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

V. THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGINS OF THE “MILITARY LANDS”

五、“軍地”的起源問題

For the purposes of the present discussion we will define "military lands" in the simplest sense as holdings of varying extent, held by a person who was entered in the military registers as owing military service hereditarily to the state, which service was supported in respect of basic equipment and, to a degree, provisions, from the income derived from that land. Eventually, the land itself came to be regarded as inalienable.

????????? 出于目前討論的目的，我們將在最簡單的意義上將“軍事土地”定義為不同程度的財產，由在軍事登記冊上登記為國家的世襲服兵役的人持有，該服務在以下方面得到支持 基本設備和一定程度上的供給來自那塊土地的收入。 最終，土地本身被認為是不可分割的。

What evidence is there, therefore, for the relationship between soldiers and land? It derives largely from a small number of legal texts, probably of the first half of the eighth century, from hagiography, and from individual references in letters or in narrative histories and chronicles, until we meet the legislation of the Macedonian emperors in the tenth century. As we will see below, the late Roman evidence for soldiers' fiscal status and land is also relevant. From all this material, I think we are justified in drawing the following conclusions.

????????? 那么，兵地關系有什么證據呢？ 它主要來源于少數法律文本，可能是 8 世紀上半葉的，來源于圣徒傳記，以及信件或敘事歷史和編年史中的個別參考資料，直到我們在 10 世紀遇到馬其頓皇帝的立法 . 正如我們將在下面看到的，羅馬晚期關于士兵財政狀況和土地的證據也是相關的。 從所有這些材料中，我認為我們有理由得出以下結論。

In the first place, there seems little doubt that by about 740, and probably already well before this time, some soldiers were being supported for their military service by their families and relatives. By the same token, it appears that they could also own their arms and military equipment (a clear contrast with the earlier period, when such items always remained ultimately the property of the state); and that they were expected to replace items of equipment and mounts at their own expense. Two legal texts of this time in particular, which I will examine in greater detail below, make this abundantly clear. But there was no obligation on the families of soldiers to support them-both texts in question deal with the consequences of what we would term breaches of contract between different members of such families regarding the outgoings on equipment provided by the household, the income from booty and state payments received by the soldier, and the degree of reciprocity between the two.

????????? 首先，毫無疑問，大約在 740 年左右，而且很可能早在這個時間之前，一些士兵就得到了他們的家人和親戚的支持以供他們服兵役。 出于同樣的原因，他們似乎也可以擁有自己的武器和軍事裝備（與早期形成鮮明對比，當時這些物品最終始終歸國家所有）； 并且他們應該自費更換設備和坐騎。 我將在下面更詳細地研究這段時間的兩份法律文本，特別清楚地說明了這一點。 但是，士兵家屬沒有義務支持他們——有問題的兩份案文都處理了我們稱之為此類家庭不同成員之間在家庭提供的設備支出、戰(zhàn)利品收入方面違反合同的后果。 和士兵收到的國家付款，以及兩者之間的互惠程度。

The first of the two texts has been dated by its editor to approximately the middle of the eighth century, probably to the joint reigns of Leo III and Constantine V. It represents a ruling on an obligation outstanding between a soldier and his father-in law, in which the latter's contribution to the soldier's military service and the appropriate level of compensation is at issue. The key element lies in the fact that the father-in-law has the right to receive back a proportion of what he invested in his son-in-law's main tenance and equipment, if the latter later leaves the household. The assumption behind the ruling is that the agreement by which the son-in-law moved into his father-in-law's household is now ended-and that the son-in-law is therefore no longer contributing to the household. There is no need to assume, of course, that the household was in any way obliged to support the soldier: the ruling merely represents the conditions under which a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement could be terminated.

