- This topic has 166 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.
Thank you very much again! In this case the bulgarian victory against arabians is one of the most impressive in the history and one of the most decisive for Europe. This fact and many others insist bulgarians to be recognized like savers of Europe.
Thank you very much again! In this case the bulgarian COMBINED WITH MANY OTHER EUROPEAN FORCES victory against arabians is one of the most impressive in the history and one of the most decisive for Europe. This fact and many others insist bulgarians to be recognized like savers of Europe.
and besides, when the Arab armies were deployed it was never in that large a number. That is TOTAL forces. When they went into a battle, they usually used anywhere from under 1000 to 5-8 thousand at a time.
What other European forces other than Byzantine were at the battle?
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.
Ski,You should note he is claiming 200,000 troops AND 5,000 ships at the siege of Constantinople in 717. Not the total number of troops throughout the Arab lands. I still think the numbers are unrealistic. My math explaining why is above.Number of troops in a country do not equate to the number of troops in a field army. you have to take into account the garrisons of towns and cities as well. Do we need to have a discussion about logisitics, specifically pre-modern logistics? Troop numers of the size being claimed were simply unsupportable in static warfare until the mid nineteenth century. The Union had a hell of a tinme supporting the forces at Petersburg and that was both a smaller army and it had the benefit of rail and steam powered sea communications with an Industrial nation supporting it. The numbers do not add up.Lastly, if a Bulgarian army of 30,000 had defeated an Arab army of 200,000 regardles of the battles significance it would be dissected by military historians because the fact of the victory would make the battle significant regardless of any tactical or strategic result. It would have been a greater victory than Cannae and even non-historians have heard of that.
I think what scout is saying is that the support required to sustain an army of a quarter of a million is more than what was possible at the time. Just because you have 250,000 men able to bear arms, doesn't mean you have the infrastructure to assemble them and sustain them for an entire campaign. Only the feats of modern industrialism allows countries to do this even now. Just saying.
I think what scout is saying is that the support required to sustain an army of a quarter of a million is more than what was possible at the time. Just because you have 250,000 men able to bear arms, doesn't mean you have the infrastructure to assemble them and sustain them for an entire campaign. Only the feats of modern industrialism allows countries to do this even now. Just saying.
On the battle field there are only bulgarians and bizantinians, but bizantinians are in the sea, on the land only bulgarians and arabians. The number of arabians is a very, very big at that time. They sieged Konstantinopol from everywhere. Trough 1 year bulgarian cavalry did strikes on arabians and disordered and weaked them. In the summer of 718 bulgarians made their decisive strike and complitly destroied arabians. Arabians lost 30000 men and left this part of Europe. Then bizantinium chronicler Michael Sireaski writes " Bulgarians assaulted arabians and put them to the sword, arabians had more fear from bulgarians than from bizantinians." This bulgarian victory is not ocasianaly. In 13 century A.D. bulgarians from Volga Bulgaria first win a battle against mongolians. In the begining of 20 century A.D. in balkan war bulgarians win many battles and captured Odrin, wich is thought for notcaptured. This is used for example in the textbooks for military history. This proofs, that the high spirit of bulgarians is still alive. One is sure that bulgarian victory against arabians is decisive for the sving Europe from arabians.
What we are dealing with here is a cultural bigot and zealot. Facts and figures make no impression. It is like talking to a wall. Ivkhan, you have presented no hard evidence only theory and conjecture unsupported by facts. You think Bulgarians are great, GOT IT. I disagree that they saved Europe and have presented arguments why I believe that. You ignore my evidence and throw more unsupported statements at me, we are at an impasse. I believe the Bulgarians have made contributions to European and Western Civilisation, save Europe they did not.
Actually his last post was fairly accurate numbers and strategy wise. But it's too bad he couldn't keep his numbers straight thoughout the thread though (and the ideology is a bit “off” as well).
Ski,Consistency is one of the hallmarks of a good historian. It is hard to have a debate when the subject of the debate is a moving target. It is also difficult when the focus is continually changed.
What we are dealing with here is a cultural bigot and zealot. Facts and figures make no impression. It is like talking to a wall. Ivkhan, you have presented no hard evidence only theory and conjecture unsupported by facts. You think Bulgarians are great, GOT IT. I disagree that they saved Europe and have presented arguments why I believe that. You ignore my evidence and throw more unsupported statements at me, we are at an impasse. I believe the Bulgarians have made contributions to European and Western Civilisation, save Europe they did not.
I am a bigot and zealot only for the truth. I did not want to ignore you. If i did that, it is not deliberately. Excuse me! This is your opinion. Every body has to has owen atitude. I am very grateful to you, because with the debate, you helped me to make the name of Bulgaria more knowen and we give more information about some big bulgarian contribucions for Europe. I am very grateful and to the others debators,ofcourse. Thank you, again! If you and the others want, we can debate and clear more about the other bulgarian contribucions for Europe, not only the stopping of arabian invasion. Read,carefuly, my article again, not only my answers to you.
Ivkhan,My issue is with your obvious ideological bent. It is clear that are not willing to truly engage in debate, you only want to spread your (to my mind) obviously ideologically driven mantra that the Bulgarian people saved Europe from the scourge of Islam in the eighth century. I have disagreed with you and explained why I do so. I am willing to acknowledge the Bulgarian victory at Constantinople in 717 important, but not critical to the future of Europe. I even go so far as to acknowledge Bulgarian contributions to European and Western culture without nowing exactly what these might be. That is apparently not enough.You choose to ignore my arguments and repeat your claim ad infinitum. It takes two to debate, so far there has been only one.Lastly, I did not think we were engaged in propagandizing Bulgarian culture, I thought we were debating history. Apparently, I was wrong. That was my mistake and I am now clear on your purpose here.
Ivkhan,My issue is with your obvious ideological bent. It is clear that are not willing to truly engage in debate, you only want to spread your (to my mind) obviously ideologically driven mantra that the Bulgarian people saved Europe from the scourge of Islam in the eighth century. I have disagreed with you and explained why I do so. I am willing to acknowledge the Bulgarian victory at Constantinople in 717 important, but not critical to the future of Europe. I even go so far as to acknowledge Bulgarian contributions to European and Western culture without nowing exactly what these might be. That is apparently not enough.You choose to ignore my arguments and repeat your claim ad infinitum. It takes two to debate, so far there has been only one.Lastly, I did not think we were engaged in propagandizing Bulgarian culture, I thought we were debating history. Apparently, I was wrong. That was my mistake and I am now clear on your purpose here.
I gave you only historical facts, but you deny that. I wanted only to show this forgotten facts to clear the truth. You understand the things, differently. After all I am grateful to you.
I gave you only historical facts, but you deny that. I wanted only to show this forgotten facts to clear the truth. You understand the things, differently. After all I am grateful to you.
To which set of facts do you refer? You have presented at least two different sets. I have not denied them, I refuted some of your supposed facts, did I not give enough evidence? I will give you that your central position has remained unchanged.
Let me throw a monkey wrench into this already train wreck of a debate. When Ivkhan says “Bulgarian” which Bulgarians is he referring to? Certainly not the modern Bulgarians we know and love today. The designation “Bulgarian” does not necessarily mean what we might think it does. Do the French still identify with the Gauls? Do the British still identify with the Angles, Saxons, Celts, and Jutes? Do the Greeks identify with the Dorians over the Macedonians or even the Mycenaens? Can the Italians lay claim to the vaunted Romans? Do the Sudanese lay claim to the ancient Nubians? Can the Algerians still claim Carthage? Herein is where I think this debate must end. We are talking about two very different groups who share the same name, but not necessarily the same heritage. Give this some thought.
Let me throw a monkey wrench into this already train wreck of a debate. When Ivkhan says "Bulgarian" which Bulgarians is he referring to? Certainly not the modern Bulgarians we know and love today. The designation "Bulgarian" does not necessarily mean what we might think it does. Do the French still identify with the Gauls? Do the British still identify with the Angles, Saxons, Celts, and Jutes? Do the Greeks identify with the Dorians over the Macedonians or even the Mycenaens? Can the Italians lay claim to the vaunted Romans? Do the Sudanese lay claim to the ancient Nubians? Can the Algerians still claim Carthage? Herein is where I think this debate must end. We are talking about two very different groups who share the same name, but not necessarily the same heritage. Give this some thought.
From one hand I agree with you, but I am not agree, that there is not anything common between ancient germans and modern ones, between ancient english peole and angles,saxons, jutes and etc., between ancient bulgarians and modern ones etc. Because the root is one. The language proofes that-the words, the grammer etc., the genetic and antropolgical investigations proof that , too. Some cultural features, too. You will decide if we continue to tallk. The truth stay above all. I serve of it.
