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.
Re: Cavalry
Originally Posted by 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.
" -alBernameg
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks