Talk:Charles Martel

message: Just 2 examples:
(1) The last para. of "Lead-up" doesn't tell us WHAT happened in 730 where "the results were horrific for the Aquitanians", nor is it explained anywhere earlier in this section.
(2) In "Contemporary historians", the author contrasts "The first, those who believe Gibbon was right in his assessment that Martel saved Christianity and Western civilization by this battle" with "The second camp of contemporary historians believe that a failure by Martel at Tours could have been a disaster, destroying what would become Western civilization after the Renaissance". These two statements are identical.
(3) The term "return to centralized govermnent' is not appropriate for the 700s, as it creates a misleading picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarac (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadfully confused article 

message: Why is he more quoted than anyone else? Surely by now you all know that Gibbons was one of the least objective historians who wrote about Karel Martel? The man was a politician not a real historian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.61.107 (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbon 

message: "Only once in history did infantry without bows and arrows or firearms withstand mounted and armoured cavalry."
I think this claim is a little overzealous.  I can think of several better known examples off-hand, for example the battle of stirling bridge.
Also, even if the statement were true, it is not what people remember the battle for.
Finally, the above sentence, as it is written, does not belong in an encyclopedia article.
Hence I am removing it.
--Henrybaker 02:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only once in history... 

message: This article must be divided into sections, it is too long. Srnec 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well done.  The article could still use a little more attention, though, and the campaigns of Martel could be fleshed out a little more (in their own articles now that we have a campaign box).  I started the job of subdividing it a while ago, but it wasn't complete.  Thanks (and for the section on modern scholarly opinion).  Srnec 23:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: Several people have been making silly changes to this article, I have attempted to change them back as far as I can see. The IP is 203.16.208.244, which is also the one I was fixing from (it is a school address). Zionyx
This article could use more info on his career after 718 and before 732 and after 732 until his death.  It does an excellent job divulging his consolidation of power and the leadup to and battle and legacy of Tours, but not many specific acts of Charles' outside of these are mentioned.  What about his confiscation of church property and wars against Aquitainians and Saxons and relations with Lombardy?  I'll add what I can when I can.  Finally, should "pope" be capitalised when following "the"?  I would have said not.  Srnec 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting that, at the beginning of his career, Charles Martel had to raise on Clotaire IV as king, but by 737 there was no need to appoint a successor to Theuderic IV.  Clearly, his reign completely changed the dynamics of rulership in Francia, the hallowed Merovingian line was necessary to legitimise his authority early on, but his fighting on behalf of the nation and Christendom apparently changed this, he had legitimised his own rule himself and no king was needed.  His sons may have feared that they had not yet proved themselves when they appointed Childeric III in 742.  Pepin's assumption of the title of king in 751 was probably an attempt to make the power won by he and his ancestors perminent for his descendants. Srnec 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More information

message: Srnec I moved that paragraph which you so rightly observed needed to be in a different location.  I moved it to legacy -- please check it, I think it fits there, but if you do not, i will move it again.  But I believe you will find it appropriately there.  old windy bear 03:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved paragraph

message: I prefer to simply say christian europe, when we are defining what Martel was defending, because at that point, there were no Protestants, and the only christians in Europe were catholic,(even the schism between Roman and Greek had not occurred!  Does anyone feel this is incorrect?  If we say only Roman Catholic Europe we imply that some form of christianity would have been spared a complete Muslim triumph.  While, assuming they honored the Pact of Umar, they would have allowed some freedom of religion, as they did in Al-Andulus, there would most likely not have been a reformation, etc.  Opinions, anyone?old windy bear 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of titling Europe "Catholic"

message: User:Srnec Om the issue of historical accuracy, technically, "Catholic" means universal in latin, (or as close a translation as is possible, but it carries connotations that modern users could misconstrue.  At that point, in 734a.d. the split between the Greek and Roman wings of the church had not taken place, and there was only ONE christian church.  For that reason, I would suggest that christian is more historically correct, since there was no christian church except that of Rome and Constandinople, which at that point, were feuding, but not broken.  Feelings?  Srnec, my worry is that people would misunderstand, and think there were more than one church, when at that point in christian history, it was not true.  It would be hundreds of years before the two wings of the catholic church split, and hundreds more after that before there were christians who were not "catholic."  therefore, historically, for accuracy, I believe the word christian is most approrpriate.  Thoughts?  (rememeber many of our users are students who assume, and would assume from the word catholic there was more than one church to defend, when in fact, there was only one at that point in history.(unless we are talking about the Copts, a relatively minor sect, which has no bearing on this issue! old windy bear 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian or Catholic church?

message: Someone changed the article to say that Martel got his name for hammering the arabs.  With respect, this is incorrect.   Although it was Tours, and the smashing of the Muslim army, that earned him that  cognomen, the army was  Berbers, Persians, Greeks, and a plethoria of nationalities fighting under the Caliphate banner.   Therefore I changed it back to the original wording, as it is incorrect to say that the army was "Arab."old windy bear 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the nickname

message: Baber khairi  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 4th highest ranking that a history article can be given.  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 infiltrate 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 (AND RECENTLY) the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it. A more modern, in 2004, 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: User:167.102.231.211 good observation on Martel's legendary ability to move with incredible speed, and to do the unexpected.  I hope you don't mind, but I moved that comment to his military legacy, which is where it really belongs, but again, good observation.  old windy bear 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to civil war section

message: old windy bear,
I was curious what book you are using to cite Norwich. I am interested in reading the book you quoted. Thanks in advance!
He is quoted in several places on the Franks, but I would recommend his Bzyantium series.  All of them are worth reading, but if you want that specific volume, let me know, so I can cite it precisely for you - but I would advise reading them all, because they will give you a wonderful perspective on the Eastern Roman Empire that is greatly misunderstood, especially given Gibbons preoccupation with how "bad" the Eastern Empire was, and the struggle between Christianity, Islam, and the Crusades.  (not knocking Gibbons, but in this case, I think Norwich is superior to the original volume of Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire "Mohammad and the Arabs.") old windy bear 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the conclusions were paraphrased, they were removed and replaced with exact quotes, since it was obvious where you were going with this.  And in any case where language has become an issue, it is best to use EXACT quotations.  EVERY quote in the article is now a precise copy from a readily accessible source.old windy bear 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwich sources 

message: This is text moved out of the Battle of Tours article as it pertains to the later campaigns.  Some already exists in this article, the rest can be added in as desired.
:"This naval Arab invasion was headed by Abdul Rahman's son. It landed in Narbonne in 736 and moved at once to reinforce Arles and move inland. Charles temporarily put the conflict with Hunold on hold, and descended on the Provençal strongholds of the Muslims. In 736, he retook Montfrin and Avignon, and Arles and Aix-en-Provence with the help of Liutprand, King of the Lombards. Nîmes, Agde, and Béziers, held by Islam since 725, fell to him and their fortresses were destroyed. He crushed one Muslim army at Arles, as that force sallied out of the city, and then took the city itself by a direct and brutal frontal attack, and burned it to the ground to prevent it's use again as a stronghold for Muslim expansion. He then moved swiftly and defeated a mighty host outside of Narbonnea at the River Berre, utterly destroying the primary Muslim invasion force, but failed to take the city. Military historians believe he could have taken it, had he chosen to tie up all his resources to do so - but he believed his life was coming to a close, and he had much work to do to prepare for his sons to take control of the Frankish realm. He left Narbonne therefore, isolated and surrounded, and his son would return to liberate it for Christianity.   Provence, however, he successfully rid of its foreign occupiers, and crushed all foreign armies able to advance Islam further.
 
The defeated Muslim Armies were faced at the River Berre, for the first time, by heavy cavalry of the Franks, which Martel used in coordination with his phalanx.  He crushed the Muslim army, though outnumbered. Having freed the remainder of Provence, and successfully rid of its foreign occupiers, he contained the Muslims to the city of Narbonne, and left them without sufficient forces to do anything but hide within those walls.Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequalled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and decisively defeat them again and again. Some historians believe Narbonne in particular was as imporant a victory for Christian Europe as Tours.  Charles was that rarest of commodities in the dark ages: a brilliant strategic general, who also was a tactical commander par excellence, able in the crush and heat of battle to adapt his plans to his foes forces and movement -- and amazingly, defeated them repeatedly, especially when, as at Tours, they were far superior in men and weaponry, and at Berre and Narbonne, when they were superior in numbers of brave fighting men.  Charles had the last quality which defines genuine greatness in a military commander: he foresaw the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with care; he used ground, time, place, and fierce loyalty of his troops to offset his foes superior weaponry and tactics; third, he adapted, again and again, to the enemy on the battlefield, cooly shifting to compensate for the foreseen and unforeseeable."
Kaisershatner 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second invasion

message: Saying that "[t]here were no further Muslim invasions of Frankish territory" and citing a tertiary source like the EB doesn't make it true. The raids from Fraxinetum in the 9th and 10th centuries were Muslim invasions, from a base in "Frankish territory" which was Muslim-controlled for nearly a century, and the seaborne raids from the Maghreb would likely qualify. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraxinetum

message: Angus McLellan I am certainly not trying to belittle your historical knowledge, but, first, respectfully, you must understand, (which I am sure you do), the historical and military difference between raids, which have no ability or intent for long term occupation for conquest, and invasions, which have every intent of doing both.  Secondly, the sources which provide the historical and military perspectve that the raids which you refer to were not invasions are Sir Edward Creasy - considered the greatest military historian of western history - and Gibbons, to name two, not EB.  (I know you are familiar with the Gibbon quote, which you fail to address, which remains the prevailing historial view, or Sir Edward Creasy's legandary analysis of the Islamic invasion of Europe)  Both of them, and Watson, to name three, consider that Tours was the last great invasion of the Islamic expansion era.  That view is somewhat disputed 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. He published a very interesting book in 2004, and has quite an interesting modern expert opinion on Charles Martel, Tours, and stresses the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son and successor in 736-737, as the last great gasp of expansion prior to the Battle of the Zab ending any ability of the Caliphate to mount a sustained invasion into Europe.
You are certainly knowledgable enough that you know that the accepted historical view is that the Islamic expansion era ended with the Battle of the Zab, in 751, and that the last significant Islamic base in Carolingian territory was Narbonne, which Peppin the Short retook in 759.  Gibbon's view that Tours ended the Islamic invasion of Europe is generally still accepted, though Santosuosso's arguments that the campaigns of 736-7 were of macrohistorical importance because they also represented a serious effort at conquest has merit.  I know of no major historian that views Fraxinet as a serious effort at conquest, or the other raids that occurred from Islamic territories, such as the seaborne raids you cite from the Maghreb.  (20 corsairs landing and pillaging up and down considered an "invasion?" No historian I know of maintains that could possibly qualify as an invasion!  And again, not to quibble over semantics, it does not matter what you or I think qualifies as an invasion, original research is strictly prohibited on wikipedia - so what matters is what historians think)
EB simply provided a good quote.  I refer you also to the history of the Umayyad Emirite of Al-Andalus and the Abbasid Caliphate, and the conflict during the periods you reference between the two, and those histories show neither establishing permanent bases for subsequent conquest in or of Carolingian territories.  Those incursions you referred to were merely for loot, and had no permanence.  Yes, Fraxinetum (or Fraxinet if we are using the Islamic name) was a base for raids, but historically it is not regarded as a base for conquest, merely a base from which raiders could carry out their activities in the weakened Carolingian territory.  The rendering of the Caliphate into warring factions left the Islamic world without the ability to mount a sustained invasion after 751.  (There is a very good reason the Islamic expansion era historically is pegged as ending after the Battle of the Zab in 751)  I am not trying to do a Rex on you, but explain that the raids you refer to simply were not efforts at conquest - they were attacks for loot during the period that the Carolingians were in decline, the Caliphate splintered, and the Vikings terrorizing all of Europe.  The Andulusians at Fraxinet were essentially brigands.  If you have historical sources which will sustain an argument that those raids intended permanent conquest and Islamization of the affected territories, please name them, because that view is certainly not in the mainstream of either western or eastern history.  I know of no historian that regards Fraxinetum as anything other than a base for raids. Again, I respect your knowledge those incursions happened, but you certainly are well read enough to know that they were not invasions in the military or historical sense of the word. old windy bear 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historically, raids were not invasions

message: To the best of my knowledge, Charles Martel was the only european general to use the feigned retreat regularly during the dark ages.  If anyone has any reputable sourcing indicating otherwise, it would be appreciated.  Otherwise, the statement stays as it is.  As everyone knows, the feigned retreat was primarily an eastern tactic, perfected by the Mongols, though Roman legions at their zenith were well disciplined enough to use it.  But I know of no dark age EUROPEAN army which did, other than Martel's.  old windy bear 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, but I will have a think. What's the origin of the claim anyway ? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks . I had a look through the Life of Pepin the Old and Pseudo-Fredegar, and I didn't find much information at all on Amblève, so my question is more "where does the info in the Battle of Amblève article come from ?" The Annales Mettenses (you can download MGH volume I from Gallica, just search for the title "Monumenta Germaniae historica") don't have much information on the battle. Sub anno 717 they have "... sed in loco qui dicatur Ambleva, Karolo in eos [the Austrasian army] inruente, maximum dispendum perpessi sunt." So my question relates to the primary source for the battle and feigned retreat, as the Annals of Metz version appears to read like an ambush or surprise. If Halsall or Bacharach are the source, they'll surely provide a ref. By the way, there's an article by Bacharach on Charlemagne's Rhine-Danube canal project in John Lynn's Feeding Mars if that would be of interest. Thanks again. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Paying attention, I see that the annal I quoted from is the short Annal of Metz. The Annales Mettenses proper on dMGH have a much longer account. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feigned retreat question

message: I must reissue here my concern that Watson specifically disagrees with Gibbon and said about him he "exaggerated the significance" of this battle. Watson also says the battle was not part of a larger scheme of Muslims to conquer Europe, nor that this battle was decissive for the outcome of the conflict between Christians and Muslims in southern Gaul. Watson infers the macrohistorical significance of the battle in a different way: the control for a part of the territory of the later Carolingian Empire, and perhaps even the success of Carolingian dynasty itself. Therefore I find the section on the outcome of the battle a POV and a mispresentation of even the quoted sources. I won't tag the section for the time being because I believe a relatively simple edit can fix the things. Let me know if you have any objections/comments and then let's modify the article accordingly. Cheers. Daizus 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daizus Greetings my friend!  I agree with you, and am in the process of writing the needed edits, which I will have begun posting, since I wrote most of this.  Let me know whether you think they are sufficient - i think you will be pleased. old windy bear 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbon and Watson 

message: It says 'Martel earned his reputation for brilliant generalship, in an age generally bereft of same...'. Is there a source to support this, or is it (Gods Forbid!) POV? Kai Su?My Talk Page 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brilliant Generalship 

message: Similar to the article of his son Pepin the Short where there was a fictitious birthplace, this article can "boast" a fictitious birthdate of Charles Martel, August 23. This information was added in March 2003 by an IP 205.207.185.250 without mentioning any sources and even with a wrong year, 676. The year was corrected soon to 688 but the wrong date has remained until today. However, all the serious reference books (like Encyclopaedia Britannica, Lexikon des Mittelalters) do not give an exact birthdate of Charles Martel because we don’t know it. Therefore, I've just removed the birthdate from this article.
It’s amazing that these fictitious dates sometimes remain so long in the wikipedia (which is of course very bad, because now most of the other-language wikipedia articles are infected with this wrong birthdate, too). I guess the psychological mechanism behind this long endurance is that it is usually assumed that the more precise information is the better one, so "born August 23, 688" seems to be better and more correct than "born ca. 688". But unfortunately, especially regarding the early Carolingians, the more precise birthdates tend to be unproven suppositions (sometimes originating from doubtful genealogical websites). Another example is a wrong precise birthdate that popped up twice in the English wikipedia article for Louis the Pious.
Besides, it should be reflected here if we really need the chapter "Birth and youth" in this article – it does not contain any actual information about Charles Martel, but only a late and more or less irrelevant legend or anecdote. Moreover, Herstal, mentioned there as birthplace of Charles Martel, is in fact not supported by any sources, no one knows where Alpaida was when she gave birth to Charles Martel.
--Kliojünger 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the birthdate and birthplace of Charles Martel 

message: This seems like a pretty good article overall.  But the 'Eve of Tours' section cites no source and has 1+ paragraphs of nearly pure speculation at the end on what might have happened if an Ummayid general did this or that.  Of particular concern is a rather confusing sentence stating that, with hindsight, not a single member of the invading forces would have been lost at this or that prior battle.  Perhaps the language is just confusing.  Sorry, I'm new around here, but I'd kind of like to help.  Seems like the last paragraph in particular could be deleted without any impact on the article overall.  I guess I'd also be a little more okay with it if this were cited as some particular historian's speculation, rather than the original speculation of a contributor here. Fooburger (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of 'Eve of Tours' section excessively speculative? 

message: Much of the article features quotes from western historians with ethnocentric views and tendencies to exaggerate western accompishments. While the praises for Charles Martel are understandable, as his historical importance is undisputed, there are some presumptuous claims. Specifically I mean the funny statement "Charlemagne, would possess the world's largest and finest army since the peak of Rome". The author should have forgotten the Tang China in his agitation. Tang's army was larger several times than that of Charlemagne's, it is obvious by comparing Western European and Chinese population. I think that sentence should be removed from article as an example of sharp ethnocentrism.88.239.86.110 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go farther than just suggesting a single sentence be removed.  The whole article is rife with POV crystal-ballism and "aren't we lucky we all aren't Muslims" quotations. The heavy weight given Gibbon, who was writing at in a very Eurocentric, even Anglocentric mindset, make the article sound like Martel's major accomplishment was in making the world safe for White Anglo Saxon Protestants.  Isn't there a single modern historian writing in English we could quote who has expressed the distinct possibility that the success of this particular forray may not have ended the world as we know it?  That using a 1200 year crystal ball like the Akers quote does is perhaps not entirely valid, or that Islam in not inherently evil? Many of the other quotes follow this line of Martel saving Europe from the all-consuming evil of Islam, and how civilization, freedom, and sliced bread would not have been possible without his victory.  Heck, rather than allowing civilization to develop, an argument could be made that Martel delayed it. Muslim Cordoba was, in its time, a greater center of science, learning, culture and religious freedom than anything in the lands 'saved' by Chrales Martel. The article, as it stands, is overweighted with 19th-century cultural closed-mindedness and modern anti-Islam polemic. Agricolae (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agricolae's "crystal ball" argument is a straw man in this context.  Of course Martel "saved" Europe; how is this not a factual word choice for referring to the repelling of would-be conquerors?  In any case, Agricolea's own alternate-history crystal ball is both hypocritical and less defensible, being based on the canard of the "Golden Age" of Moorish Spain.  That the religious tolerance of Muslim Cordoba exceeded Christian religious tolerance is an argument that can only be made by comparing the atypical best to the atypical worst.  Darryl.harb (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A single military campaign does not necessarily lead to conquest, even when victorious. Yes, it is possible that they would have gone all the way to the Arctic Circle had they just won this one battle, but it is also possible that they had reached the limit of their ability to project force, and would not have advanced anyhow. Yes, of course my 'crystal ball' is based on a selective choice of outcomes - all such crystal balls are. You prefer one set of selective outcomes, my so-called 'straw man' suggests an alternative. Neither have any factual basis, because since Charles won we cannot know the consequences of a loss. That is why crystal ball predictions of what would have happened had an outcome been different than it was are so problematic. Rather than anything resembling reality, they just turn into opportunities to project the sensibilities of the person looking into the ball. While you choose to dismiss Cordoba as an outlier, it still puts lie to the false dichotomy of civilization or Islam but never both, implied by several of the quotes here. Agricolae (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There's no rule against adding quotes from Muslim historians, who probably have a very different interpretation of Charles Martel. Cameron Nedland (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But maybe there is only given very limited new information in doing so, as Muslim historians witness the strenght of the Frankish army as well. 188.105.245.144 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnocentric views if some historians 

message: It is mentioned that he had a winning streak that lasted until his death, but then it is mentioned that he lost only one battle.
Could we say never lost a battle, save one... or something like that?
Anyway, great article btw.Esk3 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: For some of the quote in this article, there are these great quote images that really look nice. Later in the article, these "large" quotes stop being used. Could we use them all throughout the article? It would really give it a nice, (even more) polished look. 
Btw, amazing amazing amazing article. I love it. So helpful.Esk3 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency? 

message: It seems evident that Charles Martel is a more modern version of the man's name. Shouldn't the article somewhere discuss his actual name, transcribed as it would have been spoken in his time and place? Even a list of his name as called by some modern european languages other than english. Yeah, this is english wikipedia, but a person's name doesn't change based on what language you happen to be speaking.72.45.95.15 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  His actual name 

message: The article contains too many references to modern commentators which should be references, or discussed here. What we need is a balance position supported by data: contentions should be reported if undecided, but not as overtly as here. If you're not capable of giving a NPOV, do not post, however firmly an acolyte of a particular historian you may be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.175.26 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a clean-up? 

message: In the Life of Sturmius, the first abbot of Fulda, the name Karlomannus is used of Charles Martel, who granted the land in Fulda on which the monastery was subsequently built (locum aptum servis Dei inhabitandum) to Boniface, the English 'Apostle of the Germans'.
In the assessments of the Battle of Tours, the first two opinions are presented as if they were in opposition to each other, whereas in fact they are merely two ways of saying more or less the same thing: the demise of Christianity or a Europe that would never have developed into Western Christendom. Pamour (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation, to make the information usable here?  Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karlomannus 

message: Marked NNDB citation as unfitting, edited a further Bartleby citation because it was broken/discontinued URL, and added the missing information about an inscribed quote taken from Pfister's 1910 Britannica article. Usual poor sourcing issues here at WP.  
Did extensive work to try to identify citations, but the fact of the matter is the article is just a mess. Long quotes with only vague citations, whole sections without a single source indicated, sparse citations added to other sections often leaving the most glaring factual information unsourced, checked citations being dead or to poor, self-published sources, etc., etc. Bottom line, this article needs a top-to-bottom going over by at least two experts, 
* one expert on WP citation styles (to try to forge a single consistent style throughout the article, and turn author-date sloppiness into real verifiable citations), and
* one subject matter expert, on this period of the middle ages, to sort through when the large blocks of unsourced are nonsense to be discarded, vs worth the time to do post hoc referencing.
I hope someone can give this time, but I expect today's work will be reverted, so we maintain the appearance of scholarship (rather than truly move the article toward real verifiability and content accuracy). 
Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of 2 August

message: This is ridiculous, but here it is.  Here is the text before I checked the reference:
Yes, the source is attributed as telling us the cognomen arose because of chroniclers view of the "merciless way he hammered his enemies." Here is what that source actually says:
Here is the text that now appears in the article, as a result:
This typifies what I have found in checking sources (e.g., see edit of section on children, whose single citation was placed to seemingly cover the whole section, but on checking only covered two facts (< 10% of factual content).  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This whole article, or large parts of it may need to be scrapped. It is mostly an editorial. Ies (talk)  21:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of why early scholarship of article is untrustworthy 

