Okay, well, I am posting this in VV both as a point of reference for myself and others whenever the topic of the Arab conquests comes up, for anyone interested in the topic, and of course for discussion on the topic or criticism of the text I'm posting.
I'm going to post this in a whole bunch as it has already been posted last year in the Scriptorium competition, so the ending has already been spoiled!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In the early and mid 7th Century, the Arabs exploded onto a world stage which they knew little about and which knew little about them. Islam, which claimed to be revealed by God through the Prophet Mohammed, was the driving force of these new conquerors, and within one hundred years since the Seal of the Prophets died, the Arabs had destroyed one ancient empire, crippled another, and made themselves masters of more lands than any empire before them. The success of the Arabs came from their own effective leadership and devoted armies, the weakness of the two major empires which dominated the area around the Arabian Peninsula, and from the discontent of surrounding populaces who were willing to abandon their Orthodox Emperor so as to maintain their own religious freedom and identity.
The Arab conquests began under the leadership of Mohammed, who initially went from being a refugee from Mecca to its conqueror, and eventually conqueror of all of the Arabian Peninsula. Led by religious fervor and also by Muslim elites who wished to exert authority over the various Bedouin tribes of Arabia, the entire Peninsula belonged to the Muslims by the time of Mohammed’s death.[1] At the time of Mohammed’s death, Arabs had reached the borders of the Persian and Roman Empires, but were unable to advance any further for the time being due to a civil war which was being fought over Mohammed’s appointment of Abu Bakr as his successor. In the Ridda Wars, Abu Bakr emerged victorious with the assistance of his general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, who would later prove himself further against the Romans and Persians.
From the close of the Ridda wars and into the initial stages of the conflicts with the Romans and during the conquest of the Persian Empire, the Arabs had numerous advantages of their own when both fighting their enemies and administering conquered regions. Military, the Arabs were not as well trained or equipped as the Romans or the Persians, but regardless they fought with very similar tactics as the Romans and with generally similar armament. What gave the Muslims their advantage militarily, besides religious fervor which served in large part as their morale base, was the promise of earthly rewards. These rewards ultimately manifested themselves as the diwan, which gave Muslim warriors who had been serving the longest in the wars of expansion a great stipend, and lesser amounts for those who had serve less years.[2] This system not only gave incentive for Muslims to join up and fight, it also allowed them to continue fighting, as they did not have to stop and settle on land to secure an income, since they were being provided with a stipend for their service and faith.[3] Accounts, such as that of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, also indicate that the Arabs could be devastating to lands which did not submit to them.[4] Though the source may be biased, and injunction made by the caliph Abu Bakr against his men indicates that this destruction did occur, though it was contrary to the wishes of the Arab leadership.[5]
Further strengths of the Muslim conquerors came from their administration, which allowed a generally good treatment of the conquered and thus reduced chances for opposition. Examples of this good treatment can be seen in the Pact of Omar with the people of Jerusalem, where he promises the Christian and Jewish populaces limited freedoms and protection in return for their subservience to the Muslims and on the promise that they would pay the jizya poll tax.[6] This can also be seen in the treatment of the Persians, where it is ordered that subjects be taxed only as much as they can afford, while conveniently also regarding Zoroastrians as People of the Book and thus allowing them to co-exist with the Muslims, unlike unfortunate pagan subjects who happened to be conquered.[7] Finally, in the initial years of the conquest, governing of the conquered provinces was done in effect by military commanders, allowing for strong central authority and little bureaucracy, this giving the commanders greater flexibility in dealing with both fighting with infidel and governing their area of occupation.[8]
These advantages alone however would not have allowed the Arabs to conquer the vast expanses of territory which they would eventually control had the two major empires they were fighting, the Roman and the Persian, not been severely weakened from years of major conflict between the two. From early in the 7th Century until 629, Persia and Rome had been waging a devastating war which was fought for most of the duration between the Roman Emperor Heraclius and the Persian king Chosroes II. For most of the war, Persia had held the upper hand, reaching their climax of success with the siege of Constantinople in 626, whose fate seemed secured were it not for a storm which destroyed the joint Persian and Avar fleets, which the Romans attributed to the Theotokos and from which the Akathist Hymn derives its origin.[9] The situation rapidly deteriorated for the Persians after their failure to capture Constantinople, as Heraclius was again on the march in Persian lands, liberating lands which belonged to the Romans and almost reaching the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. In Persia however, Chosroes failures against the Roman Empire resulted in his dethronement, imprisonment, and murder.[10] Peace was signed with Heraclius, but a succession of weak monarchs followed in Perisa, and following the death of Chosroes’ replacement, Seiroes, Persia saw three different usurpers claim the throne within the span of 16 months, obviously leaving a weakened Persian state.[11]
The Arabs had already had relations with both the Romans and the Persians, and were usually recruited by both sides, and notably as Roman foederati to fight their wars and to exist as proxies between the empires.[12] Abu Bakr’s invasion of Persia which was begun and led by al-Walid in 633, and much success was achieved by the time Ctesiphon was captured in 636, which resulted in the destruction of the ancient Persian Empire. The means of this conquest came mainly through fighting various battles against the Persians, first under the leadership of al-Walid but later under generals appointed by Abu Bakr’s successor, Omar, The Persian state, as disorganized as it was, was not able to put up effective resistance against the Arabs, though they did manage to fight numerous pitched battles against the invading Muslims. The Persian populace, overwhelmingly comprised of peasants, did not resist the Arab invasions, as little changed for them based upon who was administering their province.[13]
During his invasion of Persia, Abu Bakr turned his attention to the Romans in Syria, and moved many of his resources, as well as his ablest general, al-Walid, to wage war against the Romans. The Romans were also in a severely weakened state, though the sources of this weakness differed to varying extents from the problems in Persia. When the Persians went to war with the Romans, the Roman Empire was dealing with several threats around its various borders, mainly from barbarians in the Balkans.[14] The war with the Persians had numerous consequences for the Romans, the most important of which was the reduced capability of its military, through both the exhaustion of the troops and the large loss of life. As much of the conflict had taken place over Roman lands, these too were devastated, and the Roman administration which was set up in its place was largely ineffective. Most importantly for the success of the initial conquests however was the willingness of the people of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to assist, even passively, the Arab invaders.
These provinces which the Romans had recently liberated were in fact made up of a large number of monophysite Christians, who denied the existence of the two natures of Christ which had been established by the Church. Roman authorities largely alienated the monophysite populations of these areas by persecuting them, and while the Emperor Heraclius had sought to find a compromise to please both orthodox Christians and the monophysites, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, himself a monophysite, rejected the imperial doctrine.[15] Jews were also discriminated against by the imperial state, most explicitly in their ousting from Jerusalem when the True Cross was restored by the Emperor.[16]
With the invasion of the Muslims, many of these repressed groups saw the opportunity to live under more tolerable conditions. The reasons for this were numerous. Theologically, Islam was not a large way away from Christianity or Judaism, especially the Christianity which was practiced by the monophysites. Since they denied the two natures of Christ and accepted only his divine nature, they believed that icons were blasphemous as there was no human nature of Christ to display, and with the Muslims they saw others who also rejected icons. Most importantly however, they wished to escape persecution from the Church at Constantinople, and this is best espoused by the 12th Century Jacboite patriarch, Michael the Syrian, who was relying on contemporary sources and who claimed that the Muslims had come to save them from the Romans.[17] Similar sentiments were shared by many Jews, such as those of Hebron, who promised to betray the Roman defenders of their city to the Muslims if the Muslims would “grant us [Jews] security so that we would have a similar status among you [the Muslims]” as well as the permission to build a synagogue, and the Muslims agreed to these conditions.[18] Both monophysites and Jews can be seen cooperating in the betrayal of Romans in the city of Hims, where the populace promised to assist the Muslims against Heraclius so as to prevent further persecution by the Romans.[19] The conditions were indeed better for the monophysites under the Muslims, as any Orthodox Christians who remained were seen as possible agents of the Emperor.[20] The Muslim conquest in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine ultimately forced most Orthodox Christians to leave these lands, most of whom were members of the aristocracy, allowing for Arab elites to take their place and for monophysites, who formed the overwhelming majority of the peasantry, to remain as the dominant Christians in the area.[21]
These initial conquests by the Arabs were done while Heraclius was still on the imperial throne. There can be no doubt about Heraclius’ military prowess, which he fully demonstrated in his wars against the superior armies of Persia, but after the devastation the Muslims caused on the lands which he had so recently liberated, and with crumbling resources at his disposal, his reign began to falter, as did his mental sanity, culminating in a fear of the sea which forced the Romans to create a pontoon bridge with trees on both sides so that he could cross the Bosporus and enter Constantinople.[22] Following his death, the Empire saw the imperial crown come upon the heads of ineffective rulers, usurpers, rulers whose reigns were cut short by other usurpers, or simply the reigns of rulers who did not live long enough. The Arabs on the other hand, having moved from the Rashidun caliphs to the Umayyad Caliphate, were experiencing military successes almost across the board. The Islamic invasions had occurred in the context of religious strife between Constantinople and the eastern provinces, which explains to people like Theophanes Confessor the reason for their success, but now Muslim expansion was being allowed to the inability to respond to it, as well as ineptitude from the part of the Romans due to more religious conflicts which were being caused by Iconoclasm.[23] By the time an effective emperor was able to take the throne in the form of Leo III the Isaurian, the Arabs had already conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa, and most of Spain.
The Muslim conquest of Visigothic Spain does in fact offer an interesting antithesis to the conquests which were made under the Rashidun caliphates. Visigothic Spain was not inherently weak, as it had been established in the area ever since the Romans fled in the 5th century. Its populace was largely homogeneous in their Christianity, and they benefited from the leadership of a relatively established and powerful king, leading the Muslim invaders to believe that killing the king would result in the collapse of the Visigothic armies.[24] Muslim success in Visigothic Spain was not something which was possible through the weakness of the enemy as in the initial conquests, but because of the strength of the Muslims, who had a well-equipped, relatively well-led army supported by a centralized state.
The Arabs would eventually however reach the apex of their power. In the West, an incursion which was made into France was repelled by the Mayor of the Frankish Palace, Charles Martel, whose grandson would be exchanging gifts and white elephants with Harun al-Rashid. The defeat of the Muslims at Tours and Poitiers were not significant in their military accomplishment, as these were only raids which had been organized by the Muslims, but they signaled strong opposition if they were to advance more westwardly, which was made more evident with Martel’s mopping up of Muslim corsair bases in the south of France. In the East, Muslims continued to make progress until the 10th Century, but were never able to capitalize on their successes by capturing Constantinople. Instead, their inability to penetrate the Theodosian Walls or to successfully occupy the Golden Horn in the presence of Roman ships carrying Greek fire often resulted in the complete destruction of various expeditions which were sent against the City, giving the Romans a chance to fight back. Eventually, both sides began to focus their attention more on defeating other enemies and so a frontier was created between the Roman Empire and whichever Muslim forces were in the area, though this frontier was not necessarily peaceful. The thematic system which had been established under Heraclius allowed for border provinces to levy their own armies to protect themselves, thus requiring the imperial standing armies, the tagmata, only in dire circumstances.
When the Arabs erupted onto the world stage following the death of Mohammad, they were surrounded by two withered empires. The Persians, under weak leadership and having sustained large casualties during the war with the Romans could not resist. The Romans, who had exhausted their resources to achieve their monumental success against the Persians, were unable to deal with a new enemy in a land which was ravaged by heresy and destruction from the conflicts which had recently taken place there. Unable to field effective resistance, they were not able to meet the Arab armies effectively, and due to religious persecution and the alienation of the local populace, the Muslims were able to find allies willing to oust the Romans. This success established the basis for a Muslim empire which could win its own battles, rather than simply take advantage of momentary lapses in vastly superior enemies.
Footnotes
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[1] Hugh Kennedy, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007), p.58.
[2] Montgomery W. Watt, Islamic Political Thought: The Basic Concepts (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968), pp. 46-47
[4] Nehemia Levtzion, Conversion to Islam in Syria and Palestine and the Survival of Christian Communities; Papers in Medieval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1990), pp. 291-292
[5] Bernard Lewis, Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. 1: Politics and War (New York: Walker and Company, 1974), p. 213
[6] Lewis, Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. II: Religion and Society (New York: Walker and Company, 1974), pp. 217-219
[7] Lewis, Politics and War, p. 230, Watt, Islamic Political Thought, pp. 50-51
[18] “Canonici Hebronensis Tractatus de inventione sanctorum patriarchum Abraham, Ysaac, et Jacob,” Sefer ha-Yishuv, vol. 2, 6 in Norman A. Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), p. 152
[19] Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri, “Kitab Futuh al-Buldh” trans. P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, LXVIII (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924) pp. 207-211
[24]The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, ed. Charles F. Horne (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), pp. 241-242
Works Cited
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Primary Sources
“Canonici Hebronensis Tractatus de inventione sanctorum patriarchum Abraham, Ysaac, et Jacob.” Sefer ha-Yishuv, vol. 2, 6 Stillman,, In Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979.
Chronicon Paschale 284-628AD. Translated by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. New York: Clarendon Press, 1997.
The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East. Edited by Horne, Charles F. New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917.
al-Baladhuri, Ahmad ibn-Jabir. Kitab Futuh al-Buldh. Translated by Hitti, P. K. and Murgotten, F. C. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, LXVIII. New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924.
Procopius. History of the Wars. Translated by H.B. Dewing. London: Heinemann, 1971.
Secondary Sources
Kennedy, Hugh . The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
Levtzion, Nehemia. Conversion to Islam in Syria and Palestine and the Survival of Christian Communities; Papers in Medieval Studies 9. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1990.
Lewis, Bernard . Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. 1: Politics and War. New York: Walker and Company, 1974.
---. Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople, Vol. II: Religion and Society. New York: Walker and Company, 1974.
Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. London: Viking, 1997.
Watt, Montgomery W. Islamic Political Thought: The Basic Concepts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968.
In the early and mid 7th Century, the Arabs exploded onto a world stage which they knew little about and which knew little about them.
considering the southern 'arab' kingdoms (saba, qataban, himyar, hardrmawt, etc.) largely controlled the trade between the mediteranean and india, as well as selling the native myrh and franciscene, it's not like they had no contact with the outside world. this is evident in the art of south arabia which at times was highly influenced by mesopotamian and hellenistic art.
From the close of the Ridda wars and into the initial stages of the conflicts with the Romans and during the conquest of the Persian Empire, the Arabs had numerous advantages of their own when both fighting their enemies and administering conquered regions. What gave the Muslims their advantage militarily, besides religious fervor which served in large part as their morale base, was the promise of earthly rewards. These rewards ultimately manifested themselves as the diwan, which gave Muslim warriors who had been serving the longest in the wars of expansion a great stipend, and lesser amounts for those who had serve less years.[2] This system not only gave incentive for Muslims to join up and fight, it also allowed them to continue fighting, as they did not have to stop and settle on land to secure an income, since they were being provided with a stipend for their service and faith.[3]
Military, the Arabs were not as well trained or equipped as the Romans or the Persians, but regardless they fought with very similar tactics as the Romans and with generally similar armament.
if you're managing a crappy team like newcastle, and you have technically poor players who have no tactical understanding of the game, do you think you're gonna win the epl because you're promising them ferraris?
you really need to back up with sources your claims that they were less well trained or not as well equipped, especially considering that they often defeated persian and roman armies much larger than their own force.
Islam, which claimed to be revealed by God through the Prophet Mohammed,
the Roman Empire was dealing with several threats around its various borders, mainly from barbarians in the Balkans.
in a land which was ravaged by heresy
statements like these are relative and reflect the opinion of the author (not that i disagree with them)
The Arabs had already had relations with both the Romans and the Persians, and were usually recruited by both sides, and notably as Roman foederati to fight their wars and to exist as proxies between the empires.
again you imply that arabs were a monolithic force, and that some individual mercenaries were recruited for these empires. what you fail to mention is that both ghassan and lakhm, the two independant arab kingdoms of yemeni origin, were constantly at war against each other and acted as buffer states between the persia and rome, one being based in syria around hauran and later bostra, the other in al-hira. they played a pivotal part in the wars of the sixth century, and their power grew to the point were both empires turned against their kings at later stages, thus weakining their own military ability to fight against the arabs of the islamic invasions.
Jews were also discriminated against by the imperial state
and you can't blame the romans, as they had largely been responsible for the massacre of almost the entire population of jerusalem a few decades earlier, when jerusalem was one of the wealthiest cities of the empire.
With the invasion of the Muslims, many of these repressed groups saw the opportunity to live under more tolerable conditions. The reasons for this were numerous. Theologically, Islam was not a large way away from Christianity or Judaism, especially the Christianity which was practiced by the monophysites. Since they denied the two natures of Christ and accepted only his divine nature, they believed that icons were blasphemous as there was no human nature of Christ to display, and with the Muslims they saw others who also rejected icons. Most importantly however, they wished to escape persecution from the Church at Constantinople, and this is best espoused by the 12th Century Jacboite patriarch, Michael the Syrian, who was relying on contemporary sources and who claimed that the Muslims had come to save them from the Romans.[17] Similar sentiments were shared by many Jews, such as those of Hebron, who promised to betray the Roman defenders of their city to the Muslims if the Muslims would “grant us [Jews] security so that we would have a similar status among you [the Muslims]” as well as the permission to build a synagogue, and the Muslims agreed to these conditions.[18]
except that the ghassanids (later orthodox, at that time monophosytes) and armenians, who both provided large forces at yarmouk, were also monophoysites. as for michael the syrian - did you consider the possibility that his work is biased?
Both monophysites and Jews can be seen cooperating in the betrayal of Romans in the city of Hims, where the populace promised to assist the Muslims against Heraclius so as to prevent further persecution by the Romans.[19]
you forgot to mention that this was after the battle of yarmouk and the destruction of the roman army. why would they let their city be sacked and themselves sold into slavery? this was no betrayal, only common sense by the city's population. there are better examples of the local population assisting the invaders.
allowing for Arab elites to take their place and for monophysites, who formed the overwhelming majority of the peasantry, to remain as the dominant Christians in the area.[21]
this is open to debate, as most who converted to islam were monophysites, as they were theologically closer to islam.
whose grandson would be exchanging gifts and white elephants with Harun al-Rashid.
wasn't it one (possibly albino) elephant?
When the Arabs erupted onto the world stage following the death of Mohammad, they were surrounded by two withered empires. The Persians, under weak leadership and having sustained large casualties during the war with the Romans could not resist. The Romans, who had exhausted their resources to achieve their monumental success against the Persians, were unable to deal with a new enemy in a land which was ravaged by heresy and destruction from the conflicts which had recently taken place there. Unable to field effective resistance, they were not able to meet the Arab armies effectively, and due to religious persecution and the alienation of the local populace, the Muslims were able to find allies willing to oust the Romans. This success established the basis for a Muslim empire which could win its own battles, rather than simply take advantage of momentary lapses in vastly superior enemies.
you make it sound as if the success of the islamic invasions were due to the weakness of both empires; this is not entirely true, because in many (if not most)battles they were outnumbered by ennemy armies which employed heavy troops and shock cavalry, who had extensive experience in the persia-roman wars. the islamic conquest was first and foremost successful because of their ability to win on the battlefield more often then not, and this success was largely due to one man alone: khalid ibn al-walid, whose name is only mentionned once here.
considering the southern 'arab' kingdoms (saba, qataban, himyar, hardrmawt, etc.) largely controlled the trade between the mediteranean and india, as well as selling the native myrh and franciscene, it's not like they had no contact with the outside world. this is evident in the art of south arabia which at times was highly influenced by mesopotamian and hellenistic art.
Correct.
if you're managing a crappy team like newcastle, and you have technically poor players who have no tactical understanding of the game, do you think you're gonna win the epl because you're promising them ferraris?
A religion, even a very materialistic one like Islam, is a rather stronger motivator than some football team's goals. Especially seeing as with religion, it's about life or death and your very soul, not just some game.
you really need to back up with sources your claims that they were less well trained or not as well equipped, especially considering that they often defeated persian and roman armies much larger than their own force.
You were also making a statement, which you'll need to back up. Which credible sources stack the numerical odds against the Arabs?
statements like these are relative and reflect the opinion of the author (not that i disagree with them)
The first one wasn't...
you make it sound as if the success of the islamic invasions were due to the weakness of both empires; this is not entirely true, because in many (if not most)battles they were outnumbered by ennemy armies which employed heavy troops and shock cavalry, who had extensive experience in the persia-roman wars. the islamic conquest was first and foremost successful because of their ability to win on the battlefield more often then not, and this success was largely due to one man alone: khalid ibn al-walid, whose name is only mentionned once here.
Currently on a merchant trip in the remote, barbaric lands to the North
Posts
1,191
Re: The Success of the Arab Conquests
Do you have sources for this?
Well the sources normally used for the Arab conquests claim the Muslims were outnumbered in virtually every battle they fought.
And seeing as they conquered the Persian Empire and most of the Byzantines' eastern lands, it is obvious they were capable of winning more often than losing. And if you have read something about the tactics, equipment and and such of the Muslim armies (or rather Arab armies in general) and consider their great strategic mobility (entire armies mounted on camels in a region with no great lack of deserts) and the quality of their commanders (Khalid, think there was also a few other dudes), then you will realize why.
PS: Before anyone asks, I do not claim that the Arabs all fought on camelback. THere is little evidence that they ever did. Camels were solely used for strategic mobility, when battle commenced the Arabs dismounted their camels and fought in a defensive shieldwall formation (if infantry) or mounted their horses (if cavalry).
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right"
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Salvor Hardin, from Foundation by Isaac Asimov
Well the sources normally used for the Arab conquests claim the Muslims were outnumbered in virtually every battle they fought.
But how reliable are they?
And seeing as they conquered the Persian Empire and most of the Byzantines' eastern lands, it is obvious they were capable of winning more often than losing. And if you have read something about the tactics, equipment and and such of the Muslim armies (or rather Arab armies in general) and consider their great strategic mobility (entire armies mounted on camels in a region with no great lack of deserts) and the quality of their commanders (Khalid, think there was also a few other dudes), then you will realize why.
I've read about this stuff, though mainly on the Persians. What I'm asking proof for is the statement that the military genius of Khalid et al. was more decisive than other factors. Such as faith, morale, declining state of both opposing empires, etc.
Currently on a merchant trip in the remote, barbaric lands to the North
Posts
1,191
Re: The Success of the Arab Conquests
But how reliable are they?
Haven't checked all the sources, but I think they are for the most part Arab sources (though again most sources on Alexander are greek, or later Roman). You have to take them for what they are.
I've read about this stuff, though mainly on the Persians. What I'm asking proof for is the statement that the military genius of Khalid et al. was more decisive than other factors. Such as faith, morale, declining state of both opposing empires, etc.
I'd say it was a good combination, but you shouldn't underestimate the impact of a commander who was never defeated in battle and conquered the entire Persian Empire (though to be honest the empire mostly crumbled after the battle of al-Qadishiyyah).
Anyway if you really are interested the wikipedia articles don't really cite many sources mostly books were written after the events in question. I would either scour the net, wait for a better answer here, or check some of those books for the sources used.
It seems Ibn Khaldun (keep in mind that he lived in the 14th century, which makes him far removed from the events in time, but he could have had access to written sources and such lost to the present) wrote of the Islamic conquests, and I think his book, the Muqaddimmah is available for free online.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right"
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Salvor Hardin, from Foundation by Isaac Asimov
Honestly though a lot of the outnumbered bits looks kinda windy. Its not my favorite period but I don't see the kind of harsh white light of modern historical skepticism being applied to khalid ibn al-walid as you see for say taking down Persian number against Greeks...
it's true that some of the islamic sources aren't to be trusted... i think there was one battle where they were *supposedly* outnumbered 1 to 100. but in general they were outnumbered; at yarmouk for example, roman sources estimate the roman army to be around 140000, while modern estimates put it down to 100000; while muslim primary sources put their own army at between 24-40000. or at the battle of firaz they were up against a combined persian, roman and lakhmid army. it's funny because the general perception of the islamic conquests are hordes of arabs swarming everything, when it was in fact a series of brilliant campaigns (from a military viewpoint)
Originally Posted by athanaric
Correct.
A religion, even a very materialistic one like Islam, is a rather stronger motivator than some football team's goals. Especially seeing as with religion, it's about life or death and your very soul, not just some game.
so according to you, promising your soldiers 70 babes in heaven is what will decide the outcome of a battle?
You were also making a statement, which you'll need to back up. Which credible sources stack the numerical odds against the Arabs?
most sources, both roman and arab?
it's only after the conquest that they were able to field huge armies that outnumbered their ennemies (for example at both sieges of constantinople)
Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
Posts
16,038
Re: The Success of the Arab Conquests
battles they were outnumbered by ennemy armies
Honestly though a lot of the outnumbered bits looks kinda windy. Its not my favorite period but I don't see the kind of harsh white light of modern historical skepticism being applied to khalid ibn al-walid as you see for say taking down Persian number against Greeks...
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Currently on a merchant trip in the remote, barbaric lands to the North
Posts
1,191
Re: The Success of the Arab Conquests
Honestly though a lot of the outnumbered bits looks kinda windy. Its not my favorite period but I don't see the kind of harsh white light of modern historical skepticism being applied to khalid ibn al-walid as you see for say taking down Persian number against Greeks...
One should always be skeptical when given numbers for battles that took place a long time ago. The most you can often take somewhat for granted is that one army was larger or smaller than the other. And even that to me is somewhat iffy as it seems that in every famous battle in history the winners had fewer men than the loser. Why is that?
As regards the Arab conquests what you could say with rather good accuracy is that in most of battles the Arabs fought the odds were seemingly against them, and it's not an exagerration to state Khalid ibn al-Walid had a good track record. If you look at many of the sources describing the battles you'll see that they are quite poetically described almost, with Byzantine generals converting to Islam in the middle of battles, one-on-one duels between the generals and Persian and Byzantine attempts at trickery failing against the pure and righteous Arabs. It's much like 300 (perhaps also pull in Herodotus) which tells of real events with general accuracy as to when they took place and what their outcomes were, but details are exaggerated omitted or invented to make the stories more exciting when told around a campfire or something.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right"
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Salvor Hardin, from Foundation by Isaac Asimov
Haven't checked all the sources, but I think they are for the most part Arab sources (though again most sources on Alexander are greek, or later Roman). You have to take them for what they are.
roman, persian and arab sources
how reliable are they?
the muslim armies decimated the mighty persian empire in less than 10 years ... the empire that had only 50 years or so ago had defeated the byzies and marched all the way up to mid anatolia before being pushed back
same with the byzantines.. they took the richest parts of the empire .. and the byzies were in no position to fight back
its really remarkable... here comes these people from the desert, defeats the greatest empires on earth at the time and completely destroys one while almost destroying the other (2 sieges of constantinople) ... you can tell by their effects that they did not win mere skirmished.. their victories were decisive and they took good advantage of them ..
its ludicrous to insinuate that the muslim conquests were not spectacular at the least
I've read about this stuff, though mainly on the Persians. What I'm asking proof for is the statement that the military genius of Khalid et al. was more decisive than other factors. Such as faith, morale, declining state of both opposing empires, etc.
neither empire was declining, they were superpowers of their time and region.. fighting many large wars between each other
this is in 620 AD, mere decades before islamic armies destroyed them
before the byzies (against all odd i might add.. ) pushed them back
khalid bin walid is perhaps the BEST military leader in history, who else has won such decisive victories that were long term i might add.. unlike the greeks, or hannibal... the state that he fought for and established ruled for hundreds of years
and he defeated forces many times his own , look a the wiki pages.. even the modern estimates show massive forces on the byzy and sassanid sides
i know you really dislike anything having to do with islam.. but this is history.. and you cant really deny the genius of khalid bin Walid and his contemporaries.. he is up there with genghis khan
those arabs are not the same as the arabs that fought in the muslim armies.. the muslim arabs that constituted the muslim armies were generally from hedjaz or najd , only few of them.. the merchant elite ever interacted with the outside world
Last edited by Dr. Oza; October 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM.
but to call Khalid the most capable military leader in history is out right non sense
no one said he was the best... but among the best? probably. alexander the great was one of the greatest generals... but he wasn't as tested as khalid - in alexander's battles the odds were against him only a few times, as opposed to khalid. a single defeat in his persian campaign (i think around 10 battles, where he was outnumbered in almost all of them) would have probably have meant the destruction of his force (an army far very from it's home base) and the quasi-certain end of islam as a major religion (seeing as how some arab tribes were already revolting). and this is even more certain at yarmouk, considering that the entire muslim armies (with the possible exception of the garrisons in persia) were gathered to face the combined roman armies
Originally Posted by Londinium
They'd spent hundreds of years knocking seven shades out of each other
lol hundrerds of years? and you forget that they were at peace most of the time because of economic interests.
Khalid was certainly a good general but he was fighting two exhausted empires that were in no state to fight, thus why the Arab conquests were so fast. Do you seriously think the Arabs could have defeated a strong Eastern Rome or Persia so quickly when neither of those two could definitively defeat the other in hundreds of years?
we can only speculate. but the fact is that up to that point the various tries of arabia were not united, much like the mongols before gengis khan. and after all, palmyra was able to give persia a good fright (even though it made heavy use of mercenary forces). but thuis kind of logic is flawed - alexander conquered a declining persia, the brits conquered a declining india, the mongols conquered declining civilizations...
neither empire was declining, they were superpowers of their time and region.. fighting many large wars between each other
Err... so the Soviet Union wasn't declining by 1985, just because it controlled huge swathes of land? Yeah.
Others have already said it, so why bother writing it anew:
The Roman Empire was not as weak as the Persian Empire, which had been completely defeated by Heraclius and suffering from internal strife. The Persians were no longer a formidable power, though if they had been given time to recover they would have become formidable again.
The Romans were in a better situation militarily, but Roman Syria and Egypt were feeling the brunt of persecution and high taxation and saw the Arabs as a solution to get rid of what they viewed as Roman tyranny. Militarily, Khalid was an excellent commander and inflicted significant defeats on the Romans, but without local support he would not have been able to capture and maintain the large lands which the Muslims conquered from the Romans.
Both Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire were exhausted. They'd spent hundreds of years knocking seven shades out of each other and then recently being ravaged by plague. The Eastern Empire had very nearly fell to the Persians before Heraclius came onto the scene and threw them back. However time was needed to recover from the all out war of the last Roman-Persian War and they didn't have that. The Arabs attacked the Eastern Romans just five years after the end of a war that had been carried from the walls of Constantinople to Jerusalem fighting all the way.
Khalid was certainly a good general but he was fighting two exhausted empires that were in no state to fight, thus why the Arab conquests were so fast. Do you seriously think the Arabs could have defeated a strong Eastern Rome or Persia so quickly when neither of those two could definitively defeat the other in hundreds of years?
There's little to add to that.
.. one in which the persians marched up to constantinople before being turned back [...]
My primary source on the Sassanids was "Das antike Persien" by Josef Wiesehöfer. I don't really need your Wikipedia information on a subject I'm studying at university anyway.
Suffice it to say that the Sassanid Empire was destabilized, what with a disillusioned populace, war-torn lands, and problems with Turkic tribes. Not to mention their problems with the Byzantines and sectarian movements.
i know you really dislike anything having to do with islam.. but this is history.. and you cant really deny the genius of khalid bin Walid and his contemporaries..
I'm not denying his genius, I'm asking for credible sources.
The success of the Arab conquests were aided by the Persians recklessness behaviour towards its vassals in Al Hira, the last Lakhmid king was executed by Khusrau Parvez thus leaving the Sassanid Empire vulnerable to an invasion from the Arabian peninsula.The Battle of Dhi Qar was perhaps an omen of things to come,since it showed that the Arabs could defeat a Persian army if they worked together.
yea - i think he wanted to condolidate his power at home since he was departing on campaign against the romans. and the exile of two of the most important ghassanid kings by constantinople, in 581 and 583, also weakened their prestige and grip over their neighoubring confederate tribes, around whom much of their manpower revolved, thus weakening their ability to resist the persian invasion.
Originally Posted by athanaric
Yes, the USSR were an empire. Don't tell me you're an admirer of their glorious struggle against the evil West.
i'm not entirely sure, but i think that the roman/byzantine empire wasn't communist, and they did not have nuclear deterrence
Originally Posted by Timoleon of Korinthos
Obviously....
What huge armies and which occasions exactly?
The field army of Armenia had a nominal manpower of 12,000 men and the field army of the East of 15,000. And there were only 5 field armies in existence throughtout the Roman empire.
Even if you account for full deployment, at the battle of Yarmouk River, which was the grandest in scale and repercussions, and even accounting for several thousands of Gassanid allies, the army could not have exceeded does not exceeded the 40,000 men even on a hypothetical basis. Modern historians like David Nicole and John Haldon estimate it to about 20,000 men, due to the fact that the campaigning armies were not assembled at full strength and due to the desertions. By contrast the army of Heracleius during his final counter offensive in the Romano-Sassanid war of 603-628 is estimated to have been about 100,000 men, including vast numbers of foiderati. Similarly, the Sassanid army campaigning in Mesopotamia is estimated by Rubin to have been able rise up to 60,000 men in their glory days, yet by the end of the last Romano-Sassanian war only Sharbaraz's force had been left standing from Koshrau's field armies.
davide nicolle estimated 25000 regulars in the byzantine army for a total of 100000 troops. i didn't read haldon - but almost all historians agree that the combined roman was greater in numbers. the brittanica encyclopedia (usually competent), for example, claims 50000 roman casualties. and if the roman army was so small, what interest did theopanes have in stating that the army was 180000 strong? this figure is surely an over estimation, but it's clear that the roman army was bigger then the arab one.
and we assuming that the arabic sources useless here - i think one claims 100000, another 200000. i have a much easier time accepting these numbers (which i don't take literally) then the ridiculous numbers of the persian armies as given by herodotus, arrian, plutarch or diodorus siculus. anyway i don't see how making hypothetical assumptions while ignoring the general consensus among the surviving sources, both roman and arabic, that the imperial army was bigger, has anything to do with the historical method. or at least thats what they told us in our first year at uni.
Last edited by MAXlMUS; October 29, 2010 at 08:18 PM.
The Success of the Arab Conquests
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MAXlMUS
