Editing Battle of Tours (section)

==Historical and macrohistorical views==
{{Over-quotation|section=yes|date=December 2021}}
[[File:Charles Martel fighting the Saracens at Tours-Poitiers in 732, Great Chronicles of France (27408010460).jpg|left|thumb|The Battle of Tours depicted in the ''Grandes Chroniques de France'']]
The historical views of this battle fall into three great phases, both in the East and especially in the West. Western historians, beginning with the ''Mozarabic Chronicle of 754'', stressed the macrohistorical impact of the battle, as did the ''Continuations of Fredegar''. This became a claim that Charles had saved Christianity, as Gibbon and his generation of historians agreed that the Battle of Tours was unquestionably decisive in world history.

Modern historians have essentially fallen into two camps on the issue. The first camp essentially agrees with Gibbon, and the other argues that the battle has been massively overstated – turned from a raid in force to an invasion, and from a mere annoyance to the Caliph to a shattering defeat that helped end the Islamic Expansion Era. It is essential, however, to note that within the first group, those who agree the battle was of macrohistorical importance, there are a number of historians who take a more moderate and nuanced view of the significance of the battle, in contrast to the more dramatic and rhetorical approach of Gibbon. The best example of this school is William E. Watson, who does believe the battle has such importance, as will be discussed below, but analyzes it militarily, culturally, and politically, rather than seeing it as a classic "Muslim versus Christian" confrontation.<ref name="Watson" />

In the East, Arab histories followed a similar path. First, the battle was regarded as a disastrous defeat; then, it largely faded from Arab histories, leading to a modern dispute which regards it as either a second loss to the great defeat of the [[Siege of Constantinople (717–718)|Second Siege of Constantinople]], where the Bulgarian Emperor [[Tervel of Bulgaria|Tervel]] played a crucial role, or a part of a series of great macrohistorical defeats which together brought about the fall of the first Caliphate. With the Byzantines and Bulgarians together with the Franks both successfully blocking further expansion, internal social troubles came to a head, starting with the Great [[Berber Revolt]] of 740, and ending with the [[Battle of the Zab]], and the destruction of the Umayyad Caliphate.

===In Western history===
The first wave of modern historians, especially scholars on Rome and the medieval period, such as [[Edward Gibbon]], contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon famously observed:

{{blockquote|text=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 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 Mahomet.<ref name="ccel.org">[http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap52.htm ''The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire'' by Edward Gibbon] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222124624/http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap52.htm |date=2017-02-22 }}, Chapter LII.</ref>}}

Nor was Gibbon alone in lavishing praise on Charles as the savior of [[Christendom]] and [[Western culture|western civilization]]. [[H. G. Wells]] wrote: "The Moslim{{sic}} when they crossed the [[Pyrenees]] in 720 found this Frankish kingdom under the practical rule of Charles Martel, the Mayor of the Palace of a degenerate descendant of Clovis, and experienced the decisive defeat of [Tours-Poitiers] (732) at his hands. This Charles Martel was practically overlord of Europe north of the Alps from the [[Pyrenees]] to Hungary. He ruled over a multitude of subordinate lords speaking French-Latin and High and Low German languages."<ref>Wells, H.G. ''A Short History of the World'', Chapter XLV, p. 248</ref>

Gibbon was echoed a century later by the Belgian historian [[Godefroid Kurth]], who wrote 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."<ref>Gilliard, Frank D., "The Senators of Sixth-Century Gaul," ''Speculum'', Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 685–97</ref>

German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Charles Martel; [[Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel|Schlegel]] speaks of this "mighty victory",<ref name="Creasy 2001, p. 158">quoted in {{harvnb|Creasy|Speed|2001|page=158}}</ref> and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam." Creasy quotes [[Leopold von Ranke]]'s opinion that this period was

{{blockquote|text=one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of [[Saxony]] and [[Friesland]] once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defense calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions.<ref name="Creasy 2001, p. 158" />}}

The German military historian [[Hans Delbrück]] said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (''The Barbarian Invasions'', p.&nbsp;441.) Had Charles Martel failed, [[Henry Hallam]] argued, there would have been no [[Charlemagne]], no [[Holy Roman Empire]] or [[Papal States]]; all these depended upon Charles's containment of Islam from expanding into Europe while the Caliphate was unified and able to mount such a conquest. Another great mid era historian, [[Thomas Arnold]], ranked the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest|victory]] of [[Arminius]] in its impact on all of modern history: "Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind."<ref>''History of the later Roman Commonwealth'', vol ii. p. 317, quoted in {{harvnb|Creasy|Speed|2001|page=158}}</ref> Louis Gustave and Charles Strauss said "The victory gained was decisive and final, The torrent of Arab conquest was rolled back and Europe was rescued from the threatened yoke of the Saracens."<ref>Gustave, Louis and Strauss, Charles ''Moslem and Frank; or, Charles Martel and the rescue of Europe'' p.&nbsp;122</ref>

Charles Oman concluded that:

{{blockquote|text=At [Tours-Poitiers] the Franks fought as they had done two hundred years before at [[Battle of the Volturnus (554)|Casilinum]], in one solid mass, without breaking rank or attempting to maneuver. Their victory was won by the purely defensive tactics of the infantry square; the fanatical Arabs, dashing against them time after time, were shattered to pieces, and at last, fled under the shelter of night. But there was no pursuit, for Charles had determined not to allow his men to stir a step from the line to chase the broken foe.<ref>Oman, Charles ''History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages'' [I, 58]</ref>}}

[[J. B. Bury|John Bagnell Bury]], writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours ... has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world's history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill."<ref>''Cambridge Medieval History'' p. 374.</ref>

Modern Western historians are clearly divided on the importance of the battle, and where it should rank in military history; see below.

===Adolf Hitler on the Battle of Tours===
[[Albert Speer]], Hitler's Armaments Minister, described how Hitler expressed approval of Islam, saying that Hitler had been particularly impressed by what he had heard from a delegation of Arabs. When the Arabs had tried to penetrate Central Europe in the 8th century, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours; if they had won that battle, the world would have become Muslim (maybe). Hitler considered that Islam was more suited to the "Germanic" temperament and would have been more compatible to the Germans than [[Christianity]].<ref>Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer (Weidenfeld & Nicolson) 1995, pp. 149–50, {{ISBN|978-1-8421-2735-3}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Packer|first=George|date=October 28, 2009|title="Islamized Germans"|url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/george-packer/islamized-germans|website=New Yorker|access-date=September 23, 2023}}</ref>

===In Muslim history===
Eastern historians, like their Western counterparts, have not always agreed on the importance of the battle. According to [[Bernard Lewis]], "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement [the Battle of Tours] at all, present it as a minor skirmish,"<ref>Lewis, 1994, p. 11.</ref> and [[Gustave E. von Grunebaum|Gustave von Grunebaum]] writes: "This setback may have been important from the European point of view, but for Muslims at the time, who saw no master plan imperiled thereby, it had no further significance."<ref>von Grunebaum, 2005, p. 66.</ref> Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the [[Siege of Constantinople (718)|second Umayyad siege of Constantinople]] in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat.

However, Creasy has claimed: "The enduring importance of the battle of Tours in the eyes of the Muslims is attested not only by the expressions of 'the deadly battle' and 'the disgraceful overthrow' which their writers constantly employ when referring to it but also by the fact that no more serious attempts at conquest beyond the [[Pyrenees]] were made by the Saracens."

