What Battle was of Greater Importance?

[Warluster]

I've been reading over lately about 14th to 17th Century Europe, which I find now abosulutely fascinating. But to my question. What battle was more important, the Battle of Vienna in 1527 or the Battle of Tours in 732?

The Battle of Vienna: In the year 1729, the Ottoman Empire extended across the Balkans and to South Austria. The great Ottoman Ruler, Sulieman I, considered the last of the great line of Turkish RUlers from Mehmed II. The Turkish sieged the city with some 130 000, with hundreds of massive cannons designed especially for Sulieman. The Austrians garrisoned the City with 16 000 troops, 800 of them Elitle Spanish Marhmens, and the others elite Italian and Austrian soldiers.

The Siege lasted long with several battles happening mostly underground, and even a breakthrough, once, but beaten back swiftly. After some time the Turks retreated due to disease problems and the final arrival of winter. THis certianly saved Europe from being under Turkish rule.


The Battle of Tours:
The battle started when Charles Martel, Frankish General, adopted a hill top defensive position, as did the Islamic General 'Abdul. For Seven Days they sat there, with minor skirmishes. 'Abdul finnaly charged with his trusted cavarly, which he repeated several times to no victory. Charles sent scouts to loot the baggae train of 'Abdul, and cause general panic, which succeded. The Islamic Heavy Cav advanced to beat them off, but the rest of the army took it as a retreat, and a mass rout ensured. As the Islamc soldiers retreated, 'Abdul was surrounded and killed.


Both battles, not matter how easy they were, certianly saved EUrope for a disatorous fate. Consider the results if Veinna was lost.

Vienna (If the Austrians lost): The Ottomans would've occupied the capital of the AUstrian EMpire, thus opening a clear window into Europe. In a matter of time, the massed hordes of the Turkish would've easily advanced into Italy by the Alps and across from Greece, and then onto France. The only ay they could've been stopped, and we can't deny it, they could've been stopped if Veinna was taken, if all European Kingdoms united. Almost certianly impossible as each Kingdom at the time seemed to be wanting control of the next. The DUtch could've have used it to their advantage and rebelled against the Spanish, the English could've dstroyed France and take back thier Normandy lands and the other German States achieve domination of Germany, a goal each and every state dreamed of no amtter there size. Would've some Kingdoms helped others? Or would've Europe united?


Tours (If 'Abdul won): At the time of this battle Europe was, barely, united under the Carolingan (Frankish) Empire. THis EMpire covered from France to Poland, and was quite impressive. Meanwhile, the Islamic Empire covered from India to Northern Spain. The Muslim conquerors had a decent army, there heavy cav seemed indeustructible. THey had beaten any attemptsof resistance in Spain. Even when Europe was unified, they did not get along. At the time the French State of Aquitane was free from the Frankish Kingdom. The Islamic Invaders sought to conquer, so the King plead to the Frankish rulers for help. THis was only secured if he gave the Kingdom to them, as he did, and Charles Martel was sent forth with a mainly Infantry army o defeat them. If the Islamic Empire won, they could've swept into EUrope. A fate made easier by the fracturing of the Frankish Epire cetian to come, as shown when it split between France and the Holy Roman EMpire. Someone certianly would've betrayed the European rulers. If the Islamic invaders won, they would've been at Paris by the years end, perhaps in Italy and Germany before 835. If the victory had not been so complete for the Europeans, perhaps they would'v staggered back to their EUropean Empire, and the Islamic invaders could've retunred by 833 with extra men, and a deeper knowledge of EUropean tactics.


Think these things over. What battle was more important? Both were life saving. What Europe in what time would've been better prepared? The EUrope in 1500, or the Europe in 800?

[Justiciar]

I'd say Tours, if only for the nature of earlier Islamic conquest. The Ottoman Turks would probably have drawn the line somewhere, and ceased expanding (if only for a while).

[Geoffrey S]

Tours was of exaggerated importance, exaggerated by later writers wishing to emphasize the Muslim threat to Christianity, with exaggerated figures. As for the siege of Vienna, for the moment it may have been important, but the rot had been settling in the Ottoman Empire for some time before and failure to take Vienna can be seen as a result of those problems.

In both cases, the events were products of longer-running processes which were of infinitely larger importance than the historically memorable moments they produced. Both empires had reached their limits not due to Christian triumph against the odds, but the limits hit upon by overstretched empires. They couldn't expand further, let alone hold such gains.

[Conqueror]

THey had beaten any attemptsof resistance in Spain.

Really? I thought they were unable/unwilling to ever truly subdue the mountaineous Northern Iberian lands, which remained christian.

The Islamic Invaders sought to conquer...

My understanding is that they sought to plunder. Had they won at Tours, they would have pillaged Southern France and then run back to Iberia with the loot.

[Innocentius]

Vienna, though none of them are very important IMO. The importance of Tours especially has been way overestimated by later historians (particularly in the national romantic era). You must remember that no single battle is that decisive. If history was determined by battles alone, the Roman Empire would never have collapsed, and the Norman invasion of England wouldn't have been possible.

However, what I find more interesting is how the OP deals with the Muslims as some threat to Europe, and states that a Muslim victory in either case would result in a "a disatorous fate" for Europe. I'm not even going to bring up modern Islamophobia, but you must remember that the Arab Moors in the 8th century and the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century were major powers among many others, and in some cases way more civilized and technologically developed than Europe. How is the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century "worse" than the unification and expansion of Russia? Or the expansion of Habsburg Spain?

[Warluster]

I chose two battles out of a massive lot, it does not mean I think they bigger and greater then the rest.

Most nations, as you have stated, are brought down by a combination of war and events. But I think battles have the larger influence over a collaspe of a Empire. Lets take Waterloo, I know most people in France weren't happy too see Napoleon back, a factor perhaps in his defeat, but if there had've been no Waterloo and the other three battles, then would've Napoleon be brought down? If he had've won, the French EMpire wouldn'tve fell because there was still a major factor of people who believed in him.

Another example; Hastings. It effectively brought the Saxon kingdom to its knees, though it didn't entirely destroy it, it was perhaps a VERY large factor. if there was no hastings then the Saxons would've ruled it for some more time.

I believe if the Ottoman Turks had've got into Europe, they would've had a mixture of results. I am sure cities would've gone the same way as RHodes (Or was it Cyprus?) and some would've been spared.

I do believe the Islamic nation in the 9th Century would've plundered, such is the example of how the heavy cav advanced very fast when their loot was being raided.

Yes, the Nothern Lands were still European.

@Geoffrey S, if both had reached their limit, why did not they fall? I know for a fact that the Ottoman EMpire did not collapse until the 20th Century in World War I, where they formed a republic, and even though it was still a very poor and small Empire, they still survived, did they not? If they reached their limit, then why didn't the ROman EMpire fall when it conquered the Medierttainan, or why didn't (Hasn't) Russia lost its Eastern lands? The USSR may have collasped upon itself, but it did not lose SIberia, the Ural areas?

[Fisherking]

It is a bit of a non-squatter to me. It is two different opponents at two different times. The concept of Holy War didn’t come about untill the 11th century, at least from the Christian standpoint.

The laevel of religious tollarance had changed by the time the Turks were attacking Vienna but it was still better than what was to be found on the Christian side.

The Battle of Poitiers/Tours was not the end of Moslem incursions into Gaul and it was not even their biggest defeat. It was the first encounter with the Franks and the Franks pulled off a victory but it was no where near the end of a war or a great turning point in history.

The Siege of Vienna I would say was a bit more important. It managed to get other realms to cooperate.
But even at that, if the Turks had taken it, I doubt if they could have held it long. It was pretty much the limit of their logistical abilities to reach and with hostile surrounding countryside… They would have been hard pressed and garrisoning it might have lead to an earlier collapse. But that is just a what if…

It did mark their high water mark and the subsequent Turkish Campaigns didn‘t do any better.

[AntiochusIII]

I don't have much new to say, except in agreement with others. Tours/Poitiers was simply a glorified skirmish. Perhaps it had plenty of value, after all, "glorifying" something is adding value to it in itself. Think propaganda -- Charles Martel could make a claim that he and his house "defended" the Franks and Christendom through said victory, gained power and influence, and therefore allowed his descendants to create the Carolingian Empire, for example, but that's the territory of historical theories and there's a lot of schools of thoughts out there in judging the battle's own historical worth. In fact many schools doubt the very concept of historical value itself...

Vienna on the other hand was a major siege battle, but logistically it doesn't seem too easy for the Ottomans to hold Vienna long-term anyway. Even the French might join the coalition if Italy's threatened, for one (I suspect Francis didn't like the idea of Suleiman being overlord of Milan any better than Charles, but heh), and it's not that easy reinforcing a city a Balkans away from Istanbul when entire armies of angry Germans were a doorstep away from Austria's heart. And in the big picture, the defeat at Vienna didn't exactly stop the Ottomans from expanding elsewhere either, fighting Spain in North Africa and the seas, the Safavids in Iran/Iraq, etc., so it wasn't like the defeat crippled their war machine like, say, Manzikert (and its decidedly more fatal aftermath) did to the Byzantine Empire.

And finally, the comparison invites this big macro-history view of defending Europe against Muslim invaders. Nonsense. The Pope in Rome was just as much worried about angry Lombard raiders as he was about angry Arab pirates in the 700's, and His Pontiff probably didn't much care about the fate of the Franks compare to His own survival. He wasn't any better placed in 1500's Italy either. Sure, fighting against the Ottoman Empire had that extra crusading oompth about it, and I doubt for example that Emperor Charles V felt particularly bad about uniting the fractured Holy Roman Empire behind something (like fighting off Ottoman invaders), but the Holy Leagues were far more about the politics of the day than they were about some nonsensical big picture view of religious struggles. The Venetians would attest to that when they were set upon by, oh, everyone else, in a so-called "Holy League" from their hated Roman enemy. In fact, aside from that not-so-little problem that the Ottomans were of a completely different religion from the Christians, any monarch worth his salt in 1500's Europe no doubt considered the Sultan to be an equal peer at the very least.

[Geoffrey S]

I chose two battles out of a massive lot, it does not mean I think they bigger and greater then the rest.

Most nations, as you have stated, are brought down by a combination of war and events. But I think battles have the larger influence over a collaspe of a Empire. Lets take Waterloo, I know most people in France weren't happy too see Napoleon back, a factor perhaps in his defeat, but if there had've been no Waterloo and the other three battles, then would've Napoleon be brought down? If he had've won, the French EMpire wouldn'tve fell because there was still a major factor of people who believed in him.

Another example; Hastings. It effectively brought the Saxon kingdom to its knees, though it didn't entirely destroy it, it was perhaps a VERY large factor. if there was no hastings then the Saxons would've ruled it for some more time.

I believe if the Ottoman Turks had've got into Europe, they would've had a mixture of results. I am sure cities would've gone the same way as RHodes (Or was it Cyprus?) and some would've been spared.

Well, at that point we end up at the age-old debate on the influence of events on the course of history. In your examples quoted above: yes, as things happened particular battles had an impact on when things changed, but it's essential not to lose sight of the fact that those battles were the products of circumstance and process. I don't want to come across as determinist here, which I'm not, but I don't believe battles by and large have the impact you credit them with. What, exactly, would have been the added impact of a longer Napoleonic Empire or a delayed or even absent Norman conquest of Britain? Do you think that would have significantly changed later processes?

I think the following quotes by Bismarck expresses things quite well. "A statesman... must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment. " Very rare is it that a person or an event can change the course of history dramatically; at most it affects the timescale.

@Geoffrey S, if both had reached their limit, why did not they fall? I know for a fact that the Ottoman EMpire did not collapse until the 20th Century in World War I, where they formed a republic, and even though it was still a very poor and small Empire, they still survived, did they not? If they reached their limit, then why didn't the ROman EMpire fall when it conquered the Medierttainan, or why didn't (Hasn't) Russia lost its Eastern lands? The USSR may have collasped upon itself, but it did not lose SIberia, the Ural areas?

In the case of the Umayyad Caliphate, it fell not all that long after Tours, and its over-extended territories were divided among numerous successors. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, although it didn't fall for some time, exactly how much further did it expand? It appears you see the failure of the siege of Vienna as the cause of a checked Ottoman expansion; I see it as the result of longer running problems and a symptom of the checked Ottoman expansion.

What is crucial in the case of the Ottoman Empire is the growing political influence of the janissaries and the fact that military organization was largely in a large royal army based around Istanbul. What this meant was that military power could often only be focused on one front at a time (usually the Habsburgs or the Safavids) and tended to head back to the centre of the Empire as winter fell in, limiting the geographic scope of their projection of military power. No, the Empire didn't fall, but expansion was barely possible and (partly as a result from the slowdown of conquests) more and more effort was taken by various interest groups trying to secure their political power in Istanbul: a lack of interest in offense and a vested interest in preserving the status quo (leading to an outclassed military machine) were some of the results of these processes, increased by the decision of Suleyman to delegate a large part of the day to day business to his divan, an official confirmation of the changed relations of power at the court.

[Warluster]

Unfortunely I can not write a lengthy reply, it is Xmas Eve! (Merry Xmas btw!) But I shall answer what I can;

Well, at that point we end up at the age-old debate on the influence of events on the course of history. In your examples quoted above: yes, as things happened particular battles had an impact on when things changed, but it's essential not to lose sight of the fact that those battles were the products of circumstance and process. I don't want to come across as determinist here, which I'm not, but I don't believe battles by and large have the impact you credit them with. What, exactly, would have been the added impact of a longer Napoleonic Empire or a delayed or even absent Norman conquest of Britain? Do you think that would have significantly changed later processes?

Some people, yes may not have changed history. Again, Napoleon is a prime example. THe Revoulution was the time of great change, if he was not asked to rise up and help, I am sure someone else would've. We might have had the French Empire ruled by a bloke called de Roi or someone.

But, some people definetly DID change history, it is undeniable. In 1918, the German Empire was destroyed and poor. They had resticrtion set upon them by the Allies. At first they had a Republic, and were greatly affected by Communism, but if there had've been not Fascist party led by Hitler, then Germany would not have dipped into such a Government.

my point is basiclly, a result of events are a major combination of crucial events, people and wars. No WWI, no Fascist Germany, no today. No Viking wars, no Hastings, no modern England.

In the case of the Ottoman Empire, although it didn't fall for some time, exactly how much further did it expand? It appears you see the failure of the siege of Vienna as the cause of a checked Ottoman expansion; I see it as the result of longer running problems and a symptom of the checked Ottoman expansion.

From then on, the Turk did not gain much in Europe, true. But they did expand quite much in North Africa and other places from then on until they and Spain agreed not to go to war. I also know they attempted another Siege of Vienna, much larger, and nearly won but the timely arrival of King Jan Sobeski's Polish Army stopped them. So my answer, they did expand.

I don't know a lot about Tours unfortunely, or I would argue the point furhter. I am not arguging for the sake of arguing, I am just insanely interested in early modern history.

[Geoffrey S]

Unfortunely I can not write a lengthy reply, it is Xmas Eve! (Merry Xmas btw!) But I shall answer what I can;

Indeed, Merry Christmas! Not quite there yet, so I'm currently (literally now avoiding) writing that damned essay on the USSR in the Yom Kippur War...

Some people, yes may not have changed history. Again, Napoleon is a prime example. THe Revoulution was the time of great change, if he was not asked to rise up and help, I am sure someone else would've. We might have had the French Empire ruled by a bloke called de Roi or someone.

But, some people definetly DID change history, it is undeniable.

Again, I'll emphasize: I think events and people are products of their time and the processes leading to such times. Not so much that if someone like Napoleon didn't turn up someone else would, but that similar changes would have taken place over a different timescale as different people and events had their say. There are certainly key moments in history where a shift in events can change those that follow in a drastic way, but by and large such events (and in particular, battles) are the result of earlier processes and are their clarity is misleading in making them considered pivotal.

In 1918, the German Empire was destroyed and poor. They had resticrtion set upon them by the Allies. At first they had a Republic, and were greatly affected by Communism, but if there had've been not Fascist party led by Hitler, then Germany would not have dipped into such a Government.

my point is basiclly, a result of events are a major combination of crucial events, people and wars. No WWI, no Fascist Germany, no today. No Viking wars, no Hastings, no modern England.

I also don't really have the time for an intensive discussion of the matter, so I'll illustrate my views on the basis of the two examples given.

The impact of Hitler on the course of events in Europe is in my opinion overrated. To clarify that, I am not claiming his impact on events is overrated; that would be an utter disservice to genocide. What I argue is a theory of a long World War (perhaps, the Second Thirty Years War...?) rather than two seperate ones, much as separate wars can be considered labeled The Hundred Years War or the Thirty Years War. There were basic problems create in the nineteenth century, in particular by the rise of the German Empire, which led to a severe unbalancing of power in Europe which left unsolved made conflict increasingly likely over time. These problems led to WWI and infamously were not solved in the conclusion of that war: the US returned to an isolationist worldview, the power of Britain continued to decline as the gold standard remained linked to the pound, the USSR was a (rising) rogue factor, and the 'German problem' remained at large. In that sense, a renewal of (worldwide) conflict was the most likely outcome, regardless of who would come to power in Germany and the particulars of Hitler's dictatorship.

]From then on, the Turk did not gain much in Europe, true. But they did expand quite much in North Africa and other places from then on until they and Spain agreed not to go to war. I also know they attempted another Siege of Vienna, much larger, and nearly won but the timely arrival of King Jan Sobeski's Polish Army stopped them. So my answer, they did expand.

Expansion largely contained to what was already part of the Muslim world, where the Ottomans imposed a loose rule (of people increasingly considered kings in their own right) over people largely left to their own devices. In that regard, nominal rule of the Ottomans over the Maghreb changed little indeed as the rot was settling in at the capital.

The second siege of Vienna and resulting battle make clear the changes which had taken place in the preceding century: an army now led by a vizier, consisting of troops weakened by more political interests at the capital and no longer a true military elite, armed with outdated weapons and utilizing outdated tactics (compared also to the Polish, who travelled quite a way to Vienna and utilized better logistics).

[Geoffrey S]

Edit: double post.

[Incongruous]

It is a bit of a non-squatter to me. It is two different opponents at two different times. The concept of Holy War didn’t come about untill the 11th century, at least from the Christian standpoint.

The laevel of religious tollarance had changed by the time the Turks were attacking Vienna but it was still better than what was to be found on the Christian side.

The Battle of Poitiers/Tours was not the end of Moslem incursions into Gaul and it was not even their biggest defeat. It was the first encounter with the Franks and the Franks pulled off a victory but it was no where near the end of a war or a great turning point in history.

The Siege of Vienna I would say was a bit more important. It managed to get other realms to cooperate.
But even at that, if the Turks had taken it, I doubt if they could have held it long. It was pretty much the limit of their logistical abilities to reach and with hostile surrounding countryside… They would have been hard pressed and garrisoning it might have lead to an earlier collapse. But that is just a what if…

It did mark their high water mark and the subsequent Turkish Campaigns didn‘t do any better.

Really?
I believe that the campaigns of Heraclius took on very strong religious meaning, to the point where he can be called the first crusader.

[Fisherking]

I never said it was the first time religion played a part in war. The concept of Holey War is a bit different however. Mayor Chucky was expanding his influence and territory much more than he was fighting to preserve the faith. What later was read into it was good for him and his house but not the paramount intention of his actions.

[The Wizard]

Neither. Had they won, neither the Arabs and Berbers of al-Andalus nor the Ottoman Turks could have followed up on their victory. Tours was the end of a raid while Vienna in the 16th century was already at the very end of Istanbul's reach logistics-wise.

[Hound of Ulster]

The more important battle in the history of the Arab conquests was Codavonga. As the surviving Visigothic princes and the Basques were able to hold on after beating the Arabs in the small unit action at Codavonga, the later Moorish realms didn't have any natural boundries to serve as defences (the Pyrennes would have served as a great natural defence, but the Muslims never got that far). As a result of the defeat at Codavonga, the Muslim rulers of Al-Andulsus were on the back foot until the fall of Granada in 1492, with only the shifting alliances of the Reconquista buying them enough time to create a culture that is a byword for learning and religious cooperation to this day.

