（文章翻译）“为和平而战”——为中世纪东罗马世界的战争和暴力辩护(第二部分）
Warfare and the Christian State
战争与基督教国家
As a fundamentally pacifist system, Christianity never developed formally an ideological obligation to wage war against non-Christians, although at times individual theologians spoke and acted as though such a justification could be made. Indeed, the thirteenth canon of St Basil expressly advised those who engaged in warfare to abstain from communion. Yet defending the Christian Roman state had to be justified and the tension between the pragmatics of political and ideological survival on the one hand and pacifist Christian precepts on the other overcome or bridged.
作为一个基本的和平主义体系，基督教从未正式发展出对非基督徒发动战争的意识形态义务，尽管有时个别神学家的言行举止好像可以做出这样的辩护。 事实上，圣巴西尔的第十三条教规明确建议那些从事战争的人避免圣餐。 然而，捍卫基督教罗马国家必须是正当的，一方面政治和意识形态生存的实用主义与另一方面的和平主义基督教戒律之间的紧张关系被克服或弥合。
Early Christian thinkers had evolved a number of objections to warfare and violence in general, and more especially to serving in the armies of the pagan Roman emperors, and many believers before the ‘conversion’ of Constantine felt that Christians could not serve two masters–Christ and the Roman state–especially when the latter was on occasion actively hostile to their beliefs or their very existence. Indeed, the liturgy of the period before the Peace of the Church and the Edict of Toleration issued by Constantine I in 313 forbad soldiers who wished to become Christians to take life, whether under orders or not.
早期的基督教思想家已经演变出许多反对战争和暴力的反对意见，尤其是反对在异教罗马皇帝的军队中服役，在君士坦丁“皈依”之前，许多信徒认为基督徒不能侍奉两个主人——基督 和罗马国家——尤其是当后者有时积极敌视他们的信仰或他们的存在时。 事实上，在教会和平和君士坦丁一世在 313 名希望成为基督徒的士兵中发布的宽容敕令之前时期的礼仪，无论是否受到命令，都禁止他们自杀。
The adoption of Christianity by the emperor Constantine I and the reformulation of imperial political ideology which followed radically altered this situation, and while the debate about the justness of waging war continued, soldiers now became, not servants of an oppressive pagan empire, but fighters for the faith and defenders of orthodoxy, at least in theory. Soldiers were fully accepted members of the Christian community, who had a recognised and indeed worthy role to play. Liturgical prayers evolved from the fourth and fifth centuries in which the military role of the emperors and the need for soldiers to defend the faith were specifically recognised: ‘Shelter their [the emperors’] heads on the day of battle, strengthen their arm ...subjugate to them all the barbarian peoples who desire war, confer upon them deep and lasting peace’ is an illustrative example from a fifth-century liturgical text. But this did not, of course, mean that warfare and the killing of enemies were in themselves intrinsically to be praised or regarded as in some way deserving of a particular spiritual reward. Quite the reverse, for however much Christians were able to justify warfare, whether from a defensive need (to preserve orthodoxy, for example) or in what we would see as an offensive context (to recover ‘lost’ Roman territory from non-Christians or barbarians or heretics, still judged as defensive action) killing remained (and continues to remain) a necessary evil from the Christian standpoint: this is such a strong tradition within Christian culture, indeed, that even in the modern highly secularised world of advanced technological warfare, Western strategists, military theorists and anthropologists or sociologists of war point to the need still felt to justify war-making in terms established by this pre-medieval moral-ethical context. And of course matters became more complicated when warfare between Christians also had to be taken into account.
君士坦丁一世对基督教的接受以及随之而来的帝国政治意识形态的重新制定从根本上改变了这种情况，虽然关于发动战争的正义性的争论仍在继续，但士兵们现在不再是压迫性异教帝国的仆人，而是为捍卫正义而奋斗的战士。 正统的信仰和捍卫者，至少在理论上是这样。 士兵是基督教社区中完全被接受的成员，他们扮演着公认且确实有价值的角色。 礼仪祈祷从四世纪和五世纪演变而来，其中皇帝的军事作用和士兵捍卫信仰的必要性得到特别认可：“在战斗之日保护他们的[皇帝]头，加强他们的手臂...... .征服所有渴望战争的野蛮民族，赋予他们深刻而持久的和平”是五世纪礼仪文本中的一个说明性例子。 但这当然并不意味着战争和杀敌本身就应该受到赞扬或被视为在某种意义上应该获得特定的精神奖励。 恰恰相反，因为无论是出于防御需要（例如，为了维护正统信仰），还是出于我们视为进攻性的情况（从非基督徒那里收复“失去”的罗马领土，或 野蛮人或异端，仍被视为防御行为）从基督教的角度来看，杀戮仍然（并将继续保持）一种必要的罪恶：这是基督教文化中如此强大的传统，事实上，即使在现代高度世俗化的先进技术战争世界中 、西方战略家、军事理论家和人类学家或战争社会学家指出，仍然需要根据这种前中世纪的道德伦理背景来为战争辩护。 当然，当还必须考虑基督徒之间的战争时，事情就变得更加复杂了。
Warfare, Violence and Belief
战争、暴力和信仰
In spite of the reservations expressed by a number of Christian thinkers, the view that warfare–however regrettable–in a just cause was acceptable became widespread, partly, of course, because from a pragmatic standpoint the Roman state, whatever faith it professed, had to defend its territorial integrity against aggression. So some rationalisation of the need to fight was inevitable. Eusebius of Caesarea, the Christian apologist for Constantine I whose intellectual influence in this respect played a key role in the compromise between pagan and Christian attitudes to the empire, the emperor, and the imperial cult, expressed a view that can indeed be understood to represent warfare with the aim of promoting the new imperial faith as a type of holy war. The symbol of the cross appeared both in imperial propaganda and, more significantly, among the insignia of the imperial armies. The Christian labarum and the chi-rho symbol–seen in a vision by Constantine himself before his victory over Galerius in312–was carried by the standard-bearers of the legions, as well as appearing on imperial coins and in association with images or busts of the emperors. Warfare waged against the enemies of the empire was now warfare to defend or extend the religion favoured by the emperor and, from the time of Theodosius I, the official religion of the state as such. Enemies of the empire could be portrayed as enemies of Christianity, against whom warfare was entirely justified, indeed necessary if the True Faith were to fulfil the destiny inhering in divine providence. To a degree, therefore, warfare of the Christian Roman empire against its enemies and those who threatened it, and therefore God’s empire on earth, was holy war. That this was a paradox within Christian attitudes to warfare is clear; but pragmatic considerations made a solution essential.
尽管一些基督教思想家表达了保留意见，但认为战争——无论多么令人遗憾——在正义事业中是可以接受的观点变得普遍，部分原因当然是从实用的角度来看，罗马国家，无论它所宣称的信仰是什么， 以捍卫领土完整不受侵略。 因此，将战斗的需要合理化是不可避免的。 凯撒利亚的尤西比乌斯 (Eusebius of Caesarea) 是君士坦丁一世的基督教护教士，他在这方面的智力影响在异教和基督教对帝国、皇帝和帝国崇拜的态度之间的妥协中发挥了关键作用，他表达的观点确实可以被理解为代表 以宣扬新帝国信仰为圣战类型的战争。 十字架的象征出现在帝国的宣传中，更重要的是，出现在帝国军队的徽章中。 基督教 labarum（拉布兰旗） 和 chi-rho（代表基督耶稣的符号） 符号——在君士坦丁于 312 年战胜加莱里乌斯之前在他自己的幻象中看到的——由军团的旗手携带，并出现在帝国硬币上，并与图像或半身像相关联 皇帝们。 对帝国敌人发动的战争现在是保卫或扩展皇帝所偏爱的宗教的战争，从狄奥多西一世时代开始，国家的官方宗教就是这样。 帝国的敌人可以被描绘成基督教的敌人，对他们发动战争是完全合理的，如果真正的信仰要实现天意中的命运，这确实是必要的。 因此，在某种程度上，基督教罗马帝国与敌人和威胁它的人以及上帝在地上的帝国的战争是圣战。 很明显，这是基督徒对战争态度的一个悖论。 但务实的考虑使解决方案变得必不可少。
Throughout its history and the many wars it had to fight–given the strategic and geopolitical situation it occupied–religious motifs played a key role in the ideological struggles waged by the empire. This religious element was especially the case when the rulers of neighbouring hostile peoples or states actively persecuted the Christian communities within their territories, and the wars with the Persians were frequently presented both to the soldiers of the Roman armies and to the wider populace in the light of a struggle between Christianity and the forces of evil.
纵观其历史和它不得不打的许多战争——考虑到它所占据的战略和地缘政治局势——宗教主题在帝国发动的意识形态斗争中发挥了关键作用。 当邻近的敌对民族或国家的统治者积极迫害其领土内的基督教社区时，这种宗教元素尤其如此，并且与波斯人的战争经常呈现给罗马军队的士兵和更广泛的民众。 基督教与邪恶势力之间的斗争。
Awareness of difference in religion as at least one element among many in the accounts of war between the Christian Roman state and its enemies is hardly surprising, of course, and that is not an issue here. Throughout the seventh century Byzantine theologians as well as writers of miracle collections and lives raise the issue of Jewish or heretical hostility to orthodoxy; religious debate and theological argument became, indeed, the language through which politics and theories of power and authority were expressed. This is a development that can be seen increasingly from the later sixth century, but was given huge impetus after the defeats suffered by the Romans at the hands of Islam and the Arabs in the630s and640s. Yet the wars which were fought against the Persians by the emperor Heraclius, culminating in the complete defeat of the Sassanid forces in626–7, had an ideological quality which, as has several times been pointed out, differentiates them from earlier conflicts. One of the hallmarks of the contemporary and later accounts of these wars is the pre-eminence of the cross as a symbol of imperial victory, and of the strongly religious element in imperial propaganda: this was a war fought by Christians under the victorious sign of the cross, with the aid of the Theotokos, the mother of God, against pagans who had impugned the integrity not only of the Roman empire, protected by God, but of the True Cross, the symbol of the faith itself.
当然，在基督教罗马国家与其敌人之间的战争描述中，宗教差异至少是众多因素中的一个，这并不奇怪，这在这里不是问题。 整个七世纪拜占庭神学家以及奇迹收藏和生活的作家提出了犹太人或异端对正统的敌意问题。 宗教辩论和神学争论确实成为表达政治和权力理论的语言。 这是一种从六世纪后期开始越来越多地看到的发展，但在罗马人在 630 年代和 640 年代被伊斯兰教和阿拉伯人击败后，得到了巨大的推动。 然而，赫拉克略皇帝与波斯人进行的战争，最终在 626-7 年彻底击败了萨珊王朝的军队，其意识形态性质正如多次指出的那样，将它们与早期的冲突区分开来。 对这些战争的当代和后来的描述的标志之一是十字架作为帝国胜利的象征以及帝国宣传中强烈的宗教元素的突出地位：这是一场由基督徒在胜利的标志下进行的战争 十字架，在上帝之母 Theotokos 的帮助下，反对异教徒，这些异教徒不仅质疑受上帝保护的罗马帝国的完整性，而且质疑真十字架，即信仰本身的象征。
As the East Roman empire became increasingly threatened and beleaguered during the second half of the seventh century and afterwards, so its religious identity came ever more to the fore; and logically enough, its struggle for survival took the form of a struggle between good and evil, between Christianity and its enemies. This affected internal politics and social attitudes as much as it affected attitudes to warfare, of course. But it meant that, in one sense, all wars were now holy wars, for the very survival of the God-protected realm of the Chosen People was under threat.
随着东罗马帝国在七世纪下半叶及之后受到越来越多的威胁和围攻，其宗教身份也越来越突出。 从逻辑上讲，它的生存斗争采取了善与恶、基督教与其敌人之间的斗争的形式。 当然，这对内部政治和社会态度的影响与对战争态度的影响一样大。 但这意味着，从某种意义上说，所有的战争现在都是圣战，因为神选之民的保护领域的生存正受到威胁。
A passage from the introduction to the Ecloga of the emperors Leo III and Constantine V, an abridged codification of law issued in741, admirably sums up the key elements in the East Roman attitude to warfare: undesirable, but at the same time justified in order to maintain order and achieve peace:
皇帝利奥三世和君士坦丁五世对法律选编的介绍中的一段话，是对 741 年颁布的法律的删节编纂，令人钦佩地总结了东罗马战争态度的关键要素：不受欢迎，但同时也有理由 维持秩序，实现和平：
Since God has put in our hands the imperial authority...we believe that there is nothing higher or greater that we can do than to govern in judgement and justice...and that thus we may be crowned by His almighty hand with victory over our enemies (which is a thing more precious and honourable than the diadem which we wear) and thus there may be peace.
既然上帝已将皇权交在我们手中……我们相信没有什么比在审判和正义中统治我们能做的更高或更伟大了……因此我们可以被他的全能之手加冕，战胜 我们的敌人（这比我们所戴的王冠更珍贵、更光荣），因此可能会有和平。
Yet the evidence for eastern Roman or Byzantine attitudes to warfare and fighting contains a number of ambiguities and paradoxes, ambiguities that have existed throughout the history of cultures dominated by Christianity. Some of these societies have developed a reputation for being more warlike or more peace-loving than others, however, both in the eyes of their contemporaries and in those of the modern commentator. Western medieval society gave the former impression to others when it was involved in warlike confrontation with them (as during the crusading period, for example), and Byzantium is placed usually in the second category.
然而，东罗马或拜占庭对战争和战斗的态度的证据包含许多含糊不清和悖论，这些含糊不清在基督教主导的文化历史中一直存在。 然而，在同时代人和现代评论家的眼中，这些社会中的一些社会因比其他社会更加好战或更爱好和平而享有盛誉。 西方中世纪社会在与他人发生战争对抗时（例如在十字军时期）给其他人留下了前者的印象，而拜占庭通常被置于第二类。
It is precisely because the Byzantine, or East Roman, self-image was one of a beleaguered Christian state, fighting the forces of darkness, that this was the case. Against its foes it had constantly to be on its guard, and to evolve a whole panoply of defensive techniques, among which warfare was only one element, and by no means necessarily the most useful. In the middle of the tenth century the Italian diplomat Liudprand of Cremona saw the position of the empire accurately enough when he described it as being surrounded by the fiercest of barbarians–Hungarians, Pechenegs, Khazars, Rus and so forth. For him, this was a truly frightening situation, quite unlike anything faced by the Lombard princes or the papacy in Italy.
正是因为拜占庭人或东罗马人的自我形象是一个四面楚歌的基督教国家，与黑暗势力作斗争，情况就是如此。 面对敌人，它必须时刻保持警惕，并进化出一整套防御技术，其中战争只是其中的一个要素，而且不一定是最有用的。 在 10 世纪中叶，克雷莫纳的意大利外交官柳德普兰德准确地看到了帝国的地位，他将帝国描述为被最凶猛的野蛮人包围——匈牙利人、佩切涅格人、可萨人、罗斯人等等。 对他来说，这是一个真正可怕的情况，与伦巴第王子或意大利的教皇所面临的任何事情都不一样。
Symbols of the faith, reflecting this awareness of difference (and also a felt superiority) were ever present in Byzantine military contexts, while the association of the faith with the struggle against the outsider was constantly reinforced also in day-to-day religious observance. At one level, that of public petitions for peace or success in war as enunciated in the orthodox liturgy, this had a formal, almost ritualistic quality which may have impacted only superficially on the awareness of most listeners. But at another level–that of occasional sermons or homilies praising imperial victories, warning of the dangers of barbarian attack; or that of the cult of saints, especially the various military saints whose exploits in saving soldiers and armies as well as ordinary people from enemies, or intervening to bring about Christian victories–the association must have been very apparent. While it hardly encouraged a simple pacifism among the mass of the population, neither was warfare in the name of the orthodox faith a particularly exceptional state of affairs. Indeed, the church and the emperors actively employed religious symbols as palladia in the wars with enemies of the state: quite apart from the sacred images carried with armies or placed as protective devices on the walls or gates of cities, emperors endowed their armies with ceremonial crosses richly adorned with precious stones. These were important enough to act as both standards and talismans for the Byzantine soldiers, and as worthwhile objects for capture by their opponents: the capture of richly decorated crosses of gold and silver is frequently mentioned in Arab historical accounts of campaigns against the Rum, the Byzantines, just as their recovery is praised in Byzantine texts. The general, later the emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (963–9) recaptured a number of crosses during his campaigns in Syria, and they are mentioned specifically as ‘military crosses’. Relics of saints or other figures in the Christian symbolic world were similarly deployed: in the ninth to twelfth centuries, for example, and almost certainly beforehand, emperors on campaign took along with them as a talisman an elaborate cross, including at its centre reliquaries containing a number of relics of saints and other sacred items, including a part of the Virgin’s girdle and a residue of her milk. Special imperial crosses, richly bejewelled and decorated, were kept in the precincts of the palace for ceremonial processions. They also accompanied the emperors when they went on campaign. This tradition, legitimating warfare directed against those who threatened the Christian Roman state, is expressed in many contexts, not least the Byzantine war cry ‘The Cross has conquered.’
信仰的象征，反映了这种差异意识（以及一种感觉上的优越感）在拜占庭军事环境中一直存在，而信仰与反对外来者的斗争的联系也在日常的宗教仪式中不断得到加强。 在一个层面上，正如正统礼仪中所阐述的那样，公开祈求和平或战争胜利，这具有正式的、几乎仪式化的性质，可能仅对大多数听众的意识产生表面影响。 但在另一个层面——偶尔的布道或讲道赞美帝国的胜利，警告野蛮人袭击的危险； 或者是圣人崇拜，尤其是各种军事圣人，他们在敌人面前拯救士兵和军队以及普通人的功绩，或者干预带来基督教胜利——这种联系一定是非常明显的。 虽然它几乎不鼓励大众中的简单和平主义，但以正统信仰的名义进行的战争也不是一种特别特殊的事态。 事实上，教会和皇帝在与国家敌人的战争中积极使用宗教符号作为帕拉迪亚：除了军队携带的神圣图像或放置在城市墙壁或大门上作为保护装置的神圣图像之外，皇帝还赋予他们的军队以仪式 用宝石装饰的十字架。 它们非常重要，可以作为拜占庭士兵的标准和护身符，也可以作为他们对手捕获的有价值的对象：阿拉伯历史记载中经常提到捕获装饰华丽的金银十字架 拜占庭人，就像他们的康复在拜占庭文本中受到赞扬一样。 将军，后来的皇帝尼基弗罗斯二世福卡斯 (963-9) 在他在叙利亚的战役中夺回了许多十字架，这些十字架被特别提及为“军事十字架”。 基督教象征世界中的圣人或其他人物的遗物也有类似的部署：例如，在 9 至 12 世纪，几乎可以肯定在此之前，征战的皇帝带着一个精心制作的十字架作为护身符，包括在其中心的圣物盒 一些圣人的遗物和其他神圣物品，包括圣母腰带的一部分和她的牛奶残留物。 特殊的皇家十字架，镶嵌着丰富的珠宝和装饰，被保存在宫殿的区域内，用于仪式游行。 皇帝出征时，他们也陪同。 这种针对那些威胁基督教罗马国家的人进行合法战争的传统在许多情况下都有体现，尤其是拜占庭战争口号“十字架已经征服”。
In non-military contexts, too, imperial and other donations to monasteries made reference to the military role of the emperor, divine support for the empire’s military enterprise, and prayers spoken for the success of the armies, while throughout the military handbooks the authors refer constantly to the help given to the Romans by God, under whose protection (and that of the Virgin) the soldiers fight. In every aspect of public and private life, what Byzantines did was explained in terms of divine providence, and justified by recourse to God’s will and design. In military contexts, this becomes especially apparent on the occasion of imperial triumphs, staged entries into the capital city involving the whole senior bureaucracy and court, the clergy of several churches, set acclamations orchestrated by imperial officials at key points along the processional route, frequent stops for prayer at churches along the route, distribution of largesse, display of prisoners and booty, and the close association of Christian spiritual with secular concerns. The connection between warfare and Christianity, the struggle for survival of the Chosen People, led by the emperor chosen by God, at the head of his armies (frequently also described as theophylaktoi–protected by God) was quite explicit. All warfare was, in this sense, about Christianity and the Christian empire. To isolate a particular war or type of war as ‘holy’ was unnecessary, and would in fact have seemed absurd. This is reinforced by the fact that a desire for peace, and a regret that war should be necessary, were constant motifs in imperial and church ideology.
