Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of Tours

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Tours
    Posted: 29-May-2006 at 02:23

Can someone inform me on this decisive battle please

Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
  Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
  Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2006 at 06:10
Those paintings of the battle have armoured franks?
Franks fought in phalanx formation like greeks you sure?
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2006 at 10:52
Those pictures were most likely painted centuries later. Notice the Christian cross!!!
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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???
 
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

 
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 03:18

*belisarius* The Umayyads could have conquered Europe Ermm yehhhhh im sure they would have crushed all opposition *sarcasm*

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.