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

接上

I have spent some time on these points because G6recki's conclusions contrast starkly with those of Gregoriou-Ioannidou, who has tried to show that there was no connection between military service and the land in the tenth century; and that the system of military lands develops more or less directly out of the old limitanei-type of service. This is clearly an attempt to revive the views of Karayannopoulos, and I believe it largely fails.

????????? 我在這些問題上花了一些時間，因為 G6recki 的結論與 Gregoriou-Ioannidou 的結論形成鮮明對比，后者試圖表明在 10 世紀服兵役與土地之間沒有聯(lián)系； 并且軍事土地系統(tǒng)或多或少直接從舊的限制類型的服務中發(fā)展而來。 這顯然是為了重振 Karayannopoulos 的觀點，我認為它在很大程度上失敗了。

In the first place, to claim that there was no connection between land and service in the Macedonian period, a connection which is quite evident in the legal texts of the tenth century and which most scholars now agree existed, seems to me to fly in the face both of the texts themselves and the logic of the situation. Again, G6recki's recent work confirms this and throws more light on how the legal stipulations of the tenth-century texts might be more clearly understood.

????????? 首先，聲稱在馬其頓時期土地和服務之間沒有聯(lián)系，這種聯(lián)系在 10 世紀的法律文本中非常明顯，現(xiàn)在大多數(shù)學者都同意存在，在我看來 面對文本本身和情境的邏輯。 再次，G6recki 最近的工作證實了這一點，并進一步闡明了如何更清楚地理解 10 世紀文本的法律規(guī)定。

Gregoriou-Ioannidou's main line of argument is, quite simply, that the military lands, like other lands, carried merely a fiscal burden, whereas military service remained attached only to individuals. Military status brought with it certain privileges (as we have seen), so that it was not the land occupied by a soldier which brought with it military obligations, but rather the military status of the soldier which brought the status of military land to his property. This has long been recognized, of course, and as far as it goes, is entirely correct. But it ignores the historical nature of the evolution of the strateia: the whole point of the debate in the last few years has been to stress how the institution was developing and changing over time in response to the demands of the state and the social context in which it existed. Further, in criticizing those who have argued for a connection between lands and military burdens——the strateia——she chooses to define this connection (and to represent others to have so defined it) in an overly narrow way, to mean that military lands bore the obligation of recruitment or military service. It is this, I think, that leads her to argue so strongly for no connection at all between land and service. On the basis of two texts in particular (Constantine VII's novel "On Soldiers" [945-959] and a novel of Nicephorus II Phocas) she rightly points out that persons already enrolled on the military registers who are attributed by the state with parts or the whole of abandoned or otherwise deserted military holdings cannot have been expected to serve twice, once for their own property and once for that which they have newly received. Of course, individuals could not serve as two soldiers at the same time. But on the basis of this point she argues that, in consequence, there was no connection between the land and military service, and thereby completely misses the point. For the land itself never had the obligation of "military service," or even of furnishing a recruit, and I have certainly never argued this. But what had happened by this time was that the connection between military service and the land which sup-ported the family from which a registered soldier was drawn, whether active or not, had become explicit. Hence the obligation to provide the resources with which to equip or pro-vision a soldier was apparent-again, all the texts which refer to soldiers and the basis of their military service take this connection for granted. The strateia was perceived as attached to the land as well as to the person registered on the military rolls who held it, for the simple reason that while the individuals inscribed on the military registers actually served, the resources to support this service were drawn from the income derived from agricultural production.

????????? Gregoriou-Ioannidou 的主要論點很簡單，即軍用土地與其他土地一樣，僅承擔財政負擔，而兵役只與個人有關。軍事地位帶來了某些特權（如我們所見），因此不是士兵占領的土地帶來了軍事義務，而是士兵的軍事地位將軍事土地的地位帶到了他的財產。當然，這一點早已得到認可，而且就其本身而言，是完全正確的。但它忽略了戰(zhàn)略演變的歷史本質：過去幾年辯論的重點一直是強調該機構如何隨著時間的推移而發(fā)展和變化以響應國家的需求和社會背景它存在。此外，在批評那些主張土地和軍事負擔之間存在聯(lián)系的人時——戰(zhàn)略——她選擇以一種過于狹隘的方式定義這種聯(lián)系（并代表其他人如此定義它），意味著軍事土地承擔招募或服兵役的義務。我認為，正是這一點導致她如此強烈地爭論土地和服務之間沒有任何聯(lián)系。特別是根據(jù)兩篇文本（康斯坦丁七世的小說“論士兵”[945-959] 和 Nicephorus II Phocas 的小說），她正確地指出，已經登記在軍事登記冊上的人被國家賦予部分或不能指望整個廢棄或以其他方式廢棄的軍事財產有兩次服役，一次是為他們自己的財產服務，一次是為他們新獲得的財產服務。當然，個人不能同時充當兩個士兵。但基于這一點，她認為，因此，陸戰(zhàn)和兵役之間沒有聯(lián)系，完全沒有抓住重點。因為土地本身從來沒有“服兵役”的義務，甚至沒有提供新兵的義務，我當然從未爭論過這一點。但此時發(fā)生的事情是，服兵役與養(yǎng)家糊口的土地之間的聯(lián)系，無論是否在役，都變得明確了。因此，提供用于裝備或提供士兵的資源的義務是顯而易見的——再次，所有提及士兵及其兵役基礎的文本都認為這種聯(lián)系是理所當然的。領地被視為附屬于土地以及在軍事名冊上登記的持有土地的人，原因很簡單，雖然登記在軍事名冊上的個人實際服役，但支持這項服務的資源來自于農業(yè)生產所得收入。

Part of Gregoriou-Ioannidou's difficulty arises from the fact that she insists that the term baros, burden, applied to the state's rights in respect of land, can mean only tax or fiscal burden in the very narrowest sense, not the obligation to provide support for asoldier.88 But there is in practice little or no difference between the appropriation of resources in the form of cash, labor, or crops, for example, and the appropriation of resources in the form of a particular type of service. That the Roman and Byzantine state (and indeed most medieval states) regarded these different forms as equivalents is clear from any examination of the ways in which the state extracted revenues from its territories and those who carried out the productive labor on them. There seems to meno valid reason for denying the fact that the obligation to support military service was just as much a baros on lands defined as "military," as the public taxes were on all lands within the empire. Individuals carried out the service; land provided the resources, directly or indirectly, to support that service. The strateia was hereditarily attached to the person inscribed on the registers, but they could not fulfill their obligations without an income, and this came from the exploitation of the land. It is surely apparent that in the very act of the state stipulating, in a legislative instrument such as the novels of the emperors Constantine VII and Nicephorus II, the amount of inalienable land necessary to support the strateia, land itself came to be associated with the strateia, and the strateia was conceived as associated as much with land as with individuals. This is particularly clear in the final paragraph of the novel of Nicephorus II dealing with the increase from a value of 4 pounds to 12 pounds of gold of the amount of military land hence-forth to be regarded as inalienable: military holdings (stratiotika ktemata) which had been alienated within a period of fewer than thirty years from the date of the legislation were to be returned "to the responsibility and service of their own strateia." It is equally clear in the case of soldiers found guilty of murder. The lands of such a person, which would normally have been awarded in part or whole as compensation to the victim’s family, are at all costs to be kept intact. If there are no relatives willing to undertake the strateia, then another, unrelated person should take up the properties or holding in question (tous topous) and fulfill the strateia. In other words, the connection between the original holder of the land and his family, responsible for the strateia, is severed, and the land is handed over to someone who can fulfill the relevant obligations. But these obligations can then only be seen as related to the land itself, a point emphasized by Lemerle's commentary. Gregoriou-Ioannidou argues here that this is an exceptional case, thus neatly sidestepping a problematic text. In fact, if the land had no military service attached, there is no reason why it could not have been given in compensation. The point is, once again, that while people provided soldiers, it was land that supported them. And this is made even clearer in a case reported in the Peira of the judge Eustathios, in which a kourator is found guilty, along with an unspecified number of codefendants, of attacking, injuring, and robbing a tax collector. Note that this is not a case of murder. As compensation to the injured party, all his property, except that which is subject to a strateia (and the dowry brought by his wife), was to be confiscated and awarded as compensation to the tax collector. Should the property in question be insufficient to compensate for the loss to both the tax collector and the state (in respect of stolen and unrecovered revenue), then the property of the co-defendants was to be similarly treated. It is assumed that the normal regulations for the transfer of the land or property subject to the strateia would then have been implemented, which meant that, in the case of there being no relatives, it would be placed in the hands of an unrelated party. It seems again fairly clear that while the principle of hereditary obligations attached to a registered household was respected, the obligations-the revenues to support the obligations which came with the strateia-were seen as connected with the land. It was inevitable that the state should, according to the situation and circumstances reflected in different items of imperial legislation, regard military service as connected with both. We should recall here that imperial legislation was functional-different items placed the emphasis differently, on either the soldiers or their land-according to the particular problem under discussion, both within the same document and across different documents，both within the same document and across different documents.

????????? Gregoriou-Ioannidou 的部分困難源于她堅持認為巴羅斯一詞，即負擔，適用于國家在土地方面的權利，只能指最狹義的稅收或財政負擔，而不是提供支持的義務asoldier。但實際上，以現(xiàn)金、勞動力或農作物等形式的資源占用與以特定服務類型形式占用資源之間幾乎沒有區(qū)別。羅馬和拜占庭國家（以及大多數(shù)中世紀國家）將這些不同的形式視為等價物，這一點從任何對國家從其領土上獲取收入的方式以及對其進行生產勞動的人的方式的任何審查中都可以清楚地看出。似乎有充分的理由否認支持兵役的義務在定義為“軍事”的土地上就像公共稅一樣對帝國內的所有土地征稅。個人提供服務；土地直接或間接地提供了資源來支持這項服務。地契世襲地依附在登記冊上的人身上，但他們沒有收入就不能履行義務，這來自對土地的剝削。很明顯，在國家的行為中，在諸如君士坦丁七世和尼斯弗魯斯二世的小說等立法文書中規(guī)定了支持該地區(qū)所必需的不可剝奪土地的數(shù)量，土地本身開始與Stratia，而 Stratia 被認為與土地和個人的聯(lián)系一樣多。這一點在 Nicephorus II 小說的最后一段中尤為明顯，該段論述了從此以后被視為不可分割的軍用土地數(shù)量從 4 磅黃金增加到 12 磅：軍事資產（stratiotika ktemata）自立法之日起不到 30 年的時間內被轉讓的那些人將被歸還給“他們自己的戰(zhàn)略的責任和服務”。在士兵被判犯有謀殺罪的情況下，這一點同樣明顯。這種人的土地通常會部分或全部作為對受害者家屬的補償而被授予，但不惜一切代價保持完整。若無親屬愿意承辦，則由其他無親屬關系的人承辦相關財產或財產（tous tous）并履行承辦事項。也就是說，土地的原持有人與其負責地契的家庭之間的聯(lián)系被切斷，土地被移交給能夠履行相關義務的人。但這些義務只能被視為與土地本身有關，Lemerle 的評論強調了這一點。 Gregoriou-Ioannidou 在這里辯稱，這是一個特例，因此巧妙地回避了有問題的文本。事實上，如果土地沒有附加兵役，沒有理由不給予補償。重點是，雖然人們提供了士兵，但支持他們的是土地。在 Eustathios 法官的 Peira 中報告的一個案件中，這一點變得更加清楚，在該案件中，一名 kourator 和數(shù)量不詳?shù)耐阜敢黄鸸?、傷害和搶劫稅吏而被判有罪。請注意，這不是一起謀殺案。作為對受害方的賠償，他的所有財產，除了受制于財產（以及他妻子帶來的嫁妝）外，都將被沒收并作為補償判給稅吏。如果所涉財產不足以補償稅收官和國家的損失（就被盜和未追回的收入而言），則共同被告的財產將受到同樣的對待。假設當時適用于地契的土地或財產轉讓的正常規(guī)定將得到執(zhí)行，這意味著在沒有親屬的情況下，它將被置于非關聯(lián)方手中。似乎又相當清楚的是，雖然登記家庭的世襲義務原則得到尊重，但義務——支持與地契相關的義務的收入——被視為與土地有關。國家不可避免地要根據(jù)帝國立法不同項目所反映的情況和情況，將兵役視為與兩者有關。在這里我們應該記得，帝國立法是功能性的——不同的項目側重于士兵或他們的土地——根據(jù)所討論的特定問題，在同一文件內和不同文件中。

