did the arabs get lucky

It's probably also worth mentioning that the civil wars left the Arabs with an enormous supply of veteran soldiery (probably most of the male population) to draw upon. I would say this goes a long way towards explaining why the early Islamic armies just seemed to work better than their opponents'.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Historians who explain everything in history by who's side is favoured by God are basically giving up and taking a wild stab. For the most part, it is useless. Secular analysis is a very power tool (or model) at our disposal, however when analysising anything we are limited by the tools we use. A very simple tool like the 'favoured by God' approach usually does not lead us to a deep understanding. The secular analysis tool has the ability to teach us more, however it will only teach us so much. We do not live in a secular universe, and as such that tool is apriori limited. When we are discussing this period the secular analysis tool gives us no, or non-sensical answers. What it says does not correlate with what was recorded. In this period this tool is useless and we should discard it.

Sorry, I can't have a historical discussion based on the uncertain premise that anything resembling our notion of god exists, and even if our sources to the causes behind the Arab conquests are unsatisfactory it does not prove otherwise. From my perspective there is no reason to put faith in anything beyond what can be established by secular tools, and if you're going to incorporate deism as part of your argument it becomes worthless to me and every other serious historian on the planet. Not that I outright deny the possibility or even desirability of a god, but it's a different discussion altogether that should never be brought up in a historical debate.

Either the Arab conquests are explained through study of the source material, or they aren't explained at all. The sources could have been better, of course, but the study of the ones that exist have yielded several theories, all of which are more credible than anything involving divine intervention.


Edited by Reginmund - 01-Jun-2009 at 17:48

perhaps it was. and perhaps it was all a plan by god that it worked out this way, but you could say that for any part of history. for example that it was gods plan that the germans would kill 6 million jews or that wellington would win in 1815. but we will never know this for sure. any man who stnads up and says i know what god is thinking is like an ant standing saying i know how computers work. we cant because its beyond our limited understanding. so could we leave god out of this and focus on historical facts. otherwise we should all say its gods will for every thing and close this site down.

then tyhe question is now to mesure the united strength of the arabs. the sources i have read all say the arab armies were all much smaller than that of their opponents. again was it not down to very poor leadership on the part of the byzantines and persians. had khosrua 11 and and a young herculies been in charge. given that both byzantine and persian armies were larger, better equipped, tactically and more experienced would the arabs still have won. if my sources are wrong about the size of arab armies then please correct me.

the byzantines and the romans before them had 500 years of dealing with arab raiders and had never had any trouble in seeing them off. the difference this time was an ehusted empire led by a dementia sufferer

The difference is that up to that point Arabia was never united in the way that it was under one banner.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim I don't think there is any point in even pretending that this war can be interpreted from a secular persepective, and I don't think there is anything to gain in trying. Not just this war but this whole period - starting from the Eithiopian defeat at Makka - is rigged in favour of Islam. For example George Ostogorsky in the history of the Byzantine State said on the issue; "What ensued is well known and documented but remains inexplicable: 'one of the most profoundly unintelligible series of events in history', in the words of a distinguished British historian, Fergus Miller" The obvious answer, even if non-muslims find it distasteful, is that if you wish to find clear proof that God favoured the Sahaba it is plain for all to see in the history of this war, and the period.

Then how is one to understand the subordination, in the early-modern era, of much of the Muslim world to the nominally Christian, yet increasingly secular European powers?

It really is interesting, because I believe we are of one accord when it comes to our basic methodological premise (that God is active in history). I just think that it is a bit odd to look at a specific period conducive to establishing a pro-Islamic interpretation of God's interaction with history in light of all the later details which argue to the contrary. That said, I have definitely been guilty of the same when it comes to the history of the Christian Church, especially in doing the history of the anti-Christian ascendancy after the period termed "the Enlightenment", so I don't really know how to proceed in much of my own research. I think the key is that it all hinges upon a look toward the eschaton, but reconciling our faith in what will ultimately transpire in the future with the particulars of how it is transpiring in the present is interesting to say the least. All this has given me more to think about, not less, never fear.

