Military Review

The battle that opened the gates to Western Europe for the Islamists. Part of 2

71
As we told in the first part, the army of the conquerors successfully landed at the Rock of Gibraltar seized several cities and repelled an attempt at a counter-attack by the Westgoth border contingent. But then, when Tariq Ibn-Ziyad’s forces were located near Salt Lake (Largo de la Sanda), intelligence officers dressed as merchants arrived at his headquarters, who reported that King Rodrigo, who had besieged Pamplona, ​​finally got the news of the invasion, and he, with a huge army supposedly in 40, 70 or even in 100, thousand people move south.


Here it should be noted right away that the State of the Visigoths, even at the peak of its prosperity, simply could not collect tens and hundreds of thousands of warriors indicated in medieval sources, and King Rodrigo had even limited resources. His state was in crisis because of the civil war, and the constant hostilities and sharply increased separatism greatly reduced the mobilization capabilities of the ruler of Spain.


King Rodrigo at the head of his army moves to the river Guadaletta


Apparently, in reality, his army was so small that he not only abandoned the siege of Pamplona, ​​leaving even a blocking contingent there, but went to conclude treaties on peace and alliance almost immediately with all his opponents from among the Westtow and Rome-Iberian aristocrats .

Goths fell not ingloriously:
They bravely beat,
For a long time the Moors doubted
Overcome someone who.
Eight days of battle lasted;
The dispute was finally resolved:
Was caught on the battlefield
Horse's favorite king ...
A.S. Pushkin


And, at first glance, he managed to gather quite a large and seemingly efficient army. According to modern researchers, he was able to score about 15-20 thousand people against the army of jihadists, or maybe even 30-33 thousand, which is relatively close to the smallest medieval estimates of his forces in 40 thousand.

However, his army was a reflection of Westgotland in miniature, with exactly the same problems and shortcomings. And the main one was that in his army real professional cavalry warriors, according to modern estimates, were only, at best, 2-3 thousand people, and the rest were mostly barely armed militias.

This was due to the fact that Roderick’s army reflected the specifics of the class structure of the early feudal society of Spain. And in this society, only aristocrats with equestrian guards (mostly, as it turned out later, there were a significant number of people who were in sharp opposition to the king and planned betrayal) could be professional military men.

Small contingents (estimated at several thousand) of relatively efficient heavy and medium infantry in the army of Christians were soldiers who were in the royal service and were recruited from the garrisons of the cities, where they ensured the rule of law and supported the power of the king. Basically, in their origin, they were also Germans - the West Goths from the poor strata, sweaters, vandals, etc., who lived in the Iberian Peninsula since the Great Migration.


Map of the Islamist invasion of the Iberian Peninsula


In addition, relatively efficient small contingents of light and medium cavalry were formed from the border troops, from forces like the local mounted police, and even from the analogue of the postal service. But that was all, and the remaining units, and this is the majority of the Christian troops, were represented by poorly capable infantry recruited from the Ibero-Romans. And even if they had any desire to fight for the power of the “Germans,” there was no real opportunity to do this successfully in a field battle (since the Visigoths had deprived the Ibero-Romans of military service and the right to wear weapons).

Tariq Ibn Ziyad’s army was numerically indeed smaller than the Christian army, but far from 8 or 10 or even 20 times, as Muslim authors write even nowadays, but about 1,5-2 times. At the same time, it consisted mostly of well-armed, battle-hardened and extremely fanatically-minded fighters.

In addition to 7.000 people with whom Tariq landed at Gibraltar, Musa ibn-Nusayr sent him, according to some data, 5.000, according to other data - 12.000 warriors from Berbers (there were about 80%) and Arabs (there were about 20%).

In general, it should be said that what really happened was not so much the Arab, but the Berber conquest of Spain. The Berbers were a nomadic people who lived on the northern outskirts of the then still emerging Sahara. The invaders-Arabs defeated them in a difficult struggle, but, assessing their fighting qualities, they gave a choice — either the Berbers would forever remain “defeated”, “dhimmi”, or accept Islam, enter the army of winners and provide their soldiers for the campaign in Spain. The combination of strength and cunning, seasoned with coarse flattery, allowed the Arabian conquerors to recruit (at the expense of promises of great victories and unbelievable riches waiting for them) a great many warriors from converts fanatics who became the basis of Tariq's troops.

In addition, a small contingent of professional warriors under the command of Count Julian (don Juan of the Late Hispanic and Ilyan Arabic annals), as one of the main initiators of the invasion, joined the army of jihadists.

And also among the allies of the Islamists who invaded Spain, we can note a very unusual contingent of Spanish and North African Jews, as well as Berbers who accepted Judaism and even a few Judaized Germans from the Vandal tribe who still survive in the Western Maghreb.

The exact number of this, quite unusual for the army of the jihad, the contingent is unknown, but it was headed by a separate “amir” of Kaula Al-Yahudi (whose name absolutely speaks of Jewish origin). The warriors of this unit had the main idea of ​​revenge on the Visigoths, these "early medieval Spanish Germans" for the persecution that some of the Westgreenland kings rained down on the Jews.

Some authors have noted their prowess in the battles and at the same time inexorable brutality after the battle and during the repressions that they brought down in the captured cities to the West Gothic aristocracy and the Christian priesthood, which they considered the main culprits of persecution.

In the course of the further Muslim conquest of Spain, this contingent under the command of Kaula Al-Yahudi will take cities such as Seville and Cordoba, and will move further north, along the Mediterranean coast of the country, reaching even Catalonia. However, later, in 718, after the conquest of all of Spain, this commander quarreled with the Islamic authorities, raised an armed rebellion, his unit would be defeated, he himself executed, and the surviving Jews and Ger soldiers would hide in Jewish communities on the Mediterranean coast.


Bird's-eye view of one of the possible locations of the battlefield, next to the Guadaletta River


Unfortunately, the exact course of the battle due to the paucity of surviving historical descriptions can only be restored in general terms. The battle took place on a flat plain and, apparently, the relief did not affect the course of the battle in any way (except that the Muslims had chosen the area they needed in advance and met the Visigoths at a position convenient for the Tariq army).

Tarik was desperate for time, probably waiting for a reinforcement hike. He even tried to start negotiations, but Roderick was adamant, demanding that the jihadists of the world should immediately evacuate and compensate for all the damages from their invasion.

Apparently, the Arab-Berber army was built in a classic, spaced apart along the front and in depth, the battle order of several lines. This allowed the commander to freely increase the force of the strike in the right place and freely operate with reserves. The Visigoths, apparently, built up in one solid line: in the center in a deep formation - infantry, on the flanks - the cavalry.

The army of the Visigoths probably exceeded the length of the army of Tariq's army, however, due to the dismemberment of the battle order, its battle line was almost equal to the Christian army.

Both leaders took their places deep in the central positions of their battle lines: the leader of the Islamists was surrounded by his 300 "Ansars", and the leader of the Christians rode out on a chariot (probably, according to the custom of the Roman emperors; in addition, it is very convenient to observe the battlefield from the chariot).

All sources point out the very fierce nature of the battle. After a rather long exchange of fire and a number of fights (probably lasting for several days), both sides "came together with a lot of noise." Sich lasted a long time. Muslims increased the force of strikes, and the battle formations of the untrained infantry of Christians in the center turned into a huge, difficult to control crowd.


Battle of the river Guadaletta. In the center you can see the infantry battle, on the flanks - the cavalry. In the left part of the image of the battlefield, cavalrymen deserting from the Visigothic army under the command of their traitorous leaders are clearly visible.


Even worse for the king of the Visigoths was the situation on the flanks. If on one wing the Christian squads sufficiently successfully repelled the jihadist cavalry, then on the other wing the heavy cavalry forces, commanded by opposition opposition aristocrats, at first simply did not obey the order to attack, and then left the battlefield altogether. As it can be understood from one description, apparently, the horsemen under the command of the traitorous graphs did not just deserted, but even attacked their own brethren from their flank.

As you can see, Tariq did not just take the time before the battle - he was probably able to secretly negotiate treason with the former opponents of the king, and even bribed them. This, in parallel with the inept tactics and poor training of most of the Visigoth troops, predetermined the rout of Christians.

After the betrayal of the cavalry of one of the flanks or the liberated cavalry of the Muslims struck the other wing, turning it to flight, or there the Christian cavalry crumpled contingent from the equestrian reserve of jihadists.

