Talk:Battle of Tours/Archive 2

message: I added the cleanup tag because the middle of the article has some scrambled sentences and spelling errors, and the second half of the article has two or three things repeated twice. – B.Bryant 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a disgusting display.  Thanks Johntex, I would've done the same. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup - January 2006 

message: Not to get involved with your Tours page, but why pull the Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest?  Tours was one of several battles that signified the end of the Conquest period, and is regarded as important solely for that reason. Palm_Dogg 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an excellent Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest-- is there any way you could clarify though that while the vast majority of battles were victories, several were not, and as you noted, signified the end of the Muslim expansion period?  Different colors, or an explanation?  Just a thought.  As it was, it seemed to indicate that Tours was part of the Muslim conquest victories, which obviously, it was not.  As you know, Tours was regarded as being signficantly macrohistorically important because of the crucial defeats inflicted by Martel -- most crucially Tours -- while the Caliphate was united and able to mount massive invasions of Europe.  (only 18 years after Tours the unity of Islam shattered forever) Is it possible to edit it to reflect those defeats at the close fo the expansion period which brought an end to it?  (though, I still believe the internal divisions, more than any single loss, and the divided Caliphate after 750 was the true reason for the end of the expansion period.old windy bear 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately campaignboxes aren't designed to do that, so I'd have to say no.  If I ever get around to editing the Islamic conquests I'd obviously mention it, but the name simply denotes the period in history (622-750) of rapid Muslim expansion.  The other alternative, which I would be willing to help with, is to just make another campaignbox (Say, the campaigns of Charles Martel or the Reconquista) and run them next to each other, like at the entry Battle of Nagashino.  If you can give me a list of battles, I'd dash them off, especially since the Dark Ages (400-1000) are practically nonexistant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes. Palm_Dogg 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okey-dokey!  Just shoot me a message on my Talk Page when they get in. Palm_Dogg 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Conquests Campaignbox 

message: I've tagged the section on the Importance of the Battle to dispute the neutrality of the point of view.  Prior discussion of this was made; I would prefer if further discussion can be had without ad hominem attacks from OldWindBear, either here or on my talk page.  Please understand that I do not disagree with the conclusion of the author of the section, but an Encyclopedia isn't written to espouse a point of view.  The discussion of the relative merits can occur without an attempt to convice readers that one view is more correct than the other.  I think the lack of this approach is pretty obvious in the section in question; the statement, "This ignores first, the fact that Arab histories of the period circa 722-850 mentioned the Franks more than any other Christian people save the Byzantines!" is an example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSYoungEsq (talk • contribs) .
:Hi DSYoung; if you would, please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~).  If you don't sign, we have no idea who's left a message without going back through the page history.  If you type four tildes, this will automatically fill out your signature for you with a time and datestamp when you press save.  As for the talk stuff before, I don't mean to make excuses for him, but Oldwindybear was new and didn't really understand the way things work on Wikipedia; I think you'll find that the old unpleasantness is gone and that he's very dedicated to contributing substantially to Wikipedia.  I can't speak to the content of this article because it's far beyond my personal realm of knowledge, but I agree that a sentence like that, espousing an opinion of that nature, needs to be attributed to a scholar or other published source. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, was at school teaching and got distracted, forgot to sign. I hope you are right about the contributor in question, because, as I said, I find the information provided quite detailed and informative; it just needs to be re-written.  However, my talk page was vandalized by the person in question after I raised this issue before, so I will need to be won over, as it were.  :)  Doug 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oldwindybear, you misunderstand the point.  First, I agree with your conclusions.  Second, it doesn't matter that they are probably correct.  The issue is the tone of the section.  It has to be written not as an argument for one point of view over the other, but as a discussion of the alternate points of view, without reaching any conclusion about them.  That, and that alone, is the issue.  You will note that Katefan0 at least agrees with me on this, to the extent of the simple example I gave.  This isn't a debate, where one assertion has to be proved valid, and that's all that is being raised.  Doug 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see you both talking normally.  To the rest -- sourcing is important, but it must be properly cited and presented in encyclopedic style. Language and wording is terribly important. For instance, an encyclopedia article should never use exclamation marks unless quoting someone who was shouting. But the good thing is, these types of aesthetics are usually easily fixed, particularly when you have an editor as adept as myself. ;) So, let's all take a deep breath and get working. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Disputed 

message: user: Palm dogg Hi Palm!  I will finally have the complete list of Charlemagne's battles this week.  It took 3 weeks for a book to arive that should have come in 3 days!  It is an extremely lenghy list - you might want to use a campaign box instead of a battle box -- he fought 18 battles against the Saxons alone!   I see that I have an impersonator.   68.50.125.89 is not me, though his revisions are not bad.  I have a 5 computer network, which all use the same im name, and relatives live here.  Unless I am signed in as myself, oldwindybear, that im addrses is not a sockpuppet, but rather an impersonator.   (at least he does not seem to be vandalizing!   Anyway, I will have the Charlemagne list, finally, to you this week. old windy bear 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: impersonator

message: a dagger was placed beside Abd er Rahman's name in the battlebox to indicate he died in battle; another user put it there, and I removed it inadvertantly, not knowing it indicated death in battle, I have now restored it, however, he is still listed among notable causalties, due to his signicant place in the history of the times.old windy bear 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: battlebox revision

message: Someone edited the Battle section to suggest Abd er Rahman was covered in hog's blood and buried face down by the Frankish soldiers who killed him.  There is NO reliable source for this that I know of, but if someone has one, please cite it, before placing this kind of inflamatory rhetoric in the article.old windy bear 21:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the hog's blood story

message: "Had Martel fallen at Tours the long term implications for European Christianity may have been devastating. His victory there, and in the following campaigns, may have literally saved Europe and Christianity as we know it" - I take it this passage wasn't written by a Muslim? Durova 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Hi, nice article, just a quick question, in the text it says:
In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. But despite this, the Franks did not break. A translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book says: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."
I looked in the internet medieval source book linked on the article and the quote appears to come from Isadore of Beja. I couldn't tell if she was giving the arab account or the frankish account. Just checking things.
NicolharperGood catch, it is supposed to be from the Arab account - the Arab Chronicles were far more detailed, and that quote appears in several places, including being attributed to Isadore of Beja.  That chronicle is generally cited by Islamic historians, and organziations, including, for instance, islamic-paths.org.  Generally, it is cited as being from the Arab sources.  As you are probably better aware than I, the western sources are extremely spotty - the best accounts of the battle come from the Caliphate histories, and paint it as an unqualified disaster for Islam, and the expansion of the Caliphate into the remainder of the old Roman Empire.   Unquestionably, the Emir should never have allowed Martel to select the time and place to confront the invaders; Gibbons, Creasy and Watson (to name 3 of the west's greatest historians, all believe Martel's selection of time and place was crucial to his victory.  Basically, he made the enemy come to him, on ground not well suited for their strength, their peerless heavy cavalry, against a veteran army he had trained (at church expense, and that not willingly, for over a decade to meet such a foe.  old windy bear 16:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isadore of Beja

message: This article has been heavily sourced and if you wish to tag it, you need to specifically identify what information you are challanging, and what sources you found to be questionable.  You cannot simply post a cleanup notice without specifically identifying what information you find challangable.old windy bear 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not have a single inline citation to prove its claimed references and it's written in a manner which could be perceived by some as having a POV. Amir85 18:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: note to Amir85 on cleanup notice

message: Kate, help!  In trying to add more history to htis article, i have somehow deleted it on the page, but not in memory, so I cannot restore the lost sections, from western history down to references - can you restore it for me?  Thanks!old windy bear 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Katefan0]]

message: Baber khairi  and unnamed user 70.51.157.122 A complete rewrite of the article, which is what you did, requires discussion, and consensus to make the changes.  I understand if you wish to present a differing viewpoint - though I dispute it is a unitary Islamic viewpoint, (certainly you repeatedly impugn the name of Emir Abd er Rahman, who is described in the history of the time, the Islamic history, as the best of the governors of Al-Andulas).  Also Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and MUSLIM scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions.  As to your repeatedly heaping blame on him for the disaster at Toulouse (where he not was not in command, but had protested the failure to defend against a relief force!) and Tours, (where his failure to scout certainly is an enormous factor, but his choice to give battle was not altogether a bad one - he had no way of imagining the tactics and tricks Charles would play on him - a good general lost to a great one and a second rate army beat a first rate one thereby). Islamic history refutes your slanders best: (translated from Arabic) "This deadly defeat of the Moslems, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (Islamic Calendar) This, from the portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the great Arab period of expansion.  You simply cannot rewrite the entire article without discussion, that violates the 27 rules of editing, which require that:
* you post facts in disputes;
*await reply;
*seek agreement
*if facts remain in dispute seek a peer review;
::This article had been extensively reviewed by both Islamic and western writers, and received the 3rd highest ranking that a history article can be given - and a great editor has been working on it to further improve it, after consensus from writers of all sides that it was fair and accurate historically.  You simply cannot rewrite it without following the rules.  Certainly we can discuss changes to the Islamic presentation, but you cannot simply rewrite the entire article without discussion.  It will automatically be reverted until you comply with the 27 rules of engagement, enumerated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement .
::I stress I am certainly willing to discuss changes, and facts in dispute, but I cannot, and will not let you unilaterally rewrite history.  Furthermore, with all respect, you have not even studied the Islamic histories of the times, The Arab Chornicles, which present Tours as a disaster of catestrophic proportions for the Caliphate - and yes, I read Arabic so I have read them in their original form.  Further, as earlier noted, no serious Muslim historian rates the defeat at Toulouse, where the Muslims were lax in securing against an attack from a relief army, which Eudes used to essentially flank and infiltraate the Muslims before they could mount and engage his army in open battle, with Tours, where Emir Abd er Rahman, a rightous man and great commander, was killed in a battle he clearly should have won.  (Indeed, the Emir's utter destruction of Eudes at the River Garonne and Bordeaux, Bordeaux's sack and the horrific slaughter of Christians at the River Garonne answered that question for all time!)
::And while you claim "recent studies" - what recent studies?  Who wrote them?  Are you talking about Norwich, the most widely read authority on the Eastern Roman Empire, who says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it. A more modern, in the past two years, viewpoint may be found in Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels by Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, and considered an expert historian in the era in dispute in this article. It was published in 2004, and has quite an interesting modern expert opinion on Charles Martel, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son and successor in 736-737. Santosuosso makes a compelling case that these defeats of invading Muslim Armies, were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monastaries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. He also makes a compelling case that while Tours was unquestionably of macrohistorical importance, the later battles were at least equally so.  So what historians are you quoting, so we may read them?
::Your points that Rahman need not have scouted Europe in advance ignored the Islamic conquest period in toto, for instance, the Caliph Umar scouted the Sassanid Empire extensively before having Walid lead his armies in, just as he did the Bzyantine Empire before seizing it's themes in the mid-east and Africa!  Scouting a potential rival before conquest is the most basic of military actions, and key to most of the conquests the Caliphate won.  You are  ignoring the fact that 4 separate Emirs of al-Andalus, over a 25 year period used a Fatwa from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens who were beginning conversion, to raise 4 huge invading armies, well supplied and equipped, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe.   Muslim history of the period makes the army led by Emir Abd er Rahman the one the Caliph expected to end his border problems and expand into the remainder of the old Roman Empire.   Every point you made is disputed not by western historians alone, as you presented, but by ISLAMIC historians of that era.  Again, should you wish to rewrite the article, you must post facts in dispute, source those facts - your version might be partially appropriate for the contemporary Muslim section, but you would have to submit factual sourcing, including the modern histories, et al.. and await reply, discuss and seek agreement, otherwise your edits will be reverted.
::Your arguments against indirect attack, where you claim giving battle to Odo was paramount,  are simply without any basis in reality, and ignores the Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia from 1219 to 1221, which absolutely used those tactics to destroy the largest Islamic Empire since Alp Arslan's, and the second largest since the unified Caliphate, using precisely those tactics of indirect attack you disparage.  Indeed, the Mongols demonstrated by circumventing weaker forces to destroy your paramount enemy first, you destabilize a stronger opponent and destroy him piecemeal.  Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad commanded twice the number of troops, and good ones, which invaded his realm - and was utterly destroyed by indirect attack.  Respectfully, this is ISLAMIC history you are ignoring.
::As is, you are not even citing the Caliphate histories of the era correctly, let alone contemporary Islamic historians. Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers are much more interested in the second Umayyad siege Arab defeat at Constantinople in 718, which ended in an utterly disastrous defeat, with much of the army literally starving. After the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674-678) ended in complete failure, the Umayyad Caliphate attempted a second  attack on the city to finish the Bzyantine Greeks once and for all time. An 80,000 strong army led by the Caliph Umar II's brother Maslama, crossed the Bosporus from Anatolia to besiege Constantinople by land, while a gigantic fleet of Arab war galleys, somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000, sailed into the Sea of Marmara to the south of the city.  Nonetheless,Greek Fire, Bulgar assistance by land to intercept resupply, and the Land Walls of the city resulted in a horrific defeat.  In Europe, the defeat of the naval invasion, primarily the Battle at the River Berre is discussed.  The later era "invasions" you cite were nothing of the kind, they were simply raids by horsemen for loot.  Your revision of history is simply wrong.  In any event, it has to be disputed here, wait for reply, discussed, citing sources, and if agreement cannot be reached, referred to a peer review.  You cannot simply disregard history both Muslim and western writers worked on, and rewrite unilaterally, for POV. old windy bear 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reverting the article pending discussion of major changes

message: I removed this text from the article.  It is quite interesting, and total overkill in an article about the Battle of Tours.  We can make the point that contemporary Muslim histories were more concerned about Constantinople and the relevance of this to Tours without giving a blow by blow history of the eastern war: "After the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674-678) ended in complete failure, the Arabs Umayyad Caliphate attempted a second decisive attack on the city. An 80,000 strong army led by Maslama, the brother of Caliph Umar II, crossed the Bosporus from Anatolia to besiege Constantinople by land, while a massive fleet of Arab war galleys, estimated between 1,800 and 2,000, sailed into the Sea of Marmara to the south of the city. Fortunately for the Byzantines, the great chain kept the fleet from entering the inner harbor, and the Arab galleys were unable to sail up the Bosporus as they were under constant attack and harassment by the Greek fleet, who used Greek fire to level the differences in numbers. (The Byzantine fleet was less than a third of the Arab, but Greek fire swiftly evened the numbers). Emperor Leo III was able to use the famed Walls of Constantinople to his advantage and the Arab army was unable to breach them. (It must be noted that Bulgar forces had come to the aid of the Byzantines, and constantly harassed the Muslim army, and definitely disrupted resupply to the point that much of the army was close to starvation by the time the siege was abandoned.)"  Kaisershatner 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done great work that shouldn't go to waste.  It can be synthesized into the articles about those events without too much trouble, I'm sure.  Kaisershatner 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Constantinople

message: The date is almost certainly, from St. Dennis, and all Arabian sources, October 10, 732.  There are any number of sources as to the date, including Grant, and Antonio Santosuosso, among other historians.  If you have issues requiring "cleaning up" please list them so they can be discussed.  As to the question of whether the great attempt at conquest of Europe was Islamic or Umayyad, this is a moot question.  The Umayyad refers only to the first Caliphate, and the conquests are referred to in both Eastern and Western history as the Islamic Expansion Period - therefore it should be referred to as an attempt at Islamic conquest.  {does anyone object if we delete the Iberian campaign box, and replace it with the Islamic Expansion Era battlebox, which is far more historically appropriate?}  As to the size of the armies, most historians state the size of Abd er Rahman's army at about 80,000, though it is cited as between 60-400,000.  The common citing of 80,000 would make it near the lower number.  As to the frankish army, it was by most accounts badly outnumbered, but at 15.000 would not have been sufficient to have held it's own.  Again, see Arnold, Heather, Martin, Grant, and Creasy.  old windy bear 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umayyad vs. Islamic, the Umayyad period was not the first, the first period was Musim expansion was under the Rashidun caliphates and the Umayyads were anything but Islamic having lost the moral mandate that came with the title under the Rashidun hence the disctintion between them and the Umayyads and the source of numerous revolts during the Umayyad period. I agree most historicans have called it Islamic but I'm sure the Muslims probably made just as little distinction between Visigoths, Franks etc and just called them all Christians. I am not saying they wer not Muslims and were expanding land under Muslim rule I am not going disagree at all that. I simply am of the opinion that most medeival and many historians made no distinctions between one muslim and the other branding them all with the same "tag". It was common in those days to be divided between the Christian world and the Muslim world and raising the banner of christianity of Islam were common catcheisms to rouse the people, and so I am not saying we get rid of such references, they are indeed vital to historical context. I have left Islamic whereever it is quoted as such and that should still give that impression but I strongly disagree that Islamic = Umayyads and beleive it is a very imprecise term.--Tigeroo 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tigeroo With all respect, it does not matter what you or I think - that is original research.  Certainly the righteous caliphs are regarded as such at least by the Sunni community, but the Umayyads are considered the first dynasty of the Caliphate by historians both Muslim and Christian.  You must source any changes, you cannot simply say that the Umayyads were not Muslim or are not Islamic.  Historians regard them as Muslim, and that period as the Islamic Expansion Period. old windy bear 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tigeroo is right, but, more generally, as an encyclopedia we have an obligation to be as specific as possible. Terms such as "Muslim" or "Islamic" expansion are about as unspecific as you can get. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Irishpunktom With all respect, it does not matter what you or I think - that is original research.  Please understand I am not belittling your concerns, and Tigeroo is not correct, for reasons I will explain, but whether or not he, you or I "believe" something is irrelevant to wikipedia or an article in wikipedia.  Certainly the righteous caliphs are regarded as such at least by the Sunni community, but the Umayyads are considered part of the first period of the Caliphate by historians both Muslim and Christian.  Morever, most Shia do not consider the Rashidun caliphates to be all righteously guided - they believe Ali was the Imam.  This is not an article on the theology of Islam, or the varying sects.  As to denying the Umayyad conquests as part of the Islamic Expansion Era, You must source any changes, you cannot simply say that the Umayyads were not Muslim or are not Islamic, and their conquests are not part of the Islamic Expansion Era.  Historians regard them as Muslim, and that period as part of the Islamic Expansion Period. Indeed, the Shia do not believe the Abassid Caliphs to be righeously guided.  So where does that leave the community after the Zab?  I understand your point, but it is poorly made in this context.  The vast majority of Sunni scholars believe the seige of Constandinople of 717 was a disasterous failure by Islam to end the Roman Empire - there is no mention of it not being a part of Islamic conquests!  This article is about the attempt at Islamic Expansion into Gaul, and the macrohistorical impact of the Battle of Tours in halting that attempts.  Whether you or I believe a term to be imprecise is meaningless, because our opinions are meaningless unless you can substantiate them with historical references, adn even then, I would maintain - and I know you agree - that there are as many historical references from Shia scholars who maintain that Abu Bakr was not righteously guided, that he stole the Imamate from Ali, the Prophet's chosen successor.  In any event, again, this is not the article for discussing Islamic theology.  old windy bear 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh?, Maybe there is misunderstanding here I didn't say the Umayyads were not Muslims or of that period of being anything but being a period of regarded as an expansion of the Dar Al Islam even by the muslims. I do not even disagree that that both sides identified themselves primarily in the garb of religion and that historians have seen and defined the period as the same. I am just saying I prefer the usage of term of Umayyad instead of Islamic because Umayyad is more accurate and precise and in usage because of imprecise information on the east. 
You are right the moral authority or the chain of caliphs is actually irrelevant in this discussion and lot of theology that is not necessary to get into for this, it serves as mere background information for context on just why Islamic is an inaccurate term vis-a-vis Umayyad because the period of Rashidun rule is distinct period of historical significance with the time period of the expansions, wether they are Shiia or Sunni they both regard both these time periods as distinct political periods.
I certainly have no bone with mentioning that the entire interaction has been looked at in Islam vs. Christianity context by historians on both sides of the fence and should be mentioned and addressed by the article. All those are moot points. Once again, however the usage of the term Umayyad is more specific and better describes the political entity than a vague Islamic or Muslim and akin to the usage in the same article of Frank or Carolingian vs Christian forces. I think the article uses such terms too interchangeably as a product of numerous editors and can use some rearrangement.--Tigeroo 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. With regard to the date and outcome of the battle the Continuations of Fredegar and The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 date the battle to 734. The latter also says that Martel allowed the remaining Arab forces to slip away by night. Much of the "contemporary analysis" section is editorial and reports a consensus view of the importance of this battle that doesn't exist.  --Ian Pitchford 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: About the Battlebox change, visit Muslim conquests, I've been meaning to work on changing the setup both of that page and the entire way the Expansion era has been dealt with so far. Note the new campaignbox that I made a couple of weeks back that works like you said a larger Early Muslim Expansions campaignbox, note I used the word "early" to encompass both Umayyad and Rashidun time periods and have capped it at the end of the Umayyad period, in that regard the entire Iberian campaign is merely a different theater of the early campaigns. I don't beleive there is a concensus on when the Islamic conquests end, which is why I am pushing for Umayyad. Let me know what you think I am also trying to leave it flexible enough that it can be expanded at later dates, there is a lot of stuff going on across a vast area, just have to set good navigational tools going.--Tigeroo 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ian Pitchford That brings us to the second issue.  Virtually every modern historian now believes the date of the battle was October 10, 732.   While you correctly cite the Continuations of Fredegar and The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, you fail to mention that modern historians do not agree with them on a date in 734, and you do not cite the findings of Michael Grant, or Antonio Santosuosso, or any of the other modern historians who have consistently found that the Battle took place on October 10, 732.  As to your assertation that the section “contemporary analysis” is an editorial that does not reflect the consensus of most modern historians, with all respect, you need more than your opinion.  (And I don't mean that to beliittle your opinion, you write well, but you know as I do that our opinions are irrelevant in a factual issue, only in language questions do opinions come into play)  Who are the majority of modern historians who feel this battle was not of macrohistorical importance?  Antonio Santosuosso certainly believes it macrohistorical, though he believes that Martel’s campaigns of 736-737 were far more vital historically as they were true invasions, meant to size the land and hold it for further expansion in Europe by the Umayyad Caliphate.  Grant thinks it of such vital importance that he listed it as a macrohistorical date in the history of the Roman Era!   Creasy listed it among the 15 military turning points of the history of the world!   Heather does also.  What historians do you refer to?   While there are always historians with deviant views, the majority view is clear on this Battle.  If you wish to edit the contemporary analysis to reflect what you stated, you need to source your findings, and we will compare them with those historians who find differently, and try to reach consensus.   You claim that the section reflects a consensus that does not exist – but you need to source that claim, and cite historians to back that opinion, not simply state it as though it were fact, which frankly, it is not.  Bluntly, the majority, (not all, but you cannot get everyone to agree on anything!) the majority do believe this battle was of macrohistorical importance, and the current contemporary history section was re-written numerous times to reflect the majority view.  If you dispute that, you need to source it, as I certainly can heavily source the section as it is.   Unlike the first question, which is merely one of language, and which Tigeroo and I will resolve, the second, if I understand you correctly, the second dispute is a major factual dispute.  Who are your sources?  Mine are clearly cited, and I have plenty more.  I must say though, even if this is a major factual dispute, we should be able to resolve it with referring to the sources, and achieving language which reflects the facts - I feel this is currently the case, as do the three other people who worked on it, but we are always open to improvement.  old windy bear 21:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: old windy bear you are right we are not very far off at all. The sites you linked to for Islamic expansion both talk of two different time periods, one includes the Abassids and the other stops at Umayyads, and this is the confusion I refer to that there is no standard delineation even in academia on the era and that they are always followed by an explanation on wether the reference is to merely Umayyads or Umayyads and Abbassids, though I being to question those who include Abbassids. If you run a search  you will find plenty of references to Muslim Expansion instead of Islamic as well. Regardless the Ummayyad Period is  is just part of the expansion period and we agree there. The problem is in the Muslim world very few people are even aware of Franks or Visigoths just as in the western world few would know the Umayyads, they just monolithic christian or Islamic entities. I found the same problem with the crusades, even when there were enemy states such as the Fatimids and Abbassids in the opposition they were just random blanket mentioned as Muslims so attack on Egypt or Turkey seem to convey the impression that the same nation was being attacked. Some people have laid it down to medeival Orientalism or limited knowledge, regardless I don't want to get into that because there is a similar problem with muslims seeking a glorious history and trying to see the Abbassid rulers as glorious rulers of a might empire when infact they were held only nominal authority after the first 150 years or so and had no part in the expansions into sicily/italy or the greater expansion by the berbers into the Sahel, references for both positions are not hard to find under such conditions of confusion. My solution is that since the article is supposed to provide information it be clearly mentioned in a section describing the two opponents, early on so that the reader is clear on who the Umayyads are so that they won't be confused later on, I don't really think its too difficult, I can take a shot at it on this article and see what issues come up.--Tigeroo 07:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tigeroo I don't believe we are far off either.  Yes, sadly, you are right that most people simply lump all Muslims together, as they do all christians.  Certainly I would bet that less than one reader in ten even knows the difference between the Abbasids and Umayyads, and of those, less than a tenth know that after the first two centuries, as you say, the Abbasid Caliphs were merely figureheads for the Turcomen Warlords.  How many christians know that Salah Al Din was a Kurd?  That resistance to the 3rd Crusade and the Lion Heart was being led by a Kurd raised in a Turcomen court!   I think your suggestion of a section describing the two opponents is a good one - go ahead and take a stab at it, and whatever issues arise we will work them out together.  old windy bear 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating, general clean up, the term Umayyad, and the size of the forces

message: The Invasion of Iberia, and then Europe, was led by the Umayyad Dynasty (Arabic بنو أمية banū umayya / الأمويون al-umawiyyūn, Persian امویان Omaviyân, Turkish Emevi), also "Umawi", was the first dynasty of caliphs of the Islamic empire after the reign of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) ended.   The Umayyad Caliphate, at the time of the Battle of Tours, was the world’s largest state, and foremost military power.  Great expansion of the Caliphate occurred under the reign of the Umayyads. Muslim armies pushed across North Africa and Iran, through the late 600s, expanding the borders of the empire from the Iberian Peninsula, in the west, to what is today Pakistan, in the east. Forces led by Tariq ibn-Ziyad crossed Gibraltar and established Muslim power in the Iberian peninsula, while other armies established power far away in Sind, in Northern India. The Muslim empire under the Umayyads was now a vast domain that ruled a diverse array of peoples.  It had destroyed what were the two foremost military powers, the Sassanid Empire, which it absorbed completely, and the Eastern Roman Empire, which it essentially left isolated in Constandinople.
The Frankish Realm under Charles Martel was the foremost military power of Europe.  It consisted of what is today most of Germany, the low countries, and part of France.  (Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy).  The Frankish Realm had begun to progress towards becoming the first real imperial power in Europe since the fall of Rome.
What do you think?old windy bear 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, just going to offer a few comments:
*I'm not sure about the assertion of the Frank defeat and the Berber Revolt, there was an entire mawali movement agaisnt arab dominance across the whole empire plus religious differences of the Khariji and Shia that were the primary drivers. 
*Sindh was only added c. 712 (also ancient India or Pakistan are better terms to use for its location) even the Umayyad period has about 3 expansionist pushes but we don't need to get into that really. 
*Largest may also be technically wrong, the Tang dynasty was quite huge though massed together than the Muslims.
*I'm also not sure what role Tariq played after his intial successful foray and that we possibly replaced for political reasons.
*Also strike that sentence about Martel and strengths, doesn't really belong in the introduction for sure, plus they were only pushing on and chasing their early success.
*Was Martel really an established power at this time or did his establishment of power coincide with his repelling the Arabs?
*What does "isolated" imply about the Byzantines, not clear on that.
--Tigeroo 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tigeroo Good morning, my friend, I am glad you liked it - the changes you made are fine, I will answer your comments, then, if you approve of the revised section, we can put it in.
*A number of historians have linked Tours and the death of Abd Er Rahman to the Great Berber revolt of 740.  Losses at Tours were horrific,  Dr. Santosuosso, for instance, wrote "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."  The Berbers, as unarmoured light cavalry, bore the brunt of these losses.  Then they were butchered again just 5 years later at the River Berre. Everyone is always emphasizing how difficult it must have been for unarmoured infantry to stand their ground against a cavalry charge, and I am sure it was, but equally, it was no fun for unarmoured light cavalry to charge again and again against massed battalions of highly motivated - they believed if they lost their families could be killed or sold into slavery -- battalions of the veteran frankish infantry.  Abd Er Rahman was highly respected by the Berbers, and his loss left no one to try to deal with the terrible effect the slaughtering of whole generations in a matter of hours.  Yes, the whole Umayyad struture was rotten, but many historians think the Berber revolt kicked it into open civil war with all the factions.  The Umayyads had completely ignored Qur'anic injuctions about the equality of brotherhood, and their class system was rotten to the core, but again, many hitorians believe the Great Berber Revolt was the spark that ignited the fire.  Of course the Shia were the primary drivers once the race began.  I am going to delete that section though, because there is too much speculation, and to cover it properly it needs an article of it's own.
*Sindh can be better called India or Pakistan, either would be correct, it is up to you!
*Although the Tang dynasty probably had more people, the Umayyad Caliphate was the largest state in the world at the time of the Battle in terms of land mass.
*Tariq got pushed to the side for political reasons as soon as the Umayyad officals saw how great the potential wealth was of a conquered Europe - the religious shrines alone made it increidbly profitable; and spreading Islam was a factor to some of them at least.
*No problem in striking Martel's strength's - it is stated elsewhere and does not belong in this section.
*Martel was an established power by the time of the Battle, though the remainder of his life was spent preparing the realm for his sons - he basically began the setup of the feudal system would see Europe through the Dark Ages.  Militarily, his rule was unquestioned from 718 on, and the Battle of Soissons of 718 was the last of the great pitched battles of the civil war between the heirs of Pepin of Heristal.  In the 14 years which followed it and preceded Tours, Martel would spend most of that time preparing for the Muslim invasions.  He was convinced the Umayyads would return after Toulouse, and he wanted to be ready.  (For instance, only a fluke - the refisal of the beseigers of Toulouse to build outer fortrifications, allowed Eudes to prevail at the Battle of Toulouse.  Martel believed only trained veteran infantry could withstand the Islamic cavalry, and he used church funds to pay the first standing army in the west since Rome's fall, to train year round to fight in a phalanx.)
*"Isolated" about the Bzyantines basically means that their empire was taken from them, and only the Land Walls, Greek Fire, and the Bulgars saved Constandinople in 717.  In 632, when the Prophet died, the Sassanids and the Bzyantines were the foremost military powers in the world - by 732 the Sassanid Empire was completely gone, and the Bzyantine Empire was limited to Constandinople and a few other fortrified cities.
As soon as you make any further needed changes, let me know when you think it is ready, with the changes you feel necessary, and I will insert it in the article.  Thanks for your help! old windy bear 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 
*"Isolated" does not make Byzantine plight clear, just say they had lost Syria, Armenia and North Africa and were struggling to hold onto Anatolia. I think the seige that was mounted was based off naval resources more than a land connection. Could be wrong.
*Lets avoid biggest assertion, its touch and go with the Tang, no doubt they were the primary power in central asia, europe and africa even though the Khazar tested them.
*Sind conquests more closely approximates with the modern state of Pakistan.
*Again the Berber Revolt, I'm not yet convinced for numerous reasons including the continued presence of the Arabs in Septamania for another good 40 years almost though if sourced there is no real objection. On the note there is a different account of the battle on the Charles Martel page which suggests that the Arabs only "lost" because they could not agree on a new general after the death of Abd-er-Rahman, which could need to reconciled with information here.
Go ahead and insert it and then we can edit to mutual satisfaction.--Tigeroo 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tigeroo I will edit it to correct those things you found needing correction, (such as the Tang, and I will leave out the Berber revolt issue - it is really not appropriate here!) then insert the section, and we can mutually edit it if it needs further editing.  On the death of Abd-er-Rahman, and the information on the Charles Martel article, I will reconcile that with this article today, THANKS for catching that!  On the 717 siege of Constandinople, an army of more than 80,000 troops laid land siege while a gigantic fleet attempted siege by sea.  The land invasion was led by the brother of the Caliph, who had overall command of the fleet as well.  The land siege was foiled by the Bulgars whose constant attacks led to starvation as they cut the supply lines, and the troops were unable to breach the legendary land walls.  At sea, greek fire made the difference.  old windy bear 13:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Opponents

message: With reference to OWB's comments above my source for the dispute over the date of the battle is the Oxford Companion to Military History. With regard to the significance of the battle Franco Cardini writes:
:Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliche, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers... (Cardini, Europe and Islam).
Rodney Stark writes:
:..Norman Davies (1996) did not mention either the Battle of Tours or even Charles Martel in his immense History of Europe; and, even in a long paragraph summarizing Martel's military career, Timothy  Reuter barely mentioned Tours. This is because it is now understood that Tours was actually of minor strategic importance and remains of interest only to historians of military technology for being the first major engagement of armored knights. As was understood by the Franks at the time, the Saracen push north was far more of a raid than an invasion (Stark, One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism).
--Ian Pitchford 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates and Significance

message: I don’t mean to denigrate Ian’s sources, but they simply do not compare with William Watson, Michael Grant, Dr. Santosuosso(for starters, among the modern historians), let alone the legandary giants Bury, Gibbon, Creasy, et al.   He maintains that our current contemporary analysis is editorial, and does not reflect the majority of historians.  To buttress this argument, he cites two sources, neither of which is recognized, (sorry, but it is true) on the same level as Gibbon, Bury, Watson, Creasy, or Grant is, as scholars of accomplishments so huge they stand for the ages.  In answering I start with Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes, who remain known to scholars today, and who carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications, which they stated saved Christianity itself.  The implications of that battle remain pretty much – except by Ian and his tiny minority of scholars – as macrohistorical to this day by practically every major historian of mid and modern times.  Gibbon, Bury, Creasy and Watson are just a few of the scholars who cite these contemporary historians.
From contemporaries, I go to quoting Gibbon, whose work is to this day considered the best sourced and most relevant history of the Roman Era.  Gibbon eloquently observed:
::"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; 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. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an 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. ”
Gibbon also said:
::”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race."
With moving language, Edward Gibbon said of the Muslim invasions and Charles Martel
::"in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."
Gibbon called those eight days in 732, the week leading up to Tours, and the battle itself, 
::"the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbors of Gaul [France], from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran."
(all the above Gibbon quotes were, of course, from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle: 
::“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”  Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:
::"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]
In 1922 and 1923, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne published a series of papers, known collectively as the "Pirenne Thesis", which remain influential to this day. Pirenne held that the Roman Empire continued, in the Frankish realms, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century. These conquests disrupted Mediterranean trade routes leading to a decline in the European economy.  Such continued disruption would have meant complete disaster except for Charles Martel's halting of the Umayyad expansion into Europe from 732 on.  What he managed to preserve led to the Carolingian Renaissance, named after him.
Then of course we have Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times.  Creasy argues that the Martel victory: 
::"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.”  From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.
German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Martel and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Muslims, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this
:: "mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
Ranke opined that this period was: 
::"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
(Both these German Historian/Philosophers were quoted by Sir Edward Creasy in 15 Decisive Battles of the World.
In the modern era, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
:: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.
In Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels, Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, makes a compelling case that the defeats of invading Muslim Armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monasteries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of Muslim expansion in Europe while the Caliphate was still united.
Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day.  Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”
:: “As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”
In the series “Leaders and Battles”  database, it states clearly:
:: “Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe.”
Austin Cline wrote of this Battle, in “Christianity and Islam:”
:: “Many regard this battle as being decisive in that it saved Europe from Muslim control.”
David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace wrote of this battle in “The People’s Almanac:”
:: “Charles earned his name "The Hammer," and France never again was invaded by a Moslem Army. Although the Arabs were only raiding, a Frankish defeat at Tours would have led to greater incursions. As it happened, Abdar-Rahman's death brought on a revolt by the Berbers which destroyed Arab unity.”
Mark Whittington in his article “Day of Decision: The Battle of Tours”  says:
::“Along with the defeat at the gates of Constandinople…the Battle of Tours halted Muslim Expansion into Europe.  It has been suggested by numerous historians, including Edward Gibbon that had the Franks been defeated at Tours, the Muslim advance into Europe, then divided into squabbling kingdoms, would  have been unstoppable.   France, Germany, even England, would have fallen to Islam, putting an end to Christian Europe,”
Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says:
::"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."  
William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by Ian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
Finally, Paul Akers, in his editorial on Charles Martel, says for those who value Christianity
::"you might spare a minute sometime today, and every October, to say a silent "thank you" to a gang of half-savage Germans and especially to their leader, Charles "The Hammer" Martel." [].  
 
With all respect to Ian, I think this overwhelms the very few mediocre historians who he cites.  I can and do cite 10 for every cite he makes, and mine are, far more highly regarded.  Is he seriously asking us to put Stark against William Watson, or Davies against Gibbon?   Cardini against Bury?  What about Grant, Martin, Bennett or Santosuosso?  Whittington, Culp, or a dozen other historians or writers all concurring that this Battle turned the fate of the world.  I stated at the onset you can find someone to take any position which exists.  But anyone who studies this era knows the OVERWHELMING number of historians, including every single giant in the field, regards this battle as it is portrayed in the contemporary analysis.   You can find someone to say anything – but the blunt facts are that the VAST majority of historians, as shown above, agree on the impact of this battle. Such a view that the tiny minority espouses ignores the undisputed fact that 4 Emirs of al-Andalus over a 25 year period used a Fatwa from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens who were beginning conversion, to raise 4 huge invading armies, well supplied and equipped, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. No such later attempts however were made, as conflict between the Umayyad Emirate of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe.  Creasy hit the heart of the matter when he quoted Islamic historians in the first 700 years after the Battle; Muslim historians for centuries referred to Tours, notes Creasy, as "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions for Islam. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic)
::"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar) 
This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” puts the importance of the Battle of Tours in macrohistorical perspective from the vast majority view, and if anything the contemporary analysis is understated to keep an encyclopedic tone.
(indeed, we avoided citing the Arab histories that claim this Battle and Abd Er Rahman's death was the spark that flamed into the horrific Berber rebellion of 740, which most historians agree was the catalyst which led to widespread unrest and rebellion throughout the Caliphate, and ended with the Battle of the Zab a decade later, and brought down the Umayyad's altogether except for the Iberian principality - so any claim the contemporary analysis was editorial is absurd, and frankly, we understated the vast majority view).  old windy bear 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect I think you are misunderstanding two Wikipedia key policies: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It's original research to claim that an overwhelming majority of historians endorse a certain point of view. You can quote an historian making this claim, but nothing you mention above falls into this category. Secondly, if the significance of the battle is disputed by historians then that dispute should be reported in the article, citing appropriate sources. Counting my sources above, plus Fouracre, five contemporary historians in the sources I've looked at either implicity or explicitly discount the importance of the Battle of Tours, and I've barely looked at the issue. Some contemporary historians are particularly dismissive of Gibbon. BTW to my knowledge most Arab historians dismiss the battle as insignificant. As Wikipedia editors we don't endorse one perspective or the other, we just report the debate. --Ian Pitchford 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Ian Pitchford|Ian Pitchford]] - the OVERWHELMING majority and the tide of history is against your stance

message: Alas, I fear you misunderstand two Wikipedia key policies: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  It is not original research to say that the majority view  is that this battle was of macrohistorical importance.  You say you found five writers that stated the battle was not of macrohistorical importance.  I cited twenty-one sources and/or historians yesterday, (Bennett’s book has four co-authors) and am citing 9 more today – that is 30 without serious effort – who state it was of macrohistorical importance.  You can carry the idea of no original research to ridiculous extremes – if we followed your definition, we would have to state the evolution is not accepted by the majority of scientists  – after all, it would be original research to say the majority accept evolution as sound science!  We do say that social issues arise out of the science involved, but we don’t challenge the science as being invalid or accepted by the majority – yet if we followed your logic, we could not say the majority of scientists accept evolution as sound science!  The blunt fact is the majority of historians consider the battle of macrohistorical importance.  I have added the qualification that some historians still challenge it’s importance, but they are in the minority.  In the Battle of Chalons we cite J.B. Bury’s minority view that that Battle lacked macrohistorical importance – again, if we followed your definition, we could not do that.  No offense, but your reading of the rules is downright silly.
Your attack on Gibbon is wryly sad, and ignores the facts that Bury, Creasy, and Watson, to name three of the genuine historial giants, all say the same thing! As to Gibbon, his FACTS remain unchallenged to this day, and most historians, yes Ian, most historians, consider him not only the greatest historian on Rome, but the first modern historian, period.  Even Bury, a century later, does not challenge his facts, nor does Heather, a century after Bury, challenge them either in a really fascinating book published last year!   You cannot challenge William Watson, who is considered the paramount historian of that era now living, who states of that battle:
::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
In addition to the twenty-one sources, historians and writers cited yesterday, here are 9 more:
Geoffry Reagan lists this Battle as decisive in world history in The Guinness Book of Decisive Battles, saying
::"The Battle of Tours is considered decisive in world history as it determined whether Europe would remain christian, or fall to Islam.”
Dexter B. Wakefield, in his provocative work “An Islamic Europe” says of the Battle of Tours:
:: “A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg. “ 
Quite naturally, Michael Lee Lanning  includes the Battle of Tours in his important history “The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles.”
::”Europe today would be Muslim…except for Charles Martel’s stand at Tours.”
Godefroid Kurth says in The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on the Battle of Tours:
::” In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”
The Christian History Institute says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
:: “That Islam did not capture all of Europe and wipe out Christianity is owing in part to the Franks' Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, his sturdy Merovingian knights and a courageous infantry. On this day, October 10, 732* Charles met the Islamic invaders between Poiters and Tours in a battle that lasted either two days (Arab sources) or seven (French sources). The Muslims were mounted and their cavalry employed an innovation--the stirrup. The Franks were on foot. Yet the Franks stood like a wall and the Muslims withdrew defeated. Their leader, Abd-ar-Rahman was killed. In their rout, the Arabs suffered heavy losses of men. Europe would remain Christian territory.”
NNDB: Tracking the Entire World, says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
::” a new vali, Abdur Rahman, a member of an extremely fanatical sect, resumed the attack, reached Poitiers, and advanced on Tours, the holy town of Gaul. In October 732 -- just 100 years after the death of Muhammad -- Charles gained a brilliant victory over Abdur Rahman… This was the last of the great Arab invasions of Europe. After his victory Charles took the offensive.”
John H. Haaren says in “Famous Men of the Middle Ages”
::” The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe.   Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle.”
In HistoryWorld, the History of France, says of the Battle of Tours:
::” Here the Arabs are confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel.  It is not known precisely where the battle (known either as Poitiers or Tours) takes place, but it is won by the Franks. It marks the end, in the west, of the apparently inexorable advance of the Arabs.”
The History Channel says in assessing the Battle of Tours:
::” Christendom, the most powerful domain in the world for the past 1500 years, was frequently permeated and even brought to the brink of ruin many times. Three of these "close calls" include: * Battle of Tours (732AD): Charles the Hammer of Franks vs. Abd er Rahman of Moors in France, where Martel killed Rahman, and halted the advance of Islam into Europe.”
And that is 9 more sources – for 30 sources or historians, including every single major historian of the era – and I got them in minutes.  I could get 100 as easily.  Ian, you also are wrong on your misstatement on Muslim assessments of the Battle.  It is true that contemporary Muslim historians are much more interested in the Second Siege of Constandinople in 717.   But the historians of the age the Battle took place, and for the seven centuries after the battle, until the Ottomans started rewriting history, called the battle, as Creasy said: "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic):
::"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar) 
This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” appears to put the importance of the Battle of Tours in Islamic historical perspective in the age it happened, though again, history was rewritten later to minimize the magnitude of the defeat.
In addition, since you brought Islamic scholarship into this, you also fail to mention the connection between the Battle of Tours and the Berber revolt eight years later, which also state starkly the effect the defeat at Tours had on the Umayyad Caliphate.
“ History of the Muslim World Till 1405:  The Making of a Civilization”  by 
Vernon O. Egger in 2003 says on page 154:
::“A revolt of this magnitude had not occurred since the Great Berber Revolt of 740 initiated the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus.”
Eiger points out how Abd Er Rahman’s defeat and death sparked the open revolt of the Berber armies in Iberia, without Rahman’s leadership, the Berbers believed they were thrown pell mell into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, which swiftly led to their revolt in Africa, and like dominos, the remainder of the Umayyad realm collapsed into civil war and chaos.
Why, one might ask, did the defeat at Tours, and the subsequent defeats during the campaigns of 736-7, especially the horrific slaughter of the relief force at the River Berre, enraged the Berbers, and Abd Er Rahman, highly respected by them, was not there to calm the fierce feelings?  Bury discusses bluntly the terrible slaughter of the Berber lighthorse cavalry against the stalwart Frankish infantry, a slaughter which ultimately sparked the rebellion of those Berbers in Iberia, and then in Africa.   That revolt ignited the wholesale rebellions which brought down the Umayyad Caliphate.  You may think this is not a macrohistorical event, but EVERY great historian disagrees.
In his column “Who’s Really Riding the Weaker Horse?” Vox Day writes:
::”The first great wave of Islamic expansion ranged from 632 to 732 A.D.. During this time, Arabia, Persia, northern Africa, northern India and Spain all came under the domination of various Islamic powers; a succession of defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours finally exhausted its momentum. The disintegration of the great caliphates into rival emirates and taifas began almost immediately, starting with the Berber revolt of 740.”
In his book “The End of the Jihad State,” Muslim historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003:
::” Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond.  These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.”
In an online chronology of Islamic History,  the Battle of Tours is listed as being of macrohistorical importance, listed on an Islamic site listing vital chronological Islamic historical dates and interestingly, has these dates leading directly into the Shia and Berber revolts just 8 years after Martel’s crushing defeat of the Umayyad invasion at Tours, and again five years later at Avignon.  The next dates are the Shia and Berber revolts!
::732: The battle of Tours in France. 
::737: The Muslims meet reverse at Avignon in France. 
::740: Shia revolt under Zaid b Ali. Berber revolt in North Africa. 
Certainly one reason for the Berber revolt, according to Muslim histories, was their belief they were forced into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, and their undefeated leader, Charles Martel, see Berber chronology at 
In short, you cannot dispute that the huge majority of historians believe the Battle of Tours was of macrohistorical importance, and you cannot challenge William Watson, J.B. Bury, Grant, Bennett, Santosuosso – certainly Fouracre is not Watson’s equal as a historian, nor are any of the others you cite!   While you attack Gibbon, you don’t say a word about Creasy, Bury, or Watson, all giants in the field, all saying this Battle was pivotal to world history!  We could list all the quotes found on the battle, making the article 100 pages long, or we can say what is plainly and undisputedly the truth – MOST historians, the vast majority, in the west, espouse the view that Martel’s victory was pivotal for Christianity.   You have come up with a few minor league writers, and try to hide behind wikipedia policies which, if we followed your logic, would require us to not make assessments that encyclopedias routinely make.  I said at the onset that a few historians, the minority, devalue this battle.  Nothing you have come up with disabuses that thought.  Quite the opposite.  You are wrong in fact, and wrong in historical assessment.  However, since a relative few modern historians and/or writers do stll devalue the Battle's importance, I added that fact to the contemporary analysis, so that viewpoint is fairly represented.  Ian, I think you mean well, but you simply are wrong historically.  (and I personally don't care one way or the other whether or not this Battle truly stopped the spread of Islam, or preserved Christianity - my concern as a military historian writing in an encyclopedia is to relate how the experts feel, and bluntly, the giants of the field in Europe, Gibbon, Bury, Creasy, Arnold, Heather, Watson, et al, clearly feel it was pivotal to history, and that is what the article needs to reflect.  HOWEVER, you were right to the extent that a minority of writers disagree, and that view is now presented.  But you have to almost laugh, Cardini's statement that no one still views the battle as crucial, when Watson, a historian for the ages, says 
::::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
That pretty much says it all.  Cardini's statement was absurd.  However, as an encyclopedia, that viewpoint, absurd or not, did need to be presented, and now has been.  old windy bear 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Historians are still against your stance

message: The claim of "minority" and "majority" views is original research unless it's sourced. It's as simple as that. According to Bernard Lewis: "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement at all, present it as a minor skirmish." (Islam and the West p. 11). A few more:
*Joseph F O'Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain
:The battle has been traditionally regarded as one of the decisive contests in history, on the supposition that, had the Moslems won, the whole of Gaul would have been theirs, but it does not appear that they had the capability to extend their rule over Gaul. 
*Alessandro Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent
:Today, historians tend to play down the signifcance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Arab force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours.
*Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World
:Charles Martel and an army of Franks defeated what was probably a Muslim raiding party at the battle of Tours and Poitiers. European writers (Edward Gibbon is often cited) have emphasized the signifcance of this victory, while Muslim historians seem to attach much less importance to the battle or its conclusion.
*Robert Cowley, Geoffrey Parker, The Reader's Companion to Military History
:Previously accepted ideas about the importance of this battle have not been sustained by recent scholarship. Charles' victory did not represent a defense of Europe against an Islamic invasion. Leo the Isaurian's defense of Constantinople and the Visigothic leader Pelayo's victory at Covadonga in northern Spain already had stopped the Muslim advance. Nor did the victory at Poitiers end Muslim raids into Frankish territory...
*Tomaz Mastnak, Crusading Peace: Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order
:Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle... pictured tha battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens.
--Ian Pitchford 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to OWB

message: Ian, I am sorry it has come to asking you if you will agree to arbitration.  I always try to reach consensus, but in this case, I feel I have tried, and you are just unwilling to look at this factually, historically, and realistically.
First, of the five new quotes you present, only 2 of them actually oppose the Battle as a macrohistorical event.  Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World is ambivulent about the Battle; Joseph F O'Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain is also ambivulent, speculating that the Muslims in Iberia lacked the capacity to extend their rule to Gaul had they won – at best, this is subjective speculation, and like Ms. Beckett, does not flatly state that Gibbon and company are wrong. Alessandro Barbero, in Charlemagne: Father of a Continent also is speculative, stating that today’s historians now understate the decisiveness of the Battle – a position he opposes, interestingly, and a position which is factually incorrect in any event.  So of the 5 new quotes you present, three of them are no help to your position, and one actually supports the macrohistorical nature of the event!  (Barbero) That leaves 2 which do support your contention, plus the two earlier quotes against 40 sources presented below, all of which are crystal clear, all of which make all out statements that the event was macrohistorical in nature, decisive for world history.  Ian, you are generally a good editor, so I am at a loss why you would seriously offer 4 quotes from little known writers against ten times that number, including flat all out analysis of this Battle's macrohistorical importance by the greatest western historians of all time, and assert that these 4 statements represent an equal historical position to that of ten times their number, by the greatest historians of western civilization.   Bluntly, your position is original research in it's very worst form, though I don't think you see it for what it is.
You are yourself engaging in original research by attempting to rewrite history by asserting that a tiny minority viewpoint is the scholarly equal of the viewpoint which is taught in practically every institution of learning in the west.  You named a total of 4 sources saying it was not a macrohistorical event.  I just named 40, below, and could name 40 more.  Ian, you are simply incorrect that labeling 4 views of scholars not considered in the first rank of historians, (with the exception of Lewis, who is generally discredited these days because he allowed his political views to so color his historical analysis), is a view equal to that of 40 including six of the truly great scholars of history, Gibbon, Bury, Creasy, Watson, Benes, and Theophanes.  Your position is outrageous original research and rewriting of history though again, I cannot believe, based on your record of good editing, that you see what you are doing.  You are trying to rewrite history to purport that scholars are equally arrayed on this issue, when that is simply not the case.  We need at this point to ask for arbitration.  I could find a quote saying Watson's is the majority view, but I don't believe that would be the proper way to handle this situation - Ian, you know at least as well as I do, that if we allow anyone to assert that a minority viewpoint, with NOT ONE of the great historians advocating that minority viewpoint, is as advocated by teachers as the views of Watson and Bury, it would open Pandora's Box to allow anyone with a POV to assert a tiny minority viewpoint is equal to the accepted history.  I dispute your contention that your finding 4 second rank scholars comes remotely close to being an equal evaluation of the historical event painstakingly analyzed by the truly great scholars of history.  Your contention would mislead readers who don't know the era to believe there is a genuine controversy, where there is none.  Your original research would mislead unknowing readers into believing that scholars are equally arrayed on both sides of this issue - and nothing could be further from the truth.  The obligation of an encyclopedia is to present facts, and it is not fact that this issue has scholars equally arrayed in opposition on the impact of this Battle.  Yes, there is a small minority who don't believe the implications of the battle are profound.  But you cannot, and will not, address the issue that EVERY major historian, including the greats of history, all agree on this Battle's importance.  We have to stop this sort of thing.  It is not personal, but an honest disagreement that needs arbitration.  I feel we have an obligation to protect the unknowing reader who comes to us in good faith by presenting the facts as they are - and not as anyone would like them to be.  This is a small sample of the VAST MAJORITY OPINION, which, unlike the ambivulent statements you cited, flatly state the contemporary analysis as it evolved through time, and why:    
*Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes, who remain known to scholars today, and who carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications, which they stated saved Christianity itself.  
From contemporaries, I go to quoting Gibbon, whose work is to this day considered the best sourced and most relevant history of the Roman Era.  
*Gibbon eloquently observed:
::"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; 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. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an 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. ”
*Gibbon also said:
::”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race." 
*Gibbon called those eight days in 732, the week leading up to Tours, and the battle itself, 
::"the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbors of Gaul [France], from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran."
(all the above Gibbon quotes were, of course, from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
*John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle: 
::“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”  Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
*Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:
::"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]
*In 1922 and 1923, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne published a series of papers, known collectively as the "Pirenne Thesis", which remain influential to this day. Pirenne held that the Roman Empire continued, in the Frankish realms, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century. These conquests disrupted Mediterranean trade routes leading to a decline in the European economy.  Such continued disruption would have meant complete disaster except for Charles Martel's halting of the Umayyad expansion into Europe from 732 on.  What he managed to preserve led to the Carolingian Renaissance, named after him.
*Then of course we have Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times.  Creasy argues that the Martel victory: 
::"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.”  From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.
*German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Martel and their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Muslims, while they also praise him as driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this
:: "mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
* Ranke opined that this period was: 
::"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
*(Both these German Historian/Philosophers were quoted by Sir Edward Creasy in 15 Decisive Battles of the World.
*In the modern era, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
:: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
*Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.
*In Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels, Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, makes a compelling case that the defeats of invading Muslim Armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monasteries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of Muslim expansion in Europe while the Caliphate was still united.
*Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day.  Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”
::“As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”
*In the series “Leaders and Battles”  database, it states clearly:
::“Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe.”
*Austin Cline wrote of this Battle, in “Christianity and Islam:”
::“Many regard this battle as being decisive in that it saved Europe from Muslim control.”
*David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace wrote of this battle in “The People’s Almanac:”
::“Charles earned his name "The Hammer," and France never again was invaded by a Moslem Army. Although the Arabs were only raiding, a Frankish defeat at Tours would have led to greater incursions. As it happened, Abdar-Rahman's death brought on a revolt by the Berbers which destroyed Arab unity.”
*Mark Whittington in his article “Day of Decision: The Battle of Tours”  says:
::“Along with the defeat at the gates of Constandinople…the Battle of Tours halted Muslim Expansion into Europe.  It has been suggested by numerous historians, including Edward Gibbon that had the Franks been defeated at Tours, the Muslim advance into Europe, then divided into squabbling kingdoms, would  have been unstoppable.   France, Germany, even England, would have fallen to Islam, putting an end to Christian Europe,”
*Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says:
::"few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."  
*William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by Ian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
He also said:
::"one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."
*Paul Akers, in his editorial on Charles Martel, says for those who value Christianity
::"you might spare a minute sometime today, and every October, to say a silent "thank you" to a gang of half-savage Germans and especially to their leader, Charles "The Hammer" Martel." [].  
 
*Geoffry Reagan lists this Battle as decisive in world history in The Guinness Book of Decisive Battles, saying
::"The Battle of Tours is considered decisive in world history as it determined whether Europe would remain christian, or fall to Islam.”
*Dexter B. Wakefield, in his provocative work “An Islamic Europe” says of the Battle of Tours:
:: “A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg. “ 
*Michael Lee Lanning  includes the Battle of Tours in his important history “The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles.”
::”Europe today would be Muslim…except for Charles Martel’s stand at Tours.”
*The Jewish Virtual Library  says
::"October 10, 732 AD marks the conclusion of the Battle of Tours, arguably one of the most decisive battles in all of history."
*Godefroid Kurth says in The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on the Battle of Tours:
::”In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”
*The Christian History Institute says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
::“That Islam did not capture all of Europe and wipe out Christianity is owing in part to the Franks' Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, his sturdy Merovingian knights and a courageous infantry. On this day, October 10, 732* Charles met the Islamic invaders between Poiters and Tours in a battle that lasted either two days (Arab sources) or seven (French sources). The Muslims were mounted and their cavalry employed an innovation--the stirrup. The Franks were on foot. Yet the Franks stood like a wall and the Muslims withdrew defeated. Their leader, Abd-ar-Rahman was killed. In their rout, the Arabs suffered heavy losses of men. Europe would remain Christian territory.”
*NNDB: Tracking the Entire World, says of Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours:
::”a new vali, Abdur Rahman, a member of an extremely fanatical sect, resumed the attack, reached Poitiers, and advanced on Tours, the holy town of Gaul. In October 732 -- just 100 years after the death of Muhammad -- Charles gained a brilliant victory over Abdur Rahman… This was the last of the great Arab invasions of Europe. After his victory Charles took the offensive.”
*John H. Haaren says in “Famous Men of the Middle Ages”
::”The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe.   Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle.”
*In HistoryWorld, the History of France, says of the Battle of Tours:
::”Here the Arabs are confronted by an army of Franks led by Charles Martel.  It is not known precisely where the battle (known either as Poitiers or Tours) takes place, but it is won by the Franks. It marks the end, in the west, of the apparently inexorable advance of the Arabs.”
*The History Channel says in assessing the Battle of Tours:
::”Christendom, the most powerful domain in the world for the past 1500 years, was frequently permeated and even brought to the brink of ruin many times. Three of these "close calls" include: * Battle of Tours (732AD): Charles the Hammer of Franks vs. Abd er Rahman of Moors in France, where Martel killed Rahman, and halted the advance of Islam into Europe.”
*It is true that contemporary Muslim historians are much more interested in the Second Siege of Constandinople in 717.   But the historians of the age, and for the seven centuries after the battle, until the Ottomans started rewriting history, called the battle, as Creasy said: as "the deadly battle" and "the disgraceful overthrow." Indeed, Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic):::"This deadly defeat of the Muslims, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year." (of the Islamic calendar) 
*This quote, from a portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” appears to put the importance of the Battle of Tours in Islamic historical perspective in the age it happened, though again, history was rewritten later to minimize the magnitude of the defeat.
*There is also the connection between the Battle of Tours and the Berber revolt eight years later, which also state starkly the effect the defeat at Tours had on the Umayyad Caliphate.
*“History of the Muslim World Till 1405:  The Making of a Civilization”  by 
Vernon O. Egger in 2003 says on page 154:
::“A revolt of this magnitude had not occurred since the Great Berber Revolt of 740 initiated the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus.”
Eiger points out how Abd Er Rahman’s defeat and death sparked the open revolt of the Berber armies in Iberia, without Rahman’s leadership, the Berbers believed they were thrown pell mell into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, which swiftly led to their revolt in Africa, and like dominos, the remainder of the Umayyad realm collapsed into civil war and chaos.
*Why, one might ask, did the defeat at Tours, and the subsequent defeats during the campaigns of 736-7, especially the horrific slaughter of the relief force at the River Berre, enrage the Berbers, when Abd Er Rahman, highly respected by them, was not there to calm the fierce feelings?  Bury discusses bluntly the terrible slaughter of the Berber lighthorse cavalry against the stalwart Frankish infantry, a slaughter which ultimately sparked the rebellion of those Berbers in Iberia, and then in Africa.   That revolt ignited the wholesale chaos which brought down the Umayyad Caliphate.  You may think this is not a macrohistorical event, but EVERY great historian disagrees.
*Indeed, the site "Civil War and the Umayyads"  by Richard Hooker emphasizes the slaughter of the Muslim army during Martel's campaigns of 736-7, (agreeing in this with Dr. Santosuosso, who while paying tribute to Martel's great victory at Tours, maintains that the invasions of 736 were more dangerous than Tours to Christianity, and Martel's enormous triumphs in crushing those armies devastated any hope Islam had of conquering Europe)  The site "Civil War and the Umayyads" says: 
::"During this period, the Muslims expanded out of Spain and into France until their advance was finally stopped by the Franks in 736." 
*In his column “Who’s Really Riding the Weaker Horse?” Vox Day writes:
::”The first great wave of Islamic expansion ranged from 632 to 732 A.D.. During this time, Arabia, Persia, northern Africa, northern India and Spain all came under the domination of various Islamic powers; a succession of defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours finally exhausted its momentum. The disintegration of the great caliphates into rival emirates and taifas began almost immediately, starting with Berber revolt of 740.”
*In his book “The End of the Jihad State,” Muslim historian Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003:” Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond.  These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.”
*In an online Chronology of Islamic History,  the Battle of Tours is listed as being of macrohistorical importance, listed on an Islamic site listing vital chronological Islamic historical dates and interestingly, has these dates leading directly into the Shia and Berber revolts just 8 years after Martel’s crushing defeat of the Umayyad invasion at Tours, and again five years later at Avignon.  The next dates are the Shia and Berber revolts!
::732: The battle of Tours in France. 
737: The Muslims meet reverse at Avignon in France. 
740: Shia revolt under Zaid b Ali. Berber revolt in North Africa. 
*Certainly one reason for the Berber revolt, according to Muslim histories, was their belief they were forced into dangerous combat with the fierce Franks, and their undefeated leader, Charles Martel, see Berber chronology at 
That is 40 views disputing your 4.  And the 40 include every great Western historian of the ages.  I really regret it, but we need arbitration on this issue.  No one, not even a good proven writer can be allowed to assert that a viewpoint advocated by a tiny minority of second rank writers is equivilent to that of all the great historians of our time, and all time.  That is the very worst kind of original research.  An encyclopedia presents the facts.  The facts are that most scholars teach what is presented above.  Ian, I am a firm believer in Occam's razor in the John Stuart Mill version -- the answer to a problem is usualy the obvious one.  To allow your stance would mislead uninformed readers to believe that there are two equal and opposing views of this battle, with scholars equally arrayed on both sides.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more original research.  I don't believe this is your intent, but alas, that, would be the result.  old windy bear 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You are still wrong

message: Arbitration does not deal with content disputes - these go to RfC and/or mediation. The sources you dismiss above include one of the most eminent western scholars of Islamic history who is clear about the fact that "Arab historians, if they mention this engagement at all, present it as a minor skirmish" and other perfectly well qualified historians who argue that Christian contemporaries also consider the battle of little importance. You quote Bede as supporting the interpretation that Tours was significant, but all Bede says is:
:a dreadful plague of Saracens ravaged France with miserable slaughter; but they not long after in that country received the punishment due to their wickedness. (The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England: Also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 291).
You quote Blankship in support of the notion that the battle was of crucial importance, though he writes: "...its impact was less severe or direct than that of battles farther east". (The End of the Jihad State, p. 163).
I wont bother looking at the many websites you quote as these are hardly reliable sources for Wikipedia. One source you do cite extensively above (Antonio Santosuosso), and in the article, and in others you have re-written such as my stub on the Battle of Avignon where you write that "Santosuosso describes the campaigns of Tours and 736-737 by Martel and the Franks as macrohistorical in their halt of the Islamization of Europe". In fact Santosuosso says almost nothing about Tours, but what he does say is:
:We know very little about the Battle of Poitiers (or Tours), although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P. K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave almost a thousand miles from its starting place in Gibraltar, had reached a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself." The main problem was jealousy and discord between the Arabs and Berbers. (Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, p. 126). 
How do you explain this discrepancy between what Santosusso writes and what you report? --Ian Pitchford 11:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another response to OWB

message: Unfortunately, Ian, you are wrong again because you either did not read the book, or don't understand what a historian does.  The statements you report as Santosusso's are actually his reporting what a Muslim historian named Hitti who actually published those claims in a book The History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present" in 1964, under the name "Hitti" though page 126 refers to him as "Hatti." These statements were a demonstration of an Islamic historian versus the Christian view.  
What Santosusso wrote in Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels on page 126 and 127, as his own conclusions, - I have the book - is:
::"what we can say with certainty is that it (the Battle) took place on a Saturday in October in 732.  The Franks and Muslims faced each other for six days, probably only skirmishes took place.  But the Muslims lost patience and attacked on the seventh day.  They played into the hands of the Franks, who were expecting them, deployed in a compact phalanx.  They stood like a wall of ice, one source said.  The Muslims must have renewed their attack, probably with cavalry, several times.  Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."  Casualities included their own commander, Abd ar-Rahman al-Gafiqi.  The struggle stopped at night's end.  In the morning, the Franks lined up, ready to renew the fighting, the Muslim forces had left the battlefield during the night.
::"About two years later the new governor of al-Andulas, Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj again moved into France to avenge the defeat at Poiters and to spread Islam.  It is said he converted about 2,000 Christians he had captured over his career.  After assembling forces at Saragossa he entered French territory in 735, crossed the River Rhone and captured and looted Arles.  From there he struck into the heart of Provence, ending with the capture of Avignon, despite strong resistence.  Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj's forces remained in French territory for about four years, carrying raids to Lyons, Burgundy, and Piedmont.   Again Charles Martel came to the rescue, reconquering most of the lost territories in two campaigns in 736 and 739, except for the city of Narbonne, which finally fell in 759.  The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poiters.  Yet it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes, though raids continued."
You also neglect to mention, when you quote Hitti's findings out of context that Santosusso himself referred to the expedition into Gaul by the Muslims in 732 as "the next major expedition" and referenced the Battle as "the stage was set for a major confrontation."  Those were his own words, which you "forgot" to mention, also on page 126.
On page 212 Santosusso said:
::The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..."
So to specifically refute your latest sadly wrong claim, the statements you attribute to Santosusso are actually his reporting what Hitti had asserted 42 years ago - Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle himself to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation" and "stemming of the muslim advance in 732" on page 212, which contradicts what he reports that Hatti said on page 126 that you refer to.  His description of the Battle, and his flat statements on "it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes," shows his own conclusions, which were what I reported.  If you had read the book, and then followed up by reading Hitti's work, and the other references, you would have known he was reporting conflicting views of the battle between Hitti, a Muslim historian, and his own view, which he made clear on pages 126-127 and 212.   Further, he credits Martel with injecting martial vigor into Christianity, which to that point had lacked it to the degree it was present in Islam, another vital factor in halting the spread of Islam into Europe.  He finds that change beginning at this Battle, again, see page 212.  In reviewing his book, you have to discern - which you unfortunately could not - between his reporting what other sources said, and his own conclusions.   His own words, with no references, are crystal clear:
::"The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..."
Again, he refers to losses so horrific for Islam in this battle that:
"Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."
Finally, I accurately summed up Santosusso's findings that the Battle was of macrohistorical importance, but Martel's later campaigns were more so, which the direct quotes certainly agree with.
NOW, since we are asking why people cannot explain quotes, (you really should read the book before trying to decipher what it means) why don't you explain William Watson's findings, since he is considered, with Santosusso, to be the greatest historian of that era living.   William Watson, a far more highly regarded modern historian than any quoted by you, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
Or why don't you explain Creasy's findings, since he is generally recognized as the greatest military historian of western history: Creasy argues that the Martel victory: 
::"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.”  From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy.
Or why don't you explain Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
:: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
Or what about Bury, generally conceded to be the greatest all time historian of that era?  John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle: 
::“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”  Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
If you need me to explain why historians quote other historians, as Santosusso did Hitti, they are analyzing the event from all perspectives.  Santosusso's own views are what I always reported them, which you would have known had you read the book.  He felt that Tours was a macrohistorical event, "The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" but that the later campaigns were more so -  "The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poiters.  Yet it's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition accross the Pyrennes, though raids continued."
You are still wrong, and I am disappointed that you could not tell the difference between a professor analyzing other scholars, and his own views.  I will be glad to explain it to you, and don't mind helping you, but this reinforces your misunderstanding of not just this Battle, but of how to ascertain it's place in history.  old windy bear 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian is wrong again

