（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（第四部分）
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
V. THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGINS OF THE “MILITARY LANDS”
五、“军地”的起源问题
For the purposes of the present discussion we will define "military lands" in the simplest sense as holdings of varying extent, held by a person who was entered in the military registers as owing military service hereditarily to the state, which service was supported in respect of basic equipment and, to a degree, provisions, from the income derived from that land. Eventually, the land itself came to be regarded as inalienable.
出于目前讨论的目的，我们将在最简单的意义上将“军事土地”定义为不同程度的财产，由在军事登记册上登记为国家的世袭服兵役的人持有，该服务在以下方面得到支持 基本设备和一定程度上的供给来自那块土地的收入。 最终，土地本身被认为是不可分割的。
What evidence is there, therefore, for the relationship between soldiers and land? It derives largely from a small number of legal texts, probably of the first half of the eighth century, from hagiography, and from individual references in letters or in narrative histories and chronicles, until we meet the legislation of the Macedonian emperors in the tenth century. As we will see below, the late Roman evidence for soldiers' fiscal status and land is also relevant. From all this material, I think we are justified in drawing the following conclusions.
那么，兵地关系有什么证据呢？ 它主要来源于少数法律文本，可能是 8 世纪上半叶的，来源于圣徒传记，以及信件或叙事历史和编年史中的个别参考资料，直到我们在 10 世纪遇到马其顿皇帝的立法 . 正如我们将在下面看到的，罗马晚期关于士兵财政状况和土地的证据也是相关的。 从所有这些材料中，我认为我们有理由得出以下结论。
In the first place, there seems little doubt that by about 740, and probably already well before this time, some soldiers were being supported for their military service by their families and relatives. By the same token, it appears that they could also own their arms and military equipment (a clear contrast with the earlier period, when such items always remained ultimately the property of the state); and that they were expected to replace items of equipment and mounts at their own expense. Two legal texts of this time in particular, which I will examine in greater detail below, make this abundantly clear. But there was no obligation on the families of soldiers to support them-both texts in question deal with the consequences of what we would term breaches of contract between different members of such families regarding the outgoings on equipment provided by the household, the income from booty and state payments received by the soldier, and the degree of reciprocity between the two.
首先，毫无疑问，大约在 740 年左右，而且很可能早在这个时间之前，一些士兵就得到了他们的家人和亲戚的支持以供他们服兵役。 出于同样的原因，他们似乎也可以拥有自己的武器和军事装备（与早期形成鲜明对比，当时这些物品最终始终归国家所有）； 并且他们应该自费更换设备和坐骑。 我将在下面更详细地研究这段时间的两份法律文本，特别清楚地说明了这一点。 但是，士兵家属没有义务支持他们——有问题的两份案文都处理了我们称之为此类家庭不同成员之间在家庭提供的设备支出、战利品收入方面违反合同的后果。 和士兵收到的国家付款，以及两者之间的互惠程度。
The first of the two texts has been dated by its editor to approximately the middle of the eighth century, probably to the joint reigns of Leo III and Constantine V. It represents a ruling on an obligation outstanding between a soldier and his father-in law, in which the latter's contribution to the soldier's military service and the appropriate level of compensation is at issue. The key element lies in the fact that the father-in-law has the right to receive back a proportion of what he invested in his son-in-law's main tenance and equipment, if the latter later leaves the household. The assumption behind the ruling is that the agreement by which the son-in-law moved into his father-in-law's household is now ended-and that the son-in-law is therefore no longer contributing to the household. There is no need to assume, of course, that the household was in any way obliged to support the soldier: the ruling merely represents the conditions under which a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement could be terminated.