Germany would have been better under the rule of the Ottoman Sultan than under the motely collection of princes it got stuck with by the end of the 30 Years War.

[Kansas Bear]

The more important battle in the history of the Arab conquests was Codavonga. As the surviving Visigothic princes and the Basques were able to hold on after beating the Arabs in the small unit action at Codavonga, the later Moorish realms didn't have any natural boundries to serve as defences (the Pyrennes would have served as a great natural defence, but the Muslims never got that far).

Actually, the Muslims owned Narbonne for 40 years amidst their loss at Tours. Charles Martel attempted to take the city, then gave up.

As a result of the defeat at Codavonga, the Muslim rulers of Al-Andulsus were on the back foot until the fall of Granada in 1492, with only the shifting alliances of the Reconquista buying them enough time to create a culture that is a byword for learning and religious cooperation to this day.

The Reconquista was touch and go for most of the time. Not till St.Ferdinand took Cordoba that Islam was on the way out of the Iberian peninsula.

Germany would have been better under the rule of the Ottoman Sultan than under the motely collection of princes it got stuck with by the end of the 30 Years War.

Germany would have been worse than Spain during the Reconquista.

[Paradox]

I think Tours has been highly exaggerated by historians, in fact, the battle itself was no Waterloo. Arabs had no interest in Europe, let alone France, they simply did not want it. Some people have been mixing up the Turks with Arabs here. They weren't even interested in Andalos until the city's growth proved to be very useful, they only decided to invade France for financial reasons, as the first poster said, "raiding."

I've read many books saying the same thing.

[Watchman]

By Iberia you'd be lucky if even the top ranks of early Muslim armies in the west were largely Arabs. The North Africans supplied most of the troops and middle management AFAIK, and didn't take very long to largely absorb the higher postions either (already through the usual offices of intermarriage, politicking and generation shift).

Anyway, had the Moors not been beaten at Tours one sort of assumes they'd have been only too happy to drop by later for another major raid/reconnaissance-in-force. In Medieval (or in this case, Dark Ages/Migration Period) warfare enough of that sort of thing usually tended to result in the receiving side caving already due to economic damage and the other encroach on his territories. That said, the Moors had quite enough internal troubles (power struggles mostly, and the Caliphate -inasmuch it was in anyway relevant that far west- went Balkans over succession disputes around the same time...), the Christian holdouts in the more inaccessible parts of the peninsula were as annoying as ever, and while the Franks were the biggest fish post-Roman Europe had its share of other would-be empire-builders; it is a different question entirely to which degree the Muslims could have exploited a hypotethical victory at Tours-Poitiers.


As for Vienna, meh. Plain too far away from the Ottomans' main staging and mustering areas (Paris is closer as the bird flies, and the downright nasty geography of the Balkans added another geostrategic wrinkle); there's quite good reasons why their warfare in that front was mostly down to local clients, subjects and allies, and why they could project a full-out imperial army as far as Vienna only twice (and why both occasions bombed spectacularly). By the time they could get the army to the city the campaign season was already almost over and the winter cold approaching uncomfortably fast - and this with what amounted to the rank best and most effective logistics in Europe at the time.

Basically, Vienna was plain too far away and as such essentially out of the Ottomans' strategic reach; it's a testament to their capabilities they were able to seriously threaten it even twice. And had they managed to take the city, so what ? Their Central European opponents had a much easier time getting an army there from their "core" regions than the Ottomans from theirs; I'm guessing it'd have been a minor miracle had they been able to hang on to the place for even say five decades...

It's sort of the same thing why they could never polish off the annoying heretic Persians from their eastern flank (the Hapsburgs made something of a tradition of allying with the Shah whenever the Porte was getting unpleasant); out of reach and the enemy could enlist allies at the other extremity of the empire to boot.

[Paradox]

By Iberia you'd be lucky if even the top ranks of early Muslim armies in the west were largely Arabs. The North Africans supplied most of the troops and middle management AFAIK, and didn't take very long to largely absorb the higher postions either (already through the usual offices of intermarriage, politicking and generation shift).

I'm sure they were Arabs. The second caliph of the Islamic army occupied North African territories and left many Arabs there, most Africans learned Arabic and became Arabs themselves.