（文章翻译）拜占庭兵役、军事土地和士兵的地位：当前的问题和解释（第一部分）
Military Service, Military Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and Interpretations Author(s): John Haldon
敦巴顿橡树园论文，1993 年
翻译：神尾智代
I. INTRODUCTION
一、引言
The relationship between the military, as the coercive arm of an organized state, and "civil society" is always interesting and important, because it is never an easy one. There are always tensions between the army in its purely military role (however that may be defined in each specific culture), and the army as a nexus of social opinions and people of different regional or local loyalties and traditions.
军队作为一个有组织的国家的强制力量，与“公民社会”之间的关系总是有趣而重要的，因为这从来都不是一件容易的事。 军队在纯粹的军事作用（然而这可能在每个特定的文化中被定义）与作为社会观点和不同地区或地方忠诚度和传统的人们的纽带的军队之间总是存在紧张关系。
How we approach the subject depends on what structural significance we attach to the army in the state and society: which elements of the army played what roles in politics, for example, and where in the pattern of social power relationships are they to be situated at different times? What sort of state are we talking about? And how did the state organize such things as the recruitment and payment, the equipping and supplying of its soldiers? And how do we define the term "soldier" in a society in which there were quite clearly both technical and everyday usages, reflected in the employment of the word stratiotes to mean different things in different contexts?
我们如何处理这个主题取决于我们赋予军队在国家和社会中的结构意义：例如，军队的哪些要素在政治中发挥了什么作用，以及它们在社会权力关系模式中的位置 不同的时间？ 我们在谈论什么样的状态？ 国家又是如何组织士兵的招募和支付、装备和供应等工作的？ 在一个技术和日常用法都非常清楚的社会中，我们如何定义“士兵”一词，这反映在使用“stratiotes”一词在不同的上下文中表示不同的事物？
Tied in to these questions are issues of normative roles and behavior. How did people in the society regard soldiers of differing status and function? How did they respond to them under different conditions-especially those which counted as "abnormal"? What legal status did soldiers of all types have in respect of their position in regard to the state and civil society at large?
与这些问题相关的是规范角色和行为问题。 社会上的人们如何看待不同地位和职能的士兵？ 他们在不同的条件下是如何应对的——尤其是那些被视为“异常”的？ 就其在国家和整个民间社会中的地位而言，各种类型的士兵具有什么法律地位？
Finally, how did the political ideology of the state fit soldiers into its scheme of things? And how did soldiers use this ideological system at different times, to whose advantage did they act, and with what intention? What was the self-perception of soldiers, and how differentiated was it-was there a difference, for example, between the views of officers and those of "men," between fighters and logistics staff, or across time, as the social origins of soldiers changed?
最后，国家的政治意识形态是如何让士兵融入其计划的？ 士兵们在不同时期是如何使用这种意识形态的，他们对谁有利，出于什么目的？ 士兵的自我认知是什么，差异有多大——例如，军官和“男人”的看法，战士和后勤人员的看法之间，或者跨时间，作为军人的社会起源有什么不同吗？ 战士变了？
I cannot examine all these themes here. But by looking at a particular area, namely that of the social status and recruitment of soldiers and their leaders in the context of the strategic organization of the armies and its evolution, I shall touch upon several of them and suggest some approaches which may be useful for further research. For in spite of differences in emphasis over the years, certain key problems continue to dominate the study of the Byzantine army, especially where its institutional and social history is concerned. This is particularly evident in two major themes, namely, the origins, development, and decline of the middle Byzantine system of military districts, or themata, and of the system of "military lands." And it is worth noting that this represents no mere concern for administrative and institutional history alone. On the contrary, it was evident from the very beginnings of the debate that these institutions played a crucial role in the social and political history of the Byzantine world.
我不能在这里检查所有这些主题。但是通过考察一个特定领域，即在军队战略组织及其演变的背景下，社会地位和士兵及其领导人的招募，我将涉及其中的几个领域，并提出一些可能有用的方法。以供进一步研究。因为尽管多年来重点有所不同，但某些关键问题继续主导着对拜占庭军队的研究，特别是在其制度和社会历史方面。这在两大主题中尤为明显，即中拜占庭军区系统或“军区”系统的起源、发展和衰落。值得注意的是，这不仅仅是对行政和制度历史的关注。相反，从辩论的一开始就很明显，这些机构在拜占庭世界的社会和政治历史中发挥了至关重要的作用。
II. A BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY
二、 简要历史调查
Until the 1940s, scholars had more or less agreed on the nature of the transition from late Roman military structures to those of the Byzantine Empire. There were differences of opinion, of course, but on the whole these were relatively minor. Writers such as Fedor Uspenskij and Julian Kulakovskij in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries-along with scholars such as Heinrich Gelzer, John Bagnell Bury, Norman Baynes, Charles Diehl, Charles William Oman, Ernst Stein, and one or two others-had devoted articles and monographs to aspects of the military organization of the empire. All had noted and commented upon the difference between the late Roman system of civil provinces and military regions under separate and distinct administrative structures, and the later Byzantine system of military districts or themata under the unified authority of a strategos or general. Uspenskij first remarked on the possible relationship between themes and soldiers' lands, and the events of the reign of Heraclius; Gelzer in particular, followed by Stein, who also noted the possibility of a connection between the beginnings of the themes and the lands of soldiers, attempted to trace the process of change from one to another, and other historians-especially Bury-took up this problem. The general consensus was that the origins of the later themes lay in a combination of the militarization of the older Roman provinces and dioceses, on the one hand, stressing in particular the formation of the two exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage in the reign of Tiberius II or Maurice (i.e., between 578 and 602), with the establishment of a more widespread provincialization of recruitment following the pattern of the limitanei, the frontier garrison soldiers spread along the limites or defended borders of the empire. The majority of scholars regarded the reign of Heraclius as central to these changes.
直到 1940 年代，学者们或多或少都同意从晚期罗马军事结构向拜占庭帝国军事结构过渡的性质。当然也有不同意见，但总的来说这些都比较小。 19 世纪后期和 20 世纪早期的诸如 Fedor Uspenskij 和 Julian Kulakovskij 之类的作家以及诸如 Heinrich Gelzer、John Bagnell Bury、Norman Baynes、Charles Diehl、Charles William Oman、Ernst Stein 和其他一两个人的学者都致力于关于帝国军事组织方面的文章和专着。所有人都注意到并评论了罗马后期的民事行省和军区系统在单独和不同的行政结构下与后来的拜占庭军区或军事区系统之间的区别，这些系统在一个战略或将军的统一权威下。乌斯宾斯基首先评论了主题与士兵土地之间可能的关系，以及赫拉克略统治时期的事件；特别是 Gelzer，其次是 Stein，他也注意到主题的开始与士兵的土地之间存在联系的可能性，试图追溯从一个到另一个的变化过程，其他历史学家——尤其是 Bury——接受了这一点问题。普遍的共识是，后来的主题起源于古罗马行省和教区的军事化，一方面特别强调提比略二世统治时期拉文纳和迦太基两个总督的形成或莫里斯（即，578 年至 602 年之间），随着遵循限制模式的更广泛的招募地方化的建立，边防驻军士兵沿着帝国的限制或防御边界展开。大多数学者认为希拉克略的统治是这些变化的核心。
The discussion then lapsed for some years, and it was only in the late 1940s that the problem of the creation of the themata again began to attract interest. This is not to say that further work did not appear in the interim: the Hungarian scholar Eugen Dark published several articles on what was seen as the process of “militarizat” of the Byzantine Empire and the influence of military structures from the Eurasian steppe zone, while the Greek scholar Nikostratos Kalomenopoulos published a book in 1937 on the organization of the Byzantine army. The latter, unfortunately, has no bibliography and virtually no secondary references, so that it is difficult to say what aspects of the debate the author was familiar with; but Kalomenopoulos did take up a further element of the problem, one which had been raised first by Uspenskij, then by Gelzer and by Diehl, namely that of the nature of recruitment of the soldiers and the connection between that and the themes themselves. Similarly, in discussing aspects of the imperial fiscal and civil administration, a number of scholars had to deal with some of the questions raised in connection with military organization.
讨论随后搁置了几年，直到 1940 年代后期，创建主题数据的问题才再次引起人们的兴趣。这并不是说在此期间没有出现进一步的工作：匈牙利学者 Eugen Dark 发表了几篇文章，讨论了被视为拜占庭帝国“军事化”的过程以及欧亚草原地区军事结构的影响，而希腊学者 Nikostratos Kalomenopoulos 在 1937 年出版了一本关于拜占庭军队组织的书。不幸的是，后者没有参考书目，几乎没有二次参考文献，因此很难说作者熟悉辩论的哪些方面；但 Kalomenopoulos 确实谈到了问题的另一个要素，这个要素首先由 Uspenskij 提出，然后由 Gelzer 和 Diehl 提出，即招募士兵的性质及其与主题本身之间的联系。同样，在讨论帝国财政和民政方面，一些学者不得不处理一些与军事组织有关的问题。
The beginnings of the modern debate, if we can call it that, can be traced to the work of Agostino Pertusi and Georg Ostrogorsky. In an article in 1953, Ostrogorsky set out to disprove the thesis that had been recently proposed by Pertusi that the themata were a development of the second half of the seventh century only, and to prove on the contrary that there had existed a direct connection between the creation of the themes, the politics of Emperor Heraclius during and immediately after the Persian war, and the ways in which soldiers in the themes were recruited. It was Ostrogorsky who first constructed a clear set of hypotheses about the nature of the military lands, whose creation he attributed to Heraclius, and the establishment of new, militarized provinces, created to cater for the recruiting and supplying of the field armies of the period of the Persian and, more especially, the first Arab wars, field armies which Diehl had already seen bore the Hellenized names of their late Roman predecessors, the forces of the magistri militum.
现代辩论的开端，如果我们可以这样称呼的话，可以追溯到 Agostino Pertusi 和 Georg Ostrogorsky 的工作。在 1953 年的一篇文章中，奥斯特罗戈尔斯基着手反驳佩尔图西最近提出的论点，即 themata 只是 7 世纪下半叶的发展，并相反证明两者之间存在直接联系。主题的创建、波斯战争期间和之后的赫拉克利乌斯皇帝的政治，以及主题中士兵的招募方式。是奥斯特罗戈尔斯基首先对军事土地的性质提出了一套明确的假设，他将其归因于赫拉克略，并建立了新的军事化省份，为当时野战军的招募和供应提供服务在波斯，尤其是第一次阿拉伯战争中，迪尔已经看到的野战军以他们已故罗马前辈的希腊化名称命名，即魔导师军。
Ostrogorsky's thesis on the "theme system," which it now became, was supported, tacitly or more vocally, by several scholars, among them both Franz Do1ger and Wilhelm EnBlin. But it was soon challenged by Pertusi, elaborating on his original position, as well as by Johannes Karayannopoulos. The latter argued for a more gradual evolution of the themes out of the old late Roman field armies and the limitanei, suggesting in effect that the situation as it is known from the sixth century developed through a "natural progression" to that known from the tenth century. Pertusi's views, which pro-vide the third possibility, and which seem to me the most plausible, argue for a gradual transformation of the late Roman establishment under the pressures imposed by the radically changed military, political, and economic situation which pertained from the earlier and middle seventh century and after.
奥斯特罗戈尔斯基关于“主题系统”的论文，现在变成了，得到了几位学者的默许或更直接的支持，其中包括弗朗茨·多格和威廉·恩布林。 但很快就受到 Pertusi 和 Johannes Karayannopoulos 的挑战，详细阐述了他的原始立场。 后者主张从旧的晚期罗马野战军和限制队中更渐进地演变主题，实际上表明从六世纪已知的情况是通过“自然进程”发展到十世纪以来已知的。 世纪。 佩尔图西的观点提供了第三种可能性，在我看来也是最合理的，主张在军事、政治和经济形势急剧变化所施加的压力下，晚期罗马建制逐渐转变 七世纪中叶及以后。
The result from the late 1950s-summed up nicely in the papers presented by these scholars at the 1958 International Byzantine Congress in Munich and those published in the years immediately after'0-was the establishment of two clearly divided schools of thought: one based its arguments around the idea of Heraclius having deliberately introduced a series of "reforms" in a conscious effort to counter future threats from the Persians; the other, in one of the two variant forms referred to above, presented what has been called a gradualist approach, seeing the themes as arising slowly out of either the administrative structures of the sixth century or out of the chaos of the seventh century, and questioning the connection of the latter with the system of recruitment, however it worked, postulated by the Ostrogorsky thesis, a system centered on the notion of the "military lands." The most extreme version of the opposition to the Ostrogorsky approach was voiced by Paul Lemerle in two articles published in 1958, the sameyear as the Munich Congress, in which he argued that there was no clear connection inthe sources between military lands, so called, and the themes." Hdlene Ahrweiler similarly published a major survey of the military and civil administrative apparatus of the state from the ninth to the eleventh century in which, while avoiding the issue of the origins of the themes and military lands, she tended implicitly toward Lemerle's position. Hdle'ne Antoniadis-Bibicou, analyzing the origins of the naval thema of the Karabisianoi, although with different conclusions, tended in contrast to follow the position promoted by Ostrogorsky.
1950 年代后期的结果——这些学者在 1958 年慕尼黑国际拜占庭大会上发表的论文以及在 0 年代之后发表的论文中得到了很好的总结——是建立了两个明显分歧的思想流派：一个基于其围绕赫拉克利乌斯有意引入一系列“改革”的想法的争论，以有意识地努力应对来自波斯人的未来威胁；另一种，在上面提到的两种变体形式中的一种中，提出了所谓的渐进主义方法，认为这些主题是从六世纪的行政结构或七世纪的混乱中缓慢产生的，并且质疑后者与招募系统的联系，不管它如何运作，由奥斯特罗戈尔斯基论文假设，一个以“军事土地”概念为中心的系统。保罗·莱默勒 (Paul Lemerle) 在 1958 年发表的两篇文章中表达了反对 Ostrogorsky 方法的最极端版本，与慕尼黑大会同年，他在文章中辩称，所谓的军事土地和军事土地之间的来源没有明确的联系。主题。” Hdlene Ahrweiler 同样发表了一份关于 9 世纪到 11 世纪国家军事和民事行政机构的重要调查，其中，在避免主题和军事土地的起源问题的同时，她含蓄地倾向于 Lemerle 的Hdle'ne Antoniadis-Bibicou 分析了 Karabisianoi 海军主题的起源，尽管得出了不同的结论，但与奥斯特罗戈尔斯基所提倡的立场形成鲜明对比。
Apart from one or two significant contributions dealing with specific problems from scholars such as Nicolas Oikonomides and Walter Kaegi in the period from the mid1960s to mid-1970s-the former tending to favor the Heraclian reform, the latter clearly coming out against it-the situation remained more or less polarized around these positions for the next fifteen years or so.
除了 20 世纪 60 年代中期至 70 年代中期尼古拉斯·奥科诺米德斯 (Nicolas Oikonomides) 和沃尔特·凯吉 (Walter Kaegi) 等学者针对具体问题的一两个重要贡献外——前者倾向于支持赫拉克利改革，后者显然反对它——情况 在接下来的十五年左右的时间里，这些立场或多或少保持两极分化。
As always seems to happen with such debates, what can in fact be taken as a compromise solution then developed, but one which was clearly along the lines of that enunciated in the work of Pertusi and, to a lesser extent, Karayannopoulos. On the one hand, certain developments, crucial to the evolution of the later "thematic" system, did have their roots in the reign of Heraclius, even before his reign (a point stressed by Stein). On the other hand, the idea that there had been any direct institutional connection between the limitanei and the thematic system was challenged or dismissed, while it was also argued that there is no evidence for the creation of a system of recruitment based from its beginnings on the attribution by the state of lands to soldiers and their families at all.
