| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
133511
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The first conceptual, theoretical treatises about small war (la petite guerre) as special operations appeared only from the middle of the seventeenth century. The term is not used in the eighteenth-century sense of 'special operations' in older sources. The supposed absence of any treatment of the subject is surprising considering the obsession with the 'art of war' in the Renaissance, but other authors attribute it to a supposed antinomy between chivalric ideals and irregular warfare. But the absence of explicit manuals on the subject is not evidence of absence of advanced reflection on this kind of operations in the Middle Ages and in Early Modern times. We should thus look elsewhere, in other genres, for writings that contain and pass on military knowledge. Epics, romances, educational and military treatises, and memoirs in fact contain elements of a theory of special operations, even though these genres differ from our conception of rationality inherited from the Enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116767
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The claim that the renowned writer on political and military affairs, Christine de Pizan (1363-1430), was the author of the biography of Jean le Meingre Bouciquaut (or Boucicaut), a famous marshal of France in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, has been debated by scholars for a long time. Although the current academic view tends towards rejecting Christine's authorship of the book, the arguments both for and against have not contained any discussion of the respective views of knighthood reflected in the biography and in Christine's works. In spite of scholars' recognition that there were different views of knighthood circulating among authors in this period, the assumption that Christine and the author of the biography shared similar views really has never been challenged. This article contends that the view of knighthood defended by the author of the biography was strikingly different in many ways from that held by Christine, a further reason for rejecting Christine as the biography's author. At the same time, the article also contributes to the discussion of those different views of knighthood during the period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|