Charles Martel

[Wesleyan]

I have chosen my avatar to be the Frankish emblem as a tribute to that brilliant general Charles Martel.

His professional phalanx infantry won the battle of Tours in 732, thereby halting the spread of Islam through Europe.

Then again, you could argue that it was all rather pointless, given that France is now rapidly turning into a Muslim country.

[Ulf]

I would hardly call Tours pointless. If Islam is currently spreading through France then Tours delayed that fate 1300 years. quite a feat for one battle yes?

[hellheaven1987]

I would hardly call Tours pointless. If Islam is currently spreading through France then Tours delayed that fate 1300 years. quite a feat for one battle yes?

Na, Battle of Tours did not aim to stop the spread of Islam into Gaul (Charles Martel definately did not have this idea originally). Still, it was an important battle for Carolingian because it established Carolingian influence into southern Gaul. Later on, we would see Charles' son, Pippin, tried to conquer southern Gaul into direct Carolingian control; that is the main point of Battle of Tours and most modern people ignore about.

[Ulf]

Na, Battle of Tours did not aim to stop the spread of Islam into Gaul (Charles Martel definately did not have this idea originally). Still, it was an important battle for Carolingian because it established Carolingian influence into southern Gaul. Later on, we would see Charles' son, Pippin, tried to conquer southern Gaul into direct Carolingian control; that is the main point of Battle of Tours and most modern people ignore about.

I never said that Tours was intended to nor that Charles Martel had intentions to stop the spread of Islam. I said that Tours did stop the spread of Islam. Whether Islam was already stopping it's spread or not, Tours put a definitive stamp on the whole situation and as you said left southern Gaul under Carolingian influence and not Arabic influence.

[motiv-8]

His professional phalanx infantry won the battle of Tours in 732, thereby halting the spread of Islam through Europe.

No, it didn't.

Tours delayed that fate 1300 years. quite a feat for one battle yes?

No.

We had two different threads on this in the last couple months. Doing a forum search isn't that hard.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Aww come on motiv are you gunna make me stand up for those dirty Franks? :p

[Londinium]

What is with the concept that Islam is rapidly spreading in Europe? Islamic minorities account for about 5-6% of both British and French populations and in the case of Britain we've recieved more immigrants from Eastern Europe than Islamic countries over the past few years.

[Wesleyan]

What is with the concept that Islam is rapidly spreading in Europe? Islamic minorities account for about 5-6% of both British and French populations and in the case of Britain we've recieved more immigrants from Eastern Europe than Islamic countries over the past few years.

As I understand it, the Muslim population of France is around 10pc, but among people under the age of 20 around 30pc are Muslims, which does rather suggest that France will be a Muslim country in the not too distant future.

As for whether or not the Battle of Tours halted the spread of Islam, I wonder why the battle was even fought if the Muslims were not trying to spread their influence. Why else would Muslims from Spain enter southern Gaul and throw their cavalry against CM's phalanxes?

I'm not saying there isn't an answer. I merely ask.

[Londinium]

As I understand it, the Muslim population of France is around 10pc, but among people under the age of 20 around 30pc are Muslims, which does rather suggest that France will be a Muslim country in the not too distant future.

As for whether or not the Battle of Tours halted the spread of Islam, I wonder why the battle was even fought if the Muslims were not trying to spread their influence. Why else would Muslims from Spain enter southern Gaul and throw their cavalry against CM's phalanxes?

I'm not saying there isn't an answer. I merely ask.

Hmmm I'm a bit sketchy on French demographics but it's certainly not as bad as that in the United Kingdom, a lot of our Asian immigrants had large families when they first came over here but the longer they stay here and the more prosperity they achieve the more their family sizes correlate with British.

This Europe will turn Muslim stuff is nothing more than scaremongering. Personally I'm against anymore immigration from Asia and Africa but I don't think we're in danger of being swamped any time soon, we just have enough already.

[Wesleyan]

The Muslims were a raiding party looking for loot. Martel attacked them when (IIRC) they were on their way *out* of the area and burdened by everything they'd gathered.

Maybe so, I’m not an expert. It seems strange to me though that anyone can say that Islam was not trying to spread. If the region was worthy of plunder, then maybe it was also worthy of conquest. Can we be certain that this raiding trip wasn’t in the nature of spying out the land for a possible invasion at a later date?

Hmmm I'm a bit sketchy on French demographics but it's certainly not as bad as that in the United Kingdom ...

I never said it was.

Personally I'm against anymore immigration from Asia and Africa but I don't think we're in danger of being swamped any time soon, we just have enough already.

May one dare to ask how you aim to achieve a policy of no more immigration?
One may indeed. Thank you.
How do you aim to achieve a policy of no more immigration?
(We may be getting a tad off-topic here, but never mind.)

[Londinium]

How do you aim to achieve a policy of no more immigration?
(We may be getting a tad off-topic here, but never mind.)

Quite simple, do what Australia did up until recently and only allow immigration from a select list of countries and give any other immigrants limited residence rights if they work in the country, so it doesn't undermine the country's economic health.

[motiv-8]

As for whether or not the Battle of Tours halted the spread of Islam, I wonder why the battle was even fought if the Muslims were not trying to spread their influence. Why else would Muslims from Spain enter southern Gaul and throw their cavalry against CM's phalanxes?

