Talk:Battle of Guadalete

message: I am going to change the troop numbers to "unknown". To assume that the Arabs had only 7,000 men is incrediably stupid because in a few years time the invasion of 732 in France had an expedition force of between 30,000 and 80,000 men and the 80,000 men figure was given by Muslim sources. This battle is not the only article suffering from extreme bias - the battles in the Byzantine-Arab Wars also mention ridiculous numbers. 
If there were 80,000 men after this battle, then there must have been much more before because in any campaign, troop numbers naturally decrease due to disease and battle casualties. The Arab Armies at the time or any armies of any time do not ever include 7,000 Rambo's with guns beating thousands of "enemies". Tourskin 00:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But were there 80,000 men after this battle? Ancient historians more often overestimate than underestimate army strengths, see Delbrück's opening chapter in his series on military history (it should be in the first volume regardless of the edition). Jacob Haller 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conquering a country with 7,000 troops, even if they were armed with Rocket-machine guns, is impossible. Logistically speaking, 7000 cannot take a country. The end?Tourskin (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  7.000 troops are a lot. When you say "take a country", are you tinking of a "modern and united country"? That was in 711 while the Visigothic state was almost broken down. Besides, what about Musa ibn Nusair and his reinforcements. So, those figures are about Guadalete/La Janda battle, not about the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The conquest itself is onother story. Moreover, for the battle and during the conquest the invaders counted on strong internal support.(Threshold (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: How do you suppose 7,000 men can occupy a country? Think in logistics!!! You need to place troops in strategic areas to guard certain bridges and passways. You need troops to act as scouts, troops as vanguards, rearguards. You need troops all over the country to collect taxes from the villages. The entire country did not unconditionally surrender. Nowadays, you can conquer a united modern country with 7,000 men, weakening your argument, by launching a coup de'tat. But there are no lines of communications, no transport no electronics to help let the population know you rule. Furthermore, there were 80,000 men in southern France at the Battle of Tours, Islamic sources say so themselves!  I have the references, by Grant:
Tourskin (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Wars 

message: Many of the primary sources for the history of Spain in this period are unreliable and contradictory. So there  are schools of historical opinion, rather than settled facts. The article cites the Chronicle of 754, but that contains very little about the battle and overall conquest, and what it does contain seems in general unreliable, unlike later parts of the Chronicle. See the latest critical Latin edition (with Spanish translation and introductory essays): J. Eduardo Lopez Pereira, Continuatio Isidoriana Hispana Cronica Mozarabe de 754. Fuentes y Estudios de Historia Leonesa 127. León, 2009. As a consequence of this reliance on the Chronicle, the article must depend heavily on the interpretations of Roger Collins, but these are not universally accepted. For the particular period of the initial invasion, his own reliance on the Chronicle and disregard of other sources is idiosyncratic rather than definitive ... as are the ideas of Joaquin Vallve which, although intellectually stimulating, are now considered more in the nature of red herrings than true leads.
Regarding the many debates above re numbers in the various armies, it would be wise to remember that as early as the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun expressed scepticism about the numbers he was reading in medieval battle histories. MisterCDE (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning re the sources

message: Morocco in 711? Could you explain that? It seems a bit confusing!
:Hello random person, when they say Morocco, they mean the geographical region where the nation of Morocco sits today  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresatopi1 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarik took troops from Morocco to Hispania?