It was thus perfectly possible for a registered stratiotes-any person registered as the holder of a strateia (whether he served actively or not)-to be in possession of two "military" holdings, since each could provide such resources. There is no need to argue that one person could not serve in a double capacity here. And presumably the state，in allotting such lands to registered persons, was both ensuring that labor was available to maintain them in production, and increasing the possibility for the poorer peasants to improve their own productive capacity, all to the state's advantage-this is the main purpose of much of the legislation. As I have argued, both personal hereditary service attached to individuals, and the association of that service more closely with the properties from which it was supported, are represented in the legislative texts. It is surely obvious that the requirement to serve as a soldier was in effect a type of fiscal obligation: the fact that the families of deceased soldiers were still liable for the expenses of military service, or a proportion thereof, at least from the reign of Irene and, as Oikonomides has plausibly suggested, even earlier, when no individual could be produced to carry out the service in question, suggests as much. That the strateia was so easily transformed into a purely fiscal burden from the later tenth century onward bears this out. Indeed, had the strateia remained only and always a personal burden attached to individuals, as it was originally, it is difficult to see how it could ever have been generalized as a fiscal imposition, as it was in the eleventh century. More telling still is the fact that lands subject to the fiscalized strateia were still exempt from extraordinary state levies, even though they were no longer held by active soldiers or their families, to whom the standard immunities and privileges continued to be attached. In other words, it is the special status of the land which is here significant.

????????? 因此，注冊的階層——任何注冊為階層持有者（無論他是否積極服役）的人——完全有可能擁有兩個“軍事”財產，因為每個人都可以提供這樣的資源。沒有必要爭論一個人不能在這里以雙重身份服務。據(jù)推測，國家將這些土地分配給登記人員，既是為了確保有勞動力來維持他們的生產，又是為了增加貧困農民提高自身生產能力的可能性，這對國家來說都是有利的——這就是大部分立法的主要目的。正如我所論證的，與個人相關的個人世襲服務，以及該服務與支持它的財產的更密切的聯(lián)系，都在立法文本中有所體現(xiàn)。顯然，作為士兵的要求實際上是一種財政義務：至少從上任以來，已故士兵的家屬仍需承擔服兵役的費用或其中的一部分。艾琳，正如奧科諾米德斯（Oikonomides）在更早的時候提出的那樣，當時沒有人能夠提供相關的服務，也提出了同樣的建議。從 10 世紀后期開始，戰(zhàn)略如此容易地轉變?yōu)榧兇獾呢斦摀@證明了這一點。的確，如果該法令只保留且始終是個人的個人負擔，就像最初那樣，很難看出它如何像 11 世紀那樣被概括為一種財政征收。更有說服力的事實是，受財政化戰(zhàn)略約束的土地仍然免于特殊的國家征稅，即使它們不再由現(xiàn)役士兵或其家人持有，他們繼續(xù)享有標準豁免權和特權。換句話說，土地的特殊地位在這里很重要。

This brings us to a further argument made against the notion that the state came to view land during the tenth century as connected with military obligations. It has been suggested that all the examples of soldiers or groups of soldiers avoiding military service by making a payment to the state instead represent in effect the same phenomenon, that is to say, that there always existed a "fiscalized" strateia. According to this position, individual obligations to serve in the army could always be met by a payment to the state. The examples of such a practice from the ninth and tenth centuries, in particular the well-known case of the soldiers from the thema of the Peloponnese, are equated with the later full fiscalization of the strateia which can be observed in the eleventh century, and it is alleged that there is no difference between the two practices-merely that, in the eleventh century, because the state preferred cash, for a variety of reasons, it tended toward the greater exploitation of this option.

????????? 這使我們進一步反對國家在 10 世紀開始將土地視為與軍事義務有關的觀點。有人提出，所有通過向國家付款來逃避兵役的士兵或士兵團體的例子實際上都代表了相同的現(xiàn)象，也就是說，始終存在“財政化”戰(zhàn)略。根據(jù)這一立場，個人在軍隊服役的義務總是可以通過向國家支付款項來履行。 9 世紀和 10 世紀這種做法的例子，特別是著名的伯羅奔尼撒半島的士兵案例，等同于后來在 11 世紀可以觀察到的 strateia 的全面財政化，據(jù)稱，這兩種做法沒有區(qū)別——只是，在 11 世紀，由于國家偏愛現(xiàn)金，出于各種原因，它傾向于更多地利用這種選擇。

It seems to me once again that this both oversimplifies the problem and obfuscates the issue. Two developments need to be distinguished. In the first place, that of the strateia and its particular evolution as an institution over the period from the seventh century onward; in the second place, that of the demands of the state for cash or manpower according to constantly changing circumstances. As we have seen, it seems from perhaps as early as the beginning of the eighth or the later seventh century to have been a principle that, where a soldier could not be provided from a registered household at the time of the general muster, that household could be liable to a payment in lieu of military service. In this respect, there is certainly a fiscal aspect to military service which, as we have said already, is in the end no more than one form of the extraction by the state from the producers of surplus wealth. The evidence nevertheless points to the state's preference, at least until the later ninth or early tenth century, for the fulfillment of personal service from those so registered. The examples referred to in the De administrando imperio, however, suggest that the state was by this time prepared to broaden and to generalize this procedure to the army of a whole theme, demanding instead either materials (e.g., horses and their harness) or cash. But in both these examples from very different periods it is not in doubt that those thus treated by the state were also holders of strateiai, whether they were personally exempt by reason of their particular title or office or not. The state is applying a particular solution to a particular problem it may have faced (about which we can only guess) at a particular moment. This is in stark contrast to the generalized imposition on all classes of the population, including the Church and monastic foundations, for particular military undertakings of demands for cash and materials, a potential which the state seems always to have exercised when it needed to do so. Such impositions were not, of course, regular in the sense that yearly taxes were. On the other hand, the frequency of military campaigns must have affected their incidence, hence the complaints of the population under Nicephorus II, if the reports of Leo the Deacon and, later, of Zonaras, for example, can be trusted. In addition, there is an increasing tendency toward the general fiscalization of the strateia, particularly marked from the reign of Nicephorus II. Thus we are confronted with two quite different institutions or administrative practices, practices which, as the state's needs evolved, and as the context within which those practices were carried changed, converged to produce a third and, in its turn, quite different institutional procedure.

????????? 在我看來，這又一次把問題簡單化了，又混淆了問題。需要區(qū)分兩種發(fā)展。首先，從七世紀開始，戰(zhàn)略及其作為一種制度的特殊演變；其次，國家根據(jù)不斷變化的情況對現(xiàn)金或人力的需求。正如我們所看到的，似乎從 8 世紀初或 7 世紀后期開始就有一個原則，即在一般集結時無法從登記家庭提供士兵的情況下，該家庭可能有責任支付代替兵役的費用。在這方面，兵役肯定存在財政方面的問題，正如我們已經說過的，這最終不過是國家從剩余財富的生產者那里榨取的一種形式。然而，證據(jù)表明，至少在 9 世紀后期或 10 世紀初期，國家傾向于由如此注冊的人提供個人服務。然而，在 De administrando imperio 中提到的例子表明，此時國家已準備好擴大這一程序并將其推廣到整個主題的軍隊，而不是要求材料（例如，馬及其馬具）或現(xiàn)金.但在這兩個截然不同時期的例子中，毫無疑問，受到國家如此對待的人也是領地的持有人，無論他們是否因特定的頭銜或職位而被豁免。國家正在將特定解決方案應用于它在特定時刻可能面臨的特定問題（我們只能猜測）。這與包括教會和修道院基金會在內的所有階層普遍強加于特定軍事事業(yè)的現(xiàn)金和材料需求形成鮮明對比，國家似乎總是在需要時行使這種潛力。當然，從年度稅收的意義上說，這種征收并不是定期的。另一方面，軍事行動的頻率必定影響了它們的發(fā)生率，因此，如果可以相信例如執(zhí)事利奧和后來的佐納拉斯的報告，那么尼塞弗魯斯二世下的民眾的抱怨是可信的。此外，該地區(qū)的總體財政化有日益增加的趨勢，尤其是在尼斯弗魯斯二世統(tǒng)治時期。因此，我們面臨著兩種完全不同的制度或行政實踐，隨著國家需求的演變，以及隨著這些實踐發(fā)生的環(huán)境的變化，這些實踐匯聚在一起，產生了第三種，反過來，又是完全不同的制度程序。

