History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSassanids vs Arabs

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 2983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 05:23
lol
 
how pathetic iam thinking that you actually continued the discussion when i saw "hani" in the last replay!!
 
and i cannot ban anybody by myself , we have to discuss it in the mods room and i must present a good reason for that.
 
 
back to the topic, you are the one who gave up discussing and obviously has nothing to say.
 
so sorry to tell you , again you are wrong you did not join the people who had something to say, you joined the people who had nothing to say, and give up any discussion that present solid facts.Broken%20Heart
 
Big%20smile
 
 
 
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 09:25
I remember the battle of al quadish, damn cant spell it correctly, for the first three days, the sassanids were winning till a sand storm hit, making the Persian elephants go ballistic killing most of the Persians at that time. then out of the chaos, the Persian general was beheaded. the sassanids had great armies, amazing technology but on that faithful day, they were defeated by fate.

the romans, we had better fortification, bad ass ones at that, better defenses and better infantry, if I could recall it is only the northern part of Iran that remained unconquered. Mazandaran I think it is called.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 10:22
The elephants were taken on by the Saadi tribe on the third day, they alone lost 500 men and never participated in any conquest after that. they heated their spears and attacked the elephants putting down their eyes. The route happened on the fourth day of battle when lancers attacked the Persians from behind and spearmen took down their cavalry.
 
As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 16:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The elephants were taken on by the Saadi tribe on the third day, they alone lost 500 men and never participated in any conquest after that. they heated their spears and attacked the elephants putting down their eyes. The route happened on the fourth day of battle when lancers attacked the Persians from behind and spearmen took down their cavalry.
 
As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717.
 
Al-Jassas 


cool, thanks for clearing it out didnt know that, I heard from a persian friend that there was a convert persian named salam who told them how to beat the elephants and the rout happened when rustam the leader of the persians was killed.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:31
Salman al-Farisi was a guid in the conquest of Persia and his help in Iraq was minimal since Iraq was already settled by large numbers of Arabs. He was an old convert and helped negotiate many treaties including the use of some 12 thousand cataphracts in the muslim armies.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus JUliusAugustus wrote:

I remember the battle of al quadish, damn cant spell it correctly, for the first three days, the sassanids were winning till a sand storm hit, making the Persian elephants go ballistic killing most of the Persians at that time. then out of the chaos, the Persian general was beheaded. the sassanids had great armies, amazing technology but on that faithful day, they were defeated by fate.

the romans, we had better fortification, bad ass ones at that, better defenses and better infantry, if I could recall it is only the northern part of Iran that remained unconquered. Mazandaran I think it is called.
 
Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 19:50
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
 
The persians built so powerful fortifications in Nisibis that the roman-byzantines impressed and scared built for counter impressive fortifications in Daras 17 km away (one seen the other), not equaling the persian work; Nisibis was used by the sassanians as their unconquering base for attack the empire. Unfortunatelly i haven never seen good studies about this question.
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 04:22
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Salman al-Farisi was a guid in the conquest of Persia and his help in Iraq was minimal since Iraq was already settled by large numbers of Arabs. He was an old convert and helped negotiate many treaties including the use of some 12 thousand cataphracts in the muslim armies.
 
Al-Jassas 


salman al farsi, is the translation to the name, salman the persian? interesting, Ive read a sufi book with his name in it,  heard he was a persian noble then christian then slave then muslim convert. is this true?
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Status: Offline
Points: 274
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 04:24
Originally posted by Ikki Ikki wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
 
The persians built so powerful fortifications in Nisibis that the roman-byzantines impressed and scared built for counter impressive fortifications in Daras 17 km away (one seen the other), not equaling the persian work; Nisibis was used by the sassanians as their unconquering base for attack the empire. Unfortunatelly i haven never seen good studies about this question.



thanks zagros and ikki, I think they didnt expect an attack from the south, or the east.
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 17:42
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus JUliusAugustus wrote:




thanks zagros and ikki, I think they didnt expect an attack from the south, or the east.
 
Don't forget that sassanians sustained a long war with the Hephtalytes, in fact if i remember well one Great King died against they. Althought by the time of the arab invasion sassanians had conquered the eastern lands i think they always put an eye they. But sure, they never expect an attack from their arab allieds. In fact, many people forget that without the support of Ghassanids and Lakhmids, arab allieds and auxiliars of byzantines and sassanians respectivelly, men who knew the inner parts of both empires and who knew perfectly the military capabilities of both empires, the arab conquest was impossible.


Edited by Ikki - 21-Mar-2008 at 17:56
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 05:11

The main reason of the fall of the Sassanids is a compound of major and minor reasons, as to which studying only on the islamic sources one may most probably notice that the minor reasons, which actually most of the times were intended to aim at infertilizing of any future full scale resistence (cultural, religious, nationalistic) to the conquered countries now in hands of new sudden empire of the Arabs, but when one studies the lesser sources citing the same events of the early 7th century like chinese for example or a comparative study of the islamic sources gives the idea that the major reasons could be different to what always considered major.

To my opinion the major reasons of the sudden fall of the Sassanids at the hands of the Arabs consisted of primarily the actual geographical position the kingdoms of Iranians which made them always vulnerable to invasions(because of thosands  of miles frontiers in east and west the iranian kingdoms always had to defend against the most formidable forces of the history, this factor without exception led many of dynasties in Iran regardless Iranian, turk, etc. to it's doom or having had the chance, weakend them). The case of the Sassanids actually is good example of this I quote "they born in battle and they died in battle". Conisdering the last years of the Sasanids especially time of Xosrow II we notice an alliance against them betwen Byzantium and the Turkic empire including Khazars (and surrpise that the Arabs always attacked Sasanians and started their migrations eversince but the situation was not quite favourable for them to inflict what they did centuries later to the Iranian lands, so they waited for the adversary they couldnt match normally to get wounded enough) at the beginning of these full scale wars Sasanians seemed to be successful but the total exhaustion of the military forces (defenders) of the kingdom had started dramatically and the heavy taxes day by day to provide cosntant military force  on the people of kingdom, in addition to that the result of the continuous exterior pressure on not only kingdom but iranian culture regions on the populace, just worsened the inner situation for them too ( rather minor reasons comparing to the above-mentioned).

So easy to tell that after losing war to the mighty Byzantine-Turkic alliances and the nominal surrender of the Ctesiphon the capital and the most populated city of those times, to the Byzantine emperor Herakelios, only about a decade to fall suddenly to the pillage of the neighboring Arab tribes ( that resulted in a considerable weakness and destruction of key military sectors as  factual defensive elements of the Iranian civilization inside the kingdom) the Sasanian seemed to be a good prey for an opportunist adversary.

As for the quality of the battles fought between, considering this epidemic tradition of exaggerating and making story of it after battles of both Arabs and Persians many key facts like the quantities are not to be trusted:

- For the early clashes the numbers given by the Arab and Muslim scholars are rather exaggerating and somehow contradicting themsleves, (unfortunately the Arabs knew the cultural policies very well too and they did their best in obliterating as much the old iranian documents whatsoever) an example of this is Al-Masoudi's narration of battle of Al-Qadesiya which estimates the Muslims 88.000 and the Pagans (Iranians) 60.000 contrdicting some other sources like Tabari's.

- At the battle of Nahavand one thing could draw attention of even an easy reader - 1.the DEFENSIVE STANCE of the Iranian army  2. the raw recruits (showing that the military potentials this time did reached the end) - though the number of the Sasanian iranian troops in most of the islamic sources stated about three times larger than muslims'.

So IMHO for the Arabs it was clear that they will gain victory and form the Arabs eyes it was obvious putting down the Sasanids and thus the victories did not actually seemed that miracle to them. Even at the time of the Caliph Abu-Bakr it was obvious as we can see in examples like the letter Muthna sent to the caliph on the ease awaiting the Muslims to conquer huge deal of lands. So I may say this after all the Sasanians never attacked Arabs or ruled their lands (it's clear, lack of interest) and they didnt die in bed but they fell in a full scale battle from every direction fo their kingdom which they defended in vain to their dignity.

"As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717. "

Tapurestan (Mazandarn) resisted for two centuries with much greater resistence than in Mount Lebanon..heh and Expecially Deylaman never bowed down to the Muslim Arabs and chose the alternative waging war on them even invading them occasionally and the Arabs whose armies at the same time were conquering Spain were still cautious at starting struggles with the Deylamites until the time Deylamites alongside and after the Ziarid movemnet (equal national or expansionist movement) captured city of Baghdad itself..;) I know you know it well my friend as the full detail of what I said can be found in Islamic sources themselves.



Edited by Asawar Hazaraspa - 11-Sep-2008 at 05:15
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 06:11
Please don't dig up this rusty thread, or we may have another Persian/Arab confrontation.Wink
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 11:07
Greetings Suren, a rusty thread? yes! But why would be always a confrontation when it comes to discussing critical points of the Iranian history?! I think talking about it is the complete right of anyone especially the Iranians. I respect all the arab nations and I think it is better to regard history professionally than just make it a tool to insult others.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 12:31
Hello to you all
 
First of all, calling the conquest of Persia a piece of cake is actually stupid for several reasons most important of these reasons is the simple fact that the conquest wasn't completed till nearly 10 years after it started, except in Gilan and Mazandran which needed 70 years more but that is a different story. Persians rebelled again and again, whole provinces had to be reconquered two or even three times, Kerman and parts of present day Fars and harsh measures were taken to stop the insurgency, mainly total population transfer and in some cases even enslavement like what happened in Istakhar.
 
Second, about the confusion in numbers, well it is natural, only 4 years after the conquest were the armies of the Caliphate registered into tribal based regiments in the diwan and started to get salaries rather than booty. Plus the confusion in the total number of troops arose from the continous shift of troops between each front. Arab tribes wanted to fight the Byzentines but dreaded the Persian front after the battle of the bridge. Omar had to order troops to be shifted from the Syrian front to the Persian front and vise versa depending on the situation. Khalid was transferred to the Syrian front because of the immense numbers the Byzantines gathered and distributed all over major bases. When Qadisiyah came, Khalid had to send reinforcements to Saad ibn Abi Waqqas on the Persian front and although the Arabs started the battle with 35k they might have ended it with some 50k or more troops. This is why you get conflicting numbers.
 
Third, about the number of Byzantines and the Sassanids, well I see no problem with the 200k men Arab sources mention for several reasons, first these were the total numbers gather by the Byzantines not the total number gathered for one battle. Al-Baladhuri who wrote a special book about the Syrian campaign, and probably the earliest book about the conquests too, mentions nothing about the legendary 250 thousand in Yarmouk mentioned by later books, he says Byzantines had no more than 100k but he does insist that Yarmouk was a total rout for the Byzantines and that no less than half of them were killed, which is reasonable if you know how did the battle actually proceeded. Also when you carefully read history books you will find that arabs were never that much outnumbered, many times they matched or even outnumbered their foes but in major battles they were certainly outnumbered mostly 3:1 or 2:1. The second reason for believing the the Sassanids and Byzantines could muster such numbers is the nature of the war. The very existence of both empires was threatened. If the Byzantines could muster that number and more just two years after their great defeat at the hands of the Persians in a border war, why couldn't they muster it after nearly 10 years of relative peace in a war for their very existence? 
 
