This is coolbert:
Here is reprinted in almost entirety, an account of how the Byzantines saved western civilization and Europe from Islamic conquest.
Should be considered and appreciated as a military victory over the Muslims that is of the same consequence as the Frankish defeat of Abd al Rahman at Tours?
A high-water mark of history? Thus and no further. At least for a period of over seven hundred years in the case of the Byzantines.
Thanks here to Raymond Ibrahim through JihadWatch. And also to Robert Spencer.
My comments in [brackets] of course.
"The year was 715, and one Suleiman had risen to the caliphate. He immediately made it clear that he would be the one Muslim who would fulfill Muhammad’s prophecy that Constantinople would eventually be subsumed into the umma [Islamic nation world-wide]. After spending nearly two years mustering the Muslims and preparing a massive navy, he unleashed the full might of the caliphate: the chroniclers say that 120,000 infantry and cavalry, along with 80,000 seamen, were sent to seal Constantinople’s fate. To further give his 'blessing' to this campaign, and evincing how seriously he took it, he appointed his own brother, Maslama, at the head of the land army."
"While making their way through that great desolate no-man’s land between the Byzantine and Umayyad empires, where certain Turkic tribes (then mushrikin) [mushrikin = pagan unbelievers] frequented the region, the Muslims would often wait till near dawn, and then shout in mass 'Allahu Akbar!' (God is greatest), attacking and slaying all in their path. According to the Muslim chronicler al-Tabari, 'The inhabitants of the city were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.' (Al-Tabari goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: 'We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!')"
"Simultaneously, the Muslim fleets were on their way to the Bosporus. Luckily for Constantinople, Leo III came to power [Byzantine Emperor], since it was in part due to his many stratagems that the Muslims were repulsed. (Tabari simply relates that Leo continuously duped Maslama, as if the latter were 'a silly plaything of a woman.') "
"At any rate, the Byzantine war-ships, which had recently come to utilize a new 'secret weapon' commonly known as 'fire-water' or 'Greek fire,' [the exact chemical composition of Greek Fire is unknown to this day?] according to Theophanes, set ablaze almost the entire Muslim fleet. After this Christian victory, the Byzantines settled into their fortified city for the winter, and let the elements have their way with Maslama’s massive land force. According to the chroniclers, this was by far one of the harshest winters; many thousands of Muslims perished of starvation and disease. Says Theophanes: 'Some even say they put dead men and their own dung in pans, kneaded this, and ate it. A plague-like disease descended on them, and destroyed a countless throng.' The second sentence verifies the veracity of the first."
"The new caliph, Omar II (the ambitious Suleiman had by now died of 'indigestion,' apparently after consuming two baskets of eggs and figs, followed by marrow and sugar for dessert) had just assumed the caliphate. After many Muslims had died out on the frontiers (where snow lasted on the earth for 100 days), Omar finally sent reinforcements and supplies. It was by now spring, and the Muslims tried one last effort. The chroniclers relay that some 800 ships were sent from Alexandria and North Africa to the Bosporus, this time on guard against the Greek fire. Maslama had also renewed the siege."
"Delivery for Constantinople came from the least expected source—the Egyptian crew of the Alexandrian ships. During the night, they all fled to Constantinople, acclaiming the Christian emperor. Why? Because they were all primarily still Christian—Copts—and, contrary to the many apologetics that suggest the Copts 'welcomed' the invading Muslims [Egypt prior to the Islamic invasion was Christian [Coptic persuasion], and to this day, 10 % of the Egyptian population is still Christian], as this anecdote clearly reveals, had no great love for Islamic rule. Theophanes says that, as the Copts were fleeing in desertion to the city, 'the sea looked entirely made of wood.' Taking advantage of this, Leo released from the citadel once again the fire-ships. Considering the loss of manpower with the Copts’ desertion, the confrontation was more a rout than a battle."
"Finally, and due to Leo’s 'diplomatic' overtures to the warlike Bulgars [still a pagan people at the time?], he managed to get this Turkic people to attack Maslama’s already wearied army—killing, according to the chroniclers, 22,000 Muslims. It was over, and, on August 15th, 718, the siege was lifted, and the dejected Muslim army made its way back to Dar al-Islam."
"Though many historians have rightly hailed the somewhat contemporary Battle of Tours of 732, where Charles the Hammer repulsed the invading Muslim armies, as one of the most decisive victories for Western civilization, in fact, the Byzantine victory over the Muslims is more important: it had the full backing of the caliphate, and consisted of far greater manpower. Had the Muslims won, and since Byzantium was the bulwark of Europe’s eastern flank, there would have been nothing in their way from turning the whole of Europe into the north-western appendage of Dar al-Islam [House of Islam. Within the "fold" of of Islam]."
15 August, 718, a date that will live in history? Hardly thought of anymore? But ask yourself this - - is Tours ever thought of anymore, remembered, or even casually mentioned in the history of Europe, etc.?
The Byzantines in general are given short shrift by historians? Quite a remarkable people if one considers that their civilization [empire] existed in some form for about 1,000 years. And can be considered in some regard as a continutation of the prior Roman Empire? In that case you are talking about a continuity that lasted for almost 2,000 years!!!
The Orthodox persuasion of Christianity too is also not held in high regard by Catholic or Protestant historians? This should not be the case! The earliest forms of Christianity are remarkably similiar to current Orthodoxy!? And when one considers the various other forms of "eastern" Christianity, to include the Copts, Maronites, Nestorians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., there is a very long and amazing history that "western" Christians should not ignore!!
Raymond Ibrahim is wise to remind us of this particular Byzantine military success?
I think so! Otherwise, no reprint in almost entirety.