How much the Army ought to esteem1 the Artillery2 in the Present times, and if that opinion that is generally had of it Is True
In addition to the things written above, in considering how the many field fights, called in our times by the French word Engagements [Giornate], and by the Italians Deeds of arms, were fought by the Romans at diverse times, I have thought upon the general opinions of many, which hold that if artillery had existed in those days the Romans would not have been permitted to conquer provinces and make other people tributary3 to themselves as they did, nor would they in any way have been able to make such large acquisitions: They say also that because of these instrument of fire men are not able to use or show their virtu as they were able to anciently. And a third thing should be added that one now comes to the joining of battle with more difficulty than formerly4, nor is it possible to maintain the same discipline as in those times, so that in time wars will be reduced to artillery [exchanges]. And as I judge it not to be outside this subject to discuss whether such opinions are true, and whether artillery has increased or diminished the strength of armies, and whether it gives or takes away opportunity to good Captains of acting5 with virtu.
I shall begin by speaking concerning the first opinion that the ancient Roman armies would not have made the conquests that they did if artillery had existed: Upon which in replying, I say that war is made either to defend oneself or to take the offensive: whence it must first be examined as to which of these two kinds of war make it [artillery] more useful or more damaging. And although there is something to say on both sides, none the less I believe that beyond comparison it does more damage to whoever defends himself than to whoever attacks. The reason I say this is that he who defends himself is either inside some fortified6 place or in a camp within a stockade7: and if he is inside a town, either this town is small as are the greater part of the fortresses9, or it is large: in the first case whoever defends himself is entirely10 lost, for the impetus11 of the artillery is such that a wall has not yet been found which is so strong that in a few days it will be battered12 down by it; and if whoever is inside does not have considerable space for retreat, and [cannot protect himself] with ditches and earthworks, he is lost, nor can he sustain the attack of the enemy who would then enter through the breach13 in the wall: nor will the artillery he has be of any benefit to him in this, for there is a maxim14 that where men attack in mass, the artillery will not stop them; and thus the fury of the Ultramontanes in the defense15 of their lands has never been resisted: the assaults of the Italians are easily resisted, as they go in battle, not in mass, but in small detachments, which by their own name are called Scaramouches [skirmishes]: and when they deliberately16 go in this disordered manner into a breach in a wall where there is artillery, they go to a certain death, for against them the artillery is of value: but when they go in a dense17 mass, and one pushes the other as they come to a break, if they are not impeded19 by ditches or earthworks, they enter in every place and artillery will not hold them: and if some are killed, they cannot be so many that they would impede18 the victory. That this is true has been recognized by the many conquests made by the Ultramontanes in Italy, and especially that of Brescia; for when that land rebelled against the French, and the fortress8 being still held by the King of France, the Venetians, in order to resist the attacks which could come from the town, had fortified all the road that descends20 from the fortress to the City with artillery, placing it in front and on the flanks and in every convenient place: of which Monsignor De Foix took no account, rather, with his squadron, he descended21 on foot, and passing through the midst of it [the artillery] occupied the City, nor from what was heard had he received any recordable damage. So that whoever defends himself in a small area (as was said) and finding the walls of his town breached22, and does not have space to retreat with earthworks and ditches, and have to rely on artillery, will quickly be lost.
If you defend a large town and have the convenience of retreating, I none the less maintain beyond comparison that artillery is more useful to whoever is outside than to whoever is inside. First, because if you want artillery to harm those outside, you are necessitated23 to raise yourself with it above the level of the surrounding land, for being on the plain, every little embankment and earthwork that the enemy raises remains24 secure, and you cannot harm him, so that by having to raise it and draw it along the aisle25 between the walls, or in some other way raise it above the ground, you have two drawbacks: the first, that you cannot place artillery of the same size and power as those outside can bring to bear, as you are not able in a small place to handle large things: the other, no matter how well you can place it, you cannot make those earthworks trustworthy and secure in order to save the said artillery as those outside can do being on higher ground, and having that convenience and space which they themselves lacked: So that it is impossible to whoever defends a town to keep his artillery in elevated positions when those who are on the outside have plenty and powerful artillery: and if they have to place it in lower places, it becomes in large part useless, as has been said. So that the defense of a City is reduced to defending it with the same [manual] arms as was done anciently, and with small size artillery: from which little usefulness is derived26 (because of the small size artillery) unless there is a mine of disadvantages that counterweighs the advantage [of the artillery]: for in respect to that, the walls of the town are kept low and almost buried in the ditches, so that when the battle comes to hand to hand fighting, either because the walls are breached or the ditches filled up, those inside have many more disadvantages than they had before. And therefore (as was said above) these instruments benefit much more whoever besieges28 the towns that whoever is besieged29.
As to the third case when you are in a camp within a stockade and you do not want to come to an engagement unless it is at your convenience or advantage, I say that in this case you do not ordinarily have a better remedy to defend yourself without fighting than what the ancients had, and some times you may have greater disadvantage on account of your artillery: For if the enemy turns on you and has even a small advantage of ground, as can easily happen, and finds himself higher than you, or that at his arrival you have not yet finished your earthworks and covered yourself well with them, he quickly dislodges you before you have any remedy and you are forced to go out of your fortress and come to battle. This happened to the Spaniards in the engagement at Ravenna, who, being entrenched30 between the river Ronco and an earthwork which was built insufficiently31 high, and the French having a slight advantage of terrain32, were constrained33 by the artillery to leave their fortified place and come to battle. But suppose (as must often happen) that the location you have chosen for your camp is higher than the other side at the [time of] encounter, and that your earthworks are good and secure, so that owing to the site and your other preparations, the enemy does not dare to assault you, in this case he will resort to those means that the ancients resorted to when one, with his army, was in a position where he could not be attacked, that is, he will overrun the country, take or besiege27 lands friendly to you and impede your provisions; so that you will be forced by some necessity to dislodge him, and come to battle, where artillery (as will be mentioned below) will not be of much use. Considering, therefore, in what manner the Romans made war, and observing that almost all their wars were to attack others and not to defend themselves, it will be seen (if all the things said above were true) that they would have had even greater advantage, and would have made their conquests more easily, if they should have lived in those times [of the advent34 of artillery].
As to the second proposition, that men are not able to show their virtu as they could anciently because of the use of artillery, I say that it is true that where men have to expose themselves in small groups, that they are exposed to greater danger than when they had to scale [the walls of] a town or make similar assaults, where men did not have to act bunched together, but by themselves one after the other. It is also true that the Captains and Heads of the army are now subjected to the danger of death than at that time, as they can be reached by artillery in every place, and it is of no benefit to them to be in the rear ranks, and protected by their strongest men: None the less it is seen that the one and the other of these dangers rarely caused extraordinary damages, for well fortified towns are not scaled, nor do you go to assault them with feeble attacks, but in wanting to conquer them, the matter is reduced to a siege, as was done anciently. And even in those places that can be conquered by assault, the dangers are not much greater now then they were then, for even in that time there did not lack to the defenders35 of towns means for throwing [missiles], which (if they were not as furious [as cannon] is) had a similar effect in killing36 men. As to the death of Captains and Candottieri, in the twenty four years in which there have been wars in Italy in recent times, there have been fewer examples then there were in any ten years time [of war] of the ancients. For, outside of Count Lodovico Della Mirandola (who was killed at Ferrara when the Venetians assaulted that State a few years ago) and the Duke of Nemours (who was killed at Cirignuola), it never happened that any were killed by artillery, since Monsignor De Foix was killed at Ravenna by steel [sword] and not by fire. So that if men do not show their virtu individually, it is not the result of the artillery, but from poor discipline and weakness of the armies, which, lacking virtu collectively, are not able to show it in the [individual] parts.
As to the third proposition mentioned by some, that it is no longer possible to come to hand-to-hand fighting, and that wars will be entirely conducted through artillery, I say this opinion is entirely false, and will always be so held by those who would want to manage their armies according to the ancient virtu: For whoever wants to create a good army must, by real or feigned37 exercises, accustom38 his men to meet the enemy, and to come against him with sword in hand and to seize him bodily, and he must rely more upon the infantry39 than on cavalry40, for the reasons which will be mentioned below. And when they rely on infantry and on the aforementioned means [of training], the artillery will become entirely useless; for the infantry in meeting the enemy can escape the blows of the artillery with greater ease than anciently they were able to escape from the attacks of elephants, from scythed41 chariots, and other obsolete42 means of attack which the Roman infantry had to encounter, [and] against which they always found a remedy: and they would have found it so much more readily against this [artillery], as the time in which artillery can harm you is much shorter than that in which the elephants and chariots could do harm. For these disorganized you in the midst of battle, while that [the artillery] only impedes43 you before the battle; which impediment is easily avoided by the infantry either the nature of the site covering them or by lying down on the ground during the firing. Even experience has shown this not to be necessary, especially when defending themselves from large artillery, which cannot be so [accurately] aimed, [and] either (if they are aimed high) they pass over you, or (if they are aimed low) they do not reach you. Then when you have come with the army to hand to hand [fighting], this becomes clearer than light that neither the large nor the small artillery can then harm you. For if he has the artillery in front, you capture it, and if he has it in the rear, he first harms his friend rather than you: even on the flank he cannot harm you so, that you cannot go up to capture them, and the result mentioned above [first] will happen.
Nor is this disputed very much, because the example of the Swiss has been seen, who in MDXIII [1513] at Novara, without artillery or cavalry, went to encounter the French army armed with artillery within their fortresses, and routed them without having any impediment from that artillery. And the reason is (in addition to the things mentioned above) that the artillery, to be well served, has need to be guarded either by walls, ditches, or earthworks: and that if it lacks one of these guards, it is captured or becomes useless, as happens in open field engagements and battles when it is defended only by men. On the flank it cannot be employed except in that manner that the ancients used their catapults, which they placed outside of the squadrons, so that they should fight outside of the ranks, and every time they were pressed by cavalry or others, they took refuge within the legions. Who employs it otherwise does not understand it well, and relies on something which can easily deceive him. And if the Turk by means of artillery gained the victory over the Sofi [Persians] and the Soldan [Egyptians], it resulted from no other virtu than from the unaccustomed noise which frightened their cavalry. I conclude, therefore, coming to the end of this discussion, that artillery is useful in an army when it is mixed with the ancient virtu, but, without that, it is most useless against a valorous army.
收听单词发音 |
1
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
artillery
|
|
| n.(军)火炮，大炮；炮兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
tributary
|
|
| n.支流；纳贡国；adj.附庸的；辅助的；支流的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
stockade
|
|
| n.栅栏，围栏；v.用栅栏防护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
fortress
|
|
| n.堡垒，防御工事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
fortresses
|
|
| 堡垒，要塞( fortress的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
impetus
|
|
| n.推动，促进，刺激；推动力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
battered
|
|
| adj.磨损的；v.连续猛击；磨损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
dense
|
|
| a.密集的，稠密的，浓密的；密度大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
impeded
|
|
| 阻碍，妨碍，阻止( impede的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
descends
|
|
| v.下来( descend的第三人称单数 )；下去；下降；下斜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
breached
|
|
| 攻破( breach的现在分词 )； 破坏，违反 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
necessitated
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
aisle
|
|
| n.（教堂、教室、戏院等里的）过道，通道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
besiege
|
|
| vt.包围，围攻，拥在...周围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
besieges
|
|
| 包围，围困，围攻( besiege的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
29
besieged
|
|
| 包围，围困，围攻( besiege的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
entrenched
|
|
| adj.确立的，不容易改的(风俗习惯) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
insufficiently
|
|
| adv.不够地，不能胜任地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
terrain
|
|
| n.地面，地形，地图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
feigned
|
|
| a.假装的，不真诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
accustom
|
|
| vt.使适应，使习惯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
infantry
|
|
| n.[总称]步兵(部队) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
cavalry
|
|
| n.骑兵；轻装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
scythed
|
|
| v.（长柄）大镰刀( scythe的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
obsolete
|
|
| adj.已废弃的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
impedes
|
|
| 阻碍，妨碍，阻止( impede的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |