Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk

I have copy-edited day 1-6 but it is still not good enough.

An example:" Khalid struck at the right flank of the Byzantines left half of the center, and the cavalry reserve of the Muslims right half of the center struck at the Byzantines left half of the center at its left flank."

This is simply not good enough. After viewing the picture, I can make sense of it but the text confuses the reader.

I need some braincells to rephrase this. I haven't found a way. Wereldburger758 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is quite difficult. I wanted to try myself, but I think I need to set some time aside to find sources in Arabic and translate those. A written description of troop movement and military maneuvers is not easy. Unflavoured (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I have renamed a few concepts: "right half of center" has become "right center" and "left half of center" has become "left center". Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look in the sandbox of the text that I have written along with the picture. sandbox. Is this a useful addition in your opinion? Wereldburger758 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its a great idea. But where exactly this picture should be placed ??? i think Notes section will be good for it. Whts your thoughts ??

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the notes section is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wereldburger758 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Shock and awe is very modern military jargon and is anachronistic for an article concerning 7th century warfare. It also sounds misapplied for this strategic situation. Heraclius appears to be trying to use central position in an attempt to defeat the enemy in detail.Tttom1 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. And the sentence in which it is mentioned, isn't a full sentence at all. I have removed the sentence. Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Shock and awe actually refers to massive display of power to paralyze decision making power and will power to resist, of once enemy, at least for the immediate aftermaths of first advance, definitely Heraclius strategy of sending several corps from 5 different directions gives an impression of this doctrine, and he was very much successful in shocking muslim armies who retreated from their captured land, second part of his plan was to be started once his armies would maneuver around the muslim corps and cut them off from each other defeating them in detail,(central position). To me at least it look like heraclius converted that strategic doctrine (shock and awe) to a strategic maneuver in order to facilitate his plan B that was to use central position and destroy muslim corps separately.

Heraclius was a master strategist, no doubt, his persian campaigns stand testimony to tht. Byzantine usually avoided pitch battles and therefore according to my understanding of their military doctrine they intended a shock and awe and kept central position strategy as option B (i.e if conditions were favorable they would execute this as well ), if byzantines would have given choice, it is more likely that they would hv given preference to shock and awe to central position, as its less costly in terms of casualties.

Any ways a great addition, central position. It defines things in context of military strategies. I have no opposition to it, but just for sake of knowledge would like to know u guy's thoughts over whether heraclius strategy resembling shock and awe in its initial stages (plan A).

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While there are certainly resemblances, 'shock and awe' is just current jargon, like 'blitzkreig' which, while appropriate for WW2, is out of place for any preceding period and of lesser value for succeeding periods. For example, describing Hannibal's first campaign in Italy as a 'blitzkreig' would be anachronistic even though in the broad sense it could be so defined and, for that matter, could also be described anachronistically as 'shock and awe'.Tttom1 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the secondary sources. If they call it shock and awe we have to do the same, if not, we must avoid this term. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring and Tttom1 not to use the concept "shock and awe" in this article. And I have never read anywhere of the concept "strategy of the central position" and I have read a lot of books about military strategy and military history. The Wikipedia article gives only one book as reference.Wereldburger758 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

strategy of central position - The art of warfare in the age of Napoleon By Gunther Erich Rothenberg p 151; Naval strategy compared and contrasted with the principles and practice of ... By Alfred Thayer Mahan p31; Race to the front: the materiel foundations of coalition strategy in the ... By Kevin D. Stubbs p272: How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War—From Ancient Greece to the War on Terror, by Bevin Alexander, pages 144-43..."Rommel could execute a classic example of the central position. From the Mareth Line, Rommel could strike first at the Americans and British in Tunisia, then turn back on Montgomery coming up from Libya."Tttom1 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Yarmouk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Can we please not continuously inflate and deflate one side or the other ?! The history of this article is riddled with attempts at changing the numbers from one POV to the other. Discuss this on the talk page BEFORE playing around with the numbers, and provide sources to support your numbers. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the source for modern estimates, only Kaegi has a very low estimate (15k), while all the others have a much higher number. Would there be an objection if we were to disregard Kaegi for this ?! Unflavoured (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Me, for example. Kaegi is universally considered one of the top experts on the period, as confirmed by the fact that he was the author of the article "Yarmuk" for Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam, while Akram (who gives the highest numbers) is not a scholar and his work is not peer-reviewed.Aldux (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Kaegi is probably the most respected authority on this subject and this period. His view should be taken into account.Giordaano (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

there is a mistake in the numbers of the roman army one estimation 100,000 to 400,000 and the other is 15,000 to 100,000 huge difference CAN NOT YOU SEE IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammamWiki (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

again, someone has been playing around with numbers. Please, leave the more detailed version. Even if you might not like it, it is better to have a more complete overview of the estimatesGiordaano (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User Kool777456 is deleting the more detailed estimates about the combatant numbers contained in the info box. Please, stop this and discuss on the talk page, before making any changes. There should be a consensus on this issue, before changes are made. See previous postsGiordaano (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And again. IP 41.97.127.145 changed the numbers. Changes to this sensitive point, which has been discussed over and over again, have to be discussed on the talk page. And, stop hiding behind an IP Giordaano (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

again, someone deleted the 15,000 estimate for the Byzantine army. This estimate is very well-sourced (Kaegi)

Numbers should not by modified except by consensus.Giordaano (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And again, numbers were changed without any discussion. The consensus reached is that the estimate by Kaegi for the Byzantine army should be quoted. Stop the vandalism Giordaano (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Manzikert, the largest armies the Byzantines fielded were in the region of 20,000-25,000. Heraklius campaigned against the Persians with an army of that order, as did Manuel Comnenus at Sirmium. Alexius Comnenus struggled to muster such a large army against the Normans, even when bringing in everyone who could be spared from across the empire. It cannot be incidental that Byzantine army sizes across periods and authors seem to hit that limit. On the other hand, I was just reading a Georgian/Armenian chronicle claiming that the Byzantines lost 72,000 in a battle against the Georgians but 780,000 still remained (http://rbedrosian.com/gc5.htm). If one checks the battles in Wikipedia, one will rarely find a battle where the more numerous side won. That is because the prevailing accounts are those of the victors, and especially when it comes to contributing to articles on Wikipedia, simple as that. The estimate of 15,000 for the Byzantine side is realistic. Anything above 20,000 approaches fantasy. Another assessment by Haldon in The Byzantine Wars:

The numbers fighting on each side are impossible to determine. On the imperial side, sizeable detachments from the field armies of the East and of Armenia were involved, but it is unlikely either that these forces were up to full strength or that all of the units belonging to them were withdrawn for action on this single front. Rough estimates of the eastern field army suggest a nominal strength of about 15,000, and for that of the Armenian front about 12,000. Assuming 50% percent of each army were involved, a total of not more than 15,000 including the Arab allies, with a further 2,000-5,000 for extra units drafted in (from the limitanei based Emnesa, for example) is plausible. A total imperial force of about 20,000 would, therefore, be not unreasonable, although this remains a guess.

However, the article still reads: estimates for the Byzantine army are mostly between 80,000 and 150,000, with some estimates as low as 50,000 and 15,000–20,000. The only cited source for this is Kaegi, who says 15,000. Where do the other "modern estimates" come from? Skamnelis (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Really funny how Arab historians are always called "Outdated" and "Unreliable" while historians of the old like Herodotus who claim that the Persians sent an army of 2 million are honoured. Another thing which is annoying is how the Persians at Gaugamela are said to have mustered an army of 240000... Even after Granikos and some other battles they lost against Alexander. I see noone comlaining about that.

But when a Oriental army defeats a Western army and even the historians of that time estimate the numbers of Byzantines arround 80000-100000 its still not good enough...

--Arsaces (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM. Venting your personal feelings is not what article discussion pages are intended for. Iblardi (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, I'm sorry for what I wrote back then. I was a young, emotional nationalist. Nationalism truly is a mental illness, and I apologize that I tainted this article with it.

