based on Papyrus Finds”（“Untersuchung über das antike Bankwesen auf Grund der Papyrusfunde”），Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, Römische Abteilung, Vol.19，establishes the fact that indications of a specific exchange of checks, which would, of course, be a very important point, are very weak.
7.According to B. Pick in the Handwörterbuch der Staatsw-issenschaften 5：918，2d edition.
8.Mommsen, Roman Monetary System（Römisches Münzwesen），pp.755，777.
9.Based on an inscription found recently in Africa, an attempt has been made to clarify this with reductions of the army strength and the pay. Domaszewski, Rheinisches Museum 58：383. Mamea lowered the strength as well as the pay of the principales, but, of course.this action did not go far toward solving the matter. The soldiers and their good will were only too strongly needed both within the empire and beyond it.
10.To be sure, the gold coins were reduced in weight but not in the me way the silver coins were alloyed. From this point, too, we may conclude that there was practically no more circulation of gold coins; otherwise, they would certainly not have passed up the convenient solution of using alloys in these coins as well. A shortage of gold is referred to directly in a source document, vita Aureliani，46，cited by Mommsen in Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens, p.832.
11.In accordance with the verbatim text, the passage in Scrpt. Hist. Aug. Vita Alexandri（Writers of the Augustan History, Life of Alexander），Chapter 39，must be understood as meaning that the taxwas reduced to one-thirtieth. But the correction and interpretation proposed by Rodbertus, according to which it was one-thirtieth of the value of the cadaster, whereas previously one-tenth was required at least has the advantage of providing something possible and credible from a practical viewpoint. See M. Weber, Römische Agrargeschichte, P.194.
12.Seeck, Preussische Jahrbücher 56：279.
13.On 1 October 205，the soldier C. Julius Catullinus, of the Foutteenth Legion, dedicated an altar to Jupiter, and on it he referred to himself as “conductor prati Furiani lustro Nert. Celerini primi pili”（“tenant of the field of Furianus Nert. Celerinus, primus pilus.for a five-year period”）. This inscription was found on the Schaflerhof, south of Petronell, near Vienna, and was published in the Berichte d. Ver. Carunum in Wien, für das Jahr 1899，p.141. According to this, then, ground belonging to the legion（pratum）was regularly leased out to the soldiers. In various other places, inscriptions from the same period that also contain the word lustra（periods of five years）have been found. The editor, Bormann, has already related this, and certainly correctly so, to the permission that Septimius Severus gave the soldiers to live with their wives.
In the Militärdiplom, No.90，C.I.L. III, supplement, p.2001.the text apparently speaks of the sons of “milites castellani”（“soldiers of a fort”）（only the letters ... lani remain）. Since it is a question only of the sons of centurions and decurions, Seeck（in Paulys Realenzyclopädie, under castellum; castellani）believes that this refers to a special type of soldier higher in grade than the privates. I prefer to reconcile the inscription with the context indicated above. Mommsen places it between the years 216 and 247.
14.Vita, Chapter 58.
15.Premerstein, Klio 3：28.
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.
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.
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.
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.
20.Von Domaszewski, Die Religion des römischen Heeres, p.49. See also p.113.
第二篇 民族大迁徙
1 日耳曼人为主体的古罗马军队
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.
2.Dio Cassius 78.17.
3.Zosimus 2.15.1.“He collected his forces, which included subjugated barbarians, Germans, and other Celtic nations, and some assembled from Britain.”*
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.
5.Ammianus 31.7.11.
6.Schuchhardt，“Anastasius'Wall at Constantinople and the Dobrudscha Walls（“Die Anastasiusmauer bei Konstantinopel und die Dobrudschawalle”），Jahrbücher des Archäologischen Instituts 16：107.
7.Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 1：39；（2d edition, p.58）.
8.This point is correctly observed by Dahn in Procop von Cäsarea, p.391.
9.Ammianus 12.12.61.
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.
11.According to the citation by Dahn, in Könige der Germanen 5：26.
12.Mommsen, Ostgotische Studien, Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichte 14：460. L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Vandalen，1901，pp.65，72，122.
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.
2 斯特拉斯堡会战 无
3 阿德里安堡会战
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.
2.Here I believe it is permissible to combine the accounts by Eunapius and Zosimus with that of Ammianus. See Excursus.
3.Constantine Joseph Jirecek. The Military Road from Belgrade to Constantinople（Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel），1877，p.145.
4.In addition to the Generalkarte of the Balkans, published by Artaria in Vienna in 1897，there is now available a still better Bulgarian map（1：420，000），which I have used. It is based on surveys made by Russian officers during the war of 1877-1878. The map of European Turkey published by the Turkish general staff, although it bears the title “Drawn up by the General Staff of His Majesty, through Allah's Grace all-powerful and all-protecting，” is only a scarcely changed reproduction of the Austrian Generalkarte, according to Hardt von Hartenthurm in the Mitteilungen des königlich-kaiserlichen militärischen geographischen Instituts, Vol.18. See Austria-Hungary and the Balkan Countries（Oesterreich-Ungarn und die Balkanländer），by L.v. Thalloczy, Budapest，1901.
5.Socrates 4.38.
6.Theodoret 4.33.
7.Sozomenos 6.40.
8.Socrates 4.38.
4 军队兵力
1.G.Kaufmann, Deutsche Geschichte 1：89.
2.I cannot understand how Schmidt, in Geschichte der Vandalen, p.130，can interpret the remark by Procopius 2.7，that Belisarius with 5，000 horsemen defeated the enemy, as meaning that the Guard was 5，000 men strong and these are to be added to the 15，000 men that Procopius 1.11 gives as the army strength.
3.Panegyriki 9 praises Constantine for having accomplished more with fewer troops than did Alexander, who had supposedly had 40.000.
Panegyriki 8. 3.3.says he defeated Maxentius “vix enim quarta parte exercitus contra centum milia hostium”（“with scarcely a quarter of his army against 100，000 of the enemy”）.
In 313 against Licinius, he is also said by Anon. Bales.to have had 25，000 men.
4.A very energetic addition to the analysis of the figures reported by Procopius is given by H. Eckhardt in the Königsberg Program（1864），“On Agathias and Procopius as Sources for the War with the Goths”（“Ueber Agathias und Procop als Quellenschriftsteller für den Gotenkrieg”）. In the final analysis, however, he still holds that, everything considered, a figure of 200，000 men for the East Goths is quite believable（page 11）.
5.The number of Cimbrian warriors who crossed the Brenner Pass in 101 and descended into Italy is given by the Romans as 200.000. Judging from the length and the type of route they took, I have felt justified in estimating that they were at most 10，000 strong. See Vol. I, page 513. Preussische Jahrbücher 147（1912）：199.
6.The passage reads: Malchus, ed. Bonn, p.268：“They established peace on condition that the emperor supply pay and food for 13，000 men whom Theodoric chose.”*
7.That this ruse was also common with the Romans, particularly in this period, is amply documented in A.A. Müller’s “Excurs zu Tacitus 1.46，”Philologus 65：306. Among other passages, Zosimus 2.33；4.27. Also in Libanius.
8.See Dahn, Könige 2：78，where the source passages are also indicated. Hist.misc.，p.100，and Ennod.v. Epiph.，p.390.
9.Recently published in Beihefte zum Militär-Wochenblatt 11（1901）.
10.History of the Burgundian-Roman Kingdom（Geschichte des burgundisch-römischen Königsreichs），p.323.
11.A very thorough treatment of this, as of the whole question, is to be found in Jahn, Geschichte der Burgunder 1：337. See also Wietersheim-Dahn 2：212.
12.The passages are quoted in Jahn 1：345.
13.Orosius 7.40.
14.Sidonius Apollinaris 7.7.“viribus propriis arma hostium publicorum remorati: sibi adversus vicinorum aciem tam duces fuere quam milites.”（“They held back the forces of the public enemy with their own strength. They were their own generals as well as soldiers against the army of the enemy at hand.”）Cited by Dahn 5：93.
15.Constit.novellae Valentin. III, title V：
“Ex illa sane parte totam sollicitudinem omnemque formidinem vestris animis auferendam, ut hujus edicti serie cognoscat universitas, nullum de Romanis civibus, nullum de corporatis ad militiam esse cogendum, sed tantum ad murorum portarumque custodian, quoties usus exegerit.”（New Orders of Valentinian III. Title V：“Indeed, from that side all anxiety and every fear ought to be removed from your minds, and that in consequence of this edict all should know that no Roman citizen and no member of a guild is to be forced into military service, but only to the guarding of walls and gates as need requires.”）According to Section 3，everyone was also obligated to participate in the construction and repair of the walls.
