Cavalry

[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.

[AqD]

I often asked myself the question if it is realstic that such cavalry like cataphracts are owning every cavalry in melee, even the famous companions of alexander, the hetairoi.

No.

I think the early cataphract armours are so clumsy that they're unsuitable to do anything but frontal charge .... Didn't one Armenian King get dragged down by the lasso of Sarmatian riders? And both of Parthians/Armenians army was destroyed by Alans during their invasion of Armenia (and their cavalry are much lighter!)

[Watchman]

"Early" cataphracts would usually mean relatively *light* iterations of the theme in most cases, though. Which specifically would be less "one-trick ponies" than the latter, heavier versions, on account of less weight and hence greater maneuverability...

But yeah, specialist heavy frontal-assault cavalry like that needs a lot of support from lighter and more versatile (and cheaper and more numerous) troops to be really effective. This is by no means restricted to cataphracts though - Medieval knights, who long actually went pretty lightly armoured, in their frontal-assault role similarly depended heavily on various forms of lighter cavalry for support and follow-up. (Though they could usually do many of the same things themselves by switching war gear and formations/tactics if need be - commonly enough done outside set-piece battles.)

[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.