Talk:Battle of Tours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tours article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 French military history task force
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)
Good articles Battle of Tours has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.


Contents

[edit] Cleanup - January 2006

I added the cleanup tag because the middle of the article has some scrambled sentences and spelling errors, and the second half of the article has two or three things repeated twice. – B.Bryant 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the changes. I removed most of the scrambled sentences, and the repeated items. I believe your concerns were addressed, so I removed the tag -- if you feel it needs more work, just let me know! old windy bear 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

<Removed personal attack by anonymous user> Johntex\talk 03:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a disgusting display. Thanks Johntex, I would've done the same. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The attack in question was removed, thanks to user:johntex for which I am very grateful For anyone I have inadvertantly offended, my apologies -- but i think if we look at this article, those of us who worked on it, it was just complimented, and proves that users working together can help this project be great!old windy bear 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Conquests Campaignbox

Not to get involved with your Tours page, but why pull the Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest? Tours was one of several battles that signified the end of the Conquest period, and is regarded as important solely for that reason. Palm_Dogg 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was an excellent Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest-- is there any way you could clarify though that while the vast majority of battles were victories, several were not, and as you noted, signified the end of the Muslim expansion period? Different colors, or an explanation? Just a thought. As it was, it seemed to indicate that Tours was part of the Muslim conquest victories, which obviously, it was not. As you know, Tours was regarded as being signficantly macrohistorically important because of the crucial defeats inflicted by Martel -- most crucially Tours -- while the Caliphate was united and able to mount massive invasions of Europe. (only 18 years after Tours the unity of Islam shattered forever) Is it possible to edit it to reflect those defeats at the close fo the expansion period which brought an end to it? (though, I still believe the internal divisions, more than any single loss, and the divided Caliphate after 750 was the true reason for the end of the expansion period.old windy bear 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately campaignboxes aren't designed to do that, so I'd have to say no. If I ever get around to editing the Islamic conquests I'd obviously mention it, but the name simply denotes the period in history (622-750) of rapid Muslim expansion. The other alternative, which I would be willing to help with, is to just make another campaignbox (Say, the campaigns of Charles Martel or the Reconquista) and run them next to each other, like at the entry Battle of Nagashino. If you can give me a list of battles, I'd dash them off, especially since the Dark Ages (400-1000) are practically nonexistant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes. Palm_Dogg 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be delighted to work with you on the battles of Charles Martel, first, and the Reconquista, after. Thanks for the kind offer -- I will have the list of Martel's battles by friday. I do think a campaign box is need for the period of Muslim Expansion -- what about in "Caliph" which very carefully denotes he various dynasties, and would be the perfect place for several campaign boxes, at least one for the period of Muslim Expansion, One for the campaigns of Salidin against the Crusaders, (and to unify his conquests), one for Alp Arlan, and finally, one for the Ottomans. Those 5 are the five major periods of Muslim military conquest, what do you think? And in the interim, I will have Martel's to you by friday, great idea and it will improve this article, and the one on him, also. You are absolutely right that the the Dark Ages (400-1000) are practically nonexistant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes, and we need to correct that as swiftly as possible. Look at the absence of the nearly 50 campaigns of Charlamagne!old windy bear 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not forgotten, I am waiting on two books I ordered for better sourcing on Martel and his son and Grandson. I think battleboxes for Martel and Charlamagne are certainly needed, and I will get you the battles, and you can make the boxes! The books should be here by next week, lolold windy bear 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey! Just shoot me a message on my Talk Page when they get in. Palm_Dogg 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Palm_Dogg Hey Palm Dogg, thanks for reverting the idiotic vandalism to this article. I don't know why people would take a good article, fanatically researched, and simply vandalize it, but they do. Thanks for catching it. I am still waiting for the book on the Carolinians and came by to check this article, which I worked pretty hard on, and found you had saved the day...thanks...as soon as the book comes in, i will get the battle list to you...old windy bear 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

user: Palm dogg check your talk page, I sent you a list of the Battles of Charles Martel, and now, my friend, if you would work your magic, and put them in a battle box in the Charles Martel article, (or should it be in this one too - what do you think? - that would be great -- Charlamagne's list is next! Thanks again for working with me, and the list is on your talk page. old windy bear

user: Palm dogg Great job! And it really adds to the article! I will have Charlamagne's next week. Did you get a chance to look at Belisarius and Subutai? If I gather the battles on both (for the former, he was the greatest of the Byzantium generals, "Justinian's General," and the later was the "Dog of War" for Ghenghis Khan, though he is most famous for his complete anniliation of the Hungarians at the Mohi, and the conquest of Russia. Your campaign boxes would add to both articles - I have enough here in my own library on both to put the list together if you will work with me on the boxes, which you do better than I do! old windy bear 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Disputed

I've tagged the section on the Importance of the Battle to dispute the neutrality of the point of view. Prior discussion of this was made; I would prefer if further discussion can be had without ad hominem attacks from OldWindBear, either here or on my talk page. Please understand that I do not disagree with the conclusion of the author of the section, but an Encyclopedia isn't written to espouse a point of view. The discussion of the relative merits can occur without an attempt to convice readers that one view is more correct than the other. I think the lack of this approach is pretty obvious in the section in question; the statement, "This ignores first, the fact that Arab histories of the period circa 722-850 mentioned the Franks more than any other Christian people save the Byzantines!" is an example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSYoungEsq (talk • contribs) .

Hi DSYoung; if you would, please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~). If you don't sign, we have no idea who's left a message without going back through the page history. If you type four tildes, this will automatically fill out your signature for you with a time and datestamp when you press save. As for the talk stuff before, I don't mean to make excuses for him, but Oldwindybear was new and didn't really understand the way things work on Wikipedia; I think you'll find that the old unpleasantness is gone and that he's very dedicated to contributing substantially to Wikipedia. I can't speak to the content of this article because it's far beyond my personal realm of knowledge, but I agree that a sentence like that, espousing an opinion of that nature, needs to be attributed to a scholar or other published source. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, was at school teaching and got distracted, forgot to sign. I hope you are right about the contributor in question, because, as I said, I find the information provided quite detailed and informative; it just needs to be re-written. However, my talk page was vandalized by the person in question after I raised this issue before, so I will need to be won over, as it were.  :) Doug 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Thanks, and I am not going to argue with Doug personally and would appreciate if he did the same-- all that happened prior to the questions of civility on these pages. Let us discuss history. As to the source on the quotation he cited, they were from Arab chronicles of the period used as source material by Sir Edward Shepard Creasy in his inclusion of Tours as one of the 15 most crucial battles of all history. The Arabian chronicles were compiled and translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España," published at Madrid in 1820. I have also read a copy in Arabic. They do refer more to the Franks than any non-Muslim people except the Greeks, (Byzantines). For sourcing, see Poke's 15 decisive battles, at http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htm. See also Norwich's references to the Carolinians (in the importance of this battle and the continuing Frankish Empire down through Charlamagne in his triology on Byzantium. See also Will Durant "The Western Existent of Islam in Spain and France," The Spread of Islam. Ex. Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999. 86-94, which discusses in depth the macrohistorical importance of Tours. Further,as to the importance of this battle, another very modern source is Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels by Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, and considered an expert historian in the era in dispute in this article. It was published in 2004, and has quite an interesting modern expert opinion on Charles Martel, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's successor in 736-737. Santosuosso makes a compelling case that these defeats of invading Muslim Armies, were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity. William Watson, also considered a great scholar of this era, calls Tours a "turning point" for western civilization in Watson, William E., "The Battle of Tours-Poitiers Revisited", Providence: Studies in Western Civilization, 2 (1993). With respect to Doug, these are mostly very modern sources, and I have not even mentioned Gibbons, who is still considered by many historians to be the defining chronicler of the Roman Empires, West and East, including the Carolinians as the First Holy Roman Emperors. Three other sources that cite Tours as a vital victory are A Dictionary of Battles, Eggenberger, David. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1967; Battlefields of Europe, Edited by David Chandler. Hugh Evelyn Ltd,1965; The Cambridge Medival History Volume IV, Planned by J.B. Bory, M.A., F.B.A., edited by J.R.Tanner, Litt.D., C.W. Previte-Orton, M.A., Z.N. Brooke, M.A. New York The MacMillan Company, 1923.

I think the article fairly explains that a MINORITY of historians have downgraded the importance of the battle, but the MAJORITY, including Santosuosso and other very modern scholars defend Martel's campaigns in toto, (not just Tours) as vital from keeping the Emirite of Iberia from expanding into Europe while the Caliphate was still united. I could go on and on -- the bulk of history simply agrees this battle was of macrohistorical importance, and the quotation he cited, is accurate. Doug's viewpoint was presented, I honestly believe, fairly, as we did write that some historians do dispute the conclusions. But the article is sound, and well sourced. Doug, you mocked me, I mocked you back, that was then, this is now, I am not doing that anymore. I am strictly discussing the history involved, and hope you will also. I hope to win you over with the honest history sources cited. old windy bear 21:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)!

Doug You have my apology for our previous argument. I thought, as i said, that you mocked me, and mocked back. Kate is absolutely right that I am determined to discuss this professionally and on the basis of the history. I did not fully understand the rules of this site, and I do now. If additional sources are needed to convince you of the fairness of the article, I have them. Wording can be discussed, but honestly, we tried to be fair in presenting that there is a minority viewpoint. You are an intelligent man, check the sources cited above, and you will see it is an honest presentation. old windy bear 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oldwindybear, you misunderstand the point. First, I agree with your conclusions. Second, it doesn't matter that they are probably correct. The issue is the tone of the section. It has to be written not as an argument for one point of view over the other, but as a discussion of the alternate points of view, without reaching any conclusion about them. That, and that alone, is the issue. You will note that Katefan0 at least agrees with me on this, to the extent of the simple example I gave. This isn't a debate, where one assertion has to be proved valid, and that's all that is being raised. Doug 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's good to see you both talking normally. To the rest -- sourcing is important, but it must be properly cited and presented in encyclopedic style. Language and wording is terribly important. For instance, an encyclopedia article should never use exclamation marks unless quoting someone who was shouting. But the good thing is, these types of aesthetics are usually easily fixed, particularly when you have an editor as adept as myself. ;) So, let's all take a deep breath and get working. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug I agree with your point, and have no trouble rewording the final section. I am not trying to be "right" just trying to do the article right. I have no trouble rewording the entire aftermath and conclusion. I had never written for an encyclopedia before -- I am learning. (scribble)Kate, do you want to do that, since you are an editor of great skill, or would you like me to have a go at it, and you (and Doug, and anyone interested) review same? Just give me instruction! old windy bear 22:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug A rewrite is posted. I eliminated the language you referred to, sourced quotes, and tried to sound more impartial. I know it may need more work -- but your input on these changes would be appreciated. I have eliminated a great deal of rhetoric, reworded significantly, -- and I am asking for your help and input. Do you feel this is a more reasonable discussion of the points of view? I have attemtped to do so. I must go to my grandchildren, and will work on this more later, unless (scribble)Kate takes it over. I do think you will find your concerns at least addressed, and I would appreciate your input - if you feel the article has been sufficiently reworked -- I did several versions, then please remove the tag. If not, let me know what else you wish changed. old windy bear 13:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Palm dogg and I worked together on the battle boxes -- he is the battle box master, and I research the battle lists -- and by adding those, it also emphasizes the Islamic period of expansion, which really ended between Tours and the anniliation of the Umayyad Caliphate, which as you know ended the Islamic expansion period, and left the Islamic world split, first in half, and as the centuries passed, it became even more fragmented. (Tours was the LAST BATTLE, other than Berre or Narbonne, also both fought by Martel, which was an atempt to exand the Islamic sphere of influence, and it's "empire.") Ain al Jurr was the first internal battle fought as the last Umayyad Caliph, Marwan II, seized power in that battle. This battlebox shows how vital Tours was, as it represented, together with the following campaigns, the LAST EFFORT to expand prior to the implosion of the Islamic Calpihate. I think the boxes really add to the fairness and completeness of the article alsoold windy bear 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

user: Palm dogg Great job on breaking up my conclusions in the Battle of Tours -- we do work well together! Your splitting the conclusion up, trying to factually sum up it's place in history by splitting what was a very complex question -- because the view has varied over time. Western scholars, the majority, ALWAYS agreed it was of macrohistorical importance, though Lewis influenced some folks circa early 20th century. Almost all modern western historians are in complete agreement that the campaigns of Martel in toto, with Tours as the centerpiece, were of macrohistorical importance in keeping the Caliphate out of Europe while it had the power to conquer it. After the Zab in 750, that ability no longer existed as you know. It is true today that some arab historians are saying "oh we could have it we had wanted to!" But Palm, trust me on this, I have read the Arab Chronicles of that period in Arabic, and then, and up until the Ottomans began rewriting Muslim history to suit themselves, Tours was regarded as one of the greatest disasters of Islamic history. Anyway, your splitting it up was great, THANKS! (Did you see my note on Starship Troopers, I wll go next weekend to get my notebooks? That paper is there, and may have some real value -- it was far more controversial then than today, believe me! old windy bear 20:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV dispute tag. There has been considerable effort to change the tone of the section. It's not perfect yet, but much better. I'll see if Monday afternoon I can't offer some suggestions as to how to finish righting the ship; mostly I'd like to see argumentative language removed, words like "this is disputed by" and "compelling case." The Encyclopedia shouldn't be taking a stand on the issue; the weight of the arguments as presented will make the case for or against the offered opinions. Thank-you for addressing this positively; I think the article is much better now for it. Doug 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Doug I wanted to thank you for removing the tag - I spent about 20 hours in my own library, going back over sources (I actually own Gibbons full version of Decline and Fall, Bernard Lewis's works, Runican's, Norwich's triology and his other works, and a good library on the Holy Roman Empire. I then really did make a since effort to rework it completely to address your legitimate concerns, (about another 15 hours worth of rewrites!) and then Palm dogg really helped by breaking the sections up. Doug, I WELCOME your further help. List the last things you think need change, and I will address them as soon - or within a couple of hours - of your listing them. THANK YOU for working with me, and Ihope you accept my apology for the negativity before. I really want this to be a flagship article, and your help is welcomed. User:palmdogg thanks again, and Katefan0thanks, and Doug has kindly removed the dispute tag, and is going to help me further with a list of anything remaining needing editing, and then this piece is pretty much as complete as we can make it, without writing a book on it! For everyone who helped, thank you - it is no secret I have tried to nurture this article, and I am very grateful for the assistance.old windy bear 03:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] impersonator

user: Palm dogg Hi Palm! I will finally have the complete list of Charlemagne's battles this week. It took 3 weeks for a book to arive that should have come in 3 days! It is an extremely lenghy list - you might want to use a campaign box instead of a battle box -- he fought 18 battles against the Saxons alone! I see that I have an impersonator. 68.50.125.89 is not me, though his revisions are not bad. I have a 5 computer network, which all use the same im name, and relatives live here. Unless I am signed in as myself, oldwindybear, that im addrses is not a sockpuppet, but rather an impersonator. (at least he does not seem to be vandalizing! Anyway, I will have the Charlemagne list, finally, to you this week. old windy bear 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to object to the following sentence, which would easily cause any student of the Byzantine Empire to raise an eyebrow (or two): "In the modern era, Norwich, the foremost authority on the Eastern Roman Empire, says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it."

Norwich, although appreciated by the public for his narrative histories, is by no means "the foremost authority on the Eastern Roman Empire." As a matter of fact, no serious scholar would actually consider him an authority on this subject at all. A. Laiou (Harvard), John F. Haldon (Princeton), Peter Brown (Princeton), Walter Kaegi (University of Chicago), Anthony Bryer (University of Birmingham, UK), Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews, UK), Michel Kaplan (University of Paris, France), Claudia Rapp (UCLA) etc. these are some of the people conducting original research in the field and --rightly-- considered as authorities.

Danuvius 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Danuvius I can only say that you are right in part, and wrong in most. Yes, there are professors with more abstract knowledge of the Byzantines than Lord Norwich -- but what did they do to bring it to the public's attention? His books did more than all of theirs combined! But I made a change in the article to reflect your point - that there are scholars who dwarf Norwich's knowledge on Byznatium - but he is BY FAR the most widely read authority on the empire, except for Gibbons! The professionals disagree with you as to his value as a scholar, see some of the professional evaluations of Norwich's work on the Eastern, Bzyantine, Empire, and Venice...It is the results of the more recent study by such scholars as these that John Julius Norwich, a professional officer of the British Foreign Service whose earlier books include A History of Venice, seeks to present here in the first of a projected three-volume series on Byzantium... ...As described by Norwich, Justinian emerges as a noble and gifted, but flawed and ultimately tragic figure... ...Norwich examines the cultural, linguistic, geographical, and polit- ical factors in the eventual separation of East and West, symbolized by the coronation of Charlemagne... ...they read, they praised, they compiled, but their languid souls seemed alike incapable of thought and action... ...That caricature has dominated historiography, especially in the English-speaking world, as for example in the judgment of W.E.H... ...He admires Byzantine religious art, and he obviously rejoices that the iconoclasts were defeated at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787... ...Of the eighteen chapters in the book, the four dealing with what he calls the "extraordinary career" of the Emperor Justinian I are in many ways the most effective... ...Lecky with which Lord Norwich begins his introduction to this book: "Of that Byzantine empire the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed... ...a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides... ...His dream of reuniting East and West in a revived Roman empire was not only a failure in its outcome, but probably an illusion in its very conception... ...The conversion of Rus' (which refers in the first instance to the Ukraine, not to Muscovite Russia) in 988 was part of the eventual outcome of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, and the division of the Slavs between Old Rome and New Rome had consequences that can be seen in the dispatches emanating from Warsaw and Lvov even as we speak... ...As a result, the reader who turns to this book in an effort to understand what made Russia so different from the West long before Lenin will find much help... ...and he concludes his narrative, appropriately enough, with the emergence of an even newer Roman empire, when Charlemagne was crowned emperor in Old Rome on Christmas Day in 800 C.E... ...What it does claim is to set forth a connected narrative of the transition from the Roman empire when its seat was in Rome to the Roman empire whose seat was in Constantinople, "New Rome... "John Julius Norwich has long been the foremost authority on Venice and in Paradise of Cities he confirms his reputation as an unparalleled historical storyteller. His book will delight and fascinate all lovers of this remarkable city, as will his series on Byzantium, which make the Eastern Empire come alive to the average reader," by Jaroslav Pelikan... So you are right in part, there are scholars with more knowledge - but of what use are they? they do not communicate it! Lord Norwich made a forgotten empire come alive again, and with incredible detail and pretty fair scholarship. If you are looking for the MOST READ AUTHOR in teh world on the Eastern Empire, it is, without question, Lord Norwich, which the article was changed to reflect. You made a valid point, and the article was changeed to reflect it. old windy bear 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up for the change Oldwindybear, I understand the point you have made concerning Norwich's ability to inspire the masses about Byzantium and appreciate his works for this reason alone, if not for the value of their scholarly content. Best, Danuvius 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Danuvius Thank you! Two thumbs up to you for pointing out something I should have already noted - that he is not the greatest authority, but is the most widely read one, and I really do believe his ability to reach the masses (and judging by his book's sales!) interest people in the forgotten and misunderstood Eastern Empire does scholarship a valuable service. (and he does cite all the great scholars you listed, and points out their valuable contributions!) But the distinction needed to be noted, and I thank you greatly for bringing this up! We are really trying to make this a "model" article, and accuracy is a MUST, so this was a very valuable contribution, and please continue to help us!old windy bear 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] battlebox revision

a dagger was placed beside Abd er Rahman's name in the battlebox to indicate he died in battle; another user put it there, and I removed it inadvertantly, not knowing it indicated death in battle, I have now restored it, however, he is still listed among notable causalties, due to his signicant place in the history of the times.old windy bear 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the hog's blood story

Someone edited the Battle section to suggest Abd er Rahman was covered in hog's blood and buried face down by the Frankish soldiers who killed him. There is NO reliable source for this that I know of, but if someone has one, please cite it, before placing this kind of inflamatory rhetoric in the article.old windy bear 21:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Had Martel fallen at Tours the long term implications for European Christianity may have been devastating. His victory there, and in the following campaigns, may have literally saved Europe and Christianity as we know it" - I take it this passage wasn't written by a Muslim? Durova 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova If you notice, that was in the western history perspective - there is also an Arab, or Muslim, history perspective. Interesting however, if you believe the Arab Chronicles, and histories of the times by the most respected Muslim historians of the times, Tours was regarded as a devastating defeat by the Umayyad Caliphate before the destruction of the dynasty at the Battle of the Zab, and the rending of the Caliphate forever. An interesting Muslim perspective on that battle is probably best expressed by a translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like North 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." But again, there is a section for Arab or Muslim perspective of the battle, which today is considerably different, at least in part, than it was at the time. Christian historians are not the only ones who are revisionist.old windy bear 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Isadore of Beja

Hi, nice article, just a quick question, in the text it says:

In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. But despite this, the Franks did not break. A translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book 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."

