作者：John·F· Haldon? 約翰·F·哈爾頓
出版商：1979年維也納奧地利科學院出版

A. THE SIXTH AND EARLY SEVENTH CENTURY AND THE “HERACLEIAN REFORM”

A. 六世紀和七世紀初的 “赫拉克勒改革”

In spite of the wealth of documentary evidence which exists for the administrative organisation of the state during the sixth century, the methods by which soldiers were recruited have remained in dispute. The evidence suggests that by the reign of Justinian, recruitment was organised on a more or less voluntary basis, a point of view adopted by Jones.2 The government laid great stress upon the enlistment of soldiers from areas within the empire inhabited by warlike peoples such as the Isaurians who, although enlisted into units which were a part of the regular establishment, were referred to by their national names and were raised for particular campaigns as the need arose.

??????? 盡管 6 世紀國家行政組織存在大量書面證據(jù)，但招募士兵的方法仍然存在爭議。 有證據(jù)表明，在查士丁尼統(tǒng)治時期，招募組織或多或少是在自愿的基礎上進行的，這是瓊斯所采納的觀點。2 政府非常重視從帝國內(nèi)居住著好戰(zhàn)民族的地區(qū)招募士兵，例如 作為伊蘇里人，雖然他們被征召到屬于正規(guī)機構的單位，但被稱為他們的國家名稱，并在需要時為特定的運動而被提升。

It has been objected, however, that conscription had not fallen completely out of use, or at least, that it was re-introduced during or shortly after the reign of Justinian. Since Jones hardly touched upon the objections, and since the point is so important for the later development of recruiting, it will be worth examining the matter in greater detail here.

??????? 然而，有人反對征兵制并沒有完全停止使用，或者至少在查士丁尼統(tǒng)治期間或之后不久重新引入了征兵制度。 由于瓊斯幾乎沒有提到反對意見，而且這一點對于招聘的后期發(fā)展非常重要，因此值得在這里更詳細地研究這個問題。

The evidence for this viewpoint lies chiefly in the content of several clauses retained in the Codex lustinianus which deal with the exemptions from protostasia and prototypia on the one hand, and appear to require the sons of soldiers and officiates to register themselves in their father’s profession on the other; and in addition, in the disappearance from the Codex of the clauses relevant to the aurum tironicum, the levy extracted in lieu of the surrender of men to the recruiting officer. It might thus suggest that a system of hereditary conscription as well as one of raising men from the land continued to be employed during and after Justinian’s reign. But looked at in its context, this evidence is not as convincing as it at first sight appears

??????? 這一觀點的證據(jù)主要在于 Codex lustinianus 中保留的幾個條款的內(nèi)容，這些條款一方面涉及對 protostasia 和 prototypia 的豁免，并且似乎要求士兵和官員的兒子在他們父親的職業(yè)中登記另一個; 此外，在與 aurum tironicum 相關的條款從法典中消失時，征收的稅款代替了將人交給招聘官。 因此，這可能表明在查士丁尼統(tǒng)治期間和之后繼續(xù)使用世襲征兵制度以及從土地上撫養(yǎng)男人的制度。 但是從上下文來看，這個證據(jù)并不像乍一看那樣令人信服。

That hereditary conscription was retained need not be doubted. But it was retained only in the limitanei, especially in “quiet” areas such as Egypt, where a peace-keeping force rather than fighting troops was required. In fact, such enrolment was regarded as a privilege rather than as a burden. In addition, it should be noted that all the clauses dealing with the exemptions are concerned not specifically with capitularii, for example, or protostasia, but rather with the release of certain categories of state officials from a variety of munera. The latter are placed one after another in lists which are clearly intended to be inclusive. It seems more likely that those responsible for noting the munera from which certain officials were to be freed did not go through each clause with a toothcomb and weed out every single anachronism. The retention of such terms within these clauses can hardly be used as evidence for the retention of the munera in question.

??????? 保留了世襲征兵制是毋庸置疑的。 但它只保留在限制范圍內(nèi)，尤其是在埃及等“安靜”地區(qū)，在那里需要維持和平部隊而不是戰(zhàn)斗部隊。 事實上，這樣的入學被視為一種特權，而不是一種負擔。 此外，應該指出的是，所有涉及豁免的條款都不是專門涉及 capitularii 或 protostasia，而是涉及從各種 munera 中釋放某些類別的國家官員。 后者被一個接一個地放在列表中，這些列表顯然是包含在內(nèi)的。 似乎更有可能的是，那些負責注意到某些官員將被釋放的 munera 的人并沒有用牙梳子仔細檢查每個條款并清除每一個不合時宜的錯誤。 在這些條款中保留這些術語幾乎不能作為保留有關munera 的證據(jù)。

One of the clauses in the Codex lustinianus refers to the military grade of biarcus, a rank associated specifically with the new field units raised by Diocletian and Constantine and their successors (and therefore having nothing to do with the limitanei), and the rights of the sons of soldiers killed on active service to inherit their father’s rank and emoluments.6 Thus Stein and later Karayan- nopoulos argued that this is evidence for the retention of hereditary conscription in military families,7 and that the disappearance of the aurum tironicum was compensated in two ways: by the main- tenance of hereditary conscription, and by the application of the protostasia, or levy of recruits from estates and groups of tax-payers. The re-establishment of this system was the result of the scarcity of barbarian recruits and the difficulty of paying them, in the later sixth century. The big recruiting drive under Tiberius is the last that we hear of on a large scale, and later campaigns were carried out within the empire.