与此类辩论似乎总是发生的一样，实际上可以被视为一种折衷解决方案的方法随后发展起来，但显然与 Pertusi 的工作以及在较小程度上 Karayannopoulos 的工作中阐述的路线一致。 一方面，某些对后来“主题”系统演变至关重要的发展确实源于赫拉克略的统治，甚至在他统治之前（斯坦因强调了这一点）。 另一方面，限制和专题系统之间存在任何直接制度联系的想法受到质疑或驳回，同时也有人争辩说，没有证据表明从一开始就建立了基于招聘系统的招聘系统。 土地状况完全归属于士兵及其家属。
In the last few years, a number of historians have expressed their support for this position; others have accepted it, with minor and major modifications; still others have rejected it, and sought to restore the Ostrogorsky thesis to its former preeminence. Of the first two groups, Ahrweiler, Andre Guillou, Kaegi, Gilbert Dagron, Dan it a G6recki, and Oikonomides are probably the names which have appeared most frequently in print. But there are several others. Of the last group, Warren Treadgold and Martha Gregoriou-Ioannidou have provided the most important counterarguments, although very different from one another, with Michael Hendy providing a middle-road alternative: Gregoriou-Ioannidou has tried to revive a Karayannopoulos view, bringing the limitanei back into the picture, whereas Tread gold has tried to build a thesis more purely representing the position of Ostrogorsky, basing his arguments primarily on the traditional significance ascribed to the reign of Heraclius, together with some new suggestions, in particular regarding the fate of the imperial estates between the seventh and tenth century. Hendy has favored a version of this last view, with some important suggestions on the role of the fiscal administration and the kommerkiarioi; and Oikonomideshas also suggested his own middle way, supporting tentatively the idea of an original Heraclian origin, but in the context of a gradual evolution tied in to the changing fiscal structures of the state as its military administration.
在过去的几年里，一些历史学家表达了他们对这一立场的支持；其他人接受了它，并进行了细微和重大的修改；还有一些人拒绝了它，并试图将奥斯特罗戈尔斯基的论点恢复到以前的卓越地位。在前两个组中，Ahrweiler、Andre Guillou、Kaegi、Gilbert Dagron、Dan it a G6recki 和 Oikonomides 可能是出现频率最高的名字。但还有其他几个。在最后一组中，Warren Treadgold 和 Martha Gregoriou-Ioannidou 提供了最重要的反驳，尽管彼此非常不同，Michael Hendy 提供了一个中间路线选择：Gregoriou-Ioannidou 试图恢复 Karayannopoulos 的观点，带来了限制回到画面中，而 Tread gold 试图建立一个更纯粹地代表 Ostrogorsky 立场的论文，他的论点主要基于对赫拉克利乌斯统治的传统意义，以及一些新的建议，特别是关于奥斯特罗戈尔斯基的命运七世纪至十世纪的皇家庄园。 Hendy 赞成最后一种观点的版本，并就财政管理和 kommerkiarioi 的作用提出了一些重要建议；和 Oikonomideshas 也提出了他自己的中间道路，暂时支持原始赫拉克利亚起源的想法，但在逐渐演变的背景下与国家作为其军事管理的不断变化的财政结构相关联。
In what follows, I should like to make this brief summary of often quite complex debates more meaningful by outlining key issues of the current state of the debate. I will try to give a balanced overview.
在接下来的内容中，我想通过概述辩论当前状态的关键问题，使这个对通常相当复杂的辩论的简短总结更有意义。 我会尽量给出一个平衡的概述。
未完待续
