拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（7）
作者：John·F· Haldon 约翰·F·哈尔顿
出版商：1979年维也纳奥地利科学院出版
接上
This is a valid observation; but the practical effects of the novel must have been in addition to greatly increase the amount of land inscribed in the registers of the military logothesion which at the same time supported a strateia. The novel is quite clear: άπό δέ του νυν, έπεί τά των κλιβανοφόρων καί έπιλωρικοφόρων κίνησιν έλαβε, διακελευόμεθα, μή έχειν έπ’ άδείας μηδένα απλώς στρατιώτην άλλαχοΰ διαπιπράσκειν άπο τούτου άκίνητον ΰπαρξιν, εί μή έπέκεινα έχει ιβ' λίτρων άκίνητον εύπρόσοδον περιουσίαν.
这是一个有效的观察； 但是这部小说的实际效果肯定是大大增加了军事标志登记册中的土地数量，同时支持了一个战略。 小说写得很清楚：άπό δέ του νυν, έπεί τά των κλιβανοφόρων καί έπιλωρικοφόρων κίνησιν έλαβε, διακελευόμεθα, μή έχειν έπ’ άδείας μηδένα απλώς στρατιώτην άλλαχοΰ διαπιπράσκειν άπο τούτου άκίνητον ΰπαρξιν, εί μή έπέκεινα έχει ιβ' λίτρων άκίνητον εύπρόσοδον περιουσίαν.（从今以后，在（未知）人和epilorikoforos之后，它已经被采取了，我们正在谈论，除了这个不动的Existin，如果它没有六升不动空间。）
In view of what is known of the relatively limited resources of the (apparently) greater part of the strati5tai in the tenth century, it does not appear likely that many properties were large enough to merit such a value or to support the burden of a heavy cavalryman ; and in this case it can only have been by amalgamating two or three holdings that the costs were covered, and that soldiers were thus provided for — by joint contribution. This question I will discuss below.
鉴于已知的 10 世纪（显然）大部分地层资源相对有限，许多财产似乎不太可能大到足以值得这样的价值或支持沉重的负担。 骑兵； 在这种情况下，只能通过合并两个或三个财产来支付费用，从而提供士兵——通过联合捐助。我将在下面讨论这个问题。
The examples from the Lives of Euthymius the Younger, of Nikon Metanoeite and of Luke the Stylite, demonstrate once again that the holder of the military land, inscribed in the register, was not always the active soldier. What is, however, interesting, is the difference between soldiers who could provide their own provisions — apparently a minority — and those who received siteresia from the state. In Luke’s case in addition, it is clear from the context that while Luke’s father held the property, Luke himself carried out the duties and was registered accordingly (his family was quite wealthy: πατέρες δ’ αύτω και γεννήτορες ύπήρχον εύγενεΐς [. . .] έν συμμέτρω περιουσία πλούτου καί αύταρκεία χρειών τον βίον διανύοντες).
Euthymius the Younger、Nikon Metanoeite 和 Luke the Stylite 的例子再次表明，登记在册的军事土地的持有者并不总是现役士兵。 72 然而，有趣的是，是可以提供自己的食物的士兵（显然是少数）与那些从国家获得 siteresia 的士兵之间的区别。 73 此外，在卢克的情况下，从上下文中可以清楚地看出，虽然卢克的父亲拥有财产，但卢克本人执行了职责并相应登记74（他的家庭非常富有：πατέρες δ’ αύτω και γεννήτορες ύπήρχον εύγενεΐς [. . .] έν συμμέτρω περιουσία πλούτου καί αύταρκεία χρειών τον βίον διανύοντες（父亲 δ 'αύτω και γεννήτορες ύπηρχον εύγενεϊς [. . .]财富和自给自足的对称财产需要生活过客）（此处翻译有问题，人麻了）
But the implications of this text are that the burden of military service had normally been attached to individuals, or perhaps families, rather than the land. Luke’s parents present their son for service when he comes of age, rather than sending a servant or freedman, which they were plainly in a position to do. An exactly similar process is to be observed in the case of the soldier Leo and his son George (discussed in greater detail below), a story relating to the second decade of the tenth century in which a registered stratiotes grown too old for active service sends his son on campaign in his stead.
但这段文字的含义是，兵役的负担通常由个人或家庭承担，而不是由土地承担。 卢克的父母在他们的儿子成年后将他送去服务，而不是派遣仆人或自由人，他们显然有能力这样做。 在士兵 Leo 和他的儿子 George 的案例中可以观察到一个完全相似的过程（在下面更详细地讨论），这是一个关于 10 世纪第二个十年的故事，在这个故事中，一个注册的阶层因年龄太大而不能现役发送 他的儿子代替他参加竞选活动。
Here it should be stressed once again that while the stratiotikoi katalogoi — muster rolls — always existed,76 it was only during the first half of the tenth century that the military lands themselves began to be registered, and it was only at this time that a fixed value began to be fixed to them. This is quite clear from the novel of Constantine VII already examined, which remarks that it was έκ συνήθειας alone that the holdings were not to be sold off; and which makes it abundantly clear that “military holdings” may never actually have been registered: ει δ’ ούδόλως άπογεγραμμένα είσί τά τοϋ στρατιώτου ακίνητα.
在这里应该再次强调，虽然stratiotikoi katalogoi——征集卷——一直存在，76但直到10世纪上半叶才开始对军事土地进行登记，直到这个时候 固定值开始固定在他们身上。 这一点从已经研究过的君士坦丁七世的小说中可以清楚地看出，该小说指出，只有 έκ συνήθειας（出于习惯） 才能出售财产； 这清楚地表明，“军事财产”可能从未实际登记过：ει δ’ ούδόλως άπογεγραμμένα είσί τά τοϋ στρατιώτου ακίνητα.（如果它们不是未登记，它们就是士兵的不动产。）
On what basis therefore was a man stratiote, since his lands are not even registered as such, unless the duty was originally attached to the person of the owner of the lands or his family? That there was in addition some uncertainty about the value such properties ought to attain is emphasised by the wording of a passage in De Caerimoniis, which refers to a property value of from four to five pounds of gold to support a cavalry soldier and of three pounds of gold to support a marine or sailor (the text states οφείλει έχειν [compare with the novel of Constantine, where the author states of the amount specified δ και ήμΐν αρκούντως έχειν δοκεϊ]).' In effect, the registration of military lands was still going on (it may only just have begun) in the first half of the tenth century; although it is apparent from the novel of Constantine VII that neither the lands themselves, nor the service which depended upon them were new — it had been necessary in the past, states the author, to expropriate without compensation those who had illegally obtained such properties.
因此，一个人以什么为基础，因为他的土地甚至没有被登记为这样，除非责任最初是由土地所有者或其家人承担的？ 此外，De Caerimoniis 中的一段文字强调了这些财产应该获得的价值的一些不确定性，该段落指的是支持骑兵的四到五磅黄金和三磅的财产价值 黄金来支持海军陆战队员或水手（文字说明 οφείλει έχειν（欠有） [与君士坦丁的小说相比，作者说明了指定的数量 δ και ήμΐν αρκούντως έχειν δοκεϊ]）。 实际上，在 10 世纪上半叶，军事土地的登记仍在进行（可能才刚刚开始）； 尽管从君士坦丁七世的小说中可以明显看出，土地本身和依赖土地的服务都不是新事物——作者指出，过去有必要无偿征收那些非法获得这些财产的人。
Now the Life of Euthymius the Younger makes it clear that when the latter’s father had died (having been στρατεία καταλεγόμενος), Euthymius himself, having no brothers but two sisters, had to be enrolled, even though he was only seven years old at the time.80 That he was not required to serve militarily at all before he was eighteen should not surprise us, for the state can hardly have called him up before he was of fighting age; at which point he joined the monastic community, which suggests that he was able to acquit his services to the state in ways other than personally serving as a soldier. Had it been the land itself, however, which was regarded as “owing service”, then surely Euthymius’ mother could have enrolled herself and, if necessary, hired a man to serve as soldier until her son was himself old enough to fight. The same applies to the case reported in a letter attributed to Nikolaos Mystikos, in which a poor woman pleads that her son should receive eleutheria from his military obligations, since she has not the means to equip him. Here again, it is the son who is officially registered (or so we must understand from the request for eleutheria), and whose mother is in effect asking that he be struck off the register.
现在，小欧西米乌斯的生平清楚地表明，当后者的父亲去世时（曾是 应征入伍），欧西米乌斯本人没有兄弟，只有两个姐妹，尽管他是 当时只有 7 岁。80 他在 18 岁之前根本不需要服兵役，这不应该让我们感到惊讶，因为在他到了战斗年龄之前，国家几乎不可能召集他； 那时他加入了修道院社区，这表明他能够以个人作为士兵以外的方式为国家服务。然而，如果土地本身被视为“欠服务” ，那么 Euthymius 的母亲当然可以让自己报名参加，并在必要时雇一个男人当兵，直到她的儿子长大到可以参加战斗为止。 这同样适用于尼古拉斯·米斯蒂科斯 (Nikolaos Mystikos) 的一封信中报告的案例，其中一位贫穷的妇女恳求她的儿子应该从军事义务中获得 eleutheria，因为她没有办法装备他。 再次，正式登记的是儿子（或者我们必须从对 eleutheria 的请求中理解），而其母亲实际上要求将他从登记册中删除。
It thus appears that the association of the service owed with the land that supported the incumbent, rather than with his person, was only formally and legally fixed during the tenth century and during the immediately preceding years. Originally, military service was owed by individuals, hereditarily, whose families had to provide their equipment and mounts from holdings which were automatically (by virtue of the military status obtained through their soldier-member) granted certain exemptions from state leitourgiai.^ What was to begin with the hereditary obligation of an individual serving in the imperial forces and registered in the military kodikes or katalogoi, gradually became associated with an obligation upon the land or property held by such individuals and their families. It is surely an echo of this original relationship that we read of σ τρ ατιω τικ ο ί ο ίκ ο ι as opposed to π ο λ ιτικ ο ί ο ικ ο ι;84 and ably an eighth- or early ninth-century compilation; that edited by Ko r- zen sk y is to be dated to the time of Leo VI or after. See now V. V. Ku c ma, Ν Ο Μ Ο Σ Σ Τ Ρ Α Τ ΙΩ Τ ΙΚ Ο Σ . K voprosu o svyazi trekh pamyatnikov vizan- tiiskogo prava. VV 32 (1971) 276—284. De Caer. 695,5. Of. also Leo, Tact. IV 1, where the serving soldier’s family is clearly seen as the basis of his service; and also Leo, Tact. XX 71; De Vel. Bell. 239,13—15. For a note on the latter, see Lemer l e, Esquisse II 61, note 4. 85 De Caer. 695,18—21. The case of the soldier Leo referred to in note 100 below makes this quite clear. 86 Esquisse II 57. Cf. the comments of A. Ka zd a n, Eshchyo raz (art. cit. in note 57 above) 95—96 and note 10. I suggest that the often contradictory legislation of the period reflects a confused situation, in which a tradition of military service owed personally by a military family (that is, a family whose head was subject to an obligation inherited from his father), supported to a certain extent by their own income (land / livestock in the majority of cases) was developing into a system in which the onus was transferred to the land, whose owners had to fulfil the obligations attached thereto. Leaving aside for the moment the origins of such a system, this argument would explain a number of anomalies.
因此，服务与支持现任者的土地而不是与他个人的联系似乎只是在 10 世纪和前几年正式和法律上确定的。 最初，兵役是由世袭的个人承担的，他们的家庭必须从财产中提供他们的装备和坐骑，这些财产和坐骑自动（凭借通过他们的士兵成员获得的军事地位）被授予某些国家 leitourgiai 的豁免。什么是 从在帝国军队中服役并在军事科迪克或卡塔洛伊登记的个人的世袭义务开始，逐渐与这些个人及其家庭拥有的土地或财产的义务相关联。 我们读到 σ τρ ατιω τικ ο ί ο ίκ ο ι 而不是 π ο λ ιτικ ο ί ο ικ ο ι；并且很可能是 8 世纪或 9 世纪早期的汇编； Ko rzen sk y 编辑的日期为利奥六世或之后。 现在见 V. V. Ku c ma, Ν Ο Μ Ο Σ Σ Τ Ρ Α Τ ΙΩ Τ ΙΚ Ο Σ 。 K voprosu o svyazi trekh pamyatnikov vizan-tiiskogo prava。 VV 32 (1971) 276—284。 84 德卡尔。 695,5。 的。 还有狮子座，机智。 IV 1，现役军人的家庭被明确视为其服役的基础； 还有狮子座，机智。 XX 71; 德维尔。 钟。 239,13—15。 有关后者的说明，请参阅 Lemer le e, Esquisse II 61, note 4. 85 De Caer。 695,18—21。 下面附注 100 中提到的士兵 Leo 的情况非常清楚地说明了这一点。 86 Esquisse II 57。参见。 A. Ka zd an, Eshchyo raz 的评论（上文注 57 中引文）95-96 和注 10。 由军人家庭（即，其首领受制于从父亲那里继承的义务的家庭）个人欠下的，在一定程度上由他们自己的收入（在大多数情况下为土地/牲畜）支持，正在发展成为一种制度 责任转移到土地上，土地所有者必须履行其附带的义务。 暂且不谈这样一个系统的起源，这个论点可以解释一些异常现象。
未完待续