message: I have noticed that the dynastic house listed for the predecesstors for Charlemagne are listed as Carolingians. This dynasty started with Charlemagne, not before. Ergo they can not be a part of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trice93 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, Charles Martel is often also seen as the founder of the Carolingians. Or his son Pippin, who after all was the first king. Charlemagne being the most famous doesn't make him the founder. In any case, it was still the same family starting with Arnulf. Str1977 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynastic House 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles Martel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305034515/http://lcg.org:80/cgi-bin/tw/magazine/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine42&item=1149293702 to http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/tw/magazine/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine42&item=1149293702
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921205841/http://www.deremilitari.org:80/resources/articles/watson2.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/watson2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102014736/http://wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/UMAY.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/UMAY.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020128121614/http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=250 to http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=250
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018154547/http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/a/118230.htm to http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/a/118230.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page gives a very partisan view of Charles Martel, esp. regarding the battle of Tours/Poitiers which is both overemphasised & miscategorised (most historians do not see this as a epochal battle). It relies heavily on 19th-c. historians and a group of more recent military historians, ignoring the larger field of Merovingian, Carolingian, and Umayyad research. There are also quite a few unsubstantiated claims and statements, some of which I've marked up. It's also over-long and rather confusing. I think it needs thorough revision. Charleslincolnshire (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea of what "most historians" think - that's just a personal view of your own.50.111.5.54 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree. Charles Martel isn't my area but "decisive battles" kind of happen to be, and Tours wasn't all that important in modern historians' eyes. This page needs a major update. MMFA (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I've now made a start. This page was far too much about the Battle of Tours, which has its own page anyway, and was not the only event of interest in Martel's reign, or even the most important event. And I've moved some of the secondary quotations into a 'historiography' section: I think that's more in keeping with NPOV.Charleslincolnshire (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree, I have dealt a lot with the 7-9th centuries, with accounts on the period so influenced by the Carolingian written propaganda (chronicles, annales, etc.), often accepted at face value. Some authors belong to the old, Western academy or military historians who pay attention to selected events, emphasizing dualistic assumptions, and not a nuanced, multifaceted approach, as it was on the ground. Take for instance, "After establishing unity in Gaul,"..., what unity in what year? ... Iñaki LL (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update urgently required 

message: Saint-Denis : l’orgue de la basilique dégradé après une intrusion
Accueil > Île-de-France & Oise > Seine-Saint-Denis
N.R. et C.S.
05 mars 2019, 20h00 | MAJ : 05 mars 2019, 20h25
http://m.leparisien.fr/seine-saint-denis-93/saint-denis-l-orgue-de-la-basilique-degrade-apres-une-intrusion-05-03-2019-8025483.php?fbclid=IwAR1vXFjMA2mUiBf4tJkT4TmEkpPv_Werj4-789-cYrgFHZq1-AfAuHn5R08  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.30.203 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the information to the article at Basilica of Saint-Denis.  It probably doesn't involve this article, as the damage had nothing to do with Charles Martel's grave, it was vandalism to the organ in the church.  --Jayron32 19:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the damage had been more compehensive. However, the damaged organ is the most expensive thing the Muslim terrorists did harm to. 188.105.245.144 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grave site damaged (March 2019) 

message: I read this article with interest and made some improvements. I have a series of questions and suggestions.
1. The dates Charles Martel was in power as Mayor of the Palace for both Neustria and Austrasia are inconsistent when comparing the box on the top right and the box and the bottom of the page were I see multiple dates. This needs to be corrected.
2. It would be useful to introduce an explanation for his Charles's nickname. It's fairly obvious but equally appropriate.
3. Charles Martel was not king but duke and prince. It would be useful to properly explain why in the context of the roles of the Mayors of the Palace.
4a. I think the title of the section "Aquitaine and the Battle of Tours in 732" should be changed to "Aquitaine and the Battle of Tours-Poitiers" (just like the entry for the battle).
4b. The section "Aquitaine and the Battle of Tours in 732" spends a lot of time talking about everything that is primarily unrelated to the Battle of Tours-Poitiers. A few more words on how Charles Martel won the battle are required such as the high-level sequence of the events and casualties for both sides since that battle was important at the time and in modern history.
5. "Landrade was once believed to have married a Sigrand (Count of Hesbania) but Sigrand's wife was more likely the sister of Rotrude."
What the hell does this mean? Can't people write and proofread before posting? Can't text be written so that is makes sense?
6. The last paragraph on the correlation between Charles Martel and idiots psychopaths is unnecessary in the context of the history behind the figure of Charles Martel. It only advertises hate, fosters division and it's useless publicity. I personally don't even think it should be part of the "Reputation and historiography" section and, at a minimum, I think it should be separated from it.
ICE77 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements, comments and questions 

message: Why doesn't the article show a picture with the famous sculputre on the grave of this Frankish nobleman? 188.105.245.144 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: you are looking for something like this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Karl_Martell.JPG ?  94.216.28.253 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Picture is Missing!