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?

VI. THE MILITARY LANDS AND THE STRATEIA FROM THE TENTH CENTYRY

六、 十世紀的軍事土地和戰(zhàn)略

The exact details of the workings of the system of military lands in the tenth century has been the subject of several recent contributions. Arguably the most useful has been that of G6recki, who has tried to refine out of the contemporary legislation a more exact description of the relationship between state, fiscal community, and military holdings. Most importantly, her findings have confirmed the crucial development of the early tenth century, namely the formal recognition in legal texts that military obligations had clearly begun to be associated with the land which actually supported the strateia rather than with the individuals (families) to whom it was attached and who bore the hereditary burden of this state duty. In particular, she has stressed the fact that a parallel existed between the state's treatment of ordinary fiscal land registered within the rural community (as understood in the fiscal sense)，on the one hand， and “military”or“stratiotic” land on the other. The inalienability of stratiotic land and the urgency of the emperors' efforts to protect such property from encroachment are clear results of her analysis. She has also stressed the dynamic nature of the evolution of this institution, which during the tenth century became the focus for a great deal of state legislation.

????????? 十世紀軍事土地系統(tǒng)運作的確切細節(jié)已成為最近幾篇論文的主題?？梢哉f最有用的是 G6recki，他試圖從當代立法中提煉出對國家、財政共同體和軍事控股之間關系的更準確描述。最重要的是，她的發(fā)現證實了 10 世紀早期的重要發(fā)展，即法律文本中正式承認軍事義務已明確開始與實際支持該地區(qū)的土地相關，而不是與為其提供服務的個人（家庭）相關。它是依附的，誰承擔了這項國家義務的世襲負擔。她特別強調，一方面國家對農村社區(qū)內登記的普通財政土地（按財政意義上的理解）與“軍事”或“平地”土地的處理之間存在平行關系。其次，分層土地的不可轉讓性和皇帝保護這些財產不受侵犯的緊迫性也是她分析的明確結果。她還強調了該機構演變的動態(tài)性質，它在 10 世紀成為許多州立法的焦點。

G6recki's conclusions, which in their general import concur with those of Lemerle and myself, can be summarized as follows:

????????? G6recki 的結論在總體上與 Lemerle 和我的結論一致，可以總結如下：

?

(1) it was under Constantine VII that the strateia, a term denoting both the subject of the rights and duties attached to the possession of "military land" and, therefore, to the conditions of tenure of such land, was institutionalized and enshrined in imperial legislation. This is a point which is, in itself, well known;

(2) the military land was an object of "specific rights and duties"; it was exempted from commercial traffic and its legal status was irreversible;

(3) the state could attribute military status to any piece of land at the request of its owner; it could also allot unoccupied military land already so registered to a nonmilitary household (partial strateia), regardless of whether the head of the household or a family member was enlisted as a soldier. By this means smaller properties could jointly provide the income to maintain an active soldier;

(4) the term adoreia refers not simply to an exemption from military obligations of an impoverished stratiotes (who can thus no longer support the attached service) and his transferral to garrison service, as traditionally thought, but in addition to the consequent attribution of his holding by the state (when the sequence of persons of stratiotic status liable for the fiscal dues of the property in question failed to provide a suitable tenant) to a nonstratiotic peasant. The purpose was first to ensure the continued (fiscal) productivity of the property in question, and second to ensure the continued contribution of such properties, as partial strateiai, to the maintenance of a soldier. It would, in addition, have as an effect the extension of military obligations (as opposed to active military service) to nonmilitary subjects of the state. The adoreia, therefore, functioned in a way similar to the regulation known as sympatheia, by which civilian landholders within a fiscal community who had fallen on hard times had their properties temporarily relieved of fiscal burdens until the owner could restore them to good order（a maximum period of thirty years was usually granted). After this time, such a property was normally declared a klasma and was detached from the fiscal community and attributed to a new owner or holder by the state. In the case of military holdings, as G6recki points out, the second stage-that of the klasma-did not apply; instead, the state attempted first to maintain the holder of the strateia through the appointment of contributors (syndotai); if this did not work, then the military version of the sympatheia was invoked, and the land in question was placed in adoreia, by which it was granted to another. The state could attribute it to one of a number of persons, according to a list of priorities outlined in the novel in question (beginning with the holder's heirs, proceeding through impoverished stratiotai of the same fiscal district, and ending with impoverished civilian taxpayers of the same fiscal unit), in order that its productive capacity be maintained, both in respect of the normal state taxes and the obligation to support a strateia. Crucially important is the fact that the person attributed with the "adorated" holding(s), if they were not already registered as such, now received the status of a registered stratiotes, with both the fiscal burdens and the privileges（pronomia）which accompanied it.

