拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（11）
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
The text deals with the procedure to be followed when the parents of brothers die, and when one of the brothers is strateuome-7108. Should the brothers have previously made no arrangement over the division of their common heritage and live together ten years from the time when the first brother entered the service of the state, all revenues from the salary (ρόγα) and from the produce of the common household are shared equally. If they live together for a further period, and decide to separate during the next three years, then the brother in state service has the right to take his horse, harness and military equipment before the rest of the property is subdivided. If they continue to live together after thirteen years, then the soldier also has the right to receive what he has saved from his salaries (rogai) and also what he receives as booty and donatives. The word used throughout for “enrol” or to describe the brother who is enrolled, is στρατευθη, στρατευθήναι, ό στρατιώτης which, as Mossay and Yannopoulos correctly point out, bears the general sense of serve the state, but in this context, clearly refers to a soldier—since horse, harness and lorikion are referred to. The term roga is explained as being of a general nature; although from the context in which the term is used I see no reason to doubt that it is used of the cash pay of the soldier in question, as opposed to donativa and booty. The authors of the article in question conclude that the paragraph “est redige de telle fagon qu’il s’ap- plique a n’importe quel genre de militaire”.
该文本处理的程序，当父母的兄弟死亡，其兄弟之一是（未知）-7108。如果兄弟们先前没有对他们共同遗产的分配作出安排，并且从第一个兄弟进入国家服务的时候一起生活10年，那么他的薪金(ρογα)和共同家庭的产品的所有收入都会被平等地分享。如果他们再住一段时间，并决定在接下来的三年内分开，那么在国家服务的兄弟有权在其余财产被细分之前带走他的马匹、马具和军事装备。 如果他们在 13 年后继续生活在一起，那么士兵也有权获得他从工资中节省下来的东西 (rogai)，以及他作为战利品和捐赠品收到的东西。通篇用于“登记”或描述登记的兄弟的词，是“入伍，兵役，士兵” 。正如 Mossay 和 Yannopoulos 正确指出的那样，具有为国家服务的一般意义，但在这种情况下，显然是指士兵——因为马、马具和 lorikion 都被提及。 术语 roga 被解释为具有一般性质； 尽管从使用该术语的上下文来看，我认为没有理由怀疑它是指所涉士兵的现金工资，而不是 donativa 和赃物。该文章的作者得出结论，该段落“以适用于任何类型士兵的方式起草”。
But if we look at the assumptions made by the authors of our text, this is simply not the case. First, the soldier owns his horse, his weapons, and other equipment, and this is already a clear departure from earlier practice — all weapons and military equipment had belonged to the state and were in this respect not heritable. The same applied to cavalry mounts, which were bought by troopers through the army when they enlisted with a special cash allowance issued for the purpose, and which continued to belong to the state. In the tenth century, the situation with regard to the provincial forces was clearly quite different, as the De Caerimoniis makes very clear; and the text from the Ecloga suggests that a change in this direction had occurred already by the 730 s.
但是，如果我们看看我们文本作者所做的假设，情况就完全不是这样了。 首先，士兵拥有他的马匹、他的武器和其他装备，这已经明显不同于以前的做法——所有武器和军事装备都属于国家，在这方面是不可遗传的。 这同样适用于骑兵坐骑，骑兵在入伍时通过军队购买的特殊现金津贴仍然属于国家。在 10 世纪，省的情况 正如 De Caerimoniis 所说的那样，力量显然完全不同； 来自 Ecloga 的文字表明，这个方向在 730 年代已经发生了变化。
That the soldier in question owned his horse and equipment is thus of considerable significance — we have to do here with a quite different type of soldier from the regulars of the sixth and first part of the seventh century, and in this sense he is closely related to the soldier Mousoulios already discussed, who owned his horse; and to the other provincial soldiers referred to who were expected to provide their own horse and equipment. It seems clear from this evidence alone that the Ecloga soldier is not a regular soldier in the older sense. But there is additional support for this suggestion, for the text states that, in the case where the brothers have not already drawn up a legally binding arrangement as to the division of their heritage, then the rogai which the strateuomenos receives should be treated as the common property of the household for the first ten years. Now this is in direct conflict with the usual procedure, for a soldier, receiving the benefit of military peculium, was given exclusive control of any income or property he received which was defined as peculium castrense (στρατιωτικόν πεκούλιον) whether he was legally still a minor or not. Rogai received in the course of his state service (however we are to define them here — as a cash salary or as other forms of remuneration) were certainly placed in this category. He was entitled to retain all such income and to dispose of it freely without any obligation to endow part of it on relatives or dependents, or to share it. These stipulations in fact appear in summary immediately before our text, as Ecloga XVI 1. The question arises, why should it be necessary to modify the usual regulations in this way, and to stipulate that the enrolled brother should contribute his earnings to the common household?
