拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（8）
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
First of all, it appears that it was still accepted in the middle of the tenth century that the military obligations were to be carried out personally by the holder of the “military lands” (as they had then become), or by the holder’s eldest son. This is evident from the case of Luke the Stylite; and from a note in the Be Caeri- moniis, which states that it had been for a long time the rule that holders of strateiai should serve μονοπροσώπως（亲自）, in person.85 The text reads: χρή είδέναι, οτι τύπος παρηκολούθησεν κατά τον καιρόν, ότε γίνεται στρατία, μή δίδοσθαι τοϊς στρατευομένοις τήρωνας συνδότας ώς περιουσίοις, άλλ’ είναι μονοπροσώπως στρατιώτας.（值得注意的是，当时社会舆论受到监控，有军队的时候，不给入伍士兵发财，另一个是单人士兵。（这句话属实给我整蒙了！！！））
首先，似乎在 10 世纪中叶仍然接受军事义务应由“军事土地”的拥有者（正如他们当时那样）或由拥有者的最年长的人亲自履行。儿子。 这在造型师卢克的案例中很明显。 以及来自 Be Caerimoniis 中的一个注释，该注释指出，长期以来，Stratiai 的持有人应该亲自为 μονοπροσώπως（亲自）服务。文本内容如下：χρή είδέναι, οτι τύπος παρηκον很长一段时间，有军队的时候，不给入伍的士兵发财，而他们只是一个士兵。
Lemerle considers that there may be some confusion in the terminology here, perhaps a result of the copyist misunderstanding his text. But this need only be the case if we interpret the terms used in the passage rigidly according to the technical terminology of the novels. If we translate ό στρατευόμενος as “he who is enrolled (i. e. in the military registers)”, στρατιώτης simply as “soldier” and τήρων συνδότης as “contributory recruit”, that is to say, the soldierrecruit who fulfils for the strateuomenos — as defined here — the active duties which the strateia comprises, then the meaning of the text is clear. It was originally the custom not to permit those registered for a military strateia to send representatives in their place, but rather that they should fulfil their obligations personally. The text goes on to specify that if the stratiotes is not able to support the burden of service, then he is to be given syndotai, or contributors, to enable him to carry out his duties. I stress that these syndotai, however, are not qualified as terones, which suggests that they aided the enlisted men financially only.
Lemerle 认为这里的术语可能有些混乱，可能是抄写员误解了他的文本的结果。 但是，只有当我们严格按照小说的技术术语来解释文章中使用的术语时，情况才会如此。 如果我们将 ό στρατευόμενος 翻译为“他已登记（即在军事登记册中）”，则 στρατιώτης 简单地翻译为“士兵”，而 τήρων συνδότης 翻译为“贡献性新兵”，也就是说，士兵招募定义为 这里——战略包含的现役职责，那么文本的含义就很清楚了。 原本的风俗习惯是不允许那些登记在军事领域的人派代表到他们的位置上，而是由他们亲自履行他们的义务。 案文接着指出，如果阶层无法负担服务的负担，那么他将被授予syndotai或贡献者，以使他能够履行职责。 然而，我要强调的是，这些syndotai 不具备作为terones 的资格，这表明他们仅在经济上帮助了入伍的人。
If there is a confusion here, then it represents the state of affairs — it was quite acceptable that a stratiotes should also be strateuomenos. In the De Caerimoniis we have perhaps an echo of the second κάκωσις of Nicephorus I as recorded by Theophanes, whereby he προσέταξε στρατεύεσθαι πτωχούς και έξοπλίζεσθαι παρά των όμοχώρων , παρέχοντες και άνά όκτωκαίδεκα ήμίσους νομισμάτων τω δημοσίω , καί άλληλεγγύως τα δημόσια. While Nicephorus’ measure may have been a conscription of previously unrecruited men, it seems much more probable that this was a measure designed to counter the reduction in military manpower through the impoverishment of the soldiers in the katalogoi^1 — of whom I think the soldier Mousoulios in the well-known passage from the Vita Philareti is an example, as well as the soldier in the Vita Eustratii.
如果这里有混淆，那么它代表了事态 。从另一个角度也应该是完全可以接受的情节。在 De Caerimoniis 中，我们可能听到了 Theophanes 记录的 Nicephorus I 的第二次瘟疫的相似性，他提出招募穷人并在他们的邻居身边装备自己，提供八或八枚一半或一半的公众硬币，并且其他。虽然 Nicephorus 的措施可能是征募以前未招募的人员，但更有可能的是，这是一项旨在通过 katalogoi^1 中士兵的贫困来应对军事人力减少的措施——我认为是士兵 Vita Philareti 中著名段落中的 Mousoulios 以及 Vita Eustratii 中的士兵就是一个例子。
Secondly, it suggests why it was that military lands — strati otika ktemata — are not referred to in the Fiscal Treatise, or earlier texts before the novels. The reason is surely because there was as yet no such officially-protected form of holding. Military service owed by individuals (who had land or other income able to support this burden) clearly did exist; but the service was attached to the man, not to his property. The paragraph already referred to (see note 87 above) in the Tactica of Leo VI was compiled before the Fiscal Treatise. It quite explicitly describes military service based on some form of private income, but attached directly to the individual or his family. The Fiscal Treatise, on the other hand, dealt with land- and tax-assessment, not military service, and we should thus not be surprised if “military lands” are not mentioned.89 They were merely one form of tenure not subject to state leitourgiai (with which the treatise does not concern itself) and therefore merited no special treatment. Indeed, since “military lands” as later defined were subject to the regular δ η μό σ ια, they were in the eyes of the Fiscal Treatise not exceptionable.
其次，它说明了为什么在财政论文或小说之前的早期文本中没有提到军事土地——strati otika ktemata。 原因肯定是因为目前还没有这种受官方保护的控股形式。 个人（有土地或其他收入能够负担这一负担）所欠的兵役显然确实存在； 但这项服务是依附于这个人，而不是他的财产。 利奥六世战术中已经提到的段落（见上文注释 87）是在财政论文之前汇编的。 它非常明确地描述了基于某种形式的私人收入的兵役，但直接附属于个人或其家庭。 另一方面，《财政论文》处理的是土地和税收评估，而不是兵役，因此，如果不提及“军用土地”，我们应该不会感到惊讶。 89 它们只是一种不受国家支配的保有权形式。 leitourgiai（论文本身不涉及），因此不值得特殊对待。 事实上，由于后来定义的“军事土地”受制于规则的 δ η μό σ ια，它们在财政论文的眼中并不例外。
The same applies to the so-called Farmer’s Law of the later seventh or eighth century, which deals with the land of a community of free peasants (or so it would appear), their obligations to one another and, marginally, to the state. But one important difference between the latter and the Fiscal Treatise of the early tenth century is a change in the procedure for dealing with abandoned or uncultivated land. In the Farmers’ Law remains a trace of the old principle of adiectio sterilium or έπ ιβο λ ή (τω ν ά π ο ρ ω ν ), by which communal responsibility before the fisc meant also the payment by members of a fiscal community of the taxes due from a deserted holding, and eventually the re-distribution of such holdings among members of the community. By the time the Fiscal Treatise was compiled, this principle had been abandoned, replaced by a more direct intervention from the state: abandoned or uncultivated holdings were temporarily freed from their fiscal obligations until the occupier had brought the land back into cultivation, at which paintable taxes were once more extracted. Alternatively, if after thirty years the original occupier or his heirs had not brought the land back into cultivation, the state had the right to detach it from its previous fiscal community and bestow it upon a new owner.91 The change in question probably took place during the ninth century, for a similar development occurred at this time in regard to soldiers’ property and tax liabilities, and it is likely that it was connected with the reforms described above: the measures of Nice- phorus I suggest strongly that the older system was still operated in the early ninth century, for there the members of the fiscal community are made responsible for the enrolled man’s public taxes; whereas the example already cited from the De Caerimoniis with which Nicephorus’ measures are otherwise comparable, implies a contribution towards the cost of equipment, not a responsibility for the payment of taxes. Such a conclusion is corroborated by what is known of the methods employed by the state in the tenth century for dealing with the holdings of soldiers no longer able to support their strateia.
这同样适用于七世纪或八世纪后期所谓的农民法，该法涉及自由农民社区的土地（或者看起来如此），他们对彼此的义务以及对国家的义务。 但后者与 10 世纪初的财政论文之间的一个重要区别是处理废弃或未开垦土地的程序发生了变化。 在《农民法》中，仍然保留了旧的不育原则或 έπ ιβο λ ή (τω ν ά π ο ρ ω ν ) 的痕迹，根据该原则，财政之前的公共责任也意味着财政社区成员的支付 因废弃的财产而应缴的税款，并最终在社区成员之间重新分配这些财产。 到编写财政论文时，这一原则已被放弃，取而代之的是国家更直接的干预：被遗弃或未开垦的土地暂时免于其财政义务，直到占领者将土地重新开垦，此时可涂漆 税收再次被征收。 或者，如果 30 年后原始占领者或其继承人没有将土地重新开垦，国家有权将其从以前的财政社区中分离出来，并将其授予新的所有者。 91 有问题的变化可能发生了 在 9 世纪，由于此时在士兵财产和税收负债方面发生了类似的发展，这很可能与上述改革有关：尼斯普鲁斯的措施 我强烈建议旧制度 九世纪初期仍在运作，因为在那里财政界的成员负责登记人的公共税； 而已经从 De Caerimoniis 中引用的示例，Nicephorus 的措施在其他方面与之可比，这意味着对设备成本的贡献，而不是支付税款的责任。 这一结论得到了众所周知的国家在 10 世纪用于处理不再能够支持他们的战略的士兵的财产的方法。
It is thus only from this time on (middle of the ninth century ?)93 that the state began to intervene in such matters, and it is only from the time when a stable basis for military recruitment becomes threatened that we should expect to find legislation protecting it, and the codification of an official terminology to describe what had previously operated customarily and without central interference.94 That point appears to have been reached after the first decades of the tenth century, the result of internal social contradictions exacerbated by natural disasters. But this background does not concern us here.
因此，直到这个时候（九世纪中叶？）93 国家才开始干预这些事情，只有在稳定的征兵基础受到威胁的时候，我们才应该期待找到立法 保护它，并编纂官方术语来描述以前的习惯运作并且没有中央干预。94 这一点似乎是在 10 世纪头十年之后达到的，这是自然灾害加剧的内部社会矛盾的结果。 但是这个背景与我们这里无关。
Thirdly, there are the apparent contradictions within and between the texts. But this confusion is precisely the result of the first two factors together. On the one hand, the customary association of military service with an individual and his family (one of whom actually serves under arms); on the other, the need for the state to intervene to protect holdings which supported such families — previously an action which had not been required — and therefore to codify and specify the exact nature of these “military lands”. In the process of legislating for the land, it was inevitable that the service previously attached to the individual should be seen more and more as attached to his holdings; a result also of the fact that, under unfavourable conditions, the individuals or families concerned appear often to have abandoned their properties (presumably to move to an area where their obligations were not registered). The state was left with the land, however, and the attachment of the relevant obligations to the latter would naturally facilitate the maintenance of recruitment. Immovable land is a good deal easier to administer than people. Such a change seems already to lie behind the difference in terminology applied to soldiers and their holdings in the ninth and early tenth century as against that of the novels of Constantine VII. In the latter, military service is related quite explicitly to the land — τά έξ ώ ν αι σ τρ ατεΐαι ύ π η ρ ε- το ΰ ν ται κ τή ματα — whereas the reference from the Vita Euthymii connects the service clearly to the family. The passage in the Book of Ceremonies also sees the obligation falling upon the individual rather than the land.
第三，文本内部和文本之间存在明显的矛盾。 但这种混乱恰恰是前两个因素共同作用的结果。 一方面，兵役与个人及其家人（其中一个人实际上是在武装部队服役）的习惯联系； 另一方面，国家需要干预以保护支持这些家庭的财产——以前不需要采取这种行动——因此需要编纂和明确这些“军事土地”的确切性质。 在为土地立法的过程中，不可避免地，以前依附于个人的服务越来越被视为依附于他的财产； 另一个原因是，在不利条件下，有关个人或家庭似乎经常放弃其财产（大概是搬到未登记其义务的地区）。 然而，土地留给了国家，而将相关义务附加到后者身上，自然会促进招募的维持。 不可移动的土地比人类更容易管理。 与君士坦丁七世的小说相比，9 世纪和 10 世纪初士兵及其财产的术语差异似乎已经隐藏在这种变化的背后。 在后者中，兵役与土地非常明确地相关——τά έξ ών αι στρατεΐαι ύπηρετοΰνται κτήματα（六军为庄园服务）——而 Vita Euthymii 中的参考则明确地将服役与家庭联系起来 . 《礼记》中的段落也看到责任落在个人而不是土地上。
The clauses in the relevant novels of Constantine VII and his successors to Nicephorus II reflect the process of change. While it is clear that the land, whether it remains intact or is subdivided, must always carry its proportion of the military obligation, it is equally apparent that the principle of hereditary service within one family — the original occupiers — persisted. Whenever possible, the direct heirs of the previous occupiers were to receive the land, whether by bequest or after the desertion of the holding; although the principle of obligations fixed to the land was already strong enough to allow the bequeathing of the land to an outsider.
君士坦丁七世及其继任者尼斯弗鲁斯二世的相关小说中的条款反映了变化的过程。 尽管土地，无论是完整的还是被分割的，都必须始终承担其军事义务的一部分，这一点很明显，但同样明显的是，一个家庭——原始占领者——的世袭服务原则仍然存在。 在可能的情况下，前占领者的直接继承人将获得土地，无论是通过遗赠还是在财产被遗弃后； 尽管固定在土地上的义务原则已经足够强大，可以将土地遗赠给外人。
未完待续
