（文章翻译）拜占庭兵役、军事土地和士兵的地位：当前的问题和解释（第十部分）
Military Service, Military Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and Interpretations Author(s): John Haldon
敦巴顿橡树园论文，1993 年
翻译：神尾智代
接上
The fact that the value of the property deemed necessary to support a thematic cavalry soldier was set at some 4 or 5 pounds of gold, that of a marine of the naval themata at 2 to 3 pounds of gold, appears to support this. For in respect of what is known about land prices for the period, this appears at first sight to represent more than simply a peasant holding, but a substantial small estate. In consequence the theme soldiers whose property attained this value might be thought of as being relatively well-off, an established rural elite. While the price of land varied regionally, 4 pounds of gold (i.e., 288 nomismata) would have purchased between 250 and 600 modioi (that is about 25 to 60 hectares, or 61 to 148 acres), according to its quality (productivity) and its use.
支持军区骑兵士兵所需的财产价值设定为大约 4 或 5 磅黄金，而海军军区的海军陆战队士兵的价值为 2 至 3 磅黄金，这一事实似乎支持了这一点。 因为就当时所知的地价而言，乍一看，这似乎不仅仅代表了一个农民持有，而是一个可观的小地产。 因此，财产达到这个值的军区士兵可能被认为是相对富裕的，一个成熟的农村精英。 虽然土地价格因地区而异，但根据其质量（生产力）和 它的用途。
In the later tenth and eleventh centuries, however, a range of figures suggests that the holding of a peasant paroikos, or tenant, with one or two oxen could vary considerably-between about 80 and 200 modioi, according to the area and the estate-figures which suggest that many of those stratiotai who were in possession of land valued at 4 pounds of gold were not necessarily all that distinct from many ordinary peasant tenants. And it is worth recalling that the figure of 4 or 5 pounds of gold is a figure that "ought" to be sufficient, suggesting that in reality there was a great deal of variation.
然而，在 10 世纪后期和 11 世纪，一系列数据表明，农民的 paroikos 或佃户拥有一两只牛可能会有很大差异——根据地区和庄园的不同，大约在 80 到 200 头之间—— 数据表明，许多拥有价值 4 磅黄金土地的阶层并不一定与许多普通的农民佃户完全不同。 值得回顾的是，4 或 5 磅黄金的数字是一个“应该”足够的数字，这表明实际上存在很大差异。
Of course, the legislation in which these figures appear, figures intended to protect the minimum amount of land registered and thenceforth inalienable (although it could be subdivided by inheritance), also assumes that some stratiotai may have possessed a good deal more land than this. But it is particularly important in this connection to recall that the legislation specifies that the strateia (which is to say, the land which pro-duces the income to support the strateia) should be of such-and-such a value, not, how-ever, the holding of a single individual. Partible inheritance, which was the norm, will have brought about the fragmentation of many such properties (and hence the need for the partial strateia), with the result likewise that many holders of strateia will have held probably rather small holdings from which to earn their living, and have been relatively impoverished. To speak in such a context of stratiotai as either "soldier-peasants" or as a rural "gentry" seems thus to oversimplify the issue.
当然，这些数字出现的立法，旨在保护最低数量的注册土地并从此不可剥夺（尽管它可以通过继承细分），也假设某些阶层可能拥有比这更多的土地。但在这方面特别重要的是要记住，立法规定地块（也就是说，产生收入以支持地块的土地）应该具有这样或那样的价值，而不是如何——曾经，持有一个人，部分继承，这是常态，将导致许多此类财产的碎片化（因此需要部分财产），结果同样是许多财产持有者可能持有相当小的财产来赚取他们的收入。生活，相对贫困。在这样一个阶层的背景下，以“兵农”或农村“绅士”的身份说话，似乎过于简单化了这个问题。
There is a further consideration which must have had implications for the relative wealth and status of soldiers, whether holders of strateiai or serving men. This is the fact that, within each thematic army, there existed a differentiation between light and heavy cavalry and infantry as well as other arms-slingers, archers, and so on. In the period up to the middle of the seventh century, we may assume that, in its broad outline at least, the tactical organization of the later sixth century, as reflected in the account of Theophylact Simocatta, for example, or the so-called Strategikon of Maurice, continued to function. But what happened to the different specialist arms after the dispersal and localization of the armies had begun during the 640s and after? Did the Boukellarioi, for example, continue to function and be equipped as a crack division of heavy cavalry as described by the Strategikon? Similar considerations apply to the foederati, later forminga tourma in the Anatolikon thema, as well as the optimatoi (who were transformed into a support unit for the tagmata under Constantine V), or the Theodosiakoi and Biktores in the Thrakesion thema. Did the different banda into which each of the later thematic tourmai were divided maintain their original tactical armament, with all the implications for the cost of weapons and armor, training, and skills, that this entails? Or was this lost and reduced to a common denominator over the centuries?
