Nikos Biniaris
The month of August is,
according to the history of the Arab nation, the turning point in its history.
It is the month of the battle on the area of the river Yarmuk tributary of
Jordan River between the Imperial Byzantine army and the Arabs from the Peninsula
who had very recently become Moslems. The year is 636 BCE or the 14th
of Hegira. The forays against Syria had started when Prophet Mohamed was still
alive but continued after his death and succession by Abu Bakr the first of the
elected four Caliphs. Syria as well as Palestine, Egypt and North Africa at
that time were part of the Byzantine Empire which has just come victorious out
of a life and death struggle with Imperial Persia. The city states of ancient
Hellas were at war with Imperial Persia since 490 BCE. Alexander the Great finally
took over the Persian Imperium and due to his sudden death various Hellenistic
kingdoms were established, all of which later on became Roman provinces. The
split of the Roman Empire to Eastern and Western resulted in the Eastern Roman
Empire-Byzantium founded 325 ADE by Constantine the Great. Since then, Rome was
sacked several times by Germanic tribes, and Byzantium itself was under
constant attacks by consecutive waves of Slavs, Avars, Turkish tribes, Bulgarians,
Petzenegs, and a host of migrating Asiatic people to the Balkans. The war
between Byzantium and Persia ended in 628 and a year later the Persian army
withdrew from Egypt. In 630 Emperor Heraclius entered Jerusalem restoring the
true Cross and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
As Heraclius was going
to Jerusalem he had four problems in his mind: the rebuilding of the ruined
holy places which involved raising money out of a destroyed economy, the
Christological disputes of the Church, the Jewish problem in Syria and
Palestine, and the arrangements for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. He would
solve none of these. In the small city of Mutah, just a year ago, a foray of
Arabs was repulsed. It was an insignificant event one amongst the many in the
area.
“…but actually was the
first gun in a struggle not to cease until the proud Byzantine capital had
fallen (1453) to the latest champions of Islam and the name of Muhammad
substituted for that of Christ on the walls of the most magnificent Cathedral
of Christendom, St. Sophia.”[1]
The economic
reconstruction of the Empire after the loss particularly of Egypt was addressed
much later by a lesser Byzantium. All the same modern West after its long wars
and profligacy is in dire economic condition. The Christological dispute: the
problem of Christ’s nature and the subsequent heresies (?): (Arians,
Nestorians, Eutychians) was never resolved since it couldn’t by definition receive
a coherent non-contradictory ontological answer. Today, this dispute is as if
it never existed. Christendom is back to its paganist tradition: the idolatry
of the flesh. The Jewish problem at the
time of Heraclitus; massacres between Jews and Christians due to the presence
of the Persians in the area was left to the Arabs to settle. Today the same
problem is still present in the same area and with the same ideological
vehemence. The Jews actually were always present in the area. Now they have a
state. As for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, after the Holy City capitulated to
Caliph Omar Byzantium had no much to say about it. Today the Hellenic Orthodox Patriarchate
is just an entity that struggles to survive amongst the Israeli state and a sea
of Moslems.
The two Empires the
Persian East and the Byzantine West were totally exhausted, economically,
militarily and in terms of internal administrative structure. They were both
trying to recuperate. The Arab onslaught which befell on both totally destroyed
the Persian Imperial entity and forced the Byzantine to retrench to Anatolia,
the Balkans and the Black Sea area. Byzantium survived due to its geostrategic positioning,
a population which was distinctively Hellenized and Christian and because the
structures of the remaining parts of the Imperial rule were well accepted
institutions by the people.
The battle was fought
in a terrain suitable to the Arab invaders. The Byzantine army was assembled in
the spring of 636 by Armenian, Hellenic, Christian Arab, the Ghassanid tribe, and
perhaps some Persian troops. The generals were Hellenes, Armenians, the Arab
Ghassanid king, and the Persian Niketas. “The battle’s final decisive combat took place
on August 20th but it was a battle not of this one day but possibly
of month and a half duration.”[2]
The armies were trying to outflank but also to bribe generals and tribes away
from their alliances. The actual number of troops from either side was no more
than 20,000 far away from the reported numbers by historians of the later
period as 200,000 from the Byzantine side and 3,000-20,000 from the Arab one. The
Arabs had also several leaders but it was Khalid-ibn-al-Walid whose star rose
to become one of the greatest generals in history. What was quite remarkable
was that after the Byzantines retreated many surrendered to the Arabs. However
the victors instead of taking them as hostages for ransom, which was the usual
practice at the time, slaughtered them. This indicates the resolution of the
invaders to pursue their policy of conquest by eliminating enemy forces for any
future engagement: “the Byzantine troops caught unaware…gave way under the
impact and were massacred almost to a man.”[3]
When the outcome of the
battle was communicated to Heraclius who had set his base in Antioch he
immediately ordered a retreat to the Taurus Mountains exclaiming as tradition
has it: “Syria, what a beautiful country I leave to my enemy.”
The historians and
chronicle writers of this historical event come from Hellenic sources:
Theophanes, Nikephorus, Armenians: Sabeos, and Arabs: Al-Baladhuri, al Tabari and
several others. There are serious problems for the historian to reach an
accurate description of the events for the histories were written two centuries
after the events. The histories are based on traditions and actually one writer
draws some material from the other without critical study. On the other hand
Professor David Woods has argued that there has never been a battle at the
river Yarmuk but rather that the Byzantine army was annihilated before the
battle by bubonic plague in 637 at Gabatha near Emmaus.[4]
The legacy of the
battle
The present day
references of the name Yarmuk is the Jamaat Yarmuk, a jihadist organization of the
Kabardino-Balkaria province in North Caucasus which threatens with terrorist
acts the Winter Olympics of Russia. Also we read this name in the fierce
battles at the Yarmuk Palestinian refugee camps in Syria which is strategically
located to the southern corridor for the control of Damascus. Finally, Yarmuk
is referred in a multitude of articles, books, studies and movies about the
battle in Arabic and Muslim media and blogs. The battle for today’s Islam is
still a historical event of emotional symbolism and inspiring visions for
Islam’s triumph over its enemies.
The names, locations
and people involved in the ongoing conflicts force our imagination to draw
parallels and even make tentative predictions about the future. What is
striking is that the ongoing battle of Yarmuk is Syria for the control of
Damascus and the overthrow of Assad involves once again the Persian, or modern
Iran. This time the ancient Imperial force is present as part of an ongoing
Muslim force engaged in the struggle to redefine the Islamic world. Iran is
trying to reassert its presence in its historical sphere of influence, the
Mesopotamia and the eastern part of Mediterranean as it was for centuries.
The USA standing for
Byzantium is trying to influence the outcome of the conflict through diplomacy,
arms procurement for or against combatants. The West’s role in this ongoing
clash is described as fraudulent and opportunistic. Actually it can be
described by incomprehension and bewilderment.
On the other hand, Iran is well versed in the complexity and nuances of
the local alliances, enmities, sects, tribes and nationalities. The West is
incapable of understanding the deep roots and historical divides of the area.
It is also incapable of understanding the aspirations and the planning of the
various factions for the success of their designs. This places the West in the
same position as the Byzantines who at that time had no inkling of the Arab
drive for conquest. They miscalculated their aspirations and their drive for
expansion and even today the traditional cause of all these, the force of the
new religious faith, which is professed by Arab historians and by some Western analysts
is highly suspect. The Syrian-Arab poet Abu-Tammam born Christian and converted
to Islam writes:
“Not for Paradise didst
thou the nomad life forsake; Rather, I believe it was yearning after bread and
dates.”[5]
Religion is usually a
convenient mantle to idealize and obscure other more vital causes for
historical events that change the world. The drive of economic advantages and
rich booty was a very telling factor of the drive of the ancient Arabs to
attack Syria and subsequently Imperial Persia. Today the immense riches from
energy sources and fight for transportation routes is another cause for both
Western involvement in the area and intra Arab fighting for the allocation of
these revenues which leave tens of millions out of the oil wealth.
Even if we look at the
religious factor of the old and the new we can detect some analogies. The
fervent newly enlightened Muslims of the ancient Arab world fighting with
dedication and self-sacrifice for their faith appear to be close to today’s
mujahedin who still are inculcated with the vision of a Muslim Paradise. The
resurgence of the fanatical and extremist Islam is a reminder of the force
emanating from the newly proselytized to a faith that promises eternal
salvations and release from the insignificance of a life without meaning or
personal fulfillment. This movement, funded and inculcated by Saudi Wahhabism,
just one of the interpretations of Orthodox Sunni tradition, is analogous to
the ancient spirit of the neophytes of Islam in the early days of its
appearance on the scene of the Middle East out of Arabia. The angry messages of
defiance and revenge against the Imperial West, which is considered the invader
of Muslim lands and a threat to its way of life and holy traditions, are
constantly repeated in various forms all over the Muslim world. Lately there
was a peaceful demonstration, of all places, in Simferopol, the capital of the Ukrainian
Black Sea region of Crimea by Hizb-ut-Tahrir (the Party of Freedom).[6]
A woman was carrying a poster: “Stop U.S Imperialism Support a Caliphate”. It
seems that the utopia of a Caliphate is also a remedy for the evil American
Imperialism. What is a Caliphate? Isn’t it a certain political system which
joins together diverse people, races, and ethnicities under a certain
administrative structure? There is no difference between the political notion
of Imperialism, American, Roman, Chinese, Arab, Persian and the notion of Caliphate.
The battle of Yarmuk
created the Umayyad Caliphate in the Middle East and in Cordoba, and also the
Abbasid, Fatimid, Mamluk and finally the suspect Caliphate of Constantinople,
which was abolished in 1924.[7]
All these political entities were by all means imperial. The political legacy
of Byzantium and Persia passed on to the Arabs who reproduced an imperioum no
different than any other imperium in history. Islam’s worldview that the Caliph
is a representative of the Prophet and the defender of the faith is more or
less similar to the Byzantine’s view that the Emperor is the defender of the
Christian faith and equal to the Apostles (Isapostolos).
The battles fought
after 9/11 were an exercise in futility. They have nothing to do with Yarmuk
and its accomplishments thereafter: an Arab Imperium as an Islamic state, an
Islamic culture and a vibrant civilization. What is trying to reemerge under
the rubble of Syria, the bombed souks in Iraq and the maimed children in
Afghanistan is at this moment too confusing and dangerous. Shortly after the
demise of Byzantium, science, technology, progress, of all sorts, personal
freedom and dignity became the guiding principles of our lives: Abrahamites,
Hindus, Shamanists and atheists alike live and act according to these new gods’
demands. The ancient battle of Yarmuk is finished, even if some are still trying
to refight it with selfimmolation, executions, humiliation of women and denial
of education for children. As for the Imperial West, its fate is still a matter
of coordination among the leaders of its various factions, something which the
Imperial Byzantine army failed to secure. It must also attain an understanding
amongst its politicians, intellectuals and economic planners so that it can
make peace with itself and come up with some fresh ideas.
[1] Philip K. Hiti: History of
the Arabs, McMillan, p. 147
[2] Walter E. Kaegi: Byzantium
and the early Islamic conquest, Cambridge, 1992 p. 114
[3] John J. Norwich: Byzantium,
the early centuries. Penguin, 1988, p.306
[4] David Woods: Jews, Rats and
the Battle of Yarmuk, Symposium at Potenza Italy, 2005
[5] Abu-Tammam: Hamasah p. 795
[6] Al-Arabiya July 29 2013
[7] Hitti: ibid, p.705
