- This topic has 166 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So the Irish really DIDN'T save civilization like that book says? 😀Seriously, I think the walls of Constantinople had a real lot to do with thwarting the Arabs. They just couldn't penetrate it.
I compare the victory of bulgarians against to arabians in 717 year A.D. Then bulgarians complitly destroited 20000 arabian troops. After this victory of bulgarians, arabians went out. This is only bulgarian deed, the bizantinias did actions only in the sea, then. For that reason khan Tervel is called "The saver of Europe"-then, but then, now he and bulgarians are forgotten. You mentioned something abot khan Kormesiy in 732 A.D., but his name is Kormisosh and the begining of his rule is 739 A.D. The victory of bulgarians in 717 year is not the only their contributon for Europe. I have written about the antireligious movment "Bogomili", about what bulgarians did for slav world etc., but you did not pay attention.
Actually, I am talking about the Bulgarian victory in 717 in which a Bulgarian army under King Kormesiy assaulted the rear of Arab forces laying siege to Constantinople. If the Byzantines only fought at sea in this battle who was defending the walls of Constantinople? According to my information Kormesiy was king from 715-721. Here:Kormesiy of Bulgaria732 is the date for the Battle of Tours or Poitier in Southern France in which the forces of Charles Martel stopped the Muslim invasion of Western Europe through the Iberian Peninsula. It is my contention that the Battle of Tours in 732 was more significant for later European history than the Bulgarian assistance to the Byzantines in 717.I did not ignore the reference to the Bogomilli. I fail to see how the existence of a heretical sect has implications for your claim of Bulgars being the saviors of Europe. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Here:Bogomilli, a Neo Manichean sect
I emphasize on the result of the action of this movement "Bogomili". The result is that is provided the road of western Revival by breaking of the sholastic christianity religion. Woud you like to show me your source about your allege, that Kormisosh is Kormesiy and he is ruled 715 - 721 and he is defeated aralians, not Tervel. I am agree that bulgarians are not the only savers of Europe. I only want, they not to be out of the line of the savers, because they do not deserve that. Later I will show their other contributions.
So the Irish really DIDN'T save civilization like that book says? 😀Seriously, I think the walls of Constantinople had a real lot to do with thwarting the Arabs. They just couldn't penetrate it.
Who knows? How crusaders penetraded in Konstantinopol and possessed it, later. I am agree that Europe could not be saved only from one people. I only want bulgarian people not to be out from the line of the savers. They have not only this contribution against arabians. Later I will show their other contrilutions. Bulgarians do not deserve to be ignored, totally, like it is nowadays.
I compare the victory of bulgarians against to arabians in 717 year A.D. Then bulgarians complitly destroited 20000 arabian troops. After this victory of bulgarians, arabians went out. This is only bulgarian deed, the bizantinias did actions only in the sea, then. For that reason khan Tervel is called "The saver of Europe"-then, but then, now he and bulgarians are forgotten. You mentioned something abot khan Kormesiy in 732 A.D., but his name is Kormisosh and the begining of his rule is 739 A.D. The victory of bulgarians in 717 year is not the only their contributon for Europe. I have written about the antireligious movment "Bogomili", about what bulgarians did for slav world etc., but you did not pay attention.
Actually, I am talking about the Bulgarian victory in 717 in which a Bulgarian army under King Kormesiy assaulted the rear of Arab forces laying siege to Constantinople. If the Byzantines only fought at sea in this battle who was defending the walls of Constantinople? According to my information Kormesiy was king from 715-721. Here:Kormesiy of Bulgaria732 is the date for the Battle of Tours or Poitier in Southern France in which the forces of Charles Martel stopped the Muslim invasion of Western Europe through the Iberian Peninsula. It is my contention that the Battle of Tours in 732 was more significant for later European history than the Bulgarian assistance to the Byzantines in 717.I did not ignore the reference to the Bogomilli. I fail to see how the existence of a heretical sect has implications for your claim of Bulgars being the saviors of Europe. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Here:Bogomilli, a Neo Manichean sect
I emphasize on the result of the action of this movement "Bogomili". The result is that is provided the road of western Revival by breaking of the sholastic christianity religion. Woud you like to show me your source about your allege, that Kormisosh is Kormesiy and he is ruled 715 - 721 and he is defeated aralians, not Tervel. I am agree that bulgarians are not the only savers of Europe. I only want, they not to be out of the line of the savers, because they do not deserve that. Later I will show their other contributions.
Excuse me, I did not see, that you showed me your source. We do not discuss, because it is more important that bulgarians have a decisive role then.
Actually, I am talking about the Bulgarian victory in 717 in which a Bulgarian army under King Kormesiy assaulted the rear of Arab forces laying siege to Constantinople. If the Byzantines only fought at sea in this battle who was defending the walls of Constantinople? According to my information Kormesiy was king from 715-721. Here:Kormesiy of Bulgaria
My source is linked to in blue, but here it is again :Kormesiy of Bulgaria One of the problems with history in this period is the scarcity of sources. There is very little documentary evidence remaining.How did the Bogomilli do this?
provided the road of western Revival by breaking of the sholastic christianity religion
I dont fully understand the role you claim for this heretical Christian sect. I dont see that they are any different than other heretical sect throughout history such as the Cathars, Hussites, or Manichaens of any stripe.
We do not discuss, because it is more important that bulgarians have a decisive role then.
I thought we were debating my refutation of your claim that the Bulgarians are the real saviors of Europe and have been maligned in the history books by being ignored for their decisive role in saving Europe from arab domination in the eighth century?