因此，所讨论的士兵拥有他的马匹和装备具有相当大的意义——我们必须在这里处理一种与 6 世纪和 7 世纪上半叶的正规军截然不同的士兵，从这个意义上说，他是密切相关的 给已经讨论过的士兵穆苏里奥斯，他拥有他的马； 以及提到的其他省级士兵，他们应该提供自己的马匹和装备。 仅从这个证据就可以清楚地看出，Ecloga 士兵不是旧意义上的正规士兵。 但是这个建议也得到了额外的支持，因为案文指出，如果兄弟们尚未就其遗产的分割制定具有法律约束力的安排，则 strateuomenos 收到的 rogai 应被视为 家庭头十年的共同财产。现在这与通常的程序直接冲突，因为一名士兵，获得军事特权的好处，被赋予对他收到的任何收入或财产的独家控制权，这些收入或财产被定义为 peculium castrense (军队私产)，无论他在法律上还是未成年人 或不。 Rogai 在他的国家服务过程中获得的（但是我们在这里将它们定义为现金工资或其他形式的报酬）当然属于这一类。 他有权保留所有这些收入并自由处置它，而没有任何义务将其中的一部分捐赠给亲属或受抚养人，或分享它。 这些规定实际上出现在我们文本之前的摘要中，如 Ecloga XVI 1. 问题出现了，为什么要以这种方式修改通常的规定，并规定注册兄弟应将其收入贡献给普通家庭 ?
The answer is surely that the older regulations had been to a certain degree overtaken by events, and a new situation had arisen, one in which some soldiers now depended directly upon their households or families, and were therefore obliged in return to share with the latter their service remuneration as long as they continued in this dependent position. Only when this dependency ceased does the mutual relationship terminate, which is clearly stated in our text. Here it is important to note that the soldier must retain his horse and military equipment, without which, of course, he could not carry out his duties. The position of our text and the probability that it deals with a real problem of inheritance which, under the new conditions envisaged, could no longer be regulated according to the older law, supports the argument. Naturally, the older regulations are retained, since they still applied to soldiers in regard to inheritance. But where soldiers are now partially dependent upon their families or households for their maintenance, new legal situations had to be taken into account. Here we see the legal embodiment of practical experience.
答案肯定是旧的规定在一定程度上被事件取代，出现了一种新的情况，一些士兵现在直接依赖他们的家庭或家人，因此不得不回报给后者。 只要他们继续担任这个依赖职位，他们的服务报酬。 只有当这种依赖性停止时，相互关系才会终止，这在我们的文本中明确说明。 这里需要注意的是，士兵必须保留他的马匹和军事装备，没有这些，他当然无法履行职责。 我们的文本的位置以及它处理真正的继承问题的可能性，在设想的新条件下，不能再根据旧法律进行调节，支持这一论点。 自然而然，旧的规定被保留了下来，因为它们仍然适用于士兵的继承权。 但是，当士兵现在部分依赖家人或家庭维持生活时，必须考虑新的法律情况。 在这里，我们看到了实践经验的法律体现。
The fact that the text specifically stated that the soldier should retain his horse and military gear should be emphasised. If these were issued to him, or bought with cash issued to him by the state, this would be quite unnecessary, since the soldier automatically kept such equipment. This is yet another reflection of the fact that the horse and the equipment were provided in part at least by the household — which might thus have a legal claim to them — although used exclusively by one man. To prevent dispute over their possession, our text makes it quite clear that the soldier receives them in advance of any subdivision of the common heritage.
应该强调文本明确指出士兵应该保留他的马匹和军用装备的事实。 如果这些是发给他的，或者是用国家发给他的现金买的，这完全没有必要，因为士兵会自动保留这些装备。 这又反映了这样一个事实，即马匹和设备至少部分由家庭提供——因此家庭可能对它们有合法的要求——尽管只由一个人使用。 为防止对其所有权的争议，我们的文本非常清楚地表明，士兵在对共同遗产进行任何细分之前会收到它们。
I do not think there is any doubt that the passage in question alludes to the existence of soldiers who were in part dependent upon their households. The soldiers envisaged do not represent the type familiar before the middle of the seventh century, equipped essentially by the state, and remaining to this extent independent of their families. We may conclude that by the 730s (and possibly some decades earlier, since the text represents a reaction to a developing state of affairs) a system of recruitment was already developing which rested upon the provision by the soldiers themselves of basic equipment, mounts and, possibly, rations. This in itself is a major and very important departure from the procedure followed hitherto. By the early eighth century, the characteristic marks of ninth- and tenth-century thematic service were already present.
我认为毫无疑问，有问题的段落暗示了部分依赖家庭的士兵的存在。 所设想的士兵并不代表七世纪中叶之前熟悉的类型，基本上由国家装备，并且在这种程度上独立于家人。 我们可以得出结论，到了 730 年代（可能还有几十年前，因为文本代表了对事态发展的反应）一种招募系统已经在发展，它依赖于士兵自己提供基本装备、坐骑和， 可能，口粮。 这本身就是与迄今为止所遵循的程序的重大和非常重要的背离。 到八世纪初，九世纪和十世纪专题服务的特征标志已经出现。
To what extent was this soldier still a full-time regular, and to what extent does he represent the “part-time” soldier typified by Mousoulios in the 780s and by Euthymios and Luke the Stylite at a later date? Two points should be borne in mind. First, the context of our passage is a reciprocity between the soldier and his family, which quite explicitly involved the former regarding his pay, under particular circumstances, as the common earnings of the family. During the limited time envisaged by the text, therefore, the household presumably supported him while on active service by providing also a proportion of his rations. He may thus have spent at least part of the year at home. Second, the military service involved here is clearly personal. There is no suggestion that the enrolled brother should have enough land to support the costs of his equipment and service — he can clearly leave his brother(s), with his share of the inheritance, when he will — the text is an attempt to legislate for the heritable property when no definite agreement exists. What the soldier must have, however, is his horse and gear. I am inclined to see in this text, therefore, the original situation of the theme soldiers. Equipped by their households and families, fulfilling a personal (hereditary) service in the army, they have freedom of movement still. It is up to them to ensure that their households can support that service. Our text says nothing of exemptions from state leitourgiai or other privileges, of course, since they do not concern the case envisaged. But this silence hardly affects the case outlined above. The text provides in effect good evidence for the existence by the 730 s of the provincial forces known from a slightly later epoch, represented by Mousoulios and Euthymios, soldiers who drew their income from personal property, probably land, which supported and equipped them for their hereditary military duties; and whose families, by virtue of the owner’s membership of the army, gained a series of privileges in respect of certain state charges and minor taxes. Such a system of “self-supporting” provincial troops, hereditarily bound to serve, probably began to develop from the 660s, as provincial commanders found it increasingly necessary to spread their forces over a wide area in order to combat the numerous small but damaging raids of the Arabs.
