This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hi, i have made some edits in the article making it historically more accurate and fixing its tone in accordance with wikipedia standards.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
After doing a bit of reading on what constitutes a battle and what constitutes a skirmish, I'm beginning to lean toward your train of thought. I've come to these conclusions. Tell me what u think...
I will make some changes to the wording of the article. Scott Free ( talk) 22:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Check this Battle of Yarmouk, it was the titanic struggle between the roman and muslim empires in 636 and here muslims from all over the empire could only concentrate 10,000 cavalry in addition to 30,000 infantry, and thats according to primary sources, accordging to modern historians, (who are critical to approach of early sources in their estimations of strength of armies) the muslim army in yarmouk ( the biggest battle every fought by any Muslim Caliphate ) could not have exceeded 25,000 (cavalry + infantry) because the logistical capabilities of the time were not so as to support such a large armies. After all you have to feed them and they need water to drink ! Its an understood fact of military history that before 14th century concentration of army more then 100,000 was impossible, not becasue they lack man power, but because of logistical problems. In the light of above debate, i would completely discard tyhe possibility of 20,000 cavalry in nubian invasion. More over you can check my article
moreover, if we take a look on the larger picture of the era, in 642 Muslim conquest of Persia begun, and Caliph Umar was in no mode to pay attention in africa which he already had rated as "land of mischief and rebillions" he even was opposing invasion of egypt !
A close study on military doctrine rashidun caliphate will illustrate the issue and will make the matter simple. When muslims captured Levant, they raided into anatolia and armenia. When they conquered Sassanid Persian empire, they raided the adjoining areas for example when they captured afghanistan they raided in to Transoxiana, and it was in no sense a whole scale invasion but just an other raid in words of early muslim historians as to "stuck terror" in the mind of the neighboring land. In modern term more or less it referes to preemptive attack. There are various example of this conventional practice of Muslim armies of raiding neighbouring territories, like after capturing Persian province of Sistan they raided Pakistan in 644 before capturing a part of it 10 years later in 654. Just see what they did after capturing egypt, Amr send an expedition of Nubia ( south of egypt) and to Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan in north africa, these were not perminent conquest but rather raids to secure a buffer zone, in 643 they abandon captured territories in north africa on the orders of Caliph Umar who ordered them to consolidate their grip over egypt. A study of Caliph Umar's lifestyle and military legacy will help u in understanding his style of conquest which was totally different from alexander and ceaser who believe in relentless conquest, in contrast Umar was keen in consolidating his political authority over the conquered land first, before moving ahead, a fact that made the conquest of his reign perminent conquest and as pointed out by Michael H. Hart in his book "The 100" ( the 100 most influential figures), that the land conquered by alexander and ceaser were lost as they died but the land conquered by Umar are still under muslim's control, and this is becasue of his political genius and non-offensive policies.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Anwho, thanks for your input and improvements to the article. I think it is already way better now than it was when I started it. Do you have any info on the Second Battle of Dongola. I'm thinking of renaming the article "Siege of Dongola", but I see no literary precedent for naming it as such. All I've run across in First Battle of Dongola and Second Battle of Dongola. CHEERS Scott Free ( talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the second battle of Dongla and not the first. The first was that Amr bin Aas sent his leader Uqba bin Nafeh with only 5,000 horsemen, but he was defeated and only 250 dead with thousands of wounded thanks to the skill of Nubians in archery, then a second battle of Dongla led by Ibn Abi Sarh where he crawled With 20,000 knights and many catapults, he was not defeated, and an agreement was signed between two sides Aah799 ( talk) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The Arabs always send a small force to plunder, usually between 1,000 and 6,000 soldiers, while the armies of conquest consist of 20,000 to 40,000, who write this mess trying to make minor clashes a large battle. Aah799 ( talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hi, i have made some edits in the article making it historically more accurate and fixing its tone in accordance with wikipedia standards.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
After doing a bit of reading on what constitutes a battle and what constitutes a skirmish, I'm beginning to lean toward your train of thought. I've come to these conclusions. Tell me what u think...
I will make some changes to the wording of the article. Scott Free ( talk) 22:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Check this Battle of Yarmouk, it was the titanic struggle between the roman and muslim empires in 636 and here muslims from all over the empire could only concentrate 10,000 cavalry in addition to 30,000 infantry, and thats according to primary sources, accordging to modern historians, (who are critical to approach of early sources in their estimations of strength of armies) the muslim army in yarmouk ( the biggest battle every fought by any Muslim Caliphate ) could not have exceeded 25,000 (cavalry + infantry) because the logistical capabilities of the time were not so as to support such a large armies. After all you have to feed them and they need water to drink ! Its an understood fact of military history that before 14th century concentration of army more then 100,000 was impossible, not becasue they lack man power, but because of logistical problems. In the light of above debate, i would completely discard tyhe possibility of 20,000 cavalry in nubian invasion. More over you can check my article
moreover, if we take a look on the larger picture of the era, in 642 Muslim conquest of Persia begun, and Caliph Umar was in no mode to pay attention in africa which he already had rated as "land of mischief and rebillions" he even was opposing invasion of egypt !
A close study on military doctrine rashidun caliphate will illustrate the issue and will make the matter simple. When muslims captured Levant, they raided into anatolia and armenia. When they conquered Sassanid Persian empire, they raided the adjoining areas for example when they captured afghanistan they raided in to Transoxiana, and it was in no sense a whole scale invasion but just an other raid in words of early muslim historians as to "stuck terror" in the mind of the neighboring land. In modern term more or less it referes to preemptive attack. There are various example of this conventional practice of Muslim armies of raiding neighbouring territories, like after capturing Persian province of Sistan they raided Pakistan in 644 before capturing a part of it 10 years later in 654. Just see what they did after capturing egypt, Amr send an expedition of Nubia ( south of egypt) and to Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan in north africa, these were not perminent conquest but rather raids to secure a buffer zone, in 643 they abandon captured territories in north africa on the orders of Caliph Umar who ordered them to consolidate their grip over egypt. A study of Caliph Umar's lifestyle and military legacy will help u in understanding his style of conquest which was totally different from alexander and ceaser who believe in relentless conquest, in contrast Umar was keen in consolidating his political authority over the conquered land first, before moving ahead, a fact that made the conquest of his reign perminent conquest and as pointed out by Michael H. Hart in his book "The 100" ( the 100 most influential figures), that the land conquered by alexander and ceaser were lost as they died but the land conquered by Umar are still under muslim's control, and this is becasue of his political genius and non-offensive policies.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 17:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Anwho, thanks for your input and improvements to the article. I think it is already way better now than it was when I started it. Do you have any info on the Second Battle of Dongola. I'm thinking of renaming the article "Siege of Dongola", but I see no literary precedent for naming it as such. All I've run across in First Battle of Dongola and Second Battle of Dongola. CHEERS Scott Free ( talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the second battle of Dongla and not the first. The first was that Amr bin Aas sent his leader Uqba bin Nafeh with only 5,000 horsemen, but he was defeated and only 250 dead with thousands of wounded thanks to the skill of Nubians in archery, then a second battle of Dongla led by Ibn Abi Sarh where he crawled With 20,000 knights and many catapults, he was not defeated, and an agreement was signed between two sides Aah799 ( talk) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The Arabs always send a small force to plunder, usually between 1,000 and 6,000 soldiers, while the armies of conquest consist of 20,000 to 40,000, who write this mess trying to make minor clashes a large battle. Aah799 ( talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)