两部文本中的第一部被其编辑定为大约 8 世纪中叶，可能是利奥三世和君士坦丁五世的联合统治时期。它代表了对士兵与其岳父之间未尽义务的裁决，其中后者对士兵服兵役的贡献和适当的补偿水平是有问题的。关键在于，如果女婿后来离开家庭，岳父有权收回他投资于其主要租赁和设备的一定比例。该裁决背后的假设是，女婿搬入其岳父家的协议现已终止，因此女婿不再为该家庭做出贡献。当然，没有必要假设家庭以任何方式有义务支持士兵：裁决仅代表可以终止互利合同安排的条件。
The second text comes from the legal compilation the Ecloga, issued by Leo and Constantine in 741, chapter 6.2, and deals with the case of brothers, one a soldier, who jointly inherit the parental estate and household.57 It illustrates a similar point as in the first text. Here the ruling is that the brother in military service, and those who continue to work the land or farm the estate (the extent to which those involved are landlords or actual peasant exploiters is unclear), should divide their incomes equally if (in the absence of any formal agreement stipulating otherwise) the soldier decides to leave the household permanently within ten years of the parents' decease. If the separation oc curs between ten and thirteen years of this event, the same division occurs, with the proviso that the soldier retain his military equipment, which is exempted from the di vision of property. If the separation occurs after a period of thirteen years or more of common ownership of the parental estate, then the soldier is to retain everything he has earned as a soldier after the said thirteenth year.
第二个文本来自于 741 年 Leo 和 Constantine 出版的 Ecloga 的法律汇编，第 6.2 章，处理兄弟的情况，一个是士兵，他们共同继承父母的财产和家庭。 57 它说明了类似的观点在第一个文本中。这里的判决是服兵役的兄弟和继续在土地上耕种的人（涉及的人是地主还是实际的农民剥削者的程度尚不清楚），如果（在不存在的情况下）应平均分配收入任何正式协议另有规定）士兵决定在父母去世后十年内永久离开家庭。如果分离发生在此事件的十年至十三年之间，则发生相同的划分，条件是士兵保留其军事装备，不受财产划分。如果分居发生在父母财产共有 13 年或更长时间之后，则士兵将在上述第 13 年之后保留他作为士兵所获得的一切。
Two points need to be made. First, the soldier's income was regarded as contributory to the common household; concomitantly, the soldier is clearly regarded as being supported by the household, at least to a degree-this is certainly the case in the first text referred to above. If this were not the case, there would have been little purpose to the legislation, which appears to have been established to regulate a problem which might arise or had already arisen. The soldier would simply have kept his military equipment and his pay, as well as his share of the inherited property, according to traditional legal prescription. The other brother or brothers would likewise have received their portion, but none of the soldier's income-which, it is important to note, had always enjoyed a specific statute, defined as peculium castrense/stratiotikon pekoulion, which exempted it from such subdivision or infringement-a statute which Ecloga 6.1, immediately pre ceding the second of these two texts, makes abundantly clear.
有两点需要说明。首先，士兵的收入被视为对普通家庭的贡献；与此同时，士兵显然被认为是由家庭抚养的，至少在一定程度上——这在上面提到的第一个文本中肯定是这种情况。如果不是这种情况，立法就没有什么意义了，它似乎是为了规范可能出现或已经出现的问题而制定的。根据传统的法律规定，士兵只会保留他的军事装备和工资，以及他在继承财产中的份额。其他兄弟或兄弟同样会收到他们的部分，但没有士兵的收入 - 重要的是要注意，一直享有特定法规，定义为 peculium castrense/stratiotikon pekoulion，该法规免除其进行此类细分或侵权- Ecloga 6.1 法规，紧接在这两个文本的第二个之前，非常清楚。
Second, since the horse, weapons, and so on are specifically excluded from the di vision of property (unlike his other income), the implication must surely be that the remaining brother(s) may have had some claim on them. They were therefore specifically exempted in the interests of the state. Again, there is absolutely no reason to think that the household had been in any way obliged to support the soldier, a point I have emphasized elsewhere: the specific situation outlined in the Ecloga passage means simply that in this case the household had been a supportive element and should therefore receive appropriate compensation for its investment. It is worth emphasizing the fact that, if the subdivision of the property were simply a matter of apportioning the joint wealth of the brothers, the graded nature of the Ecloga stipulations would have been irrelevant. Instead, the jurists who drew up the clause clearly saw the need to compensate the household or estate for the soldier's departure up to a period of ten years. Thereafter, the soldier's income was assumed to have covered some aspects of his maintenance, and he kept horse and weapons; after thirteen years, his obligations were quit.
