In 2021, that is, last year, the Four-volume History of the Art of War, a four-volume masterpiece by the German military historian Hans Delbrück, finally appeared in Chinese translation.
Hans Delbrück
Although the Chinese edition of the book has many unprovoked abridgements, the rest is also a feast for Chinese readers.
General Pusyrewski expressed the same meaning in His Study of Combat (Untersuchung über den Kampf) (published in Warsaw in 1893):
There is never a real hedge, and sooner or later the morale shock caused by one side will cause the other to collapse, even if it does not happen until it is close at hand. Before the sabre was cut for the first time, one side had fled. If it is a true hedge, both sides will be destroyed. In reality, the winner will be almost intact.
The corresponding German version of the original text is as follows:
General Pusyrewski describes the same thing as "Investigation of the Struggle" (Warsaw 1893): "A real clash never exists: the moral impression of one of the opponents always throws the other a little earlier, a little later, even if only at the distance of a nose; before the first sabre blow, one party is already defeated and turns to flee. By a real collision, both parts would be destroyed. In practice, the winner loses a man."
The author's self-translation is as follows:
General Puzilevsky expressed the same sentiment in His Study of Combat (published in Warsaw in 1893):
The real impact never exists. Sooner or later, the morale effects of one side will repel the other, or even cause the other to collapse when just as far away as a nose. Long before the sabre strikes its first blow, one of the parties has already fled in defeat. In a real impact, both sides perish, and the winner loses almost nothing in real combat.
According to the author and writing information given by Delbrück, it can be seen that the generals "Puzlevsky" and "Puzilevsky" here are actually Lieutenant General Alexander Kazimirovich Puzilevsky (Алексдр Казиимиович Пузыревский).
Puzilevsky, who was also one of the authoritative researchers of the Battle of Somosera in 1808
The full title of the work is "Ancient and Modern Combat Studies, excerpted from Colonel Deepik's French writings" (Изследование боя в древние и новейшие времена. Извлечение из французского сочинения полковника де Пика）。
▲ "Ancient and Modern Combat Studies" 2nd edition
Moreover, Puzilevsky specifically emphasizes in the book that he is "describing but not doing" and will not change Deepik's thinking, so this passage is indeed not much different from the original version of Deepik's "Combat Studies" (Études sur le combat):
The impact doesn't actually exist, and the morale effects of one side almost always cause the other to retreat on a little closer or farther away. If this "closer" is face-to-face, then one of the sides has already been defeated long before the sabre strikes the first blow, and it is necessary to escape from the battle. If there is an impact, everything will fall into chaos. If one of them does collide, it will lead to the destruction of both of them. In actual combat, the victor loses almost nothing.
—Di Pique, Combat Studies, Part II, Chapter VII, published in 1880
The impact is by no means present. Sooner or later, the morale effects of one side will repel the other, or even cause the other to collapse when just as far away as a nose. Long before the sabre strikes its first blow, one of the sides is already defeated and is preparing to flee. The impact will send everyone into the sky.
……
The impact will lead to the destruction of both sides, and the winner of the actual battle will lose almost nothing.
— Puzilevsky, Studies of Ancient and Modern Warfare, excerpted from Colonel Dipik's French writings, part II, chapter VII, published in 1893
Apparently, Delbrück did not see the original work of Puzilevsky in Russian, and it is not clear that the text actually originated from Dipik, but rather believed that it was Puzilevsky's work. So, how did he get this information? Comparing Delbrück's quotations, it is clear that his words actually originated from jan Bloch, a Russian-Polish "railway tycoon", who hired to write a masterpiece, Бууущая война), or more precisely from der Krieg, a German translation of the book. Bloch's professional gunner quotes this passage from Puzilevsky in the book, and does not attribute it to Deepik, which reads as follows:
However, the battle of the cavalry against cavalry is different. General Pusyrewski says: "The cavalry battle, more than the battle of the infantry, is a matter of moral courage and presence of mind."
"A real collision never exists: the moral impression of one of the opponents always throws the other over a little earlier, a little later, even if it is only when a nose is removed; before the first sabre blow, one party is already defeated and turns to flee. A real collision would destroy both parts."
"The real attack from both sides would be a mutual denial, in practice the winner loses a man. It is said that in the battle at Eckmühl 14 Austrian cuirassiers came to a fallen French cuirassier, ide were wounded in the back. Perhaps only because the latter were without tanks? No, because they turned their backs to receive blows." [2]
[2] A. K. Pusyrewski: "Untersuchung über den Kampf", Warsaw 1893.
But the battles between the cavalry were different. General Puzilevsky said: "Compared with infantry engagements, cavalry engagements are more of a morale and mentality issue. "
"The real impact never exists. Sooner or later, the morale effects of one side will repel the other, or even cause the other to collapse when just as far away as a nose. Long before the sabre strikes its first blow, one of the parties has already fled in defeat. A real impact can destroy both sides. "
"A double collision will lead to the destruction of both sides, and the winner in real combat has almost no loss." It is said that for every French cuirassier who fell in the Battle of Ekmir, 14 Austrian cuirassiers were wounded in the back. Is this simply because the latter does not have dorsal armor? No, it's because they turn around and take the hit"[2].
[2] Alexander Kazimirovich Puzilevsky, Combat Studies, Warsaw, 1893.
All in all, referrals are risky and need to be checked with caution.
Included in the topic #杂烩考证
23 pcs
Previous:Essential Supplements or "Essential Weapons" – The Role of Howitzers (Part 2)