Talk:Battle of Firaz

Sources are questionable because a white man didn't write them. Lol. Typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.143.216 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Army size
I dont think that army size was or should be that large in battle of firaz ! it was a border town and when whole of eastern central and westren iraq was being conquered by Khalid bin Walid, then there remian no reasion for persians to stay at firaz motion less, i mean after battle of muzayyah, sanni, and zumail... no persian army appeared in iraq to challenge the muslim authority there, the best reasion that can be given for it is that: it took time to concentrate new army from different garrisons through out the empire, if there was 150,000 soldiers at Firaz ( which is near modern days abu kamal in Syria) then why didn't persian emperor simply ordered them to attack and destory the muslim forces in iraq, he could very well do it soon after or during when Khalid's army was busy in destorying persian forces in muzzayh, zumail and sanni. From this i suppose that the persian army there must not be more then 10,000 along with its arab allies. The byzantine army on the other hand, at the garrison may be 12,000 ( as it use to be in different byzantine garrions in those days). The combine force must not be more then 20,000-30,000.

Mohammad Adil 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very unfortunate to see such coalition force figures. Although there is not much one can do, when the heavily depended on souce for this article is "The Sword of Allah." LOL - seems more like propaganda to me, but anyway that isn't important. When Khosrau II was fighting Heraclius (at a time when Persia was far wealthier and stronger) it usually summoned crack forces of up to 30,000-40,000 max. So these figures would have shrunk by the time of Yazdgerd III, and Byzantium would have probably been able to raise a comparable force. I can't see why the joint Roman/Persian force alongside Christian allies could have exceeded 40,000.--Arsenous Commodore 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Adil 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude why "lolz" for sowrd of Allah ... ???? have you ever read it ??? read it it will provide you a nice military tactics and strategies knowledge. Well, the author of the sowrd of Allah also argues and disagrees with the early souresc that the allied forces were so large and even he did'nt consider it to be a major or decisive battle, as it was only the "last" battle of the swift conquest of persians mesopotamia.

6 hundred thousand? thats a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering it was one of the last confrontations between the Persian Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate, I think it's reasonable to assume the Persians far outnumbered the Muslims in the battle. However, it would be helpful if an alternative source could be found to corroborate or discount any figures. In relation to Arvand's comment, the title is perhaps not the most scholarly of ones but it seems that the author went to a great deal to authenticate his sources {even though many were of the Muslim viewpoint} and even visited the battle grounds so I think the book does have some scholarly weighting.

POV
This article looks like Muslim propaganda to me. Two greatest powers in the Middle east reinforced by Christian Arabs defeated by much smaller force of Muslim nomads? The size of both Muslim and non-Muslim armies was probably far more closer to equal than stated in the article.

Isidoros47 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Get over the fact that a smaller Rashidun Army defeated the greater Byzantine/Persian armies through good leadership and religious fervor on the part of the Muslim combatants. Victory does not always lie in the strength of numbers.

The Byzantine and Persian were quite religious as well you know. They also have better technology and heavier troops. I too think the number are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.3.236 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I must also agree that whoever wrote this article has looked at a Islamic propagandist book. Ironically it is the only one cited. Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to field such a large army during this period when taking into consideration the sheer logistics of such an operation. A zero should be removed from that absolutely dubious number. Moreover this is not the way to write a scholarly article. USE MORE SOURCES THAT ARE MINIMALLY CREDIBLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.254 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any Byzantine (Roman) cronicle or otherwise source that mentions this battle? I find a difficulty accepting the Roman/Persian numbers given that, in this period, both empires had difficulty raising armies of this size, yet, here, the article seems to suggest that these huge forces were available to local Roman and Persian harrisons. Goliath74 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs a major overhaul. Misdemenor (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why I changed the 2 references to Morony and the "100k casualties"
In case someone doesn't look at the page history for my brief explanation, I'll give a slightly longer one here.

The references to Morony were, in my eyes, problematic when it comes to the claim of 100,000 dead Byzantines and Persians. On the page cited, Morony use the wording "Muslims are said [my emphasis] to have inflicted one hundred thousand casualties". Morony thus indicated that this is a rumour and the citation for this claim refers to al-Tabari. I have thus changed the 2 references to Morony which deal with the 100k Persian/Byzantine casualties to instead refer to Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings which is the actual source. I have likewise changed the wording in the article's body text to reflect that this (to me clearly inflated) claim is not the product of modern historiography, but of an Arab chronicle.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

u could take it as pinch of salt if you like, but unless there are another source that contradict it then this article cannot dismiss At Tabari report about 100k casualties of Sassanid in this battleAhendra (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We are still SERIOUSLY in need of better sources
As far as I can see, this article is still far too beholden to inflated claims from dubious sources. It seems that at least two large sections are copy/pasted from the pioneer Campaigns in Western Iraq source, or to put it more accurately: Witness Pioneer's entry titled Campaigns in Western Iraq. This is problematic as not only does Witness Pioneer entitle itself "A Virtual Islamic Organization" (http://witness-pioneer.net/), but its entry on Campaigns in Western Iraq contains no references and several clear POV statements, such as "The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms." It was this latter claim that alerted me to the copy/paste. Here's a comparison between the current version of the section in this wiki article entitled "The battle" (I've bolded the matching sections):
 * " Khalid gave the enemy the option to cross the Euphrates. As soon as the enemy had crossed the Euphrates, Khalid commanded the Muslim force to go into action. The united forces of the Persians and the Byzantines had the river at their back, and the position was similar to that at the battle of Mazar. At Firaz, Khalid adopted the same tactics as he had adopted at Mazar. As the front ranks of both the forces committed themselves in the fighting, Khalid fixed his enemy on either flank with the help of his rear wings. Making a swift lightning movement, the Muslims dashed for the bridge on the river, and succeeded in occupying it. The enemy was thus held in a pincer movement. The Muslims intensified the attack and closed the noose round the neck of the enemy. In the mortal conflict that ensued, the enemy soon lost the ground. The withdrawing forces of the Persians and the Byzantines jumped into the river in a state of horror or confusion whilst the Muslim forces would shoot arrows at the retreating soldiers. It was a bloody battle, with an Arab source claiming one hundred thousand Byzantine, Persian and Christian fallen.[3] The battle was soon over and Firaz, the last stronghold of Persian Mesopotamia, fell to the Muslims. The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms. [6]"

And the corresponding text from Witness Pioneer:
 * " The battle of Firaz. Khalid gave the enemy the option to cross the Euphrates. As soon as the enemy had crossed the Euphrates, Khalid commanded the Muslim force to go into action. The united forces of the Persians and the Byzantines had the river at their back, and the position was similar to that at the battle of Mazar. At Firaz, Khalid adopted the same tactics as he had adopted at Mazar. As the front ranks of both the forces committed themselves in the fighting, Khalid fixed his enemy on either flank with the help of his rear wings. Making a swift lighting movement, the Muslims dashed for the bridge on the river, and succeeded in occupying it. The enemy was thus held in a pincer movement. The Muslims intensified the attack and closed the noose round the neck of the enemy. In the mortal conflict that ensued, the enemy soon lost the ground. The withdrawing forces of the Persians and the Byzantines either jumped into the river in a state of horror or confusion or allowed themselves to be squeezed to death. It was a bloody battle, and over fifty thousand men of the enemy fell on the battleground. The battle was soon over and Firaz, the last stronghold of the Persians, fell to the Muslims. The battle of Firaz added further luster to the Muslim arms. "
 * (http://www.witness-pioneer.net/vil/Articles/companion/13_abu_bakr.htm)

Likewise, compare the wiki-section Khalid's oath:
 * " In the beginning of the battle of Firaz when the odds appeared to be against the Muslims, Khalid undertook an oath that if he was victorious, he would undertake pilgrimage to Mecca, the House of God. After the victory of Firaz, Khalid stayed at Firaz for some days and made the necessary arrangements for the administration of the territory. In January 634, while a garrison was kept at Firaz, orders were issued to the main Muslim army to return to Al-Hirah. Khalid stayed behind with the rear of the army. As the army moved forward on the road to Al Hirah, Khalid separated himself from the army, and took an unfrequented route to Mecca with a small escort. Khalid reached Mecca in time to perform the 'Hajj'. After performing the pilgrimage secretly and fulfilling his vow, Khalid and his party rode back to Al Hirah. Before the last contingent of the main army from Firaz had entered Hirah, Khalid was also there, as if he had been all the time with the rear guard. Although Khalid had taken pains to ensure that he was not recognized at Mecca, news was nevertheless carried to Abu Bakr that leaving his charge in Iraq, Khalid had visited Mecca incognito. When Khalid reached Al Hirah, he got a letter from Abu Bakr asking him not to indulge in such adventure again. [6]"

with Witness Pioneer:
 * "Khalid's pilgrimage to Makkah. In the beginning of the battle of Firaz when the odds appeared to be against the Muslims, Khalid undertook an oath that if he was victorious, he would undertake pilgrimage to Makkah, the House of God. After the victory of Firaz, Khalid stayed at Firaz for some days and made the necessary arrangements for the administration of the territory. In January 634 C.E., while a garrison was kept at Firaz, orders were issued to the main Muslim army to return to Al Hirah. Khalid stayed behind with the rear of the army. As the army moved forward on the road to Al Hirah, Khalid separated himself from the army, and took an unfrequented route to Makkah with a small escort. Khalid reached Makkah in time to perform the 'Hajj'. After performing the pilgrimage secretly and fulfilling his vow, Khalid and his party rode back to Al Hirah. Before the last contingent of the main army from Firaz had entered Hirah, Khalid was also there, as if he had been ail the time with the rear guard. Although Khalid had taken pains to ensure that he was not recognized at Makkah,news was nevertheless carried to Abu Bakr that leaving his charge in Iraq, Khalid had visited Makkah incognito. When Khalid reached Al Hirah, he got a letter from Abu Bakr asking him not to indulge in such adventure again. "

I'm sorry but this is just not good enough. Unfortunately, I'm not a medievalist or Islam specialist, not by a long shot, but I raise the issue of POV and reliable sources again in the hope that someone will improve this article.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The offending pages in the Battle section have been removed. As to Khalid's oath, I mentioned that it is a legend. Does that solve the issue? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source
Despite The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed: His Life and Campaigns, A.I. Akram, being a questionable source, I find on page 209: No where do I see 15,000 Muslims, or the statement that Khalid faced a force "ten times larger than Khalid's army. Therefore, since the presented information is original research and the source is questionable, I will be removing said source and information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "But it was not in Khalid's nature to sit back and take his ease. It was in his nature to be discontented with past achievements, ever seeking fresh glory and striving towards distant horizons. The Persian capital seemed reluctant to slake his thirst for battle by sending more armies against him so it was a pleasure for Khalid to be reminded that a strong Persian garrison still existed on the Euphrates at Firaz (near present day Abu Kamal-see Map at endpaper), which marked the frontier between the empires of Persia and Eastern Rome. This was the only Persian garrison left west of Ctesiphon; and since he had been instructed by the Caliph to "fight the Persians", Khalid decided to eliminate this force also. He marched to Firaz. On arrival here in the first week of December 633 (end of Ramadhan, 12 Hijri), Khalid found two garrisons- a Persian and a Roman. These garrisons, representing empires which in the preceding two decades had fought each other in a long and costly war, now united to battle the Muslims, and were joined in this purpose by many local Christian Arab clans.For more than six weeks nothing happened. The two armies stood and glared at each other across the Euphrates, the Muslims on the south bank and the Romans and Persians on the north bank, neither side willing to cross the river. Then, on January 21, 634 (the 15th of Dhul Qad, 12 Hijri) Khalid was able to entice the allies across the Euphrates onto his side; and their crossing was hardly complete when he attacked them with his usual speed and violence. Thousands of them were slain before the rest found safety in flight.This was neither a great nor a decisive battle; nor was the enemy force a very large one, as some early historians have stated. (No Persian strategist in his senses would leave a powerful garrison in a peaceful frontier town like Firaz while Central and Western Iraq was being lost and Ctesiphon itself was threatened.) Its importance lies only in the fact that it was the last battle in a brilliant campaign."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Firaz. 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/20041210000537/http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm to http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO FIX NAME
there's misspelling in the english name of the battle it should be 'Battle of Firadh' not 'Battle of Firaz' since the end of the arabic name, "ض " should be spelled 'dh' not 'z' all who can read arabic will agree with this Ahendra (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2929 (UTC)

I made adjustments
I don't know why you deleted what I edited and added Even with sources This is a historical article and not to please Iranians return my edit now: soucre=

1001 Battles That Changed the Course of History,R. G. Grant - Page 108
 * January 634 j The Battle of Firaz was a decisive encounter in the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. It was fought between the forces of the Muslim Arab commander Khalid ibn al-Walid and a much larger army...* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.231.131 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Author has no expertise in the subject and his work (which seems to be a very basic, general work) does not seem to be cited by any reliable, academic source. I don't have the time to find the primary source right now, but it looks like the author simply directly quoted the very numbers mentioned in Islamic text(s). Which are not to be trusted, because of WP:PSTS and other things; "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars." - Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, Daryaee, page 37. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)