You should also add a line for “Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed” that he had not lose a single battle in his life.
also we would like to view more battles from middle ages

thanks,

By Shahzad Hassan on Feb 20, 2009 at 11:01 am

Thank You ever so much for this excellent presentation. It was very neutral and well researched. I am an Islamic Scholar, also very interested in Islamic History. I too personally think that you should do more battles that took place betyween the Muslims and the Christians.

Hamid

By Hamid Mahmood on Apr 22, 2009 at 7:13 pm

THanks a lot. I appreciate your effort with the numbers. It is true that the Arab historians exaggerate while the Western historians tend to downplay such battles. The numbers seem logical to me, thanks for the effort.

By Hamad on Apr 25, 2009 at 3:57 pm

The Battle was a Victory for Islam and God (Allah , The Most High ) Knows Best .

By Musa Fatih Al Muizz on May 23, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Thank you very much for that great effort.
appreciating your time, we want to see more.

By Dr. Omar Elhennawi on Jun 29, 2009 at 10:30 pm

I appreciate your work as well as your hard work to know the reality rather than the biased view. That is, I believe, every body should search for. Even if it were a failure you will learn from it, Rather than thinking, some group is always mighty or undefeatable.

By Elias on Jun 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm

please how about the battle of al-Q?disiyyah?

By Elias on Jun 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm

hi, its truly a great work, great presentation and great research. I hope to see more such works from you and i really appreciate your efforts for a person like me, a fan of strategies and tactics your website is an ideal place to learn about any battle with in moments via these animations. I am an amateur writer on wikipedia, here is my user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohammad_adil

Battle of Qadisiyyah is also a good candidate to be animated as it was Guagamela of Caliph Umar.

I am anxiously waiting for battle of Ankara and also what about battle of An al jalut and battle of manzikert ? i will be working in the maps of the above mantioned battles shortly on wikipedia.

By Mohammad Adil on Jul 6, 2009 at 2:50 pm

the muslims were half in number as apposed to the christians. From authentic revelations the muslims had their creator with them and help from the heavens, the christins saw dreams of this before the battle and knew they would lose! please do not doubt the number of the muslims as they were obedient true servants of the One god as apposed to the corrupt disbelievers they faught against! the muslims loved death more than they loved life and never feared shedding their blood for this cause which made them victorious both in this world and in the next.

By zmotz on Sep 4, 2009 at 4:08 am

Thanks for this great effort in shape of animation but i am not agreed with your figures…

150,000 Byzantines against 40,000 Muslims

70,000 Byzantines Killed and 4,000 Muslims. Many great muslims and non-muslim historians confirm the numbers.

By Umar Shah on Sep 22, 2009 at 6:01 pm

I thought the Byzantines had the local Ghassanid Arabs (with a strength commonly quoted at 60,000) fighting alongside them?

By Jacob on Dec 3, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Jacob you are correct the Ghassanid Army was commanded by Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, king of the Ghassanid Arabs. He had an exclusively Christian Arab force of 60 000 men.

By Jack Harris on Dec 18, 2009 at 8:15 am

David nicolle in his book “Yarmuk 636, Muslim conquest of Syria” has mentioned that beside regular Byzantine army (the standing army that was ~135,000) a large number of levies could be raised temporarily in time of need, mainly from warlike tribes of christian Arabs and Armenians. This wasn’t much costly and the units could be disbanded after the particular campaign. This led David Nicolle to estimate Byzantine army at yarmuk to be 100,000. including 25,000 regulars.

By Mohammad Adil on Jan 9, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Very nice presentation. For Yarmuk in particular such a decisive battle must have historians from both sides either attempting to glorify the efforts of their army or make the loss seem less spectacular and thus make it appear less devastating. The East vs West aspect of the battle also antagonizes the biases with numbers, but you were very balanced in your interpretation of what numbers would be most accurate. Well done

By Sammy Prentice on Feb 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm

There’s one intriguing battle in the history between Egyptian Mamluks and the mighty Mongols. No, it doesn’t involve Saladin. It is called the “Battle of the Spring of Goliath”. It is famous for being the very first occasion in history when Mongols were decisively defeated. A preliminary research could be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut

Good work done.

By Ahsan Akbar on Apr 1, 2010 at 4:43 am

Dear Sir,

May I firstly add my sincere thanks and congratulations on a most excellent piece of research and presentation, upon what was afterall, a pivotal moment in history.

I myself being a historian would like to add some thoughts on the actual numbers involved in this most decisive of battles.

An important fact has to be factored into the Byzantine Army estimates, that is that prior to the advent of Islam and the Revelation to the Prophet Mohammed (mpbh), the Sasassnid Persians and Byzantines had been in a protracted long war with one another for 20-30 years. This war was a long drawn out affair and must have exhausted and severely depleted the resources of both Empires substantially, particularly upon the Byzantines. Exactly how, I would like you to follow the consequent line of reasoning…

The sum impact of this war (Sasassnid Byzantine War of 602-628AD) was that the Byzantines had lost much of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Persians, the rich cities of Antioch, Alexandria (grain supply), Damascus and even Jerusalem, when Chosroes took away the Holy Cross. Even with the return of these territories to Byzantine control by Heraclius’ valiant efforts by 629AD, these areas needed time to become fully integrated back into the Byzantine Empire .

Furthermore, when one considers that the Byzantine state was, for its time, a sophisticated a state based upon the collection of tax revenues, such loss of territory denuded the central exchequer of vast sums of revenue, the very revenue which paid for the furnishing of the Imperial Army and the Thematic Armies. The accumilated loss of tax revenues and resources from these territories would have therefore impacted heavily upon the numbers of soldiers the Byzantines could have afforded, to put into frontline service at this vital juncture. One should also remember that the Byzantines were, due to the wealth generated by tax revenues, in the habit of hiring on mass mercenary forces (check Heraclius’s counter attack into Persia following the capital’s siege). With the gruelling long term impact of a protracted war with Persia just before the advent of Islam, the Byzantines therefore could NOT have put so significant a force in the field. Your estimate of Byzantine numbers would therefore be inclined to be far more realistic when considering these factors mentioned above.

A simple but important reason for the Muslim success at Yarmuk must also be that the polyglot nature of the Byzantine Army at Yarmuk made the command structure cumbersome, unwieldly and at best difficult to manage for Vahan. The Muslims on the other hand had more or less a singular command structure Khalid-ibin’Walid, plus Abu Ubaida the later Govenor of Levant and were singular in their faith and motives.

One last point, and forgive me for displaying a hint of Muslim bias, the Muslims were undoubtedly fired by the conviction that they were fighting for a higher ideal, that of eternal salvation and to enter paradise, thus giving Khalid-ibin-Walid the confidence to make greater demands upon his men….if that didn’t work…..THERE WERE ALWAYS THE WOMEN TO PUSH THEIR MEN-FOLK FORWARD!!!!!

Many thanks and best regards.

Khorrum

By Khorrumg on Apr 5, 2010 at 9:26 am

Dear Sir,

Might I add that Mr Umar Shah’s observations also seem to be most pertinent that the logistical implications of supplying an army in this geographical location over any period of time was fraught with difficulties. Obviously the larger the force the harder it was to supply such numbers, suggesting that the numbers involved would have been towards the lower estimates.

I would also like to add that the the Christian Arab forces may well have proved to have been of negligble use and of questionable loyalty making Vahan’s command situation even more precarious.

One last point I also failed to mention in my last comment is that the Byzantines tended to avoid military confrontation and often chose to pay tribute instead of fighting. This was shown to be the case when Heraclius ‘bought off’ the Persians during their siege of Constantinople in 621AD allowing him to leave the city and open up another front by launching a bold counter-attack into Persian territory, by way of raising a largely mercenary army. This also proved how much wealth the Byztantine state had at its disposal at this time through its tax revenue system.

The arrival of the Muslim Arabs on the political map at crucial this junture must have thus made it easier for them to go the offensive against the Byzantines and Persians who had both exhausted each other in a war for some 30 years previous.

As to the establishment of the Thematic system of army recruitment there is some debate whether Heraclius was the architect or whether it was the later Emperor Constans, so it is not at all clear what the exact army structure was in place at the time of Muslim offensive into Syria

Best regards.

Khorrum Gilani

By Khorrumg on Apr 5, 2010 at 9:52 am

When does the Battle of Ullais come out?

By Myself on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Great research and effort put into all these battles. Refreshing to see someone other than a Muslim paying any attention to these battles. I would like to make a few pertinent points:

1. Study of history has to be undertaken not to point out how great a particular civilization was, but so that we get inspired by past events and not repeat past mistakes.

2. Study of past battles are a subject of their own, as they are a class of tactics on their own. They need to be studied even if its Yarmuk or Manzikert or Tours or Lepanto.

3. Increasing the opponents numbers and reducing our own to make the victory more spectacular is not the point here. Study history objectively rather than shout down genuine detractors.

4. Khalid was a millitary genius, the likes of whom the world has rarely seen.

Thanks again for all your effort Jonathan.

By Mir Farooq Ali on Apr 28, 2010 at 7:52 am

This battle was a victory of barbarism over civilization.

By Me on Aug 2, 2010 at 8:33 pm

this is called the real research.this all time neutral and very impressive so i thank you and ur team.and appreciate your hard work.

By WAQAS on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm