Oct. 10, 732: Tours.

[Monarchist]

Greetings fellow history-lovers.

Today is an anniversary of the Battle of Tours, outside Poitiers, in which Charles Martel, Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia, beat back the Muslim raids. To be perfectly honest, I know scant little about this, as it took place in the middle of the "Dark Ages". I remember something vague about a baggage train and Frankish axemen, but other than that I am ignorant.

Do any of you Dark Ages connoisseurs have anything to say about Tours? Was it truly a Europe-defining event, or merely a raid by the Muslims?

[jankren]

Victory against minor raids is nothing to be proud about.

The Battle of Vienna against the Turks and the Battle of Constantinople against the Arabs were much more defining events.

[Monarchist]

Victory against minor raids is nothing to be proud about.

The Battle of Vienna against the Turks and the Battle of Constantinople against the Arabs were much more defining events.

I didn't ask anyone to be proud. It's simply about the significance of the battle. Obviously, the two Sieges of Vienna were incredibly important, but I'd like evidence that Tours was simply a minor raid.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well the battle did secure the Carolingians to power from whom the Holy Roman Empire would be founded.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Well the battle did secure the Carolingians to power from whom the Holy Roman Empire would be founded.

Indeed; it layed the foundations for the Holy Roman Empire and Kingdom of France, which were major players in Europe. Plus, it kept the Moors out of Europe except for Spain, which had a drastic impact on the development of Europe and the world.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well minor raid or not the Muslims didn't advance beyond that in the west and ever since then they slowly lost their conquests.

[uzi716]

After Torus the Muslims never made an advance in Western Europe...and after the Second failed siege of Vienna in 1500 something the Muslims never made significant gains in Eastern Europe either...

[Monarchist]

After Torus the Muslims never made an advance in Western Europe...and after the Second failed siege of Vienna in 1500 something the Muslims never made significant gains in Eastern Europe either...

Now, now... let's not get all partisan. Besides, it was 1529.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

The defeat of tours was a major victory for the western Europeans, for many reasons. Back then Islam society was advanced since it kept copies of Roman literature, whereas Europeans did not, since Barbarians burned them. Thats why they were in dark ages. So picture Spaniards discovering indian lands. NUts right? Well tours was near Paris, around 100 km south, and it marked the significant halt of Muslim advances in Western Europe. Not only did it do this, but did it initiate the reconquista in Iberia in a way, since the muslims were pushed there, where as Austurias begun a fight for resistence. This battle was not merely a raid. It was fought with generals and kings. The problem of it being marked as a raid, is the fact that the muslim general held his troops in a loose formation, because he thought he was dealing with just a few barbarians, but when he saw the organized force of Charles Martel, he was a goner, and died in battle. This was all authorized with the help of the papacy as a serious threat to christendom in the west. I do agree the second Siege of Vienna was important too, and so was Constantinople, for stalling them for a bit.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I've never been so sure about the last part.

[motiv-8]

Tours/Poitiers is a classic example of a minor battle being blown into epic proportions as a result of polemics-based propaganda. What was a battle that stopped a small raid from ravaging the Loire Valley somehow became the defining moment where the tide of Islam was turned back by heroic Christian defenders of civilization. Such crap should have died with Gibbon. The reality, however, is that Muslim raids continued unabated in southern France and Italy for decades to come, while the largest town of the region, Narbonne, continued to be held by Muslims -- with the assistance of the majority-Visigothic Christian populace -- for almost another 30 years. The Franks gained more politically from their invasion of Lombard Italy and alliance with the Papacy than from wars with the Muslims in the south, while the real deathblow to Muslim efforts in Septimania and the northern reaches of Iberia was the civil war with the 'Abbasids and the fall of the Umayyads. Yet it was a long time before Franks ever made into what later became Spanish territory, under Charlemagne, who never was able to firmly grasp the country. In fact, Charlemagne ended up having to focus a large portion of his attention militarily against the Christian cities of the region, who were notoriously independent-minded. Perhaps the greatest triumph of Charles Martel at Tours was avenging the sack and pillage of the monastery at St. Martin. After all the Muslims, having fled during the night, had to leave most of the loot behind.

Speaking of which, another example we have of the Christian-inspired romanticism of these interactions is the Song of Roland, in which a tiny rear-guard was ambushed by Christian Basques -- the later retelling of the story had Roland's troops gallantly making a last stand against hordes of Muslims.

To repeat: Tours was not a major battle, it was not a major victory, and it did not keep the Muslims out of Europe. Let's get the record straight.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Tours/Poitiers is a classic example of a minor battle being blown into epic proportions as a result of polemics-based propaganda. What was a battle that stopped a small raid from ravaging the Loire Valley somehow became the defining moment where the tide of Islam was turned back by heroic Christian defenders of civilization. Such crap should have died with Gibbon. The reality, however, is that Muslim raids continued unabated in southern France and Italy for decades to come, while the largest town of the region, Narbonne, continued to be held by Muslims -- with the assistance of the majority-Visigothic Christian populace -- for almost another 30 years. The Franks gained more politically from their invasion of Lombard Italy and alliance with the Papacy than from wars with the Muslims in the south, while the real deathblow to Muslim efforts in Septimania and the northern reaches of Iberia was the civil war with the 'Abbasids and the fall of the Umayyads. Yet it was a long time before Franks ever made into what later became Spanish territory, under Charlemagne, who never was able to firmly grasp the country. In fact, Charlemagne ended up having to focus a large portion of his attention militarily against the Christian cities of the region, who were notoriously independent-minded. Perhaps the greatest triumph of Charles Martel at Tours was avenging the sack and pillage of the monastery at St. Martin. After all the Muslims, having fled during the night, had to leave most of the loot behind.

Speaking of which, another example we have of the Christian-inspired romanticism of these interactions is the Song of Roland, in which a tiny rear-guard was ambushed by Christian Basques -- the later retelling of the story had Roland's troops gallantly making a last stand against hordes of Muslims.

To repeat: Tours was not a major battle, it was not a major victory, and it did not keep the Muslims out of Europe. Let's get the record straight.

Excellent post! I agree almost entirely.

The one thing I would add, is that Charlemagne's involvement in Iberia, while minimal, had quite far-reaching consequences. After his campaigns there, there were established Christian marches, out of which the northern iberian christian kingdoms developed: Leon, Castille, Galicia, etc. THese were essential in shaping the reconquista (arguably essential for any reconquista at all).

[Markas]

To repeat: Tours was not a major battle, it was not a major victory, and it did not keep the Muslims out of Europe. Let's get the record straight.

Not a major battle? Am I reading that right? The sheer numbers involved for a battle of that time and place surely give it the description of a major battle, if not I'd be interested to know what you would consider a major battle considering this was eighth-century western Europe where a force of a few thousand was considered significant.

Unless of course you mean major in the sense of keeping the Muslims out, in which case I'd say you were looking at History backwards.

[motiv-8]

Not a major battle? Am I reading that right? The sheer numbers involved for a battle of that time and place surely give it the description of a major battle, if not I'd be interested to know what you would consider a major battle considering this was eighth-century western Europe where a force of a few thousand was considered significant.

Contemporary chroniclers didn't see it as any more major than the other battles going on in Septimania. That's ultimately more valuable than any personal opinions today on what constituted "major." In fact, I am speaking of major not in terms of size but in terms of significance, which brings us to the following..

Unless of course you mean major in the sense of keeping the Muslims out, in which case I'd say you were looking at History backwards.

That's not a particularly helpful comment. Do you have anything to substantiate that? You could start by looking at what I wrote and arguing with the points instead of making a sweeping sideways statement.

[Markas]

Contemporary chroniclers didn't see it as any more major than the other battles going on in Septimania. That's ultimately more valuable than any personal opinions today on what constituted "major." In fact, I am speaking of major not in terms of size but in terms of significance, which brings us to the following..

Which was what my point about looking at History backwards was about- it was a major victory at the time, even disregarding the huge numbers involved. Even doing so, how was it not significant anyway? Would not the appetite have grown with the eating for Al-Rahman's force had their cavalry carried the day? Given the Berber and Arab revolts in 730's and 40's Spain would a Muslim victory have quietened critics and shown that outside of their bases in Southern Gaul the lands were well-stocked and now more or less unguarded?
The attack on Spain in 711AD also began as a raid, but the victories whetted the appetites of the conquerors, so why would it not have had Tours been won for them? Why not take Tours, Poitiers and then the road to Paris?

It doesn't take much to imagine how differant European history would have been had Al-Rahman won the day.

That's not a particularly helpful comment. Do you have anything to substantiate that? You could start by looking at what I wrote and arguing with the points instead of making a sweeping sideways statement.

You ended your post with a statement of which I believe the first part was incorrect-

To repeat: Tours was not a major battle, it was not a major victory, and it did not keep the Muslims out of Europe. Let's get the record straight.

I'd like to know what you mean by it first just for clarification, given the certianty which which you typed it.

[motiv-8]

Which was what my point about looking at History backwards was about- it was a major victory at the time, even disregarding the huge numbers involved. Even doing so, how was it not significant anyway? Would not the appetite have grown with the eating for Al-Rahman's force had their cavalry carried the day? Given the Berber and Arab revolts in 730's and 40's Spain would a Muslim victory have quietened critics and shown that outside of their bases in Southern Gaul the lands were well-stocked and now more or less unguarded?

I have already answered such quibbles, if you would only take the time to read. It was not a major victory, for the reasons I have already described. It did not suddenly or inevitably reverse trends or send the Muslims out. That came a long time later, during which time other factors came into play. It's hardly looking at history backwards to recognize that historical processes are more complicated than a single battle.

The attack on Spain in 711AD also began as a raid, but the victories whetted the appetites of the conquerors, so why would it not have had Tours been won for them? Why not take Tours, Poitiers and then the road to Paris?

Because, you see, the unity of the Muslim forces was already fracturing.

It doesn't take much to imagine how differant European history would have been had Al-Rahman won the day.

Sure, if you're into fantasies. Gibbon-esque arguments are so passe.

You ended your post with a statement of which I believe the first part was incorrect-

To repeat: Tours was not a major battle, it was not a major victory, and it did not keep the Muslims out of Europe. Let's get the record straight.

I'd like to know what you mean by it first just for clarification, given the certianty which which you typed it.

Well, now you know.

[konny]

What a fighting on a "Dark Ages" battle....

To get some things straight:

Tours was one battle in a series of engagements between Franks and Arabs for the control of (southern) France, in which the Franks finaly won, drove out the Arabs and established footholds in Spain. Inhowfar exactly this battle was decisive is impossible to say. The later tradition to reduce the entire conflict on Tours is, of course, flat. But saying, from the knowlegde of the other campaigns following, that Tours had no meaning for the contemporaries isn't much more helpfull either.

It certainly was a major battle: Both sides called for all reinforcements available, and the lowest estimated figures I know speak of around 30,000 men for each side. Even in the Carolingian periode that would have been a major army - and nothing you would marshal to catch some marauders.

It is true that the Franks were fighting an Arab raid. But judging anything from that point would mean to completely ignore the Arabian way of warfare in the Middle Ages. Arabian conquest was done by raiding on a giant scale. And having 30,000 Arabian "raiders" swarming on your territory was as serious a threat as having 30,000 Franks heading for your capital.

Tours had not finally crushed the Arabs in France; but without the Frankish victory the way to Paris might have been open. That way it could be considered at minimum as a symbol for the Franks gaining the upper hand.

[Kiljan Arslan]

thats what I was saying however it secured to the throne a line of Kings that would form a great empire.

[motiv-8]

thats what I was saying however it secured to the throne a line of Kings that would form a great empire.

Only in part. Saying Tours gave Charles the foundation to establish a great kingdom ignores and greatly marginalizes the other efforts he made -- conquering the neighboring Germanic lands, throwing back the Saxons, and helping to establish churches and monasteries left and right. I have seen it argued that the threat of the Muslims in Septimania and Provence prompted his decision to form a standing army that later proved so dominant, so we can perhaps chalk that up to Tours, even though it was a greater strategic move that certainly didn't hurt in combating the Germans.

Honestly, I don't see how campaigns against the Umayyads in the south should be considered any different than those against pagan Saxons in the north-east, except for the fact that Umayyad military prowess was much more pronounced and respected. It wasn't about throwing back the Muslim hordes, it was about subjugating neighboring lands to increase power -- Charles certainly was no friend to the Christian dukes who ruled in the region (see Duke Eudes/Odo of Aquitaine). These significances are so anachronistic and reflect later Christian championing than the actual history.

[hellheaven1987]

Battle of Tours: Frankish Infantry Phalanx ed the way (or you can say late Roman doctrine ed the way).

Never look down Gladius you Muslims.