Talk:Battle of Ajnadayn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clean up this filth

This isn't worthy of a talk page. I request a full deletion and restart. The article also needs a thorough reworking.92.252.40.222 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Strength of Armies.

strength of armies are totally incorrect. may be the auther of this article or the author of the book from where the writer of this artical have read it had mixed the two battles of ajnadayn. yes there were two battles of ajnadayn fought 634 A.D and 635 A.D. the first battle of ajnadayn was fought after the muslim's conquest of ancient syrian city of Basra ( not basra of modern iraq ) july 30th 634 A.D ( the 28th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 13 Hijri islamic celender ). in this battle according to Waqidi byzantine army was 90,000 and muslims army was 32,000 casualties were 50,000 and 450 respectively. ( refference = al-Waqidi book:1 Page no:42 ).

where as an other muslim historian Balazuri mentioned the byzantine strength to be almost 100,000. ( refference = Fatuhu-al-baladan book:1 page no:175 )

Edward Gabbon also have mentioned the roman strength to be 80,000. ( refference = unknown )

khalid ibn al-walid entered syria from iraq with his 9000 men in syria there were already muslim troops under the command of 4 muslims generals abu ubaida ibn al jarrah , amr bin al aas , shurabil bin hassana and yazid bin abi sufyan. each of them was given army of 6000 men from caliph abu bakr to enter syria.thus 23,000 men were already present there in syria before khalid arived.many cities including the big city of Basra was conqured many died there many must be injured so the estimatted number of muslims there is 32,000 in 1st battle of ajnadayn. as muslims historians know there strenght batter there fore it is confirm thet muslims were around 32,000 there in the 1st battle of ajnadyan.

as far as byzantine strength is concern then is has been proved to be around 90,000 in the light of above given refferences.

i think the strength given in the current article ( october 26th 2006 A.D ) is of the second battle of ajnadayn. the 2nd battle was fought around mid-of the year 635 A.D the battle was commanded by Amr bin al-aas and shurabil bin hassana as secondary commander. so dont let this be mixed up ! nor there is any authantic refference relating the strength of both sides given in the current article (upto today i.e 26th october 2006 ). so i am going to edit it to make it correct with out errors. Mohammad adil

I don't think the numbers seem very realistic. 450 casualties after hours of fighting with thousands of soldiers seems a little low. Maybe the recorders of the battle exaggerated the numbers a little? 68.126.202.180 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

may it be , but it is consider as most authantic figures because these figures were taken by the narrators from the letter of Commander in chief of the muslim army at ajnadayn Khalid ibn al-Walid writen to Caliph Abu Bakr on 3rd August 634 A.C telling him about the muslim victory against the romans and the casulties on both sides.

This is mention in al-Waqidi: vol:1 page: 42. these figures are accepted as "true" because Khalid as a commander in chief of army knew batter what the casualties were on his side. more over these figures are not that much extraordinary, as you may know about the Alexander's war Battle of Guagemela, in which only 300+ mecedonian soldiers died.more over in the battle of fahal fought in January 23, 635 A.C 30,000 muslim army gathered in the plain of Fahal,and there is no record of reinforcement sent to syria by caliph from madinah. Mohammad adil 8:43 4th november 2006.

commander of armies.

the byzantine commander was not Theodorus. the commander in chief of the army was Wardan, Governor of Emessa. while Qubuqlar, acted as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief.

muslims commander in chief was khalid ibn walid. other secondary generals were amr bin al-aas ,shurabil bin hassana,yazid bin abi sufyan and abu ubaida ibn al-jarrah. this thing must be added. i have seen that the name Theodorus is widely used in the byzantine-arab wars on wikipedia. i guess this name is being putted every where , where the auther didn't know the name of byzantine commander. what is Theodorus is it any title that use to be given to byzantine commanders or what else it is i cant understant ? it is nice and fair to place the term unknown instead of writing the comman name Theodorus ! don't tell me that all byzantine commanders fought againt islamic invasion shared the common name Theodorus. Mohammad adil

battle of adjadayn

they said in the article the romans lost more then any other battle 50 more that doesnt make any sence.The next thing is that they wernt even fighting the romans byzantines i am beginning to lose faith in wikipedia.

be fair

why does this article have to come from 1 source thats muslim let the byzantines tell there side of the story

Byzantine history is not available in truly "history form" , from this i mean that the history of the events that took place in the byzantine empire are not recorded byzantine sources say only that they lost the battle with heavy loses and that it ! if you have any information about it (taken from any byzantine source) then you are wel come to write it here as this article lacks the byzantine side information. more over muslim sources have recorded this battle specially because of tremendous muslims victory in detail.

Mohammad Adil 11:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

From the text: "The details of this battle are mostly known through Muslim sources. . ." Actually, "entirely" is more accurate, which renders this entire article problematic. Yes, by all means be fair. Cutugno (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

yes

further more there wern any romans at all why is this so difficult

Yes there were not romans, but in those days amoung the muslims they were famous by the name "romans" not a single early muslims historian (thet are considered to be most authantic) have noted them by the name "byzantines" even in Quran they are mentioned by the name Romans. probably they were not famous in those days by the name they are famous amoung us.Calling them romans makes no "big" difference but i admit it makes difference after all ...! they Eastern "roman" empire.

Mohammad Adil 11:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

byzantines

the byzantines would no there casualties better than the muslims where does that brandom number come from?

If you have any Byzantine source mentioning the byzantine casualties then feel free to write it here with its proper refference.

As the Battle was a disaster for byzantine army and victory for Rashidune caliphate's army , therefore byzantine sources ( as far as i have read ) are silent about this battle and muslim's sources mention it with great detail. Mohammad Adil 10:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

byzantines

Even if the battle was a disaster for the byzantine army or not are you saying that they didnt mention a number or what?So your saying the muslims said the strength of the byzantines were 90,000 and casualties were 50,000 where would they get such a number?Im not going to say anything about there own numbers.Further more it wasnt the romans they engaged with?This battle is way to indecisive for me

battle

I believe there was 2 battles of the same name!secondly where could have the muslims have got the byzantine casualties from?

Yes there were two, one was a desicive one in which large number of forces from both sides took part, the other one was fought after battle of yarmouk, when Amr ibn al-A'as and Shurhabeel bin Hassana went to reconqure the areas of palistine and lebonan. the 1st battle of Ajnadayn was fought under the command of Khalid ibn al-Walid and the 2nd was fought under the command of Amr ibn al-A'as. for more information about this read my post above in the begining of this page.

you said that how the muslims come to know the casualties of the byzantine. the argue seems to be illogical ! and strange too.

how they knew that , Allah knows batter...... this question can be putted to any battle fought in the history of the world that the winning side how knew the casualties of the defeated army ???? the same question can be putted to all the greek and roman wars and the wars of Alexander the great !

they answer is that , muslims were fighting against them they killed them , they were not rather killed by the epidamic, surely when you are killing some one and afrer the victory putting the dead bodies in the common graves you must know that how much you are putting in the grave, one dont do this stuff by closing his eyes at least !

the historians came to know this because of the latter that was writen by Khalid ibn Walid (commander of that army ) to caliph Abu Bakr, the latter is mentioned in al-Waqidi: vol:1 page: 42

may this will minimize your concerns about the battle figures. Mohammad Adil

........... The latter was writen by Khalid three days after the battle. Mohammad Adil 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Point

You make a good point but dont get me wrong weather allah knows better or not what does that have to do with this how does that relate?Your write this could be putted in any battle of the world of the casualties and questioning history itself.You are also write when you say the winning side would no the casualties of the defeated army how and the same questions could be asked by the roman and greek and alexander the great.Others believe that the size of the byzantines were 15,000 which is to say that this battle could have been greatly exaggerated not just this but probably many others to.Not to be a bother but before you said that in the battle of the 2 constantinople battles you said the muslims broke the strength would you mind telling me how?If you byzantine commanders said the siaze was 15,000 how would you get 50,000 casualties.Its either you take one side over the other.Ok what ive said could be alot of debate but speak for this is a discussion site!Edwars gibbon places the byzantine army at about 80,000 now how would the muslims no that to be 90,000?

........................................ i think you are not getting my point !

1st of all i want to make some thing clear, i wrote the sentance Allah knows batter now this is only a sentance keep this in your mind, this is usually been used among muslim community , as according to our belive and also according to belive of other religons Allah or God knows things batter , and we can just give some assumptions to support our point. therefore i used the sentance "Allah knows batter" before i started my tak,ok may you have understood it.

and 2nd thing is that not a single byzantine commander or historians or any other person related to byzantine empire in past or present said that byzantine army strength was 15,000 ok keep this too in your mind !

it is an estimation of modern so called historian like david niclloe, (atleast for me his is so called historian as what he writs is in full contradiction with classic islamic history preserved in the most ancient history books)

ok now this is the matter, they Claim that byzntine army was not larger then 15,000 and muslim's army was not larger then 10,000 , now tell me one thing ,
Q-)where they present there ???????
Ans-)no they were not present there.

then how could they come to a result that byzantines were not 90,000 but 15,000 ???????? muslim historians that have wrote this history quoted it directly from the soldiers that were present there in the battle and from the latters that are preserved in meausem in turkey , these latters were writen by Khalid (commander in Chief of army ) to caiph Abu Bakr, tell him the details of battle and conquests.

now tell me to whom you will give a primary level ???? to the historians that have tradition to minimize the army sizes claiming that there is exaggration in the narrations mentioned in the early history books ,
or
on the hisotrians who had the direct narrations from the personnels present in the "battlefield"
a wise man will give the early historians a primary level. more over gibbon gave the strength to be 80,000 (quoted probably from any early muslim or byzantine source) and eary muslim historins give the strength between 90,000-100,000 most of them say 100,000. the figure 90,000 has been derived by muslims historins and militery general, leutanent-general A.I.Akram (late) who wrote a full book over these battles , he said there may be any exaggration about this therefore he minimize the size to be 90,000 because it was very close to gibbon's figures and also to muslims figures that mention it to be 100,000. atleast the early historians were not dick heads to exaggrate 9000 to 90,000 or 15,000 to 100,000. read there biography they were quit nice and educated persons. thanks for showing your interest in this , if you have more points about this or haven't understand any of my given point do ask me then. Mohammad Adil 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ok

I am still looking for the answer to the constantinople thing with what you said the muslims broke the strength?You said were they present and you said they wernt present now which soldiers were you referning to the muslims or the byzantines?So when those letters were written latter they were by Khalid to the caiph thats the samething as saying that these notes were from muslim historians ok.Which is only eye catchable what do you think?How can a few soldiers see 90,000.You say the early historians were not dick heads what about respecting the byzantine historians in other battles like yarmouk?SO the byzantines werent there to say what they lost seems there was debate in other battles not just this.If im not getting something tell me.Im sure i can post a byzantine note relating this battle also take into account of what is and what ive said.

.................
ok now let me answer your post line by line ......
you wrote that I am still looking for the answer to the constantinople thing with what you said the muslims broke the strength?
from this i mean to say that in the 1st and 2nd siege of constantinopole muslim's strength was more then ever seen before(i.e they broke the previous record of muslims army strength which was in africa during 3rd caliph Usman's riegn), it means that for example in the civil war of 657 A.D i.e battle of siffain, caliph Ali had army of 90,000 ( having troops from half of arabia iraq iran and georgia armenia etc etc) and his rival mawyah 1 had an army of 120,000 ( troops from syria jordan palitine lebonan isreal eyjpt turkey etc etc ), but in the wars of contantinople muslims had army probably 120,000 or greater then it that is upto 150,000. in this way all the previous records of muslim's army size were broken, now may you have understood it and by the way this is the article of battle of ajnadayn nor siege of constantinopole.

you wrote that ...You said were they present and you said they wernt present now which soldiers were you referning to the muslims or the byzantines?

dear you understood it totally wrongly ..... ! i was saying that those "historians" who claim that byzantine army was no larger then 15,000 and muslims were not 32,000 but just 10,000 , then were these historians present there ????? no these historians were not present there. i didnt used the word "soldier" there from where did you get the meaning that i am talking about any soldier ??????
you wrote that so when those letters were written latter they were by Khalid to the caiph thats the samething as saying that these notes were from muslim historians ok.
so from this i get some thing , which is that no matter who wrotes the letter and no matter who quotes it in the history book, if it is from a "muslim" then the letter will be full of exaggrations and it will have false figures of strength(size) of armies and casualties of the defeated army, so you people now have made it a tradition to consider any refference from any muslim source to be totally "false", what a baised behaviour it is, do you know if you eleminate the muslim historians from the history then what left is the greek historians who mentioned the army sizes came against greek to be 1 million and 5 millions ....lolzzz.
as for the letter writen by khalid to caliph, then why khalid will say lie to the caliph ???? it was not the only battle he won, winning battles were his every day work ! he before it conqured iraq and defeated the mighty persian armies in the most bloody battles of islamic history, he remained undefeated through out his militery carrer of more then 80 campaigns, why will he exaggrate it ????
more over, as for historians then why will they exaggrate it ? teling lie in islam is considered to be one of the "greatest sin".

you wrote that How can a few soldiers see 90,000.
cant understand what you are talking about ????? if you mean to say that how 32,000 muslims soldiers were able to see 90,000 byzantine soldiers then it is funny.... !
they had syps who use to estimate the army size usually (as far as i know) from any of there spy in the enemy army or from the food supply per day to that army who's size was to be estimatted. and the muslims soldiers were not colourbind so that they could not see what is standing in front of them. the battle continued for two days, making it clear that army size was greater then usual size.
you wrote that You say the early historians were not dick heads what about respecting the byzantine historians in other battles like yarmouk?. it is because byzantine history is not silent about battle of yarmouk, i.e battle of yarmouk is mentioned in the byzantine history along with army size (which they mentioned to be 140,000 and muslims historians to be 200,000) but i havn't seen any byzantine refference about battle of ajnadayn all it is mentioned in the islamic refferences if you dont want islamic refferences about this battle then it is ok, delete the article because excapt islamic refferences you will not get other byzantine refferences about this battle. keep this in your mind that byzantine historins just wrote about the battles which were "big" for them, in detail like that of the siege of constantinoploe.
you wrote that SO the byzantines werent there to say what they lost
not even the byzantine army coud tell this do you know why ????? because nearly 50,000 of them were killed in the battlefield and after following the routed troops by muslims and rest of them were killed in the battle of yokosa took place before the conquest of damascus and those who survived it may be killed in battle of fahal, an other big battle for muslims after the conquest of damascus. 10,000 romans were killed in it. so from where do you think that byaantine historians could get there army size or casualties, the source ( i.e soldiers who particepated in those battles) were dead ! and thus blocking the way for byzantine historians to write what should be writen. did you get this now , what i said ????
you wrote that m sure i can post a byzantine note relating this battle feel free to do so  !, but i am sure that you will not get any byzantine source talking about this battle in detail, you may can gett the sources writen by "modern" not "ancient" western historians who get it all copy from muslim sources. Mohammad Adil 08:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Adil, you shouldn't write so much in English, it's hard to follow with your punctuation and spelling and grammar lapses. Make your point and be done. Cutugno (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

byzantines

byzantines wernt just in one place for them to see there were always debate of those of the byzantines and the muslims are you saying the muslims always new best nothing bad sure i no you get your information from what you learn what can i say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.11 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC). ...................
Yes thats may be the matter, but tell me is tehre any reliable byzantine source ???? tell me only one name of it ?????? i can tell you many reliable muslims sources the books writen by eatly muslim historians. even western histotians like your david niclloe and edward gibbon use to copy the event from these sources, because the only classic history is writen and mentioned in any history book about the early muslims battles , are stored in these books. and one thing more, they all are mainly in arabic language, trasnlation of few of them is there in english but as claimed by historians and militery general ..Lietutant-general A.I.Akram , he found most od the purely wrongly and out of context translated.
give any byzantine source talking baout battle of ajynadayn , ok battle of ajnadayn not siege of constantinoploe which i guess you like the most bacause one can see some thing rear in it i.e byzantine victory rather then muslim's victory...lolzz. i will be waiting for your refference from any byzantine source, keep in mind give the refference from byzantine source not from book of any modern western historian (because they mainly copy it from muslim sources and edit there own views and sizes of army in it ). thanks for your interest. Mohammad Adil 08:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

this is edward gibbons book fall of the holy roman empire see here his article about battle of ajnadayn http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap512.htm Mohammad Adil 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

post

Since you go post by post I will do the same.First thing you say historians who claim the byzantine army to be no more than 15,000 and you say that the muslim strength was not at 32,000 but at 10,000?Alright not that i dont no these things it certainly doesnt seem to be that way here.

Second thing alright first of all when you said that if its from muslim sources that your saying im baised from what i said and you say that i take it that they exaggerate to say that im baised that not what im saying dont make judgement which is fine because at the end of that i said ok so that maybe you would think im being at a fair level.Which makes you think you have to make a historical thing saying that if you eleminate the muslim historians from the history all you get is greek historians placing army sizes to be 1 million and 5 millions what battle are you talking about there?You can believe what you want there to satisfy yourself it makes no difference to me just be equal!I appologize if you feel humiliated or misinterpreted what i said i didnt mean it in a bad way.

Third thing this may not relate but what you said back there was a little insulting I could just say that Caesar(came,saw,conquered!)is the best and emperor Augustus or Trajan to win battles is what thay do you probably no this but they took out let me see the entire middle east jordan,syria,lebanon,iran,iraq,saudi arabia much more that was when there were only romans there.Im not being biast there by the way!They only took it away from the byzantine Roman empire whatever that means here!

Fourth thing Stop bringing religion into this when you say that its a lie in islam is one of the greatest sins what about christianity(thao shall not kill got is love and the 10 commandments i believe one of them is thou shall not lie lets just get one thing straight anyone can lie and you didnt no him!Many muslims,christians,jews eveyone from those has probably done some bad!Lets not be baised what are you saying were not all equal or something?Why would he exaggerate lets not make that a question here!

Fifth thing you say they had spys to see the enemy army or from the food supply to estimate 90,000 ok let me just look over my shoulder.While there was battle?I would not get delete this article why would i do that except some minor problems with only the article im talking about here.You say byzantine historians wrote battles that were big like constantinople are you saying this is not a big battle for them?

sixth thing you say that because 50,000 were were dead i dont believe the people in battle were counting up the numbers and writing the detail about the battle i believe thats mostly up for the historians to decide!You say 10,000 romans were killed in a battle according to history were they romans or as this place calls it the byzantine roman empire.As you said soldiers in that battle were dead wouldnt the historians no the battle during battle not after?

seventh thing your right my sources are something from modern ok.nicole and edward copy there history from muslim sources thats the samething as saying that there were no byzantine historians there at all to write or witness anything?See i could say the samething now why would a byzantine christian lie.

last thing you say give me any battle not siege of constantinople you like the most because its rare to see something in here then you say byzantine victory not a muslim victory then you say lolzz what the hell do you think muslims then were the underdogs or something and that there superior hello muslims and arabs under control alot of times turkish empire roman empire i could do alot more what for?Try not to explode or say things like dear what are you implying?

Thank you so much for your answers to this disscussion.

.........................
well, this discussion is going wild !, just give me any byzantine refference if you have about this battle ! if not then search it, dussicion on the things like the "casualties" and "strength" one need to have much more knowledge about battle history , you are arguing on the most irritating thing on which no one so far in the history of this world have ever argued (i guess) !, you are arguing that How muslim historian or commander in chief Khalid ibn Walid come to know that what were the byzantine casualties???? thats the most strange question that i have heared ???? you tell me that who told the franks the casualties of muslims in the Battle of Tours ????? and who told the allied forces the casualties of Nazi forces of germany in 1st and 2nd world war. this question is no less then a myth lolzzzz,
search any byzantine refference or source about the battle of ayjnadayn as far as i know, there is no details of this battle in byzantine history.....! the battle was not a big battle for them as they lost it ! but it was big for muslims because they won it !. as battle of yarmouk is present in great detail in the muslim's history because we won it, and it is not present in byzantine sources in great detail because it was not big one for them as they lost it ! before posting your next post search as much as you can "The Byznainte" source, and find in it the battle of ajnadayn and then post here what they say about it. i will be wildly waiting for it ! you have time till 1-2-2007 A.D because i will not be available till then because i am going out of town because of my sister's marrige. Mohammad Adil 09:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

caliph

80 battles not a big deal if you look at most of them what do you think?Not looking at roman ones through out history look at the other empires 80 is nothing and how the caliph did it was not that glorious either a big persian one lets see some empires win battles like that.Tyr to have sacked pisa that was there last stop!Oh ya they didnt take spain back by themselves i believe the byzantines assisted that war.The caliph attacks france that was there last stop in that part and sicily byzantines did it to and the muslims didnt actually take the island or by themselves.Im not insulting anyone here more muslims coverting more than any other religion in the world whats next!I am not making fun of anybody here if you dont believe me then take take it how you will.Your website thing you posted there if you try to go to it it wont work!Im not just saying the byzantines won alot and lost alot the muslims did alot of conquests to! .....................
many westerns dont know reality that we know ! , very few amoung you know that we muslims admire only the "rightly guided caliphs" i.e Rashidun Caliphate , they were 4 and ruled from 632-661 A.D after them other caliphs came but they are not admired by most of the muslims.among Rashidune caliphs there was caliph Umar the mighty caliph, in who's reign all the master militery generals were present including Khalid ibn Walid who was his cousin. his empire was 7.4 million square kilometer. though he didn't wanted to conqure the land but he did because it was need of time he many times said that "O' Allah my there be a high wall of fire between us and persian empire and byzantine empire, so that noe they could come here nor we can", why he conqured then, it needs a long explaination, any ways you said 80 campaigns means nothing ! lolzzz i guess for you it means nothing, tell me which militery general in only 6 years of his militery carrer had this large number of battles ???? i can even paste here names of all of the campaigns of Khalid ibn Walid , he mind it, he remian undefeated through out his carrer. only Khalid is the person (among muslim generals of rashidune caliphate) who fought that much battles except him no one remioan un-defeated and no one fought that much battles.
this was answer for you this stuff is not related to the article but i answered it.
nor , i know that in the year 700s A.D muslims had a defeat in france a crushing defeat ! i know all the other muslim's defeats i therefore said that Khalid ibn Walid was only "muslim" general who remianded un-defeated even he over came the battle like Battle of Yarmouk. so dont take me wrong that i am ignorant of the history.thanks for you argues. Mohammad Adil 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed adil

Mohammed adil i will probably not be writing here again because i think your mad.Just to let you no i read the article you have posted it says in and i skimmed through this that was this battle of 70,000 greeks i could be wrong.Anyway if you pissed i wont be disscussioning here anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.17 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

........................... sorry if you minded my any post but i was just saying things as they were and if some one dont like it what can i do ????? on thing more i will pleased if you next time mind your language coz its against the wikipedia'rule. if you can do a batter debate over it you can feel free wikipedia is not property of my father at least ! but you should come with authuntic refferences, people here claim that i am giving muslims refferences, ! yes i am giving, becasue only muslim refferences are present in pure form , byzantine sources are either silent about this battle or are not available..... so what can i do now ????if there is no buyzantione refference present...!!!! well, i will not be available till 1-2-2007, because i am going out of town because of my sister's marrige. Mohammad Adil 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ok

ok

battle

In the battle of tours in this place has it to be more casualties for the muslims.Since we dont exactly no the actually numbers of any battle that has took place on earth why do we put it down.Im not sure who told the allied forces of the nazi forces casualties maybe nazi military would have?There are to many conspiracies about world war 2.

In the 80 campaigns the caliph had i didnt say it meant nothing would you actually compare him to alexander the great?Which military general took 6 years of military carrer to to this did i not say the or mention lord of all lords some might say JULIUS cAESAR!What about belisarius or ghangis khong so many others.Can you tell me what caesar did in 6 years?It was beyong great!

So if we talk about nazi military casualties or any battles why would we post it anywhere.You will be wildly waiting for my byzantine source it will be here lets just see what you got to say first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.110 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Combatants

It should not say Roman Byzantine empire it should say be in some way that it is a non roman byzantine empire or just if not say byzantine empire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.111 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Article

This article brings up that there were romans in this battle it should say the armanians more than anything —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.111 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

romans were bigger???

http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/ba/battle_of_ajnadayn.htm here is proof that the present article needs some improvement mostly numerical wise ............................

this very same article was there on wikipedia probably some one had copied it word by word with out bothering to write him self or just search !, check a heading above you will find my explaination that what error did this early article had ! there were not 1 but 2 battles fought at ajynadayn,,,,,, check you will find my explaination above. Mohammad Adil 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

as there would need to be an authentic source on showing there was 50,000 byzantines casualties and 450 muslim casualties if not change it

change the byzantine casualties and muslims casualties as there is no authentic source

                     CASUALTIES.........

there is not one source indicating the amount of false casualties being presented on both sides same with the strengths.if anybody has anything to prove then bring it if you do not because i dought it these numbers are greatly wrong .................... people be coool, i am astudent and my exams are near therefore i cant get online daily... "The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns": page no:467 by Lieutenant-General Agha Ibrahim Akram, Nat. Publishing. House, Rawalpindi (1970) ISBN 978-0-7101-0104-4.

this is the source saying the casualties to be 450 and 50,000 why you people are jaleousing cant muslims win a desicive victory ?????? the ancient muslims source is al-waqtadi volume no:1 page 42 this book is of militery tactics used by Khalid bin Walid the best general that caliphs had, and ti is scientific too, because it is still being taught in command and staff college of pakistan its a militery college and officiers from U.K and U.S.A come here to study too. so be cool now, grow up 50,000 is not unusual ... is it? 2 days of battle and then 4 corps which were sent to follow them to as far as gaza and killing a routing army is too easy comparatively. what else you want now ???? Mohammad Adil 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

alright!!!!!!!!!

the source saying casualties 450 and 50,000 why are you jelousing that muslims cant win a decieve victory you no by saying that isnt going to prove anything.your saying this battle is being tought in to U.S.A and the U.K go to study there in pakistan then you said grow up 50,000 is not unusual that doesnt prove anything!thats just nonsense trying to keep the article the way it is show an authentic source if not these numbers should be changed!make some sense

... Mohammed Adil's book 'Sword of Allah' has been agreed to be unuseful for Wikipedia, see the discussion on the Talk:Battle of Yarmouk page. Wiki1609 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) ...

there is something wrong with whoever is in command in wikipedia because whoever is is in command is taking quantity over quality which is wrong by the way.

Oh boy

This article is reeking with bias. Its got exclamation marks and is highly uncyclopedic. Furthermoore, its using either biased sources or ones by teh 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, whic I imagine, is not exactly up to date. Tourskin 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Asalamualikum, Yes it may seem bias, actually it is ! Main reasion is that no byzantine source talk in detail ( or talk at all ) about the early Byzantine-Rashidun Caliphate wars, only Muslim historians have detail accounts of these battles, and the christian soiurce like gibbon got it mainly from the muslim hsitorian Wadqi's book Fatuh-al-Sham i.e conquest of Levant, writen in 8th century A.D. If you are free now a days (mean not working on any other project) then feel free to edit. But keep in mind, that there were Two battles of Ajnadayn. 1st battle was fought in 634 A.D under the command of Khalid ibn Walid the 2nd was fought under the comamnd of Amr ibn Al Aas in around 636 A.D after battle of Yermouk, in 2nd battle muslim forces out numbered byzantine garrison. Many western historians including David niclle seem to mix these two battles and in there western bias they state that muslims outnumbered the byzantine in the battle which is wrong, they actually think of it to be one battle, but according to early muslim sources, detail accounts of both battles are given.

Mohammad Adil 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Going through the early islamic battles is a joke when most of them include somewhere between 12 and 200 casualties vs 20k on the other side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On there being two Battles of Ajnadayn

It seems some people think there were two battles of Ajnadayn, I can find only sources for one battle of Ajnadayn and not two. Where does anyone have sources that states there were two seperate battles? (preferably secondary sources). Both Oxford reference and Nicolle know of only one such battle. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, 2nd battle of ajnadyn was fought, after the battle of yarmouk, in this battle the last roman garrison in palestine was defeated and routed and after which the remianing coastal cities of palestine were conquered. it was not a relatively major battle.

The fact that no secondary source (accept for I.A.Akram's ) mention, its becoz they mainly deals with the events around yarmouk, like that of david nicolle, in which he threw light on the byzantines militarty abilities ect etc piror to yarmouk etc etc and thus gave a brief bird eye view of the events before yarmouk and after yarmouk. He never mentioned the conquest of "Palestine" in detail or he may have discussed this battle too.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of the opposing armies.

The article is disputed as the size of the opposing armies is based on the primary sources, and obviously is exggagrated. I suggest, that we should discuss it here first before editing it, some have edited the size of troops already, i am leaving it as it is with out any change untill some thing is decided here. i am in hurry today so i will come inshallah next time to write some of my resreach work. Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1 - From Wikipedia article about Al-Waqidi, the source of these fantasmagoric and unreliable data about the size of the opposing armies: "Another work still often ascribed to al-Waqidi, "Futuh al-Sham" ("Conquests of Syria"), contains characters from the sixth Islamic century, long after the time al-Waqidi lived. al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable.[1] Imam Shafi'i says that,"the books written by Al-Waqidi are nothing but heaps of lies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Did This Article Come Out Of A Muslim Storybook?

This article contains so many errors I don't even know where to begin. I know victor gets to write the history but this is a little extreme. You might as well say that the "half naked warrior" charged the Roman lines and single-handily defeated the entire army. This is nothing but lies so it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.125.207 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)