拜占庭军队的招募与征兵 C. 550-950（12）（最终章）
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
Just how soon this process began is difficult to say. Perhaps as soon as the armies had been permanently stationed in fixed districts for a fairly lengthy period — in the later 660s and 670s, since the withdrawal into Asia Minor was already well under way by the early 640s. To what extent it was influenced by the deliberate settlement of Slavs in Anatolia during this period must remain un- clear, although, it is apparent that Justinian II at least intended to extract military service from his new settlers.138 Possibly the latter were conscripted and then given land in a deliberate attempt to imitate the natural process which was occuring among the regular Roman armies. That the limitanei created a precedent for the deliberate settlement of soldiers along the frontier is highly unlikely. To begin with, the old limes, restored by Heraclius after 626, had been completely overrun — the approximate line of demarcation between Roman and Arab territory in the later seventh century corresponded in no way with the earlier frontiers and the regions where the limitanei had been based. That a system of limitanei was deliberately re-established in a new area in the 660s seems to me unlikely, the more so when the limited importance of such troops and their ineffectiveness as all but a local police force had been recognised. Limitanei undoubtedly subsisted in north Africa until the Arabs had overrun the exarchate of Carthage. But the origins of later military holdings in the East should not be sought here (as Karayannopoulos seeks to a certain extent to do), for the connection had long been broken when such holdings began to develop. The process was rather a “natural” one, in which troops permanently garrisoned in the areas they defended were absorbed by the local populace and acquired or rented small properties. Soldiers brought with them certain advantages, both in terms of status and in terms of their freedom from certain fiscal charges. To begin with, they constituted in many ways a distinct social group within their new communities, an asset which improved their opportunities of obtaining land or other property.
这个过程有多快开始很难说。 或许是在 660 年代后期和 670 年代，因为在 640 年代初期撤退到小亚细亚的工作已经顺利进行，因此军队在固定地区永久驻扎了相当长的一段时间。 在此期间，斯拉夫人在安纳托利亚蓄意定居的影响在多大程度上仍然不得而知，尽管查士丁尼二世显然至少打算从他的新定居者那里榨取兵役。后者可能被征召入伍并 然后为了模仿罗马正规军队中发生的自然过程而故意给予土地。 限制士兵在边境沿线蓄意定居的先例是极不可能的。 首先，在 626年之后由赫拉克利乌斯修复的旧石灰已经完全被淹没——7 世纪后期罗马和阿拉伯领土之间的大致分界线与早期的边界和边防军所在的地区完全不符。在我看来，660 年代在一个新地区故意重新建立限制制度在我看来不太可能，尤其是当人们认识到这些部队的重要性有限以及他们除了当地警察部队之外的其他所有机构都没有效率时。毫无疑问，边防军在阿拉伯人占领迦太基总督之前，一直存在于北非。 但是不应该在这里寻找后来东方军事控股的起源（正如卡拉扬诺普洛斯在一定程度上寻求做的那样），因为当这种控股开始发展时，这种联系早就被打破了。 这个过程是一个相当“自然”的过程，在他们所保卫的地区永久驻军的部队被当地民众吸收并获得或租用小财产。 士兵带来了一定的优势，无论是在地位方面还是在地位方面 他们免于某些财政费用。 首先，他们在新社区内以多种方式组成了一个独特的社会群体，这是一种资产，增加了他们获得土地或其他财产的机会。
Unlike Italy, however, Anatolia presents no documentation for such a development, and logical though it might appear in the light of what is known of the social position of the stratiotai at a later date, it must remain a hypothesis.
然而，与意大利不同的是，安纳托利亚没有提供这种发展的文件，尽管根据后来已知的阶层社会地位，它可能会出现合乎逻辑，但它仍然是一个假设。
That many soldiers possessed landed property, or had also a secondary source of income which could support them, is thus very probable. The continued application of a hereditary enlistment of soldiers’ sons would strengthen such a tendency as soldiers’ families became firmly settled. It is impossible to determine whether the military authorities began deliberately to shift the burden of providing for the soldier and his equipment onto his family or host, however. More probably, the development was a result of the failure of the central government to maintain regular payments to the troops, and of the inability of the military authorities to adequately supply such widely distributed units. It had certainly begun before 741. Soldiers could thus be dependent upon their families or their private resources — if they became impoverished, there was no means of recovering their situation until the reforms of Nicephorus I partly took their position into account. The military authorities provided merely a (theoretically) regular cash payment, and supplies during campaigns.
因此，许多士兵拥有土地财产，或者还有可以养活他们的次要收入来源，这是非常有可能的。 继续实行士兵的儿子世袭征募，将加强这种趋势，因为士兵的家庭已经稳固地安顿下来。 然而，无法确定军事当局是否开始故意将提供士兵及其装备的负担转移到他的家人或主人身上。 更可能的是，这种发展是中央政府未能维持对军队的定期付款，以及军事当局无法充分供应如此广泛分布的部队的结果。 这肯定是在 741 年之前开始的。因此，士兵们可以 依赖他们的家庭或他们的私人资源——如果他们变得贫困，在尼西弗鲁斯一世的改革部分考虑到他们的立场之前，没有办法恢复他们的处境。 军事当局仅提供（理论上）定期现金支付和战役期间的补给。
Thus special legislation for the holdings or other sources of income which supported the soldiers is not forthcoming, because the duties were attached to the soldier, not his possessions. Only in the tenth century, when a large-scale process of alienation of soldiers’ properties got under way, did the state take decisive steps to protect these holdings and effectively to transfer the obligations involved from the soldier and his family to his land. As the economic position of this group was progressively weakened, so their ability to personally carry out their duties was reduced, and the tendency increased of commuting the services due for cash, which could be used to raise mercenary soldiers, the demand for whom was of course far greater in the conditions promoted by the largescale offensive operations and reconquests undertaken during the tenth century.
因此，支持士兵的财产或其他收入来源的特别立法不会即将出台，因为职责是属于士兵，而不是他的财产。 直到 10 世纪，当大规模的士兵财产转让过程开始时，国家才采取果断措施保护这些财产，并有效地将士兵及其家人的义务转移到他的土地上。 由于这个群体的经济地位逐渐减弱，他们个人履行职责的能力下降，而换取现金的趋势增加，可以用来培养雇佣兵，对他们的需求是 当然，在 10 世纪进行的大规模进攻行动和重新征服所促进的条件下，情况要好得多。
The origins of the stratiotika ktemata （军区）are thus to be sought in the permanent establishment of the field troops of the imperial armies during the 650s and after in the regions which they were to defend. They developed gradually as a response to local needs and circumstances and at least to some extent as the result of a preexisting principle of hereditary military obligations. They have nothing to do with the lands held by limitanei — however similar the two developments may appear; nor with any deliberate administrative pokey undertaken by the central government — although local administrative initiative is not to be excluded. Neither have they, to begin with, any direct connection with the establishment of the themes, areas under permanent military occupation, whose civil administrative functions were gradually usurped by military officials, the better to organise defence and to provide for their soldiers — although both processes were going on together.
因此，在 650 年代及之后，帝国军队的野战部队在他们要保卫的地区的常设机构中，要寻找军区的起源。 它们逐渐发展成为对当地需求和情况的回应，并且至少在某种程度上是先前存在的世袭军事义务原则的结果。 它们与边防军拥有的土地无关——无论这两个开发项目看起来多么相似； 也没有中央政府故意进行的任何行政干预——尽管不排除地方行政主动性。 首先，它们与主题、永久军事占领区的建立没有任何直接联系，其民事行政职能逐渐被军事官员篡夺，更好地组织防御和提供士兵——尽管这两个过程 一起进行。
Recruitment in the Byzantine empire thus took on two basic forms — voluntary recruitment (which includes various forms of press-ganging, recruitment through the offer of bounties and other rewards, through the settlement of foreign mercenaries with their families on Byzantine soil, and the hiring of whole detachments of foreigners for limited periods); and conscription, effected either through the hereditary obligations in soldiers’ families (re-introduced during the reign of Heraclius), or through obligations attached to the land of families with such hereditary obligations. The latter was a development which grew directly out of the former during the later seventh century; but which only became legally defined as the economic position of these families became weakened.
因此，拜占庭帝国的招募采取了两种基本形式——自愿招募（包括各种形式的新闻联营、通过提供赏金和其他奖励进行招募、通过外国雇佣军与其家人在拜占庭领土上定居，以及雇佣和征兵，通过士兵家庭的世袭义务（在赫拉克利乌斯统治期间重新引入）或通过对具有这种世袭义务的家庭土地的义务来实现。 后者是在七世纪后期直接从前者发展而来的发展。 但这只是随着这些家庭的经济地位被削弱而在法律上被界定。
The examination of these processes as they actually operated during the ninth and tenth centuries — for which there is a considerable body of evidence — must await a further study, however. The present paper is merely an attempt to present a general picture of the developments which produced the seemingly complex and mutually exclusive recruitment patterns of the tenth century. The anomalies and contradictions of the evidence can, I think, be resolved, if it is borne in mind that the evidence from legal sources, which is frequently treated as representing a fixed, official terminology, was itself in a state of flux and must be handled with some caution — I am thinking particularly of the varied uses of the terms stratiötes and strateuomenos.
然而，对这些过程在 9 世纪和 10 世纪实际运行时的检查——有相当多的证据——必须等待进一步研究。本文只是试图呈现发展的一般情况 这产生了 10 世纪看似复杂且相互排斥的招聘模式。 我认为，如果牢记来自法律来源的证据（通常被视为代表固定的官方术语）本身处于不断变化的状态，并且必须牢记在心，那么证据的异常和矛盾是可以解决的。 谨慎处理——我特别想到了“军队”和“入伍”这两个术语的不同用法。
Many aspects of the problems reviewed here are in need of further research and discussion. I have avoided going into the question of the development of social dependency through the alienation of land and the impoverishment of “military families”, although this is clearly important in the discussion on the beginnings of feudal social relations in the Byzantine world. Instead, I have attempted to clarify the administrative developments which took place, since these are central to any understanding of Byzantine society and the state during the period in question. It is hoped that the present study will at least provoke further debate.
这里回顾的问题的许多方面都需要进一步研究和讨论。 我避免通过土地的异化和“军人家庭”的贫困来讨论社会依赖的发展问题，尽管这在关于拜占庭世界封建社会关系的起源的讨论中显然很重要。相反， 我试图澄清所发生的行政发展，因为这些发展是任何理解拜占庭社会和相关时期国家的核心。 希望目前的研究能引发进一步的讨论。
The author is Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at the Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham; and is also a member of the Birmingham-Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Demography research project. He has worked extensively abroad, at the University of Athens 1972—73 while writing his doctoral thesis; and at the Institut für Byzantinistik und neugriechische Philologie in Munich, 1976—79. His publications include articles on military technology, Iconoclasm and the social and administrative history of the Byzantine armies. His chief interests lie in the field of social, economic and administrative history, upon which his research is currently concentrated.
作者是伯明翰大学拜占庭研究中心拜占庭研究讲师； 并且还是伯明翰-敦巴顿橡树园拜占庭人口学研究项目的成员。 他曾在国外广泛工作，1972-73 年在雅典大学撰写博士论文； 1976-79 年在慕尼黑的拜占庭哲学和新哲学研究所。 他的出版物包括关于军事技术、圣像破坏以及拜占庭军队的社会和行政历史的文章。 他的主要兴趣在于社会、经济和行政史领域，目前他的研究集中在这些领域。（1979年的约翰·哈尔顿）
本书完结
