Printable View
Well, for one they managed to kill the enemy general... As to more on the battle, I don't know too much about it off the top of my head, other than the fact that the Moors were not light horsemen and horse-archers and that the Franks formed a shieldwall/phalanx which stood on a hill and the Moors were not able to break them, Abdul Rahman was killed in one of the assaults and the army, which was basically a large raiding party broke off and carried with them their plunder.
If I remember correctly, the Ubayyids (spelling?) weren't prepared for the Franks to be prepared. They had engaged in numerous raids where the Franks were quite undisciplined and fled. This caused the Ubayyids to abandon more cautious tactics and basically charged repeatedly... much to their chagrin, it didn't work, the Franks held. They also had no idea of the size of the force the Franks were fielding. Charles had just received reinforcements that if I recall correctly (and I'm stretching here) tripled his size right before the battle. The Ubayyids didn't consider the Franks to be a threat so they didn't bother to scout them. They also allowed the Franks to get into formation at the top of a hill at the edge of densely wooded forest. Again, they didn't expect anybody to fight back, they figured they'd just be running them down again... As Randarkmaan pointed out, their general died in one of the early charges, but I thought they continued to fight for a while.. Baah, I'm at work, I'll look it up when I get home...
There are no reliable records of this battle so its hard to be certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
However, it looks as though the Franks drew up their best infantry in a very dense formation at the top of a slope dotted with tree's, effectively negating the power of the Umayyad cavalry whose charges were disrupted by the tree's and then faced a solid wall of infantry into which their horse would not charge. (Note: real horse don't behave like those in MTW2)
The two armies both wanted the other to attack. Abd-al-Rahmân aware that his cavalry would not be able to penetrate the Frankish infantry formation whilst it kept such a tight formation and was protected by tree's wanted the Franks to advance out of the tree's into the open where his flanks would be more readily exposed. Martel, wanted the Umayyad's to storm his position where his infantry had the most advantage.
Apparently the two armies faced each other for 7 days, in the bitter cold before Abd-al-Rahmân finally felt compelled to try and break the Frankish defence. During that time the Umayyad's had been sufferring terribly due to a lack of warm clothing despite having tents, whilst the Franks had been gathering more men to reinforce their position on the high ground. It is reasonable to assume, though not explicictly stated that during this time the Franks would have taken steps to reinforce their position with basic defences. Stakes would be an obvious bonus against cavalry and their would have been plenty of wood around to make them, pits and other obsticals would also have been possible.
When the Umayyad's finally attacked their cavalry made repeated charges up the slope into the solid Frankish formation. It is said that in several places they succeeded in breaking through the Franks into the centre of the square but even then the Frankish infantry refused to panic and closing the gap with fresh men merely killed or captured all those who were trapped within. Although the losses on both sides were high.
The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."[28]
On the second day of battle, apparently Martel sent some of his lesser infantry (probably the least reliable, levies who had arrived late to the battle) to raid the Umayyad camp, drag away all the loot the Umayyad soldiers had captured so far during their campaign and free all their slaves. This seems to have caused total panic and chaos amongst the Umayyad army with most of its troops leaving the main army to rush back to their tents and prevent their loot being taken. As a result the Frankish accounts seem to discount this second day of battle completely, possibly because thier main army was not engaged. So many Umayyad soldiers left the field that it seems those that those left posed little threat to to the main Frankish position. However, the Umayyad records still count the battle over the loot as part of the battle. Whether they were successful in keeping it is not made clear, I suspect that the Frankish troops sent to raid the camp got pretty much 'creamed', but they were probably expendable.
Both western and eastern accounts of the battle confirm that the vast bulk of the Umayyad abbandoned their lines to save their loot and that Abd-al-Rahmân attempted to stop them. During the process he became surrounded (nobody says who by) and killed. It is not clear whether he was killed by the Franks or his own men. One can imagine an enraged general trying to stop an army of angry men getting cut down by a soldier whose only interest is getting his loot back. In any event, it seems that if the Franks somehow killed him nobody noticed, as the next day Martel assumed that he would be alive to recommence the main battle.
The records merely state that "Abd-al-Rahmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp." This suggests to me that he was surrounded by his own troops that he was trying to rally, rather than the enemy, and that his own men killed him in order to overcome the obstical between them and their loot.
Another Arabic account states:
"All the host fled before the enemy, and many died in the flight." The Franks resumed their phalanx, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn the following morning. Which suggests that the Frankish main body may have conducted some sort of pursuit, though its dubious how effective infantry would be in pursuing men on horseback.
On the third day, the Franks waited in formation for battle to continue, apparently unaware that the enemy general was dead. However, when they later sent scouts to find out why the Umayyad's were not attacking they discovered that the Umayyad's had gone, even leaving their tents behind. Presumably, the Umayyad soldiers had been so shaken by the events of the previous day that they had decided to leave with the loot they still had left rather than risk further financial losses facing the Franks. It also follows that without their leader discipline in the Umayyad army broke down and the men and minor nobility merely decided to leave.
[NOTE: This is only one version of the battle...it just happens to be the one that makes more sense to me. Other versions claim that the Franks captured and executed Abd-al-Rahmân, which seems a bit unlikely given the circumstances. Others claim that the main Frankish army managed to fight its way all the way down the slope across the open plain, through the Umayyad army, and then attack their treasure wagons, which seems not only unlikely but a damned stupid thing to attempt. As always the propaganda value of this battle has been explioted by historians on both sides and so one has to read between the lines to work out the truth.]
The radical islamism arose in the early Ottoman empire, AFTER the so-called Christians had crusaded towards the muslims living in the holy land, carrying out massacres of Christian, Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem and other cities without any prior provocation from the nations or people living in that region. Most historical examples of Islamism also happened during this era: with the establishment of the mughal empire in India after repeated violent massacres, and the establishment of Islam in East Africa, all of which happened mostly during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. It's not very odd that extremistic muslims would subjugate the more peaceful ones after all Christians did everything within their power to weaken or crush all muslims who were peaceful like Al-andalus and the mamluks with the chivalric Saladin, whereas they didn't hesitate to not only spare but also support people like Muhammed II.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
As for the conquests carried out by the early muslims, we see two different kinds of conquests. One, is caused by expeditions such as those carried out by Justinian and Belisarius: Belisarius may have conquered much land but he never fought a united enemy but mostly went around on simple rape and pillage sprees carrying out pointless massacres that made it even more impossible than it had been before to reestablish east roman control over these areas. These expeditions demonstrated that Rome had gone more mad than ever and that there was a need for a new strong Eastern state to stand up against the rapacious, murderous East Romans in the abscence of the falling Sassanid empire, and defend against renewed raids from people like Belisarius and Justinian.
The second type is where warlords who had conquest, not religion, as their main goal would take up the now successful religion from the Arabic peninsula, which had won a great reputation for establishing what was needed against the East Roman threat, and used this good name and a playact of pretending to be true muslims (by following all pointless rituals correctly down to every small detail, while disregarding the things that mattered - the ethics of the religion - very similar to how Christian extremists abused the good name Christianity had won), to further their own conquest ambitions. These warlors are not worse than the Franks, who held similar ambitions of taking a big share if not all of the dying roman empire, and find some kind of juridical argument to make it seem legitimate to continue conquering the parts of Rome they hadn't yet taken.
Apart from the practise of genital mutilation, many of the muslims of the 7th and 8th centuries were probably preferable overlords to for instance the Franks and East romans - which is probably why they received a lot of support. In fact, whereas the Christians had almost no education or research, the muslims carried on the ancient Greek tradition and brought it further with many great philosophers, scientists and inventors. They were no sinless angels either, but has any nations or religions ever been? Just like the good name won by Christianity for its good deeds was abused by people who wanted legitimacy for doing bad things, Islam was abused in the same way, and eventually countable percentages of those who called themselves Muslims were abusing the word similar to Christians have done in the west. Then, after attacking the most peaceful and chivalric dynasties among the muslims and murdering them as if they were the spawn of Satan, the crusader and reconquista Christians clearly showed that peacefulness among muslims would be taken as a weakness, whereas only more cruel dynasties would be left alone. Thus the rise of the early Ottoman empire, with its radicalism, which gradually begun disappearing among the Ottomans in the 18th century, but still lives on today among others.
So while some may dislike the most extremistic forms of islamism of today, I don't think it's quite historically correct to portray the Franks at Tours as saviors and the Muslims in the same battle as savage demons, or claim that we can't blame ourselves for aiding in the rise of Islamism by aiding in the subjugation of some of the more peaceful forms of Islam.
Some interesting trivia by the way, about the propaganda related to this battle: the event on which "chansôn de Roland" is based is obviously not the battle of Tours (since it was not Charlemagne but Charles Martel who commanded at Tours), but what not all people know is that it's not another battle with muslims either: it's in fact an incident in which Frankish retreating columns in the Iberian peninsula are ambushed by Christian Iberians trying to resist Frankish attempts of occupation of their lands. Just to show what "heroes" the Franks were at the time...
Well, the term you chose, Christian Iberians makes it sound like Aragonese or Castillians. In reality, it was Basques, and I'm not certain they were Christian at that time. But your point is a valid one, Christians living in Northern Spain did not view the Franks coming over the Pyrenees as saving heroes. Most people don't know that when El Cid fell out of favor with the Castillian king, he started fighting for the Spanish muslim princes (Cordoba I think), and when the Almoravids arrived to 'purify' Al Andalus, he didn't return to Madrid, he founded his own kingdom in Valencia (which is why he shows up as a rebel there at the beginning of MTW).Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Truth be told, it's not fair to talk about "muslims" through history, any more than its fair to say that the Brittish Empire shared much in common with the kingdom of Charlemagne, as both are Christian European kingdoms. But I think you're looking back with rose colored glasses yourself. Yes, there were some moderate, temperate, enlightened Muslim kingdoms, such as the Fatmids, the Abyssids and arguably, the Umayyids. But I don't know that I'd want to be a subject of the Almoravids or the Almohads. The Seljuk Turks weren't the kindest folks to come across either, and none of those 3 empires had anything to do with responding to crusades or Eastern Roman abuses.
I think a more fair and accurate statement would be there were good muslim leaders and bad ones, just as there were good and bad Christian leaders. (Good and bad, for the purposes of this discussion, relating to how minority religionists were treated).
I think that's the key point historically, unfortunately it doesn't fit in with the agenda's of modern day politicians who want us to beleive that we are engaged in some sort of holy war that has raged throughout history rather than admit that we are just fighting and dying to serve their own immediate ambitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I wouldn't want to be a subject of any of the *astards that ruled in this period of history. My main concern is not to become the subject of someone similar tomorrow, or to leave my children at risk of becoming the subject of one in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Hm... :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Reading the post you're replying to helpsQuote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I was responding to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
and thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Legio
and this...Quote:
It's not very odd that extremistic muslims would subjugate the more peaceful ones after all Christians did everything within their power to weaken or crush all muslims who were peaceful like Al-andalus and the mamluks with the chivalric Saladin, whereas they didn't hesitate to not only spare but also support people like Muhammed II.
Quote:
Apart from the practise of genital mutilation, many of the muslims of the 7th and 8th centuries were probably preferable overlords to for instance the Franks and East romans - which is probably why they received a lot of support. In fact, whereas the Christians had almost no education or research, the muslims carried on the ancient Greek tradition and brought it further with many great philosophers, scientists and inventors.
So, you respond to only part of my post with phrasings such as
? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
That's not all I said. Now who's misrepresenting what other people have to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So, I make a post where I refuse to take sides for either the "OMG Tours was a battle of heroes vs demons" or the "OMG Islam pwnt Christians stfu" side, and you respond with quoting only the parts where I criticize the former view and ignoring the parts where I criticize the latter. In your reply you then use this unrepresentative choice of quotations from my post to make a response where you accuse me of being naive for supporting the latter view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
This smells like flame-baiting. If you have any quarrel with me (which you shouldn't), you can resolve this by sending a PM to me or open a separate duel thread in the backroom, instead of cluttering this interesting thread on Charles Martel and the battle of Tours!
Must be time for the Don to head off to charm school again. They keep promising me that one of these times it will stick and I'll quit stepping on everyone's toes, but thus far... :help:
No offense intended. I'm not 'flame-baiting' you or even disagreeing with you, for the most part.
Personally, I find Tours more interesting from the tactical point of view than the Grand Strategic point of view. As others have said, it was no end to Umayyid power... had they wanted to come back for the rest of France, they could have any time they chose to. The real miracle of Tours was that a bunch of footmen beat a much bigger bunch of horseman.
As for how bad things were in a Caliphate versus in a Christian kingdom, that sounds like it might be better reserved for the backroom discussion, eh?
No blood, no foul, eh Legio? ~:pat:
At the time, much of what is now modern France was ruled by a violent feudal elite, who relied on overwhelming military strength (in the form of heavy cavalry) to put down a weak, poor mass of (not at all or barely Christian) peasants. I don't think that for them, it would have mattered much who won and which religion they professed. The person it did help was Charles Martel in establishing an unassailable basis for his famous dynasty.
In the long run, who knows? Certainly I don't believe early Islam was any worse or better than Christianity. The Koran contains passages which in hindsight are definitely dubious, but as with Christians I believe the actions of Muslims should not be seen in light of their religion but as actions of individuals. Good people or bad people are what they are, whatever they claim to believe. Evil Christians or Muslim aren't such due to their faith, but despite it, and I believe the same holds true for other religions.
Ok! ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Thanks for the responses, guys (Randarkmaan, Don Corleone, & Didz). I consider myself a little better informed now than I was before. :bow:
Can I have some sources for you're statment oon the christian population of France at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Where I remember it most clearly was in my Social History textbook, since I had to memorise it; Van agrarische samenleving naar verzorginsstaat, pages 163-164. The author of that section makes clear that although large amounts of the population of the sixteenth century was nominally Christian that was mainly a new name given to age-old beliefs in magicians, fairies and any other superstition. It was against such matters that protestantism managed to take a stand.
Certainly if it was like that more than half a millennium later, the eighth century must have been even more so. More information can be found in Eeuwen des onderscheid, by Wim Blockmans. Consider, that only late in that century the Bible was to be translated from Latin to languages the common people could read. Until that time people mainly worshipped at traditional shrines to traditional heroes and mythological characters, later converted into more Chritstian places of worship and saints respectively. Anglesaxon kings continued to trace their lineage to Wodan, though the ninth century made Wodan into a descendant of Adam. Quality of priests was also rather dubious in general, leaving a lot of room for people to identify their superstition with the relatively new faith.
Remember that state authority and Church authority rested on a very small group of people relative to the total population, with leaders having enough trouble keeping a kingdom together, let alone converting everyone to Christianity. For the largest part people believed in superstitions which were gradually identified with the Church, but for the common man toiling the earth there would be little to no difference if their rulers were Muslim or Christian; the fact that superstition was so prevalent in the sixteenth century bears witness to the superficial penetration of religion in the everyday lives. Christianity in a more modern sense can only really be spoken of in relatively isolated monasteries and small groups of warriors following their Frankish king in converting to take advantage of the more effective Church infrastructure.