I looked in the internet medieval source book linked on the article and the quote appears to come from Isadore of Beja. I couldn't tell if she was giving the arab account or the frankish account. Just checking things.

NicolharperGood catch, it is supposed to be from the Arab account - the Arab Chronicles were far more detailed, and that quote appears in several places, including being attributed to Isadore of Beja. That chronicle is generally cited by Islamic historians, and organziations, including, for instance, islamic-paths.org. Generally, it is cited as being from the Arab sources. As you are probably better aware than I, the western sources are extremely spotty - the best accounts of the battle come from the Caliphate histories, and paint it as an unqualified disaster for Islam, and the expansion of the Caliphate into the remainder of the old Roman Empire. Unquestionably, the Emir should never have allowed Martel to select the time and place to confront the invaders; Gibbons, Creasy and Watson (to name 3 of the west's greatest historians, all believe Martel's selection of time and place was crucial to his victory. Basically, he made the enemy come to him, on ground not well suited for their strength, their peerless heavy cavalry, against a veteran army he had trained (at church expense, and that not willingly, for over a decade to meet such a foe. old windy bear 16:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note to Amir85 on cleanup notice

This article has been heavily sourced and if you wish to tag it, you need to specifically identify what information you are challanging, and what sources you found to be questionable. You cannot simply post a cleanup notice without specifically identifying what information you find challangable.old windy bear 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not have a single inline citation to prove its claimed references and it's written in a manner which could be perceived by some as having a POV. Amir85 18:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir, in all sincerity, this article was written carefully by consensus from a broad spectrum of people and faiths to provide as good a historial perspective on this battle as is available online, without any POV. It is heavily sourced at the bottom on the page. Every effort was made by people - please look at the history - to present all viewpoints, the standard-up-the-20th-century conventional western viewpoint, the Islamic historical viewpoint, and the current western view. There were over one hundred discussions citing specific sourcing for the article on the discussion page history. If you have a specific item you wish to challange, please name it, and the exact and precise source will be provided. Every effort was made to present all viewpoints so that no one was offended, and the maximum information provided - as witnessed by the fact is it singled out as a good article. I will be glad to work with you on any reference you need on any fact you feel should be disputed. You cannot write an article and say each reference - such as the relative size of the armies - in the text. That information is the bibliography, since we are not writing a college paper, or a book,(with cited footnotes on each line and page) but an encylopedia article. This page is the appropriate place for raising such issues. Again, if you have a problem with the information, please identify it, and I will be glad to give you the specific source, and work with you on wording. This article is genuinely meant to reflect all viewpoints without POV. old windy bear 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Katefan0

Kate, help! In trying to add more history to htis article, i have somehow deleted it on the page, but not in memory, so I cannot restore the lost sections, from western history down to references - can you restore it for me? Thanks!old windy bear 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, i finally figured out where I was fouling up! Thanks though! old windy bear 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting the article pending discussion of major changes

Baber khairi and unnamed user 70.51.157.122 A complete rewrite of the article, which is what you did, requires discussion, and consensus to make the changes. I understand if you wish to present a differing viewpoint - though I dispute it is a unitary Islamic viewpoint, (certainly you repeatedly impugn the name of Emir Abd er Rahman, who is described in the history of the time, the Islamic history, as the best of the governors of Al-Andulas). Also Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and MUSLIM scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions. As to your repeatedly heaping blame on him for the disaster at Toulouse (where he not was not in command, but had protested the failure to defend against a relief force!) and Tours, (where his failure to scout certainly is an enormous factor, but his choice to give battle was not altogether a bad one - he had no way of imagining the tactics and tricks Charles would play on him - a good general lost to a great one and a second rate army beat a first rate one thereby). Islamic history refutes your slanders best: (translated from Arabic) "This deadly defeat of the Moslems, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (Islamic Calendar) This, from the portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the great Arab period of expansion. You simply cannot rewrite the entire article without discussion, that violates the 27 rules of editing, which require that:

  • you post facts in disputes;
  • await reply;
  • seek agreement
  • if facts remain in dispute seek a peer review;
This article had been extensively reviewed by both Islamic and western writers, and received the 3rd highest ranking that a history article can be given - and a great editor has been working on it to further improve it, after consensus from writers of all sides that it was fair and accurate historically. You simply cannot rewrite it without following the rules. Certainly we can discuss changes to the Islamic presentation, but you cannot simply rewrite the entire article without discussion. It will automatically be reverted until you comply with the 27 rules of engagement, enumerated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement .
I stress I am certainly willing to discuss changes, and facts in dispute, but I cannot, and will not let you unilaterally rewrite history. Furthermore, with all respect, you have not even studied the Islamic histories of the times, The Arab Chornicles, which present Tours as a disaster of catestrophic proportions for the Caliphate - and yes, I read Arabic so I have read them in their original form. Further, as earlier noted, no serious Muslim historian rates the defeat at Toulouse, where the Muslims were lax in securing against an attack from a relief army, which Eudes used to essentially flank and infiltraate the Muslims before they could mount and engage his army in open battle, with Tours, where Emir Abd er Rahman, a rightous man and great commander, was killed in a battle he clearly should have won. (Indeed, the Emir's utter destruction of Eudes at the River Garonne and Bordeaux, Bordeaux's sack and the horrific slaughter of Christians at the River Garonne answered that question for all time!)
And while you claim "recent studies" - what recent studies? Who wrote them? Are you talking about Norwich, the most widely read authority on the Eastern Roman Empire, who says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it. A more modern, in the past two years, viewpoint may be found in Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels by Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, and considered an expert historian in the era in dispute in this article. It was published in 2004, and has quite an interesting modern expert opinion on Charles Martel, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son and successor in 736-737. Santosuosso makes a compelling case that these defeats of invading Muslim Armies, were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monastaries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. He also makes a compelling case that while Tours was unquestionably of macrohistorical importance, the later battles were at least equally so. So what historians are you quoting, so we may read them?
Your points that Rahman need not have scouted Europe in advance ignored the Islamic conquest period in toto, for instance, the Caliph Umar scouted the Sassanid Empire extensively before having Walid lead his armies in, just as he did the Bzyantine Empire before seizing it's themes in the mid-east and Africa! Scouting a potential rival before conquest is the most basic of military actions, and key to most of the conquests the Caliphate won. You are ignoring the fact that 4 separate Emirs of al-Andalus, over a 25 year period used a Fatwa from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens who were beginning conversion, to raise 4 huge invading armies, well supplied and equipped, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. Muslim history of the period makes the army led by Emir Abd er Rahman the one the Caliph expected to end his border problems and expand into the remainder of the old Roman Empire. Every point you made is disputed not by western historians alone, as you presented, but by ISLAMIC historians of that era. Again, should you wish to rewrite the article, you must post facts in dispute, source those facts - your version might be partially appropriate for the contemporary Muslim section, but you would have to submit factual sourcing, including the modern histories, et al.. and await reply, discuss and seek agreement, otherwise your edits will be reverted.
Your arguments against indirect attack, where you claim giving battle to Odo was paramount, are simply without any basis in reality, and ignores the Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia from 1219 to 1221, which absolutely used those tactics to destroy the largest Islamic Empire since Alp Arslan's, and the second largest since the unified Caliphate, using precisely those tactics of indirect attack you disparage. Indeed, the Mongols demonstrated by circumventing weaker forces to destroy your paramount enemy first, you destabilize a stronger opponent and destroy him piecemeal. Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad commanded twice the number of troops, and good ones, which invaded his realm - and was utterly destroyed by indirect attack. Respectfully, this is ISLAMIC history you are ignoring.
As is, you are not even citing the Caliphate histories of the era correctly, let alone contemporary Islamic historians. Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers are much more interested in the second Umayyad siege Arab defeat at Constantinople in 718, which ended in an utterly disastrous defeat, with much of the army literally starving. After the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674-678) ended in complete failure, the Umayyad Caliphate attempted a second attack on the city to finish the Bzyantine Greeks once and for all time. An 80,000 strong army led by the Caliph Umar II's brother Maslama, crossed the Bosporus from Anatolia to besiege Constantinople by land, while a gigantic fleet of Arab war galleys, somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000, sailed into the Sea of Marmara to the south of the city. Nonetheless,Greek Fire, Bulgar assistance by land to intercept resupply, and the Land Walls of the city resulted in a horrific defeat. In Europe, the defeat of the naval invasion, primarily the Battle at the River Berre is discussed. The later era "invasions" you cite were nothing of the kind, they were simply raids by horsemen for loot. Your revision of history is simply wrong. In any event, it has to be disputed here, wait for reply, discussed, citing sources, and if agreement cannot be reached, referred to a peer review. You cannot simply disregard history both Muslim and western writers worked on, and rewrite unilaterally, for POV. old windy bear 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Constantinople

I removed this text from the article. It is quite interesting, and total overkill in an article about the Battle of Tours. We can make the point that contemporary Muslim histories were more concerned about Constantinople and the relevance of this to Tours without giving a blow by blow history of the eastern war: "After the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674-678) ended in complete failure, the Arabs Umayyad Caliphate attempted a second decisive attack on the city. An 80,000 strong army led by Maslama, the brother of Caliph Umar II, crossed the Bosporus from Anatolia to besiege Constantinople by land, while a massive fleet of Arab war galleys, estimated between 1,800 and 2,000, sailed into the Sea of Marmara to the south of the city. Fortunately for the Byzantines, the great chain kept the fleet from entering the inner harbor, and the Arab galleys were unable to sail up the Bosporus as they were under constant attack and harassment by the Greek fleet, who used Greek fire to level the differences in numbers. (The Byzantine fleet was less than a third of the Arab, but Greek fire swiftly evened the numbers). Emperor Leo III was able to use the famed Walls of Constantinople to his advantage and the Arab army was unable to breach them. (It must be noted that Bulgar forces had come to the aid of the Byzantines, and constantly harassed the Muslim army, and definitely disrupted resupply to the point that much of the army was close to starvation by the time the siege was abandoned.)" Kaisershatner 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Kaisershatner As you and I have previously discussed, I think you have done a superb job on editing this article, and I have to wince on this one, because I added 114,000 details on the seige, when you are right, all we really need to say is contemporary Muslim historians are far more interested in the failed seiges at Constandinople, which left the Eastern Empire to rise again, especially prior to Manzikert, as a nemesis for the Arabs. Your editing is great, no complaints here. old windy bear 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You've done great work that shouldn't go to waste. It can be synthesized into the articles about those events without too much trouble, I'm sure. Kaisershatner 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Kaisershatner Thanks, I did a lot of research on this whole era, Martel and the Carolingians, the Umayyad Caliphate, and I agree absolutely that the information can be put - actually most of it is there - in Martel's article, and what is not, in the article on the seige of Constandinople, which I need to review and rewrite anyway, it is wrong in a number of areas. When I am done, I will ask you to edit it and remove the excess language! Your help here has been greatly appreciated. old windy bear 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible innacurate use of references

Hello. In the introduction it said,

"Varied estimates of the Frankish army defending Gaul suggest Martel commanded between 15,000 and 75,000 infantry, most likely closer to 75,000 [[1]] in the first western standing army since the fall of Rome. They had been trained to fight in phalanxes in order to face the dreaded Muslim heavy cavalry. Between 60,000 and 400,000 men, mostly Berber lighthorse cavalry supplemented by Muslim heavy cavalry (most likely closer to the lower number [[2]] were under Abd er Rahman, often fractured into raiding parties to plunder various Frankish centers."

I have gone through both references. Reference 1 does not say that there were closer to 75,000 in Martel's command, but it does say there were between 15,000 to 75,000. Reference 2 does not say that there were most likely 60,000 men under Abd er Rahman's command, but it does say there were between 60,000 to 400,000 men. I have altered the text so it fits what is said in the references. If anyone has references which give reason to favour particular ends of the ranges, please add them. Nicolharper 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicolharper , I did add an online reference as to the probable size of the Muslim force (one of many, but this one happens to be online). Sir Edward Creasy says "he (Abd er Rahman) crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an army which some Arab writers rate at eighty thousand strong, while some of the Christian chroniclers swell its numbers to many hundreds of thousands more. Probably the Arab account diminishes, but of the two keeps nearer to the truth," [3] . As you are probably at least as well aware as I am, the actual versus the reported size of medievial armies, especially European ones, are quite difficult to prove. You had payrolls, and enrollment lists for the ancient Roman and Sassinaid armies, for instance, and the later Carolingian armies, once they had become an actual empire in name as well as fact. But in Martel's day, things were much more primitive. Arab records are far more accurate, as they reflect a well organized state. Most modern scholars put the number at between 60-400,000 with the liklihood it was closer to the smaller number - the countryside simply could not afford forage for nearly half a million horses. Equally, most modern historians - see Grant - believe Martel's veteran infantry numbered somewhere between 15-75,000 with the number probably closer to the higher end. 15,000 infantry simply could not have withstood 400,000 armoured cavalrymen! Historians believe Martel was outnumbered, but not outlandishly so. I cited Grant for the number of Martel's men. Good catch on the references though - few people take the time to go look at the cited references. I see that most of your work is not in military history - could I interest you in joining the military history project? I am running for assistant coordinator, and if I win, will need the kind of editor you obviously are, a good writer, and a good and meticulous researcher. Even if I don't win, the project would benefit from having you; Kirill would welcome anyone with your skills. (He is the project coordinator) But if I win an assistant's slot, I can see a number of articles that could benefit from your work. I have several people I normally work with, but would love to have you in our group. Part of our problems come when new or uncaring editors simply shift things around, sources and citing being high among those items shifted, for no good reason anyone can ascertain. In any event, I certainly would welcome you as a co-edtior, again, especially if I get the assistant's spot - I will badly need people with your skills. old windy bear 12:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer of joining the military history project and the kind comments on my editing. The main area I know about is biology but I found the Battle of Tours page very interesting and well written so I tried to contribute a bit. I am afraid I am very busy with work for the next few months. I'll let you know if I'm coming on board with the military history project when things calm down a bit at work, which will probably be several months time. I'll continue to edit any points I pick up on in the meanwhile. All the best. Nicolharper 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicolharper Greetings, and while I knew your primary focus was on biology or zoology, the same ferociously meticulous editing style that has you checking every note and source would make you a fantastic asset no matter where you worked in wikipedia. Thank you for myself, Srnec, Ewulp, Angus McLellan and every other primary editor on this article. Srnec and I are sort of the "Carolingian Crew," working a great deal in the Carolingian Era of Europe, though Srnec is just a gifted historian in any era, as is Angus; a brilliant historian, period. Ewulp is, like yourself, not so much a military historian as he is an incredibly gifted editor who checks sources, cites, sentence structure - the nuts and bolts of article writing! We have all really pitched in on this article and Charles Martel . This battle, and Martel himself, literally changed the course of all history. Thank you so much for the kind words on the article, as we all obviously see it as one of those pivotal moments when all history swung in the balance...A really good newspaper editorial on this battle is [4]
If I do win an assistant's slot in the military history project, I would love to convince you to contribute whatever time you could give us - you have very real talent. In any event, thank you so very much for the time you have already given, and please don't get irritated at me, if I am elected, if i come entreat you further! old windy bear 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the Charles Martel page was also fascinating. All the best with developing the pages on the Carolingan Era, Nicolharper 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating and subsequent inferences

Early in this article it is pointed out that the date of the battle is (very much) in question, but the remaining text seems to imply that the date is certain, even deriving strategic details from the fact that battle occured in the Winter, which is itself in question. Unless there is a primary source that I am not aware of, I'd like to go through and clean this up. (Ethan Mitchell, forgot to log in).

[edit] Dating, general clean up, the term Umayyad, and the size of the forces

The date is almost certainly, from St. Dennis, and all Arabian sources, October 10, 732. There are any number of sources as to the date, including Grant, and Antonio Santosuosso, among other historians. If you have issues requiring "cleaning up" please list them so they can be discussed. As to the question of whether the great attempt at conquest of Europe was Islamic or Umayyad, this is a moot question. The Umayyad refers only to the first Caliphate, and the conquests are referred to in both Eastern and Western history as the Islamic Expansion Period - therefore it should be referred to as an attempt at Islamic conquest. {does anyone object if we delete the Iberian campaign box, and replace it with the Islamic Expansion Era battlebox, which is far more historically appropriate?} As to the size of the armies, most historians state the size of Abd er Rahman's army at about 80,000, though it is cited as between 60-400,000. The common citing of 80,000 would make it near the lower number. As to the frankish army, it was by most accounts badly outnumbered, but at 15.000 would not have been sufficient to have held it's own. Again, see Arnold, Heather, Martin, Grant, and Creasy. old windy bear 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Umayyad vs. Islamic, the Umayyad period was not the first, the first period was Musim expansion was under the Rashidun caliphates and the Umayyads were anything but Islamic having lost the moral mandate that came with the title under the Rashidun hence the disctintion between them and the Umayyads and the source of numerous revolts during the Umayyad period. I agree most historicans have called it Islamic but I'm sure the Muslims probably made just as little distinction between Visigoths, Franks etc and just called them all Christians. I am not saying they wer not Muslims and were expanding land under Muslim rule I am not going disagree at all that. I simply am of the opinion that most medeival and many historians made no distinctions between one muslim and the other branding them all with the same "tag". It was common in those days to be divided between the Christian world and the Muslim world and raising the banner of christianity of Islam were common catcheisms to rouse the people, and so I am not saying we get rid of such references, they are indeed vital to historical context. I have left Islamic whereever it is quoted as such and that should still give that impression but I strongly disagree that Islamic = Umayyads and beleive it is a very imprecise term.--Tigeroo 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo With all respect, it does not matter what you or I think - that is original research. Certainly the righteous caliphs are regarded as such at least by the Sunni community, but the Umayyads are considered the first dynasty of the Caliphate by historians both Muslim and Christian. You must source any changes, you cannot simply say that the Umayyads were not Muslim or are not Islamic. Historians regard them as Muslim, and that period as the Islamic Expansion Period. old windy bear 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo is right, but, more generally, as an encyclopedia we have an obligation to be as specific as possible. Terms such as "Muslim" or "Islamic" expansion are about as unspecific as you can get. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom With all respect, it does not matter what you or I think - that is original research. Please understand I am not belittling your concerns, and Tigeroo is not correct, for reasons I will explain, but whether or not he, you or I "believe" something is irrelevant to wikipedia or an article in wikipedia. Certainly the righteous caliphs are regarded as such at least by the Sunni community, but the Umayyads are considered part of the first period of the Caliphate by historians both Muslim and Christian. Morever, most Shia do not consider the Rashidun caliphates to be all righteously guided - they believe Ali was the Imam. This is not an article on the theology of Islam, or the varying sects. As to denying the Umayyad conquests as part of the Islamic Expansion Era, You must source any changes, you cannot simply say that the Umayyads were not Muslim or are not Islamic, and their conquests are not part of the Islamic Expansion Era. Historians regard them as Muslim, and that period as part of the Islamic Expansion Period. Indeed, the Shia do not believe the Abassid Caliphs to be righeously guided. So where does that leave the community after the Zab? I understand your point, but it is poorly made in this context. The vast majority of Sunni scholars believe the seige of Constandinople of 717 was a disasterous failure by Islam to end the Roman Empire - there is no mention of it not being a part of Islamic conquests! This article is about the attempt at Islamic Expansion into Gaul, and the macrohistorical impact of the Battle of Tours in halting that attempts. Whether you or I believe a term to be imprecise is meaningless, because our opinions are meaningless unless you can substantiate them with historical references, adn even then, I would maintain - and I know you agree - that there are as many historical references from Shia scholars who maintain that Abu Bakr was not righteously guided, that he stole the Imamate from Ali, the Prophet's chosen successor. In any event, again, this is not the article for discussing Islamic theology. old windy bear 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh?, Maybe there is misunderstanding here I didn't say the Umayyads were not Muslims or of that period of being anything but being a period of regarded as an expansion of the Dar Al Islam even by the muslims. I do not even disagree that that both sides identified themselves primarily in the garb of religion and that historians have seen and defined the period as the same. I am just saying I prefer the usage of term of Umayyad instead of Islamic because Umayyad is more accurate and precise and in usage because of imprecise information on the east.

You are right the moral authority or the chain of caliphs is actually irrelevant in this discussion and lot of theology that is not necessary to get into for this, it serves as mere background information for context on just why Islamic is an inaccurate term vis-a-vis Umayyad because the period of Rashidun rule is distinct period of historical significance with the time period of the expansions, wether they are Shiia or Sunni they both regard both these time periods as distinct political periods.

I certainly have no bone with mentioning that the entire interaction has been looked at in Islam vs. Christianity context by historians on both sides of the fence and should be mentioned and addressed by the article. All those are moot points. Once again, however the usage of the term Umayyad is more specific and better describes the political entity than a vague Islamic or Muslim and akin to the usage in the same article of Frank or Carolingian vs Christian forces. I think the article uses such terms too interchangeably as a product of numerous editors and can use some rearrangement.--Tigeroo 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. With regard to the date and outcome of the battle the Continuations of Fredegar and The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 date the battle to 734. The latter also says that Martel allowed the remaining Arab forces to slip away by night. Much of the "contemporary analysis" section is editorial and reports a consensus view of the importance of this battle that doesn't exist. --Ian Pitchford 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
About the Battlebox change, visit Muslim conquests, I've been meaning to work on changing the setup both of that page and the entire way the Expansion era has been dealt with so far. Note the new campaignbox that I made a couple of weeks back that works like you said a larger Early Muslim Expansions campaignbox, note I used the word "early" to encompass both Umayyad and Rashidun time periods and have capped it at the end of the Umayyad period, in that regard the entire Iberian campaign is merely a different theater of the early campaigns. I don't beleive there is a concensus on when the Islamic conquests end, which is why I am pushing for Umayyad. Let me know what you think I am also trying to leave it flexible enough that it can be expanded at later dates, there is a lot of stuff going on across a vast area, just have to set good navigational tools going.--Tigeroo 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here, so I will address them separately:

Tigeroo I don’t think we are particularly far apart, and that we can resolve these issues, since they are primarily of language rather than fact. You agree that the expansion of the Islamic community which occurred during the era of the Umayyad Caliphs was expansion of the Muslim ummah, which certainly reflects the history: There is no question that all historians, Muslim and Christian, East and West, consider the Umayyad Caliphate part of the Islamic Expansion Era, see [5] “The First Period of Islamic Expansion: Expansion under the Orthodox Caliphate, the Ommayads and Abbasids: 630-1258.” See also [6] As to whether or not the Umayyad’s lacked the moral authority of the righteously guided caliphs, many Sunni and all Shia hold that they did not have the requisite moral authority. I personally agree with you that it might be proper to divide the expansion period into the righteously guided Caliph period, Umayyad period, and then the Assasid period, followed by the Seljuk, and Ottomam. (With the early period divided as you suggested) But there is also no question that historically that the Islamic world was ruled from Ali’s death in 661a.d., until the Battle of the Zab, almost a century later, on January 25, 750 a.d., by the Umayyad Caliphs from Damascus. Since all historians agree that rightly guided or not, the Umayyad Caliphs did rule temporally, and that the conquests in the name of Islam during the period of their rule were recognized as part of the expansion of the Muslim ummah, it is not incorrect to state that the invasion of Europe was Islamic, though I personally have no problem naming it Umayyad, and understand your reason for wanting to differentiate what was done in the name of the Umayyads from the righteously guided. I personally don’t have any problem with your wanting to name the army as an Umayyad army, but it might be confusing to readers who do not understand the rift in Al-Islam caused by Muawiya’s rebellion against Ali, and his ultimate seizure of power as the first Umayyad Caliph, (and the later Marwanid dynasty), as opposed to the righteously guided Caliphs, and the later Abbasid Caliphs. Some readers may simply be confused in trying to differentiate between Muslim and Umayyad. Do you have any suggestions how we deal with that problem? I don't believe our views are particularly far apart, it is more a question of language, which I believe we can resolve. I understand well the fact that a large number – not all, but a large number – of Sunni historians and theologians now believe that the Umayyad Caliphs were not rightly guided, and certainly that is a factor historically. (Though it is important to note that a minority of Sunni historians to this day do maintain that the Umayyad Caliphs were not all corrupt, and to further complicate things, all Shia historians believe both Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs were morally bankrupt and the only legitimate successors to the Prophet were from Ali and his line!) My point is simply that first, the invasion of Europe was an Islamic invasion, and secondly, that while I understand (and agree with) your belief that the Umayyad Caliphs were berift of the moral authority to hold the power they did, the fact is they held it, and they ruled the Islamic world during the period of the invasions in question. I don’t mind if you label it “Umayyad” except that I don’t wish readers who do not understand the history of the Caliphate or the evolution of the Shia and the Abbasids, to become confused. I am willing to work with you on language issues, as I believe you have a historical, moral and certainly religious point. As far as the invasion of Europe, it was an Islamic invasion, but for the reasons we have discussed, I don't find it incorrect to label it Umayyad. While Irishpunktom believes that the Islamic Expansion Era is too generalized a term, unfortunately it is the term both Muslim and Chirstian Historians use for the period of explosive growth from the death of the Prophet and the Battle of the Zab, during which Al-Islam completely overran the Sassanid Empire, nearly overran the Eastern Roman Empire, and but for Martel and his franks, would have overrun Europe as well. I like your campaign box, and I feel our differences are again those of language rather than any factual dispute - and I believe we can resolve them in such a way to correct the problems you raise, without hopelessly confusing the casual reader. We seem to agree on the facts, how can we word them so the casual reader is not lost? old windy bear 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford That brings us to the second issue. Virtually every modern historian now believes the date of the battle was October 10, 732. While you correctly cite the Continuations of Fredegar and The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, you fail to mention that modern historians do not agree with them on a date in 734, and you do not cite the findings of Michael Grant, or Antonio Santosuosso, or any of the other modern historians who have consistently found that the Battle took place on October 10, 732. As to your assertation that the section “contemporary analysis” is an editorial that does not reflect the consensus of most modern historians, with all respect, you need more than your opinion. (And I don't mean that to beliittle your opinion, you write well, but you know as I do that our opinions are irrelevant in a factual issue, only in language questions do opinions come into play) Who are the majority of modern historians who feel this battle was not of macrohistorical importance? Antonio Santosuosso certainly believes it macrohistorical, though he believes that Martel’s campaigns of 736-737 were far more vital historically as they were true invasions, meant to size the land and hold it for further expansion in Europe by the Umayyad Caliphate. Grant thinks it of such vital importance that he listed it as a macrohistorical date in the history of the Roman Era! Creasy listed it among the 15 military turning points of the history of the world! Heather does also. What historians do you refer to? While there are always historians with deviant views, the majority view is clear on this Battle. If you wish to edit the contemporary analysis to reflect what you stated, you need to source your findings, and we will compare them with those historians who find differently, and try to reach consensus. You claim that the section reflects a consensus that does not exist – but you need to source that claim, and cite historians to back that opinion, not simply state it as though it were fact, which frankly, it is not. Bluntly, the majority, (not all, but you cannot get everyone to agree on anything!) the majority do believe this battle was of macrohistorical importance, and the current contemporary history section was re-written numerous times to reflect the majority view. If you dispute that, you need to source it, as I certainly can heavily source the section as it is. Unlike the first question, which is merely one of language, and which Tigeroo and I will resolve, the second, if I understand you correctly, the second dispute is a major factual dispute. Who are your sources? Mine are clearly cited, and I have plenty more. I must say though, even if this is a major factual dispute, we should be able to resolve it with referring to the sources, and achieving language which reflects the facts - I feel this is currently the case, as do the three other people who worked on it, but we are always open to improvement. old windy bear 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
old windy bear you are right we are not very far off at all. The sites you linked to for Islamic expansion both talk of two different time periods, one includes the Abassids and the other stops at Umayyads, and this is the confusion I refer to that there is no standard delineation even in academia on the era and that they are always followed by an explanation on wether the reference is to merely Umayyads or Umayyads and Abbassids, though I being to question those who include Abbassids. If you run a search [7] you will find plenty of references to Muslim Expansion instead of Islamic as well. Regardless the Ummayyad Period is [8] is just part of the expansion period and we agree there. The problem is in the Muslim world very few people are even aware of Franks or Visigoths just as in the western world few would know the Umayyads, they just monolithic christian or Islamic entities. I found the same problem with the crusades, even when there were enemy states such as the Fatimids and Abbassids in the opposition they were just random blanket mentioned as Muslims so attack on Egypt or Turkey seem to convey the impression that the same nation was being attacked. Some people have laid it down to medeival Orientalism or limited knowledge, regardless I don't want to get into that because there is a similar problem with muslims seeking a glorious history and trying to see the Abbassid rulers as glorious rulers of a might empire when infact they were held only nominal authority after the first 150 years or so and had no part in the expansions into sicily/italy or the greater expansion by the berbers into the Sahel, references for both positions are not hard to find under such conditions of confusion. My solution is that since the article is supposed to provide information it be clearly mentioned in a section describing the two opponents, early on so that the reader is clear on who the Umayyads are so that they won't be confused later on, I don't really think its too difficult, I can take a shot at it on this article and see what issues come up.--Tigeroo 07:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo I don't believe we are far off either. Yes, sadly, you are right that most people simply lump all Muslims together, as they do all christians. Certainly I would bet that less than one reader in ten even knows the difference between the Abbasids and Umayyads, and of those, less than a tenth know that after the first two centuries, as you say, the Abbasid Caliphs were merely figureheads for the Turcomen Warlords. How many christians know that Salah Al Din was a Kurd? That resistance to the 3rd Crusade and the Lion Heart was being led by a Kurd raised in a Turcomen court! I think your suggestion of a section describing the two opponents is a good one - go ahead and take a stab at it, and whatever issues arise we will work them out together. old windy bear 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a suggested opponents section, see what you think, and feel free to alter it to reflect your concerns:

[edit] The Opponents

The Invasion of Iberia, and then Europe, was led by the Umayyad Dynasty (Arabic بنو أمية banū umayya / الأمويون al-umawiyyūn, Persian امویان Omaviyân, Turkish Emevi), also "Umawi", was the first dynasty of caliphs of the Islamic empire after the reign of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) ended. The Umayyad Caliphate, at the time of the Battle of Tours, was the world’s largest state, and foremost military power. Great expansion of the Caliphate occurred under the reign of the Umayyads. Muslim armies pushed across North Africa and Iran, through the late 600s, expanding the borders of the empire from the Iberian Peninsula, in the west, to what is today Pakistan, in the east. Forces led by Tariq ibn-Ziyad crossed Gibraltar and established Muslim power in the Iberian peninsula, while other armies established power far away in Sind, in Northern India. The Muslim empire under the Umayyads was now a vast domain that ruled a diverse array of peoples. It had destroyed what were the two foremost military powers, the Sassanid Empire, which it absorbed completely, and the Eastern Roman Empire, which it essentially left isolated in Constandinople.

The Frankish Realm under Charles Martel was the foremost military power of Europe. It consisted of what is today most of Germany, the low countries, and part of France. (Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy). The Frankish Realm had begun to progress towards becoming the first real imperial power in Europe since the fall of Rome.

What do you think?old windy bear 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Sounds good, just going to offer a few comments:
  • I'm not sure about the assertion of the Frank defeat and the Berber Revolt, there was an entire mawali movement agaisnt arab dominance across the whole empire plus religious differences of the Khariji and Shia that were the primary drivers.
  • Sindh was only added c. 712 (also ancient India or Pakistan are better terms to use for its location) even the Umayyad period has about 3 expansionist pushes but we don't need to get into that really.
  • Largest may also be technically wrong, the Tang dynasty was quite huge though massed together than the Muslims.
  • I'm also not sure what role Tariq played after his intial successful foray and that we possibly replaced for political reasons.
  • Also strike that sentence about Martel and strengths, doesn't really belong in the introduction for sure, plus they were only pushing on and chasing their early success.
  • Was Martel really an established power at this time or did his establishment of power coincide with his repelling the Arabs?
  • What does "isolated" imply about the Byzantines, not clear on that.

--Tigeroo 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo Good morning, my friend, I am glad you liked it - the changes you made are fine, I will answer your comments, then, if you approve of the revised section, we can put it in.
  • A number of historians have linked Tours and the death of Abd Er Rahman to the Great Berber revolt of 740. Losses at Tours were horrific, Dr. Santosuosso, for instance, wrote "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs." The Berbers, as unarmoured light cavalry, bore the brunt of these losses. Then they were butchered again just 5 years later at the River Berre. Everyone is always emphasizing how difficult it must have been for unarmoured infantry to stand their ground against a cavalry charge, and I am sure it was, but equally, it was no fun for unarmoured light cavalry to charge again and again against massed battalions of highly motivated - they believed if they lost their families could be killed or sold into slavery -- battalions of the veteran frankish infantry. Abd Er Rahman was highly respected by the Berbers, and his loss left no one to try to deal with the terrible effect the slaughtering of whole generations in a matter of hours. Yes, the whole Umayyad struture was rotten, but many historians think the Berber revolt kicked it into open civil war with all the factions. The Umayyads had completely ignored Qur'anic injuctions about the equality of brotherhood, and their class system was rotten to the core, but again, many hitorians believe the Great Berber Revolt was the spark that ignited the fire. Of course the Shia were the primary drivers once the race began. I am going to delete that section though, because there is too much speculation, and to cover it properly it needs an article of it's own.
  • Sindh can be better called India or Pakistan, either would be correct, it is up to you!
  • Although the Tang dynasty probably had more people, the Umayyad Caliphate was the largest state in the world at the time of the Battle in terms of land mass.
  • Tariq got pushed to the side for political reasons as soon as the Umayyad officals saw how great the potential wealth was of a conquered Europe - the religious shrines alone made it increidbly profitable; and spreading Islam was a factor to some of them at least.
  • No problem in striking Martel's strength's - it is stated elsewhere and does not belong in this section.
  • Martel was an established power by the time of the Battle, though the remainder of his life was spent preparing the realm for his sons - he basically began the setup of the feudal system would see Europe through the Dark Ages. Militarily, his rule was unquestioned from 718 on, and the Battle of Soissons of 718 was the last of the great pitched battles of the civil war between the heirs of Pepin of Heristal. In the 14 years which followed it and preceded Tours, Martel would spend most of that time preparing for the Muslim invasions. He was convinced the Umayyads would return after Toulouse, and he wanted to be ready. (For instance, only a fluke - the refisal of the beseigers of Toulouse to build outer fortrifications, allowed Eudes to prevail at the Battle of Toulouse. Martel believed only trained veteran infantry could withstand the Islamic cavalry, and he used church funds to pay the first standing army in the west since Rome's fall, to train year round to fight in a phalanx.)
  • "Isolated" about the Bzyantines basically means that their empire was taken from them, and only the Land Walls, Greek Fire, and the Bulgars saved Constandinople in 717. In 632, when the Prophet died, the Sassanids and the Bzyantines were the foremost military powers in the world - by 732 the Sassanid Empire was completely gone, and the Bzyantine Empire was limited to Constandinople and a few other fortrified cities.

As soon as you make any further needed changes, let me know when you think it is ready, with the changes you feel necessary, and I will insert it in the article. Thanks for your help! old windy bear 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • "Isolated" does not make Byzantine plight clear, just say they had lost Syria, Armenia and North Africa and were struggling to hold onto Anatolia. I think the seige that was mounted was based off naval resources more than a land connection. Could be wrong.
  • Lets avoid biggest assertion, its touch and go with the Tang, no doubt they were the primary power in central asia, europe and africa even though the Khazar tested them.
  • Sind conquests more closely approximates with the modern state of Pakistan.
  • Again the Berber Revolt, I'm not yet convinced for numerous reasons including the continued presence of the Arabs in Septamania for another good 40 years almost though if sourced there is no real objection. On the note there is a different account of the battle on the Charles Martel page which suggests that the Arabs only "lost" because they could not agree on a new general after the death of Abd-er-Rahman, which could need to reconciled with information here.

Go ahead and insert it and then we can edit to mutual satisfaction.--Tigeroo 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo I will edit it to correct those things you found needing correction, (such as the Tang, and I will leave out the Berber revolt issue - it is really not appropriate here!) then insert the section, and we can mutually edit it if it needs further editing. On the death of Abd-er-Rahman, and the information on the Charles Martel article, I will reconcile that with this article today, THANKS for catching that! On the 717 siege of Constandinople, an army of more than 80,000 troops laid land siege while a gigantic fleet attempted siege by sea. The land invasion was led by the brother of the Caliph, who had overall command of the fleet as well. The land siege was foiled by the Bulgars whose constant attacks led to starvation as they cut the supply lines, and the troops were unable to breach the legendary land walls. At sea, greek fire made the difference. old windy bear 13:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates and Significance

With reference to OWB's comments above my source for the dispute over the date of the battle is the Oxford Companion to Military History. With regard to the significance of the battle Franco Cardini writes:

Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliche, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers... (Cardini, Europe and Islam).

Rodney Stark writes:

..Norman Davies (1996) did not mention either the Battle of Tours or even Charles Martel in his immense History of Europe; and, even in a long paragraph summarizing Martel's military career, Timothy Reuter barely mentioned Tours. This is because it is now understood that Tours was actually of minor strategic importance and remains of interest only to historians of military technology for being the first major engagement of armored knights. As was understood by the Franks at the time, the Saracen push north was far more of a raid than an invasion (Stark, One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism).

--Ian Pitchford 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Ian Pitchford - the OVERWHELMING majority and the tide of history is against your stance

I don’t mean to denigrate Ian’s sources, but they simply do not compare with William Watson, Michael Grant, Dr. Santosuosso(for starters, among the modern historians), let alone the legandary giants Bury, Gibbon, Creasy, et al. He maintains that our current contemporary analysis is editorial, and does not reflect the majority of historians. To buttress this argument, he cites two sources, neither of which is recognized, (sorry, but it is true) on the same level as Gibbon, Bury, Watson, Creasy, or Grant is, as scholars of accomplishments so huge they stand for the ages. In answering I start with Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes, who remain known to scholars today, and who carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications, which they stated saved Christianity itself. The implications of that battle remain pretty much – except by Ian and his tiny minority of scholars – as macrohistorical to this day by practically every major historian of mid and modern times. Gibbon, Bury, Creasy and Watson are just a few of the scholars who cite these contemporary historians.

From contemporaries, I go to quoting Gibbon, whose work is to this day considered the best sourced and most relevant history of the Roman Era. Gibbon eloquently observed:

"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed. [9]”

Gibbon also said:

”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race."

With moving language, Edward Gibbon said of the Muslim invasions and Charles Martel

"in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."

Gibbon called those eight days in 732, the week leading up to Tours, and the battle itself,

"the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbors of Gaul [France], from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran."

(all the above Gibbon quotes were, of course, from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle:

“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.” Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.

Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:

"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]

In 1922 and 1923, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne published a series of papers, known collectively as the "Pirenne Thesis", which remain influential to this day. Pirenne held that the Roman Empire continued, in the Frankish realms, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century. These conquests disrupted Mediterranean trade routes leading to a decline in the European economy. Such continued disruption would have meant complete disaster except for Charles Martel's halting of the Umayyad expansion into Europe from 732 on. What he managed to preserve led to the Carolingian Renaissance, named after him.

Then of course we have Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times. Creasy argues that the Martel victory:

"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.” From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.

German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Martel and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Muslims, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this

"mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."

Ranke opined that this period was:

"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."

(Both these German Historian/Philosophers were quoted by Sir Edward Creasy in 15 Decisive Battles of the World.

In the modern era, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that

"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."

Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.

In Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels, Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, makes a compelling case that the defeats of invading Muslim Armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monasteries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of Muslim expansion in Europe while the Caliphate was still united.

Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day. Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”

“As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”

In the series “Leaders and Battles” [10] database, it states clearly:

“Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe.”

Austin Cline wrote of this Battle, in “Christianity and Islam:”

“Many regard this battle as being decisive in that it saved Europe from Muslim control.”

David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace wrote of this battle in “The People’s Almanac:”

“Charles earned his name "The Hammer," and France never again was invaded by a Moslem Army. Although the Arabs were only raiding, a Frankish defeat at Tours would have led to greater incursions. As it happened, Abdar-Rahman's death brought on a revolt by the Berbers which destroyed Arab unity.”

Mark Whittington in his article “Day of Decision: The Battle of Tours” [11] says:

“Along with the defeat at the gates of Constandinople…the Battle of Tours halted Muslim Expansion into Europe. It has been suggested by numerous historians, including Edward Gibbon that had the Franks been defeated at Tours, the Muslim advance into Europe, then divided into squabbling kingdoms, would have been unstoppable. France, Germany, even England, would have fallen to Islam, putting an end to Christian Europe,”

Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says:

"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."

William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by Ian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)

“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

Finally, Paul Akers, in his editorial on Charles Martel, says for those who value Christianity

"you might spare a minute sometime today, and every October, to say a silent "thank you" to a gang of half-savage Germans and especially to their leader, Charles "The Hammer" Martel." [[12]].

With all respect to Ian, I think this overwhelms the very few mediocre historians who he cites. I can and do cite 10 for every cite he makes, and mine are, far more highly regarded. Is he seriously asking us to put Stark against William Watson, or Davies against Gibbon? Cardini against Bury? What about Grant, Martin, Bennett or Santosuosso? Whittington, Culp, or a dozen other historians or writers all concurring that this Battle turned the fate of the world. I stated at the onset you can find someone to take any position which exists. But anyone who studies this era knows the OVERWHELMING number of historians, including every single giant in the field, regards this battle as it is portrayed in the contemporary analysis. You can find someone to say anything – but the blunt facts are that the VAST majority of historians, as shown above, agree on the impact of this battle. Such a view that the tiny minority espouses ignores the undisputed fact that 4 Emirs of al-Andalus over a 25 year period used a Fatwa from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens who were beginning conversion, to raise 4 huge invading armies, well supplied and equipped, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. No such later attempts however were made, as conflict between the Umayyad Emirate of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe. Creasy hit the heart of the matter when he quoted Islamic historians in the first 700 years after the Battle; Muslim historians for centuries referred to Tours, notes Creasy, as "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions for Islam. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic)

"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar)

This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” puts the importance of the Battle of Tours in macrohistorical perspective from the vast majority view, and if anything the contemporary analysis is understated to keep an encyclopedic tone.

(indeed, we avoided citing the Arab histories that claim this Battle and Abd Er Rahman's death was the spark that flamed into the horrific Berber rebellion of 740, which most historians agree was the catalyst which led to widespread unrest and rebellion throughout the Caliphate, and ended with the Battle of the Zab a decade later, and brought down the Umayyad's altogether except for the Iberian principality - so any claim the contemporary analysis was editorial is absurd, and frankly, we understated the vast majority view). old windy bear 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect I think you are misunderstanding two Wikipedia key policies: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It's original research to claim that an overwhelming majority of historians endorse a certain point of view. You can quote an historian making this claim, but nothing you mention above falls into this category. Secondly, if the significance of the battle is disputed by historians then that dispute should be reported in the article, citing appropriate sources. Counting my sources above, plus Fouracre, five contemporary historians in the sources I've looked at either implicity or explicitly discount the importance of the Battle of Tours, and I've barely looked at the issue. Some contemporary historians are particularly dismissive of Gibbon. BTW to my knowledge most Arab historians dismiss the battle as insignificant. As Wikipedia editors we don't endorse one perspective or the other, we just report the debate. --Ian Pitchford 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and Historians are still against your stance

Alas, I fear you misunderstand two Wikipedia key policies: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It is not original research to say that the majority view is that this battle was of macrohistorical importance. You say you found five writers that stated the battle was not of macrohistorical importance. I cited twenty-one sources and/or historians yesterday, (Bennett’s book has four co-authors) and am citing 9 more today – that is 30 without serious effort – who state it was of macrohistorical importance. You can carry the idea of no original research to ridiculous extremes – if we followed your definition, we would have to state the evolution is not accepted by the majority of scientists – after all, it would be original research to say the majority accept evolution as sound science! We do say that social issues arise out of the science involved, but we don’t challenge the science as being invalid or accepted by the majority – yet if we followed your logic, we could not say the majority of scientists accept evolution as sound science! The blunt fact is the majority of historians consider the battle of macrohistorical importance. I have added the qualification that some historians still challenge it’s importance, but they are in the minority. In the Battle of Chalons we cite J.B. Bury’s minority view that that Battle lacked macrohistorical importance – again, if we followed your definition, we could not do that. No offense, but your reading of the rules is downright silly.

Your attack on Gibbon is wryly sad, and ignores the facts that Bury, Creasy, and Watson, to name three of the genuine historial giants, all say the same thing! As to Gibbon, his FACTS remain unchallenged to this day, and most historians, yes Ian, most historians, consider him not only the greatest historian on Rome, but the first modern historian, period. Even Bury, a century later, does not challenge his facts, nor does Heather, a century after Bury, challenge them either in a really fascinating book published last year! You cannot challenge William Watson, who is considered the paramount historian of that era now living, who states of that battle:

“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

In addition to the twenty-one sources, historians and writers cited yesterday, here are 9 more:

Geoffry Reagan lists this Battle as decisive in world history in The Guinness Book of Decisive Battles, saying

"The Battle of Tours is considered decisive in world history as it determined whether Europe would remain christian, or fall to Islam.”

Dexter B. Wakefield, in his provocative work “An Islamic Europe” says of the Battle of Tours:

“A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg. “

Quite naturally, Michael Lee Lanning includes the Battle of Tours in his important history “The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles.”

”Europe today would be Muslim…except for Charles Martel’s stand at Tours.”

Godefroid Kurth says in The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on the Battle of Tours:

” In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”

The Christian History Institute says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:

“That Islam did not capture all of Europe and wipe out Christianity is owing in part to the Franks' Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, his sturdy Merovingian knights and a courageous infantry. On this day, October 10, 732* Charles met the Islamic invaders between Poiters and Tours in a battle that lasted either two days (Arab sources) or seven (French sources). The Muslims were mounted and their cavalry employed an innovation--the stirrup. The Franks were on foot. Yet the Franks stood like a wall and the Muslims withdrew defeated. Their leader, Abd-ar-Rahman was killed. In their rout, the Arabs suffered heavy losses of men. Europe would remain Christian territory.”

NNDB: Tracking the Entire World, says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:

” a new vali, Abdur Rahman, a member of an extremely fanatical sect, resumed the attack, reached Poitiers, and advanced on Tours, the holy town of Gaul. In October 732 -- just 100 years after the death of Muhammad -- Charles gained a brilliant victory over Abdur Rahman… This was the last of the great Arab invasions of Europe. After his victory Charles took the offensive.”

John H. Haaren says in “Famous Men of the Middle Ages”

” The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe. Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle.”

In HistoryWorld, the History of France, says of the Battle of Tours:

” Here the Arabs are confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel. It is not known precisely where the battle (known either as Poitiers or Tours) takes place, but it is won by the Franks. It marks the end, in the west, of the apparently inexorable advance of the Arabs.”

The History Channel says in assessing the Battle of Tours:

” Christendom, the most powerful domain in the world for the past 1500 years, was frequently permeated and even brought to the brink of ruin many times. Three of these "close calls" include: * Battle of Tours (732AD): Charles the Hammer of Franks vs. Abd er Rahman of Moors in France, where Martel killed Rahman, and halted the advance of Islam into Europe.”

And that is 9 more sources – for 30 sources or historians, including every single major historian of the era – and I got them in minutes. I could get 100 as easily. Ian, you also are wrong on your misstatement on Muslim assessments of the Battle. It is true that contemporary Muslim historians are much more interested in the Second Siege of Constandinople in 717. But the historians of the age the Battle took place, and for the seven centuries after the battle, until the Ottomans started rewriting history, called the battle, as Creasy said: "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic):

"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar)

This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” appears to put the importance of the Battle of Tours in Islamic historical perspective in the age it happened, though again, history was rewritten later to minimize the magnitude of the defeat.

In addition, since you brought Islamic scholarship into this, you also fail to mention the connection between the Battle of Tours and the Berber revolt eight years later, which also state starkly the effect the defeat at Tours had on the Umayyad Caliphate.

“ History of the Muslim World Till 1405: The Making of a Civilization” by Vernon O. Egger in 2003 says on page 154:

“A revolt of this magnitude had not occurred since the Great Berber Revolt of 740 initiated the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus.”

Eiger points out how Abd Er Rahman’s defeat and death sparked the open revolt of the Berber armies in Iberia, without Rahman’s leadership, the Berbers believed they were thrown pell mell into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, which swiftly led to their revolt in Africa, and like dominos, the remainder of the Umayyad realm collapsed into civil war and chaos.

Why, one might ask, did the defeat at Tours, and the subsequent defeats during the campaigns of 736-7, especially the horrific slaughter of the relief force at the River Berre, enraged the Berbers, and Abd Er Rahman, highly respected by them, was not there to calm the fierce feelings? Bury discusses bluntly the terrible slaughter of the Berber lighthorse cavalry against the stalwart Frankish infantry, a slaughter which ultimately sparked the rebellion of those Berbers in Iberia, and then in Africa. That revolt ignited the wholesale rebellions which brought down the Umayyad Caliphate. You may think this is not a macrohistorical event, but EVERY great historian disagrees.

In his column “Who’s Really Riding the Weaker Horse?” Vox Day writes:

”The first great wave of Islamic expansion ranged from 632 to 732 A.D.. During this time, Arabia, Persia, northern Africa, northern India and Spain all came under the domination of various Islamic powers; a succession of defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours finally exhausted its momentum. The disintegration of the great caliphates into rival emirates and taifas began almost immediately, starting with the Berber revolt of 740.”

In his book “The End of the Jihad State,” Muslim historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003:

” Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.”

In an online chronology of Islamic History, [13] the Battle of Tours is listed as being of macrohistorical importance, listed on an Islamic site listing vital chronological Islamic historical dates and interestingly, has these dates leading directly into the Shia and Berber revolts just 8 years after Martel’s crushing defeat of the Umayyad invasion at Tours, and again five years later at Avignon. The next dates are the Shia and Berber revolts!

732: The battle of Tours in France.
737: The Muslims meet reverse at Avignon in France.
740: Shia revolt under Zaid b Ali. Berber revolt in North Africa.

Certainly one reason for the Berber revolt, according to Muslim histories, was their belief they were forced into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, and their undefeated leader, Charles Martel, see Berber chronology at [14]

In short, you cannot dispute that the huge majority of historians believe the Battle of Tours was of macrohistorical importance, and you cannot challenge William Watson, J.B. Bury, Grant, Bennett, Santosuosso – certainly Fouracre is not Watson’s equal as a historian, nor are any of the others you cite! While you attack Gibbon, you don’t say a word about Creasy, Bury, or Watson, all giants in the field, all saying this Battle was pivotal to world history! We could list all the quotes found on the battle, making the article 100 pages long, or we can say what is plainly and undisputedly the truth – MOST historians, the vast majority, in the west, espouse the view that Martel’s victory was pivotal for Christianity. You have come up with a few minor league writers, and try to hide behind wikipedia policies which, if we followed your logic, would require us to not make assessments that encyclopedias routinely make. I said at the onset that a few historians, the minority, devalue this battle. Nothing you have come up with disabuses that thought. Quite the opposite. You are wrong in fact, and wrong in historical assessment. However, since a relative few modern historians and/or writers do stll devalue the Battle's importance, I added that fact to the contemporary analysis, so that viewpoint is fairly represented. Ian, I think you mean well, but you simply are wrong historically. (and I personally don't care one way or the other whether or not this Battle truly stopped the spread of Islam, or preserved Christianity - my concern as a military historian writing in an encyclopedia is to relate how the experts feel, and bluntly, the giants of the field in Europe, Gibbon, Bury, Creasy, Arnold, Heather, Watson, et al, clearly feel it was pivotal to history, and that is what the article needs to reflect. HOWEVER, you were right to the extent that a minority of writers disagree, and that view is now presented. But you have to almost laugh, Cardini's statement that no one still views the battle as crucial, when Watson, a historian for the ages, says

“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

That pretty much says it all. Cardini's statement was absurd. However, as an encyclopedia, that viewpoint, absurd or not, did need to be presented, and now has been. old windy bear 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to OWB

The claim of "minority" and "majority" views is original research unless it's sourced. It's as simple as that. According to Bernard Lewis: "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement at all, present it as a minor skirmish." (Islam and the West p. 11). A few more:

  • Joseph F O'Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain
The battle has been traditionally regarded as one of the decisive contests in history, on the supposition that, had the Moslems won, the whole of Gaul would have been theirs, but it does not appear that they had the capability to extend their rule over Gaul.
  • Alessandro Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent
Today, historians tend to play down the signifcance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Arab force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours.
  • Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World
Charles Martel and an army of Franks defeated what was probably a Muslim raiding party at the battle of Tours and Poitiers. European writers (Edward Gibbon is often cited) have emphasized the signifcance of this victory, while Muslim historians seem to attach much less importance to the battle or its conclusion.
  • Robert Cowley, Geoffrey Parker, The Reader's Companion to Military History
Previously accepted ideas about the importance of this battle have not been sustained by recent scholarship. Charles' victory did not represent a defense of Europe against an Islamic invasion. Leo the Isaurian's defense of Constantinople and the Visigothic leader Pelayo's victory at Covadonga in northern Spain already had stopped the Muslim advance. Nor did the victory at Poitiers end Muslim raids into Frankish territory...
  • Tomaz Mastnak, Crusading Peace: Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order
Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle... pictured tha battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens.

--Ian Pitchford 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are still wrong

Ian, I am sorry it has come to asking you if you will agree to arbitration. I always try to reach consensus, but in this case, I feel I have tried, and you are just unwilling to look at this factually, historically, and realistically.

First, of the five new quotes you present, only 2 of them actually oppose the Battle as a macrohistorical event. Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World is ambivulent about the Battle; Joseph F O'Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain is also ambivulent, speculating that the Muslims in Iberia lacked the capacity to extend their rule to Gaul had they won – at best, this is subjective speculation, and like Ms. Beckett, does not flatly state that Gibbon and company are wrong. Alessandro Barbero, in Charlemagne: Father of a Continent also is speculative, stating that today’s historians now understate the decisiveness of the Battle – a position he opposes, interestingly, and a position which is factually incorrect in any event. So of the 5 new quotes you present, three of them are no help to your position, and one actually supports the macrohistorical nature of the event! (Barbero) That leaves 2 which do support your contention, plus the two earlier quotes against 40 sources presented below, all of which are crystal clear, all of which make all out statements that the event was macrohistorical in nature, decisive for world history. Ian, you are generally a good editor, so I am at a loss why you would seriously offer 4 quotes from little known writers against ten times that number, including flat all out analysis of this Battle's macrohistorical importance by the greatest western historians of all time, and assert that these 4 statements represent an equal historical position to that of ten times their number, by the greatest historians of western civilization. Bluntly, your position is original research in it's very worst form, though I don't think you see it for what it is.

You are yourself engaging in original research by attempting to rewrite history by asserting that a tiny minority viewpoint is the scholarly equal of the viewpoint which is taught in practically every institution of learning in the west. You named a total of 4 sources saying it was not a macrohistorical event. I just named 40, below, and could name 40 more. Ian, you are simply incorrect that labeling 4 views of scholars not considered in the first rank of historians, (with the exception of Lewis, who is generally discredited these days because he allowed his political views to so color his historical analysis), is a view equal to that of 40 including six of the truly great scholars of history, Gibbon, Bury, Creasy, Watson, Benes, and Theophanes. Your position is outrageous original research and rewriting of history though again, I cannot believe, based on your record of good editing, that you see what you are doing. You are trying to rewrite history to purport that scholars are equally arrayed on this issue, when that is simply not the case. We need at this point to ask for arbitration. I could find a quote saying Watson's is the majority view, but I don't believe that would be the proper way to handle this situation - Ian, you know at least as well as I do, that if we allow anyone to assert that a minority viewpoint, with NOT ONE of the great historians advocating that minority viewpoint, is as advocated by teachers as the views of Watson and Bury, it would open Pandora's Box to allow anyone with a POV to assert a tiny minority viewpoint is equal to the accepted history. I dispute your contention that your finding 4 second rank scholars comes remotely close to being an equal evaluation of the historical event painstakingly analyzed by the truly great scholars of history. Your contention would mislead readers who don't know the era to believe there is a genuine controversy, where there is none. Your original research would mislead unknowing readers into believing that scholars are equally arrayed on both sides of this issue - and nothing could be further from the truth. The obligation of an encyclopedia is to present facts, and it is not fact that this issue has scholars equally arrayed in opposition on the impact of this Battle. Yes, there is a small minority who don't believe the implications of the battle are profound. But you cannot, and will not, address the issue that EVERY major historian, including the greats of history, all agree on this Battle's importance. We have to stop this sort of thing. It is not personal, but an honest disagreement that needs arbitration. I feel we have an obligation to protect the unknowing reader who comes to us in good faith by presenting the facts as they are - and not as anyone would like them to be. This is a small sample of the VAST MAJORITY OPINION, which, unlike the ambivulent statements you cited, flatly state the contemporary analysis as it evolved through time, and why:

  • Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes, who remain known to scholars today, and who carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications, which they stated saved Christianity itself.

From contemporaries, I go to quoting Gibbon, whose work is to this day considered the best sourced and most relevant history of the Roman Era.

  • Gibbon eloquently observed:
"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed. [15]”
  • Gibbon also said:
”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race."
  • Gibbon called those eight days in 732, the week leading up to Tours, and the battle itself,
"the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbors of Gaul [France], from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran."

