The Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle stands out for being an early Latin language text that partly describes the rise of Islam and some of the early Muslim conquests. The original text is included in a collection of writings called Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum ("Corpus of Mozarabic Writings") compiled by Juan Gil.
The term 'Mozarabs' (adjective: Mozarabic) is used to refer to the Iberian Christians who lived under Muslim rule in Spain. The term is derived from the Arabic musta'rab ("one who becomes Arabized"), and it is used in this context because many Iberian Christians who lived under Muslim rule learned the Arabic language and were able to compose writings in the language. However, Iberian Romance languages that evolved from the spoken forms of Latin remained the main vernaculars for the Iberian Christians living under Muslim rule. Further, Latin retained its status as the main higher language of literature.
In terms of content, the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle consists of three strands: (i) Visigothic rule in Spain, (ii) Byzantine affairs and (iii) the rise of Islam. These strands are of course interconnected as the Muslims conquered substantial portions of Byzantine territory and ended Visigothic rule in Spain. However, as far as covering internal affairs is concerned, the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle is highly uneven. For instance, there are few details on the Visigothic kings.
 Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum, which includes the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle. |
Of most interest to the historian is the content on the rise of Islam and what it can tell us about the anonymous author. In fact, it is the earliest surviving Latin text that mentions the Prophet Muhammad by name. Interestingly, in its account of Muhammad, the text differs somewhat from the standard Islamic history accounts. Whereas Muhammad is normally said to have died in 632 CE prior to the beginning of the Muslim conquests, the text portrays him as the leader of Saracen (Arab/Muslim) armies invading Syria and Mesopotamia, with the seat of an empire established in Damascus prior to his death. The text, however, is not hostile to Muhammad and Islam. In fact it strikes a rather sympathetic tone overall.
Perhaps even more interesting is the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle's account of Islamic history following the Prophet's death. No mention is made of Ali, who was the Prophet's cousin and is traditionally deemed to have been the fourth of the Rashidun caliphs. Instead, the account transitions straight from the assassination of Othman (the third of the Rashidun caliphs) to Mu'awiya (the first Umayyad caliph). As for Yazid bin Mu'awiya (the second Umayyad caliph), he is portrayed in panegyric terms as a beloved ruler who rejected glory for the sake of royal honour. No mention is made at all of the Battle of Karbala' in which the Prophet's grandson Hussein was killed- an event for which Yazid is widely condemned among Muslims.
So who might the author have been? One line of speculation is that the author was an Iberian convert to Islam. In my view, this hypothesis is unlikely, because the author does not endorse the Muslim belief that Muhammad is the apostle of God but rather describes that belief from an external standpoint:
"They treat him with such great honour and reverence that they affirm that he is the apostle and prophet of God in all their sacraments and writings."
Indeed, the author has very little to say about the details of the Prophet's life that have become so familiar from the traditional Islamic accounts, such as the nature of the message he preached, his migration from Mecca to Medina, his conflict with his own tribe the Quraysh and his eventual triumphant return to Mecca. This further suggests that the author is not a Muslim.
Similarly, it should be noted that an external standpoint is used in the brief reference to Muslim beliefs about Abraham and Mecca.
It is more likely that the author was an Iberian who had found favour with the Umayyad authorities in Spain or perhaps wanted to curry favour with them. This theory would definitely explain the sympathetic account of Yazid bin Mu'awiya.
Regarding chronology, we should note that the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle begins with the end of the rule of the Visigothic king Recarredus (601 CE). As has been noted by others, the work's composition cannot date earlier than 741 CE, as it states that the Byzantine emperor Leo III ruled for 24 years (717-741 CE), and he is the last Byzantine emperor mentioned in the account. The final sentence of the work mentions the Umayyad caliph Al-Walid II (Al-Walid bin Yazid), who ruled in the period 743-744 CE. However, in that sentence the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle does not say that his reign has finished, only that it had been decreed that he should succeed to the Caliphate. It is also worth noting that Al-Walid II was a great-grandson of Marwan I. According to the author, a great-grandson of Marwan I is ruling "in our times." This point suggests that the work was composed in the reign of Al-Walid II.
I have translated the Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle in full below together with my reference notes and comments.
[Revised 6 March 2024].
-------------------------------------------------
Reccaredus died[i] after 15 years of rule.[ii]
Era 639: after Reccaredus, his son Liuua, who was born to a non-noble mother, was put in charge of the Goths and ruled for two years.[iii]
Era 641: Uuittericus ruled the kingdom for 7 years.[iv] He had seized it from Liuua through a coup. But as he had lived by the sword, he died by the sword. Indeed the death of the innocent Liuua the son of the Reccaredus was not unavenged against him. During a lunch banquet he was killed by his own men.
Era 642: Foca (of the Romans[v] 56). He was put in charge of the kingdom through a coup. He remained in charge for 8 years.[vi] The Persians,[vii] left their abodes and enjoyed success against the Romans. With the Romans driven back, they subdued Syria, Arabia and Egypt.
Era 648: After Uuitericus, Gundemarus was put in charge of the Goths for two years.[viii]
Era 649 (of the Romans 56): Eraclius was crowned emperor.[ix] He had rebelled against Foca while based out of Africa.[x] He did so because of his love for the very noble virgin Flavia.[xi] She had been betrothed to Eraclius in Africa, and by order of the princeps[xii] Foca, she was deported from the borders of Libya to Constantinople. The aforementioned princeps Eraclius- spurred on by such a cause- armed and united the forces of the entire West, and fought a naval battle against the state with more than 1000 ships. He made Nicita (the master of soldiers of the Romans)[xiii] leader of the combined land army. In turn, the following pact was struck: that control of the whole empire should be given to the one who should first reach Constantinople. Thus Eraclius, departing from Africa, reached the royal city more quickly by sailing. Through warfare, he subdued Foca,[xiv] who put up some resistance against him. And so the Byzantines offered the captured Foca to Eraclius to be slaughtered.
Of the Romans 57. Eraclius was made princeps by the Senate[xv] after the killing of Foca. He ruled for 30 years.
With great toil, Nicita the master of soldiers reached Egypt. He launched an offensive with much courage and strenuousness, and thus he slaughtered the Persians in battle and restored the provinces of Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Judaea and Mesopotamia to imperial control through very skilful fighting.
Era 650: Sisebutus was made king of the Goths. He ruled for 8 years.[xvi]
The Persians burst forth from their abodes again and disturbed the provinces neighbouring them by means of surprise incursions. Also the son of Cosdroas[xvii] the king of the Persians fled from his father and offered himself to the Roman princeps, hoping to defend himself by the arms of Rome and promising to hand over his father's kingdom to the Augustus.[xviii]
After bringing together the military forces of the state, Eraclius set out for Persia. And Cosdroas, informed of this news, set out to confront him with the whole army of Persia as well as huge contingents of auxiliaries of the neighbouring peoples. After routing and killing the forces of the Persians, Eraclius took places by storm and captured them all the way up to the city of Susa, which was the capital and centre of the Persians' kingdom. And he destroyed the cities, villages and towns of all the regions and reduced the area into a province of the Roman empire. Having removed the Persians' authority and destroyed their kingdom, he returned happily to the new Rome[xix] with great glory.
In the seventh year of the aforementioned princeps,[xx] hostile Saracen rebels of the Roman provinces began causing disturbances, doing so through secret attacks rather than open attacks. Theodorus,[xxi] the brother[xxii] of Eraclius the Augustus, engaged in many battles against them. Having heard the news, Eraclius advised his brother that in no way should he be in conflict with such people, because Eraclius was no less familiar with the discipline of astrology, and if anything should turn out by chance, he was not ignorant in any way.[xxiii]
A huge multitude of united Saracens invaded the provinces of Syria, Arabia and Mesopotamia. Holding the principate[xxiv] over them was a man by the name of Mahmet,[xxv] born of the noblest tribe of that people:[xxvi] he was a rather knowledgeable man and a foreseer of some things to come.
Era 658: Suintila undertook the worthy reins of governance in the kingdom of the Goths.[xxvii]
Eraclius gave instructions to be issued throughout all the provinces and even islands of his empire, stipulating that whatever Roman legions were placed as garrisons in various places of the land, should come to the Syrian city of Damascus in order to overcome the enemy.
