作者：John·F· Haldon? 約翰·F·哈爾頓

出版商：1979年維也納奧地利科學(xué)院出版

FOREWORD

The present study was intended originally to be a much shorter examination of the evidence concerning the “strati?tai” and the landed properties upon which their service in the Byzantine provincial armies was ostensibly based during the ninth and tenth century. As the work progressed, however, it became apparent that this could only be satisfactorily analysed against the background of developments in recruitment in general for the army from the seventh century on. Since its length precluded publication in one of the usual journals devoted to Byzantine studies, I am very pleased to be able to express my gratitude to Professor Herbert Hunger of the Institute for Byzantine Studies in Vienna, whose interest and personal intervention enabled the presentation of the study for publication in the “Sitzungsberichte” of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. I should like here to thank both Professor Hu n g er for his support and the Austrian Academy for their readiness to publish the paper.

Thanks are also due to Professor Walter Kaegi, Jr., for his perceptive criticisms and many helpful suggestions; and last, but not least, to Dr. Otto Kresten of the Institute for Byzantine Studies, Vienna, both for his critical assessment of the argument and for willingly undertaking the editorial burdens which accompany such a publication. The study represents one of several projects undertaken during tenure of a DAAD fellowship and an Alexander von Humboldt- Stiftung Fellowship at the Institut für Byzantinistik in Munich, 1976—1979. I should like to thank both foundations for their generous support.

Munich, February 1979. John F. Haldon

??????? 本研究最初旨在對有關(guān)“階層”和土地財產(chǎn)的證據(jù)進(jìn)行更簡短的審查，這些財產(chǎn)表面上是在 9 世紀(jì)和 10 世紀(jì)在拜占庭省軍隊中服役的基礎(chǔ)。 然而，隨著工作的進(jìn)展，很明顯，這只能在 7 世紀(jì)以來軍隊總體招募發(fā)展的背景下得到令人滿意的分析。 由于其篇幅過長，無法在專門研究拜占庭研究的常用期刊之一發(fā)表，我很高興能夠向維也納拜占庭研究所的 Herbert Hunger 教授表示感謝，他的興趣和個人干預(yù)使我能夠介紹 研究發(fā)表在奧地利科學(xué)院的“Sitzungsberichte”上。 在此，我要感謝胡恩格爾教授的支持，感謝奧地利科學(xué)院準(zhǔn)備發(fā)表這篇論文。

???????? 還要感謝 Walter Kaegi, Jr. 教授敏銳的批評和許多有益的建議； 最后，但同樣重要的是，感謝維也納拜占庭研究所的 Otto Kresten 博士，感謝他對論點的批判性評估，并愿意承擔(dān)伴隨此類出版物而來的編輯負(fù)擔(dān)。 該研究是 1976 年至 1979 年在慕尼黑拜占庭學(xué)院獲得 DAAD 獎學(xué)金和亞歷山大·馮·洪堡基金會獎學(xué)金期間開展的幾個項目之一。 我要感謝兩個基金會的慷慨支持。

???????? 慕尼黑，1979 年 2 月。約翰·F·哈爾登

INTRODUCTION

The nature of the systems of military recruitment employed by the Byzantine state from the sixth to the tenth century has long been recognised as of central importance for a fuller understanding of a whole series of problems related to Byzantine social organisation and the administration of the empire. The present study is by no means an attempt to look at these problems in toto, but rather an examination of some key traits in the methods of recruitment of soldiers and the effects upon these of changing conditions. The form which the recruitment of soldiers took at various times during the period under review closely reflects on the one hand the needs of the state; and on the other hand the limitations of the social resources at its disposal. The ways in which the state was able to exploit these resources can tell us a good deal about the society which supported it, a point which hardly needs to be emphasized.

??????? 6 世紀(jì)到 10 世紀(jì)，拜占庭國家所采用的征兵制度的性質(zhì)長期以來被認(rèn)為對于更全面地理解與拜占庭社會組織和帝國管理相關(guān)的一系列問題至關(guān)重要。 本研究絕不是試圖全面研究這些問題，而是對招募士兵方法中的一些關(guān)鍵特征以及條件變化對這些特征的影響的研究。 本報告所述期間不同時期的征兵形式，一方面密切反映了國家的需要； 另一方面是其可支配的社會資源的局限性。 國家能夠利用這些資源的方式可以告訴我們很多關(guān)于支持它的社會，這一點幾乎不需要強(qiáng)調(diào)。

The following is therefore presented as a review of one aspect of the problem and as an attempt to produce an overall view of changes within the four centuries from Justinian I to Constantine VII. In so doing, it will seek to illuminate the development from the methods of the sixth century to those of the tenth.

??????? 因此，以下內(nèi)容是對問題的一個方面的回顧，并試圖對從查士丁尼一世到君士坦丁七世的四個世紀(jì)內(nèi)的變化進(jìn)行全面了解。 在此過程中，它將試圖闡明從 6 世紀(jì)方法到 10 世紀(jì)方法的發(fā)展。

The evidence will be examined in a more or less chronological order. The first part will deal with the sixth and early seventh century, that is to say up to the end of the reign of Heraclius. Part two will look at the tenth-century material, and part three will examine the process of change which led to the development of the so-called military estates.

??????? 證據(jù)將按或多或少的時間順序進(jìn)行審查。 第一部分將涉及六世紀(jì)和七世紀(jì)初，也就是說直到赫拉克略統(tǒng)治結(jié)束。 第二部分將研究 10 世紀(jì)的材料，第三部分將研究導(dǎo)致所謂軍事莊園發(fā)展的變化過程。

Hitherto, it has been generally assumed that the legislation which was promulgated by the Macedonian emperors during the tenth century, aimed at protecting the stratiotai from the encroachments of the dynatoi. attempted on the whole merely to define the status of the military holdings as they already existed; or to widen the application of this status to aid in the recruitment of troops. More important, it has been assumed without any real justification that the military service required from the holders of these “military lands” was attached to the holding itself — mainly because the legislation of the tenth century stresses this aspect in particular. In fact, as I will try to demonstrate, the service had until the first half of the tenth century been attached to an individual — the head of the family which had to supply a soldier and his equipment. This service had come to be supported chiefly through, the holdings of those subject to this draft or military obligation, which, as I will also suggest, was hereditary. Only when the economic basis of this personal military obligation was threatened did the government step in to protect it. But since the situation appears by then already to have reached a fairly critical stage, the legislation, while outlining a considerable array of protective measures to prevent the holdings being swallowed up by big estates and to ease the position of the stratiotai, seeks also to fix the previously purely personal and hereditary obligation of military service to the land.

??????? 迄今為止，人們普遍認(rèn)為馬其頓皇帝在 10 世紀(jì)頒布的立法旨在保護(hù)階層免遭 dynatoi 的侵占。 總體上只是試圖界定已經(jīng)存在的軍事財產(chǎn)的地位； 或擴(kuò)大這種地位的應(yīng)用，以幫助招募軍隊。 更重要的是，人們在沒有任何真正理由的情況下假設(shè)這些“軍事土地”的持有者所要求的兵役與該持有者相關(guān)聯(lián)——主要是因為 10 世紀(jì)的立法特別強(qiáng)調(diào)了這一方面。 事實上，正如我將試圖證明的那樣，直到 10 世紀(jì)上半葉，這項服務(wù)一直依附于個人——必須提供士兵及其裝備的一家之主。 這項服務(wù)主要通過受制于這一征兵或軍事義務(wù)的人的財產(chǎn)來支持，正如我還將建議的那樣，這是世襲的。 只有當(dāng)這種個人軍事義務(wù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)受到威脅時，政府才會介入保護(hù)它。 但鑒于當(dāng)時情況似乎已經(jīng)到了相當(dāng)危急的階段，立法在概述了一系列保護(hù)措施以防止大莊園吞并并緩和階層地位的同時，也試圖解決 以前純粹是個人和世襲的對土地的兵役義務(wù)。

It is quite clear why this step was taken. In the first place, it was very difficult to ensure that those with an obligation to military service did not either flee or place themselves under the protection of a powerful estate-owner, both courses of action effectively depriving the state of soldiers. In the second place, immovable land was easily kept under surveillance. It could be entered into the military muster-lists as well as the tax cadasters. It remained even if its occupiers vanished, and if the obligation to provide military service was fixed to the holding, then it was simply a question of ensuring that it was occupied — by whom was no longer so important. Hence the legislation of Constantine VII states that all lands which had supported a military obligation must now be registered — even those which had never before been recorded. The obligation became attached to the land — and consequently the concept of a hereditary service obligation began to fall into desuetude, although it is reflected in texts still in the eleventh century. Instead, the holdings could be transferred from one owner to another, but the military obligation stayed with it and had to be carried out by whoever occupied it. It could even be subdivided, but each part bore a proportional burden of the total obligation — a development which already in the mid-tenth century suggests a considerable degree of commutation of personal service and the beginnings of the fiscalisation of the strateia into a tax.

??????? 很清楚為什么要采取這一步驟。 首先，很難確保那些有義務(wù)服兵役的人既不會逃跑，也不會將自己置于強(qiáng)大的莊園主的保護(hù)之下，這兩種做法實際上都剝奪了士兵的地位。 其次，不可移動的土地很容易受到監(jiān)視。 它可以被輸入到軍事集結(jié)名單以及稅收地籍中。 即使它的占領(lǐng)者消失了，它仍然存在，如果提供兵役的義務(wù)是固定的，那么這只是一個確保它被占領(lǐng)的問題——誰不再那么重要了。 因此，君士坦丁七世的立法規(guī)定，所有支持軍事義務(wù)的土地現(xiàn)在都必須登記——即使是那些以前從未被記錄過的土地。 義務(wù)變得依附于土地——因此，世襲服務(wù)義務(wù)的概念開始被廢止，盡管它仍反映在 11 世紀(jì)的文本中。 取而代之的是，財產(chǎn)可以從一個所有者轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個所有者，但軍事義務(wù)仍然存在，并且必須由占領(lǐng)者執(zhí)行。 它甚至可以細(xì)分，但每一部分都承擔(dān)著總義務(wù)的比例負(fù)擔(dān)——這一發(fā)展已經(jīng)在 10 世紀(jì)中葉表明個人服務(wù)的相當(dāng)程度的減免和將戰(zhàn)略財政化為稅收的開始。

The origins of the system He in the seventh century, and are connected with two fundamental developments. The first was a purely administrative change: the re-introduction of a hereditary military service, passed on from father to son, during the difficult period of Heraclius’ counter-offensive against the Persians. The second is the dispersal and localisation of the provincial armies as a result of and as a counter-measure to the Arab attacks. Soldiers settled down, became part of the communities where they were based, took up part-time employment or gained property in land. All these developments are known to have occurred in Italy, Egypt and Syria, where soldiers also were based locally for long periods without being transferred. This does not mean that the armies were part-time armies — although the tendency of both Byzantines and Arabs to campaign mostly in the summer and autumn seasons may often have meant this in practice. On the contrary, they retained their full-time status and were expected to fulfil the duties of regular, full-time troops. Irregular pay — almost a tradition in east Rome — became a regularity, and together with the effects of wide dispersal over often difficult terrain and considerable problems of supply, forced the scattered units to rely increasingly on their own resources and, to begin with at least, on those of their hosts, on whom they were billeted. Out of these beginnings grew the later “system” — if such it was — and it is to the earliest stages in its development that we shall now turn our attention.

??????? 軍區(qū)制起源于七世紀(jì)，并與兩個基本發(fā)展有關(guān)。 第一個是純粹的行政變化：在赫拉克略反攻波斯人的困難時期，重新引入世襲兵役，由父親傳給兒子。 第二是由于阿拉伯襲擊并作為對阿拉伯襲擊的反制措施，分散和本地化了省級軍隊。 士兵安頓下來，成為他們所在社區(qū)的一部分，從事兼職工作或獲得土地財產(chǎn)。 眾所周知，所有這些事態(tài)發(fā)展都發(fā)生在意大利、埃及和敘利亞，這些地方的士兵也長期駐扎在當(dāng)?shù)兀瑳]有被轉(zhuǎn)移。 這并不意味著軍隊是兼職軍隊——盡管拜占庭人和阿拉伯人主要在夏季和秋季進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)役的趨勢在實踐中可能經(jīng)常意味著這一點。 相反，他們保留了全職身份，并應(yīng)履行正規(guī)全職部隊的職責(zé)。 不規(guī)則的工資——幾乎是東羅馬的一個傳統(tǒng)——成為一種常態(tài)，再加上廣泛分布在通常困難的地形和相當(dāng)大的供應(yīng)問題的影響，迫使分散的部隊越來越依賴自己的資源，并且至少開始 ，在他們的主人身上，他們被安置在他們身上。 從這些開端產(chǎn)生了后來的“系統(tǒng)”——如果是這樣的話——我們現(xiàn)在將注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到它發(fā)展的最早階段。

未完待續(xù)