It seems like the methodological principle itself would be a good topic for a collaborative thread in the near future. I'm not ready to abandon my method of doing history just yet, nor, would I imagine, are you; still it does seem to bear some examination. Would you be interested? I can think of a few others who may be.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Jun-2009 at 01:27

with regard to herculeis dementia see byzantium the early centuires by norwich. during the persian wars he was one of the finist generals in history. during the campaign against the arabs he was hesitant and slow. norwich states that he was suffering the dementia that would later become clear. as for gods will with regard to arab victory. does this mean that for the 1000 years before god was a roman, or that for the last 400 years he has been a christian. gods only relevence to the arabs wars was that he increased motivation on the part of the arabs. but as i had said before this motivation would not have been enough had they attacked 40 years before. or 40 years after

Aftermass of Perso-Roman war of 603-628 was so devastated for Persians. Persia was on chaotic time and Persians had 9 kings in 4 years (628-632) which shows how weak they were. Arabs started attacking Persia in 633. If you don't call it luck then what do you call it?

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

Khosrau II	591 to 628
Kavadh II	628
Ardashir III	628 to 630
Shahrbaraz	630
Purandokht (Empress)	630 to 631
Peroz II	631
Azarmidokht (Empress)	631
Khorezadh Khosrau	631
Hormizd VI	631 to 632
Yazdgerd III	632 to 651

Aye, I agree that Akram's "Sword of Allah" is a pretty good source on the issue. Its not just because he was a military officer though, John Baggot Glubb was also a military officer, and his book "The Great Arab Conquests" isn't anywhere near as good or well reseached.

It's also true that there was no sandstorm at Yarmouk. Not even Gibbon reports one.

Originally posted by hiddenhistory byzantine emperor was suffering from dementia

been lucky enough to have their opponents led by an old man suffering from dementia. the confusion and effect on morale this must have caused the byzantines should not be overlooked

Originally posted by Sun Tzu Byantines did not have very competent commanders

What?? I have never before heard that Heraclius had dementia. Heraclius's campaign was both brilliant and wise. He did everything a strategic commander could possible do to ensure victory for his troops. He ammassed well supplied, superior, forces to confront an inferior foe. He had numerical and equipment superiority, and he was able to dictate where and when to fight important battles. Ajnadeen and Yarmouk are both examples of this. He used sea routes to the Roman's best advantage, had large number of Arab auxileries, and the manuevering prior to Yarmouk was brillant. He completely out positioned the Muslim army and forced them to fall back without a battle.

The Romans only did one thing wrong; they lost all the important battles. They could not beat the muslim army in combat despite all the strategic advantages they had. They lost duels before battles, and lost actions during them. They could not bribe or subvert, and their people kept crossing over to the Arabs (such as George before Yarmouk, or Jonah the Lover at Damascus).

The Persians, while they did not have the genious of Heraclius, were certainly not incompentant either. They raised great armies after armies, all vastly superior to the muslim army, and they kept getting beaten by an numerically and technologically inferior foe. If anything the persians forght harder than the Romans (they certainly gain that reputation) despite magnificent manuevers by the Muslims like Khalid's pincers at Muzayyah, Saniy and Zumeil

Originally posted by Reg Rather than see it as luck, I think of it as a calculated strategy. The Arabs weren't oblivious of what went outside their lands and must have known that the aftermath of the war between Byzantium and Persia was the right time to strike. They knew they were the underdogs and they knew they couldn't take either enemy head on under normal circumstances, but circumstances weren't normal and so the Arabs wisely struck. Byzantium was not able to mount a solid defense of the Levantine and Egyptian provinces, instead they relied on naval attacks for which the Arabs had no counter at that point, but they weren't sufficient to turn the tide in any way. Yarmouk was won by the competence of the Arab commander and army, not the sand storm nor the Arabs under Byzantine command who defected. As for the Sassanids they simply weren't able to mobilize an adequate defense and as a result the Arab-Persian war was rather one-sided with few exceptions.