(all the above Gibbon quotes were, of course, from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

  • John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle:
“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.” Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
  • Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:
"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]
  • In 1922 and 1923, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne published a series of papers, known collectively as the "Pirenne Thesis", which remain influential to this day. Pirenne held that the Roman Empire continued, in the Frankish realms, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century. These conquests disrupted Mediterranean trade routes leading to a decline in the European economy. Such continued disruption would have meant complete disaster except for Charles Martel's halting of the Umayyad expansion into Europe from 732 on. What he managed to preserve led to the Carolingian Renaissance, named after him.
  • Then of course we have Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times. Creasy argues that the Martel victory:
"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.” From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.
  • German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Martel and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Muslims, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this
"mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
  • Ranke opined that this period was:
"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
  • (Both these German Historian/Philosophers were quoted by Sir Edward Creasy in 15 Decisive Battles of the World.
  • In the modern era, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
  • Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.
  • In Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels, Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, makes a compelling case that the defeats of invading Muslim Armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monasteries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of Muslim expansion in Europe while the Caliphate was still united.
  • Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day. Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”
“As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”
  • In the series “Leaders and Battles” [16] database, it states clearly:
“Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe.”
  • Austin Cline wrote of this Battle, in “Christianity and Islam:”
“Many regard this battle as being decisive in that it saved Europe from Muslim control.”
  • David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace wrote of this battle in “The People’s Almanac:”
“Charles earned his name "The Hammer," and France never again was invaded by a Moslem Army. Although the Arabs were only raiding, a Frankish defeat at Tours would have led to greater incursions. As it happened, Abdar-Rahman's death brought on a revolt by the Berbers which destroyed Arab unity.”
  • Mark Whittington in his article “Day of Decision: The Battle of Tours” [17] says:
“Along with the defeat at the gates of Constandinople…the Battle of Tours halted Muslim Expansion into Europe. It has been suggested by numerous historians, including Edward Gibbon that had the Franks been defeated at Tours, the Muslim advance into Europe, then divided into squabbling kingdoms, would have been unstoppable. France, Germany, even England, would have fallen to Islam, putting an end to Christian Europe,”
  • Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says:
"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
  • William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by Ian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

He also said:

"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."
  • Paul Akers, in his editorial on Charles Martel, says for those who value Christianity
"you might spare a minute sometime today, and every October, to say a silent "thank you" to a gang of half-savage Germans and especially to their leader, Charles "The Hammer" Martel." [[18]].
  • Geoffry Reagan lists this Battle as decisive in world history in The Guinness Book of Decisive Battles, saying
"The Battle of Tours is considered decisive in world history as it determined whether Europe would remain christian, or fall to Islam.”
  • Dexter B. Wakefield, in his provocative work “An Islamic Europe” says of the Battle of Tours:
“A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg. “
  • Michael Lee Lanning includes the Battle of Tours in his important history “The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles.”
”Europe today would be Muslim…except for Charles Martel’s stand at Tours.”
  • The Jewish Virtual Library [19] says
"October 10, 732 AD marks the conclusion of the Battle of Tours, arguably one of the most decisive battles in all of history."
  • Godefroid Kurth says in The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on the Battle of Tours:
”In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”
  • The Christian History Institute says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
“That Islam did not capture all of Europe and wipe out Christianity is owing in part to the Franks' Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, his sturdy Merovingian knights and a courageous infantry. On this day, October 10, 732* Charles met the Islamic invaders between Poiters and Tours in a battle that lasted either two days (Arab sources) or seven (French sources). The Muslims were mounted and their cavalry employed an innovation--the stirrup. The Franks were on foot. Yet the Franks stood like a wall and the Muslims withdrew defeated. Their leader, Abd-ar-Rahman was killed. In their rout, the Arabs suffered heavy losses of men. Europe would remain Christian territory.”
  • NNDB: Tracking the Entire World, says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
”a new vali, Abdur Rahman, a member of an extremely fanatical sect, resumed the attack, reached Poitiers, and advanced on Tours, the holy town of Gaul. In October 732 -- just 100 years after the death of Muhammad -- Charles gained a brilliant victory over Abdur Rahman… This was the last of the great Arab invasions of Europe. After his victory Charles took the offensive.”
  • John H. Haaren says in “Famous Men of the Middle Ages”
”The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe. Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle.”
  • In HistoryWorld, the History of France, says of the Battle of Tours:
”Here the Arabs are confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel. It is not known precisely where the battle (known either as Poitiers or Tours) takes place, but it is won by the Franks. It marks the end, in the west, of the apparently inexorable advance of the Arabs.”
  • The History Channel says in assessing the Battle of Tours:
”Christendom, the most powerful domain in the world for the past 1500 years, was frequently permeated and even brought to the brink of ruin many times. Three of these "close calls" include: * Battle of Tours (732AD): Charles the Hammer of Franks vs. Abd er Rahman of Moors in France, where Martel killed Rahman, and halted the advance of Islam into Europe.”
  • It is true that contemporary Muslim historians are much more interested in the Second Siege of Constandinople in 717. But the historians of the age, and for the seven centuries after the battle, until the Ottomans started rewriting history, called the battle, as Creasy said: as "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic):::"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar)
  • This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” appears to put the importance of the Battle of Tours in Islamic historical perspective in the age it happened, though again, history was rewritten later to minimize the magnitude of the defeat.
  • There is also the connection between the Battle of Tours and the Berber revolt eight years later, which also state starkly the effect the defeat at Tours had on the Umayyad Caliphate.
  • “History of the Muslim World Till 1405: The Making of a Civilization” by

Vernon O. Egger in 2003 says on page 154:

“A revolt of this magnitude had not occurred since the Great Berber Revolt of 740 initiated the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus.”

Eiger points out how Abd Er Rahman’s defeat and death sparked the open revolt of the Berber armies in Iberia, without Rahman’s leadership, the Berbers believed they were thrown pell mell into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, which swiftly led to their revolt in Africa, and like dominos, the remainder of the Umayyad realm collapsed into civil war and chaos.

  • Why, one might ask, did the defeat at Tours, and the subsequent defeats during the campaigns of 736-7, especially the horrific slaughter of the relief force at the River Berre, enrage the Berbers, when Abd Er Rahman, highly respected by them, was not there to calm the fierce feelings? Bury discusses bluntly the terrible slaughter of the Berber lighthorse cavalry against the stalwart Frankish infantry, a slaughter which ultimately sparked the rebellion of those Berbers in Iberia, and then in Africa. That revolt ignited the wholesale chaos which brought down the Umayyad Caliphate. You may think this is not a macrohistorical event, but EVERY great historian disagrees.
  • Indeed, the site "Civil War and the Umayyads" [20] by Richard Hooker emphasizes the slaughter of the Muslim army during Martel's campaigns of 736-7, (agreeing in this with Dr. Santosuosso, who while paying tribute to Martel's great victory at Tours, maintains that the invasions of 736 were more dangerous than Tours to Christianity, and Martel's enormous triumphs in crushing those armies devastated any hope Islam had of conquering Europe) The site "Civil War and the Umayyads" says:
"During this period, the Muslims expanded out of Spain and into France until their advance was finally stopped by the Franks in 736."
  • In his column “Who’s Really Riding the Weaker Horse?” Vox Day writes:
”The first great wave of Islamic expansion ranged from 632 to 732 A.D.. During this time, Arabia, Persia, northern Africa, northern India and Spain all came under the domination of various Islamic powers; a succession of defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours finally exhausted its momentum. The disintegration of the great caliphates into rival emirates and taifas began almost immediately, starting with Berber revolt of 740.”
  • In his book “The End of the Jihad State,” Muslim historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003:” Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.”
  • In an online Chronology of Islamic History, [21] the Battle of Tours is listed as being of macrohistorical importance, listed on an Islamic site listing vital chronological Islamic historical dates and interestingly, has these dates leading directly into the Shia and Berber revolts just 8 years after Martel’s crushing defeat of the Umayyad invasion at Tours, and again five years later at Avignon. The next dates are the Shia and Berber revolts!
732: The battle of Tours in France.

737: The Muslims meet reverse at Avignon in France. 740: Shia revolt under Zaid b Ali. Berber revolt in North Africa.

  • Certainly one reason for the Berber revolt, according to Muslim histories, was their belief they were forced into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, and their undefeated leader, Charles Martel, see Berber chronology at [22]

That is 40 views disputing your 4. And the 40 include every great Western historian of the ages. I really regret it, but we need arbitration on this issue. No one, not even a good proven writer can be allowed to assert that a viewpoint advocated by a tiny minority of second rank writers is equivilent to that of all the great historians of our time, and all time. That is the very worst kind of original research. An encyclopedia presents the facts. The facts are that most scholars teach what is presented above. Ian, I am a firm believer in Occam's razor in the John Stuart Mill version -- the answer to a problem is usualy the obvious one. To allow your stance would mislead uninformed readers to believe that there are two equal and opposing views of this battle, with scholars equally arrayed on both sides. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more original research. I don't believe this is your intent, but alas, that, would be the result. old windy bear 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another response to OWB

Arbitration does not deal with content disputes - these go to RfC and/or mediation. The sources you dismiss above include one of the most eminent western scholars of Islamic history who is clear about the fact that "Arab historians, if they mention this engagement at all, present it as a minor skirmish" and other perfectly well qualified historians who argue that Christian contemporaries also consider the battle of little importance. You quote Bede as supporting the interpretation that Tours was significant, but all Bede says is:

a dreadful plague of Saracens ravaged France with miserable slaughter; but they not long after in that country received the punishment due to their wickedness. (The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England: Also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 291).

You quote Blankship in support of the notion that the battle was of crucial importance, though he writes: "...its impact was less severe or direct than that of battles farther east". (The End of the Jihad State, p. 163).

I wont bother looking at the many websites you quote as these are hardly reliable sources for Wikipedia. One source you do cite extensively above (Antonio Santosuosso), and in the article, and in others you have re-written such as my stub on the Battle of Avignon where you write that "Santosuosso describes the campaigns of Tours and 736-737 by Martel and the Franks as macrohistorical in their halt of the Islamization of Europe". In fact Santosuosso says almost nothing about Tours, but what he does say is:

We know very little about the Battle of Poitiers (or Tours), although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P. K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave almost a thousand miles from its starting place in Gibraltar, had reached a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself." The main problem was jealousy and discord between the Arabs and Berbers. (Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, p. 126).

How do you explain this discrepancy between what Santosusso writes and what you report? --Ian Pitchford 11:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian is wrong again

Unfortunately, Ian, you are wrong again because you either did not read the book, or don't understand what a historian does. The statements you report as Santosusso's are actually his reporting what a Muslim historian named Hitti who actually published those claims in a book The History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present" in 1964, under the name "Hitti" though page 126 refers to him as "Hatti." These statements were a demonstration of an Islamic historian versus the Christian view. What Santosusso wrote in Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels on page 126 and 127, as his own conclusions, - I have the book - is:

"what we can say with certainty is that it (the Battle) took place on a Saturday in October in 732. The Franks and Muslims faced each other for six days, probably only skirmishes took place. But the Muslims lost patience and attacked on the seventh day. They played into the hands of the Franks, who were expecting them, deployed in a compact phalanx. They stood like a wall of ice, one source said. The Muslims must have renewed their attack, probably with cavalry, several times. Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs." Casualities included their own commander, Abd ar-Rahman al-Gafiqi. The struggle stopped at night's end. In the morning, the Franks lined up, ready to renew the fighting, the Muslim forces had left the battlefield during the night.
"About two years later the new governor of al-Andulas, Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj again moved into France to avenge the defeat at Poiters and to spread Islam. It is said he converted about 2,000 Christians he had captured over his career. After assembling forces at Saragossa he entered French territory in 735, crossed the River Rhone and captured and looted Arles. From there he struck into the heart of Provence, ending with the capture of Avignon, despite strong resistence. Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj's forces remained in French territory for about four years, carrying raids to Lyons, Burgundy, and Piedmont. Again Charles Martel came to the rescue, reconquering most of the lost territories in two campaigns in 736 and 739, except for the city of Narbonne, which finally fell in 759. The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poiters. Yet it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes, though raids continued."

You also neglect to mention, when you quote Hitti's findings out of context that Santosusso himself referred to the expedition into Gaul by the Muslims in 732 as "the next major expedition" and referenced the Battle as "the stage was set for a major confrontation." Those were his own words, which you "forgot" to mention, also on page 126.

On page 212 Santosusso said:

The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..."

So to specifically refute your latest sadly wrong claim, the statements you attribute to Santosusso are actually his reporting what Hitti had asserted 42 years ago - Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle himself to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation" and "stemming of the muslim advance in 732" on page 212, which contradicts what he reports that Hatti said on page 126 that you refer to. His description of the Battle, and his flat statements on "it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes," shows his own conclusions, which were what I reported. If you had read the book, and then followed up by reading Hitti's work, and the other references, you would have known he was reporting conflicting views of the battle between Hitti, a Muslim historian, and his own view, which he made clear on pages 126-127 and 212. Further, he credits Martel with injecting martial vigor into Christianity, which to that point had lacked it to the degree it was present in Islam, another vital factor in halting the spread of Islam into Europe. He finds that change beginning at this Battle, again, see page 212. In reviewing his book, you have to discern - which you unfortunately could not - between his reporting what other sources said, and his own conclusions. His own words, with no references, are crystal clear:

"The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..."

Again, he refers to losses so horrific for Islam in this battle that: "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs." Finally, I accurately summed up Santosusso's findings that the Battle was of macrohistorical importance, but Martel's later campaigns were more so, which the direct quotes certainly agree with.

NOW, since we are asking why people cannot explain quotes, (you really should read the book before trying to decipher what it means) why don't you explain William Watson's findings, since he is considered, with Santosusso, to be the greatest historian of that era living. William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by you, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)

“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

Or why don't you explain Creasy's findings, since he is generally recognized as the greatest military historian of western history: Creasy argues that the Martel victory:

"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.” From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.

Or why don't you explain Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that

"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."

Or what about Bury, generally conceded to be the greatest all time historian of that era? John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle:

“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.” Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.

If you need me to explain why historians quote other historians, as Santosusso did Hitti, they are analyzing the event from all perspectives. Santosusso's own views are what I always reported them, which you would have known had you read the book. He felt that Tours was a macrohistorical event, "The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" but that the later campaigns were more so - "The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poiters. Yet it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes, though raids continued." You are still wrong, and I am disappointed that you could not tell the difference between a professor analyzing other scholars, and his own views. I will be glad to explain it to you, and don't mind helping you, but this reinforces your misunderstanding of not just this Battle, but of how to ascertain it's place in history. old windy bear 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Santosuosso says

OWB writes "The statements you report as Santosusso's are actually his reporting what Hatti claimed, and the demonstration of an Islamic historian versus the Christian view". Actually no, the quotation is exactly as reported, the remarks about mythology are Santosuosso's and the introduction to the comments imply no disagreement:

We know very little about the Battle of Poitiers (or Tours), although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P. K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave almost a thousand miles from its starting place in Gibraltar, had reached a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself." The main problem was jealousy and discord between the Arabs and Berbers. (Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, p. 126).

That is, Santosuosso says that it is in mythology that Tours is "one of the greatest battles of all time" (citing Creasy as the person responsible for the mythology) and then quotes Hatti's comments, which have nothing at all to do with the "Islamic historian versus the Christian view". Actually the author in question is Philip K Hitti, not Hatti and his words were "In reality nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours". I note that in the rest of what you quote from pages 126 and 127 Santosuosso says nothing about the extraordinary importance of Tours and says, as you report, "The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Tours. Yet its [i.e., not Tours] failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees, although raids continued", but you miss out his final conclusion that "And internal turmoil in the Muslim lands often made enemies out of his own kind". There's absolutely nothing at all here about a key role for Martel or the "macrohistorical importance" of Tours. Your partial quotation from page 212 "The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..." reads in full "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war". Again, nothing about the "macrohistorical importance" of Martel's victory. Whatever Santosuosso says in his popular book, you've provided no rationale at all for discounting the contemporary Arab and Christian accounts that report the battle as a minor skirmish or for dimssing the views of modern (and by that I don't mean nineteenth century) historians that a skirmish is exactly what it was, other political, military and social developments being responsible for the halt in Umayyad expansion. I suspect that you really don't understand that claims derived from your own interpretations are original research. We report what historians say, nothing else, and we don't rank them and their views in some sort of arbitrary scheme devised by Wikipedia editors. --Ian Pitchford 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Santosuosso really says

Ian, indeed, we report what historians say - like all the historians whose words you so selectively refuse to address, such as Bury, Gibbon, Arnold, Creasy, Bennett, Grant, Martin, Schlegel and Ranke, and most importantly in this era, William Watson. Also, once again you report only part of was said in the sole book and writer you will discuss, and continue to engage in selective quoting and original research. You admit that Santosuosso said on page 212:

"The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war".

What do you think the author was referring to in the words "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war" if such was not an event of historical importance? "Stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" -- that is this battle, which is specifically cited by Dr. Santosuosso, the same Dr. Santosuosso you try to claim was not citing this battle as an event of importance! And this was one of those passages, like calling this Battle a "major confrontation" "stemming" - also his word! - a "major expedition," also his words, which you forgot to cite, in your selective claims on this book! As you forgot he refers to losses so horrific for Islam in this battle that: "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."

Further, you finally admit that Santosuosso's citing of Hitti, (and you did not even give the correct spelling of his name, or the fact his book was 42 years old, or that he was a Muslim scholar until I pointed those facts out to you!) the citing of Hitti's viewpoint was in direct contrast to that to Sir Edward Creasy's, thus pointing out the difference in the cultural perspective. The fact that Santosuosso chose to cite Hitti and contrast him to Creasy, on the same page he called the Battle of Tours a "major confrontation" in response to a "major expedition" rather than stating Hitti's findings himself without citing him is clear and convincing proof that Santosuosso was contrasting perspectives rather than stating his own findings.

With all respect, you failed to point out Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle in his own words to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation." These words alone leave great doubt that his quotation of Hitti was anything more than a reference to an Islamic perspective as opposed to the accepted christian one as defined by Creasy. But of course there is more. Indeed, he credits Martel and his progeny with injecting martial vigor into Christianity, which to that point had lacked it to the degree it was present in Islam, another vital factor in halting the spread of Islam into Europe. He finds that change beginning at this Battle, again, see page 212! When you combine those references by Dr. Santosuosso about this battle on page 126, ("major expedition, "major confrontation")to his reference on page 212 of "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war," those combined passages and his choice of words removes any doubt that he was only citing Hitti as a counter reference to Creasy, and his own opinion was this was a macrohistorical event, abeit one that took second place to Martel's further victories in 736 onward.

Anyone citing this book as a primary source should research it's references, and they would not misspell Hitti's name, or fail to point out that was a quote from an Islamic scholar, or fail to point that Dr. Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle himself to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation," or make a moving reference to the huge casualities of the Muslim army being so massive they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs." Nor would a researcher forget Dr. Santosusso states on 212 that "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" was part of vital development in the Christian ethos towards war, so that they could match the Muslim ferocity and defend themselves sucessfully!

I always stated in referencing Santosusso exactly what the book presented: that the Battle at Tours was a (Santosusso's words) "major confrontation" which halted, (again in Santosusso's words) a "major expedition." However, I also always pointed out that Santosusso's viewpoint was so interesting precisely because he thought the later campaigns of Charles Martel were even more important, as they, again in Santosusso's words, defeated the invading Muslims with such devastating effect, that that "failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees."

Further, you act as though the entire matter of the macrohistorical importance of Tours depending on Dr. Santosusso - quite the contrary, his work is mostly relevant in the article for it's pointing that while Tours was a (his words) "major confrontation" which ended a "major expedition" into Europe, that Martel's later campaigns are even more macrohistorical as they ended those expeditions forever. Indeed, despite your trying to frame this as though he is the only scholar in the debate, he is FAR from the only historian to argue about Tours, but his emphasis on the later campaigns does make him particularly interesting, as he is virtually alone in stressing the later campaigns of Martel over Tours.

