Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Battle of Tours Posted: 29-May-2006 at 02:23 |
Can someone inform me on this decisive battle please
|
|
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 03:35 |
it was a battle between Franks and an invading muslim army. It took place on October 10th, 732. It's regarded as important becuase it saved Europe from Islamic conquest. No major muslim invasion was launched after this defeat.
The muslim commander was Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman (He was the Emir) and the Frankish commander was Charles Martel. the Emir was killed during the battle. Martel had been waiting for this battle to happen for a long time since th fall of the Roman armies in the west.
the cool part as that the Franks didn't have a calvalry. they trained to fighting a Phallanx and trained in old greek tactics to beat the muslim calvalry.
The arabs after a long waiting game used their calvalry to charge uphill inot a forested area where they were repeatedly defeated by unarmored Frankish soldiers (who were better prepared for the cold weather). During the battle Franksih raiders attacked the rear and supply lines and forced some of the arab calvalry to turn and run abck to defend their supply lines. The rest of the arab army saw thsi as a full-scale retreat and left their defensive lines in chaos. The Franks were able to break through the lines and slay the Emir.
The arab army was compromised of different nationalites and no one could decide who would take over, and the army broke apart. the retreating arab army was attacked by various other groups and forced our of France.
This is one of the most clever military victories in history. The Franks had no armor, no calvalry, and no firearms. They used spies and scouts to create confusion in the arab army and cause chaos. Though, the real failure si taht of the arab leaders who were unable to choose a leader for their army which could have possibly still defeated the Franks. The arab army still had the military advantages, even after the Emir's death.
for more information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Edited by Illuminati - 29-May-2006 at 03:36
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 04:11 |
His name last name was not Martel, Martel was given to him because he nicknamed Charles the Hammer. I guess Martel must mean hammer in French.
Also did not the main battle take place not in the forest but on a field somewhere and apparently the Berber cavalry (top notch troops) were so full of confidence and belived they would crush this puny force but in return were hacked to pieces. Oh yeh Charles's weapon of choice was a big hammer. (correct me if im wrong)
Edited by machine - 29-May-2006 at 04:17
|
|
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 04:20 |
the Franks wer able to get the calvalry to attack them uphill in a wooded area. It's part of the reason they were able to hold off the calvalry.
Though, part of teh battle did take part in an open field. The calvalry weren't just hacked to pieces either. They were overconfident for sure, but they did break through Frankish lines more than once.
The exact location of the battle is not known. The arabs say the battle lasted two days, the Franks said it lasted one day. So, information is sketchy i'd say.
Edited by Illuminati - 29-May-2006 at 04:23
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 06:10 |
Those paintings of the battle have armoured franks?
Franks fought in phalanx formation like greeks you sure?
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 06:31 |
Franks didn't fought in phalanx like the greeks and macedonians in ancient times in the battle of Tours. They rather used shield wall formation just like Anglo Saxons against Normans at the battle of Heistings 1066.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 10:52 |
Those pictures were most likely painted centuries later. Notice the Christian cross!!!
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 12:19 |
The importance of this battle is severely overrated. The army that the
Franks faced was a raiding party that was actually returning home. At
this point, the Muslims were already stretched thin and had no real
intentions to conquer anything north of the Pyrenees just yet. In fact,
they were more interested in taking Constantinople in the east, which
was much closer to their center of power. The several battles that took
place in between the Byzantines and Arabs during this time each dwarfed
the Battle of Tours. It was the Byzantines and not the Franks that
saved Europe from becoming Islamic.
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 12:48 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
It was the Byzantines and not the Franks that
saved Europe from becoming Islamic.
|
I don't think that Europe would become Islamic even if Arabs would conquer Constantinople. Georgians and Armanians kept christianity as their religion even under Arab rule. If Arabs had conquered Constantinople would they go futher north? If yes, than they would have to fight hard for every new land against Bulgars, Avars, Magyars, Slavic tribes etc.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 13:02 |
Georgians and Armenians were able to keep their religion because
throughout the centuries, they were able to reassert their independence
under Christian rulers. On the other hand, there were regions like
Egypt and Mesopotamia that were overwhelmingly Christian but remained
in Muslim hands up until now. Now, maybe only five percent of the
population there is Christian.
The Arabs persisting in their conquests is debatable. The point is that
if they had taken Constantinople, there was no stopping them. At this
time, the wealthy cities of the Greek East held much more appeal than
the still largely undeveloped West. I would argue that since the Arabs
were conquering to spread their religion, they would have continued.
At this time period, only the Slavic tribes were in any position of
power north of Byzantium. The Avars were holed up in Pannonia,
completely cirppled after being defeated by the Byzantines. The Magyars
wouldn't have existed there until the tenth century and the Bulgars
were yet to have an established presence there. Even so, none of these
peoples would have been able to hold back the highly sophisticated
Arabs who were at the height of their power.
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 15:51 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
The Arabs persisting in their conquests is debatable. The point is that if they had taken Constantinople, there was no stopping them. At this time, the wealthy cities of the Greek East held much more appeal than the still largely undeveloped West. I would argue that since the Arabs were conquering to spread their religion, they would have continued.
|
Well I don't think that arabs had resources(manpower) to go further north if they could conquer Constantinople. Their empire was already very huge, and they wouldn't be interested to conquer lands(I mean Balkans, Central Europe) with no major cities or towns, colder climate, large forests and hostile pagan tribes.
