Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Arabs in Byzantine Armies
#16
Quote:
Quote: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.
The Arab expansion and the Rise of Islam are two processes; they ought to be separated. The conversion rate was extremely low (10% in 750), so the fighting must have been done by non-Muslim Arabs, who may have had other motives - greed, for example.

The comparison with Christian armies is especially illuminating: when Christian armies started to exist, Christian doctrine already existed. Islamic doctrine was still developping. I think I do not betray a big secret if I say that the formative age of Islam is 750-860, not the first century A.H.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#17
Out of interest do you have any sources I could follow for the proportion of non-Moslem Arabs in caliphal armies? (As opposed to the population of the area ruled by the caliphate) Definitely something I'd be interested in Big Grin

You had previously used the 10% figure for the caliphate and now apply it to the fighting men - now you may have intended that with your first quote but it didn't read like that to me :o ?

Also I don't think you can separate the rise of Islam and at least the initial conquests as the arrival of Islam appears, IMO, to have been a distinct trigger and focus to the expansion.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#18
Quote: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?


No very possible; the tribes which conquest Syria comes all from Hejaz region.

Quote: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.

Sure but this 10% are principally all arab or arab descendant or mawali, which lives in military colonies isolated from the not armed populations. Always ready to be enrolled for campaign they form the bulk of caliphate power. if we subtract the women, young and old, it is anyway a strong percentage of armed men over the total of population.
"Each historical fact needs to be considered, insofar as possible, no with hindsight and following abstract universal principles, but in the context of own proper age and environment" Aldo A. Settia

a.k.a Davide Dall\'Angelo




SISMA- Società Italiana per gli Studi Militari Antichi
Reply
#19
Quote: 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.
It certainly played a part. But was it such a large factor? If the Romans had won at Yarmuk, would this still have mattered? I doubt it.

Quote: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.
Sure. But did this have a religious cause or was it also an old conflict of province vs. capital?

Quote: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.
They were certainly good and abl;e warriors, and maybe they fought with more vigour (passion?). But Romans had faced such differences before during the past 1000 years, and knew how to overcome such differences. better training usually overcame vigorous passionate raiders.

Quote: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 610-20 AD, when they were forced to convert to official Empire Christianity i.e. Council of Chalcedon type or Malachite (in the Levant).
Very true. But Jews had been persecuted since the 4th century, nothing new there.

Quote: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.
These Armenians may have been 'new' Armenians, being levies from the newly conquered territories. Armenia had for centuries been divided between 'Roman' and 'Persian' Armenia, and I recall that even during earlier times there had been difficulties. Again, nothing new there.

Quote: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.
Yes, this may have been the 'morale' thing i referred to earlier. had the Romans been in charge for just a decade or so more before the Arab invasion, things may have ended differently. But that's the course of History.... Cry [/quote]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#20
The whole thing makes you realize that Mohammad really did come along at the perfect time. If he had come along even 10 years later then the Byzantines would have fully recovered and the Arab raiders turned army would have probably been sent packing easily.

If he had come 5 to 10 years too soon then its entirely possible he would have faced a strong Byzantium and Persian Empires both of which would have tried to control and play the Arabs off against each other and probably squashed the Arabs between them in the process.
Timothy Hanna
Reply
#21
Quote:Out of interest do you have any sources I could follow for the proportion of non-Moslem Arabs in caliphal armies? (As opposed to the population of the area ruled by the caliphate) Definitely something I'd be interested in
R.W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period. An Essay in Quantative History (1979).
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#22
Quote:
Nicholas Gaukroger:12fn4bix Wrote:Out of interest do you have any sources I could follow for the proportion of non-Moslem Arabs in caliphal armies? (As opposed to the population of the area ruled by the caliphate) Definitely something I'd be interested in


R.W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period. An Essay in Quantative History (1979).


Much appreciated. However, can I just confirm that it does have specific information on the military/composition of armies as the info I've dug out on the book makes it look like a work on the caliphate in general (although some chapters on specific regions such as Egypt) with no section looking at the army.

Too many book demands on limited funds at present to chase something of possibly marginal use Confusedhock:

Thanks.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#23
Quote:Much appreciated. However, can I just confirm that it does have specific information on the military/composition of armies as the info I've dug out on the book makes it look like a work on the caliphate in general (although some chapters on specific regions such as Egypt) with no section looking at the army.
It's not specifically about the army, but about conversion in the Muslim world, everywhere; with interesting conclusions such as "civil war happened everywhere when a certain treshold was reached". I referred to those 10% to show that Muslims were a minority in the Arab world until 750 (and beyond), so that equalling Islam and Arabs at an early stage was too easy. Of course, Muslims may have been more eager to fight, knowing that Paradise was waiting (although the same is never said about other monotheist soldiers), and other factors may have contributed to a larger Muslim part in the early Islamic armies. But I think a very serious case can be made for an initial phase of Arab expansion, and a later Islamisation.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#24
Thanks for you patience in explaining that Smile o
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#25
Quote:It's not specifically about the army, but about conversion in the Muslim world, everywhere; with interesting conclusions such as "civil war happened everywhere when a certain treshold was reached". I referred to those 10% to show that Muslims were a minority in the Arab world until 750 (and beyond), so that equalling Islam and Arabs at an early stage was too easy. Of course, Muslims may have been more eager to fight, knowing that Paradise was waiting (although the same is never said about other monotheist soldiers), and other factors may have contributed to a larger Muslim part in the early Islamic armies. But I think a very serious case can be made for an initial phase of Arab expansion, and a later Islamisation.

What numerical input data he use for reach this percentage, Jona?
"Each historical fact needs to be considered, insofar as possible, no with hindsight and following abstract universal principles, but in the context of own proper age and environment" Aldo A. Settia

a.k.a Davide Dall\'Angelo




SISMA- Società Italiana per gli Studi Militari Antichi
Reply
#26
Quote:What numerical input data he use for reach this percentage, Jona?
I do not remember. I read the chapter on Spain and the conclusions in 1991, or so.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply


Forum Jump: