User talk:Bart172

Byzantine-Arab Wars 780-1180

Every source out there agrees that the Arabs with Egyot, Syria, Palestine, Iraq and North Africa were a far more resourceful Empire than the petty Byzantines who had only west and central Asia Minor on top of Greece. Tourskin (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 men at the siege of Constantinople, can't remember which one. At that time, the Byzantines had somewhere between 30,000 men (present at the siege) and 80,000 men (a high point for 780 AD). Shall we compromise and say in the box, "probably larger?" I mean no original research is in place and it is not disputed that the arabs had larger armies. I'm not Greek, Italian, Roman Arab or whatever, I have no nationalistic agenda. There is nothing in dispute here, only that the number is unknown. It is verifiable, in the many sources presented there but in particular by the Oxford history of Byzantium which if I may paraphrase states that the Arab threat was far greater and more powerful than the Carolignian or Byzantine Empires. Norwich gives constantly gives the impression that Imperial forces had to make do with fewer men. The book Byzantium at War states explictly the outnumbered nature of the Byzantine army and brilliant tactics utilized to make up for the imbalance. No numbers are given in any cases because such numbers would vary from battle to battle, but the Caliphate did have more men! It is not in doubt! It is not unverifiable and it certainly is not OR so don't give me such a link, its not in good faith to do so, you can check my edits out.

Tourskin (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of making leaps? What further proof can you get? The sources state this that the Byzantine armies were outnumbered for the most part. You are the one who are making horrible leaps. The Fatimid armies in 1099 were crap and that has nothing to do with a time period that ends in 1025; the last time the Fatimids and Byzantines clash. It is true that the Fatimids had smller armies possibly than the Byzantines but the Abbassids had larger armies than the Byzantines until the end of the 9th century when the caliphate fractured. I told you before that you can't get specific numbers like the Byzantines because the Arabs did not have a Thema system that we know of with exact troop numbers. My writing says "probably larger", can't we accept this wording? What point are you trying to make exactly, that I am making this up as OR? Who is making the bigger leaps, you who uses Crusader-Fatimid wars which have nothing to do with the wars between the Arabs and Byzantines (780 - 1025) or my assumption.

Even if Byzantium had survived the worst the Arabs could do, its troubles were far from over. The caliphate was still much stronger than than the empire. Warren Treadgold, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, pg 138.

Do you want more? I tire of your nonesense, I am gonna add in this reference, which explicitly states that the Arabs were stronger (er that means more troops not that Arabs had more ripped boddies!). Tourskin (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]