Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk/Archive 1

Ridiculous!
This is one of the most outrageous POV articles I have ever read! Can someone with just a little INSIGHT on history writing, and not blinded by quasi-legendary tall-tale ranting please get this thing in shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.22.26 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
The respective strengths of the combatants in this battle should be reconsidered or perhaps footnoted with a suitable caveat. My reasons for this suggestion are as follows:

The most recent research on the battle of Yarmouk takes into consideration for the first time many real-world logistical concerns that helped to determine the limits of the individual combatant strengths. (Sources like Gibbon's 18th century masterpiece, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, though suitably revered by historians, should no longer be considered the authoritative account of aspects of Byzantine history due to advances in the understanding of the military and social workings of the Byzantine Empire and a more realistic view of military history in general.)

In respect to the historiography of the battle it must be said that the battlefield strength estimations of both Muslim and Byzantine sources leave much to be desired. None of the sources typically utilized (the chronicles of Theophanes and Nicephorus as well as several Eastern Christian sources for the Byzantine and many Muslim sources, notably al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, and al-Baladuri) are contemporary with the events they describe. By the time most of the sources for the battle were set down, legend had crept into the popular conception of the clash and influenced the writers' guesstimates.

Religion also played a major part in both Byzantine and Muslim recollections of the battle. Muslim sources exaggerated the size of the Byzantine army in order to magnify their accomplishment in destroying it, as well as to lend credence to their understanding that the victory was divinely inspired. Byzantine sources exaggerated Muslim strength in order to minimize the humiliation of their defeat or to illustrate the displeasure of God with the path the Byzantine Empire, or Heraclius in particular, had taken.

Having said all that about the all-around unreliability of the raw sources with which historians work, the current general consensus, as far as a consensus can be reached on such a poorly understood period of history, is that the two armies were not nearly as unevenly matched as the current Wikipedia article suggests. Evidence for this point of view rests mainly on a synthesis of the source impressions, on the respective state of affairs in the bases of operations of both sides, and on the logistic capabilities of each side.

An excellent treatment of the source materials and the general impossibility of ever reconciling the many different traditions surrounding the battle can be found in Donner's valuable "The Early Islamic Conquests." The reconstruction of the campaign that retains the most credibility when the several traditions concerning Yarmouk are compared is that of ibn-Ishaq and al-Waqidi. This reconstruction places the Byzantine army at 100,000 strong and the Muslim force numbering roughly 24,000. Donner offers little personal comment on the numbers, apart from an admission early-on that the sources diverge so widely in their estimations as to make any confident assertions of strengths impossible.

On page 59 of "The Byzantine Wars" by John Haldon, the author indicates that a Byzantine force of much more than 20,000 is unrealistic for the conditions in the Byzantine Empire at the time, especially concerning the religious conflicts and unrest in newly reconquered Syria. He goes on to state that the Muslim force can be considered inferior in size to the Byzantine army, if only due to the tactics employed by Muslim leaders at Yarmouk.

On page 32 of "Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria" David Nicolle states that at least half of the Empire's 50,000 battle-available troops were tied down in garrisons or deployed to protect strategic communication lines. He goes on to say that Byzantine expeditionary forces were severely limited during the chaotic 7th century and could have only reached a strength of 30,000 soldiers at most.

Walter Kaegi's biography "Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium" states on page 242 that the Byzantine army (including Arab allies) at Yarmouk probably totaled 15-20,000 soldiers, while still enjoying a numerical superiority over the Muslims.

On page 131 of "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" Kaegi goes on to state that it is doubtful that the Byzantine army exceeded 20,000 men and that the Muslims were outnumbered. His comments on the sources seem to be generally shared among modern specialists and deserve to be quoted here. "It is not worth even attempting to determine the respective probability of any veracity in the various Christian and Muslim traditions. Their numbers simply bear no relation to what military historians can accept as plausible for this period for Byzantine troops." (page 131)

In conclusion I must say that the estimates of the Wikipedia article on the battle of Yarmouk are misleading in the extreme. According to the rough consensus of the historians I have here quoted, a much more accurate illustration of the numbers would be something like 30,000-40,000 troops for the Byzantines and perhaps 7,500-24,000 for the Muslims. I apologize for the length of this post but it was difficult for me to let the article remain unremarked-upon in the light of such a preponderance of evidence suggesting more accurate figures. - Drungarios 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The numbers in the article seem to large.


 * While most scholars agree that the Byzantine force outnumbered the Arab, it probably did not exceed 20,000, making the Arab force maybe 10,000-15,000.


 * Walter Kaegi in his excellent book "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests" puts the Byzatine figure for the battle at 15,000-20,000 (p.131), though he does admit, in a footnote, that Fred McGraw Donner's (from his book "Early Islamic Conquests") figure of 20,000-40,000 for the Byzatnine is: "conceivable, but definitely in the high side of what is reasonable for Byzantine troops in that impoverished Heraclian era." (p.131). - MYLO 03:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the number is true because Abu Bakr (Moslem king at that time) sent three (3) armies; each one had 3500 men after that he aid them and make each army 7500 all the 3 armies are united in this battle and Khalid ibn al-Walid came from Iraq with 9000 men to aid and led them and Acrima (leader) came with 6000 men and 3000 join them from another leader so total about 40,000 men and some Arabic references said they were 46,000 any way they lost 3000 men in this battle...


 * Disagree
 * I disagree with the person above me.....
 * he wrote that most scholars agree that the Byzantine force outnumbered the Arab, it probably did not exceed 20,000, making the Arab force maybe 10,000-15,000.


 * if it was so then it must not be such a large scale battle.keep in mind that this battle results in the final withdrawal of Byzantine empire from Syria. More over if Byzantine were just to put 20,000 army in the plain of Yarmuk then there should be no use for Muslims to left there all conquered areas to gathered in the plain of Yarmuk. Keep in mind, they left Emessa, Damascus and many other cities that they conquered before the battle.


 * You also wrote figure of 20,000-40,000 for the Byzantine is: "conceivable, but definitely in the high side of what is reasonable for Byzantine troops in that impoverished Heraclian era."


 * If Haraclius was to put only 40,000 troops in Yarmuk then how much troops he would have deployed in the following " major " battles fought before Yarmuk..


 * Battle of Maraj-al-rabah
 * Battle of Basra city
 * Battle of Ajnadain
 * Battle of Yakosa
 * Battle of Maraj as-Safar
 * Battle of Damascus (Conquest of Damascus)
 * Battle of Sanita al-Uqab
 * Battle of Maraj al-Dibaj
 * Battle of Abu al-Quds
 * Battle of Fahl
 * Skirmish at Amman
 * Battle of Damascus (Defence of the city )
 * Battle of Homs (Conquest of Emessa)


 * ..going according to these, estimation may be " 5000-10,000 " .... ????
 * but it was not so.


 * Byzantine army's strength 
 * There is a difference of opinion about the strength of both armies at the Battle of Yarmuk. As frequently happens in such cases, there has been a tendency to show ones own strength as less than it was and the enemy strength as more than it was.
 * Tabari, in one place, (Vol. 2, p. 598, where he gives his main account of the battle) shows it as 200,000 men. Elsewhere (Vol. 3, p. 74) he quotes Ibn Ishaq as saying that it was a 100,000 including 12,000 Armenian and 12,000 Christian Arabs.,
 * Balazuri (p. 140) gives the Roman strength as 200,000.,
 * Waqidi (p. 107) exaggerates it to a fantastic figure, but his estimate of the Roman who used chains (30,000, p. 139) seems very reasonable.
 * Edward Gibbon(Vol. 5, p. 325), taking his material from early Byzantine sources, gives the Roman strength as 140,000 including 60,000 Christian Arabs.


 * There is obvious exaggeration on both sides, but less so on the Western side, because the Byzantine would know their own strength better than their opponents would. We should dismiss the figure of 200,000 as incorrect. Such a vast army could not possibly have been assembled on one battlefield; and the problems of the concentration, movement, supply and feeding of such a force, with the relatively primitive communications of the time, would be such that any staff officer entrusted with the task would promptly resign his commission!.


 * On the Western side, too, there is an attempt to minimise the Roman strength, especially the European part of it-partly perhaps for reasons of racial pride. It is absurd to say that the Arab section of the army amounted to 60,000 men. Just the Arabs of Syria could hardly have produced such a numerous army.


 * Allowing for exaggeration on both sides, I believe that the Roman army was 150,000-160,000 strong, as Byzantine sources put this to be 140,000 and Muslim sources to be 200,000 respectively.


 * Muslim's army strength
 * Tabari in one place (Vol. 2, p. 592) gives it as 40,000 plus a reserve of 6,000.
 * Ibn Ishaq says that the Muslims numbered 24,000-this against 100,000 Romans.
 * Balazuri (p. 141) gives the same as ibn ishaq.
 * Waqidi (p. 144) places the Muslim strength at 41,000.


 * From all these reliable Muslim references, I come to roughly a strength of 40,000 Muslims in the battle. In light of above given references, I will edit the strength of both Muslims and Byzantine to be 40,000 and 150,000-160,000 respectively. -

Yarmouk
Muslim historians have Muslims at 40,00 and Byzantine at 140,000.Byzantine sources have Muslims at almost 200,000 and Byzantine at about 140,000.The Byzantine army at this battle consisted of about 60,000 Christian Arabs which should be noted.This would be a staff officer entrusted with the task would promptly resign his commission.

Muslims historians have the Muslim strength to be 40,000 not 4,000. Only Ibn Ishaq had it 24,000 against 100,000 Byzantine army. And, Byzantine sources placed their strengths with 60,000 Christian Arabs to be 140,000 (quoted by Edward Gibbon), while most of the Muslim sources placed Byzantine strengths to be 200,000. - Mohammad Adil 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Think again!
What I say now! Going according to Mr Fred Donner, Mr John Haldon, Mr Walter Emil Kaegi, Mr David Nicolle we have to rewrite the history of the world. It is very easy to say that works like that of Gibbon and other ancient historians are no longer can be considered authentic.

May David Nicolle and other ( so called historians for me! ) historians didn't realize that placing Muslims strength to be about 25,000 and Byzantine strength to be 50,000 will give some difficulties, and one will have to re-arrange or may be reconstruct the battle tactics of both sides mainly at Muslims side.

Walter E. Kaegi says it was 15,000-20,000 troops of Byzantine empire and adds that they were still more then muslims. my question is how ?..... i know there will be or there can be no answer of my "how" !..... Muslims know there strength better then others, ancient Muslim historian Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi al-Aslami (750-827) in his book Al-Maghazi mentioned the strength of both side to be 240,000 and 41,000 respectively for Byzantines and Muslims.

Mr Lieutenant-General Agha Ibrahim Akram, who remained Chief Instructor at the Command and Staff College, Quetta Pakistan he in his book Allah ki Talwar (sword of Allah) also have disagreed from these strengths consult this for the whole stuff .[No longer available] This site is English translation of his famous book on the biography of legendary Muslim general Khalid ibn al-Walid and most of the early Muslim conquest (the most remarkable conquests) were take under his command.

Now, coming towards my point. What I says is that placing Muslim strength to be only 7,500-24,000 is nothing but a blunder (for me at least), one should know that the most authentic books of early Muslims military history are all in Arabic language and it is not a easy task to understand the Arabic before learning this vast language,


 * 1) Ibn Hisham: Seerat-un-Nabawi
 * 2) Waqidi: Maghazi Rasulillah
 * 3) Ibn Sad: Tabaqat-ul-Kubara
 * 4) Ibn Qutaibah: Al Ma'arif
 * 5) Al-Yaqubi: Tareekh-ul-Yaqubi
 * 6) Al-Baladhuri: Futuh-ul-Buldan

These are the books considered by the Muslim historians to be the master piece of Islamic history, these books have mainly narrations narrated directly by the sons of the soldiers participated in the campaigns. Later historians like ibn al-Khalidun arranged them date wise adding his own comments. It was a little description of the Islamic treasure of Islamic military history.

Ok, one thing should be clear that in Islamic history no battle is recorded in that much detail then the battle of Yarmuk in Syria. Placing Muslim army under 7,500-24,000 will do some thing wrong, i.e., according to historians among 40,000 Muslims there were 10,000 cavalry which includes the best part of Islamic army which was named by early historians as Muta'harik-Taliea i.e., mobile guard which was 4000 mounted warriors.

If the strength is may be 24000 then as early historians says that one third of the army was cavalry then according to 24000 strength the cavalry comes to be 6000, which further creates other blunders, because according to narrations 4000 (mobile guard) was reserve under Khalid ibn Walid's command and 2000 horse men were deployed to the wings and centre. now see, 6000 cavalry according to you and 4000 mobile guard according to early historians, which is correct now ? if cavalry was around 6000 then what was the exact size of mobile guard the best part of Islamic army of Rashidinun caliphs.

more over having only 6000 cavalry it would be impossible for the Khalid bin al-Walid to block the northern way of withdrawal for the Byzantine troops, on 6th day it is in narrations that Khalid gathered whole of his cavalry which was now around 8000  and start his final attack routing the left flank guard and then the whole Byzantine cavalry.

more over it is specially present in narrations that the army gathered at Yarmuk was the largest Muslim army ever gathered, keep in mind in the Battle of Tabouk 30,000 Muslims gathered to fight from Christian Arabs and Byzantine emperor (though this battle never fought see its article at Wikipedia), thus making it clear that Muslims army was greater then 30,000. 7,500 is a careless figure, think for a decisive battle caliph was going to provide only 7,500 ? in conquest of Mecca in 629 A.D 10,000 Muslims were there in the army which entered mecca from 4 sides and this army was purely of only migrants of Mecca (Muslims) and Muslims of Medina. Khalid ibn al-Walid entered Iraq with 18,000 army for the invasion of iraq.

I know now it is very difficult to imagine these large numbers of armies and it is now have became tradition to claim exaggeration on such figures at least they are more reliable then the ancient Greek's figures that place army at Guagemela to be half million some say 1 million some say 250,000.

therefore I suggest that writing such figures here will gonna give nothing but will make history more complex and difficult to understand. One more thing, it seems funny when some one says that Byzantine army cant be so large because of unbalance in the politics of the 7th century's Byzantine empire. When according to Edward Gibbon Byzantine sources him self have placed there strength to be 140,000 then what can modern historians can do ? they can add only "edits" and critical remarks on the strengths making no sense, (they were not there at that time though :D...). Byzantine knew their strengths very well then al-Waqidi, Bulazuri or Mr David Nicolle..... !, but I still agree that there are still chances of exaggerations in them but to little extant not to that much level that instead of 50,000 they will write it to be 200,000..... !

i suggest that strengths should be the same as these early as authentic historians suggest or estimates or narrates from the direct sources of the respective sides.for the satisfaction and knowledge of the reader at foot notes the modern estimated strength should be written, it is because if we write the modern estimated strength in the real place then it will do nothing but make reader confuse about history as still there is no prove that these modern estimated strengths are real or not may be the ancient historians didn't had exaggerations in them or may be they had it in them, nothing can be said for sure. I am going to re-edit it. Sorry of this long lasting post but it was necessary a apologize for my English grammar and spellings. - Mohammad Adil 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Article
I am assembling a new article with day to day comprehensive account of this battle. The article will have the following headings, also including images of the tactical movements of both armies on each day.
 * Background - the discription of the background of the battle,,,,etc etc
 * The Battle - arrangements of armies,geography of battle field..etc etc
 * Day–1
 * Day–2
 * Day–3
 * Day–4
 * Day–5
 * Day–6
 * Aftermaths

I will add references in it on every important tactic, but references will be mainly from the early Muslims historians because this battle is explained only by Muslim historians as it was a decisive Muslim victory. I will also add the available references from Edward Gibbon's book The Fall of the Holy Roman Empire.

As now also there is dispute of strengths of armies of both sides there fore the foot notes will be remain same giving modern estimated figures of armies.further reading stuff and external links will remain same. article will be neutral and unbiased. Mohammad Adil 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk
In the battle of Yarmouk Roman emperor Heraclius gathered a large army of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Armenians. If the editor of this article is respectful enough under the combatants no Roman Byzantine empire because the Romans weren't fighting and for the strength in order like: greeks syrians mesopotamians armanians ________                          200,000

NOT QUIET
The byzantine empire at that time wasnt that big at that time get this they say the muslims at there largest was at that battle ya right!When they went to constantinople how much did they have about 200,000 muslims and lost if we were just talking about the romans we should all agree that they are always outnumbered not to mention when they went for vienna in italy that was there last stop they totaly lost with the arabs having a bigger force against the romans.A fast sum up up these wars byzantine empire wins the war.what do you have to say to that mohammed adil.

I didn't really get what you want to say dear ! are you relying victory over the strength ?..... grow up it is not the matter of strangth of the forces but it depends upon the tactics used and the strategy made by the commanders of both sides.No matter how large the army is, the army which won just proves it's skills. and what i said in my last post, you get it totally wrong ! what i said was that in Battle of yermuk 40,000 muslims army was the largest army gathered up to that time.only upto that time, keep this in your mind. soon after the battle of yermuk, in late 636 A.D 45,000 muslims army gathered at Qadassiyah for the decisive battle against persian empire, then that army became the largest muslim army ever gathered in those days, but this record of strength was later broken by the muslim forces went for the conquest of north africa in the time of third Rasidune Caliph Usman....and the series goes on.... in the both sieges of constantinopole muslims army again broke the record of the strength.these records were in camparision with the muslims armies gathered before that.like in battle of Siffain (civil war in 657 A.D ) 120,000 syrian muslims gathered to fight 4th rashidune caliph Ali who had army of 90,000 arabian and iraqi muslims thus broking every record of muslims strengths, this recorde was later broken by the muslim army at the 2nd siege of constantinopole.Now happy ? is it clear now what i wanted to say in my that post ?????

Mohammad Adil 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

historians
some historians believe that the battle including the arab allies were just 10,000-15,000 that would mean the byzantines were outnumbered.

Thats totally unbeliveable ! In conquest of Mecca in 629 A.D 10,000 muslims were there with prophet mohammad (pbuh) to conqure mecca, and they were only the habitants of Madinah and the muslim imigrants of Mecca, Thay made the strangth of 10,000 (keep in mind the exaggrations that came in the history are due to the rivals like Muslims Vs Byzantines or Muslims vs persian empire, here were only muslims and no one from mecca came out for a real fight except that of a group of 50 kinghts who later withdraw to wards red sea to went to eithopia therefore there is no chance of exaggration in it as there were no rivals no army to fight against muslims at all).Now the writer above is saying that romans were 10,000-15,000 but still outnumbered which is impossible. How impossible, lets analyse. if romans were 15,000 then muslims strength would probably come around 7000-8000. Now think that did caliph was fool enough to send only his 8000 troops for the conquest of syria the stronghold of byzantines ...???? at yermuk byzantine army had slaves,armenians,christian arabs,greeks that together can easily make up the strength above 150,000, keeping in mind the strength of syrian muslims in 657 A.D civil war against the Caliph Ali , they were 120,000 if only syrians can do this then why cant the 4 nations together can make up this large army ???? politics cant effect the size of army.

As far as the modern historians are concern then one have to admit it that it is now have became nearly a fashion of modern historians to make the strength of both sides less then recorded in "authantic" sources of history, they ignore the fact that changing the strength could result in erros which could lead to complete rewriting of the militery history.

Mohammad Adil 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia
wikipedia says the army of the byzabtines were 140,000-160,000 and the muslims were 40,000 and the casualties for the arabs were 400 where does that come from?

What ? muslims casualties = 400 ...???? dear it is writen 4000 casualties after 6 days of battle, read it once again ! more over you are woundering from where these numberes have came then go and read the above heading Numbers in it go to my post in which i have given all the refferences from where this data has been taken ok. Again the byzantine sources are not in detail about this battle, muslim sources have the day to day acount of this battle including about each and every move and tactic, this is probably this was the greatest victory muslims got in any battle upto so on.

Mohammad Adil 12:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ignorance
Here are mistakes made by certain people lets start with wikipedia.If we were to stick with something in the article you would leave it and not keep changing it which just proves what kind of place this is to look up history.What is this history or a worldly debate?

discussion on mohammed adil
when people ask in this battle are you relying victory over strength and it depends on the tactics and strategy and the army which won proves its skill is totally your could be right here ok,but that is totally your opinion.Your last post you said 30,000 now its 40,000 how immature you are to say dear lol.dont lie and switch things around.In both sieges of constantinople the muslims did not break the record of strength not even by comparison would you like to discuss that?the byzantines in constantinople in the first siege didnt have more that probably 30,000 and the muslims came with how much like almost 200,000 make sense.Like I said before if wikipedia doesnt want to tell the truth and let people look at that even thoe they wernt against the roman byzantines they can believe a lie.When i said some believe some historians believe the byzantine army to be 10,000-15,000 you say thats unbelievable i think your just sticking up for your religion and you say dont be biast and whatever why does wikipedia have listen to you?If you romans were 15,000 you say the muslims were about 7,000-8,000 dont lower by comparison to be like the muslims had to be outnumbered like there the chosen ones lol to make everyone think the muslims had to be that way the byzantines or in wikipedia the roman(byzantine)empire which it isnt.

What is really insulting.To the romans would be atleast writing in the strength to be like:

syrians greeks armanians mesopotamians

to be clear that it wasnt the romans even mohammed adil can agree with that because he said 150,000 was that.Wikipedia still has the the source coming from a muslim which is ok why not share both to let people decide for them selves what they want to believe why only show one?Now thats a little unbelievabe unfair to let people think rome isnt as good as it is.It is the worlds greatest civilization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.174 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

editor
this editor has no brain

Neither you.

final report for for everyones equal opinion
out of all of the debate that has been going on who said what on either the byzantine or the muslims it would be not just fair but right to accept the existance of both sides to say that they both have equal thoughts over a 14 hundred year period to make the strength and casualties unknown here!Wheather which believes is right or wrong no one knows at this point its basically come down to theory choosing which at this point clearly this has been an issue but there is so much I can do.I have done my research i dont know about the rest but here is a ducument that can show you that the romans werent there to battle again this is only coming from one truthful sight http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/yarmuk.html

If the editor has read this he would mark in the strength box to put in order the truth and change the title to non roman byzantine empire

sure
this would change outcome for the arabs to woold it not.never the less the article speaks truth.Indeed the romans were not there ok then in the so called box you say it should be marked who was there.for the arabs the casualties are unknown to me as well as there strength what i have read most sources say it was approximatly 100,000-200,000 few muslim historians have it way less in this battle i dont no why?

My dear friend, dont act like a child over this matter, i knew it that Romans were not there the army was of armenians, slaves,russians,christian arabs,greeks and other europian people, i have already said that i am composing a completely new article of the batle in which i have mentioned it,so stay cool, my article is on it's way to completion with two or three days it will be here, more over the current article is not mine, i didn't write it, nor i made that info-box out there, when i first time saw that article it was writen there "Byzantine"

Mohammad Adil 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

wait friend !

you may not know that there was Eid fastival celebrated by muslims from 31-12-2006 to 2-1-2007

therefore it is late, i am still working over it. may be just in few hours it will be here.

Mohammad Adil 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, The new article
Now here is the new article, it describs the battle in detail, not in detail but i guess in great detail. Mohammad Adil 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great
I am pleased with the article and i appreciate your hard work.I still think there is one problem the numbers and casualties because this is still from only one source!How did you fix the article your self how are you in charge?

enough
If you dont want to you dont have to you've done enough work thanks for that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.137 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

English?
This article does not read as though it was written by an English speaker. Furthermore it does not have the air of an encyclopaedic article - it seems more like the regurgitation of quasi-historical Muslim tradition. And some of the details are absolutely outrageous - the numbers are surely inaccurate - again they sound more like Muslim tradition than serious history. Could a native English speaker with a historian's knowledge of the period re-write this completely please?

Really
Can you explain here how you would get the number figures and how you would describe this battle in your own words then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.20 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Russians in the Byzantine army???
How exactly did the Russians find themselves fighting in Syria in 636? Traveled back in time with a time machine? That's the only way I can think of, since the Russians do not appear in history until the ninth century or at the very earliest the late eighth...

The entire article is very badly written, with a whole lot of innaccuracies in fact.It looks as if it was written by an overenthusiastic teenager, who just started copying information from a medieval writer, without bothering to crosscheck his sources or see what modern historians have to say about it... Please,please,please someone bring this article to some level of credibility - it's too important a historical event to just leave it like this....--Padem 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

man what to do woth modern history ????? if medvial history say that 2+2=4 then will modern hsitoy say that 2+2=3.9 ?????? no then dont poke your nose in the matter that you cant understand sir !

these facts were rechecked by modern muslim historian lieutanent general agha ibrahim akram (late). i know you will not belive him saying his book was bais towards muslims, but thats a fact man, when muslims won the battle then every source will seem to be bais towards muslims !

more over, dear open the windows of your mind ! mr.edward gibbon said that russians were present there not any muslim source, and the above mentioned writer copied it from his book. more over russions of russian fedration were not there, but people of russian ethnic were there ! now suppose if in the battle of ajmair (fought between mehmood ghaznavi and prithviraj chohan ) some source say indians from west punjab made up the army ! you then come there crying that no they were not indians they were pakistani (as west punjab is part of pakistani from 1947), but this is a fact that people of west punjab even of pakistan have indian ethnicity. Mohammad Adil 06:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Where did Gibbon say Russians were present?  Anyway, your example doesn't make sense.  It would be ridiculous to talk about Pakistani ethnicity or nationality prior to 1947, but that's exactly the point.  "Russia" as a distinct state was created in Eastern Europe, probably with Scandinavian roots, sometime between the 9th and 12th centuries.  Talking about "Russians" in 636 doesn't make any sense. --Saforrest 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixup
This new result happen to be more accurate but does not tie in with the casualty rate?

Battle
battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.124 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

wtf...
Hello,

This article is just crap. I see in this discussion that the original writer of this article doesn't want to admit he is using unreliable and outdated sources. The comment of Drungarios 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC) pretty much sums up what I could say as a History-student. I don't know your degree of knowledge Mohammad adil, but if you would have read some scientific articles on military history you'd understand that armies of 100,000 men for this (or any pre-modern) time are highly exceptional and only attained at the peak of power of states.

Drungarios' comment and the numbers he cites should be the base for a new (scientific) article, not one based solely on primary sources by an amateur.

Please rewrite the whole thing, I'll edit the numbers to the more realistic ones from Nicolle and others.

Wiki1609 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ..............

i think this is enough, its peak of unfair attitude towards the islamic history, people who come i dont know from where claiming to know islamic history more then the muslim !!!!! i have the real sources, i have the real stuff, then from where you have got the stuff which you claim that its true. you people remian silence on the alexanders wars that were fought even 800 years before the islamic battles. there they say 5 million and you keep cool, here when i state 160,000 you got itch in your ass, go give me refference to some authuntic source (as i have been giving you from my 1st post) then say some thing here, i am tired of this sucked discussion here. keep your scientific sources with you, they may have place in literature but have nothing to do woth history. when muslim sources say it was 200,000 and byzantine sources say it was 140,000 then what problem you have ? ok may muslim sources have dont some exaggration but what about byzantine sources ????? they too say it was more then 100,000 i.e 140,000 now dont coem untill with authantic source. Mohammad Adil 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sigh...
i think this is enough, its peak of unfair attitude towards the islamic history, people who come i dont know from where claiming to know islamic history more then the muslim !!!!! i have the real sources, i have the real stuff, then from where you have got the stuff which you claim that its true. you people remian silence on the alexanders wars that were fought even 800 years before the islamic battles. there they say 5 million and you keep cool, here when i state 160,000 you got itch in your ass, go give me refference to some authuntic source (as i have been giving you from my 1st post) then say some thing here, i am tired of this sucked discussion here. keep your scientific sources with you, they may have place in literature but have nothing to do woth history. when muslim sources say it was 200,000 and byzantine sources say it was 140,000 then what problem you have ? ok may muslim sources have dont some exaggration but what about byzantine sources ????? they too say it was more then 100,000 i.e 140,000 now dont coem untill with authantic source. Mohammad Adil 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get the point do you? Most of your sources are PRIMARY sources, meaning they need further study to reveal their factual information. And how much you would like it to be, this has nothing to do with Islam vs Byzantine or anything, you are just giving false information to people that want to know about the Battle of Yarmuk. Please stop crying everyone is against Islam, because historians are interested in all civilizations and religions, and since this is a historic subject it deserves a scientific and historically correct article.

And I missed your stupid comment above : "if medvial history say that 2+2=4 then will modern hsitoy say that 2+2=3.9 ??????" The point is that medieval history says 2+2=3.9, where modern historians look at the context and show it can't be anything else than 2+2=4. Thats exactly how authors like Nicolle tone down the Byzantine numbers, because there can only have been a certain amount of troops available.

Now a question to you: if the Byzantines have 50,000 units in the whole Middle-Eastern region, how can they suddenly appear with an army of 200,000?

(Answer: they can't).

Wiki1609 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And PS: Edward Gibbon lived in the 18th century, so his work can be considered outdated and his sources only limited.

............ i have got what you wanted to say man !

ok let me come to point, you said byzantine had 50,000 units then how did suddenly came 200,000 to fight against muslims, 1st of all tell me the source saying byzantine had 50,000 forces there ? give me the byzantine source not the claim of your david nicole etc etc. any ways if there may be 50,000 byzantine forces then 200,000 didnlt came from underground, read the "background" heading of the article you will find it out ! they were gathered fromm all over the byzantine empire which was about the size of USA and had a nice number of population. only for "romans" it would be really difficult to put under arms such a huge army but the army at yermuk consist of franks russians armenians romans christian arabs greeks etc etc.....now it seems not very impossible.i know 200,000 are impossible to handle therefore i copied the estimation by A.I Akram who says that it may be between 140,000 to 160,000 i think this size is not very huge ! or do you think it to be huge still ????? i will be waiting for your reply in which you will be suppose to mention the authantic source saying that 50,000 byzantine troops were present in syria. yes by the way i am not using the primary source but getting my history from them, and i have wrote the article after modifying them, these modifications were not mine, i am not so great ! A.I Akram the ony person to visit the battefield at syria wrote it he was a lecturer at command and staff college quetta pakistan( soldiers from all over the world come here for higher militewry studies) in 1964 A.D and start his visit to middle east from 1966-1969 A.D and wrote the book "sowrd of Allah" he was not a religious scholar so he may mention exaggrations there, his book was reffered to staff college as one of the book of militery history and tactics. he in his book have copied from byzantine source saying that there were 140,000 byzantine troops there at yermuk where as muslim sources (surely they have exaggration no history is empty of exaggration) mention it from 200,000 to 240,000 Mohammad Adil 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

-

Hi, I didn't mean to say I'm convinced the Byzantines had 50,000 soldiers, I just meant to explain that there are certain limits that scholars have found out. They give an indication that the Byzantines and Muslims must have had more than x and cannot have had more than y troops (because of logistics and mainly finance). Most of these find the number y far below the 160,000 or something you cling on to. I still think Drungarios' comment on numbers should be the base for new numbers of troops involved, he obviously gathered all scientific information he could find and these numbers seem reasonable.

Another thing, I think you are reasoning in the wrong direction, when you say the Byzantines did not use strictly Roman troops but mostly foreigners/vassals and that therefore 200,000 doesn't seem a large figure. If they had used mainly Romans this would have meant they used levies of some kind drawn from the population, the large amount of foreigners and units from vassal states indicates to a large use of mercenaries however. Here comes the point: mercenaries cost a lot of money, money that was most likely not available for the Emperor looking at the Byzantine situation. How can a state that has been near bankrupted from the wars with the Persians suddenly buy a >100,000 strong army of mercenaries? Mercenaries would be the only way out of the 50,000 troop limit Nicolle states. And I do think Nicolle and Osprey can be considered reliable, they are not scientific but I think their sources are. They just write for a different public than most historians.

And although your other (and main?) source for this is from a respected person, you should remember Akram wrote his book in 1969. 1969 is quite a long time ago and thus his book might be considered obsolete. For example, there is a huge difference between the way people thought about the French Revolution in the 1960's and the way we think about it now. I think the problem is you really want the Byzantines to have greatly outnumbered the Arabs because you like Muslim history, but you should understand that even the people that fought at this battle want to be remembered for what they actually accomplished and not for some propaganda written about them centuries later for the benefit of someone else.

Wiki1609 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i know you, you are the same who have already had a lots of discussion in past with me and still your are roaming with the same argues that i have been answer from past 3 mounths. 1st of all just only show me the byzantine source that says muslims were 100,000 just do this kind act to me i will be very grate full to you !!!!! if you are unable to show me this then its batter to stay cool and calm and shut up ! i know byzantine knew there strength well, but i am still unable to see any byzantine source regarding battle of yermuk accept that of quoted by gibbon mentioning byzantine troops to be 140,000. more over i knew that muslims source must have exaggration byt can all sources have same exgarration ? for example in greek sources it is mention that 200,000 persians came at guavgamela other says 250,000 some other says 0.5 million one said it was 1 million Ohh my God ! this is i guess is exaggration in reality when all muslims sources says 200,000 except one which says 240,000 and other one which says 24,000 muslims vs 100,000 byzantine all say 200,000 byzantine vs 40,000-45,000 muslims. then it means that byzantine troops must be of extra large number, it was not ordinary byzantine unit numbering 20,000 it was gathered from all over the empire in about 1 years time span....it is obvious from the tactics used by muslim generals at yermuk that muslims were far more less in strength then byzantines. other wise there was no use of reserve cavalry attacks under khalid bin walid and it would be impossible for battle to continue for 6 days with short retreat of muslim corps on day2 day3 and day4. i will be witing for your post giving me source saying muslims to be 100,000 ! thanks.Mohammad Adil 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive got a post but for some reason                                            http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1518243 its not one you can click on but here it is mohammed adil just take a look.dont read half of it when you read it read it all then tell me what you think

how much proof do you need
http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/ba/battle_of_yarmouk.htm ................

is this a prove ?i asked for a byzantine source now dont tell me that this is a byzantine source more over this article thats link you have gave have got many errors e.g there was no army defeated by muslims out side emessa .... ! this army under theodore was defeated by khalid mounths before battle of yermuk it was part of the army gathered for battle of maraj-ur-rome, but at mid-night a part of it went for damascus and abu-ubaidah sent khalid's cavalry to get that army. more over saying that byzantine army was wioth out cavalry is i think much more foolish !, an army sent to reconqure syria was with out cavalry ? more over it contradict with other western sources including that of david nicole that say there was cavalry of byzntine army. now read this ................. it is by A.I.Akram .. http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter35page1.htm this is about battle of yermuk !

and this is its explaination check it !this is important. http://www.swordofallah.com/html/appendixbpage7.htm

Mohammad Adil 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In the second post it has many opinions in the distortion of army strength.Why does it say here according to wikipedia that such an army presence of byzantine could be so high and the casualties at half of the army.In your article it says that the muslims lost alot one time and that they both did how can you clearly give results like that without saying how much?It says that one time the romans under constantine attacked the muslims then a retreat and that the muslims learned from there corps and when it says in your article that the roman george went with islam then battled an khalids side that would mean that there were romans on the muslim side right?wouldnt that mean when george was there that he would have defied heraclius along with the entire byzantine army wouldnt you think that everyone would have thought he had just betrayed the previous allies just moments before?You may have the article pretty much correct but do you really agree with the strength and everything? ......................

i didn't understand what in the begining of your post you want to say plz explain it and rewrite so that i could answer ! next thing is that as far as strength is concern then from all the angles it seems to me correct, it was the desicive battle that forced byzantines to retreat from syria, i guess that byzantine were not weak enough to just got disappear from syria just after giving small resistance. if you say that 150,000 soldiers of byzantine are impossible then keep in mind that only romans were not there it had thousands of soldiers from all over the byzantine empire read the article's heading background. and if you doubt the strength that this army cant be gathered, then see this and laugh...! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela Mohammad Adil 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What i was saying is that in your post that you had there the sword of allah page 7 where you said check it out this is very important!is that there was alot of questionable dought of the army size in that specific sight.which is why i said how come wikipedia has the byzantine size at 150,000 and the muslims at 40,000 while byzantine casualties were at 75,000 which is half and muslim at 4,000 when your post has so many different opinions to which is actually solid evidince.

In your post before that where the roman general george converted to islam and decided that he would be fighting with the muslims.wouldnt that mean that the muslims and romans byzantines were fighting on the same side as the muslims???which would mean the that the roman george had an army less then than 40,000 when he approached and....because on total the muslims and roman byzantines were 40,000???In the post it said the romans were cofident rested on there great numbers wouldnt that mean that since that it has 40,000 together that george had an army of 20,000 or more before becoming allies???....and your thinking maybe that there was 150,000 byzantines and the byzantines only sent an army of about 20,000 to take control of the problem???when they had 150,000.In fact of all this george has gone against heraclius and suddenly has just has gone with the muslims just like that is what your article suggests???All of a sudden the muslim numbers change when they enter europe and......constantinople were the muslims silent in that battle?As there are alot of questions would you mind answering all of the on by one not skipping any plz!I am not doughting all battles has something to what you put on the alexander post but i dont think this battle has solid evidence of 150,000 there take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battle_of_Alesia        these things can happen right?You also said as far as strength is concern from all the angles it seems correct what do you mean?i also think if what im saying is right it should mention the byzantine muslims mostly won this battle by themselves not giving all the credit to the arabs.so if george hasnt converted it would have been 10,000-20,000 muslims in this battle against 150,000.i myself dont perfectly no but i dont completly believe the byzantine and muslim strength to be as real on a greatly miscalculated scale thoe you have only gave evidence of different opinions.

when gibbon gives muslim estimated of 100,000-200,000 how do you think he came to that conclusion?

mohammed adil
seeing is how mohammed adil is not answering me like before he probably knows that ikm right and will not answer to make himself look bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.165 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

sinse he is not answering me it would be nice if the strength and casualties would be changed

Cleaned up article
I've adjusted numbers to the ones most people agreed to/the ones from modern scholars without destroying the structure of the article. Like it is now, I think others from the discussion and also Mohammed Adil can be content until there is an eventual better article. I also removed some sentences that made the article pro-Arab. Right now the Pictures are still a bit of a mess.

And there are other articles like this one that need cleanup, like this one :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajnadayn

Mohammed Adil here :"Byzantine casualties 50,000, Muslim casualties 450" ....

Maybe we should ban him.

Wiki1609 11:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edits since the numbers you indicate have no source to back them up. Come with an authentic source and then we will talk. Until then, the numbers will remain to what Mohammad Adil has mentioned. Thank you,

130.113.111.214 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't realize Mohammed Adil has no qualifying source either, his book is outdated and probably not scientific (or of historiographic standards). I'll footnote from Drungarios' comment when I feel like it or someone else can, but actually the whole article isnt very good.

Wiki1609 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The numbers have been reverted bacause there is no authentic source backing it up.As you can see he has just been proved wrong about a post or to ago which isnt that long ago.Do you not consider kaegi or nicolle authentic sources???Why doesnt he give us an authentic source about the strength and casualties without saying well its authentic now give me one???When the fact is that he cant give any with these numbers without going out of range within in 100,000.here is a question when it says the usually reliable ibn ishaq gives estimates of 100,000 byzantines against 24,000 muslims.........the question what makes him so relaibe more than everyone else???the numbers will remain the same that he has mentioned what about what everybody else has mentioned.

you are taking him over everything!read wiki1609s last thing he said which said it all! the guy has been proved wrong and you still go with him???

wiki1609 is right


 * This article needs an extreme amount of help from outside and neutral sources. Much of the article is composed of poorly construed English and there is an overt tone of pro-Islam. Also the main and almost sole source comes from the website [www.swordofallah.com] which copies text over from a book written in the 60's by an not well known historian who often has glaring POV and bias in the book. I would deeply implore the main editor to not rely so much on this source but instead take information from unbiased better known historians who have widely published works. I'm not saying the sword of allah is useless but please don't base the majority of the article on it. Also on please don't use !!! or ??? in discussing with others on wikipedia and please look at these pages Etiquette and Civility to get a better understanding on how to act with others. I think you have a great deal of perseverance and dedication with wikipedia editing and it'd be a shame for it to be wasted on angry remarks and incivility. Best wishes - Patman2648 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Added footnotes
I added footnotes to the books Drungarios presented, so now we have the article OK qua numbers (I have only Nicolle's book myself). Please dont revert back to the huge numbers we already agreed on were false. If you disagree simply post in the discussion.

And yes it should still be rewritten, but now at least the numbers aren't lying. Drungarios had good sources so maybe he wants to make a new one. And in this article there are so frigging much links into Wikipedia, everytime you see Byzantine and Muslim instead of just Byzantine and Muslim. One link when the word is first used is enough right?

Wiki1609 11:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of combatants
Historical estimates of the battle give figures of approximately 100,000 - 200,000 for the Romans and around 40,000 for the Muslims. If you disagree, please provide authentic sources as to what they should be.Thanks 206.126.80.68 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have read the footnotes before changing the article again. I stated mine, so where are your sources? Please stop changing the article all the time to wrong figures or this will become an editing war (which you will lose by getting banned).

And thinking that Gibbon being outdated is just a POV shows you have no knowledge on the subject at all, so please stop vandalizing.

Wiki1609 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not see any references to your figures in the footnotes. Please specify them here to clarify the situation. In the mean time, I will restore your numbers ok? 216.99.60.136 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Look again, they are at footnotes 3, 4 and 14. I didn't change footnote 1 because it gives a general idea of what people think of the numbers involved, showing the 100,000+ numbers from Muslim sources and the more recent ones given by modern scholars. I left footnote 2 untouched as well, but the info is from the same source as footnote 14. I'd say footnotes for the numbers I added are in order right now.

Wiki1609 14:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the article says there were 40,000 romans when the empire from everywhere couldnt have reached more than 30,000 the article needs to change.

would somebody show something saying there were more byzantine casualties than muslim casualties if not change it

I am here again...!
ok friend, only one clearification of mine will answer your all qestions. i.e, where did you read that george accepted islam "along with his men which were thousands in number" ????? what i have writen in my original article is that "george accepted islam and fight from the side of muslims and died on the same day" and nothing else ! who said to you that he accepted islam along with his corps ?????

and one question from my side see here gibbon says muslims around 45000 not 100,000 to 200,000 ! i dont know that from where you got these sources ???? do show me these sources they are funny !

and you wanted s source saying muslims strength to be 40,000 and byzantine's to be 160,000 see it here, and this source is scientific and authantic too, it was writen by a pakistani militery general in 1969 this man is cheif instructer in  pakistan's biggest militery accademy "command and staff college quetta"  militery officiers from even U.K and U.S.A come here to study, it was  founded by U.K army in around 1890s. and the auther was teaching militery history there, if the book was not to be scientific then it would have eventually removed from that  college.

source of strenght is ..... "The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns": page no:560 and 571 by Lieutenant-General Agha Ibrahim Akram, Nat. Publishing. House, Rawalpindi (1970) ISBN 978-0-7101-0104-4.

source of casualties is..... "The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns": page no:625-626 by Lieutenant-General Agha Ibrahim Akram, Nat. Publishing. House, Rawalpindi (1970) ISBN 978-0-7101-0104-4.

and one thing more, i am student and my final exams are getting near so i have to prepare for them, if i dont come online for week then it must  not make you thnk that i have gone..... i am just busy

and by the way who says that byzantine empire which compraises nearly half of europe cant organize an army of 150,000 ?????? do you know when alexander came out of macedonia to conqure persian empire, he had an army of 40,000 men which were mainly greeks and macedonains, if only they can organize an army of 40,000 then why cant romans,christian arabs,greeks,armenians,georgians,franks etc etc .. cant organize an army of 150,000 .... are you people here underestamiting them ????? or you people are think that muslims were suckers ??? cant they defeat army larger 3.5 times of there own army ???? this is diskisting man !, to who you are making fool to your's own selves ???? and read this gibbon never said muslims were 100,000 and not a single byzantine source available says that muslims were huge or nearly equal to byzantine army..... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap512.htm enjoy ! Mohammad Adil 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS
now see you all guys if you can answer me these questions(after answering my coounter questions too) then i will belive that byzantine army was not of un-usual size and it was just an ordinary battle not as huge as it seems. Mohammad Adil 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * why muslims after hearing the news of arival of byzantine army (which according to there spys was almost 200,000) retreated to yermuk plane leaving all there conqured cities.
 * why did muslims army was divided in to 4 parts if it was not large (as according to you guys it was about 7400-10,000), other wise this small army is usually divided into 3 parts.
 * why muslims corps retreated 3 times during war ? means if army was not so large then it would have very easy for muslims veteners to drove them as byzantine army was mainly newly recruted i.e most of them were in there 1st battle.
 * why did khalid had to get to move his reserve 3 times to rescue the retreating muslims ?, if muslims were not 3 times less then byzantines then it was no reason for them to need help of khalid to regain there lost land because nearly 25,000 of them were veterens of campaign of syria who had fought more then 30 battles and skirmishes and amoung them 9000 were the veterens of camaign of iraq who conqured iraq under khalid in just less then 3 mounths.
 * point no:2 and 3 and nearly same, but just think about it.
 * if the army was not very large then why it took 6 days for battle to get result ??? if you read muslims conquest of syria and iraq-iran you will only find following battles that went for more then 1 days..
 * battle of yermuk
 * batte of ayjnadayn
 * batte of nihawand
 * battle of Qaddasiya
 * therefore some one rightly said less knowledge is even dangerous.
 * an other nice point is tactics and strategy used by muslims's commanders are showing it cleary that they were highly defensive not offensive as they use to be (for this read muslims conquest in detail or you will remian blank what i said about there offensive tactics), they organize there army in highly defensive way and made there mind for the expected retreat of muslim soldiers, if the army was just doubled the size of muslims then it was easy to handle it for battle harden muslims veterans.
 * caliph wouldn't have sent reinforcement to muslims except in some extra-ordinary conditions.
 * if it was battle with no huge army size then this must not be desicive, byzantines must have given strong resistance after this battle too, but when we read history we see that after this battle muslims re-take all the cities that they leaved before the battle anf reached with in few mounths to anitoich in turkey and captured important routs of byzantines in a mountain range of southern turkey (the name of range i have forget) and heraculas getting it for sure that now he cant do any thing now to rescue syria went from emessa to anitoich.
 * those who disagree with the above mention point must be thiniong that byzantine empire susks and cant give even resistance to newly growing empire, atleast an empire of 200 years cant fall after only 1 battle.

first of all mohammed adil in this post here which was posted by you! http://www.swordofallah.com/html/boolchapter35page1.htm it clearly says george has converted to islam after a little talk.you said that the muslims had a few thousand but before wikipedia had it to 40,000 which you were fine with and even posted on your article!which answers that part ok.in the article you have made and in the article you have posted says george converted thus on the muslims side.....so if it was 40,000 with the roman george and the muslims is 40,000 and when it says the romans relyed greatly on there great numbers thus probably approaching with more than 20,000 whick is more than half before alling to the muslim side before the battle of yarmouk!to which is to what your saying is 40,000 with more byzantines on that side not giving all the victory to the arabs but rather the byzantines,when you say he died on the same day thats only talking about george!you keep asking sources from everyone else where are yours!look under the reference where it says muslims estimates from 100,000-200,000 from gibbon.i also asked what makes ibn ishaq so reliable?you said give a source of muslim 40,000 and byzantine 160,000 you say its authentic and scientific see it here...where?your sword of allah is all you have because as was said it needs help from outside and neutral sources look at patman2648 last post which will answer your beliefs about your ideas!you said by the way who says the byzantine empire which comprises half of europe cant come up with 150,000 that is not up for you to decide and gibbon said it was unlikely that they could have came up with more than 50,000 at most due to the conditions of the empire shows what you no!that last source you have just put you have already put down!show me where you prove what you want?the byzantine empire knew more than the muslims did!before when george converted to islam which means he just betrayed heraclius???seems unusual but if you say so?one of your points says why 6 days of battle if army not so large....it could have been larger by far than the byzantine army and on the tactics of what your article suggests you shouldnt even be asing such a question!stop trying to use other peoples wisdom like when you say less knowledge is even dangerous who do think your trying to fool?some of what i have said have just contrudicted of what you said?some of your points make no sense at all your just trying to switch it back to false information?anything else to prove?

...

i have also noticed that when you are proven wrong you dont say anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/talk:Battle_of_That_Al-Sawari

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.194.186 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mohammed Adil
Mohammed Adil:

In response to "I am here again...!":

As I told you before, the books you have read are of insufficient quality for this subject. History is not(/no longer) just looking up some sources and uncritically accepting everything these sources tell as facts. The books of Gibbon and Akram read like stories of novels and their factual accuracy is doubtful. Besides you should realize Gibbon's book was written in the late 18th century, more than 200 years ago. Back then the world was still flat for 99% of the population, so don't you think his book is a little outdated? I can tell you it is, and apart from the factual inaccuracies (probably most present in statistics) Gibbon wrote his book as an anti-Christian book, meaning everything Christian is bad and stupid. Akram writes in a similar style and very clearly does not follow modern historiographic standards, meaning its use for encyclopedias like this one is pretty much nihil. And his book is old as well (1969 is almost 40 years ago). If you want to prove the numbers of the Byzantines too low right now, bring a modern source of quality.

In response to "SOME IMPORTANT FACTS":

Maybe the Arab general did not want his troops spread out garrisoning all these cities, but wanted to form an army to stop an incoming Byzantine army, of which the numbers given by spies may have been far higher than they actually were, perhaps intended by the Byzantines. As I said, maybe the muslim army was large (7,500-24,000), maybe even larger than the Byzantine one, so thats why it was divided in 4. Maybe the general had a plan involving 4 seperate units, etc. it doesnt prove it HAS to have been a large army. Maybe the Arab general feared a confrontation with the Byzantines. Who says the Byzantine army consisted of recruits (esp. after many large scale wars against the Persians, in contrast with mostly skirmishes for the Arabs)? Fear for confrontation can have resulted from poor intelligence on the Byzantine army's strength or the general wanting to find a suitable battleground. Again it doesnt prove an army of 100,000 or more for the Byzantines. The Muslims may have been forced to retreat even if they outnumbered the Byzantines 10 to 1, you can't just decide the Byzantines must have outnumbered the Muslims at least 3 to 1 just because they were pushed back. Maybe the Byzantines were just on the winning hand some point in time. Manoeuvring and skirmishing may have taken a few days before the decisive clash took place, maybe they were all forced to abandon fighting when the temperatures got too hot and wait for the next day? All are things that can happen during a battle. Why do some boxing matches take 10 rounds while it takes only one K.O.? As I said, maybe the Muslims estimated the number of Byzantine troops much higher than they actually were, or they simply couldn't afford to lose this confrontation (I don't know, but was there a backup of some sort or was this all they had?). Also remember the Arabs were being attacked and not attacking themselves which could explain defensive actions. Same answer possible, bad intel. And why would he only send reinforcements in extraordinary conditions? if it was battle with no huge army size then this must not be desicive, byzantines must have given strong resistance after this battle too, but when we read history we see that after this battle muslims re-take all the cities that they leaved before the battle anf reached with in few mounths to anitoich in turkey and captured important routs of byzantines in a mountain range of southern turkey (the name of range i have forget) and heraculas getting it for sure that now he cant do any thing now to rescue syria went from emessa to anitoich. It doesn't take huge numbers for this battle to be decisive if the Byzantines really were exhausted by previous wars. Also remember controlling the entire middle-east would have taken a large garrison which the Byzantines may not have been able to finance anymore. Retreating and stabilizing elsewhere seems the logical option. The Byzantine empire was in a pretty bad situation at this point in time, yes. It's a generally acknowledged vision that both the Persians and Byzantines spilt their energy and were in a period of recovery, when a new enemy emerged disturbing the balance.
 * why muslims after hearing the news of arival of byzantine army (which according to there spys was almost 200,000) retreated to yermuk plane leaving all there conqured cities.
 * why did muslims army was divided in to 4 parts if it was not large (as according to you guys it was about 7400-10,000), other wise this small army is usually divided into 3 parts.
 * why muslims corps retreated 3 times during war ? means if army was not so large then it would have very easy for muslims veteners to drove them as byzantine army was mainly newly recruted i.e most of them were in there 1st battle.
 * why did khalid had to get to move his reserve 3 times to rescue the retreating muslims ?, if muslims were not 3 times less then byzantines then it was no reason for them to need help of khalid to regain there lost land because nearly 25,000 of them were veterens of campaign of syria who had fought more then 30 battles and skirmishes and amoung them 9000 were the veterens of camaign of iraq who conqured iraq under khalid in just less then 3 mounths.
 * if the army was not very large then why it took 6 days for battle to get result ??? if you read muslims conquest of syria and iraq-iran you will only find following battles that went for more then 1 days..
 * an other nice point is tactics and strategy used by muslims's commanders are showing it cleary that they were highly defensive not offensive as they use to be (for this read muslims conquest in detail or you will remian blank what i said about there offensive tactics), they organize there army in highly defensive way and made there mind for the expected retreat of muslim soldiers, if the army was just doubled the size of muslims then it was easy to handle it for battle harden muslims veterans.
 * caliph wouldn't have sent reinforcement to muslims except in some extra-ordinary conditions.
 * those who disagree with the above mention point must be thiniong that byzantine empire susks and cant give even resistance to newly growing empire, atleast an empire of 200 years cant fall after only 1 battle.

As you can see, none of your questions make a large Byzantine army necessary. I'm not claiming everything I say is true, I just speculate and show there are other explanations possible for your questions that work with lower numbers. Numerous other factors may have influenced what happened, and this along with the scientific sources I gave in the article should make you reconsider your opinion. At least try reading other books than the ones you read now, they simply lack factual accuracy, are too old and are not written as scientific material (which doesnt make them bad books to read, just dont take the information as facts). It's like watching 300 and claiming thats how the battle of Thermopylae was.

Wiki1609 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

i would like to point something out here

mohammed adil question:

why did khalid had to get to move his reserve 3 times to rescue the retreating muslims?if muslims were not 3 times less it was no reason for them to need help of khalid to regain there lost land because nearly 25,000 of them were veterns of campaign of syria who had fought more then 30 battles and skirmishes and amoung them 9000 were the veterns of campaign of iraq who conquered iraq under khalid in just less then 3 months

the wiki answer:the muslims may have been forced to retreat even if they outnumbered the byzantines 10 to 1 you cant just decide the byzantines must have outnumbered the muslims at least 3 to 1 kust because they were pushed back.maybe the byzantines were just on the winning hand some point in time.

well mohammed adil just take a look at your own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela    if what you said isnt true what about this does this seem unreal?or wait here is another one   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battle_of_Alesia    do you get my point? wiki1609 has just completly proven about everything today.we would all believe now that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajnadayn also needs some help

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.194.119 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ---

the person who have given likns here i cant understand why he have gave it here ? what do i do with tehse likns i havn't wrote them except of ayjnadayn, go change gaugamela and alesia too, why only sticking with yermuk only, cant muslim won against army of 3 times of them. ok, let me explian now. 1st of all why are you claiming my source book to be unscientific ???? it is writen in nowel style because it is actually biography and people here at my place enjoy reading like this it dont make stuff bored ! so you cant say its outdated, more over i have said to you that if it was outdated it wount be recommanded in militery history subjects, or thay may have taken david nicloe book as a source to teach militery history(officiers from u.K also come here) and tactics,  how can you teach your militery wrong tactis from an outdated book???? it seems illogical, or do you or i consider our selves much better then those soldiers who know what tactics are???? and by the way i will promoted there at command and staff college may be in august this year or in january next year. not to teach militery history lolzzz but as a pak-army cadit. -- now see your answer,,, ok if ony 20,000 units were comming then it must be better to besiege and wait for reinforcemnt sent by caliph to counter attack them from there flank while they were blocked by muslims armies in the forts....??? was this more nice tactic to tackle that threat ???? i am not a general but still can think it then why cant the legandary Khalid could think it????. and by the way if you are awear of muslims militery history compeltely you may know that after yermuk i think 1 or 2 years after, christian arabs from "Jazera"(in mesopotamia) assambled the army and head to wards syria to make it under chritian byzantine other then muslim arabs,(exausted byzantines were unable to sent more armies) they were around 20,000-30,000 muslims never came out to battle with them instead they stayed at there forts and hold them from front, caliph sent a reinforcemnt from iran to help besieged forces and also sent an army to wards jazera from iraq, when the arab army heard of reinforcemnt comming and attack at there homeland they turned back and make peace pact at jazera with muslim commander. in this way battle was won not by droping a single blood drop !, cant battle of yermuk be won by the same method ???? becasue if you anayse the situations in both battles were same.i.e - now think battle of yermuk could be solved by this method with out droping blood's drop !!!!! isn't it a point ??? dividing army in 4 units is folish act if your enemy is not large, see controling 3 corps is difficult and whjat about controling 4 corps at a time ???? as khalid had to face real difficulty when he had to work in fastly manner to rescue all the two withdrwing corps. tell me if would be there what you would have did, if you have 40000 army divided in to 4 corps i.e 10,000 each. if you would have divided them into 3 corps then it would be 14,000 approx.. nearly equal when they were with khalid's 4000 reserve. more over 3 corps occupy less space, 4 corps occupy more space and it make difficult to get them in danger. which option you would have worked on ??? Mohammad Adil 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Arab general did not want his troops spread out garrisoning all these cities, but wanted to form an army to stop an incoming Byzantine army, of which the numbers given by spies may have been far higher than they actually were, perhaps intended by the Byzantines.
 * muslim army dispersed in different parts of syria lebonan jordan etc
 * the strategy of arabs from mesopotamia was to destory each muslim army seperately by concentrating a huge army against then in single battle field.
 * emesa was first sieged by them and muslims had there army around 4000-7000(according to our sources) caliph sent reinforcemnt of 7000 from iraq and other 12,000 moved to jazerah.
 * As I said, maybe the muslim army was large (7,500-24,000), maybe even larger than the Byzantine one, so thats why it was divided in 4. Maybe the general had a plan involving 4 seperate units, etc. it doesnt prove it HAS to have been a large army.
 * also tell me that is 10 years are less to recover ? last persian-byzantine war was 10 yaers ago when muslims entered syria ans iraq.
 * tell me the reasion why cant byzantine empire made an army of 150,000 men ??? if only greece and macedonia can give an army of 40,000 men in alexander's time about 800 yaers before yermuk ????
 * how can controling syria could have required large garrision ??? if you read early conquest of syria by muslims then you come to know that all the battles and skirmishes muslims fougt were against ghassnid christian arabs commanded by a ghasasnid arab or roman commander.
 * in battle of yermuk muslims sources says battle gone for whole day, not a single source says it didnt went for whole day except for day 5 and day 1. more over it was august nt june july that syria was hot yermuk plane is 800 meter high above sea level and have nice enviroment it not even a desert? then why to stop fight in mid-day because of hot temperature of "syria" lolzzz i have said about 25,000 of them were veteners who had fought in arabian desernt and iraq's deserts.
 * more over can you compoair those who know to fight(muslim veterens soldiers) with those who know just how to attack(recruits of byzantine army, most of them were recruits except of the crops of svales and armenians who gave tought time to muslims and are praised in our sources), if you know how to moe a sword to cut a person next to you in two pieces and person next to you is a vetener martial artist with only one thing in your mind i.e "glory" can you attak him and kill him ???? its not i guess greeks of 300 lolxzz.
 * i have no time now to answer all the points as may my these points could answer, as i said to you that i have my final examination next mounth.

also see this !
ok i have read this source of Mr.Kaegi, W.E., "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests." read it you too here http://alex.infomotions.com/serials/bmmr/bmmr-9410-elton-byzantium.txt

it seems not be neutral ???? from his wording it seems he thinks of arabs to be sucker ...lolzz and it based on probably raceism. well, he says that there may be two battle in yermuk, becasue he gives reson that arabs were pushed back 1 time but then some thing wrong happned and they broke through the byzantine lines and won the battle (i wish he would have read tabari, from the muslims source he is quoting here, so he could find that what "wrong" happned with byzantines so that muslims won the battle, more over i guess he have read tabari's english translation which must be wrongly tranbslated bacsue i have read tabari my self it in my college library it says that there was skirmish betwenn muslims light cavalry and ghassanid arabs corps of byxantine army one mouth before te actually battle and read here what the M.r keagi is saying ...... more over his observations seems just "suppositions" not based on facts, hwe wonder where come 20,000+arabs came from ....lolzzz he may not know that when prophet mohammad(pbuh) conqured mecca in 629 A.C he had with him 10,000 army which was only of madinah city and near by towns who accepted islam and every one who knws history must know that islam was not far-reached in 629 A.D more over if you know that prophet mohammad is also mentioned in hindu secred scripture "vedas" and it is mention in its prophecies that he will have army of 10,000 men when return to his home land. by the way i wonder why bible mentions 700,000 army of childern of isreal under prophet david(pbuh). any ways now you should read my source complete, it was a book, but some fans of kahlid bin walid made it a website it is the same book writen by the suthor i mention often , read it the battle of yermuk. this is formation of army......(along with source he take it from and also along with his own explainations) http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter34page1.htm

this actual battle http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter35page1.htm

it is writen in stylish way so dont get mad just see what information you can get from here and then addyour views here i will be waiting. Mohammad Adil 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Response:
how can you teach your militery wrong tactis from an outdated book ?

Do they really use this book for studying tactics, or is it just a recommendation for further reading? Because you say one line above "more over i have said to you that if it was outdated it wount be recommanded in militery history subjects". Even if it was used as a handbook for tactics (which I really doubt considering the style of writing and it being written by someone writing for his hobby) I doubt they take the numbers Akram gives for facts. Perhaps it is the only book that handles the battle in detail and thats why they use it, even though the numbers are wrong and the tone very pro-Islam. At my university they also recommend reading books that are very colored or may even contain factual inaccuracies but they can be useful for gaining sight on different opinions on the subject. And to your other question: yes, historians may have more knowledge about ancient tactics than the modern-day military from his education.

Your other response:

"'ok if ony 20,000 units were comming then it must be better to besiege and wait for reinforcemnt sent by caliph to counter attack them from there flank while they were blocked by muslims armies in the forts....??? was this more nice tactic to tackle that threat ???? i am not a general but still can think it then why cant the legandary Khalid could think it????.'"

What? Please write in clear English so everyone understands what you say. And your comparison with some other conflict doesn't make things clear either, one battle is never the same as the other.

"'dividing army in 4 units is folish act if your enemy is not large, see controling 3 corps is difficult and whjat about controling 4 corps at a time ?'" This question of yours does not lead to the answer "the Byzantines must have had 100,000 troops" either, you can ask these questions all year but you can't even answer them yourself. And "3 corps occupy less space, 4 corps occupy more space"? How can they occupy more space with the same amount of units involved?

"also tell me that is 10 years are less to recover ? last persian-byzantine war was 10 yaers ago when muslims entered syria ans iraq." Just read the link you gave below by Kaegi, or any other book. They will almost always say the Byzantines had fiscal problems, meaning problems with collecting enough income (taxes were pretty much all the income there was for a state). So when you had a huge debt from a previous war 10 years ago, do you think everything is OK when the Arabs suddenly arrived? The Byzantine government was simply in deep shit even without the Arabs attacking.

"tell me the reasion why cant byzantine empire made an army of 150,000 men ??? if only greece and macedonia can give an army of 40,000 men in alexander's time about 800 yaers before yermuk ????" Why should the Byzantines have a 150,000 men army just because Alexander had a 40,000 men army? I don't like asking questions like this but it really shows your bad reasoning. in battle of yermuk muslims sources says battle gone for whole day, not a single source says it didnt went for whole day except for day 5 and day 1. more over it was august nt june july that syria was hot yermuk plane is 800 meter high above sea level and have nice enviroment it not even a desert? then why to stop fight in mid-day because of hot temperature of "syria" lolzzz i have said about 25,000 of them were veteners who had fought in arabian desernt and iraq's deserts. + more over can you compoair those who know to fight(muslim veterens soldiers) with those who know just how to attack(recruits of byzantine army, most of them were recruits except of the crops of svales and armenians who gave tought time to muslims and are praised in our sources), if you know how to moe a sword to cut a person next to you in two pieces and person next to you is a vetener martial artist with only one thing in your mind i.e "glory" can you attak him and kill him ???? its not i guess greeks of 300 lolxzz.

FFS! I never said they had to pause fighting because of the temperatures, I just gave one of 10,000 possible explanations that the fighting took more than one day that wasn't that there were 200,000 troops in the field. And what is this with someone that can just fight with a sword and someone that fights for "glory"? The one fighting for glory is dead just as easily when he gets stabbed in the stomach or his head chopped off. They both fought to win or because they got paid if that's what you mean.

And about the link to Kaegi, how can you think this is not neutral and say your "Sword of Allah" book is?! You have very strong doubts of a scientific article that just cites what the sources tell him (without saying this or that is true and the other isn't), while on the other hand you believe every word some unknown and probably uneducated Pakistani wrote 40 years ago? You also say Kaegi's article is based on suppositions and not on facts, Akram does not base his article on facts either!!! He simply gathered sources and took the information of these sources as facts, but that does not mean they actually are facts! I hope you understand this. Why doubt every word of one guy and blindly believe another? And I already looked at the Sword of Allah book and I immediately noticed it was of no use for an accurate description of Yarmuk 636.

You really need to bring in other material to verify the 100,000+ numbers in this battle, don't just hang on to these ones. I know what I'm talking about when I say they are not useful, so either accept the numbers were lower (I mean what's this all about anyway) or find other articles that support higher numbers.

Wiki1609 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

mohammed adil let me just start by saying:

when i gave you the first 2 articles of alexander the great and julius caesar about those posts they some things from these great examples that your sense of numbers in some battles things have the upper hand at different times,even when you give sources from outdated work!by the way you no i proved you wrong in one of my last posts...see you are silent when your completly wrong like now!i thing you might get my point now........i really had alot to say but after reading wiki's responses most of it has already been answered.you said your people enjoy reading this because it doesnt make them board that doesnt make sense ok that section is non relevant to anything your post was mostly non relaevant!the first question and answer below of the first point where you said the battle of yarmouk could be solved without dropping blood drop.the number of 40,000 is most likely incorrect which is why khalid did what he did when he could have outnumbered the byzantines.between your 2 web posts you said the byzantine text is not good...what about in comparing to yours?then you start making fun of the guy for what he is saying.this my worst post yet because what your saying makes even less sense then it did last time!i cant answer your other questions because wiki already did.then you said the bible says 70,000 army of children of isreal under prophet david pbuh make some real sense and stay on what were talking about!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.194.108 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

...

seeing is how mohammed adil isnt answering and probably cant answer all these questions spicifically the way they are so if the numbers would switch back to 24,000-40,000:i have a question for wiki1609 if thats ok can you tell why you would not take this as a good source as compared to lets say bibbon or or nicolle and why we should not think as putting this source for wikipedia reference. http:/www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

this source

http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.194.111 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, the goal of this book is to glorify the Islamic conquests, which is why the author of the book happily uses sources that claim >100,000 soldiers on the Byzantine side in more than one battle. It's more of a propaganda work than a neutral and descriptive book, and without any critique on the sources he uses it's not what can be called a scientific work. Gibbon is on the list of biased books as well, though some of his research is still useful. Wikipedia is meant to give neutral and factual information, or at least information on what is currently the most accepted view on for example the Battle of Yarmouk. The general view is that there were far less than the 200,000 Byzantines of Muslim sources in that battle. So therefore this number should actually not be mentioned in the main article, but only as a footnote (at most). Apart from factual errors the author of the Sword of Allah book was not even trained in writing historic works, so the book is basically written by an amateur.

Wiki1609 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"thank you for answering that wiki1609.now the point is clear that everything in the byzantine arab battles box All or mostly come from this very sight!which proves only one thing that in accordance to these batttles is that even i know this that some of the articles ar not very good along with the fake numbers.the editor of these types of articles can now consider the all sources coming from the swordofallah are coming here to decieve and present bad info.!if you dont believe me all you have to do is look at wiki1609's last post and everything else hes written it seems to be very professional and i dont see him getting an award!mohammed adil has an award...and for what now?"

Yes most of the Byzantine-Arab Wars box seems to be of low quality, and if you look at some of them it's always a "Decisive Muslim victory" or a "Succesful Muslim retreat while killing as much Byzantines possible". It's really sad. Wiki1609 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah  they have 3000 and 12 dead?according to who may i ask? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ajnadayn  90,000 nd 32,000......50,000 casualties while fleeing! as i said according to who and 450 casualties?and the combatants were eastern roman empire no arabs?and this article battle of yarmouk went up by 10,000 who came up with that?wikipedia is supposed to be a good sight for an article and no changes?

...

wikipedia is now officially garbage due to this editor who knows nothing.the editor should be fired!

the person in charge put 20,000 byzantine casualties for the battle of mutah which came from absolutly nowhere???,the person has learned nothing from this discussion and should find a new job.a job where he knows what he is doing!the article is wrong.......the numbers are wrong the site is wrong it means nothing!

...

if wikipedia wants to be unfair and get all there information from one source which is only 40 years old then put the muslim strength at 100,000-200,000

130.113.226.6 14:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To Jagged85
Jagged 85, please stop your useless editing.


 * First of all modern estimates (as far as presented in the article) range to 50,000 maximum, not 100,000.
 * Secondly Akram is not a modern source (and neither is Gibbon).
 * Thirdly I already added Haldon as a footnote, so no need to add him to the text.
 * Fourthly there already existed a reference to swordofallah.com, no need to put it in twice.
 * Fifthly this was a battle between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate, all the rest you try to add is useless and never mentioned in battle descriptions (we dont add endless lists of nationalities of mercenaries in any battle description either).
 * Sixtly why do you want to add all these commanders, please give a source or at least tell where you got them from in a footnote.
 * And lastly, do not edit other people's references, if we start doing this the end is lost. Add your own references if you have them but this is not the way.

And I hope you will not make useless edits again before at least listening to my comment here in the discussion. Right now everything will get reverted unless you actually give some reasons why you make edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki1609 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * 1) Added a modern estimate that supports 80,000.
 * 2) 1970 is recent by historical standards.
 * 3) Fair enough.
 * 4) Merged both references.
 * 5) They are quite clearly mentioned in battle descriptions, unless you haven't read them.
 * 6) Added reference as requested.
 * 7) What are you talking about editing references?


 * Lastly, If you disagree with something, edit the parts you disagree with. Reverting everything is certainly the wrong way to go. Also, it is a bit immature to be throwing personal attacks against other editors just because you disagree with something. Jagged 85 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

...

Ok, I won't revert everything anymore but you misunderstood some of my points:
 * Akram is not a modern source not because I think it is too old, but because the book is written in an amateuristic style and has no value for an article like this that follows modern historiographic standards (it's propaganda-like).
 * Al-Waqidi is not useful because it is too old but its also just 'raw material', meaning his numbers for the Byzantines can be entirely made up unless they correspond to the context (which they do not according to Nicolle and others).
 * I did not mean to say they were not at the battle, but that usually you only mention the faction under whose flag the battle is fought. Just to take an example, in the Battle of Adrianople article people also only say Eastern Roman Empire and not West Goth mercenaries, Allaman mercenaries etc. etc., because they are not fighting as Goths or Alamans but as Roman soldiers. Same counts for this battle, that why it is a bit useless to put all these nations in the Combatants box.
 * And editing references I meant the part of Haldon, he and others suggest possible Arab numerical superiority so shouldnt be deleted for no reason.

And please update your reference of 'Kennedy (2006)', because this does not tell us anything. Please add the title of his work or its not a real reference and thus the 80,000 number could be made up by you (theoretically, I'm not saying that you did). Wiki1609 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I already added the full Kennedy reference before in the Sources section. But in case people might not notice it, I've just added the full reference as a footnote aswell. As for Akram, his estimates are no more "propoganga-like" than some Western scholars who claim ridiculously huge Persian numbers for the Greco-Persian Wars (500,000 to 1 million). Akram's 150,000 estimate for the Romans is quite minor in comparison. Jagged 85 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would just look at the book of Akram I hope you'll immediately notice its not useful, I wonder why people come quoting it all the time (and Gibbon as well). Just looking at the style of writing, it is written in very pro-Arabic style while modern historiography requires neutrality (10th time I say this here). And also again, it does not matter that the Persians had an army of 500,000 men (which was possible in the classic age as there are indications that more people lived in the classic age than the (early) medieval age) for the numbers of Byzantine troops at Yarmouk. The German army in WW2 counted 8 million but does this matter for this conflict? No, and neither do the Persian wars.

And 40,000 Muslims is what some older Muslim sources say, and I believe Akram mentioned it as well. Right now it with 80,000 vs 24,000 troops it looks like the Byzantines heavily outnumbered the Muslims, which is doubtful. And if we want a full range of numbers, Kaegi says 15,000-20,000 for the Byzantines, so starting at 15,000.

Also Akrams casualty rate of 45% seems very unlikely, cause this would be almost 'extremely high' casualties, and is derived from unreliable sources. Its therefore only one man's speculation and shouldnt be in the article. I think we'll have to indicate Roman losses were probably higher but that no numbers can be given. Actually I'm getting kind of tired of the constant editing of higher numbers in this article, I think a complete rewrite is necessary, because even the whole 6-day scenario is doubtful.

Wiki1609 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...

why does this guy and the jagged have to always bring other battles to try to change this one and im not talking about wiki.the book of akram is said to have been useless and people will now no this!all the arab byzantine battles should now be changed.


 * A majority of scholars agree that the Persian army numbered 50,000 to 100,000 in the Greco-Persian Wars, and the scholars who argue for much larger numbers are actually in the minority, but that's a different topic altogether and is already being discussed at the Greco-Persian Wars articles. However, this does not mean we should be taking sides. Wikipedia is NPOV. I'll just repeat what someone else already pointed out over there: "Wikipedia does not express the concessus reached at Cambridge or at Athens or Tehran, it expresses all POVs by all authors without taking position." If a few scholars believe the numbers were larger or smaller, then it should be expressed in this article. Akram was a leutenant-general scholar and his book was a peer-reviewed publication, hence he is more qualified than us to make estimates for battles, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with him. If you know any other modern casualty estimates that conflict with the ones given by Akram, then cite them, but don't edit out cited estimates just because you disagree with them. Wikipedia is not the place to express our own personal opinions, but only the opinions of various scholars. Jagged 85 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...

jagged akram is a bad source wiki has been giving wikipedia good knowledge and you still want to play with words like other people have done...mohammed adil?akram has been explained to you good of what wiki has said.mohammed adil doesnt explain here anymore because he no knows he is wrong and has the been nice to stay out of it.we should not use the book of akram anymore because it is a bad source.

...

@ Jagged 85, you are ofcourse right wikipedia has to be written with an NPOV, which is one of the reasons Akrams book is not useful, because its very biased. And you are wrong to think we should express every opinion on a subject, because there are certain historiographic methods that have to be adhered to. In mainstream historiography, most people agree works written without a sufficient critical examination of sources are of low quality. Akrams book certainly does not qualify and will be rejected by every Western scholar as a secondary source. Apart from that I dont see anywhere Akram received an education other than (more or less irrelevant) military education, meaning he is a nobody and on our level of making estimates. So its perfectly normal to disagree with Akrams casualties, because anyone could make up such a number looking at the older muslim sources.

And you misquoted the estimates for numbers of troops: 50,000 is the absolute maximum for all Byzantine troops in the Middle East for Nicolle, 20,000 the high-side estimate for Kaegi so I'll fix that. Wiki1609 08:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Claims
"These figures come from studying the logistical capabilities of the combatants, the sustainability of their respective bases of operations, and the overall manpower constraints affecting the Romans and Arabs" This under the 4th footnote seems highly dubious, improve it if possible.

...

the strength of the romans it has in the strength box has one source saying 100,000 why dont we put 100,000-200,000 for the muslims in the strength box to.now that things have changed a little better it would make sense to change the casualties for the romans sinse nobody is sure and change the casualties for the arabs.

the battle of mutah and the battle of adjadayn needs help sinse its coming from the same bad source and the articles are not good

this is a poorly written article

the editor i still wrong!


 * Please sign your posts in the future or refrain from editing 216.99.53.226 03:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ok

Major clean Up
I have corrected alot of grammar/spelling and cleaned up the text in general. Also added an "Evaluation" section at the end. I tried to clean up all the grammar language, but no guarantees.DomLor 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here ?
well, i think there are ppl who are trying to minimize the glory of the muslim victory by stating these types of sentences in the article..  Some sources have the Muslim numbers at 40,000 warriors, but these numbers are used in combination with 150,000 troops for the Romans. now any one would kindly tell me that which muslim source early or modern says that the numbers were used in combination with roman army ???? its too much. it seem there are anti-islamic authers here what they trying to do Allah knows better, but if any one amoung you have read any primary source book of muslim hisotry then he would batter know that "NO" muslims historian ever gave the strength of army in combination. and whats that in info box ??? byzantine 15,000-100,000 and muslim 7,500-40,000 ? whats this ??? if you are using the source which says muslims were 40,000 then use it completely, all sources saying muslims to be 40,000 says roman to be around 200,000. a source saying muslims 24,000 says roman to be 100,000. so why this double stander ???? you people batter write there "western sources" and "muslim sources", becoz all what i could get after reading the source books you ppl gave, was that "wather the author didn't read the primary islamic sources correctly, and it seems they were under estimating "rashidun caliphate's armies" no one makes empire of 10 million square kilometer in 18 years, by with having fought mighty battles. i am gonna edit all this stupid stuff that makes article seems to be edit by some anti islamic writer, and you ppl do one cool thing, only consider your book writen by western author to be correct, and the one writen by any islamic author, u ppl consider it "pro-islamic propaganda" lolzzzz its cool "close your eyes when see the danger".

i dont get one thing that why all western author neglect the fact writen in all primary islamic sources ( including tibari, waqtidi, ibn khatir etc etc ) that '' not one but "5" byzantine expedition forces entered syria from north and from sea they all gathered at "yermuk plane" near river jordan, as planed by commanders of muslim armies, and there those 5 expedition forces made an army which muslims sources exaggrate to be 200,000, even byzantine sources say they were 140,000..... so they must be around 150,000 (strong)-160,000 as estimated by A.I.Akram in his book. you ppl argued the book was out dated, ok cool, i have some other books in library writen by "modern" historian(muslims) which state the strength nearly equal to Akram's one. i will gave refferences here in a week or two, and hope that these books will not be "decleared" as outdated by dudes here. keep in mind "5" expedition forces. according to encyclopedia of militery hisotry online, a byzantine expedition force useto be normally 20,000. so 5 can easily make force of 100,000. and with christain arab allies it becomes nearly the same as estimated by muslim historians. Mohammad Adil 06:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The authors are not just looking at primary sources which may or may not be corrupted with personal feelings but also the capabilities of the time. To raise hundreds of thousands of men at the time, after a very long and desructive Roman-Persian War plus the Avar wars on Constantinople is not summing up. To many Roman troops and too many Roman casualties. Granted, it was a stunning victory, one that every Romand and Greek admirer is probably ashamed of (including me). By the way, Wikipedia is not anti-islamic and it is not Islamic either. Its for everyone of any religion or stance. Mohammad, are you saying that the Christian arab allies would have made an extra 100,000 to make a total of 200,000? We need references people and research.

If you have any edits to make, discuss them with others first.

Regards,

Tourskin 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Asalamualikum,.. well, i was not saying or insisting that the troops were 200,000 ! i know there was exaggration. but what i was saying was that the troops were not small in number at all. five byzantine expedition forces marched okey, they have men from all over greek, anatolia, armenia, chirstian arabs (from syria), slaves, and contingents from euorope. Only europians can easily made number upto 100,000 .. see 5 forces with aproxx 30,000, so okey make it 20,000 (now happy lolzz ! ) each ( usually byzantine expedition forces use to be of 20,000 men in 9th century, when they faced the problem of manpower ), i never said chirstian arabs made an other 100,000 they at there peak were able to contribute aprox.. an other 20,000 to 30,000 men ( keep in mind in 657 A.D's civil war the former christain arabs and now muslim arabs of syria rised the force of 125,000 ( along with reinforcement from Egypt against Caliph Ali, who controled rest of Rashidun empire.) One thing more, i dont think that the persian-byzantine war had that much effect that even after 10 solid years byzantines and persians were unable to recover !, i mean if a guy was 10 years old during the byzantine -persia war in 626, then by 636 he must of 20 years, i think this age is enough for man of that time to even become a general of an army. so there probably was not any exaustion from byzantine - persian wars. it was just an excuse by historians ( probably by western ) to minimize the shame of defeat.

And what i got from the history of Rashidun empire, is that when it broke due to civil war, umayyad empire emerged and even after the death of 70,000 + muslims soldiers during civil war(657), in 662 umayyad caliph started his war of conquest and even reached conctantinopole. comming to real topic, there are very strong evidences of byzantine army being 100,000 +, also its matter of comman sence, why would heraculas sent an other small army of 25,000 ( as donner said lolzz ) to re-capture syria ???? when he knew that in battles before it, the veteran Rashidun Caliphate army have defeated army of such size or nearly of this size many times !!! more over the retreating and evacuating syria strategy thatw as used by Rashidun Caliphate generals clearly shows that byzantine army was of size that they never faced before, therefore even thinking of there possible defeat in battle, they took arabian desert at there rear so that retreat may be smooth in case of defeat. All islamic sources say there were 40,000 Rashidun caliphate troops in Syria, and becasue of the method of Diwan that Caliph Umar introduced, it was very easy for muslim historians to get the acurate size of Troops in any province or jund ( military center).

Mohammad Adil 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)