PART I - DECLINE OF BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND RISE OF ISLAM. ARE THE TWO CONNECTED?

 In the 7th Century, the Byzantine Empire was at the height of its power in many ways. But this period also witnessed the emergence of a new force, a wave that would sweep over the Byzantine Empire and leave behind a permanent imprint. How did Islam impact the Byzantine Empire, and was this impact greater than the one inflicted by the longstanding rival of the Eastern Roman Empire—the Sassanian Empire? Let’s find out.

Soon after Emperor Justinian, another key figure in Byzantine history came to the fore. In the early 7th century, the reign of Emperor Heraclius began. He was a general who rebelled against the then current emperor, Phocas, and deposed him.

 During the seventh century, the Byzantines scrapped almost the entirety of the Roman heritage. Much of the bureaucracy was shut down. Taxes were cut. The silver coinage was stabilized. Above all, the landed estates were broken up and given to those who worked on them, in return for service in local militias. Though never abolished, chattel slavery became far less pervasive. The civil law was simplified, and the criminal law humanized – after the seventh century, the death penalty was rarely used.

The Byzantine Empire survived because of a revolutionary transformation in which ordinary people became armed stakeholders. The inhabitants of Roman Gaul and Italy and Spain barely looked up from their ploughs as the Barbarians swirled round them. The citizens of Byzantium fought like tigers in defence of their country. Now, this was a transformation pushed through in a century and a half of recurrent crises during which Constantinople itself was repeatedly under siege. Alone among the ancient empires in its path, Byzantium faced down the Arabs, and kept Islam at bay for nearly five centuries.

The Byzantium (Roman) Empire & Barbarians in Europe in 600 CE

Germanic Tribes occupied all of Western Europe - Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons
 

 

 PART II - THE RISE OF ISLAM - MOHAMED MESSENGER OF ALLAH

 

There had been rapid political development in the Arabian Peninsula, where Muhammad had been preaching Islam and, by 630, had successfully annexed most of Arabia under a single political authority.

When Muhammad died in June 632, Abu Bakr was chosen as caliph and his political successor. Troubles emerged soon after Abu Bakr's succession, and several Arab tribes openly revolted against Abu Bakr, who declared war against the rebels. In what became known as the Ridda wars of 632–633, Abu Bakr managed to defeat his opponents and unite Arabia under the central authority of the caliph at Medina.

Map detailing the Rashidun Caliphate's invasion of the Levant.

Once the rebels had been subdued, Abu Bakr began a war of conquest, beginning with Iraq. Sending his most brilliant general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Iraq was conquered in a series of successful campaigns against the Sassanid Persians.

THE FIRST CALIPH

Abu Bakr's confidence grew, and once Khalid established his stronghold in Iraq, Abu Bakr issued a call to arms for the invasion of Syria in February 634. The Moslem invasion of Syria was a series of carefully planned and well-co-ordinated military operations, which employed strategy, instead of pure strength, to deal with the Byzantine defensive measures.

The Moslem armies, however, soon proved to be too small to handle the Byzantine response, and their commanders called for reinforcements. Khalid was sent by Abu Bakr from Iraq to Syria with reinforcements and to lead the invasion. In July, the Byzantines were decisively defeated at Ajnadayn. Damascus fell in September, followed by the Battle of Fahl in which the last significant garrison of Palestine was defeated and routed.

THE SECOND CALIPH

After Abu Bakr died in 634, his successor, Umar, was determined to continue the Caliphate's expansion deeper into Syria. Though previous campaigns led by Khalid had been successful, he was replaced by Abu Ubaidah. Having secured southern Palestine, Moslem forces now advanced up the trade route, and Tiberias and Baalbek fell without much struggle and conquered Emesa early in 636. The Moslems then continued their conquest across the Levant.

 

Moslem and Byzantine troop movements before the battle of Yarmouk. Modern countries indicated (MAP)

PART III - BACKGROUND

In 622, Heraclius finally launched his offensive. After his overwhelming victories over the Persians and their allies in the Caucasus and Armenia, Heraclius launched a winter offensive against the Persians in Mesopotamia in 627, winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Nineveh thus threatening the Persian capital city of Ctesiphon. Discredited by the series of disasters, Khosrow II was overthrown and killed in a coup led by his son Kavadh II, who immediately sued for peace and agreed to withdraw from all occupied territories of the Byzantine Empire.

 

Heraclius restored the True Cross to Jerusalem with a majestic ceremony in 629.

 

 

BYZANTINE COUNTERATTACK AND ALLIANCE WITH SASSANID PERSIA

Having seized Emesa, the Moslems were just a march away from Aleppo, a Byzantine stronghold, and Antioch, where Heraclius resided. Seriously alarmed by the series of setbacks, Heraclius prepared for a counterattack to reacquire the lost regions. In 635 Yazdegerd III, the Emperor of Persia, sought an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor. Heraclius married off his daughter (according to traditions, his granddaughter) Manyanh to Yazdegerd III, to cement the alliance. While Heraclius prepared for a major offensive in the Levant, Yazdegerd was to mount a simultaneous counterattack in Iraq, in what was meant to be a well-coordinated effort. When Heraclius launched his offensive in May 636, Yazdegerd could not co-ordinate with the manoeuvrer, probably owing to the exhausted condition of his government, and what would have been a decisive plan missed the mark.

FLAG OF BYZANTINE

In 636 AD, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius assembled a large army of 140,000 Greek, Armenian, and Arab Christian troops at his stronghold of Antioch and deputized command to the generals Vahan, Qanateer, Dairjan, Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, and Gregory, as he was sick with edema and unable to personally lead his men. This army fanned out through the northern Levant, RECAPTURING DAMASCUS AND HOMS FROM THE ARAB RASHIDUN ARMIES.

However, the Arabs made a stand near the River Yarmouk in southern Syria, where Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah resolved to defeat the large Byzantine field army before the garrison of Caesarea could attack the Moslems from between Lake Tiberias and the Yarmouk River in the southwest.

PART IV - WEAPONRY

A) BYZANTINE

Helmets used included gilded helmets similar to the silver helmets of the Sassanid empire. Mail was commonly used to protect the face, neck, and cheeks as an aventail from the helmet or as a mail coif. Heavy leather sandals as well as Roman-type sandal boots were also typical of the early Moslem soldiers. Armour included hardened leather scale or lamellar armour and mail armour. Infantry soldiers were more heavily armoured than horsemen. Large wooden or wickerwork shields were used. Long-shafted spears were used, with infantry spears being 2.5 m (8.2 ft) long and cavalry spears being up to 5.5 m (18 ft) long. Short infantry swords like the Roman gladius and Sassanid long swords were used; long swords were usually carried by horsemen. Swords were hung in baldrics. Bows were about 2 metres (6.6 ft) long when unbraced, similar in size to the famous English longbow. The maximum useful range of the traditional Arabian bow was about 150 m (490 ft). Early Moslem archers, while being infantry archers without the mobility of horseback archer regiments, proved to be very effective in defending against light and unarmoured cavalry attacks.

 The Byzantine cavalry was armed with a long sword, known as the spathion. They would also have had a light wooden lance, known as a kontarion and a bow (toxarion) with forty arrows in a quiver, hung from a saddle or from the belt. Heavy infantry, known as skoutatoi, had a short sword and a short spear. The lightly armed Byzantine troops and the archers carried a small shield, a bow hung from the shoulder across the back and a quiver of arrows. Cavalry armour consisted of a hauberk with a mail coif and a helmet with a pendant: a throat-guard lined with fabric and having a fringe and cheek piece. Infantry was similarly equipped with a hauberk, a helmet and leg armour. Light lamellar and scale armour was also used

B) RASHIDUN

 

Both the short Arab swords (similar to the Roman gladius) and Sassanid long swords were used and Rashidun horsemen as well as foot soldiers were often described as carrying both at the same time. All swords hung from a baldric. Another personal weapon was the dagger, a weapon used only as a last resort. During a council of war, the command of the Moslem army was transferred to Khalid by Abu Ubaidah, Commander in Chief of the Moslem army. After taking command, Khalid reorganized the army into 36 infantry regiments and four cavalry regiments, with his cavalry elite, the mobile guard, held in reserve. The army was organised in the Tabi'a formation, a tight, defensive infantry formation.

RASHIDUN LIGHT CAVALRY ARCHER

 

 

 

 

 

 BELOW MOUNTED ARCHER

 

 The fact was that even in these battles the moslems had to fight superiorly trained and armed forces in pitched battle, and for extended periods, and resist the crushing force of overwhelming numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

PART V - MOSLEM AND BYZANTINE TROOP MOVEMENTS BEFORE THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK. (MODERN COUNTRIES INDICATED.)

 

 BYZANTINE ARMY BATTLE FLAG

 

 Byzantine preparations began in late 635. In 636 AD, the Byzantine emperor HERACLIUS assembled a large army of 140,000 Greek, Armenian, and Arab Christian troops at his stronghold of Antioch and deputized command to the generals Vahan, Qanateer, Dairjan, Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, and Gregory, as he was sick with edema and unable to personally lead his men. This army fanned out through the northern Levant, recapturing Damascus and Homs from the Arab Rashidun armies.

However, the Arabs made a stand near the River Yarmouk in southern Syria, where Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah resolved to defeat the large Byzantine field army before the garrison of Caesarea could attack the Moslems from between Lake Tiberias and the Yarmouk River in the southwest. The assembled Byzantine army contingents consisted of, Slavs, Franks, Georgians, Armenians and Christian Arabs. The force was organized into five armies, the joint leader of which was Theodore Trithyrius. Vahan, an Armenian and the former garrison commander of Emesa, was made the overall field commander, and had under his command a purely Armenian army. Buccinator (Qanatir), a Slavic prince, commanded the Slavs and Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, king of the Ghassanid Arabs, commanded an exclusively Christian Arab force.

The remaining contingents, all European, were placed under Gregory and Dairjan. Heraclius himself supervised the operation from Antioch. Byzantine sources mention Niketas, son of the Persian general Shahrbaraz, among the commanders, but it is not certain which army he commanded.

RASHIDUN ARMY BATTLE FLAG

 

The Rashidun army was then split into four groups: one under Amr in Palestine, one under Shurahbil in Jordan, one under Yazid in the Damascus-Caesarea region and the last one under Abu Ubaidah along with Khalid at Emesa.

As the Moslem forces were geographically divided, Heraclius sought to exploit that situation and planned to attack. He did not wish to engage in a single pitched battle but rather to employ central position and fight the enemy in detail by concentrating large forces against each of the Moslem corps before they could consolidate their troops. By forcing the Moslems to retreat, or by destroying Moslem forces separately, he would fulfil his strategy of recapturing lost territory. Reinforcements were sent to Caesarea under Heraclius' son Constantine III, probably to tie down Yazid's forces, which were besieging the town. The Byzantine imperial army moved out from Antioch and Northern Syria in the middle of June 636

 TROOP DEPLOYMENT

Most early accounts place the size of the Moslem forces between 24,000 and 40,000 and the number of Byzantine forces between 100,000 and 400,000. Modern estimates for the sizes of the respective armies vary: the vast majority of estimates for the Byzantine army are between 80,000 and 150,000.

Estimates for the Rashidun army are between 25,000 and 40,000. Original accounts are mostly from Arab sources, generally agreeing that the Byzantine army and their allies outnumbered the Moslem Arabs by a sizeable margin. The only early Byzantine source is Theophanes, who wrote a century later. Accounts of the battle vary, some stating it lasted a day, others more than a day.[

Map detailing where the battle took place 

 

PART VI - BATTLE – THIS IS A DETAILED DESCRIPTION AS PER FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

THE TWO ARMIES MET ON THE YARMOUK PLAIN, NEAR THE JABAL DRUZE MOUNTAINS. The Romans built a fortified camp near Kafr-ul-Ma in the western part of the plain, while the central portion of the plain was unoccupied. Both armies engaged in extensive negotiations for weeks, but they ended in failure, and the battle was inevitable. The Caliph Umar's reinforcements, 5,000 Yemeni archers and 1,000 Arabian campaign veterans, joined the Rashiduns during the negotiation period. The Byzantines ultimately crossed an 11-mile-long ravine, the River Raqqad, at Kafr-ul-Ma, the only crossing. On 14 August, the Roman army formed up to the east and north of the River Alan, with Vahan and his corps commanders leading the army. Jabalah commanded the light Ghassanid cavalry, which was stretched across the plain as the vanguard. Qanatir commanded the left flank, Gregory commanded the right, and two central corps under Dairjan and Vahan commanded the central corps. While Abu Ubaidah was the overall commander by order of the Caliph, he allowed Khalid to give the orders. Khalid moved some of his light cavalry to the vanguard to observe the Romans, while his infantry were divided into corps of nine units each. Both armies had a southern flank secured by the River Yarmouk, while, to the north, the Arabs had the ability to flank the Byzantines through the desert.

 PART VII - THE START OF THE BATTLE

On 15 August, the battle began when the Roman light cavalry vanguard moved behind the main army to reinforce the left flank cavalry; the Arab vanguard also joined the main cavalry units. The champions of both sides then duelled for a few hours, and, after the screening forces pulled back, a third of the Roman infantry charged their counterparts as the archers on both sides exchanged volleys of arrows. After a few hours of fighting, both sides disengaged and returned to their camps. At night, a few Roman light cavalry units were forced back by the Arab cavalry. The Romans then formed up in the darkness, hoping to attack the Moslems as early as possible and prevent them from getting into formation. The whole Roman army attacked before dawn, anticipating that the Moslems would be praying at that time. Unfortunately for the attackers, the Arab light cavalry once again alerted their comrades of the impending attack, and the Arabs prepared for the attack. The Romans launched a passive attack in the middle as the flanks launched strong attacks, moving fresh troops to the front and pushing the Arab right back after three charges. The Arab right wing cavalry launched a counterattack, tiring out the Byzantines and allowing the Arab infantry to retreat. The Arab cavalry then retreated as well, and the wives of the retreating warriors shamed them into returning to the battle. The Arab right flank reformed and counterattacked. Meanwhile, the Roman right was even more successful due to the presence of their elite infantry in their ranks. The second Roman attack drove the Moslem left back, forcing them back towards the flank. However, the Moslem cavalry attempted to stem the Roman advance in a counterattack before retreating with the infantry. Their wives urged them to return to the battle and even threw stones at their husbands, and the heavily-armored Romans were too slow to prevent the Arabs from receiving reinforcements. The Byzantines failed to pour in troops through the Arab gaps or outflank them, as they feared Arab cavalry attacks or flanking moves. Khalid then took command of the cavalry in the center, attacking the Byzantine left from the flank and forcing them to retreat to their original positions. Khalid then swung his cavalry to help the Arab left, exploiting the gap between the Byzantine right and center and flanking the Roman right. The Romans retreated, albeit with less casualties than the left. The cavalry then charged into the Roman center-right, killing its commander. Seeing that their flanks were retreating, the Byzantine center retreated to its starting position. Both sides suffered similar losses in the battle.

On the next day, the Romans again charged, targeting the Moslem right and center-right. The Roman numbers began to overpower the Arabs, pushing them back to the camp. Amr ibn al-As' corps then stabilized, but the Byzantine cavalry repelled an Arab cavalry counterattack. Khalid again came to the rescue once he saw that the Roman left was being passive, moving the reserve cavalry to charge the Roman flank. The Byzantine commander attempted to move more troops from the second flank to the front, but the Romans were pushed back at dusk, disengaging along with the rest of the Roman army. In the first three days, the Romans lost more troops than the Arabs, but they still outnumbered their foe. Khalid had to worry about the loss of many of his archers and the right flank.

DAY 6, THE LAST PHASE.

 

On 20 August, Khaled put into action a simple but bold plan of attack. With his massed cavalry force, he intended to drive the Byzantine cavalry entirely off the battlefield so that the infantry, which formed the bulk of the imperial army, would be left without cavalry support and thus would be exposed when attacked from the flanks and rear. At the same time, he planned to push a determined attack to turn the left flank of the Byzantine army and drive them towards the ravine to the west.

