關於歷史戰爭的十個荒謬故事(2)

ral Hannibal's Elephant Cavalry

7.漢尼拔將軍的大象奇兵

One of the most famous wartime scenes in all of world history is Hannibal crossing the Alps with his army riding on elephants to scare the Romans and give them a series of unforgettable battles. The legends claim that not only did he cross the mountains with a large company of elephants in his army, but that a multitude of them showed up at major battles against the Romans.

有幕戰爭場景赫赫有名，永載世界史冊，那就是漢尼拔(Hannibal) 騎着大象，率領大軍翻越阿爾卑斯山脈(the Alps)，將羅馬人打了個措手不及，併發起一系列驚心動魄的大戰。在這個傳奇的故事裏，這支訓練有素的大象騎兵，不僅跟着漢尼拔翻越了阿爾卑斯山，而且在與羅馬對抗的幾場重大戰役中，也都有它們的身影。

According to historians, it is likely all or most of this tale is total fabrication, much of it cooked up by Roman writers at the time who wanted to make Hannibal seem more intimidating so that his defeat would make their generals look more glorious.

史學家們認爲，這可能全屬憑空捏造，至少絕大部分爲編造。當時的羅馬作家虛構了大部分場景，將漢尼拔的形象塑造得令人生畏，旨在以漢尼拔的潰不成軍來反襯那些羅馬大將的無上榮耀。

Historians have reason to believe most of the elephants originally brought along did not even survive the crossing, leaving Hannibal with only a handful at best—if any survived at all, that is. Some accounts of large numbers of elephants also claim that the animals were spooked at the sound of battle. These accounts also suggest that the war-bred animals with trained riders on their backs went crazy and trampled through Hannibal's own line during major battles.

史學家認爲，象羣裏大多數成員本就無法存活，遑論翻越阿爾卑斯山脈；即便存活下來，適者生存，那麼留下的自然也只是象羣裏的少數“精英”。關於這羣數量龐大的大象騎兵，有說法是他們在戰場上受到驚嚇，也有說法是訓練員騎着大象，不料大象狂性大發，在多次重要戰爭中突破了漢尼拔軍隊的防線。

As far as many historians are concerned, these stories sound like utter myth, and it's most likely there was not a single elephant at any of the major battles Hannibal staged against the Roman Empire.

衆多史學家認爲，這些都是徹頭徹尾的神話故事。漢尼拔與古羅馬抗衡的任何一場大型戰役中，其實都沒有“大象騎兵”助陣。

leon Would Have Won The Battle Of Waterloo If Only He...

6.其實拿破崙也可以贏得滑鐵盧戰役，只要他……

Napoleon Bonaparte was one of of the greatest military strategists and conquerors to ever walk the globe. Many people still laud him for his tactics, and his actions certainly changed the world. Many people know well that Napoleon's final defeat, the one that was said to finally break him, was the Battle of Waterloo. Most stories claim that if not for losing this battle, Napoleon could have gone on to regain control of everything he had lost and perhaps conquer even more than he had before. According to many historians, on the other hand, such an outcome would have been extremely unlikely in any situation.

拿破崙·波拿巴（Napoleon Bonaparte ）是世界上最偉大的軍事戰略家和征服者之一。至今仍有許多人對他的戰術稱讚不已，且他的行爲也確實改變了世界。大家都知道拿破崙的最後一戰是滑鐵盧戰役（the Battle of Waterloo），也就是他最終被擊敗的那場戰役。很多故事裏都是這樣說的：如果拿破崙贏得了滑鐵盧戰役，那他就能重新掌控自己所失去的東西，也許還能征服他不曾擁有的東西。不過很多歷史學家都說，這種情況是無論如何也不會發生的。

Various historians have pointed out different ways that he could have won the Battle of Waterloo. They theorize that if he had led the battle more personally, pressed his advantage in certain key situations, or taken certain risks, he may have been able to wrest victory from the jaws of defeat. Most of these theories hinge on knowing what we know in hindsight, but that isn't the main reason Napoleon's success was so unlikely.

有很多歷史學家提出了各種各樣可以讓拿破崙贏得滑鐵盧戰役的方法。他們提出，如果拿破崙在戰爭中表現得更“任性”一些，在關鍵時候發揮自己的優勢，或者再冒險一些，那麼他就有可能險中取勝。雖然我們在這裏吐槽以上結論都是事後諸葛亮，但這並不是我們認爲拿破崙不可能獲勝的主要原因。

The problem was that even if Napoleon had somehow managed a successful victory, it would have still been an absurdly uphill battle for him from that point forward. His support from his own people was waning, and his enemies were consolidating their forces, allying against him and mounting serious resistance that even his genius would have likely been unable to overcome. The Battle of Waterloo may have been his last major defeat, but he was already unlikely to have any chance at a real comeback.

其實問題的關鍵在於，就算拿破崙最終在滑鐵盧戰役中贏得了勝利，在那之後，他還是會遇到滑鐵盧這樣荒謬可笑的艱苦戰役。那時候拿破崙統治下的人民對他的支持已經大不如前，而他的敵人們則結成同盟，不斷地鞏固自己的力量，並對他設下重重阻礙，即使天才如拿破崙，面對如此險峻的形勢，恐怕也難以克服。

Harshness Of The Treaty Of Versailles Led To World War II

5.其實是凡爾賽條約的苛刻條件導致了第二次世界大戰

One of the most commonly repeated myths about World War II is that the reason it started in the first place was that the Germans were disaffected by the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. The claim goes that the deal was so financially tough on Germany that it created a deep well of resentment, allowing Hitler and his Nazi Party to take control of the reins of power and then go on a rampage of destruction. For a while, this was a fairly commonly held belief, but a history professor from Toronto named Dr. Margaret MacMillan has been studying every angle of this theory, and her conclusion is that people are getting the history all wrong.

關於二戰，最廣爲流傳的一種觀點是：二戰起因是德國對凡爾賽條約（the Treaty of Versailles）的苛刻條件感到不滿。德國方面表示條約上的經濟條件太過苛刻，導致國內上下怨聲載道，使得希特勒及其納粹黨執掌了政權，從而造成了毀滅性的的破壞。曾經有段時間很多人都堅信以上觀點，但是，來自多倫多的歷史學教授瑪格麗特·麥克米倫博士（Dr. Margaret MacMillan）從各方面研究了這一理論後，最終得出的結論卻是：一直以來，人們對於這段歷史的看法都是錯的。

In fact, Dr. Macmillan's conclusion is that if the Treaty of Versailles had any effect on World War II, it's that it was not harsh enough. The treaty hurt the Germans, but it didn't leave them in a truly defeated state. It left them annoyed. This left Hitler just enough resentment to amass a following and left Germany with enough force left to cause serious trouble. It could easily be argued that the Treaty of Versailles is proof of how compromise can sometimes fail. What began as an attempt not to be too lenient or too harsh resulted in a failed compromise.

實際上在麥克米倫看來，如果要說凡爾賽條約對二戰的爆發有一定影響，那一定是因爲該條約還不夠苛刻。雖然凡爾賽條約使德國蒙受了損失，但德國並沒有因此而覺得自己淪爲了戰敗國，人們只是因此感到惱火而已。這不但讓希特勒憤懣不平開始集結人馬，也使得德國擁有足夠的力量來發起戰爭。因此有人認爲，凡爾賽條約恰恰證明了妥協有時候反而會事與願違。開始的時候人們總想嘗試着不要過於寬容或是過於苛刻，從而妥協，結果卻起到了相反的作用。

It could certainly be argued that Hitler played up the Treaty of Versailles and tried to make it sound terrible in order to sway people to his side, but people also forget the amount of popular support Hitler actually had. Many people forget that Hitler's Nazi Party never won enough votes to outright get him the highest elected position. Hitler managed to take his seat of power through a lot of backroom deals, subterfuge, and who knows what else behind the scenes. The Nazis were skilled propagandists and would have used the Treaty of Versailles to help achieve their ends, but the idea that Hitler used it to sweep himself to victory in a popular election is a myth.

有人認爲是希特勒把凡爾賽條約渲染得很可怕，從而號召人們支持他，但是這些人卻忘了，早已經有很多人衷心擁護着希特勒；他們也忘了，希特勒的納粹黨從未贏得足夠的選票助他獲得總理職位。希特勒其實是通過幕後交易和陰謀詭計擴大了自己的勢力，誰又知道這其中有什麼黑幕呢？納粹黨確實精於宣傳，也會利用凡爾賽條約來達到自己的目的，但希特勒卻並不是憑藉於此纔在大選中獲勝的。

Tet Offensive Determined The Vietnam War

4.“春節攻勢”戰役決定了越南戰爭

Many people think of the Tet Offensive as the final push that proved the United States couldn't win the Vietnam War. North Vietnam's ability to make such a military push after the long, punishing years of fighting was evidence that the war was at an end. Finally, the United States retreated from Vietnam and put an end to the war and the madness of the previous years.

大多數人認爲，“春節攻勢”戰役作爲最終攻勢顯示，美國無法贏得越南戰爭。北越在經歷了長久疲憊戰後，還能有巨大的軍事力量反攻，昭示了戰爭結束在望。果不其然，美國從越南撤兵，爲這場戰爭和這些瘋狂的作戰日子劃上了句號。

However, while it is true the Tet Offensive was the turning point of the war and likely caused the end of it indirectly, the truth is that the war was far from lost militarily. In fact, if we had continued fighting for much longer after the Tet Offensive, historians now believe we likely would have won soundly.

“春節攻勢”確實是戰爭的轉折點，也可能間接促使戰爭結束，但戰爭遠非美國失去軍事力量那麼簡單。事實上，歷史學家認爲，如果美國在“春節攻勢”後堅持奮戰，極有可能穩勝越南。

The Tet Offensive actually caused the North Vietnamese forces to spread themselves dangerously thin—an incredibly risky move. Fortunately, the gamble paid off, but only because the American public was so deeply tired of the war. When the images, scenes, and reports from the Tet Offensive played on news channels across the United States, an already exhausted and demoralized public felt that the war was lost. Before long, the unpopular war was over. The United States simply lost the will to continue.

不過，“春節攻勢”可謂破釜沉舟之戰，北越冒險分散了兵力。讓人欣喜的是，孤注一擲取得了成效——但取勝的真相，僅是因爲美國民衆對這場戰爭深感疲倦。當“春節攻勢”的圖片、影像、報道在全美的新聞渠道中流傳時，美國民衆就已經開始意志低落，認爲戰爭失敗了。不久之後這場萬衆唾罵的戰爭結束，原因不過是美國失去了繼續作戰的意願。

審校：瑤瑤Yvonne 校對：丸子 編輯：Freya然