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

Hence also the difference in the tenth-century texts between stratiotes — the holder of the “military land” — and strateuomenos —the actively serving soldier. It has been found difficult to decide whether the latter was always a different person from the former or not, for the evidence is sometimes confusing and presupposes no general rule. But in view of the above considerations, it is possible to be a little more precise. First, I do not think it justified to conclude that if there had once been an identity of stratiotes and strateuomenos, it no longer existed in the tenth century. The passage already examined from De Caerimoniis seems to me quite explicit, and relates actual military service to the holder of the strateia. Certainly, this was changing in the tenth century, but there is no reason for doubting that there was an original identity of the two. Why else should the strateia only be held by a man, as is apparent from the case of Euthymius, whose mother, upon the death of her husband, previous holder of the strateia, was obliged to register her son as the new stratiotes? The objection voiced by Lemerle, that Euthymius could not be strateuomenos as well, since he was too young, is not relevant if it is recalled that the choice of those called up devolved upon the strategos and his staff, who selected from among those available (i. e. those registered in the military kodikes) the soldiers required. The remark of Leo VI is here relevant — ?κλ?ξη δε στρατι?τα? απ? παντ?? του ?π? σε θ?ματο ?, μ?τε πα?δα? μ?τε γ?ροντα?.

????????? 因此，在 10 世紀(jì)文本中，Stratiotes（“軍事土地”的擁有者）和 strateuomenos（積極服役的士兵）之間也存在差異。 人們發(fā)現(xiàn)很難確定后者是否總是與前者不同，因?yàn)樽C據(jù)有時(shí)令人困惑，并且沒(méi)有普遍規(guī)則。不過(guò)綜合以上的考慮，還可以再精確一點(diǎn)。 首先，我認(rèn)為如果曾經(jīng)有過(guò) stratiotes 和 strateuomenos 的同一性，那么它在 10 世紀(jì)就不再存在了，我認(rèn)為這是不合理的。 在我看來(lái)，De Caerimoniis 中已經(jīng)檢查過(guò)的段落非常明確，并且將實(shí)際的兵役與 strateia 的持有人聯(lián)系起來(lái)。 當(dāng)然，這在十世紀(jì)發(fā)生了變化，但沒(méi)有理由懷疑兩者的原始身份。 否則為什么要只由一個(gè)男人持有 Stratia，就像 Euthymius 的例子一樣，她的母親在丈夫去世后，前 Stratia 的持有者，不得不將她的兒子登記為新的 Stratiotes？? Lemerle 提出的反對(duì)意見(jiàn)，即 Euthymius 也不能成為 strateuomenos，因?yàn)樗贻p，如果回想一下，那些被召集的人的選擇是由 strategos 和他的工作人員決定的，他們從可用的人中選出（即那些在軍用 kodikes 中注冊(cè)的）士兵需要。利奧六世的評(píng)論在這里是相關(guān)的——以及從所有軍區(qū)中選出一名士兵，無(wú)論是男孩還是老人。

Even in the eleventh century this identity of stratidtes and strateuomenos remains, as a letter from Psellos indicates. The letter is directed to a certain Maleses, κριτ?? των Κατωτικ?ν, and concerns a poor stratiotes who, being subject to a strateia, has been called up by an unnamed official. He is apparently unable to join his unit until he has acquitted his public taxes, which are in arears, and Psellos requests that the latter be written off, so that the soldier ?λευθ?ρω ποδ? πε?σον ?πι?ναι ε?? το ταξε?διον . It is quite clear that here was a stratiotes subject to a regular strateia who had been called up (κατεγρ?φη κα? ει? ?λλαγ?ν κτλ .) for active service.

????????? 正如 Psellos 的一封信所表明的那樣，即使在 11 世紀(jì)，stratidtes 和 strateuomenos 的這種身份仍然存在。 這封信是寫(xiě)給某位男性的，唐斯法官，他關(guān)注一個(gè)貧窮的階層，受到階層的約束，并被一位不愿透露姓名的官員召見(jiàn)。他顯然無(wú)法加入他的單位，直到他無(wú)罪釋放了他的公共稅，Psellos 要求取消后者，以至于士兵“我從旅途中解放了我的腳”。很明顯，這里有一個(gè)受常規(guī)軍銜管轄的現(xiàn)役成員（記錄和變化等。）。

A further text which deserves more attention comes from an eleventh-century collection of the miracles of St. George. It relates apparently to the Bulgarian campaign of 917 under Leo Phocas, which ended in disaster at Acheloos. A soldier of middling wealth (?ν α?ταρκε?οι πλο?του διαβιο??), subject to a strateia (?ν δ? εν το?? στρατιωτικο?? καταλ?γοι? τεταγμ?νο? ο ?ν?ρ, δ? την τ?? στρατε?α? ?πηρεσ?αν ?παραιτ?τω? ?πηρετ?ν διετ?λει), is called up for active service, but due to old age is unable to go off on campaign. He sends his son George in his place: ο προειρημ?νο? στρατι?τη? Λ?ων ει? γ?ρα? ?ληλακ??, ο?κ ?δ?νατο την τ?? στρατε?α? ?πηρεσ?αν κα? οδοιπορ?αν τελ?σαι · δι? το?το κα? ?κων κα? μ? βουλ?μενο? τον εαυτο? μονογεν? υ?ον Γε?ργιον (. . .) ?ντ’ ?κε?νου ει? την τ?? στρατε?α? ?πηρεσ?αν ?κπ?μψαι ?βουλε?σατο κτλ. Again, there can be no doubt that the stratiotes, registered in the military codices, had to fulfil his duties personally.

????????? 另一個(gè)值得更多關(guān)注的文本來(lái)自 11 世紀(jì)的圣喬治奇跡集。 它顯然與利奧·?？ㄋ?/span> (Leo Phocas) 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的 917 年保加利亞戰(zhàn)役有關(guān)，這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)役以阿切魯斯 (Acheloos) 的災(zāi)難告終。產(chǎn)中等財(cái)富（在自給自足的財(cái)富生活中），受strateia（或在軍事目錄中命令男人，軍隊(duì)服務(wù)必須由仆人服務(wù)）的士兵，被征召為主動(dòng)服務(wù)，但由于年老是無(wú)法參加競(jìng)選活動(dòng)。 他派他的兒子喬治接替他的位置：上述士兵利奧年事已高，不能在軍隊(duì)服役和旅行；毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，在軍法中登記的士官們必須親自履行職責(zé)。

We may perhaps introduce at this point the case of Mousoulios, the impoverished soldier to whom Philaretos gave his horse. Agreed, there is no evidence here of a military holding in the tenth-century sense. But clearly, Mousoulios was registered as a soldier; clearly, he had to provide his own horse and equipment; and clearly, he was called up by the local commander when he was required for service. From what, then, did he make his living? The answer seems inescapable that he drew his livelihood from an income or property of some description, which supported also the cost of his military duties. Had he been a full-time soldier, he would not have been called up in the manner described. Had he been merely the representative of a military household, appointed by them to carry out the active service (which certainly seems to have occurred in the tenth century), he need have had no fear before his officer, for the family, or group of families in the case of syndotai, that provided him with his equipment would have been at fault. His only way to escape the difficulties of the situation in which he found himself was to flee, to a region where his obligations would not be known.101 While the case is not strong, it seems very likely that Mousoulios was a strati 5tes owing military service, which he was supposed to support in part at least out of his own private income (it need not necessarily have been derived from land, of course). He was both strati dtes and (in later terms) strateuomenos.

????????? 在這一點(diǎn)上，我們或許可以介紹一下 Mousoulios 的例子，他是一個(gè)貧困的士兵，Philaretos 把他的馬送給了他。 同意，這里沒(méi)有證據(jù)表明 10 世紀(jì)意義上的軍事控制。 但很明顯，穆蘇里奧斯被登記為士兵； 顯然，他必須提供自己的馬匹和裝備； 很明顯，他在需要服役時(shí)被當(dāng)?shù)刂笓]官召見(jiàn)。 那么，他靠什么謀生呢？ 答案似乎是不可避免的，他從某種收入或財(cái)產(chǎn)中謀生，這也支持了他的軍事職責(zé)。 如果他是一名全職士兵，他就不會(huì)以所描述的方式被征召。 如果他只是一個(gè)軍人家庭的代表，被他們?nèi)蚊鼮閳?zhí)行現(xiàn)役（這似乎確實(shí)發(fā)生在 10 世紀(jì)），那么他在他的軍官、家人或一群人面前就不必害怕了。 就 Syndotai 而言，向他提供設(shè)備的家庭可能有過(guò)錯(cuò)。 他擺脫困境的唯一方法是逃到一個(gè)不知道他的義務(wù)的地區(qū)。 101 雖然案件不成立，但穆蘇利奧斯似乎很可能是一個(gè)欠軍隊(duì)的階層 服務(wù)，他應(yīng)該至少?gòu)乃约旱乃饺耸杖胫刑峁┎糠种С郑ó?dāng)然，它不一定來(lái)自土地）。 他既是階層，又是（在后來(lái)的術(shù)語(yǔ)中）階層。

