Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is there any physical evidence the Battle of Yarmouk actually occurred?

All this talk about the battle of Yarmouk assumes that there actually was such a battle as described by the Arab sources. Once you don't accept the Arab sources at face value, there is no evidence that a major battle as such ever took place. Certainly, after the major Byzantine/Persian conflict, the Byzantine could not have muster even a fraction of the numbers thrown out.

In fact, according Nevo in "Crossroads to Islam", the archeological evidence indicates that Byzantium had largely adbandon the fortifications and active defense in the area of Palestine already in the sixth century, which is supported by Persian conquest of Jerusalem - the Persian held Jerusalem for some 13 years, and the Byzantine Empire never did send any force to recover it - Jerusalem was only recovered to Bysantium when the Byzantines took the war to Persia itself and defeated them in the Battle of Ninevah. To assume that Byzantium would suddently switch gears and send a large force they did not have when did not do it before seems extremely unlikely. The lack of forces available to defend the area is further supported by the Arab conquest of Alexandria and Egypt - the Arab took control of those areas by defeating the local forces, not by defeating a major Byzantine army. And Alexandria was the second largest city in the entire Byzantine Empire. Bill.Roehling@gmail.com

Further, there is a total lack of any physical evidence that such a battle took place. Remains have been found for the Battle of Teutonberg Wald, where a mere 3 Roman legions (25,000) were wiped out, and where the landscape has been total changed from the primeval forest and swamp land to the well groomed farmland and country side of today. In contrast, the Battle of Yarmouk, which involved far larger forces, and in a land far less changed, should have left some physical evidence, but none have been found to date. The contemporary Byzantine historians are unaware what would have been, if it took place as the Arab's descibe, the most crushing military defeat in Roman history. The Byzantine sources that do directly talk of the battle and the number of troops involved are all much later, and may have been derived from the Arab sources.

A far more likely scenario is that Arabs defeated some group of local forces in some small skirmish, and in later tellings this victory became exaggerated into a major battle. (A point to consider, is that in the Wikipedia article on the first Arab siege of Constantinople, which occurred just a few decades after the Battle of Yarmouk allegedly took place, the Arab forces per the article numbered around 200,000, with the Byzantines forces listed as a "lot less", and this for the very core of the Byzantine Empire, which shows that the Arabs, if not the Byzantines, could have mustered the numbers the Arab sources ascribed to the Byzantines. Perhaps the Arans sources got it backwards - maybe it was an overwheliming large Arab force that crushed an outnumbered Byzantine force.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • lolzzz here is some thing totally new !

brother battle was fought and its physical evidences exist. But unfortunately a bad news for you, the region where it was fought is now in a disputed terrotery of golan heights between islreal and syria. they dont even let journalist to visit the region how will they allow historians there ? i think you should try ...lolzzz. go if isreali army allows u to go there but be careful from syrians may they not shot you down thinking you a isreali agent lolzzz.

and rest of your post gives impression that u are still in shock that muslims could defeat romans lolzzz. wake up they defeated them and captured there 2/3 empire in less then 15 years, they captured the empire they didn't took it on rent lolzz so they had to fight battles and defeat romans in it, its all about strategy, only those win who have guts to win, its as smiple. And if byzantines were not giving resistance then muslims would have captured there whole empire .. dont be crazy dude.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, how can people come up with so much bull like that out of no where. That dude is in total denial..lol 216.99.58.125 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No one can possibly know how exactly the Battle of Yarmouk was fought, and the number of soldiers involved. We can only state the various sources and estimates as accurately as possible.

The rest is a propaganda battle: Muslims trying to bolster their ego by re-living past glories, non-Muslims irritated by Muslim trumpeting and so on and so forth... History is used as a means for fighting contemporary battles. Nothing new, I'm afraid.

Has this anything to do with writing sound articles ? no, of course.

By the way, the article still doesn't read like a real encyclopedia article.Giordaano (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bro you seem to have doubts on history it self ! if you dont like history then leave it. the historical sources mean some thing ? they are the one to save what happend in past and if you doubt them then its your problem. by the way going in your way of thinking i guess we should abolish military history as accoding to you these battles are propaganda! by the way tell me what accurately you know about battle of guavgamela fought by alexander ? you know greek historians were specialized in exaggrations ... now keeping in view this greek tradition will you say that all the glory of spartans and greeks and romans was just a propaganda ? this is history, not science, you have to rely on the historical sources that are available. You seems to be a bit irritated by Muslims right ? what irritates you ? there victories against romans ? listen up man..those win who have guts to win ...in the battle field its all about what strategy and tactics you are using it will decide ur fate in the battle field not the name "roman army". they won coz they deserved it.... and when roman won it was becoz they deserved ...when persians won it was becoz they deserved it. open ur mind be practicle ! live life love history ......lolzz Muslims made an empire with in decade conquering the lands from romans and persians ...conquering the land ok they did took it on rent ! they had to strive for every inch of there large empire, i think this show some thing, use common sense which should be common in man, this shows that fighting decisive and grand battles was there destiny. Mohammad Adil (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: this article is a good example of how the battles of the past are being re-fought again, for propaganda purposes. Personally, I absolutely don't care about Greek, Roman, Arab, Patagonian military glory.

The best history can do is to take sources and evaluate them. Each historian has his own agenda. In modern times, mass media and the abundance of sources ensure the possibility of cross-checking most any information, but this possibility does not exist for ancient times.

So, when evaulating ancient episodes, we have to be extremely cautious, and realize in particular that numbers being quoted for armies, victories, defeats are usually gross exaggerations. Some battles might in fact never have been fought at all, or have amounted to little more than marginal skirmishes.Giordaano (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As you your self mentioned that "The best history can do is to take sources and evaluate them." ya, thats true ... and while writing this article i have did the same. you can see the refference of every "major maneuvor" of the battle and you can cross examin them if you want to. any ways the result of the battle is some thing that means a lot, muslim won it decisively and that it. romans were wipped out and never gain power again and lost 80% of there empire thereafter to the invading muslims in the metter of few years. what i can conclude from your post is that you are totally denying the fact that any such battle was fought. again i will ask you that dont just "say" ... show some proves, ur analysis you research regarding the battle. and mind it bro.. if u will start it, u will have to rewrite the history of the world again ! For the historians, yarmouk was not just a battle, it was a turning point in hsitory of the world, the battle was going to determine that whether Islam will dominate the world or will perish in arabian desert. i suggest you to do some reserch work on it before writing such funny remarks about the historical fact. i hope whn u come next time you will have some thing to show me to support ur argument. Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC) one thing more, i cant understand that how this battle can be used for propaganda ? i mean it was Rashidun Caliphate vs Eastern roman empire, it dosn't have link wiht modern senario. if someone will take it as christianity vs Islam then its not new. it would be justlike Iran saying that hollywood's 300 movie is to humiliate iranian nation, indians will stand and say Alexander the great movie was to give "snake charmer's" image of india !!!!! its non-sence lolzz Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad Adil says :"yarmouk was not just a battle, it was a turning point in hsitory of the world, the battle was going to determine that whether Islam will dominate the world or will perish in arabian desert"

This proves my point about people trying to fight again past battles on the basis of their contemporary agenda.

You think that Yarmouk was a key episode on Islam's way to dominating the world, and this ideological bias is evident in most of the "history" you write.

A serious historian would refrain from such declarations, just like he would never write e.g. "At the battle of Tours/Poitiers, Charles Martel saved Christianity and Western civilization from being overrun by Muslim hordes"Giordaano (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Isnt it true ? by the way ? victory at yarmuk was a key to west and defeat at tours was a "lock" to west. yes a serious historian must always refrain from such claims while writing a history... but what about freedom of expression, i suppose this "discussion" section is to express our views on history and discuss it, i did the same and you took my "one sentence" and made it a issue ! read the article and tell me is there any section in it that is deviated from "military history" and is bias to wards islam's domination of world. the whole article is writen in the tone of domination of one empire to the other i.e rashidun empire over eastern rome, victory at yarmuk determined domination of rashidun empire ( its not my fault if they call it "Islamic empire" perhaps it was islamic empire !) and downfall of eastern rome, thats it. if some one wants to make it an issue then i would say that "he is bias to wards religion and comparing a battle between two empires to the battle between two great religions" and sorry to mention you are doing this right now. i would again say that those win battle who have guts to win it, muslims had guts, they won it, its all about strategy and tactics. i will never say that battle of tours or any such battle was never fought at all ! lolzzz its funny to claim this, or who will answer my simple question that, "then who stoped the muslim advance in western europe" ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I added two disputes, one for neutrality and another for the reasons specified by User 66.51.147.97. There is no conclusive evidence whether Yarmouk was actually a battle or only a minor skirmish, or whether it took place at all. I remember from earlier discussions that Mohammed Adil has zero knowledge on how to write historical articles, and that he thinks original sources always tell the truth. When I have time I might rewrite this whole article based on secondary sources from real historians. Wiki1609 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested persons could go to the page on the battle of Tours/Poitiers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours and make a comparison. It is, in my view, more balanced, and sober in style.Giordaano (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• and user:Giordaano, article of battle of tours will seem to you sober obviously, becoz in it, there is a muslim defeated ! lolzzz

okey wiki dude, i know you are the one who is highly anti muslim( you sound like one), you are bias and therefore have no cradebility to write an article involving muslims military history, you might know the style of writing but you have a little knowledge and are highyl bias. Well i never relyed on original sources , did i ? and its your problem if you consider "western historians" as real historians and muslim historians are "assholes". what primary sources tells you is the basic maneuvor of the troops involved, location etc etc... and for this even secondary sources are heavily dependent on primary sources, let it not be a conflict between secondary and primary sources as this will be use less, i am going to check again if any part of the article is bias, i will fix it, other wise your's action will be based totally on your hatered. My final question to you wiki, if yarmuk was a minor skirmish then "how did muslims conquered 80% of the eastern rome ? by skirmishing ? and no one can deny the fact that battle was never fought, even not the western historians. two Byzantine historians, Nicephorus and Theophanes did mentioned this battle as a desaster for byzantines more over it was mentioned by A.I.Akram in his book: "I could not see the Wadi-ur-Raqqad(a ravine where some 30,000 byzantine troops fell down or were killed in the last phase of battle) because it is the Cease Fire Line, but from a village named Shajara, three miles from the ravine, I had a clear view of the area where the last bloody phase of this battle was fought." unluckly the region is prohabited by Isreali and Syrian troops and thus no one can visit the site of battle for its physical proves. Although not a single historian that i have came across (includding western historians like nicolle, donner and kergi ) never mentioned or showed a probability that yarmuk was never fought or was a minor battle, thus i would recommand you guys to read the history first then made a conclusion, read it from your "real historians" even they have mentioned the same tactics and strategy at yarmuk only conflict betwen early and modern sources is of strength of armies, which i belive is just and one should discuss it. Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no bias against anyone when it concerns history, and I don't like people that hide behind such accusations. I can live with the tags being removed, but then the Evaluation section that is based on absolutely nothing but OR-BS needs to be removed, as I have done now. And it's inappropriate to compare a meagrely-documented battle like Yarmouk with great and famous battles like Austerlitz, even though some early writers have attempted to do so. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To Mohammes Adil : long-winded rants and personal attacks are totally useless, and will in fact be ignored. Learn how to write your arguments in a clear,synthetic way, or no one will read you.Giordaano (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8eNzYURMD4 check this, its the video of the site of battle of yarmouk Mohammad Adil (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

estimates of strength and my conclusion

i am not sure about byantine's strength but i am sure about muslim's, i am so sure about their strength becoz of system of "divan" which mention name of every soldier at garrison and there strength and there tribe(i.e regimant) there salaries were given according to this system + the annual allowance. prior to yarmouk muslims have some 25,000-30,000 in Syria and thus according to raw estimate based on the intelligence from scouts heraculis would have estimated them to be around 50,000-55,000. Double the actual size they were, and must have muster up the forces atleast out number them 1 by 2. Similary muslims eastimated there strength (based upon the intelligence from desert christian arabs as mention in "primary sources") to be almost 200,000 most probably again double the size then actually they were. Byzantines had 150,000 fighting force (+navy) at the time of muslim invasion(634 A.D) as mentioned in Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP, p. 265. which fell to 80,000 after muslim conquest probably around 650s. from 150,000 the largest deployment of troops was in northern Syria as it was under the constant sassanid threat. As the empire was divided in 4 main regions, Egypt, Levant,Asia minor and Europian part. the most endanger regions were Levant and its european portion therefore the largest deplyoment of troops was on these fronts. Levant with around 50,000 strong. European part with almost 40,000 strong (excluding the garrison at constantinople) and asia minor with around 20,000 strong and Egypt with almost 20,000 strong troops. Prior to yarmuk heraculis had 30,000 surviving imperial troops(excluding christian arab auxiliares) in Levant and almost 15,000 in asia minor. So for yarmouk he could easily concentrate about 100,000 troops (including auxilaries from christian arabs of levant and masopotamia). As mentioned by Byzantine historian Nicephorus that Damascus was unable to supply sufficient grains to the vast troops of vahan. This was some of my research work that i did from the western sources about the conquest of Syria. I am still not sure about its 100% acuracy would appreciate if some one help with some more info. Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you draw the wrong conclusion from your research. If the Byzantines had around 150,000 total troops throughout the entire empire, this does not mean they can deploy 100,000 men in the field. To me such numbers actually point to the fact that the Byzantines could never have fielded an army 100,000 strong. The data means they need 150,000 troops to garrison all cities and border posts throughout the empire, but says nothing about the ability to raise a field army, which involves recruiting, logistics, and ofcourse money. Garrison troops from Thrace are not available for deployment in the field at Yarmouk, you need new troops for that. I think the 20,000 maximum estimate is the most reliable when comparing it to other wars. During the Thirty Years War, most field armies still did not exceed 20,000 men because of limits on logistics, money, campaiging season, wastage rate, etc. Putting the Byzantine army at 100,000 is pure fantasy. Just compare it with the estimate of the Arabs, it is also around 20,000 for an attacking field army. Heraclius' army was probably about as large, with possibly a small numerical superiority because of local troops joining, however that also cannot have been many because of near open rebellion in many cities and the need to supply those troops as well. Syria may have had enough grain, but even an army of 20,000 means more mouths to feed than the average city of the time. I base my opinion on work about the Early Modern period, but I don't see how the Byzantines could more succesfully deploy a large army in the middle of the desert than Gustavus Adolphus could in Germany in the 1600's. I think we should put the estimate at around 20,000 troops for both Byzantines and Arabs. Wiki1609 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, let belive for some time that 150,000 troops were in garrisons and important communication routs, and i dont disagree from this, after all for wht porpose army is then ?

But you didn't get my point, what about the 60,000 Byzantine troops already present in Syria ? obviously they were in garrisons not laying on raod lolxx, where they disappeared ? acutally to get the answer of it, u gotta start from begining.

• 60,000 troops in palestine and Syria, right.
• Muslim invasion, bosra captured + numerious border towns.
• troops gathered from different garrisons of palestine and northern Syria at ajnadyn, they were defeated,
• bulk of them retreated towards palestine, rest to northern syria. *damascus captured,
• the servivers of ajnadyn and garrison troops concentrated at fahal were defeated and routed to northern syria ceasera and jerushalem, *sirge of ceseara,
• invasion of northern syria,
• emesa captured, tripoli captured,
• intelligence of concentration of romans in antioch and nrthern syria,
• muslim retreated at the yarmuk plain, battle of yarmuk, romans defeated.
• conquest of remaining northern syria and antioch, and conquest of palestine in south.
• 637 Conquest of levant completed.

what did you get from this ? did you notice the garrison troops ? you did, they were the regular troops, where did they disappeared after the defeats and conquest of cities upto emesa. In palestine and Syria about 60,000 troops were present, obviously not all of them were killed, they were routed and dispersed, our sources tells that they gathered at emesa and antioch, and mainly in antioch. lets say 40,000 of them were still alive before yarmuk, it means heraculis still had 40,000 regular troops in hands at antioch. ths book says Recruitment and conscription in the Byzantine army c.550-950 : a study on the origins of the stratiotika ktemata thats byzantine had enough men power to raise 100,000-300,000 men (not as a field army ) but due to the inefficeiency of government they could have raised half of it.

As david nicolle mentions in his book Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria. that..The empire was certainly not in state of collapse when it faced the new challenge from Arabia, but failed completely to tackle the challenge effectively. it was not the fact that heraculis didn't had resources at all, he had, certainly the empire was nt bankrupt. have you read the critical review of Kaegi's books at www.jstor.org, well he is said to have paid more attention in showing heraculis more misearable lolzz... any ways 20,000 field army ok i agree, but sources says hat he sent 5 armies, with different objectives in northern syria, damascus and palestine, to cutt off the muslim communicatons and destory them sepertely. ok leave it as well, just tell me what happed to the garrison troops those 40,000 strong ? hmmm they were doing Salsa with heraculis at antioch ;p

Any ways if some one claims that thoese 20,000 included even the garrison troops or the servivers of the invasion then, dont you think that 20,000 are too less to control Syria and palestine ? the region with a masive population of 15 million.

Most historins place the number of byzantine troops as

• History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
• Donner (1981): 100,000.
• David Chandler: 100,000
• Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
• David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
• Kindersley, 80,000
• Yarmouk university department of history jordan says; 125,000

only Haldon and Kaegi (1983) says 20,000.

majority places numberes between 80,000-100,000. would like to have your comments. And one thing more, it was not me who got personal ok, i always appreciate criticism as it will make me to learn. No offenses bro.. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• check this too its nice site 3d view of site of batle of yarmouk from 70 miles away.

http://www.allinjordan.com/index.php?cGc9Q2l0aWVzJmN1c3RvbWVyPUJhdHRsZSBvZiBZYXJtb3Vr= Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You should cite your sources right: Nicolle states that 25,000 men max were available for Yarmuk while acknowledging that Byzantine armies never exceeded 20-30,000 men. This makes that Kaegi, Haldon and Nicolle give 20-25,000 men for the Byzantine army. The history of Palestine and Oxford History of Byzantium are no case-studies or partial studies of Yarmuk or the Islamic conquests so relY for their numbers on earlier works or primary sources, therefore I think we should appreciate them less than Donner, Kaegi, Haldon and Nicolle. Chandler and Kindersley I don't know.

Regarding book reviews, I found only very positive reviews for Kaegi, notably from Irfan Shahid, who is kind of an authority on the Islamic Conquests. Wrtiting about Kaegi he praises the "excellences of this fundamental work on the Arab conquests". Though I don't know Donner's book I looked for a review, which stated it was poorly sourced (by Patricia Crone). Moreover it seems that Donner himself stated that no accurate reconstruction of the battles of the Islamic Conquests was possible because he used only Muslim sources or Muslim-derived sources. Regarding the Byzantine army, I think Kaegi is the most authorative and reliable considering he is an expert on Byzantine military history, which is also why Shahid welcomed his work. Kaegi can assess the Byzantine military situation independent from Muslim sources, which is the strength of his work.

To your question where the garrison troops were, I think they were simply doing their job which was garrisoning. Like I said before the Byzantines cannot simply use garrison troops to fight the Arabs somewhere else, they have to cover supplies and have defensive purposes. The remnants of the Ajnadayn battles were mostly local levies from an army only 12,000 strong so I don't think that will have provided much support either (at least not that can raise the Yarmuk number above 30,000). Regarding Nicolle's statement that the Empire wasn't falling apart that's probably true, but it doesn't mean Heraclius had enough money or wanted to make enough money available.

In short, the most reliable and most specific works put the Byzantine army around at 20-30,000, only Donner deviates with his figure of 100,000. However if the review is true, Donner disqualifies himself by saying that he thinks no accurate sequence of events can be established because of poor sources. The other sources you give are not specific on the subject so probably contain no original research on Yarmuk or troop amounts. 20-30,000 remains the most reliable figure. Wiki1609 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• , hmmm bro check on page 32 of Yarmuk 636 of david nicolle, it says at most 50,000 non-arab byzantine troops ( excluding arab allies )

and on page 43 its says 25,000 Muslim Arab army. And then he mentions to show the magnitude of the battle that before this battle the usual byzantine expeditions forces never excedded 2-30,000 during roman-persian wars. It was to correct you. Any ways you need to read the battle from its core, i will inshallah mention it here for you. And yes donner says that about the reconstruction of the battle, as most of the muslim historians didn't deal with te strategy and tactics used in it, only wadqidi and ibn kasir did. And waqidi the earliest historian) did it with great detail. And for garrison troops, my question is not about the garrison troops all around heraculis empire, but in Levant, before yarmouk, muslims control region all the way upto Emesa, where were the garrison troops of half of Levant ? certainly they were not dead, where they were ? they must have been used in the concentration of 1 or 2 of the 5 armies heraculis launched. And garrison troops when needed are the most favourable troops to be used against an expedition in the same region becoz of there fimiliarity from the terrain etc. So where were those garrison troops, syria had about 60,000 garrison troops 25,000 of them had died during first half of muslim invasion piror to yarmuk, other retreated, where were they ? regular soldiers can't be ignored or disbanded. Primary sources says they were included in the armies launched by heraculis. do some googling for the authors that i mentioned, you will come to know them, and yes do not judge author, that who is credible who is not, we are not critics here, they had some thing in there mind therfore they wrote a book and book became famous, we cant add our own estimates here on wikipedia its against policy, so one must rely on author, and what majority says, that have some weight.

i am in bit hurry right now will add more soon, bye for them take care. and yes Andre Corvisier in his book A Dictionary of Military History and the Art of War - 1994 also estimates 80,000 troops for byzantine and 30,000 for muslims. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Read one line further in Nicolle, it said at most 50,000 non-arab byzantine troops (excluding arab allies) with at least half of these tied down in garrisons (meaning unavailable for Yarmuk), 50,000 x 1/2 = 25,000. He does not mention that Byzantine armies rarely exceeded 20,000 to implicitly say this battle was different, he mentions it to support his thought that at most 25,000 troops were present at Yarmuk. Afaik he's pretty clear so I don't know how you can interpretate this differently, ofcourse if you want to just use everything you can find to support higher numbers, then you can distort Nicolle and say he means 50,000, but that's not right.

And again, garrison troops are not available for a field army per se, who is going to control an unruly province when all troops are out in the desert? This is more than just adding up some numbers, which is what your argument seems to be based on. And while we are only wikipedians (though I'm more than that), we are allowed to judge sources. A book/study written entirely about the yellow spotted butterfly is a higher authority on yellow spotted butterflies than a general atlas about all animals. Your sources (such as Corvisier and Chandler) are mostly like the general atlasses, they do not focus on Yarmouk but mention them on a sidenote or as part of a general dictionary or history etc. Only Kaegi, Nicolle, Donner, and if I remember correctly Haldon devote large parts of their work to the Yarmouk battle, Nicolle even entirely. All the other sources you give most likely rely for their data on older research or primary sources.

Why do you keep insisting that there were hundreds of thousands of men present at Yarmouk while the best available sources say otherwise? 10 very generally orientated sources do not outweigh 4 sources that specificically focus on the subject. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok bro, its full of surprises for you, Kegri's eastimates are for one byzantine expedition force not for all five together. talking of Levant he stated that it was impossible that Armenians and Christian arabs would have excedded 15-20,000 (page 131) and he then simply avoid estimates for the army present at yarmuk. He did more work on why byzantine failed politicaly rather why they failed in battlefield, and his explaination of the internal affairs of byzantine troops explains why chemistry of corps was not good at battle field and in this way he showed why they failed to perform well, on the other hand nicolle did work on why byzantine failed "in the battle field". Nicolle never mentioned 25,000 it very non-serious to say that"he MEAN to say 25,000, though right after few lines he says 20,000-30,000 expeditionary forces for byzantine, Yarmuk was an extra ordinary battle and therefore he mentioned high numbers for it.

do one thing show me where exatcly he mentioned 25,000 Byzantine army ? page number ?

check this review..of kegrie's work http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7t3VlZpQrKsJ:history.byu.edu/fac/hamblin/395%2520Arab%2520Conquest/AC09%2520Palestine%2520Yarmuk/Kaegi%252006%2520Yarmuk.DOC+40,000+Byzantine+army+at+yarmuk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=pk

and check in it the section byzantine forces, They says ..

• 40-80,000 (these are according to christian sources)are low end of Arab numbers, probably twice reality

Donner says 20-40,000 (221) Kaegi says 15,000 to 20,000 (131) Byzantines probably outnumbered Arabs byzantine outnumbered arabs, thats it, he avoided estimating numbers as he says on page 132 of his book that numbers means nothing for militory history ! Its gives no numbers for byzantine army just mention in the begining that Arab estimates (for byzantine army) are wildly exaggerated

He in his book says that later sources of christian mentioned huge arab army probablyto minimize the shame of defeat, and thus gives the estimates half the numbers given by the christian sources i.e 15-20,000 for muslims, remmember these are for muslims not for byzantine, you are mistaking them to be the estimates for byzantines. more over he says "Byzantines probably outnumbered Arabs" means a larger army then 20,000 muslims.

Now the discussion is taking a new dimention. Kegri's estimates that were previously "mis-queoted" as estimates for byzantine army, are now found to be the estimates for muslim army, and no estimates for byzantine field army at yarmuk's battle field. David nicolle never mention 25,000, he simply seems to avoid it too, and gives estimates for muslims around 25,000 and laters on the basis that byzantine outnumbered muslims, place byzantine numbers around 40,000-50,000 strong. Here i make it clear, he did in on the basis that "byzantine out numbered muslims", just made it double the size of muslim army. Other sources are still valid, remmember if yellow butterfly is 6 inch in length then an atlas will never mention it wrong, yes but certianly in the detail article on yellowe butterfly one can find the detail of its 6 inch size, how long wings are ? neck ? antena ? etc .... If other historians have mentioned the numbers around 80,000-100,000 then they may have did it on the basis of some statistics right.

I am now a days also studing a muslim historian's work on conquest of levant, its nice and quit convensing. Idont think u may find it on net, but when i will quote from it i will send you its scaned pages for cross check, thats only i can do. Any ways let me explain that byzantine emperor send 5 armies with there different objectives in Northern sryia, damascus(central syria) and palestine. They were to march seperatly from each other through different logistic basis and were to operate with decipline. I will send you a map after i will scan it from that book. it gives a detail discription of from which logistical basis byzantine armies were to move and what were there objectives. These 5 armies were actually forces to gather at yarmuk plain, as when they marched muslims retreated with out fight and concentrated at yarmuk, which in turn forced these troops to concentrate in front of muslims, with damascus as there only logistic base, and damascus was not at ease while supporting this huge army.

muslims got reinforcements from desert behind them and were getting powerful day by day, the byzntine commnders thus decided to fisnish the business before muslims got more powerful and thus they threw a battle finally.

Remmember 5 byzntine armies, not one. They never gather at one place before yarmuk, primary sources mention they base camps at Antioch, Aleppo, Latakia and "Junds" of northern Syria ( there mainly christian arab allies concentrated). Many historians studing this battle not in detail, think that how 1 byzantine army can be more then 20,000 in poor era of heraculis ? yes it cant be ? his cities were not capable of supporting more then that armies, they simply cant feed them. Though antioch had population of 0.5 million but was in poor condition coz of persian invasion and plunder and an earth quake in past.

huuuuuu..bro the post getting longer and longer... sorry for that. I will be waiting for your's. I suggest the army size in info box should be placed between 30,000-40,000 for muslims and 80,000-100,000 for byzantines, other estimates and details by historians should be mention under the section "Armies", it would be more acurate and simple. 80,000-100,000 is becoz most historians says so, majority is some thing. regards... 203.99.179.91 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can, please write in more understandable english. I already know the link you gave me, it's from a course on the Muslim Conquests on an American University. However just as with Nicolle you completely misunderstand what is being said, either because you read only to confirm what you already have in mind or because you are unfamiliar with the english language. I'll explain the numbers from your link step by step:

Numbers in the Battle (131)

Byzantine forces

Arab estimates are wildly exaggerated

40-80,000 are low end of Arab numbers, probably twice reality

Donner says 20-40,000 (221)

Kaegi says 15,000 to 20,000 (131)

Byzantines probably outnumbered Arabs

What is being said here?

• The estimates made by Arab sources (waqidi etc.) are wildly exaggerated (meaning 100,000-200,000 is wild exaggeration)
• The lower end of numbers given by Arab sources are 40-80,000. However, these numbers are probably twice the real numbers meaning the real numbers are mostly likely 20-40,000. It is not what you think, "Arab numbers" refers to "Numbers given by Arabs / Arab sources", and not to "Numbers of Arab forces".
• Donner & Kaegi's estimates summed up, notice that this course uses only these two sources and no others.
• Byzantines probably outnumbered Arabs, that's it. It does not mean this must have been a huge and overwhelming numerical superiority, simply that the Byzantines probably had more men.

I was actually planning to use the link/course summary you provided to write a new article, however I haven't had time nor felt like actually doing this yet. Regarding Nicolle, he simply says there were available for Yarmouk a maximum of 50,000 troops of which half would have been tied down in garrisons. He does not follow with the number of 25,000 because the above sentence clearly refers to 25,000 troops. Nicolle really does say 25,000 troops, only "concealed" if you will in his sentence-structure.

I really don't understand how you can still come up with 80-100,000 men for the Byzantines, numerous people have critisized the article for such ridiculous numbers already. I gave you Nicolle, Donner, Kaegi and Haldon who all give estimates around 20-30,000 men (some slightly lower some higher) and even the link you just gave supports my point, not yours.

About there being five armies, I don't know where this is mentioned, but if it wants to correspond to the numbers in the sources I just gave it would have to be five groups of units converging to form an army at Yarmouk and then totalling 20-30,000, but definitely not five armies of 20-30,000 men each.

I suggest for the information box: Muslim: 15,000-40,000 Byzantine: 15,000-40,000 with a mention of a likely Byzantine numerical superiority within the boundaries of these numbers. That would correspond to Kaegi, Haldon, Donner, Nicolle and the review/link you just gave. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• No arab source gives numbers who’s lower ends are 40,000-80,000, but if you check the history of Byzantine writers like theporitus or what ever his name was he mentioned these number !!!! now gimme a smile

People have criticized ? or you ? only you are doing so as far as I can get you insist to add the rediculus figure of 20,000 byzanitne men,,,, only one historians said it and as I have said it was for probably for the army of Christian arabs and armenias

now you mentioned that kegri says 15-20,000 but as i showed you that you misunder stood it, that was actually the size of muslim army and he didn't gave any clear and actually size of byzantine army but just mentioned that they out numbered muslims. David nicolle says that muslims size ranged from 20,000-40,000 (according to muslim sources) and suggested that they might be atmost 25,000. He says at the eve of muslim invasion byzantine had 50,000 non arab troops (might be 60,000 inckuding arab allies, the same size gievn by oxford dictionary of war and ibn Rais) but they were not in the field but were tie down in garrisons, mean they couldn't at once come to fight the muslims. All agree that byzantine usuall expedition force use to be 20,000-30,000. Commingto some eastern historians now, Akram (Sword of Allah. Command and staff college, Pakistan ) estimated the size of each army to be about 30,000 strong. ......... ( Arab empire.Yarmuk university, Jordan, History department..... one of the colleague of David nicolle by the way..!) estimates size of each army about 25,000 strong. Though unlike akram, he suggested that 4th army was reinforced from ceseara. M. Athar Zaidi ( Expansion of Islam, chp: Conquest of Syria. ........ Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli, India. .) eastimates atleast 20,000 strong foreach of the 5 armies sent. Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.) Estimates 15,000-20,000 for each army.

Comming to the logistic bases of the armies, Akram says;

• 1st army was the mobile christian arabs of mainly ghassanid and lakhmid + contingents of various other tribes and moved from there bases in northern Syria and were to attack emesa sector from north Via Hama, using it as there logistic base.

Mean while,

• 2nd army launched from aleppo was to move between the coast and the Aleppo road and approach Emessa from the west, thus striking the Muslims in their flank while they were held frontally by Jabla.

• 3rd army, launched from Antioch, mean while would move along the coastal line of lebonan via Latakia, Tripoli and then beirut and will attack Damascus region from west to cutt off the muslim armies so that they could not aid each other.
• 4th army would complete the encirclement of Emesa region, which was an active region and bulk of muslim army was in that region, it would attack it from east.

now here Akram and Ibn Rais differes, Early muslim historian Waqidi mentioned the route of this army from Iraq (mesopotamia). Akram disagrees that most of iraq was in muslims hands that time therefore the army would have marched via northern eastern Syria and making a flanking movement was to attack the emesa region from east. Ibn Rais mentions that Mesopotamia (or jazera) was still strong hold of heraculis allied arabs and wasnot conquered untill 638, therefore 4th army must would be launched via Mesopotamia using that rich region as the ligistic base for supplies ect ect. other two above mentioned historians didn't mentioend that what was the logistic base of 4th army, onlymentioned its route from east of emesa possiblily via Palmyra (Tadmur).

• 5th Army was of Mahan, the pure armenian army, and it was to stay between Aleppo-Shaizer region, to be used as reserve.

Ibn Rais also wrote about Ajnadyn in detail,any ways i will discuss it later in the section of that battle. More over i am gonna add more stuff from kegri's work about why politically byzantione failed what where the problems of cohesion in there army etc ect and also about what problem were created due to concentration of large byzantine army at yarmuk and its logistics problem faced by damascus.... kegri explained it in very convensing manner from byzantine point of view. If you wanna do it you are most well come, after all you can use good english then me ! The section of Background is quit confusing for a new reader who knows nothing about battle and tactics, i will re-write it and will specially mention that those five byzantine armies were actually forced to gather near yarmuk due to counter measures adoptedby muslim commanders, and also some stuff from David nicolle's work about performance of both armies and the battle field. I have the pic of battle field, hybrid satelite pic that i took fromgoogle earth they were deleted when i displayed them in that section i amnow thinking to add the link of location of battle field as added in Battle of Qaddasiyah and Guagemela. A good news for you bro ! Isreal agrees to return golan heights to Syria. If every thing goes well and peacefuly then with in fewyears historians and archialogists will be allowed to visit the very site of battle of yarmouk and the ravines were bulk of byzantine army was perished. these were eastern historians as history is for all therefore they must be included not only nicolle and kegri deal it with detail but also numerous other ...and these were few

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar correction done

I corrected some of the grammar in this article. Snapperman2 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Snapperman2

# Disagreement on which sources to follow regarding numbers 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been discussion on which numbers are correct regarding the amount of troops present for the battle of Yarmouk for over a year. In the discussion above (estimates of strength and my conclusion) I have responded to and disagreed with the conclusions of User:Mohammad adil. Since there seems to be kind of a deadlock regarding which sources to use I'd like a third opinion by as many users as possible. Please read the discussion above, or quickly take a look at the sources and corresponding numbers given and comment. Do you think we should follow the numbers given in the present article or should we reduce the numbers to correspond only to the specific sources I have given above (Kaegi, Nicolle etc.)

To give an idea of the dispute:

People that explicitly critisized the numbers in the article or those that Mohammed Adil wishes to add:

96.224.22.26, User:Drungarios, User:MYLO, 209.167.194.174, User:Padem, User:Patman2648, 130.113.226.6, 216.99.53.226

People that agreed with present numbers/Mohammad adil:

User:Jagged 85

There have been others that have participated in the discussion but have not chosen a position on the debate concerning numbers.

To get a quick idea on the subject: read the link from a course on the Islamic Conquests: [[1]]

Wiki1609 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers quoted by traditional sources are way too high. Kaegi and Nicolle seem much more realistic. So, I agree with Wiki1609Giordaano (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Its a good idea indeed, let me mention the sources and the size given by them once again...

• History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
• Donner (1981): 100,000.
• David Chandler: 100,000
• Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
• David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
• Kindersley, 80,000
• Andre Corvisier 80,000
• Yarmouk university, department of history, jordan. says; 125,000
• Agha Ibrahim Akram: 150,000
• M. Athar Zaidi (Expansion of Islam, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli): 100,000-120,000
• Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.): 100,000

most of the sources still places numbers to be around 80,000-100,000.. so whats the problem in putting them in info box ? My respected friend User:Wiki insist that Kegri and Haldon's estimates 15,000-20,000 should be inserted in the info box ! he claim that these estimates are for byzantines, where as after reading the source one come to know otherwise... they are for muslims armies and the author (i.e kegri) simply says "and byzantine outnumbered Muslims". I hope we will reach any conclusion by this new way. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)