????????? 兩部文本中的第一部被其編輯定為大約 8 世紀中葉，可能是利奧三世和君士坦丁五世的聯合統(tǒng)治時期。它代表了對士兵與其岳父之間未盡義務的裁決，其中后者對士兵服兵役的貢獻和適當的補償水平是有問題的。關鍵在于，如果女婿后來離開家庭，岳父有權收回他投資于其主要租賃和設備的一定比例。該裁決背后的假設是，女婿搬入其岳父家的協(xié)議現已終止，因此女婿不再為該家庭做出貢獻。當然，沒有必要假設家庭以任何方式有義務支持士兵：裁決僅代表可以終止互利合同安排的條件。

The second text comes from the legal compilation the Ecloga, issued by Leo and Constantine in 741, chapter 6.2, and deals with the case of brothers, one a soldier, who jointly inherit the parental estate and household.57 It illustrates a similar point as in the first text. Here the ruling is that the brother in military service, and those who continue to work the land or farm the estate (the extent to which those involved are landlords or actual peasant exploiters is unclear), should divide their incomes equally if (in the absence of any formal agreement stipulating otherwise) the soldier decides to leave the household permanently within ten years of the parents' decease. If the separation oc curs between ten and thirteen years of this event, the same division occurs, with the proviso that the soldier retain his military equipment, which is exempted from the di vision of property. If the separation occurs after a period of thirteen years or more of common ownership of the parental estate, then the soldier is to retain everything he has earned as a soldier after the said thirteenth year.

????????? 第二個文本來自于 741 年 Leo 和 Constantine 出版的 Ecloga 的法律匯編，第 6.2 章，處理兄弟的情況，一個是士兵，他們共同繼承父母的財產和家庭。 57 它說明了類似的觀點在第一個文本中。這里的判決是服兵役的兄弟和繼續(xù)在土地上耕種的人（涉及的人是地主還是實際的農民剝削者的程度尚不清楚），如果（在不存在的情況下）應平均分配收入任何正式協(xié)議另有規(guī)定）士兵決定在父母去世后十年內永久離開家庭。如果分離發(fā)生在此事件的十年至十三年之間，則發(fā)生相同的劃分，條件是士兵保留其軍事裝備，不受財產劃分。如果分居發(fā)生在父母財產共有 13 年或更長時間之后，則士兵將在上述第 13 年之后保留他作為士兵所獲得的一切。

Two points need to be made. First, the soldier's income was regarded as contributory to the common household; concomitantly, the soldier is clearly regarded as being supported by the household, at least to a degree-this is certainly the case in the first text referred to above. If this were not the case, there would have been little purpose to the legislation, which appears to have been established to regulate a problem which might arise or had already arisen. The soldier would simply have kept his military equipment and his pay, as well as his share of the inherited property, according to traditional legal prescription. The other brother or brothers would likewise have received their portion, but none of the soldier's income-which, it is important to note, had always enjoyed a specific statute, defined as peculium castrense/stratiotikon pekoulion, which exempted it from such subdivision or infringement-a statute which Ecloga 6.1, immediately pre ceding the second of these two texts, makes abundantly clear.

????????? 有兩點需要說明。首先，士兵的收入被視為對普通家庭的貢獻；與此同時，士兵顯然被認為是由家庭撫養(yǎng)的，至少在一定程度上——這在上面提到的第一個文本中肯定是這種情況。如果不是這種情況，立法就沒有什么意義了，它似乎是為了規(guī)范可能出現或已經出現的問題而制定的。根據傳統(tǒng)的法律規(guī)定，士兵只會保留他的軍事裝備和工資，以及他在繼承財產中的份額。其他兄弟或兄弟同樣會收到他們的部分，但沒有士兵的收入 - 重要的是要注意，一直享有特定法規(guī)，定義為 peculium castrense/stratiotikon pekoulion，該法規(guī)免除其進行此類細分或侵權- Ecloga 6.1 法規(guī)，緊接在這兩個文本的第二個之前，非常清楚。

Second, since the horse, weapons, and so on are specifically excluded from the di vision of property (unlike his other income), the implication must surely be that the remaining brother(s) may have had some claim on them. They were therefore specifically exempted in the interests of the state. Again, there is absolutely no reason to think that the household had been in any way obliged to support the soldier, a point I have emphasized elsewhere: the specific situation outlined in the Ecloga passage means simply that in this case the household had been a supportive element and should therefore receive appropriate compensation for its investment. It is worth emphasizing the fact that, if the subdivision of the property were simply a matter of apportioning the joint wealth of the brothers, the graded nature of the Ecloga stipulations would have been irrelevant. Instead, the jurists who drew up the clause clearly saw the need to compensate the household or estate for the soldier's departure up to a period of ten years. Thereafter, the soldier's income was assumed to have covered some aspects of his maintenance, and he kept horse and weapons; after thirteen years, his obligations were quit.

