Khalid did not even lose one Battle in his whole life. That’s impressive because the main enemies were the strong byzantines and sassanids

This is one of those battles that shaped world history and few know of it.

Khalid is the genius General forever.

One thing i will say though, Khalid was a great general but is overlooked/ignored in the west for being muslim. But i think he was of the same quality as generals like Alexander, Caesar and Hannibal.

After the defeat in the Battle of Yarmouk, the Roman governor said: Goodbye Damascus forever.

The Byzantines were much more. Indeed, after losing couple of battles, Heraclius wanted to finish them for good and gathered a huge army composed of Arab christians led by Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham al-Ghassani, Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Armenians. It was a decisive battle, Heraclius knew that if he loses the battle, his borders will have to move back to Constantinople. A genius like Heraclius would have never took the risk to put his empire at stake with such a small number of soldiers. Khalid was a real military genius. He fought more than 100 battles and never lost. His legacy is still visible today.

Great breakdown. This is such a significant battle and so few know if it. I can’t remember which historian said this but he described the Rashidun conquests under Umar RA against the Byzantines and the Romans as “Britain taking on the USA and Russia at the same time and winning.”

*Khalid ibin Waleed is the only leader in the world who never lost in a single battle. 100 battle and he won* Respect 100%

What a tactics, khaled RA was genious and had something special in a battles art with only one offensive attack launched he deafeated the byzantine army, the right attack at the right moment at the right place!

Thank you. It is well animated with proper narration. I am amazed by the confidence of the Rashidum army, they sent a unit to guard the exit route as they were sure they would win.

Romans were bigger than 200.000 with Gassanis(christian arabs on Syria) everybody check this report in Istanbul Topkapi Palace and military museum. All report written by Byzantine's reporters.

Wow that was a great tactic he used. Allowed the Romans to attack until they exhausted themselves. And Kaled attacks on the 6th day, mainly focusing on the Byzantine left flank, as the right flank is facing the river with no escape route, and this way they were able to push the Romans into the corner, and those that tried to retreat across the pass behind them were massacred as the Muslims had a small detachment waiting on the other side.

numbers are wrong 150.000 for byzantium. 40.000 muslims

Primary source: Romans were 400.000 and Muslims 36.000. Modern estimate: Romans were 200.000 and Muslims 40.000.

Did you just state that The Byzantines had only 40k troops? That's hilarious. Historical estimates say their forces were between 100k and 400k... While most "modern" estimates are between 80k and 100k It's a shame these videos are loaded with misinformation, because the concept is really interesting. Can't say I want to watch any of these again.

I love how every comment saying the numbers are wrong have different numbers

I am Saudi Arabian do not know why some of you do not acknowledge this landslide victory against the Roman Empire terrible planning of Khalid ibn al-Walid in the Battle of Yarmuk! Had Mujdod such as Khalid Shakna today to anyone who tries to attack or interference in matters other

The numbers are wrong 240,000 Byzantine and 36,000 Muslims

- Khalid ibn Walid I've fought in so many battles seeking martyrdom that there is no spot in my body left without a scar or a wound made by a spear or sword. And yet here I am, dying on my bed like an old camel. May the eyes of the cowards never rest.[120] The wife of Khalid, upon feeling such a pain of her husband told Khalid: "You were given the title of 'Saif-ullah' meaning, 'The Sword of Allah' and, the sword of Allah is not meant to be broken and hence, it is not your destiny to be a 'martyr' but to die like a conquero

The numbers aren't wrong because the modern estimates for the byzantine army ranges from 15000 to 150.000! (From Wikipedia). It's nigh impossible that the byzantines did have more than 40.000 since they had been at war with the sassanids from 602-628 and both empires were exhasuted. Financially and on manpower! In the battle of Nineveh (the last battle of the war) the byzantines fielded 25000-40000 troops. There is very little chance they could have fielded a bigger army. The battle is, however, important in world history and you gotta give Khalid ibn al-Walid great respect for his generalship!

Great job guys. Do you have videos about modern battles?

Romans were from(200.000 to 250.000) Muslims were from (33.000 to 36.000)

What genius khaled this is the side attack tactic that teatch today

I've fought in so many battles seeking martyrdom that there is no spot in my body left without a scar or a wound made by a spear or sword. And yet here I am, dying on my bed like an old camel. May the eyes of the cowards never rest-Khalid. wife of Khalid felt such a pain of her husband told Khalid: "You were given the title of Saif-ullah 'The Sword of Allah' and, the sword of Allah is not meant to be broken and hence, it is not your destiny to be a 'martyr' but to die like a conqueror."

Thank you for this! Thumbs up!

Thank you for this video presentation.

I wonder why the Byzantines never once thought, maybe we should out flank them. Like the reserve cav they had could have probably made all the difference they needed it they just would have used it.

Excellent presentation. It is always difficult to both estimate figures and events from biased primary sources on both sides, but you have done a fine job. 40,000 men is, as I understand it, nearing the limits that such a grouping of concentrated humanity will impose on the resources and infrastructure of any kingdom or empire (although exceptions exist), especially after coming out of both plague and war too the death with Persia. There is no doubt that Khalid was a tactical genius, but I wonder if the poor quality of the Byzantine troops were also significant a factor. Do you have any information as to how many of these men were veterans of the Persian war and how many were raw conscripts? Your point about religious fervour amongst the Rashiduns is also valid. Motivated troops always fight better. Anyway, well done.

Thanks so much

@MrZift123 17th Jäger Regiment (Russian Empire) In the war against Persia, at Askerani, approximately 360 jägers (+120 musketiers) of this regiment, with 2 guns, were surrounded by 20,000 Persians. They withstood all attacks for two weeks, although only 150 survived. At Ashlan-Doos, together with an infantry regiment (2,200 men and 6 guns) they defeated 24,000 Persians with 12 guns. They also captured 5 Colors and 500 prisoners, while 1,200 Persians were killed and wounded

hello can you do that Battle of Mu'tah??

thanks 4 that Tony.

The number of Byzentine soldiers in this battle was well over 120,000, if not 200,0000. Where did you reference this 40,000?

Actually there were possibly 400,000+ Byzantines. The Rashiduns were far less, probably around 15,000 - 24,000.

If in fact this is an accurate account of the battle, there seems very little generalship on either side. As someone else noted, Alexander would never conducted such a defensive, timid campaign.

Were did you get the source of this battle?

So emotional...

Please make video on Battle of Mu'tah ..please

it looked like Armageddon. King of South against King of North

In the arid terrain of the middle east, with the technology of the antiquity, two thirds of the 300.000 men would die of thirst, hunger and disease before they'd even come into contact with the enemy. The Empire NEVER fielded an army of 300.000, to even suggest such a feat is fucking stupid.

We need a real movie for this one

and that is kids why you should strech your battle line if you have a numerical advantage and use your cavalry instead of having it die of old age in reserve...

4:13 what I don't understand is why didn't Vahan didn't try to trap the arab cavalry in between his infinity and his cavalry he might have been able to take them out of the picture

Well, even I think there might be an inflation, but not a major one as they indeed were capable of sending formidable legions of vast numbers and in this case, they had sent the largest and the best army they could and aloong with the Arab Christians, Armenians, Balkan levies, I can think such a number is not far away...

Muslim army led by Khalid ibn al walid was 40000 vs 240000 byzantines..Muslims were very small in number, slowly Islam was growing and people accepting Islam..They fought against the existing super powers of their time and crushed both Persian and Roman empire..

Please correct your numbers. The size of the Byzantine army was many times bigger than what you mentioned according to historians from both sides.

day of the lost eyes? can anyone tell me about it?

its like a museum, except not boring..........

They weren't fighting in the desert. They were fighting in the Levant which is a fertile land full of rivers. In fact the battle was named Yarmuk because it happened near the Yarmuk river bank in today's Jordan. And the 200,000 men strong Byzantine army had 100,000 allied Christian Arabs and the other half was Roman and Georgian and Armenian allies. This battle exactly matches Alexander's battle with Darius, 225,000 against 45,000. So don't make it sound like it never happened before, capeesh?

The Byzantines had at least 50,000 men and at most 120,000. The 2 armies were not equal in size the Byzantines outnumbered their opponents by at least 3 to 1.

Vahan is on of finest leaders but he was fighting against the sword of god peace upon him he never lost asingle battle in his life

Khalid ibn El waleed was general of The prophet Muhammed a.s. and he NEVER lost a battle.

Well numbers in this video dont make sense because if the forces were that small they wouldnt fight 3-4 days more like several hours

A considereable fact!

oblique order "take your hats off, gentlemen, if this man were still alive, we would not be standing here today." - Napoléon at the tomb of Frederick the Great. the tactic of "oblique order" earned a mention by Vegetius. what i like about the oblique order, is that it allows to attack the enemy's stronger side, and having defeated the opponent's main body, to envelop the enemy, now rolling around the enemy forces, watching them melt. i successfully used this tactic in chess. the problem with some of the other brilliant tactics, which rely on segmenting your forces, is that reserves might not come on time. which is what happened to Napoléon at the battle of Waterloo. other tactics are not as universally applicable. • the oblique order was used by the Thebans under the command of Epaminondas to defeat the Spartans (la bataille de Leuctres). • the oblique order was employed by the brilliant Khalid ibn al-Walid against the Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk. • one-sided envelopment tactic was used by Fulk the Black "par la grâce de Dieu comte des Angevins" and his sidekick Count Herbert of Maine, to defeat Fulk's rival, Odo II of Blois at the Battle of Pontlevoy. Fulk III was an avid reader of Vegetius. Vegetius does not preach cowardice unlike Sun Tzu. among European generals Napoleon's tactics were more like Sun Tzu. they worked for a while. in the said battle Fulk lost his horse and his standard-bearer. from the early feudal period (which was a continuation of roman client-patron system of societal organization) until the end of the middle ages, conveying orders wasn't easy, so the sovereign along with his standard-bearer led from the front! this led to the development of plate armour which completely encompassed the body. these suits became pretty much impervious to swords and bladed weapons, arrows and bullets - due to the curvature of the plates. the leaders (sovereigns and magnates) used percussion weapons such as war hammers and maces to try to crush one another. dismounted knights could endure for fifteen to twenty minutes in such heavy armor. Edward IV, who lived near the end of the Middle Ages fought in this way. the leader and his chief sidekicks served as points to attract troops, instead of sending out orders. but Fulk the Black didn't have such superior armour to protect him in 1016. he still used a sword. instead he had self-confidence. chivalry didn't end because of firearms. chivalry ended because the retinues which were required to arm knights became too costly. self-confidence was less expensive. preparedness equals confidence. Fulk had a copy of "the epitome of military science", therefore he could remain calm in turmoil. • the oblique order was frequently used by Frederick the Great (Battle of Hohenfriedberg, Battle of Leuthen). the lesson is that the oblique order never let down a wise commander, so it is the best. "intensity gives eminence, and rises to the heroic in matters sublime." - Baltasar Gracian

2:54 the Rashiduns could have flanked with their cavalry, on the right side at least, and wreaked havoc on the Infantry, and could have turned the tide by using the cavalry as a hammer and the river as the nail, so to speak...

Just 40 k...well where he get the fact Byzantine overpower Khalid by 1:3 Morelikely 100 k or 80k

Just wondering about your opinion on one side being religious & the other not. Do you think that had Anything to do with the _Rashiduns_ victory? In different ways even, 1 being, having a _'higher power'_ helping them, Or 2, just having that faith as soldiers & placing their lives at the hand of a god. Maybe the mind being convinced of it all, (Religion), that could have some kind of advantage psychologically & therefore helping them get through tough times better, like _conditioning_ the mind & body. Whether there truly is a god or not, that belief can do amazing things, in my opinion anyway. Obviously, a good _Game Plan_, aims, goals, objectives, attack plans, defense etc... all those things including _Luck_ play a part in every war or confrontation. It's not always about size, numbers or even money/weapons!

I'll end it with this to think about; ‘The speed with which the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire succumbed to the Arabs remains to be explained by historians.’ (Andrew Louth, The Byzantine Empire in the seventh century, The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005, vol 1, p. 298).

Those Byzantine cavalry should try to flank instead of scratching their balls behind the infantry.

the fact of this video is..the Byzantine lost to Muslim..due to brilliant strategy

That's quite a stretch

It was like this. In a Battle of Uhud hill muslims fought pagans and they were in lead until one of the pagans named Wahshi ( he was a black slave ) thrown a spear and killed Hamza ibn Abdulmutalib (uncle of prophet) and foster-brother. Then, muslims were in rage and rushed forvard even prophet told before to one group of archers that they NEVER move anywere, only to stay on one little hill (mound). They disobeyed and went forvard. Halid seen that and came from behind with cavalary.

Actually, there were 40,000 rashidis and 260,000 byzantine romans during the battle! check it out!!!!

noow the battle is finished by droopy iamm going to sleep

It's not about the height, but as the time goes, in this case centuries had experienced a great change from the time of trajan till that of heraclius in terms of population. Plus, this army was also filled with irregulars and mercenaries,auxillaries,etc. if i'm wrong, you can correct me, but please don't hurt others with offensive words as i've done no bad to you. i have an impression that as the centuries have passed, population would have increased thoroughly. Peace.

The world would be such a better place if Byzantium still existed. Proof: the Rennaissance.

When the black banners rises again we will see

another lie, muslims were about 40.000 warriors, romens had 250.000-300.000

Sword of Allah ( Khalid Ibne Walid R.A ) 😘

Very simple Byzantines USE YOUR superior numbers and encircle. like Hannibal at Cannane

MashaAllah

2 year video...its called history mate, they find out new things everyday. Just like some people thought that there were over 1,000,000 persians...when they found out only around 250,000-500,000

Complete military size of Byzantines in 600s: 109,000. Thats the size of their whole empire's army. Look it up. And They wouldn't all of that to one region...

You have to admit , It is really impressive that he fought over 200 battles and NEVER lost any one of them . Even before he converted to Islam

People don’t know Khalid bin Waleed (RA) fought 125 and didn’t lose any.

Actually its not very well known in the western world and I do give the Rashiduns credit for this victory and I agree they were outnumbered heavily. But No army has ever been that large in history unless they were migrating. The entire military size of the Byzantines was 100,000 and they would never deploy all of their army on one front.

No. The Muslims probably had an equal presence in the battlefield or perhaps a slight advantage. The Rashiduns at this time were mostly Nomadic and Nomadics are as tough as nails. The Rashiduns could raise a large and skilled army because their people lived hard lives in the desert, learning martial, herding and hunting skills that are very useful for warriors. This is an event repeated in history: the Arabs were nomadic people conquering sedentary societies. Later repeated by the Mongols.

تكتيك الكماشة

and yes... Khalid became general of Muhammed pbuh. For example battle of Mu´tah where he fought 200 000 byzantines with army of 3000 muslims, or conquest of Mecca, siege of Taif, Hunayn...

Lol calm down son!

Are you fucking joking? How could the declining Roman Empire suddenly raise an army of 260.000! That's larger than the standing army of the Empire at its height under emperor Trajan!

Yeah, I guess you're right as the population in those times neverused to change much. You know. A considereable opinion was that of youneverknow123 that,"and the large number of Byzantines with heavy armour in formation would have looked quite large to the record keepers". Sorry if i'd wasted your time and energy writing to you

And Allah made it not except as [a sign of] good tidings for you and to reassure your hearts thereby. And victory is not except from Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise -,. That He might cut down a section of the disbelievers or suppress them so that they turn back disappointed. (Quran 3:126,127)

The Persians in Gaugamela never had more than 80.000 men, perhaps around 60.000. Yarmouk isn't in the desert: but the surrounding lands, which such a massive would army would have to negotiate to get there, are nonetheless very difficult for logistics. The idea of a field army of half a million in one location in pre-modern times is FUCKING PREPOSTEROUS even in the temperate European plains. We are talking about ancient farming economies here; not modern canned food fed armies.

Nice vidoe but you should make it more interresting and more dramatic

It would not take khalid six days, to win the battle if the number of both sides as close as you suggested. The roman are 3 times greater than the arabs are.

nice animation , but the comments aren't that good , tnxs for sharing

الله أكبر

they allegedly learned siege warfare, for example, from the Persians. They were also unfamiliar with how to fight naval engagements. (Carole Hillenbrand, Muhammad and the rise of Islam, The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005, vol 1, p. 340). Either we accept it was indeed help from the divine, or from the secular point of view, Khalid(ra) must've been the greatest military genius to have ever lived on the face of this earth.

@DuckingNDiving can you plz give one example, someone defeated opponent and later he willingly went to inferior. it's bcz only for finding out the truth. All got their right man by their side. but it's bad luck for Bush..at least he should made you his general.

so you are calling stronger army a coward? so what should they do? send it 500 men so they wouldnt be cowards?

bisantin 250.000 et rachidone 15.000

Not even Rome at its height( which was twice the size) had that many men... let alone as a single army.. The largest expediton army would have been 40,000- 60,000 for the Byzantines.

this is not the real number of thromans they were over 250000

The Number are tottaly wrong 100.000 bzyantine vs 20.000 muslims.

LOL!!!! the byzantine army was at least 100 000 men strong (some historians like the famous byzantine theophanes said that the romans were even at least 140 000 men. other medieval historians even estimates numbers like 200 000 - 300 000), while the muslim were about 24 000. the ratio was a least 1:4 for the byzanntines, according to most of the western historians (but probably even higher) . Yet the muslims won, alhamdulillah

Khalid Sword of “Allah(god)”

Abu Bakr held four brigades The First Army was under the command of "Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah," and direction "Homs" and the number of his army Mujahid 7000 - The army was led by the second, "Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan," and direction of Damascus and his army number 9000 Mujahid And the leadership of the Third Army's "Sharhabeel bin Hssna, and destination area" Bosra ", and the number of his army 7000 Mujahid The Fourth Army was led by" Amr ibn al-Aas, "and direction" of Palestine. "And the number of his army 7000 Mujahid also total armies all Total 7 +7 +7 +9 = 30, then Abu Bakr said, "I swear by the Roman Forget the whispers of Satan with Khalid bin Waleed" and sent him 6000 Mujahid and kaled and gave it full army chief

The worst "semi"-roman commander VS the best Muslim leader.