message: OWB writes "The statements you report as Santosusso's are actually his reporting what Hatti claimed, and the demonstration of an Islamic historian versus the Christian view". Actually no, the quotation is exactly as reported, the remarks about mythology are Santosuosso's and the introduction to the comments imply no disagreement:
:We know very little about the Battle of Poitiers (or Tours), although mythology has it as one of the greatest battles of all time. But as P. K. Hatti succinctly states, "In reality, it [Poitiers] decided nothing. The Arab-Berber wave almost a thousand miles from its starting place in Gibraltar, had reached a natural standstill. It had lost its momentum and spent itself." The main problem was jealousy and discord between the Arabs and Berbers. (Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, p. 126). 
That is, Santosuosso says that it is in mythology that Tours is "one of the greatest battles of all time" (citing Creasy as the person responsible for the mythology) and then quotes Hatti's comments, which have nothing at all to do with the "Islamic historian versus the Christian view". Actually the author in question is Philip K Hitti, not Hatti and his words were "In reality nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours". I note that in the rest of what you quote from pages 126 and 127 Santosuosso says nothing about the extraordinary importance of Tours and says, as you report, "The second expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Tours. Yet its [i.e., not Tours] failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees, although raids continued", but you miss out his final conclusion that "And internal turmoil in the Muslim lands often made enemies out of his own kind". There's absolutely nothing at all here about a key role for Martel or the "macrohistorical importance" of Tours. Your partial quotation from page 212 "The stemming of the muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish Kings decision to become the champions of Papal claims..." reads in full "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war". Again, nothing about the "macrohistorical importance" of Martel's victory. Whatever Santosuosso says in his popular book, you've provided no rationale at all for discounting the contemporary Arab and Christian accounts that report the battle as a minor skirmish or for dimssing the views of modern (and by that I don't mean nineteenth century) historians that a skirmish is exactly what it was, other political, military and social developments being responsible for the halt in Umayyad expansion. I suspect that you really don't understand that claims derived from your own interpretations are original research. We report what historians say, nothing else, and we don't rank them and their views in some sort of arbitrary scheme devised by Wikipedia editors. --Ian Pitchford 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Santosuosso says

message: Ian, indeed, we report what historians say - like all the historians whose words you so selectively refuse to address, such as Bury, Gibbon, Arnold, Creasy, Bennett, Grant, Martin, Schlegel and Ranke, and most importantly in this era, William Watson.   Also, once again you report only part of was said in the sole book and writer you will discuss, and continue to engage in selective quoting and original research.  You admit that Santosuosso said on page 212: 
::"The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war".
What do you think the author was referring to in the words "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war" if such was not an event of historical importance?  "Stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" -- that is this battle, which is specifically cited by Dr. Santosuosso, the same Dr. Santosuosso you try to claim was not citing this battle as an event of importance!  And this was one of those passages, like calling this Battle a "major confrontation" "stemming" - also his word! - a "major expedition," also his words, which you forgot to cite, in your selective claims on this book!  As you forgot he refers to losses so horrific for Islam in this battle that: "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."
Further, you finally admit that Santosuosso's citing of Hitti, (and you did not even give the correct spelling of his name, or the fact his book was 42 years old, or that he was a Muslim scholar until I pointed those facts out to you!) the citing of Hitti's viewpoint was in direct contrast to that to Sir Edward Creasy's, thus pointing out the difference in the cultural perspective.  The fact that Santosuosso chose to cite Hitti and contrast him to Creasy, on the same page he called the Battle of Tours a "major confrontation" in response to a "major expedition" rather than stating Hitti's findings himself without citing him is clear and convincing proof that Santosuosso was contrasting perspectives rather than stating his own findings. 
 
With all respect, you failed to point out Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle in his own words to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation."  These words alone leave great doubt that his quotation of Hitti was anything more than a reference to an Islamic perspective as opposed to the accepted christian one as defined by Creasy. But of course there is more.  Indeed, he credits Martel and his progeny with injecting martial vigor into Christianity, which to that point had lacked it to the degree it was present in Islam, another vital factor in halting the spread of Islam into Europe.  He finds that change beginning at this Battle, again, see page 212!  When you combine those references by Dr. Santosuosso about this battle on page 126, ("major expedition, "major confrontation")to his reference on page 212 of "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war," those combined passages and his choice of words removes any doubt that he was only citing Hitti as a counter reference to Creasy, and his own opinion was this was a macrohistorical event, abeit one that took second place to Martel's further victories in 736 onward.
Anyone citing this book as a primary source should research it's references, and they would not misspell Hitti's name, or fail to point out that was a quote from an Islamic scholar, or fail to point that Dr. Santosusso himself clearly referred on page 126 when analyzing the battle himself to the invasion of 732 as a "major expedition," to the Battle as a "major confrontation," or make a moving reference to the huge casualities of the Muslim army being so massive they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs."  Nor would a researcher forget Dr. Santosusso states on 212 that "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732" was part of vital development in the Christian ethos towards war, so that they could match the Muslim ferocity and defend themselves sucessfully!
I always stated in referencing Santosusso exactly what the book presented: that the Battle at Tours was a (Santosusso's words) "major confrontation" which halted, (again in Santosusso's words) a "major expedition."  However, I also always pointed out that Santosusso's viewpoint was so interesting precisely because he thought the later campaigns of Charles Martel were even more important, as they, again in Santosusso's words, defeated the invading Muslims with such devastating effect, that that "failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees."
Further, you act as though the entire matter of the macrohistorical importance of Tours depending on Dr. Santosusso - quite the contrary, his work is mostly relevant in the article for it's pointing that while Tours was a (his words) "major confrontation" which ended a "major expedition" into Europe, that Martel's later campaigns are even more macrohistorical as they ended those expeditions forever.  Indeed, despite your trying to frame this as though he is the only scholar in the debate, he is FAR from the only historian to argue about Tours, but his emphasis on the later campaigns does make him particularly interesting, as he is virtually alone in stressing the later campaigns of Martel over Tours.
While misspelling Hitti's name, and misciting Santosusso, you still refuse to even address Bury, Gibbon, Arnold, Creasy, Bennett, Grant, Martin, Schlegel and Ranke, and most importantly in this era, William Watson.  Their words on the battle:
*John Bagnell Bury, perhaps the second greatest historian of the Roman Era after Gibbon, and generally recognized as the best historian of medieval Europe, said of this Battle: 
::“The Battle of Tours…has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”  Page 374 of the Cambridge Medieval History.
*Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in its signal effect on all of modern history:
::"Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." [History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.]
*Sir Edward S. Creasy, considered the greatest western military historian of modern times.  Creasy argues that the Martel victory: 
::"preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilizations.”  From “15 Decisive Battles of the World” by Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy
*Schlegel speaks of this
:: "mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam."
*Ranke opined that this period was: 
::"one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions."
*Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) say that
:: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
*Michael Grant, author of History of Rome, finds the Battle of Tours of such importance that he lists it in the machrohistorical dates of the Roman era.
*Gibbon eloquently observed:
::"A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; 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. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an 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. ”
*Gibbon also said:
::”yet the victory of the Franks was complete and final...the Arabs never resumed the conquest of Gaul, and they were soon driven beyond the Pryenees by Charles Martel and his valiant race." and "in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."
*Robert W. Martin, The Battle of Tours is still felt today, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffects remain to this day.  Martin, in an article in the Magazine “Military History” says”
::“As the battle of Tours came to a close on the evening of October 10, 732 AD, Charles "the Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army had defeated a large Moslem army under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. What they could not conceive at the time was the fact that they had participated in one of the most decisive battles in all of history.”
*William Watson, a legendary modern historian, says in Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1 (1993)
::“After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period.”
What about these historians and writers?  What you sought to do, and failed, is attempt to miscite a quotation in Dr. Santosuosso's book.  You did not even get the name of the Muslim historian he was quoting spelled correctly, and by that miscitation, and failure to include very relevant passages in that book such as the fact he found Tours a "major confrontation" which stopped a "major expedition," and that he found "Their casualities were so high that they called the battle's location "the pavement of Martyrs," the vitally important passage on 212 about Martel's "stemming of the Muslim advance in 732" -- by those ommissions you mislead the average reader who has not read Dr. Santosuosso's book. I believe that your very selective misciting, and refusing to address the dozens of other writers and historians, is  original research and point of view. old windy bear 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Santosuosso really says

message: OWB asks 'What do you think the author was referring to in the words "The stemming of the Muslim advance at Poitiers in 732 and the Frankish kings' decision to become the champions of Papal claims against the Longobards in Italy strengthened the Christian acceptance of the idea of war" if such was not a macrohistorical event?' This is the point: as Wikipedia editors we don't interpret what is being said, we report it, with references and without editorial commentary. If we do make an interpretation that's original research. With regard to spelling its Santosuosso who refers to Hitti as Hatti and misquotes his book on p. 126. Hitti was a Christian and therefore his words do not constitute "a reference to an Islamic perspective"; indeed Santosuosso's book gives no indication of the interpretation that you put on it, but then why try to interpret the book at all, why not just quote it and let readers decide what it means? As you say "What about these historians and writers?" and you've provided no argument as to why all of the historians who disagree with the viewpoint you present should not be quoted and cited in the article and so I'll go ahead and include them. I'll also remove anything that's not sourced, in accordance with Wikipeida policy. --Ian Pitchford 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Santosuosso really says - really

message: I cannot figure out what is the end of Sir Edward Creasy's quote in the section, "Muslim conquests from Hispania".  There is a double quote, then another at the beginning of the verse, another at the end of the verse, an apparent continuation of his quote, then another set of double quotes before yet more verse, finally ending in a last set of double quotes.  The original double quotes never appear to be terminated.  Can someone familiar with the source material clarify, please?
Mmccalpin 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear quotation in Muslim conquests from Hispania section 

message: It seems like there are too many duelling quotes near the end of the article,  Maybe some of the less essential quotes could be pruned, and the current state of historical debate on the issue could be summarized... AnonMoos 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more! --Ian Pitchford 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will undertake to edit it this weekend, and then Ian can have a look to see if he thinks it has been done fairly.  old windy bear 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ewulp AnonMoos Ian Pitchford I am drawing up a new version of the end of the article, eliminating a number of the dueling quotes, but leaving enough to allow people to see there is a genuine dispute among historians (and people!) over this battle's place in history.  I will post it HERE, for discussion, on saturday, and welcome input from everyone, so hopefully when a new ending is posted, it has consensus and avoids an edit war.  I welcome everyone's input.  Again, my suggestion for the article's ending - and it already has GA Class, so we don't want to destroy what has brought it a fair amount of praise and a high rating - will be posted at 8pm eastern on saturday, and I hope anyone interested will help participate in rewriting the ending somewhat. Ewulp, you are probably the best writer I know, so I am really hopeful you will help, and Ian, you obviously have disagreed with my views, so it would help if you contributed to balance the article.  Anon, you are a good editor, and again, could help.  Thanks!  old windy bear 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duelling quotes

message: This page is 197kb long! AnonMoos 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions need some archiving

message: If Europe was in such turmoil and chaos at this time in an unstable time period, then what kept Islām from spreading further into Europe. Why did it just stop abruptly and put to a halt when Islām is such a determined religion? I'm only asking about for the time period of about 50-100 years, I don't want any info on the attack on Austria less than 1000 year later.
::Simple answer:  The Muslim Caliphate collapsed into civil war 18 years after this battle.  This battle, and the period before and about 10 years after, were the window in which the Muslims could have overwhelmed Europe, but were beaten back by the Franks.  That is close to the period you are asking about - from the first incursions into Europe in the 720's from Iberia, to Martel's crushing defeats of the last invading armies in the 736-9 period.   Most historians believe Charles Martel and the Frankish army were the primary factor in stopping them.  Martel spent a large part of his life preparing for, and fighting off, Islamic invasions of Europe over the Pyrenees.  The fact the Byzantine Empire defeated the Caliphate decisively at the second seige of Constandinople also factored in enormously, as did Eudes the Great's defeat of the first Gaulic invasion at Toulouse, buying Martel time to build his veteran infantry which would stand so stoutly for him at Tours and in the later campaigns.  old windy bear 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Military historian Victor Davis Hanson acknowledges the debate on this battle, citing historians both for and against its macrohistorical placement, but argues that its impact is undeniable:
:Old Windy Bear, this seems to me an improved presentation & better organized, although I would switch the order of the 1st two sections, putting the Last Umayyad Invasions of Gaul ahead of the historical summary. I've started working on an edit that might condense the material further, and I should have some suggestions soon.Ewulp 00:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ewulp I went ahead and switched the two sections as you suggested, and put in the improved presentation, but please feel free to continue to edit it, condensing the material further, or anything else you feel might improve it. I am going to remove the cleanup notice tomorrow unless someone else comes up with something else - the article has been exhaustively reviewed, and received a GA rating, so I think the main concerns have been, or are being, dealt with.  old windy bear 07:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Old Windy Bear I've nearly finished work on an edit which follows your version pretty closely, except for a few abridgements & a rearrangement of the historians' assessments to make the chronology clearer. It should be ready to be pasted in by Tuesday. Ewulp 08:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ewulp Great!  You have always been the superior writer, so I am looking very forward to reading it.  I found your idea of moving the sections a good one, and did that before you started, so as you can see it flows much better.  Your changes already further help the flow, while leaving the crucial points of this battle: to quote a historian, Matthew Bennett and his co-authors, in Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World (2005) says: "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought [...] but the Battle of Tours is an exception;"  Part of what is essential with this article is why, 12 centuries later, historians are still fiercely arguing over the Battle and it's place in history... THANKS! old windy bear 11:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ewulp You have taken my outline and really done a superior job of tightening and condensing it, limiting the number of quotes while preserving the really important quotes from major historians who so very clearly argue over the battle's macrohistorical place today.  If you are just about done, I will remove the quote notation on the article.  It had been carefully rated GA as was, and I think we have addressed the legitimate concerns of people who felt it too quote filled.  I think you did a great job of fairly presenting a dispute among experts over what may be - if you believe Watson and company, from Gibbon's day on - one of the truly great turning points in history.  You also fairly presented that people like Cardini believe the exact opposite.  Let me know if you are ready.  THANKS, AGAIN! old windy bear 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Old Windy Bear I'm finished, except for a typo I'll be fixing in a moment. One question I (no historian!) have not been able to resolve: who is the Wallace mentioned in the strategic analysis section? I can't find the name among the sources -- maybe the source could be added or the name wikilinked. All in all, a really impressive article & a pleasure to work on! Ewulp 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ewulp Actually, the "Wallace" is William E. Watson, one of the most respected historians of this era.  Thanks for catching that one - how it got by, I do not know.  (I am getting old!)  Thank you VERY much for your compliment on the article, and for your work on it -a lot of people worked very hard on it, and I thank you for myself, one of them, and for the rest.  (I know for myself alone, I bought nine books for this project, and read everything I could find on it)  We really tried to put together a fair and informative article on (if Watson and Gibbon, et al, are right!) one of history's most important encounters, and certainly one of history's most controversial as some historians disagree strongly on that assessment!  Thanks again for your help - you are always a huge asset to any project.  old windy bear 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: "the Umayyad force was said to have suffered massive casualties of up to 375,000 men"
Above is from the article as it stands now.  The 375,000 number is roughly ten times the size of estimated Umayyad army.   Probably a mistaken , and it should be 37,500, however that implies an accuracy that does not exist.   I have no information to make a better input but something seems wrong.
::No modern historian believes or advocates that the Umayyad force lost 375,000 men.   The best modern estimates are around 10,000 casualities for the Umayyads, between 1/3 to 1/7 of their army, depending on which source you believe in estimating their invasion size.  But the closest thing we have to a history of the age does mention the ridiculous larger number - and then the article goes on to explain the same number was used at Toulouse, et al.  You have to read the entire section in toto to understand the numbers tossed around, why they were undoubtedly wrong, and the controversy surrounding virtually every aspect of this battle for centuries.  old windy bear 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties probably wrong 

message: I have yet to see someone give me a primary source for the date of October 10, 732.  The Mozarabic Chronicle, which would be far and away the most contemporary Andalusian source, has no date for the battle (trust me).  I don't see one in St. Dennis, and the Annales doesn't go back far enough.  The later Arab-Andalusian accounts are notorious for pulling dates and statistics out of their asses.  Collins, at least, believes that the date is unknown.  So what's with our being so certaint about the date that we don't even cite it? Ethan Mitchell 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I ''still'' have a question about the date

message: ::I removed the comments allegedly by Hitler on the battle of Tours.  It was in the section for historical perspectives, which he was not, even assuming the comment to be true.  Stillstudying 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler comments removed from analysis section

message: It's repeatedly emphasized that the Frankish troops were unarmoured: 
#. . .lacked stirrups, and therefore had no armored cavalry. . . (lack of stirrups didn't stop the Parthians, and later the Sassanids, from fielding heavy cavalry . . . but nevermind, that's not really germane)
#The Franks . . . had to depend on unarmoured foot soldiers. . . .unarmoured infantry withstood the fierce Umayyad heavy cavalry.
# . . . the Franks were mostly infantry, all without armour . . . 
. . .but the Franks certainly had and wore body armour from at least the 6th century on. From Gregory of Tours  (search for hauberk) and archaeological finds  we know that it was in use during the late 6th century; in the later 8th/early 9th century, Charlemagne forbade its export (particularly to the Slavs and Avars). This being the case, why the assertion that Martel's troops had no armour? (Of course it would not have been in universal use, but the same is true of any other ancient or medieval army.) Do the primary sources record this? (They're rather terse.) Do contemporary depictions show it? (Do contemporary depictions exist?) Was the art of armour manufacture lost entirely during the 7th century?
Perhaps I'm picking nits, but I think it's important to get these little details right. —Charles P._(Mirv) 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  armor 

message: (Mirv) Good catch on the armour.  I don't know how I missed that one.  Hanson talks at considerable length about the Franks heavy infantry - he states their armour and equipment (much of it heavy wood) weighed about 70 pounds, which considering the smaller size of men in that era, made them quite heavy and lumbering.  Also, such a load tired the man carrying it, thus another reason for his fighting in a fixed formation at Tours - he could not afford to exhaust his men by much movement. The problem for the cavalry was the stirrup was not in wide use in the west, so there was a limit on what they could wear, but they wore some plate armour.  In most of the references i have the primary difference was in the use of the stirrup allowing heavy cavalry in the east.  But the Frankish infantry - if you want other sources on the equipment, I have them, but Hanson probably has the best article on their heavy infantry.  Indeed, one reason his permanent army was so vital to Martel was that the peasant levies did not have the equipment to fight as heavy infantry.   old windy bear 13:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armour

message: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Young_Folks%27_History_of_Rome_illus442.png )
Uhm, the picture is accompanied by a description, "Battle of Tours." but as there are palm trees in the background and the city farther in the background would seem to be of Middle Eastern architectural style, it would seem this image has nothing to do with Battle of Tours... Opinions? -Maelkoch 19:44, 1 June 2007
::Maelkoch Good catch as to the title - it obviously could not have been painted about a battle in Gaul as to place, but on the other hand, it does depict use of a Battle Ax, which was in fairly wide use by the Carolingians.  I changed the title to "Western Knight fighting" but have no problems with removing the picture altogether if that is the consensus of other editors.  Thoughts, anyone?  Should we remove this picture from the article?  old windy bear 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the image featuring the knight and muslim horseman

message: Below are some, but not all of the "stirrup" lines I pulled out of Battle of Tours and bio of Charles Martel:
"Of course, Martel is also the father of heavy cavalry in Europe, as he adopted the stirrup into wide use…"
 
"the Muslim horsemen had the stirrup, which made the first knights possible)"
"…he studied the foe's forces and further adapted to them, initially using stirrups and saddles recovered from the foe's dead horses…"
"After 732, he began the integration into his army of heavy cavalry, using the stirrup and mailed armour…"
"Eudes's forces, like other European troops of that era, lacked stirrups, and therefore had no heavy cavalry."
"Though outnumbered and depending on infantry, without stirrups in wide use, Martel had a tough, battle hardened heavy infantry who believed in him implicitly."
"The Franks, without stirrups in wide use, had to depend on foot soldiers."
I honestly think someone is playing a joke on us, inserting the stirrup phrase at every available opportunity. Is it really that necessary? I don't mind it being mentioned once or twice as an interesting historical footnote, but it's used in excess. 
To beat home the point, if every time I came across Muslim cavalry I added the phase, "which are men riding horses," the average reader would tire quickly. 
Any oppostion to me weeding out most of these?
Ryanpm4545 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stirrup crazy?