????????? 其次，由于馬匹、武器等被明確排除在財產分割之外（與他的其他收入不同），這意味著剩下的兄弟可能對它們有一些要求。因此，為了國家利益，他們被特別豁免。同樣，絕對沒有理由認為家庭以任何方式有義務支持士兵，這一點我在別處強調過：Ecloga 段落中概述的具體情況僅意味著在這種情況下家庭一直支持元素，因此應為其投資獲得適當的補償。值得強調的是，如果分割財產僅僅是兄弟共同財產的分配問題，那么Ecloga規(guī)定的分級性質就無關緊要了。相反，起草該條款的法學家清楚地看到，有必要為士兵的離去補償家庭或財產，最長期限為十年。此后，士兵的收入被假定為維持他的某些方面，他保留馬匹和武器；十三年后，他的義務被取消了。

This interpretation is supported by the legal decision attributed to Leo and Con stantine mentioned already, which again seeks to regulate a possible conflict of claims over property or income owed to one side or another of two contracting parties. In the case of the Ecloga text, the whole point is that there was no written contract, hence conflict might arise.

????????? 這一解釋得到了前面提到的利奧和康斯坦丁的法律裁決的支持，該裁決再次試圖規(guī)范對欠兩個締約方中的一方或另一方的財產或收入的可能的索賠沖突。 在 Ecloga 文本的情況下，重點是沒有書面合同，因此可能會出現沖突。

There is absolutely no suggestion in either case that the household had been originally obliged to support the soldier. Merely that, in the specific examples envisaged (which probably reflect actual cases brought to law), it had contributed to his costs and maintenance in one form or another, and was therefore legally entitled to compensation if the soldier left before he had acquitted his debt. More importantly, the decision at tributed to Leo and Constantine contains an implicit emendation of the traditional regulations pertaining to military peculium, since it clearly grants the father-in-law a claim on this normally inalienable property of the soldier, whether or not he was still a minor, as the analysis of the text's editor, Dieter Simon, shows. This is crucial. It suggests not only that households could and did support soldiers, but that this contribution had been juridically recognized in the right of the contributing parties to make a claim on the hitherto untouchable military peculium for recompense. The very fact that such matters appear to have been dealt with in the imperial court, and merited such explicit treatment in the Ecloga, is itself not without significance. It suggests that such conflicts were likely to arise more often than just occasionally.

????????? 在這兩種情況下，都絕對沒有暗示家庭原本有義務供養(yǎng)士兵。僅僅是在設想的具體例子中（可能反映了訴諸法律的實際案件），它以一種或另一種形式增加了他的費用和贍養(yǎng)費，因此如果士兵在他的債務清償之前離開，他在法律上有權獲得賠償.更重要的是，向利奧和君士坦丁致敬的決定包含對與軍事佩克利有關的傳統(tǒng)規(guī)定的隱含修正，因為它明確授予岳父對士兵通常不可剝奪的財產的要求，無論他是否是正如文本編輯迪特·西蒙 (Dieter Simon) 的分析所顯示的那樣，仍然是未成年人。這是至關重要的。它不僅表明家庭能夠而且確實支持士兵，而且這種貢獻在法律上得到承認，貢獻方有權要求迄今為止不可動搖的軍費作為補償。此類問題似乎已在朝廷中得到處理，并在 Ecloga 中得到如此明確的處理，這一事實本身并非沒有意義。這表明此類沖突可能會更頻繁地發(fā)生，而不僅僅是偶爾發(fā)生。

The fact that by the early eighth century (at the latest) soldiers' service could be partly supported by their households is now generally accepted. But there is still no evidence, certainly not from any of the texts discussed so far, that military service was juridically bound to the land, or that families had a formal obligation to support a family member who was a soldier. In passages from the Lives of Philaretos, written down in the first half of the ninth century and describing events of the second half of the eighth century, and of Eustratios, composed in the later ninth century and purporting to de scribe events earlier in the same century, poor soldiers are rescued from disciplinary proceedings at the hands of the local military staff by the saints, who lend their own horses to soldiers whose horses have died. The stories make it quite apparent that these are soldiers who were responsible personally for the maintenance and expenses of their military service, but there is still no formal connection with land evident.

????????? 到 8 世紀早期（最遲）士兵的服務可以由他們的家庭部分支持的事實現在已被普遍接受。但仍然沒有證據，當然也沒有從目前討論的任何文本中得出，兵役在法律上與土地有關，或者家庭有正式的義務支持一個軍人家庭成員。在 9 世紀上半葉寫下的 Philaretos 生平的段落中，描述了 8 世紀下半葉的事件，以及 9 世紀后期撰寫的 Eustratios 的段落，聲稱描述了同一時期早些時候的事件世紀，可憐的士兵在當地軍事人員的手中被圣徒從紀律處分中解救出來，他們將自己的馬借給馬已死亡的士兵。這些故事很明顯地表明這些士兵個人負責他們的軍事服務的維持和費用，但仍然沒有明顯的與土地的正式聯系。

In a letter of 801, to which Oikonomides has drawn attention, Theodore the Studite refers to Empress Irene's abolition of the imposition upon soldiers' widows of payments which appear to have been made in lieu of their deceased husbands' military service. Oikonomides has argued that this text can be understood to imply that a connection already existed from this time, and even from before the reign of Leo III, between military service and soldiers' property; but, although this is a possible interpretation, I would argue that we might equally be faced with a straightforward connection between military service and fiscal compensation imposed on soldiers’families，in which the nature and degree of property held by the family in question played no role in the state's calculations, since military service for such soldiers was certainly hereditary. The ways in which the property and in particular the military equipment of soldiers supported by their families in the two legal texts referred to was disposed of would reinforce this suggestion.

????????? 在 801 年的一封信中，奧科諾米德斯引起了人們的注意，學徒西奧多 (Theodore the Studite) 提到艾琳皇后取消了對士兵遺孀征收的款項，這些款項似乎是為了代替已故丈夫的兵役而支付的。奧科諾米德斯認為，這段文字可以理解為暗示，從那時起，甚至在利奧三世統(tǒng)治之前，兵役和士兵財產之間就已經存在聯系；但是，雖然這是一種可能的解釋，但我認為我們可能同樣面臨兵役與對士兵家庭施加的財政補償之間的直接聯系，其中所涉家庭擁有的財產的性質和程度無關緊要。在國家計算中的作用，因為這些士兵的兵役肯定是世襲的。兩部法律文本中提到的士兵的財產，特別是其家人供養(yǎng)的士兵的軍事裝備的處置方式將強化這一建議。

Whatever the correct interpretation, there does seem to be clear evidence for soldiers supporting themselves from the early eighth century, and this can reasonably be assumed to be something that was by then already well established. My suggestion is that this developed in the context of the state's difficulties in adequately supplying and provisioning its provincial forces, a reflection of the awful problems of solvency it faced in this period, together with the inevitable and well-known consequences of soldiers' settlement on a permanent basis in the provinces and their consequent embedding in local society. In particular, we must remember that the acquisition of land would have been a perfectly normal consequence, as evidence from the sixth century clearly demonstrates. And soldiers' land would have shared in the special fiscal status granted to soldiers themselves, most particularly in respect of immunity from certain extraordinary munera.

????????? 無論正確的解釋是什么，似乎確實有明確的證據表明，從 8 世紀早期開始，士兵就可以養(yǎng)活自己，并且可以合理地假設，這在當時已經很成熟。 我的建議是，這是在國家難以充分供應和供應省級軍隊的背景下發(fā)展起來的，反映了它在這一時期面臨的可怕的償付能力問題，以及士兵解決問題的不可避免和眾所周知的后果。 在各省建立永久基礎，并因此融入當地社會。 特別是，我們必須記住，征用土地是完全正常的結果，正如 6 世紀的證據清楚地表明的那樣。 士兵的土地將分享給士兵自己的特殊財政地位，尤其是在某些特殊的munera 的豁免權方面。

But I would still reject any idea of the state formally setting up by legislative act a special category of such soldiers. Indeed, the very heterogeneity of recruitment methods and types of soldier familiar from the eighth, and certainly from the ninth and tenth, century would reinforce this suggestion. Thus it is clear from texts of the later ninth and tenth centuries that there were at least two types of provincial soldier in the "self-supporting" category: some supplied their own equipment and mounts, as well as their provisions; other, poorer soldiers were responsible for their mounts and weapons, but received also siteresia, supplies and provisions, from the state. Indeed, two texts strongly suggest that the proportion of soldiers who could actually properly support themselves in provisions, as well as equipment and horse, was quite small. And by the tenth century, if not before, the sources reveal a whole category of soldiers who, while registered on the military rolls, were supplied almost entirely by state impositions (and requisitions) upon the wealthy for horses, equipment, and servants or esquires.

????????? 但我仍然反對國家通過立法正式設立此類士兵的特殊類別的任何想法。事實上，從八世紀，當然從九世紀和十世紀熟悉的招募方法和士兵類型的異質性會加強這一建議。因此，從九世紀后期和十世紀的文本中可以清楚地看出，“自立”類別中至少有兩種省級士兵：一些提供自己的裝備和坐騎，以及他們的供給；其他較貧窮的士兵負責他們的坐騎和武器，但也從國家獲得了siteresia、補給和供給。事實上，有兩篇文字強烈表明，實際上能夠在糧食以及裝備和馬匹方面適當養(yǎng)活自己的士兵比例非常小。到了 10 世紀，如果不是更早的話，消息來源顯示出一整類士兵，他們雖然登記在軍事名冊上，但幾乎完全由國家強加（和征用）向富人提供馬匹、裝備、仆人或侍從.

When we look at the measures taken by emperor Nicephorus I in respect of soldiers' lands and their obligations, we again have the impression that, while the land from which the soldier was supported, or supposed to be supported, was relevant in the state's fiscal calculations, it had not yet been related bindingly to military service, which was still attached to the individual soldier. For military service was almost certainly hereditary from the later seventh century at the latest, as I will suggest below, although exactly when it became so is uncertain. It had not been, except by custom in the limitanei, in the sixth and early seventh centuries. My own preference is for an early reintroduction, under Heraclius, although there is no explicit evidence for this. R. J. Lilie suggests the reign of Leo IV but, as we will again see below, the letter of Theodore the Studite can be used to demonstrate that it was already in force considerably earlier than this. Either way, the hereditary nature of military service is a crucial element in our understanding of the relationship between soldiers' property and military service.

????????? 當我們看看尼西弗魯斯一世皇帝就士兵的土地及其義務采取的措施時，我們再次有這樣的印象，雖然支持或應該支持士兵的土地與國家財政有關計算，它尚未與兵役有約束力相關，兵役仍然依附于單個士兵。因為兵役幾乎可以肯定是最遲從 7 世紀后期開始世襲的，正如我將在下面建議的那樣，盡管具體何時變成這樣還不確定。在六世紀和七世紀早期，除limitanei 的習慣外，還沒有。我個人傾向于在赫拉克略的領導下盡早重新引入，盡管沒有明確的證據證明這一點。 R. J. Lilie 暗示了利奧四世的統(tǒng)治，但是，正如我們將在下面再次看到的，Theodore the Studite 的信可以用來證明它在比這更早的時候就已經生效了。無論哪種方式，兵役的世襲性質是我們理解士兵財產與兵役之間關系的關鍵因素。

There are a number of other texts, however, which can shed a little more light on the question of this relationship. Among the notorious "evil deeds" ascribed to Nice phorus I by the chronographer Theophanes was the stipulation that soldiers who could not afford their military equipment and service were to be helped by contributions（the form of which is unclear, but to the value of 18 1/2 nomismata) to cover their costs and their public taxes.