其次，由于马匹、武器等被明确排除在财产分割之外（与他的其他收入不同），这意味着剩下的兄弟可能对它们有一些要求。因此，为了国家利益，他们被特别豁免。同样，绝对没有理由认为家庭以任何方式有义务支持士兵，这一点我在别处强调过：Ecloga 段落中概述的具体情况仅意味着在这种情况下家庭一直支持元素，因此应为其投资获得适当的补偿。值得强调的是，如果分割财产仅仅是兄弟共同财产的分配问题，那么Ecloga规定的分级性质就无关紧要了。相反，起草该条款的法学家清楚地看到，有必要为士兵的离去补偿家庭或财产，最长期限为十年。此后，士兵的收入被假定为维持他的某些方面，他保留马匹和武器；十三年后，他的义务被取消了。
This interpretation is supported by the legal decision attributed to Leo and Con stantine mentioned already, which again seeks to regulate a possible conflict of claims over property or income owed to one side or another of two contracting parties. In the case of the Ecloga text, the whole point is that there was no written contract, hence conflict might arise.
这一解释得到了前面提到的利奥和康斯坦丁的法律裁决的支持，该裁决再次试图规范对欠两个缔约方中的一方或另一方的财产或收入的可能的索赔冲突。 在 Ecloga 文本的情况下，重点是没有书面合同，因此可能会出现冲突。
There is absolutely no suggestion in either case that the household had been originally obliged to support the soldier. Merely that, in the specific examples envisaged (which probably reflect actual cases brought to law), it had contributed to his costs and maintenance in one form or another, and was therefore legally entitled to compensation if the soldier left before he had acquitted his debt. More importantly, the decision at tributed to Leo and Constantine contains an implicit emendation of the traditional regulations pertaining to military peculium, since it clearly grants the father-in-law a claim on this normally inalienable property of the soldier, whether or not he was still a minor, as the analysis of the text's editor, Dieter Simon, shows. This is crucial. It suggests not only that households could and did support soldiers, but that this contribution had been juridically recognized in the right of the contributing parties to make a claim on the hitherto untouchable military peculium for recompense. The very fact that such matters appear to have been dealt with in the imperial court, and merited such explicit treatment in the Ecloga, is itself not without significance. It suggests that such conflicts were likely to arise more often than just occasionally.
在这两种情况下，都绝对没有暗示家庭原本有义务供养士兵。仅仅是在设想的具体例子中（可能反映了诉诸法律的实际案件），它以一种或另一种形式增加了他的费用和赡养费，因此如果士兵在他的债务清偿之前离开，他在法律上有权获得赔偿.更重要的是，向利奥和君士坦丁致敬的决定包含对与军事佩克利有关的传统规定的隐含修正，因为它明确授予岳父对士兵通常不可剥夺的财产的要求，无论他是否是正如文本编辑迪特·西蒙 (Dieter Simon) 的分析所显示的那样，仍然是未成年人。这是至关重要的。它不仅表明家庭能够而且确实支持士兵，而且这种贡献在法律上得到承认，贡献方有权要求迄今为止不可动摇的军费作为补偿。此类问题似乎已在朝廷中得到处理，并在 Ecloga 中得到如此明确的处理，这一事实本身并非没有意义。这表明此类冲突可能会更频繁地发生，而不仅仅是偶尔发生。
The fact that by the early eighth century (at the latest) soldiers' service could be partly supported by their households is now generally accepted. But there is still no evidence, certainly not from any of the texts discussed so far, that military service was juridically bound to the land, or that families had a formal obligation to support a family member who was a soldier. In passages from the Lives of Philaretos, written down in the first half of the ninth century and describing events of the second half of the eighth century, and of Eustratios, composed in the later ninth century and purporting to de scribe events earlier in the same century, poor soldiers are rescued from disciplinary proceedings at the hands of the local military staff by the saints, who lend their own horses to soldiers whose horses have died. The stories make it quite apparent that these are soldiers who were responsible personally for the maintenance and expenses of their military service, but there is still no formal connection with land evident.
到 8 世纪早期（最迟）士兵的服务可以由他们的家庭部分支持的事实现在已被普遍接受。但仍然没有证据，当然也没有从目前讨论的任何文本中得出，兵役在法律上与土地有关，或者家庭有正式的义务支持一个军人家庭成员。在 9 世纪上半叶写下的 Philaretos 生平的段落中，描述了 8 世纪下半叶的事件，以及 9 世纪后期撰写的 Eustratios 的段落，声称描述了同一时期早些时候的事件世纪，可怜的士兵在当地军事人员的手中被圣徒从纪律处分中解救出来，他们将自己的马借给马已死亡的士兵。这些故事很明显地表明这些士兵个人负责他们的军事服务的维持和费用，但仍然没有明显的与土地的正式联系。
In a letter of 801, to which Oikonomides has drawn attention, Theodore the Studite refers to Empress Irene's abolition of the imposition upon soldiers' widows of payments which appear to have been made in lieu of their deceased husbands' military service. Oikonomides has argued that this text can be understood to imply that a connection already existed from this time, and even from before the reign of Leo III, between military service and soldiers' property; but, although this is a possible interpretation, I would argue that we might equally be faced with a straightforward connection between military service and fiscal compensation imposed on soldiers’families，in which the nature and degree of property held by the family in question played no role in the state's calculations, since military service for such soldiers was certainly hereditary. The ways in which the property and in particular the military equipment of soldiers supported by their families in the two legal texts referred to was disposed of would reinforce this suggestion.
在 801 年的一封信中，奥科诺米德斯引起了人们的注意，学徒西奥多 (Theodore the Studite) 提到艾琳皇后取消了对士兵遗孀征收的款项，这些款项似乎是为了代替已故丈夫的兵役而支付的。奥科诺米德斯认为，这段文字可以理解为暗示，从那时起，甚至在利奥三世统治之前，兵役和士兵财产之间就已经存在联系；但是，虽然这是一种可能的解释，但我认为我们可能同样面临兵役与对士兵家庭施加的财政补偿之间的直接联系，其中所涉家庭拥有的财产的性质和程度无关紧要。在国家计算中的作用，因为这些士兵的兵役肯定是世袭的。两部法律文本中提到的士兵的财产，特别是其家人供养的士兵的军事装备的处置方式将强化这一建议。
Whatever the correct interpretation, there does seem to be clear evidence for soldiers supporting themselves from the early eighth century, and this can reasonably be assumed to be something that was by then already well established. My suggestion is that this developed in the context of the state's difficulties in adequately supplying and provisioning its provincial forces, a reflection of the awful problems of solvency it faced in this period, together with the inevitable and well-known consequences of soldiers' settlement on a permanent basis in the provinces and their consequent embedding in local society. In particular, we must remember that the acquisition of land would have been a perfectly normal consequence, as evidence from the sixth century clearly demonstrates. And soldiers' land would have shared in the special fiscal status granted to soldiers themselves, most particularly in respect of immunity from certain extraordinary munera.
无论正确的解释是什么，似乎确实有明确的证据表明，从 8 世纪早期开始，士兵就可以养活自己，并且可以合理地假设，这在当时已经很成熟。 我的建议是，这是在国家难以充分供应和供应省级军队的背景下发展起来的，反映了它在这一时期面临的可怕的偿付能力问题，以及士兵解决问题的不可避免和众所周知的后果。 在各省建立永久基础，并因此融入当地社会。 特别是，我们必须记住，征用土地是完全正常的结果，正如 6 世纪的证据清楚地表明的那样。 士兵的土地将分享给士兵自己的特殊财政地位，尤其是在某些特殊的munera 的豁免权方面。
But I would still reject any idea of the state formally setting up by legislative act a special category of such soldiers. Indeed, the very heterogeneity of recruitment methods and types of soldier familiar from the eighth, and certainly from the ninth and tenth, century would reinforce this suggestion. Thus it is clear from texts of the later ninth and tenth centuries that there were at least two types of provincial soldier in the "self-supporting" category: some supplied their own equipment and mounts, as well as their provisions; other, poorer soldiers were responsible for their mounts and weapons, but received also siteresia, supplies and provisions, from the state. Indeed, two texts strongly suggest that the proportion of soldiers who could actually properly support themselves in provisions, as well as equipment and horse, was quite small. And by the tenth century, if not before, the sources reveal a whole category of soldiers who, while registered on the military rolls, were supplied almost entirely by state impositions (and requisitions) upon the wealthy for horses, equipment, and servants or esquires.
