拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（5）
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
It is now generally assumed that Heraclius re-organised the forces in Asia Minor in 621/622, and at the same time recruited a sizeable new force, which he then trained and equipped. The basis of these assumptions is a text of Theophanes:
现在普遍认为，赫拉克略在 621/622 年重组了小亚细亚的部队，同时招募了一支规模庞大的新部队，然后他训练和装备了这支部队。 这些假设的基础是 Theophanes 的一篇文章：
έντεΰθεν δέ έπί τάς των θεμάτων χώρας άφικόμενος
συνέλεγε τά στρατόπεδα καί προσετίθει αύτοϊς νέαν στρατείαν.
τούτους δέ γυμνάζειν ήρξατο καί τά πολεμικά έργα έξεπαίδευσεν.
此外，在国家问题上，他组建了营地并增加了一支新军队。
他们没有受过训练，战争工作受过的训练。
If we compare the texts of George of Pisidia, however, upon which Theophanes based much of his information about Heraclius’ activities at this time, then I think it will be seen that there is little justification for this assumed recruitment :
然而，如果我们比较 Pisidia 的 George 的文本，Theophanes 的大部分关于 Heraclius 活动的信息都基于这些文本，那么我认为会发现这种假设的招募几乎没有理由：
στρατόν γάρ εύρών τό πριν έκ ραθυμίας
αταξίας γέμοντας, ήμέλημένους,
θάττον κατορθοΐς καί λόγοις καί σχήμασι,
τύπων, διαιρών, δεικνύων, ύπογράφων
ώς παιδαγωγός των ενόπλων γραμμάτων.
在改革之前，军队很散漫，充满混乱，被忽视，
（未知）
类型、分区、标志、签名
作为武装的（未知）。
No reference to new recruits or a recruitment occurs in George of Pisidia — certainly not enough to deserve mention. Instead, he refers merely to a re-assembly of disorganised troops, and stresses that the condition of the majority was so bad, that the emperor had to begin more or less from the beginning to retrain them all.
皮西迪亚的乔治没有提到新兵或招募——当然不够值得一提。 相反，他只是指重新集结散乱的军队，并强调大多数人的情况如此糟糕，以至于皇帝不得不或多或少地从一开始就重新训练他们。
Hence Theophanes’ reference το ύ το υ ς δ έ γυ μν ά ζειν ή ρ ξατο need refer to new recruits only if we interpret ν έα σ τρ ατεία as such. But the phrase does not normally bear such a meaning. Strateia (= militia) in the later Roman and Byzantine period signified membership of an official or do and the exercise of certain duties, usually within the civil, military or ecclesiastical apparatus.49 It seems much more likely that Theophanes was using the word in this (for him) everyday sense, and that we must therefore re-interpret the sentence. Now π ρ ο σ τίθ η μι can also mean “impose upon/in addition to” or “attribute to”. If we look again at this statement π ρ ο σ ετίθ ει αύ το ϊς ν έαν σ τρ ατείαν , is it not more likely that it is to be interpreted in the following sense: that Heraclius, having collected his scattered troops, imposed new duties or new conditions of service upon them?
因此，Theophanes 的参考文献 το ύ το υ ς δ έ γυ μν ά ζειν ή ρ ξατο 只有在我们这样解释 ν έα σ τρ ατεία 时才需要提及新兵。 但该短语通常不具有这样的含义。 罗马和拜占庭时期后期的 Strateia（=民兵）表示官员的成员身份或执行某些职责，通常在民事、军事或教会机构内。 49 似乎更有可能 Theophanes 在这个词中使用这个词 （对他而言）日常意义，因此我们必须重新解释这句话。 现在 π ρ ο σ τίθ η μι 也可以表示“强加于/除此之外”或“归因于”。 如果我们再看一下这个陈述 π ρ ο σ ετίθ ει αύ το ϊς ν έαν σ τρ ατείαν ，它是否更可能被解释为以下意义：希拉克略集结了他分散的军队，强加了新的职责 或对他们提供新的服务条件？
Two alternatives present themselves for consideration. Strateia might also mean “discipline”, which would fit in with what George of Pisidia reports — that Heraclius had to impose discipline and order on the troops. This use of the word, however, is unusual.
有两种备选方案可供考虑。 Strateia 也可能意味着“纪律”，这符合皮西迪亚的乔治所报告的——赫拉克略必须对部队施加纪律和秩序。 然而，这个词的这种用法是不寻常的。
Alternatively, and closer to the first proposal made above, the phrase might refer to a stricter re-application of hereditary enlistment, which, as I have shown, had lapsed during or before Justinian’s reign. Heraclius may have decided that such a measure was necessary in order to maintain the strength of the army in the future — a consideration which would account for the imposition of the nea strateia on those already enlisted, and the fact that George of Pisidia does not refer to new recruits. Indeed, the situation of the empire at this time would have made such a move far more reasonable, and necessary, than hitherto. A fruitful source of recruits, the Balkans, was now almost entirely removed from imperial authority, while Asia Minor itself was in a state of disorganisation. Foreign recruiting had already been drying up during the last years of the sixth century, whereas internal recruitment, as stressed above, was maintained. Now, even these sources were no longer available. In the cirumstances, the only reasonable move was a return to hereditary service, if only to maintain the already reduced numbers of imperial troops at a serviceable level. It is quite probable that Heraclius used the excuse of the forthcoming strenuous campaigns against the Persians to justify this change in service conditions, which at other times would have aroused considerable opposition; and that he skillfully exploited the fervour of the troops to gain their approbation.
或者，更接近于上面提出的第一个提议，该短语可能指的是更严格地重新应用世袭征募，正如我所表明的，在查士丁尼统治期间或之前已经失效。 赫拉克略可能已经决定，为了在未来保持军队的实力，这种措施是必要的——这一考虑将解释对那些已经入伍的人施加新的战略，以及皮西迪亚的乔治没有提及这一事实。 给新员工。 的确，以此时的帝国局势，比以往任何时候都更合理，也更有必要。 一个富有成效的新兵来源巴尔干半岛现在几乎完全脱离了帝国权威，而小亚细亚本身则处于混乱状态。 在六世纪的最后几年，外国招聘已经枯竭，而如上所述，内部招聘仍在继续。 现在，即使是这些来源也不再可用。 在这种情况下，唯一合理的举措是恢复世袭服役，即使只是为了将已经减少的帝国军队数量维持在可用水平。 很可能赫拉克略以即将到来的针对波斯人的艰苦战役为借口来为这种服役条件的改变辩护，这在其他时候会引起相当大的反对。 他巧妙地利用部队的热情来获得他们的认可。
Such a move on the part of the emperor would go a long way towards explaining the appearance of the word thema at this time. In order to cater for the revised regulations, lists of those affected will have to have been drawn up anew. It is not unlikely that a relatively new term was employed to describe them, a term which, as Bolger suggested, soon came to be applied also to the corps or divisions registered in the lists, and ultimately to the areas where these corps were stationed.
皇帝的这一举动对解释这个时候thema这个词的出现大有帮助。 为配合修订后的条例，必须重新拟定受影响者名单。 用一个相对较新的术语来描述它们是不太可能的，正如博尔格所建议的那样，这个术语很快也适用于名单中登记的军或师，并最终适用于这些军驻扎的地区。
Thus Heraclius may have been responsible for certain administrative reforms — namely the re-introduction of hereditary military service. If the logothete referred to in the Chronicon Paschale for 626 is a military official, then he would certainly have played a role, as supervisor of the new lists. But that is to be expected and would in no way alter his function as chief paymaster, a function which may have existed since Maurice’s day.54 I see no reason for considering Heraclius’ enforcement of this obligation as anything more than the reintroduction of an older principle, which will in any case (and especially in the circumstances of the time) have taken several years to effectively implement. That it had anything to do with military holdings or the themata as administrative districts is not borne out by the evidence.
因此，赫拉克略可能负责某些行政改革——即重新引入世袭兵役制。 如果在 Chronicon Paschale 中提到的 626 的 logothete 是一名军官，那么他肯定会扮演一个角色，作为新名单的监督者。 但这是意料之中的，并且绝不会改变他作为首席出纳员的职能，这一职能可能自莫里斯时代以来就存在。54 我认为没有理由认为赫拉克利乌斯对这一义务的执行只不过是重新引入一位年长的 原则，这在任何情况下（尤其是在当时的情况下）都需要几年时间才能有效实施。 它与军事控股或作为行政区的themata有任何关系没有证据证明。
There was, therefore, a limited change in the system of recruitment under Heraclius, and it was perhaps this change, together with only a vague knowledge of the events of the seventh century, which led Constantine VII to ascribe so much to his illustrious predecessor. But there is enough evidence available to confirm that in other respects, the older military and civil establishment survived until, at the very least, the middle of the seventh century intact. Officials bearing titles familiar from the preceding period continue to be mentioned in the sources until the 650s and 660s; and while the forces of the empire were certainly re-distributed and established in new localities as a result of the Arab attacks, the older system was only gradually replaced by a new one which could provide more effectively for the needs of the new situation. The most important aspects of the changes for our purposes are the gradual localisation of the forces and the growth of distinctly territorial armies — troops both recruited and stationed in their home area — and the limited resources henceforth available to pay and equip such troops. I will return to this theme below.
因此，赫拉克略统治下的招募制度发生了有限的变化，也许正是这种变化，加上对七世纪事件的模糊了解，导致君士坦丁七世将如此多的归功于他杰出的前任。 但是有足够的证据可以证实，在其他方面，较旧的军事和民事机构幸存下来，至少直到七世纪中叶完好无损。 直到 650 年代和 660 年代，消息来源中仍继续提及具有前一时期熟悉头衔的官员； 虽然由于阿拉伯人的袭击，帝国的力量肯定被重新分配和建立在新的地方，但旧的系统只是逐渐被一种新的系统所取代，新的系统可以更有效地满足新形势的需要。 就我们的目的而言，这些变化的最重要方面是部队的逐渐本地化和明显领土的军队——在其家乡招募和驻扎的部队——以及今后可用于支付和装备这些部队的有限资源。下面我将回到这个主题。
The period which follows Heraclius’ reign is if anything even less accessible to the historian. Evidence for the administrative organisation of the empire as a whole is very sparse; and it is impossible to say whether the reintroduction of hereditary obligations to military service by Heraclius was later withdrawn. It seems most probable that it was not. But to demonstrate why, it will now be necessary to move on to the sources for a later period, when the so-called theme system has reached its full development.
希拉克略统治之后的时期对历史学家来说甚至更难理解。 整个帝国行政组织的证据非常稀少； 并且无法说赫拉克利乌斯重新引入世袭义务服兵役的义务后来是否被撤销。 似乎很可能不是。 但是为了说明原因，现在有必要在稍后的时期继续研究来源，当所谓的主题系统已经完全发展时。
未完待续