The man healed at the tomb of Nikon Metanoeite belongs to the same category of soldiers, and like Luke the Stylite, represents those “military families” who supported a soldier and provided his equipment. As noted above, it is significant that while it was becoming quite usual for the occupier of a “military holding” not to serve personally (see below), nor seemingly for a member of his family, Luke’s parents still presented him for enrolment, a point which illustrates the persistently hereditary nature of these obligations.

????????? 在尼康Metanoeite墓中被治愈的人屬于同一類士兵，與Stylite盧克一樣，代表了那些支持士兵并提供裝備的“軍人家庭”。 如上所述，重要的是，雖然“軍事基地”的占領(lǐng)者不親自服役（見(jiàn)下文），也不似乎是他的家庭成員，但盧克的父母仍然讓他入學(xué)，這是一個(gè)很重要的事情。 這一點(diǎn)說(shuō)明了這些義務(wù)的持續(xù)世襲性質(zhì)。

But this principle of hereditary service was progressively weakened during the tenth century, as the holdings themselves came to be regarded as the legal basis of the obligations to serve in the army. Hence it was possible for palace officers and court officials to have tenure of military lands and still be able to carry out their full-time duties in whichever officium they served, either by nominating another — whether outside their family or not is not clear, although the appointment of an outsider seems more likely — to fulfill the duties attached to that holding; or by paying a lump sum in lieu of the personal service, as Lemerle has pointed out.

????????? 但這一世襲服役原則在 10 世紀(jì)逐漸被削弱，因?yàn)樨?cái)產(chǎn)本身被視為軍隊(duì)服役義務(wù)的法律基礎(chǔ)。 因此，宮廷官員和朝廷官員有可能擁有軍用土地，并且仍然能夠通過(guò)提名另一個(gè)人來(lái)履行他們所服務(wù)的任何職務(wù)的全職職責(zé)——無(wú)論是否在他們的家庭之外尚不清楚，盡管 任命外部人員似乎更有可能——履行與該控股相關(guān)的職責(zé)； 或者通過(guò)一次性支付代替?zhèn)€人服務(wù)，正如 Lemerle 所指出的那樣。

In this connection, the existence of lands subdivided by will or by distribution among heirs also points to the probability that soldiers supported and equipped from the revenues of a subdivided holding, each portion of which bore only a part of the obligation, did not belong to the family or families owning the land, but were either hired and equipped by the landholders when the adnoumion was announced; or equipped by the local military establishment, who extracted the equivalent of the strateia, as a cash commuta-tion.

????????? 在這方面，根據(jù)意愿或繼承人之間的分配細(xì)分土地的存在也表明，士兵可能從細(xì)分土地的收入中獲得支持和裝備，其中每一部分僅承擔(dān)一部分義務(wù)，不屬于 擁有土地的一個(gè)或多個(gè)家庭，但在宣布公告時(shí)由土地所有者雇用和裝備； 或由當(dāng)?shù)剀娛聶C(jī)構(gòu)裝備，他們提取了等價(jià)物，作為現(xiàn)金兌換。

It is also probable that in order to maintain the new corps of heavy cavalry established on a large scale by Nicephorus II, the principle of joint contribution was extended, as well as the amount of land registered in the military logothesion which was subject to the siraieiu.104 105 A text of Ibn Hawkal confirms that in the time of Nicephorus II the wealthier land-holders had to provide a cavalry trooper, his equipment and an esquire; while the less wealthy paid approximately 10 dinars each (presumably to enable the strategos to raise and equip more soldiers). But this appears in fact to be an exceptional measure adopted for a limited time only, rather than a form of commutation of the strateia. The wealthier landholders referred to by Ibn Hawkal are to be equated with those not normally subject to a strateia, but who can be required, under exceptional circumstances, -to provide a soldier and his equipment; a procedure also noted by Leo VI and by no means new. It is possible that those who paid 10 dinars each were actually stratiotai paying a form of commutation; but again, it seems more likely that Ibn Hawkal refers here to an exceptional case, precedents for which already existed, of course, by which a general imposition on the population was levied to equip expeditionary forces.106 The well-known case of commutation in the De Administrando Imperio perhaps foreshadows this procedure, whereby instead of furnishing equipment and men, the stratos of the Peloponnese opted to pay a cash sum, five nomismata each, or five nomismata between two for the poorer.

?????????? 也有可能是為了維持尼塞弗魯斯二世大規(guī)模建立的新重騎兵團(tuán)，延長(zhǎng)了共同貢獻(xiàn)的原則，以及受制于西拉伊烏的軍事標(biāo)志中登記的土地?cái)?shù)量。? .104 105 伊本·霍卡爾 (Ibn Hawkal) 的一篇文章證實(shí)，在尼斯弗魯斯二世 (Nicephorus II) 時(shí)代，富裕的地主必須提供騎兵、裝備和侍從； 而較不富裕的人每人支付大約 10 第納爾（大概是為了使戰(zhàn)略家能夠籌集和裝備更多的士兵）。 但這實(shí)際上似乎只是在有限時(shí)間內(nèi)采取的特殊措施，而不是戰(zhàn)略的一種形式。 伊本霍卡爾所指的較富有的土地所有者等同于那些通常不受戰(zhàn)略約束但在特殊情況下可以被要求提供士兵及其裝備的人； 利奧六世也提到了一個(gè)程序，但絕不是新的。 有可能每人支付 10 第納爾的人實(shí)際上是在支付某種形式的減免； 但同樣，伊本霍卡爾似乎更有可能在這里指的是一個(gè)例外情況，當(dāng)然，先例已經(jīng)存在，通過(guò)這些先例，對(duì)人口進(jìn)行普遍強(qiáng)加以裝備遠(yuǎn)征部隊(duì)。 106 眾所周知的減刑案例 De Administrando Imperio 或許預(yù)示了這一程序，即伯羅奔尼撒的階層不提供設(shè)備和人員，而是選擇支付現(xiàn)金，每人支付 5 nomismata，或者為較貧窮的人支付 5 nomismata 介于兩者之間。

A marked difference thus did develop between the stratidtes and the strateuomenos in the tenth century, a difference that was officially accepted and promoted as the need to protect the basis of the provincial recruiting system — the lands from which the registered families gained their livelihood — produced a legal codification of the obligations attached to such lands, and thus concealed the original nature of military service, a personal obligation upon individuals. But I stress that this distinction (which even in the later tenth century had not yet produced a complete commutation of service)108 only became pronounced during the tenth century: the sources are not in fact contradictory if it is accepted that both personal service of the registered strati otes or a member of his family as strateuomenos on the one hand, and the equipping and provisioning of an outsider on the other hand, were common practice in the second half of the tenth century.

????????? 因此，10 世紀(jì)的 Stratidtes 和 strateuomenos 之間確實(shí)出現(xiàn)了顯著差異，這種差異被官方接受并推廣為需要保護(hù)省級(jí)招聘系統(tǒng)的基礎(chǔ)——登記家庭賴以謀生的土地——產(chǎn)生了 對(duì)這些土地的義務(wù)進(jìn)行法律編纂，從而掩蓋了兵役的原始性質(zhì)，即個(gè)人的個(gè)人義務(wù)。 但我要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，這種區(qū)別（即使在 10 世紀(jì)后期還沒(méi)有產(chǎn)生完全的服務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)換）108 僅在 10 世紀(jì)才變得明顯：如果人們接受兩種個(gè)人服務(wù)，那么這些來(lái)源實(shí)際上并不矛盾。 一方面，將階層或他的家庭成員注冊(cè)為 Stratuomenos，另一方面，裝備和供應(yīng)局外人是 10 世紀(jì)下半葉的普遍做法。

How soon the latter developed it is difficult to say. The example of Euthymius, while it may suggest that it occurred occasionally beforehand, is dubious. Euthymius was still registered ev roti; crrpaxaTaXoyou; at the age of eighteen, when he decided to become a monk; and although there is nothing to suggest that he deserted his duties, neither is it likely that his biographer would have mentioned it if he had.????

????????? 后者發(fā)展得有多快很難說(shuō)。? Euthymius 的例子，雖然它可能表明它之前偶爾發(fā)生過(guò)，但值得懷疑。? Euthymius 仍然注冊(cè)為 ev roti；? crrpaxaTaXoyou; 十八歲時(shí)，他決定出家； 雖然沒(méi)有任何跡象表明他放棄了自己的職責(zé)，但他的傳記作者也不太可能提到他。

未完待續(xù)