Thirteenth-century Moroccan author [[Ibn Idhari|Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi]], mentioned the battle in his history of the Maghrib, "''[[Al-Bayan al-Mughrib|al-Bayan al-Mughrib fi Akhbar al-Maghrib]]''." According to [[Ibn Idhari]], "Abd ar-Rahman and many of his men found martyrdom on the balat ash-Shuhada'i (the path of the martyrs)." Antonio Santosuosso points that "they (the Muslims) called the battle's location, the road between Poitiers and Tours, 'the pavement of Martyrs'."<ref name="Santosuosso2004p126" /> However, as [[Henry Coppée]] pointed out, "The same name was given to the battle of Toulouse and is applied to many other fields on which the Moslemah were defeated: they were always martyrs for the faith."<ref>{{Harvnb|Coppée|2002|p=13}}</ref>

[[Khalid Yahya Blankinship]] argued that the military defeat at Tours was one of the failures that contributed to the decline of the Umayyad caliphate:

{{blockquote|text=Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad – armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 AD. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse, and Tours, which led to the [[Berber Revolt]] of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.}}

===Supporting the significance of Tours as a world-altering event===
Ninth-century chroniclers recorded the outcome of the battle as a divine judgment in favor of Charles and gave him the nickname ''Martellus'' ("The Hammer"). Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe. According to modern military historian, [[Victor Davis Hanson]] "most of the 18th and 19th century historians like [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]] saw Tours as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe."<ref>Hanson, 2001, p. 166.</ref> [[Leopold von Ranke]] felt that Tours-Poitiers "was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."<ref name=Ranke>Ranke, Leopold von. "History of the Reformation," vol. 1, 5</ref>

[[William E. Watson]] writes that "the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had 'Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732" and that "[a]fter examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter ... especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period."<ref name="Watson" />

Victorian writer [[John Henry Haaren]] says in ''Famous Men of the Middle Ages'' "The battle of Tours or Poitiers as it should be called is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians and not Muslims should be the ruling power in Europe."<ref>''[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/7fmtm10.txt Famous Men of The Middle Ages]'' by John H. Haaren, LL.D. and A. B. Poland, Ph.D. Project Gutenberg Etext.</ref> Bernard Grun delivers this assessment in his "Timetables of History", reissued in 2004: "In 732 Charles Martel's victory over the Arabs at the Battle of Tours stems the tide of their westward advance."<ref>''The Timetables of History'' p. 275.</ref>

Historian and humanist [[Michael Grant (author)|Michael Grant]] lists the battle of Tours in the macrohistorical dates of the Roman era. Historian [[Norman Cantor]] who specialized in the medieval period, teaching and writing at Columbia and New York University said in 1993: "It may be true that the Arabs had now fully extended their resources and they would not have conquered France, but their defeat (at Tours) in 732 put a stop to their advance to the North."<ref>''Civilization of the Middle Ages'' p. 136.</ref>

Military historian Robert W. Martin considers Tours "one of the most decisive battles in all of history."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/a/041971.htm |title=The Battle of Tours (732) |access-date=2006-08-29 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040926202941/http://militaryhistory.about.com/b/a/041971.htm |archive-date=2004-09-26 }}</ref> Additionally, historian [[Hugh N. Kennedy|Hugh Kennedy]] says "it was clearly significant in establishing the power of Charles Martel and the Carolingians in France, but it also had profound consequences in Muslim Spain. It signaled the end of the ''ghanima'' (booty) economy."<ref>Kennedy, ''Muslim Spain and Portugal: Political History of Al-Andalus'', p. 28.</ref>

Military Historian Paul Davis argued in 1999 "had the Muslims been victorious at Tours, it is difficult to suppose what population in Europe could have organized to resist them."<ref name="Davis-105" /> Likewise, George Bruce in his update of Harbottle's classic military history ''Dictionary of Battles'' maintains that "Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=250 |title=Leaders and Battles: Tours |access-date=2005-10-31 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020128121614/http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=250 |archive-date=2002-01-28 }}</ref>

History professor [[Antonio Santosuosso]] comments on Charles, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son in 736–737, that these later defeats of invading Muslim armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of Western Christendom and its monasteries, the centers of learning that ultimately led Europe out of her Middle Ages. He also makes an argument, after studying the Arab histories of the period, that these were armies of invasion sent by the Caliph not just to avenge Tours, but to begin the end of Christian Europe and bring it into the Caliphate.

Professor of religion [[Huston Smith]] says in ''The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions'' "But for their defeat by Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours in 732, the entire Western world might today be Muslim." Historian [[Robert Payne (author)|Robert Payne]] on page 142 in ''The History of Islam'' said "The more powerful Muslims and the spread of Islam were knocking on Europe's door. And the spread of Islam was stopped along the road between the towns of Tours and Poitiers, France, with just its head in Europe."

[[Victor Davis Hanson]] has commented that

{{blockquote|text=Recent scholars have suggested [Tours-Poitiers], so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that [Tours-Poitiers] marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.<ref>Hanson, Victor Davis, 2001, p. 167.</ref>}}

Paul Davis, another modern historian, says "whether Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity is a matter of some debate. What is sure, however, is that his victory ensured that the Franks would dominate Gaul for more than a century."<ref>{{harvnb|Davis|1999|page=107}}</ref> Davis writes, "Moslem defeat ended the Moslems' threat to western Europe, and Frankish victory established the Franks as the dominant population in western Europe, establishing the dynasty that led to Charlemagne."<ref>{{harvnb|Davis|1999|page=103}}</ref>

===Objecting to the significance of Tours as a world-altering event===
Other historians disagree with this assessment. [[Alessandro Barbero]] writes, "Today, historians tend to play down the significance of the battle of [Tours-Poitiers], pointing out that the purpose of the Muslim force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom, but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours".<ref>Barbero, 2004, p. 10.</ref> Similarly, Tomaž Mastnak writes:

{{blockquote|text=Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory as having saved Christian Europe from the Muslims. Edward Gibbon, for example, called Charles Martel the savior of Christendom and the battle near Poitiers an encounter that changed the history of the world. ... This myth has survived well into our own times. ... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle, who probably wrote in the mid-eighth century, pictured the battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens – moreover, as only one in a series of wars fought by Frankish princes for booty and territory. ... One of Fredegar's continuators presented the battle of [Tours-Poitiers] as what it really was: an episode in the struggle between Christian princes as the Carolingians strove to bring Aquitaine under their rule.<ref>Mastnak, 2002, pp. 99–100.</ref>}}

The historian [[Philip Khuri Hitti]] believes that "In reality, nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours. The Moslem wave, already a thousand miles from its starting point in Gibraltar – to say nothing about its base in al-Qayrawan – had already spent itself and reached a natural limit."<ref>Hitti, 2002, p. 469.</ref>

The view that the battle has no great significance is perhaps best summarized by {{Interlanguage link|Franco Cardini|it|vertical-align=sup}} in ''Europe and Islam'':

{{blockquote|text=Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliché, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers...<ref>Cardini, 2001, p. 9.</ref>}}

In their introduction to ''The Reader's Companion to Military History'' [[Robert Cowley]] and [[Geoffrey Parker (historian)|Geoffrey Parker]] summarise this side of the modern view of the Battle of Tours by saying:

{{blockquote|text=The study of military history has undergone drastic changes in recent years. The old drums-and-bugles approach will no longer do. Factors such as economics, logistics, intelligence, and technology receive the attention once accorded solely to battles and campaigns and casualty counts. Words like "strategy" and "operations" have acquired meanings that might not have been recognizable a generation ago. Changing attitudes and new research have altered our views of what once seemed to matter most. For example, several of the battles that Edward Shepherd Creasy listed in his famous 1851 book ''[[The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World]]'' rate hardly a mention here, and the confrontation between Muslims and Christians at Poitiers-Tours in 732, once considered a watershed event, has been downgraded to a raid in force.<ref>'Editors' Note', Cowley and Parker, 2001, p. xiii.</ref>}}