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

I. INTRODUCTION

一、引言

The relationship between the military, as the coercive arm of an organized state, and "civil society" is always interesting and important, because it is never an easy one. There are always tensions between the army in its purely military role (however that may be defined in each specific culture), and the army as a nexus of social opinions and people of different regional or local loyalties and traditions.

????????? 軍隊作為一個有組織的國家的強制力量，與“公民社會”之間的關系總是有趣而重要的，因為這從來都不是一件容易的事。 軍隊在純粹的軍事作用（然而這可能在每個特定的文化中被定義）與作為社會觀點和不同地區(qū)或地方忠誠度和傳統(tǒng)的人們的紐帶的軍隊之間總是存在緊張關系。

How we approach the subject depends on what structural significance we attach to the army in the state and society: which elements of the army played what roles in politics, for example, and where in the pattern of social power relationships are they to be situated at different times? What sort of state are we talking about? And how did the state organize such things as the recruitment and payment, the equipping and supplying of its soldiers? And how do we define the term "soldier" in a society in which there were quite clearly both technical and everyday usages, reflected in the employment of the word stratiotes to mean different things in different contexts?

????????? 我們?nèi)绾翁幚磉@個主題取決于我們賦予軍隊在國家和社會中的結構意義：例如，軍隊的哪些要素在政治中發(fā)揮了什么作用，以及它們在社會權力關系模式中的位置 不同的時間？ 我們在談論什么樣的狀態(tài)？ 國家又是如何組織士兵的招募和支付、裝備和供應等工作的？ 在一個技術和日常用法都非常清楚的社會中，我們?nèi)绾味x“士兵”一詞，這反映在使用“stratiotes”一詞在不同的上下文中表示不同的事物？

Tied in to these questions are issues of normative roles and behavior. How did people in the society regard soldiers of differing status and function? How did they respond to them under different conditions-especially those which counted as "abnormal"? What legal status did soldiers of all types have in respect of their position in regard to the state and civil society at large?

????????? 與這些問題相關的是規(guī)范角色和行為問題。 社會上的人們?nèi)绾慰创煌匚缓吐毮艿氖勘?他們在不同的條件下是如何應對的——尤其是那些被視為“異常”的？ 就其在國家和整個民間社會中的地位而言，各種類型的士兵具有什么法律地位？

Finally, how did the political ideology of the state fit soldiers into its scheme of things? And how did soldiers use this ideological system at different times, to whose advantage did they act, and with what intention? What was the self-perception of soldiers, and how differentiated was it-was there a difference, for example, between the views of officers and those of "men," between fighters and logistics staff, or across time, as the social origins of soldiers changed?

????????? 最后，國家的政治意識形態(tài)是如何讓士兵融入其計劃的？ 士兵們在不同時期是如何使用這種意識形態(tài)的，他們對誰有利，出于什么目的？ 士兵的自我認知是什么，差異有多大——例如，軍官和“男人”的看法，戰(zhàn)士和后勤人員的看法之間，或者跨時間，作為軍人的社會起源有什么不同嗎？ 戰(zhàn)士變了？

I cannot examine all these themes here. But by looking at a particular area, namely that of the social status and recruitment of soldiers and their leaders in the context of the strategic organization of the armies and its evolution, I shall touch upon several of them and suggest some approaches which may be useful for further research. For in spite of differences in emphasis over the years, certain key problems continue to dominate the study of the Byzantine army, especially where its institutional and social history is concerned. This is particularly evident in two major themes, namely, the origins, development, and decline of the middle Byzantine system of military districts, or themata, and of the system of "military lands." And it is worth noting that this represents no mere concern for administrative and institutional history alone. On the contrary, it was evident from the very beginnings of the debate that these institutions played a crucial role in the social and political history of the Byzantine world.

????????? 我不能在這里檢查所有這些主題。但是通過考察一個特定領域，即在軍隊戰(zhàn)略組織及其演變的背景下，社會地位和士兵及其領導人的招募，我將涉及其中的幾個領域，并提出一些可能有用的方法。以供進一步研究。因為盡管多年來重點有所不同，但某些關鍵問題繼續(xù)主導著對拜占庭軍隊的研究，特別是在其制度和社會歷史方面。這在兩大主題中尤為明顯，即中拜占庭軍區(qū)系統(tǒng)或“軍區(qū)”系統(tǒng)的起源、發(fā)展和衰落。值得注意的是，這不僅僅是對行政和制度歷史的關注。相反，從辯論的一開始就很明顯，這些機構在拜占庭世界的社會和政治歷史中發(fā)揮了至關重要的作用。

II. A BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY

二、 簡要歷史調(diào)查

Until the 1940s, scholars had more or less agreed on the nature of the transition from late Roman military structures to those of the Byzantine Empire. There were differences of opinion, of course, but on the whole these were relatively minor. Writers such as Fedor Uspenskij and Julian Kulakovskij in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries-along with scholars such as Heinrich Gelzer, John Bagnell Bury, Norman Baynes, Charles Diehl, Charles William Oman, Ernst Stein, and one or two others-had devoted articles and monographs to aspects of the military organization of the empire. All had noted and commented upon the difference between the late Roman system of civil provinces and military regions under separate and distinct administrative structures, and the later Byzantine system of military districts or themata under the unified authority of a strategos or general. Uspenskij first remarked on the possible relationship between themes and soldiers' lands, and the events of the reign of Heraclius; Gelzer in particular, followed by Stein, who also noted the possibility of a connection between the beginnings of the themes and the lands of soldiers, attempted to trace the process of change from one to another, and other historians-especially Bury-took up this problem. The general consensus was that the origins of the later themes lay in a combination of the militarization of the older Roman provinces and dioceses, on the one hand, stressing in particular the formation of the two exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage in the reign of Tiberius II or Maurice (i.e., between 578 and 602), with the establishment of a more widespread provincialization of recruitment following the pattern of the limitanei, the frontier garrison soldiers spread along the limites or defended borders of the empire. The majority of scholars regarded the reign of Heraclius as central to these changes.

????????? 直到 1940 年代，學者們或多或少都同意從晚期羅馬軍事結構向拜占庭帝國軍事結構過渡的性質(zhì)。當然也有不同意見，但總的來說這些都比較小。 19 世紀后期和 20 世紀早期的諸如 Fedor Uspenskij 和 Julian Kulakovskij 之類的作家以及諸如 Heinrich Gelzer、John Bagnell Bury、Norman Baynes、Charles Diehl、Charles William Oman、Ernst Stein 和其他一兩個人的學者都致力于關于帝國軍事組織方面的文章和專著。所有人都注意到并評論了羅馬后期的民事行省和軍區(qū)系統(tǒng)在單獨和不同的行政結構下與后來的拜占庭軍區(qū)或軍事區(qū)系統(tǒng)之間的區(qū)別，這些系統(tǒng)在一個戰(zhàn)略或?qū)④姷慕y(tǒng)一權威下。烏斯賓斯基首先評論了主題與士兵土地之間可能的關系，以及赫拉克略統(tǒng)治時期的事件；特別是 Gelzer，其次是 Stein，他也注意到主題的開始與士兵的土地之間存在聯(lián)系的可能性，試圖追溯從一個到另一個的變化過程，其他歷史學家——尤其是 Bury——接受了這一點問題。普遍的共識是，后來的主題起源于古羅馬行省和教區(qū)的軍事化，一方面特別強調(diào)提比略二世統(tǒng)治時期拉文納和迦太基兩個總督的形成或莫里斯（即，578 年至 602 年之間），隨著遵循限制模式的更廣泛的招募地方化的建立，邊防駐軍士兵沿著帝國的限制或防御邊界展開。大多數(shù)學者認為希拉克略的統(tǒng)治是這些變化的核心。

The discussion then lapsed for some years, and it was only in the late 1940s that the problem of the creation of the themata again began to attract interest. This is not to say that further work did not appear in the interim: the Hungarian scholar Eugen Dark published several articles on what was seen as the process of “militarizat” of the Byzantine Empire and the influence of military structures from the Eurasian steppe zone, while the Greek scholar Nikostratos Kalomenopoulos published a book in 1937 on the organization of the Byzantine army. The latter, unfortunately, has no bibliography and virtually no secondary references, so that it is difficult to say what aspects of the debate the author was familiar with; but Kalomenopoulos did take up a further element of the problem, one which had been raised first by Uspenskij, then by Gelzer and by Diehl, namely that of the nature of recruitment of the soldiers and the connection between that and the themes themselves. Similarly, in discussing aspects of the imperial fiscal and civil administration, a number of scholars had to deal with some of the questions raised in connection with military organization.

????????? 討論隨后擱置了幾年，直到 1940 年代后期，創(chuàng)建主題數(shù)據(jù)的問題才再次引起人們的興趣。這并不是說在此期間沒有出現(xiàn)進一步的工作：匈牙利學者 Eugen Dark 發(fā)表了幾篇文章，討論了被視為拜占庭帝國“軍事化”的過程以及歐亞草原地區(qū)軍事結構的影響，而希臘學者 Nikostratos Kalomenopoulos 在 1937 年出版了一本關于拜占庭軍隊組織的書。不幸的是，后者沒有參考書目，幾乎沒有二次參考文獻，因此很難說作者熟悉辯論的哪些方面；但 Kalomenopoulos 確實談到了問題的另一個要素，這個要素首先由 Uspenskij 提出，然后由 Gelzer 和 Diehl 提出，即招募士兵的性質(zhì)及其與主題本身之間的聯(lián)系。同樣，在討論帝國財政和民政方面，一些學者不得不處理一些與軍事組織有關的問題。

The beginnings of the modern debate, if we can call it that, can be traced to the work of Agostino Pertusi and Georg Ostrogorsky. In an article in 1953, Ostrogorsky set out to disprove the thesis that had been recently proposed by Pertusi that the themata were a development of the second half of the seventh century only, and to prove on the contrary that there had existed a direct connection between the creation of the themes, the politics of Emperor Heraclius during and immediately after the Persian war, and the ways in which soldiers in the themes were recruited. It was Ostrogorsky who first constructed a clear set of hypotheses about the nature of the military lands, whose creation he attributed to Heraclius, and the establishment of new, militarized provinces, created to cater for the recruiting and supplying of the field armies of the period of the Persian and, more especially, the first Arab wars, field armies which Diehl had already seen bore the Hellenized names of their late Roman predecessors, the forces of the magistri militum.

????????? 現(xiàn)代辯論的開端，如果我們可以這樣稱呼的話，可以追溯到 Agostino Pertusi 和 Georg Ostrogorsky 的工作。在 1953 年的一篇文章中，奧斯特羅戈爾斯基著手反駁佩爾圖西最近提出的論點，即 themata 只是 7 世紀下半葉的發(fā)展，并相反證明兩者之間存在直接聯(lián)系。主題的創(chuàng)建、波斯戰(zhàn)爭期間和之后的赫拉克利烏斯皇帝的政治，以及主題中士兵的招募方式。是奧斯特羅戈爾斯基首先對軍事土地的性質(zhì)提出了一套明確的假設，他將其歸因于赫拉克略，并建立了新的軍事化省份，為當時野戰(zhàn)軍的招募和供應提供服務在波斯，尤其是第一次阿拉伯戰(zhàn)爭中，迪爾已經(jīng)看到的野戰(zhàn)軍以他們已故羅馬前輩的希臘化名稱命名，即魔導師軍。

Ostrogorsky's thesis on the "theme system," which it now became, was supported, tacitly or more vocally, by several scholars, among them both Franz Do1ger and Wilhelm EnBlin. But it was soon challenged by Pertusi, elaborating on his original position, as well as by Johannes Karayannopoulos. The latter argued for a more gradual evolution of the themes out of the old late Roman field armies and the limitanei, suggesting in effect that the situation as it is known from the sixth century developed through a "natural progression" to that known from the tenth century. Pertusi's views, which pro-vide the third possibility, and which seem to me the most plausible, argue for a gradual transformation of the late Roman establishment under the pressures imposed by the radically changed military, political, and economic situation which pertained from the earlier and middle seventh century and after.

????????? 奧斯特羅戈爾斯基關于“主題系統(tǒng)”的論文，現(xiàn)在變成了，得到了幾位學者的默許或更直接的支持，其中包括弗朗茨·多格和威廉·恩布林。 但很快就受到 Pertusi 和 Johannes Karayannopoulos 的挑戰(zhàn)，詳細闡述了他的原始立場。 后者主張從舊的晚期羅馬野戰(zhàn)軍和限制隊中更漸進地演變主題，實際上表明從六世紀已知的情況是通過“自然進程”發(fā)展到十世紀以來已知的。 世紀。 佩爾圖西的觀點提供了第三種可能性，在我看來也是最合理的，主張在軍事、政治和經(jīng)濟形勢急劇變化所施加的壓力下，晚期羅馬建制逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變 七世紀中葉及以后。

The result from the late 1950s-summed up nicely in the papers presented by these scholars at the 1958 International Byzantine Congress in Munich and those published in the years immediately after'0-was the establishment of two clearly divided schools of thought: one based its arguments around the idea of Heraclius having deliberately introduced a series of "reforms" in a conscious effort to counter future threats from the Persians; the other, in one of the two variant forms referred to above, presented what has been called a gradualist approach, seeing the themes as arising slowly out of either the administrative structures of the sixth century or out of the chaos of the seventh century, and questioning the connection of the latter with the system of recruitment, however it worked, postulated by the Ostrogorsky thesis, a system centered on the notion of the "military lands." The most extreme version of the opposition to the Ostrogorsky approach was voiced by Paul Lemerle in two articles published in 1958, the sameyear as the Munich Congress, in which he argued that there was no clear connection inthe sources between military lands, so called, and the themes." Hdlene Ahrweiler similarly published a major survey of the military and civil administrative apparatus of the state from the ninth to the eleventh century in which, while avoiding the issue of the origins of the themes and military lands, she tended implicitly toward Lemerle's position. Hdle'ne Antoniadis-Bibicou, analyzing the origins of the naval thema of the Karabisianoi, although with different conclusions, tended in contrast to follow the position promoted by Ostrogorsky.

????????? 1950 年代后期的結果——這些學者在 1958 年慕尼黑國際拜占庭大會上發(fā)表的論文以及在 0 年代之后發(fā)表的論文中得到了很好的總結——是建立了兩個明顯分歧的思想流派：一個基于其圍繞赫拉克利烏斯有意引入一系列“改革”的想法的爭論，以有意識地努力應對來自波斯人的未來威脅；另一種，在上面提到的兩種變體形式中的一種中，提出了所謂的漸進主義方法，認為這些主題是從六世紀的行政結構或七世紀的混亂中緩慢產(chǎn)生的，并且質(zhì)疑后者與招募系統(tǒng)的聯(lián)系，不管它如何運作，由奧斯特羅戈爾斯基論文假設，一個以“軍事土地”概念為中心的系統(tǒng)。保羅·萊默勒 (Paul Lemerle) 在 1958 年發(fā)表的兩篇文章中表達了反對 Ostrogorsky 方法的最極端版本，與慕尼黑大會同年，他在文章中辯稱，所謂的軍事土地和軍事土地之間的來源沒有明確的聯(lián)系。主題。” Hdlene Ahrweiler 同樣發(fā)表了一份關于 9 世紀到 11 世紀國家軍事和民事行政機構的重要調(diào)查，其中，在避免主題和軍事土地的起源問題的同時，她含蓄地傾向于 Lemerle 的Hdle'ne Antoniadis-Bibicou 分析了 Karabisianoi 海軍主題的起源，盡管得出了不同的結論，但與奧斯特羅戈爾斯基所提倡的立場形成鮮明對比。

Apart from one or two significant contributions dealing with specific problems from scholars such as Nicolas Oikonomides and Walter Kaegi in the period from the mid1960s to mid-1970s-the former tending to favor the Heraclian reform, the latter clearly coming out against it-the situation remained more or less polarized around these positions for the next fifteen years or so.

????????? 除了 20 世紀 60 年代中期至 70 年代中期尼古拉斯·奧科諾米德斯 (Nicolas Oikonomides) 和沃爾特·凱吉 (Walter Kaegi) 等學者針對具體問題的一兩個重要貢獻外——前者傾向于支持赫拉克利改革，后者顯然反對它——情況 在接下來的十五年左右的時間里，這些立場或多或少保持兩極分化。

As always seems to happen with such debates, what can in fact be taken as a compromise solution then developed, but one which was clearly along the lines of that enunciated in the work of Pertusi and, to a lesser extent, Karayannopoulos. On the one hand, certain developments, crucial to the evolution of the later "thematic" system, did have their roots in the reign of Heraclius, even before his reign (a point stressed by Stein). On the other hand, the idea that there had been any direct institutional connection between the limitanei and the thematic system was challenged or dismissed, while it was also argued that there is no evidence for the creation of a system of recruitment based from its beginnings on the attribution by the state of lands to soldiers and their families at all.

