Military Service, Military Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and Interpretations Author(s): John Haldon
敦巴頓橡樹園論文，1993 年
翻譯：神尾智代

接上：

What I have been describing, therefore, represents a fundamental change in the role of one aspect of East Roman or Byzantine society, and of the state apparatuses, in the period from the sixth to the eighth century. The army becomes political in a way that it really had not before, in spite of the fact that, as we know, there was in "constitutional" terms always a military element in, for example, the acclamation or choice of a new emperor, so that "politics" in the very broadest sense was not new for soldiers. But I do not think that alters the basic case I have tried to outline.

????????? 因此，我所描述的內(nèi)容代表了東羅馬或拜占庭社會(huì)以及國(guó)家機(jī)器在 6 世紀(jì)到 8 世紀(jì)期間角色的根本變化。 軍隊(duì)以前所未有的方式變得具有政治性，盡管正如我們所知，在“憲法”術(shù)語(yǔ)中始終存在軍事因素，例如，鼓掌或選擇新皇帝， 因此，最廣泛意義上的“政治”對(duì)士兵來說并不新鮮。 但我認(rèn)為這不會(huì)改變我試圖概述的基本情況。

During the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, soldiers and the army continue to evolve, and it is important to emphasize that their evolution is only one aspect of the evolution of the state and its apparatuses, part of the social and cultural evolution of Byzantine society in the larger sense. This becomes particularly obvious when we refer, albeit very briefly, to two themes: first, the role of soldiers in the iconoclastic controversy; and second, the relationship between soldiers and the provincial armies in particular and the increasing power and importance of the new class of provincial and Constantinopolitan magnates who, growing out of the state-promoted meritocratic elite of the later seventh and early eighth century, become the aristocracy of the middle and later Byzantine periods.

????????? 在九、十和十一世紀(jì)，士兵和軍隊(duì)不斷演變，需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，他們的演變只是國(guó)家及其機(jī)構(gòu)演變的一個(gè)方面，是拜占庭社會(huì)和文化演變的一部分。 更大意義上的社會(huì)。 當(dāng)我們提到兩個(gè)主題時(shí)，這一點(diǎn)變得特別明顯，盡管非常簡(jiǎn)短：第一，士兵在反傳統(tǒng)爭(zhēng)議中的作用； 其次，士兵與省級(jí)軍隊(duì)之間的關(guān)系，以及新的省級(jí)和君士坦丁堡大亨階層的權(quán)力和重要性日益增加，他們從 7 世紀(jì)后期和 8 世紀(jì)初期由國(guó)家提拔的精英精英中成長(zhǎng)起來，成為 拜占庭中后期的貴族。

There is no doubt that the politics of soldiers during the period of iconoclast rule are highly provincialized, that is to say, rebellions, civil wars, and similar disturbances, while often led by political men aiming at absolute (imperial) power, have very clearly localized roots, in respect of the sources of discontent, the nature of the opposition and competitive loyalties of one theme versus another, and so on. This is something which I think Kaegi's work on the subject, and on military unrest in general, brings out quite clearly."4 The creation of the tagmata by Constantine V, and the evolution of a "guards" army at Constantinople through the establishment by successive emperors of their own elite corps, marks a radical shift in the center of political attention in the army from the provinces to Constantinople. It also marks an increasing polarization between center and province, and the intentional involvement of military units by emperors in both ideological and power struggles-Constantine V, Leo IV, Constantine VI and Irene, Nicephorus I, Michael I, Leo V, Michael II, Theophilus all bring into the Constantinopolitan political arena their own military formations, whether they create them from scratch or promote loyal provincial units to metropolitan duties and rewards. Thus with the second half of the eighth century there takes place what I would characterize as an explicit politicization of the army from above (in contrast to the largely unpremeditated response of soldiers in the preceding period to issues which they saw as of concern to them), on the one hand, accompanied by the creation of a two-tier army: tagmata as contrasted with themata.

????????? 毫無疑問，在反傳統(tǒng)統(tǒng)治時(shí)期，士兵的政治是高度地方化的，也就是說，叛亂、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)和類似的騷亂，雖然往往是由以絕對(duì)（帝國(guó)）權(quán)力為目標(biāo)的政治人物領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的，但具有非常明顯的特點(diǎn)。本地化根源，就不滿的根源、反對(duì)的性質(zhì)和一個(gè)軍區(qū)與另一個(gè)軍區(qū)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)忠誠(chéng)度等而言。這是我認(rèn)為 Kaegi 在這個(gè)主題上的工作以及關(guān)于一般軍事動(dòng)亂的工作非常清楚。君士坦丁五世創(chuàng)造了 tagmata，以及君士坦丁堡的“衛(wèi)兵”軍隊(duì)通過建立自己精銳軍團(tuán)的歷任皇帝，標(biāo)志著軍隊(duì)的政治關(guān)注中心從行省到君士坦丁堡發(fā)生了根本性的轉(zhuǎn)變。和權(quán)力斗爭(zhēng)——君士坦丁五世、利奧四世、君士坦丁六世和艾琳、尼斯弗魯斯一世、邁克爾一世、利奧五世、邁克爾二世、泰奧菲勒斯都將他們自己的軍事陣型帶入君士坦丁堡的政治舞臺(tái)，無論是從頭開始創(chuàng)建它們還是促進(jìn)忠誠(chéng)的省級(jí)大都會(huì)職責(zé)和獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的單位。因此，在 8 世紀(jì)下半葉發(fā)生了我所描述的明確的政治化軍隊(duì)自上而下（與前一時(shí)期士兵對(duì)他們認(rèn)為他們關(guān)心的問題的反應(yīng)基本上是沒有預(yù)謀的反應(yīng)形成對(duì)比），一方面，伴隨著兩級(jí)軍隊(duì)的建立：與themata形成對(duì)比的tagmata。

These changes cannot be divorced from what is happening in Byzantine society in general, of course. They represent part of the relationship between the state and its rulers, on the one hand, and the new elite which the state created during the later seventh and early eighth century, referred to above. They reflect also the economic recovery and the political stabilization of the empire (one of the results, in part at least, of the policies of the iconoclastic emperors and the forces which lay behind those policies). They represent further the consequent emergence of new sets of power relationships, both within the elite, between Constantinople and the provinces, and in particular for our concerns, between the provincial soldiery and their modes of recruitment, on the one hand, and on the other the elite of magnates and imperial office- and titleholders, in Asia Minor especially; and they are, at a slightly later date, tied in closely with the expansionist politics of the second half of the ninth century and after.

????????? 當(dāng)然，這些變化與一般拜占庭社會(huì)正在發(fā)生的事情是分不開的。一方面，它們代表了國(guó)家與其統(tǒng)治者之間關(guān)系的一部分，以及國(guó)家在 7 世紀(jì)后期和 8 世紀(jì)早期創(chuàng)造的新精英，如上文所述。它們也反映了帝國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇和政治穩(wěn)定（至少部分是反傳統(tǒng)的皇帝的政策和這些政策背后的力量的結(jié)果之一）。它們進(jìn)一步代表了隨之而來的一系列新權(quán)力關(guān)系的出現(xiàn)，無論是在精英內(nèi)部，君士坦丁堡和各省之間，尤其是我們所關(guān)注的，一方面是省士兵與其招募模式之間，另一方面小亞細(xì)亞的權(quán)貴精英、宮廷官員和頭銜持有者；稍后，它們與 9 世紀(jì)下半葉及之后的擴(kuò)張主義政治密切相關(guān)。

With the tenth and eleventh centuries a number of developments regarding the political role or function of the army are of particular significance. On the one hand, we have the increasingly high profile of the so-called military clans in Anatolia, especially with respect to their local power which, as far as the sources seem to suggest, represents extensive networks of clientage and patronage, especially between the middling- and higher-status provincial elites, and between the soldiers and their leaders who were drawn from these elites. The evidence of the novels of Romanus I and Constantine VII suggests a growing "private" aspect to the thematic armies, dependent as they appear to have been socially and economically on the magnate landlords of their provinces. Even regions which traditionally appear to have been dominated by small-scale landed property and relatively dispersed estates such as the Thrakesion district in western Anatolia appear increasingly to have come under the sway of big landlords. References to soldiers being permitted to function in a private capacity suggest the nature of the changes.

????????? 10 世紀(jì)和 11 世紀(jì)，關(guān)于軍隊(duì)的政治角色或功能的一些發(fā)展具有特別重要的意義。一方面，我們對(duì)安納托利亞所謂的軍事部族的知名度越來越高，尤其是在他們的地方權(quán)力方面，據(jù)消息來源似乎表明，這代表著廣泛的客戶和贊助網(wǎng)絡(luò)，特別是在中上級(jí)省級(jí)精英，以及從這些精英中抽調(diào)出來的士兵和他們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人之間。羅曼努斯一世和君士坦丁七世的小說證據(jù)表明，主題軍隊(duì)有一個(gè)日益增長(zhǎng)的“私人”方面，他們似乎在社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)上依賴于他們省份的地主。即使是傳統(tǒng)上似乎由小規(guī)模地產(chǎn)和相對(duì)分散的莊園主宰的地區(qū)，例如安納托利亞西部的 Thrakesion 區(qū)，似乎也越來越多地受到大地主的控制。士兵被允許以私人身份工作的提及表明了這些變化的性質(zhì)。

On the other hand, the increasingly significant contrast between the traditional thematic militia soldiery, and the ever more numerous units raised on a "tagmatic" basis，recruited either permanently or for the duration of a specific campaign, and remunerated much more generously than the theme soldiers, marks the process of Byzantine reconquests in the East and in the North. While thematic forces, or rather their elite elements, continue to play a role, the lead in campaigns is now taken by brigades of centrally administered and controlled mercenary or professional troops-initially the various tagmata based in or around Constantinople, in turn extended by the establishment of greater numbers of tagmatic banda in the provinces, under their own commanders. In addition, the spearhead forces which led the reconquests in northern Syria and Jazira were mostly, as far as we can see, based around such mercenary forces, which included also large numbers of "ethnic" troops such as Turks and especially Armenians.

????????? 另一方面，傳統(tǒng)的軍區(qū)民兵與越來越多的以“標(biāo)簽化”為基礎(chǔ)招募的部隊(duì)之間的對(duì)比越來越明顯，無論是永久招募還是在特定戰(zhàn)役期間，其報(bào)酬都比軍區(qū)要豐厚得多。士兵，標(biāo)志著拜占庭在東部和北部重新征服的過程。雖然軍區(qū)部隊(duì)，或者更確切地說是他們的精英分子繼續(xù)發(fā)揮作用，但現(xiàn)在由中央管理和控制的雇傭軍或?qū)I(yè)部隊(duì)的旅占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位——最初是駐扎在君士坦丁堡或周圍的各種塔格瑪塔，依次由在各省建立更多的塔瑪克班達(dá)，由他們自己的指揮官領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。此外，在我們看來，主導(dǎo)敘利亞北部和賈茲拉收復(fù)失地的先頭部隊(duì)，大多以雇傭軍為基礎(chǔ)，其中還包括大量的土耳其人，尤其是亞美尼亞人等“民族”部隊(duì)。

