Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk

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 no 65 that muslims were outnumbered by 4 to 1. Which implies around 100,000 byzantine troops at yarmouk. Now all argues should be stoped imediately and info box should be edit. Nicolle was considered the best source for this battle and it mentioned 25,000 muslims and 100,000 byzantines. if any one have any doubts then gimme your email address i will sent you the page of that book.

And i have a lots of stuff to edit in the article and i will add more from nicolle's book + pics of battle field and also i 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)

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)