但我仍然反对国家通过立法正式设立此类士兵的特殊类别的任何想法。事实上，从八世纪，当然从九世纪和十世纪熟悉的招募方法和士兵类型的异质性会加强这一建议。因此，从九世纪后期和十世纪的文本中可以清楚地看出，“自立”类别中至少有两种省级士兵：一些提供自己的装备和坐骑，以及他们的供给；其他较贫穷的士兵负责他们的坐骑和武器，但也从国家获得了siteresia、补给和供给。事实上，有两篇文字强烈表明，实际上能够在粮食以及装备和马匹方面适当养活自己的士兵比例非常小。到了 10 世纪，如果不是更早的话，消息来源显示出一整类士兵，他们虽然登记在军事名册上，但几乎完全由国家强加（和征用）向富人提供马匹、装备、仆人或侍从.
When we look at the measures taken by emperor Nicephorus I in respect of soldiers' lands and their obligations, we again have the impression that, while the land from which the soldier was supported, or supposed to be supported, was relevant in the state's fiscal calculations, it had not yet been related bindingly to military service, which was still attached to the individual soldier. For military service was almost certainly hereditary from the later seventh century at the latest, as I will suggest below, although exactly when it became so is uncertain. It had not been, except by custom in the limitanei, in the sixth and early seventh centuries. My own preference is for an early reintroduction, under Heraclius, although there is no explicit evidence for this. R. J. Lilie suggests the reign of Leo IV but, as we will again see below, the letter of Theodore the Studite can be used to demonstrate that it was already in force considerably earlier than this. Either way, the hereditary nature of military service is a crucial element in our understanding of the relationship between soldiers' property and military service.
当我们看看尼西弗鲁斯一世皇帝就士兵的土地及其义务采取的措施时，我们再次有这样的印象，虽然支持或应该支持士兵的土地与国家财政有关计算，它尚未与兵役有约束力相关，兵役仍然依附于单个士兵。因为兵役几乎可以肯定是最迟从 7 世纪后期开始世袭的，正如我将在下面建议的那样，尽管具体何时变成这样还不确定。在六世纪和七世纪早期，除limitanei 的习惯外，还没有。我个人倾向于在赫拉克略的领导下尽早重新引入，尽管没有明确的证据证明这一点。 R. J. Lilie 暗示了利奥四世的统治，但是，正如我们将在下面再次看到的，Theodore the Studite 的信可以用来证明它在比这更早的时候就已经生效了。无论哪种方式，兵役的世袭性质是我们理解士兵财产与兵役之间关系的关键因素。
There are a number of other texts, however, which can shed a little more light on the question of this relationship. Among the notorious "evil deeds" ascribed to Nice phorus I by the chronographer Theophanes was the stipulation that soldiers who could not afford their military equipment and service were to be helped by contributions（the form of which is unclear, but to the value of 18 1/2 nomismata) to cover their costs and their public taxes.
然而，还有许多其他文本可以对这种关系的问题提供更多的启示。 计时员西奥芬斯 (Theophanes) 将尼斯 phorus I 归咎于臭名昭著的“恶行”，其中一项规定是，负担不起军事装备和服役费用的士兵必须通过捐款来帮助（其形式尚不清楚，但价值 18又1/2 nomismata）来支付他们的费用和公共税。
Two points, however, are generally disregarded in discussions of this passage. First, these measures are in the context of a general calling up of impoverished soldiers, many of whom the state was actually transferring (along with their better-off fellow peasants and comrades-in-arms) from Asia Minor to Thrace, where they were to be resettled. Their poverty was a result of both their original condition and of the forced transfer and selling of their property (for which, the text implies, they were themselves responsible-again, no state-protected "military holding" is envisaged here, although one may read into the text the possibility of a forced sale of property to the state at fixed prices, which affected the better-off in particular). Both of these measures appear to have been novel-not only the contributions of cash to equip the soldiers in question, familiar from tenth-century texts (see below) and known as syndosia, but also the communal payment of their normal fiscal dues (the land- and hearth-taxes), familiar in respect of ordinary taxpayers, of course, who were unable to cover their tax payments, but now applied for the first time to poorer members of the community who were also soldiers.
然而，在讨论这段经文时，一般忽略了两点。首先，这些措施是在普遍征召贫困士兵的背景下进行的，其中许多人实际上是（连同他们富裕的农民同胞和战友）从小亚细亚转移到色雷斯，在那里他们被重新安置。他们的贫困既是由于他们的原始状况，也是由于他们的财产被强制转让和出售（文本暗示，他们自己对此负有责任——同样，这里没有设想受国家保护的“军事控股”，尽管人们可能将财产以固定价格强制出售给国家的可能性读入文本，这尤其影响了富裕者）。这两项措施似乎都很新颖——不仅是现金捐助装备有问题的士兵，这在 10 世纪的文本中很熟悉（见下文）并被称为 Syndosia，而且还有他们正常财政会费的公共支付（土地税和壁炉税），对于普通纳税人来说是熟悉的，当然，他们无法支付他们的税款，但现在第一次向社区中同样是士兵的较贫困成员申请。
Second, the first part of this order has generally been understood to mean that the emperor wished to recruit previously unregistered poor persons into the army and equip them through communal subscription. As I have argued before, however, this is a most improbable interpretation. It seems much more likely that these "poor" were already registered, but as they were considered unable to provide adequately for their service they were generally not actually called up. Once more, it would seem that while landed property was relevant to the state's concerns about supporting its armies, there existed even at this stage no firm juridically defined bond between the possession of land and military service. I would argue that Nicephorus' measure recognized, and was intended to help, the sort of impoverished soldier typified by Mousoulios, mentioned above, and served to bolster considerably the number of soldiers available to local officers and, at the same time, more effectively exploit the resources available to the state. How effective it was is unclear, although a passage from a later ninth-century Life, that of Eustratios, has the saint once more giving his horse to a poor soldier.
第二，这个命令的第一部分通常被理解为皇帝希望招募以前未登记的穷人入伍，并通过集体订阅来装备他们。然而，正如我之前所论证的，这是一种最不可能的解释。这些“穷人”似乎更有可能已经注册，但由于他们被认为无法为他们的服务提供充分的服务，他们通常实际上并没有被召集。再一次，虽然土地财产与国家对支持其军队的关注有关，但即使在这个阶段，土地拥有与兵役之间也不存在牢固的法律定义的联系。我认为 Nicephorus 的措施承认并旨在帮助上述以 Mousoulios 为代表的那种贫困士兵，并有助于大大增加当地军官可用的士兵数量，同时更有效地利用国家可用的资源。它的效果如何尚不清楚，尽管在 9 世纪后期的一段生活中，Eustratios 的一段话让圣人再次将他的马送给了一个可怜的士兵。
The analysis of these texts, and a number of other passages from ninth- and tenth century saint's Lives and collections of miracles, has shown that until the tenth century there seems to have been no binding legal connection between the possession of land and military service for the types of provincial or thematic soldiers discussed so far. This does not mean that as time passed (i.e., over the eighth and ninth centuries) the state did not come increasingly to view the possession of landed property as an important prerequisite for the registration of soldiers in the thematic armies. Since military service for certain categories of soldier appears to have been hereditary (although it is unclear on what basis the differentiation among such categories was made), the combination of this with the possession of land would, in theory, have ensured the state of a core of soldiers in each district available for local military service, supporting themselves to one level or another, around whom mercenary and short-term recruits could be assembled when necessary. During the first half of the tenth century, however, the state decided to classify these possessions and to formalize the conditions under which they could be held or transferred by registering them (up to a certain value) in the local military and fiscal codices, chiefly to protect them from the expansionist land-grabbing of "the powerful"-a broad category, representing both magnates and lesser local landlords who could expand their own possession at the expense of the weaker members of their fiscal community. The reasons for this action are generally agreed upon. In addition，the gradual extension of the obligations from individual families to the lands which served as the basis for their service, which seems to have taken place during the first half of the tenth century, also meant a greater flexibility for the state in extracting the resources thus available-the land could be measured, fixed, and permanently registered; the wealth it produced could be converted into soldiers in the form of personal service of the possessors, or through commutation, or through substitution.
对这些文本以及 9 世纪和 10 世纪《圣徒生平》和《奇迹集》中的其他一些段落的分析表明，直到 10 世纪，拥有土地和服兵役之间似乎没有具有约束力的法律联系。到目前为止讨论的省级或专题士兵的类型。这并不意味着随着时间的流逝（即在 8 世纪和 9 世纪期间），国家并没有越来越多地将拥有土地视为在主题军队中登记士兵的重要先决条件。由于某些类别士兵的兵役似乎是世袭的（虽然尚不清楚这些类别之间的区别是根据什么做出的），因此将其与拥有土地相结合，理论上可以确保一个国家的状态。每个地区的核心士兵都可以在当地服兵役，自给自足，必要时可以在他们周围集结雇佣兵和短期新兵。然而，在 10 世纪上半叶，国家决定对这些财产进行分类，并通过在地方军事和财政法典中登记（最多达到一定价值）来正式确定其持有或转让的条件，主要是保护他们免受“强者”的扩张主义土地掠夺——一个广泛的类别，既代表了地主，也代表了地方地主，他们可以以牺牲其财政社区中较弱的成员为代价来扩大自己的财产。采取这一行动的原因是普遍同意的。此外，似乎发生在 10 世纪上半叶的个人家庭的义务逐渐扩展到作为其服务基础的土地，也意味着国家在榨取土地方面具有更大的灵活性。因此可用的资源——土地可以被测量、固定和永久登记；它所产生的财富可以通过为占有者个人服务的形式，或通过折价，或通过替代而转化为士兵。
By the tenth century, therefore, the state had come to rely upon the presence in each theme of a number of soldiers, owing service hereditarily, whose ability to fulfill their duties depended upon landed property (and originally, probably, other forms of income). Where families were too poor to bear this burden, their communities covered their state fiscal taxes and contributed to the costs of their equipment, at least in theory (although, as we have seen, there are several examples where this system appears not to have worked very efficiently). It was anyway the responsibility of the local strategos and his subordinates to select, from the total of those registered, those who were actually capable of carrying out their duties. Those families bearing military obligations-registered as stratiotikoi oikoi, to use a term which first appears in the tenth century-who did not or could not provide a soldier, or who were not asked by the administration to do so, paid instead a certain sum, the proceeds from which were used by the local military establishment or the central logothesion to pay for other, less well-equipped soldiers registered on the military codices in the same fiscal districts, or for their equipment (the syndotai of the legal texts), or for the raising of mercenary troops.