At the same time, we must remark on a contradiction within the policies of successive emperors, especially those of Nicephorus II. There can be little doubt that the state, as represented in the legislation of Constantine VII, tried to maintain the thematic forces, recruited on the basis of the strateia, as an effective and fundamental element in the imperial armies. Commutation of the strateia, or rather its partial fiscalization, existed, but personal service was still usual. In contrast, all the evidence suggests that the legislation of Nicephorus II, as well as that of Basil II, while certainly designed to protect the fiscal base of the strateia, had in practice the effect of further generalizing the fiscalization of military service among stratiotic households. Whether it served at the same time to further deepen the gulf between those households registered as military (stratiotikos) and those defined as "civilian" (politikos), by increasing dramatically the amount of land which was thenceforth inalienably connected with military service, as suggested by Dagron, is unclear. But it must have dramatically increased the total land nominally subject to the strateia in one form or another. More significantly, the traditional system involved usually only a partial call up of those listed on the registers, as we have seen. A fully fiscalized strateia would make it possible for the state both to regularize and to maximize the extraction of resources drawn from this category of land, and thus enhance its revenue. The evidence from the tenth- and eleventh-century sources suggests that the state always kept its options open in this respect-it was the political and fiscal, as well as the military context of a given campaign which determined whether the fiscal option or that of personal service, or some combination of the two, was taken up. Zonaras' account of Nicephorus' reform of the strateia, by which each group of holders was transferred from one set of obligations to a more onerous one, and by which the minimum amount of inalienable stratiotic land (for those who possessed it) was increased from a value of 4 to a value of 12 pounds of gold, makes it quite clear that what the emperor had in mind (certainly in the case of holders of naval strateiai transferred to infantry obligations, for example) was the raising of cash or materials, as much as manpower, with which hired troops-mercenary, professional soldiers-could be equipped. The result seems to have been-especially in respect of the report of Ibn Hawkal already referred to-on the one hand the entrenching of a fiscal distinction between military and nonmilitary households, the better to protect or even broaden the fiscal base upon which the strateia as a state obligation could be extracted; and on the other, a decline in state dependence on personal service from thematic holders of strateiai, accompanied by a considerable increase in general state demands for cash and resources-livestock, materials-imposed upon that part of the nonstratiotic population of the empire not otherwise exempt from such prestations.

????????? 同時(shí)，我們必須注意到歷任皇帝的政策中的一個(gè)矛盾，尤其是尼斯弗魯斯二世的政策。毫無疑問，如君士坦丁七世的立法所代表的國(guó)家，試圖維持在戰(zhàn)略基礎(chǔ)上招募的軍區(qū)部隊(duì)，作為帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)的有效和基本要素。戰(zhàn)略的減免，或者更確切地說是它的部分財(cái)政化，存在，但個(gè)人服務(wù)仍然很常見。相比之下，所有的證據(jù)都表明，尼斯弗魯斯二世和巴西爾二世的立法雖然肯定旨在保護(hù)國(guó)家的財(cái)政基礎(chǔ)，但在實(shí)踐中產(chǎn)生了進(jìn)一步推廣軍事服務(wù)財(cái)政化的效果。是否如建議的那樣，通過大幅增加此后與兵役密不可分的土地?cái)?shù)量，同時(shí)進(jìn)一步加深登記為軍人的家庭 (stratiotikos) 與定義為“平民”的家庭 (politikos) 之間的鴻溝由 Dagron，不清楚。但它一定顯著增加了名義上以一種或另一種形式受制于該地層的總土地。更重要的是，正如我們所看到的，傳統(tǒng)系統(tǒng)通常只涉及對(duì)寄存器中列出的部分的調(diào)用。一個(gè)完全財(cái)政化的戰(zhàn)略將使國(guó)家有可能規(guī)范和最大限度地從這類土地中提取資源，從而增加其收入。來自 10 世紀(jì)和 11 世紀(jì)的證據(jù)表明，國(guó)家在這方面始終保持開放的選擇——是特定運(yùn)動(dòng)的政治和財(cái)政以及軍事背景決定了是財(cái)政選擇還是接受了個(gè)人服務(wù)，或兩者的某種結(jié)合。佐納拉斯 (Zonaras) 對(duì)尼斯弗魯斯 (Nicephorus) 的地盤改革的描述，通過該計(jì)劃，每一組持有人都從一組義務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移到更繁重的一組義務(wù)，并由此將不可轉(zhuǎn)讓的地層土地（對(duì)于擁有它的人）的最低數(shù)量從價(jià)值 4 到 12 磅的黃金，這清楚地表明皇帝的想法（例如，在海軍戰(zhàn)略持有人轉(zhuǎn)移到步兵義務(wù)的情況下）是籌集現(xiàn)金或材料，雇傭的軍隊(duì)——雇傭兵、職業(yè)士兵——可以配備多少人力。結(jié)果似乎是——尤其是就伊本霍卡爾已經(jīng)提到的報(bào)告而言——一方面鞏固了軍人家庭和非軍人家庭之間的財(cái)政區(qū)別，從而更好地保護(hù)甚至擴(kuò)大了戰(zhàn)略所依據(jù)的財(cái)政基礎(chǔ)。因?yàn)榭梢蕴崛?guó)家義務(wù)；另一方面，國(guó)家對(duì)戰(zhàn)略持有者個(gè)人服務(wù)的依賴下降，伴隨著國(guó)家對(duì)現(xiàn)金和資源——牲畜、材料——的總體需求顯著增加，強(qiáng)加給帝國(guó)的那部分非階層人口免于此類預(yù)托。

Here, however, the picture becomes rather more complicated, for there are a number of interlinking phenomena underlying and affecting these developments. To begin with we need to take into consideration the struggle between those factions which dominated the central power at given moments (factions represented by coalitions around various powerful figures at court in a constant struggle for influence, together with those families or fractions of families with vested interests in the capital and the provinces) and other factions, notably the leading provincial magnate clans not represented in a given dominant court power elite. Such oppositions can be detected in the rivalries between the Phokas and Skleros clans, for example, and also between them and the clique focused around the young Basil II during the later tenth century. But it is important to stress that these families had as yet no developed political unity of purpose they were out for their own interests, even if they often coincided structurally, in respect of control over the state apparatus, with the interests of the whole social-economic class which they represented.

????????? 然而，這里的情況變得相當(dāng)復(fù)雜，因?yàn)橛性S多相互關(guān)聯(lián)的現(xiàn)象作為這些發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)和影響。首先，我們需要考慮在特定時(shí)刻主導(dǎo)中央權(quán)力的派系之間的斗爭(zhēng)（以宮廷中各種權(quán)勢(shì)人物為代表的聯(lián)盟，不斷爭(zhēng)取影響力，以及那些擁有既得利益的家族或部分家族）之間的斗爭(zhēng)。在首都和省份的利益）和其他派系，特別是主要的省級(jí)巨頭氏族，在特定的主導(dǎo)法院權(quán)力精英中沒有代表。例如，在 Phokas 和 Skleros 氏族之間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中，以及他們與 10 世紀(jì)后期集中在年輕的 Basil II 周圍的集團(tuán)之間的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)這種對(duì)立。但必須強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，這些家庭尚未形成政治統(tǒng)一的目的，他們?yōu)榱俗约旱睦娑鲎?，即使在控制?guó)家機(jī)器方面，他們經(jīng)常在結(jié)構(gòu)上與整個(gè)社會(huì)的利益相吻合——他們所代表的經(jīng)濟(jì)階層。

It is apparent in the light of these considerations that we have to interpret the ways in which the reconquests took place, and more particularly the ways in which the state administered the conquered districts or cities, very carefully. In particular, the establishment of large numbers of small units of military administration, while it certainly reflects the bite-by-bite nature of the Byzantine absorption of new territories, entailing a sit did the setting up of new administrative and fiscal units to cope with each new territory gained, reflected also the reluctance of the central administration to hand over large territories to magnate domination and exploitation. Conquered districts were often absorbed directly as imperial episkepseis, autonomous fiscal units subject directly to the fisc. The imperial re-organization of the administration of the newly conquered Bulgarian lands between 998 and 1018, the exclusion from positions of authority thereof Anatolian magnates from the Phokas-Maleinos faction, the increasing trend toward centralization of fiscal and military matters at Constantinople in the time of Basil II and after, and the growing divergence between the military and civil circumscriptions, all represent the same fear and the same policy. These developments also reflect, of course, the natural evolution of the different organs of state administration and control-fiscal, civil, and military-as the conditions generated by the reconquests and the conflict of interests already pointed to worked themselves out. By the same token, the centralization of control over public fiscal lands in the department of the epi ton oikeiakon, and the decline of the general logothesion, reflect the emperors' efforts, especially Basil II, to maximize state control over its resources and to minimize thereby the danger of alienation of such resources to other interests.

????????? 鑒于這些考慮，顯然我們必須非常仔細(xì)地解釋重新征服發(fā)生的方式，尤其是國(guó)家管理被征服地區(qū)或城市的方式。尤其是大量小軍政單位的設(shè)立，雖然肯定反映了拜占庭吸收新領(lǐng)土的逐粒性質(zhì)，需要坐下來設(shè)立新的行政和財(cái)政單位來應(yīng)對(duì)每獲得一個(gè)新領(lǐng)土，也反映了中央政府不愿將大片領(lǐng)土交給權(quán)貴統(tǒng)治和剝削。被征服的地區(qū)經(jīng)常被直接吸收為帝國(guó)的episkepseis，自治的財(cái)政單位，直接受制于財(cái)政。 998 年至 1018 年間對(duì)新征服的保加利亞土地進(jìn)行帝國(guó)重組，將安納托利亞大亨從福卡斯-馬萊諾斯派系中排除在其權(quán)力職位之外，當(dāng)時(shí)君士坦丁堡的財(cái)政和軍事事務(wù)日益集中Basil II 及之后，以及軍事和民事界限之間日益擴(kuò)大的分歧，都代表著同樣的恐懼和同樣的政策。當(dāng)然，這些發(fā)展也反映了國(guó)家行政和控制的不同機(jī)構(gòu)——財(cái)政、文職和軍事——的自然演變，因?yàn)橹匦抡鞣屠鏇_突所產(chǎn)生的條件已經(jīng)表明已經(jīng)解決了。同樣的道理，上議院對(duì)公共財(cái)政土地的集中控制，以及總督的衰落，反映了皇帝們，特別是巴西爾二世，最大限度地控制其資源并最小化國(guó)家控制權(quán)的努力。從而存在將這些資源轉(zhuǎn)讓給其他利益的危險(xiǎn)。

We are thus confronted with several reciprocally influencing elements: conflict between different factions at the center over resource control and allocation; structural administrative changes which reflect both this struggle and the process of reconquest and its administrative demands; the consequent effects upon the traditional or inherited system of provincial civil and military administration; and, for our purposes especially, the differentiated roles of the different types of soldier in the political structure of the state and its various conflicting social-economic interest groups.

????????? 因此，我們面臨著幾個(gè)相互影響的因素：以資源控制和分配為中心的不同派系之間的沖突； 反映這種斗爭(zhēng)和重新征服過程及其行政要求的結(jié)構(gòu)性行政變化； 對(duì)省級(jí)民政和軍事管理的傳統(tǒng)或繼承體系的后續(xù)影響； 以及，特別是為了我們的目的，不同類型的士兵在國(guó)家政治結(jié)構(gòu)及其各種相互沖突的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)利益集團(tuán)中的不同作用。

The results of these developments, which can be observed from the early tenth century on, can be summarized as follows.

????????? 這些發(fā)展的結(jié)果可以從 10 世紀(jì)早期開始觀察，總結(jié)如下。

First, the more visible evolution of a personalized relationship of loyalties and patronage between magnate leaders and their soldiers, especially those from the provinces where the former had landed property. Second, the centralization in respect of the state's control or authority over, and the considerable increase in the number of, the units which were established to defend the interests of the central power against those of the provinces, the tagmata. Third, the increased recruitment by the state of mercenary soldiers who were outside the relationships of provincial or thematic patronage, and therefore loyal to their paymasters. In this respect, Basil II's recruitment of the Varangians is qualitatively of a very different order, and responds to a quite different situation and context, from the recruitment by earlier emperors from the large eighth century onward (right up to the reign of John Tzimiskes) of their own units, whether indigenous or foreign. The use of Norman and Petcheneg troops in the middle and later eleventh century, which reflects likewise the degrading of the traditional thematic forces, and at the same time the weakening of some elements of the provincial elite, must be seen in this context, that is to say, of the conflicting interests and antagonistic politics of those factions in the power elite which dominated the center, and those in the provinces. In fact, it is important to stress that, in spite of the increasing irrelevance of the thematic militias, and the increased "tagmatization" of the armies, provincially recruited tagmata tended to retain or reproduce similar local identities and solidarities to those which are known to have existed within and between the older themata. Local networks of patronage continued to operate, and local loyalties survived, in such units. The state's policy proved, in the end, to provide only a temporary respite from the provincialized politics and vested interests against which it was originally directed.

