| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Precisely 100 years of Islamic conquests after Muhammad's death (632), the Muslims, starting from Arabia, found themselves in Gaul, modern day France, confronting a hitherto little known people—the Christian Franks. There, on October 11th, 732, one of the most decisive battles between Christendom and Islam took place, demarcating the extent of the latter’s conquests, and ensuring the survival of the former.
Prior to this, the Islamic conquerors, drunk with power and plunder, had, for one century been subjugating all peoples and territories standing in their western march—from Arabia to Morocco (al-Maghreb, the “furthest west”). In 711, the Muslims made their fateful crossing of the straits of Gibraltar, landing for the first time on European ground. Upon touching terra firma, the leader of the Muslims, Tariq bin Zayid, ordered all the boats used for the crossing burned, asserting “We have not come here to return. Either we conquer and establish ourselves here, or we perish.” Islam was there to stay.
This famous Tariq anecdote—often reminisced by modern day jihadists—highlights the jihadist nature of the Umayyad caliphate (661-750), the superpower of its day. As most historians have acknowledged, the Umayyad caliphate was the “Jihadi-State” par excellence. Its very existence was closely tied to its conquests; its legitimacy as “viceroy” of Allah based on its jihadi expansion.
Once on European ground, the depredations continued unabated. Writes one Arab chronicler regarding the Muslim northern advance past the Pyrenees: “Full of wrath and pride” the Muslims “went through all places like a desolating storm. Prosperity made those warriors insatiable…everything gave way to their scimitars, the robbers of lives.” Even far off English anchorite, the contemporary Bede, wrote, “A plague of Saracens wrought wretched devastation and slaughter upon Gaul.”
Strange anecdotes also find their way in the chroniclers’ accounts during this time. The Muslim chronicler Abd al-Hakim reports that, after landing on an island off Iberia, one of Tariq’s squadrons discovered that the only inhabitants were vinedressers. “They made them prisoners. After that, they took one of the vinedressers, slaughtered him, cut him into pieces, and boiled him, while the rest of the companions looked on.” The Muslims proceeded to eat halal meat—cannibalism of course being forbidden in Islam—while letting the vinedressers believe they were eating their companion, resulting in a rumor that Muslims feast on human flesh.
At any rate, this must have been the picture the men to the north had of the invaders from the south—wild and insatiable madmen, possibly cannibals, mounted on swift steeds, not unlike, in this manner, the Huns of old, who, under the “anti-Christ” figure of Attila, came ravaging through Europe, only to be defeated, in part by the Franks, in the year 451 at the Battle of Chalons, also in modern day France, 150 miles east of Tours.
“Alas,” exclaimed the Franks, “what a misfortune! What an indignity! We have long heard of the name and conquests of the Arabs; we were apprehensive of their attack from the East [Siege of Constantinople, 717-718]: they have now conquered Spain, and invade our country on the side of the West.”
Conversely, the Muslims, flushed with a century’s worth of victories, seem to have had an ambivalent view, at best, regarding Frankish mettle. When asked about the Franks, some years before the Battle of Tours, the then emir of Spain, Musa, replied: “They are a folk right numerous, and full of might: brave and impetuous in the attack, but cowardly and craven in the event of defeat. Never has a company from my army been beaten.”
If this view betrayed overconfidence, Musa’s successor, Abd al-Rahman (“Slave to the Merciful”) exhibited even greater haughtiness regarding those whom he was about to give battle. At the head of some 80,000 Muslims, primarily mounted moors, and assured that he was achieving Allah’s will, Rahman’s destructive northward march into the heart of France was greatly motivated by rumors of more riches for the taking , particularly at the Basilica of St. Martin of Tours. Initially Rahman even separated his army into several divisions to better ensure the plunder of Gaul. Writes Isidore: “[Rahman] destroyed palaces, burned churches, and imagined he could pillage the basilica of St. Martin of Tours. It is then that he found himself face to face with the lord of Austrasia, Charles, a mighty warrior from his youth, and trained in all the occasions of arms.”
