Battle of Yarmuk, 636
|
Medieval Era
|
17 comments
| Khalid Ibn al-Walid versus Vahan: A Byzantine army under Trithyrius stands in the way of a Rashidun army under Khalid. Will the religious fervor and military genius commander of the Rashiduns sweep aside the Byzantines? Also known as the Battle of Yarmouk, Yarmuq or Hieromyax. Click on the image below to view.
It is impossible to read any account of this battle from either side without being overcome by the drama, intensity and resonance. Unlike any other animation to date, the Battle of Yarmuk features massive, determined men fighting for superiority rather than red and blue boxes.
The battle may have had a different result had Vahan used his cavalry reserve when it was needed most. Vahan launched three offensives aimed at breaking the Rashidun lines, all of which only marginally failed because Khalid effectively used the force at his disposal in a variety of ways. The reason for the Byzantine cavalry’s inactivity has yet to be properly explained. Although these marginal, defensive victories by the Rashiduns were only able to take place because of their superiority in morale and motivation, the Byzantine soldiers fight just as fiercely. The majority of the Byzantines did not flee until the situation was clearly hopeless and even then, they did not go quietly.
 When I first set about researching this battle, I was immediately confronted with a seemingly impossible task: determining the strength of either side. Sources for Rashidun numbers range from 15-43,000 and the Byzantine numbers range from 20-400,000. I was also torn between whether the Western historians were just making excuses for the loss or if Middle Eastern writers were just making their greatest victory seem more spectacular. I considered just giving up and animating another battle but what kind of historian would I be? I came to the conclusion that Khalid was a military genius, that there was no sandstorm to explain the disastrous Byzantine defeat and then dug deep to decide on numbers. Dupuy’s Encyclopedia of Military History avoids specific numbers at the battle altogether but states that the entire Byzantine Empire fielded an army of 120-150,000, divided into thirteen themes. Seven of them were posted in Anatolia which means that if Vahan did command 80,000 troops at Yarmuk, there were no other Byzantine units for the rest of the region which is highly unlikely. After realizing the overwhelming attritional nature of the battle, mostly based on Akram’s The Sword of Allah, I then concluded that 40,000 Byzantines against 24,000 Rashiduns is a ratio that is plausible but also appreciates Khalid’s abilities as a commander. Based on the feedback I have received for this animation, I believe my decisions were more than satisfactory.
- Jonathan Webb
Tell a Friend:
            Tags: arab, byzantine, byzantium, cavalry, envelopment of a single flank, envelopment of both flanks, indirect approach, infantry, khalid, mahan, medieval, muslim, penetration of the center, rashidun, vahan, walid, yarmouq, yarmuk
 |
SPONSORED SITES
|
|
|
||
Supported Sites |
Supported Readings |
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Once A Marine | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
17 Comments to “Battle of Yarmuk, 636”
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
Mr Hassan: I thank you for the appreciation of my work, this animation is one that was particularly time-consuming and difficult. I’m definitely looking into more Muslim/Christian battles based on very positive responses for Arsuf and Yarmuk. As of right now, the Battles of Walaja (633) and Mu’tah (629) are slated to be animated. However, if you have any suggestions for battles outside Saladin and Khalid, please let me know.
Mr. Mahmood: You’re very welcome. Most of the conclusions I came to during research for this battle were based on assumptions but I also believe them to very logical assumptions based on Arab and Western historians. I hope the numbers I’ve put forth are respected and utilized by others because otherwise I wouldn’t have published them. Thank you again for your encouragement.
By Jonathan Webb on Apr 26, 2009 at 3:17 am
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
Ah yes, Mr. Adil. I remember your signature from a great number of posts on Wikipedia discussion pages. Based on your geography, it’s good to know I can provide an unbiased presentation that every part of the world appreciates.
Sorry for late response, sometimes I am not alerted to comments. Ankara is already posted as I am sure you noticed. Manzikert is a strong candidate for future seasons.
By Jonathan Webb on Sep 11, 2009 at 8:27 pm
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
The numbers for this battle do greatly vary. Muslim and non-Muslim sources agree and disagree on various details.
I found two issues with the larger figures for the Byzantine side:
As cited by Dupuy and others, the whole Byzantine Empire fielded only 120-150,000 soldiers divided into thirteen themes. Only seven were based in the region so the army would have to be supplemented by a vast army of mercenaries, larger than the Byzantine army itself.
The other issue is logistics. The battle lasted six days and to supply each army was like supplying an army six times its size on the march (assuming the army can march quite quickly). Sizes of armies during this time period were relatively small, even in the Fertile Crescent, due to logistical limitations.
By Jonathan Webb on Oct 1, 2009 at 2:31 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