????????? 然而，還有許多其他文本可以對這種關系的問題提供更多的啟示。 計時員西奧芬斯 (Theophanes) 將尼斯 phorus I 歸咎于臭名昭著的“惡行”，其中一項規(guī)定是，負擔不起軍事裝備和服役費用的士兵必須通過捐款來幫助（其形式尚不清楚，但價值 18又1/2 nomismata）來支付他們的費用和公共稅。

Two points, however, are generally disregarded in discussions of this passage. First, these measures are in the context of a general calling up of impoverished soldiers, many of whom the state was actually transferring (along with their better-off fellow peasants and comrades-in-arms) from Asia Minor to Thrace, where they were to be resettled. Their poverty was a result of both their original condition and of the forced transfer and selling of their property (for which, the text implies, they were themselves responsible-again, no state-protected "military holding" is envisaged here, although one may read into the text the possibility of a forced sale of property to the state at fixed prices, which affected the better-off in particular). Both of these measures appear to have been novel-not only the contributions of cash to equip the soldiers in question, familiar from tenth-century texts (see below) and known as syndosia, but also the communal payment of their normal fiscal dues (the land- and hearth-taxes), familiar in respect of ordinary taxpayers, of course, who were unable to cover their tax payments, but now applied for the first time to poorer members of the community who were also soldiers.

????????? 然而，在討論這段經文時，一般忽略了兩點。首先，這些措施是在普遍征召貧困士兵的背景下進行的，其中許多人實際上是（連同他們富裕的農民同胞和戰(zhàn)友）從小亞細亞轉移到色雷斯，在那里他們被重新安置。他們的貧困既是由于他們的原始狀況，也是由于他們的財產被強制轉讓和出售（文本暗示，他們自己對此負有責任——同樣，這里沒有設想受國家保護的“軍事控股”，盡管人們可能將財產以固定價格強制出售給國家的可能性讀入文本，這尤其影響了富裕者）。這兩項措施似乎都很新穎——不僅是現金捐助裝備有問題的士兵，這在 10 世紀的文本中很熟悉（見下文）并被稱為 Syndosia，而且還有他們正常財政會費的公共支付（土地稅和壁爐稅），對于普通納稅人來說是熟悉的，當然，他們無法支付他們的稅款，但現在第一次向社區(qū)中同樣是士兵的較貧困成員申請。

Second, the first part of this order has generally been understood to mean that the emperor wished to recruit previously unregistered poor persons into the army and equip them through communal subscription. As I have argued before, however, this is a most improbable interpretation. It seems much more likely that these "poor" were already registered, but as they were considered unable to provide adequately for their service they were generally not actually called up. Once more, it would seem that while landed property was relevant to the state's concerns about supporting its armies, there existed even at this stage no firm juridically defined bond between the possession of land and military service. I would argue that Nicephorus' measure recognized, and was intended to help, the sort of impoverished soldier typified by Mousoulios, mentioned above, and served to bolster considerably the number of soldiers available to local officers and, at the same time, more effectively exploit the resources available to the state. How effective it was is unclear, although a passage from a later ninth-century Life, that of Eustratios, has the saint once more giving his horse to a poor soldier.

????????? 第二，這個命令的第一部分通常被理解為皇帝希望招募以前未登記的窮人入伍，并通過集體訂閱來裝備他們。然而，正如我之前所論證的，這是一種最不可能的解釋。這些“窮人”似乎更有可能已經注冊，但由于他們被認為無法為他們的服務提供充分的服務，他們通常實際上并沒有被召集。再一次，雖然土地財產與國家對支持其軍隊的關注有關，但即使在這個階段，土地擁有與兵役之間也不存在牢固的法律定義的聯系。我認為 Nicephorus 的措施承認并旨在幫助上述以 Mousoulios 為代表的那種貧困士兵，并有助于大大增加當地軍官可用的士兵數量，同時更有效地利用國家可用的資源。它的效果如何尚不清楚，盡管在 9 世紀后期的一段生活中，Eustratios 的一段話讓圣人再次將他的馬送給了一個可憐的士兵。

The analysis of these texts, and a number of other passages from ninth- and tenth century saint's Lives and collections of miracles, has shown that until the tenth century there seems to have been no binding legal connection between the possession of land and military service for the types of provincial or thematic soldiers discussed so far. This does not mean that as time passed (i.e., over the eighth and ninth centuries) the state did not come increasingly to view the possession of landed property as an important prerequisite for the registration of soldiers in the thematic armies. Since military service for certain categories of soldier appears to have been hereditary (although it is unclear on what basis the differentiation among such categories was made), the combination of this with the possession of land would, in theory, have ensured the state of a core of soldiers in each district available for local military service, supporting themselves to one level or another, around whom mercenary and short-term recruits could be assembled when necessary. During the first half of the tenth century, however, the state decided to classify these possessions and to formalize the conditions under which they could be held or transferred by registering them (up to a certain value) in the local military and fiscal codices, chiefly to protect them from the expansionist land-grabbing of "the powerful"-a broad category, representing both magnates and lesser local landlords who could expand their own possession at the expense of the weaker members of their fiscal community. The reasons for this action are generally agreed upon. In addition，the gradual extension of the obligations from individual families to the lands which served as the basis for their service, which seems to have taken place during the first half of the tenth century, also meant a greater flexibility for the state in extracting the resources thus available-the land could be measured, fixed, and permanently registered; the wealth it produced could be converted into soldiers in the form of personal service of the possessors, or through commutation, or through substitution.

????????? 對這些文本以及 9 世紀和 10 世紀《圣徒生平》和《奇跡集》中的其他一些段落的分析表明，直到 10 世紀，擁有土地和服兵役之間似乎沒有具有約束力的法律聯系。到目前為止討論的省級或專題士兵的類型。這并不意味著隨著時間的流逝（即在 8 世紀和 9 世紀期間），國家并沒有越來越多地將擁有土地視為在主題軍隊中登記士兵的重要先決條件。由于某些類別士兵的兵役似乎是世襲的（雖然尚不清楚這些類別之間的區(qū)別是根據什么做出的），因此將其與擁有土地相結合，理論上可以確保一個國家的狀態(tài)。每個地區(qū)的核心士兵都可以在當地服兵役，自給自足，必要時可以在他們周圍集結雇傭兵和短期新兵。然而，在 10 世紀上半葉，國家決定對這些財產進行分類，并通過在地方軍事和財政法典中登記（最多達到一定價值）來正式確定其持有或轉讓的條件，主要是保護他們免受“強者”的擴張主義土地掠奪——一個廣泛的類別，既代表了地主，也代表了地方地主，他們可以以犧牲其財政社區(qū)中較弱的成員為代價來擴大自己的財產。采取這一行動的原因是普遍同意的。此外，似乎發(fā)生在 10 世紀上半葉的個人家庭的義務逐漸擴展到作為其服務基礎的土地，也意味著國家在榨取土地方面具有更大的靈活性。因此可用的資源——土地可以被測量、固定和永久登記；它所產生的財富可以通過為占有者個人服務的形式，或通過折價，或通過替代而轉化為士兵。

By the tenth century, therefore, the state had come to rely upon the presence in each theme of a number of soldiers, owing service hereditarily, whose ability to fulfill their duties depended upon landed property (and originally, probably, other forms of income). Where families were too poor to bear this burden, their communities covered their state fiscal taxes and contributed to the costs of their equipment, at least in theory (although, as we have seen, there are several examples where this system appears not to have worked very efficiently). It was anyway the responsibility of the local strategos and his subordinates to select, from the total of those registered, those who were actually capable of carrying out their duties. Those families bearing military obligations-registered as stratiotikoi oikoi, to use a term which first appears in the tenth century-who did not or could not provide a soldier, or who were not asked by the administration to do so, paid instead a certain sum, the proceeds from which were used by the local military establishment or the central logothesion to pay for other, less well-equipped soldiers registered on the military codices in the same fiscal districts, or for their equipment (the syndotai of the legal texts), or for the raising of mercenary troops.