Phase 1: Khalid ordered a general attack on the Byzantine front and galloped his cavalry around the left wing of the Byzantines. Part of his cavalry engaged the Byzantine left wing cavalry while the rest of it attacked the rear of the Byzantine left wing infantry. Meanwhile, the Moslem right wing pressed against it from the front. Under the two-pronged attack, the Byzantine left wing fell back and collapsed and fell back to the Byzantine left centre, greatly disordering it. The remaining Moslem cavalry then attacked the Byzantine left wing cavalry at the rear while they were held frontally by the other half of the Moslem cavalry, routing them off the battlefield to the north. The Moslem right-wing infantry now attacked the Byzantine left centre at its left flank while the Moslem right centre attacked from front.

Phase 2: Vahan, noticing the huge cavalry manoeuvrer of the Moslems, ordered his cavalry to group together, but was not quick enough. Before Vahan could organize his disparate heavy cavalry squadrons, Khalid had wheeled his cavalry back to attack the concentrating Byzantine cavalry squadrons, falling upon them from the front and the flank while they were still moving into formation. The disorganized and disoriented Byzantine heavy cavalry was soon routed and dispersed to the north, leaving the infantry to its fate.

Phase 3: With the Byzantine cavalry completely routed, Khalid turned to the Byzantine left centre, which already held the two-pronged attack of the Moslem infantry. The Byzantine left centre was attacked at its rear by Khalid's cavalry and was finally broken.

Phase 4: With the retreat of the Byzantine left centre, a general Byzantine retreat started. Khalid took his cavalry north to block the northern route of escape. The Byzantines retreated west towards Wadi-ur-Ruqqad, where there was a bridge at Ayn al Dhakar for safe crossing across the deep gorges of the ravines of Wadi-ur-Ruqqad. Dharar had already captured the bridge as part of Khalid's plan the night before. A unit of 500 mounted troops had been sent to block the passageway. In fact, that was the route by which Khalid wanted the Byzantines to retreat all along. The Byzantines were surrounded from all sides now.

Some fell into the deep ravines off the steep slopes, others tried to escape in the waters but were smashed on the rocks below and still others

were killed in their flight. Nevertheless, many of the soldiers managed to escape the slaughter. Jonah, the Greek informant of the Rashidun army during the conquest of Damascus, died in the battle. The Moslems took no prisoners in the battle, but they may have captured some during the subsequent pursuit. Theodore Trithurios died on the battlefield, and Niketas managed to escape and reach Emesa. Jabalah ibn al-Ayham also managed to escape and later briefly came to terms with the Moslems, but he soon defected to the Byzantine court again.

THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK WAS A STUNNING ARAB VICTORY. Let me put it in perspective, the same way the Irish writer CIARAN CONLIFFE did and with whom I agree:

“Through the early part of their history, the Byzantines were defined by their war with Persia.  The last battle between the two came at the conclusion of what scholars refer to as the Last Great War Of Antiquity (at least partially because it _was_ the final Roman/Persian conflict), where they finally defeated the Persian army and stood poised to take over the entire rival empire. Or so they thought.”

HOWEVER

Far to the south of this conflict stood the Arabian Peninsula, home to innumerable desert tribes. They had not made any major impact on the world up until this point. Although the Romans had once had a province there, it was too far from the centre to hold onto long, and the area was generally beneath the notice of the great empires. Meanwhile, their own disunity and constant inter-tribal warfare without any outside threats to unite them left them ISOLATED.

Until, that is, the arrival of Islam. The new religion gave coherence and unity to the Arab peoples, along with a drive that would see them explode onto the world stage in dramatic fashion.

While the Byzantines and Sassanians were bleeding each other dry over the course of their prolonged and bitter struggle, a new power had emerged from one of the most obscure corners of the Mediterranean that, IN A REMARKABLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WOULD EXPLODE ONTO THE SCENE AND SWEEP AWAY MUCH OF THE PREVIOUS WORLD ORDER.

  

PART VIII - SEPT 637 - 1 YEAR AFTER THE BATTLE OF YARMOUK

Heraclius was riding his ornamented horse in the lead and could see the pine, cedar and oak trees on the slopes of the Taurus Mountains; the Roman column was approaching the Cilician Gates pass. What remained of the Roman army was in full retreat to the safety of Anatolia.

Two years earlier, Heraclius travelled to Antioch to take direct control of military affairs but after the loss of the city, he had no choice but to abandon Syria.

He left a broken man.

The Empire he saved from the Persians was torn apart by nomads from the desert and his empire was in a perilous situation. He had committed all military resources to Syria and only had a token force to protect his capital. Any thoughts of returning to Syria were abandoned. His focus was now to keep what he had left.

Just as Heradius entered the pass, he turned around to take one last look at Syria and with sorrow said

“Salutations to thee, O Syria! And farewell from one who departs. Never again shall the Roman return to thee except in fear. Oh, what a fine land I leave to the enemy!”

IF BYZANTIUM HAD BEEN VICTORIOUS AT YARMOUK

There is no doubt that Islam would have been a FRINGE RELIGION, limited to the Arabian Peninsula and Arabs would have remained a semi barbarous desert Bedouin tribes living mostly in Tents or in crudely stone constructed small, narrow adobes. MOREOVER

1. Persia would not have been conquered nor Islamized and its religion would have been ZOROASTRIANISM.

2. The LEVANT, including Syria would have Remained part of the byzantine empire for centuries

3. Egypt would have continued to be a province of Byzantium and REMAINED Christian COPTIC

4. The Greek-Orthodox Christian Kingdom in Trebizond – Anatolia would have remained a client state of the Kingdom of Georgia and most likely would have expanded in Anatolia (present-day Turkey)

PART IX - BUT IT ALL CHANGED BECAUSE OF ONE BRILLIANT MILITARY COMMANDER

KHALED IBN AL WALID

KHALID IS ONE OF THE FEW GENERALS IN HISTORY TO HAVE NEVER LOST A PITCHED BATTLE. INDEED, HE EMERGED THE VICTOR IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 50 OR SO LARGE SCALE BATTLES HE FOUGHT AGAINST THE APOSTATE TRIBES, CHRISTIAN ARABS, SASSANIAN EMPIRE AND BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

He was a skilled dual bladed swords man who's military skills innovative tactics brought victories unifying all of Arabia and taking the Sassanid / Roman two of the strongest empires of the time down, sealing the fate of the middle east for centuries to come. According to most credible sources Al-Walid is said to have fought around 200 battles and skirmishes as well as battle deciding duels through out his military career, remaining undefeated and earning a place as one of the most finest military generals in history. Such was the brilliance of his tactical leadership that when Arab tribes were being used as proxies by the Romans and Sassanid's and both powers threatened border region of the new Arabian caliphate state after killing the Arab emissaries (Which at the time was considered an act of war) Al-Walid was summoned and given the task of countering the Northern threats and expanding the states influence. Much of Al-Walids strategy relied in his use of extreme methods to completely destroy the opposing army. He is said to have put more emphasis on annihilating enemy troops, rather than achieving victory by simply defeating them and letting them escape behind enemy lines to fight another day, it was either surrender or die for them. An example of this is his employment of the double envelopment maneuver against the numerically superior Sassanid army at the Battle of Walaja and his maneuver at the Battle of Yarmouk where he virtually trapped the Roman army between three steep ravines by stealthily capturing their only escape route.

Such a method of warfare relied on a excellent intelligence network and high mobility of his forces. Psychological warfare also played a massive part in his plans to demoralize the superior and manipulate their every move so that he can coordinate his less armored and armed men in the most efficient manner possible.

Without his unparalleled military exploits, Islam as we know it today would not have existed. His victories were instrumental in the unification of Arabia and later he successfully led the Moslem Arab armies against the formidable Sasanian and Byzantine Empires. The enemy outnumbered him 90% of the time and always had the advantage in quality of arms and armour. That he prevailed against such odds was due only to his superb generalship. His biggest achievement was the conversion of Arab tactical doctrine into this strategic system of combined Intelligence/ Highly mobile warfare.

Hence his style of command can be divided into 3 main sub points: PSYCHOLOGICAL , INTELLIGENCE AND HIGH MOBILITY.

