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?

VII. THE ARMY IN SOCIETY

七、社會中的軍隊

I will stop at this point and turn now to look at the implications of these debates for our understanding of the role and status of the military in the Byzantine world. I will do this by examining briefly the key elements in the relationship between the state and its armies from the sixth to the twelfth centuries, and by putting these in the context of the evolution of Byzantine society as a whole over this period. This will necessarily be a partial account, related to the specific themes I have taken up so far-there are, of course, a whole range of important "historical sociological" issues which also need to be addressed, which I cannot go into here.

????????? 我將就此打住，現(xiàn)在轉(zhuǎn)向看看這些辯論對我們理解軍隊在拜占庭世界中的作用和地位的影響。 為此，我將通過簡要研究從 6 世紀到 12 世紀國家與其軍隊之間關(guān)系的關(guān)鍵要素，并將這些要素置于這一時期整個拜占庭社會演變的背景中來做到這一點。 這必然是部分說明，與我迄今為止所涉及的特定主題相關(guān)——當然，還有一系列重要的“歷史社會學(xué)”問題也需要解決，我不能在這里詳述。

The first point I would emphasize is that there is a clear shift in the political role of the army and of soldiers from the sixth to the eleventh century. The relationship between soldiers and the state in the late Roman period-that is to say, up to the reign of Heraclius, approximately-can be characterized as fairly direct, by which I mean that the intermediaries between these two elements were relatively few, and were on the whole themselves part of the state's apparatus, whether civil or military. This direct relationship can be summed up in a number of points.

????????? 我要強調(diào)的第一點是，從 6 世紀到 11 世紀，軍隊和士兵的政治角色發(fā)生了明顯的轉(zhuǎn)變。 羅馬晚期——也就是大約到赫拉克利烏斯統(tǒng)治時期——的士兵與國家之間的關(guān)系可以說是相當直接的，我的意思是說，這兩個要素之間的中介相對較少，而且 無論是民事還是軍事，它們本身都是國家機器的一部分。 這種直接關(guān)系可以概括為以下幾點。

To begin with, the state retained, in theory if not always in practice, a strict control over the production and issue of weapons which, whether issued directly to the soldiers, or sold to them, were a state monopoly and passed from state hands to those of the soldiers via specifically laid out and approved routes, which are described in detail in the legislation of Justinian. All the evidence we have for the period before the Islamic conquests suggests that the system did not change in this period. Furthermore, the state directly supervised the provisioning of the field armies, whether permanently settled in a specific garrison town or whether on campaign, through imperial officials specifically appointed to such tasks. This feature is tied into the fact that the state paid and rewarded its soldiers directly, through cash salaries (commuted annonae and capitus), quinquennial and accessional donativa, and field or campaign awards.

????????? 首先，國家在理論上保留了對武器的生產(chǎn)和發(fā)行的嚴格控制，無論是直接發(fā)給士兵還是賣給他們，都是國家壟斷的，從國家手中轉(zhuǎn)移到 那些士兵通過特別布置和批準的路線，這些路線在查士丁尼的立法中有詳細描述。 我們在伊斯蘭征服之前的時期所擁有的所有證據(jù)表明，該制度在這一時期沒有改變。 此外，國家通過專門任命執(zhí)行此類任務(wù)的帝國官員直接監(jiān)督野戰(zhàn)軍的供應(yīng)，無論是永久定居在特定的駐軍城鎮(zhèn)還是進行戰(zhàn)役。 這一特征與國家直接支付和獎勵其士兵的事實有關(guān)，通過現(xiàn)金工資（通勤 annonae 和 capitus）、五年一次和額外的捐贈以及實地或競選獎勵。

Throughout the period with which we are concerned soldiers had a specific legal status, inscribed in Roman-Byzantine law and inherited ultimately from the position of soldiers in the armies of the late Republic, modified and altered during the first century and a half of the Principate. As we have seen, a central element in this was the existence of a specific military peculium, which until the modifications which appear to have been introduced during the eighth century meant the right of disposal of property gained through their state service or through inheritance freely, without reference to the lex Falcidia, according to which property had to be apportioned among specific groups of relatives before its dispersal elsewhere.42

????????? 在我們所關(guān)注的整個時期，士兵都具有特定的法律地位，寫入羅馬-拜占庭法律，并最終從共和國晚期軍隊中的士兵地位繼承而來，在元首統(tǒng)治的第一個半世紀進行了修改和改變 . 正如我們所看到的，其中的一個核心要素是存在特定的軍事特權(quán)，直到 8 世紀似乎進行了修改，這意味著對通過國家服務(wù)或通過自由繼承獲得的財產(chǎn)的處置權(quán)， 不參考《惡性法》，根據(jù)該法，財產(chǎn)必須在特定的親屬群體之間分配，然后才能分散到其他地方。

All this meant that, whatever the practical and logistical difficulties which diluted the effectiveness of this direct relationship, soldiers were independent of other social loyalties for the most part, serving the state in a more or less unmediated way in a purely military hierarchy of power. In the context of the sixth century or the later fifth century, soldiers' rebellions against authority were almost entirely connected with conditions of service-late pay, bad supplies, inadequate compensation for hardship, overzealous officers, and so on. Virtually none of the military unrest which can be located at this time can be connected with any sort of "political/ideological" consciousness or desire actively to intervene in imperial or provincial politics in order to effect some sort of change. Whether soldiers were led and exploited by their officers, or whether they acted on their own initiative (there are many examples of the latter), their grievances were on the whole not connected to any ideological context, but rather with their economic situation and their conditions of service and remuneration. In this period, still, "politics" remained a predominantly metropolitan or urban phenomenon, in which soldiers were only marginally implicated as an independent element，if at all.

????????? 所有這一切意味著，無論削弱這種直接關(guān)系有效性的實際和后勤困難如何，士兵在很大程度上獨立于其他社會忠誠度，在純粹的軍事權(quán)力等級中以或多或少無中介的方式為國家服務(wù)。在六世紀或五世紀后期的背景下，士兵們反抗權(quán)威的情況幾乎完全與服役條件——遲到的工資、物資的短缺、艱苦的補償不足、軍官的過分熱心等有關(guān)。實際上，此時可以定位的軍事動亂與任何“政治/意識形態(tài)”意識或積極干預(yù)帝國或省級政治以實現(xiàn)某種變革的愿望都沒有聯(lián)系。士兵們無論是被軍官領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和剝削，還是他們主動采取行動（后者的例子很多），他們的不滿總體上與任何意識形態(tài)無關(guān)，而是與他們的經(jīng)濟狀況和條件有關(guān)。服務(wù)和報酬。在這一時期，“政治”仍然是一種主要的大都市或城市現(xiàn)象，其中士兵只是作為一個獨立的因素被邊緣化了，如果有的話。

Of course, there were groups of soldiers, notably private or state-supported bucellarii, who do not fit into this pattern, especially in the second half of the sixth century when, as evidence from Egyptian papyri suggests, the state actively encouraged members of the senatorial landed elite to hire private soldiers in order to maintain local peace and security, especially-as we might predict-where the collection of revenues was concerned. In return, the landlords received certain state benefits, and the soldiers themselves received official recognition as soldiers of the imperial forces, not merely hirelings.

????????? 當然，有一些士兵團體，尤其是私人或國家支持的 bucellarii，他們不符合這種模式，尤其是在 6 世紀下半葉，正如埃及紙莎草紙所表明的那樣，國家積極鼓勵 參議員領(lǐng)地精英雇傭私人士兵來維持當?shù)氐暮推脚c安全，尤其是——正如我們可能預(yù)測的那樣——涉及收入的征收。 作為回報，地主獲得了一定的國家利益，而士兵本身也獲得了官方認可，成為帝國軍隊的士兵，而不僅僅是雇傭兵。

But on the whole and in spite of the manifest inefficiencies of state control, state control，state control of a fairly direct sort existed, and the soldiers, with rare exception, acted within the parameters of the imperial system.

????????? 但總體而言，盡管國家控制明顯低效，但國家控制、國家控制還是存在的，而且很少有例外，士兵們都在帝國制度的范圍內(nèi)行事。

This changes by the later seventh century. Suddenly we find soldiers and their leaders actively involved in challenging and overthrowing emperors on what can only be called an almost regular basis, at least for a while. What I have suggested was happening is complex, and I wish only to outline the basics of a very ramified argument here.

????????? 這在七世紀后期發(fā)生了變化。 突然間，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)士兵和他們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人積極參與挑戰(zhàn)和推翻皇帝的活動，這只能稱為幾乎是定期的，至少有一段時間是這樣。 我所建議的正在發(fā)生的事情很復(fù)雜，我只想在這里概述一個非常分支的論點的基礎(chǔ)知識。

Two points can be made. First, an examination of the relevant evidence suggests that grievances over conditions of service, pay, supplies, officers' treatment of the men, and so on, were no longer at the root of such trouble. On the contrary, whether involving officers in a leading role or not, soldiers now took part in what we can reasonably call "imperial" politics, voicing their own particular points of view. The key issues seem to have been fundamental questions about the nature of the state they lived in; the relationship between God, human society, and the individual; and the activities or abilities or Orthodoxy of particular rulers.

????????? 可以提出兩點。 首先，對相關(guān)證據(jù)的審查表明，對服務(wù)條件、薪酬、物資、軍官待遇等方面的不滿已不再是此類麻煩的根源。 相反，無論是否讓軍官擔任領(lǐng)導(dǎo)角色，士兵們現(xiàn)在都參與了我們可以合理稱為“帝國”政治的活動，表達了他們自己的特定觀點。關(guān)鍵問題似乎是關(guān)于 他們居住的州的性質(zhì)； 上帝、人類社會和個人之間的關(guān)系； 以及特定統(tǒng)治者的活動或能力或正統(tǒng)觀念。

This evolution took place in the context of a gradual change in ordinary perceptions of the relationship between the emperor and God and more especially about the source of imperial authority, on the one hand, and the location of sources of intercession, on the other, a change which occurred in the 550s or 560s on into the second half of the seventh century. In other words, there is a series of very complex, interlocking elements here, all of which need to be brought together to understand what made it possible for people, and specifically for soldiers, to think as they did, and act as they did, in the second half of the seventh century.

????????? 這種演變發(fā)生在對皇帝與上帝之間關(guān)系的普通看法逐漸改變的背景下，尤其是一方面是關(guān)于皇權(quán)的來源，另一方面是對代禱來源的位置的看法。 發(fā)生在 550 年代或 560 年代的變化直到七世紀下半葉。 換句話說，這里有一系列非常復(fù)雜的環(huán)環(huán)相扣的元素，所有這些元素都需要結(jié)合在一起才能理解是什么讓人們，特別是士兵，能夠像他們那樣思考和行動， 在七世紀下半葉。

Another fundamental change apparent by the second half of the seventh century, and which is an important element in the whole puzzle, is a loosening of what I have suggested was the fairly direct relationship between the state and its armies. The sources are difficult to interpret and very heterogeneous, but it seems clear that from this time and through the eighth century, with a specific exception, the regular field armies of the empire-now withdrawn into the regions which supported them after the Arab victories of the late 630s, and referred to as themes or themata-became increasingly ideologically and psychologically distanced from the center. While we cannot date many of the developments which occurred exactly, a number of points characterize the situation of soldiers and armies in the period from the 650s and 660s, although I would stress that the process is an evolving one.

????????? 到7世紀下半葉，另一個明顯的根本變化是整個難題中的一個重要因素，即我所建議的國家與其軍隊之間相當直接的關(guān)系有所放松。 來源很難解釋，而且非常不同，但似乎很清楚，從這個時候到8世紀，除了一個特殊的例外，帝國的正規(guī)野戰(zhàn)軍隊現(xiàn)在撤回了在阿拉伯人的勝利之后支持他們的地區(qū)。630年代后期，被稱為主題或主題——在意識形態(tài)和心理上越來越遠離中心。 雖然我們無法準確確定發(fā)生的許多事態(tài)發(fā)展，但有一些要點描述了 650 年代和 660 年代期間士兵和軍隊的狀況，但我要強調(diào)的是，這個過程是一個不斷發(fā)展的過程。

First, central authority over recruitment or conscription of soldiers is loosened. This does not mean that the center retained no power, since a supervisory system of registers was maintained, and regular returns must have been made about the status of the armies in each district to Constantinople (although we only have evidence for how this worked from the later eighth and early ninth century, when a series of reforms or rationalizations were carried out). But the result was, as we have already seen, that recruitment became highly localized.

????????? 一是放寬了征兵的中央權(quán)力。 這并不意味著中央沒有權(quán)力，因為維持了一個登記監(jiān)督系統(tǒng)，并且必須定期返回每個地區(qū)的軍隊狀態(tài)到君士坦丁堡（盡管我們只有證據(jù)證明這是如何運作的） 8 世紀后期和 9 世紀初期，當時進行了一系列改革或合理化）。 但結(jié)果是，正如我們已經(jīng)看到的，招聘變得高度本地化。

Second, and in the process, soldiers become part of local society, again something apparent from the preceding discussion of the thematic structure.

????????? 其次，在這個過程中，士兵成為當?shù)厣鐣囊徊糠?，這在前面對軍區(qū)結(jié)構(gòu)的討論中也很明顯。

Third, the organization of military matters at the tactical level-the bandon or basic unit (of anything from fifty to three or four hundred soldiers-again, the sources are both contradictory and imprecise)-was highly localized also. Since soldiers recruited from particular localities served in the same units-as far as we can tell (and again later evidence, which can, I believe, reliably be used retrospectively, shows how this worked)-they tended to share both similar loyalties and similar views or a similar understanding or "common sense" of how their world worked——or should work.

????????? 第三，戰(zhàn)術(shù)層面的軍事組織——bandon或基本單位（從五十到三四百名士兵——同樣，來源既矛盾又不精確）——也高度本地化。 由于從特定地點招募的士兵在同一單位服役——據(jù)我們所知（而且后來的證據(jù)，我相信，可以可靠地回溯使用，表明這是如何運作的）——他們傾向于分享相似的忠誠度和相似的 他們的世界如何運作——或應(yīng)該如何運作的觀點或類似的理解或“常識”。

Fourth, the decline in the importance of provincial towns or urban centers meant that they no longer fulfilled the role of cultural centers and administrative and ideological intermediaries between province and center, a shift in their function which begins already in the fifth century and becomes very clear by the end of the sixth century (the so-called urban revival of the fifth century which took place in certain parts of the empire does not alter this, since the structural position of the urban landed elites and of the urban curiales was barely affected)."2 The result for provincial society was that only the army remained as a site, metaphorically speaking, on which large numbers of people regularly came together, where views and fears and anxieties could be expressed or formed in a public context. In consequence the army, in effect, replaces the urban populace of the empire as the voice of opposition or discontent-and it is worth pointing out that the decline in the independent political activities of Blue and Green factions in the cities of the East (as far as we know about their activities outside Constantinople at all), a purely urban phenomenon and hitherto the most obvious locus of popular views and discontent or approbation (whatever their structural or formal properties), more or less coincides with the decline in the functional importance of cities in East Roman culture and government, and the increasingly vocal appearance of soldiers in politics.46

????????? 第四，省會城市或城市中心重要性的下降意味著它們不再發(fā)揮文化中心和省與中心之間的行政和意識形態(tài)中介作用，其功能的轉(zhuǎn)變從五世紀就已經(jīng)開始并變得非常明顯。到 6 世紀末（發(fā)生在帝國某些地區(qū)的所謂的 5 世紀城市復(fù)興并沒有改變這一點，因為城市土地精英和城市貴族的結(jié)構(gòu)地位幾乎沒有受到影響）省級社會的結(jié)果是，只有軍隊仍然是一個場所，比喻地說，大量的人經(jīng)常聚集在那里，可以在公共環(huán)境中表達或形成觀點、恐懼和焦慮。因此，軍隊實際上取代了帝國的城市民眾，成為反對或不滿的聲音——值得指出的是，獨立政治家的衰落藍色和綠色派系在東方城市的政治活動（據(jù)我們所知他們在君士坦丁堡以外的活動），一種純粹的城市現(xiàn)象，迄今為止最明顯的流行觀點和不滿或認可的場所（無論他們的結(jié)構(gòu)或正式屬性），或多或少與東羅馬文化和政府中城市功能重要性的下降以及士兵在政治中越來越多的聲音出現(xiàn)相吻合。

All these factors lie behind the activities of soldiers in the later seventh and early eighth century, for what we see is, I would argue, the representation by soldiers from the provinces of what I will for the moment call "popular" attitudes and understanding of a rapidly changing world, which was often difficult to comprehend, or make sense of, in the terms of the traditional sets of values of East Roman cultural norms and expectations.

????????? 所有這些因素都隱藏在 7 世紀后期和 8 世紀初期士兵的活動背后，因為我們看到的是，我認為，來自各省的士兵所代表的我暫時稱之為“流行”態(tài)度和理解 一個瞬息萬變的世界，就東羅馬文化規(guī)范和期望的傳統(tǒng)價值觀而言，這通常難以理解或理解。

未完待續(xù)