其实我进来推本书
The Great Arab Conquests作者Hugh Kennedy
不然就是David Nicolle单挑其他一些学者了

骆驼作战肯定是有误，不过其作战方式是有过记载的，我也说过，奇长的剑，两人骑乘都是有记载的。但大量使用骆驼肯定是错得啊

波斯步兵可不差，普史反复提及了波斯步兵在城防和野战中表现得令人尊敬，波斯步兵弱化是在后来的时代

我上班了，手上没书，孟骑你欺负我

另外，我提到的，阿拉伯只要有马就会逐渐可观的骑兵，会不会阿拉伯在征服波斯前上期受剥削没马，而到打印度时已经有足够的战马了

萨珊波斯步兵是炮灰内

我前面也说了，穆圣早期确实缺马，但阿拉伯人在帕尔米拉时代可是有强悍的骑兵的

叙利亚和伊拉克的阿拉伯人也不一样，叙利亚的更偏重步兵和步骑结合战术，而伊拉克的相对更贝都因化一些
In 658 an army of inexperienced Iraqis was invading Syria in one of the numerous Muslim civil wars of the period. A wily old Bedouin leader took it upon himself to give them some advice.23 He urged them first to make sure that they had access to a good water supply. Their Syrian opponents were marching on foot but the Iraqis were mounted, and they should use the mobility this offered to station themselves between their enemies and the water. He then went on: ‘Do not fight them firing arrows at them and thrusting at them in an open space for they outnumber you and you cannot be sure that you will not be surrounded.’ They should not stand still or form a traditional line of battle because their opponents had both horsemen and foot soldiers and each group would support the other in close-quarter combat. If the line was broken, it would be disastrous. Instead, they should keep the advantages offered by their mobility and divide the army into small squadrons (kata’ib), each of which could support the others. If they preferred to remain on horseback they could, but they could also dismount if they wished. The emphasis on fighting on foot is interesting: having horses or camels was very useful for mobility, reconnaissance and, in this case, seizing control of battlefield advantages such as the water supply, but battles were usually decided by foot soldiers fighting at close quarters. They would throw away their spears and fight with swords, often ending up by wrestling their opponents to the ground.
Hugh Kennedy
The Great Arab Conquests

普史可不止这里写了波斯步兵，其后的长矛战斗证明波斯士兵的战斗能力并不差

我手头无书，很多文字说不上，但至少说明，不依靠骑兵是错的，轻骑兵在阿拉伯军队中还是有重要地位。