????????? 首先，權(quán)貴領(lǐng)袖和他們的士兵之間的忠誠(chéng)和贊助的個(gè)性化關(guān)系的更明顯的演變，尤其是那些來自前者擁有土地的省份的士兵。第二，在國(guó)家控制或權(quán)力方面的中央集權(quán)，以及為捍衛(wèi)中央權(quán)力利益而建立的單位數(shù)量的大量增加。第三，國(guó)家對(duì)不屬于省級(jí)或軍區(qū)贊助關(guān)系的雇傭軍士兵的招募增加，因此忠于他們的支付者。在這方面，巴西爾二世對(duì)瓦良吉人的招募在性質(zhì)上是一個(gè)非常不同的順序，并且對(duì)一個(gè)完全不同的情況和背景做出反應(yīng)，從大八世紀(jì)開始（直到約翰·齊米克斯統(tǒng)治）早期皇帝的招募他們自己的單位，無論是土著還是外國(guó)。 11世紀(jì)中后期諾曼和佩切涅格軍隊(duì)的使用，同樣反映了傳統(tǒng)軍區(qū)部隊(duì)的退化，同時(shí)也反映了省級(jí)精英部分要素的弱化，必須在這種背景下看到，即可以說，統(tǒng)治中心的權(quán)力精英派系與各省的權(quán)力精英派系之間的利益沖突和對(duì)立政治。事實(shí)上，必須強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，盡管軍區(qū)民兵越來越無關(guān)緊要，軍隊(duì)的“標(biāo)簽化”程度有所提高，但省級(jí)招募的塔馬塔人傾向于保留或復(fù)制與眾所周知的當(dāng)?shù)靥卣骱蛨F(tuán)結(jié)相似的地方特征和團(tuán)結(jié)已經(jīng)存在于較舊的 theata 之內(nèi)和之間。在這些單位中，當(dāng)?shù)氐馁澲W(wǎng)絡(luò)繼續(xù)運(yùn)作，當(dāng)?shù)氐闹艺\(chéng)度得以延續(xù)。國(guó)家的政策最終證明，它只是暫時(shí)緩解了它最初針對(duì)的地方政治和既得利益。

To summarize, from the "professional" type armies of the later Roman Empire in the sixth century, which played only a very limited role in state politics, we can observe two stages of a progressive politicization of armies and soldiers: during the seventh and eighth centuries, as soldiers recruited locally identified with, and acted on behalf of, local loyalties, local ideological perspectives, and political or economic concerns; and during the later eighth and ninth centuries onward, as the opposition between the central tagmatic forces and the provincial thematic forces evolves. At the same time, the latter stage is accompanied by the efforts of the central establishment to prevent the process of alienation of provincial military resources, concurrent with the demands of the offensive warfare of the tenth century and the rise of a provincial elite. An increased dependency on both indigenous and foreign, professional or full-time, forces was a logical concomitant, a dependency which had the effect of centralizing military power and reinforcing, for a while, the authority and policies of the rulers.

????????? 總而言之，從六世紀(jì)后期羅馬帝國(guó)的“職業(yè)”型軍隊(duì)，在國(guó)家政治中只發(fā)揮非常有限的作用，我們可以觀察到軍隊(duì)和士兵逐漸政治化的兩個(gè)階段：第七和第八幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來，當(dāng)?shù)卣心嫉氖勘J(rèn)同當(dāng)?shù)刂艺\(chéng)度、當(dāng)?shù)匾庾R(shí)形態(tài)觀點(diǎn)以及政治或經(jīng)濟(jì)問題并代表他們行事；而在八、九世紀(jì)后期，隨著中央標(biāo)簽力量與地方軍區(qū)力量之間的對(duì)立演變。同時(shí)，后期伴隨著中央建制努力阻止省級(jí)軍事資源異化進(jìn)程，同時(shí)伴隨著10世紀(jì)進(jìn)攻性戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的需求和省級(jí)精英的興起。對(duì)本土和外國(guó)、專業(yè)或全職力量的日益依賴是一個(gè)合乎邏輯的伴隨，這種依賴具有集中軍事權(quán)力并在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)加強(qiáng)統(tǒng)治者的權(quán)威和政策的效果。

