Talk:Battle of Tabouk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

Contents 1 The valian 200,000? 2 Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire" 3 tabuk 4 Yes 5 Article Misleads 6 Fictional Nature of the Battle

[edit] The valian 200,000?

I find it hard to believe that the Byzantine forces were so huge. Further, this wasnt even a battle! Naerhu 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources I've read (which all deal with this 'battle' very briefly, and somewhat vaguely), say there was no Byzantine army for the Muslim force to engage. I think the numbers cited might be confused with the battle of Mu'tah. [Essay writing fiend]

The problem is that there is a persistent poster of Muslim myth. The Army could not be that big because it would have been about half the Byzantine Army and stripped the borders. The problem is that Muslim historians have built this into a massive Muslim victory over the cowardly Romans. But it is ahistorical. Lao Wai 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire"

This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire." If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tabuk

the byzantine strength was 50,000 not 200,000.You say cowardly Romans are cowardly the muslims went to attack constantinople with a force way bigger and lost.Make changes so that the byzantine strength was 50,000

Make it a non victory for both sides because nobody really won.

I agree. This article needs to be formatted in a far more neutral sense as it talks about Mohammed and Heracliu as if it were a documentary or out of an eye witness account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I have just adjusted the article to take into account that most agree it was neither decisive. I also changed the words 'the enemy' to Byzantines and 'Muslims' to 'Arabs', it is politicaly incorrect to say Muslims and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Yes

I totally agree with you tourskin the words should be switched to bzantines and the muslims to arabs since these battles were fought between the same empires like the battle of yarmouk and ajnadayn they should also be switches except in the strength box of the yarmouk one it should be stated who was actually there which were the greeks,mesopotamians,armanians,arab allies and a few russians but a larger portion of greeks.

[edit] Article Misleads

People who come this historical battle once fought about 1400 years ago.People are going to think that there was like 200,000 True romans there,because the battle consisted of less then 200,000 if non!Byzabtium was only established the constantine the great,who moved the eastern half of the roman empire there.During as time passed it only became known to be roman only,if not mostly by name!The roman(byzantine)empire as wikipedia has it as right in the combatants list,this is true because of roman establishment.It says Heraclius was commander with some or almost non any romans at all at the time.Something should be added to justify these results.

[edit] Fictional Nature of the Battle

OK I'm told there is a discussion here of the fictional nature of this battle, but I do not see it. As the Byzantines never turned up, there is no reason to think they ever intended to turn up, there is no historical document that suggests they ever turned up outside the Muslim tradition, why does this article give an impression this was a real battle? Of course the irony is Muhammed did what Bush did - invade another country that was no threat to him at all on the basis of phoney evidence, but I expect I'm the only one that enjoys that. Given there was no Byzantine commander, no Byzantine Army, no "other side" at all, why should this article suggest it? I would welcome an admin. Lao Wai 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well people are still simply unilaterally editing. I am still happy to talk about it. Lao Wai 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing articles at Wikipedia for about a year now and I know that the Infobox Military Conflict box only contains information which is also in the article, nothing less nothing more. And if the article is saying that the Roman Empire was involved in the battle then I guess the Roman Empire’s name should be shown in the Infobox Military Conflict box, regardless if the both armies clashed with each other in the battle or not. Salman 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Article, last I edited, very carefully did not say that the Byzantine Empire was involved. Because not only is there no evidence that they were, it is extremely improbable that they stripped their entire Empire of soldiers and moved them to Jordan, only to run away, without anyone even noticing. Muhammed did what George W did - he invaded a peaceful neighbor based on false intelligence. I don't see why that ought to be given credibility. Lao Wai 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again bro, the Military Conflict box is only going to contain what the article is saying, regradless of what the readers or other editors believe. If the article is saying that “… the followers of Muhammad were heavily outnumbered by the army of the Roman Empire”, then I guess Roman Empire’s name should be in the Military Conflict box. If you want to do something about it. Then I would prefer that you edit the article and try to change what the article is saying, if other wikipedians do not contradict to what you are saying. Salman

And once again, the article does not say the Byzantines turned up. I doubt that the article does say that but if it does, it can only refer to the Roman Empire as a whole, because there were no Roman soldiers there. This is a non-battle. I have edited the article. I'll edit some more if you like. But as no battle took place, as there never were any Roman soldiers there, the article should not say there were. Lao Wai 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude it doesn't matter if they actually fought the battle or got scared and decided to chicken out. The article says that the battle was between the Islamic army and the Roman army. It does not matter if the battle actually took place or not. Salman 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does matter. It matters a lot. The article does not say anywhere that such a battle took place. It says 1. Muhammed thought that the Romans were marching and 2. that Muslim scholars have claimed that they did. It is not that the battle took place, it is that the Roman Army never marched on Arabia, the intelligence was false, and Muhammed, like George W, invaded a peaceful country on the basis of that false intelligence. The article nowhere says that any battle took place or was ever going to because the entire basis of the Muslim histories is false. Lao Wai 09:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You just don’t understand what I am trying to say. Okay how about this brother, instead of saying Roman Empire, I will say Ghassanids. I hope you will not have any problems. Salman 20:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So here we are again discussing the same issue. The Romans never turned up for this battle, or at least there is no evidence they did and for numbers that large there would have to be. This is simply Muhammed invading a peaceful neighbour based on false information. It is wrong for the information box to claim as fact something that is not. We have been over this. If you are not willing to produce any evidence that the Romans did fight, and yet will not accept the article saying just that, we need to ask an Admin to adjudicate. Are you willing? Lao Wai 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay Lao Wai, If you don’ want the name of the Romans to be mentioned in this article then fine. I am going to mention Ghassanids. Man you are really protective when it comes to Romans (when they are running away from battlefield). Anyway man I don’t want to talk about this issue anymore, I will not mention the name os the Romans in the article or the war inforbox, instead I will mention the name of the Ghassanids, I hope you will not have any problem with it. Later Salman 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind the name of the Romans being mentioned in the article. I do not see why it is worth mentioning the Ghassanids as they did not fight either. I might be, if the Romans actually ran from anywhere. This battle simply did not take place. It is fictional. Nothing can change that. Lao Wai 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lao Wai my brother, we the Muslims believe that the battle didn’t take place because the Romans ran away from the battlefield. You can disagree, if you want to, the article has to present the story of the Battle of Tabuk from a neutral point of view. In the article we cannot speak from the Muslims or the Romans point of view. Later Salman 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for theological beliefs. I am sorry that you want to believe that but unless you have some evidence for believing it, why should it be in the article? No doubt many Muslims also want to believe the Earth is flat or evolution is a lie, but why should Wikipedia support those points of view either? The neutral point of view is not the theocratic point of view but mine. I'll put anything in that has any evidence to support it. There is no Roman point of view here because the Romans have no records of this "battle". Because it was based on false intelligence. Lao Wai 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong the romans didnt run away from the battle no one did.some sources say the muslims outnumbered the romans and it wasnt only romans there if there was any.

before lao wai said the romans were cowardly would you want to explain that?

I did not, Salman did. Lao Wai 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

salmon would you mind explaining how the romans could have been cowardly?the romans didnt run away and where would he get such a fact?some sources say the muslims were more then the romans.no one ran away.some say that the romans wernt even there.i believe he just doesnt want to believe the truth to make him feel better about this because what he sais doesnt make sense.