Indeed, unbeknownst to the Muslims, the battle-hardened Frankish king Charles, aware of their purport, had begun rallying his liegemen to his standard, in an effort to ward off the Islamic drive. Having risen to power in France in 717, Charles appreciated the significance of the Islamic threat. He therefore intercepted the invaders somewhere between Poitiers and Tours, the latter being the immediate aim of the Muslims. The chroniclers give amazing numbers concerning the Muslims, as many as 300,000. Suffice to say, the Franks were greatly outnumbered, and most historians are content with the figures of 80,000 Muslims against 20-30,000 Franks.
The Muslim force consisted mainly of cavalry, and was geared for offensive warfare. The vast majority being of Berber extraction, they wore little armor, though their elitist Arab overlords were at least chain-mailed. For arms, they relied on the sword and lance; arrows were little used.
Conversely, the Franks were primarily an infantry force (except for mounted nobles such as Charles). Relying on deep phalanx-formations and heavy armor—reportedly 70 pounds for each man—the Franks were as immovable as the Muslims were mobile. (See Victor Davis Hanson’s Carnage and Culture, where, not only full treatment is given this battle, but its significance to the “Western way of war” is explained.) They also appear to have had a greater variety of weaponry: the shield was ubiquitous, and arms consisted of swords, daggers, javelins, and two kinds of axes, one for wielding and the other for throwing—the francisca. This notorious latter weapon was so symbolic of the Franks that either it was named after them, or they were named after it.
The chroniclers state that the two contending armies faced each other for 6-7 days, neither wanting to make the first move. The Franks made much use of the familiar terrain: they appear to have held the high ground; and the dense European woods served to not only provide better shelter but may have impeded the forthcoming Muslim cavalry charge.
Winter approaching, supplies and foraging areas dwindling, and an Islamic sense of superiority all compelled Rahman to commence battle, which “consisted entirely of wild headlong charges, wasteful of men.” Here are a couple of excerpts from the most reliable primary sources describing the battle:
Writes an anonymous Arab chronicler: “Near the river Owar [Loire], the two great hosts of the two languages and the two creeds were set in array against each other. The hearts of Abderrahman, his captains and his men were filled with wrath and pride, and they were the first to begin to fight. The Moslem horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side, until the going down of the sun.”According to the Chronicle of 754, much of which was composed from eye-witness accounts
“The men of the north stood as motionless as a wall, they were like a belt of ice frozen together, and not to be dissolved, as they slew the Arab with the sword. The Austrasians [Franks], vast of limb, and iron of hand, hewed on bravely in the thick of the fight; it was they who found and cut down the Saracen’s king [Rahman].”Hanson writes: “When the sources speak of “a wall,” “a mass of ice,” and “immovable lines” of infantrymen, we should imagine a literal human rampart, nearly invulnerable, with locked shields in front of armored bodies, weapons extended to catch the underbellies of any Islamic horsemen foolish enough to hit the Franks at a gallop.”
As night fell upon them, the Muslims and Christians disengaged and withdrew to their tents. With the coming of dawn, it was discovered that the Muslims, perhaps seized with panic that their emir was dead, had fled south during the night, still looting, burning, and plundering as they went. Hanson offers a realistic picture of the aftermath: “Poitiers [or Tours] was, as all cavalry battles, a gory mess, strewn with thousands of wounded or dying horses, abandoned plunder, and dead and wounded Arabs. Few of the wounded were taken prisoner—given their previous record of murder and pillage at Poitiers.”
In the coming years, Charles, henceforth known as Martel—the Hammer—would continue waging war on the Muslim remnants north of the Pyrenees till they all fled back south. Frankish sovereignty and consolidation were naturally established in Gaul, leading to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire—beginning with Charles’ own grandson, Charlemagne, often described by historians as the “Father of Europe.” As historian Henri Pirenne put it: “Without Islam the Frankish Empire would probably never have existed and Charlemagne, without Mahomet, would be inconceivable.”
Aside from the fact that this battle ushered in an end to the first massive wave of Islamic conquests, there are many indications that it also instrumentally led to the fall of the Umayyad caliphate, which, as mentioned earlier, owed its very existence to jihad, victory, plunder and slavery (ghanima). In 718, the Umayyads, after investing a considerable amount of manpower and resources trying to besiege and conquer, Constantinople, lost horribly. Less than fifteen years later, their western attempt was, as seen, also terribly repulsed at Tours. It is no coincidence that a mere 18 years after Tours, the Umayyad caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasids, and the age of Islam’s great conquests came to an end (until the rise of the Ottoman empire which, like the Umayyads, was also a jihadi state built on territorial conquests).
Thus any number of historians, such as Godefroid Kurth, would go on to say that the Battle of Tours “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.”
Despite the macro-historical significance of this battle, cynical historians often point to Edward Gibbon and others as embellishing and aggrandizing this battle. In fact, the earliest writers portrayed it from the start as a war between Islam and Christendom. Gibbon further argued that, had the Muslims won, “Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran 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 Mohammed.” (Writing in the 18th century, clearly Gibbon was unaware that his predictions might still come true, though not by way of active conquest but passive resignation, as the Koran is now taught in Oxford, accorded the same worth of the Bible -- equal literature or equal revelation -- and sharia is functioning in Britain.)
Still, some modern armchair historians insist that the Battle of Tours was naught but a “minor skirmish” dedicated to plunder, not conquest. As evidence, they point to the fact that, while early Christian chroniclers highlighted this battle, their Muslim counterparts, (except for the very earliest writers, who did acknowledge it as a disastrous defeat) tended to overlook or minimize its significance—as if that is not to be expected from the defeated, especially their posterity.
Other historians insist that plunder was the only objective of the Muslims—a wholly materialistic thesis to be expected from modern-day historians incapable of transcending their own 21st century epistemology. Thus they anachronize, particularly since the texts make clear that conquest and consolidation were always on the mind of the invading Muslims, Rahman’s army no exception: Reinaud tells us that in the emir's head lurked the possibility of “uniting Italy, Germany, and the empire of the Greeks to the already vast domains of the champions of the Koran.”
In fact, when placed in context, the Muslims’ insatiable lust for booty only further validates the expansionist jihad thesis (see Majid Khadurri’s Law of War and Peace in Islam which contains an entire chapter on spoils, ghanima, and their central role in the jihad). From the start, the jihadist was guaranteed one of two rewards for his war-efforts: martyrdom if he dies, plunder if he lives. The one an eternal, the other temporal, reward—a win-win situation that, at least according to early Christian and Muslim chroniclers, played a major role in the success of the Muslim conquests. In other words, that the sources indicate the Muslims were booty-hungry, does not in the least negate the fact that, as with all of the initial Muslim conquests, starting with Muhammad at the Battle of Badr, territorial conquests and the acquisition of booty, went hand-in-hand and were the natural culmination of the jihad.
As for general destruction, Michael Bonner writes in Jihad in Islamic History: “The raids are a constant element [of the jihad], always considered praiseworthy and even necessary. This is a feature of premodern Islamic states that we cannot ignore. In addition to conquest, we have depredation; in addition to political projects and state-building, we have destruction and waste.”
At any rate, the facts speak for themselves: after the Battle of Tours, no other massive Muslim invasion would be attempted north of the Pyrenees—until very recently and through very different means. But that is another story.
[Thanks to Voltaire and UsorThem for reminding me that the anniversary of this battle was nearing.]
Posted by Raymond at October 11, 2008 4:30 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I have nothing against Columbus (although any Irishman will point out that St. Brendan did discover American first, paddling his currach through a snow storm) but why don't we celebrate "The Battle of Tours" every October 11th?
Without the victory of Charles Martel, European civilization (and frankly, world civilization) would have never come to pass. We are the heirs to the ongoing dialectic that is Western Civilization. It is not "racist" or "Islamophobic" to, in the words of Sir Kenneth Clark, to prefer "civilization to the lack of civilization".
Even to compare Western civilization with Islamic civilization, is to do a disservice to the word civilization.
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 11, 2008 5:09 PM
Can't celebrate that no more. That would be offensive to Muslims...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2008 5:15 PM
What was the major difference between the Muslims who went on Jihad against Europe at that time to the Muslims who went on Jihad towards the east? What I mean is that who were the Muslims who expanded towards the east? Also, were they aware of the Jihad on the west? Where these all different caliphates that operated under the doctrines of Islam. Did each wave of Islamic Jihad continue unabated or where there periods of lull?
Today we are seeing the Islamic Jihad continue after a period of silence albeit in a stealth fashion. Islam is an open ended declaration of war against non Muslims which only subsides when Muslims are weak, but then reasserts once Muslims begin to gain power by numbers and using terror tactics.
at October 11, 2008 5:23 PM
Having lent my brother the book authored by Mark Steyn, America Alone, he noted that the author was obviously wrong on one point
In his book Mark Steyn had commented that had the Spanish not rid Spain of the Muslims then Muslims may very well have discovered the New World. My brother Mark argued that Muslims lacked the curiosity to have even attempted the crossing (Muslims couldn't even deal with the printing press).
Using the same argument had Muslims got there way in Europe Oxford would not even exist today. Islam has never reconciled reason as being nothing more than a threat to its existence.
I agreed
at October 11, 2008 6:00 PM
Revisionist historians would like to eliminate these pesky historical facts.''Other historians insist that plunder was the only objective of the Muslims—a wholly materialistic thesis to be expected from modern-day historians incapable of transcending their own 21st century epistemology.'' This is a classic example of people only seeing what they want to see..the hubris of highly touted 'historians' blinds them in a way that the average person with common sense sees clearly. A notable exception, to this all too common fatal flaw of myopic perception which all too many historians have ,is Hugh Fitzgerald.
Posted by: Americantothecore at October 11, 2008 6:01 PM
Merci, Le Marteau!
Posted by: darcy at October 11, 2008 6:07 PM
I would like to add a question to that raised by savsiv.
It is often said that Arabs are indigenous to one country in the world, the Arabian Peninsula, now Saudi Arabia, and that the reason there are now 22 Arab States is the great Arab conquests of the 7th Century.
Arab is here understood as a language group rather than an ethnic group.
However, if the reason they now speak Arabic in Egypt is the Arab invasion of AD 639 then why do countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan not speak Arabic? They too were subject to Arab invasions?
This is a question that always puzzles me.
at October 11, 2008 6:07 PM
From a wall of Ice to a wall of Heat. Islam shall succumb to Industrial Glass making writ large.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 11, 2008 6:57 PM
Gibbon further argued that, had the Muslims won, “Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran 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 Mohammed.”
Adolf Hitler said:
“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing is Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the Seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”
- Adolf Hitler, 28 August, 1942
p. 667 “Hitler’s Table Talk; 1941-1944? translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)
at October 11, 2008 7:06 PM
tanstaafl -
Point taken. My wife and I will go out for dinner tonight, and toast Charles Martel and the great victory at Tours.
Posted by: HotSpur at October 11, 2008 7:09 PM
l will keep October 11th a special day that some of my ancestors held off the sacarens and sent them packing! France and the West needs more Charles the Hammer!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Celebrating the great Victory at Tours Will writes:
"In his book Mark Steyn had commented that had the Spanish not rid Spain of the Muslims then Muslims may very well have discovered the New World. My brother Mark argued that Muslims lacked the curiosity to have even attempted the crossing (Muslims couldn't even deal with the printing press)."
Comment:
Your brother was mistaken and he grossly underestimated the creativity of muslims having great plans to colonize the New World just after loosing its last emirate – Granada in the Columbus Year 1492. By the way, here in Andalusia were I live, we celebrate Columbus Day tomorrow.
In 1603, the Sultan of Morocco, Ahmad al-Mansurproposed to his English ally Queen Elizabeth I, that England help the Moors colonise America.
The Sultan proposed that Moroccan and English troops, using English ships, should together attack the Spanish colonies in America, expel their hated Spanish enemies and then “possesse” the land and keep it “under our (joint) dominion for ever.”
There was a catch, however. Might it not be more sensible, suggested the Sultan, that most of the future colonists should be Moroccan rather than English? “Those of your country doe not fynde themselves fitt to endure the extremeties of heat there, where our men endure it very well by reason that heat hurtes them not.”
After due consideration, the Moroccan offer was not taken up. Such a proposal might seem extraordinary today, but at the time it raised few eyebrows. After all, the English were close allies of both the Moroccans and the Ottomans – indeed the Pope regarded Elizabeth as “a confederate of the Turks”. The English might have their reservations about Islam, but these were nothing compared to their fear of “Popery”.
Posted by: IpsoFacto
at October 11, 2008 7:44 PM
Zena,
Amen to that. The spirit of Charles "The Hammer" is much needed here in Europe.
at October 11, 2008 7:59 PM
I love this painting by Carl von Steuben ( Musée national du Château de Versailles) with this wonderful central mother image protecting her child – clearly symbolizing Europe. Reminds one how courageous the Christian West was centuries ago against the Muslim onslaught. Now, of course, not only is there no such courage or conviction to save the West, the Muslims no longer even have to do battle. They simply immigrate over to the West in large numbers and multiply and chuckle at the stupid infidels who let them get by with this slow conquest because complacent infidels are much to afraid of being called racist if they vote for non-sellout rightwing politicans who might stop it.
Unlike their difficulties in the 8th or even 17th century Europe, to Muslims it’s now more like taking candy from a baby.
at October 11, 2008 9:37 PM
Fascinating quote, Denver Rodeo. Thanks.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 11, 2008 9:38 PM
"Thousands of Terrified Christians flee slaughter in Mosul":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3069954
at October 11, 2008 9:44 PM
That was great I love history. This reminded me of grade school in a way. I had several Nuns as teachers in primary school. They let you know who the enemy was in regards to Islam when I learned about the Crusades, and the fall of Eastern Christendom. I remember proclaiming that I wanted to be a Crusader, and would go take back Constantinople (4th grade), the Nun looked at me with love in her eyes ruffled my hair and said, "You're a good boy, but I doubt you will get that chance" then she sort of dreamily looked away to a far off place then said, "You never know though." and smiled a sweet smile. Too bad kids nowadays get their heads filled with rubbish. We could use more nuns in our schools, I remember them being scary, and not PC at all. Our kids could really use a good dose of that.
Posted by: ethoman at October 11, 2008 9:58 PM
"Using the same argument had Muslims got there way in Europe Oxford would not even exist today."
-posted earlier
Not just Oxford. Imagine all the great works of art, music and literature that might have been lost to the world if not for Charles Martel. But then we wouldn't have known how much was lost because it never would have existed.
A world without William Shakespeare?
Perish the thought!
at October 11, 2008 10:20 PM
The mural reminds me of illustrations of the Crusades in the children's World Book I had when I was a kid in the 60s. The Muslims were always dark-skinned and ferocious looking. They were scary, but I was comforted believing they were far away, both geographically and historically.
Would that we could see those pictures today, given our post-modern sensibilities, we'd probably be struck and even a little embarrassed by the overt prejudice that produced such a caricature of Muslims in the Middle Ages.
How bizarre then, that such a depiction turned out to be more accurate than our current, "enlightened" version of historical Islam.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 11, 2008 10:27 PM
However, if the reason they now speak Arabic in Egypt is the Arab invasion of AD 639 then why do countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan not speak Arabic? They too were subject to Arab invasions?
This is a question that always puzzles me.
Posted by: Odyessus
Just an observation, for what it's worth:
Iran was the seat of opposition to the Umayyad rule. Revolts against the Arabs, who preached classlessness but practiced classism, moved from northeastern Iran to the west, ultimately defeating the Umayyads and setting up the Abbasid dynasty. The Abbasids replaced the Arabian aristocracy with a new elite, some of them drawn from old Iranian families. Their orientation was eastward, away from Arabia. They moved their capital from Syria to Iraq and set up Baghdad as their new capital.
Afghanistan and Pakistan areas are heavily tribal. Leaders with their own fiefdoms weren't likely to submit to the rule of the Arabs. Conquest by the Arabs didn't necessarily mean the imposition of Arab culture. Maybe conversion to Islam or payment of the jizya was enough.
Even today, they memorize the koran but have no idea what it says.
at October 11, 2008 10:47 PM
Today our 'Straights of Gibraltar' was the strike on 9/11 at the WTC. Our 'Saint Martin of Tours' is the CME, ICE, NYSE, and other world exchanges, where the invading Jihadi hordes hunger for the spoils of Western wealth, and mean to conquer it. They struck us twice, at WTC on 9/11, and at the heart of our economy with sky high oil prices striking 'terror in our hearts,' and on the stock exchanges crashing around the world, where they found weakness in our mortgage banking disarray.
Wall Street is the new 'Battle of Tours' and though outnumbered with $ trillions from their plundered petro-dollars, where trillions were lost in seven days, this is where we must make our stand. This will be our 'wall of ice' against them, do it in seven days, decisively like at Tours. Wall Street must stand up against their Jihadi-financial-attack so decisively they can never attack again. Strip them of their oil wealth, and drive them back into their primitive 7th century oblivion from which these locusts of Allah spawned. This is our stand at Poitiers today. They struck us on 9/11, now we strike back on 10/11. Rid this scourge of Islam with a decisive victory.
In this fight each one of us is a 'Charles Martel,' as he led us to victory 1276 years ago. Stand you ground, and fight them until there is fear in their eyes. We must never let them attack again, burry their Jihad forever. WE FIGHT for FREEDOM!
at October 12, 2008 12:06 AM
Charles Martel saved the West from Islam over twelve centuries ago as did Emperor Leo III fifteen years before at the Battle of Constantinople. But I have to wonder who will save the West now, not from military action, in which area the Muslim world can easily be beaten as long as we have the will, but rather from cultural and demographic jihad, which is so immensely aided by massive cluelessness rampant throughout the West. In any case, this anniversary is yet another reminder of how depressing the prospect of an omnipresent Islam really is.
Posted by: Wellington at October 12, 2008 12:32 AM
Odyessus: PMK provided you one possible explantion, and a perfectly reasonable one it was, for why Arabic is spoken in North Africa but not Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Here's another: the Arabs wiped out more people in North Africa than they were able to in other areas or there were smaller pre-Muslim populations in North Africa to begin with or both.
Posted by: Wellington at October 12, 2008 12:44 AM
French jihadwatchers, as well as jihadwatchers of other countries who happen to be visiting Paris, should pay a visit to the St Denis Basilica in Paris, where the Tomb of Charles Martel may be found even at this very day, 1100 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charles_Martel_Saint_Denis.jpg
I understand that the area around the sacred ground of St Denis is heavily infested by a large and aggressive Mohammedan colony, so go in a large group to deter attack.
Go to St Denis; take a printout of Raymond's article above, or find the full account of the battle from the 'Chronicle of 754' [cited by Raymond - Bishop of Isidore's Beja Chronicle?] and read it aloud, standing beside the tomb. Do honour to Charles Martel and light a whole passel of candles in memory of him and especially in memory of all the brave men who fought with him at Tours/ Poitiers but did not return home. Recite the Gloria and the Te Deum. Swear your vows to resist jihad and sharia. Hey - sing the Marseillaise (I'm sure Charles will understand).
Then repair to a suitable location, e.g. a restaurant or park, and celebrate the victory and 1000 years of European civilisation made possible by Charles (among others). Drink a toast to Charles Martel and his many brave men.
French jihadwatchers should, shamelessly and publicly, celebrate Charles Martel on this anniversary of his history-making victory.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 12, 2008 1:06 AM
Question for French posters and lurkers here - is there a memorial to this historic event, in or near the approximate location of the battle in the vicinity of Poitiers/ Tours, near the river Loire?
And if so, if the approximate location is known and marked, then why not go there? A ceremonial/ celebratory gathering of French jihadwatchers, to remember the history-making victory of Charles and his men and to give thanks, and to vow a similar resolute resistance to jihad and sharia, to the 'desolation and delusion' of Islam, on the very scene of that battle and that victory of the West, would be most appropriate.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 12, 2008 1:15 AM
Does anyone know whether there's ever been a film about Charles Martel and his men and how they stopped the Muslims at Tours/ Poitiers in 732?
I went googling but couldn't find anything - though I did discover that someone called David Nicolle has just published a book which sounds as though it might be interesting:
POITIERS AD 732; Charles Martel Turn the Islamic Tide
David Nicolle
"How the Christian forces under Charlemagne's grandfather confronted the massive invading Islamic army and halted their northward advance". Illustrated throughout in color and black and white. Osprey Campaign. 2008:
We need a non-dhimmi film-maker to step up to the plate and tell this story in the grand epic manner -shamelessly celebrating the Christian Frank victory, which saved western christendom from having to endure the seven hells of dhimmitude.
Isidore's point about the Franks standing their ground like a wall of ice - and the other point, that the non-Muslim army was mostly infantry, in other words, ordinary men - is very important. It tells us: united we stand. And it reminds us that although leaders of vision and courage are important, just as important are the intelligence and courage of the men who follow them. The real resistance to jihad, today, is beginning from the ground up.
