Arabs in Byzantine Armies

[Jona Lendering]

Yesterday evening, I was in the pub, and we discussed the military aspect of the Arab expansion in the seventh century ("the rise of Islam"). My friend Richard said that certain Arab scholars had pointed at the possibility that Arab units in the Byzantine army had defected, and that this might be a partial explanation for the Arab successes. I thought this was certainly possible, but Richard knew no sources. Anyone?

[Mitra]

Kennedy report no source speak of desertion of arab unit to muslim before the battle, only of rumors of disaffection between Byzantine, Armenian and Arab. Some syrian arab soldiers defect to muslims or flight in last day of fight, but for the byzantine the things are already bad. THe better explication for byzantine defeat and Syria lost is that the muslism have higher moral and more cohesion, Khalid is a better commander, and the local syrian oppose little or no resistance in the fortified cities, leaving only to local garrison to fight.

The conquest phase has anyway few contemporany sources and the mythical character of this phase created many anachronisms in the successive reports (the syrian arab tribes like the ghassan will have a primary role in Ommayad armies).

[Robert Vermaat]

THe better explication for byzantine defeat and Syria lost is that the muslism have higher moral and more cohesion, Khalid is a better commander, and the local syrian oppose little or no resistance in the fortified cities, leaving only to local garrison to fight.

I agree. The Romans put all their eggs in one basket (something dreaded since Adrianople) and they lost. Had their military infrastructure been completely rebuilt since the desastrous Roman-Persian wars, they might have stood a btter chance at retaining Syria and Palestine (and eventually Egypt), but as it was this was not the case. The Arab armies were not extremely large or their generals so much better, but motivation and tactics surely played a part.

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks, gentlemen; I get the overall picture.

The Romans put all their eggs in one basket (something dreaded since Adrianople) and they lost.

Can you expand this a bit? What measure(s) are you referring to?

THe better explication for byzantine defeat and Syria lost is that the muslism have higher moral and more cohesion ... The conquest phase has anyway few contemporany sources and the mythical character of this phase created many anachronisms in the successive reports

Is it possible that higher morale is also part of the myth? What I am aiming at, is whether religion did actually play a role. In the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, Christians fought for the Arabs against the Sassanians; Islam was very young and the Koran did not yet exist as a book; even in 750, only 10% of the overall population of the Caliphate was Muslim. Was religion a contributing factor to Arab morale?

[Mitra]

Is it possible that higher morale is also part of the myth? What I am aiming at, is whether religion did actually play a role. In the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, Christians fought for the Arabs against the Sassanians; Islam was very young and the Koran did not yet exist as a book; even in 750, only 10% of the overall population of the Caliphate was Muslim. Was religion a contributing factor to Arab morale?

More that to religion, we must see the tribal link of bedouin arab united with warrior culture. From the little we can see from the sources the first arab armies fought for tribal units not for artificial military units. The first islam power was generated by ansar urban elite leading the bedouin armed force and energy in external campaigns.

[Carlton Bach]

Is it possible that higher morale is also part of the myth? What I am aiming at, is whether religion did actually play a role. In the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, Christians fought for the Arabs against the Sassanians; Islam was very young and the Koran did not yet exist as a book; even in 750, only 10% of the overall population of the Caliphate was Muslim. Was religion a contributing factor to Arab morale?

In my book, the fact that the Arab conquest happened indicates that it must have been a factor. Of course it's unlikely to be provable through the sources one way or the other - our evidence for the period is lousy. But the Arabs had had something like a common identity for a while and even run kingdoms of regional importance. The fact that it was now, under the leadership of a religious movement, that they became a conquering force indicates that a common cause was provided to override their internal divisions. I can't see any candidates other than proto-Islam for this common cause. It is supremely well suited to the purpose, emphasising the community of the faithful, breaking down tribal divisions, and producing an ideology of conquest. What else was there? Where else do the armies take their copnfidence? The Ghassanids never marched on Jerusalem or Alexandria despite the fact that, facing a weakened Constantinople, they, too, could have.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Romans put all their eggs in one basket (something dreaded since Adrianople) and they lost.

Can you expand this a bit? What measure(s) are you referring to?

The Romans had just faced decades of crippling warfare with the Sassanid Empire, which for a short time conquered Syria, Palestine and even Egypt, something unique in Roman-Persian history. Even more unique was the short-lived Persian occupation of Asia Minor, leading to the first great siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 626, with the Persian occupying the eastern bank of the Bosporus.

Not for nothing do historians refer to this period as the 'Dark Age of Byzantium'.

The Romans managed to crawl back from that abyss, defeating the Avars and pushing the Persians back by naval victories and then a lightning campaign into Persia, which in turn descended into chaos. A nice synopsis on Wikipedia.

However, bot empires were immensely weakened. Had the Romans had more time to rebuild their internal military structure or the weakened economy, perhaps things would have ended differently. heraclius had started a defensive reform, where frontier provinces (Themes) became military self-sufficient, a break from the frontier forces with field army backup which was used since Constantine.

It was not to be. Maybe the victory over Persia made them overconfident? Confronted with a strong raiding army that had at one point taken Damascus, plus the loss of several local forces, the Romans opted for an all-out attack and seek out and destroy the enemy, instead of wearing him down. Personally I think that a strong local defence based on fortified towns and forts would have left the Arabs little option but to retreat after their campaign. But the defeated the main Roman army and hence manged to capture towns and provinces that later prooved to become the urban nucleus of a new empire.

[Jona Lendering]

Maybe the victory over Persia made them overconfident? Confronted with a strong raiding army that had at one point taken Damascus, plus the loss of several local forces, the Romans opted for an all-out attack and seek out and destroy the enemy, instead of wearing him down.

Aha, this is the one basket. Thanks, I understand now.

[bachmat66]

czolem,
in addition to the issues: of exhaustion(eg loss of best men) of the imperial armies during the Persian wars and, 8 years later the, the rash withdrawal after Yarmouk of the Byzantine armies towards Anatolia, thus exposing the rich Levant and Egypt, the most important factor in this astonishingly rapid conquest of the Levant and Egypt might have been the religious 'heresies' and religious persecutions within the Empire carried by the successive emperors.
I seem to remember that in my medieval history texts by Manteufel or Zientara -Polish eminent historians ( had to take that medieval History oral exam before one examiner ) dealing with the Arab conquest of the Byzantine provinces it was stressed that the official Byzantine State/church prosecuted all the other Christian sects within the empire, and thus our Byzantine Syria and Egypt (being Monophysite Christians) were quite happy to get rid of the Emperor and his Chalcedonite Church. They, although being Greek lands, actually quickly surrendered (with the notable exception of the Palestinian, eg Ghaza, and some Syriac coastal towns ) to the the Arabs in return for a great religious freedom the Arabs had offered to them. They also achieved the return of their churches and monasteries from the Chlcedonites, not a small feat, and quite a wealthy chuck of real estate bearing income and giving prestige.
Also the Ghasanids or the Arab foederatii or vassal state of the Byzantine Empire were this serious pillar of the Byzantine frontier defense system and offered warriors to defend it during prior centuries. However, within the 6th century they had become mostly Monophysite and a bit also Nestorian Christians, not unlike their kinsmen in Arabia,and their kinsmen in Egypt and Levant.
Moreover, the fight against heresies etc within the empire caused, in 581, the good emperor Tiberius to order his good pylarch al-Mundihr arrested because of his Monophysitism. It seems that this was unwise decission as these so well crafted Byzantine Arabian defenses went wild due to this unrest, some sort of civil war erupted amongst the Ghassanids – eg they, followers of al-Mundhir, actually attacked Bastra, the capital of Ghassanid kingdom, and ravaged the countryside.
In long term this religious war within the kingdom destroyed the cohesive Arabian frontier as the beduin tribes were no longer following one Ghassanid king, and switched their allegiances and ridding according to their own schemes and designs.
So when the Arab Muslims came some of the beduin tribes long allied with the Byzantines did fight vigorously against the Muslims and Yarmouk and later, while most of the others joined their southern brethren in the invasion.

I think these religious issues affected any decision making regarding resistance against the Arab Muslims of all concerned, ranging from the so called ordinary people to the lower levels of Byzantine bureaucracy of the region and their Church (Monophysite) and finally the armed forces left to defend the provinces...
I think as some proof of this hostility between Constantinople and the Levantine provinces may be still found in the later Syriac sources, from the early 8th century, where they do speak for themselves regarding their feelings towards their former rulers , i.e., showing great hostility towards anything Byzantine, almost a century after the Arab conquest.

