Heraclius

The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius was one of the greatest Emperor's in Roman or Byzantine history. His reorganized the army, and personally led it into the field in a counter-attack against the Sassanids. He personally defeated a Sassanid general in battle!

His campaign was the deathblow to the Sassanids, who were throughly drained from the war. The Arabs soon after defeated and replaced the Sassanids, and soon after that took over most of the lands Heraclius had relcaimed.

I have not found much information on how the Arab armies defeated Heraclius's armies. Were the Byzantines outnumbered? Ill-led? (heraclius didn't take the field against the Arabs. he may have been too old) Or were the Arabs simply better led and out-fought/out-smarted the Byzantines?

Any help would be appreciated.

Also, what is your opinion of Heraclius and his deeds?

Hm. As I recall, that wikipedia article was written almost exclusively from an Arab propagandist's point of view (at least it was the last time I saw it...hmm...two months ago?). Detailed? Yes. Misrepresentative? Extremely.

gentlemen let me begin by stating my agreement in regards to the military genius of both Heraclius and Khalid Ibn Al Walid.

For now I would merely like to add the role of timing, motivation and chance in the conflict.

It should be noted that the Arab invasions of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires occurred soon (relatively speaking) after Heraclius's eventual victory over the Sassanids with both empires exhausted from the colossal clash (this can not be blamed on Heraclius as he tried to make peace multiple times with generous terms prior to the battle of Nineveh). Hence both empires were drained of resources.

Secondly there is the positive impact on morale that the new religion of Islam and there recent unification of the majority of the Arabs had on their morale. Then there's the effect constant warfare and religious conflict and divisions had on the exhausted Byzantine's morale (hint: not good).

On a final note a sandstorm that supposedly blew up in the faces of the Byzantine army at Yarmouk which greatly aided the much smaller and Brilliantly led Arab army.

These are contributing factors of importance to the Arab conquest nevertheless I believe they could not have achieved what they did without superior leadership which is exactly what they had due to to the abscence of Heraclius and the presence of Khalid.

Regards, Praetor.

Hello to you all

Edited by Al Jassas - 29-Oct-2007 at 15:50

In these early days I would rather use the term Arab soldiers over Muslim, because while the higher leadership were all Muslim at least publicly there were many Christian tribes- Arab ones that is that contributed soldiers to the armies of the early Caliphate who partook in battle and booty. They were all still bound by long standing Arab tribal notions of alliances. Source, Hodgson Venture of Islam Vol I.

What is the nature of this source? You will forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand; it doesn't seem at all likely in light of the life and times of Heraclius.

Your forgetting that he didn't reject it. He died an Orthodox Christian.

The Sahih Bukhari is one of the most reliable compilations of Hadiths. Without going into the explanations of Hadith sciences (you can write whole books on the issue), in order for it to be admitted into the Sahih Bukhari it has to be an event that has numerous eyewitnesses, with excellent memory, and a very similar recollection. It is therefore very likely the event described happened.

There are multiple different Hadiths in the Sahih Bukhari which refer to that event. A search for the name 'Heraclius' turns up the following results:

001.001.006 001.002.048 003.048.846 004.052.060 004.052.191 004.052.221 004.053.399 006.060.075 008.073.010 008.074.277 009.089.304

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 31-Oct-2007 at 04:53

Why do I get the feeling your rejecting the source not because you know anything about its authenticity (because you surely don't) but because you don't like what it contains?

Weighing up the opinions of a few Christians with ruffled feathers, and a historical eyewitness source backed up by transparent and often revised historiography*, of course I choose the latter. Unless someone can shed doubt on the authenticity of that particular hadith.

There isn't anything even extraordinary in there. Heraclius received a letter from the Prophet, and this is the eyewitness report of those who delivered it. So he was sympathetic to Islam, what do you care? If you can take the fact that most of his compatriots converted to Islam within the next 150 years, surely you can take the fact that Heraclius didn't.

*see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Islamic_world


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 31-Oct-2007 at 08:28

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Why do I get the feeling your rejecting the source not because you know anything about its authenticity (because you surely don't) but because you don't like what it contains? Weighing up the opinions of a few Christians with ruffled feathers, and a historical eyewitness source backed up by transparent and often revised historiography*, of course I choose the latter. Unless someone can shed doubt on the authenticity of that particular hadith. There isn't anything even extraordinary in there. Heraclius received a letter from the Prophet, and this is the eyewitness report of those who delivered it. So he was sympathetic to Islam, what do you care? If you can take the fact that most of his compatriots converted to Islam within the next 150 years, surely you can take the fact that Heraclius didn't. *see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Islamic_world

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Why do I get the feeling your rejecting the source not because you know anything about its authenticity (because you surely don't) but because you don't like what it contains? Weighing up the opinions of a few Christians with ruffled feathers, and a historical eyewitness source backed up by transparent and often revised historiography*, of course I choose the latter. Unless someone can shed doubt on the authenticity of that particular hadith. There isn't anything even extraordinary in there. Heraclius received a letter from the Prophet, and this is the eyewitness report of those who delivered it. So he was sympathetic to Islam, what do you care? If you can take the fact that most of his compatriots converted to Islam within the next 150 years, surely you can take the fact that Heraclius didn't. *see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Islamic_world