KHALED TACTICS ARE STILL STUDIED AT THE MILITARY COLLEGES OF WEST POINT AND ST. CYR

 

 

 During his campaigns he used almost every tactic in the book and devised new ones whenever it suited him. The envelopment from one flank, oblique order, three-pronged attack, four-pronged attack, large-scale ambush, night attack and feigned retreat were all tactics which Khalid used at one time or another with success. He also executed Hannibal’s famous double envelopment maneuver with perfection at Walaja, a dream come true for any general.

PART X - CONSEQUENCES OF ARAB VICTORY AT YARMOUK

The long Byzantine-Sassanian wars had exhausted both sides, and left these once-powerful empires vulnerable. Heraclius fought gamely, but was unable to stem the tide, and had to endure watching one section of his empire lost after another.

1. 1. In 636 CE., at the Battle of Yarmouk, the Byzantine Army was decisively defeated, and in the very same year, the Sassanians were crushed at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, leaving THE ENTIRE EAST OPEN TO INVASION AND CONQUEST BY THE ARABS.

2. In 636 CE., Byzantium lost Jerusalem, the most sacred city in Christendom, and soon after, the entire Sassanian Empire crumbled and was brushed aside by the newcomers.

3. The Islamization of Persia's vastly superior culture & civilization with its provinces of Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) transformed the victorious semi-barbarian Arabs into a world's power house.

4. Egypt fell in 642 CE., and the southern Mediterranean coast, encompassing what is today Libya and Tunisia, soon followed.

5. Heraclius lived to witness most of these losses, finally dying in 641 CE. This great wave of subjugation finally subsided in the mid-8th century, by which time,

6. In the West, the remainder of North Africa and Spain had been subdued,

7. And in the East, the Islamic armies had reached the borders of India.

THE ARABIC CONQUESTS FUNDAMENTALLY RESHAPED THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD AND CREATED RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL, AND LINGUISTIC BOUNDARIES THAT PERSIST EVEN TODAY.

 George F. Nafziger, in his book Islam at war, described the battle:

ALTHOUGH YARMOUK IS LITTLE KNOWN TODAY, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST DECISIVE BATTLES IN HUMAN HISTORY......

HAD HERACLIUS' FORCES PREVAILED, THE MODERN WORLD WOULD BE SO CHANGED AS TO BE UNRECOGNIZABLE

WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

The Byzantine Empire still held Constantinople and sections of the Balkans and Anatolia, and this much-reduced version of the empire would manage to continue for another 800 years.

NOTES about the belligerents in armies at the battle of Yarmouk.

Rashidun Caliphate	Byzantine Empire Ghassanid Kingdom Tanukhid Foederati
Commanders and leaders
Khalid ibn al-Walid Malik al-Ashtar Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah 'Amr ibn al-'As Khawlah bint al-Azwar Shurahbil ibn Hasana Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan Al-Qa'qa' ibn 'Amr al-Tamimi Amru bin Ma'adi Yakrib Iyad ibn Ghanm Dhiraar bin Al-Azwar Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr.	Theodore Trithyrius Vahan † Jabalah ibn al-Aiham Dairjan † Niketas the Persian Buccinator (Qanatir) Gregory
Strength
15,000–40,000 (modern estimates) 24,000–40,000 (primary sources)	15,000–150,000 (modern estimates) 100,000–200,000 (primary Arab sources) 140,000 (primary Roman sources)
Casualties and losses
4,000 killed	45% or 50,000+ killed (modern estimates) 70,000–120,000 killed (primary sources)
_______________ FINALLY ... HISTORY >>>> AND NAPOLEON, PETER THE GREAT, KHALED IBN AL-WALID, FIDEL CASTRO, GEORGE WASHINGTON, EMMELINE PANKHURST (UK suffragette movement and helping women win the suffering right to vote) and others ... It all begs the question: IS HISTORY MADE BY THE CHOSEN FEW ... OR BY THE PEOPLE AT THE RIGHT TIME & AT THE RIGHT PLACE ??? I HAVE MADE MY CHOICE ... HAVE YOU ???