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 作者：神尾智代 https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv14004238 出處：bilibili

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

Stein based his argument in favour of some form of conscription on three main points: the disappearance of the adaeratio (the aurum tironicum) for the compulsory levy; the reference to soldiers enlisted ?κ κ αταλ ? γο υ in Evagrius; and a passage in the Strategikon imposing archery practice on all Roman ν ε? τερ ο ι, up to the age of forty.16 Stein read the term ne?teros as youth. Thus the passage meant that all young Romans must practice with the bow, in other words that all young Romans were likely to be enlisted. But the term refers to recruits rather than young men, for the Strategikon usually uses the term ν εαν ?σ κ ο ? or ν ?ο ? for young man. Since ne?teroi can in any case be up to forty years of age, it is clear that the latter age is the upward limit for admission to the ranks as a recruit.

????????? 斯坦因支持某種形式的征兵基于以下三個(gè)要點(diǎn)： 提到在伊瓦格里烏斯征募的士兵 ?κ κ αταλ ? γο υ； 以及 Strategikon 中的一段話，對(duì)所有羅馬人 νε?τεροι 強(qiáng)加射箭練習(xí)，直到 40 歲。 斯坦因在年輕時(shí)閱讀了 ne?teros 一詞。 因此，這段話意味著所有年輕的羅馬人都必須練習(xí)弓箭，換句話說(shuō)，所有的年輕羅馬人都有可能入伍。 但是這個(gè)詞指的是新兵而不是年輕人，因?yàn)閼?zhàn)略家通常使用 νεαν?σκο? 或 ν?ο? 來(lái)表示年輕人。 由于 ne?teroi 在任何情況下都可以達(dá)到 40 歲，很明顯，后一個(gè)年齡是作為新兵進(jìn)入行列的上限。

With regard to the phrase ek katalogou, this is the normal term for describing soldiers already enlisted and on the military roll. The same phrase occurs frequently in Procopius, and similar phrases are used by Procopius and other writers to describe enlisted men. It would not normally imply a list of those liable to conscription except where the limitanei were concerned, and would in this case refer to those subject to a hereditary obligation. This may in fact be the case here, since the soldiers addressed by the Patriarch Gregory in the text were predominantly limitanei. In its context, the phrase means simply those who were enlisted as limitanei, or possibly those who were called out from the limitanei into the field army of Philippicus.

??????? 關(guān)于 ek katalogou 這個(gè)短語(yǔ)，這是描述已經(jīng)入伍和在軍名冊(cè)上的士兵的正常術(shù)語(yǔ)。 同樣的短語(yǔ)經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在 Procopius 中，Procopius 和其他作家使用類似的短語(yǔ)來(lái)描述應(yīng)征入伍的人。 除非涉及到限制，否則它通常不會(huì)暗示可以征兵的名單，并且在這種情況下指的是那些受制于世襲義務(wù)的人。 這實(shí)際上可能就是這種情況，因?yàn)樽彘L(zhǎng)格雷戈里在文本中提到的士兵主要是有限的。 在上下文中，該短語(yǔ)僅指那些被征募為limitanei 的人，或者可能是那些從limitanei 中被召入腓立比的野戰(zhàn)軍隊(duì)的人。

There is thus no substantial evidence to support the view that a form of conscription was applied. Indeed, the disappearance of the adaeratio suggests that the levy of recruits once imposed upon estates and communities, far from being re-introduced, had been completely abandoned. No references to the conscription occur, and it would be strange to find a government able to impose its will to the extent that no exemptions were’granted or reported in any source.19 The two missing novellae oi Tiberius, which Stein and Karayannopoulos suggest may have dealt with this matter, can hardly be used to support their argument. They may just as probably have dealt with the organisation of the new regiments formed by Tiberius from his barbarian recruits.

??????? 因此，沒(méi)有實(shí)質(zhì)性證據(jù)支持采用征兵形式的觀點(diǎn)。 事實(shí)上，adaeratio 的消失表明，曾經(jīng)強(qiáng)加于莊園和社區(qū)的新兵征費(fèi)遠(yuǎn)未重新引入，已被完全放棄。 沒(méi)有提到征兵，如果政府能夠?qū)⒆约旱囊庠笍?qiáng)加于任何來(lái)源的任何豁免或報(bào)告，這將是很奇怪的。 19 斯坦和卡拉揚(yáng)諾普洛斯建議的兩部失蹤的中篇小說(shuō)《提比略》可能 已經(jīng)處理過(guò)這件事情，幾乎不能用來(lái)支持他們的論點(diǎn)。 他們可能已經(jīng)處理了提比略從他的野蠻新兵中組建的新團(tuán)的組織問(wèn)題。

In this connection, Stein also stresses the reduction in foreign recruiting after the reign of Tiberius, and suggests that this also may have forced the government to reconsider conscription. But what evidence there is suggests rather that while the government relied increasingly on recruits from warlike peoples within the empire, it had no difficulty in filling the ranks. That Maurice refers in his Strategikon to a whole division of Illyrians supports this. The difficulty in providing recruits to send to Italy illustrates not a shortage of recruits, but a shortage of available soldiers whom the f emperor could send — in other words, a shortage of cash. A similar situation prevailed at times during Belisarius’ Italian campaigns, although this was not the result of a lack of recruits. As Stein himself points out, the sudden dependence on citizens and allies led the state to rely especially on Armenians, who during the reign of Maurice, and especially of Heraclius, came to play an increasingly significant role, both militarily and politically.

??????? 就此，斯坦因還強(qiáng)調(diào)提比略統(tǒng)治后外國(guó)招募的減少，并暗示這也可能迫使政府重新考慮征兵。 但有什么證據(jù)表明，雖然政府越來(lái)越依賴帝國(guó)內(nèi)好戰(zhàn)民族的新兵，但它在填補(bǔ)這一隊(duì)伍方面沒(méi)有任何困難。 莫里斯在他的 Strategikon 中提到伊利里亞人的整個(gè)部門支持這一點(diǎn)。 提供新兵派往意大利的困難說(shuō)明不是新兵短缺，而是皇帝可以派遣的可用士兵短缺——換言之，現(xiàn)金短缺。 在貝利薩留的意大利戰(zhàn)役期間，類似的情況有時(shí)也盛行，盡管這不是缺乏新兵的結(jié)果。 正如斯坦因本人所指出的那樣，對(duì)公民和盟友的突然依賴導(dǎo)致國(guó)家特別依賴亞美尼亞人，他們?cè)谀锼?，尤其是赫拉克略統(tǒng)治期間，在軍事和政治上發(fā)揮了越來(lái)越重要的作用。

Karayannopoulos, in his attempt to show that Justinian would not have hesitated to re-introduce conscription where necessary — “bien que les nombreux ?κ ατ? λ ο γο ι?, les nombreux corps ?nationaux?, la mention des soldats ?? ρ τι ?κ τ? ? γεω ρ γ?α? ει? τ? π ο λ εμικ ? ?ρ γα μετασ τ? ν τω ν ? (= Procope, BP. I. 18 [97.19]), la permission accordee aux esclaves de pouvoir s’engager dans 1’armee (= C.J. 12.33.7—a.531) prouve que Justinien devant un tel besom de soldats, n’aurait pas hesite a appliquer un recrutement obliga- toire, toutes les fois que le recrutement volontaire ne pouvait re- pondre aux besoins de 1’etat”21 shows in fact that Justinian (or his subordinates) took fairly extreme measures to avoid re-introducing conscription. Allowing slaves to join up, for example, was strictly precluded in both the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex lusti- nianus,22 but had occurred once or twice during emergencies, such as during the revolt of Gildo in 397 or the invasion of Radagaisus in 406.23 Justinian’s adoption of such a measure illustrates the lengths to which he went in order to avoid a conscription of free citizens, as do Maurice’s efforts to enlist Armenians and indeed to establish colonies of Armenian soldiers.

??????? rayannopoulos 試圖表明查士丁尼會(huì)毫不猶豫地在必要時(shí)重新引入征兵制度——“盡管許多“κατ?λογοι”，許多“國(guó)家”軍團(tuán)，提到了士兵 ?κτ?? γεω ρ γ?α? ει? τ? π ο λ εμικ ? ?ρ γα μετασ τ? ν τω ν ”（= Procope, BP. I. 18 [97.19]），授予奴隸能夠入伍的許可（= 3 CJ.7 — a.531) 證明查士丁尼面對(duì)如此龐大的士兵，會(huì)毫不猶豫地申請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制招募，只要自愿招募不能滿足 1'. etat ” 的需要，事實(shí)上查士丁尼（或他的下屬）采取了相當(dāng)極端的措施，以避免重新引入征兵制度。 例如，Theodosianus 法典和 Lustinianus 法典? 都嚴(yán)格禁止允許奴隸加入，但在緊急情況下發(fā)生過(guò)一兩次，例如 397 年吉爾多起義或 406.入侵 Radagaisus 期間查士丁尼采取這種措施說(shuō)明了他為避免征兵自由公民所做的努力，莫里斯招募亞美尼亞人并實(shí)際上建立亞美尼亞士兵殖民地的努力也是如此。

As for the three other examples, the presence of κ ατ? λ ο γο ι and national corps has nothing whatsoever to do with conscription, and the third is surely an exception. Those “newly recruited from the agricultural life”, if not free men attracted by bounties, were presumably coloni surrendered under extreme conditions, or press- ganged, a form of conscription certainly, but of a temporary nature only. This is probably the explanation behind the presence of scribones in Sicily referred to in note 5 above. The same applies to the point made by Karayannopoulos with reference to the care to be taken by a magister utriusque militiae not to permit the enrolment of coloni or saltuenses, either voluntarily or against their will. Karayannopoulos assumes that this must refer to conscription. But it surely applies to the press-ganging of such men, an activity carried on by recruiting parties at all times; or to their running away from their estates to join the army.

??????? 至于其他三個(gè)例子，κ ατ? λ ο γο ι 和國(guó)家軍團(tuán)的存在與征兵無(wú)關(guān)，第三個(gè)當(dāng)然是個(gè)例外。 那些“從農(nóng)業(yè)生活中新招募的人”，如果不是被賞金吸引的自由人，大概是在極端條件下投降的，或者是迫于壓力的，這當(dāng)然是一種征兵形式，但只是暫時(shí)的。 這可能就是上文注釋 5 中提到的西西里島存在抄寫(xiě)員背后的解釋。 這同樣適用于 Karayannopoulos 提出的觀點(diǎn)，即 utriusque 民兵教官應(yīng)注意不允許 coloni 或 saltuenses 加入，無(wú)論是自愿的還是違背他們的意愿。? Karayannopoulos 認(rèn)為這必須指征兵。 但它肯定適用于這些人的新聞聯(lián)手，這是招募方一直在進(jìn)行的活動(dòng)； 或者他們逃離他們的莊園去參軍。

In -view of this accumulation of evidence, the view that widespread conscription was maintained or re-introduced on a permanent basis during the sixth century must, I think, be abandoned. Recruitment under Maurice and the emperors before him was voluntary. Regular field units were filled either from the local populace, if on garrison duty; or through the enlistment of citizens, barbarians and especially warlike peoples within the empire, attracted by generous cash bounties. When the cash ran out, then soldiers could not be hired, as the difficulties of maintaining the Italian forces demonstrate. The limitanei were kept up to strength by the enlistment of locals and by the retention of the hereditary obligation of soldiers’ sons to serve.

??????? 鑒于這些證據(jù)的積累，我認(rèn)為必須放棄廣泛征兵的觀點(diǎn)在六世紀(jì)得以永久維持或重新引入。 莫里斯和他之前的皇帝的招募是自愿的。 如果執(zhí)行駐軍任務(wù)，則由當(dāng)?shù)孛癖娞钛a(bǔ)正規(guī)的野戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)； 或者通過(guò)在帝國(guó)內(nèi)招募公民、野蠻人和特別好戰(zhàn)的人民，被慷慨的現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)所吸引。 當(dāng)現(xiàn)金用完時(shí)，就無(wú)法雇用士兵，正如維持意大利軍隊(duì)的困難所證明的那樣。 通過(guò)招募當(dāng)?shù)厝撕捅Ａ羰勘膬鹤拥氖酪u義務(wù)，使limitanei不斷壯大。

With the reign of Heraclius, however, we enter a period of Byzantine history which remains one of the most inaccessible and obscure. Heraclius has been credited with far-reaching reforms of the state administration, not the least of which concerns the army and the recruitment of soldiers. He has been supposed by some to have been the founder of the later “theme system”, a view most persistently defended by the late professor Ostrogorsky, and just as persistently attacked, on a wide variety of grounds, by a number of other historians. Since the problems still remain, even though the once generally accepted theory of a Heraclian reform is no longer popular, the evidence will again be reviewed, with the emphasis on Heraclius’ supposed military reforms.

??????? 然而，隨著赫拉克利烏斯的統(tǒng)治，我們進(jìn)入了拜占庭歷史時(shí)期，該時(shí)期仍然是最難以接近和晦澀的時(shí)期之一。 赫拉克略因?qū)?guó)家行政機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行了深遠(yuǎn)的改革而受到贊譽(yù)，其中最重要的是涉及軍隊(duì)和士兵的招募。 一些人認(rèn)為他是后來(lái)“主題系統(tǒng)”的創(chuàng)始人，已故教授奧斯特羅戈?duì)査够顖?jiān)定地捍衛(wèi)這一觀點(diǎn)，并且同樣受到許多其他歷史學(xué)家以各種理由不斷攻擊。 由于問(wèn)題仍然存在，即使曾經(jīng)普遍接受的赫拉克利斯改革理論不再流行，這些證據(jù)將再次被審查，重點(diǎn)是赫拉克利烏斯所謂的軍事改革。

未完待續(xù)