モンテネグロの軍が武器を降伏した

このQ&Aのポイント
  • モンテネグロ軍は、オーストリア=ハンガリー帝国によって既にルヴチェン山(11/1)、首都チェティニェ(13/1)、ペチとベラネ(10/1)を占領されていました。
  • 戦闘の時点で、ニコラス王はすでに降伏交渉を行っており、いくつかの部隊は既に降伏していました。しかし、他の歴史家は、ニコラス王が1月12日まで交渉に同意しなかったと述べています。
  • しかし、1月25日までに、モンテネグロの全軍が武器を降伏しました。
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

英文を日本語訳して下さい。

In the meantime, the Austro-Hungarians had already Mount Lovcen (11/1), the capital Cetinje (13/1), Peć and Berane (10/1). Some historians indicate that at the time of the battle King Nicholas was already in surrender negotiations and that several units had already surrendered, but others hold that King Nicholas did not agree to negotiate until 12 January. However, by 25 January the entire army of Montenegro had laid down its weapons.

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率80% (9714/12082)
回答No.1

>In the meantime, the Austro-Hungarians had already Mount Lovcen (11/1), the capital Cetinje (13/1), Peć and Berane (10/1). ⇒一方、オーストリア‐ハンガリー軍はすでにロヴセン山(1月11日)、首都のセティンジェ(1月13日)、ペチおよびベラネ(1月10日)を掌握していた。 >Some historians indicate that at the time of the battle King Nicholas was already in surrender negotiations and that several units had already surrendered, but others hold that King Nicholas did not agree to negotiate until 12 January. However, by 25 January the entire army of Montenegro had laid down its weapons. ⇒一部の歴史家は、戦闘の最中にニコラス王が降伏の交渉についており、そして、幾つかの部隊がすでに降伏していたことを示しているが、しかし他の歴史家は、ニコラス王が1月12日まで交渉することに同意しなかったと考えている。とはいえ、1月25日までには、モンテネグロ方面軍の全体が、武器を置いた。

iwano_aoi
質問者

お礼

回答ありがとうございました。

関連するQ&A

  • 英文翻訳をお願いします。

    On 13 January 1916, the vanguard of the Austrian army reached the capital Cetinje. Braun had encountered stiff resistance and advanced only 10 km in the direction of Nikšić.Negotiations on an armistice started on 13 January, after the fall of Cetinje. King Nicholas I of Montenegro first refused the harsh Austrian terms, but fled to Albania and from there to Italy on 19 January. From there he issued an order to Janko Vukotić demanding that the army continued to fight and eventually retreat with the Serbians to Albania and Corfu.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    General Kövess was awarded the Silver Merit Medal (Signum Laudis) with war-ribbon on the 12th of January 1916 and promoted to Generaloberst on the 26th of February 1916. During the following weeks the troops of the 3rd Austrian Hungarian army occupied the rest of Montenegro and invaded Albania, taking Scutari and finally Durazzo at the end of February. The evacuation of the Serbian army had been completed on 10 February.The Battle of Mojkovac (Serbian: Бој на Мојковцу, Boj na Mojkovcu) was a World War I battle fought between 6 January and 7 January 1916 near Mojkovac, Montenegro, between the armies of Austria-Hungary and Montenegro.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    The Montenegrin Campaign of World War I, which was fought in January 1916, was a part of the Serbian Campaign, in which Austria Hungary defeated and occupied the Kingdom of Montenegro, an ally of Serbia. By January 1916, the Serbian Army had been defeated by an Austrian-Hungarian, German and Bulgarian invasion. The remnants of the Serbian army had withdrawn through Montenegro and Albania, and were being evacuated by allied ships since 12 December, first to Italy and later to Corfu. The k.u.k. High command in Teschen, decided to use the success in Serbia to knock Montenegro out of the war.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    It ended with a Montenegrin victory.In the winter of 1915, the Army of Montenegro had been fighting Austro-Hungary for three months in Serbia. In January 1916 they had to resist the invasion of their own territory. The Montenegrin Army was weakened by the harsh weather and lack of supplies. On 5 January 1916, they received a command to protect the retreat of the Serbian army to Corfu via Albania.The fighting culminated on 6 and 7 January 1916 (on Orthodox Christmas; also known as 'Bloody Christmas').

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    By the time the victorious Allies arrived in France, the treaty was already settled, which made the outcome inevitable. At the heart of the dispute lay fundamentally different views on the nature of the Hungarian presence in the disputed territories. For Hungarians, the outer territories were not seen as colonial territories, but rather part of the core national territory. The non-Hungarians that lived in the Pannonian Basin saw the Hungarians as colonial-style rulers who had oppressed the Slavs and Romanians since 1848, when they introduced laws that the language used in education and in local offices was to be Hungarian. For non-Hungarians from the Pannonian Basin it was a process of decolonisation instead of a punitive dismemberment (as was seen by the Hungarians). The Hungarians did not see it this way because the newly defined borders did not fully respect territorial distribution of ethnic groups, with areas where there were Hungarian majorities outside the new borders. The French sided with their allies the Romanians who had a long policy of cultural ties to France since the country broke from the Ottoman Empire (due in part to the relative ease at which Romanians could learn French)[64] although Clemenceau personally detested Bratianu. President Wilson initially supported the outline of a border that would have more respect to ethnic distribution of population based on the Coolidge Report, led by A. C. Coolidge, a Harvard professor, but later gave in, due to changing international politics and as a courtesy to other allies. For Hungarian public opinion, the fact that almost three-fourths of the pre-war kingdom's territory and a significant number of ethnic Hungarians were assigned to neighbouring countries triggered considerable bitterness. Most Hungarians preferred to maintain the territorial integrity of the pre-war kingdom. The Hungarian politicians claimed that they were ready to give the non-Hungarian ethnicities a great deal of autonomy. Most Hungarians regarded the treaty as an insult to the nation's honour. The Hungarian political attitude towards Trianon was summed up in the phrases Nem, nem, soha! ("No, no, never!") and Mindent vissza! ("Return everything!" or "Everything back!"). The perceived humiliation of the treaty became a dominant theme in inter-war Hungarian politics, analogous with the German reaction to the Treaty of Versailles.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Already for some time the Austrian commander-in-chief, General Conrad von Hötzendorf, had been proposing the idea of a Strafexpedition that would lethally cripple Italy, Austria-Hungary's ex-ally, claimed to be guilty of betraying the Triple Alliance, and in previous years he had had the frontier studied in order to formulate studies with regard to a possible invasion. The problem had appeared to be serious, mostly because the frontier ran through high mountains and the limited Italian advances of 1915 had worsened the situation and excluded a great advance beyond the valleys of Valsugana and Val Lagarina (both connected by railway) and the plateaus of Lavarone, Folgaria and Asiago.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    The army achieved some early victories (such as in Galicia in 1915 and with the Brusilov Offensive in 1916) but also suffered major defeats, notably Tannenberg in August 1914, the Winter Battle in Masuria in February 1915 and the loss of Russian Poland during May to August 1915. Nearly six million casualties—dead, wounded and missing—had been accrued by January 1917. Mutinies sprang up more often (most due to simple war-weariness), morale was at its lowest, and the (newly called up) officers and commanders were at times very incompetent. Like all major armies, Russia's armed forces had inadequate supply. The pre-revolution desertion rate ran at around 34,000 a month. Meanwhile, the wartime alliance of industry, Duma and Stavka (Military High Command) started to work outside the Tsar's control. In an attempt to boost morale and repair his reputation as a leader, Nicholas announced in the summer of 1915 that he would take personal command of the army, in defiance of almost universal advice to the contrary.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    The 62nd and 53rd Infantry Division entered Montenegro on 5 January 1916 from the North-East and advanced along the river towards Pljevlja and Bijelo Polje, where they were stopped by the Montenegrins in the Battle of Mojkovac. At the same time, the 10th and 18th Mountain brigade advanced from Novi Pazar and on 10 January took the city of Berane. The 205th and 9th Mountain brigade advanced westwards from Priština and took Peć and Velika. The 57th Infantery Division advanced from Prizren.Mount Lovcen was the key defensive position of the Montenegrin army, who defended it as a citadel with roughly 2/3 of its forces.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    The cavalry, always the most honored branch of the army in Austria, was top notch, and the commanders Auffenberg relegated command to were very capable of deploying them to full effectiveness. Three of the Five Generals under his command were General der Kavallerie. The Infantry were also dependable, led by the professional soldiers brought into the military before the outbreak of the war. It was a dependable army and would prove so in the course of the first months of the war. Von Plehve's forces were superior in numbers. In fact all along the front the Russians were in numerical superiority, this made the position on Auffenberg's flanks dangerous. Plehve had the trusty Russian Cossacks, recruited from loyal monarchist families in the Urals and well trained, they could hold their own easily against their counterparts across the front. The infantry, however, was a weak point. While the Austro-Hungarians were properly supplied and trained, even Russian peacetime formations had supply problems from the beginning of mobilization. The Russian strength was in their numbers. The Austro-Hungarians moved forward in good order on 26 August and smashed into the Russian lines. Von Plehve's right flank was already shaken by the defeat of the Russian Fourth Army at the Battle of Kraśnik a few days earlier, and despite his typical quick action, he could do nothing to oppose a superior enemy. By the 31st, the Austro-Hungarians had taken approximately 20,000 prisoners, a huge amount for the first month of the war. These prisoners were some of Russia's best soldiers, despite their inferior supply they were loyal. The conscripts that would fill the ranks of Russia's armed forces in the coming years of war would be lacking in proper training and far less willing to fight and by the time of the Kerensky Offensive in 1917 loyal soldiers were few and far between on the Russian line. The first two battles (Kraśnik and Komarow) of Conrad's invasion of Poland had been crushing successes, and it seemed as though the Russian might not be able to prevent a crisis in Poland and conduct their invasion of East Prussia simultaneously, particularly with the conclusion of the Battle of Tannenberg a few days later. Russia lost 20,000 of its better soldiers. The two Austro-Hungarian armies were poised to move farther into Poland, and the Austro-Hungarians received a huge boost to morale. Despite the remaining lack of security in the east the triple victory of Kraśnik-Komarow-Tannenberg and the successful advance in France gave the Germans and Austro-Hungarians their greatest hope of a victorious Schlieffen Plan. However, this would be proved false hope in a matter of days - not only due to the German defeat at the Battle of the Marne.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    In 1994, Afflerbach questioned the authenticity of the "Christmas Memorandum" in his biography of Falkenhayn; after studying the evidence that had survived in the Kriegsgeschichtliche Forschungsanstalt des Heeres (Army Military History Research Institute) files, he concluded that the memorandum had been written after the war but that it was an accurate reflection of much of Falkenhayn's thinking in 1916. Krumeich wrote that the Christmas Memorandum had been fabricated to justify a failed strategy and that attrition had been substituted for the capture of Verdun, only after the city was not taken quickly. Foley wrote that after the failure of the Ypres Offensive of 1914, Falkenhayn had returned to the pre-war strategic thinking of Moltke the Elder and Hans Delbrück on Ermattungsstrategie (attrition strategy), because the coalition fighting Germany was too powerful to be decisively defeated by military means.