Несколько интересных статей
- Лукин П. «Но преблагии Богъ не хотя смерти грѣшникомъ...»: начальное летописание об эпохе Владимира Святого и литературные параллели летописным рассказам // Русь эпохи Владимира Великого: государство, церковь, культура: материалы Международной научной конференции в память тысячелетия кончины святого равноапостольного князя Владимира и мученического подвига святых князей Бориса и Глеба, Москва, 14-16 октября 2015 г.
Лукин - великЪ. Фундаментальная работа по проблеме "цитирования".
- Brent D. Shaw. Bandits in the Roman Empire // Past & Present. No. 105 (Nov., 1984), pp. 3-52
Рейдовая/набеговая война, в том числе - "хроническая эндемичная", еще римлянами определялась не как bellum, а как "бандитизм"/latrocinium.
... piu da ladri, che da soldati ...
- Brent D. Shaw. "Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk": the Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad // Ancient Society. Vol. 13/14 (1982/1983), pp. 5-31
Кочевник в большинстве оседлых цивилизаций рассматривался по умолчанию как скотина, мало чем отличающаяся от животного. Ни культуры, ни манер, ни ремесел. Один из признаков дикаря - отсутствие привычки делать и есть "культурную пищу". В идеале - дикарь ест (руками) сырое мясо диких животных и пьет воду. На полпальца выше - ест худо приготовленное мясо домашних животных, пьет молоко и носит дурно обработанные шкуры. Если не ешь хлеба, не делаешь колбас или вина, не готовишь сложных блюд - дикарь, животное. В общем - "сыроядец".
Кроме этого - если часть какого-то народа ведет кочевой образ жизни, а часть - оседлый, то он весь "по умолчанию" будет рассматриваться в качестве дикарей-кочевников.
Take the case of two Skythian peoples, the Budinoi and the Gelonoi. Herodotos observes that the Budinoi are pastoralists and that the Gelonoi are farmers. Therefore, he concludes, they must be two separate ethnic groups, and earlier Greek writers must be mistaken in claiming that they are a single tribe with the same name.
More importantly, however, the dichotomy not only separates individual ethnic units from each other, but also divides Skythia as a whole into two broad categories. Half the Skythians are classified as 'nomadic', the other half as 'agricultural'. The division is strictly moietic, with the dividing line between the two worlds being the River Pantikapes ...
...
Any barbaric trait he finds amongst the Skythians is explained quite naturally as a correlate of their pastoral nomadism
...
Of course, even by Herodotos' own admission not all Skythians were pastoralists, yet the reversibility of the equation 'Skythian' equals 'barbarian' equals 'nomad' had an insidious effect. That is to say, since all Skythians were barbarians in Greek eyes, and since pastoralists were the quintessential 'barbarian type', by a sort of confused social syllogism all Skythians came to share the stigma of barbarism associated with pastoralist.
Brent Shaw на "академии". У него там еще большая глава про Исаврию - при ее чтении имеет смысл ознакомиться с мнением еще вот этого господина Noel Lenski.
Дополнительно на эту же тему.
- Keith Hopwood. Nomads or bandits? The pastoralist/sedentarist interface in Anatolia // Manzikert to Lepanto. The Byzantine World and the Turks 1071-1571. 1991
- Eric R. Dursteler. Bad Bread and the "Outrageous Drunkenness of the Turks": Food and Identity in the Accounts of Early Modern European Travelers to the Ottoman Empire // Journal of World History. Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (June/September 2014), pp. 203-228
- Lester J. Libby, Jr. Venetian Views of the Ottoman Empire from the Peace of 1503 to the War of Cyprus // The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 9, No. 4, Central Renaissance Conference (Winter, 1978), pp. 103-126
Образ Османской империи в глазах венецианцев.
- Filippo De Vivo. How to Read Venetian "Relazioni" // Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme. Vol. 34, No. 1/2, Special issue / Numéro spécial : Things not easily believed: introducing the early modern relation (WINTER - SPRING / HIVER - PRINTEMPS 2011), pp. 25-59
Очень интересная работа - составление и последующая судьба венецианских релациони. Почему датированные одинаково тексты могут заметно отличаться? Какими путями информация из релациони "утекала на сторону", хотя они, вроде бы, секретны? Кстати - еще раз восхитился тому, сколько же всего интересного сейчас можно найти в сети. Немалая часть упомянутых в статье Tesoro politico оцифрована и в свободном доступе. =)
- Mark Stein. Ottoman Observers of Ottoman War in the 17th Century // Ottoman War and Peace. Studies in Honor of Virginia H. Aksan. 2020
Тематика - османская военная литература 17 века, но немалая часть описаний и к более ранним текстам подойдет вполне.
The fethname is an account of a specific conquest. The gazavatname was often a broader account of a campaign or series of conquests. Often the text is focused on the military exploits of a specific Sultan or Grand Vizier. Both genres tend toward the hyperbolic. Geoffrey Lewis has dismissed fethnames by saying that as a source of military details they as unreliable as the “publicity handouts of any other belligerent, ancient or modern.”
...
The style of much of Ottoman historical writing tends toward the flowery and bombastic. Well-educated Ottomans were expected to know Arabic, Ottoman, and Persian, and good style sometimes dictated using adjectives of all three languages in a single phrase. When writing of military campaigns and encounters certain stock phrases abound: the most notable being “top u tufeng” (cannon and gun). Although certainly at time an accurate depiction of events, such phrases seem chosen more for alliteration rather than information. Detail is often sacrificed on the altar of literary style.
Хотя из этой " общей тенденции" есть и исключения.
Funduklulu Mehmed Aga and Muhurdar Hasan Aga’s texts, however, are much more straightforward than those by many of their contemporary chroniclers. In both cases the style is fairly plain. There is little of the flowery, repetitive writing found in more hagiographic campaign accounts. Even the poetry in the Silahtar Tarihi - a common feature of Ottoman narratives - is straightforward. These texts both read as simple accounts of military actions.
...
Both authors give a great deal of operational detail when writing of the actions of the Ottoman army. As shown above, they are precise in discussing laying out and digging trenches, placement and number of guns, and mining to bring down fortress walls. These detailed accounts are written in direct simple language without the usual embellishments of Ottoman prose. The simplicity of the language gives a greater importance to the military details being recounted. This perhaps was an intent of the authors.
- Shihad al-Sarraf. Mamluk Furusiyah Literature and its Antecedents // Mamluk Studies Review. vol. 8/4 (2004): 141-200.
Еще одна полезнейшая работа. Многие мамлюкские/позднефатимидские тексты не являются оригинальными работами - они повторяют мануалы времен Аббасидов (8-9 века). Часть старых работ анонимна - ранее считавшиеся авторами персонажи оказываются просто переписчиками.
Finally, a considerable number of the extant manuscripts of all periods are either unsigned and/or untitled or copies of one work but under different titles.
В мамлюкских текстах можно обнаружить "хвосты" от трактатов Рима, Византии, Сасанидов, греков эпохи эллинизма.
This partly explains why research in this field has not grown much beyond the stage of bibliographical documentation, which, understandably, in its current embryonic state includes many errors.
Еще к вопросу цитат и заимствований.
- Barbara Kellner-Heinkele. Ebu Bekir B. Behram ed-Dimişki's Description Of The Crimea // Tarihin Peşinde Bir Ömür: Abdülkadir Özcan'a Armağan. İstanbul, 2018.
Османский историк и географ конца 17 века при описании военных приемов татар использовал труд Боплана... У уважаемого ametsheykhumer - тут.
P.S. Oleg Rusakovskiy. European Military Books and Intellectual Cultures of War in 17th-Century Russia. From Translation to Adaptation. 2024.
The number of translated writings on warfare, technology, and applied sciences increased immensely after 1698. Within the following year, the first three original Russian summaries on military organization were completed. These included the instructions by Adam Weyde on infantry drill and by James Bruce on artillery, alongside a naval regulation project by Cornelis Cruijs, the Norwegian-born admiral of the Russian fleet. In 1699, Kratkoe obyknovennoe uchenie was published in Moscow, becoming the first printed book on military affairs in Russian since Wallhausen’s Kriegskunst zu Fuß was published half a century earlier. The range of translated military writings expanded in 1698 with the translation of Il principale instrument per l’acquisto del dominio del mare è l’artigleria by the Venetian Sigismondo Alberghetti (died in 1702), made by Leichoudes from Italian, and a fragmentary Russian version of Bellona recens armis exercita by another citizen of the city on the lagoon, Doroteo Alimari, which was completed based on its Latin manuscript around 1700.
...
The Moscow culture of theoretical writings on warfare, prevalent throughout the 17th century, met its end around 1700. It is now an opportune moment to reflect on its most sufficient features. Unlike Europe, where private initiative fuelled the book market, the production of valuable manuscripts of secular content, including military texts, was a state affair in Russia. The translators,scribes, and miniaturists involved in their making were mostly state officials employed in a central governmental institution, the Ambassadorial Chancery. Their work was intended for a limited group of readers, often for the tsar alone. The texts they produced were usually made available in manuscripts, often in a single handwritten and carefully illustrated copy. The Russian edition of Wallhausen’s Kriegskunst zu Fuß in 1649 was an exception, but it also had little influence due to its complexity and outdated tactical prescriptions. While these manuscripts were prestigious objects of elite culture and held a notable place in the development of the Russian book culture, they did not significantly impact the rapid military change taking place in 17th-century Russia. The Russian military officers and clerks who managed the expanding state war machine seldom read these books or drew inspiration from their content. No native made any attempt to emulate these foreign writings or engage in debates about them, and no original military treatises were created in Russian before the end of the 17th century.
...
In the end, “military learning” through books proved elusive in 17th-century Russia, much as it did in other regions of early modern Europe. Iago’s arguments might have still prevailed over Cassio’s, and Karion Istomin’s optimism was only reserved for adulating princely mirrors. Many essential skills for future officers could only be acquired through practice, from weapon handling to military bureaucracy, and reading could not substitute years and decades of experience. However, the actual significance of military literature extended far beyond the introduction of some particular deadly devices or endless sequences of drill postures. Books on warfare often taught their readers more about books, not about war. They were instrumental in shaping the very idea of knowledge, experiment, and change. Military books and the ways of thinking within which they emerged became tools for the intellectual development of individuals, societies, and, sometimes, entire states.