进一步的考虑，它一定对士兵的相对财富和地位产生了影响，无论是战略持有者还是现役军人。这就是事实，在每个主题军队中，轻重骑兵和步兵以及其他投石手、弓箭手等都存在差异。在直到 7 世纪中叶的这段时间里，我们可以假设，至少在其大体上，6 世纪后期的战术组织，例如在 Theophylact Simocatta 的描述中所反映的那样，或者所谓的莫里斯的 Strategikon 继续发挥作用。但是，在 640 年代及之后军队开始分散和本地化之后，不同的专业兵种发生了什么？例如，Boukellarioi 是否继续发挥作用并被装备为 Strategikon 所描述的重型骑兵的精锐师？类似的考虑也适用于 foederati，后来在 Anatolikon thema 中形成了 tourma，以及 optimatoi（在君士坦丁五世时期被转变为 tagmata 的支持单位），或 Thrakesion thema 中的 Theodosiakoi 和 Biktores。将后来的每一个军区图尔迈划分成的不同banda是否保持了他们最初的战术武器，以及对武器和盔甲成本、训练和技能的所有影响，这意味着？还是在几个世纪以来，这已经丢失并简化为一个共同点？
Lack of space prevents a full discussion of these issues here, important though they are. But for all these reasons, I do not think that the stratiotai formed a distinct social group, as stratiotai, although many of them must have belonged to a stratum of petty landlords and some to the lower reaches of the "powerful." By the same token, the extent to which a particular juridical status gave the poorer soldiers who held a strateia a slightly higher social position in anything other than legal fiction, therefore, is very difficult to determine. It may well be that their position was reinforced, for a time at least, by the imperial legislation protecting the properties on which service was based. And it must be remembered that this applied both to the actual soldiers, as well as to those whose properties supported the strateia. The position of the wealthiest theme soldiers with strateiai may, as already mentioned, have been further enhanced by the legislation of Nicephorus II, insofar as it expanded the gulf between the wealthier and poorer stratiotai. By the same token, it appears to have dramatically hastened the fiscalization of the strateia in general, with the result that the regular theme forces, of little military value in active offensive warfare, were more and more neglected, while the imperial armies were increasingly composed of professional, full-time soldiers, whether indigenous or not, whose local loyalties and embryonic associations with Byzantine society at the local level rapidly declined. The army of the later tenth and eleventh centuries became, in effect, socially deracinated.
空间不足阻碍了对这些问题的全面讨论，尽管它们很重要。但是由于这些原因，我不认为阶层形成了一个独特的社会群体，作为阶层，虽然他们中的许多人一定属于小地主阶层，也有一些属于“强权”的下层。出于同样的原因，特定的法律地位在多大程度上赋予了那些在法律虚构之外的任何东西中拥有略高的社会地位的贫困士兵，因此很难确定。很可能，至少在一段时间内，他们的地位得到了加强，因为帝国立法保护了服务所依据的财产。并且必须记住，这既适用于实际士兵，也适用于那些财产支持战略的人。正如已经提到的那样，最富有的军区士兵的地位可能已经被尼斯福鲁斯二世的立法进一步加强，因为它扩大了富人和穷人之间的鸿沟。同理，它似乎大大加快了整个战略的财政化进程，结果是在积极的进攻战争中没有多少军事价值的正规军越来越被忽视，而帝国军队则越来越精简。专业的全职士兵，无论是否是土著，他们对当地的忠诚度和与当地拜占庭社会的初步联系迅速下降。 10 世纪末和 11 世纪的军队实际上在社会上被消灭了。
The period about which we are least well-informed remains that of the seventh and eighth centuries. We can only guess that the fiscal and juridical advantages of registering as a soldier brought social advantages too, just as they had done in the late Roman period, although once again there must have always existed differences in social standing consequent upon wealth and military role. But even in the crisis period of the tenth century such advantages must still have been important: Constantine VII's seventh novel makes it clear that individuals were still registering themselves and their properties, which they would hardly have done had it not been of advantage to them.
我们最不了解的时期仍然是七世纪和八世纪。 我们只能猜测，注册为士兵的财政和司法优势也带来了社会优势，就像他们在罗马时期晚期所做的那样，尽管由于财富和军事角色，社会地位必然始终存在差异。 但即使在 10 世纪的危机时期，这些优势肯定仍然很重要：君士坦丁七世的第七部小说清楚地表明，个人仍在登记自己和财产，如果没有这对他们有利，他们几乎不会这样做。
The general position of thematic soldiers as a special category in the late Roman sense begins to deteriorate from the tenth century, however. This is a result of several developments. First, the increasing tendency, which by the time of the reign of Constantine Monomachos (1042-55) had become general, except in certain border themata or provinces, to fiscalize the burden of military service, the strateia, so that it was commuted into a regular cash tax. Under Monomachos, the remaining border forces (of Mesopotamia and Iberia) were also stood down, their service likewise being commuted for a regular cash payment. The category of military lands continued to exist throughout the eleventh century, although the strateia came to represent merely one fiscal obligation among several.146 In addition, with the use of the device of pronoia to maintain soldiers (occasionally in the eleventh century, increasingly during the second half of the twelfth century and after), and with the reliance of the state on salaried tagmatic units made up of a mixture of both Byzantines and foreigners, together with foreign mercenaries under their own leaders, the peasants who had previously supplied the core of the theme armies were no longer differentiated from the mass of the rural population.
然而，军区士兵作为晚期罗马意义上的特殊类别的一般地位从十世纪开始恶化。这是几个发展的结果。首先，到君士坦丁·莫诺马乔斯（1042-55 年）统治时期，除了某些边境军区或省份外，这种趋势越来越普遍，将兵役负担财政化，即战略，因此它被转为定期现金税。在 Monomachos 的统治下，剩余的边防部队（美索不达米亚和伊比利亚）也被停职，他们的服务同样被通勤以定期支付现金。整个 11 世纪，军用土地的类别继续存在，尽管 Strateia 只是几个财政义务中的一项。 146 此外，随着使用 pronoia 装置来维持士兵（偶尔在 11 世纪，在12 世纪下半叶及以后），并且由于国家对由拜占庭人和外国人以及他们自己领导下的外国雇佣军组成的受薪标签单位的依赖，以前提供核心的农民军区军队不再与广大农村人口区分开来。
This does not mean that soldiers did not continue to enjoy a particular legal status: there is no reason to think that non-Byzantines under their own leaders were treated any differently from indigenous soldiers. In respect of traditional juridical privileges and fiscal exemptions, it was the name and title of soldier which continued to be crucial, not the possession of a particular category of land. Whatever their origins, soldiers continued to be vital to the survival of the state. The emperor Alexios I praised those knights and foot soldiers who died during the course of the First Crusade as "blessed... since they met their end in good intent. Moreover, we ought not to regard them as dead, but living and transported to live everlasting and incorruptible"——echoing perhaps the sentiments expressed by the author of the treatise on skirmishing warfare more than a century earlier.
这并不意味着士兵没有继续享有特定的法律地位：没有理由认为在他们自己的领导人领导下的非拜占庭人受到与土著士兵不同的待遇。 在传统的司法特权和财政豁免方面，士兵的姓名和头衔仍然是至关重要的，而不是拥有特定类别的土地。 无论他们的起源如何，士兵对国家的生存仍然至关重要。 阿莱克修斯一世皇帝称赞那些在第一次十字军东征期间牺牲的骑士和步兵“有福了……因为他们善意地结束了自己的生命。此外，我们不应将他们视为死者，而应将他们视为活着并运送到 永垂不朽”——这或许与一个多世纪前关于小冲突的论文作者所表达的观点相呼应。
Second, one of the reasons for the important position of soldiers in practical terms in the period from the seventh to the tenth century was the absence of any other focus save the armies for nonmetropolitan or provincial opinion, and the central position of the strategoi, the thematic commanders, in imperial politics. From the tenth century, the recovery of commerce and provincial urban fortunes, coupled with the civilianization of thematic administration into the first half of the eleventh century, with the rise to prominence of a provincial magnate class and with the disposable wealth and the influence of all who held imperial titles, altered these conditions, so that the structural position of soldiers in society as a whole changed.
其次，在 7 世纪到 10 世纪期间，士兵在实际意义上具有重要地位的原因之一是除了军队之外没有其他关注点，而军队的非本部或省级舆论，以及战略的中心地位，即 帝国政治中的专题指挥官。 从十世纪开始，商业和省城财富的恢复，加上专题管理的平民化进入十一世纪上半叶，随着省级豪门阶级的崛起和可支配的财富和所有人的影响力 谁拥有皇位，改变了这些条件，从而使士兵在整个社会中的结构地位发生了变化。
This is a very important point, for it seems to me that, with the developments of the middle and later seventh century, soldiers had become an increasingly integral part of rural provincial society, much more so than they had ever been before. The military lands, as they were eventually defined during the tenth century, were a by-product of this integration; and as the state's demands for soldiers in the offensive and expansionist campaigns of the tenth century and the political considerations of the eleventh century stimulated radical changes in both the mode of supporting the armies, on the one hand (fiscalization of the strateia), and the sources of soldiers, on the other, so the military lands and the provincial armies or militias which they had supported ultimately passed away, although it has to be said that there are a number of unresolved questions in this respect. During the course of the tenth century, there set in a process of separation of the regular troops of the empire from the mass of the ordinary, rural population, a process which was completed by the last quarter of the eleventh century and which I have already characterized as one of social deracination.
这是非常重要的一点，因为在我看来，随着七世纪中后期的发展，士兵已成为农村省级社会日益不可或缺的一部分，比以往任何时候都更加重要。最终在十世纪定义的军事土地是这种整合的副产品。并且由于国家在 10 世纪的进攻和扩张主义运动中对士兵的需求以及 11 世纪的政治考虑刺激了一方面支持军队的方式（战略的财政化）和另一方面，他们支持的军事土地和省军或民兵最终消失了，尽管不得不说在这方面还有许多悬而未决的问题。在 10 世纪的过程中，帝国的正规军队与普通农村人口开始了一个分离的过程，这个过程在 11 世纪的最后 25 年完成。
But this change in the structural position of the soldier, and in the organization and financing of the armies, did not necessarily affect their position in the ideological scheme of things. It did mean a greater distance between provincial society and the armies, as the latter came increasingly to be made up of men not recruited from, and based for a much shorter time in, the areas they happened to be passing through or defending. And while this does not mean that tagmata recruited from the provinces were never based in their own districts, nor that traditional thematic forces could not still be raised (until the 1070s, at least), it does mean that the full-time and mercenary basis on which they served qualitatively affected their relationship to the population from which they were drawn. The contrast between the two periods is brought out most clearly in the archival documents, from which it is clear that the notorious institution of mitaton served as one of the main means of supporting troops, both in transit and in their camps as well as not on active service-in the earlier period, the majority of provincial soldiers had been dispersed in their homes (the need for a general muster before campaigns, so frequently referred to in the sources up to the first half of the tenth century, is ample evidence for this), and billeted on civilians only during campaigns. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the shift from a system of partly self-supporting soldier-militias, raised and maintained on a local basis, to that of an essentially mercenary army which had to be supported by cash and corvwes imposed upon the ordinary population than the regular occurrence in the surviving archival documents of exemptions from mitaton and related aggareiai granted by the emperors to monastic and ecclesiastical landlords. Eleventh-century sources refer quite clearly to the cantonment of mercenary troops in the provinces, without doubt through the application of mitaton. Interestingly, the anonymous treatise on campaign procedures written in the reign of either John I Tzimiskes or Basil II implies that general adnoumia ormusters had fallen out of use in recent years, evidence perhaps of the preeminent role of "tagmatic" units raised on a mercenary basis, for whom such musters or "call-ups" would not be relevant.
但这种士兵结构地位的变化，以及军队组织和经费方面的变化，并不一定会影响他们在思想体系中的地位。这确实意味着省级社会和军队之间的距离越来越远，因为后者越来越多地由不是从他们碰巧经过或保卫的地区招募的人组成，而且驻扎的时间要短得多。虽然这并不意味着从各省招募的塔格玛塔永远不会驻扎在他们自己的地区，也不意味着仍然无法培养传统的军区部队（至少直到 1070 年代），但这确实意味着全职和雇佣兵的基础他们所服务的地方在质量上影响了他们与他们所在人群的关系。两个时期之间的对比在档案文件中最为明显，从中可以清楚地看出，臭名昭著的米塔顿机构是支持军队的主要手段之一，无论是在过境还是在他们的营地以及不在现役——在早期，大部分省级士兵都分散在家中（直到 10 世纪上半叶的资料中经常提到的战役前总集结的需要，充分证明了这），并且仅在竞选期间向平民提供住宿。没有什么比这更清楚地说明了从在地方基础上建立和维持的部分自给自足的士兵-民兵体系转变为必须由强加给普通民众的现金和乌鸦支持的本质上的雇佣军体系的转变。在现存的档案文件中经常出现皇帝授予修道院和教会地主免于 mitaton 和相关 aggareiai 的情况。 11 世纪的资料非常清楚地提到了雇佣军在各省的驻扎，毫无疑问是通过 mitaton 的应用。有趣的是，在约翰一世齐米克斯或巴西尔二世统治时期撰写的关于竞选程序的匿名论文暗示，一般的 adnoumia ormusters 近年来已不再使用，这可能证明了在雇佣基础上建立的“tagmatic”单位的卓越作用，对他们来说，这样的召集或“召集”将不相关。
Such soldiers were as important as ever to the defense and security of the state, Orthodoxy, and the dominant social groups, and in the official ideology they still held their significance. But the transformation of the structures of state administration, and of the relationship between the state, the ruling elite of magnate clans, holders of imperial dignities, the wealthy and middling urban and landowning families, on the one hand, and the depressed rural population, on the other, lent to the armies and their members a very different character and position in the structure of late Byzantine society and politics. In spite of the dramatic changes that affected Roman administration and institutions during and after the seventh century, it would be reasonable to conclude that what we in fact have until the tenth century is a highly evolved version of the late Roman state, together with the institutional norms and structures which were inherited from that time. From the tenth to the twelfth century, these institutions are further radically transformed, with the result that the military comes to occupy a very different position in society, and to represent a very different set of institutions and social relationships from those which had gone before.
这些士兵对国家、东正教和占主导地位的社会群体的防御和安全一如既往地重要，在官方意识形态中，他们仍然具有重要意义。但是，一方面国家行政结构的转变，以及国家、宗族统治精英、皇室贵族、富裕的中等城市和地主家庭与贫困的农村人口之间的关系，另一方面，在拜占庭晚期社会和政治结构中，军队及其成员具有非常不同的特征和地位。尽管在 7 世纪期间和之后影响了罗马行政和制度的巨大变化，但有理由得出这样的结论：直到 10 世纪，我们实际上拥有的是晚期罗马国家的高度进化版本，连同制度从那个时代继承下来的规范和结构。从 10 世纪到 12 世纪，这些机构进一步发生了根本性的转变，其结果是军队在社会中占据了非常不同的位置，并代表了与以前完全不同的一套机构和社会关系。
The history of its development after the twelfth century has been supplied by other scholars. In particular, attention has been drawn to the shifts in strategic priorities which followed from the empire's isolated and internally unstable position from the 1260s onward, shifts which themselves promoted a very different, and very much more heterogeneous military structure than was the case in the earlier period. But that is yet another story, already taken up by other historians, and I do not wish to pursue it here.
其他学者提供了其十二世纪以后的发展历史。 尤其值得注意的是，从 1260 年代起，帝国处于孤立和内部不稳定的地位之后，战略重点发生了转变，这些转变本身促进了一种与早期情况截然不同、更加多样化的军事结构 时期。 但那是另一个故事，已经被其他历史学家讨论过了，我不想在这里深究。
未完待续