The result was, in its turn, a two-fold polarization within the military establishment of the empire, which accurately reflected the internal tensions and dynamic of Byzantine state and society over the period in question: on the one hand, between the traditional provincial or thematic armies under their local officers and leaders, the latter drawn from different and often competing families of the magnate class, and the tagmatic or centrally controlled forces, some under provincial magnate authority, others still based at the capital, all again under officers drawn from this internally differentiated social and political elite. On the other hand there was a contradiction between the interest of the dominant elite as a social group, whatever its internal divisions may have been, and the interests of the "state," which is to say the faction dominating the center and imperial politics at any given moment. Over the period from the tenth century up to the seizure of power by Alexios I in 1081, different families and factions of the magnate elite, whether dependent upon indigenous, provincial tagmata or upon imperial positions, generally competed between themselves and with the center for dominance, with now one, now another family or group of families coming to the fore. But a direct result of the Seljuk victory in 1071, which affected the older military elite of the regions in question most immediately, altered this balance in favor of those elements with access to state power and control over mercenary forces (as well as their own power bases). The victory of Alexius I and the political order he evolved is directly connected with these military and administrative considerations. In this respect, the army, both as an important and central institution of state and within society, represents an extremely valuable focus for research into the pattern and form of Byzantine social and political history.

????????? 結(jié)果反過來又導(dǎo)致帝國(guó)軍事機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)部的兩極分化，這準(zhǔn)確地反映了該時(shí)期拜占庭國(guó)家和社會(huì)的內(nèi)部緊張局勢(shì)和動(dòng)態(tài)：一方面，傳統(tǒng)的省級(jí)或由地方官員和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的主題軍隊(duì)，后者來自不同的、經(jīng)常相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的權(quán)貴階級(jí)家族，以及由地方權(quán)貴領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的地方或中央控制的部隊(duì)，一些在省級(jí)權(quán)貴之下，另一些仍然駐扎在首都，所有的軍官又都來自于這種內(nèi)部分化的社會(huì)和政治精英。另一方面，統(tǒng)治精英作為一個(gè)社會(huì)群體的利益（無論其內(nèi)部分歧如何）與“國(guó)家”的利益（即統(tǒng)治中心的派系和帝國(guó)政治）之間存在矛盾。任何給定的時(shí)刻。從 10 世紀(jì)到 1081 年阿萊克修斯一世奪取權(quán)力的這段時(shí)間里，權(quán)貴精英的不同家族和派系，無論是依賴土著、省級(jí)塔格馬塔還是帝國(guó)職位，通常都在他們自己之間以及與統(tǒng)治中心的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，現(xiàn)在一個(gè)，現(xiàn)在另一個(gè)家庭或一群家庭脫穎而出。但 1071 年塞爾柱勝利的直接結(jié)果，最直接地影響了相關(guān)地區(qū)的老軍事精英，改變了這種平衡，有利于那些有權(quán)獲得國(guó)家權(quán)力和控制雇傭軍（以及他們自己的權(quán)力）的元素基）。阿萊克修斯一世的勝利和他所形成的政治秩序與這些軍事和行政考慮直接相關(guān)。在這方面，軍隊(duì)作為國(guó)家和社會(huì)中重要的中央機(jī)構(gòu)，是研究拜占庭社會(huì)和政治史的模式和形式的極有價(jià)值的焦點(diǎn)。

預(yù)告：

VIII. SOLDIERS AND STATUS

八、士兵和地位