（1） 在君士坦丁七世的統(tǒng)治下，戰(zhàn)略這一術語既表示擁有“軍用土地”的權利和義務的主體，也表示此類土地的保有權條件，被制度化并載入帝國立法，這一點本身是眾所周知的。

（2）軍用土地是“特定權利義務”的對象；免于商業(yè)運輸，其法律地位不可逆轉；

（3） 國家可以應土地所有者的要求賦予任何土地軍事地位；它還可以將已經如此登記的未占用軍事土地分配給非軍事家庭（部分戰(zhàn)略），無論戶主或家庭成員是否應征入伍。通過這種方式，較小的財產可以共同提供維持現役士兵的收入；

（4）adoreia 一詞不僅指傳統(tǒng)上認為的貧困階層（他們因此無法再支持附屬服務）的軍事義務的豁免和他的轉移到駐軍服務，而且還包括隨之而來的對他的歸屬的歸屬。由國家持有（當對有關財產的財政費用負有責任的階層人士的順序未能提供合適的租戶時）非階層農民。目的首先是確保相關財產的持續(xù)（財政）生產力，其次是確保這些財產作為部分財產的持續(xù)貢獻，以維持士兵的生活。此外，它還會將軍事義務（相對于現役兵役）擴大到國家的非軍事主體。因此，adoreia 的運作方式類似于被稱為 sympatheia 的法規(guī)，通過該法規(guī)，陷入困境的財政社區(qū)內的平民土地所有者可以暫時減輕其財產的財政負擔，直到所有者能夠將其恢復到良好狀態(tài)（a最長期限通常為三十年）。在此之后，此類財產通常被宣布為 klasma，并與財政社區(qū)分離，并由國家歸屬于新的所有者或持有人。在軍事控股的情況下，正如 G6recki 指出的那樣，第二階段——klasma 階段——不適用；相反，國家首先試圖通過任命貢獻者（syndotai）來維持戰(zhàn)略的持有者；如果這不起作用，則將有關土地置于 adoreia 中，然后將其授予另一個人。根據相關小說中概述的優(yōu)先事項列表，國家可以將其歸屬于多個人中的一個人（從持有人的繼承人開始，通過同一財政區(qū)的貧困階層進行，最后是貧困的平民納稅人）同一財政單位），以便在正常的國家稅收和支持戰(zhàn)略的義務方面保持其生產能力。至關重要的是，被賦予“崇拜”財產的人，如果他們還沒有注冊，則現在獲得了注冊階層的地位，并伴隨著財政負擔和特權（pronomia）。

To repeat G6recki's full argument here would necessarily involve going through the texts in detail once again, and I shall avoid this. But a number of points can be made which arise from her conclusions. In the first place, the case with regard to adoreia is particularly important. It reinforces the impression we have already from other sources that the Byzantine state had by this time substantially amended traditional Roman concepts of private property. The state had the right to confiscate or reattribute private property with or without compensation, depending on the situation, just as it had the right to determine, within the context of the fiscal community, how the rights of preemption were to be exercised. G6recki has noted that land that was so treated was of an equivalent juridical status to the classical ager publicus of the Roman republic and Principate, although she also stresses that no direct connection can have existed-the parallel reflects rather the nature of the problem faced by the tenth-century legislators and the legal and administrative instruments at their disposal. The shift in the ways in which private property was conceptualized in regard to the state and its interests seems to be noticeable only from the later ninth and tenth century, as Kazhdan has pointed out, reinforcing the impression that it was only at this time that the state became aware of the threat to its resource base and the need to intervene in the traditional assumptions of private property law. It is, nevertheless, important to current discussion of the nature of the military lands and the duties attached to possession of a strateia, as we shall shortly see.

????????? 在這里重復 G6recki 的全部論點必然涉及再次詳細閱讀文本，我將避免這種情況。但是可以從她的結論中得出一些觀點。首先，關于adoreia的案例特別重要。它強化了我們已經從其他來源獲得的印象，即此時拜占庭國家已經大幅修改了傳統(tǒng)的羅馬私有財產概念。國家有權根據情況有償或無償沒收或重新分配私有財產，正如它有權在財政共同體的背景下決定如何行使優(yōu)先購買權。 G6recki 指出，受到如此對待的土地具有與羅馬共和國和大公的古典公共時代同等的法律地位，盡管她也強調不存在直接聯系——平行反映了所面臨問題的性質。十世紀的立法者以及他們可以使用的法律和行政文書，正如 Kazhdan 指出的那樣，私有財產在國家及其利益方面的概念化方式的轉變似乎只有在 9 世紀后期和 10 世紀才引人注目，這強化了印象，即只有在這個時候國家意識到對其資源基礎的威脅以及干預私有財產法的傳統(tǒng)假設的必要性。然而，正如我們將很快看到的那樣，對于當前關于軍事土地性質和擁有領土的義務的討論很重要。

In the second place, her presentation confirms the fact that, by the middle of the tenth century at the latest, the state had been encouraged by circumstances to view the burdens attached to military status as binding also on the land from which military service was supported as much as on the person of the registered stratiotes. By the same token, of course, such lands also enjoyed the privileges traditionally associated with soldiers' property-exemption from all but the standard fiscal burdens (land tax and kapnikon). All the texts discussed make this assumption.

????????? 其次，她的陳述證實了這樣一個事實，即最遲到 10 世紀中葉，國家受到環(huán)境的鼓舞，將軍事地位的負擔視為對支持兵役的土地也具有約束力。 與注冊階層的人一樣多。 出于同樣的原因，當然，這些土地也享有傳統(tǒng)上與士兵財產相關的特權——除了標準的財政負擔（土地稅和 kapnikon）之外的所有其他方面的豁免。 所有討論的文本都做出了這個假設。

In the third place, the clear contrast between stratiotes, referring to the person registered as possessing a military holding, and strateuomenos, meaning the actual soldier supported by such a holding, or a group of such holdings in the case of partial strateiai, is reaffirmed. The two could still be one and the same person: as we have seen, hereditary military service was related to the person, not the land which had come to be recognized as supporting that service. The legislation reflects the fact that the holder of a strateia was, in theory at least, still the one who carried out the military service, although force of circumstances had already by the later ninth century allowed for a replacement or representative of the registered stratiotes to carry out the actual soldiering-hence the apparent contradictions in the texts, which represent in fact no contradictions, but merely the fluidity and evolving nature of the institution in the tenth century.

????????? 第三，再次確認了 Stratiotes（指注冊為擁有軍事地產的人）與 strateuomenos（即由此類地產支持的實際士兵，或在部分地產的情況下是一組此類地產）之間的明顯對比。兩者仍然可以是同一個人：正如我們所見，世襲兵役與此人有關，而不是與后來被認為支持這項服務的土地有關。 立法反映了這樣一個事實，即至少在理論上，領地的持有人仍然是服兵役的人，盡管在 9 世紀后期的情況下，已登記的領地的更換或代表已經允許執(zhí)行實際的士兵——因此文本中存在明顯的矛盾，這些文本實際上并不代表矛盾，而只是十世紀制度的流動性和演變性質。

It is difficult to say when the possibility of commuting actual military service for a payment was first introduced. An important source in this respect is the Life of Euthy-mios, who was born in the 820s, and whose biography was written ca. 900. His father was registered as holder of a strateia, the obligations attached to which fell to the family. Euthymios' mother could only support these burdens after the death of her husband by registering her son in his stead. The element of personal service here is quite clear. But the implication of the registration of the young Euthymios is that by so doing the widowed mother would no longer be held liable fiscally to the state for service which was attached to the family, since it could once more be personally acquitted. In the event, it is clear from the Life that Euthymios was never called up, presumably because he was at that stage too young (as we have seen, thematic officers were exhorted to select the soldiers actually called out carefully, according to their ability to support their du-ties, both economically and in respect of their age and fitness). Other letters of the later ninth and early tenth century confirm both this personal aspect of the strateia and the possibility of avoiding being called up on account of youth or old age. Apart from the Life of Euthymios, however, Oikonomides has drawn attention to a passage in a letter of Theodore the Studite in which the writer praises Empress Irene for relieving soldiers' widows of payments demanded by the state in place of their husbands' military service, which the widows themselves could not, of course, provide. It is clear from the Life of Euthymios that this human measure was soon either abrogated or, perhaps more likely, ignored by the provincial officials of the military logothesion. Nevertheless, this suggestion takes the commutation element back at least to the later eighth century, and probably even earlier-on the grounds that this exaction is ascribed to rulers before Irene who had been Orthodox, therefore， before Leo III.

