Charles Marcel

[Sir Chauncy]

I have no idea what I'm talking about here which is why I have turned to the knowledgable members of the ORG. I really want to know what happened with this war, what led up to it, what made the Turks so powerful and who the bloody hell was Charles Marcel? Why did he get given the nickname 'the hammer' what tactics did he use? what nationality was he? does anyone know of any good sites I could go to?
I could look up some of this stuff myself, but I know that people like to show off a bit infront of others and appear clever infornt of their buddies. So nows your chance.

So could someone please turn me from this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif to this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif .

[Heraclius]

I'll just try and give some simple facts about the event, which is all I know.

By 711 the Arabs, not the Turks they came later, had burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and had conquered all the land from Gibralter to the eastern border of modern Iran and from the Caspian Sea and Caucasus Mountains to the southern regions of Egypt. They were a force to be reckoned with to say the least.In 709 a civil war broke out in Visigothic (a Germanic tribe)-ruled Spain between Womba, the more liberal son of the king and Roderick, a church backed anti-semitic noble. Roderick defeated Womba and so the defeated ex-prince went looking for help-and found it in the Arabs who had just finished conquering North Africa. He invited them to Spain and the Arabs, of course, accepted. A Arab-Gothic-Berber (North African tribesemen) army defeated Roderick and soon the Arabs turned on Womba. In turn the Arabs and Berbers began fighting among each other over land and plunder.
In 729 the Arab commanders reached a makeshift agreement and sent a small army into France, to see if more land and richer plunder could be had there. I don't know much about the tactics of the battle but it was at Tours in Southern France. Charles Martel, bad Latin for Karl the Hammer, was the Majordomo, Prime Minister say, of the Frankish (another Germanic tribe) kingdom in modern day France. The Majordomos, and not the kings, had held power since the 6th century and so Charles Martel led all the forces he could muster southward. The Arabs were defeated and would never make it that far into Western Europe again. And so, in the West at least, Charles Martel had "saved Christendom", as scholars are so fond of saying.
That was a little longer than I thought it would be and a little more detailed too. sorry I don't know much about the battle itself or any web sites. hope it helps though.

[Spino]

That 'little' army the Ummayyads sent into France was neither little or of little consequence. While there are precious few sources to rely on it is widely accepted that the Arab-Berber army involved was far more substantial than an oversized raiding party or reconnaisance in force The battle of Tours, where Charles Martel faced off against Abd-er Rahman was by all accounts, an epic clash for the ages that prevented the spread of Islam and Arab-Berber culture from crossing over the Pyrenee and into France.

Christian sources (specifically those championed and no doubt 'edited' by the Catholic Church) are far less reliable and paint a ridiculously exaggerated portrait of overwhelmingly odds and right versus wrong in order to put Martel's efforts in a more positive, divinely inspired light. However, Arab sources seem to paint a far more realistic picture; they insist the battle was ferociously fought between forces roughly equal in size over the period of two days with the death of Abd-er Rahman proving to be the turning point of the battle.

As to the battle itself it saw an overwhelmingly cavalry heavy force of Arabs and Berbers making repeated attempts to break the overwhelmingly infantry heavy force of the Franks and their allies arrayed in large phalanxes or as some Arabs described, a massive square. Abd-er Rahman's forces seemed to rely almost exclusively on the use of massive arrow barrages combined with and heavy cavalry charges (there is even mention of heavily armored, cataphract-like horsemen, probably elite Arab ghulams). Apparently the Frankish phalanx or square was penetrated at one point or another but for some reason the Arab-Berber horsemen were unable to adequately exploit the weakness (the Frankish/allied force must have been extremely well led and possessed excellent morale).

Here's an interesting site with some fairly balanced viewpoints...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours


Quote[/b] ]Importance of the battle
The actual importance of the Battle of Tours is a topic of much debate. Contemporaries, from Bede in Northumbria to Theophanes in Constantinople carefully recorded this battle. Some later scholars, such as the famous historian Edward Gibbon, contend that if Martel had fallen, then the Muslims would have easily conquered Europe. Gibbon, in fact, wrote a famous passage of prose on the topic, stating that "A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed." But perhaps if Martel had lost, Western Europe might still have mustered up the strength to repel the invaders. The historian Sir Edward Creasy, however, does not think so, saying, "it is unlikely a lesser man could have succeeded where his superior had failed." Others, such as the noted historian William E. Watson, say this is not the case, that the importance of the Battle of Tours has been greatly exaggerated over the passage of time, and that the only reason it's noteworthy of all, is that after the conclusion of this battle, Muslim invasions of Western Europe ceased.
Whatever the verdict, the death of Abd er Rahman caused the structure of the Muslim army to collapse. Leaderless and fighting among themselves, the Muslims could not muster up enough to make another stab at Europe. No further invasions of Europe were attempted.

There exists a culinary footnote to the Battle of Tours which, although somewhat apochryphal, seems credible. The victory was celebrated by Frankish bakers who fashioned bread in the form of the Islamic crescent and served it up to celebrating Franks who devoured the symbol of the invader. Today, the French croissant still has pride of place on most French breakfast tables.

[Heraclius]

strange i remember hearing it described as a large "reconaissance" force but since I can't remember where or when I heard that I am probably mistaken. thanks for the correction, Spino.

[Sir Chauncy]

Cool I had no idea that this battle even took place Forgive me for making the slip of putting Marcel (sic) in the wrong place at the wrong time. That will teach me.

Sound pretty violent though doesn't it really, I am a bit shocked that the Cavalry charges were repelled though, what anti cavalry weapons did the Franks have? Or did they just sacrifice themselves and drag down the lances with dead people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Thanks guys, I found that more than a bit fascinating. Esp. the croissant reference.

[el_slapper]

What was written in my history book(I'm french) is that in 732, Charles Martel did stop the Moors at Poitiers. The rest remains unclear in my mind. That date comes between 476(fall of the RE) & 987(Hugues Capet elected as king). In other words, that is the lone event that is supposed to have happened in 500 years in France..... I guess it was important, then

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I have found a link in which this battle is described... a quite interesting read.

Link about the battle... (http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htm)

[nokhor]

Meanwhile on the eastern flank of europe, 15 years earlier, in 717, the armies of the caliphate, led by maslamah, near relative of the caliph attacked constantinople with a force of 120,000 men and 1800 ships. Source for the figures is Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society." pg 346. maslamah, like caesar at alesia, built two walls around constantinople, one to keep the byzantines in, and the other to keep their bulgar allies out, while the arabs settled in between the walls. the plan was not to attempt to storm the city, but to starve it.

byzantium was saved by greek fire which the byzantines used aboard basically flame-thrower wielding ships. the byzantines prevented the naval blockade and the logistics of keeping such a huge army in the field during the ensuing winter worked against the arabs and many died and they withdrew.

if any battle 'saved' europe in the early half of the 8th century, i would have to say, this probably had a more decisive impact than the battle of tours.