Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Repetition

Yo, if I read the word "decisive" one more time in this article I'm gonna strike it from my vocabulary and cross it out in every book I own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.153.152 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy is biased

It seems to me that Kennedy is biased and he is an unrelaiable source. he also narrates some tittle-tattles about personal relations. I think references to him should be removed. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is quite the opposite and Kennedy is supported by Muslim and Western scholars alike by representing the most accurately painted pictures prior and during the battle. What little tittle-tattles he writes are the more important part of history. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

WP:3O is intended for one-on-one disputes. Since there are a number of parties involved, I would recommend a Request for Comment. If there were more than one party on both sides, I'd say file it at WP:MEDCAB. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS

The article should just state that there is no consensus among scholars on the size of the combatant armies and then provide a list or table of the estimates with references. Theophanes said that each army was 40,000 strong and this could be the figure for the infobox; the debate could be left to the relevant section of the article. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Pitchford, but I think the infobox should list 80,000-100,000 as the figure since most historians put it somewhere around that. Also, are there any online book sources we could use? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the infobox as it currently is, listing the entire range of estimates from all sources. However, I also like Ian's idea about listing all these estimates in a table (in the main body of the article rather than in the footnotes). I was actually thinking of doing something similar last year, but didn't get round to it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the infobox must always show the estimates of modern sources, not those of medieval historians that cannot be taken at face-value. I think Ians Pitchford's proposal is very decent, we could make a section showing the original estimates from primary sources and the corrected ones by modern historians. However, the infobox should only show the most reliable numbers, meaning those from the best secondary sources. All primary sources and sources that do not specifically research the battle, or like Akram are unreliable, should come in second place. The reason for this is that Yarmuk is kind of a special case where almost no reliable numbers can be taken from sources, so they have to be "reconstructed" in other ways. Wiki1609 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• First i would like to correct User:Ian ...Theophanes the Confessor, 8th century byzantine historian didn't said 40,000 for each army, he mentioned 80,000 greeks and 60,000 christian arab allies and total of 140,000 men for romans.

Idea is nice to put all estimates in a relevant section. But the problem is what should be putted in info box ? whos gonna decide which source is best which is not ? as said by User:Wiki ! certainly for User: wiki, as far as i can guess Kegri is the hot favorite, as he ( according to him) gives the lowest numbers for byzantine ..the funny 20,000 max and 7400 for muslims...now my question is that can 20,000 army rollback and control Syria ? a land with 65,00,000 (6.35 million) population ! and certainly 7,400 muslims were too few to even invade Syria, after all they were not superhumen, were they ? I would go for 80,000-100,000 in info box, and rest of the details should be in relevant section. More over we cant here judge historians, who is best who is not, if one user like any historian and dislike other then its his personal view and should not be impose over the view of majority. Other historians, while stating numberes for byzantine, must have some statistics in there mind therefore they mentioned those numbers, we should simply place in info box the numbers whats majority of historians mentioned i,e 80,000-100,000 for romans and 30,000-40,000 for muslims and should modestly finish this "titanic" issue as Fahal and Ajnadyn is still pending ! Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the sources you claim are "historians" in fact aren't, this is what I've been trying to make clear all the time. Also, you seem to think I have a "favorite" historian in Kaegi because he gives lower numbers, I am taking Kaegi and Nicolle as favorites because they did their work as historians in the most reliable way. If Kaegi and Nicolle had said based on their professional opinion that the Byzantine army must have been 100,000 strong, then I would accept that and still see them as the best sources on the subject. You (Mohammed Adil) see this as some kind of "battle" to define how glorious the Arab victory really was, and like to see high numbers to satisfy your own opinion on the Islamic conquests. You always come with the "people want to discredit the Muslims" rant because your goal is to glorify the Muslims. Also, your entire perception is about "the Muslims", while we are in fact dealing with Arabs who happened to be Muslim. I first reacted on this article simply because my common sense as a historian-to-be told me a battle involving 100,000's of men is very unlikely in the Yarmuk time.

We have around four reliable secondary sources that adress the battle, 3/4 of them give estimates for the number of troops involved on the Byzantine side around 30,000, and something slightly lower for the Arab army. Opposite to these sources there are a number of other sources that are written by amateur historians (like Akram), or are only mentioning estimates taken from other older work, or even unscientific sources such as Edward Gibbon. I wish we use only the four I advised above (or any other modern sources we can still find), because especially Donner (in earlier times) and Kaegi (in recent times) are seen as the most valuable studies on Yarmouk and the Islamic Conquests. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, mentioning in the box "numbers quoted in older accounts tend to be much higher" could be quite enoughGiordaano (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• respectfully, User:wiki you are again "starting the discussion".

Well check this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia No one is saying a word against it ! So here is the reply, why becoz they were romans, and here why is this long argument is going on ? its becoz the Arabs were happned to be Muslims ! right ? so why this double standard ? as for the size of army, i support the large size becoz of a reason, though i could also supported what "According to you" haldon have mentioned i.e 7400 muslims and 20,000 byzantines. But as i knew they were not superhuman to to control Syria with such a small size of army therefore i support the historians who give larger size. 20,000 muslims were far too less to even invade Syria, how can they control Syria and then continue there conquerst northward ? think ! As for historians, i would again say that "do not judge historians here, you are not credible to judge any one here, being a student i will always give weight to what historians say, but will always have my own opinion, as i have now. Never say "i know every thing" once you said that, the process of lerning will stop, and you will get no further info... any ways i am not here to give a lecture to you. You need modern sources, i mentioned many modern muslims "historians" not amature but real; check again:

• M. Athar Zaidi,Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli, India.. ( Expansion of Islam, chp: Conquest of Syria. .
• Ibn Rais, BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Ankara, Turkey. Rise of Caliphate.
• Dr.Saeed Abdulrehman Yarmuk university, History department, Jordan. Arab empire.

They are "modern" and mention the size vary from 100,000-125,000. What else i can do now ? if you dont like them it dosent mean they sucks ! What do you say now ? Which historians is to follow ? the historians which is liked by "User:Wiki" ! Kegri and haldon ! And i challange you to show me where David nicolle mentioned that there was 25,000 byzantine army ? its a challange just show me his words, no derivation etc etc ok just show me his words. When his colleague of yarmuk university says 125,000 hows can he say 25,000 ! Any ways, victory is victory, Arabs(according to you), Muslims (accordiong to me, as they use to prefier to be known as muslims then arabs) won a great victory which weakned the empiore to the extent that it never recover from it, and lost 80 % of its land with in few years, they never raised an army as fearsome as that was, they lost egypt almost with out any major battle and many more.

As we cant judge historians here, so simply only one modest choice is remaining, put the numberes that most of the historians suggest that is 80,000-100,000 for Romans and 30,000-40,000 for muslims. The view of other histoains should be mentioned in the armies section. And i will remain firm on my opinion that kegri never said 20,000 for byzantines ... it was figure for muslims and he just mentioned that "byzantine probably outnumbnered muslims" which simply implies to any thing > 20,000. Now there is not much remian to say, the argument is almost dying and users are loosing interest. Just Mention what seems logical. And one advise, do study the conquest of Syria in detail, and sopme thing about military strategies and tactics okey, you seems to have a little knowledge of it. No offenses ! Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a rule that medieval armies were quite small with only a few thousand fighters. The Rus' with 50.000 in the Battle of Kalka have an extraordinary big army(I know it's much later, but economy didn't change that much). The Persian Empire and the Byzantine Empire were the largest powers of this time and region. That they could field several 10.000 men seems not contested in the sources I could read so far. The Byzantine core army is usually estimated as 20.000 in Europe and slightly more in Asia. I think that the troops under Byzantine command can be several 10.000, so a number of 100.000 for both sides together isn't that unrealistic. It isn't clear to me whether the Byzantines combined all their field armies for a showdown, but recruiting whole armies of foreigners seems like it was a bigger affair. Both sides did control great territories and the Arabian peninsula had just finished a civil war over religious disputes and was thus likely to be a very militarized place. However, I suggest to stick with the sources and would support a table were the different numbers by historians and primary sources are presented. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its over now!

Dacid Nicolle in his book Yarmouk 636 wrote on page 65, that Muslims were outnumbered by 4 to 1. Which implies around 100,000 Byzantine troops at yarmouk. Now all arguments should be stopped immediately and infobox should be edited appropriately. Nicolle was considered the best source for this battle and it mentioned 25,000 Muslims and 100,000 Byzantines. If any one has any doubts then give me your email address and I will send you the page of that book. I have a lot of stuff to edit in the article and i will add more from Nicolle's book plus pictures of the battlefield and I also will re-draw the maps in the article. Regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read this book at the moment. It says 15,000 to 20,000 for the Muslims on page 65 and that the Byzantine troops outnumbered them 4 to 1 at page 66. That makes 60,000 to 80,000 Byzantine troops. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Else from Nicolle's book is the very active role of women in this battle, guarding the camp and partaking in battle with tent poles, bows and songs. At least the old Hind and her lyrics should be mentioned because she seems to have played a crucial role. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Check on page 43 he gave his estimates for battle of yarmouk to be 25,000. On page 65, 15,000-20,000 is the size of army that vahan commanded, that probably made the battle front. A new article is underconstruction and will have all this stuff. check it here. Any suggestions for new article ??? Mohammad Adil (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said the very active role of the women should be mentioned because they enabled the Muslims to fight without a camp guard, unlike the Byzantines and provided them with reserves when things went badly. I like the new maps, you have to tell me how you created them (I have a couple of maps to create myself). What is missing in the Rashidun army is the conflict over piety and command because these were the old enemies of Islam now fighting for a religion they accepted after military defeat. Nicolle thinks that not all of them were even Muslims by now, but that the army included Christian tribes. The whole issue of tribal structure within the army should be mentioned, that seems possibly not an issue for someone from Arabia, but it is rather important for an outsider to understand. (Tribal wargroups tended to fight tougher because they knew each other very well.) Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the role of women in the battle. I have added that in the new article. I am in the process of writing about the tribes that were included in the Rashidun camps as mercenaries and who weren't actually Muslims. These included the Yemeni archers that the Muslims recruited against massive Byzantine archery attacks on the 4th day.

For the maps though, I didn't use a mapping program. Rather, I used Inkscape and made the complete map from scratch making each and every line myself. These maps were inspired from the way Osprey make their 3-dimensional illustrations. The only problem being that the maps are made as SVGs so that they can be scaled to any dimension. Thus, the map eventually loses some realistic appearances at places. Thanks for appreciating the efforts. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we archive the talk page?

This talk page is too long. Should we archive this talk page in sections, so that it is easier to know when and what was discussed at what time. I have already tried to manage most of the start of it. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived threads which had been inactive for over 30 days. --Elonka 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with names

The article is ridiculously spared with naming confusions. I think we should formulate a naming conventions. Now most English text (as this article is in English) prefer Latin or Roman names over Greek names. So, for the most part Theodorus Trithurius becomes Theodore Trithyrius, Qanateer would become Buccinator and Gregory may remain the same or named Gregory the George as most texts suggest that Gregory was a Georgian named as Gregory the George.

Another ridiculous assumption was naming Vahan as Mahan. The name Mahan is present in only two sources out of all the others. Experts, all of them almost, agree that the name of the commander was Vahan. Vahan is actually an Armenian name meaning shield and the commander was an Armenian. I strongly say that we should use Mahan.

I also see that the article repeatedly names Khalid ibn al-Walid and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah's name in full. They should be referred to as Khalid and Abu Ubaidah by their first names throughout the text. And yes! Heraclius never fought the battle. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have no problem with Vahan or Mahan. If it is mentioned in most of the sources as Vahan then we should make it Vahan, with a note that in some sources he named as Mahan. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another problem with the term Christian Arabs. If you link to the Wikipedia article it links to Christians currently living in Arabia who speak Arabic as their mother tongues or second tongues. What I suggest is that we should use the term Ghassanids which actually refers to the Christian Arabs of the period. I have restructured the article for purpose that befit the content of the article to be viewed as a Good Article, or a Featured Article. We seriously need to get rid of the headings saying Day-1, Day-2, etc. It might make sense but it is aesthetically unpleasant which might lead the article to not be a Good Article. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Christian Arabs, Ghassanid Arabs were not the only Christian Arabs of that time nor were they the only allies of the Byzantine, so it's better to keep the term Christian Arabs, as it reffers more to a religious group rather then to an ethinic group. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now seriously beginning to question the authenticity of the text written by A.I.Akram. He is an army official and not a historian. At places he calls the Byzantine assembly Romans and who clearly were Greeks in majority and Yemeni Arabs and statement like this:

Many of the soldiers of the Imperial army were unused to battle and were unable to press the attack as the Muslim veterans did.

These bother me and are utterly wrong as the Byzantines had been fighting on the same plains with the Persians before the Muslims came. Almost all the article's text is taken from his book. Please do not overuse his text and put consideration to other western sources as well. Remember, whenever there's a battle, the winners always exaggerate. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For authenticity of Akram's book, then it cool. and he said it right that Byzantine soldiers at Yarmouk were not as veterans as the Muslims were, becuse bulk of them were new recruits, not regular soldiers. Akram was a soldier himself (that's true) but he was also a Military History Instructor at the Command and Staff College in Quetta, and quit as a reasonable person to write military history. Ignore his other stuff just pick out military histroy's stuff from his work, which is no doubt is great, even Nicolle has copied and quoted him in various places in his book. So the information is reliable, except that he did not give his estimates for numbers of the armies and just relied on primary sources. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the days (Day-1, Day-2, etc) are concerned, it may look unconventional. But, it at least makes the article clearer, otherwise it will mix it all up and a new reader will feel it hard to understand that what happened on which day. So, I suggest its better to keep it this way. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself am preparing to add some stuff, including new material from Nicolle's book, which is specially written on this battle. I will add it soon and it will be about the route of the Byzantine counter-attack. Also, I would write about Byzantine command structure and presence of Nicetas, the Persian in the battle and the joint leader Theodorus Trithurius in Emesa and the problems of chemistry in the Byzantine army and its leaders, etc. I am working on it and will add it soon, and yes, I agree with the name stuff of Khalid and Abu Ubaidah. Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

This article has some excellent "Battle plan" charts, but I think it would also greatly benefit from an "X marks the spot" map, to show where exactly the battle(s) took place, within the larger geographical context. --Elonka 21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are some remarkable new battle charts! Which software are you using to make them?

One other map I'd really like here, is something that shows the context of where the borders of the various states were at the time, with perhaps an overlay (or separate map) which shows comparison with where current borders are, to help get more of an idea of where the battle was, in relation to current countries.

Also, when you're done with this, could you take a look at Battle of Ain Jalut? That one desperately needs a good map as well. The maps at Mongol raids into Palestine need an overhaul as well. See the chatter at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Misleading image. --Elonka 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I used Inkscape and created all the maps from scratch. Inkscape is just a graphics tools like Photoshop or Macromedia Flash, different only in the way that it produces rich SVG images. Thanks for appreciating the maps. The new article that is being rewritten to a better standard my be located here.

And yes, on another note, I would be glad enough to help you on the other maps you requested. Cheers - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to some issues with the battle charts I had to chuck them for the bit but I now have created maps that accurately place the area the battle was fought at with respect to the borders of the day. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some fallibility issues

With chroniclers of the past, things have come up to us via Chinese whispers and the event is skewed from the real going-ons. For instance, chroniclers of the past particularly Michael the Syrian and Nicephorus the Byzantine chronicler talk of a dust storm which scholars today do not completely accept due to unreliable proof. Second, is the Muslim observation by al-Waqidi and al-Tabari of Byzantine soldiers being put in chains. This obviously is not accepted by scholars today and they usually say that this observation was partly because the Byzantines adopted the Greko-Roman military formation known as the testudo formation in which soldiers would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with shields held high and a 10-20 men arrangement would be completely shielded on all sides with the next soldier providing defence for the other.

Now my point being, should we include these issues of questionable events in the article because as far as I think every other writer has written about them. Obviously, they write about it and then explain why they can't be right but nevertheless eventually in the end, the article would make for a good read. That's what we want to acheive here. It's just that these things should be mentioned in the article while also stating that these are probably untrue so that anyone conforming about these things might find the article useful. What say? Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 03:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, after learning byzantine military equipment and weaponry i couild clearly know that there was almost no such use of chains amoung byzantine and it is more likely that they may have used the same testudo formation becoz of muslims light cavalry. The Muslims may be that time were unable to understand whats going on inside the formation and they might have mixed it with Sassanid persians's chain linking formation (that was also use to be effective against cavalry charges)..

As it is understood that it was not a chain stuff, then i suggest that it should be added in the article like,... Muslim historians mention a byzantine to be linked with chains of 10-20 men on there left wing, while modern historians suggest that it might be a testudo formation.... or any sentences better then that. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about the unlikely dust storm that the Byzantine chronicle of. :) Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the reference to Khaula bint al-Azwar taken out?

She was a part of the battle and she sung songs. She even fought. Read this, and page 77 of Nicolle since you so like him :), this, this and this. How many more do you need? Please discuss changes before you make them. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• i removed the only part which was saying that zirrar attacked the right of byzntine center after getting inspired by her sister's songs. whihc isquit unlikely, zirrar was in themobile guard andkhuala was in the camp that day !

and khalid sent him to attack the right of center to divert the attention of byzantines, it was contradicting with the battle plan,and was more of a type of a chronicle.

other, wise if i by mistake have removed the stuff about her fighting and getting wounds then restore it.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

George converts?

What's up with this sentence under the heading "Events"? "Before the battle would commence, George rode up to the Muslim end and converted to Islam, secretly vowing to support the enemy."

The article doesn't mention "George" up to this point (I assume Gregory the George is meant?) and it seems little more support as well as explanation is needed for such an apparently important event. There is no reference or footnote for this statement. Bhugh (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• ya i agree that explaination should be given for this event.

Gregore was byzantine's one of the wing's commander, whereas George was an ordinary commander. It is little known about George, accept that he rode to the battlefield and asked for khalid. when khalid came, thinking that george wanna duel with him, george asked him questions about why he is knwon as sword of Allah ? khalid explained...... etc etc and george accepts islam. muslims chronicles mentions it that way, i will add the refference of this event, it was mentioned in Waqidi's "Fatuh al sham" (conquest of Levant). Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Wiki's arguments

With all due respect, I suggest User:wiki to stop his rediculious edits. The size of muslims army that he insist is 7500 and that of byzantine is 15000 and this all is with out any refferences. Syria was divided into 2 regions, the south was the province of paliestine and north was the province of Syria actuall. The population in 636 was around 65,00,000 and the region was being continously being underattack from sassanids, neutrally heraculis would provide his best defences in north-westewrn anatolia and Syria. With large deployment of troops to guard it against further incursions from sassanids. Heraculis had Syria and egypt the richest regions of the time in hand to generate resources for this purpose. he was not bankrupt not the empire was declining piror t muslims invasion. Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• it is totally unrealistics that heraculis having eoungh men power would only deploy 15000 men in syria, it wasn't a joke, he had to guard holiland and his dearest provinve and heart of his empire.

more over 15000 men, by no means are enough to guard large region like syria. 7500 muslim army, grow up ! they were not superhumen to have conquere syria by such a small army ! 7500 men ! man are your serious ? gimme the source that mentiones this size. i am sure u will never be able to site that source, becoz there isn'y any source mentioning this figure. akram's estimates are reliable, other historians also have sopported them including nicolle. muslims primary sources says 3000 dead, so its likely that they lost 4000. Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

/moreover if historians have mentioned these figures, including western histroians, they who are you to argue the realibality of them ? its encyclopedia nt ur personnal web page, that u are always here with new logics and "heavenly" sources thet u cant even quote. chill brooo and feel no offenses, i cant be frank with, cant i ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not saying that the numbers were 15,000 and 7,500, where do you get this? There was one source however that made these estimates, I don't remember which ones but they weren't suddenly made up by someone. Just plough through the discussion archives. If we give a range of modern estimates we should give the lowest up to the highest estimate, otherwise it's selective use of sources. I've already contented myself with numbers of 50,000 maximum for both armies (which would constitute huge armies for the time, for example 3rd century Sassanid armies at their most succesful were only 60,000), the numbers above 50,000 are still ridiculous, but you keep wanting to maximize Byzantine numbers. There are also some (older) sources that also say 100,000 based on the primary sources, so it's fine they are still part of the modern estimate. However, it was either Kaegi or Nicolle that estimated 15,000 for the Byzantines, so why do you suddenly make a fuzz of including this source in the range of estimates?

Regarding the casualties: No source other than Akram (wisely) gives an estimate for the casualties endured for both sides, only one gives a percentage. I think adding Akram's estimates (basically guesses) as the only estimates given would give them undue weight, which is why I replaced them with "heavy" and "heaviest" respectively. Both endured high casualties, probably about even until the Byzantine rout began. And by the way the Byzantine Empire as well as the Sassanid Empire were in economic and other difficulties, perhaps not in decline but they were certainly not at their strongest. This in part explains the Arab successes, theres no point in denying that.

So, please stop whining I think this is my own site, I always make well-sourced edits (check if you want). The fact that I received education in history certainly helps me to have an opinion on reasonable numbers in battles, and how to judge older sources. In the last edit I made I'm not pushing my opinion through, I just adjusted the estimates to include all sources and removed Akram for undue weight and for being fairly unrealistic. Wiki1609 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• if there is in reality any book written by an unbais and and criticle historians, that says 15,000 byzantine to guard Syrian front, then certainly this should be added, but the point is which sources says this ???? you didn't gave me the name of that book and author's name !

nicolle estimates 100,000 for byzantines and 25,000 for muslims, and it says this on page no:65 check if you want to.

i cant belive that kegri may had mentioned it,as i read in nicolle's work where he quoted kegri that at the eve of muslim invasion byzantine had 50,000 troops to fight against muslims in Syria which means that they had deployed 50,000 troops on there broders with sassanid persians empire.

just give me the name of that source that estimates these numbers and page no: on which they mention these figures, that day i will myself add these fugures to the article !

its nice to give lowest and highest estimates from various sources but these sources should be mentioned with appropriate reffrernces.

as for Akram's estimates for muslims casualties, so dont call it "guesses" these are estimates, similarly as other historians have estimated numbers for both troops.

as for the economics problems of byzantine and sassanid persians, then this is not the factor that they fall to muslims hand! certainly this is not the only factor, its just an excuse, being a soldier i know only those win who have guts to win, those who have superior strategy and tactcis. i belive sassaanid persians empire was in even more bad condition then byzantine empire,for long time they had no king to rule and unite the empire, more over the morals were down coz of recent defeats at the hands of romans, byzantine on the other hands had the richest regions of the time, though there were internal conflict ( almost every empire in histroy had internal conflicts) but heraculis and his follow men's moral was high coz of recent thrumph againt the persians.

the "theory of exaustion" of byzantine empire is an excuse, i and other "military" guys looks it in other and a bit more army style ...that is the empire was actually militralised, due to fighting of several years it had the most experienced soldiers and generals and there military ability of defences and offenses was at its best. there morals were high. though in the position of "rest" piror to muslims invasion, the soldiers of byzantine empire could still boast of there vistories against sassanids and were more polished to fight again if needed. soldiers are soldiers,whether they are modern soldiers or ancient,they think in similar way they are hungery for glory and the factor of "moral" effect them similarly as it use to effect....

i personally go with the views of nicolle, who says that the heraculis and his generals actually under estimates the strangth and ability of the muslims, they though that its just an other raid from groups of arab tribes, like lakhmid arabs of iraq use to have on byzantine territory. but once the invasion of muslims got its real momentum after defeating romans at ajnadyn, and quickly capturing damascus and emessa,then heraculis decided to "showdown" the strength and unlimited resources of him, he gathered large armies and counter attacked from all possible sides, and muslim tackled it in brilliant way they retreated back and rest of the story you know ..... The one thing that i wanna tell you today is about the "momentum" of armies ... once an army got its momentum, the morals of its soldiers and commander are too high, if they are continusly being supplied by reinforcements and resources, they will conquere the world,the same happned with the army of alexander, army of hitler during WW2 and agains with the armies of allied forces when they counter attacked in WW2, its all about momentum..... i hope u watch cricket matches.... in these matches when one bats man got in momentum of scoring runs no baller can stop him from scoring a "century"(100 runs).

most of the men dont understand armies and battle from "physcialogical" point of view,and they therefore cant think as an army officer can think. for modern examples, see arab-isreal wars,isreal was victorious every time,becoz of wht ? becoz only those win who have guts to win, IDF never lost its momentum in arab isreal wars and thus won, but in its recent war with hizbullah,they lost....in 34 days they were unable to even penetrate in lebonan, why ? becoz hizbullah actually never allowed IDF to gain momentum. its almost impossible to stop an army when it comes in momentum, like the mongol armies. other factors do matter like economy and internal conflicts ,but the real battle is fought on the grand strategical plane and in battle field,and there only those win who deserve to win, its not by chance that some one wins and someone loses.. its not a a game its battle ! regards....

Mohammad Adil (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the archives: Walter Kaegi, "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" states 15,000-20,000 men for the Byzantine army (p.131). I might check this book out in the library cause I have more time now. Nicolle never mentions 100,000 men for the Byzantines, at best he could imply this (which I think he does not, at least in the Osprey published book).

And again, don't try to brush away the fact that both the Byzantine and Persian Empires were significantly weakened. It has become accepted among most scholars that both empires were experiencing near-rebellious situations in their borderregions, coupled with economic difficulties, recent plague events etc. all contributing to a weak position for both empires. Every empire in history may have known internal conflict, it also meant they were weaker versus new or exisging external threats. As far as I know, trading inside the Byzantine Empire was less than before, though still what you may call "flourishing", but the empire's treasure wasn't particularly full.

You may believe that it takes guts to win wars, I think money wins wars. The Byzantine and Persian economies were money-based, while the Arabs that attacked them lived on plunder, giving them the advantage at this point in time. Waging war costs money, money that both empires probably lacked. I know for certain that the regions in the borderzone between Persia and the Byzantine Empire (such as Syria) weren't flourishing, they were ravaged and sometimes whole cities were deserted, far from being perfectly defended and all what you seem to think.

Regarding your "lecture" on momentum: You could be right the Arabs enjoyed their momentum, but regarding the importance given to the battle of Yarmuk you might also say they only really gained the advantage after the battle. During the Arab-Israeli wars Israel didn't always win because they gained momentum, that's overly simplificated and wrong. During the Yom-Kippur War the Arab states had the element of surprise and initially crashed through the Israeli defences. Moreover, the Arabs certainly had the guts to win this time, the Israeli's simply fought to save their skin and very existence. Still the Israeli's won. Momentum can be lost as fast as you can acquire it (sometimes in one day, such as by winter falling in for the Germans before Moscow), which is why you need a plan B.

Your other insight is really flawed, soldiers through the ages are not the same. A citizen-soldier from a Greek polis has a different motivation than a Celtic warrior; a French revolutionary fights for different reasons than the mercenaries in the Austrian armies that faced him. Quest for glory may be typical for modern soldiers of nation-states, throughout history money was the first and often only reason for soldiers to fight in wars: Roman legions, Mongol hordes, Arab raiders, they all lived on plunder. You cannot simply detach the military aspect of a conflict and think that's all that matters: the Byzantines could only call up as much men as they could afford a salary, just as your Pakistani army can only recruit as much soldiers as it can afford to train, feed, cloth, arm and pay them.

Anyway I provided the reference (it was in the archives), so that should be settled. Interesting discussion though. Wiki1609 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• quit interesting, but still waiting for the reference of "7500" muslim troops, who mentioned

that ? actually who can mention that, its probably your's own estimates. as for my promise i am

adding this figure to the article, but not to info box yet, as it will shift the balance, i.e the

lowest figure of muslims mentioned there (with reference) is 24,000 and if i mention 15,000

byzantines there it will seem that muslims outnumbered byzantine, which is wrong. so first give

me the source that says "7500" then i will add both figures there, and that a promise too !. but as kegri is not present so it will be you who's gonna explain me that how a 15,000 army

outnumbered muslims, and how suppose 15000 muslims can control and conquere syria up to as north

as malatyia and as east as taurus in asia minor ? there must be a large number then these figures, to occupy the region and to continue the further

conquest.

i was checking the kegri's book, i havn't read upto 131 page but i saw on page 40, where he says

that byzantines in that era had about 100,000-130,000 army and had about 50,000 troops available

for all types of deployments against arabs ! and this seems to heavily conflicting with what you

told me, that is 15,000-20,000 byzantine army in field. it also tells about the availability of

christians arabs troops that could be doubled and tripled on short notice for a short term

campaign, some thing like a counter attack ? (i.e the troops beside the regular imperial troops) He seems to stress that byzantines were quit unable to concentrate there regular troops in syria

coz of logistical problems and it gonna took a lots of money in doing so, therefore they prefered

to raise troops from the ranks of local arab allies and armenians. Probably the figure

15,000-20,000 is for the regular byzantine units present at yarmouk inaddition to the allied

forces. therefore nicolle, though quoted kegri at many places, but finally gave figures 100,000

for combine allied troops. any ways let me accept for instance that he says byzantine army +

allied forces to be "only" 15,000-20,000. but you have to explain how "in military terms this small army could outnumbered an other "invading army" remmember the "invading army" ! and the contradiction of availibility of 50,000 troops for all type of campaigns and then mention of 15,000 troops for the decisive battle, where were rest of 35,000 men ?

As for your argument of money, man belive me our pakistani army is 800,000 strong, and our

economy is literary "fucked" though we are a nation that proudly have nuclear arsenals. We have

this large regular army becoz we were born with the huge hostile neighbour in our east i.e india

which is three time larger then us have 9 time more popullation then us and is 11 times more

stronger then us in terms of economy. indians have 1300,000 strong troops and we are compeled to

have this large army to tackle india. wise rulers always spend more on there armies then on country it might have negative effect on

its popularity nation wide, but its need of time, similarly we have did it, our letracy rate

might be 40% but we have "neuclear scientists !similarly heraculis must have did some measures for the defence of Syria, and deployment of troops there. Mohammad Adil (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• and the matter of casualties are still not sattled, you only gave me the figures for byzantine size not for any type of casualties, please discuss it too before making any change to it, these are estimates and should be given weight, dont consider them "guess works" therefore i have restored them.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey m,an where are you ? i came after a long time coz i was suffering from a flu, what happned to you ? dont tell me u also had a flu ? lolzzz

any ways, i have just read the "Byzantine and early islamic conquest" by kegri. the book is great and provide a very realistic image of the political senario back then. But it didn't deal with "military" aspect of the "battle of yarmouk" and the author simply didn't seems interested in giving any estimates for the troops and just gave a rough estimate of as low as 15,000-20,000. As this book actually deals with how byzantine were defeated and what were the events that led them to it, and not with the actual battle of yarmouk, therefore this should be given little importance in the article of battle of yarmouk. as for the size mentioned by kegri, so i respect him as a "historian" and i am ready to add his estimates in the article. but still wondering that if byzantines were 15,000-20,000 then what was the size of muslims army ? 10,000-15,000 ???? and caliph wasn't a fool to send such a small army against the powerful empire of the time ! more over looking it in a military perspective it is virtually impossible for 10,000 men to "invade", "defeat", "capture", "organize" and continue further "conquest" in such a large region. man levant was simply too big to be even "raided" by 10,000 men, and what happned between 634 and 637 wasn't a raid, it was a pre-planed "invasion" of Eastern roman empire !

now let me be a bit professional here, ok it seems 10,000 men ? it was an army that was continously being engaged major and minor battles and skirmishes with byzantine troops and there arab allies, they must have suffered casualties right ? then an other high number of wounded soldiers, some others must have been ill and "unfit" for several other reasons this inturn had minimized the total potential of army to half, that is about 5000 men may be were really "fit" or available to continue the conquest. man ! 500 men ? ok lets make it 7000, do you really think this figure of 7000 men is reliable ? its actually funny ! 7000 men cant even besiege Damascus, a fortified city of 100,000 population and of 80 Square kilometer in size.

just go to any military officer if you know any in your city, ask him that if you are required to invade a region about 800,000 square kilometer in size and populated with 65,00,000 people and guarded by about 50,000 strong troops and is a part of the most powerful nation of the time, how many man do you need to successfully occupy the region, do tell him that the army you have is the one having inferior military equipments.

minimum, the military officer would say atleast half the size of the troops present there i.e 25,000.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

battle of yarmouk please add to early muslim section of muslim military history

Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

this battle is notable, as it is the basis of the palestinian non-jewish claim to the land. the 22-year rule of israel by the caliphate gives a sense of justice to the arab occupation of jewish cities. this 1300 year occupation led to the return of the statehood of israel, and the eventual deportation and abandonment of 7000+ jewish homes

in an attempt to placate american imperialism.

Sorry, we don't do that because of the reasons you stated. There is a WP:NPOV if you want to know more. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kaegi estimate should be left alone. We don't have to judge if it's the right evaluation, only to quote it.

No more vandalism, please.Giordaano (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kegri's estimates and User:Giordaano arguments

hi there, respected User:Giordaano you like that 15,000 figure the most ! lolzzz the point is not what kegri estimated or not the point is that if we add kegri's estimates in the "info box" i repeat in the "info-box" then its gonna creat confussion. now you will ask .. How will it creat confussion in the mind of reader ? the answer is.... first of all all the scholars including kergri agrees that romans outnumbered muslims at yarmouk... here are the estimates...

• Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
• David Chandler: 100,000.
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium: 80,000
• Kindersley: 80,000
• Donner (1981): 100,000.
• Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
• Yusuf Ghawanma, Ma’arakat al-Yarmuk (Irbid, 1985): 125,000
• Nicolle (1994): 100,000.
• Akram (1970): 150,000.
• Kaegi (1995): 15,000-20,000

when all agree that muslims were outnumbered then adding a figure of 15,000 in the article's main info-box will raise another question that if romans were 15,000 then what was size of muslims ?

mean while, no scholar estimated the size of muslim army less then 25,000... here are the estimates of famous scholars...

• Haldon (2001): 20,000-40,000.
• Yusuf Ghawanma, Ma’arakat al-Yarmuk (Irbid, 1985): 40,000
• David Chandler: 30,000
• Nicolle (1994): 25,000
• Akram: 40,000

now you will think why they didn't estimated less then 25,000 ??? the answer is .... becoz practically it was impossible for an army, less then 25,000 to invade and conquere syria which was a vast land extending from sinai peninsula to southern turkey and had population more then 10 million. obviously muslims wqere not super human to have captured this vast land with such a small army... the argument it self seems funny !

so, in the situation where no scholar estimates the size of muslims less then 25,000 .. how will defend the argument of putting 15,000 roman army against muslims... who are estimates not less then 25,000 ?????

how will u do it man ??? to teach you a little bit of maths, the figure 15,000 is less then 25,000. putting 15,000 in the roman section and 25,000 in muslim section will give an impression that "some" historians suggest that muslims outnumbered romans. which we all know is wrong, becoz all agree that romans outnumbered muslims with sizeable margin.

therefore, the best i could do to maintain the non-controversial nature of the article is that i and other users decided to put 80,000-120,000 in the roman section's infobox, and this figure is the agevage estimate that different scholars suggested, and to put 25,000-40,000 in the muslim section which is the mean figure that scholars estimated for the muslim.

and the other estimates like A.I.akram's controversial 150,000 romans and kegri's controiversial 15,000 figure, we decided to put in the article under the heading ... "troops deployment" and in reffrernce list of info-box.

this will give user a liberal and more broad vision to decide himself to which estimate he/she will like to belive.

i hope my this lecture will not waste your time but it will help you to understand that why a neutral and uncontroversial figures are putted in info-box.

regards...

Mohammad Adil (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Kaegi's estimate has a lower limit of 15,000. This point is not under dispute.

While this may confuse you, it's absurd and incorrect that this should not be reflected in the info-box, and a different number should be quoted.

It should stay.

RegardsGiordaano (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

hahaha.... buddy grow up ! dont be stubbon, when all the historians gives there estimates minimum at 80,000 and only kegri says 15,000 then no one gonna give weight to kegri's eatimates. so just chill now, and bring more refferences that estimates 15,000, only then your "15,000" can be added there in info-box, other wise not.

hope you will get my point. its encyclopedia and "references" works here not personal priorities ! if you like kegri then its your problem, but his estimates can only be included in the refference list not in the info box as no other historians estimated this awesome 15,000. bring couple of more refferences for 15,000, the day you will post the names of the books and authors that says 15,000 for romans at yarmouk, i will myself add this "15,000" in the info-box. and thats a promise.

regards Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• bro dont get bully here, just provide me a couple of other references that says that romans were 15,000 i will my self add this figure to the info-box.

becoz this rediculious figure cant be added on behafe of a single historian.

58.65.158.137 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kaegi's estimate is an estimation by a contemporary historian.

While you may consider it as ridiculous, this is only your personal opinion.

Therefore, it is factually correct that contemporary estimates of the strength of the Roman army range as low as 15,000. And this is all what needs to be ascertained.

Whether Kaegi is right or wrong, is a comppletely different question.Giordaano (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong

It shows Antioch as part of Turkey. Antioch was always Syrian throughout history until 80 years ago when Ataturk stole it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.133.170 (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ha ha ha! or, have you no shame? is Antakya the only problem Syria has to whine about? get over it and go solve your real problems, i.e. golan etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On Walter Kaegi

from http://history.uchicago.edu/faculty/kaegi.html

Walter Kaegi is Professor of History, Voting Member, Oriental Institute The University of Chicago Ph.D. Harvard 1965

---

FIELD SPECIALTIES Byzantine and Late Roman Political, Social, Military and Religious Structure; Historiography; European Military History and Strategy; Byzantino-Islamic History.

---

BIOGRAPHY Walter Kaegi's research concentrates on Byzantine (and Late Roman) history, especially from the fourth through eleventh centuries,with special attention to the seventh century. He investigates relationships between Byzantium and the Near East, including Islam, military and historiographical subjects and their interrelationships with religion and thought. He seeks to set these researches in broader European and Mediterranean contexts. He is the co-founder of the Byzantine Studies Conference and the editor of the journal Byzantinische Forschungen ________________________

So, exactly why should Walter Kaegi's opinion on Yarmouk be dismissed ?Giordaano (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• hmmm... good question. by the way i know this about kegri already. The reason why we avoided his estimates is mainly becoz of the following reason...

• if 15,000 roman army, then how much muslim army ?

15,000 ? or less then 15,000 ? obviously less then 15,000 army cant invade and conquere the vast province of Syria, and palestine streaching from sinai peninsula to south eastern turkey.

then what was the size of muslim army ? no historian mention less then 25,000 muslims at yarmouk, in this situation adding figure of 15,000 for romans in the info-box dont make a sense, becoz at one place article says romans outnumbered muslims and then mention 15,000 romans vs 25,000 muslims ! the article will contradict its self. So, what we decided, is that we have to put a side this estimate, and should add in the info-box what majority of the historians estimates. and as this is the lowest possible estimates for the romans, so we decided to add this in the foot notes along with other estimates so the reader could have the "image clear" in his mind for the highest (A.I.Akram's) and lowest (kegri's) estimates, with out makng confused statements in the info-box and article.

so did you get what i meant to say ?

The question is not that whether kegri is relaible or not, the question is about NOT TO MAKE ARTICLE CPNTRADICT IT'S SELF. Kegri's estimates have been added in the article and im the foot notes as the reference for the lowest estimates, and the estimates of the majority has been added in the info-box, what else "justice" one need now ?

i know you like kegri, the same way i like A.I.Akram, who is infact being a military general and a soldier himself, is probably more eligable to be consider in the matter of wars, but neither i added his estimates in the info-box(though his book is highly apreciated by david nicolle as well) nor did i insisted to add him there !

so grow up and understand why kegri's estimates have not been added to the info-box.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Walter Kaegi is a respected historian, and a specialist authority on Byzantine history. His estimates cannot be neglected, and it's absurd not to mention them in the info-box, where "modern estimates" are mentioned.

If you have some difficulties because you're afraid that someone then might think that the Byzantine army was smaller than the Muslim army, that's your special, personal problem.

In reality, extremely wide ranges are given for both armies, and any kind of smaller/larger combination is possible.

So, we have simply to stay objective, rather than pandering to personal considerations.

If you really feel it's necessary, you can add a footnote on this issue.

Best regardsGiordaano (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The other historians are amateurs without authority? Kaegi maybe the best scientists in the world if his view doesn't get accepted as communis opinio or something close it, it stays just a fringe opinion. So while I totally support discussing this opinion in the article, the infobox should be focused on the range modern historians agree to and that's nowhere near Kaegi's estimate. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox gives a very, very wide range which includes the highest and the lowest estimates.Historians disagree widely in their estimations, and this is reflected in the infobox. Kaegi's estimate is perfectly legitimate, and should therefore be included.

It is unjustifiable to exclude the estimate of a specialist who has dedicated great and specific attention to this episode.Giordaano (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• well, well, User:Giordaano, you must avoid the edit war that you are doing, grow-up !

let the matter be first decided here, before making any other changes in the info-box. and tell me one thing who estimated 7500 muslims ???? lolzzz its funny man, why should one adds here his own estimates ???

And let me tell you one thintg, "i love kegri" ..yes i love him ! is it fine now, the thing you should inderstand is that no one here is saying that kegri is liable source or not, we know who he is and what contributions he made to the history. But the question is his estimates are not in accordance with the estimates of the other "modern" historians, if talking about justice, you cant just be un-just with rest of the historians who estimates between 80,000-120,000 for kegri's 15,000 ! now this will be unjustice with them.

So, you have to accept that kegri is an "exception" and must be treated like "exception". A.I.Akram is also an exception for the higest estimates for byzantine i.e 150,000 and he is treated as an "exception" in the article, so why cant kegri ? so should i explain how credible Akram is ? and his decades long research on early islamic conquest ? his visits to the battle fields ? actually his work when published in 1969, worked as a "guide book" for all most all of the historians seeking to write on early Byzantine-Arab wars. So, its not the matter of ego, but a matter of justice, and the bottom-line is that "exceptions" must be treated like exceptions.

regards..

Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The estimate in the infobox is quite narrow for early medieval history and I agree with Mohammad Adil that we should remove from the infobox extraordinary high and low claims made by single authors in preference to what the majority claims. These numbers can be discussed in the article and if the scientific community one day changes its mind we can implement them. NOT NOW and not in the infobox. Since this is arguably a small discussion about a basic matter, you can carry it to the military history project that sets the standards what gets into infoboxes and what not. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox, if it doesn't reflect the estimates quoted in the footnotes, becomes contradictory.

By definition, we are talking here of wide ranges of estimates, even separated (in a more detailed way) between "modern estimates" and "primary sources".

Kaegi (not Kegri) is the contemporary authority on Heraclius, and in my view it's impossible to neglect his estimate in the infobox.

as far as military history is concerned, read on some specialised review, such as http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Kaegi_Heraclius.htm

Also, Kaegi is not the only contemporary historian who gives a low estimate for the Byzantine army: e.g. Haldon,(2001), The Byzantine Wars, Arcadia Publishing, ISBN 0752417959 gives an estimate of about 20,000 max for any Byzantine army in this period Giordaano (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Contribute these low estimates with sources to the article. Afterwards, we can see what needs to be done about the infobox. The more sources you find supporting low numbers, the more likely these will be included. While a number by itself is nice, you should also extract from the sources how the author arrived that that number. History is about methods and these are more important than the absolute result in numbers. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this kind of work done for the other estimates ? do we really know how, e.g. Donner came to his estimate (100,000) ?

I have looked at the discussion : I am not the only one who thinks it's wrong to concentrate exclusively on the high estimates for the Roman army. Wikisource 1609 also protested extensively, and Ian Pitchford 15:27, 29 April 2008 considers that "the article should just state that there is no consensus among scholars on the size of the combatant armies and then provide a list or table of the estimates with references".

Jagged 85 17:53, 30 April 2008 says :"I prefer the infobox as it currently is, listing the entire range of estimates from all sources. However, I also like Ian's idea about listing all these estimates in a table (in the main body of the article rather than in the footnotes)".

So, I would say that there is really no consensus for eliminating Kaegi/Haldon. Best regards Giordaano (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I nailed you to do some real research and now you try it the other way just to get your Kaegi set straight. No my dear friend, that's not producing a solution. Do find out how many scholars have tried to estimate the army size and what they have said, afterwards we present in the infobox the mainstream and mention the fringes in the article. The fringes mustn't be confined to some footnotes, but for each estimate the reader must get a rough picture about the method used, especially when estimates wiedly differ. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it helps you to read the article about evolution. There are academics who doubt such a thing exists. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I had a look at the discussion and at the history of the article. You yourself, in fact, corrected the low estimate for the Roman army to 15,000 sometime in October.

I also discovered that figures were floating around almost randomly. E.g. Donner is indicated as giving (for the Roman army) 100,000 but then, another paper is quoted where the figure given by Donner is indicated as 20,000 , then sometimes figures for the opposing armies are swapped and confused... then, there is the issue of the main corps and of allied troops, of their loyalty, of their capability to intervene in the battle...

The reality is also that no one has all the books at his free disposal. Yes, a few books have been checked out, but the other are quoted via second-hand references and so on... the whole issue has become a total mess.

The original idea by some people was to mention in the info-box a "central consensus" of 80,000-100,000. This has now mysteriously become 80,000-120,000... the only one who seems still to care, in any case, is Mohammed Adil. All other contributors seem to have left, disgusted.

So, most surely Mohammed will win again (by default).

However, even if I have read only a couple of these estimates (Kaegi and Haldon - google books has its limits, as we all know) I am afraid that the value of estimates, in this case, is very near to zero : and, with pages and pages of discussion, apparently nothing near a consensus was developed.

It would be more honest to state this, in the infobox.Giordaano (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of fighting a stupid edit war, can you summarize how Kaegi comes to such a differing result. Next, you quote Donor here, but not in the article. As I said work with the sources. You mustn't attain them tomorrow, but don't tell me it's impossible to get them via a library. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends, I have no further interest in being involved in this kind of absurd controversies. I think you just lost a contributor.

Have fun.Giordaano (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, I see that you requested a peer-review for this article. Good idea, but I must be however slightly skeptical about its results.

The main point is this: for some people, the battle of Yarmouk is not a long-past episode of history, it's an important element of contemporary concern. Why ?

Well, basically, Yarmouk is proof, for many "Islamists", that true believers (if they have faith) can triumph against almost impossible odds (something like 100:1). So, numbers become extremely important in this case.

On the other hand, establishing somehow credible numbers is a desperate effort. Estimates vary by a factor of about 20. Anyone familiar with the tendency by ancient historians to exaggerate numbers will, instinctively, take the "low road", but this is pure knee-jerk reaction.

The article, as it is, constitutes a good overview of the Muslim traditional narration about Yarmouk. In fact, it could stay like it is, provided this fact is made perfectly clear.

Reaching a consensus on some kind of "historical" truth is, in my humble opinion, a desperate effort.

Quite simply put, while Yarmouk is extremely important for Muslims, Byzantines seem to be absent from the discussion. Giordaano (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• hi, I respect your opinion. But the thing is you r not a historian nor am i. The article have references from the scholarly works on yarmouk. if you dont consider Akram as liable. Then check David nicolle. You stress on Kegris work a lot. he may be a good historian but he never did any work on "battle of Yarmouk" i repeat he never did any work on battle of yamrouk. his book mainly focus on the prelude and aftermaths of yarmouk and its effect on byzantine empire. And is mainly a guess work. so its useless for the war stuff of yarmouk.

any ways, it is obvious that you are not an unbaisd user. no offenses but u seem to be an anti-muslim sort of a guy, here for creating useless controversies. Why dont you have any objection on size of armies here ...

Battle of Thermopylae
Siege of Constantinople (717–718)
Siege of Constantinople (674–678)
Battle of Alesia
Battle of the Axona

if you are really a serious user, you will go and object on these article too. Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Adil, the accusation of "bias", coming from you, is rather comical. It doesn't deserve a serious discussion.

All the best.Giordaano (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Giordaano, just stop the bickering here and really work on the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reacting, on this page, to the (unjustified) accusation of bias. As I have indicated, I have no intention whatsoever of working on this page, since I know perfectly well that I will never be able to match the time and effort dedicated by Mohammed Adil to his (mostly)fantastic reconstruction of Yarmouk.

There's a limit to my possibilities for wasting time and efforts. But, don't let my decision discourage you: unfortunately however, almost no one else seems to take interest in this episode. All previous posters have also been discouraged and have apparently lost interest Giordaano (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page activity will soon exceed the article volume. So just move your attention somewhere else and do something useful. The article is in line with scientific works on the topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. We'll get to the five articles listed above at some point but this discussion is about Yarmuk.

In regards to numbers, no one has yet looked at sources to outline the size of the entire Byzantine Empire before looking into how many were at Yarmuk. In Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History, they spend a few pages describing the Byzantine military system at this time. On page 215 it states that by the end of the seventh century, in the entire empire were 120-150,000 soldiers divided into 13 themes. Only 7 of these themes were places in Anatolia which means no more than 80,000 soldiers were even in the region, let alone fighting in a single battle.

I realize this is an enyclopedia source (quite accurate throughout my experience) so maybe we should do our own research into the empire/region numbers first to at least give us a range. 207.210.55.22 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Gingerbreadman4290

• We already have had enough discussion on the numbers at yarmouk, you can see above discussions. The numbers have been referenced with reliable sources, and it gives a reasonable range of probable numbers at yarmouk. I dont think further discussion is necessary.

moreover, we strictly have to follow the reliable sources, as wikipedia policy WP:NOS do not allows us for the research.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi gingerbreadman

the discussion on numbers at Yarmouk is a hopeless case. Most participants have left, exhausted, so Mohammad Adil has achieved a triumph of the same dimensions of the Battle of Yarmouk.

In any case, what you say makes sense, have a go at it, by all means ... and, good luck to you !Giordaano (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No personal attacks dude, i know u hate me because you had lost, u tried to be a roman propagandist, lowering the magnitude of muslim victory at yarmouk was ur aim, and i have exhausted u not by playing with world but by giving references from the scholarly works, u lost becasue u had nothing to support ur claim, u were shooting in the dark.

what makes sense ? original research is not allowed, wikipedia policies say so ! check this, Wikipedia:neutral point of view#undue weight, kegri's estimates were not added in info box, becasue of this policy that says not to give weight to minority view, who so ever is the holder of the view is. As majority historians estimated between 80000-100000 so its fair enough to have it in info box, kegri's estimates are minority view (so far only kegri estimated this low) to it has to be treated in accordance with the policy. accept it bro in any case, u r fighting a lost battle. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And blah, blah, blah, blah.....

and blah.Giordaano (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can argue Giordaano, but don't be rude. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is still of very low quality.

There has already been much discussion about this article, but apparently not for the good. The article right now is still in very bad shape. The "Evaluation" section is written in a very unprofessional way, and is more concerned with unsourced praising of Muslim commanders than with giving a neutral view on the aftermath. Sources on the forces present are, as they have been since 2008, still not in order and sources of bad quality are still used. I added a template asking for cleanup, please do not remove until said evaluation and sources are in order. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

u r welcome to improve the quality, as for evaluation section, u may be thinking that user:mohammad adil have wrote it ??? but i havent ! but who so ever wrote it it tells the truth and have a reference attached with it, its by david nicolle from the book yarmouk 636 the book is available on torrent if u wanna download it free. Any ways we have already had have enough on sources stuff, every source mentioned in the reference section is by eminent "third party" historians the "western historians" i mean to say, only two of them r muslims, one from pakistan and one from syria and the strength section writes the whole range of strength given by different historians... in case of muslims it usually varies from 25,000-40,000 and in case of romans its 80,000-100,000 and this is based on wikipedia policy of WP:NPV balance. The sources mentioned are according to Good research as atleast i coundnt find more comprehensive sources then these one on internet. just take a look on sources please.

Wikipedia policies clearly states that minority view should not be given undue weight as compair to established majority scholar's view point. So in past users have argued much to add only keigri's sources, as they think he is the best, but sorry wikipedia dont seem to allow this ..... more over as for the reliability of his work as the best available please check wikipedia policy that says: "u can not claim any onec's work to be the best in world" and obviously vice-verse until u have a well researched comments from a renowned critic or scholar.

The bottom line is we according to WP:NPV balance have a info box fair enough, and its strongly in accordance with wikipedia's establish policy. so i see no need to alter.

As for the improving the quality of article, then its essential obviously.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 06:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the very low quality of the article. It is very one-sided, and uncritically assumes as historical truth the traditional narration (mainly Ibn Khaldoun and Al-Wakidi) contained in sources much posterior to the events.

According to some authors (e.g. Nevo and Koren) the entire battle is imaginary, and in fact quasi- contemporary sources (mainly the life of Heraclius, by Bishop Sebeos)don't mention it.

Equally critical about the historicity of Yarmouk are Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, not to mention, Luling, Ohlig, Puin and the "Saarbruecken" school... no trace of this debate is included in the article.Giordaano (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

hahahaha..... dude i really respect ur view point, u r free to have faith on any thing.

ibn khuldun and wakqidi...hmmmm will u please tell me where exactly the article quote these primary sources ??? damm i was thinking that article is based on david nicolle's work ...thats bullshit man i didnt knew david nicolles real name is ibn khuldun hahaha..... And yes the battle is imaginary and kegri, david nicolle, donner, kannedy and all are retarded illusionists lolzzz man u really made my day. I knw u hate muslim, muslim history, muslim conquest and muslim military victories.... but please have a life its encyclopedia, lets fight some where else. ur past record shows ur hypocrisy and no one give a damn to ur self made believes so just chill. U cant prove any thing but still think ur self to be an expert on military history, u even dont have a relevant education, training or experience u r just an armature and its obvious from ur freaky behavior. No Hard Feelings... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And hahahaha etc to you also, dear colleague.Giordaano (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

lolzzz i just googled the names of writers u mentioned above, it shows that they are all partial, biased, anti-muslim, and full of hatered towards islam, they are well known to create controversies against islam and prophet mohammad (pbuh), with their mission to rewrite history, they are pathetic, ignorant, physics and illusionist, out with a task to eliminate "islam" and molest its origin and history and having no religious tolerance, they try their best to molest religious beleives, but still no results u can see wht eminent historians and critics think about them check David Waines(1995), p. 273-274 and van Ess's - "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, September 8, 1978, p. 998 their theories has been rejected world wide.

van Ess's writes about them ...a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous. lolzzz so they are your "historians"...... in addition to this ur other mentioned names are also of baised writers who have spent their lives in propaganda against islam.

If you are aware of wikipedia's policies, and i am sure you are not, let me show u some thing tht u will never like, ....

wikipedia policies which completely discard ur dreams and sources and writer to be included in wikipedia articles all together....

• Extremist and fringe sources, according to which such extremist work like that of above mentioned writers, have no place on wikipedia.

• Scholarship, according to this Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, but so sad ur writers r universally rejected in mainstream scholar community.

• Reliable sources, this policy demands...third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. thus no place for controversial works by "second party" biased writers

• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, policy's name says every thing ..... just take a look it says ...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources .... lolzz buddy when ur sources cant full fill the requirements of above mentioned policies then how will u call them "exceptional". Poor huh ...

AND GUESS WHT ??? this is a final fatal blow.....

• Questionable sources, it says all just read it its for guys like you, who r with a MISSION !

with all due respect, wikipedia is not a place for a guy like you, such guys only suites forums where they can beat about the bush with out any check.

take care الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear colleague, you should learn to be synthetic. Quantity is not always synonymous with quality.

As soon as I have some time,I will make a synthesis of "revisionist" theories about Yarmouk/early Islam and post it on the article.

Until then, all the best.Giordaano (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

didnt u read those policies ? and u still think u can ? dreamer !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well user Mohammad adil, since you have such a mouthful of others being without proper education, I suggest you step back and leave this article in my hands since I am qualified. I, as a historian, will tell you which sources are right and which ones are on the fringe. Kaegi and other recent historians that reject the idea of a very decisive engagement involving hundreds of thousands of troops are in my opinion right, and at the very least deserve attention in this article. You say this article is based on Nicolle's Osprey book? That book is merely a synthesis of historiography at one point in time. The best way to progress is to completely rewrite this article, as it contains entire sections that are based solely on outdated and criticized sources. When I have time I'll look into the article again, or we could simply revert to an older, more solid version of the article. I also encourage others to make edits to this article and hope you (Mohammad adil) will step aside of editing this article. The Wikipedia policies you thought to use to underbuild your arguments in fact work against you. You are the one that wishes this article to cling to archaic and presently rejected views. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is useful to compare this article on the battle of Yarmouk with those in other languages. The German wikipedia (the best one after the English Wiki) gives a far more balanced view of the battle, as does the French one. For instance, they calculate the Ghassanid desertion in their infobox. Mohammad adil, if you are unfamiliar with these languages (being from Pakistan) you should use a translator. Wiki1609 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

well,Mr.historian will u please tell me who exactly authorized u to judge sources ? any one here can claim to be a historian.... well to tell u i am a military officer by the way, i wonder if u were thinking i am just an other self proclaimed amature historian.

as i said u according to wiki policies r nt to judge sources. and by the way the current sources in the article are not "critisized" by any one, other then u and user:giodiraano so please just for ur personal gains and to level the scene for ur "biased" edits dont try to fool others. I know how ur version of this battle will look like, and it will be falsely interpret kegri's work to minimize the importance and decisiveness of this battle, that is wht obvious from ur tone right now. u have hardly every contibuted to any useful battle on wikipedia and are shamefully acting like a noble award winning historian ! ..... ok done with personal attacks ... now listen, i know u cant prove ur point, because all the history books and sources are going against u u tried it earlies and failed now reload ur self make an attempt and i will check ur vandalism. no matter ho much u criticize the source it carry no weight as u r not an authorized critic or scholar. so good luck الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My university, and the global network of universities operating under the Bachelor system, authorized me to judge sources. Why would I claim to be a historian if it weren't true? And in fact you are just another self-proclaimed amateur historian, as your education as a military officer does not qualify you for scientific research. Did you receive an academic degree with your education? I'm pretty sure you did not.

Why do you keep wanting the article to say this was one of the most important battles in history, even when in reality it may have been only a relatively unimportant skirmish? My tone, and that of others such as Giordaano, is that an event such as this battle is presented fairly and if different views on the subject exist, that these views are presented. You are the only one fond of one particular interpretation (the one where hordes of Byzantines were slaughtered by a tiny Muslim army) and who wishes all other interpretations to be excluded. Be honest to yourself, who is really wrong here? Wiki1609 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of wasting his time in uselessly insulting people, Mohammad should try to widen his horizon.

I will try to give a few hints on how the problem looks, in my opinion.

-David Nicolle (who is a very good journalist, and particularly knowledgeable in military history - he wrote books on the Italian army in WW I, on the Teutonic knights, on Attila, on King Alfred etc) is neither an Arabist nor a specialist on the Byzantine Empire. He just took up the traditional narration about Yarmouk (which stems mainly from 9th century Muslim historians - Tabari, Wakidhi, Baladhuri etc) and wrote quite a good book about Yarmouk.

However, this traditional account (followed also by the "old generation" of Western specialists - especially Donner)should be put in perspective : there have been other important recent contributions (most importantly, Walter Kaegi - a professor of Byzantine studies). More in general, following the important book by Hoyland ("islam as others saw it") we have now access to the earliest accounts about Yarmouk (which are by non-Muslims - contained in the Chronicle of Fredegar, in the chronicle of pseudo-Sebeos, in the Chronicle of 754 etc)

Also, it is impossible to ignore what Wansbrough, Crone, Cook, Nevo etc have been contributing. In a nutshell: no one says we should neglect Nicolle, but if a BBC journalist can be considered an expert, then so can we consider experts people who held chairs of Arabic/Islamic studies at SOAS, Princeton etc

All in all: it is impossible to ignore all this side of the story, and present the detailed reconstruction contained in the present article as if it were "historical truth".

I will, as soon as I have some time, add a section on the lines I have explained above, starting a bit at a time. Contrinutions by co-posters are of course very welcome... Giordaano (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To wiki1609: I mostly agree with you. In particular, the article on German wikipedia is quite balanced, although of course much less detailed than the English one.

The main problem, in fact, lies in this excess of detail: the earliest sources about Yarmouk are very summary but, as time goes by, more and more details are added by later historians. Yarmouk has an extremely important symbolic significance, so the temptation to add episodes and details seems, over time, almost irresistible: on the Byzantine side, in order to explain the defeat, on the Arab/Muslim side, in order to exalt the heroism of combatants.

This situation is quite common in history (similar, just to stay on the subject of Muslim conquests, to the situation with regard to the fall of Visigothic Spain).

I have nothing against going through in detail, day by day , the various phases of the battle, as reported by historians at least 200 years removed from the facts : however, this should be part of a wider discourse, explaining clearly the situation.Giordaano (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no clear and accepted picture of the battle an the article should reflect this. I just hope particular people can swallow their pride and admit this. Wiki1609 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

well, first of all if calling me with my name, then its not mohammad its adil. my major disagreement from user wiki is that when the hsiotroians of the whole world regards yarmouk to be the turning point in history, even kegri wrote the whole chapter about its aftermaths as "magnitude of Muslim victory" u can check ur book if u want to, so u cant deny its significance and decisivness. More over kegri no where mention it to be a mare skirmish, so u need to correct ur misconception about it u better read his book first, its available at torrent for free download, a good news for u !.

More over if kegri being a specialist on byzantine affairs, mentions a vurnarable state of byzantine army at yourmouk, and its size far less then others .... then its his view. And HIS VIEW IS ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE BATTLE'S ARTICLE go read the section troop deployment. According to wikipedia policy of undue weight u need a balance between the views of all historians u cant based an article on the view of "one single" historians claiming him to be superior to other, as according to wiki policies u r not here to judge historians, they all are well reputed historians and thus cant be discarded. if u cant understand it through my language thiking me a pro-islamic then we can have a third opinion or arbitration through wikipedia's arbitrators and in the light of wiki policies u will have ur verdict. no need to be stubbron here ok dude. and yes, unlike nato troops, in pakistan military commissioned officers get their bachelor degree in relative field during their 3 years of PMA (pakistan military accademy) training. I think neto soldiers have only 32 week training. More over due to my personal interest i am studying Law and internation politics beside this i already have a bechlor degree in modern european and early islamic history. Not praising my self but just telling u so tht u may know with whom u r talking with.... and yes it dosent matter whether ur university gives u authority on judging historians or not, u r on wikipedia and wikipedia dont give u authority to judge historians to maintain neitrality of the article with good faith.

@ user giodaaniro, sorry if spelling is wrong... u must understand wht vandalism is, u cant add any thing to article u want just on ur personal will, untill u have concensus with all users, so rather then threatening to add some thing suspecious u better rather take a legal way and try to discuss the matter in good will, if we both disagree and had a dead lock, which seem inevitable, then we can have a wiki arbitrator or thrid opinion. but please before all this read the policies which i posted just to make sure u r not wasting ur time, as all policies seem opposing ur ideas. u can give a brief summary of thing u think can be added to the article, so tht i may know wht exactly u want, or else it will all remain messed up in those personal attacks.

regards...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad adil, there is a difference between sources that specifically adress a subject, such as kaegi's, and ones that merely touch upon a subject as part of a much wider story. To give the specialist source more weight than a general source is simply common sense, I can imagine there is no Wiki rule for that. We've been over this however and there's no point in going over it again. In previous posts I adressed points of concern, but your replies haven't been very constructive. About your education, you should be proud of being an officer in the army, but I have never heard of BA courses on things as specific as Modern European or Early Islamic History. I think you confuse a BA with something else, or did you study 6 years for those two subjects? Wiki1609 (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed, I am attacking no one (and, you should re-read what you say in your posts: your tone is, quite frankly, unacceptable).

As soon as I have read through the material I am studying, I will add my conclusions: not sooner, but also not any later. You can of course discuss them, express criticism, suggest modifications etc etc

One more point: you don't own this page, and no article is perfect, so you will just have to live with it.

best regardsGiordaano (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

@user wiki, dude I don’t know about BA in Europe or in usa, but here in Pakistan universities offer two different history fields in BA, like in the first part I took Islamic history and in the second I took modern European history. It makes it more flexible for a student to do MA in either of those subjects and then PhD. You can check any of Pakistan universities site, I did it from balochistan university. U can check its site. Any ways it have nothing to do with article so I finish it here. The specialist source u r talking about is a good point, but kegri's work is not perticularly on “battle of yarmouk”, its on heraculis role in saving byzantine empire in 7th century after muslim invasion, as he says and says it rightly that very little is contributed (if ever contributed) to the topic that wht was heracluis's strategy for saving rest of his empire. More over his other book mainly deals with socio-economical state of byzantine empire at the eve of rashidun invasion and aftermaths of yarmouk. Where as nicolle wrote a whole researched work on “only” battle of yarmouk. So as you said tht a specialist source must be given weitage, then here u go … it has already received so. Kegri’s work can be taken as a specialist source on 7th century Byzantine empire but not on battle of yarmouk precisely. Did u read his book ?

@user:giordaano If my tone hurt u then sorry for tht, but the thing will remain the same, according to wikipedia policies u cant just add some thing with out concensus and a prior discussing if need. And here due to a vast air of disbelieve discussing the topic and having a third opinion (if needed) is inevitable. The very sources u mentioned from where u r intended to add material are irreverent to the topic of this battle, and are internationally criticized by scholars and critics, which make them “wikipedia questionable sources” which r regarded generally as extreme sources and thus are not to be added to wikipedia article, other then their own articles. U have to discuss all material before adding them to the article and its not my requirement but wikipedia’s requirement. And I am not a owner of this article but yes due to my major contribution to it I feel like to watch it against any possible vandalism and POV, And yes no article is perfect, they need contribution and therefore I am open for discussion n u can freely contribute constructive material to the article. But as it already seem controversial from ur tone, so according to wikipedia consensus policy we need a prior discussion to avoid any possible edit war. Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know who was that, but an ip address 71.113.68.42 added two references to the article, one by john F haldon and an other by Warren Treadgold claiming 20,000 troops for byzantines.

I checked Warren Treadgold's books and found this one called "Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081" i searched in it the figure 20,000 and the name yarmouk or yarmuk but no where it mention any such thing, [1] well my message to the ip address is clear, dont add reference unless u check it, or if u try to trick any one here thinking all are fool and whos gonna cross check the reference then think again dude.. ! i checked haldon's [2] "byzantine in seventh century" and cant found in it the figure "20,000" found "yarmuk" in it but wasnt in detail. If there is any other book by haldon that says 20,000 then give a correct reference to it to add it in the article. There is an other book by haldon called the byzanitne wars still i couldnt find its preview ect so i am searching reviews tells tht the book have a detail account on yarmouk lets see wht it have if it hv 20,000 figure i am gonna add it, if any one have its correct reference then feel free.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Adil, as it stands now, a good part of this article is made of word-by-word copy-pastes, e.g. from the book by Akram: The Sword of Allah - Khalid bin Al-Waleed and, in particular, of chapters 34 [3] and 35 [http://www.grandestrategy.com/2007/12/sword-of-allah-chapter-35-yarmuk.html

As anyone can notice, there is a great number of literal quotes, (usually not identified as such) plus some slightly modified paragraphs. I am sure that there are even more from Nicolle's book.

An example e.g. under "Byzantine counter-attack", this is what we had in the article:

"The rest of the Imperial Army was to operate on the following plan:

* Jabla would march from Aleppo on the direct route to Emessa via Hama, and hold the Muslims frontally in the Emessa region. The lighter-armed but faster moving Christian Arabs would thus be the first to contact the Muslim Arabs.

* Dairjan would 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.

* Gregory would advance on Emessa from the north-east and attack the Muslims in their right flanks at the same time as they were struck by Dairjan.

* Qanateer would move along the coastal route up to Beirut, then approach Damascus from the west and cut off Abu Ubaidah.

* Mahan’s army would advance behind the Christian Arabs and act as a reserve."''

and, this is Akram:

"The rest of the imperial army would operate on the following plan:

a. Qanateer would move along the coastal route up to Beirut, then approach Damascus from the west and cut off Abu Ubaidah.

b. Jabla would march from Aleppo on the direct route to Emessa via Hama, and hold the Muslims frontally in the Emessa region. The Christian Arabs would be the first to contact the Muslim Arabs, and this was probably in the fitness of things. As Heraclius said to Jabla: "Everything is destroyed by its own kind, and nothing cuts steel but steel."

c. Dairjan would 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.

d. Gregory would advance on Emessa from the north-east and attack the Muslims in their right flanks at the same time as they were struck by Dairjan.

e. The army of Mahan would advance behind the Christian Arabs and act as a reserve."''

You will agree that it is not the objective of wikipedia to simply duplicate information available elsewhere (quite apart from copyright considerations)

A good part of the article, therefore, is not really useful- (it could easily be replaced by a few links) and should be removed, and then re-written from the beginning, with a wider perspective and avoiding copy-pasting.

There is absolutely no consensus on this page and, in any case, any poster can add material without having to make lengthy inquiries beforehand.

I have removed a few copy-pastes from Akram, and when I receive the book by Nicolle (which I have ordered) I will check also there.

Remember: literal quotes should be brief, and contained within quotation marks.

Best regards Giordaano (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing them out, i have rewrite the most important of them, i.e the battle plan of heraclius.

now it like:

• Jabla's lightly armed Christian Arabs would march to Emesa from Allepo via Hama and hold the main Muslim army at Emesa.
• Dairjan would make a flanking movement moving between the coast and Allepo road and approach Emesa from west striking at Muslim's left flank while they were being held frontally by Jabla.
• Gregory would strike at Muslim's right flank approaching Emesa from north-east via Mesopotamia.
• Qanateer would march along the coastal route occupy Beirut from where he was to attack weakly defended Damascus from west to cut off the main Muslim army at Emesa.
• Vahan's corps would act as a reserve and would approach Emesa via Hama.

the previous version was this:

• Jabla would march from Aleppo on the direct route to Emessa via Hama, and hold the Muslims frontally in the Emessa region. The lighter-armed but faster moving Christian Arabs would thus be the first to contact the Muslim Arabs.
• Dairjan would 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.
• Qanateer would move along the coastal route up to Beirut, then approach Damascus from the west and cut off Abu Ubaidah.
• Mahan’s army would advance behind the Christian Arabs and act as a reserve.

there was no need to order for niclloe book, it available free at torrent download from there. regards

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicolle's book is a copyrighted text. It shouldn't be reproduced except for brief quotes, which should be clearly identified and sourced.

Illegal download via torrent or other should not be encouraged.

On the substance, the issue is not that we should make a few cosmetic changes to the copy-pastes from books (whether by Nicolle or Akram) which are contained at present in the article (like you just did for the Byzantine attack plan).

The issue is that the article should present opinions and conclusions, and should not be composed of long descriptions, mainly copy-pastes or superficially paraphrased bits and pieces from books on the subject.Giordaano (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicolle's book isnt copy pasted here in the article as far as i remmember, the copy pasted material was of akram's book and it was done so after taking permission from the previous website www.swordofallah.com (tht had online copy of tht book) any ways its good to rewrite material in once own words to avoid any possible copyright claim in future by any one. Article of a battle need description so that others may understand it, if a large amount of material and researched work is available for any particular battle then there is no wiki policy tht oppose its addition.

and as for opinions and conclusions, then its same every where, and it is tht yarmuk was a decisive battle that changed history, whether its kegri, treadgold, kennedy, akram, or nicolle.... all have same opinion of it, and this universal opinion has been illustrated in the article clearly i think. If u which to contribute in this field feel free to make a new section to quote the conclusions and opinions of different writers about the battle, there are few battle that have such sections e.g Battle of Tours.

and yes, please read this policy of wikipedia Wikipedia:Copyrights, to clear your concept of rewriting copy write material in once own words, after all exactly why do we tag a reference below any paragraph if according to you making "few cosmetic" changes (though i hv completely rewrite tht byzantine plan, taking only the basic idea from akram's work) and adopting basic ideas are copy write violations.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Laid

The left flank of the Byzantine army laid at the Hills of Jabiya in north. I had written "camped" instead of "laid", thinking that is what you mean. The word "laid" should not be used here; it does not fit. Since I am not sure what is being said, I propose:
-The left flank of the Byzantine army took up arms at the Hills of Jabiya in north.
-The left flank of the Byzantine army garrisoned at the Hills of Jabiya in north.
-The left flank of the Byzantine army assembled at the Hills of Jabiya in north.
Hope this helps. Thanks Unflavoured (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• here is wht was meant, when the romans lined up for the battle their right flank was at wadi al allan (a mile or a half, before the ravine begun) and left was at, a little before where the jabiya hills begun in north. The front was possibly 13 km long, with substantial gaps in between.

so insert the word u feel suits the situation well. I thought "camped" was a bit miss-guiding as it would have given the impression as if byzantine's left flank actually "camped" there, their camp was at yaqusah.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, then I think "assembled" would be best. Thanks! Unflavoured (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy figures

This page claims that Hugh Kennedy estimated the Byzantine army size to be 80,000, yet in his most recent book, the great arab conquests he notes that figures of 100,000 were written but that this was a wild exaggeration and that the figure would instead have been around 15000-20000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please prove page number to update the source, for the time being i have removed it from the list. Add it back with reference to page number. thanks for update.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 06:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

A few things to improve the article:

1- The prelude/counter-attack section contains info about events that happened after the battle. This should be removed and appended to the aftermath section.

2- A large map, maybe something similar to the top one in Levant, with a single dot/x to mark to the place where the battle took place. The current three maps are completely incomprehensible to a person who is not familiar with the region.

3- The troop deployment section should have:
a) The troop deployment map moved up into this section.
b) a picture/drawing of a typical Muslim warrior of the era, or at least picture/drawings of the armour and weaponry.
c) the same for a typical byzantine warror.

4- The battle section has not been copy-edited yet :) Also, each day should have at least a picture to break the monotony of one huge paragraph and one diagram:
a) Day one ought to have a picture of troops in combat.
b) Day two should have a picture of troops in a testudo formation. The testudo talkpage had this: http://www.larp.com/legioxx/testudo.jpg
c) Days three and four should have pictures of cavalry charges

For an idea of what sort of pictures, look at Medieval warfare, and the beginning of Battle of Agincourt, as well as the beautiful Fall of Constantinople page.
If we manage to get all the above done, I think this article would easily pass GA. Hope that helps. Unflavoured (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• good, i will take care of the maps, will make them shortly. we have a picture of typical muslim soldier of tht era but as for other pictures, i am not sure whether there "exist" such pictures of battle of yarmouk or not. testudo formation's pics can be taken from other articles but wht about cavalry charge and troops in combat pics ???

how will u get them ? i dont think there is any such free/copy-right source. we can not find pics as r in Battle of Agincourt, its due to the fact tht this battle, and other battles of muslim conquest of 7th century, are not celebrated widely neither in the muslim world nor in the west. only a limited group of specialist historians in respective field know about them. so no chance for such pics. Before writing this article i did an exhausted search to find any pic related to early islamic conquest but there wasnt even a single map available. so i did them my self. U try if u could find any such pic. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know it will be difficult, but something like that in an article will make it really stand out. Coupled with more sources, the article would make it to FA someday, so why not try? The points I wrote are not "this is what I expect", but more of a "this will make the article very good to read". Yarmouk was a great battle, and Khalid was a great warrior, and I think that the effort to improve this article is really worth it. Hope that helps. Unflavoured (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

THE GREAT ARAB CONQUESTS by John B. Glubb

• Folks, I am confused. The first book that tried to separate fact from fiction, myth from truth about the first Arab-Muslim military campaigns in and battles in early Islamic history was THE GREAT ARAB CONQUEST by John B. Glubb. He obeyed the rules of WP on how an article is to be written -- ie neutrality and unbiased -- even back in 1963. He at last got all the strings of history and religion together of that era. And for his effort he made a whole lot of enemies -- ie both Muslim and non-Muslim. Just wondering, why his book and his detailed chapter on the subject is totally ignored? I definitely am not going to try and help with this article, if the 2 major rules of writing an article for WP are ignored. --Jackehammond (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

we contributed using the books tht we hv read, as for this book i hv heard first time about it, its not there even on google books.

Can u provide a copy ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mr, Mohammad, this link will take you to where you can purchase a copy of THE GREAT ARAB CONQUESTS by J.B. Glubb. I would obtain the 1963 edition, not only because it is lower cost, but the quality is better than the Barnes and Noble reprint of 1995. A trivia, Glubb was the British general in 1942 responsible for defending that same exact terrain of the battle if the German's had been victorious in Egypt. He actually walked and drove the area. Below are three of his maps he drew that explains the terrain and why it was so important. It was the first time any detailed knowledge of that battle became available, either the Muslim world or the European world. MapXV.jpg and Map XVII and Map XVIII. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

.

• Please find the pages to the Second Battle of Yarmouk. Put cursor in left hand corner of page to zoom in or zoom out to read. If you need any more information from General Glubb's 1963 book, feel free to ask. For example the First Battle of the Yarmouk. The guest password for this album is yarmouk. --Jackehammond (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)