Talk:Battle of Firaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Army size

I dont think that army size was or should be that large in battle of firaz ! it was a border town and when whole of eastern central and westren iraq was being conquered by Khalid bin Walid, then there remian no reasion for persians to stay at firaz motion less, i mean after battle of muzayyah, sanni, and zumail... no persian army appeared in iraq to challenge the muslim authority there, the best reasion that can be given for it is that: it took time to concentrate new army from different garrisons through out the empire, if there was 150,000 soldiers at Firaz ( which is near modern days abu kamal in Syria) then why didn't persian emperor simply ordered them to attack and destory the muslim forces in iraq, he could very well do it soon after or during when Khalid's army was busy in destorying persian forces in muzzayh, zumail and sanni. From this i suppose that the persian army there must not be more then 10,000 along with its arab allies. The byzantine army on the other hand, at the garrison may be 12,000 ( as it use to be in different byzantine garrions in those days). The combine force must not be more then 20,000-30,000.

Mohammad Adil 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate to see such coalition force figures. Although there is not much one can do, when the heavily depended on souce for this article is "The Sword of Allah." LOL - seems more like propaganda to me, but anyway that isn't important. When Khosrau II was fighting Heraclius (at a time when Persia was far wealthier and stronger) it usually summoned crack forces of up to 30,000-40,000 max. So these figures would have shrunk by the time of Yazdgerd III, and Byzantium would have probably been able to raise a comparable force. I can't see why the joint Roman/Persian force alongside Christian allies could have exceeded 40,000.--Arsenous Commodore 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


    • Dude why "lolz" for sowrd of Allah ... ???? have you ever read it ??? read it it will provide you a nice military tactics and strategies knowledge. Well, the author of the sowrd of Allah also argues and disagrees with the early souresc that the allied forces were so large and even he did'nt consider it to be a major or decisive battle, as it was only the "last" battle of the swift conquest of persians mesopotamia.

Mohammad Adil 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

6 hundred thousand? thats a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.188 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering it was one of the last confrontations between the Persian Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate, I think it's reasonable to assume the Persians far outnumbered the Muslims in the battle. However, it would be helpful if an alternative source could be found to corroborate or discount any figures. In relation to Arvand's comment, the title is perhaps not the most scholarly of ones but it seems that the author went to a great deal to authenticate his sources {even though many were of the Muslim viewpoint} and even visited the battle grounds so I think the book does have some scholarly weighting.

[edit] POV

This article looks like Muslim propaganda to me. Two greatest powers in the Middle east reinforced by Christian Arabs defeated by much smaller force of Muslim nomads? The size of both Muslim and non-Muslim armies was probably far more closer to equal than stated in the article.

Isidoros47 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Get over the fact that a smaller Rashidun Army defeated the greater Byzantine/Persian armies through good leadership and religious fervor on the part of the Muslim combatants. Victory does not always lie in the strength of numbers.

The Byzantine and Persian were quite religious as well you know. They also have better technology and heavier troops. I too think the number are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.3.236 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)