Greeks always fought outnumbered?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nikos,

In Greek history, the only exception of the rule was the Eruli-Gothic invasions of the 3rd and 4th centuries AD where small and badly armed armies of Germanic looters raided (among other) parts of Greece but then this was not only due to the lack of Roman Imperial defenses in Greece (for obvious political reasons) but also due to the intricate Roman political in-fighting as well as the dubious position of the rising christian sect which is known in the latter case particularly to have "opened the doors" on every single case since "looting the pagans" offered them the chance to rise on top.

Now those are some VERY bold statements. Please provide more details (and preferably sources) for:
- "only exception of the rule was the Eruli-Gothic invasions of the 3rd and 4th centuries AD". Were those the only exceptions? How about Huns and Goths during the 5th century? Or Bulgarians and Avars during the 6th (and I could name a few more) and afterwards?
- "due to the lack of Roman Imperial defenses in Greece (for obvious political reasons)". hock: Sorry, but you really have to explain this one. Why would there be 'obvious political reasons' for any lack of defences in Greece. As compared to other parts of the Empire where this was not the case? Please explain that, and why other regions far removed from a border (say, Spain, southern Gaul, southern Italy) were defended better whereas Greece (in your opinion) was not?
- "the dubious position of the rising christian sect which is known in the latter case particularly to have "opened the doors" on every single case since "looting the pagans" offered them the chance to rise on top". hock: You will have to do better that that. Please provide sources for that - both for the treason against their cities as well as the reasons to do this. And please do better than your modern view on things, or claims of 'logic'.

In later Byzantine history - if we are to include Greeks as a main part of the Byzantine armies, still we see that for the most of it the Empire held minimal military force in comparison to the huge earlier Roman armies and fielded usually bits of it at a time apparently with great effectiveness for the most.

I really doubt whether you can compare 'Byzantine' to Classical Greek times. This was a society shaped by centuries of Roman culture, and it's policies, especially on the army, did not change overnight, but consisted for centuries along a similar path. 'Byzantine' is a relatively modern German invention, which you should have known when you are concerned with posts about who called whom 'Greek', surely? They did for sure not call themselves 'Byzantine' or 'Greek', and were adressed as 'Romanoi' by others.

Anyway, Late Roman military policy was quite the same during the 4th century as it was under Justinian or later 'Greek' emperors where it came to army nimbers: Justinian even managed to go on the offensive with those small armies. It was also the achilles heel of Medieval Roman policies - a continuous shortage of manpower meant a continuous policy of defense.