这个士兵在多大程度上仍然是全职正规军，他在多大程度上代表了以 780 年代的穆苏里奥斯和后来的欧西米奥斯和卢克为代表的“兼职”士兵？ 应牢记两点。 首先，我们段落的背景是士兵和他的家人之间的互惠关系，这很明确地涉及前者在特定情况下将他的工资作为家庭的共同收入。 因此，在案文所设想的有限时间里，该家庭大概也通过提供他的一部分口粮来支持他在现役期间的生活。 因此，他一年中可能至少有一部分时间待在家里。其次，这里涉及的兵役显然是个人的。 没有建议登记的兄弟应该有足够的土地来支付他的设备和服务的费用——他可以明确地离开他的兄弟，带着他的继承份额，当他愿意时——文本是试图立法 没有明确约定的可继承财产。 然而，士兵必须拥有的是他的马匹和装备。 因此，我倾向于在本文中看到主题士兵的原始情况。 由他们的家庭和家庭装备，在军队中履行个人（世袭）服务，他们仍然有行动自由。 他们有责任确保他们的家庭能够支持该服务。 当然，我们的案文没有提到国家 leitourgiai 或其他特权的豁免，因为它们与设想的情况无关。 但这种沉默几乎不影响上述案例。 文本实际上提供了很好的证据，证明了 730 年代后期已知的省级军队的存在，以 Mousoulios 和 Euthymios 为代表，他们从个人财产中获取收入 ，可能是土地，为他们的世袭军事职责提供支持和装备； 其家庭凭借所有者的军队成员资格，在某些国家收费和小额税收方面获得了一系列特权。 这种“自养”的省级军队，世袭制，可能是从 660 年代开始发展起来的，因为省级指挥官发现越来越有必要将他们的部队分散到一个广阔的地区，以对抗无数小规模但破坏性的袭击。 阿拉伯人。
That the state or provincial government proceeded to settle soldiers on deserted lands, from which they were henceforth to draw their support, seems to me unlikely. Abandoned or deserted land needs a considerable amount of work before it becomes productive again, and such an operation would certainly have distracted the soldiers involved from their main task. More probably, regular soldiers began to be more or less permanently billeted on landowners in the region where they were garrisoned. The landlord must feed and maintain his guest according to the usual regulations, who, as in similar circumstances in Italy, Syria and Egypt will have rapidly become part of the community. Many may have bought or leased land — there is ample evidence from Egypt and especially from Italy and Syria of the sixth and seventh century for just such a development — holdings from which the soldier obtained a private income, and from which he could, if necessary, support himself. The state did not need to settle the soldiers, merely to garrison them and to require the host to maintain them in winter quarters. We need not search for “military holdings” since such did not exist. Rather, we must clarify a process by which regular soldiers were billeted more or less permanently (although this may never have been the original intention) throughout the region which they garrisoned, and by which they acquired their own properties and settled down. Neither need we seek to explain the granting of special privileges to such holdings, for as already pointed out, soldiers’ families received certain exemptions and benefits as a matter of course. Indeed, once units came to be based permanently in an area, enlistment was certainly considered an advantage, as the example of both limitanei and comitatenses in Egypt proves. The benefits which military status brought may well have acted as a stimulant to recruitment at this time.
州政府或省政府开始将士兵安置在荒地，他们今后将以此为生，这在我看来似乎不太可能。荒地或荒地需要大量工作才能再次生产，而这样的行动 肯定会分散所涉及的士兵的主要任务。 更有可能的是，正规士兵开始或多或少地永久驻扎在他们驻防地区的地主身上。 房东必须按照通常的规定来喂养和照顾他的客人，就像在意大利、叙利亚和埃及的类似情况一样，他们将很快成为社区的一部分。 许多人可能购买或租赁了土地——从埃及，尤其是 6 世纪和 7 世纪的意大利和叙利亚有充分的证据证明这种发展——士兵从中获得了私人收入，如有必要，他可以从中获得 ，支持自己。 国家不需要安置士兵，只是驻扎他们，并要求东道国在冬季维持他们。 我们不需要搜索“军事资产”，因为它不存在。 相反，我们必须澄清一个过程，在这个过程中，正规士兵或多或少是永久性地（尽管这可能永远不是最初的意图）遍布他们驻扎的地区，并以此获得自己的财产并定居下来。 我们也不需要解释授予此类财产的特殊特权，因为正如已经指出的那样，士兵家属理所当然地获得了某些豁免和福利。事实上，一旦部队永久驻扎在一个地区，征兵 正如埃及的limitanei 和comitatenses 的例子所证明的那样，这当然被认为是一种优势。 军事地位带来的好处很可能在此时起到了促进招募的作用。
A remarkably similar development occurred in Italy, while Syria provides a number of striking parallels. The troops continued to be supplied by the state when on long campaigns; when not on campaign, they supported themselves, even when still regarded as being on active duty. Regular parades were held to ensure their readiness for action — once again as in Egypt and Italy — after which the soldiers were dismissed and returned to their posts, or to their billets and homes.
意大利有着非常相似的发展，而叙利亚提供了许多惊人的相似之处。在长期战役中，军队继续由国家提供； 不参加竞选活动时，他们自力更生，即使仍被视为现役。 定期举行游行以确保他们准备好采取行动 - 再次像在埃及和意大利那样 - 之后士兵被解雇并返回他们的岗位，或他们的营房和家中。
The troops may in addition have been paid only irregularly (which was certainly the case during the reigns of Justinian and his successors, and probably remained the case throughout the seventh century), which must have promoted a reHance on purely local resources, until the troops’ rogai were delivered. Possibly the mention by Constantine VII of a four-yearly payment reflects a later ratio- nahsation of the irregular pay of the provincial soldiers.
此外，军队可能只是不定期地获得报酬（这在查士丁尼及其继任者的统治期间确实如此，并且可能在整个七世纪一直如此），这肯定促进了对纯粹当地资源的依赖，直到军队 ' rogai 被交付。 君士坦丁七世提到的四年一次的薪酬可能反映了后来对省级士兵不定期薪酬的合理化。
Further, there is no reason to believe that the troops based in their local communities were not in theory on active service all year round, excluding the usual three-month leave-period over the winter season. The localisation of the majority of the units making up each army would lead, as noted above, to an assimilation of those soldiers with the local population. But they were originally based in those localities for defensive purposes — to protect the local population against raiders, or to guard some strategically important point or other. They were called out from these localities for larger operations as required. The yearly adnoumion was in origin not simply a check on the equipment of “farmer-militiamen”, but on the contrary, a check on the state of regular units whose strategic isolation normally made such a procedure very difficult. It is important to notice that when Mousoulios was called out to an ad- noumion in preparation for a campaign against the Arabs, the imperial officers in charge visited
that is to say, the army (or garrison) in that region. The idea of an active garrisoning force is here evident.
此外，没有理由相信驻扎在当地社区的部队理论上不是全年都在现役，除了冬季通常的三个月休假期。 如上所述，组成每支军队的大多数部队的本地化将导致这些士兵与当地居民的同化。 但他们最初驻扎在这些地方是出于防御目的——保护当地居民免受袭击者的侵害，或者保卫一些具有战略意义的重要地点或其他。 他们根据需要从这些地方被召集起来进行更大的行动。 年度通知的起源不仅仅是对“农民-民兵”设备的检查，相反，是对常规部队的状态进行检查，这些部队的战略孤立通常使这种程序非常困难。 重要的是要注意，当穆苏里奥斯被召集以准备反对阿拉伯人的运动时，负责的帝国官员访问了
，即该地区的军队（或驻军） 。积极驻军的想法在这里很明显。
But the outcome of the localisation was, of course, that the full-time, regular army increasingly took on the form (and attitudes) of a part-time, militia force. This was probably not the intention of the state. The soldiers were still theoretically full-time regulars; they were theoretically supposed not to indulge in agricultural or trading activities.
但本地化的结果当然是全职正规军越来越多地采取兼职民兵的形式（和态度）。 这可能不是国家的本意。 理论上，士兵们仍然是全职正规军； 理论上，他们不应该沉迷于农业或贸易活动。
未完待续
