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

接上

It is now generally assumed that Heraclius re-organised the forces in Asia Minor in 621/622, and at the same time recruited a sizeable new force, which he then trained and equipped. The basis of these assumptions is a text of Theophanes:

??????? 現(xiàn)在普遍認(rèn)為，赫拉克略在 621/622 年重組了小亞細(xì)亞的部隊(duì)，同時(shí)招募了一支規(guī)模龐大的新部隊(duì)，然后他訓(xùn)練和裝備了這支部隊(duì)。 這些假設(shè)的基礎(chǔ)是 Theophanes 的一篇文章：

?ντε?θεν δ? ?π? τ?? των θεμ?των χ?ρα? ?φικ?μενο?

συν-?λεγε τ? στρατ?πεδα κα? προσετ?θει α?το?? ν?αν στρατε?αν.

το?του? δ? γυμν?ζειν ?ρξατο κα? τ? πολεμικ? ?ργα ?ξεπα?δευσεν.

此外，在國(guó)家問題上，他組建了營(yíng)地并增加了一支新軍隊(duì)。

他們沒有受過訓(xùn)練，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)工作受過的訓(xùn)練。

If we compare the texts of George of Pisidia, however, upon which Theophanes based much of his information about Heraclius’ activities at this time, then I think it will be seen that there is little justification for this assumed recruitment :

??????? 然而，如果我們比較 Pisidia 的 George 的文本，Theophanes 的大部分關(guān)于 Heraclius 活動(dòng)的信息都基于這些文本，那么我認(rèn)為會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這種假設(shè)的招募幾乎沒有理由：

στρατ?ν γ?ρ ε?ρ?ν τ? πριν ?κ ραθυμ?α?

αταξ?α? γ?μοντα?, ?μ?λημ?νου?,

θ?ττον κατορθο?? κα? λ?γοι? κα? σχ?μασι,

τ?πων, διαιρ?ν, δεικν?ων, ?πογρ?φων

?? παιδαγωγ?? των εν?πλων γραμμ?των.

在改革之前，軍隊(duì)很散漫，充滿混亂，被忽視，

（未知）

類型、分區(qū)、標(biāo)志、簽名

作為武裝的（未知）。

No reference to new recruits or a recruitment occurs in George of Pisidia — certainly not enough to deserve mention. Instead, he refers merely to a re-assembly of disorganised troops, and stresses that the condition of the majority was so bad, that the emperor had to begin more or less from the beginning to retrain them all.

??????? 皮西迪亞的喬治沒有提到新兵或招募——當(dāng)然不夠值得一提。 相反，他只是指重新集結(jié)散亂的軍隊(duì)，并強(qiáng)調(diào)大多數(shù)人的情況如此糟糕，以至于皇帝不得不或多或少地從一開始就重新訓(xùn)練他們。

Hence Theophanes’ reference το ? το υ ? δ ? γυ μν ? ζειν ? ρ ξατο need refer to new recruits only if we interpret ν ?α σ τρ ατε?α as such. But the phrase does not normally bear such a meaning. Strateia (= militia) in the later Roman and Byzantine period signified membership of an official or do and the exercise of certain duties, usually within the civil, military or ecclesiastical apparatus.49 It seems much more likely that Theophanes was using the word in this (for him) everyday sense, and that we must therefore re-interpret the sentence. Now π ρ ο σ τ?θ η μι can also mean “impose upon/in addition to” or “attribute to”. If we look again at this statement π ρ ο σ ετ?θ ει α? το ?? ν ?αν σ τρ ατε?αν , is it not more likely that it is to be interpreted in the following sense: that Heraclius, having collected his scattered troops, imposed new duties or new conditions of service upon them?

??????? 因此，Theophanes 的參考文獻(xiàn) το ? το υ ? δ ? γυ μν ? ζειν ? ρ ξατο 只有在我們這樣解釋 ν ?α σ τρ ατε?α 時(shí)才需要提及新兵。 但該短語通常不具有這樣的含義。 羅馬和拜占庭時(shí)期后期的 Strateia（=民兵）表示官員的成員身份或執(zhí)行某些職責(zé)，通常在民事、軍事或教會(huì)機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)。 49 似乎更有可能 Theophanes 在這個(gè)詞中使用這個(gè)詞 （對(duì)他而言）日常意義，因此我們必須重新解釋這句話。 現(xiàn)在 π ρ ο σ τ?θ η μι 也可以表示“強(qiáng)加于/除此之外”或“歸因于”。 如果我們?cè)倏匆幌逻@個(gè)陳述 π ρ ο σ ετ?θ ει α? το ?? ν ?αν σ τρ ατε?αν ，它是否更可能被解釋為以下意義：希拉克略集結(jié)了他分散的軍隊(duì)，強(qiáng)加了新的職責(zé) 或?qū)λ麄兲峁┬碌姆?wù)條件？

Two alternatives present themselves for consideration. Strateia might also mean “discipline”, which would fit in with what George of Pisidia reports — that Heraclius had to impose discipline and order on the troops. This use of the word, however, is unusual.

??????? 有兩種備選方案可供考慮。? Strateia 也可能意味著“紀(jì)律”，這符合皮西迪亞的喬治所報(bào)告的——赫拉克略必須對(duì)部隊(duì)施加紀(jì)律和秩序。 然而，這個(gè)詞的這種用法是不尋常的。

Alternatively, and closer to the first proposal made above, the phrase might refer to a stricter re-application of hereditary enlistment, which, as I have shown, had lapsed during or before Justinian’s reign. Heraclius may have decided that such a measure was necessary in order to maintain the strength of the army in the future — a consideration which would account for the imposition of the nea strateia on those already enlisted, and the fact that George of Pisidia does not refer to new recruits. Indeed, the situation of the empire at this time would have made such a move far more reasonable, and necessary, than hitherto. A fruitful source of recruits, the Balkans, was now almost entirely removed from imperial authority, while Asia Minor itself was in a state of disorganisation. Foreign recruiting had already been drying up during the last years of the sixth century, whereas internal recruitment, as stressed above, was maintained. Now, even these sources were no longer available. In the cirumstances, the only reasonable move was a return to hereditary service, if only to maintain the already reduced numbers of imperial troops at a serviceable level. It is quite probable that Heraclius used the excuse of the forthcoming strenuous campaigns against the Persians to justify this change in service conditions, which at other times would have aroused considerable opposition; and that he skillfully exploited the fervour of the troops to gain their approbation.

??????? 或者，更接近于上面提出的第一個(gè)提議，該短語可能指的是更嚴(yán)格地重新應(yīng)用世襲征募，正如我所表明的，在查士丁尼統(tǒng)治期間或之前已經(jīng)失效。 赫拉克略可能已經(jīng)決定，為了在未來保持軍隊(duì)的實(shí)力，這種措施是必要的——這一考慮將解釋對(duì)那些已經(jīng)入伍的人施加新的戰(zhàn)略，以及皮西迪亞的喬治沒有提及這一事實(shí)。 給新員工。 的確，以此時(shí)的帝國(guó)局勢(shì)，比以往任何時(shí)候都更合理，也更有必要。 一個(gè)富有成效的新兵來源巴爾干半島現(xiàn)在幾乎完全脫離了帝國(guó)權(quán)威，而小亞細(xì)亞本身則處于混亂狀態(tài)。 在六世紀(jì)的最后幾年，外國(guó)招聘已經(jīng)枯竭，而如上所述，內(nèi)部招聘仍在繼續(xù)。 現(xiàn)在，即使是這些來源也不再可用。 在這種情況下，唯一合理的舉措是恢復(fù)世襲服役，即使只是為了將已經(jīng)減少的帝國(guó)軍隊(duì)數(shù)量維持在可用水平。 很可能赫拉克略以即將到來的針對(duì)波斯人的艱苦戰(zhàn)役為借口來為這種服役條件的改變辯護(hù)，這在其他時(shí)候會(huì)引起相當(dāng)大的反對(duì)。 他巧妙地利用部隊(duì)的熱情來獲得他們的認(rèn)可。

Such a move on the part of the emperor would go a long way towards explaining the appearance of the word thema at this time. In order to cater for the revised regulations, lists of those affected will have to have been drawn up anew. It is not unlikely that a relatively new term was employed to describe them, a term which, as Bolger suggested, soon came to be applied also to the corps or divisions registered in the lists, and ultimately to the areas where these corps were stationed.

??????? 皇帝的這一舉動(dòng)對(duì)解釋這個(gè)時(shí)候thema這個(gè)詞的出現(xiàn)大有幫助。 為配合修訂后的條例，必須重新擬定受影響者名單。 用一個(gè)相對(duì)較新的術(shù)語來描述它們是不太可能的，正如博爾格所建議的那樣，這個(gè)術(shù)語很快也適用于名單中登記的軍或師，并最終適用于這些軍駐扎的地區(qū)。

Thus Heraclius may have been responsible for certain administrative reforms — namely the re-introduction of hereditary military service. If the logothete referred to in the Chronicon Paschale for 626 is a military official, then he would certainly have played a role, as supervisor of the new lists. But that is to be expected and would in no way alter his function as chief paymaster, a function which may have existed since Maurice’s day.54 I see no reason for considering Heraclius’ enforcement of this obligation as anything more than the reintroduction of an older principle, which will in any case (and especially in the circumstances of the time) have taken several years to effectively implement. That it had anything to do with military holdings or the themata as administrative districts is not borne out by the evidence.

??????? 因此，赫拉克略可能負(fù)責(zé)某些行政改革——即重新引入世襲兵役制。 如果在 Chronicon Paschale 中提到的 626 的 logothete 是一名軍官，那么他肯定會(huì)扮演一個(gè)角色，作為新名單的監(jiān)督者。 但這是意料之中的，并且絕不會(huì)改變他作為首席出納員的職能，這一職能可能自莫里斯時(shí)代以來就存在。54 我認(rèn)為沒有理由認(rèn)為赫拉克利烏斯對(duì)這一義務(wù)的執(zhí)行只不過是重新引入一位年長(zhǎng)的 原則，這在任何情況下（尤其是在當(dāng)時(shí)的情況下）都需要幾年時(shí)間才能有效實(shí)施。 它與軍事控股或作為行政區(qū)的themata有任何關(guān)系沒有證據(jù)證明。

There was, therefore, a limited change in the system of recruitment under Heraclius, and it was perhaps this change, together with only a vague knowledge of the events of the seventh century, which led Constantine VII to ascribe so much to his illustrious predecessor. But there is enough evidence available to confirm that in other respects, the older military and civil establishment survived until, at the very least, the middle of the seventh century intact. Officials bearing titles familiar from the preceding period continue to be mentioned in the sources until the 650s and 660s; and while the forces of the empire were certainly re-distributed and established in new localities as a result of the Arab attacks, the older system was only gradually replaced by a new one which could provide more effectively for the needs of the new situation. The most important aspects of the changes for our purposes are the gradual localisation of the forces and the growth of distinctly territorial armies — troops both recruited and stationed in their home area — and the limited resources henceforth available to pay and equip such troops. I will return to this theme below.

??????? 因此，赫拉克略統(tǒng)治下的招募制度發(fā)生了有限的變化，也許正是這種變化，加上對(duì)七世紀(jì)事件的模糊了解，導(dǎo)致君士坦丁七世將如此多的歸功于他杰出的前任。 但是有足夠的證據(jù)可以證實(shí)，在其他方面，較舊的軍事和民事機(jī)構(gòu)幸存下來，至少直到七世紀(jì)中葉完好無損。 直到 650 年代和 660 年代，消息來源中仍繼續(xù)提及具有前一時(shí)期熟悉頭銜的官員； 雖然由于阿拉伯人的襲擊，帝國(guó)的力量肯定被重新分配和建立在新的地方，但舊的系統(tǒng)只是逐漸被一種新的系統(tǒng)所取代，新的系統(tǒng)可以更有效地滿足新形勢(shì)的需要。 就我們的目的而言，這些變化的最重要方面是部隊(duì)的逐漸本地化和明顯領(lǐng)土的軍隊(duì)——在其家鄉(xiāng)招募和駐扎的部隊(duì)——以及今后可用于支付和裝備這些部隊(duì)的有限資源。下面我將回到這個(gè)主題。

The period which follows Heraclius’ reign is if anything even less accessible to the historian. Evidence for the administrative organisation of the empire as a whole is very sparse; and it is impossible to say whether the reintroduction of hereditary obligations to military service by Heraclius was later withdrawn. It seems most probable that it was not. But to demonstrate why, it will now be necessary to move on to the sources for a later period, when the so-called theme system has reached its full development.

??????? 希拉克略統(tǒng)治之后的時(shí)期對(duì)歷史學(xué)家來說甚至更難理解。 整個(gè)帝國(guó)行政組織的證據(jù)非常稀少； 并且無法說赫拉克利烏斯重新引入世襲義務(wù)服兵役的義務(wù)后來是否被撤銷。 似乎很可能不是。 但是為了說明原因，現(xiàn)在有必要在稍后的時(shí)期繼續(xù)研究來源，當(dāng)所謂的主題系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)完全發(fā)展時(shí)。

未完待續(xù)