Тематски војници у византијском друштву — прилог новом процењивању проблема

Abstract

У раду се преиспитује, након многих година контроверзи у науци, генеза и друштвени статус тематских војника. Констатује се да, упркос значајним променама које временом настају, може да се запази црта континуираног развитка и, потом, опадања овог друштвеног слоја између VII и X века. Констатује се, истовремено, сложеност његове физиономије и изразита посебност у односу на сељачки сталеж.

Investigations of thematic organization never yielded generally accepted results. The reasons behind this are closely tied to limitations regarding source material. On the one hand, there are certain chronological or thematic units poorly represented in the sources. On the other, there are cases well documented by the sources which can, however, overlook data logically expected to be mentioned. Still, Byzantine sources, including legal texts with their often anachronous clauses, have an understanding of thematic priorities which differs from our own, defined by our contemporary standards. Scholars investigating the institution of stratiotes constantly face such difficulties. An undesired but still rather common result of such problems accounts for the fact that researchers base their opinions on superficial lexis and terminology of Byzantine sources and disregard the connections between the main lines of development of the so-called middle Byzantine period (VII-XI centuries) and the changes in thematic organization. Today we can say that the first themes date from the VII century. From then on, the system was gradually developed. Although the original large themes were divided into smaller units during the VIII century, the principles of organization of subsequent themes - which appeared in the IX and X centuries - remained rather unchanged. Above all, that is quite evident from hierarchic lists (Taktika), dating from the first half of the IX to the first half of the X century (Taktikon Uspenskij, Philoteos' Kletorologion, Taktikon Beneshevich). Only in the late X century we encounter a new situation (Escorial Taktikon). In short, from then on we are dealing with quite a complex administrative organism. As for the social aspect, soldier are a part of society in which the so-called free peasants had their own land within the framework of village community property. This general picture is more or less reflected in various sources of different date : in the articles of the so-called Agrarian Law (end of VII - beginning of VIII century), in Theophanes' list of "crimes" of emperor Nicephoros I (802-811) and in data found in the Treaty on Tax Levying (X century). We are dealing with such social and economic foundations of the state which lasted, continually, at least from the end of the VII/the beginning of the VIII to the beginning of the X century, those which, when endangered by the crisis, the emperors attempted to defend by regular repetition of protective laws. All of the above leads us to the conclusion that it would be impossible to expect that the "birth" of this social order during the VII century brought about quick reform based on proclamations of generally valid laws. Secondly, general and common characteristics of the entire era changed in times of crisis, gradually and at first undetectably, so that the order of things marked by the crisis finally surfaced only in the X century. This development is understandable because many significant phenomena of social life were not necessarily defined by specific laws, regardless of the existence of a developed written legislative corpus. The foundations of the legislative order of the Empire did not come in the form of a written constitution or group of basic laws. Under such conditions, explanations of the social status of soldiers should not necessarily be sought among the early examples of pre-Macedonian legislature, just as, following such unsuccessful searches, one should not draw far-reaching conclusions. Since there was obviously no quick, focused and legislatively rounded-off reform at the moment of the appearance of the military order or social group in question, it would be dangerous to take either the "Ostrogorsky model" or the viewpoints which reject it as an absolute paradigm. After all, Byzantine practice was far more diverse then what we are often ready to admit. It is obvious that, in its initial phase - during the second half of the VII century - the thematic organization developed in times of long lasting demographic crisis and the first serious shortages of money reserves and natural goods. For the most part, the need for military corps could be met in no other way but by settling soldiers. Such soldiers-settlers comprise the kernel of the army and are distributed all across the land, as indicated by the names of the themes of the fist and second generation: Opsikion, Armeniakon, Anatolikon, Karavisianon, Voukelarion, Optimaton, Thrakesianon. Certain, although not numerous examples, uncover the diversity of the sources from which the newly the settled soldiers between the end of the VII and the first half of the IX century were recruited (Slavs in the theme Opsikion, the siege of the city of Tyana, extensive measures of emperor Nicephoros I, the case of the pretender to the throne, Thomas the Slav, and the case of the christianized Kouramites). Generally speaking, the settling of soldiers implies the existence of their more or less pronounced physical ties to the land. However, this does not have to implicate that they all had personal holdings or, to an even lesser extent, that they were all peasants. It only means that these soldiers used the land as the dominant source of income. For, according to De ceremoniis and Ibn-Khordadbih, their annual salary (ρόγα) amounted to 1 nomisma, and could not exceed the maximum of 12 (by exception 18) nomismata. Actually, these salaries should be seen as additional assets to the overall income of the soldiers. In that sense, some of the measures (crimes) of emperor Nicephoros I, as interpreted by the chronicle of Theophanes, are especially interesting. The first crime is the settlement of soldiers from all (Asia Minor) themes in the Sclavinias on the Balkans. Those designated for re-settlement had to sell their holdings, often lameting having to lease behind the graves of their parents, perhaps even more distant ancestors, too. Despite this "crime", there were not enough soldiers to satisfy the growing needs for military corps on both sides of the Empire. Thus the emperor recruited and equipped the poor from the sum of 18.5 nomismes which their neighbors had to pay to the state treasury. The measures of emperor Nicephoros show that in those days there were at least two type of stratiotes - soldiers who supported themselves from the income provided by their land holdings and those newly recruited or, perhaps, impoverished soldiers whose equipment was provided for by peasants, through the payments they made to the state treasury. The other solution was, apparently, if not temporary then rather rare, so that the general line of development lay closer to the first solution, both before and after the reign of Nicephoros. Already at the time of publishing of the Ecloga, that is during the reign of Leo III, στρατιωτικός οΐκος was a common reality, just as it was in the much later Tactica of Leo VI. The described situation from the days of Nicephoros is very reminiscent of the way the military estate is defined in De cerimoniis, which speaks of soldiers with "houses", but also of poor soldiers who are in the service as a result of community support. This refers to soldiers who can be denoted, as they are in the famous novel by Constantine Porphyrogenitos, by epithets εν((((ς and ά((((ς. "House" is taken to mean the patrimony of an individual family, which provides material support for one soldier from its own ranks, as it clearly results from the Ecloga and the Taktika. That is why the expression συντεστης - "one who participates in" (equipping a soldier) - appears already in the so-called Leges militares. Basically, we are dealing with the same phenomenon which in the later legislative texts of the Macedonian dynasty (X century) was given clearer articulation. All this implies that military service - στρατεία - could be performed, in part or on the whole, through money payments. According to a considerable number of researchers, the fiscalization of the "stratia" should exclusively be taken as a feature of late Macedonian legislation. However, it is beyond doubt that this phenomenon also had a prior history. In the Vita of St. Euthymios the Younger we find mention of the fact that his mother, as a widow, inscribed the name of her then seven year old son on military lists in the early 830's. Apparently, such formal inscriptions of "soldiers" did happen as a means of evading money payments in substitution for military service. What is even more interesting, the fiscal duties imposed on widows or families came as a renewed ancient custom. One text by Theodore of Stoudion (March 801) implies that the empress Irene revoked this levy which existed in the days of earlier "Orthodox emperors". In the eyes of Theodore, those could only have been emperors from pre-Iconoclastic times. The striving of soldiers to gain property of farming land and the interaction between them and the tax paying population of farmers were always present, just as there were always clear demarcations between these two social groups. The soldiers with their property, on one side, and the peasants (and other civilians) with their property on the other, were precisely distinguished in the X century by the terms στρατιωτικός οΐκος and (ολιτικός οΐκος. These technical terms validated the statements found in the Tactica of Leo VI and the second Novel of Romanos I (934) regarding the two pillars of the state: the soldiers and the peasants. This, however, did not imply the introduction of new institutions but rather of new terminology with specific meaning introduced in times of precise agrarian codification. It is practically self evident that in the mentioned the living conditions of thematic soldiers between the VII/VIII and the X century, there were several options in articulating the social profile of a soldier. It is also evident what the relatively stable types of soldiers were based on. Firstly, already in the VIII century there is confirmation of the existence of soldiers with property, that is land holdings, the source of the greatest part of their income, whether as proprietors or as recruited members of certain families. In that respect, it is important to note that in one Taktikon from the 960's soldiers with personal property were marked as an ancient phenomenon, older even than the Macedonian legislation of the X century. The same applies to the distinction between στρατιώτης, proprietor but not necessarily an active soldier, and στρατενόμενος, one actually in military service. Moreover, the fact is that there did exist social differences between the numerous soldiers with land holdings. On the other hand, there were those among the soldiers who had no property what so ever or practically none to count with. They were recruited in different ways. Some soldiers from this category were recruited through collective contributions of the communities (beginning of IX century), while others received support from certain landowners (end of IX century). The first option appears in later years as well, as demonstrated by a case registered on the Peloponnesos in the first half of the X century, when the population was levied with collecting money in order to secure funding for the soldiers. It is certain that among the soldiers who traded their participation in such campaigns for financial contributions there were also those (former soldiers?) who had grown impoverished in the mean time and could not personally perform military service. The famous soldier Mousoulios from the Vita of Philaretos is a good example from the close of the VIII century. In order to monitor the process of impoverishment of soldiers, we would have to have more of this sort of information from various vitae. The X century legislation came only as a reaction to the crisis which at the beginning of the X century struck smaller and medium size landowners, both soldiers and civilians. This struggle to save the basic body of thematic soldiers had its climax in the days of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. In asserting the value of their property, the emperor could thus calmly claim that such a custom, although not formally written down, had already existed. Having become insufficient, this unwritten custom was codified and raised to the level of a written law. Parallel to the weakening of the military social stratum, there is a growing fiscalization of the stratia, which no longer necessarily had to represent military service but was rather seen as its financial support. The road was thus open for the appearance of a new mercenary army. On the other hand, parallel to the changes in military tactics, the wealthier soldiers finally gained a dominant role. In order to secure the service of such soldiers, in the days of Nicephoros II the minimal value of military land holdings was raised to 12 pounds of gold. This marked the beginning of the rise of lower military aristocracy. During the following, XI century, when the classical thematic organization no longer existed, thematic soldiers had already lost their importance and, save perhaps for minor exceptions, represented a thing of the past.