As for Mazandran, Gilan and Lebanon, well have you ever heard of Anjar? there is a great Ummyyad palace there in the heart of Lebanon. Lebanon rebelled several times and succeeded only because of the Arab civil wars, When Abdul-Malik stabilised the situation, he entered the mountain and defeated its inhabitants and introduced Arabs settlement in the south, where shia are the majority, and Maronites in the middle. Mount Lebanon would never make trouble again till the crusades. As for Mazandran, well its rulers in the beginning accepted suzernity paying only a nominal tribute. Later they rebelled and succeeded. Because of its thick forests and relative isolation, Arabs ignored it and the long civil wars cancelled the thought of conquest. When the Ummayyads stabilised their rule their eyes were fixed on the richer and more important Transoxania. They planned and executed the conquest of that region and succeeded in 9 consecutive campaigns lead by the brilliant Qutaibah ibn Muslim. However they didn't forget Mazandran and Qutaibah began the conquest that was completed after his murder. The capital then, Gorgan, fell in 716 and bridgeheads on the Caspian were established. Amol fell twice but returned to the rule of the Isbohbodh with the condition of allowing Muslim settlement all over Mazendran. Troops were withrawn to strategic forts deep inside Mazandran but the civil wars and the wars with the Turks during Hisham's rule led to the withdrawal of all troops from Mazandran. Only during the Abbasids did a full and total occupation of Mazandran happen, during Al-Mansur's reign. As for the Daylams, they never rebelled in the first place to be conquered, they were organized in clans with no city or even a big town at all. They lived in small villages and always paid tribute on time. When Mazandran was conquered Muslims began to settle in the Daylam and Gilan. Tax records from the Abbadis era, about 100 years before the Zairids revolted, show that Daylam and Gilan were taxed as full provinces of the Abbasid empire (source: Al-Kharaj by Qudanah ibn Jaafar).
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 22:19

No one called it a piece of cake but yet no one ever call it a miracle and according to many facts the so-called military brilliance of the Arab armies which is at some points considerable was not the main case for the total Arab conquests. (if it was not Arabs to place the last strike on Sasanians the so-called honour would be the Turkics or Khazars or possibly Byzantines) What you say do not says anything about the contradictions of numbers. and in contrary to your saying I put Al-Masoudi's account on the battle of Qadesiyah itself. one can see the tradition of the exaggeration of the hsitorical accounts in all aspects of the arabic historiography or literature ( there's a particular word in Arabic language "Gholov") an example of this one can see in how the narrations of Yemen embassy firstly to the roman court then after the failure to the Persian court, became mythicized perhaps in order to keep it in the oral traditions of the generations to come. ( see Al-Dinouri's "Akhbar al-Taval")

So "Also when you carefully read history books you will find that arabs were never that much outnumbered, many times they matched or even outnumbered their foes but in major battles they were certainly outnumbered mostly 3:1 or 2:1. The second reason for believing the the Sassanids and Byzantines could muster such numbers is the nature of the war. The very existence of both empires was threatened"

the books you say are exactly the islamic arabic sources which themselves are contradicting in some manners. And the exact debate is that whether -in this lack of any rather than islamic pro-arab sources - theArabs actually outnumbered the enemy or it was by any chance vice versa. ( a good subject to study and research for those interested)

Mazandaran was called in those times Tapurestan and the region of Gilan was offtopic as those mountaneous parts of the Alborz mountans were called Deylaman. what you state for tapurestan is somehow authentic but as for Deylam, again accordinbg to the islamic sources they never rebelled against arabs casue the Arabs never managed to conquer them even in time of the peak of their power were unable to subdue them. (in which the easy golds of mainly Ctesiphon and other important resources of Persians and byzantine lands, financed and realized their greed to campaign as far as Hispania and even eastern parts of France) the reason for their failure in Deylam is clear, though numerous and able to pay the cost for continuous campaigns the mountains was not their favourite ground. it si interesting that in todays Mazandaran region of Iran there is mountain, that is believed to be the last stand of the Spahbods of Tapurestan, a harsh mountain that one, the Arabs marked their inability in that location in history, by giving that mountain the name "Khateer" (Arabic. dangerous). So If you still insist that Deylam paid any taxes to Arabs I suggest to open a thread related and focused on this and we start a full scale discussion about it with refrence of  our sources, as I think there's many facts in those islamic histories itself which neglected delibately over times.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 23:23
What in god's name is with this site, I wrote a long a detailed reply and it got lost in cyberspaceCryCryCryCry.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 03:11

Hello to you all

I will try to make this as short as possible.
 
The very existence of the Sassanids and the Byzantines was threatened by the Arab conquest. The Byzantines holy lands and most profitable provinces were under direct threat so was the empire itself, as it is evident from the early sieges by the Arabs to its capital. same thing goes for the Sassanids. If a country's very existence is threatened it will do what ever it could to save itself, it was evident by the quick response of Heraclius which took him just 2 years to rebuild the Byzantine armies and reconquere the lands lost to the Persians. I think if two years were enough to build an a great army then 10 years of peace and stability is enough for the Byzantines to regain their strength and the Byzantines were no short of allies by the way during the Arab conquests. actually the majority of Arab tribes fought against the Arabs and only after Yarmouk did they change sides. Same thing goes for the Sassanids, the period of civil wars ended with the coming of Yazdgerd III into power before the conquests started. Plus the Sassanid system was based on the powerful regional noble families that controlled most of the Sassanid empire and only joined during major campaigns. It was their failure to support the shah during the last Byzantine war that lead to the defeat and with the Arab conquest came an even bigger danger, the Arabs will not accept anything less than total submission and reduction of their status in society into ordinary citizens. With such threat they resisted and united behind Yazdgerd but to no avail. Even after his defeat at Qadisiyyah and flight they continued to resist and at Nahavand it was an alliance of almost all the Persian nobles and peoples that fought there against the Arabs and their defeat ended all hopes of resistance.
 
As for the exaggeration I think I gave a clear answer above, a 2:1 or 3:1 superiority isn't extraordinary nor gathering 90-120k men for one battle impossible when your major supply bases are just 5 Km aways and there is a village every 5 Km and a big town every 25 Km or so, which was the case for all major battles in the conquests. Arab Armies weren't small either but remember, they were fighting on two and three different fronts at the same time. The contradiction in numbers can be solved by looking at different sources and getting the whole picture and then determining the real numbers by your self. Most 9th century historical sources, Al-Baladhuri, Ibn Khayyat, Al-Waqidi and others give fairly reasonable numbers of both dead and combatants. It was beginning with Al-Tabari in the late 9th and early 10th centuries that real exaggeration started because unlike most of the people above, he didn't use documents and early books, he used chains of narrators most of them were accused of being liers by Hadith scholars but he accepted them none the less.
 
As for the daylams, most sources agree that Daylams after Nahavand accepted peace under several terms, they got autonomy but had to pay a tribute plus jizyah for any Daylamite who whiches to reside among muslim controlled territory. Arabs got the control over all plains and got the rights to control certain roads. After that peace the Daylams did practically nothing and remained divided into small clans and didn't bother Arabs. Later their lands became majority muslim with the settlement of many shias after the Abbasid revolt and the region was officially consolidated and made part of Qazvin province.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 12:34

"I think if two years were enough to build an a great army then 10 years of peace and stability is enough for the Byzantines to regain their strength and the Byzantines were no short of allies by the way during the Arab conquests. actually the majority of Arab tribes fought against the Arabs and only after Yarmouk did they change sides. Same thing goes for the Sassanids, the period of civil wars ended with the coming of Yazdgerd III into power before the conquests started" 

Actually the sources refer even to earlier changing sides of the Arab tribes which were kind of abundant both in Syria and in Iranak (Iraq). And Especially changing sides of the christian Arabs was a significant scene in battle of Yarmuk itself not after it.

 "the Arabs will not accept anything less than total submission and reduction of their status in society into ordinary citizens"

ordinary citizens? I don't think they wanted to incorporate the "Mawalis" into ordinary citizens. (For those inetersted, read the Arab sources which our friend Al Jassas himself cited in his response)

"Even after his defeat at Qadisiyyah and flight they continued to resist and at Nahavand it was an alliance of almost all the Persian nobles and peoples that fought there against the Arabs and their defeat ended all hopes of resistance."

It didnt end any hopes of resistence but rather than putting down the authority over them. Yet about the important eastern provinces except that the probable fact that they weren't in good relation with Sasanians, it is more important to consider that major parts of greater Khorsan could had been still occupied by Turkic Khaghanate from their last confrontations with Sasanians in the eastern frontiers. So it is a good matter to study that it wasn't only only the Arab pressure trying to going inward Iran. As in some years earlier than beginning of Arab conquest there are evidences in sources that Iranians piad off an Arab invasion just to enable themselves to face the more important threat from the turkish Khaghanate in eastern frontiers.

"As for the exaggeration I think I gave a clear answer above, a 2:1 or 3:1 superiority isn't extraordinary nor gathering 90-120k men for one battle impossible when your major supply bases are just 5 Km aways and there is a village every 5 Km and a big town every 25 Km or so, which was the case for all major battles in the conquests. Arab Armies weren't small either but remember, they were fighting on two and three different fronts at the same time"

it is clear, how is that clear? when there are just islamic pro-arabic sources to claim such a thing and like always preaching that the social corruption of Iran by the Sasanids was the main reason of their decline and the troops always outnumbered Arabs at least two times?! yeah I do continue on looking up different sources.

"As for the daylams, most sources agree that Daylams after Nahavand accepted peace under several terms, they got autonomy but had to pay a tribute plus jizyah for any Daylamite who whiches to reside among muslim controlled territory. Arabs got the control over all plains and got the rights to control certain roads. After that peace the Daylams did practically nothing and remained divided into small clans and didn't bother Arabs. Later their lands became majority muslim with the settlement of many shias after the Abbasid revolt and the region was officially consolidated and made part of Qazvin province."

No most sources do not agree that Deylamites accept peace, the source please? after Nahavand the Arabs garrisoned at Ecbatana proceeded toward Ray having heard of a new gathering of resistent army. An army formed by joining of the Deylamites who on lead of their commander "Muta" descended the mountains and the men pf Spahbod of Atarpatekan, the brother of the great commander Rustam Farrokhzad. The battle ensued in Vajrud near Qazvinwas a defeat for the joint army with Muta killed honorably during the battle (like always we have it in arabic sources a huge army of persians, zealot  lesser arabs, dead of the infidel commander of the persians, the godsend honour for arabs). It was that time they took Qazvin and no further than Qazvin into the mountains, even for the negotiations. And the Deylamites DID NOt remain scatterd rather well organized somehow on backing many continuous attempts of different Caliphs to subdue them. And they certainly did bother Arabs again according to arabic sources as they constantly raided and pillaged the cities locate by their mountains, especially Qazvin where Arabs Ghazis feared to go and preferred going to Spain frontier in return, so this fact made famous the name of Qazin in the newly built Arab empire.

The fact that their land welcome some Arab penetrations during the days of decline of Abbasid power was that the Shiite missionary were kind of succesful and some became muslim at free will ( And though during Abbasids they suffered some serious defeats, losing several vital fortresses to Arabs, but they again not completely overthrown in a way to descend the mountain again just to capture then province of "Jebal" from the caliph and Baghdad herself, dethroning the Caliph and succeding his son in place.) But not actually putting an end to it as their motibation for this is doubted to be nationalistic.



Edited by Asawar Hazaraspa - 13-Sep-2008 at 12:44
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 15:01
Hello asawar
 
Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you? Only muslims can be mawalis and mawali status actually a privilege.
 
The early Caliphate insisted that conquests were to be the privilege of the Arabs. Only Arabs served in the armies and only they benifited from the conquered lands. However problems started to rise after much of the conquered lands were consolidated. The great plague of Imwas (عمواس) took the lives of at least 18 thousand troops who were experienced veterans of both the Syrian and Persian campaigns. The total number of dead in the Persian campaign was close to 20k men if not more and the resources of Arab tribes were depleted. Arab tribes that were initially banned from joining the conquests were allowed but even they found it difficult to fill in the ranks. Add to that the existence of tens of thousands of ex troops who were set free after they paid ransom and returned to their homes in Syria and Iraq. The many nobles who were also freed and didn't join the conquests many of them lost their lands and privileges and particularly the cataphracts, or the Asawirah (اساورة) were a problem. Many became muslims to escape enslavement or death and them sitting idle was troublsome. Under the suggestio of Salman Al-Farisi a system was devised. Since Arab armies were organised into tribal regiments the mawali system was introduced by which each tribe will boost its numbers to the required level by incorporating these muslim Persians into their tribal system. The persian and to a lesser extent greek and Armenians who joined the system became allies to those tribes and took the surnames and by time became Arabised. Al-Baladhuri in his book says that the Asawirah became mawalis, or allies, to Bani Tamim after Soussa was taken and they lived in Khuzestan till his days (middle of the 9th century). The Zatt and Siabijah (سيابجة?) also were allies to other Arab tribes. Later many of the Asawirah were moved into Lebanon, Tripoli region, where they were essential in defeating the Jarajimah and the Byzantine invasion in early 8th century. Also Al-Baladhuri mentions nothing about Rayy and Daylams outnumbering the Arabs. He said that Urwah ibn Zaid Al-Khail Al-Tai was sent by the commander in chief of the distric with a 8k strong force as well as other allies to the city. He defeated the Daylams and forced a treaty by which they and the Daylams will pay both Kharaj, land tax worth 20% of the profits, and Jizyah. Rayy then rebelled again and again till they were finally defeated Qarzah ibn Kaab during Uthman's reign. Then he forced them to accept Arab settlment and placed many garrisons in the mountains and forts.
 