Title IX（440）：“ut Romani roboris confidentia et animo, quo debent propria defensare, cum suis adversus hostes, si vis exegerit, salva disciplina publica servataque ingenuitatis modestia, quibus potuerint, utantur armis, nostrasque provincias ac fortunas proprias fideli conspiratione et juncto umbone tueantur: hac videlicet spe laboris proposita, ut suum fore non ambigat, quidquid hosti victor abstulerit.”（“that, with confidence in Roman strength and the spirit in which they ought to defend their own, with their own hands against the enemy if violence demands it, with public discipline intact, and with the moderation of nobleness preserved, they should make use of what weapons they could, and they should guard our provinces and their own property with faithful unanimity elbow to elbow; that clearly in this proposed expectation of hardship it should not be in doubt that whatever the victor takes away from the enemy will be his own.”）
Cassiodor's grandfather is supposed to have repelled the Vandals when they were plundering Sicily and Bruttium. Var.1.4.14，cited by Schmidt in Geschichte der Vandalen, p.71.
16.Procopius 1.28.
17.Zosimus 5.40.
5 民族大迁徙时期的日耳曼军队
1.Mommsen，“Ostgotische Studien，”Neues Archiv 14：504.
2.Könige der Germanen 3：3；4：61.
3.In the case of the East Goths, the millenarius appears only a single time, and Mommsen（“Ostgotische Studien，”Neues Archiv 14：499）has seen fit to explain the word completely differently; he relates it to millena，“hide”—hardly correctly.
4.There possibly even exists an etymological trace leading back from the monarchy to the leader of the Hundred. Ammianus 25.5.14，reports that among the Burgundians the kings had been called hendinos, and Wackernagel has felt justified in relating the word to “Hundred.”Other scholars, however, have explained it differently.
5.Dahn, Könige der Germanen 3：161，from Cassiodorus. Later, Theodoric quite generally prescribed that the soldiers might exchange their ruined carts and exhausted animals on the march with the landowners through the intermediary of a royal official, the Sajo. But the soldiers were not to put pressure on the citizens, and they were to be satisfied if in exchange for larger and better animals they received, for example, smaller but healthy ones（Dahn, Könige 3：88，from Cassiodorus. Var.5.10）.
6.Dahn, in Könige der Germanen 6：82，believes that, while the migrating armies of the Germanic tribes were accompanied by women, the latter could not possibly have followed the campaigns in the same numbers.
Where then are the Goths supposed to have left their wives and daughters?
7.“Walsians, some of whom already had German names, appeared individually in Ratisbon as late as the ninth century, around Ebersberg as late as the eleventh, and in the Salzburg region as late as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.”Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns 1：51. Many Romanics settled in the Tyrol in particular.
The Tegernseeer Gründungsgeschichte reports that only 1.000 Bavarian knights had conquered the territory. While the legend has no validity in itself, it does reflect the continuing idea that here not only was a territory occupied but a people was subjugated.
8.Wait, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte 2：169；2d edition，2：1，282.
9.Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichre 1：85.
6 日耳曼人与古罗马人的混居
1.Prosper Tiro, anno 440：Deserta Valentinae urbis rura Alanis ... partienda traduntur.（The uninhabited countryside of the city Valentina is handed over to be divided up by the Alani.）
Prosper Tiro, anno 442：“Alani, quibus terrae Galliae ulterioris cum incolis dividendae a Patricio Aëtio traditae fuerant, resistentes armis subigunt, et expulsis dominis terrae possessions vi adipiscuntur.”（“The Alani, to whom the territory of Farther Gaul had been handed over by the patrician Aëtius to be divided with the inhabitants, suppressed the armed resistance of the natives. They acquired the property by force, after the owners of the land had been driven off.”）
2.Here we may pass over whatever else there still was in the way of lease conditions, etc. See Brunner, Rechtsgeschichte 1：199.
3.Procopius 3.2.
4.Hartmann has drawn attention to this in his History of Italy in the Middle Ages（Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter）1：109. The liability of the curiae naturally did not carry over to the Germans. Of course, the argument disappears as to whether and where the taxes were shifted as a result of the division.
5.The idea that an original 1/2：1/2 division of the cultivated land was later changed to 2/3：1/3 has been rejected with good and convincing reasons by Kaufmann in Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte, Vol.X.
6.Gaupp, p.352，note.
7.Lex Visig.9.2.6.
8.Dahn, Konige 3：162，Note 4.
9.The lex Burg.carries the signature of thirty-one or thirty-two comites（Binding, Fontes rerum Bernensium, p.95，Note 16）. But it is no doubt not necessary that all of these comites were active administrators of counties, Binding, in his Geschichte des burgundischgermanischen Königreichs 1：324，assumes that there were at least thirty-two counties.
10.If in lex Visig.10.1.16 it is assumed that a Goth has taken by force the third belonging to a Roman and he is supposed to return it if the situation has not existed for fifty years, that can after all only apply to estates of absentee landowners. A Roman who had been robbed of his entire property by the Goth with whom he was supposed to share would certainly have taken up the fight for his rights either immediately or never, On the other hand, a high Roman may have realized for many years that one of his estates had illegally been taken from him but then finally, after the sense of legal security had become firmer among the new masters, he might have again made his claim.
11.Gaupp, p.404.
第三篇 查士丁尼皇帝与哥特人
1 查士丁尼军制
1.A.Auler, de flde Procopii in sec.bello Persico Justiniani I imp.enarrando（On the Reliability of Procopius in Describing the Second Persian War of Emperor Justinian I），Bonn dissertation，1876.
2.Belonging to the same period as Procopius are two theoretical documents that do not offer much in themselves but are important as controls, extension, and even refutation of Procopius. One is a writing by Urbicius（Orbikios）and the other an anonymous work, Peri stratēgikēs（On Generalship）*. For discussion of both, see Jähns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften 1：141 ff.and Rüstow-Köchly. Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller 2：2.
3.De Justiniani Imperatoris aetate quaestiones militares scripsit Conradus Beniamin（Military Questions from the Age of Emperor Justinian I by Conrad Benjamin），Berlin dissertation，1892，W. Weber.
4.Mommsen, Hermes 24：258.
5.Justinian also sought to maintain the institution of the “border guards”（Grenzer），and he organized new ones in Africa. The edict covering this was even transcribed into the code and has come to us in that way. Mommsen, Hermes 24：200. But the salary that was allocated and promised to these men, in addition to the land given to them, could not be paid to them; there was too much demand elsewhere for liquid currency. Finally, Justinian seems to have deprived them of their character as soldiers as well as their pay. Procopius, hist.arc.24，as cited by Mommsen in Hermes 24：199. Others consider this as applying only to the east.
6.Taken from the translation by Coste in the History Writers of the Earliest German Period（Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit）.
7.Spartian, Chapter 10.
8.Vopiscus, Chapter 7.
9.Dahn, Procop von Cäsarea, p.395.
10.Procopius, bell. Pers.2.17；2.18.bell. Vand.2.14.
11.See Vol. I, p.67. Luschan，“On the Ancient Bow”（”Ueber den antiken Bogen”），Festschrift für Benndorf，1898. Jähns. Trutzwaffen: the entire very informative chapter on the bow, third phase. See also my Vol. III, Book 3. Chapter 8：“English Archery”（“Das englische Bogenschiessen”）. The same account appears again there.
12.Reproduced in Diehl, Justinien et la civilisation byzantine, p.209.
13.Köchly and Rüstow. Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller 2：2，201. It is from the anonymous document.
2 塔吉纳会战
1.According to the translation by Coste in the History Writers of the Earliest German Period（Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit）.
Nissen claims that the name reads not “Taginae” but “Tadinae.”
3 维苏威火山会战 无
4 卡西林努斯河会战 无
5 战略
1.Dahn, Procop von Cäsarea, p.412.
2.Köchly and Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller 2：2，167. Chapter XXXIV, p.4.
3.Jähns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften 1：155. See vol. IV, pp.194，207.
第四篇 向中世纪过渡
1 古罗马-日耳曼国家的军事组织
1.Although the law of Valentinian I is contained in the Codex Theodosianus 4.14，Heinrich Richter has sought to interpret away this content in his work, Das weströmische Reich, p.681.Note 150. But his interpretation, considering among the barbara conjux（barbarian wife）and the gentiles（foreigners）only barbarians outside the border of the Roman Empire, is juridically untenable. That Valentinian himself gave Merobaudes a Roman as his wife, and Theodosius gave Fravitta the Goth and the Vandal Stilicho his own nieces were exceptions such as the most powerful people sometimes make for themselves.
2.According to Zeumer，“History of the West Gothic Laws”（“Geschichte der westgotischen Gesetzgebung”），in the Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 24：574，Leovigild（569-586）legally permitted the connubium（intermarriage）between Goths and Romans; but he says that, in fact, the prohibition had already been violated and disregarded many times previously.
3.Mommsen, Ostgotische Studien 497：“As only the Goth can be a soldier in Theodoric's state, so too can he alone be an officer. The exclusion of Romans from the military offices counterbalances the exclusion of the Goths from positions as civil magistrates.”
4.Procopius, bell. Goth.1.2.
5.Dahn, Könige 3：5：36.
6.In this third edition, this paragraph has been reworked on the basis of the study by Eugen Oldenburg, The Military Organization of the West Goths（Die Kriegsverfassung der Westgoten），Berlin dissertation，1909.
7.Procopius, bell. Goth.1.12.
8.The Codex Eurici, Chapter 310，uses the expression buccellarius four times; the corresponding Antiqua 5.3.1 uses the circumlocutions “quem in patrocinio habuerit”（“whom he had in patronage”）and “in patrocinio constitutus”（“placed in patronage”）.
9.Waitz 2：531.3d edition，2：1：215.
10.Waitz 2：528.3d edition，2：1：213.
11.Binding, History of the Burgundian-Romanic Kingdom（Geschichte des burgundisch-romanischen Königreichs）1：196，Note 671.
12.Procopius 3.22.
13.Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 1：302，argues that the Romans were already referred to as subjects in the oldest existing version of the Lex Salica but still did not form any part of the army. This text is from the time of Clovis. Under Clovis'sons, however, in later texts and a supplement, note is taken of the fact that Romans can also be in the army.
14.Roth.Benefizialwesen, p.172，has assembled examples of military accomplishments by Gallo-Romans. But when he concludes from this that, contrary to the effeminate Italians, the Gallo-Romanic population can still be generally designated as warlike, that is concluding too much. Roth especially praises the Aquitanians. Why is this particular group supposed to have been especially brave? The preference for the one area shows us the error of the whole concept: these are no more than individual events preserved by chance, which have given a false picture. Quite similar things may have happened in Italy without, as a matter of chance, being described. The refining process of civilization and the inevitably accompanying softening had affected the population of Gaul in the course of four and a half centuries no less than it had the Italians.
15.Proven by Roth with numerous examples, p.173.
16.Roth, Beneflzialwesen, p.180.
17.Gregory 4.47 and elsewhere. Waitz 2：533.
18.The Burgundians, too, already had other than free men as warriors. The Lex Gundobada, Title X, reads: “Si quis servum natione barbarum occiderit lectum ministerialem sive expeditionalem, sexagenos solidos inferat, multae autem nomine XII.
Si alium serum Romanum sive barbarum aratorem aut porcarium XXX sol. solvat.”
（“If anyone should have killed a barbarian slave selected for service at court or for military service, he would pay 60 solidi, and 12，moreover, as a fine.）
（“If anyone should have killed another slave, Roman or barbarian, farmer or swine-herd, he would pay 30 solidi.”）
In this case, then, we have the barbarian military serving man（Kriegsknecht）；the common servant（Knecht）can also be a Roman, but this is not possible for the military serving man.
2 战术变化
1.Aurel.Victor.，Chapter 21.
2.Ars veterinaria 6.（4.）6. The horses of the Thuringians were also praised by Jordanes 1.3.21.
3.De bell.Vand.1.8.
4.Procopius, de bell. Vand.2.14.
5.Schmidt, Geschichte der Vandalen, p.39.
6.Procopius, bell. Goth.1.16；1.28；1.29.bell. Pers.2.18.
7.Brunner, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung（1887）：6.
8.For example，3.28；4.30；8.45；9.31.
9.Procopius 2.25. Agathias 2.5. Whether Procopius'statement here is entirely reliable must be considered doubtful, since he completely denies that the Franks used both the spear and the bow, weapons which many other sources indicate they had. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte 2：528；2d edition，2：213. If Procopius'report is at all correct, there may have been some unusual circumstance or other, as in 552，when the invaders were principally Alamanni, whom we elsewhere find to be specifically famous as cavalry.
10.Jähns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften 1：142.
11.Oeuvres 28：163.
12.Napoleon used very similar expressions in his regulations for the training of dragoons, as cited by Kerchnawe, Kavallerie-Verwendung, p.3，note.
13.In Procopius, bell. Pers.1.14. Belisarius describes the Persian infantry as follows: “All the infantry is nothing else than a crowd of pitiful rustics who come to the army for no other purpose than to undermine a wall, to strip the dead, or to perform other services for the soldiers.”*
14.The reader's attention is called to the citation already analyzed above, Procopius, de bell. Vand.1.18，where it is recounted how the Vandals came neither in order nor formed for battle, but “They went in symmoriai, and these were small—about thirty, or in fact, twenty men.”* Those could have been such diminished clans.
15. The ango has some similarity to the Roman pilum, and so it can be considered as a javelin.
16.Rüstow, in Heerwesen Cäsars, p.25，assumes that on the average the cavalry was one-fourth as strong as the legionary infantry, thus forming 20 percent of the army. Marquardt, in Römische Staatsverfassung 2：441，agrees with this point. Fröhlich, Kriegswesen Cäsars, p.40，rightly avoids considering this relationship as an average. Of the numbers reported in the sources，20 percent is not an average but the maximum.
3 初期日耳曼-古罗马军事体系的衰落
1.Some of the codes call for half of all the serving men instead of a tenth.
2.Könige der Germanen 6：222，2d edition.
4 封建制度的起源
1.The provisions of the edict read as follows: “ut nullus judex de aliis provinciis aut regionibus in alia loca ordinetur: ut si aliquid mali de quibuslibet conditionibus perpetraverit, de suis propriis rebus exinde quod male abstulerit, juxta legis ordinem debeat restituere.”（that no judge from different provinces and regions should be appointed in other locations; that if he should have rendered some injury under any circumstances, according to the order of this law he would have to restore what he subsequently gained from his own property.”）Mon. Germ. Leg.1.14. Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte 2：377. Judex applies to the official in general, also the count. The indefinite expression “de aliis provinciis et regionibus”（“from different provinces and regions”）is either the pure bombast of a copyist or intentional because of those owners who had property in several districts. It is not specifically stated that only estate owners were to be named, but this is to be inferred from the prohibition “de aliis provinciis aut regionibus，” together with the requirement for wealth: owners of a large mobile fortune without real property hardly came into consideration for the position of count.
2.Geschichte des Beneflzialwesens, p.153.
3.On this point I agree essentially with Brunner in his Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, except that he still considers pueri too much as unfree men.
The difference between the Frankish monarchy and that of the other Germanic countries was first clearly recognized and sharply defined by Sohm; Sohm's idea was in turn effectively developed by W. Sickel, Westdeutsche Zeitschrift（1885）：231 ff.
4.Dippe, Vassalage and Obeisance in the Kingdom of the Merovingians（Gefolgschaft und Huldigung im Reiche der Merowinger），p.44.
5.Examples in Dippe, p.18.
6.According to the extract in Boretius, Contributions to the Critique of the Capitularies（Beiträge zur Kapitularienkritik），p.154.
7.According to M. Heym. The German Production of Foodstuffs（Das deutsche Nahrungswesen），p.295. räuchern（to smoke）is a common Germanic word; this method of protecting meat from spoiling is therefore very ancient, When Pomponius Mela reports that in Germany they ate meat raw, Heym believes that this statement referred to smoked meat. The technique of making cabbage and greens preservable by a special procedure is, according to Heym, p.327，not a native one; sauerkraut is a name that was adopted much later. Nevertheless, it may not be impossible that Abbot Fulrad knew this dish and took some of it into the field with him.
8.See the excursus，“Provisions and Train.”
9.（added in the 2d edition.）Consequently, I have not, as Erben states in the Historische Zeitschrift 101：329，admitted the possibility of depots, for example on the Rhine, only missing testimony therefor, but I have expressly argued against the possibility of such depots.
10.Bronsart, Dienst des Generalstabes, p.414，2d edition. Today it is even more.
11.N.B.：under the then existing conditions; the present-day train horse, on a modern road, pulls more than twice that much.
12.Roth, Beneflzialwesen, p.99，Note 224.
13.Petit de Juleville, Histoire de la littérature francaise，1：67. Toward the middle of the ninth century, Abbot Lupus of Ferrière en Gâtinais sent his nephew to Prüm to learn German.Consequently, there was no longer the possibility for this at home; but it was still considered advisable to know that language.
14.W.Bruckner, The Lanǵuaǵe of the Lombards（Die Sprache der Lanǵobarden），Strasbourg，1895.
15.Roth, Benefizialwesen, pp.98，100，101. In a roster of the monks of St. Denis drawn up in 838，we find only eighteen non-Germanic names in a list of 130; furthermore the majority of the eighteen were biblical names. Even in the most southerly part of Gaul, we find the names in the ninth century to be predominantly German. The same situation is shown in the rosters in a sacramentary of the Paris church at the end of the ninth century, published by Leopold Delisle in the Mémoires de 1’Institut de France 32（1886）：372.
[1]在原文中，“日耳曼”和“德意志”是同一个词（Germany），但在汉语语境中，前者通常专用于古典时代，而后者专用于中世纪及之后，因此译为两词。
[2]乌尔菲拉（310-383），基督教传教士，将基督教传入哥特等日耳曼部落，并将《圣经》翻译为哥特语。
[3]4世纪至7世纪期间在欧洲发生的一连串民族迁徙运动，从罗马人的角度看就是蛮族入侵。
[4]阿米亚努斯（325-391），古罗马末期最著名的历史学家。
[5]阿加西亚斯（约530-582/594），诗人和历史学家，著有《查士丁尼执政史》，是东罗马皇帝。
[6]查士丁尼一世统治初期情况的最重要文献来源。
[7]此处原文为phalanx，译为“方阵”是为了尊重通行用法，但从形状来看其实没有日耳曼人的阵形“方”。为表区分，下文会用“方形阵”（squared formation）来表示长宽比较小的阵形。
[8]公元69-70年领导巴达维亚人反对罗马统治。此事对近现代荷兰的影响颇大，例如拿破仑战争时期建立的共和国以“巴达维亚”为名，荷属东印度首府（今雅加达）也被称为“巴达维亚”。
[9]奥古斯都（前63-14），原名屋大维，恺撒养子，于公元前27年称帝，开创罗马帝制。他之后是养子提比略上台（14-37年在位），然后分别是卡利古拉（37-41年在位）、克劳狄乌斯（41-54年在位）和尼禄（54-68年在位），因恺撒出自尤利乌斯家族，屋大维之妻利薇娅出自克劳狄乌斯家族，这5位皇帝所建立和统治的王朝被统称为“尤利乌斯-克劳狄乌斯王朝”。
[10]苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius，约69/75-130），罗马帝国时期历史学家，著有《罗马十二帝王传》。
[11]塞格斯特斯是阿米尼乌斯的岳父，车茹喜部头领，后劫持阿米尼乌斯的妻子投奔罗马。
[12]图斯内尔达是阿米尼乌斯的妻子，条顿堡森林会战10年后，她的父亲塞格斯特斯绑架了她，一起逃往罗马。
[13]西庇阿斯（Hippias），雅典僭主庇希特拉图之子，继任后于公元前510年被推翻，从此雅典进入民主制时期。公元前490年，西庇阿斯于流亡地利姆诺斯岛去世。
[14]1848年欧洲各地爆发争取自由、要求建立共和国的革命，革命失败后，德意志地区的革命者们只得流亡外国。
[15]图拉真（98-117年在位），罗马皇帝，“五贤帝”之一，军功显赫。113年，为纪念达西亚大胜，于罗马树立图拉真柱。
[16]阿庇安（95-165），古罗马历史学家，代表作为《罗马史》。
[17]罗马皇帝，69-79年在位，结束了尼禄皇帝去世后的混乱局面，开创了弗拉维王朝。
[18]罗马帝国塞维鲁王朝的开创者，出身北非，公元193年称帝前为潘诺尼亚总督。
[19]里海隘口，又称亚历山大隘口，据传为亚历山大东征时建造。
[20]哈德良（Hadrian），罗马皇帝，117-138年在位，“五贤帝”之一，于不列颠岛修建哈德良长城。
[21]原文为“Fathers of the City”，字面意义为“（罗马）城之父”，即元老院。
[22]利薇娅是奥古斯都的遗孀，阿格里皮娜的婆婆。
[23]波塞多尼乌斯（前135—前51），斯多葛派哲学家，时有通才之名。如今只有残篇存世。
[24]奥诺桑德，公元1世纪希腊哲学家，著有《战略》一书。
[25]意大利东北角的一座滨海城市，与威尼斯离得不远。
[26]喀里多尼亚山脉位于不列颠岛中北部，底格里斯河主要流经今伊拉克，喀尔巴阡山位于中东欧，阿特拉斯山位于非洲西北角。
[27]塞涅卡（约前4-65），古罗马哲学家、政治家、文学家，著作颇丰，多有中文译介。基督教教父是1世纪末期至8世纪的一批早期基督教作家和宣教士的统称，代表人物有奥古斯丁、特土良、俄利根等人。
[28]伊利里亚人生活在希腊北部至奥地利东部一带。阿非利加相当于今天除埃及以外的北非。西方相当于除德国、意大利以外的西欧。东方指的是东地中海沿岸地区。
[29]塞斯特斯是一种古罗马硬币，共和国时期为小银币，帝国时期为大铜币。
[30]芬尼是一种德国历史上使用过的辅币。
[31]佐西姆斯，活跃于公元6世纪前后的拜占庭史学家，代表作为《新史》（Historia Nova）。
[32]多布罗加位于黑海西岸，今罗马尼亚与保加利亚交界处。
[33]普罗柯比（500-565），东罗马帝国史学家，代表作为《秘史》（有中文版）。
[34]东罗马帝国皇帝，395-408年在位。
[35]罗马四帝共治制度下的头衔。该制度由戴克里先首先提出，将帝国分为东西两部分，各由一名“奥古斯都”统治；每名“奥古斯都”再指定一名继承人，兼领一部分国土的军政事务，称为“恺撒”。
[36]埃阿斯是《伊利亚特》中的一名希腊猛士，曾与特洛伊王子赫克托耳决斗。
[37]霍恩洛尔主君克拉夫特（1827-1892），德意志帝国时期的普鲁士将军和军事作家。另外，在德意志语境下，prince指的是统领一块小领地的君主，与国王或皇帝没有血缘关系，因此译为“主君”，与通常的“王子”或“亲王”作区分。
[38]色雷斯位于今土耳其、保加利亚、希腊的交界处，古时出产金银。
[39]伊利亚库姆是古罗马的一个省份，位于色雷斯西北部；君士坦丁堡位于色雷斯东部边缘。
[40]欧纳庇乌斯，4世纪希腊智术师与历史学家，代表作为《哲学家与智术师生平》（Lives of Philosophers and Sophists）。
[41]特雷贝里乌斯·波利欧，《罗马帝王纪》（Augustan History）的署名作者之一，真实身份不详。
[42]希罗尼穆斯（1516-1580），德国历史学家兼人文学者，以引介古罗马编史法著名。
[43]即阿米阿努斯。
[44]奥罗修斯（375-418），神学家兼历史学家。
[45]《杂史》是10世纪末11世纪初的一名伦巴第历史学家的罗马史著作，最早由16世纪法国学者皮埃尔·皮图以“杂史”的题目结集出版。
[46]纳扎利乌斯，公元4世纪的拉丁修辞学家。
[47]芝诺，474-475年及476-491年两度出任东罗马帝国皇帝。
[48]“earl”和“count”在汉语中通常都翻译为“伯爵”，前者是英国贵族制度下的名称，后者是欧洲大陆的称呼。
[49]《贝奥武夫》是一部讲述同名斯堪的纳维亚英雄事迹的史诗，成书于8世纪左右。
[50]塔利雅是希腊神话中的喜剧女神。六音步诗是古典时期流行的一种诗体。阿尔喀诺俄斯是《奥德赛》中贸易都市腓尼基国王的名字，曾设宴招待奥德修斯。
[51]达尔马提亚是今天克罗地亚的一个地区，与意大利的东北部接壤。
[52]克洛塔尔二世就是芙蕾德贡达。他的母亲和布伦希尔达分别是法兰克王国不同部分（法兰克王国当时分为多个小王国）的王后，前者害死了后者的妹妹、丈夫和儿子，两人结怨甚深。
[53]选译自第一篇第1章。
[54]选译自第一篇第6章。
[55]选译自第一篇第10章。