????????? 與此類辯論似乎總是發(fā)生的一樣，實際上可以被視為一種折衷解決方案的方法隨后發(fā)展起來，但顯然與 Pertusi 的工作以及在較小程度上 Karayannopoulos 的工作中闡述的路線一致。 一方面，某些對后來“主題”系統(tǒng)演變至關重要的發(fā)展確實源于赫拉克略的統(tǒng)治，甚至在他統(tǒng)治之前（斯坦因強調(diào)了這一點）。 另一方面，限制和專題系統(tǒng)之間存在任何直接制度聯(lián)系的想法受到質(zhì)疑或駁回，同時也有人爭辯說，沒有證據(jù)表明從一開始就建立了基于招聘系統(tǒng)的招聘系統(tǒng)。 土地狀況完全歸屬于士兵及其家屬。

In the last few years, a number of historians have expressed their support for this position; others have accepted it, with minor and major modifications; still others have rejected it, and sought to restore the Ostrogorsky thesis to its former preeminence. Of the first two groups, Ahrweiler, Andre Guillou, Kaegi, Gilbert Dagron, Dan it a G6recki, and Oikonomides are probably the names which have appeared most frequently in print. But there are several others. Of the last group, Warren Treadgold and Martha Gregoriou-Ioannidou have provided the most important counterarguments, although very different from one another, with Michael Hendy providing a middle-road alternative: Gregoriou-Ioannidou has tried to revive a Karayannopoulos view, bringing the limitanei back into the picture, whereas Tread gold has tried to build a thesis more purely representing the position of Ostrogorsky, basing his arguments primarily on the traditional significance ascribed to the reign of Heraclius, together with some new suggestions, in particular regarding the fate of the imperial estates between the seventh and tenth century. Hendy has favored a version of this last view, with some important suggestions on the role of the fiscal administration and the kommerkiarioi; and Oikonomideshas also suggested his own middle way, supporting tentatively the idea of an original Heraclian origin, but in the context of a gradual evolution tied in to the changing fiscal structures of the state as its military administration.

????????? 在過去的幾年里，一些歷史學家表達了他們對這一立場的支持；其他人接受了它，并進行了細微和重大的修改；還有一些人拒絕了它，并試圖將奧斯特羅戈爾斯基的論點恢復到以前的卓越地位。在前兩個組中，Ahrweiler、Andre Guillou、Kaegi、Gilbert Dagron、Dan it a G6recki 和 Oikonomides 可能是出現(xiàn)頻率最高的名字。但還有其他幾個。在最后一組中，Warren Treadgold 和 Martha Gregoriou-Ioannidou 提供了最重要的反駁，盡管彼此非常不同，Michael Hendy 提供了一個中間路線選擇：Gregoriou-Ioannidou 試圖恢復 Karayannopoulos 的觀點，帶來了限制回到畫面中，而 Tread gold 試圖建立一個更純粹地代表 Ostrogorsky 立場的論文，他的論點主要基于對赫拉克利烏斯統(tǒng)治的傳統(tǒng)意義，以及一些新的建議，特別是關于奧斯特羅戈爾斯基的命運七世紀至十世紀的皇家莊園。 Hendy 贊成最后一種觀點的版本，并就財政管理和 kommerkiarioi 的作用提出了一些重要建議；和 Oikonomideshas 也提出了他自己的中間道路，暫時支持原始赫拉克利亞起源的想法，但在逐漸演變的背景下與國家作為其軍事管理的不斷變化的財政結構相關聯(lián)。

In what follows, I should like to make this brief summary of often quite complex debates more meaningful by outlining key issues of the current state of the debate. I will try to give a balanced overview.

???????? 在接下來的內(nèi)容中，我想通過概述辯論當前狀態(tài)的關鍵問題，使這個對通常相當復雜的辯論的簡短總結更有意義。 我會盡量給出一個平衡的概述。

未完待續(xù)