Talk:Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

message: When I search for 1st siege of constantinople, the link doesn't exist and when it is shown its red. But this is the article. Can someone please redirect 1st siege of constantinople to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, the Arab siege of 674 was actually the second siege of Constantinople, and the first was the siege by the Persians several decades earlier. At the moment, "First Arab Siege of Constantinople" redirects here, but I could have Second Siege of Constantinople redirect here as well if you wish.  --Grimhelm 11:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could this be the second arab siege of constantinople when the "first one" involved the persians?  It's a contradiction.  Constantinople has been sieged by many, many armies from many nations.  I don't think the Sassanid Dynasty were the first ones to siege it either.  Atilla the Hun stopped just short of taking the city thanks to the construction of the Theodosian Walls.  It doesn't really say whether Atilla engaged in an actual siege of the city or not though, just that the walls saved the city.  The first real foreign siege of the city after it was renamed to Constantinople, barring Atilla the Hun, was a joint effort by the Avars and Sassanid Persians. Bbcrackmonkey 10:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no contradiction: this was the first siege by the Arabs but the second siege by any army. You just said yourself the First Siege of Constantinople was by the Avars and Persians in 626. The second Siege of Constantinople (ie. the "First Arab Siege") was in 674, which is what this article is about. The third Siege of Constantinople (the "Second Arab Siege") was in 717. I think a look at the Sieges of Constantinople article may clear things up for you. --Grimhelm 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirecting 

message: Dont tell me that any general can handle 200,000 army ! it was not a picnic okey...... the strength of Muslim army has been greatly exaggrated .. more over there is no refference that what the muslims sources says about there army strength, i am gonna find some suitable reference and will gonna edit this strength stuff.
Mohammad Adil 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok lol!!!Tourskin 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of Arab army ? 

message: Doubting the historicity of a text doubts the origin of the text itself: perhaps there's a better way. And perhaps " a later interpolation by an anonymous source used by Theophanes, which was influenced by the events of the second Arab siege of 717–718. " can be made to make clearer sense. --Wetman (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I catch what you mean in your first sentence. I've tried to clarify the latter, but unless I post Howard-Johnston's theory in full, I am not sure I can come across clearly enough. Perhaps you could help me in this? Constantine   ✍  17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's much better just reporting the dissimilar accounts, without introducing "historicity"; then the modern assessment can be dealt with in its relevant paragraph further down. Theophanes" "hitherto unique" account: I made it "unique among Christian sources", because the Arab account was always there, simply waiting to be read. --Wetman (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but again I have no idea what you're talking about... Could you please be a bit more specific? Constantine   ✍  00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historicity"