Talk:Arab–Byzantine wars/Archive 3

Continuing discussion on the battles of Byz-Arab wars
I am annoyed by the lack of reliable articles in the Byzantine-Arab wars category. Many battles, such as the Battle of Yarmouk give too high figures and include unreliable sources. Moreover, many of the articles seem to be based on unreliable Muslim accounts of the battles.

I therefore wish to remind everyone of the guidelines for these articles, please refrain from writing articles based on primary accounts of the battle and instead include exclusively material from good secondary sources. For example the Battle of Ajnadayn gives an account of the battle based solely on Waqidi or sources that uncritically copy everything he writes. If there is no confirmation of the battle actually happening as described now in secondary sources, I suggest we should remove such sections. Copying from original sources and presenting that as being sourced material is according to wikipedia guidelines simply Original Research. The articles should be based on secondary material, such as in the Battle of Agincourt article. If someone would write an article based on his own interpretation of Jean de Wavry's account that is certainly OR. Please comment if you agree or help me bring this to attention on a higher level (if it exists). Wiki1609 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I agree, but User:Mohammad Adil as agreed to honor this and reduce the figures. The fact is, the Byzantine army was no more than 100,000 soldiers at the time, maybe 125,000 soldiers but anything more is just ignorant of the Byzantine-Persian wars. Furthermoore, many cities in the Levant were still under Persian rebellion control, refusing to honor the peace between Byzantium and the established Persian Kingdom. Tourskin (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx for supporting, I think I'll get Kaegi next week when I have a week off. Wiki1609 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for articles on the battles of the Byzantine-Arab wars
I have some suggestions that I believe would lead to an improvement in these articles. I haven't used wikipedia in a long time, but please still respect my opinion :)

- I think the term 'Roman' should be avoided. In the bigger articles, like this one and Yarmuk this has been done but in some of the smaller articles this word is still commonly used. Both sides of this conflict would have thought of the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire and the term 'Byzantine' is a product of later historians. However these are historical articles and 'Byzantine' is the commonly accepted term for the Eastern Roman Empire of the Medieval period. Remember wikipedia is a populist source and the people reading these wikipedia articles might not have the same historical knowledge as the editors on this talk page and when they read 'Roman' then they might be confused into percieving the Byzantine armies as something resembling those of ancient Rome.

- Any sources which describe the logistical capabilities of 7th century Byzantium and the Arab armies would be helpful, this was an extended period of conquest, superior arab efficiency in movement, recruitment and organisation must have been important in their victories. I think that there hasn't been enough emphasis on the analysis of the logistics of this period because greater unity and organisation was one of the greatest arab advantages over the fragmented Byzantine Empire of the 7th century. The study of each army's capability could also contribute to the debate over troop numbers. One of the reasons the sources vary so greatly in their estimations is because it is very difficult to know just how many troops were involved. The Byzantine armies of this period would have been drawn from a great number of sources, including levied regional troops and numerous allies as well as the central field army. It is unlikely that many contemporaries knew exactly how many troops were in the employ of the Byzantine army and the arab army could not be counted easily either, thus making it difficult to accept the exact estimations of any primary source (although I don't doubt that both sides were aware of their relative strengths, ie. the arabs would have known they had less men than the Byzantines and roughly how large their army was). Military books such as 'Warfare in the Medieval World' by Brian Todd Carey, published in 2006, regularly use troop numbers drawn from logistical analyis, estimating what each army was capable of producing, rather than primary or secondary sources. Obviously OR needs to be avoided but I'm sure there are some good sources available. I think articles such as the battle of yarmouk should be extended to discussing the logistical capabilties of both Byzantine and Arab armies, both to add to the debate regarding troop numbers and further explain the reasons behind the Muslim victories.

Hera52 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All roads lead to WP:V
I know WP:Good faith and all, but c'mon. This simply has to be a bad joke, no? The saying is Latin, western, and English, not Arabic; and rather than source any Arabic use (which would still derive from its western origin), the accompanying tag suggests the saying is popular and intended as military strategy? No.... -LlywelynII (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Map
should be deleted or replaced with better one. As this is a GA article, this map is unacceptable. Regarding only to a smaller west part of the map, there are numerous mistakes. For example:
 * Croatia was kingdom at that time under Krešimir III of Croatia.
 * The map lists Zagreb in 1025 but the first ever recorded mention of that name dates to 1094.
 * Croatia was not over river Drava as presented here. Austria and Hungary a part of Croatia?
 * Zachlumia, Terbounia and Diokleja are way to west that they should be - Zadar in Zachlumia?
 * Border between Croatia and Serbia should be more to east, Serbia should be more to east, and so on....Kebeta (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine–Arab Wars → Arab–Byzantine Wars – First, I don't know if there is a rule to this effect and may be dead wrong, but I think that wars with compound names get named either alphabetically or depending on who "started" the conflict. In both cases, the Arabs should be first. Secondly, this form seems to be corroborated by usage in publications: 142 results for "Byzantine-Arab wars" vs. 587 results for "Arab-Byzantine wars" in GBooks, while in GScholar, the results are approx. the same: 21 for "Arab-Byzantine" and 23 for "Byzantine-Arab". Constantine  ✍  20:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Arab–Byzantine wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011231907/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011231907/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003322/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR
 * Added tag to http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/Justinian_II_Rhinotmetus
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011231907/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arab–Byzantine wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721060321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Roman Paelestina
The article mentions, a redlinked, "Roman Paelestina". Considering that the Roman province of Syria Palaestina was disestablished some 250/300 years before the events mentioned, is this referring to Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda or Palaestina Salutaris? Sotakeit (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)