Charles caught a raiding party coming back from the cathedral/tomb of St. Martin. Other raiding parties around the Loire valley and southern Gaul answered a call for reinforcement and arrayed the force that the Franks defeated.

you argue like a 3 year old. "nuh uh!", "no it didn't!", "am not!", etc.

Your ad hominems unfortunately (for you) don't change the fact that you don't know the history. But by all means, continue ignoring the linked thread about Tours in which I destroyed, months ago, the claims you are regurgitating here mindlessly without even having conducted with common sense a forum search.

[Tankbuster]

Listen to motiv on this one.
Tours, as much as it has been mythified and credited as the great day on which the Franks halted the muslim advance into Europe (especially by those not to fond about Islam, it seems), was just one event in a series of battles which ultimately kept the Franks from being overrun by the muslims. These battles were fought over several decades and the idea that we can pinpoint this on one specific date in a specific heroic battle is wish-thinking.

Unfortunately the day draws near that we're going to see another 300-style mythification of history in which we'll see hundreds of thousands of eastern rif-raf clashing against the 'phalanx' of proud Western warriors. Expect parallels to Al-Qaida and some vague hints at Islam being inferior.

"Madness?! This is Martel-land!"

[athanaric]

Another historical event that was blown out of proportion (I'm not saying it was completely unimportant though)... keep in mind that names such as "Martel" or "the Great" were usually added much later, probably by overzealous patriots.

[swabian]

@M-8: Ah, your usual nonsense again.

The battle at Tours was without question an important step for establishing the Frankish dominion, this is hardly disputed. However the academic discussion is still not conclusive regarding the question, whether or not this victory saved Europe from further islamisation. You cannot possibly claim any certainty about that and certainly not with your haughty tone and your trollish demeanor. As if you could achieve anything with your inappropriate and arrogant laconism.

[Ulf]

Your ad hominems unfortunately (for you) don't change the fact that you don't know the history.

I never attacked you, i attacked your arguing style. provide a link to the previous thread if you want to make your point. Don't vaguely reference it and expect that I'll do the work for you.

As for no knowing the history you are 100% correct. I know very little about Tours, Martel, and the entire 8th century. It's never been a very interesting time period to me. But even if Tours wasn't too significant, I wouldn't call it pointless. If anything, it serves the modern purpose of a historical tradition. French people undoubtedly talk about Tours and Martel in their history classes in reverence.

[antaeus]

i can see how this discussion will go...

some people will argue that there's not actually that much evidence as to how significant tours was... perhaps it stopped islam, perhaps it was just a skirmish on the periphery of an already settling caliphate. certainly, the battle didn't mean as much to the islamic forces as their reports on it are sketchy at best.

other people will argue that we owe all of everything to charles martel.. that the arabs were halted and slowly pushed back into deepest darkest africa thanks to the franks and their heroic stand.

imo... the arabs didn't leave gaul until well after martel had died.. so i think the battle was less significant than we like to make out. the south of gaul had already been completely depopulated and ravaged by generations of fighting between the visigoths and franks, then the arabs and franks... so it probably wasn't that appealing for the arabs to spend as much effort retaining it. they had bigger wealthier concerns in the byzantine empire, central asia and eventually india.

[Romano-Dacis]

imo... the arabs didn't leave gaul until well after martel had died.. so i think the battle was less significant than we like to make out. the south of gaul had already been completely depopulated and ravaged by generations of fighting between the visigoths and franks, then the arabs and franks... so it probably wasn't that appealing for the arabs to spend as much effort retaining it. they had bigger wealthier concerns in the byzantine empire, central asia and eventually india.

This is not a good argument. Take a look at Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Ottomans were unable take Vienna in the early 16th century, but the Ottomans would remain (and even expand) in Central Europe up until the late 17th century. Should we then dismiss the first siege of Vienna as an insignificant event?

Western Europe owes just as much to the barbarian kingdoms of the Franks and Normans as they do to the Romans, if not more-so. Savior of Europe is obviously too much credit, but we must never ignore small but momentum-sapping events in world history.

[antaeus]

This is not a good argument. Take a look at Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Ottomans were unable take Vienna in the early 16th century, but the Ottomans would remain (and even expand) in Central Europe up until the late 17th century. Should we then dismiss the first siege of Vienna as an insignificant event?

Western Europe owes just as much to the barbarian kingdoms of the Franks and Normans as they do to the Romans, if not more-so. Savior of Europe is obviously too much credit, but we must never ignore small but momentum-sapping events in world history.

of course it's an important event to europe now, it's been a rally cry for france for 1300 years... i'm not arguing that it was insignificant in the greater scheme of things... but instead i suggested it wasn't as important at the time - it didn't actually change anything at all as far as the political situation in southern gaul goes... and didn't become important until later on when it became part of the emerging french kingdom's creation myths - i'm suggesting a lot of it's importance came as a result of meaning attached to it later on.

on the other hand, the siege of vienna was of immediate importance to austria and europe at the time it happened - so it's not a fair comparison as it was an invasion by the ottoman sultan himself and the main focus of the ottoman empire. there was no caliph at the battle of tours - he was where the real action was many thousands of kilometres away - he may have supported it, but it certainly wasn't the major focus of the caliphate.

[konny]

Going on here would save us a lot of time:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ighlight=tours