Talk:Battle of Tours/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] October ?2005 talk
Sir Arthur C Clarke is not deceased.
OLDWINDYBEAR: as a historian, one with a degree in history, two actually, and one who has taught it, I removed the Arthur Clarke speculations, which come under "science fiction" and have no place in a historical article on such a vital topic. Clarke was no historian, and the work cited is considered science fiction speculation and/or fantasy. I did leave enough of the opposing view so that no one can complain that we did not attempt to be fair in the presentation that some modern historians -- especially Islamic -- view this battle differently than we of the west. (I knew that when I lived in the Cairo and studied for 2 summers!) bscotland, and Ms. Blair, I hope you both will support the reasoned compromise I fashioned in the article itself, and the deletions in the discussion area were all pesonal attacks which have no place here.
B. SCOTLAND: I must know; How in the world does someone who helped invent the communications satellite in 1945 (Sir. Arthur C. Clarke, deceased) know about History or Charles Martel? Ok let me guess B. Scotland, Sir. Arthur C. Clarke built a time machine when he was alive and went back into time to view “The Battle of Tours” and have a personal meeting with Charles Martel himself. Martel thought Sir. Clarke was a fake, and disgraced him by hammering an "M" into his arm. Sir. Clarke, being a science fiction writer, then decided that the “Battle of Tours” was unimportant after his horrifying time travel experience. If you are actually going to rely on a science fiction writer for the truth on History then you probably believe the fictional story above. Sad. H.L.S. Blair
Ermm...munchkins....please mastfer basic aspects of computuer literacy as 'locoking up an IP nukmber' ok? I havein't written or altered anythning for this page for mgonths (nor will I) for reasons I explained below. To agree with Oldwindybear (for once) the page is indeed now a complete shambles, but since nothing that I wrote now remains, it's nothing to do with me. BScotland.
OLDWINDYBEAR replies to bscotland: oh, ip numbers by themselves are not definitive. Most of us use computers at work, one ip address, and another from home, a second, and in my case, another from school, a third, So your crack at Ms. Blair is so true. Your trouble is you were so sarcastic that your denials -- and actually, I tend to believe them for some odd reason -- lack credibility because of your tendency to attempt to demean yyour opponents instead of arguing issues. But if you did not write these things, you are owed an apology, for someone has been using your nom de plume to post rather idiotic postings. We should clean this page up -- are you in agreement to wipe the whole page clean, except for the postings llleveque made, which I answered, and I really thought were a good example of what intelligent discussion should be where both agree on facts but interpretations differ. Your original posting on Lewis and your feelings that Tours is overated, and my original discussion opposing that, and Ms. Blair's and wipe the rest. Also, I feel we should remove the Arthur Clarke science fiction speculation in the article itself. I have more education in history in Clarke, and while he was a decent Mathematician and a great science fiction/fantasy writer, this article is not the place for his fantasy speculations. Opinions from opposing schools of thought before I begin editing? Are you capable of discussing how to intelligently restructure the article and discussion without any of your rather sad sarcasm?
My own personal view is that the article is fine except for the last section (significance of the battle) which should be wiped, and should, perhaps be replaced by one or two sentences. Perhaps something like "This battle is generally believed to have been of macro-historical importance in terms of halting the Islamic invasion of Europe, although it should be noted that some more recent historians have questioned this, and have argued that the force Martel faced was a small scale raiding party, and that there is little evidence for a planned major Muslim invasion of what is now France. However this remains a minority view'. Anything longer than this risks being NPOV, IMHO. BScotland.
I think it needs to reflect the majority view, and in the states almost a complete majority - that the batte, and his subsquent campaigns circa 736-38 were unquestionably of macrohistorical imporance. I agree it should be added that a minority view exists and why. To fully explain why Tours and those campaigns were so important, it is also essential to talk of the coming split in the Islamic empire, that left them unable to mount another unified assault. Okay, let us try to clean the article up. OLDWINDYBEAR
"Actually quite a few modern historians consider this battle to be not of major historical importance, although I am not denying (nor would I attempt to) that many Christian historians have spent a huge amount of time persuading themselves that the battle was of major historical importance. You would not know from reading this article at present that the army defeated at Tours was a raiding party looking for booty: not an invasion force. Nor did the Arabs make any later attempts to conquer France: strange, if they really considered this part of the world so important. It is true that the Arabs didn't like being defeated (who did?), but in terms of the amount of literature written, the defeat at Constantinople was considered far more important. I'm not going to get into a revert war, but Bernard Lewis and John Hobson are amongst those Western historians who do not think this was a major battle. Of course 'Oldwindbear' is careful not to quote or allude to any Arab historians of the last five hundred hears. No Arab/Muslim considers the Battle of Tours to be of major importance. If you don't believe me, go down to your local mosque and ask. Most Muslims have never heard of it.
The key point is this: no documentation has ever been made available that demonstrates that there was a serious Arabic plan to conquer Europe which was 'thwarted' at Tours. A minor raiding party was defeated, which Europeans then decided was a major event in the history of Europe. Final point: Northern Europe was a backwater at this time: economically, politically, religiously. No one in the civilised world (which at that time was Byzantine and Arab) was interested in what happened there. There was no motive for an invasion.
I think this article should be looked over by a real historian who is up to date with the latest scholarship. Quoting Gibbon as if he was a 21st century scholar is not acceptable in this day and age, i think. (It is notable that none of the historians "Oldwindbear" quotes are 19th or 18th century. I repeat: by modern scholarship I mean what is believed by Western (and Arab/Muslim) scholars nowadays. As the hysterical tone of the historians quoted shows, many Christian/Western historians (especially in the 19th centry/early 20th century) have attemped to inflate the importance of this battle for ideological reasons. > BScotland
"Sorry I had to follow this up. Bernard Lewis: 'There can be little doubt that in disregarding Poitiers and Tours....the Muslim historians saw events in a truer perspective than later Western historians (Note: this demonstrates that contrary to what has been stated above, Muslim historians did not and do not consider Tours to be significant). The Frankish victors...encountered little more than a band of Islamic raiders....thousands of miles from home....' (Bernard Lewis the Muslim discovery of Europe). See also William McNeil The Rise of the West and John Hobson The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. I'm sorry but at present the article is simple not acceptable. It quotes myths from Gibbon that are demonstrably false, it is based on 19th century European nationalist history (dare I saw propaganda) and it ignores modern scholarship. Considering I was linked to this from the title page of Wikipedia it gives a blatantly false view of the battle, in a way that is surely not acceptable. At the very least the debate should be mentioned. I will give it a few weeks for people to respond but if not, then I will make the necessary changes myself!".
OLDWINDYBEAR ANSWERS ON 10-30:The job of this encyclopedia, is that anyone who can cite good sources can make changes. OldWindyBear answers your articles above, and if you change the article to reflect revisionist history not supported by the majority of accepted military and religious historians, I will merely change them back! What you claim are "myths" from Gibbons are actually sound history from Creasy, Wallace, Watson, Poke, Norwich, and Gibbons, among many, many others.
You say I have not quoted any major arab historian of the last five hundred years, but you neglect the fact that I did quote arab histories of the period in question, and the following 700 centuries, which had a far better perspective than the more politically correct histories which came later. (bluntly the later revisions begin as Ottoman rewriting history, and continued on) As to the claim you can go to "any mosque and ask" and no muslim knows of the defeat at Tours, first, what mosques have you been to? I have both lived and studied in the middle east, and in Cairo and Damascus any scholar most definately knows of the Franks, and their role in twarting the advance of Islam into Europe. You say that the Battle of Tours was a "minor raid." Bt accounts from the Caliph's own records, his Emir invaded Gaul with between 60 and 400,000 horsemen, far more than any raid! He had the Caliph's direct mandate to raise an army of the faithful from all of the realms of the believers, and did so! A direct quote from Poke, via Southey, from Creasey, as to the invading army you call a raiding party: "It was under one of their ablest and most renowned commanders, with a veteran army, and with every apparent advantage of time, place, and circumstance, that the Arabs made their great effort at the conquest of Europe north of the Pyrenees. The victorious Moslem soldiery in Spain,
" A countless multitude ; Syrian, Moor, Saracen, Greek renegade, Persian, and Copt, and Tartar, in one bond Of erring faith conjoined-strong in the youth And heat of zeal-a dreadful brotherhood," were eager for the plunder of more Christian cities and shrines, and full of fanatic confidence in the invincibility of their arms.
" Nor were the chiefs Of victory less assured, by long success Elate, and proud of that o' erwhelming strength Which, surely they believed, as it had rolled Thus far uncheck' d, would roll victorious on, Till, like the Orient, the subjected West Should bow in reverence at Mohammed' s name; And pilgrims from remotest Arctic shores Tread with religious feet the burning sands Of Araby and Mecca's stony soil."
You may consider Bernard Lewis to be a superior military historian than Poke, Watson, Gibbons or Creasy, but virtually no modern american or British military historian would agree with you. The above description is originally from ARAB records, and describes a huge, invading army, bringing Islam, by force of arms, to old Roman Gaul, as they had most of the rest of the old Roman Empire.
The arabs own history of the times cited the devastation left in the wake of the invasion: "The Muslim horsemen then utterly devasted that portion of Gaul," their own histories saying the "faithful pierced through the mountains, tramples over rough and level ground, plunders far into the country of the Franks, and smites all with the sword."
By the arab histories of the times, they most definately know of the significance of Tours. Again, you cite Bernard Lewis as a superior historian over Gibbon, Sir Edward Creasy, William Wallace, William Watson, and Poke, which frankly, is absurd. I am NOT denying Professor Lewis is a brilliant man, whose history of Islam is really required reading for anyone wanting a pro-Islamic point of view regarding the issues we are discussing. But when you say, for instance, that the Arabs regarded the seige of Constandinople a far more devastating defeat than that of Tours you should read the definitive books on the Bzyantine Empire, by John Julius Norwich, generally regarded as the greatest historian of the Bzyantine Era, and who disagrees with most of Bernard Lewis's findings. Sir Edward Creasy remains still -- among most military historians -- regarded as the greatest military historian of the west. Wlliam Watson or Creasy is considered a better source as to the military implications of the Battle of Tours than Lewis. Gibbons, while you may not like him, and certainly Lewis does not, remains considered the greatest chronicler of the Roman Empire and the ages that followed up to the fall of Constandinople at the hands of Muhammad the Conquerer. You assume that I bring a christian bias to my writing, when nothing could be further from the truth. You ask why - if the Caliph had wished to spread Islam to Europe, he did not. Read of the struggle between the Umayyads, the Abbasids, which came to a head during this period, and which left the door to Europe, the iberian Emirate, in the hands of the Umayyads, while most of the remainder of the Muslim world came under the control of the Abbasids. Bluntly, there was no unified Caliphate to mount an invasion -- instead, the Iberian Emirate was busy fighting off challanges from the Abbasids on Bagdad. There was no force available for an invasion of Europe! It could only be mounted at that time from Iberia, which was still Umayyad, and busy fighting off the Abbasids.
Finally, you claim the civilized world had no interest in the Franks, or Europe, and that is simply so incorrect as to be astonishing. The greatest of the Caliphs is considered generally to be Harun El Rashid, and he not only acknowledged the Franks, but exchanged embassies, and gifts, with the grandson of Martel, calling him Emperor of the Western Romans! As to the Byzantines, they were well aware of the Franks, and Norwich especially chronicles their awareness of the new christian power raising in Europe,(and their very mixed feelings about it -- they were glad for the defeat the Muslims suffered at Tours, and the successes of Charlamagne, but not happpy with the competition for christian supremacy!) With all respect, your history is simply wrong factually.
I will close by saying I claim to be no scholar, though I have 2 degrees in history, and another in human science, which of course includes anthropology, and have studied human history. As to middle eastern history, I lived in that part of the world, for years, and studied it all my life. I am in my 50's, and have no bias, christian, jewish, or muslim, merely that the truth be told. The bulk of the men considered truly great historians believe that Tours was of macrohistorical importance. So did the arab or muslim histories up until about 500 years ago, or the time the Ottomans began rewriting much of muslim history. I humbly suggest you read Sir Edward Creasy's book, then the Byzantine series by Norwich, and William Watson for a more realistic assessment of the macrohistorical importance of Tours. I also have added sources to the article itself, which support the position taken above. (real historians, and their works) OLDWINDYBEAR. 10-30 refuting the articles above
Look at the new sources I posted in the article, all but one modern, and:
Richard Hooker, "Civil War and the Umayyads" Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732: Three Accounts from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook The Battle of Tours 732, from the "Jewish Virtual Library" website: A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative. Tours,Poiters, from "Leaders and Battles Database" online. Robert W. Martin, "The Battle of Tours is still felt today", from about.com
In point of fact, to this day, Edward Creasy is considered still the paramount military historian of the West. He is regularly quoted, as you would know if you read the relevant histories.
Your comment about my schooling, I am 54 years old, a published poet, a retired teacher, I have 3 college degrees, am finishing a 4th, and attended and graduated from 3 different universities, with the current one making #4. Your brand of "scholarship" would be rejected as ridiculous at any of them. You say that all my sources are old ones -- you obviously cannot read or check facts, because Norwich, for instance, published what is regarded as the definitive sets of works on the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire, and which disputes virtually all of your positions, in 1996. His first books, The Normans in Sicily and The Kingdom in the Sun, were on the medieval Norman Kingdom of Sicily. They were followed by two travel books, Mount Athos and Sahara; A History of Venice, The Architecture of Southern England, Fifty Years of Glyndebourne; A Taste for Travel (an anthology) a three volume History of Byzantium and a condensed edition A Short History of Byzantium; Paradise of Cities on Venice and its Nineteenth Century visitors and an anthology Venice: A Traveller’s Companion. He is generally regarded as the paramount historian TODAY of that era. Further, you ignore the other links placed in this article which come out of current articles.
The Franks were a major force in regional history from the time of Pepin the Elder. I won't attempt to reeduate you -- you simply refuse to accept accurate histories that present a viewpoint contrary to what you want to reflect politically. As to the Mongols, please, I contributed to the articles in Wikipedia on Mongol Tactics and Organization, the Mongol Invasion of Europe, most of the one on Subutai, and contributed to every other article on the Pax Mongolica. Yes, the Mongols would have waltzed through Europe as easily as they did the Caliphate -- except that they fell apart in intra-family disputes. If you had read the articles in this encyclopedia -- or such sources as the "Mongol Warlords" published in 1994, you would have known that in fact, Subutai, (the last of Ghenghis Khan's dogs of war, and a true military genius), was planning the invasion of all of Europe when the Great Khan Ogedei Khan died, and Batu and the other princes of the blood were forced by the law of Ghenghis Khan to abandon all else and return to select a new Great Khan. That was all that saved Europe, his death, and the subsequent breach between Batu Khan and his cousins. I find it wryly amusing that you talk of the defeat the raiders sent by Batu Khan and Subutai inflicted at Wahlstadt -- actually, it is called the Battle of Legnica that took place at Legnickie Pole near the city on April 9, 1241 between the a diversionary raiding party from Mongols of the Golden Horde sent to eliminate a potential threat, and the combined army of Duke Henry II the Pious. Henry's army, supported by the feudal nobility, was not just Poles, it included Germans, the Teutonic Knights, the Hospitallers, and the Knights Templar. You than fail to mention the far more devastating defeat suffered by King Bela and the Hungarian Army at the Mohi a mere 2 days later. In terms of it's strategic impact, the Mohi was far more devastating than the Battle of Legnica. The bulk of the Mongol army fought at Mohi, and the absolute devastation of the Hungarian nobility and their allies left central Europe wide open to invasion -- which probably would have occurred, as I noted, save for the intra-family quarrels which ultimately ended the Mongol Empire.
To claim Battle of Legnica was either unknown, or of machrohistorical importance, as compared to Tours, is again ridiculous, and simply not supported by the facts. Yes, the Poles celebrate it, but it is a political celebration, not a historically correct one. It was just one of dozens of defeats Mongol raiders inflicted on any power in any area of where they were operating.
Have you read the Arab histories in Arabic? I have. The histories of the time period in question are far more detailed than what the europeans maintained, and they make the argument far more strongly than I ever could of the magnitude of the defeat the Caliphate felt it suffered at Tours. Because of the coming split in the Muslim world, that would be the last major invastion they would be able to launch from their Iberian strongholds.
Finally, as long as the accurate history reflects that the Battle of Tours is regarded by the majority of major western historians as an event of machrohistorical importance, yes, I will edit the article to reflect that. It is not a reversion war, it is good scholarship versus political viewpoints unsupported by any major modern historian. Unlike you, I cite very specific sources which make very clear that it was, without question, one of those events which affected the course of history. I feel an obligation to students, especially, who use this source, for it to be accurate.
You also really should live in the Middle East, and study there for a time also before you start claiming you can state what any muslim would say. If you have not lived in Muslim countries, and studied there, you really haven't a clue what the average well educated Muslim thinks.
If you want a list of good books to read on this era to improve your knowledge of the time period, email me and I will be happy to give them to you. If you cannot read Arabic, I will try to find some of the Arabic sources which have been translated -- though, as my son, who works as a translator for the government says, some concepts in Arabic don't directly translate to English. Nonetheless, if you are willing to learn, I will try to help you. I can also recommend a number of good books on the Mongols, starting with "The Devils's Horsemen.' and "The Mongol Warlords." OLDWINDYBEAR
I am NOT going to change the article as OLDWINDYBEAR has explicitly stated that if I do he will change it back. As I have no interested in a revert war, I'm not going to do that. However, as I hope his tone and the general tenor of what he is saying indicates, he is far from being an unbiased expert. As I repeated earlier, I feel this article should be looked over by a serious historian (and by historian I mean, someone whose passports puts 'historian' as their profession). (Incidentally, do modern historians have access to knowledge that Gibbon did not have? The answer is simply yes: there are now not just archeological data, but documents (and vastly more sophisticated theoretical insights) that were simply not accessible to Gibbon. Incidentally it is not, of course, ONLY Lewis who agrees with me.
OLDWINDYBEAR RESPONDS AGAIN: I pride myself that my scholarship is unbiased. I lived (and studied) in the middle east, one of my degrees is in history, and I follow the field as much as possible. All I ask is that you bring me sources to support your contention -- other than Lewis (who is not particularly highly regarded in terms of his biases) -- who believe that Tours was not of machrohistorical importance. I note that you don't dispute your mistakes on the mongols, on the issues of Norwich being a very modern HISTORIAN and more. The tenor of my response is that this is a site for people to help others learn. When a dispute like this exists, we should attempt to resolve it by referencing the available texts and experts. The university of Maryland Baltimore County has a fine history program including military history, and the Professors who teaches it are considered expert. I called and had a fine conversation today about Tours -- and that program maintains it was an event of machrohistorical importance. I pity you that you are unable to discuss this intelligently in the sense of giving references -- as I have, not merely the ones I added to the article itself, but others on this page. I would gladly refer you to some very good books on the era in question, and there are numerous websites, such as medieval battles, http://historymedren.about.com/od/battlesandwars/ which support strongly the concept that Tours was a crucial turning point in European history. You refer to the tenor of my article as proof of bias; with respect, I refer to your ridiculous statements about "go to any Mosque and ask any Muslim" without ever having studied at a Mosque. In closing, I again offer to give you a good list of books to read both about Al-Islam, (and Al-Islam during that period, at the end of the Umayyad Era, save in Iberia), the history of the Carolinian Era, the Mongols, and the other things you have spoken about, unfortunately, mostly erroneously. It is no shame to need to learn. Feel free to email me and I will be glad to refer you to not only the books mentioned but scholars who will be glad to take a few minutes to discuss this particular issue with you. By the way, you maintain that modern scholars have access to facts and documents that Sir Edward Creasy did not. They have a few, but mostly no, the difference is in cultural perspective and how our worldview has altered with the passage of time. Nonetheless, Creasy, for instance, is sitll considered the paramount military historian of his age, and stands with any of this or any other age. Some simply stand the test of time...OLDWINDYBEAR
I'm sorry: i didn't realise that eminent experts, including an expert in 'KNEISOLOGY' disagreed with me. Like the Muslim hordes, I am vanquished from the field. BScotland.
OLDWINDYBEAR RESPONDS AGAIN TO BSCOTLAND: Ah,if you don't know what 'KNEISOLOGY' is, then look it up, it is a legitimate field. As to being vanguished, I never sought to vanguish anyone, the object here is education -- the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the most accurate information possible as a basic reference source, especially for students, and others who lack advanced education. You represented a viewpoint that simply lacks historical validity, if you believe the vast majority of the modern scholars and their works. As to the ancient, pre and Renaissance scholars, and the pre-modern scholars, there was virtually total agreement that Tours was literally (to paraphrase Sir Edward Creasy,) one of the 15 most decisive battles in the history of the world. Today's historians range from still being that effusive, to somewhat less so, but virtually all agree the battle was of machrohistorical importance. (Read Robert Martin's interesting piece "THE BATTLE OF TOURS IS STILL FELT TODAY") You turned this from an effort to make Wikipedia the best source of valid data we can all make it, to some sort of debate. Sadly, this argument with you reminds me of one of my favorite stories of the great attorney, Clarance Darrow. Asked by an admirer the source of his continual legal triumphs, Darrow said "cite the law if you have it, recite the facts if you lack the law but have the facts, and if you have neither, shout and call names." Essentially, you shout and call names. Creasy wrote "It was under one of their ablest and most renowned commanders, with a veteran army, and with every apparent advantage of time, place, and circumstance, that the Arabs made their great effort at the conquest of Europe north of the Pyrenees." I don't know Dr. Blair, but rather than argue her point -- that Martel, with an inferior army in terms of manpower, weapons, and technology, (they lacked stirrups, which gave Arab horsemen an overwhelming advantage), managed to defeat this veteran army, under one of Islam's ablest and most renowned commanders,with every apparent advantage of time, place, and circumstance in Islam's favor -- rather than argue her point, that given these facts, the magnitude of Martel's victory is simply indisputable, it's impact macrohistorical, you manage to mock the field of Kneisology. For the last time, for I am tired of quoting facts to someone who will not accept reality, I offer again to give you a good series of modern sources that will eduate you on the era of the Umayyad caliphate, it's expansion into the old Roman and Persian Empires, it's defeat and destruction -- except in Iberia -- and the aftermath. I would also be happy to give you a good list of references to correct your misimpressions of the Mongol Khanate. Study, BScotland, and someday, you may learn some history, if you put aside your prejudices...OLDWINDYBEAR
[edit] January 2006
I'm not about to intrude on what is apparently a war of some vitriol between at least two people here. But I just read the article, and if it isn't changed in the next two weeks, I have made a note to flag it for failure to adhere to a NPOV.
- Any time an article uses exclamation points, and makes statements like, "This rather plainly puts the lie to those who ..." it is not written from a neutral point of view. The whole "Importance of the Battle" section needs to be re-written to present both claims: that the battle had machrohistorical importance (I tend to agree), and that the battle had much less importance because the Arab advance was already collapsing under its own weight, and the result at Tours merely ended the extended roaming raids into what became the land of the Franks. These two points of view, and the reasons and evidence offered to support them, can be presented without one side or the other needing to "triumph" in the article. Doug 21:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Originally posted by DSYoungEsq and removed for no apparent reason, reinserted to provide continuity with following commentary.