Also, it seems that the Arabs were really great warriors (via Nicolle's works for Osprey that are a good place to start reading about Arab warriors etc), and also it might be important to borrow the expression coined by the the great Russian ethnohistorian Lev Gumilov – passion.
Our 7th century Arabs had much more 'passion' than the Byzantines and Persian combined.... and this passionate energy within the men and women is what makes nations rise and develop and eventually conquer others.
Also, it may be important to point that the Jews were grossly persecuted by the Byzantines during the years preceding to the Arab conquest, especially during 61020 AD, when they were forced to convert to official Empire Christianity i.e. Council of Chalcedon type or Malachite (in the Levant).
The Armenians who traditionally served in the Byzantine armies (eg famous commander and eunuch Narses) after Yarmouk changed sides more than few times, thus depriving the Byzantine war machine of necessary manpower and support etc.
Lastly, it may be of not a small importance that the very commanders and bishops representing the Byzantine state in the provinces and thus entrusted with the defenses of these provinces betrayed this trust many times over eg. Egypt governor Cyrus(he used to prosecuted Monophysite Christians of Egypt) surrendered Cairo and Alexandria without a struggle etc.

[Timotheus]

The Romans put all their eggs in one basket (something dreaded since Adrianople) and they lost.

Can you expand this a bit? What measure(s) are you referring to?

The Romans had just faced decades of crippling warfare with the Sassanid Empire, which for a short time conquered Syria, Palestine and even Egypt, something unique in Roman-Persian history. Even more unique was the short-lived Persian occupation of Asia Minor, leading to the first great siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 626, with the Persian occupying the eastern bank of the Bosporus.

Not for nothing do historians refer to this period as the 'Dark Age of Byzantium'.

The Romans managed to crawl back from that abyss, defeating the Avars and pushing the Persians back by naval victories and then a lightning campaign into Persia, which in turn descended into chaos. A nice synopsis on Wikipedia.

However, bot empires were immensely weakened. Had the Romans had more time to rebuild their internal military structure or the weakened economy, perhaps things would have ended differently. heraclius had started a defensive reform, where frontier provinces (Themes) became military self-sufficient, a break from the frontier forces with field army backup which was used since Constantine.

It was not to be. Maybe the victory over Persia made them overconfident? Confronted with a strong raiding army that had at one point taken Damascus, plus the loss of several local forces, the Romans opted for an all-out attack and seek out and destroy the enemy, instead of wearing him down. Personally I think that a strong local defence based on fortified towns and forts would have left the Arabs little option but to retreat after their campaign. But the defeated the main Roman army and hence manged to capture towns and provinces that later prooved to become the urban nucleus of a new empire.

I seem to remember reading that the Roman army all out attacking the Arab army was not what Heraclius wanted and that his commanders did not follow his instructions.

Does this sound familiar at all?

[Timotheus]

Also, it seems that the Arabs were really great warriors (via Nicolle's works for Osprey that are a good place to start reading about Arab warriors etc)

Most nomadic or semi-nomadic societies are great warriors. Typically of semi-nomads they lose their strength to a degree when they settle down and change from nomads to city dwellers.

[Richard]

Hi everyone!

Actually the thing I was discussing in said pub was a slightly different hypothesis. I was thinking about the possibility of the Arabs having develloped roughly along the lines the Batavians had in the first century.

Lots of batavians served as auxiliaries in the Roman army, and look what it got them: Julius Civilis's revolt. Strong, trained units under a well-educated command, that both knew how to fight the Roman way, and beat them at it. I've heard that contact with the Romans also taught the 'barbarians' civil organisation (other than tribal). Something you need when you want to conquer territory.

Might not the Arabs have served as mercenaries in both Roman and Persian armies, and that way have learned how to fight them and win? Might not contact with both Persians and Romans have taught them something about organisation (other than tribal)? (It 'rubbed off' so to say)

In short: weren't the Romans and Persians training their own competition?

If that is true, it might be an explanation for the defeat of both Romans and Persians: they were facing people that had gotten as good at it as they themselves were.

My problem is: I don't believe the 'worn out' thesis. The Romans had just won a magnificent victory over the Persians. So they must have had confidence and lots of well-trained and battle hardened troops. (were the allied powers exhausted after WWII?)

I also don't believe the religious thesis on belief, moral or 'passion'. As Jona said, only 10% were muslims (I think that's even exaggerated) and their expansion seems to be mainly Arab, not muslim.
The first reports about Arab raids date from 610 and comtemporary Byzantine sources complain about the large number of captives taken off. In 610 there was yet no islam, nor muslims (or maybe two: Muhammad and his wife).

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Hi everyone!

Actually the thing I was discussing in said pub was a slightly different hypothesis. I was thinking about the possibility of the Arabs having develloped roughly along the lines the Batavians had in the first century.

Lots of batavians served as auxiliaries in the Roman army, and look what it got them: Julius Civilis's revolt. Strong, trained units under a well-educated command, that both knew how to fight the Roman way, and beat them at it. I've heard that contact with the Romans also taught the 'barbarians' civil organisation (other than tribal). Something you need when you want to conquer territory.

Might not the Arabs have served as mercenaries in both Roman and Persian armies, and that way have learned how to fight them and win? Might not contact with both Persians and Romans have taught them something about organisation (other than tribal)? (It 'rubbed off' so to say)

In short: weren't the Romans and Persians training their own competition?

Alas I don't think there is any evidence that the Arabs of either Mesopotamia or Arabia adopted much, if anything, in the way of Roman or Sasanid military methods.

I also don't believe the religious thesis on belief, moral or 'passion'. As Jona said, only 10% were muslims (I think that's even exaggerated) and their expansion seems to be mainly Arab, not muslim.

What Jona said was that only about 10% of the caliphate was Moslem. This is not necessarily the same as the army. Indeed the initial armies of conquest which fought the Romans and Sasanids were almost exclusively Moslem with even the apostates who returned to Islam after the Ridda war being excluded from the army until around the time of Yarmouk and al-Qadisayya (IIRC). At this time being Moslem allowed you to be part of the army and thus be eligible for loot - and martydom of course 8)

[Richard]

Nicholas, thanks. Good point about the caliphate vs. the army. I realise I should have elaborated on my question a bit more.

The first serious reports about Arab raids date from 610 CE, that's well before islam, and mainly report about looting and taking away captives. Islamic tradition retains some information about the behaviour of the main commanders not being exactly 'islamic'. Caliph Umar recalled at least one (I believe Khalid ibn al-Walid) and had difficulties with the conqueror of Egypt (Amr ibn al-'As if I am not mistaken, I have great difficulties remembering Arabic names), on account of his opulent lifestyle. Among the few rules that the quran has, there are some about the division of booty and caliph Umar took great efforts to regulate both the division of booty and the payment of soldiers. Then, the left and right wing of the Arab army that defeated the Persians at Qadissiya were Arab, christian allies. In 661 CE the old tribal elite took over the reign of the rising empire in the form of Mu'awiya, the first Umayyad and according to tradition the son of Muhammads greatest adversary. Last but not least, muslim and christian sources agree that no pressure was put on the conquered to convert. Some muslim sources actually assert that some governors actively prevented conversions, as this meant a decrease in the tax-income the dhimmis generated. We also know that converted non-Arabs became 'muwallads', that is: allied to an Arab tribe and muslims. However, muwallads still had to pay their taxes as if they were dhimmis.

For me all this points to an Arab expansion rather than a muslim one. The army may have consisted of 'muslims' (you definitely do have a point there) but I seriously doubt if they were posessed by anything else than a passion for booty, conquest and exploitation of conquered territories. Devout muslims -like Umar- may have been an exception rather than the rule.

I disagree about there not being any evidence that the Arabs of either Mesopotamia or Arabia adopted much, if anything, in the way of Roman or Sasanid military methods. Islamic tradition retains the story of Salman al-Farsi suggesting to Muhammad to ring Medina with a moat-and-wall, a Persian technique hitherto unknown in the Arab world. Apparently the story is not historically true, as archaeologists have apparently uncovered comparable structures that pre-date islam, but that does not affect my point. I also think it's not that important. As long as individual Arabs or tribal units served as mercenaries under Roman or Persian command, it's inevitable that they learned about their methods.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The first serious reports about Arab raids date from 610 CE, that's well before islam, and mainly report about looting and taking away captives.

I'm fairly sure that there were serious raids well before that as recorded in Prokopios (IIRC) - and the alleged failure of the Romans or Sasanids to control their Arab clients at various times was a source of tension. Arab raiding had a very long pedigree by the time the Prophet turned up and was just a continuation of nomad behaviour that is recorded back to the Amorites raiding Sumeria and Akkad at least.

Then, the left and right wing of the Arab army that defeated the Persians at Qadissiya were Arab, christian allies.

Couldn't drop me the reference for that - doesn't ring any bells and I'd be interested.

The army may have consisted of 'muslims' (you definitely do have a point there) but I seriously doubt if they were posessed by anything else than a passion for booty, conquest and exploitation of conquered territories. Devout muslims -like Umar- may have been an exception rather than the rule.

Hum well that is entirely supposition on your part I think. You could apply the same perception to Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. armies as well with just as much a lack of evidence.

As long as individual Arabs or tribal units served as mercenaries under Roman or Persian command, it's inevitable that they learned about their methods.

However, is there any evidence of this or just an assumption/educated guess on your part? All the books I've read on the Arab conquests say that the Arabs maintained their traditional tactics of karr wa farr (excuse spelling) as opposed to anything that you'd call Roman or Persian. I'm sure that how the Romans and Persians fought was available knowledge to the Arabs but it does not mean that they copied them.