02-07-2012, 07:20 PM
Hi Robert, thanks for the precise comments,
My comments were meant to be of more general nature aiming to present some very few examples of invasions into the Aegean territory of smaller armies (i.e. let us say smaller than 30-40,000 troops) - these being the exception rather than the general rule which wants mountainous regions to be successfully invaded only with big enough armies. Avars and Bulgarians did a couple of major raids but certainly the average size of their armies was larger
When I referred to the 1st Eruli campaign, that was the first incursion in mid-3rd century when an alliance of Eruli and Goths passed from the black sea and raided the Aegean onboard 500 ships. If a ship carried on average 50 fighters the overall fighting force should be well below 30,000 men while we have to count also their losses since they had lost the first battle before escaping to loot mostly unprotected islands and cities. By all means, the 2nd Eruli campaign of the next decade was much larger.
The later Gothic raid of the end of 4th century refers to the feat of Alarich that passed with not much more than a mid-sized (and not so well armed) army of 20,000 men with particular ease and raided many Greek cities before "escaping" to the north, being armed by the Roman state itself to finally end up raiding the Italic peninsula and Rome itself.
The events are clear and given the general knowledge of participants in the forum, I do did not think they required much more details to support my basic viewpoint (i.e. reference of mountainous terrain to numbers for attackers/defenders).
On the question of Roman politics in terms of the protection of the Aegean space or any other Roman territory for that matter, my comment was right on the spot:
Rome's 1st priority was never the protection of its citizens but rather the maintenance of the status quo and the continuation of Roman control over traderoutes. Until quite late cities and regions were not meant to have their own developed defenses but a simple police-like guard, the case of even those Greek states allied to Rome that provided some militia-type troops as auxiliaries to the Roman Imperial army. Smart move, otherwise Emperors would have to face frequent rebellions like later Eastern Romans had to face with the thematic regional armies.
By the end of the 2nd century things were even more complicated. Various politico-religious fractions (with christians the most prominent) fought inside the Empire while Goths were enterring inside initially either as refugees or illegal intruders and then turning either as mercenaries or as looters. In both cases, their apparent use by the Roman aristocracy was being a tool to be used against citizens of the Empire. This was more than obvious in the latter case of Alarich's raid in Greece. To add up on the political aspect of the event and the notable indifference of the state to protect its citizens (on the contrary...) you had the inner complications with the division of the two parts of the Empire, the antagonisms, the jealousy between emperors (like Arcadius) and generals (like the germanic Stilicho who dreamt but could not become an Emperor) and even further implications with the dominance of the christian aristocracy with its eunuch "councelors" (of the type of Eutychius). The christian aristocracy were a class of people for whom the greatest enemy were not really the already christianised Goths (even if by an opposing fraction, Arians) but the large mass (vast majority if speaking for the Aegean region) of pagan Greek populations.
One must be totally ignorant to these factors that played a huge role in the unexpected but eventual success of the Gothic raiders. It is not afterall accidental that the pre-gothic-raid christian-related findings in the region are totally insignificant while the first notable christianic presence (in the form of smaller temples turned into churches) rises in the period right after these raids. The christian roman officer responsible for guarding the passage of Thermopyles who welcomed the Goths has to be seen as the general rule - on how many other passages or cities christians gave "the keys" to the hands of their "brothers" Goths is unknown but quite apparent.
That era is another hot potato that historians do not touch or when they touch it they tend to get too pro-christian or too anti-christian or too pro-roman or too pro-germanic while this was simple a case of an Empire maintaining its status quo over the international traderoutes by means of managing inner and outer "issues" at one g
My comments were meant to be of more general nature aiming to present some very few examples of invasions into the Aegean territory of smaller armies (i.e. let us say smaller than 30-40,000 troops) - these being the exception rather than the general rule which wants mountainous regions to be successfully invaded only with big enough armies. Avars and Bulgarians did a couple of major raids but certainly the average size of their armies was larger
When I referred to the 1st Eruli campaign, that was the first incursion in mid-3rd century when an alliance of Eruli and Goths passed from the black sea and raided the Aegean onboard 500 ships. If a ship carried on average 50 fighters the overall fighting force should be well below 30,000 men while we have to count also their losses since they had lost the first battle before escaping to loot mostly unprotected islands and cities. By all means, the 2nd Eruli campaign of the next decade was much larger.
The later Gothic raid of the end of 4th century refers to the feat of Alarich that passed with not much more than a mid-sized (and not so well armed) army of 20,000 men with particular ease and raided many Greek cities before "escaping" to the north, being armed by the Roman state itself to finally end up raiding the Italic peninsula and Rome itself.
The events are clear and given the general knowledge of participants in the forum, I do did not think they required much more details to support my basic viewpoint (i.e. reference of mountainous terrain to numbers for attackers/defenders).
On the question of Roman politics in terms of the protection of the Aegean space or any other Roman territory for that matter, my comment was right on the spot:
Rome's 1st priority was never the protection of its citizens but rather the maintenance of the status quo and the continuation of Roman control over traderoutes. Until quite late cities and regions were not meant to have their own developed defenses but a simple police-like guard, the case of even those Greek states allied to Rome that provided some militia-type troops as auxiliaries to the Roman Imperial army. Smart move, otherwise Emperors would have to face frequent rebellions like later Eastern Romans had to face with the thematic regional armies.
By the end of the 2nd century things were even more complicated. Various politico-religious fractions (with christians the most prominent) fought inside the Empire while Goths were enterring inside initially either as refugees or illegal intruders and then turning either as mercenaries or as looters. In both cases, their apparent use by the Roman aristocracy was being a tool to be used against citizens of the Empire. This was more than obvious in the latter case of Alarich's raid in Greece. To add up on the political aspect of the event and the notable indifference of the state to protect its citizens (on the contrary...) you had the inner complications with the division of the two parts of the Empire, the antagonisms, the jealousy between emperors (like Arcadius) and generals (like the germanic Stilicho who dreamt but could not become an Emperor) and even further implications with the dominance of the christian aristocracy with its eunuch "councelors" (of the type of Eutychius). The christian aristocracy were a class of people for whom the greatest enemy were not really the already christianised Goths (even if by an opposing fraction, Arians) but the large mass (vast majority if speaking for the Aegean region) of pagan Greek populations.
One must be totally ignorant to these factors that played a huge role in the unexpected but eventual success of the Gothic raiders. It is not afterall accidental that the pre-gothic-raid christian-related findings in the region are totally insignificant while the first notable christianic presence (in the form of smaller temples turned into churches) rises in the period right after these raids. The christian roman officer responsible for guarding the passage of Thermopyles who welcomed the Goths has to be seen as the general rule - on how many other passages or cities christians gave "the keys" to the hands of their "brothers" Goths is unknown but quite apparent.
That era is another hot potato that historians do not touch or when they touch it they tend to get too pro-christian or too anti-christian or too pro-roman or too pro-germanic while this was simple a case of an Empire maintaining its status quo over the international traderoutes by means of managing inner and outer "issues" at one g