在非军事背景下，帝国和其他对修道院的捐赠也提到了皇帝的军事作用、对帝国军事事业的神圣支持以及为军队的成功祈祷，而在整个军事手册中，作者都提到 不断地感谢上帝给予罗马人的帮助，在他们的保护（和圣母的保护）下，士兵们战斗。 在公共和私人生活的方方面面，拜占庭人的所作所为都以天意来解释，并通过诉诸上帝的旨意和设计来证明其正当性。 在军事背景下，这在帝国胜利之际变得尤为明显，整个高级官僚机构和宫廷、几个教会的神职人员分阶段进入首都，在游行路线沿线的关键点设置由帝国官员精心策划的鼓掌，频繁 在沿途的教堂停下来祈祷，分发礼物，展示囚犯和赃物，以及基督教精神与世俗关注的密切联系。 战争与基督教之间的联系，由上帝选择的皇帝领导的被选中的人民的生存斗争，在他的军队（通常也被描述为受上帝保护的theophylaktoi）的领导下是非常明确的。 从这个意义上说，所有的战争都是关于基督教和基督教帝国的。 将特定的战争或类型的战争孤立为“神圣”是不必要的，而且实际上看起来很荒谬。 对和平的渴望和对战争的必要性的遗憾是帝国和教会意识形态中不变的主题，这一事实进一步加强了这一点。
Liturgies for the troops were often held before battle; supplicatory prayer before and prayers of thanksgiving after battle were recommended; priests accompanied the army, at least on major expeditions, and played an important role in maintaining the soldiers’ morale; and whether the enemy was pagan or Christian (for example, the Bulgars), these tokens of Byzantine orthodoxy and God’s support against those who threatened the Chosen People were regularly employed. When the soldiers went into battle, they were instructed to remain as silent as possible until the command was given to shout the battle-cry. But they should also cry out, in unison, on leaving camp, either ‘nobiscum dues’ (God is with us) or ‘Kyrie eleison’(Lord have mercy), and invoke Christ as the Lord of battles, before advancing in formation upon the enemy.
军队的礼仪通常在战斗前举行； 推荐战前祈祷和战后感恩祈祷； 牧师陪同军队，至少在重大远征中，在保持士兵士气方面发挥了重要作用； 无论敌人是异教徒还是基督教徒（例如，保加利亚人），这些拜占庭正统信仰和上帝对威胁选民的人的支持都经常被使用。 当士兵们上阵时，他们被指示尽可能保持沉默，直到命令发出战斗口号。 但他们也应该在离开营地时齐声喊叫“nobiscum dues”（上帝与我们同在）或“Kyrie eleison”（上帝保佑），并祈求基督成为争战的主宰，然后再向敌人进军。
These values are constants throughout the existence of the empire. In the thirteenth century the courtier Nikephoros Blemmydes composed a short treatise belonging to the genre generally known as Mirror of Princes, a book of advice but also in praise of the emperor of the day, a genre which reached back into Roman times. In this, Blemmydes, writing for Theodore II Laskaris (1254–8), the son of the emperor John III Vatatzes (1222–54), offers advice on, amongst other aspects of the imperial office, military discipline and training, strategy and tactics. He stresses the need for ruthless action in dealing with enemies (the empire at the time was engaged in conflicts with the Seljuq Turks in Asia Minor, the Latin empire and princes who had partitioned the Byzantine empire after the Fourth Crusade in1203–4, and the Bulgars), and warfare is clearly taken for granted as a normal activity for an emperor. Yet, at the same time, fighting and the need to wage war are understood as regrettable, something forced upon an emperor by the circumstances in which his beleaguered state finds itself.
这些价值观贯穿整个帝国的存在。 在 13 世纪，朝臣尼基弗罗斯·布莱米德 (Nikephoros Blemmydes) 撰写了一篇短篇论文，属于通常被称为《王子之镜》(Mirror of Princes) 的流派，这是一本建议书，同时也是对当时皇帝的赞美，这种流派可以追溯到罗马时代。 在这方面，布莱米德斯为皇帝约翰三世瓦塔茨 (1222-54) 的儿子西奥多二世拉斯卡里斯 (1254-8) 写作，提供了有关帝国办公室、军事纪律和训练、战略和战术等方面的建议 . 他强调在对付敌人时需要采取无情的行动（当时的帝国与小亚细亚的塞尔柱土耳其人、拉丁帝国和在 1203-4 年第四次十字军东征后瓜分拜占庭帝国的诸侯发生冲突，以及 保加利亚人），而战争显然被认为是皇帝的正常活动。 然而，与此同时，战斗和发动战争的需要被认为是令人遗憾的，这是一位皇帝在其四面楚歌的状态下所处的环境所强加的。
Similarly, the writer Theognostos, writing in the first half of the thirteenth century, penned a Mirror of Princes in which military activity is a taken-for-granted part of a ruler’s life, and in which warfare to defend the empire of the Romans, the orthodox empire of the Chosen People, was a day-to-day matter. When victories are achieved, God should be thanked; when defeats are suffered, these are to be accepted as God’s punishment for the sins of the Romans. Warfare was, on this account, by definition a religious matter; but it was a regular, everyday affair, unexceptionable in this respect. Whatever the achievements of individual emperors or the Christian Roman people as a whole, therefore, there was no reason in this context to treat warfare against the enemies of the empire as a special event. All fighting was for orthodoxy and the empire; all warfare was, thus, holy war; and while it was to be regretted, and avoided wherever possible, it was also part of daily life for the empire and many of its inhabitants. Crucially, and in contrast to the West, fighting and warfare were ultimately the responsibility of the emperor, appointed by God to lead the faithful in defence of the Chosen People. Such views were particularly clearly enshrined in the preambles to imperial grants of revenue to soldiers in the twelfth century and after, texts that neatly sum up these values:
同样，作家西奥格诺斯托斯 (Theognostos) 于 13 世纪上半叶撰写了《王子之镜》，其中军事活动被视为统治者生活中理所当然的一部分，并在其中进行了保卫罗马帝国的战争， 天选之民的正统帝国，是家常便饭。 取得胜利，应当感谢上帝； 当遭受失败时，这些将被视为上帝对罗马人罪恶的惩罚。 因此，根据定义，战争是宗教问题； 但在这方面，这是例行公事，日常事务，无一例外。 因此，无论个别皇帝或整个基督教罗马人民取得了怎样的成就，在这种情况下都没有理由将与帝国敌人的战争视为特殊事件。 所有的战斗都是为了正统和帝国； 因此，所有的战争都是圣战； 虽然它令人遗憾，并尽可能避免，但它也是帝国及其许多居民日常生活的一部分。 至关重要的是，与西方相反，战斗和战争最终是皇帝的责任，由上帝任命领导信徒保卫选民。 这些观点在 12 世纪及之后的帝国授予士兵税收的序言中特别清楚地体现出来，这些文本巧妙地总结了这些价值观：
But we must welcome with the best we can the soldiers and warriors who show courage against blood-thirsty barbarians, since they give up body and soul for the people called after Christ, and expose themselves to the greatest of dangers.
但是，我们必须尽我们所能欢迎那些对嗜血的野蛮人表现出勇气的士兵和战士，因为他们为蒙召的人放弃了身体和灵魂，并将自己暴露在最大的危险中。
Official secular as well as religious belief accepted warfare as endemic, unavoidable, but nevertheless a bad thing. The opening statement of the emperor Leo VI, ‘the Wise’ (886–912), in the preface to his treatise on military tactics and strategy, provides an excellent example of this attitude. In Leo’s view, humans are essentially peaceful by nature, valuing their own security and embracing peace as the best means of maintaining a tranquil life. But the devil, by tempting people to sin, causes conflict and violence, stimulating men to wage war in spite of themselves and contrary to their own real interests and desires. The orthodox Christian empire was–as the earthly version of the kingdom of heaven–quite justified infighting to defend itself against external aggression. Defensive warfare was, in this view, God’s struggle, and was perfectly acceptable. And even though the interpretation of ‘defensive’ could vary, so that warfare to recover formerly imperial lands might also thus be justified, yet Leo insists that aggressive warfare and the needless shedding of the blood of even barbarians should be condemned. The ambiguity was explicit even in the words of a Father of the Church: for while condemning murder, the fourth-century Athanasius of Alexandria emphasised that killing one’s enemies in battle was both just and praiseworthy, bringing honour on those who thus distinguished themselves.
官方的世俗和宗教信仰都认为战争是地方性的、不可避免的，但仍然是一件坏事。 利奥六世皇帝（886-912 年）在他的军事战术和战略论文的序言中的开场白就是这种态度的一个很好的例子。 在狮子座看来，人类本质上是和平的，重视自身的安全，将和平作为维持平静生活的最佳手段。 但是，魔鬼通过引诱人们犯罪，引发冲突和暴力，刺激人们不顾自己并违背自己真正的利益和愿望而发动战争。 正统的基督教帝国——作为地上版本的天国——为了抵御外部侵略而进行内斗是非常合理的。 从这个角度来看，防御战是上帝的斗争，是完全可以接受的。 尽管“防御”的解释可能会有所不同，因此收复以前的帝国领土的战争也可能是合理的，但利奥坚持认为，侵略性的战争和即使是野蛮人的不必要的流血也应该受到谴责。 即使在一位教会之父的话中，这种歧义也很明显：因为在谴责谋杀的同时，4 世纪的亚历山大的亚他那修强调，在战斗中杀死一个人的敌人既是正义的，也是值得称赞的，为那些如此杰出的人带来了荣誉。
未完待续