The point is that the state was becoming more concerned with the sources from which the revenue and provisions for soldiers were drawn by the middle and later tenth century than with the sources of manpower as such, as I believe the texts discussed by Lemerle, Lilie, G6recki, and myself make abundantly clear. This does not mean that individuals and their families did not continue to bear a military obligation, where they were registered, as well, merely that the state's focus of attention shifted as circum-stances and necessity demanded. No amount of semantic prestidigitation alters this. For it is surely absurd to argue that the extensive legislation of tenth-century emperors on the question of soldiers and their lands was intended to protect the basis of their military service by formalizing a specific type of tenure (as demonstrated once again byG6recki) subject to a whole range of complex provisions designed to protect its integrity, while at the same time suggesting that such prescriptions were of a simple fiscal nature only, and had absolutely no effect on the juridical statute and burdens attached to the tenant of the property and, thereby, to the property itself. Fiscal burdens were clearly associated with the possession of land, as much as, and as well as, with individuals. Fiscal burdens intended to provide or support soldiers or their service were no different. But by formally defining the nature of the rights and duties attached to the strateia, the state also formalized the nature of the fiscal burdens which accompanied the tenure of land which supported this particular type of state service, and thereby made the relationship between land and service more obvious. The fact that nonmilitary persons, not previously registered on the military rolls, received military status when they were attributed by the state with military land makes this clear; just as does the fact that persons previously registered as owing "service" to the dromos were transferred to naval or marine "service" by the changes introduced under Nicephorus II. G6recki's observations on the nature of the adoreia in this respect, and those of Lemerle and myself on the nature of partial strateia, would appear to bear this out. In sum, the argument against a connection between land and military service elaborated by Gregoriou-Ioannidou seems to me to be founded on an artificial distinction between different types of state service and obligation, and a failure to recognize the dynamic nature of the developments of the later ninth and tenth centuries.

????????? 關鍵是，國家越來越關注 10 世紀中后期士兵的收入和供給的來源，而不是人力資源本身，我相信 Lemerle、Lilie、 G6recki 和我自己說得很清楚。這并不意味著個人及其家庭不再繼續(xù)承擔他們登記的軍事義務，只是國家的關注重點隨著情況和必要性的需要而轉移。再多的語義預感也無法改變這一點。因為認為 10 世紀皇帝關于士兵及其土地問題的廣泛立法旨在通過正式確定特定類型的任期（如 G6recki 再次證明）來保護他們的兵役基礎，這無疑是荒謬的一系列旨在保護其完整性的復雜規(guī)定，同時表明此類規(guī)定僅具有簡單的財政性質，對法律法規(guī)和財產租戶的負擔絕對沒有影響，因此, 到財產本身。財政負擔顯然與擁有土地有關，也與個人有關。旨在提供或支持士兵或其服務的財政負擔也不例外。但是，通過正式定義附屬于戰(zhàn)略的權利和義務的性質，國家也正式確定了伴隨土地保有權的財政負擔的性質，支持這種特殊類型的國家服務，從而使土地和服務之間的關系更明顯。以前未在軍事名冊上登記的非軍事人員在國家賦予其軍事土地時獲得軍事地位這一事實清楚地表明了這一點；正如根據(jù) Nicephorus II 引入的變化，先前登記為“服務”于 dromos 的人被轉移到海軍或海上“服務”的事實。 G6recki 在這方面對 adoreia 性質的觀察，以及 Lemerle 和我對部分 strateia 性質的觀察，似乎證實了這一點?？傊谖铱磥?，Gregoriou-Ioannidou 所闡述的反對將陸上服役與兵役之間聯(lián)系起來的論點，似乎是建立在不同類型的國家服役和義務之間人為區(qū)分的基礎上，并且沒有認識到九、十世紀后期國家發(fā)展的動態(tài)性質。

In the second place, it is now increasingly recognized that the limitanei in the East were more or less phased out or withdrawn by the mid-sixth and early seventh century as the East Roman state came to rely more and more on "federate"-style troops, especially in eastern frontier provinces, as the recent work of Glen Bower sock and Benjamin Isaac has demonstrated. More significantly, while there may in view of the limited systemic and logistical possibilities open to late Roman and early Byzantine administrations have evolved some apparent similarities between the older limitanei and the later thematic soldiers and their lands, this is based more on appearance than reality-it is also increasingly clear that the limitanei were by no means soldiers given lands or plots by the state as a deliberate policy, except perhaps under Justinian in Africa; rather, they were soldiers who, having once acquired lands, by whatever means, were able to obtain especial exemptions from the payment of regular state taxes. It is worth stressing this: the later Byzantine "military lands" were freed from some extraordinary state impositions, chiefly because in origin they were lands held or owned by soldiers, who received immunity from certain state demands. But they were not freed from the land and hearth taxes, no more than late Roman soldiers had been freed from regular state taxes. The lands of limitanei, in contrast, were exempt from such regular burdens. The point has been made before by Patlagean. It surely follows that were the stratiotika ktemata derived from the lands of limitanei, this privilege would also have remained attached to them.

????????? 其次，現(xiàn)在人們越來越認識到，隨著東羅馬國家越來越依賴“聯(lián)邦”風格，到 6 世紀中葉和 7 世紀初，東方的限制或多或少被淘汰或撤回。部隊，尤其是在東部邊境省份，正如格倫鮑爾襪子和本杰明艾薩克最近的工作所證明的那樣。更重要的是，盡管考慮到對羅馬晚期和拜占庭早期政府開放的有限的系統(tǒng)和后勤可能性，舊的限制和后期的主題士兵及其土地之間可能存在一些明顯的相似之處，但這更多地基于外觀而不是現(xiàn)實-越來越清楚的是，除了在非洲的查士丁尼統(tǒng)治下，限制軍絕不是國家有意為士兵提供土地或土地的政策。相反，他們是士兵，一旦以任何方式獲得了土地，就能夠獲得特別豁免，免于繳納常規(guī)的州稅。值得強調的是：后來的拜占庭“軍事土地”從一些特殊的國家強加中解放出來，主要是因為它們在起源上是由士兵擁有或擁有的土地，他們獲得了某些國家要求的豁免權。但是他們并沒有免除土地和壁爐稅，就像晚期羅馬士兵免于常規(guī)州稅一樣。相比之下，limitanei 的土地免除了這種經常性的負擔。 Patlagean 之前已經提出了這一點。可以肯定的是，如果 Stratiotika ktemata 源自limitanei 的土地，那么這種特權也將一直附屬于他們。

Work on the tenth-century legislation and its importance for an understanding of the military lands, on the one hand, and of the state's fiscal-administrative structures, on the other, is continuing and will no doubt bring new insights in the near future. Inspite of some recent objections, however, I would argue that we have now reached a reasonable degree of agreement on the process by which the military lands came into being over the period from the seventh to the tenth century. More importantly, we can see more clearly the process by which a traditionally informal but significant element in the state's arrangements for the recruitment and the maintenance of soldiers became increasingly a focal point of imperial fiscal-political attention, to be transformed during the tenth century into a carefully regulated and formal "system." In this respect, it would be fair to suggest that what has traditionally been called the "theme system" was, in fact, a product of the tenth rather than the seventh century. For I can still find no evidence for a Heraclian creation of a "thematic system" involving both the granting of land to soldiers and the restructuring of the field forces. On the contrary, all the evidence seems to point to a whole series of developments, some planned by the state, some not, some certainly occurring during Heraclius' reign, while others clearly did not, which combined as they evolved over two centuries to produce what we find reflected in the tenth-century sources.

????????? 關于 10 世紀立法及其一方面對理解軍事土地的重要性，以及另一方面對國家財政行政結構的重要性的工作仍在繼續(xù)，并且無疑將在不久的將來帶來新的見解。然而，盡管最近有一些反對意見，我認為我們現(xiàn)在已經就 7 世紀到 10 世紀期間軍事土地形成的過程達成了合理程度的一致。更重要的是，我們可以更清楚地看到這個過程，在這個過程中，國家安排士兵招募和維持的傳統(tǒng)上非正式但重要的因素越來越成為帝國財政政治關注的焦點，并在 10 世紀轉變?yōu)橐粋€仔細監(jiān)管和正式的“系統(tǒng)”。在這方面，可以公平地說，傳統(tǒng)上稱為“主題系統(tǒng)”的東西實際上是 10 世紀而非 7 世紀的產物。因為我仍然找不到證據(jù)表明赫拉克利斯創(chuàng)造了一個“軍區(qū)系統(tǒng)”，涉及向士兵授予土地和重組野戰(zhàn)部隊。相反，所有的證據(jù)似乎都指向了一系列的發(fā)展，有些是國家計劃的，有些不是，有些肯定發(fā)生在赫拉克利烏斯統(tǒng)治期間，而另一些顯然沒有，這些發(fā)展結合了兩個世紀的發(fā)展我們的發(fā)現(xiàn)反映在十世紀的資料中。

預告：

VII. THE ARMY IN SOCIETY

七、社會中的軍隊

未完待續(xù)