--Arsaces (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the mention from Byzantine reports that the Arabs bribed over 10,000 Ghassanid Arabs to switch sides? It used to be in the part about the tensions due to the different sects of Christianity practiced by those Arabs and the Byzantines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.83.197 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't if know if any of you or even the moderator bothered to read any of Nicolle or Akram's books. If you did they both say that the Muslim army and the Roman Army were a 1:4 ratio, respectively. I edited the text because most modern historians put the Roman estimate at 100,000 and most put the Muslim army at 25,000 maximum. Akram tends to estimate both forces as higher so if you want to use the biggest estimate of each historian than the largest estimate of the Roman army has to be put in. Which is 150,000. It wasn't put in. You did however use Akram's high number for the Muslim army. You can't just neglect Akram's high number of the Roman army and use his high number for the Muslims. Kaegi's estimates should be ignored because his numbers aren't consistent with the data of the other 5 sources. The numbers I put in are consistent with the scholars' estimates a 1:4 ratio. If you want to include every modern estimate as probable than the Romans will be 15,000-150,000 this range is too big and you have to neglect the outliers, mainly Kaegi and Akram. You are left with 80,000-100,000. If you neglect the outliers for the Muslim army you get 25,000. However we should say 20,000 to 25,000 because the historians clearly state in their books it was a 1;4 ratio. The previous numbers really are despicable, borderline revisionist, really makes me question what I read on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.235.4 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaegi and Haldon are not revisionists, they are serious academics. The Byzantines could have not fielded such armies. They were not able to field an army greater than 25,000 at the height of their campaign against Persia with much of the gold from the churches melted to provide the resources. They could not field an army to protect Constantinople from the Avars. It is simply an impossibility. Anything above about 20,000 is fantasy. What should make you question what you read on Wikipedia is numbers such as these you are mentioning - 150,000 men. It is as if nearly the entire city of Constantinople had migrated to Syria and camped out in the fields. It is impossible. Do not forget all primary sources are Arabic.Skamnelis (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe Kaegi forgot to consider the auxiliary of Jabalah of Local Arab christians or Dairjan the armenian. knowing too its stringes before the era of Thematic organizations(which is after Heraclius death) Rome at least still have above regular 170.000 standing armies, althought not all could be fielded in one battle at onceAhendra (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Byzantine Army had around 150,000 maximum 200,000 at most buy it seems really unlikely While 40,000 to 50,000 troops for Caliphate at most Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Uzair Ansari333 - Please cite which Reliable published sources you are referring to in order to obtain those figures - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In the article it says Muslims estimated the Roman army to be 400,000. However, there is no Muslim source saying that the Roman army was 400,000. There are a couple that say 200,000. Nothing for 400,000. This is why I deleted it. Unless people can just put in stuff they like to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.235.4 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what people are doing : putting in the numbers that they would like to believe.

We discussed this innumerable times in the past, and decided to keep a very wide range of estimates as to the respective numbers. This decision shouldn't be changed without a new discussion.Giordaano (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

it is should be noted that the de facto overall commander of this Rashidun troops was Abu Ubaydah bin Jarrah, who was been appointed by Caliph Umar, not Khalid as popular belief, althought on battle technically its Khalid who gave the effective order. this is trivial but can lead to misleading if the article did not include the note

The course of the Yarmouk River does lie on the borders of Syria-Palestine, nor yet on the borders of Syria and "The State of Palestine". It runs between the borders of Syria and Israel (as well as the borders of Israel and Jordan), east of the Sea of Galilee, in territory that has never been proposed as part of a Palestinian state. Joe in Australia (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That should read "does NOT lie on the borders of Syria-Palestine [...]". Sigh. Joe in Australia (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago I added this picture:

to the article but it was removed. Is there any issue with it being used to illustrate the article?--178.169.198.103 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The coordinates indicated can't be right. The battle site now appears on Google Maps c. 10 km as the crow flies north of the Yarmuk - that's impossible, even for the most remote luggage camp. Possibly useful: "The Roman army was arranged with the Wadi Allan gorge to their right, the Wadi Ruqqad to their left." I have it from Dan Fratini, who posted on www.militaryhistoryonline.com in 2006; now it's gone from there, but it's parked behind a paywall at ; others copied it () or parts of it (). Wadi ar-Raqqad (Ruqqad) is easy to find, but which wadi there is Wadi 'Allan? The one coming down in a N-S direction, passing next to (W of) Saham al-Jawlan? That would start explaining the current coordinates, but not fully. And is that indeed Wadi 'Allan? Arminden (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

hm. probably try Arabic letter? Ahendra (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

1. The Yarmuk is a river, not a place. Just imagine "Battle of Nile", "Battle of Thames", "Battle of Danube", "Battle of Seine", "Battle of Mississippi": never. It's not English. In full it would be "the Battle of the Yarmuk River", as it is sometimes written, but it's not really needed. This is the term used by Al-Baladhuri, and since him by all the accurately writing academic sources. See for instance Paul Halsall. Those who write "Battle of Yarmuk" misunderstood the term (the meaning of "al-Yarmūq") or didn't think in English.
2. English: mainly Yarmuk (Yarmūk, Yarmūq); -ou- is mainly French. Just google for recent academic books not written by French authors or francophone Syrian authors. Arminden (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cewbot removed the following:

{{Vital article|class=|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History|anchor=Western Asia (36 articles)}}

I don't know a thing about this topic, but if it's about removing a kind of "high importance tag", it shouldn't. I undid it writing that this is a "TRULY history-changing battle. If it's not on some list: put it on the list!", but if it's just about the tag being the wrong one, then the bot was right. Anyway, who knows their way around this? High importance; history, military history, cultural history... Make your pick, they're all correct; Levant - Middle East - West Asia, whatever is available. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want too see the list in question, see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5. Dimadick (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)