With the numerous soldiers of the Romans, Theodorus gave battle at the town of Gabatha.[xxviii] But such were the terror and might of the enemy for the Roman legions that subsequently scarcely any were left alive to report what had happened. In this struggle also Theodorus the brother of the Augustus was killed. The Saracens were certain that such a great mass of Roman nobles had been laid low and they had shaken off fear of the Roman name. They thus firmly took possession of the provinces that they had invaded a little while ago, and they established a kingdom at Damascus, the most splendid city of Syria.[xxix]
The aforementioned princeps of the Saracens Mahmet died after ruling his kingdom for ten years. They treat him with such great honour and reverence that they affirm that he is the apostle and prophet of God in all their sacraments and writings. In his place Habubeccar of the Saracens,[xxx] who arose from the same place as his predecessor, was elected by his own people. Leading a very great expedition into the Persian lands, he devastated the cities and towns, while capturing some of the fortifications.
Eraclius departed from the mortal world, dying because of dropsy.
Nearly three years after he became leader, Habubeccar died. After his death, Hamer became ruler of the kingdom of the Saracens for 10 years.[xxxi]
Era 678. Of the Romans 58. Constantinus the son of Eraclius became ruler of the Roman empire for less than a year, ruling despite the Senate's opposition.[xxxii]
Hamer of the Saracens directed the cohorts of his nation to wage war on all the nearby eastern and western nations in a very energetic manner. He placed Alexandria (which was the oldest and most flourishing civil metropolis of Egypt) under the censuary yoke[xxxiii] after defeating the Roman garrisons that were stationed there. And the aforementioned Hamer, leader of the Ismailites,[xxxiv] ordered for the town of Babilo to be founded[xxxv] as well as garrisons which still stand even now, in order to protect against the Roman realm. And while his auxiliary armies were bringing the triumph of victory from all parts whether in the West or the East, after ten years of his rule he was killed by a certain slave while he was attending prayers.
Of the Romans 59: Constans the son of Constantinus undertook administration of the state after his father died. He ruled for 27 years.[xxxvi]
For the Saracens, Etheman assumed the leadership of his people and ruled for 12 years.[xxxvii] This man brought Libya Marmoricis[xxxviii] and Pentapolis,[xxxix] as well as Kazania[xl] and even Aethiopia (which lie beyond Egypt in the expanses of desert) under the Saracens' command and control. And he made very many cities of the Persians become tributaries. After accomplishing these things, Etheman was killed in the Saracens' civil war.
But soon Moabia obtained his seat and ruled for 25 years.[xli] For five of these years he waged civil wars with his own people. For 20 years he made all the peoples of the Ismailites become very happily obedient to him.[xlii] Constans the Augustus unsuccessfully fought against him despite gathering more than 1000 ships to fight. Constans scarcely managed to escape with a few men. Through Moabia's commander also called Habedella,[xliii] who for a time held the position of supreme commander, many successes were attained in the West. Habedella came to Tripoli. He also assailed Cuida and Helemptie by waging war against them,[xliv] and after causing much desolation, destruction and devastation, he took control of these provinces. Still thirsty for blood, he arrived in Africa. Therefore preparations for battles were made, and the battleline of the Moors[xlv] was put to flight and all the nobility of Africa and Count Gregory[xlvi] were killed and wiped out. The renowned Habedella returned with large largess and with all his cohorts and thus reached Egypt, while Moabia was ruling for the tenth year.
Constans the Augustus, who ran through his state kindling the fire of sedition, was killed at the renowned city of Syracuse in Sicily by a plot of his ministers. At that point he had ruled for 27 years. But Constantinus the elder of his sons undertook the care of administering the Roman empire.
Of the Romans 60: Constantinus heard that his father was killed at Syracuse[xlvii] by the sedition of his own men. He was crowned emperor and ruled for years.[xlviii]
Moabia the king of the Saracens directed 100,000 of his men to obey his son Yzit[xlix] (to whom Moabia had also decreed the kingdom) and go and assault the city of Constantinople. They surrounded it for the entire spring season but could not bear the toil of hunger and pestilence, and thus they abandoned the siege of the city and captured very many towns.[l] Loaded with booty, they safely returned two years later to Damascus and their king who had sent them. So Moabia died after ruling as princeps for 20 years and living five of them as a civilian.
After Moabia died, his son Yzit ruled for three years. Yzit was a most pleasant man and considered to be most gracious in the eyes of all the nations subjected to his rule. He never sought any glory for the sake of royal honour for himself (as is the custom of men), but rather he lived as a civilian in common with all. In the times of his rule, few or no successes were accomplished by the armies under his direction.