OLDWINDYBEAR answers doug the clown,attempting to use words and concepts simple enough for you to grasp: it is Kneisology,also spelled as Kinesiology-- which is one spelling of the science of muscles and exercise, body fat percentage, to put those concepts simply enough so that you can understand it. Your understanding seems rather limited, so I am not surprised your searching failed. As usual, non-historians think they are comedians. You make no intelligent argument for the wording of the article,and less on attempting to mock a misspelling which wasn't. As for the minority view,have you read it in arabic? I have, and for 7 centuries they viewed Tours as a devastating defeat of such magnitude that it contributed to the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate --you do know what that was, don't you? Have you read the Greek histories of the Byzantine Empires view of the vital draining of Caliphate resources (which otherwise would have been used in an attack on them, and in the earlier seige)? In short, there was no "minority view" until relatively recently until history began to be rewritten for political ends. The article reflects the vast consensus of reputable historians. Please mark it as NPOV, I will dispute it, and win, because unlike yourself, I actualy rely on real history. You don't attempt to explain the arabic histories and their impact --but then, I doubt seriously you understand enough to know the difference between the allies that toppled the Umayyad Caliphate -- who were they, and what compromise allowed the descendants of the Abbasids and the Shia? You don't know enough to decide a NPOV, you inflict one with ignorance. For instance,you claim the Arab (and it was mostly Berber) advance was collapsing under it's own weight. Militarily, that consists of overextended supply and communication lines, inablity to replace lost troops, et al. The Capiphate had learned well from the Romans and had given great power to their Emirs, or Governors, who with a Fatwa from the Calpih were able to raise troops and supplies from all sectors of the empire. Their supply and communication organization was far superior to anything seen since the height of Rome, and in fact, since they depended economically on trade as much as agarian income, they were far better balanced internally as far as economics. In 732, when you claim the invasions were collapsing of their own weight, no less than 4 separate Emirs were able to raise no less than 4 separate huge and well equipped armies in less than 25 years, from an area larger than the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus! And none of these levies, or the supplies needed to maintain them, put even a major drain on the Caliphate as a whole! Obviously, there was no collapse of it's own weight, as you claim, saving Europe! No first year middle east history student would make such a foolish statment. It was a very basic struggle for power, Umayyad v.Abbasids and the Shia, according to ISLAMIC history of the period, (far more preserved and well documented) that doomed further expansion in that area of the world, due to the Umayyad control of Iberia after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate that basically prevented further attacks on Europe, making Martel's victories against a united Caliphate all that more vital. I have written your talk page offering to give you a good list of books to read if you really want to learn. Let me know if you can read arabic, greek or latin, and the list will be changed. (of course, a good command of english, a willingness to learn and a desire to be a genuine help in building this as an academic resource instead of comedy central would help you first!) oldwindybear
oldwindybear states the matter clearly and fully. i believe this article is well balanced as is, and would not support any watering down of the majority view that this battle had macrohistorical importance...when i travelled around in apain, people there certainly thought it had macrohistorical importance...that vote along with the majority of scholars is significant...besides what losing army ever thinks that the battle it lost was significant?Anlace 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Myths about croissants
The croissant was not invented in the eighth century, it was not invented in France and the crescent is not a symbol of Islam. So the last paragraph is wholly wrong and worthy of deletion.
To quote another site [1]:
It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Osman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty.
In fact the received wisdom--the really good apocrypha, if that is what it is--is that the croissant was invented in 1683 in Vienna to celebrate the defeat of the Trukish siege of that city. That makes more sense--for one thing, I doubt they had decent enough baking equipment to produce croissants in the eighth century. The lack of any reference to them anywhere in the literature of the next nine centuries also weighs against that theory. And while the internet sometimes only multiplies other people's mistakes, there is plenty of google support for the Vienna connection. Plus I read it in Ripley's believe it or not 35 years ago, so it must be true.
[edit] Number of combatants doesn't add up
40000 to 60000 cavalry? No way. That kind of an army would have been impossible then. 40,000 cavalry required 40,000 horses, plus a tremendous number of mules or other pack animals. The logistics aren't possible. Stargoat 19:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
actually, according to the arabic history, it was 60-400,000 horsemen, and that was quite possible. The Mongols sent an army of over 250,000 horsemen against Bagdad, and they actually carried over a million horses with them, at least 4 per rider! Most historians think that the number of invaders was closer by far to 60,000 than 400,000, but there was no question they outnumbered the Franks, and constituted a huge invasion force of quite formidable cavalry. OLDWINDYBEAR
[edit] comments on Gibbon
I have some comments on the paragraph quoted from Gibbon:
"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire"
First: There was no straight victorious line, the Arab had been defeated in the Battle of Toulouse at 721. Second: The Arab's base was Cordoba and not Gibraltar. Third: The line from Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire was just short of 800 miles (1250 km) and the line from Cordoba was 650 miles (1050 km).
- Gibraltar is at the southern tip of Spain. Gibbon is quite entitled to use this as the base for this measurement.
"the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland;"
First: The repetition of a distance from Cordoba to the banks of the Loire would not cross the modern borders of Poland (let alone those at the time Gibbon wrote). Second: Although the distance does reach the Highlands of Scotland, it is highly unlikely that that the Arabs would have been able to cross the channel and invade Britain.
- Gibraltar to Tours is 1700km by road. Tours to Poznan is 1500km. QED. England was not even united in the 8th century and was shortly to be invaded by the Vikings. There is no way the English could have resisted an invasion by Arabs who were at that stage a couple of centuries ahead in military technology.
"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."
First: Where is this Arabian fleet? Why didn't play any role in France. Why didn't it sail under protection from the Arab army into the mouth of the Rhome, the Garonne or the Loir?! Second: Going into the mouth of the Thames is the easy part, it's the landing which is difficult. Third: The Arabs never invaded a country through water (except Cyrus and Malta), they were invited into Spain.
- The Arab fleet dominated the Mediterranean. The primitive English fleet wouldn't have proved much of an obstacle. It couldn't resist the Viking fleet.
"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 Muhammed."
First: This part is completely false, it's written in the context of post-Catholic Church, but at 731 the Catholic Church had yet to be built. Second: The Arabs were not spreading a religion.
- Don't know what this means. Gibbon was using a certain amount of hyperbole of course but had the Arabs not been stopped - who knows?
- Of course it is actually probable that the internal divisions that beset the Arab empire would have prevented any of this happening regardless of the result of Tours. We don't know, but it is interesting to speculate!
Exile 17:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exile Actually, the arab fleet was invading france in 737 at Narbonne. Fortunately for the west, Charles Martel smashed the armies it landed. old windy bear 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
--130.161.31.17 19:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DEFENDING GIBBONS VIEW OF HISTORY -- Old Windy Bear
I don't know; revisionist historians would like to pretend that this battle did not have macrohistorical significance, but given the Muslim spread into all the regions of the Old Roman Empire, it is pretty clear that Gibbon is more correct than his critics. Rahman intended to lay waste to anyone endangering his emirite, and the Franks were clearly a danger. Martel saw very clearly that it was far better to stop Rahman in lower Gaul than wait for him to advance into his homeland. Martel's managing to inspire unarmoured infantry to stand their ground against armoured horsemen is an incredible feat of arms. Granted, the Muslims defeated themselves by rushing off to secure their loot in the middle of the battle, but it does not take from the fact that the Franks did what no one else ever did, in standing their ground without archers, without armour and a shield wall, such as the Saxons used. This battle was highly important, and by bringing the Frankish army into the field -- a fact buttressed by the Arab histories speaking more of the Franks than any other christian people except the Romans, or Byzantines -- it secured the safety of Europe during a time Islam was rapidly expanding everywhere else.
--The idea that Gibbon was right and modern scholarship is wrong is risible. In any case even Oldwindybear concedes that the Muslims essentially defeated themselves. Incidentally: what 'safety' of Europe? To repeat again, Europe was a backwater. Does the phrase 'dark ages' mean nothing to you? It was a EUEOPEAN dark ages, as was well known to the superior Arab forces. As a commentator above argued correctly had the Arabs wished to go through the Franks and conquer Britain they could certainly have done so. The problem was, simply, motive. There was no motive to conquer northern europe (let alone Britain) because there was nothing there worth taking.
Abd ar-Rahman ought always to be written out and not shortened to Rahman as Rahman is a word/name/title only applied to God (abd ar-Rahman meaning servant of the Merciful (or Almighty, depending on one's translation of the term)). While such abbreviation is conventional in english, it really shouldn't be done in this case. Why am I writing this?
Probably because you raise good questions. Yes, Europe was in the dark ages, but there were certainly sufficient places of wealh and potential for more to have attracted the Caliphate. You are right on shortening Abd al Rahman's name, and yes, it roughly translates to servant of the Al-Merciful, or Al-Mighty, depending on your translator. Rome and Ravenna, for instance, were certainly worth the trouble to bring into the caliphate, but to get there, Abd al Rahman and his forces had to first destroy Eudes(which they easily did, they were not caught sleeping at Bordeux as they had been at Toulouse) -- it is clear from Arab histories of the times that they did not expect to have to fight Martel and the Franks, and certainly not on a battlefield of Martel's chosing._ Again, relying on the Arab histories of the tiems, the Caliphate intended to expand the Emirate of Iberia into Europe, and were halted by Charles Martel.old windy bear 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________
THE NATURE OF HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP
Always pay attention to the bias of the historian. We all have them and they will temper any scholarship.
Several of the above writers appear to misunderstand the nature of historical scholarship and historiography. Unlike the hard sciences, such as physics, where more recent writing reflects current research and new "facts", historical scholarship often reflects simply a different viewpoint or interpretation of an already existing set of information.
Any professionally trained historian will acknowledge that all interpretations of historical events are driven by the experiences and times in which the historian lived and the events that acted on the development of the individual. In other words, we all bring bias to the facts that exist.
This is why historians can be seen in different "schools" that develop over time. A progressive historian, a consensus historian and a new left historian each writing in a different era about the same events, will emphasize different points and see the events differently. These differences include evaluations of the importance of both large and small events.
This does not mean that any one of them are right or wrong in their interpretation. Newer is not necessarily better, just different. The judgement of good versus bad history is made on the validity and use of the data, not whether it is new or agrees with a particular bias. This is especially true of an era such as the 8th century where new "facts" are rarely found
As to the importance of the Battle of Tours. Its importance depends not only on the bias of the historian, but also his/her place in time and geography. Within the context of the 8th century Tours and Constaninople are at separate ends of the world. To a western European the Arab defeat at the latter was not important; while the Arab defeat at Tours was of singular importance.
To the Arabs of the time riches and power of Constantinople were probably much more sought after than lands thousands of miles away from their heartland. While they saw their defeat at Tours as a defeat for Islam, it was of less importance. Whether that defeat and the death of the great leader Abd ar Rahman tempered the motivation to spread Islam and plunder or merely the passage of time and distance prevented an invasion ot western Europe is an interesting question. llleveque
You are partially correct, but it was also the struggle within the Arab world that saved Europe. Yes, had the Caliphate wished to mount an all out attack on Europe, it could have succeeded, HAD THE ARABS BEEN UNITED -- Read of the struggle between the Umayyads, the Abbasids, which came to a head during this period, and which left the door to Europe, the iberian Emirate, in the hands of the Umayyads, while most of the remainder of the Muslim world came under the control of the Abbasids. Bluntly, there was no unified Caliphate to mount an invasion -- instead, the Iberian Emirate was busy fighting off challanges from the Abbasids on Bagdad. There was no force available for an invasion of Europe! It could only be mounted at that time from Iberia, which was still Umayyad, and busy fighting off the Abbasids.
Citing the struggle for supremacy in the arab world as the reason the moslems failed to attempt an invasin of western Europe in the 8th century has some value. However, it fails to explain the failure to do so in the 9th century, the 10th century and so on. As I mentioned earlier the greater attraction of the eastern empire was a factor. To that we should add the logistics problems with transporting a land army of a suitable size across the immense land and water distances and obstacles involved. This diffculty compunded by differences within the Arab communities. llleveque
llleveque, you certainly make good points, but remember that the struggle within the Muslim world was even worse in the 9th and 10th century as the Seljuk Turks ended the supremacy of the Caliph, and rendered him a figurehead -- then after the death of Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, the Seljuk's splintered. I have also always wondered why no one talks of Manzikert as a devastating blow to the Bzyantine Empire. It basically, by bringing Anatolia under Turkish rule, set the stage for the end of the Bzyantines, though they would last another 400 years. You are absolutely right on the logistics of an invasion of the West -- but remember that primarily remained because of the independance of the Iberian Emerite. I think your points excellent, and the primary reason is as you cited: the differences within the Muslim world. Had they made a single, unified push into Europe, they would have succeeded. Thus, the importance of Tours, and the following campaigns by Martel in 736-7 to expell Rahman's successor -- had those invasions succeeded while the Muslim world was still unified, christianity as we know it in the west would be a second class religion, and history altogether different. By the way, it is a pleasure to discuss this with someone quite knowledgable, who might not agree with my viewpoint - but will listen, as I do yours, because that, to me, is how one learns, so thanks! OLDWINDYBEAR
The point of my first post was to discuss, in brief, the nature of historical scholarship and interpretation. Reliable and competent historians can disagree about the interpretation of and emphasis placed on a set of "facts" without either being "right" or "wrong".
Our following discourse illustrated that principle. The Arab failure to pursue a conquest of western Europe can be attributed to a set of well known historical reasons. We differ only in the emphasis we place on each individual reason.
While one sees Arab disunity and mistrust as pivotal and the other highlights distance, logistics and easier picking to be foune closer to home, neither rejects any of these factors as important. This a classic difference in interpretation. llleveque
I could not agree more. Each of us, in the course of this discourse, recognized the validity of the historical Precepts that the other brought to the dicussion. The only difference was the weight assigned each variable by either party -- as you said, in interpretation, which, as you know as well as I, is unique to each historian. I certainly appreciated your viewpoints, went and read more from writers who share that conceptual view, and tried to present my own views and those of the historians who share them, while factoring in your interpretation to a greater degree than I had previously done. This, to me, is what discussion at Wikipedia should be, and I thank you for contributing a valuable viewpoint, in a scholarly way. OLDWINDYBEAR
[edit] Movie on Karl Martell?
Will there be a movie about him. Perhabs depicting the Battle of Tours!
A couple of years ago, there was a story that Fox was considering a movie on him and the Battle of Tours -- but it is very politically sensitive, since essentially it paints him as the savior of western christianity against all-conquering Islam. I think at some point someone will make a movie about his life, and in particular, Tours.
"..Norwich, the foremost authority on the Eastern Roman Empire..." OK, Norwich is certainly one of the best on this period, but the "foremost"?What about Runciman?I think this is a bit absolute...
"Had the west fallen, it is doubtful Byzantium could have withstood Islam on her own." A more realistic viewpoint is.... Why is this viewpoint not realistic?If you are going to challenge one the best-established theories at least provide some arguments...Padem 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
To answer you, Norwich wrote the line "Had the west fallen, it is doubtful Byzantium could have withstood Islam on her own." To fully explain the reasons, (not being smart) you would have to read his series of books on Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire. Essentially though, as I tried to sum it up, the efforts in the west drew off troops and part of the fleet which was laying seige to Constandinople, and later, continued to tie down resources that otherwise woudl have been directed at the Eastern Empire. Gibbons also discusses this in his book "Mohammad and the Arabs" (part of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."old windy bear 04:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
