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

VIII. SOLDIERS AND STATUS

八、士兵和地位

It can readily be seen from this survey that the status of soldiers must have varied both across time, in society as a whole, and in the attitudes of people from different areas or sections of society. Throughout the period from the sixth to the later ninth and early tenth centuries, the evidence suggests, indirect though it often is, and uncertain though the interpretation of certain legal texts might be, that soldiers had a relatively privileged position in comparison with the ordinary inhabitants of towns or countryside and, perhaps more importantly, they constituted a more or less clearly identifiable group institutionally. Of course, there were considerable differences in economic status and situation between and among soldiers. Nevertheless, the mostly indigenous Byzantine armies were relatively homogeneous, at least from the point of view of their juridical status, and this can be ascribed in large part, I suggest, to the fact that the armies were very much rooted in local society, recruited regionally from peasant communities and officered, as far as the evidence suggests, by local men. Foreign mercenary soldiers were assimilated usually into Byzantine-led units, even where they constituted distinct groups within such units-the Chazars and Pharganoi in the Hetaireia, for example. And non-Byzantine soldiers recruited from foreign refugee settlers, such as the Persians under Theophilus or the Bedouin Banu Habib under Constantine VII, were also assimilated by being settled and subjected to the same conditions of fiscal and civil administration-as far as we can tell-as native Byzantine populations.

????????? 從這項(xiàng)調(diào)查中可以很容易地看出，士兵的地位會(huì)隨著時(shí)間的推移、整個(gè)社會(huì)以及來自不同地區(qū)或社會(huì)階層的人們的態(tài)度而發(fā)生變化。在從 6 世紀(jì)到 9 世紀(jì)末和 10 世紀(jì)初的整個(gè)時(shí)期，證據(jù)表明，盡管經(jīng)常是間接的，盡管對(duì)某些法律文本的解釋可能是不確定的，但與普通居民相比，士兵具有相對(duì)優(yōu)越的城鎮(zhèn)或鄉(xiāng)村地位。更重要的是，它們?cè)谥贫壬蠘?gòu)成了一個(gè)或多或少清晰可辨的群體。當(dāng)然，士兵之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)地位和境遇也有很大差異。盡管如此，大部分本土的拜占庭軍隊(duì)相對(duì)同質(zhì)，至少從他們的法律地位來看，我認(rèn)為這在很大程度上可以歸因于軍隊(duì)非常扎根于當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)，招募地區(qū)性地來自農(nóng)民社區(qū)，據(jù)證據(jù)表明，由當(dāng)?shù)啬凶訐?dān)任官員。外國雇傭兵通常被同化為拜占庭領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的部隊(duì)，即使他們?cè)谶@些部隊(duì)中構(gòu)成不同的群體——例如，在 Hetaireia 的查扎爾人和法爾加諾伊人。而從外國難民定居者那里招募的非拜占庭士兵，例如提奧菲勒斯統(tǒng)治下的波斯人或君士坦丁七世統(tǒng)治下的貝都因巴努哈比卜，也被同化并接受相同的財(cái)政和民政管理?xiàng)l件——據(jù)我們所知，他們也作為本地拜占庭的人口。

This formal homogeneity was further reinforced by the fact that the property of soldiers acquired through their military service continued to be protected by a special military peculium. In addition, all property belonging to soldiers (as well as to certain other categories of state official) was protected by state law under the principle in integrum restitutio, by which the state undertook to make good on property lost or damaged during an owner's absence on public service. To a certain extent, it is this principle which underlies the policy of restitution enshrined in the tenth-century legislation dealing with soldiers' lands. The active troops received donatives and a share of booty (in theory, at least, and when the state could afford it) and they were regarded as occupying a special position by those who expressed views on the political ideology and the fundamental theological raison d'etre of the empire. Along with the Church and the peasantry, the soldiers held a special position: "the army is to the state as the head is to the body; neglect it, and the state is in danger," was how Constantine VII expressed this role. In his Tactika, Leo VI described peasants and soldiers as the two pillars upon which the polity was founded. The emperors saw themselves symbolically as the father of their soldiers, the soldiers' wives as their daughters-in-law; some emperors referred to the soldiers as their own systratiotai, or comrades-in-arms. ?These represent both sets of practical attitudes as well as the somewhat more abstract ideas embodied in Christian political theory and inherited, ultimately, from the classical past. But there were also day-to-day practical advantages to being a soldier. These lay especially in the area of fiscal privileges, for soldiers and their immediate family (and hence any property directly owned or held and exploited by them) were always exempted from extraordinary fiscal burdens or corvees. Just as soldiers or similarly exempted categories of person in the late Roman period, they paid only the basic state demands, in this case the land taxor synone and the hearth tax, or kapnikon. Indeed, it must not be forgotten that the difference between "military households" and "civilian households" (stratiotikoi oikoi, politikoi oikoi) was not especially medieval: its origins lie in the standard and entirely normal late Roman distinction drawn between those groups who enjoyed specific immunities in respect of certain state demands and those who did not. Those owing service in respect of the post (exkoussatoi tou dromou), of provisioning military personnel (prosodiarioi), and those who worked in imperial armories were similarly immune from certain state corvees in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

????????? 士兵通過服兵役獲得的財(cái)產(chǎn)繼續(xù)受到特殊的軍事特殊保護(hù)，這一事實(shí)進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)了這種形式上的同質(zhì)性。此外，所有屬于士兵（以及某些其他類別的國家官員）的財(cái)產(chǎn)都受到州法律的保護(hù)，根據(jù)恢復(fù)原狀原則，國家承諾賠償在所有者缺席期間丟失或損壞的財(cái)產(chǎn)。正是這一原則構(gòu)成了 10 世紀(jì)有關(guān)士兵土地的立法中所載的歸還政策的基礎(chǔ)?，F(xiàn)役部隊(duì)接受了捐贈(zèng)和一部分戰(zhàn)利品（至少在理論上，在國家負(fù)擔(dān)得起的情況下），他們被那些對(duì)政治意識(shí)形態(tài)和基本神學(xué)理由發(fā)表意見的人視為占據(jù)特殊位置帝國的永恒。與教會(huì)和農(nóng)民一樣，士兵們都處于一個(gè)特殊的地位：“軍隊(duì)之于國家，就像頭之于身體；忽視它，國家就有危險(xiǎn)”，君士坦丁七世就是這樣表達(dá)這一角色的。利奧六世在他的戰(zhàn)術(shù)中將農(nóng)民和士兵描述為政體建立的兩大支柱?；实巯笳餍缘貙⒆约阂暈槭勘母赣H，將士兵的妻子視為自己的兒媳。一些皇帝稱士兵為自己的 systratiotai 或戰(zhàn)友。這些代表了兩種實(shí)踐態(tài)度，以及體現(xiàn)在基督教政治理論中并最終繼承自古典歷史的更抽象的思想。但是，當(dāng)一名士兵也有日常的實(shí)際優(yōu)勢(shì)。這些尤其體現(xiàn)在財(cái)政特權(quán)領(lǐng)域，因?yàn)槭勘捌渲毕涤H屬（以及因此由他們直接擁有或持有和利用的任何財(cái)產(chǎn)）總是免于特別的財(cái)政負(fù)擔(dān)或強(qiáng)制。就像羅馬晚期的士兵或類似豁免類別的人一樣，他們只支付基本的國家要求，在這種情況下是土地稅和壁爐稅，或 kapnikon。事實(shí)上，不能忘記“軍事家庭”和“平民家庭”（straatiotikoi oikoi, politikoi oikoi）之間的區(qū)別并不是特別中世紀(jì)：它的起源在于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和完全正常的晚期羅馬區(qū)分那些享受對(duì)某些國家要求和那些沒有要求的國家的特定豁免。那些因職務(wù)服務(wù)（exkoussatoi tou dromou）、提供軍事人員（prosodiarioi）的人以及在帝國軍械庫工作的人在十世紀(jì)和十一世紀(jì)同樣免于某些國家侍役。

The privileges of military peculium and the principle of restitution of property impugned while absent on service gave soldiers a particular juridical status also, as we haveseen. In addition to this soldiers, and their immediate dependants, had in theory (like all groups so defined for jurisdictional purposes as collegia or koina) the right to have cases tried by their own commanders for offenses relating to their duties. The privileges of prescription of forum, by which accused persons could refuse to appear before any court but their own even for criminal offenses, do not appear to have been retained. This seems to underlie the complaint of the author of the treatise on guerrilla strategy, for example, that soldiers' rights were being violated by civil officials.'3' The increasing power of the centrally appointed civilian officials at the expense, apparently, of the military establishment in the themes in the second half of the tenth century is clearly reflected in this treatise, as Dagron has stressed. The text makes clear (if perhaps exaggerated) reference to the oppression of soldiers by the civil authorities (over fiscal and other matters). A number of other texts, to some of which I have already referred, dating from the ninth century on，give the same impression.

????????? 正如我們所看到的，軍人特殊的特權(quán)和在服役期間受到指責(zé)的財(cái)產(chǎn)歸還原則也賦予了士兵特殊的法律地位。此外，士兵和他們的直系親屬在理論上（就像所有為管轄目的而定義為學(xué)院或 koina 的團(tuán)體一樣）有權(quán)讓他們自己的指揮官就與其職責(zé)相關(guān)的罪行審判案件。法院地規(guī)定的特權(quán)，即被告人可以拒絕在任何法院出庭，即使是在刑事犯罪的情況下也可以拒絕出庭，但似乎沒有得到保留。這似乎是游擊戰(zhàn)略論文作者抱怨的基礎(chǔ)，例如，文職官員侵犯了士兵的權(quán)利。正如 Dagron 所強(qiáng)調(diào)的，這本論文清楚地反映了 10 世紀(jì)下半葉主題中的軍事建制。文本清楚地（如果可能夸大了）提到了民政當(dāng)局（在財(cái)政和其他問題上）對(duì)士兵的壓迫。從 9 世紀(jì)開始的其他一些文本，我已經(jīng)提到過其中的一些，也給出了同樣的印象。

Of course, this was the formal situation，both as represented in legal codifications and imperial legislation, as well as in military treatises. In respect of soldiers' privileges, for example, it is highly likely-and there is a reasonable amount of indirect evidence for it-that certain categories of soldier in the provinces were as subject to victimization by imperial officials and by powerful landlords or other such persons as anyone else. On the other hand, just as in the late Roman period and before, for which the evidence is somewhat better, soldiers were probably able to bully civilians, either in their own communities when either on or off duty, or in the regions through which they passed when on campaign. There is not much evidence, admittedly, and what there is comes from exceptional or unusual circumstances (the violent behavior of soldiers in Constantinople during the reigns of Constantine V, Irene, Nicephorus I, and Michael I, for example, or that of Nicephorus II), but behind the biased and slanted reports of the historians, chroniclers, and hagiographers who recorded such events lies the reality of armed force, backed by legal privilege and state power, in a civilian context. Conflict over the question of billeting and provisioning, for example, must have continued to present the authorities with problems in the Byzantine period, just as they had in the preceding centuries, although there is virtually no evidence to speak of. Certainly, the presence of soldiers in either towns or countryside was usually felt to be oppressive by local populations, and tension and conflict between the two must have been endemic. And their privileged juridical status, quite apart from their exercise of aimed force, must have given them de facto a considerable potential for getting their own way. This may not always have been the case, but the circumstances where it did not apply were very specific, a point to which I will return below. In reality, therefore, the situation was much more complex than most of our texts directly admit, and there were many more subdivisions within the broad category of "soldiers" than historians have often seen. Consequently, it is to a degree rather artificial, and even misleading, to try to speak about the status of "soldiers" without further defining the object of our analysis.

????????? 當(dāng)然，這是正式的情況，無論是在法律編纂和帝國立法中，還是在軍事論文中都有體現(xiàn)。例如，關(guān)于士兵的特權(quán)，很有可能——并且有相當(dāng)數(shù)量的間接證據(jù)表明——在各省中，某些類別的士兵同樣受到帝國官員和有權(quán)勢(shì)的地主或其他諸如此類的人的傷害。另一方面，就像在羅馬晚期和之前的時(shí)期一樣，證據(jù)要好一些，士兵可能能夠欺負(fù)平民，無論是在他們自己的社區(qū)，無論是上班還是下班，或者在他們經(jīng)過的地區(qū)，在競(jìng)選時(shí)通過。誠然，沒有太多證據(jù)，而這些證據(jù)來自特殊或不尋常的情況（例如，君士坦丁五世、艾琳、尼斯弗魯斯一世和邁克爾一世統(tǒng)治期間君士坦丁堡士兵的暴力行為，或者尼斯弗魯斯二世統(tǒng)治時(shí)期的暴力行為） )，但在記錄此類事件的歷史學(xué)家、編年史家和圣徒傳記作者的偏見和傾斜報(bào)告背后，是在平民背景下以法律特權(quán)和國家權(quán)力為后盾的武裝力量的現(xiàn)實(shí)。例如，與前幾個(gè)世紀(jì)一樣，在拜占庭時(shí)期，關(guān)于住宿和供應(yīng)問題的沖突一定會(huì)繼續(xù)給當(dāng)局帶來問題，盡管幾乎沒有證據(jù)可言。當(dāng)然，無論是城鎮(zhèn)還是鄉(xiāng)村，士兵的存在通常都會(huì)被當(dāng)?shù)鼐用裾J(rèn)為是一種壓迫，兩者之間的緊張和沖突一定是地方性的。他們享有特權(quán)的司法地位，除了他們行使有針對(duì)性的武力之外，一定讓他們事實(shí)上有相當(dāng)大的潛力來為所欲為。情況可能并非總是如此，但它不適用的情況非常具體，我將在下面返回這一點(diǎn)。因此，在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，情況比我們的大多數(shù)文本直接承認(rèn)的要復(fù)雜得多，而且在“士兵”這一廣泛類別中的細(xì)分比歷史學(xué)家經(jīng)常看到的要多得多。因此，在沒有進(jìn)一步定義我們分析的對(duì)象的情況下，試圖談?wù)摗笆勘钡牡匚?，在某種程度上是相當(dāng)人為的，甚至是誤導(dǎo)性的。

As we have already seen, the term represents a whole range of different economic and functional strata. Social status obviously attaches to wealth, for example. Yet, while it seems that the better off among the thematic armies occupied a position of some import in their communities, membership of the axiomatikoi——those who possessed an imperial title-was just as significant in securing social recognition, and it is clear from the surviving documents that most stratiotai did not belong. On the other hand, military function also played a role-the expensively armed heavy cavalry of the armies of Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimiskes, which may have been partially composed of wealthy theme soldiers supporting themselves, must also have included a considerable number of poorer recruits equipped by the state through requisition and subscription, through syndosia and through direct state support. Such men may well have been able to improve their social position in their own communities, where they had such, through their military service. As Dagron has also emphasized, the border garrisons and watchtowers were manned by local forces on a rotational basis, men of relatively humble status, some serving on the basis of a strateia, others on the basis of a salary paid by the military authorities, others perhaps as draftees to the apelatai, seconded to frontier watch duty while their holdings received fiscal adoreia. Such men as these will have been socially far inferior to the wealthy heavy cavalrymen of the themes, or indeed the mercenaries paid by the state, whether raised from the provinces or hired from outside the empire; but as enlisted men they will all, in theory, have shared the same juridical status and privileges. By the same token, it may well be the case that differences in wealth and status within the army developed from the seventh and eighth centuries, as those in cavalry or heavy cavalry units differed from those in infantry units. But no source throws light on this period.

????????? 正如我們已經(jīng)看到的那樣，該術(shù)語代表了一系列不同的經(jīng)濟(jì)和功能階層。例如，社會(huì)地位顯然與財(cái)富有關(guān)。然而，雖然軍區(qū)軍隊(duì)中較富裕的人似乎在他們的社區(qū)中占據(jù)了某種重要的地位，但公理會(huì)的成員——那些擁有帝國頭銜的人——在獲得社會(huì)認(rèn)可方面同樣重要，從大多數(shù)Stratiotai不屬于的幸存文件。另一方面，軍事功能也發(fā)揮了作用——尼斯弗魯斯·?？ㄋ购图s翰·齊米克斯軍隊(duì)的裝備昂貴的重騎兵，可能部分由富裕的軍區(qū)士兵自給自足，也一定包括相當(dāng)數(shù)量的貧困新兵由國家通過征用和訂購、通過聯(lián)合組織和國家直接支持來裝備。這些人很可能能夠通過服兵役改善他們?cè)谧约荷鐓^(qū)中的社會(huì)地位，他們?cè)谀抢飺碛羞@樣的地位。正如 Dagron 還強(qiáng)調(diào)的那樣，邊境駐軍和瞭望塔由地方部隊(duì)輪流值守，這些人地位相對(duì)低微，有些人在軍銜的基礎(chǔ)上服役，有些則以軍事當(dāng)局支付的薪水為基礎(chǔ)，其他人也許作為 apelatai 的應(yīng)征者，在他們的財(cái)產(chǎn)獲得財(cái)政支持的同時(shí)，他們被借調(diào)到邊境看守職責(zé)。這樣的人在社會(huì)上遠(yuǎn)不如那些富裕的重騎兵，或者甚至是國家支付的雇傭軍，無論是從外省培養(yǎng)的還是從帝國以外的地方雇傭的；但理論上，作為士兵，他們都將享有相同的法律地位和特權(quán)。同理，軍隊(duì)內(nèi)部財(cái)富和地位的差異很可能是從 7 世紀(jì)和 8 世紀(jì)開始發(fā)展起來的，因?yàn)轵T兵或重騎兵部隊(duì)的差異與步兵部隊(duì)的差異。但沒有任何消息來源能說明這一時(shí)期。

In some texts, soldiers are regarded as belonging to the wealthy and/or the oppressors of the rural smallholders: Theophanes, for example, contrasts the strateuomenoi with the ptochoi (although it should be noted that the former term may refer simply toall those in imperial service, i.e., holding a strateia); while the tenth-century chronicle known as Theophanes continuatus, describing the effects of the legislation of Constantine VII, lists soldiers alongside strategoi, protonotarioi, and ippotai (presumably to be identified with the ordinary or perhaps better-off cavalry soldiers), in contrast to the penetes or poor. As we have seen, there existed a wealthier category of registered stratiotai, who could afford to provide their own provisions (and help those who were less fortunate than themselves). In much of the imperial legislation, on the other hand, ordinary soldiers are generally bracketed with other less well-off peasants, whose livelihood was threatened by the dynatoi and by natural calamities. It is difficult to know if this represents a tenth-century development in particular. But according to an undated novel of Constantine VII, drafted by Theodore Dekapolites, the general economic situation of "soldiers" had worsened in the immediately preceding years, that is, sometime before 959, the latest date for the issue of the document. According to the same emperor's sixth novel (of 947), in contrast, soldiers hold a relatively high position in the hierarchy of the rural community; and it is clear that, even though this position seemed generally affected by the encroachments of the dynatoi (a term which itself embraces a wide group, ranging from the leading military and civil magnates down to simple tagmatic soldiers), many of those registered in the military rolls were relatively well-off compared with much of the rural population.

????????? 在某些文本中，士兵被視為屬于富人和/或農(nóng)村小農(nóng)的壓迫者：例如，Theophanes 將stratuomenoi 與 ptochoi 進(jìn)行對(duì)比（盡管應(yīng)該注意，前一個(gè)術(shù)語可能僅指帝國中的所有士兵）服務(wù)，即持有一個(gè)策略）；而被稱為 Theophanes continuatus 的 10 世紀(jì)編年史在描述君士坦丁七世立法的影響時(shí)，將士兵與Strategoi、protonotarioi 和 ippotai （可能與普通或可能更好的騎兵相同）一起列出，與佩內(nèi)特人還是窮人。正如我們所看到的，存在一個(gè)更富有的登記階層，他們有能力提供自己的糧食（并幫助那些比自己不幸的人）。另一方面，在許多帝國立法中，普通士兵通常與其他不太富裕的農(nóng)民相提并論，他們的生計(jì)受到自然災(zāi)害的威脅。很難知道這是否代表了特別是十世紀(jì)的發(fā)展。但根據(jù)西奧多·德卡波利特（Theodore Dekapolites）起草的君士坦丁七世（Constantine VII）的一部未注明日期的小說，“士兵”的總體經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況在前幾年（即該文件的最晚發(fā)布日期 959 年之前的某個(gè)時(shí)間）惡化了。根據(jù)同一個(gè)皇帝的第六部小說（947年），相比之下，士兵在農(nóng)村社會(huì)的等級(jí)制度中占有較高的地位。很明顯，盡管這個(gè)職位似乎普遍受到 dynatoi（這個(gè)詞本身包含一個(gè)廣泛的群體，從主要的軍事和文職巨頭到簡(jiǎn)單的標(biāo)簽士兵）的侵占，但許多在與大部分農(nóng)村人口相比，軍人的收入相對(duì)富裕。

未完待續(xù)