????????? 因此，到了 10 世紀，國家開始依賴于在每個主題中出現的一些士兵，他們世襲服役，他們履行職責的能力取決于土地財產（最初可能還有其他形式的收入） .在家庭太窮而無法承受這種負擔的情況下，他們的社區(qū)至少在理論上承擔了州財政稅并為他們的設備成本做出了貢獻（盡管正如我們所見，有幾個例子表明該系統(tǒng)似乎不起作用非常有效）。無論如何，從登記的總人數中挑選出真正有能力履行職責的人，是地方的謀士和他的下屬的責任。那些承擔軍事義務的家庭——注冊為 Stratiotikoi oikoi，使用一個最早出現在 10 世紀的術語——沒有或不能提供士兵，或者沒有被政府要求提供士兵，而是支付了一定數額，其收益被地方軍事機構或中央政府用于支付在同一財政區(qū)的軍事法典上登記的其他裝備較差的士兵或他們的裝備（法律文本的syndotai），或者是為了招募傭兵。

The system of military lands thus evolved in a haphazard manner, although I would guess that its value was soon perceived by state officials (certainly by the time of Nicephorus I, whose legislation in this respect, in spite of the hostility of Theophanes' report, was clearly intended to assist the poorer registered soldiers), so that the state exploited the potential of this option when it could. But we must remember that there existed side by side with these soldiers also full-time, mercenary, or professional soldiers who made up the core of each provincial division, as well as those recruited for the duration of a campaign. And we must remember, too, that the actual potential of a thema was much larger than the number actually (or usually) called up for particular campaigns-the evidence of late ninth- and tenth-century military treatises makes this clear.

????????? 因此，軍事土地制度以一種隨意的方式演變，盡管我猜想它的價值很快就被國家官員所察覺（當然是在尼斯弗魯斯一世時期，盡管塞奧法尼斯的報告充滿敵意，他在這方面的立法， 顯然是為了幫助較貧窮的注冊士兵），以便國家在可能的情況下利用此選項的潛力。 但我們必須記住，與這些士兵并存的還有構成各省核心的專職、雇傭兵或職業(yè)士兵，以及在戰(zhàn)役期間招募的士兵。 我們還必須記住，主題的實際潛力遠大于實際（或通常）為特定戰(zhàn)役而召集的數量——9 世紀晚期和 10 世紀軍事論文的證據清楚地表明了這一點。

During the tenth century, as the lands of the middling and poorer peasants from whom the bulk of these provincial soldiers were drawn came increasingly under threat from the power of provincial magnates and holders of imperial and ecclesiastical titles, offices, and privileges ("the powerful"), and especially as a result of the great famine of the year 927-928, the state had to intervene to protect the holdings which were the basis for military service. Hence the legislation of the Macedonian emperors. It is worth pointing out that here it is not a question of badly directed or corrupt fiscal policies on the state's part in the pre-Macedonian period which led to this situation, although this may have played a role. We should not forget that just as the military lands represented a relatively long-term development, so the rise and growth of an aristocracy-a magnate class which combined both provincial landowning and imperial office- and title-holding with a near monopoly on key state positions in both the military and civil administration of the empire-was also a relatively long-term evolution. Beginning in the later seventh century with what I call the pseudo meritocracy of that period, this state class or elite gradually establishes itself as a distinct social group which, by the tenth century, is in a position to challenge the interests of the state-interests which it had itself to represent to a certain extent, thus embodying a fundamental contradiction within the state structure-and endanger the lands from which the state both drew its income and supported its soldiers in the provinces.

????????? 在 10 世紀，隨著這些省級士兵的大部分來自中貧農民的土地越來越受到省級大亨以及擁有帝國和教會頭銜、職位和特權的權力的威脅（“強大的")，特別是由于 927-928 年的大饑荒，國家不得不進行干預以保護作為兵役基礎的財產。因此，馬其頓皇帝的立法。值得指出的是，這不是導致這種情況的前馬其頓時期國家財政政策不當或腐敗的問題，盡管這可能起了一定的作用。我們不要忘記，正如軍事土地代表著一個相對長期的發(fā)展，貴族——一個集省地地主和皇位相結合的權貴階級——幾乎壟斷了關鍵國家的崛起和壯大。帝國的軍事和民事管理職位——也是一個相對長期的演變。從七世紀后期開始，我稱之為那個時期的偽精英統(tǒng)治，這個國家階級或精英逐漸將自己確立為一個獨特的社會群體，到十世紀，它能夠挑戰(zhàn)國家利益的利益。它在一定程度上必須代表它自己，從而體現了國家結構內部的根本矛盾——并危及國家既可以從中獲取收入又可以養(yǎng)活各省士兵的土地。

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

六、 十世紀的軍事土地和戰(zhàn)略

未完待續(xù)