Cavalry

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yes, your right. I worded my reply wrong. There were numerous first hand accounts BUT they usually did not describe the events in the style most historians are accustomed to creating. Instead, they would tell of different men, tribes, and such within the army, who led this charge, who scaled this wall etc. Names are very common in these sources. But, as forms of poetry were popular to the Arabs, some of that same style makes its way into these sources. I was under the impression that many contemporary Arab conquest histories were more propagandaish than anything but I suppose thats true for most of history. Also many sources seem contradictary. Dates are often confused in various accounts for example. Another is the siege of Damascus. Supposedly half the city was taken by force, the other half given up through diplomacy. Is that truely realistic or were there differing accounts of how the city fell and the historian who put it together chose to represent it this way? But yes, I looked back and there were some good accounts of the battles.

I do remember the story of Umar informing Amr through letter that he should forgo his invasion of Egypt if he had not yet crossed its border. Amr guessed the contents and opened it only after he was in Egyptian territory.

[Ibrahim]

Yes, your right. I worded my reply wrong. There were numerous first hand accounts BUT they usually did not describe the events in the style most historians are accustomed to creating. Instead, they would tell of different men, tribes, and such within the army, who led this charge, who scaled this wall etc. Names are very common in these sources. But, as forms of poetry were popular to the Arabs, some of that same style makes its way into these sources. I was under the impression that many contemporary Arab conquest histories were more propagandaish than anything but I suppose thats true for most of history. Also many sources seem contradictary. Dates are often confused in various accounts for example. Another is the siege of Damascus. Supposedly half the city was taken by force, the other half given up through diplomacy. Is that truely realistic or were there differing accounts of how the city fell and the historian who put it together chose to represent it this way? But yes, I looked back and there were some good accounts of the battles.

I do remember the story of Umar informing Amr through letter that he should forgo his invasion of Egypt if he had not yet crossed its border. Amr guessed the contents and opened it only after he was in Egyptian territory.

exactly the case.the quality and style is the issue, not the number of accounts.

at least the history of the conquests wasn't as propaganda-ridden as that of the histories documenting the Banu umayyah

[Reality=Chaos]

exactly the case.the quality and style is the issue, not the number of accounts.

at least the history of the conquests wasn't as propaganda-ridden as that of the histories documenting the Banu umayyah

Yeah the ummayad period has been badly distorted by the abbasids indeed

[Cimon]

exactly the case.the quality and style is the issue, not the number of accounts.

I'm just now making my first foray (by reading The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy) into the Arab conquests 600-700s, so correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that most of the sources come from roughly a century or more after the conquests, and that the sources often contradict each other, which makes it hard to determine which version to view as accurate (or, more accurate at least).

Certainly, as a general matter, some sources are apt to be more reliable than others, but isn't it difficult to determine which ones when, if viewing the sources as a group, the same conquest is related in multiple different ways?

If I am missing something, please let me know.

[Watchman]

That's a basic problem when dealing with historical sources. Just take one look at the Roman historians (often around our only source on stuff that might have happened on as long as two-three centuries earlier), or even Greeks writing of relatively recent events... historians spend a lot of time making sense of the often rather differing accounts of exact same events.

[Cimon]

That's a basic problem when dealing with historical sources. Just take one look at the Roman historians (often around our only source on stuff that might have happened on as long as two-three centuries earlier), or even Greeks writing of relatively recent events... historians spend a lot of time making sense of the often rather differing accounts of exact same events.

Well, sure. I mean, obviously we are trying to interpret sources from across the centuries, so a lot of guesswork is going to be involved. However, and perhaps I wasn't clear about this before, my understanding is that the early sources for the Arab conquests are even more difficult than most, but not just because of style. Rather, that two different sources of apparently equal authenticity/reliability will give two totally different interpretations. For example (and I'm making these up, just to be clear):

Source 1: The Arab forces brought 40,000 troops and fought against the Byzantines 80,000 at Yarmouk in year X.
Source 2: The Arab forces brought 12,000 troops and fought against the Byzantines 20,000 at Yarmouk in Year Y (which is X+1).

That's obviously an overly-simplistic example. However, it seems different to me that a lot of other primary sources I've come across. The two statements above (again, made-up, but to my knowledge true to the spirit of the sources) don't just differ on the number of troops. They also differ on the year it was fought. If I had run out my examples to full effect, I think they probably would have shown a difference in battlefield landscape, tactics, location of battlefield (within certain parameters), etc. etc.

This is not to argue with you Watchman (or anyone else); I recognize your point as an extremely valid one. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my sense of it (on limited exposure, it's true), is that the Arab conquest sources tend to be ever more guess-work related, contradictory, and difficult to sift through than other historical sources of different periods. Certainly in some cases, events are reinforced by broad consensus among multiple sources, but it seems like the best we can do for certain happenings are "There was a battle of Qadisiya between year x and year y. The Sassanians lost," which is very different than sources we have for much of the Greco-Roman classical world (although, of course, much better than happenings in, say, classical Hibernia).

If I'm still misinterpreting things, please do let me know.

[Reality=Chaos]

Well, sure. I mean, obviously we are trying to interpret sources from across the centuries, so a lot of guesswork is going to be involved. However, and perhaps I wasn't clear about this before, my understanding is that the early sources for the Arab conquests are even more difficult than most, but not just because of style. Rather, that two different sources of apparently equal authenticity/reliability will give two totally different interpretations. For example (and I'm making these up, just to be clear):

Source 1: The Arab forces brought 40,000 troops and fought against the Byzantines 80,000 at Yarmouk in year X.
Source 2: The Arab forces brought 12,000 troops and fought against the Byzantines 20,000 at Yarmouk in Year Y (which is X+1).

That's obviously an overly-simplistic example. However, it seems different to me that a lot of other primary sources I've come across. The two statements above (again, made-up, but to my knowledge true to the spirit of the sources) don't just differ on the number of troops. They also differ on the year it was fought. If I had run out my examples to full effect, I think they probably would have shown a difference in battlefield landscape, tactics, location of battlefield (within certain parameters), etc. etc.

This is not to argue with you Watchman (or anyone else); I recognize your point as an extremely valid one. I guess what I'm trying to say is that my sense of it (on limited exposure, it's true), is that the Arab conquest sources tend to be ever more guess-work related, contradictory, and difficult to sift through than other historical sources of different periods. Certainly in some cases, events are reinforced by broad consensus among multiple sources, but it seems like the best we can do for certain happenings are "There was a battle of Qadisiya between year x and year y. The Sassanians lost," which is very different than sources we have for much of the Greco-Roman classical world (although, of course, much better than happenings in, say, classical Hibernia).

If I'm still misinterpreting things, please do let me know.

I think you are right in a way.... Arabian sources seem to be pretty chaotic and dificult to make sense of... this has many different reasons. First there is a problem of the written language. The Arabic script had only just been developed at the time, and that creates a few problems. In the early Arabic script they did not use diacritc point (the little dots above an beneath the letters)... These points are very important cause severa arabic letters look the same when written in a word. This is the reason for a lot of confusion translating the early texts, including the Qur´an. there is a famous example of this. the part of the Koran that promises maidens, says something along the lines of ...And they will have doe eyed maidens. If one rearranges the diacritical points a little though (which in the original versions of the text were not there) it could read something along the lines of ....And they shall have rest and grapes. You can imagine the difficulties this creates for studying early arabic texts. By the way there was a written form af nabatean )northern arabian around for quite a while I think, but that was quite different to the new arabic script that developed.

Another problem is that, as has been mentioned before, for the early arabs history was to be told as a story. A story has to be intersting and many embellishments came to be. The early arab culture was not yet an urban one but largely a nomadic one, so more conventional ways of treating history often seen in urban cultures was just not there yet.

Another problem is that outside (non arab) accounts are relatively scarce, especially in the case of the sassanids. outside sources are important cause you have two similar accounts from to completely sides you can be relatively certain about the things that happened there.

All this makes studying early Islam a rather tough proposition, but very interesting too.

[Ibrahim]

I'm just now making my first foray (by reading The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy) into the Arab conquests 600-700s, so correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that most of the sources come from roughly a century or more after the conquests, and that the sources often contradict each other, which makes it hard to determine which version to view as accurate (or, more accurate at least).

Certainly, as a general matter, some sources are apt to be more reliable than others, but isn't it difficult to determine which ones when, if viewing the sources as a group, the same conquest is related in multiple different ways?

If I am missing something, please let me know.

your pretty much on target. the earliest sources were usually just written down statements from war veterens, which up to that point were learned by rote, so yes, there is indeed a chaotic tendency, especially as memory is a big issue. the people memorizing, then later being written down, would have embellished the sources. plus there are other factors, discussed by Reality = Chaos, and your self.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

including the Qur´an. there is a famous example of this. the part of the Koran that promises maidens, says something along the lines of ...And they will have doe eyed maidens. If one rearranges the diacritical points a little though (which in the original versions of the text were not there) it could read something along the lines of ....And they shall have rest and grapes. You can imagine the difficulties this creates for studying early arabic texts. By the way there was a written form af nabatean )northern arabian around for quite a while I think, but that was quite different to the new arabic script that developed.

yeah, that would explain some of the more unusual lines in the Qur'an. but I find it a little on the hard end to think that these verses managed to dodge an otherwise very thurough and comprehensive process as checking the Qur'an, especially since it was the earliest book or literary work to be written down regularly (though the arabic script as we know it (sine diacritics) was in existence since the 5-6th centuries, and had been used to write the mu'allaqat, and some treaties). however, I am open to it, even as a muslim, though I must warn you to be careful with that in front of others.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'm just now making my first foray (by reading The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy) into the Arab conquests 600-700s, so correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that most of the sources come from roughly a century or more after the conquests, and that the sources often contradict each other, which makes it hard to determine which version to view as accurate (or, more accurate at least).

Certainly, as a general matter, some sources are apt to be more reliable than others, but isn't it difficult to determine which ones when, if viewing the sources as a group, the same conquest is related in multiple different ways?

If I am missing something, please let me know.

We're reading the same book. Currently reading the chapter on the invasion of Iran. If I had more free time I'd be further...

[Cimon]

We're reading the same book. Currently reading the chapter on the invasion of Iran. If I had more free time I'd be further...

Just about to start the Conquest of Egypt myself. I'm enjoying the book quite a bit. Filling in a big gap in my knowledge base.

Ibrahim, Reality=Chaos and Watchman: Thanks very much for your responses. Good insight, and very helpful.