??????? Codex lustinianus 中的一個條款提到了 biarcus 的軍事等級，這一等級與戴克里先和君士坦丁及其繼任者提出的新的野戰(zhàn)單位特別相關（因此與限制無關），以及 士兵的兒子為了繼承父親的軍銜和薪酬而在現(xiàn)役時陣亡。 6 因此，斯坦因和后來的卡拉揚諾普洛斯認為，這是軍人家庭中保留世襲征兵制度的證據(jù)，7 并且 aurum tironicum 的消失在 兩種方式：維持世襲征兵制，以及通過原生征的應用，或從莊園和納稅人群體中征募新兵。 這一制度的重新建立是六世紀后期野蠻新兵稀缺和支付困難的結果。 提比略領導下的大規(guī)模招募活動是我們聽到的最后一次大規(guī)模的招募活動，后來的活動是在帝國內(nèi)部進行的。??

The last point may be valid, but Maurice appears to have had no difficulty in recruiting from among Isaurians and Cappadocians. He also levied troops on quite a large scale from the allied Armenian princedoms and the Armenian territories under Roman authority.Persians captured in the eastern campaigns were also enrolled in the regular forces, as had happened under Justinian, and were probably posted to the west; while Theophylact Simocatta mentions in addition Apsich, a Hun who held a high command, and the Lombard Drocton, who held a similar post. II The Illyrians referred to in the Strategikon can be compared with those raised by Justinian from both Thrace and Illyricum, troops who were attracted by relatively favourable conditions, a cash bounty and the expectation of regular pay. There is no hint of a conscription at this time.

??????? 最后一點可能是對的，但莫里斯在從伊蘇利亞人和卡帕多西亞人中招募似乎沒有任何困難。 他還向同盟國的亞美尼亞公國和羅馬統(tǒng)治下的亞美尼亞領土大規(guī)模征兵。在東部戰(zhàn)役中俘虜?shù)牟ㄋ谷艘布尤肓苏?guī)部隊，就像查士丁尼治下的那樣，可能被派往西部 ; 而 Theophylact Simocatta 還提到了擔任最高統(tǒng)帥的匈奴人 Apsich 和擔任類似職位的倫巴第人。 被相對有利的條件、現(xiàn)金賞金和對正常工資的期望所吸引的部隊。目前沒有征兵的跡象。

Maurice’s attempted reform of the issue of the equipment allowance, and his introduction (or rather re-introduction) of state pensions for disabled veterans, throws more light on this problem, and especially on the matter of hereditary service obligations. Theophylact Simocatta described Maurice’s reform briefly, but he included the essential details. Now the law in the Codex already referred to permits the enlistment of the son, or eldest son if there are more than one, upon the death of the father while on duty. The son is to succeed to his father’s grade and allowance up to the rank of biarcus.11 12 The reason is given as not for the purpose of maintaining numbers (although this was undoubtedly one result) but to provide for the dead soldier’s family.

????????? 莫里斯試圖改革設備津貼問題，以及他為殘疾退伍軍人引入（或更確切地說是重新引入）國家養(yǎng)老金，更多地闡明了這個問題，尤其是在世襲服務義務問題上。? Theophylact Simocatta 簡要描述了莫里斯的改革，但他包括了基本細節(jié)。 現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)提到的法典中的法律允許兒子或長子（如果有一個以上）在父親在職期間死亡后入伍。 兒子要繼承他父親的等級和津貼，直到比阿庫斯的軍銜。11 12 給出的理由不是為了保持人數(shù)（盡管這無疑是一個結果），而是為了養(yǎng)活死去的士兵的家人。

The re-introduction of the same regulation by Maurice, although making no reference to the rank of the deceased, is ascribed by Theophylact to Maurice’s philanthropy; and in fact both laws apply only to the sons of soldiers killed on service, as a means of providing for the dead man’s kin, while the family thus retained the various privileges it gained through its military member.14 This point is emphasised by the context in which Theophylact reports the reform. For the emperor’s brother Peter had brought news of a series of changes; and whereas Theophylact places the reform dealing with the more rigid administration of pay among those changes which were unpopular and which the troops rejected, that with which we are concerned here was greeted as a popular measure by the soldiers. A move to apply hereditary conscription to all soldiers’ sons would hardly have met with such a reception.

????????? 莫里斯重新引入相同的規(guī)定，雖然沒有提及死者的等級，但 Theophylact 將其歸因于莫里斯的慈善事業(yè)； 事實上，這兩項法律都只適用于在服役期間陣亡的士兵的兒子，作為供養(yǎng)死者親屬的一種手段，而家屬因此保留了通過其軍人獲得的各種特權。 14 上下文強調了這一點 其中 Theophylact 報告了改革。 因為皇帝的弟弟彼得帶來了一系列變化的消息； 雖然 Theophylact 將處理更嚴格的薪酬管理的改革置于那些不受歡迎且被軍隊拒絕的改革之中，但我們在這里所關心的改革卻被士兵們視為一項受歡迎的措施。 對所有士兵的兒子實行世襲征兵的舉動幾乎不會受到這樣的歡迎。

未完待續(xù)