Charles Martel - The battle of tours

The guy is a hero of mine. personally i ascribe to the theory that the battle of tours was a pivotal event in world history. if the muslims had won they would have been given a free reign to continue pusihng on into france and beyond. put it this way, i believe if the franks hadnt won men in the west would likely be living in a beerless world, suffering from the indignity of genital mutilation, and speaking dialects of arabic.
the opposite view is that it was no more than a minor border skirmish of minimal signifigance. and of course there is range of opinions between the two extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

The guy is a hero of mine. personally i ascribe to the theory that the battle of tours was a pivotal event in world history. if the muslims had won they would have been given a free reign to continue pusihng on into france and beyond. put it this way, i believe if the franks hadnt won men in the west would likely be living in a beerless world, suffering from the indignity of genital mutilation, and speaking dialects of arabic.
the opposite view is that it was no more than a minor border skirmish of minimal signifigance. and of course there is range of opinions between the two extremes.

---

Although the battle of Tours isn't without importance, it is minor in importance compared to the Sieges of Constantinople. The world today would be a rather different one if Constantinople had already fallen in 674-678 or 717-718.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AggonyDuck

Although the battle of Tours isn't without importance, it is minor in importance compared to the Sieges of Constantinople. The world today would be a rather different one if Constantinople had already fallen in 674-678 or 717-718.

---

certainly true, the renaissance may never have happened if constantinople had fallen then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

certainly true, the renaissance may never have happened if constantinople had fallen then.

---

Or it might have "happened" (the renaissance didn't "happen", just like no historical "periods" never "happened") about 900 years earlier. Compare Al Andalus and the Caliphate in Bagdad to the Franksih kingdoms of the 7th and 8th century.
And why would the Muslims prohibit beer and force people to learn arabic when they had never done so before? I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.

Your views on the Muslim expansion in the 6th, 7th and 8th century seem to be rather radical (and largely incorrect and biased).

OT: I regard Tours as a minor inconveniance for the Muslims. If they wanted to/had bothered to, they could have returned the next year with a proper army and destroy the Franks. But they never did, they never even bothered to take the entire Iberian peninsula, so I doubt the Franks were ever exposed to any real threat.
The later Muslim kingdoms of what is today's southern Spain suffered pretty heavily from expansionist Christian kingdoms from the latter half of the 11th century and on however.

Islam may not have forced its values on its conquered peoples, however the fact remains that the regions it conquered during the 7th and 8th centuries and later are (mostly) overwhelmingly Muslim (and beerless).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Or it might have "happened" (the renaissance didn't "happen", just like no historical "periods" never "happened") about 900 years earlier. Compare Al Andalus and the Caliphate in Bagdad to the Franksih kingdoms of the 7th and 8th century.
And why would the Muslims prohibit beer and force people to learn arabic when they had never done so before? I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.

Your views on the Muslim expansion in the 6th, 7th and 8th century seem to be rather radical (and largely incorrect and biased).

OT: I regard Tours as a minor inconveniance for the Muslims. If they wanted to/had bothered to, they could have returned the next year with a proper army and destroy the Franks. But they never did, they never even bothered to take the entire Iberian peninsula, so I doubt the Franks were ever exposed to any real threat.
The later Muslim kingdoms of what is today's southern Spain suffered pretty heavily from expansionist Christian kingdoms from the latter half of the 11th century and on however.

---

an islamic apologist i see.

pray tell me what was the language of the moorish court in spain, and what language to they now speak in egpyt and the middle east?

i never said they would force people to speak arabic, the likelihood is however that if france had been conquered by the muslims arabic would now be spoken there. it is certainly true however that the caliphate did have a track record of trying to force arabic on a conquered nation, for example in persia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

an islamic apologist i see.

---

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 KARTLOS

pray tell me what was the language of the moorish court in spain, and what language to they now speak in egpyt and the middle east?

---

Arabic. Didn't you know that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

i never said they would force people to speak arabic, the likelihood is however that if france had been conquered by the muslims arabic would now be spoken there. it is certainly true however that the caliphate did have a track record of trying to force arabic on a conquered nation, for example in persia.

---

The Persians - IIRC - were somewhat of an "arch enemy" to the early Muslims and as their original goal of unifying the arab world under Islam it seems likely they went rough on the old enemies of the arabs (both Christian, Muslim etc). I'm no expert on the matter however and I believe at least someone in this forum should be able to correct me.
Yes, it is likely that people in what is todays France would be speaking arabic (ever heard of cultural assimilation?) but in which way would that be harmful? If all of Europe had been "islamized" more than 1000 years ago you wouldn't mourn your lost, pagan, heritage. So why be thankful that something didn't happen so long ago? You wouldn't be the same you if this and that hadn't happened etc, and if you - for instance - was never born, you wouldn't complain very much.
The early Muslims were not some sort of evil force from the south who would have the destroyed the civilzed western world and prohibited beer if it had conquered it. I like beer a lot and would miss it, but if had never tasted it I wouldn't. Also, the absence of beer in much of the mediterranean area is probably most likely a result of the climate. Italy, for example, a Christian country/area since more than 1500 years does not have the same "beer culture" as more recently christianized lands up north (like Sweden or Germany).
In fact, from a cultural aspect, the uncilized north could have benefited a lot from a Muslim ruling class. Not that I would have prefered it that way, history is what history is and you can't apply modern views on historic people or periods etc etc. All of this takes a lot of explaining really, our mentality (and by "our" I mean Europeans or "Westerners" in general) originate from the Colonial age and is vastly different from how 8th century Europeans thought. They didn't consider their culture to be the finest and foremost (like most Europeans seem to do) and... well... er...

I lost my real train of thought about halfway through this post, sorry. Not everything in it may be relevant to the subject, but always keep in mind that you can't apply modern views on history.

“I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.” Err, read history of the Balkans…

“I regard Tours as a minor inconveniance for the Muslims. If they wanted to/had bothered to, they could have returned the next year with a proper army and destroy the Franks. But they never did, they never even bothered to take the entire Iberian peninsula, so I doubt the Franks were ever exposed to any real threat.” Well that could be a valid point excepted that they didn’t lost ONLY in Poitiers /Tours (in fact in Moussais) but as well in Toulouse by Eudes of Aquitaine in 721.
After Poitiers/Tours (25th of October 732), Charles Martel took the Loire Valley then went to South and expelled the Muslims from the region. So, it was perhaps not a decisive battle but it did put an end the Muslim Raids in France. Good enough because on the other side it was the Vikings who showed up…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.” Err, read history of the Balkans…

---

What book is that?

Also, what are you talking about? The Muslim expansion of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries (which is related to the topic of this thread) didn't reach as far as to the Balkans. The Balkans went into Muslim hands during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire (14th and 15th century, mostly) and even then there was a freedom of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

What book is that?

Also, what are you talking about? The Muslim expansion of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries (which is related to the topic of this thread) didn't reach as far as to the Balkans. The Balkans went into Muslim hands during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire (14th and 15th century, mostly) and even then there was a freedom of religion.

---

You're now seeing things black and white Innocentius. Although religion wasn't enforced per se, there were far more subtler method that the ottomans used to convert balkan christians...

Also, ottoman rule in the 15th, 16th and 17th century differed greatly from ottoman rule in the 18th, 19th and 20th century...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Arabic. Didn't you know that?


.

---

of course i did i was making a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

The early Muslims were not some sort of evil force from the south who would have the destroyed the civilzed western world and prohibited beer if it had conquered it. I like beer a lot and would miss it, but if had never tasted it I wouldn't. Also, the absence of beer in much of the mediterranean area is probably most likely a result of the climate. Italy, for example, a Christian country/area since more than 1500 years does not have the same "beer culture" as more recently christianized lands up north (like Sweden or Germany).
In fact, from a cultural aspect, the uncilized north could have benefited a lot from a Muslim ruling class.

---

i merely mentioned beer as a jocular example of what we might have had to put up with! all types of alcohol production and consumption would have ultimately been supressed. It should be noted for example that egypt and mesopotamia had a fantastic heritage in alcohol production and have the earliest attested examples of beer production. all of this heritage was destroyed by the arab invasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

The Persians - IIRC - were somewhat of an "arch enemy" to the early Muslims and as their original goal of unifying the arab world under Islam it seems likely they went rough on the old enemies of the arabs (both Christian, Muslim etc). I'm no expert on the matter however and I believe at least someone in this forum should be able to correct me..

---

you seem to have an idealistic view of the early muslims. persia was conquered for plunder, pure and simple. they made little effort to convert non muslim people in their empire as it allwed for tax farming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

After Poitiers/Tours (25th of October 732), Charles Martel took the Loire Valley then went to South and expelled the Muslims from the region. So, it was perhaps not a decisive battle but it did put an end the Muslim Raids in France. Good enough because on the other side it was the Vikings who showed up…

---

Didn't the Arab raids into France continue for a great part of the next centuries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You're now seeing things black and white Innocentius. Although religion wasn't enforced per se, there were far more subtler method that the ottomans used to convert balkan christians...

Also, ottoman rule in the 15th, 16th and 17th century differed greatly from ottoman rule in the 18th, 19th and 20th century...

---

I guess so. Of course I am aware that there are Muslims in the Balkans as a result of the Ottomans (this has lead to conflicts much later on, as we know), but at least there was an official freedom of religion, which is more than can be said about Spain after 1492.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

of course i did i was making a point.

---

And I was being ironic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

i merely mentioned beer as a jocular example of what we might have had to put up with! all types of alcohol production and consumption would have ultimately been supressed. It should be noted for example that egypt and mesopotamia had a fantastic heritage in alcohol production and have the earliest attested examples of beer production. all of this heritage was destroyed by the arab invasions.

---

True. It just seemed as if "beer culture" was something specifically good that the Muslims would have ruined in your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

you seem to have an idealistic view of the early muslims. persia was conquered for plunder, pure and simple. they made little effort to convert non muslim people in their empire as it allwed for tax farming.

---

And you seem to have a overly sceptic view of the early Muslims. Do not underestimate the zeal of people in past times. I'll just bring up the Crusades to show what I mean: Until about the 1970-ies it was the common opinion among European historians that the true motive for the Crusades (the Crusades towards the Levant) were quite simply plunder and dominion. More modern research suggests truly religious motives as the true reason for the Crusades.
Of course, this does in no way justify the Crusades (or the Muslim conquest). In my opinion it does the exact opposite and just shows what religion is capable of causing.
I'd also like to see some sources about the simple plunder and tax farming of Persia, as these lands quite soon were "islamized". Or am I wrong on that part? For what I know the majority of the population in the middle east about as far east as modern day Pakistan has been Muslim for more than a thousand years. Again, I am no expert on the subject and any such expert may correct me at any time.

What are you people on about anyway? Islam is just Islam and Islam at the 7th century A.D. was drastically different to modern Islam in just about every way even if the scriptures remain largely intact. No matter what your opinion about modern Islamicism is, Islamophobia has no place in a historical discussion or in judging the importance of historical events. History, as I said in another thread (more like agreeing with TinCow really) should be neutral. It shouldn't judge. You shouldn't either. The importance of events lie in their impacts, not their moral viewpoints.

The early expansionist Caliphates were different from the Caliphate in Baghdad and even more different to the Ottoman Empire -- which in itself had different periods with different practices -- so saying a 17th-19th century Ottoman state actively attempts to subvert its non-Islamic population to convert as an example of a 7th century state practice is quite ridiculous.

As for myself, I consider Tours to be a glorified specific example of a successful Frankish resistance against Muslim expansion. It probably helped that Charles Martel was a very skilled warlord and I think his successes which greatly strengthened the Franks probably allowed -- his what, grandson? -- Charlemagne an easier time forging out the highly influential Medieval "(Frankish) Holy Roman Empire." If one considers Tours as a representative of various engagements rather than a single climactic battle ala Ipsos [from the Diadochi Wars] or Waterloo then it is arguably quite significant in the transition of post-Roman Europe into the Medieval age.

The "true" battle was at Constantinople really though. The City and the Empire was quite a prize and everyone -- including the then-unstoppable Caliphate -- wanted it. Whether its fall would prevent the Renaissance from happening or not I cannot say with certainty, but I digress. Unlike what seems to be the opinion here I believe that early-Medieval Islamic* contributions to classical knowledge, both in preservation and contributing "new content," are actually quite significant.

*not the religion singularly, but "Islamic civilization" so to speak

“What book is that?”: It is NOT a book. It was just an advice to see in history of the Balkans, and to see the reality and the conditions of the freedom of religion under Muslim domination: Not really different for other Empires, except the Janissary system (one child per family as slave to Istanbul, to make it simple, during around 500 years for Serbia, as ex.)

”Also, what are you talking about? The Muslim expansion of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries (which is related to the topic of this thread) didn't reach as far as to the Balkans. The Balkans went into Muslim hands during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire (14th and 15th century, mostly) and even then there was a freedom of religion.” Oh, I didn’t know you wanted to limit Islam at this period…

“Didn't the Arab raids into France continue for a great part of the next centuries?” Yes, they did. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: In fact they even settled-up in some mountains, (Massif des Maures) and were expelled by I don’t remember which King when they kidnap some Bishop…

I do sigh at the fact that most people say that the Muslims contributed greatly to science and learning in the Middle Ages. Arabs certainly did, but most of them weren't Muslim. Islam has never made any great contributions to science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It is NOT a book.

---

Some people just don't understand irony and sarcasm I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Oh, I didn’t know you wanted to limit Islam at this period…

---

Did you bother to read the topic of this thread? What happened in the Balkans in the 15th and 16th centuries has little to do with the Muslim expansion of the early medieval era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I do sigh at the fact that most people say that the Muslims contributed greatly to science and learning in the Middle Ages. Arabs certainly did, but most of them weren't Muslim. Islam has never made any great contributions to science.

---

And what do you base that statement on? The Muslims in themselves did perhaps not reach any new insights as such, but they preserved a lot of ancient (mostly Greek) knowledge that was lost to western Europe. Without them we might still be a few centuries behind.
Al-Andalus was not an Arab "kingdom" (was it a caliphate? I don't remember) but it was undoubtedly Muslim and compared to the Christian kingdoms not very far north of it it was civilization incarnate.

I wonder why Muslims themselves preferred to live under the rule of the Crusaders than their Muslim "brethren"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I wonder why Muslims themselves preferred to live under the rule of the Crusaders than their Muslim "brethren"?

---

Any source about that? The opposite is often admitted.

The inhabitants of the Levant (both Christian, Jewish and Muslim) prefered no particular lords. They were used to lords of different religions, and all were about as bad. The Crusaders was not consided in the way we may imagine the Muslims and the inhabitants of the Levant considered them. The "Franks" were just another people fighting for the control of the Levant, and their religion made them neither better nor worse. Even the Muslim lords (Seljuk and Fatamid and later on others) considered them a natural part of the struggle for power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I do sigh at the fact that most people say that the Muslims contributed greatly to science and learning in the Middle Ages. Arabs certainly did, but most of them weren't Muslim. Islam has never made any great contributions to science.

---

how do you mean arabs did? surely nearlly all arabs at the time were muslims?

“Some people just don't understand irony and sarcasm I guess...” Oh, it was irony and sacarsm… Some people just have difficulties in mastering such matters, I guess…

“Did you bother to read the topic of this thread?” Well, yes, obviously you didn’t: Title: “Charles Martel” and, according to the initiator of the thread, his victory stops Islam to expend. There is NO period of time indicated… YOU tried to set-up a period, but, some people don’t play following your rules. A shame, I guess…:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Oh, it was irony and sacarsm… Some people just have difficulties in mastering such matters, I guess…

---

At least I thought it was quite obvious I was being sarcastic. Of course, many people could have mistaken what you wrote as being a book (just that you forgot the capital). "History of the Balkans, by blablabla".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Well, yes, obviously you didn’t: Title: “Charles Martel” and, according to the initiator of the thread, his victory stops Islam to expend. There is NO period of time indicated… YOU tried to set-up a period, but, some people don’t play following your rules. A shame, I guess…:beam:

---

What the initiator believes about the battle of Tours is, IMHO, irrelevant for the discussion, especially considering he is obviously not very well-informed.

No period of time indicated? When did the battle of Tours occur then? And you have to agree that the (allow me to quote myself) "Muslim expansion of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries (which is related to the topic of this thread) didn't reach as far as to the Balkans". In fact, one might even say it is highly related or even vital for the subject. I didn't set anything up, if a thread is about the battle of Crécy, it's more reasonable to discuss the 100 Years' War in that thread rather than discuss the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and France. Of course, there's an ever bigger difference between "France" in the 8th century and the Balkans in the 16th century than between 14th and early 18th century France.

“What the initiator believes about the battle of Tours is, IMHO, irrelevant for the discussion, especially considering he is obviously not very well-informed.” I would give you that. However, it is still true that with this battle, and the one in Toulouse, the Arabs (Muslim) were effectively stopped in their conquest. If you look at a map just look how deep in France Poitiers is (In France we learn as the Battle of Poitiers). And he is now learning...:book:

Now, fair enough, you want to stay in this period of time and dissociate the Early Muslims from the latest Muslims. However, you can’t deny (well, de facto you can) that a unknown religion which expends so fast and so wildly doesn’t do it peacefully but by hard persuasion… Charlemagne did the same with the Saxons, one century and half later… It is a common way to convert people to the real truth and be alighted by the spirit of peace. The other alternative being to be set alight by a torch…:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

However, you can’t deny (well, de facto you can) that a unknown religion which expends so fast and so wildly doesn’t do it peacefully but by hard persuasion… Charlemagne did the same with the Saxons, one century and half later… It is a common way to convert people to the real truth and be alighted by the spirit of peace. The other alternative being to be set alight by a torch…:oops:

---

Well, one must differ the expansion of the Muslim Caliphate and the expansion of Islam. The Muslims conquered land from Portugal in the west to India in the east within less than 150 years. That's a very rapid expansion, and yes, it was probably rather brutal. But I don't think that the vast population that inhabitated all those areas were immediately islamized. Of course, the Christians or people of other religion living in the lands of the Muslims were probably islamized (assimilated) as time went on, and some were most likely forced to, but there are still large groups of Christians in Egypt and the Levant, and they lived, and live, there despite Muslim rule. There are still Christian Arabs, and they (or their very-great-anscestors) were quite strong opposers of the invading Muslims in the 7th century.

In all, I consider the early Muslims as generally more tolerant than Christians of about the same time and age (you brought up a very good example in Charlemagne). One must however remember that the Muslim invasions helped speed the militarization of Christianity. Before the fall of the Roman Empire, most Christians (or all "good" Christians) were pacifists, but as the centuries went on Christianity turned into more and more of a religion which justified war*, culminating in a few centuries of Crusading and thereafter a few more centuries of colonisation (often in the name of Christ and with the same mentality as that of the Crusaders). This militarization was likely caused by the unstable situation in the Christian world, even in Constantinople, and because of invading "outsiders", like Muslims and Hungarians.


* The right kind of war, that is. Iusta causa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

In all, I consider the early Muslims as generally more tolerant than Christians of about the same time and age (you brought up a very good example in Charlemagne). One must however remember that the Muslim invasions helped speed the militarization of Christianity. Before the fall of the Roman Empire, most Christians (or all "good" Christians) were pacifists, but as the centuries went on Christianity turned into more and more of a religion which justified war*, culminating in a few centuries of Crusading and thereafter a few more centuries of colonisation (often in the name of Christ and with the same mentality as that of the Crusaders). This militarization was likely caused by the unstable situation in the Christian world, even in Constantinople, and because of invading "outsiders", like Muslims and Hungarians.


* The right kind of war, that is. Iusta causa.

---

Indeed. However, they seemed to pick their spots regarding whom to go 'forcefully enlighten.' For example, it didn't take Spain very long to engage conflict with the Natives in Central America and the Carribbean in order to 'bring them closer to God'. However, when the Mongol empire began encroaching into Europe and the Levant, rather than crusade against the 'pagan tartars', they decided it would be more effective to just send missionaries to Korakorum. Hmm, I wonder why they deemed the sword to be a less effective tactic against the Mongol Empire, as opposed to Native Americans with no armor, iron weapons, and when they were subjected to horrible plagues of smallpox and other diseases that ravaged populations and militaries.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greaterkhaan

Indeed. However, they seemed to pick their spots regarding whom to go 'forcefully enlighten.' For example, it didn't take Spain very long to engage conflict with the Natives in Central America and the Carribbean in order to 'bring them closer to God'. However, when the Mongol empire began encroaching into Europe and the Levant, rather than crusade against the 'pagan tartars', they decided it would be more effective to just send missionaries to Korakorum. Hmm, I wonder why they deemed the sword to be a less effective tactic against the Mongol Empire, as opposed to Native Americans with no armor, iron weapons, and when they were subjected to horrible plagues of smallpox and other diseases that ravaged populations and militaries.:inquisitive:

---

Ah, the irony of the "tartar" invasion. The truth is most Catholics used the weakness of the Orthodox Russians to attack them in the back (despite this the northern crusaders failed in this and got it at Neva 1240 and Lake Peipus 1242, which most of you already know). But of course, it's very logic really. Why bother to Crusade against a total overmight that weakens your other enemies (the Rus and the Mamluks)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AggonyDuck

Although the battle of Tours isn't without importance, it is minor in importance compared to the Sieges of Constantinople. The world today would be a rather different one if Constantinople had already fallen in 674-678 or 717-718.

---

I think the world would also be quite different had the Franks lost at tours.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Or it might have "happened" (the renaissance didn't "happen", just like no historical "periods" never "happened") about 900 years earlier. Compare Al Andalus and the Caliphate in Bagdad to the Franksih kingdoms of the 7th and 8th century.
And why would the Muslims prohibit beer and force people to learn arabic when they had never done so before? I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.

Your views on the Muslim expansion in the 6th, 7th and 8th century seem to be rather radical (and largely incorrect and biased).

OT: I regard Tours as a minor inconveniance for the Muslims. If they wanted to/had bothered to, they could have returned the next year with a proper army and destroy the Franks. But they never did, they never even bothered to take the entire Iberian peninsula, so I doubt the Franks were ever exposed to any real threat.
The later Muslim kingdoms of what is today's southern Spain suffered pretty heavily from expansionist Christian kingdoms from the latter half of the 11th century and on however.

---

You mt friend seem like an apologist.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

You mt friend seem like an apologist.
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)."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

In all, I consider the early Muslims as generally more tolerant than Christians of about the same time and age (you brought up a very good example in Charlemagne).

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

That would be my view also, although there is some evidence to suggest that there were abuses of Islamic teaching even then.

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

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 KARTLOS

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I take it you have little respect for the intelligence of people whom practise religion?

---

I beleive that if people are mature and intelligent then they don't need other people to tell them what to beleive.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I beleive that if people are mature and intelligent then they don't need other people to tell them what to beleive.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Sorry, I may have misread your post and said some stuff you weren't even talked about :P

---

:bow: I already said I might have misinterpreted your post :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

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.

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

---

If they didn't invent religion, who the hell do think did?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

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.

---

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

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.

---

Glad to hear it^^

If you agree with everything I said than you would just be another sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

Don't forget the fearfactor. Many people simply are afraid.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirex1

Didn't the Muslim convert people by the sword and slaughter countless of people while spreading like a wildfire? Think I read somewhere that Christian in Egypt’s 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KARTLOS

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

It was not an army of light cavalry and horse-archers, it was an army of mailed horsemen with stirrups and infantry...
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

imagine taking on the Golden Horde with feudal swordsmen and milita sergeants.

---

I'd rather not, thank you. ~;p

Kidding aside, though, how was the battle actually won, anyway? I've never really understood how the Franks were able to secure the victory.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

... how was the battle actually won, anyway? I've never really understood how the Franks were able to secure the victory.

---

There are no reliable records of this battle so its hard to be certain.

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.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I find it unlikely that they would force their religion and traditions on western Europe when they hadn't done so with previously conquered areas.” Err, read history of the Balkans…

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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).

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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

But I don't know that I'd want to be a subject of the Almoravids or the Almohads.

---

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

But I think you're looking back with rose colored
glasses yourself.
[...]
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.

---

Hm... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

two different kinds of conquests

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

They were no sinless angels either [...] 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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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

---

Reading the post you're replying to helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Hm... :inquisitive:


Reading the post you're replying to helps

---

I was responding to this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legio

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.

---

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.

---

and this...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think you're looking back with rose colored glasses yourself.

---

? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

So, you respond to only part of my post with phrasings such as

? :inquisitive:

---

That's not all I said. Now who's misrepresenting what other people have to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That's not all I said. Now who's misrepresenting what other people have to say?

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

No blood, no foul, eh Legio? ~:pat:

---

Ok! ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:

Thanks for the responses, guys (Randarkmaan, Don Corleone, & Didz). I consider myself a little better informed now than I was before. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

---

Can I have some sources for you're statment oon the christian population of France at the time.

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.