???????? 很難說從什么時候開始引入通過實際服兵役換取報酬的可能性。在這方面的一個重要來源是 Euthy-mios 的生平，他出生于 820 年代，其傳記寫于約900. 他的父親被登記為財產持有人，其義務由家庭承擔。 Euthymios 的母親只能在她丈夫去世后通過為他的兒子登記來承擔這些負擔。這里的個人服務元素非常清楚。但是，年輕的 Euthymios 登記的含義是，通過這樣做，寡婦將不再對國家承擔財政責任，因為它可以再次被個人無罪釋放。在事件中，從生活中可以清楚地看出，尤西米奧斯從未被征召，大概是因為他在那個階段太年輕了（正如我們所見，軍區(qū)軍官被勸告要仔細選擇實際上征召的士兵，根據他們的能力支持他們的職責，無論是在經濟上還是在他們的年齡和健康方面）。 9 世紀后期和 10 世紀初期的其他信件證實了該戰(zhàn)略的這一個人方面以及避免因年輕或年老而被召集的可能性。然而，除了《歐西米奧斯的一生》之外，奧科諾米德斯還引起了人們對 Theodore the Studite 的一封信中的一段話的關注，其中作者贊揚了艾琳皇后減輕了國家要求的士兵遺孀的款項，以代替他們丈夫的兵役，這當然是寡婦自己無法提供的。從 Euthymios 的生活中可以清楚地看出，這種人為措施很快就被廢除了，或者更有可能被軍事標志的省級官員忽視。然而，這個建議至少將換算單位帶回了八世紀后期，甚至可能更早——因為這種苛求被歸因于艾琳之前的統(tǒng)治者（利奧三世之前）。

Oikonomides understands both the Life of Euthymios and the letter of Theodore, however, as reflecting military service based on the possession of land, of a military holding in the technical sense. But it must be said that there is no mention of this in the texts in question-what is very clear is that the obligation of military service was attached to an individual and his family, and was hereditary-when the father dies, the son has to step in; if there is no son, then the state exacts a payment in lieu of such service, which goes to the fisc for the payment of other soldiers. For the hard-pressed state of the later seventh or eighth century, this would not be an illogical step, even if it meant hardship on such families-the case of Mousoulios, from the Life of Philaretos, is a case in point, as are those from a later period of Euthymios and the boys mentioned in the letters of Patriarch Nicholas I. I see no reason to assume that this was done on the basis of the possession of lands registered in some way as "military," even if the state, as we have said, took the existence of an income of some sort for granted. Once again, therefore, I would argue that we take Constantine VII's preamble to his novel "On Soldiers" of 945-959 at face value-the practice of military service based on the pos-session of land, which was by custom hedged about with various conditions regarding sale and transmission, was only formalized in the tenth century. The implication is that the obligations connected with military service had been extended to include the pos-session of land not by legislative act，but by long tradition. The conclusion we may draw is that it was the hereditary aspect which had been the core of the system thus evolved. Only in the tenth century was this modified.

????????? 然而，Oikonomides 將 Euthymios 的生活和 Theodore 的信件都理解為基于擁有土地的軍事服務，在技術意義上的軍事控股。但必須指出的是，有關文本中并沒有提及這一點——非常明確的是，服兵役的義務是依附于個人及其家庭的，并且是世襲的——父親去世，兒子有介入；如果沒有兒子，那么國家會收取一筆費用來代替這種服務，這筆費用將轉到財政局以支付其他士兵的費用。對于 7 世紀或 8 世紀后期的艱難狀態(tài)，這不會是一個不合邏輯的步驟，即使這意味著這些家庭的困難——來自 Philaretos 生活的 Mousoulios 就是一個恰當的例子，正如那些來自后期 Euthymios 和主教尼古拉斯一世的信中提到的男孩。我認為沒有理由假設這是基于擁有以某種方式注冊為“軍事”的土地，即使國家正如我們所說，認為某種收入的存在是理所當然的。因此，我再次爭辯說，我們從表面上看君士坦丁七世在他 945-959 年的小說《論士兵》的序言中——即基于占有土地的兵役實踐，根據習俗，這與有關銷售和傳輸的各種條件，直到 10 世紀才正式確定。這意味著與兵役有關的義務已經擴大到包括擁有土地，而不是通過立法，而是通過悠久的傳統(tǒng)。我們可以得出的結論是，遺傳方面是系統(tǒng)的核心，因而進化。僅在十世紀才進行了修改。

There is one important additional conclusion, however. For if Oikonomides' conclusion regarding the time from which a payment in lieu of military service was demanded by the state-the early eighth century; perhaps before——is correct, then the hereditary nature of military service must go back at least that far, too. It would suggest that even though the reign of Heraclius cannot be proved to be the time at which it was reintroduced for regular soldiers of the comitatenses, his reign or that of one of his immediate successors remains the most likely period at which this would have occurred.

????????? 然而，還有一個重要的附加結論。 因為如果 Oikonomides 關于國家要求支付代替兵役的費用的時間的結論——八世紀初；或許是之前——沒錯，那么兵役的世襲性也至少要追溯到那么遠。 這表明，即使不能證明赫拉克利烏斯的統(tǒng)治是重新為comitatenses的正規(guī)士兵重新引入的時間，但他的統(tǒng)治或其直接繼任者之一的統(tǒng)治仍然是最有可能發(fā)生這種情況的時期 .

未完待續(xù)