Battle of Tours

The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 25, 732 (October 10, old-style calendar) between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and an Islamic army led by Emir Abd er Rahman. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. The result of this battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula. This battle is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it may have halted the invasion of Europe by Muslims, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.

Aftermath

The Arab army retreated south over the Pyrenees. Charles earned his nickname Martel, meaning hammer, in this battle. He continued to drive the Muslims from France in subsequent years. He would defeat the Moors in battle near the River Berre and the Narbonne.

Related Topics:
River Berre - Narbonne

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Importance of the battle

Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications. Later scholars, such as Edward Gibbon, would contend that had Martel fallen, the Moors would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon wrote that "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." Some modern assessments of the battle's impact have backed away from the extreme of Gibbon's position, but Gibbons conjecture is supported by other historians such as Edward Shepard Creasy and William E. Watson.

Related Topics:
Bede - Theophanes - Edward Gibbon - Europe - Gibraltar - Poland - Highlands - Scotland - Rhine - Nile - Euphrates - Thames - Qur'an - Oxford - Edward Shepard Creasy - William E. Watson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Contemporary Arab historians and chroniclers are much more interested in the Arab defeat at Constantinople in 718. Some contemporary historians argue that had the Arabs actually wished to conquer Europe they could easily have done so. Essentially these historians argue that the Arabs were not interested enough to mount a major invasion, because Northern Europe at that time was considered to be a socially, culturally and economically backward area with little to interest any invaders. But this is disputed by the records of the Islamic raids into India and other non-Muslim states for loot and converts. Given the great wealth in Christian shrines such as the one at Tours, Islamic expansion into that area would have been likely had it not been sharply defeated in 732 by Martel. Further evidence of the importance of this battle lies in Islamic expansion into all other regions of the old Roman Empire. It is not likely Gaul would have been spared save by the strength of Martel's legendary right arm and the loyalty of his veteran Frankish Army.

Related Topics:
Constantinople - 718

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Moreover, given the importance they placed on the death of Rahman and the defeat in Gaul, and the subsequent defeat and destruction of Muslim bases in what is now France, it is likely that this battle did have macrohistorical importance in stopping westward Islamic expansion. Gibbons and his generation of historians are probably more correct than the contemporary view that this battle lacked major historical impact. Arab histories written during that period and for the next several centuries make clear that Rahman's defeat and death was regarded, and rightly so, as a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it 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." This rather plainly puts the lie to those who would lowkey the macrohistorical importance of the Battle of Tours! Had Martel fallen at Tours the long term implications for European Christianity would likely have been devastating.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~