Talk:Battle of the Masts
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Crescent???? edit
The Crescent symbol does not represent Islam. It's the symbol that represent the Turks and only became widely use during the reign of Seljuk Dynasty in the Middle East around 11th century. Prior to that, Muslim's army carry a black banner to battle. The current use of star and crescent in the Islamic country's flag today doesn't have anything to do with being an Islamic country as much as paying homage to the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic empire in the world. 202.60.56.232 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What the hell it is ....???? edit
muslims had no navy up to 650 A.D how could this naval battle could took place in 634 A.D ?????? Mohammad Adil 12:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes they did edit
Of course they did. Syllaeum was not a total crushing defeat. Besides, Arabs were excellent ship builders - they did give rise to the empire of Carthage. So they must have had a naval fleet. Tourskin.
- Oh wait a minute. Damn you're right. What the hell? Vandalism has occured. The date is definetly not 634 AD. It should be after 677 AD becuase thats when Syllaeum took place. Tourskin.
- "Empire of Carthage" - you mean the Phoenician Carthaginian Empire? They were not Arabs.104.169.39.45 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed edit
Well I changed the date to > 677 becuase that would make the campaign box look stupid if an earlier battle was placed later in the series. I looked at some websites and it claimed a loss of 500 Greek ships. This is highly unlikely, considering the Byzantines were able to use their navy at 717 AD again and that Syllaeum had defeated the Arabs. Tourskin 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We need 50mg Adrenaline here - STAT! edit
Even my stubs have more info than this one. We can't assert anything from this article. All we know is that there was a naval battle. We don't even know who won - the Byzantines couldn't have lost because they had a naval victory before and after this one and the Arabs couldn't have lost because they had the ability to ferry in troops in teh second siege of constantinople Tourskin 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The website referenced calls it 'Zat Al-Sawari', but the article is 'that'. Is it a transliterational mistake or are both right? Blast 07.04.07 0658 (UTC)
- That (as in english words that , this) is a correct native spell , Zat also a correct spell if you ain't a native arabic speaker , because they can not spell Th easily . Some translators use Z rather than Th , it's not recommanded Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 06:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Name edit
As "That Al-Sawari" is not a place name, shouldn't the article's title be the translated English form, i.e. "Battle of the Masts" as per WP:ENGLISH? That's how I've seen it in English books, at any rate, and I seriously doubt anyone in the non-Arab speaking world would use the Arab term. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Major cleanup performed edit
Removed most POV and unreferenced material (although I didn't remove the quoted text, hoping that someone will soon provide a proper reference). Alleged numbers of combatants and casualties can be brought back to the article, if properly referenced (Arab-only forums, and forums in general, are not considered reliable references). Same applies to the battle details. Dipa1965 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I left the correspondence between Umar and Muawiyah in its place but we also need a reference there. Which Arab source this text is quoted from? Is it a reliable translation? Dipa1965 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Were the numbers come from ??? 200 and 500 ships ? No reference at all, I propose to be replaced by 'unknown'. As usual, Byzantine strength, in case of a defeat, is again exaggerated.Oberoon (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)