While misspelling Hitti's name, and misciting Santosusso, you still refuse to even address Bury, Gibbon, Arnold, Creasy, Bennett, Grant, Martin, Schlegel and Ranke, and most importantly in this era, William Watson. Their words on the battle:

  • John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle:
“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.” Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
  • Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:
"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]
  • Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times. Creasy argues that the Martel victory:
"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.” From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy
"mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
  • Ranke opined that this period was:
"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
  • Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
  • Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.
  • Gibbon eloquently observed:
"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed. [23]”
  • Gibbon also said:
”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race." and "in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."
  • Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day. Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”
“As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”
  • William Watson, a legendary modern historian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”

What about these historians and writers? What you sought to do, and failed, is attempt to miscite a quotation in Dr. Santosuosso's book. You did not even get the name of the Muslim historian he was quoting spelled correctly, and by that miscitation, and failure to include very relevant passages in that book such as the fact he found Tours a "major confrontation" which stopped a "major expedition," and that he found "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs," the vitally important passage on 212 about Martel's "stemming of the Muslim advance in 732" -- by those ommissions you mislead the average reader who has not read Dr. Santosuosso's book. I believe that your very selective misciting, and refusing to address the dozens of other writers and historians, is original research and point of view. old windy bear 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Santosuosso really says - really

OWB asks 'What do you think the author was referring to in the words "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war" if such was not a macrohistorical event?' This is the point: as Wikipedia editors we don't interpret what is being said, we report it, with references and without editorial commentary. If we do make an interpretation that's original research. With regard to spelling its Santosuosso who refers to Hitti as Hatti and misquotes his book on p. 126. Hitti was a Christian and therefore his words do not constitute "a reference to an Islamic perspective"; indeed Santosuosso's book gives no indication of the interpretation that you put on it, but then why try to interpret the book at all, why not just quote it and let readers decide what it means? As you say "What about these historians and writers?" and you've provided no argument as to why all of the historians who disagree with the viewpoint you present should not be quoted and cited in the article and so I'll go ahead and include them. I'll also remove anything that's not sourced, in accordance with Wikipeida policy. --Ian Pitchford 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being unable to argue the facts, you continue on, and on...

As usual, you cannot argue with the facts, so you essentially go off on tangents. Feel free to remove anything not sourced, I will do the same. I have already removed any language which said "majority" or could be construed in any way to be opinion, out of an abundance of caution. This is an excellent article, which you have contributed nothing to except a great deal of argument over nothing on the talk page. The point is not interpreting Dr. Santosuo's words, they spoke for themselves, and you could not refute them. You yourself were the one who introduced interpretation and original research with your claims concerning the Hitti quote. When called on it, because he made clear his findings with the language in that he found Tours a "major confrontation" which stopped a "major expedition," and that he found "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs," and the vitally important passage on 212 about Martel's "stemming of the Muslim advance in 732," you claim this was interpretation. These words need no interpretation - they speak for themselves.

The only reason I bothered to answer your endless argument was to point out this was an excellent article, which a number of editors worked hard on, to present all viewpoints fairly. The only person with language problems was you. I had already removed any word such as "majority" while pointing out to you that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You came forward with an interpretation of Dr. Santosuo's book, and when called on it - because it was plainly wrong - then attempted to say pointing out your leaving out the book's basic factual assertations was original research. You could not intelligently discuss the facts, so you simply ignored them. You never could explain why every major historian disagreed with your belief. This was not old windy bear's assessment of this Battle - I could personally care less. This was Santosusso, Bury, Gibbon, Arnold, Creasy, Bennett, Grant, Martin, Schlegel and Ranke, and most importantly in this era, William Watson. old windy bear 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as for who's continuing on and on just look at the length of your replies above and all because I suggested that the work of reputable historians who present an alternative view should be represented without editorial comment! And where on earth is the original research in pointing out that Santosuosso refers to Hitti as Hatti and misquotes his book? --Ian Pitchford 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what Ian, since I have already removed the language in question, why don't we call it a day? I felt you were attacking what was a huge amount of work by a number of editors on this article, for no good reason. BUT, in discussing it with other editors, you had a point that the wording needed some tweaking, and I did that already, removing any references to "majority," et al. I also put in the Cardini quote as alternative view, because I considered it a good quote, which allows both sides to be cited, and let the readers decide for themselves. You did have a point on the wording with "majority," I talked to other wikipedia editors who felt you were right on that - so it is corrected. As I said, I already included the Cardini quote to present an alternative view. To answer your question on why I kept asking you about the other historians, you and I both know that the huge majority do hold this was a macrohistorical event, but you are right that we should not say that. I felt you were attacking what had been a HUGE amount of work to get this article to the point it is now. (If you have not been following it closely, you would not believe the number of discussions, and the very real effort that went into getting it to this point - and I felt you were attacking those efforts, and I personally really do not care, except that I honestly want a great article) I feel the changes I made addressed your concerns. old windy bear 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't concede the point that a "huge majority" of historians adhere to one viewpoint simply because I don't know of a reliable source making the claim, which is the whole point of this discussion. However, I do concede that you've made every attemtpt to locate sources and a reasonable attempt to modify the article in order to address the concerns raised. If you'd like to conclude the debate without further comment I'm happy with that. --Ian Pitchford 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian Pitchford Actually, I will apologize it got heated. As I have grown older, (I am closer to 60 than 50, sad to say), I dislike ending debates on a hostile note. Life is too short for that. I did speak to other editors, in a sincere effort to see if I was wrong, and when they told me your concerns were legitimate, I moved at once to modify the article in order to address your concerns. And who knows, you may be right, no one ever took a poll on historians and their feelings on the Battle of Tours, which is your point, I believe, we had no way of knowing majority/minority, et al. Anyway, I am sorry if I offended you. Take care, old windy bear 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not offended at all. I find debates of this kind fascinating and have been inspired to re-read a number of sources. I don't think the majority/minority thing need be an issue as long as we present reliable sources and explain what evidence they use to reach their conclusions. --Ian Pitchford 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian Pitchford I am delighted you are not offended, because I have just been elected to an assistant coordinator position with the military history project, and you are EXACTLY the kind of reviewer I would like to see in a panel to review various articles, for precisely the same kinds of issues you found here. (I am floating the idea as we write to Kirill) Your meticulous checking, and willingness to debate for your positions, are perfect for this type of review. Would you be willing to consider this? THANKS, old windy bear 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ian Pitchford You did a nice job on the rewrite. I don't agree with it all, (but), I thought you went out of your way to be fair, and it is a good, concise, rewrite, presenting all viewpoints with religious fairness. I did add a few quotes to better explain some of the issues, and sourced where you noted it needed it on the necessity to confront the Muslims at once. (There are a number of sources for that, but the best is a direct quote from Creasy, because it is online, and people can go look at it!) I cited to every other place you noted needed sourcing. old windy bear 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure what makes Creasy the greatest military historian of modern times, but he certainly is not the greatest medieval military historian of modern times, since medieval military history has experienced a paradigm shift in the second half of the 20th century, so citing anything that is actually older even than the entire century is daring. The idea, celebrated also by Oman that cavalry rode roughshot over Europe is naively taking period chronicles at face value and not counting on who paid for their writing. Which is also why I removed the "rare" on medieval infantry withstanding cavalry. It was a regular event as long as infantry kept its discipline. Hastings is cited in the article as an example of what happens when infantry breaks formation. That is accurate. It's also an example, however, of the same phenomenon we saw at Tours: Cavalry trying to charge a solid infantry formation again and again and again and again without any success. It's only when the formation breaks up that cavalry actually stands a chance. So please, be careful what sources you cite. Even in the late 20th century, history had huge struggles in its character as an academic discipline because a lot of people don't concern themselves with fundamental questions of methodology. So citing sources from a time when historians were basically trying to "tell a story" they stitch together from the sources they have is daring. As for Tours vs. an islamic Europe, the failure at the battle of Nicopolis certainly cause SOME of Europe to "fall" to Islam, but far from all, so I don't see why in an age when logistics was even more difficult, a different outcome in Tours would have had a more drastic effect. Which doesn't mean the battle isn't important. I'd just recommend leaving the hype out of discussions, whether it be hype about researchers or hype about historical events. --OliverH 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OliverH First, no one set out to inject hype in the article. You have to blame the various writers and historians who are quoted. As far as citing sources, I personally cite the best sources I can – whether I personally believe that Sir Edward Creasy was the greatest military historian of modern times is irrelevant – he is often praised lavishly, by well established historians and especially military historians. As far as Tours being of such importance, again, the ones who say it so are some of the most respected and revered historians of the mid and modern age: Gibbon, Bury, Arnold, Creasy, Grant, Bennett, Harbottle, and Watson, to name a few. I know that Gibbon is criticized by some these days – but equally, he is praised by others. Peter Heather, who just wrote a fascinating book on the Fall of Rome in 2005 commented that Gibbon’s reliance on primary sources made his work as valid today as it was over two centuries ago! This is not my opinion, it is Peter Heather’s, a very respected historian. Equally, you said you didn’t see the vitality of this battle – again, it doesn’t matter what you or I think, and I am not saying that to be cruel, but to quote Ian, our job is merely to quote the writers and historians. William Watson, one of the most revered historians of modern times praises this battle as decisive in world history – and he did so in a heavily praised book published in 1993!. As far as your opinion on infantry and cavalry, no offense, but that also is original research. It doesn’t matter what you think about it, or whether or not I may agree with you. You have to find original sources that make the same claims, historians or military analysts, and quote them. You say it was a “regular event” – you have to find sources that say that. While you may not want to credit Oman, (and I may agree with you!) he is a published source, you and I are not, so in the interim, the sources who claim the feat was virtually unheard of in medieval times will be cited, because they are the only ones we have – when you come up with other ones, I will happily cite them. I think your observations are intelligent – but meaningless, as they are original research, and thus totally banned. You noted I should watch the sources I cite. I cite the best available. If you have better, I welcome them. Ian was right when he said that we needed to not in any way make judgements - for instance, he was wrong to remove The Catholic Encyclopedia saying it could not match a military dictionary. I simply found a contrasting military dictionary instead of arguing, but realistically, unless he has a source that says the Catholic Encyclopedia cannot be used as a source, he cannot make that judgement - original research! He can cite the source and let readers decide, but he cannot make that judgement himself.
I stress again your ideas are well thought out, and good ones. Problem is, we cannot use them. You have to source them. It doesn't matter how great the thoughts are, unless they are already in print, we cannot use them. Nor can we, as editors, decide what source is better than another. We can cite both, point out dates, qualifications, et al, and let the readers decide, but that is all. old windy bear 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No offense, OWB, but I am not going to hold a lecture here on academic conduct and I am not going to repeat here over and over what I told you elsewhere already. Oman may be a published source, that doesn't make him a credible published source, nor a good one. The same is true for Creasy. It is academic standard to quote the newest material available. First, if something is still held to be true, it will be written in newer sources. Second, academic theory, based on epistemology, has encountered fundamental changes during the 20th century. Thus, while someone might honor Creasy for his pioneering role, much like it is done with Ranke, no one who wants to establish any credibility will cite their works as uncritically as you do. Because even if their findings shouldn't be outdated, their methodology most definitely is. And methodology is what academe is about. Which means they don't classify as a reliable source. And no, not only CAN we decide which sources are better than others, we are SUPPOSED to. Because we are supposed to cite reliable sources, and not just any source. Your suggestion that my idea about cavalry and infantry was original research IS offensive, because I already referenced it for you. What you are doing here is declaring your sources reliable and simply ignoring everything to the contrary. As you obviously seem not to be aware, historiography has struggled in the past couple of decades heavily to justify itself as an academic discipline not the least because a lot of historians didn't concern themselves with methodology particularly. The discussion on the theory of history is still ongoing. For a small overview, check out Richard Evans' "In defense of history" citing many problem cases even with historians of reputation. Frankly, I don't care how "revered" one or the other historian is. I care how sound the arguments are he or she presents. If the methodology isn't sound, the source is unreliable, no matter how revered the author is. --OliverH 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


OliverH Believe me, the LAST thing I seek to do is offend you, because I consider your ideas bright and cutting edge. Two of my degrees are in history - I am well aware that methodology changes with time - but again, please don't be offended, there is still a school of thought, and quite a respectable one, that historians like Gibbon, or Creasy, are as relevant today as they were decades and centuries ago because they used primary sources, and a large part of the struggle historiography has been engaged in is to what degree do we disregard theories based on primary - and still unchallanged for their validity - sources, simply because we have expanded the scope of factors we put in attempting to fully examine an idea for historical validity. (For instance, obviously Heather had data on climatic change, economic trends, that Gibbon lacked - yet he agreed with much of what Gibbon found, and virtually all of what Bury theorized, and Bury based his work virtually in toto on Gibbon's primary sources!) I agree with you absolutely that to some extent the best source is the one with the most data, which by definition would be the most modern; that is why, if you notice, I put so much faith in Watson and Heather, who are literally historical masters of TODAY. (Here, in this article, Watson, in the article on the Decline of the Roman Empire, Heather) I believe if you count the quotes, Watson is far and away the most quoted here, as he is the most recent. His work Providence: Studies in Western Civilization was published in 1993! As to your ideas on infantry and cavalry, I agree with you, I think it absolutely correct that the role of cavalry, especially armoured "Knights" was overrated primarily due to the glamorization of the people who paid to have their histories written in sonnets, et al. (Certainly the Mongols demonstrated the uselessness of western chivalry at Legnica!) What I sought were specific battles where infantry unquestionably held their ground against cavalry without any assistance from bows, pikes or firearms, and sources for that. Not because I disagree with you -I do not, by the way - but because I have to have the sources to put the information in. I honestly believe you misunderstand that I don't disagree with you, but what I need is more than the fact that in Early Carolingian Warfare it emphasized how they used dismounted cavalry to buttress their infantry, I knew that, what I needed was a source saying that "Creasy said in "Fifteen Decisive Battles" that at Tours, the infantry withstood repeated cavalry charges without the aid of bows or pikes. (Such a source for other battles) That you didn't give me, or I missed it. If I missed it, please just repeat it, and I will gladly include it. I hope you understand that I do indeed understand the conflict in the historical community over relevance of historians such as Ranke, or Gibbon, and in particular the conflict between the concepts that our methodology of this age, which is able to factor in data unknown to yesterday's masters, and the issue of whether some theories are timeless, since they arise out of primary sources which have not changed, is ongoing, and plays a role here. For myself, as I said, I prefer to rely primarily on the most recent, i. e. Dr. Watson, though certainly I cite others. old windy bear 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, again, this is not the place to hold an introduction into proper academic conduct. I reference you to Kelly DeVries article on the use of chronicles in the Journal of Medieval Military History, vol. 2. The fact that someone uses primary sources doesn't make their work relevant. The use of primary written sources is highly problematic, and the 19th century is infamous for taking the chronicles too literal and not realizing the agenda of the writers. Of course they are the most detailed sources, but what they say is not necessarily true. Which is why people such as Ranke who basically saw their role as historiographers to elaborate the bits and pieces of primary sources into a coherent story are so problematic. You can't just take the word of a french monk on how much damage the Vikings caused in France when what they burned and pillaged was especially abbeys and churches, holding plenty of loot. And you can't just take the word of, say, a saxon scribe on the motivations of the saxon leaders. More: The sole use of primary sources means that the author does all the interpreting himself. What's lacking is intersubjectivity, a prime characteristic of modern academic research. No, primary sources have not change. But their interpretation in the academic community has changed dramatically in many cases. I said no such thing that in "Early Carolingian Warfare" they used dismounted cavalry to buttress their infantry. I said that their riders were supposed to be able to also fight on foot and that the use of infantry in the way it was used in Tours was standard for the Franks. They used it in plenty of other battles, sometimes complemented with cavalry. If it was unusual for infantry to break if it had no bows or pikes and was subjected to a cavalry charge, then A)the Franks would have won barely a battle after Tours and B)the Vikings would not have been much of a threat. But despite having cavalry, the Franks paid them off several times considering that the less costly approach than facing them on the field. The Vikings, too, were proficient with shield walls and even could use them offensively, which is quite something for spare-time warriors. Check out "early Carolingian warfare", there's more battles than just Tours in there. I gave you several other battles already and Hastings is itself evidence enough that a shield wall can hold comfortably against a charge since it held against several of them. The advantage of cavalry is mobility and speed, the ability to exploit mistakes at a moment's notice and the ability to flank and surround easily. It's not that it can bulldoze an infantry formation, especially not when the latter could pick the terrain. There was no time whatsoever when infantry couldn't hold off cavalry as long as it was discipline and prepared. --OliverH 08:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OliverH I agree with you that this is not the time or place to hold a dissertation or discussion on introduction into proper academic conduct. I am well aware of the problems which attach to using primary sources from, for instance, a scribe who lived and wrote over a millinium ago. Also, while the Kelly DeVries article on the use of chronicles in the Journal of Medieval Military History, vol. 2. is good - I have read it - I would advise you to read Norman J. Wilson's work, "History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography" as it is more comprehensive, and deals with many of the issues we have been discussing. Despite the very real issues with use of antique sources, great scholars, such as Watson, still use those them as references. For instance, he gives considerable weight in deciding the macrohistorical importance of this battle to the fact that the Islamic histories of the period show more references to the Franks than any other people except the Bzyantine Greeks. (In particular, he refered to the Baghdadi geographer al-Masudi , who he cited for preserving a list of sixteen Frankish kings (examined by Bernard Lewis), as well as various references to Frankish-Arab military contacts in his Muruj. 58; this was just one of many – for instance he also cited thirteenth-century Moroccan author Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, who mentioned the battle in his history of the Maghrib, “al-Bayan al-Mughrib fi Akhbaral-Maghrib.” According to Ibn Idhari, “Abd ar-Rahman and many of his men found martyrdom on the balat ash-Shuhada'i ["the path of the martyrs].”) And he cited many more such sources, both Latin and Arab, in assessing this battle. What has changed, primarily, are the number of factors modern scholars use to ascertain whether or not an event is macrohistorical in nature, and as you noted, the objectivity with which they are able to approach their subject. For instance, in assessing this battle, William Watson, who has already earned a giant reputation as a historian, has no possible motive for declaring it a macrohistorical world-changing event other than his impartial and professioncal assessment revealed it to be such an event. Other authors now make an interesting distinction between “preventive” events, such as this Battle and Chalons, and “directive” events, such as the Battle of Midway. Fletcher Pratt wrote a fascinating book called “Battles that Changed the World” and made it part of a series that began with Creasy’s “Fifteen Decisive Battles” saying of the two: “History is full of negatives, of things prevented from happening. Creasy’s 15 Decisive Battles, the first in the series of which this is a part, includes Chalons and Tours, fought only a small distance apart, both of which were preventive decisions…” The point I am trying to make is that while modern scholarship is unquestionably more complex than that of ancient scholars, or even mid era scholars, the great modern historians do use those same sources. The difference does not lie as much in the sourcing, as in the interpretation. A multitude of factors which Gibbon did not consider are available for consideration by Peter Heather or William Watson. Yet it is notable that both cite Gibbon’s work with considerable respect. (I will also note that by Gibbon’s day, or Creasy’s, they were able to approach their subjects objectively – the problem was that their degree of objectivity was influenced strongly by cultural bias, and a lack of additional factors we have today, such as knowledge of logistics relating to the ability to field armies of any size, climatic data, et al.) I do find it interesting that Bury, whose work is nearly a century old now, is still considered by many to be the definitive historian on the Decline of Rome. As to cavalry and infantry, I have already told you repeatedly that I don’t disagree with your premise it should hold off cavalry, provided the infantry was well disciplined and well led – unfortunately, in the dark ages, remember that often neither was the case. Levies were often only available for very limited periods, training was sketchy at best, and leadership was often incompetant. If you wish to read a good book on military tactics, weapons, et al, of the medieval era, I suggest “Fighting Tehniques of the Medieval World” by Bennett, Bradsbury, Devries, Dickie and Jestice. It discusses many of the military issues we have covered in great detail. old windy bear 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OWB, the mere notion of a preventive event borders on the unscientifc. It suggests you've proven a negative. It borders on the irrelevant that the same sources are used, because they are not used in the same fashion. In Ranke's and Creasy's time, they were used as the framework of a story. Which is also why Creasy has no problem citing Arab sources with 80,000 men. No, they did not use the sources objectively. In many cases, they were far too gullible as to the veracity of the content. To the point where Verbruggen already in the 50s suggested that chronicles were useless, because they were usually not, in fact, factual. If you have at all read the DeVries article, he acknowledges they are a minefield that has to be checked and double-checked by crossreferencing. Today, written sources are cross-referenced with each other and with the archaeological record and only that which is in line with all of these sources is considered as secure knowledge. Coming back to the preventative battle idea, it is stunning in its suggestion of monocausality -it suggests that things could only come the way they came because of one single event. Fact is that the imitatio imperii was a very common motive in the "dark" ages, and the fallen roman empire an ideal for many people, not just the Franks. So suggesting that there would have been no HRE suggests that only the Franks could lay the foundation for it, despite the fact that it was the Saxons who actually gave the empire the first hint of continuity. And he who suggests that the battle saved all of Europe from falling to Islam has to explain why the Arabs should have succeeded in what not even the Romans managed to do: Conquering central Europe east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. Poitiers/Tours is a long way from the iberic peninsula, and a long way even from formerly Goth Septimania, in which the Moors had only been for 10 years themselves. Thus, keeping a foothold in France would have been far from unproblematic, especially since geography limits northward movements of large bodies of men and goods to two passages only: The Rhone valley and the Carcassonne/Toulouse gap between the foothills of the Pyrenees and the Massif Central. And I have yet to see a reason why the battle should have been of more grave consequences than the loss at Nicopolis. Until then, this is hype but not history. As far as training goes, what you miss is that there's not really that much training needed as long as the formation is stationary. As I said, even if the front line wanted to move, it's usually hindered by the men behind. Heck, the Vikings managed to use infantry offensively, despite the fact that they were not professional warriors. So anyone who claims infantry had a problem on the defensive needs to explain A)why it was used at all and B)why the continental powers who very much used cavalry still had to struggle against the Vikings who largely lacked it. --OliverH 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OliverH Greetings! I hoped you were well, you were gone for a few days. I did not say I agreed with Pratt's theory, or disagreed with it, but I do find it interesting. He is quite respected, so I don't think you can disregard it willy-nilly. I don't think he suggests monocausuality, that is way too simplistic. (You would need to read his work) He is suggesting some events are primarily decisive in that by preventing an event, they prevented a particular sequence of possibilities, rather than they opened the door for the development of others. Pratt and his contemporaries are modern historians, and so their theories cannot simply be dismissed as unscientific. I do see his point, that some battles were essentially checking another event or power, and others more directive. But while you or I can say on this talk page such a theory closes on being unscientific, we cannot do it on the article page, because Pratt is an acknowledged expert, which we surely are not. I think you make good points, but you miss one vital one: when you say, for instance, that you don't see why this battle is more hype than history because of the limitations of men and goods northward, you are raising logical points - but they don't matter. It is original research. What we have to do here is quote the experts. Pratt, for instance, is a distinguished historian, and military history writer. Watson is one of the foremost historians of this age. When he says that this battle had great macrohistorical impact, then all we can do as wikipedia editors is make sure the contrasting viewpoint is pointed out. I am aware of what Verbruggen was suggesting in the 50's - but that beggers the point, because in the 90's Watson was suggesting otherwise, as was Bennett and Heather in 2005! Again, and yes I have read the Kelly DeVries article on the use of chronicles in the Journal of Medieval Military History, vol. 2. I would advise you to read Norman J. Wilson's work, "History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography" - it is far more comprehensive, and it explains why you cannot simply ignore primary sources, though they have to be cross referenced and considered in the light of the cultural matrix from which they were written. As to the issues with infantry, as I have said before, I basically agree with you - actually, if you want a really excellent explanation of why heavy infantry, properly massed and formed, should defeat cavalry, read Victor Davis Hanson's, a well known military historian who really details what you are saying about heavy infantry, and does it better than anyone else I have ever read. He pokes to pieces Oman's romantic notions about knights, among other things. But as to our explaining, we have to be careful on explanations - we can cite folks like Hanson, but as to our own theories, no, we cannot. It is not our role to "explain" it is our role to cite those such as Hanson, Watson and Heather who spent their lives explaining. Or even Creasy, who is certainly still cited by many well respected military historians. Indeed, for instance, a source cited in the article is the Oxford History of Medieval Europe, a highly respected history, which says in "The Age of Invasions" on page 15
"The Islamic inroads were checked by the famous victory of Charles Martel, the Frankish Mayor of the Palace at Poitiers, in 732."
So while you and I might question whether or not this victory was the halt to those inroads, and should they even be listed in the Age of Invasions, since the Muslims would have had great difficulty maintaining power in Gaul once the Umayyad Caliphate collapsed, it is really irrelevant because published histories say it is so. We may think it hype, we can say it here, but the article reflects what historians say. In addition, you have several times cited Kelly DeVries, you should read his article in Medieval Military Technology.

old windy bear 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear quotation in Muslim conquests from Hispania section

I cannot figure out what is the end of Sir Edward Creasy's quote in the section, "Muslim conquests from Hispania". There is a double quote, then another at the beginning of the verse, another at the end of the verse, an apparent continuation of his quote, then another set of double quotes before yet more verse, finally ending in a last set of double quotes. The original double quotes never appear to be terminated. Can someone familiar with the source material clarify, please? Mmccalpin 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmccalpin Good morning! The poetic verses, which were split by quotations from Creasy, are from Robert Southey's Roderick, the Last of the Goths. I have rearranged it so that the quotes from Creasy are in a single section, with the verses from the poem also in a single unit, and clearly marked crediting the verses as from the poem "Roderick, the Last of the Goths" from the Poet Laureate of England. I hope this clarifies which is the direct quotation from Creasy, and which from Robert Southey - Creasy actually used the Poet Laureate's work in his analysis of the battle. (Interestingly, Southey was also a historian) I hope this clarifies the matter - let me know if it does not. old windy bear 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leipsic

"Both Hallam and Wallace argue that had Martel failed, there was no remaining force to protect Western Europe. Hallam perhaps said it best: "It may justly be reckoned among those few battles of which a contrary event would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent scenes: with Marathon, Arbela, the Metaurus, Châlons, and Leipsic."[35]"

I'm thinking that last bit is a typo, and meant to be Leipzig, but since it's a quote I thought I'd bring it up here for one of you editors to change if it is wrong. Nice article, by the way.

Meh, changed it anyway.

[edit] Historical Deconstruction Unnecessary Here

It seems rather clear to me: Prior to the Battle of Tours there was unrelenting Muslim conquest in Western Europe. After the Battle of Tours there was none. Whether Chuck the Hammer squashed a full army or just lost troop of raiders, the Muslims realized going north was a Bad Idea. His subsequent consolidation of all the local powers to further resist raids or invasions certainly helped seal the deal. This is unlike Constantinople and the Balkans, where the Muslims had to be repeatedly dissuaded every few generations or so for the next 800 years.

[edit] Duelling quotes

It seems like there are too many duelling quotes near the end of the article, Maybe some of the less essential quotes could be pruned, and the current state of historical debate on the issue could be summarized... AnonMoos 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! --Ian Pitchford 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I will undertake to edit it this weekend, and then Ian can have a look to see if he thinks it has been done fairly. old windy bear 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp AnonMoos Ian Pitchford I am drawing up a new version of the end of the article, eliminating a number of the dueling quotes, but leaving enough to allow people to see there is a genuine dispute among historians (and people!) over this battle's place in history. I will post it HERE, for discussion, on saturday, and welcome input from everyone, so hopefully when a new ending is posted, it has consensus and avoids an edit war. I welcome everyone's input. Again, my suggestion for the article's ending - and it already has GA Class, so we don't want to destroy what has brought it a fair amount of praise and a high rating - will be posted at 8pm eastern on saturday, and I hope anyone interested will help participate in rewriting the ending somewhat. Ewulp, you are probably the best writer I know, so I am really hopeful you will help, and Ian, you obviously have disagreed with my views, so it would help if you contributed to balance the article. Anon, you are a good editor, and again, could help. Thanks! old windy bear 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions need some archiving

This page is 197kb long! AnonMoos 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of Battle

It is geneally accepted by historians that this battle is better calle the Battle of Poitiers, rather than Tours. Is it possible to change the title of the article?

[edit]  ?

If Europe was in such turmoil and chaos at this time in an unstable time period, then what kept Islām from spreading further into Europe. Why did it just stop abruptly and put to a halt when Islām is such a determined religion? I'm only asking about for the time period of about 50-100 years, I don't want any info on the attack on Austria less than 1000 year later.

Simple answer: The Muslim Caliphate collapsed into civil war 18 years after this battle. This battle, and the period before and about 10 years after, were the window in which the Muslims could have overwhelmed Europe, but were beaten back by the Franks. That is close to the period you are asking about - from the first incursions into Europe in the 720's from Iberia, to Martel's crushing defeats of the last invading armies in the 736-9 period. Most historians believe Charles Martel and the Frankish army were the primary factor in stopping them. Martel spent a large part of his life preparing for, and fighting off, Islamic invasions of Europe over the Pyrenees. The fact the Byzantine Empire defeated the Caliphate decisively at the second seige of Constandinople also factored in enormously, as did Eudes the Great's defeat of the first Gaulic invasion at Toulouse, buying Martel time to build his veteran infantry which would stand so stoutly for him at Tours and in the later campaigns. old windy bear 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Rewrite

This eliminates some of the endless quotes, but retains enough to show the incredible power of the disagreement among historians - which is in and of itself worth noting in an article. The current article is rated GA, and is quite good. All it needs is some consolidation of quotes and elimination of unnecessar ones. This is the proposed rewrite. It starts at the point where the bulk of the quotes begin, which is the beginning of the history section. I welcome input so we can achieve consensus> old windy bear 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OWB, this can go on and on, but I don't think you will get the point that just because a historian disagrees, there isn't a "disagreement among historians" worth noting in an article. The older sources you cite are from a time of scholarship that was completely tainted with nationalistic attitude. It is not even worthwhile to include anything talking about "saxon barbarians" (in fact, the mention of "barbarian hordes" at the frankish borders including the Saxons should be taken out of the article posthaste), nor is it worthwhile to quote anyone who takes such sources at face value. And just because someone is a "military historian" doesn't make him an expert on a specific period. Totally aside from his political taint, Hanson isn't remotely qualified to assess the battle, since his specialty is classics, not the early middle-ages. He has no place in this article at all. This is out of his field. He has no relevance whatsoever for the scholarly assessment of this article. And the fact that he lacks the scholarly integrity to recognize where is expertise ends only disqualifies him all the more. --OliverH 23:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Oliver H, you are right, this can go on and on, but you are not the person who can judge whether or not Hanson has scholarly integrity - what he has are unquestionably the qualifications to write with any military historian today. Hanson is a military historian of the first rank of this era, and whether you believe he should comment on this battle is irrelevant - he has written quite an interesting book on battles of impact that include this one. Your opinions are just POV, and original research. Your problem is you cannot seem to understand you simply don't have the right under wikipedia's rules and system to decide whether or not Hanson has a place in an article, or lacks scholarly integrity. This article is already a GA, we are just trying to edit what is already a fine article. Please find me historians who say that Hanson lacks the qualifications to assess this battle - you can't - instead of simply giving me more of your POV and original research. Another historian and writer of the book Women and War Jean Bethke Elshtain, says of Hanson and the book in question, that discusses this battle, "Together with John Keegan, he is our most interesting historian of war.”
Moreover, you again ignore the primary issue in this debate - was this battle one that shaped history? To quote a reviewer of Hanson's book which discusses this Battle and it's impact on history, "In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers. Focusing specifically on military power rather than the nature of Western civilization in general, Hanson views war as the ultimate reflection of a society's character." Of the nine battles Hanson felt shaped western culture, this was one. You may feel he has no place in this article, but others certainly do, and unlike you, they have written it. Because Hanson dealt so succinctly with the issue of the place of this battle in history, and the controversy in question here, he was the perfect writer to conclude with, because he assessed the battle from both sides. old windy bear 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, OWB, but you are quite mistaken. Having a doctorate degree, I can very much judge if someone has scholarly integrity, all the more since it is independent of discipline -and have in fact done so in the peer review process of academic literature. But I don't need to find historians who say that Hanson lacks the qualifications. It is YOU who have to explain why generally accepted academic standards don't apply to your favorite researcher. That a specialist on classics is not qualified writing on the early middle-ages is the default, not the exception. My opinions are NOT POV, they are standards of academic conduct. Your suggestions that I "simply don't have the right under wikipedia's rules and system to decide whether or not Hanson has a place in an article, or lacks scholarly integrity" is, sorry, presumpteous. There are no rules whatsoever forbidding me to make such judgement. I am very much qualified to judge scholarly integrity. You can of course decide you don't care about scholarly integrity and want to ignore it where it doesn't fit your own POV, but that doesn't mean that I am promoting my POV, but you are. Your phrasings of Hanson "putting it so succinctly" and him being "the perfect writer to conclude with" demonstrate pretty clearly that scholarly quality of the article is without importance to you. What you care about is that it promotes your own POV. You are destroying the credibility of the article by completely ignoring the importance of specialization. You cite Jean Bethke Elshtain, ignoring that she studied politics, not history. Someone without an understanding of the time cannot hope to assess the military possibilities of the time. "Couldawouldashoulda" isn't scholarly writing. Your description of such ramblings as "succinct" and "perfect" show a lack of understanding of scholarly standards. You always want sources from me, but you are unable to field ONE SPECIALIST SOURCE to support your opinion, rather constantly citing people who clearly are going beyond their qualifications. Show me where Bachrach supports your opinion and we're done. As long as you can't do that, there's no dispute, there's some people with an agenda overstepping the borders of their qualifications. You cite applauding reviews of Carnage and Culture, ignoring that the book was shredded or at least heavily criticised by many historians. [24], [25], [26] Your style of work of simply ignoring what must not exist is unscholarly. Fellow classics specialist Steven J. Willett even went as far as calling Carnage and Culture "dangerously misleading". But you ignore all that. You ignore that entire books were written in dismissal of Hanson, such as John Lynn's "Battle: A History of Combat and Culture". You ignore any and all academic standards because "what must not be cannot be". Rather, you hand pick people you yourself declare qualified, without any basis for that declaration, citing them as evidence that Hanson has a point. Carnage and Culture is NOT peer-reviewed literature. You accuse me of pushing my own POV. I am not. You, on the other hand, are. You are seeking to push authors who share your views beyond their due and whitewash the flaws of their analysis. Your attitude that simply because someome who has written a book says you're right, everyone else must be wrong has no place in WP. The quality of sources is not defined through concordance with your opinion and your refusing to acknowledge your treasured heroes might be wrong doesn't make them right. --OliverH 12:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OliverH Oliver, you continue to amuse me, in a wryly sad sort of way. First of all, I also have a post graduate degree - so what? Neither of us is allowed to post original research, which is what you are attempting to do. Secondly, you say Hanson is a hero of mine - quite the contrary, I don't know the man, other than by reputation. "Carnage and Culture" is certainly a controversial work, especially in it's advocacy of killing ability as the prime defining factor of history, and that western culture has emerged as the world's strongest because westerners were better at killing. As to the sources you quoted, I can quote as many that praise the book - indeed, I have already posted two. What is relevant is that whether you like him or not, Victor Hanson is a military historian who has written a very specific analysis of this Battle that is germaine to the topics in dispute. If you wish to find published historians whose findings differ, please do so. But you yourself definitely cannot judge his work, and your own academic credentials are irrelevant. Essjay made the comment once that education was not the #1 factor in measuring knowledge, (and he has two earned doctorates), and he is right. I don't wave my degrees around as you do, because it does not matter whether you or I have post grad work, it matters what published authors, writers, and historians think. Your doctorate does NOT entitle you on wikipedia to determine whether or not Hanson's views make him appropriate to quote in this article. What you or I did in an academic review setting is irrelevant to writing or editing a wikipedia article. Even if none of the rest of us had any education - which is untrue - what you cannot grasp is it does not matter. I am not seeking to push ANY viewpoint - I am trying to make this article as accurate as it can be in that there has emerged a major divergence of opinion among modern scholars as to the importance historically of this battle. Are you also claiming William E. Watson is not regarded as an expert in this era? I want the article to be accurate and show that there is considerable disagreement among modern historians and military historians as to the battle's macrohistorical impact. To do that, and follow wikipedia's rules, we must cite published authors and historians. What you or I think is irrelevant, and no, you are not more qualified, having a doctorate degree, to judge if someone has scholarly integrity, or whether it is independent of discipline. This is not an academic review committee - and it is sad that you act as though you are the only person who has ever sat on one! You fail to grasp that wikipedia works by citing published authors, historians, military historians - not our own editors, no matter how well educated we may or may not be. I am not going to waste my time debating you endlessly. The article is a good one, with a GA rating, which needed some editing. I don't espouse Hanson over Paul Davis, Peter Heather, or William Watson, in the modern era, or even Bury, who despite his work being over a century old, is still regarded as a master scholar of the era in question. I think the evolution of how this battle came to be regarded as a turning point of history is both vital to, and should be better explained by, this article. I don't regard Hanson as the end all, be all, but he is a highly regarded - whether you like him or not - military historian who wrote a very detailed analysis of this battle, and it's impact historically. That has a place in this article. old windy bear 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, OWB, but simply because you declare my advocacy of academic standards "original research" doesn't make it so, and the fact that you do shows pretty clearly that you don't even have your definitions straight. YOU fail to grasp that Wikipedia does NOT work by simply citing sources, but by making assessments as to what are reliable sources. You don't do that, but choose sources according to what they say. Because you manage to find sources who have some disagreement with established opinion, you declare a scholarly disagreement into existence. That is OR. You should stop believing that simply because you postulate something, it is fact. That someone is regarded "a master scholar of the era doesn't mean his scholarship holds water today, but rather that it had extraordinarily high quality for his time. What you're doing is shopping for names instead of shopping for reliability. It's blind submission without judgment. Name-dropping isn't assessment of quality. You continue to completely disregard the existence of academic specialization, declaring Hanson a "highly regarded military historian" when in fact, he is a highly regarded historian on classics. His opinion of early medieval warfare is NOT highly regarded, it is insignificant. That I continue to amuse you is interesting. That you find academic standards amusing and not to be taken serious doesn't speak for you. We're not here to simply reproduce, we're here to assess, judge and only reproduce what passes the muster, not blindly parrot every big name. It is not our task to promote minority opinions and bad scholarship beyond its due and whitewash academic misconduct. Essjay's comments as to whether education measures knowledge is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point at issue, since it's not an issue of "who knows more", but of standards of conduct and of policies, both in editorial work here (cf. WP:RS#Beware_false_authority as well as the standards of the theory of science/historiography. Your ignoring BOTH is the problem here. --OliverH 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OliverH The problem here is not your accusation that I ignore standards of conduct or theories of historiography. The problem is that you wish to argue instead of contribute to wikipedia. If you feel Hanson's work is inappropriate, ask for a peer review - or better still, propose a rewrite and instead of endlessly attacking what we write, write something which you feel more accurately addresses the Battle, and it's historical impact. This not the time or place to hold a dissertation or discussion on introduction into proper academic conduct or historiography. (And what phase of academic conduct are you alleging I violated? Academic dishonesty? Plagerism, Reference padding? The trouble here is that you are attempting to turn a very simple issue - was this battle a world changing, macrohistorical, event, or wasn't it - into a personal attack first on me, then on those historians whose work I quote). I would advise you to read Norman J. Wilson's work, "History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography" and then we could discuss this, perhaps on a special page devoted to "Historiography: Evolution of An Art to a Science." If you feel that (cf. WP:RS#Beware_false_authority has been abused by the use of Hanson's work in this article, again, bring it to Kirill in the Military Group, ask for a peer review, or again, actually write something which you feel addresses these alleged flaws. I don't find bad scholarship amusing - what I find sadly amusing is that you persist in attacking me personally rather than simply proposing edits with more appropriate authors or more relevant historians if you feel such are needed. You attempt to use your degree to confuse the issues. The fact both of us are well educated means nothing in this context. I quoted Essjay's comments on degrees simply because they don't decide the validity of an argument. I don't believe that bad scholarship has taken place here. While the rest of us are honestly trying to rewrite and improve, I don't see anything from you but endless critiques with no proposals for rewrites. Oliver, if you feel the article poorly written, then post a proposed rewrite here, and let us discuss your proposals! If you feel you have better sources, my goodness, use them to simply write a suggested rewrite for the section of the article we are working on, post it here, and let everyone discuss it, as I did with my suggestions. I notice while you concentrate on Hanson, you don't say a word about the scholar whose work is most quoted in this article - William E. Watson - or Peter Heather, or Peter Davis, or Robert Martin, or many others. Watson - unquestionably one of the great scholars of this age - stated that there is a divergence in viewpoint on the importance of this battle, yet you say not a word about him. If you have something to contribute, please do so. If you feel the scholarship is poor, rewrite the sections, and correct it. old windy bear 14:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
First you claimed I was pushing original research. Then you claim I was engaging in personal attacks. Both of which -much like your claims in fact pertinent to the article- are unsupported by any evidence. Which is precisely the bad scholarship I criticise. I didn't attack your person, I questioned your methods. That, coincidentally, is an essential part of academic conduct. You illustrate the point quite succinctly in closing: The "greatness" of a scholar is something you consistently stress, and consistently only with people who support your opinion -even when they do so without providing the slightest shred of evidence for their claims. This adulation has no place in an encyclopedic article. When Watson wrote the article you cite, the print was still fresh on his dissertation published three years earlier -given the turnaround times, it is in fact likely based on his dissertation which had a fitting topic. In the passage you cite, Watson first and foremost cites the battle as critical for Frankish history and only secondarily suggests an effect for the "history of the west". He does so by pointing at the establishment of Islam all around the Mediterranean, failing to note that the geography and climate there are markedly different from central, let alone northern France. You stick to a few phrases near the end, totally ignoring that he says "His invasion was neither simply a raid nor part of a grand scheme to conquer all Christendom, it was a failed attempt to eliminate a strategic threat located north of the Andalusi border. Moreover, the battle did not decide the outcome of the Christian-Muslim struggle in Francia." You also ignore that he illustrates that the Moors did not even have a full hold of their own territories in Septimania AND that their army had sought to avoid Toulouse. You also miss that he refers to Gibbon's texts as "exaggerating". We have already noted that what the Franks did at Tours was essentially holding a shield wall and fight an attrition battle. Yet all the sources you cite spread a "Only the Franks could do it" sermon that fails to explain why, for example, the Saxons couldn't have done it. Short, despite the fact that your own sources provide no evidence whatsoever for the Moors to have any intent, let alone the means to conquer and hold European temperate territories. Looking at Tours, they managed to beat Aquitaine before they got to Tours. But Aquitaine had been pummeld twice by Charles just recently, so was significantly weakened. And here they looted, taking the riches they found (Charles' leftovers) with them, making it quite clear that they didn't intend to stay. As for Norman J. Wilson, his preface shows some very questionable ideas about the nature of evidence in sciences. I have, in any case, read Evans' "In defense of history". Now, if you find me a source which addresses the above questions, we can talk. As long as the sources you cite consist of make-believe, I have a problem with the article. And pointing out that an article has methodological problems is a fundamental and essential part of academic discourse. --OliverH 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and macrohistorical views

