Talk:Battle of Heliopolis

image
Should this image be added to the page? Remember 14:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the Roman-Sassanid War
This article is about a battle which occurred in 640, between Romans and Arabs, but it includes simply too much material on the preceding Roman-Sassanid conflict. As this is not its proper place (there are relevant articles where the subject can be elaborated), and only certain basic facts are needed, to the effect that both Romans and Persians were exhausted and the Arabs stepped in, I have (for the time being) commented out these superfluous parts. I do not edit them out completely, pending a discussion here. Regards, Cplakidas 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am open to any approach on the article, and I asked for your help, so if you feel the article contains too much information, I certainly accept that. Having said that, I wanted to outline my reasoning, so you could decide. I included the information on the previous Byzantine-Sassanid conflict because Amr used EXACTLY the same strategy and tactics mlitarily on the Byzantines, that Heraclius had used on the Sassanids! I found that fascinating, and I thought it was relevant, but again, I asked for your assistance, so you can decide. When Heraclius launched his last ditch desperate counter offensive, he went behind enemy lines, an overextened, overexpanded, overtaxed, enemy, and using lightning fast movement, attacked vital targets. He used a relatively tiny army to smash force after force before the Sassanids could mass sufficient men to overwhelm him. In Egypt, the Romans were faced with the perception that they grossly overtaxed the population - who would find in decades to come under the Umayyads that Roman taxes were mild in comparison -- and they were at the end of a long supply line from Constandinople. Thus, Amr saw the same situation that Heraclius had seen when he attacked the heart of the Sassanid Empire. It is not a perfect analogy of course, because Egypt was an Exarchate of the Roman Empire, but one could argue it was as close to a heartland to any Roman state that existed outside the capital, whether that capital be Rome, or Constandinople. The issues with religious persecution also differ, but the taxation issue was exactly the same! And Amr's military tactics were exactly the same as Heraclius's had been, using a small, mobile force to hit behind the lines, and only standing and fighting when he was ready to do so, on a battlefield of his own chosing - again, exactly as Heraclius had done. At any rate, that was why I included so much information on the prior conflict, (perhaps I did not make it clear enough that the correlation was what was vital), because militarily both commanders used exactly the same strategy and tactics, only a decade apart, and in each case, it brought the opponent to his knees. John1951 12:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm sorry if I "shocked" you by removing such a large part of your article, but I'll explain myself in more detail. You have a valid point in comparing the tactics and strategies of the two sides. This can very well be mentioned in an analysis, commenting on the flexibility of the Arab forces as opposed to the Byzantines (if I find some time, I'll provide some sourced info on Arab tactics from my books). But the extent on which the Byzantine-Sassanid conflict was mentioned in the article went far beyond a simple comparison of tactics or depiction of the "background", and totally outbalanced it. You had an article on a single battle, where more than half was taken up in detailing a war that had happened 20 years before, while the actual subject of the article took up a fraction. This was not only unnecessary, but also counterproductive in terms of comprehensibility for the "average" reader. In my opinion, the article could still do with some more condensing in the "Islamic Expansion begins" and the "Background" sections, and conversely, it needs more info in the sections on the battle itself (e.g. do we know what units participated on the Byzantine side?), and what preceded (Why did the Byzantines not react and meet the Arabs sooner? Did the Copts cooperate with the Arabs?) and what followed it. Also, since you're a new user, a couple of other observations I'd like to make: when citing a book in the text, always add a page number, so that it is subsequently verifiable. Use more wikilinks (so you don't need to provide explanations and context on everything in your article). Also, in terms of prose style, try to avoid repeating yourself in the text, and to be more concise. If you need any further help, I'll be glad to provide it. Cheers, and keep up the good work! :) Cplakidas 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, my goodness, you did not shock me, I simply wanted to know what I did wrong, so I did not repeat it. I sought your help, and am extremely grateful for it!  Your assistance is greatly appreciated!  I have been asking ArgosDad for editorial help on my new or rewritten articles, and I hoped I could impose on you for the same kind of help - which you have been very kind to give!  I understand fully what you are talking about, in going back and reviewing, I got carried away with reviewing the previous conflict.  I had to both grin and wince when I compared the amount of space I devoted to the Byzantine-Sassanid conflict to the article as a whole.  It was clearly too much!  While the strategy and tactics were exactly the same, I let myself get carried away in the amount of space devoted to explaining it.  (and obviously, off the subject, since I was not clear in what I was doing!)  I was trying to make it easier for the casual reader, but going off on such a huge tangent would not do so.  SO, I am very grateful for your help, and hope you won't mind if I ask you again.  As I said, ArgosDad has been great about editing my new work, but I don't want to be a nuisance.  Thanks again for your understanding, and your editing help.  I do fairly good research, but really need to work on my writing skills.  THANKS.  John1951 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Heliopolis or BATTLE OF BABYLON ??????
this article seem to be quite misleading, i fear that the events of the battle described in it are not of Battle of Heliopolis, the three dimensioned attack was carried out during the siege of Babylon not during the siege of helipolis. In fact all Muslim historians and early sources agree that heliopolis was captured with out much resistance, after a quick cavalry battle out side the city, Muslims laid siege to the city and few weeks later the city was captured and after Zubair scaled the walls with some of the picked soldiers and opened the gates. the siege of Babylon lasted for several months and its was at babylon that this three dimensioned attack was carried out, this action followed the entry of byzantines and Cyrus of Alexandria to negociate with muslims, which failed. and the city was captured in december 640.

i am waiting for responses... Mohammad Adil (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Heliopolis. 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/20070410125136/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/index2.html

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) 02:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute
Please discuss the content dispute here. , Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source (please see WP:WPNOTRS). You can cite those to verify your additions. You can learn how to add citations at WP:REFSTART. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 16:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)