因此，到了 10 世纪，国家开始依赖于在每个主题中出现的一些士兵，他们世袭服役，他们履行职责的能力取决于土地财产（最初可能还有其他形式的收入） .在家庭太穷而无法承受这种负担的情况下，他们的社区至少在理论上承担了州财政税并为他们的设备成本做出了贡献（尽管正如我们所见，有几个例子表明该系统似乎不起作用非常有效）。无论如何，从登记的总人数中挑选出真正有能力履行职责的人，是地方的谋士和他的下属的责任。那些承担军事义务的家庭——注册为 Stratiotikoi oikoi，使用一个最早出现在 10 世纪的术语——没有或不能提供士兵，或者没有被政府要求提供士兵，而是支付了一定数额，其收益被地方军事机构或中央政府用于支付在同一财政区的军事法典上登记的其他装备较差的士兵或他们的装备（法律文本的syndotai），或者是为了招募佣兵。
The system of military lands thus evolved in a haphazard manner, although I would guess that its value was soon perceived by state officials (certainly by the time of Nicephorus I, whose legislation in this respect, in spite of the hostility of Theophanes' report, was clearly intended to assist the poorer registered soldiers), so that the state exploited the potential of this option when it could. But we must remember that there existed side by side with these soldiers also full-time, mercenary, or professional soldiers who made up the core of each provincial division, as well as those recruited for the duration of a campaign. And we must remember, too, that the actual potential of a thema was much larger than the number actually (or usually) called up for particular campaigns-the evidence of late ninth- and tenth-century military treatises makes this clear.
因此，军事土地制度以一种随意的方式演变，尽管我猜想它的价值很快就被国家官员所察觉（当然是在尼斯弗鲁斯一世时期，尽管塞奥法尼斯的报告充满敌意，他在这方面的立法， 显然是为了帮助较贫穷的注册士兵），以便国家在可能的情况下利用此选项的潜力。 但我们必须记住，与这些士兵并存的还有构成各省核心的专职、雇佣兵或职业士兵，以及在战役期间招募的士兵。 我们还必须记住，主题的实际潜力远大于实际（或通常）为特定战役而召集的数量——9 世纪晚期和 10 世纪军事论文的证据清楚地表明了这一点。
During the tenth century, as the lands of the middling and poorer peasants from whom the bulk of these provincial soldiers were drawn came increasingly under threat from the power of provincial magnates and holders of imperial and ecclesiastical titles, offices, and privileges ("the powerful"), and especially as a result of the great famine of the year 927-928, the state had to intervene to protect the holdings which were the basis for military service. Hence the legislation of the Macedonian emperors. It is worth pointing out that here it is not a question of badly directed or corrupt fiscal policies on the state's part in the pre-Macedonian period which led to this situation, although this may have played a role. We should not forget that just as the military lands represented a relatively long-term development, so the rise and growth of an aristocracy-a magnate class which combined both provincial landowning and imperial office- and title-holding with a near monopoly on key state positions in both the military and civil administration of the empire-was also a relatively long-term evolution. Beginning in the later seventh century with what I call the pseudo meritocracy of that period, this state class or elite gradually establishes itself as a distinct social group which, by the tenth century, is in a position to challenge the interests of the state-interests which it had itself to represent to a certain extent, thus embodying a fundamental contradiction within the state structure-and endanger the lands from which the state both drew its income and supported its soldiers in the provinces.
在 10 世纪，随着这些省级士兵的大部分来自中贫农民的土地越来越受到省级大亨以及拥有帝国和教会头衔、职位和特权的权力的威胁（“强大的")，特别是由于 927-928 年的大饥荒，国家不得不进行干预以保护作为兵役基础的财产。因此，马其顿皇帝的立法。值得指出的是，这不是导致这种情况的前马其顿时期国家财政政策不当或腐败的问题，尽管这可能起了一定的作用。我们不要忘记，正如军事土地代表着一个相对长期的发展，贵族——一个集省地地主和皇位相结合的权贵阶级——几乎垄断了关键国家的崛起和壮大。帝国的军事和民事管理职位——也是一个相对长期的演变。从七世纪后期开始，我称之为那个时期的伪精英统治，这个国家阶级或精英逐渐将自己确立为一个独特的社会群体，到十世纪，它能够挑战国家利益的利益。它在一定程度上必须代表它自己，从而体现了国家结构内部的根本矛盾——并危及国家既可以从中获取收入又可以养活各省士兵的土地。
VI. THE MILITARY LANDS AND THE STRATEIA FROM THE TENTH CENTYRY
六、 十世纪的军事土地和战略
未完待续
