Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ridiculous!

Stale

 – This talk was never continued and is stale since 19 September 2007.

This is one of the most outrageous POV articles I have ever read! Can someone with just a little INSIGHT on history writing, and not blinded by quasi-legendary tall-tale ranting please get this thing in shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.22.26 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Unresolved

 – Although it was decided that various numbers would be used, though it wasn't concretely resolved and edits were late coordinated by Mohammad adil anyway.

The respective strengths of the combatants in this battle should be reconsidered or perhaps footnoted with a suitable caveat. My reasons for this suggestion are as follows:

The most recent research on the battle of Yarmouk takes into consideration for the first time many real-world logistical concerns that helped to determine the limits of the individual combatant strengths. (Sources like Gibbon's 18th century masterpiece, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, though suitably revered by historians, should no longer be considered the authoritative account of aspects of Byzantine history due to advances in the understanding of the military and social workings of the Byzantine Empire and a more realistic view of military history in general.)

In respect to the historiography of the battle it must be said that the battlefield strength estimations of both Muslim and Byzantine sources leave much to be desired. None of the sources typically utilized (the chronicles of Theophanes and Nicephorus as well as several Eastern Christian sources for the Byzantine and many Muslim sources, notably al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, and al-Baladuri) are contemporary with the events they describe. By the time most of the sources for the battle were set down, legend had crept into the popular conception of the clash and influenced the writers' guesstimates.

Religion also played a major part in both Byzantine and Muslim recollections of the battle. Muslim sources exaggerated the size of the Byzantine army in order to magnify their accomplishment in destroying it, as well as to lend credence to their understanding that the victory was divinely inspired. Byzantine sources exaggerated Muslim strength in order to minimize the humiliation of their defeat or to illustrate the displeasure of God with the path the Byzantine Empire, or Heraclius in particular, had taken.

Having said all that about the all-around unreliability of the raw sources with which historians work, the current general consensus, as far as a consensus can be reached on such a poorly understood period of history, is that the two armies were not nearly as unevenly matched as the current Wikipedia article suggests. Evidence for this point of view rests mainly on a synthesis of the source impressions, on the respective state of affairs in the bases of operations of both sides, and on the logistic capabilities of each side.

An excellent treatment of the source materials and the general impossibility of ever reconciling the many different traditions surrounding the battle can be found in Donner's valuable "The Early Islamic Conquests." The reconstruction of the campaign that retains the most credibility when the several traditions concerning Yarmouk are compared is that of ibn-Ishaq and al-Waqidi. This reconstruction places the Byzantine army at 100,000 strong and the Muslim force numbering roughly 24,000. Donner offers little personal comment on the numbers, apart from an admission early-on that the sources diverge so widely in their estimations as to make any confident assertions of strengths impossible.

On page 59 of "The Byzantine Wars" by John Haldon, the author indicates that a Byzantine force of much more than 20,000 is unrealistic for the conditions in the Byzantine Empire at the time, especially concerning the religious conflicts and unrest in newly reconquered Syria. He goes on to state that the Muslim force can be considered inferior in size to the Byzantine army, if only due to the tactics employed by Muslim leaders at Yarmouk.

On page 32 of "Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria" David Nicolle states that at least half of the Empire's 50,000 battle-available troops were tied down in garrisons or deployed to protect strategic communication lines. He goes on to say that Byzantine expeditionary forces were severely limited during the chaotic 7th century and could have only reached a strength of 30,000 soldiers at most.

Walter Kaegi's biography "Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium" states on page 242 that the Byzantine army (including Arab allies) at Yarmouk probably totaled 15-20,000 soldiers, while still enjoying a numerical superiority over the Muslims.

On page 131 of "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" Kaegi goes on to state that it is doubtful that the Byzantine army exceeded 20,000 men and that the Muslims were outnumbered. His comments on the sources seem to be generally shared among modern specialists and deserve to be quoted here. "It is not worth even attempting to determine the respective probability of any veracity in the various Christian and Muslim traditions. Their numbers simply bear no relation to what military historians can accept as plausible for this period for Byzantine troops." (page 131)

In conclusion I must say that the estimates of the Wikipedia article on the battle of Yarmouk are misleading in the extreme. According to the rough consensus of the historians I have here quoted, a much more accurate illustration of the numbers would be something like 30,000-40,000 troops for the Byzantines and perhaps 7,500-24,000 for the Muslims. I apologize for the length of this post but it was difficult for me to let the article remain unremarked-upon in the light of such a preponderance of evidence suggesting more accurate figures. - Drungarios 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in the article seem to large.

While most scholars agree that the Byzantine force outnumbered the Arab, it probably did not exceed 20,000, making the Arab force maybe 10,000-15,000.

Walter Kaegi in his excellent book "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" puts the Byzatine figure for the battle at 15,000-20,000 (p.131), though he does admit, in a footnote, that Fred McGraw Donner's (from his book "Early Islamic Conquests") figure of 20,000-40,000 for the Byzatnine is: "conceivable, but definitely in the high side of what is reasonable for Byzantine troops in that impoverished Heraclian era." (p.131). - MYLO 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the number is true because Abu Bakr (Moslem king at that time) sent three (3) armies; each one had 3500 men after that he aid them and make each army 7500 all the 3 armies are united in this battle and Khalid ibn al-Walid came from Iraq with 9000 men to aid and led them and Acrima (leader) came with 6000 men and 3000 join them from another leader so total about 40,000 men and some Arabic references said they were 46,000 any way they lost 3000 men in this battle...

Disagree

I disagree with the person above me.....

he wrote that most scholars agree that the Byzantine force outnumbered the Arab, it probably did not exceed 20,000, making the Arab force maybe 10,000-15,000.

if it was so then it must not be such a large scale battle.keep in mind that this battle results in the final withdrawal of Byzantine empire from Syria. More over if Byzantine were just to put 20,000 army in the plain of Yarmuk then there should be no use for Muslims to left there all conquered areas to gathered in the plain of Yarmuk. Keep in mind, they left Emessa, Damascus and many other cities that they conquered before the battle.

You also wrote figure of 20,000-40,000 for the Byzantine is: "conceivable, but definitely in the high side of what is reasonable for Byzantine troops in that impoverished Heraclian era."

If Haraclius was to put only 40,000 troops in Yarmuk then how much troops he would have deployed in the following " major " battles fought before Yarmuk..

• Battle of Maraj-al-rabah
• Battle of Basra city
• Battle of Ajnadain
• Battle of Yakosa
• Battle of Maraj as-Safar
• Battle of Damascus (Conquest of Damascus)
• Battle of Sanita al-Uqab
• Battle of Maraj al-Dibaj
• Battle of Abu al-Quds
• Battle of Fahl
• Skirmish at Amman
• Battle of Damascus (Defence of the city )
• Battle of Homs (Conquest of Emessa)

..going according to these, estimation may be " 5000-10,000 " .... ????

but it was not so.

Byzantine army's strength

There is a difference of opinion about the strength of both armies at the Battle of Yarmuk. As frequently happens in such cases, there has been a tendency to show ones own strength as less than it was and the enemy strength as more than it was.

• Tabari, in one place, (Vol. 2, p. 598, where he gives his main account of the battle) shows it as 200,000 men. Elsewhere (Vol. 3, p. 74) he quotes Ibn Ishaq as saying that it was a 100,000 including 12,000 Armenian and 12,000 Christian Arabs.,
• Balazuri (p. 140) gives the Roman strength as 200,000.,
• Waqidi (p. 107) exaggerates it to a fantastic figure, but his estimate of the Roman who used chains (30,000, p. 139) seems very reasonable.
• Edward Gibbon(Vol. 5, p. 325), taking his material from early Byzantine sources, gives the Roman strength as 140,000 including 60,000 Christian Arabs.

There is obvious exaggeration on both sides, but less so on the Western side, because the Byzantine would know their own strength better than their opponents would. We should dismiss the figure of 200,000 as incorrect. Such a vast army could not possibly have been assembled on one battlefield; and the problems of the concentration, movement, supply and feeding of such a force, with the relatively primitive communications of the time, would be such that any staff officer entrusted with the task would promptly resign his commission!.

On the Western side, too, there is an attempt to minimise the Roman strength, especially the European part of it-partly perhaps for reasons of racial pride. It is absurd to say that the Arab section of the army amounted to 60,000 men. Just the Arabs of Syria could hardly have produced such a numerous army.

Allowing for exaggeration on both sides, I believe that the Roman army was 150,000-160,000 strong, as Byzantine sources put this to be 140,000 and Muslim sources to be 200,000 respectively.

Muslim's army strength

• Tabari in one place (Vol. 2, p. 592) gives it as 40,000 plus a reserve of 6,000.
• Ibn Ishaq says that the Muslims numbered 24,000-this against 100,000 Romans.
• Balazuri (p. 141) gives the same as ibn ishaq.
• Waqidi (p. 144) places the Muslim strength at 41,000.

From all these reliable Muslim references, I come to roughly a strength of 40,000 Muslims in the battle. In light of above given references, I will edit the strength of both Muslims and Byzantine to be 40,000 and 150,000-160,000 respectively. - Mohammad adil (talk · contribs)

Yarmouk

Muslim historians have Muslims at 40,00 and Byzantine at 140,000.Byzantine sources have Muslims at almost 200,000 and Byzantine at about 140,000.The Byzantine army at this battle consisted of about 60,000 Christian Arabs which should be noted.This would be a staff officer entrusted with the task would promptly resign his commission.

Muslims historians have the Muslim strength to be 40,000 not 4,000. Only Ibn Ishaq had it 24,000 against 100,000 Byzantine army. And, Byzantine sources placed their strengths with 60,000 Christian Arabs to be 140,000 (quoted by Edward Gibbon), while most of the Muslim sources placed Byzantine strengths to be 200,000. - Mohammad Adil 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Think again!

Stale

 – No one has participated in this debate since 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I say now! Going according to Mr Fred Donner, Mr John Haldon, Mr Walter Emil Kaegi, Mr David Nicolle we have to rewrite the history of the world. It is very easy to say that works like that of Gibbon and other ancient historians are no longer can be considered authentic.

May David Nicolle and other ( so called historians for me! ) historians didn't realize that placing Muslims strength to be about 25,000 and Byzantine strength to be 50,000 will give some difficulties, and one will have to re-arrange or may be reconstruct the battle tactics of both sides mainly at Muslims side.

Walter E. Kaegi says it was 15,000-20,000 troops of Byzantine empire and adds that they were still more then muslims. my question is how ?..... i know there will be or there can be no answer of my "how" !..... Muslims know there strength better then others, ancient Muslim historian Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi al-Aslami (750-827) in his book Al-Maghazi mentioned the strength of both side to be 240,000 and 41,000 respectively for Byzantines and Muslims.

Mr Lieutenant-General Agha Ibrahim Akram, who remained Chief Instructor at the Command and Staff College, Quetta Pakistan he in his book Allah ki Talwar (sword of Allah) also have disagreed from these strengths consult this for the whole stuff [1].^{[No longer available]} This site is English translation of his famous book on the biography of legendary Muslim general Khalid ibn al-Walid and most of the early Muslim conquest (the most remarkable conquests) were take under his command.

Now, coming towards my point. What I says is that placing Muslim strength to be only 7,500-24,000 is nothing but a blunder (for me at least), one should know that the most authentic books of early Muslims military history are all in Arabic language and it is not a easy task to understand the Arabic before learning this vast language,

1. Ibn Hisham: Seerat-un-Nabawi
2. Waqidi: Maghazi Rasulillah
3. Ibn Sad: Tabaqat-ul-Kubara
4. Ibn Qutaibah: Al Ma'arif
5. Al-Yaqubi: Tareekh-ul-Yaqubi
6. Al-Baladhuri: Futuh-ul-Buldan

These are the books considered by the Muslim historians to be the master piece of Islamic history, these books have mainly narrations narrated directly by the sons of the soldiers participated in the campaigns. Later historians like ibn al-Khalidun arranged them date wise adding his own comments. It was a little description of the Islamic treasure of Islamic military history.

Ok, one thing should be clear that in Islamic history no battle is recorded in that much detail then the battle of Yarmuk in Syria. Placing Muslim army under 7,500-24,000 will do some thing wrong, i.e., according to historians among 40,000 Muslims there were 10,000 cavalry which includes the best part of Islamic army which was named by early historians as Muta'harik-Taliea i.e., mobile guard which was 4000 mounted warriors.

If the strength is may be 24000 then as early historians says that one third of the army was cavalry then according to 24000 strength the cavalry comes to be 6000, which further creates other blunders, because according to narrations 4000 (mobile guard) was reserve under Khalid ibn Walid's command and 2000 horse men were deployed to the wings and centre. now see, 6000 cavalry according to you and 4000 mobile guard according to early historians, which is correct now ? if cavalry was around 6000 then what was the exact size of mobile guard the best part of Islamic army of Rashidinun caliphs.

more over having only 6000 cavalry it would be impossible for the Khalid bin al-Walid to block the northern way of withdrawal for the Byzantine troops, on 6th day it is in narrations that Khalid gathered whole of his cavalry which was now around 8000 and start his final attack routing the left flank guard and then the whole Byzantine cavalry.

more over it is specially present in narrations that the army gathered at Yarmuk was the largest Muslim army ever gathered, keep in mind in the Battle of Tabouk 30,000 Muslims gathered to fight from Christian Arabs and Byzantine emperor (though this battle never fought see its article at Wikipedia) , thus making it clear that Muslims army was greater then 30,000. 7,500 is a careless figure, think for a decisive battle caliph was going to provide only 7,500 ? in conquest of Mecca in 629 A.D 10,000 Muslims were there in the army which entered mecca from 4 sides and this army was purely of only migrants of Mecca (Muslims) and Muslims of Medina. Khalid ibn al-Walid entered Iraq with 18,000 army for the invasion of iraq.

I know now it is very difficult to imagine these large numbers of armies and it is now have became tradition to claim exaggeration on such figures at least they are more reliable then the ancient Greek's figures that place army at Guagemela to be half million some say 1 million some say 250,000.

therefore I suggest that writing such figures here will gonna give nothing but will make history more complex and difficult to understand. One more thing, it seems funny when some one says that Byzantine army cant be so large because of unbalance in the politics of the 7th century's Byzantine empire. When according to Edward Gibbon Byzantine sources him self have placed there strength to be 140,000 then what can modern historians can do ? they can add only "edits" and critical remarks on the strengths making no sense, (they were not there at that time though :D...). Byzantine knew their strengths very well then al-Waqidi, Bulazuri or Mr David Nicolle..... !, but I still agree that there are still chances of exaggerations in them but to little extant not to that much level that instead of 50,000 they will write it to be 200,000..... !

i suggest that strengths should be the same as these early as authentic historians suggest or estimates or narrates from the direct sources of the respective sides.for the satisfaction and knowledge of the reader at foot notes the modern estimated strength should be written, it is because if we write the modern estimated strength in the real place then it will do nothing but make reader confuse about history as still there is no prove that these modern estimated strengths are real or not may be the ancient historians didn't had exaggerations in them or may be they had it in them, nothing can be said for sure. I am going to re-edit it. Sorry of this long lasting post but it was necessary a apologize for my English grammar and spellings. - Mohammad Adil 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Article

I am assembling a new article with day to day comprehensive account of this battle. The article will have the following headings, also including images of the tactical movements of both armies on each day.

• Background - the discription of the background of the battle,,,,etc etc
  
• The Battle - arrangements of armies,geography of battle field..etc etc
  
• Day–1
• Day–2
• Day–3
• Day–4
• Day–5
• Day–6
• Aftermaths

I will add references in it on every important tactic, but references will be mainly from the early Muslims historians because this battle is explained only by Muslim historians as it was a decisive Muslim victory. I will also add the available references from Edward Gibbon's book The Fall of the Holy Roman Empire.

As now also there is dispute of strengths of armies of both sides there fore the foot notes will be remain same giving modern estimated figures of armies.further reading stuff and external links will remain same. article will be neutral and unbiased. Mohammad Adil 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

In the battle of Yarmouk Roman emperor Heraclius gathered a large army of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Armenians. If the editor of this article is respectful enough under the combatants no Roman Byzantine empire because the Romans weren't fighting and for the strength in order like:

                          greeks
                          syrians
                          mesopotamians
                          armanians
                          ________
                          200,000

NOT QUIET

The byzantine empire at that time wasnt that big at that time get this they say the muslims at there largest was at that battle ya right!When they went to constantinople how much did they have about 200,000 muslims and lost if we were just talking about the romans we should all agree that they are always outnumbered not to mention when they went for vienna in italy that was there last stop they totaly lost with the arabs having a bigger force against the romans.A fast sum up up these wars byzantine empire wins the war.what do you have to say to that mohammed adil.

I didn't really get what you want to say dear ! are you relying victory over the strength ?..... grow up it is not the matter of strangth of the forces but it depends upon the tactics used and the strategy made by the commanders of both sides.No matter how large the army is , the army which won just proves it's skills. and what i said in my last post, you get it totally wrong ! what i said was that in Battle of yermuk 40,000 muslims army was the largest army gathered up to that time.only upto that time, keep this in your mind. soon after the battle of yermuk , in late 636 A.D 45,000 muslims army gathered at Qadassiyah for the decisive battle against persian empire, then that army became the largest muslim army ever gathered in those days, but this record of strength was later broken by the muslim forces went for the conquest of north africa in the time of third Rasidune Caliph Usman....and the series goes on.... in the both sieges of constantinopole muslims army again broke the record of the strength.these records were in camparision with the muslims armies gathered before that.like in battle of Siffain (civil war in 657 A.D ) 120,000 syrian muslims gathered to fight 4th rashidune caliph Ali who had army of 90,000 arabian and iraqi muslims thus broking every record of muslims strengths, this recorde was later broken by the muslim army at the 2nd siege of constantinopole.Now happy ? is it clear now what i wanted to say in my that post ?????

Mohammad Adil 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

historians

some historians believe that the battle including the arab allies were just 10,000-15,000 that would mean the byzantines were outnumbered.

Thats totally unbeliveable ! In conquest of Mecca in 629 A.D 10,000 muslims were there with prophet mohammad (pbuh) to conqure mecca, and they were only the habitants of Madinah and the muslim imigrants of Mecca, Thay made the strangth of 10,000 (keep in mind the exaggrations that came in the history are due to the rivals like Muslims Vs Byzantines or Muslims vs persian empire , here were only muslims and no one from mecca came out for a real fight except that of a group of 50 kinghts who later withdraw to wards red sea to went to eithopia therefore there is no chance of exaggration in it as there were no rivals no army to fight against muslims at all).Now the writer above is saying that romans were 10,000-15,000 but still outnumbered which is impossible. How impossible , lets analyse. if romans were 15,000 then muslims strength would probably come around 7000-8000. Now think that did caliph was fool enough to send only his 8000 troops for the conquest of syria the stronghold of byzantines ...???? at yermuk byzantine army had slaves,armenians,christian arabs,greeks that together can easily make up the strength above 150,000 , keeping in mind the strength of syrian muslims in 657 A.D civil war against the Caliph Ali , they were 120,000 if only syrians can do this then why cant the 4 nations together can make up this large army ???? politics cant effect the size of army.

As far as the modern historians are concern then one have to admit it that it is now have became nearly a fashion of modern historians to make the strength of both sides less then recorded in "authantic" sources of history, they ignore the fact that changing the strength could result in erros which could lead to complete rewriting of the militery history.

Mohammad Adil 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia

wikipedia says the army of the byzabtines were 140,000-160,000 and the muslims were 40,000 and the casualties for the arabs were 400 where does that come from?

What ? muslims casualties = 400 ...????
dear it is writen 4000 casualties after 6 days of battle, read it once again ! more over you are woundering from where these numberes have came then go and read the above heading Numbers in it go to my post in which i have given all the refferences from where this data has been taken ok . Again the byzantine sources are not in detail about this battle, muslim sources have the day to day acount of this battle including about each and every move and tactic, this is probably this was the greatest victory muslims got in any battle upto so on.

Mohammad Adil 12:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ignorance

Here are mistakes made by certain people lets start with wikipedia.If we were to stick with something in the article you would leave it and not keep changing it which just proves what kind of place this is to look up history.What is this history or a worldly debate?

discussion on mohammed adil

when people ask in this battle are you relying victory over strength and it depends on the tactics and strategy and the army which won proves its skill is totally your could be right here ok,but that is totally your opinion.Your last post you said 30,000 now its 40,000 how immature you are to say dear lol.dont lie and switch things around.In both sieges of constantinople the muslims did not break the record of strength not even by comparison would you like to discuss that?the byzantines in constantinople in the first siege didnt have more that probably 30,000 and the muslims came with how much like almost 200,000 make sense.Like I said before if wikipedia doesnt want to tell the truth and let people look at that even thoe they wernt against the roman byzantines they can believe a lie.When i said some believe some historians believe the byzantine army to be 10,000-15,000 you say thats unbelievable i think your just sticking up for your religion and you say dont be biast and whatever why does wikipedia have listen to you?If you romans were 15,000 you say the muslims were about 7,000-8,000 dont lower by comparison to be like the muslims had to be outnumbered like there the chosen ones lol to make everyone think the muslims had to be that way the byzantines or in wikipedia the roman(byzantine)empire which it isnt.

What is really insulting.To the romans would be atleast writing in the strength to be like:

                                   syrians 
                                   greeks 
                                   armanians
                                   mesopotamians

to be clear that it wasnt the romans even mohammed adil can agree with that because he said 150,000 was that.Wikipedia still has the the source coming from a muslim which is ok why not share both to let people decide for them selves what they want to believe why only show one?Now thats a little unbelievabe unfair to let people think rome isnt as good as it is.It is the worlds greatest civilization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.174 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

editor

this editor has no brain

final report for for everyones equal opinion

out of all of the debate that has been going on who said what on either the byzantine or the muslims it would be not just fair but right to accept the existance of both sides to say that they both have equal thoughts over a 14 hundred year period to make the strength and casualties unknown here!Wheather which believes is right or wrong no one knows at this point its basically come down to theory choosing which at this point clearly this has been an issue but there is so much I can do.I have done my research i dont know about the rest but here is a ducument that can show you that the romans werent there to battle again this is only coming from one truthful sight http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html

If the editor has read this he would mark in the strength box to put in order the truth and change the title to non roman byzantine empire

sure

this would change outcome for the arabs to woold it not.never the less the article speaks truth.Indeed the romans were not there ok then in the so called box you say it should be marked who was there.for the arabs the casualties are unknown to me as well as there strength what i have read most sources say it was approximatly 100,000-200,000 few muslim historians have it way less in this battle i dont no why?

My dear friend, dont act like a child over this matter, i knew it that Romans were not there the army was of armenians , slaves,russians,christian arabs,greeks and other europian people, i have already said that i am composing a completely new article of the batle in which i have mentioned it,so stay cool, my article is on it's way to completion with two or three days it will be here, more over the current article is not mine, i didn't write it, nor i made that info-box out there, when i first time saw that article it was writen there "Byzantine"

Mohammad Adil 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

wait friend !

you may not know that there was Eid fastival celebrated by muslims from 31-12-2006 to 2-1-2007

therefore it is late , i am still working over it. may be just in few hours it will be here .

Mohammad Adil 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

In the notes it says different strengths and knowledge for the byzantines and the arabs.In the editors "official"new box it only information coming from one person.This battle should be put in a more professional format or to make light out of all the argument it should be all unknown if you have something better i would like to hear it!

Here you go, The new article

Now here is the new article, it describs the battle in detail, not in detail but i guess in great detail. Mohammad Adil 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great

I am pleased with the article and i appreciate your hard work.I still think there is one problem the numbers and casualties because this is still from only one source!How did you fix the article your self how are you in charge?

enough

If you dont want to you dont have to you've done enough work thanks for that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.137 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

English?

This article does not read as though it was written by an English speaker. Furthermore it does not have the air of an encyclopaedic article - it seems more like the regurgitation of quasi-historical Muslim tradition. And some of the details are absolutely outrageous - the numbers are surely inaccurate - again they sound more like Muslim tradition than serious history. Could a native English speaker with a historian's knowledge of the period re-write this completely please?

Really

Can you explain here how you would get the number figures and how you would describe this battle in your own words then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.20 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Russians in the Byzantine army???

How exactly did the Russians find themselves fighting in Syria in 636? Traveled back in time with a time machine? That's the only way I can think of, since the Russians do not appear in history until the ninth century or at the very earliest the late eighth...

The entire article is very badly written, with a whole lot of innaccuracies in fact.It looks as if it was written by an overenthusiastic teenager, who just started copying information from a medieval writer, without bothering to crosscheck his sources or see what modern historians have to say about it... Please,please,please someone bring this article to some level of credibility - it's too important a historical event to just leave it like this....--Padem 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

man what to do woth modern history ????? if medvial history say that 2+2=4 then will modern hsitoy say that 2+2=3.9 ?????? no then dont poke your nose in the matter that you cant understand sir !

these facts were rechecked by modern muslim historian lieutanent general agha ibrahim akram (late). i know you will not belive him saying his book was bais towards muslims, but thats a fact man, when muslims won the battle then every source will seem to be bais towards muslims !

more over , dear open the windows of your mind ! mr.edward gibbon said that russians were present there not any muslim source, and the above mentioned writer copied it from his book. more over russions of russian fedration were not there, but people of russian ethnic were there ! now suppose if in the battle of ajmair (fought between mehmood ghaznavi and prithviraj chohan ) some source say indians from west punjab made up the army ! you then come there crying that no they were not indians they were pakistani (as west punjab is part of pakistani from 1947), but this is a fact that people of west punjab even of pakistan have indian ethnicity. Mohammad Adil 06:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where did Gibbon say Russians were present? Anyway, your example doesn't make sense. It would be ridiculous to talk about Pakistani ethnicity or nationality prior to 1947, but that's exactly the point. "Russia" as a distinct state was created in Eastern Europe, probably with Scandinavian roots, sometime between the 9th and 12th centuries. Talking about "Russians" in 636 doesn't make any sense. --Saforrest 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixup

This new result happen to be more accurate but does not tie in with the casualty rate?

Battle

battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.124 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

wtf...

Hello,

This article is just crap. I see in this discussion that the original writer of this article doesn't want to admit he is using unreliable and outdated sources. The comment of Drungarios 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC) pretty much sums up what I could say as a History-student. I don't know your degree of knowledge Mohammad adil, but if you would have read some scientific articles on military history you'd understand that armies of 100,000 men for this (or any pre-modern) time are highly exceptional and only attained at the peak of power of states.

Drungarios' comment and the numbers he cites should be the base for a new (scientific) article, not one based solely on primary sources by an amateur.

Please rewrite the whole thing, I'll edit the numbers to the more realistic ones from Nicolle and others.

Wiki1609 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ..............

i think this is enough, its peak of unfair attitude towards the islamic history, people who come i dont know from where claiming to know islamic history more then the muslim !!!!! i have the real sources, i have the real stuff, then from where you have got the stuff which you claim that its true. you people remian silence on the alexanders wars that were fought even 800 years before the islamic battles. there they say 5 million and you keep cool , here when i state 160,000 you got itch in your ass, go give me refference to some authuntic source (as i have been giving you from my 1st post) then say some thing here, i am tired of this sucked discussion here. keep your scientific sources with you, they may have place in literature but have nothing to do woth history. when muslim sources say it was 200,000 and byzantine sources say it was 140,000 then what problem you have ? ok may muslim sources have dont some exaggration but what about byzantine sources ????? they too say it was more then 100,000 i.e 140,000 now dont coem untill with authantic source. Mohammad Adil 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)