THE GREAT CONQUESTS 27legacy of the old Roman legions, and the experience of fighting mounted
warriors in the east, was a formidable foe. The core of the army was heavy
cavalry armed with lance and bow. These were supported by various light
troops. All were well trained and equipped—at least in theory. Even in
literature the Byzantines were strong; since they enjoyed several military
manuals that carefully guided every aspect of a campaign and were based
on centuries of military experience. All of this reflects the care and atten-
tion that the Byzantines lavished on their military. It is not surprising that
they did not seriously regard their rude opponents.
Battle was joined at Ajnadain, about twenty-five miles southwest of
Jerusalem. It is not well chronicled, but the exploits of one Zarrar ibn al
Azwar are wonderful. Possibly they are even true. Other events seem more
possible, as they are illustrative of Byzantine and Arab practices.
Both armies were divided into divisions. Left, right, center, and rear
guard. This would have been normal for the imperial forces, and inno-
vative for the Arabs. The Byzantines then sent a black-robed monk to
offer negotiation with the enemy, but actually to spy. This seems possible,
for the Byzantines used trickery and treachery when it suited them. Their
surviving military manuals detail some of these tricks. The Muslims re-
sponded to the monk by offering conversion orjizyah,the payment of a
tax, and a token of submission. In keeping with Arab practice, as can be
seen in the account of the Battle of Badr in Chapter 1, the fighting may
have started with a contest of champions. In this fabled duel, Zarrar slew
several Byzantine leaders, including two city governors. This wonderful
heroism sadly, is unlikely to have occurred. Imperial leaders were taught
to use their armies as weapons and would have considered personal chal-
lenges dangerous and backward. Fighting continued through the day with
significant losses on both sides.
At the beginning of the second day, the Byzantines may have attempted
to reopen negotiations with Khalid, intending to kill him by treachery
during the parley. In the event, as the legend goes, Zarrar foiled the plot,
and slew the enemy leader. This wonderful tale may be true. The Byz-
antines considered assassination a useful military tool. If true, this event
caused fury in the Arab lines and confusion in the imperial ranks at the
same time. The Muslims charged and swept the field.
The Battle of Ajnadain left both sides exhausted with heavy casualties.
Not even Khalid could organize a pursuit, and the beaten imperial troops
fled north to shelter in the walled cities of the provinces. The Arabs re-
turned to the Deraa front, confident that their rear was secure. They still
had their eyes on Damascus. As for the Byzantines, it is likely that the
field army’s defeat weakened the morale of troops occupying the positions