After three years he came to the end of his reign and left his son Moabia as successor,[li] who was similar to his father in his manners. Once this Moabia attained power, he remitted a third of the tribute for all the provinces of his kingdom.[lii] And he himself, departed from this light before he had remained in rule for a half a year.
Of the Romans 61. Iustinianus was put in charge of the kingdom by the senate. He ruled for 10 years before the first dispossession and for 10 years after receiving control of the kingdom again.
After the younger Moabia died, the armies of all the provinces chose two leaders for themselves: one called Abdella,[liii] the other Maroan,[liv] whose great-grandson holds the position of principate over them in our times. The following happened in the span of nearly two years: Abdella was elected princeps by the consent of all, while Maroan was cruelly driven by Abdella from the borders of Almidina[lv] together all his children and indeed his relatives, and Maroan was ordered to remain in exile at Damascus. But some time afterwards, with some from the army agreeing and God overlooking, he was carried forth to the position of rule. The two sides waged indescribable and numerous battles continuously against each other in the second year of Abdella's rule, and an innumerable multitude of men fell from both armies as they engaged in numerous battles against each other. While both sides noticed that their strength was being sapped more and more with the excess fighting, Maroan, the king of one region, sent envoys in supplication to Constantinus the Augustus and demanded that peace be granted to him. On these conditions a peace of nine years was granted to him: that he should restore safe and sound the captives and fugitives who were in all the Saracens' provinces to their own homes. In addition, the king of the Saracens was to give to the emperor Augustus a quantity of 1000 solidi of gold of integral weight, one girl, an Arabian mule and fine silk on a daily basis without intermission for a continual period of 9 years. Indeed before Maroan died, he divided the provinces of the Ismailites among his sons: that is, he left the regions of Persis, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Osdroena, Arabia and Syria to his firstborn Habdelmele to rule.[lvi] He left Egypt and the parts of further Aethiopia, Tripolei and Africa and the adjacent provinces all the way to the Gaditanan straits to his son Habdellaziz.[lvii] He gave command of the armies and navies to his son Mahmet, so that once the period of peace ended after nine years he might be devoted to expeditions against the Roman realm and all the neighbouring nations. Thus everything was diligently and prudently carried out, and after one year of fighting was finished, Maroan paid back his debt to human nature and, as he himself had ordered, he left Habdelemele his eldest son as successor.
Of the Romans 62. Once Iustinianus[lviii] was overthrown in a coup, Leo was crowned king. He ruled for three years.[lix]
After him, of the Romans 63. Absimarus was put in charge in that manner. He ruled for eight years.[lx]
Habdelmele assumed control of his kingdom and ruled for 20 years. In the first year of his rule, he directed his army, with all its experience and zeal, to fight against Habdella (whom his father had attacked so many times in various wars) all the way up to Macca eventually: they consider this place to be the home of Abraham, which lies in the desert between Ur of the Chaldeans and Carra the city of Mesopotamia. Once the assault was initiated, king Habdella was killed by the leader of the army called Tahihie[lxi] who had been appointed by king Habdemele. And the decapitated head of the aforementioned Habdella was presented to Habdelmele the son of king Maroan at Damascus by Aiaie the leader of the army.[lxii] Thus, in the sixth year of the rule of the aforementioned princeps,[lxiii] internal civil wars hae been put to an end in all areas, and thus he attacked the borders of external peoples in the shrewdest manner. For he made the provinces of many people, states, villages, towns and castles become tributaries subject to his command. And as his previously mentioned brother (to whom his father had handed power from the borders of Egypt all the way to the Gaditan strait and had ordered to be successor of the kingdom after Habdelmele) had been overcome by a fatal accident, Habdelmele decreed that the kingdom was all the same to be handed over to his own children. Of course he handed over to his firstborn son Hulit the kingdom so that Hulit could rule it after him[lxiv] and he also ordered his brother called Zoleiman[lxv] to be his follower. And thus by making orders out of expediency, as he had learnt from his father, he set things in order for his children and after finishing that year of his rule in security, he departed from this light.
Iustinianus, aided by the force and strength of the Chazars, returned to Constantinople and came to reside in his own kingdom with those who had rebelled against him some time ago and were now overcome.[lxvi]
Hulit succeeded to wield the scepters of the kingdom according to what his father had set forth. He ruled for nine years. Hulit was a wholly prudent man in organising his armies, and he enjoyed so much divine favour that he broke the courage of almost all the peoples nearest to him. Among all his accomplishments, he weakened the Roman realm by continually ravaging it. He also brought the nearby islands under his rule. He thoroughly subdued the territory of India by ravaging them. Also in the western parts, via the commander of his army called Musa,[lxvii] he attacked and conquered the kingdom of the Goths that had been strengthened by long-standing stability in the regions of Spain. Having overthrown the Goths' kingdom, he made them become tributaries. Thus having successfully conducted all matters he died after the riches of all the peoples subject to him were handed over and presented to him.
Of the Romans 64: Philippicus the usurper[lxviii] usurped the kingdom after Iustianianus was killed in a revolt that he had stirred up. After this 65. Anastasius was crowned.[lxix] And then 66. Artemius, also known as Theodosius[lxx] was put in charge of the kingdom. These men ruled civilly for five years.
Among the Arabs: following Hulit's death, his blood brother Zoleiman ruled the kingdom for three years in accordance with the succession plan his father had laid out. This man, hostile to the Roman realm, sent his brother called Mazalema (born from the same mother) with 100,000 armed men who had been chosen to go with him, so that they could destroy the Roman realm. Mazalema soon reached and attacked the territory of Asia. He then waged war on and destroyed by fire and sword the most ancient and flourishing city of Asia: Pergamum, which was deceived in an act of trickery. Mazalema decreed that the survivors should be distributed among the army. And from here he approached the royal city and surrounded it, placing it under siege for two years. However, he accomplished nothing in doing so.[lxxi] Seeing that he was in danger rather than bringing about dangers and was compelled by hunger, the sword and total indigence, he returned not too happily to his own province, now doing so by the orders of another ruler. Indeed the aforementioned leader Zoleiman had died at the end of the third year while staying at the province of Antioch.
Of the Romans 67. While the Saracens were approaching the royal city in order to take it by storm, Leo, an expert in military discipline, became ruler of the state for 24 years by the Senate's acclamation.[lxxii]
The dead Zoleiman had left the son of his uncle (whom his grandfather had put in charge of the whole west from Egypt), called Amer, to be successor of the Saracens' kingdom.[lxxiii] Amer ruled for three years. And after Amer, Zoleiman had arranged to bring his own brother called Yzit to power.[lxxiv] In military matters, Hamer did nothing sufficiently outstanding or anything adverse. But he was of such great benevolence and patience, that as much praise and honour are given to him by all (even foreigners), as has ever been brought to any living person assuming control of a kingdom. Very shortly after becoming ruler, this man passed away at the place where Zoleiman had died.
Yzit of the Saracens succeeded in rule and ruled for four years. Armies of his own people, which were responsible for guarding the Persian lands, stirred up a rebellion and contrived to wage civil wars against him. Ministering the councils among those people and serving as the head of their criminal conspiracy was a Saracen called Yzit, who did not arise from that royal tribe.[lxxv] Once King Yzit was informed of the rebellion, he sent an expedition against them with his previously mentioned brother called Mazlema, born from the same mother.[lxxvi] And when both armies had come to blows in the Babylonian plains over the Tigris river, the aforementioned Yzit who was leader of the rebellion was killed by the army of Yzit the king. And thus the former's army took to flight and was crushed, such that, with a few barely escaping, the remnants were glad merely to have survived, as mercy was granted by Mazlema the leader of the army. Also Yzit achieved many military accomplishments against the Roman realm. Finally in the western parts he was partially successful through his army generals.
Also Yzit made Gallia Narbonensis[lxxvii] become his possession through the commander of the army called Mazlema, and he provoked the people of the Franks with frequent wars. Through inconsistent effort, the aforementioned commander of the army got all the way up to Toulouse, and surrounding it with siege he tried to take it by storm, utilising different kinds of siege equipment in his attempt to take it. The peoples of the Franks, informed of this development, gathered around a leader of their people called Eudon.[lxxviii] And thus gathered, they reached Toulouse. At Toulouse both armies clashed in a grave battle. They killed Zema the commander of the Saracens' army and part of his army.[lxxix] They pursued the remainder of the army that had taken to flight.
Therefore Yzit the leader of the Saracens, after ruling for four years, departed from this light, leaving the kingdom to his brother called Hescia.[lxxx] And Yzit had decreed that a son of his own seed called Hulit would rule in succession to Hescia.[lxxxi]
Notes
[i] The original Latin uses the present tense here: moritur ('dies'). This is a literary device called the historic present and it is common in Latin narrative literature.
