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.

[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…

“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…

[Innocentius]

“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.

[Sarmatian]

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...

[KARTLOS]

Arabic. Didn't you know that?


.

of course i did i was making a point.

[KARTLOS]

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.

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Conradus]

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?

[Innocentius]

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.

of course i did i was making a point.

And I was being ironic...

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.

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.

[AntiochusIII]

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

[Brenus]

“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. 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…

[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.

[Innocentius]

It is NOT a book.

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

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.

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.

[Ignoramus]

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

[Tristuskhan]

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.

[Innocentius]

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.

[KARTLOS]

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?

[Brenus]

“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…

[Innocentius]

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".

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…

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.

[Brenus]

“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...

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…

[Innocentius]

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…

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Innocentius]

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.

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)?

[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.