|
Page 5
Note 10: Battle of Marj-us-Saffar
Waqidi says nothing in his account about the Battle of Marj-us-Suffar. Yaqubi (Vol. 2, p.
139) and Balazuri (p. 125), mention this battle as being fought before the conquest of
Damascus.
Waqidi, strangely enough, describes two sieges of Damascus, the first one being
abandoned after a short time, while all other historians have mentioned only one siege-the
successful one. According to Waqidi (p. 18), Khalid came to Damascus from the north-
east,
after
the Battle of Busra, fought the battle against Azazeer and Kulus who came out
of Damascus to meet him in the open, and then invested Damascus (p. 21). But soon
after, he raised the siege and marched to Ajnadein to fight Wardan.
Gibbon accepts this version of Waqidi but it does not appear to be really acceptable. In
the context of the mission given to Khalid by the Caliph, of taking command quickly of
the Muslim forces in Syria and fighting the Romans (whose most threatening
concentration was at Ajnadein) such an action does not make sense. It is unthinkable that
Khalid should first approach Damascus from the north-east and raid Marj Rahit; then
bypass Damascus, march to Busra and capture Busra; then again approach Damascus
from the north-east, fight Azazeer and Kulus and invest the city; then raise the siege and
march to Ajnadein.
But the events described by Waqidi in the action against Azazeer and Kulus are real and
correct. They did take place. So I have assumed that they took place before the one and
only siege, and this was the Battle of Marj-us-Suffar.
Page 6
Note 11: Date of Conquest of Damascus
Most early historians and practically all later ones, have given the fall of Damascus as
occurring in Rajab, 14 Hijri (September 635). Waqidi is the only one of the early writers
Created by PDF Generator (http://www.alientools.com), to remove this mark, please register the software.
who has placed it a year earlier, i.e. Rajab, 13 Hijri, and this I regard as correct. There are
various pointers to this in the early accounts, most of which are linked with the death of
Abu Bakr, which occurred on the 22nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 13 Hijri, i.e. the month
preceding the conquest of Damascus, and the removal of Khalid from the command of
the army by Umar.
The letter which Umar wrote to Abu Ubaidah, appointing him the commander of the
army, reached him while a great battle was in progress, and Abu Ubaidah withheld this
information from Khalid until after the battle had been won. This battle could not have
been that of Ajnadein, which was fought-and on this there is universal agreement-in
Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 13 Hijri. Some writers have quoted sources saying that the event took
place at Yaqusa. But this could not be correct either, as Yaqusa was just a one-day battle.
Some who consider that the year of the Battle of Yarmuk was 13 Hijri have said that the
letter reached Abu Ubaidah during this battle. This too is incorrect, as the Battle of
Yarmuk was fought in 15 Hijri.
All the early historians have quoted some sources as saying that the letter reached Abu
Ubaidah while the Muslims were besieging Damascus, and that he did not inform Khalid
of this until after the surrender of the city. In my view this is correct; and if it is, then
Damascus could not have fallen in Rajab, 14 Hijri, for this information regarding the
change of command could not possibly have been concealed from the Muslims for a
whole year. It could be concealed for a few weeks-certainly no more than a month-as I
have assumed.
The pact with the Damascenes was signed by Khalid as the Muslim commander and
witnessed by Abu Ubaidah. This pact was actually seen by Waqidi in the following
century. There can be no question of this pact being signed by Khalid a year after his
removal from command with Abu Ubaidah, the actual commander, only witnessing it.
According to Waqidi (p. 62), the oath of allegiance to Umar was taken by the Muslims at
Damascus on the 3rd of Shaban, 13 Hijri, when they had finished with the siege of
Damascus. And this was after the return of Khalid from his raid at Marj-ud-Deebaj;
which came after the fall of Damascus.
Another point: The Battle of Fahl, according to every historian, was fought in Zu Qad, 13
Hijri, and all historians have quoted some sources as saying that this battle took place
after the conquest of Damascus.
As for the duration of the siege of Damascus, historians disagree. It has been given
variously as one year, six months, four months and 70 days. I put it at about a month. It
could not have been very long, as then Heraclius would certainly have made more than
one attempt to relieve the beleaguered garrison. If Heraclius could raise another large
army for the battle of Fahl, fought in Zu Qad, 13 Hijri, he would certainly have used such
an army for the relief of Damascus, had the siege continued till then. In any case, a
garrison and a population so large could not have been victualled for a long siege in the
three weeks which elapsed after the Battle of Ajnadein until the siege began. Here again
Waqidi's version is the most sensible one.
Keeping all this in mind, we must conclude that Damascus fell on or about Rajab 20,13
Hijri, after a siege of one month.
Created by PDF Generator (http://www.alientools.com), to remove this mark, please register the software.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
