Потенцијал функције доместика схола (VIII-X) век

Abstract

Тема рада односи се на развој функције доместика схола — најрепрезентативнијег представника институције врховне команде Царства. У периоду 8–10. в., доместик схола прошао је четири етапе развоја, у току којих је од најзначајнијег заповедника престоничке тагме схола постао врховни заповедник војске у походу, под чијом је командном влашћу била и престоничка и провинцијска војска. После реформе институције врховне команде (друга половина 10. в.) командна власт доместика схола постепено се ограничава, не само услед поделе те функције већ и због установљења нових, чији носиоци располажу истом или сличном командном влашћу (стратопедарх, стратилат). Већ крајем 10. века доместик схола губи непосредно заповедништво над елитном тагмом схола, те његова војна власт постаје слична оној која је проистицала из тзв. ванредних овлашћења.

The flexibility of the Byzantine state apparatus was was provided by the Emperor's capacity to grant competences, offices and honorary titles at his will, a feature that had a considerable impact on the organization of the supreme command in the Empire. Two basic types of military offices can be distinguished: the so-called official (those known from taktika) and unofficial, i.e. extraordinary ones (monostrategos, strategos-autokrator). The designations of the latter are often denied the status as technical terms. Now, whether these terms are technical or not is only to be determined on he basis of the existence of clearly defined competences attached to them. For instance, the report of Nikephoros Phokas the Elder's appointment to the post of " monostrategos of the Western Themes, Thrace and Macedonia and Kephalonia, Longobardia and Calabria" (G.Monachos-Muralt 757) bears witness to the clearly defined military competences of the monostrategos. It is therefore highly improbable that the term 'monostrategos' was used in its literal sense here: it is an officer whose power is not only military, but also explicitly accumulative in nature. Accumulative military power, i.e. a power over military units of different types and origins, is the basic characteristic of the highest commanding offices. From the standpoint of the Byzantine practice, the bestowal of a command or prerogatives (άρχή έξουσία) has to be kept apart from the appointment to an office, since in many cases a certain kind of military power did not necessarily follow from a certain kind of military office, even the coincidence of of power and office was common enough. As for the supreme military command, at least three ways of granting it can be distinguished: 1) bestowal of official, i.e. taktikon military offices (strategoi of the themes, commanders of tagmata); 2) bestowal of extraordinary military competences (naming to the office of strategos-autokrator or monostrategos); 3) bestowal of military competences to an official whose post does not belong to the category of military offices ( logothetes tou dromou, eunuchs of the Imperial palace as supreme commanders of military campaigns - parakoimomenos, protovestiaros, etc.). The interpretation of both an office (official or unofficial) and the power it was to be invested with depended on the decision of the ruler and on his interventions in the functioning of the state apparatus. In a considerable number of attested case, for instance, the so-called official offices - which, in contrast to the extraordinary unofficial ones, did imply a set of traditionally defined competences - transcended their basic content through a decision by the Emperor. Thus, all offices mentioned in the Byzantine taktika had a certain potential which was fully realized only if the ruler saw to it by granting the bearer of the office more power than was common for the duty he was performing. The process of the historical development of an office is to be interpreted as a change of its original content. On the one hand, when the competences attached to an office were abolished or restricted, the office tended to turn into an honorary title over time ( a fate shared by many, if not all, Byzantine offices). On the other hand, if the prerogatives were changed or widened, an office could grow weaker or stronger with respect to the power it carried. The way the potential of an office was realized is neatly illustrated by the example of the office of domestikos ton Scholon. Since domestikos ton Scholon came to be the most prestigious (official) office in the Byzantine military hierarchy, the way it developed is illustrative of the development of the entire institution of supreme command in the Empire. In the course of two centuries, which is the time that passed between the first mention of the domestikos ton Scholon as an independent officer (767/8) and the final stage of the military reform under John I Tzimiskes, reflected in the Escorial Taktikon (971-975), four stages in the development of the office of domestikos ton Scholon can be discerned.