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

A word is perhaps in order regarding the kodikes or katalogoi in which the soldiers or their holdings were registered. As pointed out already, the military kt&mata began to be registered only in the first part of the tenth century — previously the names only were registered. The lists were kept by the military logothesion in the capital, although there were certainly copies kept in each provincial headquarters, since the strategos and his staff were responsible for raising the troops in wartime and for reviewing them at the yearly adnoumia. Such lists were presumably revised as the military holdings were also incorporated, perhaps involving the addition of an extra column so that the lands could be registered — ?ν το?? στρατιωτικο?? καταλ?γοι? ?πογρ?φονται.（在軍事名單被清點(diǎn)。）

????????? 關(guān)于士兵或他們的財(cái)產(chǎn)登記的 kodikes 或 katalogoi，可能需要一個(gè)詞。 正如已經(jīng)指出的那樣，軍事 kt&mata 僅在 10 世紀(jì)上半葉才開始注冊(cè) - 以前僅注冊(cè)名稱。 名單由首都的軍事標(biāo)志保存，盡管每個(gè)省總部肯定都有副本，因?yàn)閼?zhàn)略和他的工作人員負(fù)責(zé)在戰(zhàn)時(shí)籌集軍隊(duì)并在每年的公告中對(duì)其進(jìn)行審查。 這些名單可能是隨著軍事財(cái)產(chǎn)也被納入而進(jìn)行了修訂，可能涉及增加一個(gè)額外的欄目，以便可以登記土地——?ν το?? στρατιωτικο?? καταλ?γοι? ?πογρ?φονται。（在軍事列表中被清點(diǎn)。）

To summarise the gist of the argument: the situation in the tenth century is one of wide-ranging changes, and of legislation to prevent some of these changes, which were regarded as detrimental to the efficiency of the armies (and hence to the authority of the central government) from going further. Briefly, the ability of individual soldiers to fulfill the hereditary obligations for which they were enrolled, was founded upon their lands (and originally also other forms of income). But these had been neither registered nor protected, although it had become customary that they should not be alienated, since thus the means to support the strateia might be lost. The service owed was personal, but need not be carried out by the official holder of the title — he might be too old or too young, for example. Instead, a member of the same family could (when the provincial government insisted upon the provision of a soldier) be appointed to carry out the necessary duties. This much is clearly confirmed by the story of Leo and George already referred to. In cases where the families became impoverished and unable to fulfill their duties, the reform of Nicephoros I appointed a certain number of contributors, with whose aid the family should continue to carry out its obligations. It was in any case the final responsibility of the general and his staff to select, from all those registered, soldiers for particular campaigns. By the time of the tenth-century legislation, the lands which were the basis of this military service needed protection, and henceforth the hitherto personal obligations of the family which owned the land, while not being lost sight of, became increasingly replaced by an impersonal obligation fixed to the lands themselves. It became possible, and indeed necessary, as a result of the parcellisation of holdings, to appoint a soldier not belonging to the family or families which held the land, to carry out the duties involved; while at the same time it became normal practice for the state to commute the services for cash in order to raise and pay full-time troops. The eventual result, as a number of scholars have shown, was the complete fiscalisation of the strateia and its application as a tax levy on the whole population. The military lands as such disappeared.

????????? 總結(jié)一下論點(diǎn)的要點(diǎn)：10 世紀(jì)的形勢(shì)是一個(gè)范圍廣泛的變化，立法阻止了其中的一些變化，這些變化被認(rèn)為有損于軍隊(duì)的效率（從而有損于軍隊(duì)的權(quán)威）。 中央政府）走得更遠(yuǎn)。 簡而言之，士兵個(gè)人履行其登記的世襲義務(wù)的能力是建立在他們的土地上（最初也是其他形式的收入）。 但是這些既沒有登記也沒有受到保護(hù)，盡管它們不應(yīng)該被轉(zhuǎn)讓已經(jīng)成為慣例，因?yàn)檫@樣可能會(huì)失去支持戰(zhàn)略的手段。 所欠的服務(wù)是個(gè)人的，但不需要由正式的頭銜持有人執(zhí)行——例如，他可能太老或太年輕。 相反，可以任命同一個(gè)家庭的成員（當(dāng)省政府堅(jiān)持提供士兵時(shí)）執(zhí)行必要的職責(zé)。 已經(jīng)提到的利奧和喬治的故事清楚地證實(shí)了這一點(diǎn)。 在家庭陷入貧困無法履行職責(zé)的情況下，Nicephoros I 的改革任命了一定數(shù)量的捐助者，在他們的幫助下，家庭應(yīng)該繼續(xù)履行其義務(wù)。 無論如何，從所有登記的士兵中挑選出特定戰(zhàn)役的士兵是將軍及其參謀的最終責(zé)任。 到 10 世紀(jì)立法時(shí)，作為這種兵役基礎(chǔ)的土地需要保護(hù)，因此，擁有土地的家庭迄今為止的個(gè)人義務(wù)雖然沒有被忽視，但越來越多地被非個(gè)人化的義務(wù)所取代。 對(duì)土地本身的義務(wù)。 由于土地分塊，有可能而且確實(shí)有必要任命一名不屬于擁有土地的家庭或家庭的士兵來執(zhí)行相關(guān)職責(zé)； 與此同時(shí)，國家將服務(wù)換成現(xiàn)金以籌集和支付全職部隊(duì)的費(fèi)用已成為正常做法。 正如許多學(xué)者所表明的那樣，最終的結(jié)果是戰(zhàn)略的完全財(cái)政化及其作為對(duì)全體人口征稅的應(yīng)用。 軍事土地就這樣消失了。

The origins of this system will be examined below. What I have tried to show here is that because “military holdings” do not appear in the sources before the 830s, and in official legislation before the 930s, this is absolutely no argument for their non-existence.114 Their appearance in legal and other official literature of the tenth century is solely a response to a threat which forced the state to take action to preserve what was already a weakened institution. I do not believe that the stratiotika ktemata were a marginal or local phenomenon, for in this case the legislation of the tenth century would hardly have been necessary. On the contrary, I think they were the “hidden” basis for the recruitment of a considerable proportion of the Byzantine provincial armies, a basis which was revealed only when it was threatened.

????????? 下面將研究這個(gè)系統(tǒng)的起源。 我在這里試圖表明的是，因?yàn)椤败娛驴毓伞睕]有出現(xiàn)在 830 年代之前的來源中，并且在 930 年代之前的官方立法中，這絕對(duì)是不存在的理由。? 它們?cè)诜珊推渌矫娴某霈F(xiàn) 10 世紀(jì)的官方文獻(xiàn)完全是對(duì)威脅的回應(yīng)，這種威脅迫使國家采取行動(dòng)來保護(hù)已經(jīng)被削弱的機(jī)構(gòu)。 我不相信 Stratiotika ktemata 是一種邊緣或局部現(xiàn)象，因?yàn)樵谶@種情況下，十世紀(jì)的立法幾乎沒有必要。 相反，我認(rèn)為他們是招募相當(dāng)一部分拜占庭省軍隊(duì)的“隱藏”基礎(chǔ)，只有在受到威脅時(shí)才會(huì)顯露出來。

C. ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE “MILITARY LANDS”

C. “軍區(qū)制” 的起源和發(fā)展

To trace the origins of this form of recruitment is a somewhat more difficult task. There is evidence in plenty for the activities of Byzantine armies throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. But little of it concerns the ways in which these armies were raised and organised. Nevertheless, some general suggestions about the ways in which the system described above grew up may be hazarded.

????????? 追查這種招募形式的起源是一項(xiàng)比較困難的任務(wù)。 有大量證據(jù)表明拜占庭軍隊(duì)在整個(gè)七世紀(jì)和八世紀(jì)的活動(dòng)。 但其中很少涉及這些軍隊(duì)的組建和組織方式。 然而，關(guān)于上述系統(tǒng)發(fā)展方式的一些一般性建議可能會(huì)受到威脅。

Professional, full-time forces were always maintained, both in the themes and in the capital. The corps of excubitores up to the middle of the seventh century or a little later, that of the spatharii, and the noum&ra and Walls regiments made up the guards units at Constantinople, supplemented from the middle of the eighth century by the new tagmata established by successive emperors. In the provinces, a corps of full-time, paid regulars was maintained in the largest garrison towns and at the headquarters of the strategos. The proportion of regulars to those released from service for part of the year was probably in favour of the latter. But this can only be answered when we have decided when and how the recruitmentsystem which came ultimately to be based upon “military holdings” developed.

????????? 無論是在主題還是在首都，專業(yè)的、專職的力量始終保持著。 直到 7 世紀(jì)中葉或更晚的 excubitores 軍團(tuán)，spatharii 軍團(tuán)，以及 noum&ra 和 Walls 團(tuán)組成了君士坦丁堡的衛(wèi)兵部隊(duì)，從 8 世紀(jì)中葉開始，由 歷任皇帝。 在各省，在最大的駐軍城鎮(zhèn)和戰(zhàn)略總司令部維持著一支全職的、有薪的正規(guī)軍。 在一年中的一部分時(shí)間里，?？团c退役的比例可能更傾向于后者。 但這只能在我們決定最終以“軍事控股”為基礎(chǔ)的招募系統(tǒng)何時(shí)以及如何發(fā)展時(shí)才能得到解答。

The confused years during the second half of the seventh century present themselves as the period most likely to have given rise to a system of recruitment such as that described above. I have shown elsewhere that it was precisely at this time that the Byzantine forces began to be localised and to lose their former character of full-time field forces maintained in regular garrisons.116 It was also at this time that the kaballarika themata appeared, and as I have suggested, this reflects already the division of the military forces into two groups, those based more or less permanently in garrisons or at other strategic points, and those able to participate in mobile and often long-distance actions.

????????? 七世紀(jì)下半葉的混亂年代是最有可能產(chǎn)生上述招募制度的時(shí)期。 我已經(jīng)在別處表明，正是在這個(gè)時(shí)候，拜占庭軍隊(duì)開始局部化，失去了以前在正規(guī)駐軍中維持的專職野戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)的性質(zhì)。 116 也正是在這個(gè)時(shí)候出現(xiàn)了 kaballarika 軍區(qū)，和 正如我所建議的那樣，這已經(jīng)反映了將軍隊(duì)分成兩組，一組或多或少永久駐扎在駐軍或其他戰(zhàn)略要地，另一組能夠參與機(jī)動(dòng)且通常是遠(yuǎn)距離行動(dòng)。

It is apparent that the field armies were widely scattered throughout the districts they occupied. So much is demonstrated by (a) the success with which Arab raiders were able to penetrate into Byzantine territory, meeting little or no opposition in the field — the troops were centred in defensible towns, or spread among smaller settlements as a protection for the local population, and (b) the fact that the imperial forces were forced to adopt a policy of avoidance, following a strategy of ambushes and shadow warfare.117 Such a policy was both stimulated by, and in its turn promoted, a localisation of forces.

????????? 很明顯，野戰(zhàn)軍廣泛分散在他們占領(lǐng)的地區(qū)。? (a) 阿拉伯襲擊者成功地滲透到拜占庭領(lǐng)土，在戰(zhàn)場上幾乎沒有遇到任何反對(duì)者——軍隊(duì)集中在防御性城鎮(zhèn)，或分散在較小的定居點(diǎn)中以保護(hù)當(dāng)?shù)?/span> 人口，以及 (b) 帝國軍隊(duì)被迫采取回避政策，遵循伏擊和影子戰(zhàn)的策略。這種政策既受到軍隊(duì)本土化的刺激，又反過來促進(jìn)了軍隊(duì)的本土化。

But more concrete evidence exists. The text relating to the soldier Mousoulios shows that by the 780s — and presumably for some considerable time beforehand — the military forces of the empire were scattered throughout their districts, and called together for campaign service or review only occasionally during the year. Mousoulios himself clearly lived at home, since Philaretos encounters him on his way to the adnoumioTi — had he been based in a regular, centralised garrison, such a procedure would not have been necessary. An earlier text, however, comes from the Ecloga, possibly issued by Leo and Constantine not in the year 726, but in 741. The text in question — XVI 2 — has recently been the subject of an article by J. Mossay and P. Yannopoulos, and since its importance is not to be ignored, it will be worth looking at their arguments in some detail.

????????? 但存在更具體的證據(jù)。 與士兵 Mousoulios 相關(guān)的文本顯示，到了 780 年代——并且可能在之前的相當(dāng)長一段時(shí)間里——帝國的軍隊(duì)分散在他們的地區(qū)，并且在一年中偶爾會(huì)被召集起來進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)役服務(wù)或?qū)彶椤?/span>? Mousoulios 本人顯然住在家里，因?yàn)?/span> Philaretos 在前往 adnoumioTi 的路上遇到了他——如果他駐扎在一個(gè)正規(guī)的、集中的駐軍中，這樣的程序就沒有必要了。? 然而，早期的文本來自 Ecloga， 可能由 Leo 和 Constantine 發(fā)布，不是在 726 年，而是在 741. 有問題的文本——XVI 2——最近成為 J. Mossay 和 P. Yannopoulos 一篇文章的主題，因?yàn)樗闹匾圆蝗莺鲆暎?/span> 值得詳細(xì)研究他們的論點(diǎn)。

未完待續(xù)