What's new

BATTLE REPORT #9 - Battle of Yarmuk 636 .

I always knew that the Byzantine Empire wasn't much of a successor to Ancient Rome. Apart from the military aspect of the empire, it differed in language (Greek vs Latin), culture, demographics (Greek dominance), etc. So the Byzantine army seems to be superior to the Arab army while being slightly inferior to Ancient Rome in my opinion apart from the cataphracts. Anyway, it was still a hard fought battle for both sides, but the Byzantines appear to have made silly mistakes. Khalid bin Walid made great use of his cavalry, something that the Byzantines failed to do. It kind of reminded me of King Alexander III of Macedonia.

I knew that women were present in this war, but I had no idea they played such an important role. It must have been humiliating to see the women fight while the rest of the army routes. That sounds similar to Gaius Marius's fight with the Germanic Cimbri & Teutone tribes if I am not mistaken. The barbarian women had such a strong sense of honor that they would rather come and fight against the Romans and die instead of facing humiliation after defeat. All in all, this was an interesting read, thanks.

Interesting,you know about the cimbri invasion mate?Great to have historically knowledgable guys.
 
.
Any takers for a cyrus the great battle?Or a frederick the great one?
One of these 2 i can do quickly.
 
.
Interesting,you know about the cimbri invasion mate?Great to have historically knowledgable guys.

Thanks. :cheers:

I have an interest in Hellenic & Latin civilizations. In fact, I know quite a bit about most major civilizations in different parts of the world besides the Far East.

Yeah, I know about the Cimbrian War, the fate of Noricum, & let's not forget about Rome's deadly politics that gives my country's politicians a run for their money. :lol:
 
Last edited:
. .
Any takers for a cyrus the great battle?Or a frederick the great one?
One of these 2 i can do quickly.

It is all good. But we know the history. Then why start the topic?

I mean usually it is to start an argument. But here you are just giving facts and others are just lauding you for it.
Unless ofcourse, you are giving history lessons to all.

:raise:
 
.
Reason why Muslims won because of imam Ali plan and he appointed the commanders of this conquest beside the brave hero Malik al ashtar
 
.
It is all good. But we know the history. Then why start the topic?

I mean usually it is to start an argument. But here you are just giving facts and others are just lauding you for it.
Unless ofcourse, you are giving history lessons to all.

:raise:

Didn't get what u said.Its a description and analysis of the battle from my pov using whatever sources i could find,the history is added with it to give readers a sense of its place in the larger scheme of things.This being a military history section i think this is a valid topic.
As for argument,sure u can all argue about why they won and lost-thats the original point.
I just gave MY battle analysis on the last section-everyone can give theirs.Phoenix gave some of his.
 
. .
Reason why Muslims won because of imam Ali plan and he appointed the commanders of this conquest beside the brave hero Malik al ashtar
umm, no reasons are given above, and if you want to go all sectarian, then reason was due to Imam Khalid Bin Waleed, and look yazid was a commander there, would you look at that
 
.
umm, no reasons are given above, and if you want to go all sectarian, then reason was due to Imam Khalid Bin Waleed, and look yazid was a commander there, would you look at that
yes it was malik who won this battle if he didn't lead the charge muslims would had lost
 
. .
Every maps and pictures have been deleted...I really want to see that. Please re-upload.
If Mr. AUSTERLITZ re-upload the maps, I will really appreciate it.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom