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

IV. THE STATE AND ITS ARMIES-A CRISIS OF RESOURCES

四、 國(guó)家及其軍隊(duì)——資源危機(jī)

It is clear that in carrying out this planned withdrawal the state had to face the problems of both supplying and recruiting its forces in the territory which remained under imperial authority and effective political and fiscal control. And it is at precisely this point that the question of the sources of income, equipment, and provisions for the armies has to be raised. The problem of the origins of the so-called military lands, and more recently what has been identified as the clearly related problem of the role of the kommerkiarioi, have played a central role in this connection.

????????? 很明顯，在執(zhí)行這一計(jì)劃撤軍時(shí)，國(guó)家必須面臨在仍處于帝國(guó)權(quán)威和有效政治和財(cái)政控制之下的領(lǐng)土上供應(yīng)和招募軍隊(duì)的問題。 正是在這一點(diǎn)上，必須提出軍隊(duì)的收入、裝備和供給的來源問題。 所謂的軍事土地的起源問題，以及最近被確定為與 kommerkiarioi 作用明顯相關(guān)的問題，在這方面發(fā)揮了核心作用。

In spite of two attempts recently to reassert the possibility that the Emperors in the seventh century deliberately settled troops on the land as a means of providing for their upkeep, there is, as far as I can see, no hint of any formal settling of soldiers by the state on a massive scale of the sort favored by Ostrogorsky and, latterly, both Hendy and Treadgold. Let us look at these two, in part complementary, arguments in greater detail.

????????? 盡管最近有兩次嘗試重申 7 世紀(jì)的皇帝故意在這片土地上安置軍隊(duì)作為維持他們的手段的可能性，但據(jù)我所知，沒有任何正式安置士兵的跡象，像奧斯特羅戈?duì)査够约昂髞淼暮嗟虾吞乩椎赂隊(duì)柕滤嗖A的那種大規(guī)模的國(guó)家。讓我們更詳細(xì)地看一下這兩個(gè)部分互補(bǔ)的論點(diǎn)。

First, as a result of a dramatic fall in the gold reserves from the later years of the sixth century, the state was compelled to start paying the soldiers at least partly in copper rather than gold or silver. Gold continued to be paid out on a restricted basis, of course, especially for donatives. But from the early 640s-when, as has been shown, the state could afford to issue its armies with only one third of the usual accessional donative-the finances of the state must have been near collapse. Some changes in the mode of maintaining and equipping the armies appear to date from this period.

????????? 首先，由于 6 世紀(jì)后期黃金儲(chǔ)備急劇下降，國(guó)家被迫開始至少部分用銅而不是金或銀來支付士兵的工資。 當(dāng)然，黃金繼續(xù)在有限的基礎(chǔ)上支付，特別是對(duì)于捐贈(zèng)者。 但是，從 640 年代初期開始——正如已經(jīng)表明的那樣，當(dāng)國(guó)家只用通常的追加捐贈(zèng)的三分之一就可以負(fù)擔(dān)得起向軍隊(duì)派遣——國(guó)家的財(cái)政一定已經(jīng)接近崩潰。 從這一時(shí)期開始，軍隊(duì)的維護(hù)和裝備方式似乎發(fā)生了一些變化。

The state may have reduced the burden on the fisc by paying the troops on a rotational basis, according to one suggestion, at least for extraordinary payments such as donatives (which were normally issued on a quinquennial basis and on the occasion of imperial accessions). But this can hardly have affected the normal maintenance costs of the armies. Reducing the numbers of troops may also have been considered, and indeed carried out in certain areas, but there were again obvious limits, given the situation and the effectiveness of Muslim attacks, to this alternative.

????????? 根據(jù)一項(xiàng)建議，國(guó)家可能通過輪流支付軍隊(duì)的費(fèi)用來減輕財(cái)政負(fù)擔(dān)，至少是為了特別支付，例如捐贈(zèng)（通常每五年發(fā)放一次，并在帝國(guó)加入時(shí)發(fā)放）。 但這幾乎不能影響軍隊(duì)的正常維護(hù)成本。 也可能考慮過減少軍隊(duì)數(shù)量，并且確實(shí)在某些地區(qū)進(jìn)行了削減，但鑒于穆斯林襲擊的情況和有效性，這種替代方案再次存在明顯限制。

On the other hand, a reversion to the payment of the field forces largely or entirely in kind would have gone much of the way to solve the problem. The permanent establishment of ad hoc praetorian prefects attached to each field army in the sixth century to ensure that they were adequately supplied-a point first brought out clearly by Kaegi-seems to have continued to play a role in this respect, liaising between the civil administration and the civilian population, on the one hand, and the armies, on the other. That such an official continued to exist until the ninth century is also reasonably clear (at which point he was replaced by a reformed or rationalized establishment headed by, among others, the thematic protonotarios). It seems likely that it was the withdrawal of the armies into Asia Minor which marked the moment at which this arrangement became, of necessity, permanent.

????????? 另一方面，基本上或完全以實(shí)物支付外勤部隊(duì)的費(fèi)用將在很大程度上解決問題。 六世紀(jì)時(shí)，為確保他們得到充足的供應(yīng)——Kaegi 首次明確提出的這一點(diǎn)——在每支野戰(zhàn)軍中都設(shè)立了常設(shè)的臨時(shí)行政長(zhǎng)官，似乎在這方面繼續(xù)發(fā)揮著作用，在民事之間進(jìn)行聯(lián)絡(luò)。 一方面是政府和平民，另一方面是軍隊(duì)。 這樣一位官員一直存在到 9 世紀(jì)也是相當(dāng)清楚的（此時(shí)他被一個(gè)改革或合理化的機(jī)構(gòu)所取代，該機(jī)構(gòu)以專題原公證人等為首）。 似乎是軍隊(duì)撤退到小亞細(xì)亞標(biāo)志著這種安排必然成為永久性的時(shí)刻。

At the same time, however, the numismatic evidence shows that finds of copper coin die out almost completely during the later years of Constans 11, and the fact of the disappearance of this medium from Anatolian sites over the period in question, together with the proven shortage of gold, would appear to confirm the suggestion that the state began to maintain its forces by some means other than relying upon the use of cash as a means of translating wealth into military effectiveness.

????????? 然而，與此同時(shí)，錢幣證據(jù)表明，在君士坦斯 11 世的晚年，銅幣的發(fā)現(xiàn)幾乎完全消失了，而且在所討論的時(shí)期內(nèi)這種介質(zhì)從安納托利亞遺址消失的事實(shí)，以及已證實(shí)的 黃金短缺，似乎證實(shí)了國(guó)家開始通過某種方式維持其軍隊(duì)而不是依靠使用現(xiàn)金作為將財(cái)富轉(zhuǎn)化為軍事效力的手段的建議。

It is thus a reasonable inference that the state faced grave problems in remunerating its armies at this time and thereafter-the massive loss of territories and revenue from the areas overrun by Islam alone must have reduced imperial revenue catastrophically, quite apart from the fiscal problems the state clearly already faced in the later sixth century. And it is equally significant that the districts into which the divisional armies of the various magistri militum were withdrawn from 637 or thereabouts appear to have been allotted on the basis of their ability to provide for the needs of the armies in question. The conclusion that the state turned to a system of supporting the armies directly, either through issuing the soldiers with land, according to one theory, or through the levying and distribution of most, if not all, their requirements in kind is unavoidable.

?????????? 因此，一個(gè)合理的推論是，國(guó)家在此時(shí)和此后的軍隊(duì)薪酬方面面臨著嚴(yán)重的問題——領(lǐng)土和收入的大量損失僅來自伊斯蘭教所侵占的地區(qū)，除了財(cái)政問題之外，帝國(guó)的收入肯定會(huì)災(zāi)難性地減少。 國(guó)家顯然已經(jīng)在六世紀(jì)后期面臨。 同樣重要的是，從 637 年左右各軍區(qū)的師軍撤出的地區(qū)似乎是根據(jù)它們滿足有關(guān)軍隊(duì)需要的能力而分配的。 國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)向直接支持軍隊(duì)的制度的結(jié)論是，根據(jù)一種理論，要么通過向士兵發(fā)放土地，要么通過征收和分配他們的大部分（如果不是全部）實(shí)物需求，這是不可避免的。

The fact that the later (ninth century and after) term for the regular land-tax assessment was synone, whereas in the sixth century and before, this term, rendered in Latin as coemptio, referred to the compulsory purchase of provisions, is suggestive. For in the so-called Farmer's Law, which probably dates to the later seventh or first half of the eighth century, the term used to describe the ordinary state land-tax levy imposed upon the village community is ta extraordina, a Greek rendering of the Latin term extraordinaria, a word used to describe precisely such exceptional levies or impositions in kind in the sixth century and before. This can only be explained by assuming that the state, faced with a drastic shortage of cash, adopted one of the procedures suggested already, returning to a system familiar from the fifth and especially the fourth century, of provisioning and, as we shall see in a moment, equipping its troops in kind. Some payments in gold continued, of course. The legal texts refer to soldiers being remunerated by both annonai and by a rhoga. But payments in kind appear to have become a major element in the state's fiscal operations.33 And a regularized extraordinary levy in kind to maintain the newly transferred field armies-referred to initially quite accurately (according to traditional usage) as the coemptio or synone-thus becomes in the course of time the main form in which the land tax was actually assessed, levied, and distributed.

????????? 事實(shí)上，后期（9 世紀(jì)及之后）用于定期土地稅評(píng)估的術(shù)語是同義詞，而在 6 世紀(jì)及之前，這個(gè)術(shù)語在拉丁語中被翻譯為 coemptio，指的是強(qiáng)制購(gòu)買規(guī)定，具有啟發(fā)性。因?yàn)樵谒^的農(nóng)民法中，它可能可以追溯到七世紀(jì)后期或八世紀(jì)上半葉，用來描述對(duì)村莊社區(qū)征收的普通國(guó)家土地稅的術(shù)語是非常特殊的，希臘語對(duì)拉丁語extraordinaria，這個(gè)詞用來準(zhǔn)確描述六世紀(jì)及之前的此類特殊征稅或?qū)嵨镎魇?。這只能通過假設(shè)國(guó)家面臨現(xiàn)金嚴(yán)重短缺，采用已經(jīng)建議的程序之一，返回到 5 世紀(jì)，尤其是 4 世紀(jì)熟悉的供應(yīng)系統(tǒng)來解釋，正如我們將在片刻，以實(shí)物裝備其部隊(duì)。當(dāng)然，一些黃金支付仍在繼續(xù)。法律文本提到士兵由 annonai 和 rhoga 支付報(bào)酬。但實(shí)物支付似乎已成為國(guó)家財(cái)政運(yùn)作的一個(gè)主要因素。以及為維持新轉(zhuǎn)移的野戰(zhàn)軍而進(jìn)行的正規(guī)化的特別征稅——最初相當(dāng)準(zhǔn)確地（根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)用法）稱為 coemptio 或 Synone——因此，隨著時(shí)間的推移，土地稅成為實(shí)際評(píng)估、征收和分配土地稅的主要形式。

An objection to this is the fact that the collection and distribution of supplies in kind to the armies would be very expensive in respect of transport and storage. In other circumstances this would be true, since the movement of large amounts of produce overland to central points at which troops were assembled would indeed be very costly. And if the state were trying to save its resources, this would seem to be a very inefficient way of achieving this end. But the situation of the seventh century, combined with what we know of the actual distribution of thematic forces in the eighth century and later, provides an adequate explanation. For it is quite clear that the various units which made up each field division were themselves spread across the areas in which they were based. And this meant that the supplies collected could be consumed locally and would not need to be transported great distances. Kaegi long ago pointed out that the thematic system, with its soldiers and units spread across great tracts of the country, was in fact quite an inefficient way of defending the Anatolian hinterland, although it was efficacious in protecting local strongpoints and the indigenous population.

?????????? 對(duì)此的反對(duì)意見是，向軍隊(duì)收集和分發(fā)實(shí)物供應(yīng)品在運(yùn)輸和儲(chǔ)存方面將非常昂貴。在其他情況下，這是正確的，因?yàn)閷⒋罅哭r(nóng)產(chǎn)品通過陸路運(yùn)送到集結(jié)部隊(duì)的中心點(diǎn)確實(shí)成本很高。如果國(guó)家試圖節(jié)省資源，這似乎是實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)的一種非常低效的方式。但七世紀(jì)的情況，結(jié)合我們所知道的八世紀(jì)及以后軍區(qū)力量的實(shí)際分布，提供了一個(gè)充分的解釋。因?yàn)楹苊黠@，組成每個(gè)野戰(zhàn)師的各個(gè)單位本身分散在他們所在的地區(qū)。這意味著收集到的物資可以在當(dāng)?shù)叵M(fèi)，不需要長(zhǎng)途運(yùn)輸。 Kaegi 很久以前就指出，其士兵和部隊(duì)遍布全國(guó)大片地區(qū)的主題系統(tǒng)實(shí)際上是一種非常低效的保衛(wèi)安納托利亞腹地的方式，盡管它在保護(hù)當(dāng)?shù)負(fù)?jù)點(diǎn)和土著居民方面很有效。

But if we ask why, given this relative strategic inefficiency, the soldiers were so widely dispersed, the answer lies in just this need to minimize the costs of transporting provisions and to attain the closest relationship possible between each unit or group of units and the districts from which they were to be supported. In other words, the dispersal of the thematic forces across the provinces they "garrisoned" reflects not only, or even primarily, tactical or strategic planning, but rather the fiscal and logistical priorities of the seventh-century state, at least in the first instance.36 This dispersal and localization must also have had important consequences for the tactical structure of the armies the different corps under their respective magistri militum were each made up of a variety of types of unit, including heavy and light cavalry, infantry, archers, and so on. How did the process described above affect this structure and, more importantly, to what extent did the traditional armament and tactical function of such units change or evolve in this very different context? This is a difficult question, and one which has not been raised before. I will deal with it briefly later in this paper.

????????? 但如果我們問為什么，鑒于這種相對(duì)的戰(zhàn)略低效率，士兵如此分散，答案就在于需要最大限度地減少運(yùn)輸物資的成本，并在每個(gè)單位或單位組與地區(qū)之間實(shí)現(xiàn)盡可能密切的關(guān)系。他們將得到支持。換句話說，主題力量在他們“駐守”的省份中的分散不僅反映了，甚至主要反映了戰(zhàn)術(shù)或戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃，而且反映了 7 世紀(jì)國(guó)家的財(cái)政和后勤優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)，至少首先是.這種分散和局部化對(duì)軍隊(duì)的戰(zhàn)術(shù)結(jié)構(gòu)也產(chǎn)生了重要的影響，在各自的統(tǒng)帥軍下的不同軍由各種類型的單位組成，包括重型和輕型騎兵、步兵、弓箭手和很快。上述過程如何影響這種結(jié)構(gòu)，更重要的是，在這種截然不同的背景下，這些部隊(duì)的傳統(tǒng)武器和戰(zhàn)術(shù)功能在多大程度上發(fā)生了變化或演變？這是一個(gè)困難的問題，而且以前沒有人提出過。我將在本文后面簡(jiǎn)要介紹它。

The process through which the soldiers were armed and equipped must also have changed as a result of the abandonment of the traditional system of cash payments and allowances for weapons, mounts, and clothing. And here the significance of the kommer-kiarioi, whose lead seals become frequent from the middle years of the seventh century, may be relevant. Several historians have noted that certain seals become prominent at this time, seals on which there is an imperial apotheke and a region, or group of provinces within the empire, and which suggest that one official, sometimes a group of officials, had jurisdiction over a number of dispersed areas. Contrary to the received view that these are connected with imperial control over trading in luxury or other goods, Hendy has suggested that the apothekai may represent a system for the disposal of surplus materials from state workshops (silks, gold- and silverware, dyed cloths, and so forth). Private merchants might also have an interest in these state depots and the system they represented. More importantly for our concerns, Hendy has also argued that the apotheke system and its kommerkiarioi were connected with supplying the imperial armies. On a number of occasions, dated seals of kommerkiarioi and apothekai for particular areas can be related to specific military undertakings mentioned in the sources and connected with those areas; and the inference is that the kommerkiarioi were entrusted with the sale of equipment and weapons to the soldiers." While not every such seal can be tied in to a particular military undertaking, the number of those that can is impressive, and the connection is too strong simply to be dismissed as coincidence.

????????? 由于放棄了傳統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)金支付和武器、坐騎和服裝津貼制度，士兵的武裝和裝備過程也發(fā)生了變化。在這里，kommer-kiarioi 的重要性可能是相關(guān)的，其鉛印章從 7 世紀(jì)中葉開始變得頻繁。幾位歷史學(xué)家指出，某些印章在此時(shí)變得顯眼，印章上有一位帝王和帝國(guó)內(nèi)的一個(gè)地區(qū)或一組省份，這表明一個(gè)官員，有時(shí)是一群官員，對(duì)一個(gè)國(guó)家有管轄權(quán)。分散區(qū)域的數(shù)量。與公認(rèn)的觀點(diǎn)相反，這些與帝國(guó)對(duì)奢侈品或其他商品貿(mào)易的控制有關(guān)，Hendy 建議藥劑師可能代表一種處理來自國(guó)家作坊的剩余材料（絲綢、金銀器、染色布、等等）。私人商人也可能對(duì)這些國(guó)家倉(cāng)庫(kù)及其所代表的系統(tǒng)感興趣。更重要的是，對(duì)于我們的擔(dān)憂，Hendy 還認(rèn)為藥劑系統(tǒng)及其 kommerkiarioi 與供應(yīng)帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)有關(guān)。在許多情況下，特定地區(qū)的 kommerkiarioi 和 apothekai 印章可能與來源中提到的特定軍事事業(yè)有關(guān)，并與這些地區(qū)有關(guān)；推論是 kommerkiarioi 被委托向士兵出售裝備和武器?！彪m然不是每一個(gè)這樣的印章都可以與特定的軍事事業(yè)聯(lián)系在一起，但那些印章的數(shù)量令人印象深刻，而且這種聯(lián)系也是強(qiáng)到簡(jiǎn)直被當(dāng)成巧合不屑一顧。

Oikonomides has raised some objections to this idea, however, particularly with regard to the correlation between certain campaigns and the dates of the seals (by indictional year) associated by Hendy with them. But while this example may not be as good an illustration of Hendy's argument as he suggested originally, Oikonomides' remaining suggestions are equally hypothetical and certainly dubious, especially as regards the movement of the apothekai and the kommerkiarioi, as evidenced in the seals, and representing supposedly a movement of the silk industry itself away from the war zone, from the Anatolian to the Balkan region in the period from the later seventh century to the middle of the eighth century. Indeed, the seals of this institution seem rather to follow the warfare, as the strategic priorities of the empire move from one front to the other at this time, a fact which surely reinforces Hendy's basic argument. And while this is not to say either that the apothekai were connected only with the provision of military equipment, I have further argued that with the cessation of cash grants for equipment and weapons, the latter had to be supplied and distributed in kind as well, and the apotheke system provided an appropriate and available structure for this.

????????? 然而，Oikonomides 對(duì)這個(gè)想法提出了一些反對(duì)意見，特別是關(guān)于某些運(yùn)動(dòng)與 Hendy 與它們相關(guān)的印章日期（按年份）之間的相關(guān)性。但是，雖然這個(gè)例子可能不像他最初建議的那樣很好地說明了 Hendy 的論點(diǎn)，但 Oikonomides 的其余建議同樣是假設(shè)性的，肯定是可疑的，尤其是關(guān)于 apothekai 和 kommerkiarioi 的運(yùn)動(dòng)，正如印章所證明的那樣，并代表?yè)?jù)推測(cè)，絲綢工業(yè)本身在七世紀(jì)后期到八世紀(jì)中葉期間從戰(zhàn)區(qū)，從安納托利亞到巴爾干地區(qū)的運(yùn)動(dòng)。事實(shí)上，這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的印章似乎更像是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)榇藭r(shí)帝國(guó)的戰(zhàn)略重點(diǎn)從一個(gè)戰(zhàn)線轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個(gè)戰(zhàn)線，這一事實(shí)肯定會(huì)加強(qiáng)亨迪的基本論點(diǎn)。雖然這并不是說藥劑師只與提供軍事裝備有關(guān)，但我進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，隨著裝備和武器的現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)助停止，后者也必須以實(shí)物供應(yīng)和分發(fā)，而 apotheke 系統(tǒng)為此提供了適當(dāng)且可用的結(jié)構(gòu)。

But I do not believe, as Hendy has also suggested, that the state sold weapons and equipment through the kommerkiarioi to the soldiers, who paid with revenue from theirlands. As we shall see, some soldiers might indeed have held land and may well have been able to purchase equipment privately or through the kommerkiarioi. But there are also objections to the majority having been in this position, objections which I have outlined elsewhere. Indeed, since nearly all the known arms- and armor-manufactories of the empire lay by this time in hostile territory, or areas so exposed to hostile action that they can hardly have remained operational, where were these weapons and other types of equipment to be purchased? The state must have had to turn to provincial, and therefore private (even if supervised) production, and the kommerkiarioi, with their local subordinates and their storehouses, would have made ideal middlemen to whom the state could farm out this task.

????????? 但我不相信，正如 Hendy 所暗示的那樣，國(guó)家通過 kommerkiarioi 向士兵出售武器和設(shè)備，而士兵則從他們的土地上獲得收入。 正如我們將看到的，一些士兵可能確實(shí)擁有土地，并且很可能能夠私下或通過 kommerkiarioi 購(gòu)買設(shè)備。 但也有人反對(duì)大多數(shù)人處于這一立場(chǎng)，我在別處概述了這些反對(duì)意見。 事實(shí)上，由于此時(shí)帝國(guó)幾乎所有已知的武器和盔甲制造廠都位于敵對(duì)領(lǐng)土，或處于敵對(duì)行動(dòng)的地區(qū)，以至于它們幾乎無法繼續(xù)運(yùn)作，那么這些武器和其他類型的設(shè)備在哪里購(gòu)買？國(guó)家必須轉(zhuǎn)向省級(jí)生產(chǎn)，因此必須轉(zhuǎn)向私人（即使受到監(jiān)督）生產(chǎn)，而 kommerkiarioi 及其當(dāng)?shù)叵聦俸蛡}(cāng)庫(kù)將成為理想的中間人，國(guó)家可以將這項(xiàng)任務(wù)交給他們。

According to an alternative suggestion (which will be discussed below), soldiers were given land on imperial estates from which to support themselves. But even with tenants to carry on their agricultural labor and produce an income for them (equivalent, in effect, to the later pronoia), it is difficult to see how such holdings came to be reduced to the degree of penury implicit in the case of the soldier Mousoulios and others from the later eighth and ninth centuries. For surely in making such grants the state would have taken some steps to protect such lands against alienation and impoverishment, and there is not a shred of evidence that such measures (such as were taken in the tenth century, for example) were carried out. The provision of soldiers with land (as opposed to the acquisition by soldiers of land through other means) can at best have been a slow and partial process.

????????? 根據(jù)另一種建議（將在下面討論），士兵獲得了帝國(guó)莊園的土地，以供他們養(yǎng)活自己。 但是，即使有佃戶繼續(xù)他們的農(nóng)業(yè)勞動(dòng)并為他們創(chuàng)造收入（實(shí)際上相當(dāng)于后來的 pronoia），也很難看出這些財(cái)產(chǎn)是如何減少到隱含的貧困程度的 8 世紀(jì)后期和 9 世紀(jì)后期的士兵 Mousoulios 和其他人。 因?yàn)樵谔峁┐祟愘?zèng)款時(shí)，國(guó)家肯定會(huì)采取一些措施來保護(hù)這些土地免遭異化和貧困化，而且沒有任何證據(jù)表明采取了此類措施（例如在 10 世紀(jì)采取的措施）。 為士兵提供土地（而不是士兵通過其他方式獲得土地）充其量只是一個(gè)緩慢而局部的過程。

Indeed, the available textual evidence from the eighth and ninth centuries is either silent on the relationship between soldiers and land, or positively assumes that there was no connection between land and military service. There was, as we shall also see in a moment, no obligation upon soldiers' families to support them, even if they often did contribute toward their upkeep and maintenance.

????????? 事實(shí)上，8 世紀(jì)和 9 世紀(jì)的可用文本證據(jù)要么對(duì)士兵與土地之間的關(guān)系保持沉默，要么肯定地假設(shè)土地與兵役之間沒有聯(lián)系。 正如我們稍后還將看到的，士兵的家人沒有義務(wù)支持他們，即使他們經(jīng)常為他們的保養(yǎng)和維護(hù)做出貢獻(xiàn)。

The probability thus remains strongest that it was indeed the kommerkiarioi who supplied the troops with their equipment by means of requisitions and the extraction by the state through these officials of certain forms of tax or corv6e (both in materials and in the skills and labor required to produce finished goods). We know in some detail how this system operated in the later ninth and tenth centuries, albeit no longer through the kommerkiarioi, and it involved in effect the state, through the local military administration in each province, contracting out the production of certain quantities and types of weapon or items of equipment.47 This is very different from the more centralized and more strictly controlled system of production based upon an imperial monopoly in state-controlled fabricae or manufactories, which had operated until the first half of the seventh century and which is described in some detail in both narrative and legislative sources.48 And it seems highly likely that it was during the seventh century that this new system itself came into being, as we know so many other aspects of the middle Byzantine administrative apparatus did too.

????????? 因此，很有可能確實(shí)是 kommerkiarioi 通過征用和國(guó)家通過這些官員提取某些形式的稅收或 corv6e（包括材料以及所需的技能和勞動(dòng)力）為部隊(duì)提供了裝備。生產(chǎn)成品）。我們?cè)敿?xì)了解這個(gè)系統(tǒng)在 9 世紀(jì)后期和 10 世紀(jì)是如何運(yùn)作的，盡管不再通過 kommerkiarioi，它實(shí)際上涉及國(guó)家，通過每個(gè)省的地方軍事管理部門，將某些數(shù)量和類型的生產(chǎn)承包出去，這與更集中、更嚴(yán)格控制的生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)大不相同，這種生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)基于對(duì)國(guó)家控制的制造廠或工廠的帝國(guó)壟斷，這種系統(tǒng)一直運(yùn)行到 7 世紀(jì)上半葉，現(xiàn)在在敘述和立法來源中都有一些詳細(xì)的描述。這個(gè)新系統(tǒng)本身很可能是在 7 世紀(jì)形成的，正如我們所知，中間拜占庭行政機(jī)構(gòu)的許多其他方面也是如此。

The conclusion is, of course, that the state did not need to issue soldiers with land to maintain them properly. But other arguments for the state's issuing soldiers with land have also been adduced. Both Hendy and Treadgold, for example, have suggested that the state settled soldiers on land which belonged to the imperial estates, pointing out that, whereas in the sixth century and before the state seems to have possessed fairly extensive lands in the provinces of Asia Minor (in particular in Bithynia, Caria, Pamphylia, Phrygia Salutaris, Pontus, and Cappadocia I and II), it appears to have had no such lands by the twelfth century. The difference has been explained by the plausible suggestion that such estate land was granted away by the Emperors to soldiers in return for military service.

?????????? 結(jié)論當(dāng)然是，國(guó)家不需要向士兵發(fā)放土地來妥善維護(hù)他們。 但也有人提出了其他關(guān)于國(guó)家向士兵發(fā)放土地的論據(jù)。 例如，Hendy 和 Treadgold 都建議國(guó)家將士兵安置在屬于帝國(guó)地產(chǎn)的土地上，并指出，而在 6 世紀(jì)和之前，國(guó)家似乎在小亞細(xì)亞各省擁有相當(dāng)大的土地 （特別是在比提尼亞、卡里亞、潘菲利亞、弗里吉亞·薩盧塔里斯、本都和卡帕多西亞一世和二世），到 12 世紀(jì)似乎沒有這樣的土地。 之所以有這種差異，是因?yàn)橛幸环N合理的說法是，這些莊園土地是由皇帝授予士兵以換取兵役的。

Now there is no reason to reject this hypothesis in its entirety. There is no doubt that the state did give land to individuals, from among whom it intended to recruit soldiers. Emperor Maurice is supposed to have decreed the forced transfer of a number of Armenian families to Thrace so that soldiers could be raised from them. There are other examples from the sixth century. It is likewise apparent that the Slavs whom Justinian II transferred to various districts of Anatolia in 688/9 or 689/90, together with their families, also provided soldiers. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the only means of supporting such large numbers would have been by grants of land. The principle is fairly clear and has been discussed in detail by several historians-to draft in new populations, whole communities and families, from among whom soldiers could be conscripted. In the tenth century, it is clear that the practice of granting land to refugees, whether or not in return for state service, was well established.

?????????? 現(xiàn)在沒有理由完全拒絕這個(gè)假設(shè)。毫無疑問，國(guó)家確實(shí)給了個(gè)人土地，它打算從這些人中招募士兵。莫里斯皇帝應(yīng)該下令將一些亞美尼亞家庭強(qiáng)制轉(zhuǎn)移到色雷斯，以便可以從他們那里招募士兵。六世紀(jì)還有其他例子。同樣明顯的是，查士丁尼二世在 688/9 或 689/90 年轉(zhuǎn)移到安納托利亞各個(gè)地區(qū)的斯拉夫人，連同他們的家人，也提供了士兵。也沒有任何理由懷疑支持如此大量人口的唯一手段是授予土地。該原則相當(dāng)明確，并已被幾位歷史學(xué)家詳細(xì)討論過——在新的人群、整個(gè)社區(qū)和家庭中起草，士兵可以從中征募。很明顯，在 10 世紀(jì)，向難民提供土地（無論是否以換取國(guó)家服務(wù)）的做法已經(jīng)確立。

But one point needs to be stressed. In the case of mass settlement, these were ethnic groups and, if the Slavs of the second half of the seventh century are anything to judge by, were organized as such under their own leaders, similarly to the late Roman foederati or, much more probably, the laeti (less independent) of the Western Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Like the earlier laeti, the Slavs were intended by Justinian II to operate in conjunction with Byzantine troops. Similar examples, from areas outside the empire, suggest that the practice was not unusual in this period of generalized demographic decline and manpower shortage. So that while it is not, in itself, a new principle, neither must it be seen as a generalized means of recruitment and supporting soldiers through grants of land, for which there is, of course, no evidence at all. In fact, the probability that the captured Slavs were given land on a "laetic" basis makes the idea that the land they were given was drawn from imperial estates more likely. For part of the purpose of introducing such new populations-as the sources sometimes state explicitly-was the revitalization of the rural population and the bringing back into cultivation of abandoned or deserted lands from which the state could then derive a revenue. Imperial lands paid not only regular taxes, of course; the tenants also paid a rent to the relevant state bureau. Such a policy will thus have been to the considerable advantage of the state.

?????????? 但有一點(diǎn)需要強(qiáng)調(diào)。在大規(guī)模定居的情況下，這些是種族群體，如果可以判斷七世紀(jì)下半葉的斯拉夫人，他們是在他們自己的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下組織起來的，類似于已故的羅馬foederati，或者更有可能，第四和第五世紀(jì)西方帝國(guó)的laeti（不太獨(dú)立）。與早期的 laeti 一樣，查士丁尼二世打算讓斯拉夫人與拜占庭軍隊(duì)聯(lián)合作戰(zhàn)。來自帝國(guó)以外地區(qū)的類似例子表明，這種做法在這個(gè)人口普遍下降和人力短缺的時(shí)期并不少見。因此，盡管它本身并不是一項(xiàng)新原則，但也不能將其視為通過授予土地來招募和支持士兵的普遍手段，當(dāng)然，對(duì)此根本沒有任何證據(jù)。事實(shí)上，被俘的斯拉夫人獲得土地的可能性是基于“法律”的，因此更有可能認(rèn)為他們獲得的土地來自帝國(guó)莊園。引入這些新人口的部分目的——正如消息來源有時(shí)明確指出的那樣——是為了振興農(nóng)村人口，并重新種植廢棄或荒蕪的土地，然后國(guó)家可以從中獲得收入。當(dāng)然，帝國(guó)土地不僅繳納常規(guī)稅款；租戶還向有關(guān)國(guó)家局支付了租金。因此，這樣的政策對(duì)國(guó)家來說是相當(dāng)有利的。

But once again, I do not believe that this can have accounted for more than a relatively small proportion of the total number of soldiers. Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in the tenth-century legislation, nor in the evidence which I shall consider in a moment from the eighth and ninth centuries, to suggest that this sort of arrangement lies behind the "military lands" of the later period.

????????? 但再一次，我不相信這能占到士兵總數(shù)的一小部分。 也許更重要的是，在十世紀(jì)的立法中，也沒有在我將要考慮的八、九世紀(jì)的證據(jù)中，沒有任何跡象表明這種安排是在后期的“軍事土地”背后的。 .

Finally, the clear evidence for a personal and hereditary military obligation during the eighth and ninth centuries, together with the fact that the Macedonian legislation states quite explicitly that until the time of Constantine VII the military lands were neither protected by law nor did they have any special juridical status, an important point recently emphasized once again by G6recki, makes any argument to the effect that such lands had been established in the seventh century as a deliberate act of policy quite untenable.

????????? 最后，在 8 世紀(jì)和 9 世紀(jì)期間個(gè)人和世襲軍事義務(wù)的明確證據(jù)，以及馬其頓立法非常明確地規(guī)定，直到君士坦丁七世時(shí)期，軍事土地既不受法律保護(hù)，也沒有任何 特殊的法律地位，最近 G6recki 再次強(qiáng)調(diào)的一個(gè)重要觀點(diǎn)，使得任何關(guān)于這些土地在 7 世紀(jì)作為蓄意的政策行為建立起來的論點(diǎn)都是站不住腳的。

預(yù)告：V. THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGINS OF THE “MILITARY LANDS”

五、“軍地”的起源問題

未完待續(xù)