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

III. THE DEBATE ON THE SO-CALLED THEME SYSTEM

三、 關(guān)于所謂主題系統(tǒng)的爭論

There are two aspects to the problems we have discussed: the origins of the so-called theme system itself; and the ways in which soldiers were recruited, and the connection that has been postulated by some historians between these and the themata themselves. With the exception of one or two specific problems, the former is probably the most easily summarized and involves the least number of technical textual problems, and so I will deal with this first. I will then examine the systems of recruitment, which remain still the focus of considerable disagreement, and last I will examine the implications of all this for the social position and status of soldiers and "the military" in general in the Byzantine world at different times.

????????? 我們所討論的問題有兩個(gè)方面：所謂主題系統(tǒng)本身的起源；以及招募士兵的方式，以及一些歷史學(xué)家所假設(shè)的這些與主題本身之間的聯(lián)系。除了一兩個(gè)具體問題，前者可能是最容易總結(jié)的，涉及的技術(shù)文本問題最少，所以我先處理這個(gè)。然后我將檢查招募系統(tǒng)，這仍然是相當(dāng)大的分歧的焦點(diǎn)，最后我將檢查所有這些對拜占庭世界不同時(shí)期士兵和“軍隊(duì)”的社會地位和地位的影響 .

It is generally agreed that the word thema meant originally simply army, applied to the forces of the commanders-in-chief (or magistri militum) of the late Roman field armies (those of Oriens, Armenia, the praesental field forces or Obsequium, and Thrace, together with the rump of the Justinianic Quaestura exercitus, which formed a naval division referred to until the later seventh century as the Karabisianoi, or ship troops).'6 Its origins are disputed, but the most likely root is from the verb tithemi, to set down or, by derivation and extension, establish, an argument put forward by D61lger in 1955, and referring to the fact that the armies in question were withdrawn into Asia Minor shortly after 636-637, in which year Roman attempts to reestablish their position in Syria and Palestine were finally shattered at the battle of the Yarmuk.'7 The Greek versions of these Latin divisional names became standard and are those which can be recognized as the Anatolikon, Armeniakon, Opsikion, Thrakesion, and Karabisianoi, as mentioned. The actual process of withdrawal, which appears to have followed the defeat at the Yarmuk in 636, probably took place from about 637 to 640. There is evidence that the process was rather carefully organized in regard to the logistical demands of the divisions, which were thus withdrawn in relation to the potential and extent of the districts which they came to occupy to support them adequately. This last point will be relevant when we consider the ways in which the state came to maintain its forces in the second half of the seventh century and afterward.

????????? 人們普遍同意，thema 這個(gè)詞最初的意思只是軍隊(duì)，適用于已故羅馬野戰(zhàn)軍（Oriens、亞美尼亞、praesental 野戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)或 Obsequium，以及色雷斯，連同查士丁尼的 Quaestura exercitus 的臀部，組成了一個(gè)海軍師，直到 7 世紀(jì)后期被稱為 Karabisianoi，或船隊(duì)。”6 它的起源有爭議，但最可能的詞根來自動詞tithemi ，確定或通過推導(dǎo)和擴(kuò)展建立，D61lger 在 1955 年提出的一個(gè)論點(diǎn)，并指的是有問題的軍隊(duì)在 636-637 年之后不久撤回小亞細(xì)亞，在這一年羅馬試圖重建他們在敘利亞和巴勒斯坦的地位最終在 Yarmuk 戰(zhàn)役中被打破。 '7 這些拉丁分區(qū)名稱的希臘語版本成為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，可以識別為 Anatolikon、Armeniakon、Opsikion、如前所述，Thrakesion 和 Karabisianoi。實(shí)際撤退過程似乎是在 636 年雅爾穆克戰(zhàn)敗之后發(fā)生的，可能發(fā)生在大約 637 年到 640 年之間。因此，考慮到他們?yōu)榱顺浞种С炙麄兌碱I(lǐng)的地區(qū)的潛力和范圍，他們撤回了。當(dāng)我們考慮國家在 7 世紀(jì)下半葉及之后維持其力量的方式時(shí)，最后一點(diǎn)將是相關(guān)的。

But it seems that already by the 670s and perhaps earlier an identity had developed between the names of the armies so withdrawn by Heraclius and the districts occupied by the said armies, so that the group of provinces occupied by a given army came to be referred to by the name of that army. Thus the names of the armies were applied to the districts over which they were spread, and a new set of territorial descriptive terms enters the medieval Greek language. But it is very important to say that, as far as I can tell, this hardly affected the administration of those regions. The older civil eparchiai or provinces continue to exist well into the eighth century and, as I have argued at greater length elsewhere, some significant aspects of the late Roman civil administrative apparatus survived until the early ninth century, when it was replaced, whether in stages or a single act, by the emperors of the period up to and including the 840s.

????????? 但似乎在 670 年代或更早的時(shí)候，赫拉克略如此撤出的軍隊(duì)名稱與上述軍隊(duì)占領(lǐng)的地區(qū)之間已經(jīng)形成了同一性，因此特定軍隊(duì)占領(lǐng)的省份集團(tuán)開始被稱為 以那支軍隊(duì)的名義。 因此，軍隊(duì)的名稱被應(yīng)用于它們所分布的地區(qū)，并且一套新的領(lǐng)土描述術(shù)語進(jìn)入了中世紀(jì)的希臘語。 但是很重要的一點(diǎn)是，據(jù)我所知，這幾乎不影響這些地區(qū)的管理。 舊的民政總區(qū)或行省一直存在到 8 世紀(jì)，正如我在其他地方更詳細(xì)地討論過的那樣，晚期羅馬民政管理機(jī)構(gòu)的一些重要方面一直存在，直到 9 世紀(jì)初，它被取代，無論是分階段 或一個(gè)單一的行為，由直到 840 年代（包括 840 年代）的皇帝執(zhí)行。

The point is that the traditional view of the themata as military districts headed by a generalissimo with supreme authority, both civil and military, is strictly true only for thesecond half of the ninth and some of the tenth century. Until the abolition or phasingout of the older civil structures between roughly the 780s and 830s, the strategos was thehead of the thema, but in a qualified way, for he was concerned chiefly with the mosteffective way of supporting and reproducing the provincial armies.

????????? 關(guān)鍵是，將統(tǒng)戰(zhàn)區(qū)視為由具有最高民事和軍事權(quán)威的大元帥領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的軍區(qū)的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)僅在 9 世紀(jì)下半葉和 10 世紀(jì)部分時(shí)間才完全正確。 在大約 780 年代和 830 年代之間廢除或逐步淘汰舊的土木結(jié)構(gòu)之前，戰(zhàn)略家是thema 的首領(lǐng)，但以一種合格的方式，因?yàn)樗饕P(guān)心支持和再生產(chǎn)省級軍隊(duì)的最有效方式。

Even after the changes which had occurred by the 840s, evidenced partly in the so-called Taktikon Uspenskij, thematic generals remained to a degree independent only as far as purely military matters went. And this is, I think, the nub of the matter: their exalted position in the source and eighth centuries mirrors both the increased importance of armies in the period after the beginning of the Muslim conquests as well as the bias and interests of the sources themselves, which could hardly avoid the political-military matter of everyday life. But the evidence, when examined carefully, actually says very little about the real power and authority of such officers, at least until the ninth and tenth centuries; and then it is clear that their authority was supreme primarily in military affairs, or matters related to the maintenance of the armies-the preparations for war, production of weapons, organizing of supplies and livestock for the troops, and so on. Whether the strategoi were ever actually involved in anything more than a very general overseeing capacity in civil affairs remains unclear for lack of evidence. But I suspect they had little to do with this side of the running of their group of provinces，or thema.

????????? 即使在 840 年代發(fā)生的變化之后（部分體現(xiàn)在所謂的 Taktikon Uspenskij 中），主題將軍仍然在一定程度上保持獨(dú)立，僅就純軍事事務(wù)而言。我認(rèn)為，這就是問題的關(guān)鍵：他們在源頭和八世紀(jì)的崇高地位既反映了穆斯林征服開始后軍隊(duì)重要性的增加，也反映了源頭本身的偏見和利益。 ，這幾乎無法避免日常生活中的政治軍事問題。但是，經(jīng)過仔細(xì)審查，這些證據(jù)實(shí)際上幾乎沒有說明這些官員的真正權(quán)力和權(quán)威，至少在 9 世紀(jì)和 10 世紀(jì)之前是這樣；然后很明顯，他們的權(quán)力主要是在軍事事務(wù)或與軍隊(duì)維護(hù)有關(guān)的事務(wù)上最高的——戰(zhàn)爭準(zhǔn)備、武器生產(chǎn)、軍隊(duì)供應(yīng)和牲畜的組織等等。由于缺乏證據(jù)，這些戰(zhàn)略人員是否真的參與過非常普遍的民事監(jiān)督能力以外的任何事情，目前尚不清楚。但我懷疑他們與他們的省份或主題集團(tuán)的運(yùn)行的這一方面關(guān)系不大。

This is borne out to an extent by the recent work of Kaegi, who has suggested very plausibly that in the last months of the Roman effort to retain control over districts in northern Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine the emperor Heraclius was forced to replace a number of governing officials with officers of a more clearly military competence, both to preserve central authority and prevent local separatism or separate treaty negotiations with Muslim leaders, and the better to organize defensive operations to preserve what was left of Roman territory. There is no evidence that these were exarchlike plenipotentiaries, however, but rather that Heraclius was replacing civil (and some military?) personnel who had proved unreliable in the crisis. Kaegi notes that Arabic sources mention officers dispatched to take charge of regions referred to as the Ajnad (early Muslim military provinces) of Damascus, Emesa, and Palestine;20 and as I have also recently suggested, modifying and extending a line of argument first elaborated by Irfan Shahid, these were districts established by the conquerors on the preexisting pattern of the older ducatus limitaneorum established in the same areas (probably somewhat restructured under Heraclius, but carrying on essentially the same functions as before).21 It is highly likely, following Kaegi's reasoning, that the magistri militum in com-mand of the various forces which were withdrawn into Anatolia were granted similar powers, and for much the same reasons, and that the origins (and the change in the terms used to describe them, from stratelates or magister militum to strategos) of their later authority as general governors is to be found in the officially recognized but still some-what ad hoc arrangements adopted by the imperial government at this time.

????????? 凱基最近的工作在一定程度上證實(shí)了這一點(diǎn)，他非常有說服力地表明，在羅馬努力保持對敘利亞北部、美索不達(dá)米亞和巴勒斯坦地區(qū)的控制權(quán)的最后幾個(gè)月里，赫拉克略皇帝被迫更換了一些管理官員的官員具有更明確的軍事能力，既要維護(hù)中央權(quán)力，又可以防止地方分離主義或與穆斯林領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人單獨(dú)談判條約，并更好地組織防御行動以保護(hù)剩余的羅馬領(lǐng)土。然而，沒有證據(jù)表明這些人是主教般的全權(quán)代表，而是表明赫拉克略正在取代在危機(jī)中被證明不可靠的文職（和一些軍事？）人員。 Kaegi 指出，阿拉伯消息來源提到被派遣負(fù)責(zé)被稱為大馬士革、埃梅薩和巴勒斯坦的 Ajnad（早期穆斯林軍事省份）地區(qū)的軍官；并且正如我最近所建議的那樣，修改和擴(kuò)展了首先闡述的論點(diǎn)伊爾凡·沙希德 (Irfan Shahid) 所著，這些地區(qū)是征服者根據(jù)在同一地區(qū)建立的舊 ducatus limitaneorum 的先前存在模式建立的地區(qū)（可能在 Heraclius 統(tǒng)治下進(jìn)行了一些重組，但功能與以前基本相同）。 很有可能，如下Kaegi 的推理，指揮撤退到安納托利亞的各種部隊(duì)的魔導(dǎo)師軍被授予類似的權(quán)力，并且出于相同的原因，并且起源（以及用于描述它們的術(shù)語的變化，來自戰(zhàn)略或 magister militum to strategos）他們后來作為總督的權(quán)威可以在官方認(rèn)可但仍然有點(diǎn)特殊的 arra 中找到當(dāng)時(shí)的朝廷所采用的法令。

The theme system thus came into being as armies were billeted across Asia Minor, in the first instance, through a process by which civil administration was subordinated to military priorities and interests, and by which the groups of provinces occupied by each of the late Roman field armies came collectively to be known by the name of that army. The civil administration, modified in various ways, especially in respect of fiscal administration, which was the state's overriding interest,22 subsisted in an increasingly altered form until, in the early ninth century, probably, the state introduced a series of measures to update the thematic administration and recognize the nature and form of the changes which had taken place.

????????? 因此，主題系統(tǒng)應(yīng)運(yùn)而生，因?yàn)檐婈?duì)在小亞細(xì)亞各地駐扎，首先是通過這樣一個(gè)過程，在這個(gè)過程中，民政從屬于軍事優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)和利益，以及羅馬晚期每個(gè)領(lǐng)域所占據(jù)的行省群。 軍隊(duì)統(tǒng)稱為那支軍隊(duì)。 以各種方式修改的民政管理，特別是在作為國家壓倒一切利益的財(cái)政管理方面， 以不斷變化的形式存在，直到 9 世紀(jì)初，國家很可能采取了一系列措施來更新 主題管理，并承認(rèn)已發(fā)生變化的性質(zhì)和形式。

預(yù)告：IV. THE STATE AND ITS ARMIES-A CRISIS OF RESOURCES

四、 國家及其軍隊(duì)——資源危機(jī)

未完待續(xù)