Talk:Expedition to Tabuk

message: I find it hard to believe that the Byzantine forces were so huge.  Further, this wasnt even a battle! Naerhu 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is a persistent poster of Muslim myth.  The Army could not be that big because it would have been about half the Byzantine Army and stripped the borders.  The problem is that Muslim historians have built this into a massive Muslim victory over the cowardly Romans.  But it is ahistorical. Lao Wai 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that Lao Wai hadn't read a single Muslim historian account of the expedition. According to Muslim historians there was no actual fighting. The expedition was a preemptive measure, caused by the rumours of large Roman(Byzantine) army preparing to invade Arabia. It proved to be a false alarm, since no such army was encountered. All this babbling about "conspirating Muslim historians" and "Muslim myth" is caused by misinformation. No Muslim historian tries to "built it into massive Muslim victory over the cowardly Romans".78.191.91.99 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The valiant 200,000? 

message: This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire."  If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire" 

message: : I agree. This article needs to be formatted in a far more neutral sense as it talks about Mohammed and Heracliu as if it were a documentary or out of an eye witness account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just adjusted the article to take into account that most agree it was neither decisive. I also changed the words 'the enemy' to Byzantines and 'Muslims' to 'Arabs', it is politicaly incorrect to say Muslims and inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it inaccurate to say "Muslims"?  They were pretty much all Muslims.  And it can't quite be indecisive either because no battle took place in the first place, it was more like an expedition which if they fought could've been considered a battle.  How about "None"? Jedi Master MIK 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tabuk 

message: Pardon me if this will sound totally like sheer madness but maybe the title should be changed from "Battle of Tabouk" to something like "Expedition of Tabouk"?  As it has been agreed on so far, no battle or fighting ever even took place but something on the scale and fitting in description of something like an expedition did take place though.  Whether there were troop movements by any opposing force or not doesn't even matter as it never came either if there was one at all.  So, comments anyone? Jedi Master MIK 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to this. Misdemenor (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title Change 

message: Can someone please verify the contents of the 'expedition' section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.167.66 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The expedition 

message: I have removed the Kaegi source, which makes NO mention of a battle nor giving a date for said fake battle in September 629.
Also, Rafig Y. Aliyev, Loud Thoughts on Religion, Trafford Publishing, p. 53-54, makes no mention of a battle, even calling it "Expedition to Tabuk". Therefore this source will also be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly recommend naming the article as Expedition to Tabuk, for this reason. The success of the mission was securing the northwestern border and making sure they pay tribute, this is mentioned in the New Cambridge History of Islam, volume 1, page 192. Most trustworthy source on this area. No contact with Byzantine were made, as far as I'm aware. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with you Alexis. I have found no reliable sources calling this a "battle". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source misrepresentation