Charles Martel - The battle of tours

[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.

[AggonyDuck]

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.

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Innocentius]

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.

[King Henry V]

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).

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Innocentius]

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).

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?

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Innocentius]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.