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

The fact that the value of the property deemed necessary to support a thematic cavalry soldier was set at some 4 or 5 pounds of gold, that of a marine of the naval themata at 2 to 3 pounds of gold, appears to support this. For in respect of what is known about land prices for the period, this appears at first sight to represent more than simply a peasant holding, but a substantial small estate. In consequence the theme soldiers whose property attained this value might be thought of as being relatively well-off, an established rural elite. While the price of land varied regionally, 4 pounds of gold (i.e., 288 nomismata) would have purchased between 250 and 600 modioi (that is about 25 to 60 hectares, or 61 to 148 acres), according to its quality (productivity) and its use.

????????? 支持軍區(qū)騎兵士兵所需的財(cái)產(chǎn)價(jià)值設(shè)定為大約 4 或 5 磅黃金，而海軍軍區(qū)的海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)士兵的價(jià)值為 2 至 3 磅黃金，這一事實(shí)似乎支持了這一點(diǎn)。 因?yàn)榫彤?dāng)時(shí)所知的地價(jià)而言，乍一看，這似乎不僅僅代表了一個(gè)農(nóng)民持有，而是一個(gè)可觀的小地產(chǎn)。 因此，財(cái)產(chǎn)達(dá)到這個(gè)值的軍區(qū)士兵可能被認(rèn)為是相對(duì)富裕的，一個(gè)成熟的農(nóng)村精英。 雖然土地價(jià)格因地區(qū)而異，但根據(jù)其質(zhì)量（生產(chǎn)力）和 它的用途。

In the later tenth and eleventh centuries, however, a range of figures suggests that the holding of a peasant paroikos, or tenant, with one or two oxen could vary considerably-between about 80 and 200 modioi, according to the area and the estate-figures which suggest that many of those stratiotai who were in possession of land valued at 4 pounds of gold were not necessarily all that distinct from many ordinary peasant tenants. And it is worth recalling that the figure of 4 or 5 pounds of gold is a figure that "ought" to be sufficient, suggesting that in reality there was a great deal of variation.

????????? 然而，在 10 世紀(jì)后期和 11 世紀(jì)，一系列數(shù)據(jù)表明，農(nóng)民的 paroikos 或佃戶擁有一兩只?？赡軙?huì)有很大差異——根據(jù)地區(qū)和莊園的不同，大約在 80 到 200 頭之間—— 數(shù)據(jù)表明，許多擁有價(jià)值 4 磅黃金土地的階層并不一定與許多普通的農(nóng)民佃戶完全不同。 值得回顧的是，4 或 5 磅黃金的數(shù)字是一個(gè)“應(yīng)該”足夠的數(shù)字，這表明實(shí)際上存在很大差異。

Of course, the legislation in which these figures appear, figures intended to protect the minimum amount of land registered and thenceforth inalienable (although it could be subdivided by inheritance), also assumes that some stratiotai may have possessed a good deal more land than this. But it is particularly important in this connection to recall that the legislation specifies that the strateia (which is to say, the land which pro-duces the income to support the strateia) should be of such-and-such a value, not, how-ever, the holding of a single individual. Partible inheritance, which was the norm, will have brought about the fragmentation of many such properties (and hence the need for the partial strateia), with the result likewise that many holders of strateia will have held probably rather small holdings from which to earn their living, and have been relatively impoverished. To speak in such a context of stratiotai as either "soldier-peasants" or as a rural "gentry" seems thus to oversimplify the issue.

????????? 當(dāng)然，這些數(shù)字出現(xiàn)的立法，旨在保護(hù)最低數(shù)量的注冊(cè)土地并從此不可剝奪（盡管它可以通過繼承細(xì)分），也假設(shè)某些階層可能擁有比這更多的土地。但在這方面特別重要的是要記住，立法規(guī)定地塊（也就是說，產(chǎn)生收入以支持地塊的土地）應(yīng)該具有這樣或那樣的價(jià)值，而不是如何——曾經(jīng)，持有一個(gè)人，部分繼承，這是常態(tài)，將導(dǎo)致許多此類財(cái)產(chǎn)的碎片化（因此需要部分財(cái)產(chǎn)），結(jié)果同樣是許多財(cái)產(chǎn)持有者可能持有相當(dāng)小的財(cái)產(chǎn)來賺取他們的收入。生活，相對(duì)貧困。在這樣一個(gè)階層的背景下，以“兵農(nóng)”或農(nóng)村“紳士”的身份說話，似乎過于簡(jiǎn)單化了這個(gè)問題。

There is a further consideration which must have had implications for the relative wealth and status of soldiers, whether holders of strateiai or serving men. This is the fact that, within each thematic army, there existed a differentiation between light and heavy cavalry and infantry as well as other arms-slingers, archers, and so on. In the period up to the middle of the seventh century, we may assume that, in its broad outline at least, the tactical organization of the later sixth century, as reflected in the account of Theophylact Simocatta, for example, or the so-called Strategikon of Maurice, continued to function. But what happened to the different specialist arms after the dispersal and localization of the armies had begun during the 640s and after? Did the Boukellarioi, for example, continue to function and be equipped as a crack division of heavy cavalry as described by the Strategikon? Similar considerations apply to the foederati, later forminga tourma in the Anatolikon thema, as well as the optimatoi (who were transformed into a support unit for the tagmata under Constantine V), or the Theodosiakoi and Biktores in the Thrakesion thema. Did the different banda into which each of the later thematic tourmai were divided maintain their original tactical armament, with all the implications for the cost of weapons and armor, training, and skills, that this entails? Or was this lost and reduced to a common denominator over the centuries?

???????? 進(jìn)一步的考慮，它一定對(duì)士兵的相對(duì)財(cái)富和地位產(chǎn)生了影響，無論是戰(zhàn)略持有者還是現(xiàn)役軍人。這就是事實(shí)，在每個(gè)主題軍隊(duì)中，輕重騎兵和步兵以及其他投石手、弓箭手等都存在差異。在直到 7 世紀(jì)中葉的這段時(shí)間里，我們可以假設(shè)，至少在其大體上，6 世紀(jì)后期的戰(zhàn)術(shù)組織，例如在 Theophylact Simocatta 的描述中所反映的那樣，或者所謂的莫里斯的 Strategikon 繼續(xù)發(fā)揮作用。但是，在 640 年代及之后軍隊(duì)開始分散和本地化之后，不同的專業(yè)兵種發(fā)生了什么？例如，Boukellarioi 是否繼續(xù)發(fā)揮作用并被裝備為 Strategikon 所描述的重型騎兵的精銳師？類似的考慮也適用于 foederati，后來在 Anatolikon thema 中形成了 tourma，以及 optimatoi（在君士坦丁五世時(shí)期被轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)?tagmata 的支持單位），或 Thrakesion thema 中的 Theodosiakoi 和 Biktores。將后來的每一個(gè)軍區(qū)圖爾邁劃分成的不同banda是否保持了他們最初的戰(zhàn)術(shù)武器，以及對(duì)武器和盔甲成本、訓(xùn)練和技能的所有影響，這意味著？還是在幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來，這已經(jīng)丟失并簡(jiǎn)化為一個(gè)共同點(diǎn)？

Lack of space prevents a full discussion of these issues here, important though they are. But for all these reasons, I do not think that the stratiotai formed a distinct social group, as stratiotai, although many of them must have belonged to a stratum of petty landlords and some to the lower reaches of the "powerful." By the same token, the extent to which a particular juridical status gave the poorer soldiers who held a strateia a slightly higher social position in anything other than legal fiction, therefore, is very difficult to determine. It may well be that their position was reinforced, for a time at least, by the imperial legislation protecting the properties on which service was based. And it must be remembered that this applied both to the actual soldiers, as well as to those whose properties supported the strateia. The position of the wealthiest theme soldiers with strateiai may, as already mentioned, have been further enhanced by the legislation of Nicephorus II, insofar as it expanded the gulf between the wealthier and poorer stratiotai. By the same token, it appears to have dramatically hastened the fiscalization of the strateia in general, with the result that the regular theme forces, of little military value in active offensive warfare, were more and more neglected, while the imperial armies were increasingly composed of professional, full-time soldiers, whether indigenous or not, whose local loyalties and embryonic associations with Byzantine society at the local level rapidly declined. The army of the later tenth and eleventh centuries became, in effect, socially deracinated.

????????? 空間不足阻礙了對(duì)這些問題的全面討論，盡管它們很重要。但是由于這些原因，我不認(rèn)為階層形成了一個(gè)獨(dú)特的社會(huì)群體，作為階層，雖然他們中的許多人一定屬于小地主階層，也有一些屬于“強(qiáng)權(quán)”的下層。出于同樣的原因，特定的法律地位在多大程度上賦予了那些在法律虛構(gòu)之外的任何東西中擁有略高的社會(huì)地位的貧困士兵，因此很難確定。很可能，至少在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)，他們的地位得到了加強(qiáng)，因?yàn)榈蹏?guó)立法保護(hù)了服務(wù)所依據(jù)的財(cái)產(chǎn)。并且必須記住，這既適用于實(shí)際士兵，也適用于那些財(cái)產(chǎn)支持戰(zhàn)略的人。正如已經(jīng)提到的那樣，最富有的軍區(qū)士兵的地位可能已經(jīng)被尼斯福魯斯二世的立法進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)，因?yàn)樗鼣U(kuò)大了富人和窮人之間的鴻溝。同理，它似乎大大加快了整個(gè)戰(zhàn)略的財(cái)政化進(jìn)程，結(jié)果是在積極的進(jìn)攻戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中沒有多少軍事價(jià)值的正規(guī)軍越來越被忽視，而帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)則越來越精簡(jiǎn)。專業(yè)的全職士兵，無論是否是土著，他們對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)氐闹艺\(chéng)度和與當(dāng)?shù)匕菡纪ド鐣?huì)的初步聯(lián)系迅速下降。 10 世紀(jì)末和 11 世紀(jì)的軍隊(duì)實(shí)際上在社會(huì)上被消滅了。

The period about which we are least well-informed remains that of the seventh and eighth centuries. We can only guess that the fiscal and juridical advantages of registering as a soldier brought social advantages too, just as they had done in the late Roman period, although once again there must have always existed differences in social standing consequent upon wealth and military role. But even in the crisis period of the tenth century such advantages must still have been important: Constantine VII's seventh novel makes it clear that individuals were still registering themselves and their properties, which they would hardly have done had it not been of advantage to them.

????????? 我們最不了解的時(shí)期仍然是七世紀(jì)和八世紀(jì)。 我們只能猜測(cè)，注冊(cè)為士兵的財(cái)政和司法優(yōu)勢(shì)也帶來了社會(huì)優(yōu)勢(shì)，就像他們?cè)诹_馬時(shí)期晚期所做的那樣，盡管由于財(cái)富和軍事角色，社會(huì)地位必然始終存在差異。 但即使在 10 世紀(jì)的危機(jī)時(shí)期，這些優(yōu)勢(shì)肯定仍然很重要：君士坦丁七世的第七部小說清楚地表明，個(gè)人仍在登記自己和財(cái)產(chǎn)，如果沒有這對(duì)他們有利，他們幾乎不會(huì)這樣做。

The general position of thematic soldiers as a special category in the late Roman sense begins to deteriorate from the tenth century, however. This is a result of several developments. First, the increasing tendency, which by the time of the reign of Constantine Monomachos (1042-55) had become general, except in certain border themata or provinces, to fiscalize the burden of military service, the strateia, so that it was commuted into a regular cash tax. Under Monomachos, the remaining border forces (of Mesopotamia and Iberia) were also stood down, their service likewise being commuted for a regular cash payment. The category of military lands continued to exist throughout the eleventh century, although the strateia came to represent merely one fiscal obligation among several.146 In addition, with the use of the device of pronoia to maintain soldiers (occasionally in the eleventh century, increasingly during the second half of the twelfth century and after), and with the reliance of the state on salaried tagmatic units made up of a mixture of both Byzantines and foreigners, together with foreign mercenaries under their own leaders, the peasants who had previously supplied the core of the theme armies were no longer differentiated from the mass of the rural population.

????????? 然而，軍區(qū)士兵作為晚期羅馬意義上的特殊類別的一般地位從十世紀(jì)開始惡化。這是幾個(gè)發(fā)展的結(jié)果。首先，到君士坦丁·莫諾馬喬斯（1042-55 年）統(tǒng)治時(shí)期，除了某些邊境軍區(qū)或省份外，這種趨勢(shì)越來越普遍，將兵役負(fù)擔(dān)財(cái)政化，即戰(zhàn)略，因此它被轉(zhuǎn)為定期現(xiàn)金稅。在 Monomachos 的統(tǒng)治下，剩余的邊防部隊(duì)（美索不達(dá)米亞和伊比利亞）也被停職，他們的服務(wù)同樣被通勤以定期支付現(xiàn)金。整個(gè) 11 世紀(jì)，軍用土地的類別繼續(xù)存在，盡管 Strateia 只是幾個(gè)財(cái)政義務(wù)中的一項(xiàng)。 146 此外，隨著使用 pronoia 裝置來維持士兵（偶爾在 11 世紀(jì)，在12 世紀(jì)下半葉及以后），并且由于國(guó)家對(duì)由拜占庭人和外國(guó)人以及他們自己領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的外國(guó)雇傭軍組成的受薪標(biāo)簽單位的依賴，以前提供核心的農(nóng)民軍區(qū)軍隊(duì)不再與廣大農(nóng)村人口區(qū)分開來。

This does not mean that soldiers did not continue to enjoy a particular legal status: there is no reason to think that non-Byzantines under their own leaders were treated any differently from indigenous soldiers. In respect of traditional juridical privileges and fiscal exemptions, it was the name and title of soldier which continued to be crucial, not the possession of a particular category of land. Whatever their origins, soldiers continued to be vital to the survival of the state. The emperor Alexios I praised those knights and foot soldiers who died during the course of the First Crusade as "blessed... since they met their end in good intent. Moreover, we ought not to regard them as dead, but living and transported to live everlasting and incorruptible"——echoing perhaps the sentiments expressed by the author of the treatise on skirmishing warfare more than a century earlier.

????????? 這并不意味著士兵沒有繼續(xù)享有特定的法律地位：沒有理由認(rèn)為在他們自己的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的非拜占庭人受到與土著士兵不同的待遇。 在傳統(tǒng)的司法特權(quán)和財(cái)政豁免方面，士兵的姓名和頭銜仍然是至關(guān)重要的，而不是擁有特定類別的土地。 無論他們的起源如何，士兵對(duì)國(guó)家的生存仍然至關(guān)重要。 阿萊克修斯一世皇帝稱贊那些在第一次十字軍東征期間犧牲的騎士和步兵“有福了……因?yàn)樗麄兩埔獾亟Y(jié)束了自己的生命。此外，我們不應(yīng)將他們視為死者，而應(yīng)將他們視為活著并運(yùn)送到 永垂不朽”——這或許與一個(gè)多世紀(jì)前關(guān)于小沖突的論文作者所表達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)相呼應(yīng)。

Second, one of the reasons for the important position of soldiers in practical terms in the period from the seventh to the tenth century was the absence of any other focus save the armies for nonmetropolitan or provincial opinion, and the central position of the strategoi, the thematic commanders, in imperial politics. From the tenth century, the recovery of commerce and provincial urban fortunes, coupled with the civilianization of thematic administration into the first half of the eleventh century, with the rise to prominence of a provincial magnate class and with the disposable wealth and the influence of all who held imperial titles, altered these conditions, so that the structural position of soldiers in society as a whole changed.

????????? 其次，在 7 世紀(jì)到 10 世紀(jì)期間，士兵在實(shí)際意義上具有重要地位的原因之一是除了軍隊(duì)之外沒有其他關(guān)注點(diǎn)，而軍隊(duì)的非本部或省級(jí)輿論，以及戰(zhàn)略的中心地位，即 帝國(guó)政治中的專題指揮官。 從十世紀(jì)開始，商業(yè)和省城財(cái)富的恢復(fù)，加上專題管理的平民化進(jìn)入十一世紀(jì)上半葉，隨著省級(jí)豪門階級(jí)的崛起和可支配的財(cái)富和所有人的影響力 誰擁有皇位，改變了這些條件，從而使士兵在整個(gè)社會(huì)中的結(jié)構(gòu)地位發(fā)生了變化。

This is a very important point, for it seems to me that, with the developments of the middle and later seventh century, soldiers had become an increasingly integral part of rural provincial society, much more so than they had ever been before. The military lands, as they were eventually defined during the tenth century, were a by-product of this integration; and as the state's demands for soldiers in the offensive and expansionist campaigns of the tenth century and the political considerations of the eleventh century stimulated radical changes in both the mode of supporting the armies, on the one hand (fiscalization of the strateia), and the sources of soldiers, on the other, so the military lands and the provincial armies or militias which they had supported ultimately passed away, although it has to be said that there are a number of unresolved questions in this respect. During the course of the tenth century, there set in a process of separation of the regular troops of the empire from the mass of the ordinary, rural population, a process which was completed by the last quarter of the eleventh century and which I have already characterized as one of social deracination.

????????? 這是非常重要的一點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樵谖铱磥恚S著七世紀(jì)中后期的發(fā)展，士兵已成為農(nóng)村省級(jí)社會(huì)日益不可或缺的一部分，比以往任何時(shí)候都更加重要。最終在十世紀(jì)定義的軍事土地是這種整合的副產(chǎn)品。并且由于國(guó)家在 10 世紀(jì)的進(jìn)攻和擴(kuò)張主義運(yùn)動(dòng)中對(duì)士兵的需求以及 11 世紀(jì)的政治考慮刺激了一方面支持軍隊(duì)的方式（戰(zhàn)略的財(cái)政化）和另一方面，他們支持的軍事土地和省軍或民兵最終消失了，盡管不得不說在這方面還有許多懸而未決的問題。在 10 世紀(jì)的過程中，帝國(guó)的正規(guī)軍隊(duì)與普通農(nóng)村人口開始了一個(gè)分離的過程，這個(gè)過程在 11 世紀(jì)的最后 25 年完成。

But this change in the structural position of the soldier, and in the organization and financing of the armies, did not necessarily affect their position in the ideological scheme of things. It did mean a greater distance between provincial society and the armies, as the latter came increasingly to be made up of men not recruited from, and based for a much shorter time in, the areas they happened to be passing through or defending. And while this does not mean that tagmata recruited from the provinces were never based in their own districts, nor that traditional thematic forces could not still be raised (until the 1070s, at least), it does mean that the full-time and mercenary basis on which they served qualitatively affected their relationship to the population from which they were drawn. The contrast between the two periods is brought out most clearly in the archival documents, from which it is clear that the notorious institution of mitaton served as one of the main means of supporting troops, both in transit and in their camps as well as not on active service-in the earlier period, the majority of provincial soldiers had been dispersed in their homes (the need for a general muster before campaigns, so frequently referred to in the sources up to the first half of the tenth century, is ample evidence for this), and billeted on civilians only during campaigns. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the shift from a system of partly self-supporting soldier-militias, raised and maintained on a local basis, to that of an essentially mercenary army which had to be supported by cash and corvwes imposed upon the ordinary population than the regular occurrence in the surviving archival documents of exemptions from mitaton and related aggareiai granted by the emperors to monastic and ecclesiastical landlords. Eleventh-century sources refer quite clearly to the cantonment of mercenary troops in the provinces, without doubt through the application of mitaton. Interestingly, the anonymous treatise on campaign procedures written in the reign of either John I Tzimiskes or Basil II implies that general adnoumia ormusters had fallen out of use in recent years, evidence perhaps of the preeminent role of "tagmatic" units raised on a mercenary basis, for whom such musters or "call-ups" would not be relevant.

????????? 但這種士兵結(jié)構(gòu)地位的變化，以及軍隊(duì)組織和經(jīng)費(fèi)方面的變化，并不一定會(huì)影響他們?cè)谒枷塍w系中的地位。這確實(shí)意味著省級(jí)社會(huì)和軍隊(duì)之間的距離越來越遠(yuǎn)，因?yàn)楹笳咴絹碓蕉嗟赜刹皇菑乃麄兣銮山?jīng)過或保衛(wèi)的地區(qū)招募的人組成，而且駐扎的時(shí)間要短得多。雖然這并不意味著從各省招募的塔格瑪塔永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)駐扎在他們自己的地區(qū)，也不意味著仍然無法培養(yǎng)傳統(tǒng)的軍區(qū)部隊(duì)（至少直到 1070 年代），但這確實(shí)意味著全職和雇傭兵的基礎(chǔ)他們所服務(wù)的地方在質(zhì)量上影響了他們與他們所在人群的關(guān)系。兩個(gè)時(shí)期之間的對(duì)比在檔案文件中最為明顯，從中可以清楚地看出，臭名昭著的米塔頓機(jī)構(gòu)是支持軍隊(duì)的主要手段之一，無論是在過境還是在他們的營(yíng)地以及不在現(xiàn)役——在早期，大部分省級(jí)士兵都分散在家中（直到 10 世紀(jì)上半葉的資料中經(jīng)常提到的戰(zhàn)役前總集結(jié)的需要，充分證明了這），并且僅在競(jìng)選期間向平民提供住宿。沒有什么比這更清楚地說明了從在地方基礎(chǔ)上建立和維持的部分自給自足的士兵-民兵體系轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楸仨氂蓮?qiáng)加給普通民眾的現(xiàn)金和烏鴉支持的本質(zhì)上的雇傭軍體系的轉(zhuǎn)變。在現(xiàn)存的檔案文件中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)皇帝授予修道院和教會(huì)地主免于 mitaton 和相關(guān) aggareiai 的情況。 11 世紀(jì)的資料非常清楚地提到了雇傭軍在各省的駐扎，毫無疑問是通過 mitaton 的應(yīng)用。有趣的是，在約翰一世齊米克斯或巴西爾二世統(tǒng)治時(shí)期撰寫的關(guān)于競(jìng)選程序的匿名論文暗示，一般的 adnoumia ormusters 近年來已不再使用，這可能證明了在雇傭基礎(chǔ)上建立的“tagmatic”單位的卓越作用，對(duì)他們來說，這樣的召集或“召集”將不相關(guān)。

Such soldiers were as important as ever to the defense and security of the state, Orthodoxy, and the dominant social groups, and in the official ideology they still held their significance. But the transformation of the structures of state administration, and of the relationship between the state, the ruling elite of magnate clans, holders of imperial dignities, the wealthy and middling urban and landowning families, on the one hand, and the depressed rural population, on the other, lent to the armies and their members a very different character and position in the structure of late Byzantine society and politics. In spite of the dramatic changes that affected Roman administration and institutions during and after the seventh century, it would be reasonable to conclude that what we in fact have until the tenth century is a highly evolved version of the late Roman state, together with the institutional norms and structures which were inherited from that time. From the tenth to the twelfth century, these institutions are further radically transformed, with the result that the military comes to occupy a very different position in society, and to represent a very different set of institutions and social relationships from those which had gone before.

????????? 這些士兵對(duì)國(guó)家、東正教和占主導(dǎo)地位的社會(huì)群體的防御和安全一如既往地重要，在官方意識(shí)形態(tài)中，他們?nèi)匀痪哂兄匾饬x。但是，一方面國(guó)家行政結(jié)構(gòu)的轉(zhuǎn)變，以及國(guó)家、宗族統(tǒng)治精英、皇室貴族、富裕的中等城市和地主家庭與貧困的農(nóng)村人口之間的關(guān)系，另一方面，在拜占庭晚期社會(huì)和政治結(jié)構(gòu)中，軍隊(duì)及其成員具有非常不同的特征和地位。盡管在 7 世紀(jì)期間和之后影響了羅馬行政和制度的巨大變化，但有理由得出這樣的結(jié)論：直到 10 世紀(jì)，我們實(shí)際上擁有的是晚期羅馬國(guó)家的高度進(jìn)化版本，連同制度從那個(gè)時(shí)代繼承下來的規(guī)范和結(jié)構(gòu)。從 10 世紀(jì)到 12 世紀(jì)，這些機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)一步發(fā)生了根本性的轉(zhuǎn)變，其結(jié)果是軍隊(duì)在社會(huì)中占據(jù)了非常不同的位置，并代表了與以前完全不同的一套機(jī)構(gòu)和社會(huì)關(guān)系。

The history of its development after the twelfth century has been supplied by other scholars. In particular, attention has been drawn to the shifts in strategic priorities which followed from the empire's isolated and internally unstable position from the 1260s onward, shifts which themselves promoted a very different, and very much more heterogeneous military structure than was the case in the earlier period. But that is yet another story, already taken up by other historians, and I do not wish to pursue it here.

????????? 其他學(xué)者提供了其十二世紀(jì)以后的發(fā)展歷史。 尤其值得注意的是，從 1260 年代起，帝國(guó)處于孤立和內(nèi)部不穩(wěn)定的地位之后，戰(zhàn)略重點(diǎn)發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)變，這些轉(zhuǎn)變本身促進(jìn)了一種與早期情況截然不同、更加多樣化的軍事結(jié)構(gòu) 時(shí)期。 但那是另一個(gè)故事，已經(jīng)被其他歷史學(xué)家討論過了，我不想在這里深究。

未完待續(xù)