Talk:Battle of the Yarmuk

copy-edit day 1-6

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)

useful new addition?

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 ?

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.

why this article is good

i've kept an eye on this article for about 3 years now, it tells the story of the imperialist battle for israel particularly well. the persian, byzantine, and islamic empires all have their place in jewish history, and the story of the muslim conquest of israel from the christians is well told. Trum5770 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Trum5770 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): c (alt text)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you can add a couple of missing refs, I can pass the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i hv provided the references...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As a historian I disagree with this assessment. It ranks among one of the worst articles on a historical battle on wikipedia. Much is being presented as fact based on a select few sources, such as the battle lasting for 6 days while there is absolutely no way of this being certain. Edit wars on the article were abundant, but a few tireless editors in favour of a one-sided approach to this battle have prevailed through countless reverting of edits. I'd say this article is at best adequate in describing the most elaborate presentations of the battle, without acknowledging this presentation is actually hard to verify. Adding to that it is strongly biased towards an Arab point of view. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, Wiki1609. The sources used in this article are extremely questionable, particularly the reliance on al-Tabari as a source. It is extremely clear that he is the only major source that reports the battle to have taken place in 634 CE rather than 636CE, which is clearly incorrect. Khalid ibn al-Walid's involvement here, too, is questionable. Also, I see Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet is cited as a source, but what is the reasoning for that? Other than background information on some of the individuals involved? There isn't anything within the work regarding Yarmouk. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree entirely. This article (via the modern writers Akram and Nicolle) is based ultimately on Tabari/ Wakidi/ Baladhuri, i.e. the Arab historians who wrote 150-200 years after the events. This account is extremely detailed , but very late and corresponds also to a religious/ideological agenda

The fact that this narration is based almost exclusively on Muslim accounts should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Byzantine and Armenian sources should also be used much more extensively (not that there is much: but, in itself, this is important, since these sources are much nearer in time to the events)

As it is, this article is quite entertaining, but makes for poor history.Giordaano (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the policies of wikipedia, i have used the modern sources, the secondary or third party sources, written by authentic historians, no one can judge the sources until they meet wikipedia reliable source standard, we are not allowed to do so according to the policies. so if some one have any personal issue on the authenticity of the sources used, then he may proceed to prove them unreliable, only commenting upon the sources wont help, if you can improve the sources then feel free to do so.

As for Armenian and byzantine sources, if some have access to those virtually extinct sources, then i would appreciate if some one could help in adding them. The article is based mostly on the work of david nicolle, one of the best historian of military history. i wonder still people doubt the factual accuracy of the article, what else do you guys want then ? you want a book written by Khalid ibn walid himself ? @User:Riskbreaker2987, if you have any queries regarding the factual accuracy of the article then we can discuss it on my talk page.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, Mohammad adil, that's certainly not what I'm looking for. I completely believe that wikipedia SHOULD include the account of al-Tabari in this article, as it is integral as a part of the Islamic narrative. I also disagree a bit with Giordaano in that I believe this article should rely on the Islamic sources quite largely, because the Greek/Syriac/Armenian information we have is very limited. What I'm arguing for is that within the other Islamic sources - al-Baladhuri, Ibn Sa'd, etc - they don't talk at all about Khalid's involvement at Yarmouk, and that absence is defeaning. With that said, Giordaano is definitely right that we should include more of the non-Muslim sources.

So what I'm saying Mohammad adil is not that I want Khalid's words himself, but I DO think the full Islamic narrative should be represented here, and considering that al-Tabari stands alone in relying on the account of Khalid's involvement provided by Sayf. b. 'Umar, I don't think it should be relied on this heavily. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

check this [1], i was amazed to know that one of the historian who wrote in the period of islamic conquest gave the exact same date, year and size of byzantine army for battle of yarmouk, that most of the islamic historians suggest.

Any ways check this out.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the battle of 'Gabitha' account. this is proven this article was deserved for GA1 rank. In the end propaganda or were Biased or not, it is generally agreed the primary sources is supporting one each other (not only Tabari or Baladhuri as popular belief, many besides those two like Waqidi ar too describe the same) and being accepted as the most detail one by second hand or tertiary source commentary Ahendra (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The numbers game

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)

================================

From the discussion above as well as archive 2, I judged that the number 15,000-40,000 for the total Byzantine troops involved in the battle of Yarmuk to be the most plausible. Therefore, I agree with Wiki1609 (on archive 2) and partially with Skamnelis as well as Giordaano. It is argued by Mohammad Adil in archive 2 that the Arab force consists of an estimated 25,000 or at most 40,000 Arab troops, this is much too ridiculous if we consider the fact that he also claims that the Arab troops to be capable of defeating the Byzantine force consisting of an estimated 80,000-150,000 troops (unless it's 40,000 Arab troops v. 80.000-100,000 Byzantine troops, which is possible but I do not believe it is well cited). If this is a siege warfare or warfare utilizing guns and canons, then it is plausible, but with swords in the Jordan valley / Yarmuk plain? absolutely preposterous.

I also evaluated that Mohammad Adil's comprehension on the sources are lacking and I agree with the error in comprehension as pointed out by Wiki1609 on archive 2, for example: "I think you draw the wrong conclusion from your research. If the Byzantines had around 150,000 total troops throughout the entire empire, this does not mean they can deploy 100,000 men in the field".

Through perusal of the arguments presented above as well as archive 2, and research of relevant sources, my position is that sources such as Agha Ibrahim Akram and his ridiculous estimates needs to be removed from the wikipedia page immediately, or at least if this dubious sources were to be included, then it should only be included in passing such as: some historians estimated the number of Byzantine forces to be around 80,000-150,000, however further scrutiny of such sources shows that such claims are dubious and unreasonable considering the socio-historical context as well as the military structure and total strength of the Byzantine Empire during the battle of the Yarmuk.

If no one concurs or refute this within a period of 1 week, except Mohammed Andil, of which the arguments I have already seen, then I would proceed with making the changes, taking into account that everyone above agrees with Kaegi estimates of 15,000 (or more precisely 15,000-20,000) Byzantine Troops, but none agrees with Akram's ridiculous estimate of 150,000 Byzantine troops.

I would therefore, revise or allow the revision of this article into 15,000 - 40,000 Byzantine troops (40,000 Byzantine troops is based on Journal of Asian History, Vol.19, No.1 - The Battle of the Yarmuk - A Reconstruction (1985) by John W. Jandora p.14.

SaintsCross (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing

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)

Ghassanid Arabs switching sides?

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 edited the numbers

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)

Sorry about changing numbers just read it should be discussed first......... I also changed something else .....

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)

Change the order of battle deployment

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

Course of the Yarmouk River

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Yarmouk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409171715/http://ia700803.us.archive.org/26/items/TheIslamicConquestOfSyria/Futuhusham_-_The_Islamic_Conquest_of_Syria_-_Al_Waqidi.pdf to http://ia700803.us.archive.org/26/items/TheIslamicConquestOfSyria/Futuhusham_-_The_Islamic_Conquest_of_Syria_-_Al_Waqidi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle illustration

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)

Coordinates incorrect

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 [2]; others copied it ([3]) or parts of it ([4]). 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)

Name: Battle of the Yarmuk

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)

"Vital article, class..., level..."

Cewbot removed the following:

{{Vital article|class=GA|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)

Sources for number of troops in need of page numbers and/or proper bibliographical referencing

Amazing237 came to my talk page with a concern about the numbers being given for the Byzantine troops. I explained to them that we should follow the sources in this, but on a closer look it appears that this is quite impossible, since the article doesn't give full citations for most of the sources it cites on this topic.

Most of the modern sources, only cited in the notes section, do not give page numbers. The primary sources, on the other hand, are cited with page numbers, but without a full bibliographical reference: it's not clear what editions these pages numbers exactly refer to. I added the appropriate tags ({{citation needed}}, {{page needed}}, {{specify}}), but given the long history of edit warring over this topic and given the bad state of the referencing, I think that these sources should also be verified. I guess that in order to add the page numbers and proper editions, one would need to do that anyway, but I also added {{verification needed}} tags to stress that independent verification is really needed here.