Hint to anyone thinking about making a film of the Victory at Tours: play over the closing credits the ecstatic music of Hildegard of Bingen - 11th century nun, poet, painter, mystic, and musical composer, who could never have come into existence, had Charles lost the battle four centuries earlier.
at October 12, 2008 1:47 AM
Battle of Tours/Europe under the Hammer -
http://www.veoh.com./videos/v6285575efp2n4K
Posted by: BennyLux at October 12, 2008 5:58 AM
Charles Martel is a hero of the Dark Ages, that period between the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Medieval Civilization which reached a peak in about the 13th Century.
The nearest British equivalent is King Arthur.
King Arthur really did exist, he is not just a mythical figure.
He led the fight of the indigenous Celts against the invading Saxons.
Not much is known about him; was Camelot in Glastonbury or Wales? Was he Welsh or descended from a Roman Army Officer?
According to legend, at the end of his life he did not die, he fell asleep and will return at Britain’s darkest hour, when Britain needs him again.
Unfortunately, most Brits do not “get it” when it comes to Islam, they imagine Britain’s darkest hour was the time of the Spanish Armada, or the Napoleonic Fleet that descended on Trafalgar or the Battle of Britain.
Well, the good news seems to be that King Arthur has returned or at any rate a painting of him.
The Sleep of King Arthur in Avalon by Edward Burne-Jones has been returned to Tate Britain in Milbank, London.
It was sold to a gallery in Puerto Rico in 1929 but now has returned to what is surely it’s rightful setting.
http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue12/visionaryoddity.htm
Lets hope the real King Arthur returns soon wielding Excalibur of course.
at October 12, 2008 6:56 AM
On the note of what might have happened to European Christian civilisation had Islam prevailed, I always think of the fact that just two years after the second Siege of Vienna in 1683
JS Bach was born. Just imagine a world without the music of him and his contemporaries and successors. It's almost as if God was rewarding us for all the slaughter and misery incurred at the defence of civilisation at the Gates of Vienna.
at October 12, 2008 7:10 AM
This war is far from over.
Posted by: HawkWatcher at October 12, 2008 7:34 AM
"We need a non-dhimmi film-maker ..."
Biologists have not yet discovered this strange new species.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 12, 2008 10:20 AM
What ifs are always interesting to me, and though some are more probable than others, often the actual occurrences of history are more improbable than the what ifs that people interested in History indulge in.
So here is my what if Martel had been defeated by the saracens and Europe had been trashed by Mahometens back in the 8th century.
There would have been no renaissance in Europe, no age of exploration, no age of colonialism, Civilization today would have consisted of China and Japan.
The worlds largest industry would be slave trading, Mahometanism would be split into thousands of rival sects each claiming to be truer either to the letter or the spirit of Mahomets revelation.
The americas would have been colonized by Japanese and Chinese explorers, the native populations would have been decimated by diseases they had no natural immunity to.
Any advances in technology, hygiene, medicine, the arts, science, or anything else would be suppressed as being a deviation from the pure age of the model human Mahomet, except those that clearly advantaged the Chinese and Japanese to resist Jihad would be accepted by necessity by the Mahometans.
The Jews would have survived and even been given a homeland by some grateful emperor for services rendered.
Posted by: stickman at October 12, 2008 11:19 AM
The importance of the battle of Tours/Poitiers is not to be underrated (and neither is that of the successful defence of Constantinople a few years earlier), but there have been a few statements made in various places that I would like to correct.
1) Henri Pirenne was an enthusiast who produced both brilliant insights and terrible nonsense. His statement about Charlemagne being inconceivable without Mohammed is the latter. The Franks were the strongest nation in Europe before the Muslims ever broke out of Arabia; their decisive conquest of Aquitaine, which made the Frankish Kingdom the dominant power west of Constantinople, took place in 507, more than a century before Mohammed. It was exactly because they were the strongest power in Europe that they were able to resist and repel the Muslims - and then force them inside the Pyrenees permanently. In that context, Poitiers was only an episode; what was decisive was the long cycle of frontier skirmishes in which the Arabs of Spain learned to dread Frankish power.
