Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 5 (1897).djvu/563

APPENDIX 541 the 23rd of Lous (that is, August)," which was the daj after Abu Bekr's death. The chronology of Theophanes is confused in this period ; there is a discrepancy between the Anni incarnationis and Indictions on one hand, and the Anni Mundi on the other ; and the Anni Mundi are generally a year wrong. So in this case, the Annus Mundi 6126 ( = March 2,5, a.d. 633 to 634) ought to be 6127 ; the 23rd of Lous fell on Tuesday in 634, not in 633 or 635 or 036. There is no question about the reading Awou, which appears in de Boor's edition (p. 338) instead of the old corruption 'louAiou ; it is in the oldest of the Mss. , and is confirmed by the Latin translation.^ (4) The capture of Damascus in Gibbon's chronology precedes the battle of the Yermiik. But it was clearly a consequence, as Theophanes represents, as well as the best Arabic authorities. Khalid who arrived from Irak just in time to take part in the battle of the Yermuk led the siege of Damascus. See Tabari, ed. Kosegarten, ii., p. 161 sqq. (5) The date of the capture of Damascus was Ann. Hij. 13 according to MasudI and Abii-1-Fida, in winter (Tabari) ; hence AVeil deduces Jan. a.d. 635 (see Weil, i., p. 47). On these grounds Weil revised the chronology, in the light of better Arabic sources. He rightly placed the battle of the Yermiik in Aug. 634, and the cap- ture of Damascus subsequent to it. The engagement of Ajnadain he placed shortly before that of the Yermiik, on July 30, a.d. 634, but had to assume that Khalid was not present. As to the battle of Cadesia, he accepts the year given by Tabari (tr. Zotenberg, iii., p. 400) and Masiidi (a.h. 14, a.d. 535) as against that alleged by the older authority Ibn Ishak (ap. Masiidi) as well as by Abu-1-Fida and others (op. cit. p. 71). Finlay follows this revision of Weil : — A.D. 634. Battle of Ajnadain (July 30). Battle of the Yermuk (Aug. 23). ,, 635. Capture of Damascus (Jan.). Battle of Cadesia (spring). ,, 636. Capture of Emesa (Feb.). Capture of Madain. ,, 637-8. Conquest of Palestine. As to the main points Weil is undoubtedly right. That the conquest of Syria began in a.d. 634 and not (as Gibbon gives) a.d. 633, is asserted by Tabari ^ and strongly confirmed by the notice in Xpovoyp. crvvrofxav of Nicephorus (p. 99, ed. de Boor) : ol Sctpa/crj^oi rip^avTO ttjs tov naurhs fpr^fj-cixTfcos t(^ ,spKs' erei jV5. f . The Saracens began their devastation in a.m. 6126 = Ind. 7. a.m. 6126 is current from A.D. 633, March 25, to a.d. 634, March 25, and the 7th Indiction from a.d. 6.33, Sept. 1, to A.D. 634, Sept. 1 ; the common part is Sept. 1, a.d. 633, to March 25, a.d. 634 ; so that we are led to the date Feb., March, 634, for the advance against the Empire. In regard to the capture of Damascus it seems safer to accept the date a.h. 14, which is assigned both bj' Ibn Ishak and Wakidi (quoted by Tabari, ed. Kosegarten, ii., p. 169), and therefore place it later in the year a.d. 635. The weak point in Weil's reconstruction would be the date for the battle of Ajnadain, as contradicting the natural course of the campaign marked out by geography, if it were certain that Ajnadain lay west of the Jordan, as is usually supposed (see map in this volume, where it is indicated in the com- monly accepted position). The battle of the Yermiik on the east of the Jordan naturally preceded operations west of the Jordan. This has been pointed out by Sir W. Muir (Annals of the Early Caliphate, p. 206-7), who observes that the date a.d. 634 (before the Yermiik) "is opposed to the consistent though ver}- summary narrative of the best authorities, as well as to the natural course of the campaign, which began on the east side of the Jordan, all the eastern province being reduced before the Arabs ventured to cross over to the well-garrisoned country west of the 1 Weil falls into error (i, p. 48) when he states that Theophanes is only a year wrong in the date of Mohammad's death. He places it in the year a.d. 630 ; and his reference to the 4th Indiction under that year is justified by the fact that the first half of the Indiction is con- current with the A.M. Weil miscalculates the Indiction, which corresponds to 630-1, not to 631-2. 2 III. p. 347, tr. Zotenberg^ "At the beginning of the 13th year of the Hijra no part of Syria was conquered and Abu Bekr resolved to invade it ".