Nice theory but it doesn't add up. Despite the previous Roman-Persian war both empires were still able to use their vast depth to their advantage. The war may have contributed to the Empires not being able to raise great armies past the 2 Roman ones or 4 persian ones that confronted the initial invasion, but considering that the resources they did raise were so much larger than the Muslim forces we can't blame the previous war for their defeat. The Empires should have gained victory with what they had, even if they couldn't raise anything past what they had because of war weiryness.

Also, there was no calculated strategy involved when planning the invasion. Far from striking at Persia and Rome at the opportune time, they struck accidentally. The war with persia, for example, really started when the Lakhmid dynasty was annexed by Persia in 602 - before the Roman-Persian war. Many former Lakhmids (such as the Bani Bakr) refused to accept defeat, and forght persia continously from that period of time. When the Bani Bakr converted to Islam, the muslim state inherited this pre-islamic war. The first major invasion of Iraq by Khalid bin al Walid only occured because a chief of the Bani Bakr, Muthanna bin Harith, went to Khalif Abu Bakr (raa), told him of the huge success the Bani Bakr were having, and asked for more troops and help.
The Bani Bakr were fighting the persians all through the Roman-Persian war, all through the Persians defeat, and all through the immediate aftermath, but they only started acheiving successes after their conversion to Islam & the death of the prophet (saw). In the words of Muthanna bin Harith himself;
"In the Jahilliya [before Islam] 100 persians could defeat 1000 Arabs, now [after Islam] 100 arabs can defeat 1000 persians"
Khalid's army was sent to Iraq to assist Muthanna, in fact, Khalid had just finished campaigning in the Ridda wars and the majority of his army left and went home instead of proceeding directly into Iraq.

This should be sufficient in showing you that there was no calculated strategy.

Were one to follow your reasoning; that the empires had more than enough time to recover and the Arabs were the ones weakened by war, that would make them superhuman, and a development like this needs clear, believable causes.

I don't think there is any point in even pretending that this war can be interpreted from a secular persepective, and I don't think there is anything to gain in trying. Not just this war but this whole period - starting from the Eithiopian defeat at Makka - is rigged in favour of Islam. For example George Ostogorsky in the history of the Byzantine State said on the issue;
"What ensued is well known and documented but remains inexplicable: 'one of the most profoundly unintelligible series of events in history', in the words of a distinguished British historian, Fergus Miller"
The obvious answer, even if non-muslims find it distasteful, is that if you wish to find clear proof that God favoured the Sahaba it is plain for all to see in the history of this war, and the period.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 31-May-2009 at 04:13

Another element in which I would like to add would be religion, at the time Islam was young religion that was able to stoke fire into the hearts all its adherents whom would give their life for it. Similar to the first Christians who would publicly profess their religion even though they would be fed to Lions at everyone's excitement. Religion alone wouldn't have won the war that was being waged there at the time but it probably inspired many of the tribes to settle most of their differences and join the cause. It was somewhat similar to the Crusades as when the Crusaders landed in the Holy Land, there was not much resitance until Saladin (a very competent commander). The Byantines did not have very competent commanders plus Christianity was somewhat old, so there wasn't as much vigor in the hearts of the men fighting for the Byzantines. Not only Religion but some people in the region did not detest the Arab invaders because they were almost seen as liberators.

So basically the Byzantine empire at the time was probably right after her zenith and was beginning to decline anyways despite the demented ruler and loss of popular support, especally at Manzikert 1071 I think. which hastened the demise of the Empire which would linger on for another rougly 400 yrs; only to be put out of her misery by Mehmed II.

As for Persia, my history on them is somewhat weak in this area of time, so I would have to agree with everoyne else that they were just weakened by war.

So were the Arabs lucky, I would say so they were there at the right time and moment and they had a new religion that inspired the Arabs conquer the Middle-East and spread there religion.

Edited by Sun Tzu - 30-May-2009 at 04:10