2) Charles the Hammer did not speak French or Latin, but a German dialect. He was an ambitious and brutal conqueror who burned with gay indifference Muslim and Christian cities - his conquest of southern Gaul is marked by the destruction of a series of ancient cities - and indeed did not seem to know the difference. In this, he was a reversion to the brutality and banditry of the earliest Frankish leaders, who were as willing to murder their own kinsmen as to enslave Roman Christians. That his military power hammered back an even worse lot of barbarians is something to be grateful for, but he was not otherwise much to be admired. It is his grandson Charlemagne who deserves admiration in every way, except perhaps for his treatment of his own brother.
As for the reason why Arabic caught on in Egypt and most of nort Africa, but not in Persia or beyond, I think that the reason has to do with the fact that the ancient languages of Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Tunisia (Carthage) were closely related to Arabic and built on the same principles. All of these languages, for instance, form syllables according to very firm rules, so that when writing a word, it is not necessary to write the vowels; they are dictated by the form of the word, and only consonants are needed. This is a characteristic of the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" languages, which include the Semitic, Coptic, Berber and Bornu group (if I remember correctly) and are spoken from Nigeria to Iraq. In my view, native populations that spoke Afro-Asiatic languages found it easier to absorb Arabic than native population that spoke Indo-European, Turkic or other languages. On the linguistic map, there is almost complete correspondence between ancient areas of Afro-Asiatic settlement and the spread of modern Arabic, which however stops abruptly at the borders of ancient Indo-European nations such as Kurds, Armenians and Persians.
at October 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Fascinating observations, Paolo. Thanks.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 12, 2008 6:32 PM
"We need a non-dhimmi film-maker ..."
DENVER-RODEO: "Biologists have not yet discovered this strange new species."
Go see 'An American Carol'.
It's not terribly funny, but it kicks ass insofar as political correctness, multiculturalism, and the war against Islam is concerned.
In one of the best scenes in the movie, the real Bill O'rielly is interviewing "Rosie O'Connell" when she spews her nonsense about "radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam". They follow with a montage of scenes in which Catholic priests highjack a plane using a crucifix to bludgeon the pilots...and a nun boarding a bus with explosives strapped around her waste. The irony could only be lost on the most dim-witted.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Did Charles Martel not have to kow-tow to the cries of "Islamophobe!", "Racist!" and "Pre-Nazi!" from amongst his kinsmen, then?
Did the Muslim Council of Gaul and the Council for Frankish-Islamic Relations not kick up a fuss when it was clear that battle was imminent?
Did the Archbishop of Paris not declare that Sharia Law was inevitable in Gaul?
Did Frankish race relations groups not take Charles Martel to court for discrimination?
Were there no demonstrations on the streets of Paris where protesters displayed placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam"?
Did leading Gauls not declare that "Islam is a religion of peace"?
How times have changed! Same enemy, completely different reaction to it.
Posted by: watling at October 13, 2008 5:47 AM
Does anyone know whether there's ever been a film about Charles Martel and his men and how they stopped the Muslims at Tours/ Poitiers in 732?
I think Mel Gibson is planning to tell the story from the Muslim point of view.
He'll play the part of Abd al-Rahman, who will be portrayed as a brave and noble warrior fighting for a just cause. Gibson will get some British actor to play Charles Martel, who will be portrayed as a treacherous, Islamophobic butcher who got lucky.
I believe the provisional title for the film is "Jihad Heart".
Posted by: watling at October 13, 2008 5:59 AM
Cornelius, I meant established filmmakers in the cinematic community, not independent mavericks who make documentaries. The guys who made American Carol or Obsession are not really filmmakers, they are just guys who decided to make a film for this issue. Anybody with enough financial backing can "make a movie", but not all of them are actual moviemakers. In the established community of filmmakers, I think they are all die-hard Leftists or scared of the topic of Muslims from any position other than the PC one. Every movie out there about terrorism either makes the Muslims out to be helpful collaborators with us (against a few "rogues" who are "extremists" with no mention of Islam at all) or makes the terrorists out to be Russian or Asian with sinister ties to American Big Business etc.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 13, 2008 3:04 PM
ENCORE!
Posted by: MP at October 13, 2008 8:16 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)