As for the Daylams. The Daylams always were rebelling when they feel weakness from the authorities, then Arabs send forced and force them to be tribute and stop bothering them. They pay the tribute for a couple of years then they rebel and so on. These were the Daylmas of the Qazvin-Zanjan region, the other Daylams of Rayy already submitted and didn't make much trouble. After a long peace they rebelled for a long time during the civil wars but when Al-Hajjaj came he massacred them mercilessly and forcefully pascified them. Again peace came for a long time till the Abbasids revolted and with them the daylams who also supported the abbasids. Then the Abbasids sent many expeditions to pascify them and they all succeeded. The Land was fully conquered for good during Al-Mamun's regin by Abu Dalaf and Al-Afshin.
 
You are portraying the Daylams as if they were the 7th and 8th centuries's Russian front but unfortunately this is not true. The largest army ever to go to the land was a 12k strong army and it took them little more than a month to force the Daylams to pay the tribute.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 21:57

"Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you? Only muslims can be mawalis and mawali status actually a privilege." Said Al Jassas

Let me ask you the same question: Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you?  for the response firstly take a glance at these citations:

"The term gained prominence in the centuries following the Arab Muslims conquests in the 7th century, as many non-Arabs such as Persians, Egyptians, and Turks converted to Islam. These converts were treated as second class citizens by the ruling Arab elite - they continued to pay the tax required of nonbelievers and were excluded from government and the military."

Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab People . Chapter 1. Mas'udi The Meadows of Gold Trans. and Eds. Paul Lunde and Caroline Stone.

What is the meaning of "Mawla" pl. "Mawali":

In the pre-islamic era it meant a social class, higher than a slave and lower than a freeman. (The history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, intrudction, chapter "Mawali in the time of Jaheliya (ignorance)")

-----------------------

Those captives of wars who accepted Islam, were often granted freedon but under the name of Mawla would they remain protege of their first masters and because as for the Islamic law they wouldn't be enslaved, therefore these freed slaves had a particular position between slavery and freedom. The Umayyeds called any non-Arab with this name and sometimes they called them redskins (ahmar) and in the culture of the Arabs every non-Arab is nicknamed ahmar. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, chapter "Mawali in Islam" )

Pay heed to some privilges the celestial Arabs granted to them (As for the case of Iranians specially to humilate them, cause they long considered Iranians as Imperial people and always took pleasure in doing so) 

...As a result either the "dhmmis" and the new converts to Islam were much oppressed; the Umayyeds treated them like the slaves and called them "Mawali" and they believed them slaves as the saviour of the Mawalis (they savde them from infidelty and converted them to Islam)(the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..they (Arabs) never walked in the same line with them and called them "Olooj" (pl. arabic Alaj meaning infidel and ignorance) (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..Hadjaj ibn Yusef ordered to stigmate the Mawalis after their support to the rebellion of the ibn Ashaas.. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..Mawalis were not allowed to let their daughters marry without the permission of their masters. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4) 

..Mawalis were nevertheless considered lower than Arabs. Yet in the beginning of the Islam they were given the occupations which needed trust, they could study and were paid well in return. But even in those times the notable roles like arbitrage were excluded cause due to the Arabs belief, only the noble and  wellborn people could attain such roles. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, chapter "Mawali in Islam")

So I suggest the readers to study the islamic sources on "mawali" to check the state of privilege per se

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.