[ii] Visigothic king of Spain who reigned in the period 586-601 CE. The Visigoths were a Germanic people who gained control of much of Spain as the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century CE.
[iii] Liuva II, Visigothic king of Spain in the period 601-603 CE.
[iv] Witteric, Visigothic king of Spain in the period 603-610 CE.
[v] i.e. the Byzantines, whose realm was originally the Eastern Roman Empire.
[vi] Phocas, Byzantine emperor in the period 602-610 CE.
[vii] i.e. The Sassanids.
[viii] Gundemar, Visigothic king of Spain in the period 610-612 CE.
[ix] Heraclius, one of the most well-known Byzantine figures among Muslims as he was the emperor during the career of the Prophet Muhammad. He was emperor in the period 610-641 CE.
[x] The Roman designation of Africa was centred on modern-day Tunisia (in particular the city of Carthage).
[xi] It should also be mentioned here that Heraclius' father was also involved in the revolt against Phocas.
[xii] A Roman title for emperor, derived from the concept of princeps senatus (see below for more details).
[xiii] Magister militum ('master of soldiers'): a late Roman designation for the senior commander of the army beneath the emperor.
[xiv] 'Him': i.e. Phocas
[xv] A senate developed in the Eastern Roman Empire, based in Constantinople.
[xvi] Sisebut: Visigothic king of Spain in the period 612-621 CE
[xvii] Cosdroas: Khosrow II, Sassanid emperor in the period 590-628 CE.
[xviii] 'Augustus': a traditional title of the Roman emperor, also used in relation to the Byzantine emperors, who, after all, considered themselves to be Romans, as noted above.
[xix] Constantinople
[xx] This would be in 617-618 CE. However, by traditional Islamic accounts, Muhammad was still in Mecca and did not establish the Muslim community as a significant force until 622 CE with the migration to what is now Medina. By these accounts, the Muslim clashes with the Byzantines did not come about until much later, with the first major recorded engagement being the Battle of Mu'tah in 629 CE.
[xxi] Byzantine general and brother of the emperor Heraclius. He was involved in clashes with the Muslims.
[xxii] The word used for 'brother' here is germanus, a late Latin preference as opposed to the more usual frater in classical Latin. The word germanus carried through to Spanish as hermano, but in French the word frater was carried through in the form of frère.
[xxiii] Note the original Latin here uses the indicative for the causal clauses, indicating a comment on the author's part rather than a continuation of Heraclius' speech as oratio obliqua.
[xxiv] The Latin term here is principatus. The principate was a Roman designation used to refer to the status of Emperor beginning with Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE). The designation of the status of emperor as such was partly intended to keep a distance from ideas of monarchy, as the term is tied to the concept of princeps senatus ('chief of the Senate'). Here the author applies the term as interpretatio Romana to Muhammad's leadership of the Muslims. The author also uses the term sometimes in reference to the institution of the Caliphate. Another designation for the caliph one finds in the text is Sarracenorum rex ("king of the Saracens"), with rex having a pure monarchical connotation.
[xxv] Muhammad. Note that I have preserved the original text's Latin transliterations of the name of Muhammad and other Arabic names for the sake of authenticity.
[xxvi] The Quraysh, according to traditional Islamic accounts.
[xxvii] Visigothic king of Spain in the period 621-631 CE.
[xxviii] Likely referring to the battle of Yarmouk in 636 CE, which paved the way for the Muslim conquest of the Levant.
[xxix] By the traditional accounts, the first Muslim conquest of Damascus was in 634/635 CE, after Muhammad's death. The Muslims subsequently withdrew and then re-entered after defeating the Byzantines at the battle of Yarmouk.
[xxx] Abu Bakr, the first of the Rashidun caliphs. No mention is made of the internal Ridda wars that occurred in Abu Bakr's reign according to traditional Islamic accounts. His reign as caliph lasted from 632-634 CE according to the traditional Islamic accounts.
[xxxi] Omar, the second of the Rashidun caliphs. He ruled in the period 634-644 CE.
[xxxii] Constantine III, Byzantine emperor for less than half a year in 641 CE.
[xxxiii] i.e. Conquered it. The Muslim capture of Alexandria took place in 641 CE.
[xxxiv] Ismailites: i.e. the Arabs/Saracens/Muslims here, since Arabs are said to be descendants of Ismail the son of Abraham.
[xxxv] The town of Kufa in Iraq.
[xxxvi] Constans II, Byzantine emperor in the period 641-668 CE.
[xxxvii] Othman, the third of the Rashidun caliphs. He ruled in the period 644-656 CE.
[xxxviii] A region corresponding to the modern Egyptian borders with Libya.
[xxxix] Cyrenaica region in eastern Libya.
[xl] Perhaps the southern regions of Libya.
[xli] Mu'awiya, the first Ummayad caliph. His reign as caliph by traditional Islamic accounts was in the period 661-680 CE. The Byzantine-Arabic Chronicle however counts the five previous years as part of his reign, omitting any mention of Ali, indicating the author's pro-Umayyad bias in recounting early Islamic history.
[xlii] Cf. The praise accorded to Mu'awiya's son Yazid as noted in the introduction.
[xliii] Abdullah bin Sa'ad, to be distinguished from Abdullah bin al-Zubayr who features later on in the chronicle. See more on the latter below. However, it is not clear that the chronicle clearly distinguishes the two men.
[xliv] Possibly Leptis Magna in Libya.
[xlv] i.e. The native Berbers, who were Christians and fighting on the side of the Byzantines.
[xlvi] Gregory the Patrician, killed in 647 CE.
[xlvii] A town in Sicily
[xlviii] Constantine IV, Byzantine emperor in the period 668-685 CE.
[xlix] Yazid bin Mu'awiya
[l] The First Arab Siege of Constantinople.
[li] Mu'awiya II, who ruled in the period 683-684 CE.
[lii] i.e. Remitted tribute.
[liii] Abdullah bin al-Zubayr, a non-Umayyad claimant to the Caliphate who was based in the Hejaz region.
[liv] Marwan I, who ruled as Umayyad caliph in the period 684-685 CE.
[lv] Medina.
[lvi] Abd al-Malik bin Marwan, who ruled as Umayyad caliph in the period 685-705 CE.
[lvii] Abd al-Aziz bin Marwan, who served as governor of Egypt in the same period.
[lviii] Justinian II, who ruled as Byzantine emperor twice: 685-695 CE, and then 705-711 CE. The reference here is to his deposition in 695 CE.
[lix] Leontius, Byzantine emperor in the period 695-698 CE.
[lx] Tiberius III, Byzantine emperor in the period 698-705 CE.
[lxi] Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf, an Umayyad governor and general.
[lxii] Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf.
[lxiii] Cf. The comment on the use of the term principatus.
[lxiv] Al-Walid I, Umayyad caliph in the period 705-715 CE.
[lxv] Sulayman bin Abd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph in the period 715-717 CE.
[lxvi] The construction in the original Latin here is the accusative absolute, which emerges in late Latin as an alternative to the regular classical Latin construction of the ablative absolute. Compare the following two sentences of the same meaning:
centurione necato, puella discessit (ablative absolute)
centurionem necatum, puella discessit (accusative absolute)
"After the centurion was killed, the girl departed."
[lxvii] Musa bin Nusayr, an Umayyad general and governor who ended Visigothic rule in Spain.
[lxviii] Philippikos, Byzantine emperor in the period 711-713 CE.
[lxix] Anastasius II, Byzantine emperor in the period 713-715 CE.
[lxx] Theodosius III, Byzantine emperor in the period 715-717 CE.
[lxxi] The Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in 717-718 CE.
[lxxii] Leo III, Byzantine emperor in the period 717-741 CE.
[lxxiii] Omar II, Umayyad caliph in the period 717-720 CE.
[lxxiv] Yazid II, Umayyad caliph in the period 720-724 CE.
[lxxv] Yazid bin al-Muhallab, who was opposed to Yazid II. The negative characterization of Yazid bin al-Muhallab fits the overall pro-Umayyad slant of the work.
[lxxvi] Maslama bin Abd al-Malik, an Umayyad general.
[lxxvii] A region from Roman times. It is centred on modern-day Narbonne in southern France.
[lxxviii] The Battle of Toulouse occurred in 721 CE. The Umayyad army was defeated by Odo of Aquitaine (here: Eudon).
[lxxix] Al-Samh bin Malik al-Khawlani.
[lxxx] Hisham bin Abd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph in the period 724-743 CE.
[lxxxi] Al-Walid II, Umayyad caliph in the period 743-74 CE.
[Revised: 22nd September 2019 CE].