On another note, I think it would be better to leave out the references to primary sources: there's a reason why we have experts to interpret and evaluate these numbers, and by citing the primary sources in the way we do we seem to be taking over that interpretative and evaluative role, which is not at all in line with WP:PRIMARY.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree to dropping the primary sources, or at least handling them more carefully. Template:Infobox military conflict defines Strength as the numerical strength of the units involved. It happens that sometimes the primary sources do not refer to the number of troops involved, but to those encamped at a distant location, which may also include non-troop populations (women, slaves, etc), as Marina Tolmacheva explains: The pre-Islamic custom of women accompanying men to the battlefield continued for a while under Islam, and the first Muslim sailors were encouraged to bring their wives on board.[5]. I think the Battle of Mu'ta illustrates this, where currently the number of those encamped at Balqa' (citing Waqidi and Ibn Ishaq) is listed under "Strength" as if they were all involved at Mu'ta. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the IP. A range gives undue weight to the outliers vs others. Perhaps we should consider the median or Mode_(statistics) to better represent "the view of most historians". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that "15,000-120,000" is weird. But if reliable sources do in fact have so widely diverging views (we still do not have any fully cited source for the 80,000–150,000 claim: all the sources given for this lack page numbers, while the properly cited sources say 15,000–20,000), there must be a good reason for these two very different estimates, and we should explain that in the article. The infobox should in that case contain something like "either c. 15,000–20,000 or c. 80,000–150,000". Making up medians of essentially unsourced numbers, on the other hand, sounds like a terrible idea. What we need before all else is for someone to verify the sources and to add page numbers. Perhaps then can we evaluate which sources are more reliable in context, and establish due weight. But without properly cited sources we shouldn't be changing much at all in my view (except perhaps temporarily removing the improperly sourced info). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, did you read the GA review for this? Not only is this article in urgent need of a reassessment now, the comments by three critical editors in the original review clearly indicate to me that this article should never have been promoted in the first place. Already at promotion, this article relied too much on (uncritical representations of) primary sources, failed to identify and represent the views of the most reliable experts, suffered from edit warring, etc. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A reassessment sounds reasonable as I'm sure things were different back in 2010. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Also support this article being reassessed. As for troop numbers, this is what I have from editing the Khalid b Walid article, which I’m planning for FAC very soon:

The sizes of the forces cited by the medieval traditions are disputed by modern historians; Donner holds the Byzantines outnumbered the Muslims four to one, Walter E. Kaegi writes the Byzantines "probably enjoyed numerical superiority" with 15,000–20,000 or more troops, and John Walter Jandora holds there was likely "near parity in numbers" between the two sides with the Muslims at 36,000 men (including 10,000 from Khalid's army) and the Byzantines at about 40,000.

120,000 seems beyond the pale for the Arab side. Of course very difficult for modern sources to pin down a figure for troop numbers of a battle for which we have no contemporary or near contemporary sourcing. That said, based on modern, scholarly estimates, range in Infobox should probably be 15,000–36,000 for the Arab side, with a note about the four-to-one ratio or at least the Byzantines having some degree of numerical superiority. Al Ameer (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Maps

Is there a specific reason why this article needs 6 different maps for the battle location?

• Syria
• State of Palestine (also on map of (Israel?)
• Israel (also on map of (Palestine?)
• Jordan
• Middle East
• Levant

The map of Syria best covers the border region. The maps of Palestine, Israel and Jordan don't add much adtional info and Middle East and Levant are also overlapping. I think it's best to keep only Syria and the Levant map. 31.21.58.243 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine Army Size Modern Estimates

I think any Anonymous user who edits this number without citing a source should have their Logs blocked. You have the same people with the most recent example being 84.80.96.143 editing the army size and putting fantasy numbers there instead every few days after the army size number is reverted back by one of us. I've had to revert the Byzantine army size like 20 times at this point lol.Byzantium is Rome (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is happening with the numbers?

"5,00,000 Byzantines soldiers"

I can't tell if this number is supposed to be 5 million or 5 hundred thousand, it is written so poorly. When I go through the revision every single entry is complete nonsense. Can we please get this page protected? I came here to learn history, not some bs propaganda someone wants me to believe. 203.214.72.108 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Article needs major work, not just the numbers. I reverted the most recent revision. Good case for low-level page protection, which I may start myself if the problem continues. Al Ameer (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Inability to comprehend terrain

I do believe that the Byzantium was unable to comprehend the terrain of Syria, the environment was probably hostile to heirs of Rome.

18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)~////////////////////////////////18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.245 (talk) 43.242.178.245 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Arab caravan

"Rashidun Caliphate" had units that knew the Levant, particularly merchant caravan and spies that spoke Arabic they used to trade in that region, and knew it very well.

These units were the cause of the Byzantine defeat at such a massive scale.

04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)~////////////////////////////////////04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.245 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) and provide a reliable source for your above claim. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)