The Historical views of this battle fall into three great phases, both in the West and East, but more pronounced in the West. As will be shown below, historians in the west began fairly quickly to claim the macrohistorical impact of the battle, beginning with the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, and continuing with the Continuations of Fredegar. This became a veritable claim that Martel had literally saved Christianity as Gibbon and his generation of historians agreed that the Battle of Tours was unquestionably decisive in world history. Modern historians have essentially fallen into two camps on the issue, the first essentially agreeing with Gibbon, that the fate of the world and certainly of Christianity may well have rested on the infantry of Charles Martel at Poitiers, and those who believe the Battle has been massively overstated, and turned from a raid in force to an invasion, and the defeat from a mere annoyance to the Caliph to a shattering defeat that helped end the Islamic Expansion Era.

In the East, ironically, Arab histories followed a similar path. First, the Battle was regarded as a disasterous defeat, then it fades essentially from Arab histories, to a modern dispute which regards it primarily as a secondary loss to the great defeat of the Second Seige of Constandinaople.

[edit] The Last Uymayyad Invasions of Gaul

In 735 the new governor of al-Andalus again invaded Gaul. Antonio Santosuosso and other historians detailed how the new governor of Al-Andalus, 'Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj, again moved into France to avenge the defeat at Poitiers and to spread Islam. Santosuosso noted that 'Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj converted about 2,000 Christians he captured over his career. In the last major attempt at focible invasion of Gaul through Iberia, a sizable invasion force was assembled at Saragossa and entered what is now French territory in 735, crossed the River Rhone and captured and looted Arles. From there he struck into the heart of Provence, ending with the capture of Avignon, despite strong resistance. Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj's forces remained in French territory for about four years, carrying raids to Lyons, Burgundy, and Piedmont. Again Charles Martel came to the rescue, reconquering most of the lost territories in two campaigns in 736 and 739, except for the city of Narbonne, which finally fell in 759. Santosuosso strongly argues that the second (Muslim) expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poitiers. Yet its failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees, although raids continued. And internal turmoil in the Muslim lands often made enemies out of their own kind.[1]

[edit] In Western history

Later scholars, such as Edward Gibbon, would contend that had Martel fallen, the Moors would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon famously observed:

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.[2]
   
Talk:Battle of Tours

Gibbon was echoed by such highly regarded historians as Belgian Historian Godefroid Kurth, who wrote of this Battle and Charles Martel, that in 732 the Governor of Spain crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an immense army, overcame Duke Eudes, and advanced as far as the Loire, pillaging and burning as he went. Kurth writes that in October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which “must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”

German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Martel and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Muslims, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this "mighty victory"[3]in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."

Creasy quotes Ranke's opinion that this period was

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions.[4]
   
Talk:Battle of Tours

Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history: "Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind."[5]

This was the primary view as the modern historical era in the West began with Gibbons.

Certainly, the Muslim invasions were an enormous danger during the window from 721 at Toulouse to 737, the year of the Arab defeat at Narbonne. But the window was closing, and the unified Caliphate would collapse into civil war in 750 at the Battle of the Zab. The Umayyad dynasty was expelled, arriving at Al-Andalus where Abd ar-Rahman I established an emirate in Cordoba in opposition to the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad. The threat posed by the Arab heavy cavalry also receded as the Christians copied the Arab model in developing similar forces of their own, giving rise to the familiar figure of the western European medieval armored knight.

But today’s historians are very clearly divided on the importance of the Battle, and where it should rank in the signal moments of military history.

Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the macrohistorical dates of the Roman era.

Some modern historians, such as William E. Watson., Grant and Bennett, also support the concept of Tours as a macrohistorical event favoring western civilization and Christianity. Historian Norman Cantor says in 1993: [6] "It may be true that the Arabs had now fully extended their resources and they would not have conquered France, but their defeat (at Tours) in 732 put a stop to their advance to the north." He is strongly supported in this view by many others. Military writer Robert W. Martin, for example, writes that, “As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.[7]}}

Modern writer and philosopher Mark Whittington says that “Along with the defeat at the gates of Constantinople… the Battle of Tours halted Muslim Expansion into Europe. It has been suggested by numerous historians, including Edward Gibbon that had the Franks been defeated at Tours, the Muslim advance into Europe, then divided into squabbling kingdoms, would have been unstoppable. France, Germany, even England, would have fallen to Islam, putting an end to Christian Europe.[8]

George Bruce in his update of Harbottle's classic military history Dictionary of Battles still says, "Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe. Fought in 732, between the Franks, under Charles Martel, and the Saracens, under Abderrahman Ibu Abdillah. The battle lasted several days according to the Arab chroniclers, two, while the Christian accounts say seven-and ended in the fall of Abderrahman, when the Saracens, discouraged by the death of their leader, owned defeat, and fled, losing heavily in the pursuit." [27]

Other historians disagree with this assessment. Alessandro Barbero writes, "Today, historians tend to play down the significance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Arab force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom, but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours".[9] Tomaž Mastnak writes:

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory as having saved Christian Europe from the Muslims. Edward Gibbon, for example, called Charles Martel the savior of Christendom and the battle near Poitiers an encounter that changed the history of the world... This myth has survived well into our own times... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle, who probably wrote in the mid-eighth century, pictured the battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens - moreover, as only one in a series of wars fought by Frankish princes for booty and territory... One of Fredegar's continuators presented the battle of Poitiers as what it really was: an episode in the struggle between Christian princes as the Carolingians strove to bring Aquitaine under their rule.[10]
   
Talk:Battle of Tours

The Lebanese-American historian Philip Hitti believes that "In reality nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours. The Moslem wave, already a thousand miles from its starting point in Gibraltar - to say nothing about its base in al-Qayrawan - had already spent itself and reached a natural limit."[11]

[edit] In Muslim history

Just as western historians are divided, so are those of the East.

According to Bernard Lewis, "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement [the Battle of Tours] at all, present it as a minor skirmish,"[12] and Gustave von Grunebaum writes: "This setback may have been important from the European point of view, but for Muslims at the time, who saw no master plan imperilled thereby, it had no further significance."[13] According to Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the second Umayyad siege of Constantinople in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat.

However, as Creasy argued:

The enduring importance of the battle of Tours in the eyes of the Moslems is attested not only by the expressions of 'the deadly battle' and 'the disgraceful overthrow' which their writers constantly employ when referring to it, but also by the fact that no more serious attempts at conquest beyond the Pyrenees were made by the Saracens.

Supporting this, such writers as thirteenth-century Moroccan author Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, mentioned the battle in his history of the Maghrib, “al-Bayan al-Mughrib fi Akhbaral-Maghrib.” According to Ibn Idhari, “Abd ar-Rahman and many of his men found martyrdom on the balat ash-Shuhada'i ("the path of the martyrs).” Dr. Santosuosso's said in his book Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, on p. 126 "they (the Muslims) called the battle's location, the road between Poitiers and Tours, "the pavement of Martyrs,"

Historians have argued that the losses at Tours and the later campaigns contributed to the Great Berber Revolt in 740, which ultimately helped bring down the Umayyad Caliphate. In his book The End of the Jihad State Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003 that “Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.”

[edit] Contemporary Analysis

While some historians argue that the effect of this battle is overrated, other historians continue to hold to a belief that Martel's victory was macrohistorical, as described by William Watson, who in 1993 wrote: [28]

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 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.
   
Talk:Battle of Tours

Watson’s position is echoed by John Bagnell Bury, recognized at the beginning of the century as the historian whose work is the standard for later Rome and medieval Europe, [29], and who said "The Battle of Tours… has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”[14]

William Watson believes this Battle preserved what would become Western civilization after the Renaissance. All parties essentially agree that had the Franks fallen, no other power existed capable of stopping a Muslim conquest of Italy and the effective end of the Roman Catholic Church. [30] William Watson sums up the case by modern historians in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization,[15](1993) for viewing the battle as decisive in world history thusly: “After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period." Huston Smith says in The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions "But for their defeat by Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours in 733, the entire Western world might today be Muslim."

Had Martel failed, Hallam argues, there would have been no Charlemagne, no Holy Roman Empire or Papal States; all these depended upon Martel's containment of Islam from expanding into Europe while the Caliphate was unified and able to mount such a conquest. Gibbon has said Martel was "content with the titles of Mayor or Duke of the Franks, but he deserved to become the father of a line of kings," for his fearless defense of Europe. And the line of Kings he established continued his fight. His son retook Narbonne, and his grandson Charlemagne established the Spanish Marches across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a permanent buffer zone of Frankish strongholds in Iberia against the Muslims which, with the Kingdom of Asturias, became the basis of the Reconquista.

In An Islamic Europe Dexter Wakefield says of the Battle of Tours, “A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg.[16]

John H. Haaren says in Famous Men of the Middle Ages, "The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe. Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle."[17] Dr. Bernard Grun also answered the attempt to devalue Tours as macrohistoric in his "Timetables of History," reissued in 2004, saying:

"In 732 Charles Martel's victory over the Arabs at the Battle of Tours stems the tide of their westward advance.” [18]

But there is a school that holds that this Battle is highly overrated. The view that the battle has no great significance is perhaps best summarized by Franco Cardini in Europe and Islam, who writes,

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliché, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers...[19]
   
Talk:Battle of Tours

In their introduction to The Reader's Companion to Military History Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker summarise this side of the modern view of the Battle of Tours by saying “The study of military history has undergone drastic changes in recent years. The old drums-and-bugles approach will no longer do. Factors such as economics, logistics, intelligence, and technology receive the attention once accorded to solely to battles and campaigns and casualty counts Words like "strategy" and "operations" have acquired meanings that might not have been recognizable a generation ago. Changing attitudes and new research have altered our views of what once seemed to matter most. For example, several of the battles that Edward Shepherd Creasy listed in his famous 1852 book Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World rate hardly a mention here, and the confrontation between Muslims and Christians at Poitiers-Tours in 732, once considered a watershed event, has been downgraded to a raid in force.[20]

[edit] Conclusion

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson acknowledges the debate on this battle, citing historians both for and against its macrohistorical placement, but argues that its impact is undeniable:

   
Talk:Battle of Tours
 Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.".[21]
   
Talk:Battle of Tours
Old Windy Bear, this seems to me an improved presentation & better organized, although I would switch the order of the 1st two sections, putting the Last Umayyad Invasions of Gaul ahead of the historical summary. I've started working on an edit that might condense the material further, and I should have some suggestions soon.Ewulp 00:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp I went ahead and switched the two sections as you suggested, and put in the improved presentation, but please feel free to continue to edit it, condensing the material further, or anything else you feel might improve it. I am going to remove the cleanup notice tomorrow unless someone else comes up with something else - the article has been exhaustively reviewed, and received a GA rating, so I think the main concerns have been, or are being, dealt with. old windy bear 07:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Windy Bear I've nearly finished work on an edit which follows your version pretty closely, except for a few abridgements & a rearrangement of the historians' assessments to make the chronology clearer. It should be ready to be pasted in by Tuesday. Ewulp 08:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp Great! You have always been the superior writer, so I am looking very forward to reading it. I found your idea of moving the sections a good one, and did that before you started, so as you can see it flows much better. Your changes already further help the flow, while leaving the crucial points of this battle: to quote a historian, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Tours is an exception;" Part of what is essential with this article is why, 12 centuries later, historians are still fiercely arguing over the Battle and it's place in history... THANKS! old windy bear 11:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp You have taken my outline and really done a superior job of tightening and condensing it, limiting the number of quotes while preserving the really important quotes from major historians who so very clearly argue over the battle's macrohistorical place today. If you are just about done, I will remove the quote notation on the article. It had been carefully rated GA as was, and I think we have addressed the legitimate concerns of people who felt it too quote filled. I think you did a great job of fairly presenting a dispute among experts over what may be - if you believe Watson and company, from Gibbon's day on - one of the truly great turning points in history. You also fairly presented that people like Cardini believe the exact opposite. Let me know if you are ready. THANKS, AGAIN! old windy bear 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Windy Bear I'm finished, except for a typo I'll be fixing in a moment. One question I (no historian!) have not been able to resolve: who is the Wallace mentioned in the strategic analysis section? I can't find the name among the sources -- maybe the source could be added or the name wikilinked. All in all, a really impressive article & a pleasure to work on! Ewulp 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp Actually, the "Wallace" is William E. Watson, one of the most respected historians of this era. Thanks for catching that one - how it got by, I do not know. (I am getting old!) Thank you VERY much for your compliment on the article, and for your work on it -a lot of people worked very hard on it, and I thank you for myself, one of them, and for the rest. (I know for myself alone, I bought nine books for this project, and read everything I could find on it) We really tried to put together a fair and informative article on (if Watson and Gibbon, et al, are right!) one of history's most important encounters, and certainly one of history's most controversial as some historians disagree strongly on that assessment! Thanks again for your help - you are always a huge asset to any project. old windy bear 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Muslim' vs. 'Arab' vs. 'Moor', etc...

Quickly scanning this article, there is some serious conflation of terminology. Let's be clear: not all Arabs are Muslim. And vice versa. Moreover, do we know the ethic-religious makeup of any given historical group? Do we know that the north-pushing armies of the Umayyad Caliphate contained no North African Berber peoples? Moreover, contrasting the "Muslim" army to the "Frankish" army is a bit incongruous. Shouldn't we at least attempt to compare ethnicities to ethnicities and religions to religions? Why not the "Umayyad" vs. the "Carolingians", or "Muslims vs. Christians"? Not that I think those are much better, but slightly more accurate perhaps.

Basically, this article needs to be made more accurate and consistent in whom it is naming. I suppose I should volunteer for the task, but will wait to see if there any response to what I'm seeing as problematic.--Jonashart 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonashart You make an excellent point. From what histories of the Caliphate exist, we know that most of the Umayyad amry was Berbers and Arabs, but there certainly was a healthy sprinkling of Persians and Turcomens, for instance. The Carolingian army was Frankish with what troops Eudes had left and a few allied Germanic troops. The considerable majority were Franks. I used to have the names as "Muslim" and "Frankish," but certainly could go with "Umayyad" vs. the "Carolingians." Which do you think is more accurate? I am reluctant to make it Muslim vs. Christian, personally, as we have enough religious amimus, and would rather name it "Umayyad" vs. the "Franks and their allies." I think that is probably the most historically accurate. But there is no way it should be "Arab" or "Moor" - neither is at all accurate. old windy bear 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't terms like Umayyad" and "Carolingians” be considered anachronisms?
Contemporary observers, both Christian and Muslim, very much saw this as a Christian / Islamic religious struggle, whereas it's doubtful there was much self identification as "Umayyad" (which indeed many of the participants of the battle revolted against a short while later) or "Carolingians” - which didn't even exist then (named after Martell's unborn grandson), and while the Merovingians were still kings, if but in name. Are there any contemporary accounts which talk of the "Umayyads" or "Carolingians” or the battle in those terms? Rune X2 12:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rune X2 Good morning. The term "Umayyads" would be far more accurate than Arabs or Moors, (which was the original problem), though "Muslims" is certainly accurate. The Muslim Conquest period was entirely under the Umayyad rule, and this battle is probably one of the reasons the revolt took place, certainly it and the campaigns of 736-37 helped trigger the Great Berber revolt of 740, which most contemporary Muslim historians believe helped lead directly to the Battle of the Zab and the end of the Umayyad era. The "Carolingians” are named after Charles Martel, and the empire was pretty well formed during his lifetime, though he never took the throne. Certainly this could be framed as a Muslim/Christian struggle, though it more accurately is probably framed as a Frankish/Umayyad struggle, since Charles would have opposed the entry of any power into Gaul, Muslim or Christian. Yes, you are correct that many modern scholars frame it in terms of a collision of Muslim expansion and the Frankish Christian attempt to stop them - but that is part of the debate of the macrohistorical impact of the Battle. The historians who emphasize that generally believe this was a world altering event. Those who don't, see it as merely a raid north, and not so much in terms of a shattering Muslim/Christian confrontation. I think the main issue was that the terms "Arab" and "Moor" were used throughout the article, when neither was correct. Abd El Rahman was not a Berber, or a Moor, and his army was a combinaton of mostly Arabs and Berbers. Martel's was mostly Frankish, with his allies and the remains of Eudes forces. The use of the terms Umayyad and Carolingian was an attempt to avoid language that fostered any particular point of view. (I. e. that the historians advocating the macrohistorical view that this Battle was a world altering event saw it as a Muslim-Christian confrontation of huge historical impact, and those advocating that it was not labeled it otherwise - this was an attempt to use more neutral, while still accurate, language) Perhaps it woudl be better named "Frankish" and "Umayyad?" old windy bear 13:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right! now we're getting somewhere. To keep it fair and accurate, perhaps keeping nomenclature within the bounds of politics is safest. Moreover when we assign titles like "Muslim", we're assuming a whole lotta intent or identity which just may not be the case.
Anyway, lets keep discussing, and move toward agreeable change. Thanks!--Jonashart 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Jonashart I agree, and I think avoiding titles which have highly suspect historical value, and simply serve to confuse history with present day politics is an excellent idea. old windy bear 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Tours_8848.html"