拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（2）

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

A. THE SIXTH AND EARLY SEVENTH CENTURY AND THE “HERACLEIAN REFORM”

A. 六世纪和七世纪初的 “赫拉克勒改革”

In spite of the wealth of documentary evidence which exists for the administrative organisation of the state during the sixth century, the methods by which soldiers were recruited have remained in dispute. The evidence suggests that by the reign of Justinian, recruitment was organised on a more or less voluntary basis, a point of view adopted by Jones.2 The government laid great stress upon the enlistment of soldiers from areas within the empire inhabited by warlike peoples such as the Isaurians who, although enlisted into units which were a part of the regular establishment, were referred to by their national names and were raised for particular campaigns as the need arose.

        尽管 6 世纪国家行政组织存在大量书面证据，但招募士兵的方法仍然存在争议。 有证据表明，在查士丁尼统治时期，招募组织或多或少是在自愿的基础上进行的，这是琼斯所采纳的观点。2 政府非常重视从帝国内居住着好战民族的地区招募士兵，例如 作为伊苏里人，虽然他们被征召到属于正规机构的单位，但被称为他们的国家名称，并在需要时为特定的运动而被提升。

It has been objected, however, that conscription had not fallen completely out of use, or at least, that it was re-introduced during or shortly after the reign of Justinian. Since Jones hardly touched upon the objections, and since the point is so important for the later development of recruiting, it will be worth examining the matter in greater detail here.

        然而，有人反对征兵制并没有完全停止使用，或者至少在查士丁尼统治期间或之后不久重新引入了征兵制度。 由于琼斯几乎没有提到反对意见，而且这一点对于招聘的后期发展非常重要，因此值得在这里更详细地研究这个问题。

The evidence for this viewpoint lies chiefly in the content of several clauses retained in the Codex lustinianus which deal with the exemptions from protostasia and prototypia on the one hand, and appear to require the sons of soldiers and officiates to register themselves in their father’s profession on the other; and in addition, in the disappearance from the Codex of the clauses relevant to the aurum tironicum, the levy extracted in lieu of the surrender of men to the recruiting officer. It might thus suggest that a system of hereditary conscription as well as one of raising men from the land continued to be employed during and after Justinian’s reign. But looked at in its context, this evidence is not as convincing as it at first sight appears

        这一观点的证据主要在于 Codex lustinianus 中保留的几个条款的内容，这些条款一方面涉及对 protostasia 和 prototypia 的豁免，并且似乎要求士兵和官员的儿子在他们父亲的职业中登记另一个; 此外，在与 aurum tironicum 相关的条款从法典中消失时，征收的税款代替了将人交给招聘官。 因此，这可能表明在查士丁尼统治期间和之后继续使用世袭征兵制度以及从土地上抚养男人的制度。 但是从上下文来看，这个证据并不像乍一看那样令人信服。

That hereditary conscription was retained need not be doubted. But it was retained only in the limitanei, especially in “quiet” areas such as Egypt, where a peace-keeping force rather than fighting troops was required. In fact, such enrolment was regarded as a privilege rather than as a burden. In addition, it should be noted that all the clauses dealing with the exemptions are concerned not specifically with capitularii, for example, or protostasia, but rather with the release of certain categories of state officials from a variety of munera. The latter are placed one after another in lists which are clearly intended to be inclusive. It seems more likely that those responsible for noting the munera from which certain officials were to be freed did not go through each clause with a toothcomb and weed out every single anachronism. The retention of such terms within these clauses can hardly be used as evidence for the retention of the munera in question.

        保留了世袭征兵制是毋庸置疑的。 但它只保留在限制范围内，尤其是在埃及等“安静”地区，在那里需要维持和平部队而不是战斗部队。 事实上，这样的入学被视为一种特权，而不是一种负担。 此外，应该指出的是，所有涉及豁免的条款都不是专门涉及 capitularii 或 protostasia，而是涉及从各种 munera 中释放某些类别的国家官员。 后者被一个接一个地放在列表中，这些列表显然是包含在内的。 似乎更有可能的是，那些负责注意到某些官员将被释放的 munera 的人并没有用牙梳子仔细检查每个条款并清除每一个不合时宜的错误。 在这些条款中保留这些术语几乎不能作为保留有关munera 的证据。

One of the clauses in the Codex lustinianus refers to the military grade of biarcus, a rank associated specifically with the new field units raised by Diocletian and Constantine and their successors (and therefore having nothing to do with the limitanei), and the rights of the sons of soldiers killed on active service to inherit their father’s rank and emoluments.6 Thus Stein and later Karayan- nopoulos argued that this is evidence for the retention of hereditary conscription in military families,7 and that the disappearance of the aurum tironicum was compensated in two ways: by the main- tenance of hereditary conscription, and by the application of the protostasia, or levy of recruits from estates and groups of tax-payers. The re-establishment of this system was the result of the scarcity of barbarian recruits and the difficulty of paying them, in the later sixth century. The big recruiting drive under Tiberius is the last that we hear of on a large scale, and later campaigns were carried out within the empire.

        Codex lustinianus 中的一个条款提到了 biarcus 的军事等级，这一等级与戴克里先和君士坦丁及其继任者提出的新的野战单位特别相关（因此与限制无关），以及 士兵的儿子为了继承父亲的军衔和薪酬而在现役时阵亡。 6 因此，斯坦因和后来的卡拉扬诺普洛斯认为，这是军人家庭中保留世袭征兵制度的证据，7 并且 aurum tironicum 的消失在 两种方式：维持世袭征兵制，以及通过原生征的应用，或从庄园和纳税人群体中征募新兵。 这一制度的重新建立是六世纪后期野蛮新兵稀缺和支付困难的结果。 提比略领导下的大规模招募活动是我们听到的最后一次大规模的招募活动，后来的活动是在帝国内部进行的。  

The last point may be valid, but Maurice appears to have had no difficulty in recruiting from among Isaurians and Cappadocians. He also levied troops on quite a large scale from the allied Armenian princedoms and the Armenian territories under Roman authority.Persians captured in the eastern campaigns were also enrolled in the regular forces, as had happened under Justinian, and were probably posted to the west; while Theophylact Simocatta mentions in addition Apsich, a Hun who held a high command, and the Lombard Drocton, who held a similar post. II The Illyrians referred to in the Strategikon can be compared with those raised by Justinian from both Thrace and Illyricum, troops who were attracted by relatively favourable conditions, a cash bounty and the expectation of regular pay. There is no hint of a conscription at this time.

        最后一点可能是对的，但莫里斯在从伊苏利亚人和卡帕多西亚人中招募似乎没有任何困难。 他还向同盟国的亚美尼亚公国和罗马统治下的亚美尼亚领土大规模征兵。在东部战役中俘虏的波斯人也加入了正规部队，就像查士丁尼治下的那样，可能被派往西部 ; 而 Theophylact Simocatta 还提到了担任最高统帅的匈奴人 Apsich 和担任类似职位的伦巴第人。 被相对有利的条件、现金赏金和对正常工资的期望所吸引的部队。目前没有征兵的迹象。

Maurice’s attempted reform of the issue of the equipment allowance, and his introduction (or rather re-introduction) of state pensions for disabled veterans, throws more light on this problem, and especially on the matter of hereditary service obligations. Theophylact Simocatta described Maurice’s reform briefly, but he included the essential details. Now the law in the Codex already referred to permits the enlistment of the son, or eldest son if there are more than one, upon the death of the father while on duty. The son is to succeed to his father’s grade and allowance up to the rank of biarcus.11 12 The reason is given as not for the purpose of maintaining numbers (although this was undoubtedly one result) but to provide for the dead soldier’s family.

          莫里斯试图改革设备津贴问题，以及他为残疾退伍军人引入（或更确切地说是重新引入）国家养老金，更多地阐明了这个问题，尤其是在世袭服务义务问题上。  Theophylact Simocatta 简要描述了莫里斯的改革，但他包括了基本细节。 现在已经提到的法典中的法律允许儿子或长子（如果有一个以上）在父亲在职期间死亡后入伍。 儿子要继承他父亲的等级和津贴，直到比阿库斯的军衔。11 12 给出的理由不是为了保持人数（尽管这无疑是一个结果），而是为了养活死去的士兵的家人。

The re-introduction of the same regulation by Maurice, although making no reference to the rank of the deceased, is ascribed by Theophylact to Maurice’s philanthropy; and in fact both laws apply only to the sons of soldiers killed on service, as a means of providing for the dead man’s kin, while the family thus retained the various privileges it gained through its military member.14 This point is emphasised by the context in which Theophylact reports the reform. For the emperor’s brother Peter had brought news of a series of changes; and whereas Theophylact places the reform dealing with the more rigid administration of pay among those changes which were unpopular and which the troops rejected, that with which we are concerned here was greeted as a popular measure by the soldiers. A move to apply hereditary conscription to all soldiers’ sons would hardly have met with such a reception.

          莫里斯重新引入相同的规定，虽然没有提及死者的等级，但 Theophylact 将其归因于莫里斯的慈善事业； 事实上，这两项法律都只适用于在服役期间阵亡的士兵的儿子，作为供养死者亲属的一种手段，而家属因此保留了通过其军人获得的各种特权。 14 上下文强调了这一点 其中 Theophylact 报告了改革。 因为皇帝的弟弟彼得带来了一系列变化的消息； 虽然 Theophylact 将处理更严格的薪酬管理的改革置于那些不受欢迎且被军队拒绝的改革之中，但我们在这里所关心的改革却被士兵们视为一项受欢迎的措施。 对所有士兵的儿子实行世袭征兵的举动几乎不会受到这样的欢迎。

未完待续