Printable View
You mt friend seem like an apologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The Abassids did this kind of thing all across the moddle east, if somehwat covertly.
You should read a book called Islamic Imperialism, I know you might roll you're eyes at that, but it is a very good book.
I'll just answer what I answered previously in this thread when accused of being an apologist: "Just because it's not white it's not neccessarily black. There is a lot of grey in this world. I'm an atheist and strong opposer of all sorts of religion, I dislike Islam and don't deny its expansionist ways during its early history. But I also dislike biased westerners and islamophobics who regard the Muslim world as the root of all evil (if absence of beer can be considered evil)."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I've heard about the book you mentioned and've read an article about it. Can't recall the name of the author but I suppose I could just Google it, and it seems like a good book. Of course I am well aware that there is somewhat of an imperialistic mentality within Islam.
That would be my view also, although there is some evidence to suggest that there were abuses of Islamic teaching even then. Certainly, the leaders of some of the newly converted African tribes were far less tolerant than the Arabic muslim leaders and even sought to discredit them as 'not true muslims'. This trend continues today as does the tendency for people to try and tar all muslims throughout history with the same politically motived brush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
The basic truth is that religion whether Muslim or Christian can always be abused by those in power to inspire the gullible to commit evil acts on their behalf. It has been so throughout history and is still true today. The problem does not lie with the religion or the faithful but with those who hold the power to manipulate them.
Thus we see examples throughout history of both 'tolerance and enlightenment' and 'intolerance and abuse' associated with just about every religion you care to name. It merely depends on who is in power over the people at the time and where their personal motives and interests are directed.
The situation in Al Andalusia is a classic example of tolerance being replaced by extreme intolerance simply as a result of a change of leadership, rather than as a change of religion.
a key problem with islam is that you do not have to manipulate (abuse) the teachings or examples of mohammed to find excuses for some pretty rough stuff. In ther person of mohammed you have someone who was an active warlord during his lifetime, broke his own rules (eg in respect to the number of wives he had), and had sex with a child (aisha).Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
i am not a christian and woud agree that christian regimes during the medieval period were in many cases worse behaved than islamic ones. i do however find the tendency of people to hold up the muslim invadors as people of virtue slightly bizzare.
Well having not read the Quran A can't really comment upon what it does or doesn't say. But if its anything like the Bible it probably contradicts itself on every other page anyway, one minute urging Christians to take an eye for an eye and the next to turn the other cheek.
And the Aisha business is no different to the current theory that Jesus was a practicing homosexual. So there seems to be even more similarities than most of the faithful would like to admit and plenty of opportunity for the gullible to be misled by those with power.
it is nothing like that, do a bit of research on the topic it is the mainstream understanding of the facts, wheras any idea that jesus is a homosexual certainly isnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
My personal view is that all religions are contrived to provide a small power hungry minority with the ability to control the actions of the gullible majority. There is nothing inherent in the messages which causes the problem, only the mentality of the people explioting those messages for their own end and the gullibility of those who listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
This role is now rapidly being replaced by the media, which is far more effective at spreading propaganda and misleading idiots once it is under the control of a centralised power.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I take it you have little respect for the intelligence of people whom practise religion?
I have never believed myself to be overly gullible, nor any of my fellow western Catholics.
I beleive that if people are mature and intelligent then they don't need other people to tell them what to beleive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Therefore. in my opinon, anyone willing to accept everything they are told to beleive by someone else is by definition gullible, and in if the subject is religious dogma then also usually desperate too.
Consequently, throughout history religion has been explioted by devious people to manipulate the desperate and gullible into doing whatever it is they want from giving them money and food, letting them have sex with their children, killing other people they personally don't like and even killing themselves.
If people were not desperate and gullible then such manipulation would not be possible and those in power would never have bothered inventing it.
@Kartlos: As said before you shouldn't look at history with our nowadays morals. Back in those days marrying a 12 year old was quite normal (in some area's). Being an atheist was something abnormal while nowadays it's not, maybe even the opposite. Morals are something that change very quick, and it's proven time and time again, by history. Look at Hitler, I'm not saying that he was the reason for the extreme hatred against Jews (and other minorities) but he did trigger the unleashment of it and used it for his own plans. While now we might think what he did is disgusting (we being the majority of the western world) but maybe in 500 the world has changed into a fascist place where they think what he did is good and he would be an international hero. I know it's hard, sometimes even impossible to look at history with an neutral point of view (something that is generally impossible) but it has to be done. Just saying that that man was bad because he did something that may or may not have been a normal thing back then makes no sense. It's like you save a cat tomorrow and everyone thinks you are a hero, and then 500 years later cats take over the world and every living human will think of you as a dirty traitor of the human race because of that same deed.
And on religion, barely anything in this world is proven beyond all doubt. Science, actually is just the same as religion. It provides a theory to explain things we don't understand. Just saying one is better than the other is total nonsense. Religion is not something that you can put in a box, nor in a book. It's a feeling, it's knowing without truly knowing it. It's something that most people need to survive, that little thing that gives that little amount of hope and power they need to make that last and final push towards their goals. Some people call their religion christianity, others call it Islam, you have people that believe in Science or communism. Yet others do it for those two little sweet blue eyes that stare at them from it's tiny little bet smiling it's teethless mouth. It's all the same, everything in life that you believe in without truly, beyond doubt knowing it's true but you still want to stick your leg out for it can be called religion. Even money can be a religion, that is why most people in the west don't have a standard religion anymore...
I think you are wrong. Most people are no shepherds, they are the sheep. How many people are afraid to step up and take a little responsibility, and then i'm just talking about small time things as being the first to enter a dark room, or the first to ask a question or introduce himself. Not many people are and can be a true leader. But still we need them, we need them to feel good about ourselves, to look up to, to be our rolemodels, to protect us, to lead us when whe don't know what to do or don't want to be the ones to do it. If that weren''t true than why do we provide leaders soo much status, money and power. Why do we adore them so much when they succeed and why do we despise them when they fail. Because they represent all that follow them. If he succeeds they all succeed, if he fails we all fail. Look at modern day leaders and celebrities, why do they enjoy so much status? Because they stuck their head above all the others and stood out, they didn't kneel when asked for, but they stood tall even when other people tried to bring them down. We look up to them, hoping we one day will be like them, or even better than them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
And how many people are willing to take that risk, because when you fail you will be outcast but when you succeed you will have glory. But you must not only be willing to take that risk, you must also be capable.
Man or woman or child, it doesn't matter. The bravest, smartest, the wisest, the strongest, the richest, being all this five is enough to lead.
And even the leaders are lead, because also they look up to those that lead before them, they also learn from others and they are lead by those they consider their rolemodel.
But I do agree that religion was and is and will be a thing that desperate people will turn to and will embrace. That is not wrong, but those who exploit them they are being wrong (viewed from our nowadays (western) morals).
(Sorry, I may have misread your post and said some stuff you weren't even talked about :P)
@The Stranger
Hmm!...Ok, you start your last post by saying you think I am wrong and then proceed to basically say exactly the same thing but using different words.
As you say most people are not shepherds they are sheep, and as such need to be told what to believe, who to kill, when to die etc.
I consider these people gullible idiots, but those few people who you acknowledge exist who do have the lust for power will use any means at their disposal including religion to manipulate them and get them to do what they want.
Without such gullible idiots or sheep people like Hitler could never have risen to power, we would not be witnessing suicide bombers killing themselves to order, the crusades would never have happened and Tony Blair would not have last ten minutes in power.
Such people invent the religions that these gullible sheep need to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives and in doing so increase their own power to achieve their personal goals.
Therefore, I have no respect for these sheep at all and would argue that everyone of them is as guilty as the man they allowed into power for the actions that man took in their name.
:bow: I already said I might have misinterpreted your post :)Quote:
Sorry, I may have misread your post and said some stuff you weren't even talked about :P
But I do not agree with you on religion. Those "People in Power" do not invent religion, they do abuse it though, but they will abuse everything to stay in power. Not just religion but force and fear too. And not all the leaders are neccesary in charge, they may also just have all the attributes to be a leader but not desire to be one, if they once ascend the throne of power they become the best leaders there are.
You say, that you have the gullible sheep who follow the evil leaders... which you obviously both won't and don't respect, but what is the other group then? And eventually everybody is told what to do and how to react, it's part of how you grew up. Someone is always influencing you.
And this may again look alot like you say, because I agree with you a whole lot, but not 100%, and it's quite hard for me to explain those subtle but (vital) differences.
Instead, we'd all be killing each other to become the mightiest man around and noone could be trusted, sounds a lot better, doesn't it?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Why do you people hate sheep?
cuz pig, chicken and cow is better meat... sheeps just aweful meat.
Sheep is actually pretty good, I would eat it any time over pork, but I would rather eat beef or chicken than sheep. Okay, really irrevelant.
Also it was mentioned that there are no "Islamic" contributions to science, literatture or philosophy, only "Arabic". This is quite wrong considering many, maybe a majority, of the greatest philosophers, scientists from the Islamic world were Persian and spoke Persian as an everyday language, not Arabic, many were not very religious (Avicenna himself preferred to drink wine rather than sleep) but they were Muslim and that makes their contributions.
The Muslims certainly were (are?) imperialistic, but empires usually are, they conquered many territories from older empires and replaced their rule with their own, which may have been better or worse in some respects than the old one, but which such things the common man usually does not notice it that much.
I have read about this book (not read it, though I might like to) called "Hagarism - the Making of The Muslim World" which presents the theory that Islam started as a heretic Jewish sect bent on reclaiming the Holy Land and that Islam was formulated later in order ot extinguish the Arabs from the Jews. Would sound pretty likely, (there also has to be sources ofcourse), as many things in the Quran (It's alot less "idealistic" than Jesus's teachings for an example) are just to convenient for Empire-governing for it to have just been thought up at one time by a guy (and I doubt he actually spoke with angels). Have any of you read it? Is it any good?
the problem is people forget you cant compare back then with now... doing that mixes up too many things... No ruler back than would pass our How Benevolent Are You Test (Rulers only) who cared about the lowely life scum, barely any. Who didnt slaughter thousands if not hundred thousands... none. Who hadn't had a direct family member (or even they themself) who had sexual relationship/married with someone under 16 (it happens now still).
So saying this is bad or that is bad is irrellevent because it might not have been considered bad back then. IF they did the exact same and they would look forward from the past to the future, they'd condemn the entire world as a moralless blasphemous society which should be burned to hell asap.
actually, probably a 100-200 years ago, people would have thought that too.
If they didn't invent religion, who the hell do think did?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
It certainly wasn't the sheep. Left up to them we would all be wandering around aimlessly waiting for someone else to tell us what to beleive in.
What I actually said was that without the great mass if gullible sheep, evil leaders like Hitler would not be able to secure power and hold on it. It is the mass of sheep who would rather waste their lives watch Eastenders and Big Brother than paying attention to their rights and civil liberties being eroded and then go out and vote for the guy because he managed to do a better job of manipulating the media that will eventually be complicite in turning our countries into police states.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Glad to hear it^^Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
If you agree with everything I said than you would just be another sheep.
Rubbish....if people were not so gullible, then our leaders would have to restrain themselves to to serving the community instead of manipulating it and at the first sign of one of these leaders stepping beyond the bounds of their remit they would be removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The leaders we get are the direct product of our communities being dominated by gullible sheep who are willing to beleive everything they are told, or worse, too damned lazy and self-centred to do anything to oppose people even when they can see that they are only acting in their own interests.
As far as I am concerned this is a historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
However, what we get are large numbers of sheep who swallow some anti-islamic propaganda disseminated by someone with a personal agenda to spread religious hatred and who have insuffiecient intelligence or motivation to check the facts for themselves.
To be strictly accurate what we get are Muslim leaders who are hungry for personal wealth and power who are prepared to use the faith of other muslims to further their ambitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
No, religous beleif no matter how earnestly held can by itself be imperialistic. It requires people with personal agenda's to expliot that faith by moulding it into a religion that furthers their own ends and then expliots it to manipulate its faithful flock of sheep. It has the added advantage of creating divisions and hatred which these people can expliot to give their ambitions credence and false legitimacy.
Don't forget the fearfactor. Many people simply are afraid.Quote:
As far as I am concerned this is a historical fact.
However, what we get are large numbers of sheep who swallow some anti-islamic propaganda disseminated by someone with a personal agenda to spread religious hatred and who have insuffiecient intelligence or motivation to check the facts for themselves.
Didn't the muslim convert people by the sword and sloughter countless of people while spreading like a wildfire? Think i read somewhere that christian in Egypts were converted or killed.
No quite the opposite in fact. The Christian community in Egypt were actually protected by Muslim law and given the right to practice their own religion in peace. The only price for this was an additional level of taxation which theoretically was a penalty for being exempt from military service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirex1
I only came across this fact because I was trying to trace the ancestry of the moors who invaded Spain and discovered all sorts of peripheral information in the process. The same laws applied to the Christian community in Al Andalusia (Spain) and protected the Christian and Jewish communities from Muslim persecution there too. That does not mean that Christians and Jews were not encouraged to convert to Islam, they were, and did, in large numbers because of the obvious benefits.
However, it’s worth mentioning that unlike Catholicism the Muslim faith has never been subjected to any form of central control or influence. It was and still is a fragmented religion and is therefore easy prey to the whims of many different and simultaneous leaders often with very different personal agenda's. Thus it was and is perfectly feasible for one sect of the Muslim faith to be living in tolerance and enlightment, whilst another is waging a vicious and fundamentalist war of hatred. This was certainly true in Al Andulsia where the existing Muslim regime was operating a culture of tolerance and learning whilst its brother Muslims from Morocco were pursuing a policy of hatred and fundamentalism. In most cases this has led to inter-religious war between opposing sects of Muslim's rather than the persecution of Christians, just as we see in Iraq today. But inevitably these fundamentalist sects are easy prey for the manipulation of powerful leaders with their own personal agenda's of hatred. As in any religion the sheep are most easy led went fired by some extreme vision.
give me a break, they were persecuted then and are still persecuted now. perhaps you should speak to some copts before mouthing off about what a nice ride they have had.
He didn't say that they had such a nice time, though it wasn't constant and brutal persecution, it was varying degrees depending on how the "general mood" was among Muslims, though they were usually encouraged to convert to Islam, like other Christians. Much like the later colonial European powers did, sometimes it was convert or die, sometimes they were tolerated and allowed to keep their faith, but they were always "reminded" of the advantages of converting to (or as people then would say "accepting") Christianity.
With the Copts it definately was not convert or die, though... why do you think there are still about 10 million of them? And Islam only became the majority religion in Egypt towards the 13th century (Most Egyptians were Christians before that). That's nearly 600 years after they were conquered. Ofcourse there was religious persecution; sometimes brutal, "The Mad Caliph" Al-Hakim was particularily... mad, he even destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (and was later condemned by his successors who rebuilt it together with the Byzantines, the Druze religion began as a sort of sect around Al-Hakim claiming he was the Mahdi), though most of the time the persecution was more subtle. Though obviously noticeable by the Copts and irritating in their personal, and professional lives.
And Kartlos, Muslims are not the evil of the world, they're simply just as capable of being evil as any other humans, people should try to get rid of their "us versus them" attitude.
I won't even begin to try and explain to you how unhelpful that comment and your attitude is when considering the historical facts, and I would suggest that if you wish to debate the point you begin by carrying out some basic research on the subject before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
The actual history of the area and the relationship between muslims and christians has been subject to a number of changes over time and specific location, therefore generalities are meaningless.
The key factors affecting the relationship between the Copts and their Arab overlords being the level of resistance and revolt being offered by leaders of the local population and the changes in leadership and policy amongst their rulers.
The area now known as Eygypt actually came under Arab rule in 641 AD with little local resistance being afforded by the mostly Christian population.
However, there was a number of revolts soon afterwards and further uprisings would occur for the next 200 years. Some of these revolts were put down with considerable brutality. Specific mention is made of the Beshmorite uprising staged in 750AD which was crushed by Marrwan II, the Umayyad Caliph at that time. The last large scale uprising occured a hundred years later and was brutally crushed by the Abbasid Caliph, Al-Ma'mun.
Further minor uprisings continued to occur over the next 300 years including the revolt of the Christian inhabitants of Qift, which was suppressed by Saladins brother Al-Adil in 1176, following which 3,000 Copts were executed and hung on tree's outside the city.
However, even Coptic history acknowledges that these revolts were largely motivated by the excessively high taxation imposed upon them by various Arab Caliphs, and by actions taken by some Caliphs to erase Coptic art and culture. The destruction of the Alexandria library by the Umayyad Caliph is specifically mentioned following his decree that the Arabic language should be used instead of Coptic language in the governance of Egypt.
I found this summary on a Coptic website describing the nature of the Arab occupation of Eygypt.
"The Arab rulers primary interest was in exacting the maximum financial gain out of the rich land of Egypt. John of Nikiu in his chronicles indicates that Amer ibin Alass, after the conquest of Egypt, " increased the taxes to the extent of 22 batr of gold till all the people hid themselves owing to the greatness of the tribulation, and could not find the wherewithal to pay."
The Ommyiads followed by the other dynasties instituted heavy taxes including poll tax or Algyzya, tribute and different exactions.
At times the Arab rulers found it convenient to throw prominent Copts, e.g. a Bishop or Pope, in jail and request ransom to release them.
The Umayyad Caliph Suliman ibin abed Almalek reflected this policy, in writing his appointed ruler of Egypt " to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood".
Though some of the Arab rulers were moderate, most were oppressive, cruel and committed a lot of atrocities against the Coptic population.
The ultimate policy of the Muslim Arab rulers changed gradually from maximum financial gain to Isalmization either through incentives of reduced taxation, or by outright violence and force.
Arab and Turkic rulers from different dynasties continued to levy heavy taxation to impoverish the Copts, instituted policies to eradicate the Coptic culture, language, leadership, and initiated violence and pogroms against the Coptic population."
Extract from http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/
As you can see even this Coptic version of history, which is hardly likely to be unbiased, makes no mention of conversion by sword and slaughter which was the question raised by Sirex1.
Indeed the impression is that the Arab policy was largely dictated by the desire to maximize revenue and expliot the local populations ability to generate wealth, rather than to concern themselves with which God they happened to worship.
The point being that to impose a revisionist version of history on the past based upon an overriding concept of religious hatred is actually misleading, even though it might serve the motives of our current leaders.
Glad to see someone read my post. The only issue I would take with the above statement is that in truth its probably wrong to place the onus on the mood amongst Muslims. The policy towards non-Mulsims at any particular time was largely dictated by the Arab ruler responsible for that specific area and whilst that policy probably influenced the mood of the general muslim population its not really correct to suggest that it was a reflection of some universal muslim attitude towards non-muslims. In fact, as has been pointed out elsewhere the Arabic rulers over this period spent more time fighting each other than persecuting non-muslims, and in many cases allied themselves with non-muslims to overthrown their muslim rivals. Therefore what are are seeing for the most part are the results of powerful Arabic families competing for power and financial gain with the Muslim faith being weilded only when it is politically valuable to expliot it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
It's good that you mention the financial motive for many Arab rulers, because at first Islam was thought of primarily as an Arab religion, created by Arabs for the Arabs (Most of those who were converted to Islam during the early expansion were Arabs). The Arabs placed themselves as rulers over a large number of other peoples, the Arabs could identify themselves by being Muslim, while the majority of their subjects were not. As they had to pay the Jiziyah tax, the Arabs were therefore able to make more money off their non-Muslim subjects than they would if they were Muslims. This could be avoided by converting to Islam, something, the religion at least, encouraged, but many rulers tried to halt conversion among their non-Muslim subjects (for fear of losing the extra income that came with them) and in some cases when someone converted, they (the rulers) continued to demand that they pay as much tax as before. They did after all need a lot of money to pay soldiers and otherwise finance wars and other costly ventures.
Anyway it seems that many Christians hadn't necessarily been better off under the Byzantines than they were under the Arabs, as at the time it lost control of much of the Middle East the Byzantines had been taking hard measures against various "heresies" such as Monophysitic christians (I think Syrian christians, Egyptians and Armenians). And a not so nice treatment of Jews as well, I remember reading that many Jews outright supported their new Muslim overlords.
One of the main aims of the Abbassid revolution was to make Islam more universal, and to make sure that Non-Arab Muslims (especially Persians) were equal to Arab Muslims, as the Quran said they should be. Therefore conversion was more actively encouraged and usually not worked against during Abbasid rule, taxation was generally less severe over all also, you might say they were similar to the Victorians in that they wanted to "enlight the population of the world with the values of their religion and culture" (Protestant and British culture for the Victorians and Islam and Persian/Arabic culture for the Abbassids).
When the Abbassids declined and splintered to pieces the various new dynasties became, again, nearly invariably interested with extracting as much wealth from their people as possible to enrich themselves and to finance wars against their neighbours (who usually were Muslims, at least the ruelrs and the soldiers). Notable exceptions were the Caliphate of Cordoba (and many of the Taifa states) and the early Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt (the later period it was not much more than a military dictatorship).
My main period of historical interest is the Napoleonic period and the 1815 campaign in particular. I only really began to read up on the Moors after I saw the excellent program "Islam in Europe: When The Moors Ruled in Europe".
I was curious also about apparently contradictory records suggesting that the Moors were black skinned when other reports described them as fair skinned with red hair. I still haven't resolved that issue entirely but the process has been enlightening if at times quite confusing. I get the impression that the entire process of Arabic expansion and the consequent spread of Islam was a sort of organised chaos with powerful families and individuals rising and falling from power in a seemingly haphazard fashion. It doesn't help that to my western eyes many of their names seem to change from one reference to the next and I'm finding it extrememly difficult to keep track of whether some of these records refer to the same person or not.
What is apparent to me anyway, is that Islam is not some sort of unified faith with a common goal, as is often implied by western leaders, it is and always has been a very fragmented religion and presenting the spread of islam as some sort of universal mission is far too simplistic and creates a smokescreen over the real historical events that brought it about.
Why do discussions of Tours (or Poitiers) always morph into debates of the relative merits of Muslim versus Christian values during the Middle Ages?
ARGH! It's a great read and for a reason nobody has even touched yet... It showed that given the right terrain, an army that was largely infantry could in fact defeat a numerically superior force of light cavalry and horse-archers. I find that aspect of Tours (or Poitiers) fascinating.... in game turns... imagine taking on the Golden Horde with feudal swordsmen and milita sergeants.
It was not an army of light cavalry and horse-archers, it was an army of mailed horsemen with stirrups and infantry...Quote:
ARGH! It's a great read and for a reason nobody has even touched yet... It showed that given the right terrain, an army that was largely infantry could in fact defeat a numerically superior force of light cavalry and horse-archers. I find that aspect of Tours (or Poitiers) fascinating.... in game turns... imagine taking on the Golden Horde with feudal swordsmen and milita sergeants.
And the whole thing about numbers on Tours is rather debated it seems, some say the Muslims had a great large army, others say they were simply a raiding force.
But, anyway it was a great accomplishment, for a band of, largely unarmoured infantry (though with relatively large shields) to defeat soldiers who had just conquered Iberia, beating armies outnumbering them by up to 3-1. They used the right terrain and they used the right tactics to beat such heavy cavalry, yes, they were heavy cavalry. Muslim cavalry had a lot of influence on later Frankish cavalry, who were generally less important than the footmen and rode without stirrups for faster mounting and dismounting.
And the Arabs, by the way, (the Moors used basically the same tactics) did not use horse-archers, their armies were made up of mostly camel mounted infantry (spearmen and archers, who could move fast and long through the deserts because of the camels) and cavalrymen who rode what, often relatively few and valuable, horses they had (the horses were only ridden in battle, out of battle camels were normally ridden), though the proportion of cavalry to infantry was higher at the time of Tours. Armour was not as uncommon as is often thought. Both infantry and dismounted horsemen sometimes fought in formations which could be described as shield walls or phalanxes. Their greatest strength was however their mobility, as the whole army was camel-mounted and they could basically appear and disappear out of the deserts at will (this is not talking about Spain) and they also possessed a remarkable morale and martial pride.
That Charles Martel were able to beat such fighters rather than just a horde of light horsemen relying on numbers (which is also an inadequate description for the Mongols) is all the more testaments to what he achieved at this battle.
I'd rather not, thank you. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Kidding aside, though, how was the battle actually won, anyway? I've never really understood how the Franks were able to secure the victory.