Actually, I am talking about the Bulgarian victory in 717 in which a Bulgarian army under King Kormesiy assaulted the rear of Arab forces laying siege to Constantinople. If the Byzantines only fought at sea in this battle who was defending the walls of Constantinople? According to my information Kormesiy was king from 715-721. Here:Kormesiy of Bulgaria
My source is linked to in blue, but here it is again :Kormesiy of Bulgaria One of the problems with history in this period is the scarcity of sources. There is very little documentary evidence remaining.How did the Bogomilli do this?
provided the road of western Revival by breaking of the sholastic christianity religion
I dont fully understand the role you claim for this heretical Christian sect. I dont see that they are any different than other heretical sect throughout history such as the Cathars, Hussites, or Manichaens of any stripe.
We do not discuss, because it is more important that bulgarians have a decisive role then.
I thought we were debating my refutation of your claim that the Bulgarians are the real saviors of Europe and have been maligned in the history books by being ignored for their decisive role in saving Europe from arab domination in the eighth century?
I emphasize on the spreading of the movement, not on its features. This antireligious movement"Bogomili" is spread almost in whole Europe then, at least if not directly, it with a big influence. This fact leads inevitably to the breaking of the sholastic christianity and providing of the road for the Revival. This is the main difference. In many countries, this movement has a different name. But it is good to pay attention on the fact, that Danube Bulgaria is very big then and it is just between Franc empire and Bizantia empire. With this location Bulgaria and with its victories Bulgaria has a big role to prevent the possessing plans of the francs and bizantinias. This two empires if would united like Austria and Hungary would possessed the whole continent. I think that you recognised the big role of Bulgarian people of saving Europe from arabians. The name of the khan is not so important.
I want to note, that in 717 A.D. arabians sieged Konstantinopol with 200000 troops and 5000 ships. In this case bulgarians defeated not 80000 and 200000 arabians , only the dead arabian bodies are 30000.
Where do you get the numbers of Arabian troops and ships? I find 5000 ships to be completely unbelievable. The Allies amassed slightly over 5000 craft of all types for the invasion of Europe in 1944 and that was a herculean undertaking. I find it hard to believe that the Arabs, a people who 100 years before had been desert nomads, amassed a 5000 ship fleet in 717. The logistics alone would have been staggering. Where did they get the wood to build the ships and men to man them? This is after they supposedly fielded a 200,000 man army, I find this kind of a stretch.
Where do you get the numbers of Arabian troops and ships?
Arab army - 80,000Arab naval force - 1,800 ships Where did they get these ships? The Umayyad Caliphate had control of North Africa and most of the Mid East as far east as India at that time.LINK (Word file)
You should notice that ivkhan is claiming 200,000 arab troops and 5,000 ships. I call BS on those numbers. 80,000 is possible although still a high number for the times and 5,000 SHIPS is flat out impossibly high. The allies had 5,000 vessels at Normandy and that is counting landing craft.
Where do you get the numbers of Arabian troops and ships? I find 5000 ships to be completely unbelievable. The Allies amassed slightly over 5000 craft of all types for the invasion of Europe in 1944 and that was a herculean undertaking. I find it hard to believe that the Arabs, a people who 100 years before had been desert nomads, amassed a 5000 ship fleet in 717. The logistics alone would have been staggering. Where did they get the wood to build the ships and men to man them? This is after they supposedly fielded a 200,000 man army, I find this kind of a stretch.
My source is the book of Zano Zanov "Bulgarians - one romantic history" - "Цано Цанов - Българите, романтична история". But this book is in bulgarian language. I think, that this number of arabian troops is high. But after all the number of arabians is not small and high one. It is more important and the role of bulgarians of saving Europe is very, very impressive. Bulgarians have to be put in one line with the other savers of our continent Europe! Bulgarians have and other big contributions for Europe. I will show.
Let me analyse this. You are claiming a 200,000 man army. This is barely on the edge of believable, yet I still think the estimate is too high. this number is way at the high end of credible, 80,000 is still high but at least probable. But I will give you the 200,000 number. Now lets look at the navy, you claim 5,000 ships. If they were combat ships this would mean galleys as gunpowder had not been introduced yet. What is the crew size? Galleys had crews of anywhere from 150 to 400 oarsmen and somewhere around 100 other crew, either master or troops on the tops. I will be conservative and guess the crew of each galley at 250 men. This means that the arab fleet had something like 1,250,000 men to crew all these ships. You can disagree with my estimates and if you want, I can provide you my sources, they are all in English of course.Together the navy and army would have comprised a military force of around 1,500,000(one and a half million) men. That is why I find the numbers unbelieveable.I have beat the bush before and presented my arguments for why the relief of the Second Siege of Constantinople was not as historically significant as the Battle of Tours 15 years later and I will not rehash them here. This does not mean that the Bulgarians did not assist the Byzantines, they undoubtedly did, they still did not save Europe for Christianity as you claim.I understand your desire to trumpet your medieval countrymen as the saviours of Europe I just do not believe it is so. Throwing numbers at me that are unrealistic does not bolster your argument.
Only the Roman Empire could assemble a force on that scale (and they would have struggled mightily to do it). I agree with scout, the numbers are not realistic, and that source must be dubious (can you say historical propaganda?).
At its height, the Roman Empire only had something like 150,000-200,000 men under arms. Excepting the Mongol Horde, (which was more a military nation than an army) those kind of numbers would not be seen again until the age of Napoleon and the French Levee en Masse.
I don't think it's all that inconceivable to estimate the size of Arab forces being around 250,000. 100,000 forces in Iraq80,000 in Syria50,000 Iran40,000 EgyptSource:Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State (London: Routledge, 2001) http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102802795.In my opinion, this total is low. Because of the tribal nature of Arab culture, there were probably many more not included in the professional army official count.
