As the editor himself notes, the events of August 1647 around T rebel Castle played a minor role in the events of the Thirty Years War, which raged across much of Central Europe from 1618 to 1648 and drew in countries and associated colonies from much further afield. However, the area of T rebel, in which an Imperial Army supporting the Habsburg Ferdinand III clashed with Swedish forces, has been left relatively undeveloped and is consequently a largely untouched landscape that has been the subject of several decades of investigation by V aclav Matou sek and others. A summary of this research forms the basis for this book and acts as a comparison to similar studies both of the Thirty Years War and the conflict popularly known as the English Civil War (1642–51), which not only overlapped chronologically but also utilized soldiers and martial skills employed and developed during the former. The title suggests a pleasingly interdisciplinary approach was used to analyse an area that saw two martial engagements: the seizing of T rebel Castle by the Imperial forces and a subsequent battle three days later when the Swedish army successfully repulsed an Imperial attempt to seize their fortifications. Inevitably, there is a bias towards certain disciplines, and much of the book is devoted to historical research regarding the battle itself and its placement within the wider conflict. Whilst such research is extremely useful for those unfamiliar with these events, there is a tendency for description over analysis and an over-reliance on a limited number of sources, most notably Englund 2000. This emphasis on historical review is a shame, as by far the strongest elements of the book are those that present original research by the authors into contemporary engravings of the battle and the modern evidence for military engagement. Whilst modern research into contemporary battlefields in England has been dominated by metal-detecting survey, Matou sek and his fellow researchers have focused on the fortifications constructed by both sides in the days preceding their engagement. The excavation of seven earthworks is summarized, along with an attempt to reconstruct a redoubt. The chapter is accompanied by an extensive array of illustrations, and provides a useful comparison to other contemporary field defences, particularly when discussing the methodology used in their construction. Given its importance, the section could have been expanded to contain far more analysis of the fieldwork’s form and role; for example, the author’s important conclusion that the fortifications were largely symbolic rather than functional appears as part of a ‘digression’ rather than as part of a deeper discussion, and the differences between the earthworks’ construction and the notion of ideal fortifications laid out in 17th-century military handbooks is also worthy of greater inquiry. This is not the only chapter that is unnecessarily brief; in particular, the two-page chapter on folk tales is disappointingly short, given the ubiquity of such tales in arenas of war across Europe and the emphasis on ethnology within the book’s title. In addition, despite the interdisciplinary aims of the book, there is little integration of the various strands of research, as seen for example in Glenn Foard’s volume on Naseby (Foard 1995), which means that the valuable groundwork laid by the authors is not brought to a satisfactory conclusion. As this review suggests, the book is not without its faults, chief of which is its structure. The lack of an introduction, with the first chapter being an uncontextualized reproduction of a contemporary account of the battle, and the interspersing of historical background with other aspects such as depictions of the battle and the area’s landscape and archaeology, makes this an extremely difficult volume to assess. However, the research presented within the book is still of use to scholars of 17th-century conflict, and provides a helpful point of comparison to similar earthworks across Europe and further afield.

中文翻译：

---

评论

正如编辑本人指出的那样，1647年8月围绕T叛军城堡的事件在“三十年战争”中起了很小的作用，这场战争在1618年至1648年席卷中欧大部分地区，并吸引了来自更远地区的国家和相关殖民地。然而，T叛军地区，一支支持哈布斯堡王朝的费迪南德三世的帝国军与瑞典军队发生冲突，该地区尚未开发完毕，因此是一片大片未开发的景观，这是数十年来由V aclav Matou sek进行调查的主题和别的。这项研究的摘要构成了本书的基础，并且与“三十年战争”和通常被称为“英国内战”（1642–51）的冲突的类似研究进行了比较，它不仅按时间顺序重叠，而且还利用了前者所雇用和发展的士兵和军事技能。标题表明，一种令人愉悦的跨学科方法被用来分析一个发生了两次军事交战的地区：帝国军夺取了T叛军城堡，以及三天后的战斗，当时瑞典军队成功击退了帝国夺取其防御工事的企图。不可避免地，人们对某些学科存有偏见，而这本书的大部分内容是关于战斗本身及其在更广泛冲突中的位置的历史研究。尽管此类研究对于不熟悉这些事件的人非常有用，但存在描述过度分析的趋势，并且过度依赖有限的来源，最著名的是Englund 2000。这种对历史回顾的强调是一种耻辱，因为到目前为止，书中最有力的要素是那些将作者对战争的当代雕刻和军事参与的现代证据进行原创研究的要素。尽管对金属探测的调查一直主导着对英国当代战场的现代研究，但Matou sek和他的研究人员将重点放在双方订婚前几天的防御工事上。总结了七处土方工程的开挖，并尝试重建一个堡垒。本章附有大量插图，并与其他现代野外防御进行了有益的比较，尤其是在讨论构建它们的方法时。鉴于其重要性，本节可以扩展为包含对实地调查形式和作用的更多分析；例如，作者的重要结论是设防主要是象征性的，而不是功能性的，这是“离题”的一部分，而不是更深入的讨论的一部分，土方工程的构造与理想设防概念之间的区别在于17世纪的军事手册也值得进一步研究。这不是唯一不必要地简短的章节。尤其是，两篇有关民间故事的章节篇幅短得令人失望，这是因为此类故事在欧洲战争舞台上无处不在，并且书名中强调了民族学。此外，尽管本书具有跨学科的目标，但几乎没有整合各种研究领域，例如，在格伦·佛德（Glenn Foard）在《纳斯比》（Naseby）上的著作（佛德1995）中所见，这意味着作者的宝贵基础并未得出令人满意的结论。正如这篇评论所暗示的那样，这本书并非没有缺点，其主要是其结构。缺少引言，第一章是对战争的当代描述的无语境再现，以及历史背景与战争描述以及该地区的景观和考古学等其他方面的相互穿插，使得这本书极为困难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。这意味着未能为作者奠定的宝贵基础。正如这篇评论所暗示的那样，这本书并非没有缺点，其主要是其结构。缺少引言，第一章是对战争的当代描述的无语境再现，以及历史背景与战争描述以及该地区的景观和考古学等其他方面的相互穿插，使得这本书极为困难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。这意味着未能为作者奠定的宝贵基础。正如这篇评论所暗示的那样，这本书并非没有缺点，其主要是其结构。缺少引言，第一章是对战争的当代描述的无语境再现，以及历史背景与战争描述以及该地区的景观和考古学等其他方面的相互穿插，使得这本书极为困难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。这本书并非没有缺点，主要是结构。缺少引言，第一章是对战争的当代描述的无语境再现，以及历史背景与战争描述以及该地区的景观和考古学等其他方面的相互穿插，使得这本书极为困难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。这本书并非没有缺点，主要是结构。缺少引言，第一章是对战争的当代描述的无语境再现，以及历史背景与战争描述以及该地区的景观和考古学等其他方面的相互穿插，使得这本书极为困难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。历史背景与其他方面的相互穿插，例如对战役的描述以及该地区的风景和考古学，使得这本书很难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有用的观点。历史背景与其他方面的相互穿插，例如对战役的描述以及该地区的风景和考古学，使得这本书很难评估。但是，本书中提出的研究仍对17世纪冲突的学者有用，并为比较欧洲乃至更远地区的类似土方工程提供了有益的参考。