The battle that opened the gates to Western Europe for the Islamists. Part of 2

Modern and most historically accurate image of warriors in the thick of the battle of Jerez de la Frontier


At the same time, the king, seeing the defeat of his troops, according to Christian annals, decided to take part in the decisive attack and rushed forward, disappearing forever in the crowd of combatants. According to Muslim descriptions, Tariq himself, seeing Rodrigo on a chariot, or hit his guards at the head of it right through the fighting infantry in the center, or, more likely, bypassing the front of one of the flanks, striking the side of the king’s squad.

Be that as it may, the last reserve of the Visigoths, the warriors of the king, was crushed. He had relatively weak resistance to jihadists (and some of them, apparently, also changed the king and fled). And, perhaps most importantly, according to a number of sources, the ruler of Spain was one of the first to die during this attack (although some authors believe that Roderick did not die in the bat under Guadalette, because his bodies were not found, only his golden one was found the chariot, and the king was able to run, collect a new army and died only in September 713, in the battle of Seguel).

But be that as it may, the dagger attack of the heavily armed mounted Ansars Tariq decided the course of the battle. After that, or seeing the death of his king, or seeing his escape and simply tired of the battle, a huge mass of Spanish Christians, sandwiched on three sides, rushed to escape from the intended environment around the “golden bridge” skillfully provided by jihadists, laying their bodies on the battlefield Jerez de la Frontier.


"The Final Battle of Guadalette" (Art. - Mariano Barbasa).


The losses of the Visigoth troops turned out to be catastrophic. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of Christians died during the encirclement and the persecution of the fleeing. The human losses of contingents in southern and central Spain were very high - jihadists were actively pursuing and did not take prisoners, rightly believing that the former warriors are bad slaves, and in the cities without defenders they will gain enough captives.

Old men and poor women
At the crossroads he sees;
All the crowd fleeing from the Moors
Fortified cities.
All sobbing, pray to God
About the salvation of Christians ...


And, most importantly, this battle decided the fate of Spain because most of the very few then lost in this kingdom of professional warriors, both recruited from the garrisons of cities and from among the Gothic aristocracy, died in it. In addition, another part of the ruling class has treacherously turned to the side of the conquerors, even more depriving the people of the possibility of resistance to the Islamists. It is this, in combination with a number of other factors, that opened the country to further conquest.

However, the losses among the troops of the “hard-fought gazavat” were heavy: judging by Muslim sources, about 25% of the battle participants died, and in reality, perhaps, much more. This is evidenced by the fact that after the battle, the army of Tariq Ibn Ziyad was so weakened that she did not begin to pursue strategic pursuit and further conquest of the country, and limited herself to the seizure of nearby areas. The march to Toledo was postponed until the following year, when in 712, Musa Ibn-Nuseir himself headed the new large army landed in Spain.

PS The ruler of Ceuta and his daughter, in many respects contributing to the invasion of jihadists in Spain, did not live happily ever after. Earl Julian, who was probably Rumian in origin (ie, a Byzantine) and did not convert to Islam, although he was close to the court of Musa Ibn Nusayr, was surrounded by the contempt of the Islamic aristocracy both as a non-Muslim and a traitor. As a result, when he once again tried to somehow defend the stipulated sovereignty of Ceuta in front of the governor of Africa, he was executed without further ado, and his property was included in the caliphate.

His daughter, both because of her dubious "glory" and because of the rejection of the lifestyle prepared for women by radical Islamists, was also not accepted among the upper-class conquerors. After the execution of her father, she became not even a wife, but simply a concubine of one of the emirs, who made her a “harem slave” and took her to her castle, El Pedroche, located in the province of Cordova, where she either lost her mind or committed suicide aware of the terrible consequences of their actions.

According to local legends, her ghost appeared in this castle for several centuries, until, in 1492, during the Reconquista Muslims were not completely expelled from the territory of Spain ...


Keeping the memory of the Battle of Guadalette and the female perfidy that ruined the kingdom, the Spaniards still drink the wine "La Cava"


Basic sources and literature
Álvarez Palenzuela, Vicente Ángel. Historia de Espana de la Media. Barcelona: Diagonal, 2008
Collins, Roger. La Espana visigoda: 474-711. Barcelona: Critica, 2005
Collins, Roger. España en la Alta Edad Media 400-1000. // Early Medieval Spain. Unity and diversity, 400-1000. Barcelona: Crítica, 1986
García Moreno, Luis A. Las invasiones y la época visigoda. Reinos y condados cristianos. // En Juan José Sayas; Luis A. García Moreno. Romanismo y Germanismo. El despertar de los pueblos hispánicos (siglos IV-X). Vol. II de la Historia de España, dirigida por Manuel Tuñón de Lara. Barcelona, ​​1982
LORING, Mª Isabel; PÉREZ, Dionisio; FUENTES, Pablo. La Hispania tardorromana y visigoda. Siglos V-VIII. Madrid: "Síntesis", 2007
Patricia E. Grieve. Confirmation of Baltimore: "Johns Hopkins University Press", 2009
Ripoll López, Gisela. La Hispania visigoda: del rey Ataúlfo a Don Rodrigo. Madrid: Temas de Hoy, 1995.
Author:
71 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Molot1979
    Molot1979 24 July 2018 07: 16
    +10
    Jihadists, Islamists ... why is the author shy? He would immediately write "Ishilovites, Barmaleis and Islamic fanatics." It is clear that he strongly dislikes Muslims. However, according to many sources, King Roderich daughter of Count Julian stupidly raped. And already in response to this, the owner of Ceuta invited Tarika ibn Ziyad to Spain. The king of the Visigoths, judging by the fact that he had found a considerable number of enemies at first, with whom he rushed to hastily put up with, and then traitors, was still a diplomat. Worse, he was a poor diplomat with insufficient troops. Plus, he continued to pursue a policy of discrimination against indigenous local people. All this left the Visigoths no chance. As a result, a bad diplomat, no strategist and disgusting tactician naturally lost his decisive battle. He also dragged it on for eight days, giving the enemy the opportunity to decompose the Christian army.
    1. Weyland
      Weyland 24 July 2018 09: 49
      +3
      Quote: Molot1979
      Jihadists, Islamists ... why is the author shy? I would write immediately "Ishilovites, Barmalei and Islamic fanatics

      the Latin suffix -ist is really superfluous - it would be better to write "Mujahideen", because this term was used back in those days. And "Islamic fanatics" - why not? The Arabs won most of their victories thanks to fanaticism and complete recklessness - they were by no means the best in the world (spearmen are good, and archers are disgusting)
      1. Molot1979
        Molot1979 24 July 2018 13: 55
        +4
        Well, there was no place for archers to come from among oases. Even nomadic Arabs are by no means the same with the nomads of the steppes. And then, what is the "Muslim" bad? After all, when we write about the Crusades, we somehow dispense with terms such as “Christian fundamentalists”. And our soldiers in the war do not call "Bolshevik fanatics." Trying to squeeze the past into the narrow framework of today's concepts is the stupidest thing. Well, fanatics. So it was everywhere with the neophytes everywhere. Visigoths on their way were not the first and certainly not the strongest. Look, Iran was bigger and richer, but in a couple of decades it was devoured with bones. The Spaniards were not lucky to be on the path of the empire, which was in the prime of life and on top of expansion. Then the Arabs and the Franks threw a lot of cucumbers, although in the end they were defeated.
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 24 July 2018 14: 57
          +2
          Quote: Molot1979
          somehow we dispense with terms such as "Christian fundamentalists."

          Yeah ... Type in Google "Crusader fanatics" - so many links will come out:
          Zealot fanatics who destroyed many priceless monuments of pagan art ...
          Crusaders, seized with righteous fanaticism, robbed and massacred the entire population of Nicaea ....
          Already the new Crusader fanatics poured blood on Prussia, Lithuania and Russia ...
        2. Mikhail Matyugin
          24 July 2018 18: 28
          +4
          Quote: Molot1979
          Look, Iran was bigger and richer, but in a couple of decades it was devoured with bones.

          Dear Molot1979, You have somewhat forgotten that Byzantium and Iran monstrously exhausted their forces in the long twenty-year world war of that time. Which greatly influenced the successes of the early Caliphate.

          And in Spain, the civil war very successfully started (which these lands had not known for a long time), which the jihadists immediately took advantage of.
      2. Artem Popov
        Artem Popov 14 October 2018 19: 38
        -1
        Because "fanatics" are marginals. And then the religious war was the mainstream of Islam, it makes no sense to talk about any fanaticism. Let us then call the fighters of the Red Army in the Second World War "fanatics".
    2. Mikhail Matyugin
      24 July 2018 11: 00
      +5
      Quote: Molot1979
      However, according to many sources, King Roderich daughter of Count Julian stupidly raped.
      Dear Molot1979, if you read the first part of the material and discuss it, you would not ask unnecessary questions: https://topwar.ru/144616-bitva-otkryvshaya-islami
      stam-vorota-v-zapadnuyu-evropu-chast-1.html # comme
      NTS


      Quote: Molot1979
      Plus, he continued to pursue a policy of discrimination against indigenous local people.
      I’ll tell you a little secret - ALL the rulers of ALL “barbarian kingdoms” formed during the Great Migration of Peoples conducted a policy of discrimination against the indigenous population. So the Visigoths were quite just at the level of an era ...
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 24 July 2018 12: 30
        +1
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        So the Visigoths were quite just at the level of an era ...

        How to say ... before the appearance of the Holy Inquisition, the use of torture in criminal investigations from all countries of Western Europe was allowed only among the Visigoths!
      2. Molot1979
        Molot1979 24 July 2018 14: 06
        +1
        Well, I didn’t read it. Read. And not only her, but also the primary sources translated into Russian. And in those sources it was the first of the versions that was expressed - he took it by force. What is confirmed by the behavior of dad. He fought, fought with the Arabs, stood firm, and then he suddenly took and abandoned everything. Revenge went. If the daughter had soaked her, then she would have been to the monastery, but would have agreed with the king. But, I think, Julian was not so stupid that, due to the intrigues of his daughter, he would lose his head, break the vital alliance and bow to the former enemies. It hurts a lot of smoke in this story so that there is no fire. And what the Arabs called her a prostitute - so after all, by the end, they gave her away for soldier’s fun.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Han Tengri
      Han Tengri 24 July 2018 13: 27
      +4
      Quote: Molot1979
      Jihadists, Islamists ... why is the author shy? He would immediately write "Ishilovites, Barmaleis and Islamic fanatics."

      Why can’t you call jihadists people who are engaged in jihad?
      Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) divided jihad into two categories - small jihad and large jihad.
      Small Jihad - this is a struggle with weapons in the hands against those enemies (infidels, if we discard modern political correctness laughing ) who attack your country, oppress people, drive them out of their homes and make them slaves. In this case, every Muslim is obliged to protect himself, his family and country from enemies. And that, notice, little jihad.
      The Great Jihad a Muslim is a struggle with his nafs or his inner self. The struggle against ignorance, greed, greed, arrogance, envy and against the devil, in other words, the struggle against one’s weaknesses and negative internal qualities.

      Imam Khatyb mosque with. Zirekly Novosheshminsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan Ilyas Hazrat Suleymanov

      https://islam-today.ru/veroucenie/cto-takoe-dziha
      d/

      True, according to the Qur'an, Christians are not infidels, and the soldiers of Allah themselves invaded the territory of the Visigoths ... But, these are such trifles! Especially if these Christians own "nishtyaki" that you yourself like.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 24 July 2018 15: 11
        0
        Quote: HanTengri
        True, according to the Qur'an, Christians are not infidels,

        Really?
        1. Han Tengri
          Han Tengri 24 July 2018 22: 03
          +2
          Quote: Trapper7
          Really?

          "Doubt? Read the source!" (c) (from lectures on the History of the CPSU) laughing
      2. Royalist
        Royalist 24 July 2018 16: 38
        +3
        Khan, thank you for the quality supplement-help on jihad. I forgot about the "little jihad", and you recalled
        1. Han Tengri
          Han Tengri 24 July 2018 22: 36
          +2
          Quote: Royalist
          I forgot about the "little jihad", and you recalled

          Thank. And I, frankly, only remembered a little, in connection with the "barmaley". So I decided to find out the opinion of the modern "pillars of Islam."
    4. Royalist
      Royalist 24 July 2018 17: 01
      +2
      It seems Roderich was a foolish watchdog. And about Count Julian, why do you reject the “sonorous” arguments? Indeed, the author writes: that part of the count was betrayed by the king, and where is the guarantee that Julian did not consider Roderich a usurper? Indeed, when he seized the throne, he managed to quarrel with most of the feudal lords
  2. RUSS
    RUSS 24 July 2018 08: 42
    +1
    The author could also find a map of battles in Russian on the Internet ....
  3. Flavius
    Flavius 24 July 2018 08: 56
    +2
    .. even the few Judaized Germanic vandals who still survived in the West Maghreb.

    And why exactly the Judaized? The vandals were, as far as is known, convinced Arians.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      24 July 2018 11: 01
      +4
      Quote: Flavius
      And why exactly the Judaized? The vandals were, as far as is known, convinced Arians.

      This is a separate big topic. Oddly enough, but yes, a number of Jewish communities in North Africa pursued a policy of mass reception of neophytes - "gers", partly among the German vandals who resettled there.
  4. seti
    seti 24 July 2018 09: 12
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article.
  5. Korsar4
    Korsar4 24 July 2018 09: 15
    +3
    The flank collapsed. The outcome of the battle is decided. The description is beautiful and easy.

    But the use of the words "jihadists", etc., which were so actively discussed in the first part, may be unnecessary.

    Could you do without prejudice to the story? I think yes.
    1. Curious
      Curious 24 July 2018 10: 49
      +4
      You know, if you read the descriptions of this battle by modern Arab historians, then they have the theme of jihad, as a reason for invasion, and even as one of the main factors of victory, is also present.
      An interesting point. In almost all Arabic descriptions, the ratio of forces is standard: 100 for the Visigoths and 000 for the Arabs. And only in one source is 12000 against 40.
      And the second point. Almost all Arab descriptions exclude Jews from the battle, citing the fact that in ancient Arab sources they are not mentioned.
      The consequences of the battle from the point of view of Arab historians are also interesting.
      For example.
      Andalusia entered the era of its Islamic history, accepted the conversion to Islam and the Arabic language and remained the homeland for Muslims for eight centuries, was the torch of civilization and the center of science and culture, until Granada, the last stronghold of Islam, fell into the hands of the Spanish Christians c. 897 AH = 1492
      No more no less - the torch of civilization.
      1. Mikhail Matyugin
        24 July 2018 11: 05
        +5
        Quote: Curious
        Almost all Arab descriptions exclude Jews from the battle, citing the fact that in ancient Arab sources they are not mentioned.

        Well, how can Arab authors recognize the presence of serious military, and most importantly financial and organizational assistance from the “damned early medieval Zionists”? laughing

        The recognition of merit by the Jews was noted by both Tariq and Musa - they granted the right to return to Jews in many cities of Spain and revived many Jewish communities there (I must say that under the fifth Visigoth, who conducted a fairly tough anti-Jewish policy in the last decades of the existence of their state, the early medieval Jews lived quite unsweetly, many of them were forced to adopt Christianity or migrate).
        1. Operator
          Operator 24 July 2018 16: 25
          +3
          In the 1-2 centuries, following the outcome of the Judean Wars, the Romans deported 99% of Jews from Palestine to North Africa and Babylon (about 1 million people), after which they staged a massive genocide of deportees in response to the terror of the latter against local Greek colonists. Surviving North African Jews joined the Arab conquerors and in the 8 century migrated with them to Europe on the Iberian Peninsula.

          Before the Arabs invasion, the number of Jews in the Pyrenees was minimal, so no more than a few hundred people were affected by the West Goths. In this regard, the tens of thousands of Jews who arrived in the train of the Arabs did not so much take revenge on local Christians, how much they served the Arabs - they collected taxes from Christians (with the use of violence, of course).

          For which they suffered in the 15 century following the results of the Reconquista.
          1. Mikhail Matyugin
            24 July 2018 18: 32
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            In the 1-2 centuries, following the outcome of the Judean Wars, the Romans deported 99% of Jews from Palestine to North Africa and Babylon (about 1 million people),

            Dear Andrei, it’s embarrassing for me to refute your words again, but do you know in which of the THREE Judean wars the mass deportation and genocide of the Jews of Judea by the Romans took place?

            And where does the 99% deportation data come from? By the way, Babylonia was not then under the rule of Rome, i.e. they simply physically could not deport Jews there (Rome conquered Mesopotamia later, and, in general, not for long).
            1. Operator
              Operator 24 July 2018 18: 51
              0
              Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
              to which of the three Judean wars there was a mass deportation

              What's the difference? laughing

              According to the Roman censuses of the 1 century, the number of inhabitants of the Roman province of Judea was estimated to be about 1,5 million people. According to censuses of the 4 century, the number of practicing Judaism in the renamed province of Palestine at the time of its transition under the rule of Byzantium in the 4 century was estimated to be 50 thousand people. The loss of the Jewish population during the Judean Wars is estimated at 0,5 million people. A total of about 1 million people were deported.

              After the rebellion of the Jews in the places of deportation, their terrorist acts against the Greek colonists and retaliatory punitive actions, according to the reports of the Romans, 9 of 10 deportees were killed. As a result, about 100 thousand people survived.

              You are right - in the eastern direction, the deportation of Jews did not occur in Babylon, but in the Roman province of Mesopotamia (northern), part of the former Parthian kingdom. In Babylon, where historically there was the largest Jewish diaspora, the surviving Jews reached themselves.
          2. Artem Popov
            Artem Popov 14 October 2018 19: 43
            -1
            ... and in 1334, Casimir, the king of Poland, brought Jews out under the jurisdiction of German law and Jews (all over the world) began to flock to Poland (later in the Republic of Poland), forming the largest Jewish community within the borders of the 16th century, which hit Hitler in 1939 and 1941 years.
      2. Mikhail Matyugin
        24 July 2018 11: 08
        +6
        Quote: Curious
        In almost all Arabic descriptions, the correlation of forces is standard: 100 000 among the Visigoths and 12000 among the Arabs. And only in one source is 40 000 against 12 000.

        Dear Victor, in general, I didn’t just describe in such detail how many and whom Roderick was able to recruit in his army. Well, keep 100 thousand at that time in one place - isn't it funny? even the number in 40.000 seems to be beyond the reach of the Visigoths, recognized by all modern scholars.
        1. Curious
          Curious 24 July 2018 12: 21
          +2
          Michael, I gave the figure as an illustration of the attitude of the Arabs to the event. All of them depict the unequal battle of Islam-inspired warriors against the enormous ratification of the Visigoths. It is clear that the hundred thousandth army in those conditions is fantastic.
          Another point - many emphasize that it is Islam - the foundation of the victory of the Arabs.
        2. Artem Popov
          Artem Popov 14 October 2018 19: 45
          0
          Naive people who believe without reference to the source. Thucydides also described the battles of millions of armies, while in Greece and in front of Asia there were hardly so many people.
      3. Korsar4
        Korsar4 24 July 2018 11: 18
        0
        I thought about how much the language is changing. And how modern terminology is acceptable to centuries past.

        This is probably a question, first of all, for linguists.

        And if still the interweaving of civilizations.

        And so, of course, it is interesting how Greek-Roman wisdom flowed into the Arab world.

        An example of the same herbalists is close to me.
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          24 July 2018 11: 25
          +7
          Quote from Korsar4
          And how modern terminology is acceptable to centuries past.

          The fact is that I'm just using normal terminology, just calling a spade a spade. The Tariq army was just that army of jihadists who went to the holy war in exactly the same way and according to exactly the same laws that modern jihadists practice in Iraq and Syria and many other places.
          1. Artem Popov
            Artem Popov 14 October 2018 19: 55
            -1
            No, you have a very noticeable over-actualization about some areas of Muslim life, it is not in vain that so many comments have been made to you. The Caliphate expanded because MTF. How ANY public entity expanded, if it succeeded. Yes, the new religion raised morals, acted as a unifying idea, but was not the reason. Maybe we can pick up a similar word for the aggressive policy of Muscovy of the 14-19 centuries? Any "Orthodox radicalism" will do?

            Your mistake is typical, I heard something like that from Muslim users, they call modern Western countries "crusaders", because they allegedly "are waging a war against Muslim countries." Yes, they fell, for completely different reasons they conduct military operations, and not because some countries are "Muslim". A good enough example?
  6. BAI
    BAI 24 July 2018 09: 51
    +1
    Thank God, in this part, the author uses a normal chronology, without reference to a certain "Christian era."
  7. Weyland
    Weyland 24 July 2018 10: 26
    0
    Count Julian, who was probably of Rumian descent (i.e., Byzantine) by birth and never converted to Islam, although he was close to the court of Musa ibn-Nusayr, was surrounded by contempt of the Islamic aristocracy both as a non-Muslim and as a traitor.
    I think the latter is much more important - Christians in the early Caliphate often held high posts (St. John of Damascus, for example, in those years held a high position at the court of the Caliph).
    There is no justification for Julian and cannot be: I just wanted to take revenge - I could send a killer, the Byzantines special services worked well, and the Visigoths - disgusting. Take, for example, such a story - the Danish king Eric Clipping (1249-1286) fought off his retinue on a hunt, spent the night in the village of Finderup ... The result - 56 penetrating wounds incompatible with life.
    And this story was remembered for this reason: the leader of the noble opposition, Marshal Stig Andersen, who ultimately emigrated and then for a long time and successfully pirated against Denmark, was accused of murder (and without any proof). The folk version of the events is set forth in the ballad "Marstig": while Stig was on a campaign, King Eric either raped his wife (according to her version), or seduced (according to the king himself), and then the marshal trapped him and killed him in an honest duel. The ballad, of course, unambiguously approves Stig: "acted like a man!"
  8. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 24 July 2018 12: 36
    +5
    Author plus for the article. A few comments.
    On the invading army.
    At the same time, it consisted mostly of well-armed, battle-hardened and extremely fanatically-minded fighters.

    The Arab army of the conquest period consisted of light cavalry formed from nomads, the main armament of which was the bow. Small units of the heavily armed cavalry were the commander’s personal guard and carried out the functions of a tactical reserve. In this regard, the Berbers did not differ from the Arabs. So basically, probably, the army of Roderick was opposed by ordinary nomads.
    In addition to 7.000 people with whom Tariq landed at Gibraltar, Musa ibn-Nusayr sent him, according to some data, 5.000, according to other data - 12.000 warriors from Berbers (there were about 80%) and Arabs (there were about 20%).

    The number of invading troops, it seems to me very much exaggerated. Such a contingent simply could not be transferred across the strait in any reasonable time. How many ships were at the disposal of the Arabs? William the Conqueror had a fleet of about a hundred ships, and he sent his army through the English Channel for almost a month, although its number (also very controversial) is determined by much smaller numbers. And, considering that the Arab army was exclusively cavalry, except, probably, the contingent provided by Julian, the crossing of such a mob with horses would have taken a very long time. I think it is unlikely that more than a couple of thousand warriors participated in the invasion. The army of the Visigoths in number was hardly much larger and consisted, as the author wrote, of combat-ready but small teams of professional warriors, whose number hardly exceeded a thousand, and of an incapable militia, who fled during the first casualties.
    In general, it should be said that what really happened was not so much the Arab, but the Berber conquest of Spain.
    I do not remember which of our historians (modern), in my opinion, Igor Danilevsky (I could be wrong) compared the conquests made by nomads with a snowball. While the same nomadic tribes are subdued, the army is not only not decreasing, but growing, despite losses, like a snowball. It grows due to the inclusion of contingents from conquered peoples, as was the case with the Berbers. But as soon as sedentary peoples, mentally alien to the conquerors, begin to be conquered, this one begins to roll like "on asphalt" and the invading army steadily and rapidly diminishes. The same thing happened in Russia and in Europe in the XIII century. The Mogul invasion, as before the Arab conquests, stopped, because it was not possible to actively replenish its troops at the expense of the conquered peoples.
    judging by Muslim sources, approximately 25% of the battle participants died, and in reality, perhaps, much more.

    25% losses in the Middle Ages meant a terrible, most severe defeat. Such a horrific level of loss - every fourth! - could only be achieved in the course of a long prosecution of the defeated army by the victors. In sources, such a figure could be the result of the desire of the winners to emphasize the severity and, therefore, the significance of the victory achieved, as well as justify their further passivity, which, in fact, was due to the small number of the invading army. That is, in order to smash the enemy's army in the field, it was enough, and in order to capture and control the territory (enter into small skirmishes, lead sieges) it was already catastrophically low, even if there were no losses at all.
    Surprised that the author, with his commitment to historical romance, did not mention anything about the "mystical" component of the battle - there was something there, if my memory serves me, associated with some kind of protective spell that King Roderick, through stupidity and arrogance, destroyed and was to him a vision in which he saw unfamiliar victorious warriors-winners. Arriving on the battlefield, the king recognized these warriors in the Arabs, which broke his psyche and deprived him of the will to win. smile
    As for the terms "Islamist", "jihadist", etc., used by the author, they also hurt my eyes like many of my colleagues here. I have nothing against the author’s commitment to one of the religious denominations, but I consider it unacceptable to use this resource to “promote” this denomination or to discredit any other. The use of the terms "Islamist", "jihadist", etc., as if the academic "correctness" of such use were not justified, creates an appropriate emotional background for the reader, which the author cannot but be aware of. In this case, his “explanations” why these terms are used remind me of Domagoy Kinds’s explanations after his famous “performance” or even worse, an explanation of the use of the swastika as an ancient symbol of the sun by some neo-fascist. You can, of course, call the swastika the Slavic symbol “Kolovrat”, but the emotional charge inherent in this symbol does not change from such explanations, as it does not change from the author’s explanations, the emotional meaning of the concepts “Islamist” and “Jihadist”, which the author is certainly well aware of.
    1. Weyland
      Weyland 24 July 2018 15: 09
      +1
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      I have nothing against the author’s commitment to one of the religious denominations, but I consider it unacceptable to use this resource to “promote” this denomination or to discredit any other. The use of the terms "Islamist", "jihadist", etc., as if the academic "correctness" of such use was not justified, creates a corresponding emotional background for the reader, about which the author cannot be unaware.

      Something I did not notice that in the article the Mujahideen were portrayed as bloodthirsty savages. Rather, the Visigoths are depicted quite negatively!
    2. Weyland
      Weyland 24 July 2018 15: 16
      0
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      The Mughal invasion, like the earlier Arab conquests, stopped, because it was not possible to actively replenish its troops at the expense of the conquered peoples.

      Among the "settled, mentally alien to the Mongols" Khorezmians and Iranians did not stop, but in Europe right away (right from the Adriatic)? By the way, the head of the defense of Kiev from the Mongols, the governor Dmitry, captured by Batu, actively participated in the campaign of Batu to Hungary: it seems that he had a considerable tooth on the Hungarians. And I strongly suspect that it was not the Mongols who were put under his command at all - but some kind of wanderers or Bolokhovites!
      And the Great Khan in Karakoram from the assassination attempts of Shaolin monks successfully saved the special "Guard Regiment of Russians glorifying allegiance." Such are the things ...
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 24 July 2018 15: 32
        0
        Quote: Weyland
        Among the "settled, mentally alien to the Mongols," the Khorezmians and the Iranians did not stop, but did they immediately in Europe (right from the Adriatic)?

        Nobody said that it stops right away. By inertia rolls some more time ... smile Dmitri - yes, but the Mongols failed to replenish the army at the expense of the Russian regiments. smile Yes, and with the invasion of Khorezm and beyond, the pace of advancement decreased significantly, and then stopped completely.
    3. Mikhail Matyugin
      24 July 2018 18: 40
      +2
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      The Arab army of the conquest period consisted of light cavalry formed from nomads, the main armament of which was the bow. Small units of the heavily armed cavalry were the commander’s personal guard and carried out the functions of a tactical reserve. In this regard, the Berbers did not differ from the Arabs. So basically, probably, the army of Roderick was opposed by ordinary nomads.

      Sorry, dear Mikhail, I categorically disagree with you on this point.
      Firstly, the bow was not particularly popular even with the Arabs, not to mention the Berbers, the MAIN long-range weapons that had darts (the specifics were that the Numidians in the era of Rome, that the Moorish-Spanish gnets).

      Secondly, there were few cavalry in the army of Tarik. From about 20% to 50%, according to various estimates. The first digit is calculated quite accurately by the known forces of the first landing - of the 400-500 warriors only 100 were riders. The second figure is according to the news according to which Tariq acted in a maneuverable style, ordering the Islamic part of his army to put behind each rider an infantryman, and those who did not have riders to put on a few mules and camels.

      The units of Count Julian and AlYahudi were most likely represented mainly by infantry, but in numbers they were small.

      And a significant part of Tariq's troops had fairly good weapons and armor, since were already seasoned veterans who captured many trophies in Ifrikia; There were few unarmed Jihad militiamen with light weapons.

      Quote: Trilobite Master
      In the sources, such a figure could result from the desire of the winners to emphasize the severity, and therefore the significance of the victory achieved,

      Actually, yes, the army of jihadists still had to withstand at least one of the flanks, the blow of the armored cavalry of the Visigoths + in the center or on the edges of the infantry system were in the forefront fairly professional and well-armed infantrymen from the royal garrisons, so yes, the invaders clearly lost were heavy.
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 24 July 2018 19: 20
        0
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        The main long-range weapons that had darts (the specifics are that the Numidians in the era of Rome, the Moorish-Spanish ginets).

        Like the indigenous people of Spain. The main tactical technique of the ginets is the “Cantabrian circle”, which the cantabras successfully used against the Romans. By the way, a heavy dart, unlike an arrow, pierced chain mail at times - but the bow is much longer-range: the tactics of the ginets worked many times, already in XIV century did not run into the archers of the "Black Prince"
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 24 July 2018 21: 16
        +1
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        Firstly, the bow was not particularly popular even with the Arabs, not to mention the Berbers, the MAIN long-range weapons that had darts (the specifics were that the Numidians in the era of Rome, that the Moorish-Spanish gnets).

        Here I am ready to agree. I got excited about the bows. recourse Colleagues have already indicated a mistake, I have to admit it smile However, for the content of my message it does not matter much - whether the Arabs were armed with darts, with bows, it was mostly light cavalry.
        As for the ratio in the army of Tariq infantry and cavalry, I will leave this question open for myself. Perhaps the ratio of 1: 4 in the army of Tariq was due precisely to logistical problems - the horses for the whole army simply could not be transported through the strait. In the wars with Byzantium, as far as I understand, the Arabs used infantry, but I did not come across any detailed descriptions of the Arab-Byzantine battles, and in general the battles with the participation of the Arabs ... request Even the battle of Poitiers was somehow vaguely described, incomprehensible with whom the valiant Franks fought the whole day - only with cavalry or also with infantry. smile In general, the fact of the presence of infantry among the Arabs for me personally is a dubious question. It was like, but it seems not.
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        And a significant part of Tariq's troops had fairly good weapons and armor, since were already seasoned veterans who captured many trophies in Ifrikia; There were few unarmed Jihad militiamen with light weapons.

        The “significant part” was the Berbers who had just lost the war, according to your own statement. It is unlikely that the Arabs, who had just conquered the Berbers, supplied them with heavy weapons.
        Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
        the invaders lost their lives unequivocally.

        But not 25%. The main loss is borne by the losing side and not during the battle itself, but during the flight.
        Losses in 5-10% for the winning side will already be unprecedentedly high.
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          25 July 2018 10: 01
          +1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          However, for the content of my message it does not matter much - whether the Arabs were armed with darts, with bows, it was mostly light cavalry.
          But where did you get this from? Do not think. that the armies of the Early Caliphate resembled Bedouins. Even at the first caliphs, the Arab troops were very well equipped - with a relatively small number, they had the best armor and weapons from recruited from all over Arabia.

          First, look at the modern battle illustrations that I have placed in the 1 and 2 parts. they very reliably depict the armament of the parties. And secondly, here is the armament of the Caliphate Umayyad warriors:

          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Perhaps the ratio of 1: 4 in the army of Tarik was due precisely to logistical problems - horses on the whole army simply could not be transported through the strait.
          So Tarik’s army stood in one place for a very long time - transporting on a number of ships constantly moving back and forth a bunch of troops and horses, as well as a convoy. Therefore, they transported not only soldiers, but also all the horses that they had. Just there were relatively few of them, from 20 to 50%.

          Berbers are not only nomad riders, but light and medium foot soldiers too.

          Had Rodrigo “Prekrasnovolosy” or his commander of the border forces been a little smarter, they would have attacked the part of the invading army during the division of the invading army with a mobile shock detachment and would have crushed it. However, the King of the Visigoths turned out to be just the “Fair-haired” youth of 20-25 years, not Alexander the Great ...

          Because the most effective and truly combat-ready part of his army from the armored cavalry of the Gothic nobility, he could assemble quickly, and wait for the gathering of a couple of tens of thousands of foot soldiers-militias, who had not only weapons, but also a special desire to fight, allowing the enemy to accumulate strength - this was strategic stupidity.

          The count, who was responsible for the southern border of Betica, tried to correct the situation on his own, but there were too few soldiers at his disposal ...

          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 25 July 2018 10: 53
            0
            Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
            Yes, where did you get it from? Do not think. that the armies of the Early Caliphate resembled the Bedouins.

            And why? Attached to your post image, even if you do not go into the analysis of its reliability, shows:
            1. High ranking official
            2. Elite trooper
            3. Light trooper.
            Official will forget.
            The elite cavalryman is elite, and there are few of them. He is armed, of course, remarkably, although by the standards of Europe it is rather weak, but this is the elite - the personal security of the military commander and the detachments of such warriors were hardly more than 10% of the total number, but rather much less. 10% of heavily armed (by the steppe concepts) horsemen, as I recall, were among the Mongols - a thousand horsemen in every tumen - the personal protection of the khan ...
            But the light trooper is light - without armor, a helmet, even without a shield (in the picture). smile I think they still had shields, and also the author forgot to portray the weapon of distance combat. It was they who made up the bulk of the army and, in my opinion, are very similar to the Bedouins.
            Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
            ak Tariq's army stood in one place for a very long time

            By the way, in the article, I think, you didn’t specify how long the crossing of the Arabs through Gibraltar took. Is there such data? If there is, one could estimate the number of the invading army.
            The distance between Ceuta and Gibraltar is about 30 km. Taking into account maneuvering when leaving the port and entering another, loading and unloading, the time of one voyage back and forth will be at least six to eight hours - this is with the most well-organized organization. In total, two flights a day, because it is quite difficult to provide coverage of bays in the dark. Okay, three flights. One ship, took probably no more than 50 people or 10 horses. Plus carts, camels, etc. For a week you can carry on the same ship with interchangeable commands no more than a thousand people or two hundred horses. This is the maximum - under all favorable circumstances, without sloppiness, sleep and unforeseen complications. In reality, we are unlikely to get half of this figure.
            So, Roderick’s chances of finding Tariq on his shore with his pants down, of course, were even in the absence of a well-adjusted coast guard, fast channels of information exchange with the capital, etc. Yes, not Macedonian. And not even Nevsky. But in alcove joys, apparently, the sense knew. smile
            1. Mikhail Matyugin
              25 July 2018 12: 30
              +1
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              I think they still had shields, and also the author forgot to depict a remote battle weapon. It was they who made up the bulk of the army and, in my opinion, are very similar to the Bedouins

              Dow, the picture is not without jambs, but what is there. laughing request In general, according to the descriptions of the Arab chroniclers, the backbone of the Tariq army was made up of very professional "jihad veterans" who traveled all over North Africa and well-equipped (there were many trophies taken - only excellent chain mail was chosen, often if there was no heavy weaving, then two were immediately put on or chain mail + lamellar). Yes, of course, the Berbers were armed worse, and most of them were numerically, but before the invasion they were specially equipped by Musa with trophies from warehouses and military camps. The contingents of AlYahudi and Count Julian were generally professional warriors with excellent weapons.

              Tariq had cavalry, and quite a lot (if this were not so, why would he choose an absolutely smooth plain for the battle?), But a significant or even large part (probably about 60%, maybe even up to 70-80%) is all She was an infantryman.

              But the Goths had hardly 10% of the total number of soldiers ... (this contradicts the Muslim chronicles, which describe the mass of Gothic horsemen, but coincides with the well-known manning system of the Visigoth army, which closely resembles the system of feudal Europe).

              Quote: Trilobite Master
              The distance between Ceuta and Gibraltar is about 30 km. Taking into account tacking when leaving the port and entering another, loading and unloading, the time of one round-trip flight will be at least six to eight hours - this is with the most beautiful organization. In total, two flights a day, because it is rather difficult to provide illumination of bays in the dark. Well, three flights. One ship, probably took no more than 50 people or 10 horses.
              The army of invaders was transported for a very long time, because Julian had only a few ships. Concentrated so slowly that part of the Islamists was raided into the surrounding lands and captured several villages, while the second half of the troops was still on the African coast ...

              Roderick proved himself to be just a fool. Everyone can beautifully (or not) die in battle, but organizing a victory over a clever and well-expired enemy is worth a lot ...

              He absolutely did not need to collect a general militia, but to unite the forces of the aristocracy (with which he was reconciled) with the border guards, and unexpectedly strike a contingent that was small, but had the highest fighting efficiency, against the fully concentrated army of Tarik. I think that on this, at least for a considerable time, the attempt to conquer Spain would end (even the caliph in Baghdad specifically wrote that he was afraid of sending “jihad warriors” overseas, because this is a dangerous and little-known thing).
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 25 July 2018 13: 51
                0
                At one time (30-s), there was a discussion in Soviet jurisprudence within the framework of the theory of evidence about the relative importance and importance of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Vyshinsky won, defending the primacy of direct evidence over evidence, resulting in a maxim "confession - the queen of evidence." As a result, law enforcement agencies began by any means to seek confessions without bothering to collect evidence, because without admitting the accused or direct eyewitness accounts of the crime, such as “I saw him hit the victim with a knife,” the verdict was not imposed, but there was no direct evidence are needed.
                With regard to history, direct evidence may be evidence of contemporaries, chronicle news, etc., and "evidence" - all other indirect data about the event.
                So, in my opinion, direct evidence is always subjective, and often, simply deliberately and deliberately distorted by participants in the events for various reasons. Indirect evidence is more objective and deserve more confidence. Another thing is that the formation of evidence from “evidence” is much more complicated than from direct evidence, since each “evidence” in itself outside the evidence system means little. But collected together and correctly linked in a single system, "evidence" provides a truly objective picture of what happened, as opposed to direct evidence (eyewitness accounts, chronicles, chronicles, etc.), always subjective.
                Ideal situations where direct and indirect evidence does not contradict each other, unfortunately (or fortunately smile ) rarely.
                This I mean that you are satisfied in your research with direct evidence, ignoring indirect evidence. I am also interested in finding confirmations of the information presented in the sources, in circumstantial evidence, without this they do not seem to me reliable. In our world, any single event is a consequence of previous ones and the cause of subsequent ones; nothing happens just like that. If the Arabs had a mass of combat-ready infantry, then the traces of its use must be scattered here and there, then the socio-economic base must be in place for the formation of this infantry. I couldn’t find any of this yesterday. Only vague mentions of this very "infantry", that it was "was" and that was all. But the cavalry is said in literally every message. So I keep my own opinion: if the Arabs had infantry, then in meager amounts and on the course of military actions did not have a significant impact.
                But I absolutely agree with the assessment of “Rodrigo Beautiful Hair” as a non-initiating and incompetent ruler and commander.
              2. Weyland
                Weyland 26 July 2018 09: 18
                0
                Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
                if there was no reinforced weaving, then two immediately wore

                Two ordinary chain mails are much more reliable than one reinforced weaving - the feature is that the spear digs into the ring of the upper chain mail, and then this section of the chain of mail along with the spear slides along the lower chain mail (the source of information is Osama ibn Munkyz, from personal experience; - and if people fought all their lives and lived right up to 93 years old, then the scheme worked with a bang!)
                1. Mikhail Matyugin
                  26 July 2018 18: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Weyland
                  source of information - Osama ibn Munkiz

                  If I am not mistaken, then he practiced putting on chain mail on a lamellar or vice versa.
                  1. Weyland
                    Weyland 26 July 2018 20: 47
                    0
                    Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
                    he practiced putting on chain mail on a lamellar or vice versa.

                    if so, then it is the chain mail from above to slide along with the spear!
        2. Weyland
          Weyland 25 July 2018 10: 14
          +1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          In general, the fact of the presence of infantry among the Arabs for me personally is a dubious question. It was like, but it seems not.

          Arabs have parts names standard battle order: the first line (light cavalry) was called "the morning of the canine bark", the second (heavy cavalry) - "help day", the third (heavy infantry phalanx) - "evening of shock". The reserve (also heavy cavalry, and elite) was called the "banner of the Prophet."
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 25 July 2018 12: 25
            0
            I read about it. For example:
            The battle order of the Arabs was dismembered along the front and in depth. Each of the lines, lined up in five lines, had an allegorical name: the first line - “The morning of the dog's barking” - consisted of a loose line of riders; the second, “Aid Day” —and the third — the “Evening of Shocks” —the lines, which are the main forces, consisted of cavalry columns or phalanxes of infantry, arranged in a checkerboard pattern; in the fourth line - the general reserve - included selected squads, who guarded the main value.

            http://ossethnos.ru/history/alan/69-chetvertyj-pe
            riod-x-xii-vv.html
            Или:
            "The Prophet loves to win in the evening" is the main idea of ​​the Saracen tactics. This idea of ​​dividing the onslaught force in space and time, providing a sufficient period of time for the development of throwing combat is vividly noted in the colorful, according to the east, names of units of battle formation in one of the first battles given by the Arabs (with Kadissiya, 636): first line It was called “the morning of the dog's barking”, the second - “the day of help”, the third - “the evening of shock”. The importance that was attached to the throwing battle led to the desire to deploy on a broad front to foster the enemy and concentrated, concentric attack.

            http://militera.lib.ru/science/svechin2a/06.html#
            The fact of the matter is that the infantry seems to have been like that, but I have never met with any information about how it was armed, how it was used. Last night I specially looked at my books, the Internet - not a single (!) Description of the Arab infantry. Everywhere, where there are more or less detailed descriptions of the battles with the participation of the Arabs, ranging from the “battle of the linked” 633 and ending with the battle of Poitiers, it is said about cavalry attacks and not a word about the infantry.
            In addition, a rapid analysis of Arab companies showed that their armies were moving in space at a speed unattainable for an infantryman. There is information that the Arabs moved two by two on a horse during the march. But in this case, the number of infantry will certainly not be greater than the number of cavalry, but rather even several times less. There is information that the infantry was transported by camel, but there is also information about the use of camels in battle. So how to call those who sat on camels - foot soldiers or horsemen? I think that after all it was the cavalry. smile
            Next.
            Infantry, especially heavy infantry, must have a socio-economic basis for formation. Always and everywhere this base was provided by wealthy residents of the cities, not belonging to the nobility, but able to acquire a set of appropriate weapons. Light infantry was formed, as a rule, from peasants. Did the Arabs have a base for the formation of infantry units? Perhaps, yes, but very, very narrow, so that large contingents, many times more than the number of cavalry, they could hardly have created. But the light cavalry, formed, usually from nomads, and heavy - from the nobility and their warriors-nukers - they had enough of this kindness.
            So if the infantry they had, then in scanty quantities, and, more likely heavy than light and decisive importance in the fighting she had not. So, guard rates, wagons, etc. So the "evening of shocks" in the form of phalanxes of heavy infantry raises serious doubts in me.
            1. Mikhail Matyugin
              25 July 2018 13: 08
              +2
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              There is evidence that in the campaign, the Arabs moved in two on a horse. But in this case, the number of infantry will certainly not be greater than the number of cavalry, but rather even several times less.

              I already said that it turns out approximately 50x50, or, more likely, 30-40% cavalry x 60-70% infantry.

              Quote: Trilobite Master
              There is evidence that the infantry was transported by camels, but there is also information about the use of camels in battle. So what are the names of those who sat on camels - foot soldiers or horsemen?
              And what does the term "traveling infantry" not suit you? well, or some analogue of the New Age dragoons or the type of Hellenistic Dimakhs, although I don’t know the facts of the attack in the equestrian system of the Arab infantry mounted on horses. For quick marches - yes, often, but not in battle.

              Camel riders are generally a separate contingent, which must be distinguished from those planted on camels, horses and mules of infantry. They were mainly used to make a mess in the cavalry of the enemy, if it was not accustomed to the roar and smell of camels.

              Quote: Trilobite Master
              So the "evening of shock" in the form of phalanges of heavy infantry causes me serious doubts.
              Well, the "phalanx of heavy infantry" in the Roman-Byzantine or even Western European style they certainly didn’t have. Moreover, the infantryman in the East has always been considered a more despicable category of warrior than the horseman, which means a priori had the worst quality weapons. But the relatively well-armed middle infantry in the armies of the Early Caliphate was quite (however, Rodrigo also had infantry from the poor Visigoths, who constituted the royal garrisons of the cities, also gave about the same quality of infantry).
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 25 July 2018 14: 01
                0
                Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
                But the relatively well-armed middle infantry in the armies of the Early Caliphate was quite

                I do not see where she could come from, from whom it could form. I do not see any signs of its use on the battlefield. No one says anything about the presence of infantry on the battlefield — only cavalry.
                1. Weyland
                  Weyland 25 July 2018 21: 49
                  +1
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  No one says anything about the presence of infantry on the battlefield — only cavalry.

                  In field battles, it’s possible. But they also somehow took fortresses, not on horseback?
            2. Weyland
              Weyland 25 July 2018 15: 16
              +1
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              In addition, an express analysis of Arab companies showed that their armies moved in space at a speed unattainable for an infantryman.

              I join the opinion of Mikhail Matyugin hi
              Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
              And what does the term "traveling infantry" not suit you? well, or some analogue of the New Age dragoons or the type of Hellenistic Dimakhs, although I don’t know the facts of the attack in the equestrian system of the Arab infantry mounted on horses. For quick marches - yes, often, but not in battle.

              The phenomenon was not so rare: the heroes of the Trojan War did not even have the basics of chariot fighting - in the Iliad the chariot was used only as a means of delivering the hero to the battlefield. And in the Scandinavian sagas, Odin often rides an 8-foot Sleipnir - but it has never been said that he is riding on it!
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 25 July 2018 15: 47
                0
                Quote: Weyland
                I join the opinion of Mikhail Matyugin

                For example, the infantrymen were moving on horseback. If behind the rider - then there are no more of them than horsemen and certainly not 4: 1, rather the opposite of 1: 4. If on pack animals, then it is possible, but ... troublesome. Bring along a lot of additional livestock, which can not be used later in battle ... Okay, accepted.
                But there are no answers to two questions:
                1. What resources did such a number of infantry get from?
                2. Where information about its combat use. If only in one battle there was a mention of the use of infantry by the Arabs.
    4. Weyland
      Weyland 24 July 2018 18: 59
      +1
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      the main weapon of which was the bow.

      Arabia was called "Steppe lancers". For the Arab archer, it was considered normal to hit the target from the 5th shot 4 - to the gunfire). About 500 years later, the Arabs wrote:" the Turk owns a spear no worse than the Arab, but so far the Arab fires one arrow - the Turk fires 10! "(And everything in target, unlike the Arab)
    5. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 24 July 2018 23: 13
      0
      Well, what can I say, Michael? +5 to "karma", +10 to "mana", + twenty to "armor", and "skills" still rock and swing! laughing
  9. Molot1979
    Molot1979 24 July 2018 14: 12
    +1
    Why can’t you call jihadists people who are engaged in jihad?

    Probably, this is why the Crusaders are not called Christian fundamentalists, but Soviet soldiers as Bolshevik fanatics. Modern terms should be applied to the present, and not try to describe the phenomena and events of a year and a half ago. This is terribly unscientific and hefty pop. Moreover, the Arabs were engaged not so much in jihad there as in the conquest of new lands for the purpose of exploitation.
    1. Weyland
      Weyland 24 July 2018 15: 02
      +4
      Quote: Molot1979
      not so much the Arabs were engaged in jihad there as the conquest of new lands for the purpose of exploitation.

      They called it "jihad." And themselves - "Mujahideen."
      Quote: Molot1979
      Modern terms should be applied to the present, and not try to describe the phenomena and events of a year and a half ago.

      How to say ... The term "Mujahideen" among Muslims is still in use today. And some 30-35 years ago (before the attacks of tolerance) and in Europe the word "crusader" had exclusively tall meaning: think, why would Reagan not call for any, namely "Crusade against the USSR "?
    2. Flavius
      Flavius 24 July 2018 15: 27
      +4
      Quote: Molot1979
      Moreover, the Arabs were engaged not so much in jihad there as in the conquest of new lands for the purpose of exploitation.

      The thing is, the whole spread of Islam is connected with this
      conquering new lands for exploitation
      . Those. starting with Muhammad and the four righteous caliphs to Shamil Basayev, everyone was doing the same thing.
      And if the Sword of Islam Khalid Ibn-Walid engaged in recognized jihad and slaughtered the Persians like cattle, then why will we name the actions of Tariq differently - what is the difference?
      I believe that in the article things are called by their own names, except that the term "jihadists" can be replaced by a more romantic one - "jihad wars." But who needs tolerance when there is truth?
      1. Mikhail Matyugin
        24 July 2018 18: 50
        +1
        Quote: Flavius
        Those. starting with Muhammad and the four righteous caliphs to Shamil Basayev, everyone was doing the same thing.

        The fact is that the invention of religious war - “jihad of the sword”, is precisely a Muslim-Arab innovation, before them, wars between states were not religious, even despite their mutual fierceness (for example, the same Rome-Carthage wars).

        And this innovation, unfortunately, has not sunk into the annals of military history, but has been used by radical Islamists for 1300 years, as across the globe ...
  10. fuxila
    fuxila 24 July 2018 17: 37
    +1
    It resembles Pikul's novels: there is a historical basis, and a flight of fantasy is superimposed on it. For example, about Judaized vandals, who by that time already physically did not exist.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      24 July 2018 18: 26
      +1
      Quote: fuxila
      For example, about Judaized vandals, who by that time already physically did not exist.

      Dear Alexey, you are somewhat mistaken, existed. Similarly, at that time there was a high proseletic activity among the North African Jews, not characteristic of this religion. But, again, this is the topic of a separate large article, if not a book.

      I brought this solely in order to show that everything is not so simple, and while jihadists and Jews could well afford to forget mutual contradictions and successfully act jointly against a common enemy.
      1. fuxila
        fuxila 25 July 2018 10: 26
        0
        Michael, what's my mistake? Vandals as a people were completely destroyed during the conquest of North Africa and since then there is no information about them, so it is not clear what evidence you rely on when speaking of Judaized vandals 180 years after the defeat of their kingdom.
        It’s also completely incorrect to talk about a certain West Gotlandland, because there were no Visigoths. This is the same term coined by historians as the Byzantine Empire and Kievan Rus and was put into circulation by German scientists to refer to the union of tribes formed during the migration of the Goths and their kindred tribes, and settled in the beginning of the 5th century. in southern Gaul. If they were told that they were Visigoths, they would be very surprised. I'm not talking about the so-called Slavic roots of the names of Tudemir, Roderick and the invented Bozhomir (who is this and where did it come from?). The language of the Goths is well known, it belongs to the East German branch and there is no sound "g" in it. Such a name as Theodomir (or Theodimer, Tiudemir, depending on the dialect) was widespread among the Germans and has many analogues in the form of Theodoric, Theodogisel, Theodemund, etc. The same goes for the name Roderick, derived from hrods (glory) and reiks (leader, power), hence Rodbert (Robert), Rodemund, Rodezind, etc.
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          25 July 2018 12: 50
          +1
          Quote: fuxila
          It’s also completely incorrect to talk about a certain West Gotlandland, because there were no Visigoths.
          Dear Alexey! This, quite accurately reflecting the predominantly German, essentially discriminatory, nature of the Visigoth kingdom (of which, according to some estimates, there were 100-200.000 people, including wives, children and the elderly, from about 2-4 million people of the Iberian Peninsula ), is found in Mosarab documents that have preserved the remnants of the influence of the Gothic language.

          And how was it all-ready? in lat.documents their state is quite officially designated as Regnum Visigothicum Toletanum! (i.e., even they accepted a forcedly external, Latin name of their people for business correspondence)

          The later Romans (in order to distinguish them from the Ost-Gott-Grevtungs, "inhabitants of the steppes"), quite accurately and historically, began to call the Visigoths of the ready-tervinges (actually the "people of the forests") or the Forings. an established term, what is it? .

          Quote: fuxila
          Theodomir
          The problem is that science (formerly German for a long time in many respects) considers these names ready, ending in "-world", Germanic. However, for the Slavic ear, these names sound exactly in Slavic, and it is for the Slavs that the ending of the names in "-mir" is characteristic (Vladimir, Radomir, Bogumir. Slavomir, etc.). It is likely that there was mutual assimilation of the Slavs and the Goths during their cohabitation in the territory of modern southwestern Russia and Ukraine.

          For some reason, official science rejects this in every possible way, but to me personally this view, albeit contrary to established stereotypes, seems quite logical.

          And yes, I have long wanted to lay out a map for those readers who have little idea of ​​the Visigoths migration and the path that led them to Spain.

          Quote: fuxila
          Vandals as a people were completely destroyed during the conquest of North Africa and since then there is no information about them, so it is not clear what evidence you rely on when speaking of Judaized vandals
          Dear Alexei, unfortunately, none of the Israeli comrades present on this site have joined the discussion, but it is a pity that they may have information on this issue. As I have already said, the issue of the existence and development of Jewish communities in North Africa, and even more so the role of ger in this process, is a separate big topic that is not related to this article.
          1. fuxila
            fuxila 25 July 2018 16: 25
            0
            The fact of the matter is that the backbone of this tribal association was a tribe of Visigoths or simply Visi, and the Visigoths - which in German means Western Goths - were called by scientists, because as they moved, some of the prisoners, typhals, Alans, and some others joined them.
            There are great doubts about the identity of the Visigoths and Terwings, it is more likely that these are two different Gothic tribes, you can read more about this in Budanova's “Gotha in the Age of the Great Migration of Peoples”.
            It remained unclear what kind of vandals the Jews turned into heroes, if the witness and participant in the Vandal war Prokopius of Caesarea reports the extermination and deportation of the remains of the vandals to Asia Minor. If only on the former Roman-Persian border (in the mountains of Armenia or in Mesopotamia) they discovered several families after two centuries.
            As for the similarity of names, there is nothing surprising there, languages ​​belong to the same Indo-European group. There are German names ending in a gast, which means a guest: Nebiogast, Arbogast, etc. But there are Slavic ones: Compassion, Grace, Joy ... Many German names in this sense are similar to Celtic and have endings in -rik and -mar.
            The version of some kind of antagonism between the Goths and the Romans is greatly exaggerated. Already during the period of the conquest of Spain by the Gothic army, Vincentius commanded, in 507, the Gallo-Romans from Auvergne fought in the Gothic army at Poitiers, King Theodus was married to a Roman, and Duke Paul, with the support of Gothic magnates, even proclaimed himself king. So the representatives of the upper class quite peacefully existed. Like the lower strata of the population - the ruined Gothic communes, according to documents, were even forced to sell their children into slavery. The split took place between the wealthy elite and the common people, regardless of nationality.
  11. Nurtai
    Nurtai 25 July 2018 09: 32
    0
    Quote: Weyland
    Count Julian, who was probably of Rumian descent (i.e., Byzantine) by birth and never converted to Islam, although he was close to the court of Musa ibn-Nusayr, was surrounded by contempt of the Islamic aristocracy both as a non-Muslim and as a traitor.
    I think the latter is much more important - Christians in the early Caliphate often held high posts (St. John of Damascus, for example, in those years held a high position at the court of the Caliph).
    There is no justification for Julian and cannot be: I just wanted to take revenge - I could send a killer, the Byzantines special services worked well, and the Visigoths - disgusting. Take, for example, such a story - the Danish king Eric Clipping (1249-1286) fought off his retinue on a hunt, spent the night in the village of Finderup ... The result - 56 penetrating wounds incompatible with life.
    And this story was remembered for this reason: the leader of the noble opposition, Marshal Stig Andersen, who ultimately emigrated and then for a long time and successfully pirated against Denmark, was accused of murder (and without any proof). The folk version of the events is set forth in the ballad "Marstig": while Stig was on a campaign, King Eric either raped his wife (according to her version), or seduced (according to the king himself), and then the marshal trapped him and killed him in an honest duel. The ballad, of course, unambiguously approves Stig: "acted like a man!"
    1. Nurtai
      Nurtai 25 July 2018 09: 34
      +1
      Even in my opinion, during the Reconquista, the national hero El Sid Campeador either ran across to the side of the Arabs, then to the side of Christians
  12. Sovpadenie
    Sovpadenie 25 July 2018 12: 22
    0
    The caption to the last photo is not very clear. "Preserving the memory of the battle ..." As far as I know, the word "Cava" in Catalan means a cellar, that is, a place that you can not do without when creating a quality sparkling wine. What is the connection with the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula?
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      25 July 2018 13: 17
      +1
      Dear Alexei, if you read the first part, which discusses the episode with a girl nicknamed "La Cava", then perhaps you would not have this issue? Well, there is such a legend among the Spaniards what to do.
      1. Sovpadenie
        Sovpadenie 25 July 2018 13: 40
        +1
        Thank. But is there a direct connection between the name of the girl and the name of the drink? Here is the question? Or is it just a beautiful coincidence? I doubt that the girl was nicknamed "Basement")) Although, knowing her biography, some parallels can be drawn)) And then, for this you need to have a rich imagination