|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Traditionally speaking, on October 10th 732<ref>John Bagnell Bury, ed., The Cambridge MEdieval History, 2 Vols.(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp 129 </ref> ,the Franco-Burgundian armies lead by Charles Martel battled the Umayyad army of the Andalusian governor Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi outside of the modern day cities of Poitiers and Tours<ref>Bury,pp 130, The exact site of the engagement is entirely ambiguous. </ref>. The Muslim armies were defeated in a long and arduous struggle, marking the crest of Islamic expansionism in the century following Muhammad's death. In “western” historiography, the literature has focused on the ambiguous, and some say misleading<ref>Paul Fouracre, The Age of Charles Martel, (Boston : longman,2000), pp 83 </ref>, “interesting but insufficient stories of old Christian chroniclers”<ref>William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 363 </ref>. The portrayal by these chroniclers would lead the researcher to believe that Tours marked the “original clash of civilizations”, a successful defence of Western Europe against the terrible potential of Islamic supremacy in southern Gaul.
| + | The '''Battle of Tours''' was waged in AD 732. It was the decisive battle in which [[Charles Martel]] stopped the advance of the [[Muslim]] armies into Europe, after they had conquered all of Spain. |
| | | | |
| − | == Historiographical Issues : Western Revisionism? ==
| + | The Muslim leader, Emir Abd er Rahman was killed and the Muslims retreated to [[Spain]], where it would take over 700 more years for the [[Christians]] to reconquer. Muslims refer to the Battle of Tours as the "Court of Martyrs". It is referred to as the Battle of Poitiers in France (in truth, the battle happened between Poitiers and Tours). |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | It is interesting and relevant to examine the contemporary sources of this event, in conjunction with their portrayal in this macro-historical narrative. The best approach for this would be to examine the Mozarab, Frankish, and Arab chroniclers anthologised by William Stearns Davis in his early 20th century work ;“Readings in Ancient History” . What becomes apparent is that rather than a macro-historical event, there are some distinctive markers to suggest that the Battle of Tours was simply a large-scale raid. This minor ripple does not add up with the narrative that the 19th and 20th century historians are taking superficially from the “insufficient Christian accounts” which they pretend to dismiss. The tone of the western portrayal of the battle can be taken from the 732 Chronicle of St.Denis. The chronicle records “By the grace of Our Lord he wrought a great slaughter upon the enemies of Christian faith, so that – as history bears witness--- he slew in that battle 300,000 men, likewise their king by name Abderrahman”<ref>William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, pp. 364 </ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Continuing, the chronicle lays the foundation for the protagonist of the story, and focal point of all western accounts thereafter; “ ..then was he [Charles]<ref>Punctuation retained from source. </ref> first called “Martel”. For as a hammer of iron, of steel, and of every other metal, even so he dashed: and smote in the battle all of his enemies”<ref>Davis. Pp 364 </ref>. In terms of casualties, the chronicle reports that Charles’ army lost a paltry 1500 men<ref>Davis. Pp 364 </ref> compared to the enemy host, which suffered such losses that the chronicler felt comfortable describing the engagement as, “ [Charles’s host] fought as fiercely as the hungry wolf falls upon the stag”<ref>Davis. Pp 362 </ref>. This portrayal of an event is hardly unique in ancient sources. The interesting part is the apparent continuity this portrayal has with the portrayal of the 19th and early 20th century historians. In 1912 William Stearns David put together a reader, “Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources”. This reader came in two volumes, the above chronicle of St. Denis was found in the second, titled; “Rome and the West”. Davis collected a variety of sources for his reader; an anonymous Arabian chronicler close to the first governor of Al-Andulus, Isidor of Beja, and of course the St.Denis chronicle for 732.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The important point to the conversation is in Davis’ introduction. For the anonymous Arab, Davis says “.. it shows what the Arab leaders thought of the men of the North up to the moment of their great disillusionment by “The Hammer”<ref>Davis,pp.361</ref>. For Isidor of Beja Davis has somewhat more to say; “732 A.D was a turning point in history. It is not likely the Muslims, if victorious would have penetrated, at least at once, far into the north, but they would surely have seized South Gaul, and thence have readily crushed the weak Christian powers of Italy. It is very unfortunate that we do not possess scientific accounts of Charles Martel’s great victory, instead of the interesting but insufficient stories of the old Christian chroniclers”<ref>Davis,pp.364</ref>. Davis emphasised the macro-historical narrative, especially in his channelling of the St.Denis chronicle with his one liner in the introduction “... disillusionment... Hammer..”. Davis’ call for scientific accounts of the battle places him square in the predominant school of historiography in his time, what is interesting is that he anthologises Arab chronicles and sources writing about the battle.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Davis anthologises the Arab sources, but points his disappointment towards the lack of scientific Christian sources, as if the Arab sources do not even exist in his cognitive frame. Reading Davis’ comment about the possibility of Muslim invasion of the north, there is a strong impression that rather than reading ;“It is not likely the Muslims, if victorious would.. [Take over the world]”, it should say “It is not likely the Muslims, if victorious could [conquer the North]...”<ref>Davis,pp361</ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While this treatment is almost to be expected from a late 19th century or early 20th century narrative, it is shocking to find continuity of this treatment in modern encyclopedias<ref>such as wikipedia</ref> and academic works. Comparison of contemporary Arab sources with these Christian accounts that historians like Davis rely on, seems to point towards a minor raid rather than a macro-historical event. As with all events occurring in this era, often referred to as "the dark age" in Christian Europe, sources from the western point of view are dicey to say the least. Sources from the Islamic point of view tend towards greater reliability in the terms of details and description, but suffer from an acknowledged teleological slant in regards to the Islamic expansionism of the 7th and 8th centuries.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| | | | |
| | {{DEFAULTSORT:Tours, Battle of}} | | {{DEFAULTSORT:Tours, Battle of}} |
| Line 23: |
Line 8: |
| | [[category:Battles]] | | [[category:Battles]] |
| | [[Category:Medieval History]] | | [[Category:Medieval History]] |
| − | {{Reference}}
| |