The point that there wouldn't be any effective resistance against Arabs in those lands is wrong due to the fact that the societies of Balkans are Central Europe were tribal and the structure could be called "war democracy" .
Edited by axeman - 29-May-2006 at 15:54
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 20:02 |
There was no Georgia and Armenia at this point the arabc warred with the Khazar khanate for control of the Caucasia.Khazar resistance effectively stopped arab expansion into europe.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 20:50 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
The importance of this battle is severely overrated. The army that the Franks faced was a raiding party that was actually returning home. At this point, the Muslims were already stretched thin and had no real intentions to conquer anything north of the Pyrenees just yet. In fact, they were more interested in taking Constantinople in the east, which was much closer to their center of power. The several battles that took place in between the Byzantines and Arabs during this time each dwarfed the Battle of Tours. It was the Byzantines and not the Franks that saved Europe from becoming Islamic. |
Wouldnt it be Byzantines+Spaniards+Franks that saved Europe.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 21:10 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
Georgians and Armenians were able to keep their religion because throughout the centuries, they were able to reassert their independence under Christian rulers. On the other hand, there were regions like Egypt and Mesopotamia that were overwhelmingly Christian but remained in Muslim hands up until now. Now, maybe only five percent of the population there is Christian.
The Arabs persisting in their conquests is debatable. The point is that if they had taken Constantinople, there was no stopping them. At this time, the wealthy cities of the Greek East held much more appeal than the still largely undeveloped West. I would argue that since the Arabs were conquering to spread their religion, they would have continued.
At this time period, only the Slavic tribes were in any position of power north of Byzantium. The Avars were holed up in Pannonia, completely cirppled after being defeated by the Byzantines. The Magyars wouldn't have existed there until the tenth century and the Bulgars were yet to have an established presence there. Even so, none of these peoples would have been able to hold back the highly sophisticated Arabs who were at the height of their power.
|
If they were so highly sophisticated why wasnt Spain taken???
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 21:15 |
Axeman: The goal of the Arabs was not to take new lands for Islam but
also to rule over the people of the book and to convert or destroy all
heathens, meaning everyone. Whether they would wait a while or not, the
goal of the early Muslims was to conquer everything. I don't think it
matters how their societies were set up, it all depends on how well
they fight and in this span of about two centuries, the Arabs were the
strongest people on the earth.
machine: Sure, why not? Not the Spaniards though, as no such people
existed yet. The Arab forces in the Iberian Peninsula might have been
sufficient to conquer at least a large portion of France but they were
too thinly spread out in that region to launch an effective conquest of
all Europe. If the Arabs were to conquer Europe, it would come from the
east and thanks to the Byzantines, it didn't.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-May-2006 at 23:08 |
Thinly spread out, i think that is bullsh*t. How long did they hold a large portion of Spain, 200 years???? That is enough time to gather troops.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 00:15 |
Not all of Spain was conquered and the tenacity and military
proficiency of the tiny Christian kingdoms in the north and north west
should be recognised for forming the valuable buffer which it did.
However, the Franks played the more important role in preventing an
invasion of Europe via Iberia, they established a feudal system which
could provide very effective defence at the local level and at the
national level in emergencies. This was critical.
I think the Muslims most definitely would have pressed on had they
conquered Byzantium. Their aim was to spread their religion via
invasion, much of the Sahara offered little materially and yet they
pressed into this area. They only thing which ever stopped them
invading a place was strong military force.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 00:21 |
Originally posted by machine
Thinly spread out, i think that is bullsh*t. How
long did they hold a large portion of Spain, 200 years???? That is
enough time to gather troops.
|
Well it was during the Umayyad Empire's conquering phase that I said
the Moors could not press any further because they were too thinly
spread out and far from their power base in the Near East. The Moors
conquered all that they would conquer on the Iberian Peninsula by
around 730 CE. However, by 740 CE, civil wars on the peninsula caused
the caliph to lose control of the region. After this, there was the
Emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba which did not attempt to expand into
Christian lands and was more content with attempting to unite all
Muslim factions on the peninsula. After this, there was fragmentation
into several different emirates, all of which now had to deal with each
other and the growing power of the Reconquista kingdoms.
So in a nutshell, at first they didn't have the resources to commit to
a conquest of Europe and then they, at least the Muslims actually on
the peninsula, just no longer cared. The Umayyads could have conquered
Europe but not through the Pyrenees, at least not while there was an
even more formidable enemy that required their attention who were
roasting tens of thousands of their warriors with Greek Fire.
Edited by Belisarius - 30-May-2006 at 00:27
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 03:18 |
*belisarius* The Umayyads could have conquered Europe yehhhhh im sure they would have crushed all opposition *sarcasm*
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 03:26 |
Had the Ummayads had the manpower, wealth, naval control and logistical
resources provided to them by the capture of Byzantium, I do not doubt
they would have converted the whole of Europe to Islam.
|
|